OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 07:10:56 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why Not "Open Communion"?  (Read 18682 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #90 on: June 04, 2010, 04:02:33 PM »

Please....Communion with the Church of Christ isnt necessarily defined by communion with the Pope. What about during the great western schism in which the Church was divided between two people claiming to be the Pope and there were Saints on both sides of the divide? One lot of those Saints must have not been in communion with the real "Bishop of Rome". There are perfectly good Catholics who due to the demonic confusion of our day believe that the Papacy has fallen and been fallen a good while now. I wouldnt say that they are not in Communion with the Church. The Papacy however was insituted by God in his wisdom as the normal way of running the Church though. It is Baptism and Faith that defines communion with the Church of Christ.

That sounds like a rather untraditional belief for your faith tradition to me.

But indeed the Sacraments of the EO rightfully belong to Holy Mother Church from which they in their pride have seperated themselves from.

I'm certainly not affirming that, I was just trying to clarify for others what your own position was.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #91 on: June 04, 2010, 04:03:59 PM »


But indeed the Sacraments of the EO rightfully belong to Holy Mother Church from which they in their pride have seperated themselves from.

First, welcome to the forum.

Second, you must be insane to make such a claim. I say this as an Orthodox lay person who is not anti-catholic.. I mean I disagree with the Catholic Church on some things but I am not viscerally anti-Catholic. Let's go back to your alleged insanity, or insane statement. Are you aware at all of Christian ecclesiology as defined by Saint Ignatius of Antioch? Are you aware of the historical fact that Rome has never been the mother church in the east? Are you ignorant of the ecumenical councils that accord Rome the honor of "First Among Equals," a designation that is a far cry from "Holy Mother Church"? My point is that your statement is not rational; it is not based on reality; it is plainly insane--pick any one.

No, it's just based on Western models of the Church that don't necessarily have to have been as explicitly present in the East for them to have been true.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #92 on: June 04, 2010, 04:06:54 PM »

This is inaccurate our theological differences were well known prior to 1054 & ceoxisted in a tenuous but still valid unity. When the attempt was made to force the Orthodox Church to accept these it was Rome that excommunicated us first.

There's nothing inaccurate about it. At least not in the way you are thinking. It's entirely possible that the Roman tradition represented the authentic Apostolic tradition and that the East rendered themselves formally heretical and schismatic by not accepting that tradition when Rome finally got down to asserting it.

What might be inaccurate is such an analysis of the Apostolic tradition (of course I would say this is the case).
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #93 on: June 04, 2010, 04:08:13 PM »

Sorry, we in the East didn't get that memo.  We were still under the mistaken impression that Christ is still the Head of the Church.

I doubt they would claim otherwise. The more common conception appears to be of the BoR being Christ's "Vicar" rather than him being the actual head.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #94 on: June 04, 2010, 04:37:22 PM »

Sorry, we in the East didn't get that memo.  We were still under the mistaken impression that Christ is still the Head of the Church.

I doubt they would claim otherwise. The more common conception appears to be of the BoR being Christ's "Vicar" rather than him being the actual head.
No, the application of the term "head" by the Vatican to itself has gone to its head, such that it doesn't always include the disclaimer "visible" with the use of the term.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #95 on: June 04, 2010, 04:39:09 PM »

This is inaccurate our theological differences were well known prior to 1054 & ceoxisted in a tenuous but still valid unity. When the attempt was made to force the Orthodox Church to accept these it was Rome that excommunicated us first.

There's nothing inaccurate about it. At least not in the way you are thinking. It's entirely possible that the Roman tradition represented the authentic Apostolic tradition and that the East rendered themselves formally heretical and schismatic by not accepting that tradition when Rome finally got down to asserting it.

What might be inaccurate is such an analysis of the Apostolic tradition (of course I would say this is the case).
Since Rome got its Apostolic Tradition from the East, what you postulate is quite imposssible.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 04:39:42 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #96 on: June 04, 2010, 04:39:26 PM »

Sorry, we in the East didn't get that memo.  We were still under the mistaken impression that Christ is still the Head of the Church.

I doubt they would claim otherwise. The more common conception appears to be of the BoR being Christ's "Vicar" rather than him being the actual head.
No, the application of the term "head" by the Vatican to itself has gone to its head, such that it doesn't always include the disclaimer "visible" with the use of the term.

Hmmmm. Perhaps that is just poor use of language. Because I've never seen them express Ultramontanism to such a high degree that I get the sentence that they are questioning the headship of Christ, just introducing a perverted version of it.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #97 on: June 04, 2010, 04:40:42 PM »

Sorry, we in the East didn't get that memo.  We were still under the mistaken impression that Christ is still the Head of the Church.

I doubt they would claim otherwise. The more common conception appears to be of the BoR being Christ's "Vicar" rather than him being the actual head.
No, the application of the term "head" by the Vatican to itself has gone to its head, such that it doesn't always include the disclaimer "visible" with the use of the term.

Hmmmm. Perhaps that is just poor use of language. Because I've never seen them express Ultramontanism to such a high degree that I get the sentence that they are questioning the headship of Christ, just introducing a perverted version of it.
Same thing.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #98 on: June 04, 2010, 04:42:05 PM »

This is inaccurate our theological differences were well known prior to 1054 & ceoxisted in a tenuous but still valid unity. When the attempt was made to force the Orthodox Church to accept these it was Rome that excommunicated us first.

There's nothing inaccurate about it. At least not in the way you are thinking. It's entirely possible that the Roman tradition represented the authentic Apostolic tradition and that the East rendered themselves formally heretical and schismatic by not accepting that tradition when Rome finally got down to asserting it.

What might be inaccurate is such an analysis of the Apostolic tradition (of course I would say this is the case).
Since Rome got its tradition from the East, what you postulate is quite imposssible.

I don't think the East ever really explicitly denied the Western position until much later on. If anything it would be that they did not materially believe in it and didn't really even consider it and thus did not bring it up.

Also, don't forget about the idea of "doctrinal development". It is potentially true and if true it would justify the doctrine not being explicitly in Eastern teaching but then being later developed.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #99 on: June 04, 2010, 04:43:39 PM »

Sorry, we in the East didn't get that memo.  We were still under the mistaken impression that Christ is still the Head of the Church.

I doubt they would claim otherwise. The more common conception appears to be of the BoR being Christ's "Vicar" rather than him being the actual head.
No, the application of the term "head" by the Vatican to itself has gone to its head, such that it doesn't always include the disclaimer "visible" with the use of the term.

Hmmmm. Perhaps that is just poor use of language. Because I've never seen them express Ultramontanism to such a high degree that I get the sentence that they are questioning the headship of Christ, just introducing a perverted version of it.
Same thing.

Erm...

In a certain sense.

You could say that they don't believe in the headship of Christ in the manner that it actually exists.

But they do believe in some false sense of "headship".

The same thing could be said about their "Trinitarian" doctrine.
Logged

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

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 31


« Reply #100 on: June 05, 2010, 09:18:54 AM »



IGNORE VATICAN II?  Wow. Wow. Wow.   Roll Eyes

Why wow?

You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
Logged
KingClovis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 31


« Reply #101 on: June 05, 2010, 09:20:25 AM »


Hmmmm. Perhaps that is just poor use of language. Because I've never seen them express Ultramontanism to such a high degree that I get the sentence that they are questioning the headship of Christ, just introducing a perverted version of it.

Thank you for your honesty.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #102 on: June 05, 2010, 12:14:58 PM »



IGNORE VATICAN II?  Wow. Wow. Wow.   Roll Eyes

Why wow?

You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.
Logged

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

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 31


« Reply #103 on: June 05, 2010, 12:22:38 PM »

You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.

Secondly the Vatican I was never finished and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.

Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in (and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!) and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches. The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.

Fixed quote box, nothing more - Fr. George, Global Mod
« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 11:16:21 AM by Fr. George » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #104 on: June 05, 2010, 12:59:28 PM »

You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of harisplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has, so we are left with that claim, and the requirement to submit to him even when he doesn't speak infallibly.  A dictinction without a difference.
Logged

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

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #105 on: June 05, 2010, 02:28:59 PM »



Quote from: KingClovis

Are you aware of how much money the Vatican is at present lashing out to Churches that by our standards are at the very least schismatic if not outright heretical and burn with hatred for us?

Its scandalous.


Mary Brought up the same thing,Vatican giving financial aid to Holy Orthodoxy ,Neither of them explaining it... Huh

What Aid...... Grin



Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
KingClovis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 31


« Reply #106 on: June 05, 2010, 02:57:19 PM »

"Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II"

Actually the first Vatican Council took place in the 19 th century and wasnt closed down by the Pope at all...It was halted due to political problemns that prevented it from continuing.

However I do agree with you that the Vatican's way of dealing with the Orthodox is "stupid"...Infact I would go further than that and describe it as criminally stupid evil .
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,176



WWW
« Reply #107 on: June 07, 2010, 02:42:35 AM »

REASONS AGAINST OPEN COMMUNION

1. THE CHURCH'S ASCETIC DISCIPLINE

(See my Reply #52)

2. Communion with Christ = Communion with the Church = Communion with a unified Institution

Communion with the Church of Christ isnt necessarily defined by communion with the Pope. What about during the great western schism in which the Church was divided between two people claiming to be the Pope and there were Saints on both sides of the divide? One lot of those Saints must have not been in communion with the real "Bishop of Rome". There are perfectly good Catholics who due to the demonic confusion of our day believe that the Papacy has fallen and been fallen a good while now. I wouldnt say that they are not in Communion with the Church. It is Baptism and Faith that defines communion with the Church of Christ.

KING CLOVIS:
What you are saying is: If people only have to believe "a" Pope is righteous to be in the church, then they can follow the "wrong" one and believe the "right" one is fallen and still be in the church. But if there are no other "wrong" candidates and they believe the right one is wrong, only then are they excluded.
This idea that "It is Baptism and Faith (in "a" Pope) that defines communion with the Church of Christ" does not make sense.

Most likely he is saying that the Sacraments are originally of the Church of Christ which is defined by communion with the Bishop of Rome, and that the EO, OO, ACE, etc. are schismatic
One problem with the idea that the Church=Rome is a hypothetical where the Pope makes a wrong theological statement (King Clovis has a narrow view of papal infallibility) and then excommunicates those who reject the heresy. Cyprian had this dilemma when he called Rome the seat unifying the church, and he may have been later censured for demanding rebaptisms. I disagree that Jesus would reject an excommunicated church like the Orthodox for failing to accept a heresy.
So: either (1) the Pope is infallible on ALL matters of faith and can cut any perceived "heretics" off from the true Church, or (2) Peter's throne can have heresies while excommunicated orthodox churches remain its sister, or (3) Jesus didn't call all of St Peter's administrative replacements "the rock", and the Orthodox Church is The Church. There are ONLY 3 Options.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has, so we are left with that claim, and the requirement to submit to him even when he doesn't speak infallibly.  A dictinction without a difference.
IALMISRY, How do you know that Catholics must agree with the Pope when he isn't speaking infallibly? Canon 599 says that they must submit to him when he is exercizing the magisterium. But can Catholics use a kind of circular logic and say that a statement is so bad it is outside the magisterium? I think KINGCLOVIS or the Melkites might suggest that.

You're right Communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, the Orthodox Church, is not defined by communion
My understanding is that the Orthodox Church belongs to Christ's body, or IS Christ's body, because of 1. apostolic succession and 2. preservation of the true faith.

Of course, this goes back to the discussion in Reply #51-52 and Point 5. (below) about whether the Church is a single, unified, visible structure and if so, does a valid Eucharist from those outside that structure mystically joined those that receive it from them to that single structure nevertheless.

3. CATHOLICISM REJECTS OPEN COMMUNION WITH ORTHODOX

Speaking of the Validity of Orthodox Eucharist, KING CLOVIS writes:
Valid is not the same a lilict. The Sacraments of EO are indeed Sacraments but that doesnt stop the fact that in a way they are "stolen" and could well be unto condemnation
I accept the validity and legality of Orthodox sacraments. Let's turn this boat around. Assuming that the Catholic Church "stole" the Orthodox Church's sacraments, the problem would be that they are illegally-taken, not that they are by themselves "illegal sacraments." So we Orthodox would be in our rights to reclaim those valid, illegally-taken sacraments by receiving them in Catholic Churches.

MELODIST, you responded by pointing to Canon 844 section 3 to say taking Orthodox Eucharist wouldn't condemn Catholics. But why should you believe that just because a canon says something it is true? I would accept a canon as a very strong authority if the entire church agreed to it, but it looks like KING CLOVIS might not, asking "When and where did that code of canon law come from?"

4. ORIENTAL ORTHODOX REJECT ORTHODOX SACRAMENTS

It is my understanding that the African Oriental Orthodox Churches (Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean which were all one before the 50's) have historically not recognized any rites of any other faith traditions, and have only begun to recognize EO Baptisms
This is only persuasive if
1. Their position is based on teachings taken before they broke at Chalcedon. And in fact even before Chalcedon we recognized heretic baptisms.
2. They have really good logic that stands by itself and applies to Orthodoxy.

« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 03:03:17 AM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,176



WWW
« Reply #108 on: June 07, 2010, 02:45:24 AM »

5. NonOrthodox Eucharist May be Invalid.

ORTHODOXINFO considers it to be invalid
The Orthodox Church does not accept others baptism or any other sacrament. there are no mysteries outside the Orthodox Church. This topic is covered extensively on orthodoxinfo.com

Personally, I don't accept the Orthodoxinfo website's articles on baptism as reflecting an official position.

First, it condemns ecumenism as a heresy to such an extent that it strips "Catholics" and Oriental "Orthodox" of those names since: "The designation "Oriental Orthodox" itself clearly illustrates the ecumenistic tendency to obfuscate essential theological differences with euphemisms. This deceptive appellation, popularized by the defective world view of Western Christian thought." (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/east_orth.aspx)

Second, its articles on the Church Calendar describe the Calendar revision "as the first step in achieving a forced, false union of the Orthodox Church with non-Orthodox New Calendarist Christian bodies" and suggests Patriarch Metaxakis' illness to be one of the "evil fruits" of the calendar change." (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/zervakos_calendar.aspx)

The site explains that: "another jurisdiction, the "Orthodox Church in America," has introduced a change of calendar... There is only one Julian Calendar—not an "Original, "Old Style," "New Style," or "Revised"... This whole insidious process leads the faithful, often in trusting naively, further and further away from the Ark of Salvation... If the Orthodox Christians who presently use the Gregorian Adjustment continue to do so... They will have unity with nobody"
(http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/calendar_bond.aspx)

Third, other posters seem to disregard Orthodoxinfo's complete accuracy:
[/quote]
there are things are Orthodoxinfo that are good. When someone chooses to be in schism, I believe it affects everything they might write and therefore those writings necessitate a critical eye. However, there is a enough bad, and enough bad has come from Etna, that the average everyday person is rightly warned to read things there critically, unless they have such highly developed discernment that they can properly tell good from bad there--in a place where there is much bad, and much confusing stemming from much bad, I would discourage casual browsing there for information--but being directed there to read a specific article by your priest or something is good.

Is there a particular Orthodoxinfo article on Baptism you recommend?

Orthodoxinfo's main articles on baptism admit that they are in opposition to the positions of Fr. Hopko, Former St Vladimir's Seminary Dean George Florovsky, and Bishop Tikhon of the West (OCA) and attack these theologians using Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna from the "Synod in Resistance."
(http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_baptism.aspx)

Bishop Tikhon's Letter on "The Reception of Heretic Laity" (http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/tikhon.lit10.html)
Bishop Tikhon explains the centuries-old Russian practice that previously chrismated Eastern Catholics do not need a second chrismation, and Roman Catholics and traditional Protestants need only Chrismation.
"The prescribed practice printed in our Service Books has been in force and active use for centuries, and it cannot be considered only a temporary episode of Economy in the life of the Church." Bishop Tikhon points out that St Alexis of Wilkes-barre turned to Orthodoxy because his Latin superiors rejected his priesthood, while the Russian church did and received him not as a mere layman.

Bishop Tikhon cites CANONS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, Bishop Nikodim of Dalmatia and Istria, Saint Petersburg Theological Academy, 1911:

Baptism as something instituted by Jesus Christ may be accomplished only in His Church and consequently only in the Church may it be correct and salvific; however, if other Christian communities located outside the Orthodox Church hold the conscious intention of bringing the newly-baptized into Christ's Church, i.e., have the intention to communicate to him Divine Grace through Baptism in order that he would become through the power of the Holy Spirit a true member of the Body of Christ and a reborn child of God, then this Baptism also may be considered effective insofar as it is done on the foundation of faith in the Holy Trinity, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, for where such a Baptism is given and received, there it must operate with Grace and Christ's support cannot fail to be there.

Bishop Tikhon notes that rebaptism is exclusively the practice of the Greek Church, but "We are not in a position to express our judgment relative to this practice, since we don't know how it is that the Greek Church applies the first rule of Saint Basil to Roman Catholics."

Anonymous Priest's Response
Orthodoxinfo posts an anonymous priest's response, who claims accepting Catholics without rebaptism is a medieval Russian innovation. He doesn't mention that the 3rd centiry church rejected rebaptism, as St Pope Stephen and the 3rd century book "On Rebaptism" explain.

The anonymous priest quotes Canon 46 of the Canons of the Apostles: "We order that any Bishop, or Presbyter, that has accepted any heretics' Baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed." However, it appears there is a debate over whether, as Pope Hormisdas (514-23) declared, the Canons of the Apostles are Apocryphal, or whetehr the church accepts them. ( http://mb-soft.com/believe/txud/counci48.htm , http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03279a.htm) Please, can you tell me definitively whether an ecumenical synod or council adopted all the Canons of the Apostles, or Canon 46?

Next, he cites "Canon 95 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council", which uses confession of heresy for some heretics like Nestorians, chrismation for others like Arians, and rebaptism for others like single-immersion Eunomians. Do Protestants and Catholics use single dripping? If so, does the recommendation about rebaptizing Eunomians mean they should be rebaptized too?

He cites St Basil as saying: "Even if rebaptism is prohibited with you for the sake of some economy, as it is with the Romans, nevertheless let our word have the power of rejecting, to put it plainly, the baptism of such." The anonymous priest says that St Basil is talking about schismatics, and that St Basil's words should apply even stronger to heretics. If we accept that ROCOR was in schism in 1925-2007, would St Basil say that we don't rebaptize them merely as a matter of economy, but that we "reject, to put it plaintly, the baptism of such?"

The priest concludes with subjective feelings and miracles where Chrismated converts were rebaptized in Greek churches. Personally, I doubt I would have a good subjective feeling if I was rebaptized, and instead would feel that I was disobeying the my church's rules. And such rules are one of the main reasons I don't participate in Open Communion in the first place.

EKONOMIA vs. AKRIBIA
a Russian Metropolitan recently said that the Russian Church accepted catholic sacraments however he was called a heretic by some of his parishners. the Church sometimes uses economia(a kind of flexibility or lenient exception) which in no way makes a practice normative and Orthodoxy also has akribia (strict letter of the law approach). As far as I know we are suppose to use akribia in such circumstances. But no one denies that the Church has the ability to accept the converts through Chrismation. So I think it is more of a question as what is the proper procedure instead of whether it is valid.
The anonymous priest agreed with ICXCNIKA that we should use AKRIBIA because we are not in an emergency situation. He pointed to St Basil's writings to say that we don't accept heretics' baptism as valid and conversion-by-Chrismation is EKONOMIA. Bishop Tikhon said that conversion-by-Chrismation must be AKRIBIA, because the Russian Church has been using it for centuries. This could allow that the heretics' baptism is itself valid, since conversion-by-Chrismation isn't out of mere leniency.

The St Cyprian - Pope St Stephan Debate
Archimandrite Ambrosius writes that when the debate began:
Others maintained a more tolerant view, accepting as valid that baptism, which was performed by some heretics, since it was performed in the name of the Holy Trinity, and did not require that those coming into Orthodoxy from heresy be re-baptized. A stricter line was taken by Tertullian (himself a Montanist), St. Cyprian of Carthage, Firmilian of Caesarea, and Elanus of Tarsus. St. Cyprian, a proponent of the strict line, convoked two councils in this matter (255-256) and insisted that heretics be received by no other way than baptism. St. Stephen, Pope of Rome (253-257) could be considered to hold a more tolerant view, and his position, according to the famous Hefele, was supported by Eastern bishops... Pope St. Stephen received penitent heretics with the laying of a bishop’s hand on their heads.

PETER THE ALEUT, is this an accurate description, including Firmilian's support in Cappadocia?

KING CLOVIS, You stated:
The Orthodox Church in different times and places has had several views on this issue (and that can be said for her on more than this issue!).
Can you please point to someplace the Orthodox church accepted nonOrthodox sacraments, inlcuding the Eucharist, as inherently valid?

The 4th Century Council of Arles
Canon 8 of the Council of Arles says: "If anyone shall come from heresy to the Church, they shall ask him to say the Creed; and if they shall perceive that he was baptized into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost he shall have hands laid upon him only so that he may receive the Holy Ghost."
At first glance this suggests that the heretic lacks the Holy Spirit, so the baptism must have lacked the Holy Spirit too. However, I also heard a view-- compatible with the idea that the Orthodox Church is the only Church-- saying something like the nonOrthodox baptism had grace or the Holy Spirit, but they did not remain because the person was outside the church. The rite brought the person into the church, but he didn't remain in the church. It might be like saying that you registered for a room in a hotel, but then told the hotel you wouldn't show up for the room. Perhaps the Eucharist could be seen in a similar way- joining the person to the church, but then the person leaves the church again immediately after.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 02:47:04 AM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,176



WWW
« Reply #109 on: June 07, 2010, 02:51:03 AM »

REASONS FOR OPEN COMMUNION:

1. Orthodox Priests say Catholics can commune in Orthodox Churches

The Thyateira Confession says Orthodox can commune in Catholic churches if there is no Orthodox church near them and vice verse. However, this is not the same as Open Communion. It could be simply based on ekonomia.

A close friend who is very sympathetic to Orthodoxy told me that Orthodoxy allows it with the priest's permission. He said that the OCA priest in a neighboring Pennsylvania town said he could take communion there. However, I have no idea how common this opinion is, and whether or not it is common hardly explains why we should have this teaching. To say we should or should not have a practice because no one or everyone does it sounds like circular logic to me: "We do it because that's what we do."

the situation varies...A Roman Catholic is much more likely to be able to recieve in an "Orthodox" country than he/she would be able to do in the west for obvious reasons. It also varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
What Orthodox Church in an Orthodox country or an American jurisdiction practices Open Communion?


2. The Catholic Church Developed a position of Open Communion with Orthodoxy


ICXCNIKA and KING CLOVIS agreed that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches "in different times and places have had several views on this issue." King Clovis joked that the Catholic Church was "developing," not Yo-Yoing. If the church switches positions on and off, it sounds like the church's latest "development" is just the latest yo-yo bounce in a series.

Why is the latest development the correct one? And why, for example, did Byzantine Catholic Churches, I assume, deny communion to Orthodox before Vatican II?

Understanding the Catholic Church's rejection and acceptance of Open Communion could help us understand why the Othodox Church rejects it or should accept it. But the Orthodox Church shouldn't necessarily treat the Catholic Church the same way that the Catholic Church treats us. For example, I believe the Catholic Church requires Orthodox--Catholic couples to raise their children to be Catholic, not Orthodox. This prejudiced upbringing abuses children's free will to discover the Truth Faith, whether it is the Orthodox or the Catholic faith.

Catholics offer Orthodox the Eucharist because the Catholic Church defines itself more against Protestants
Because the "Orthodox" share things in common with Catholics that seperate us from Protestants who we have more a tendency to define ourselves against while as you define yourselves against us it follows that that would be the case.

This doesn't fully explain why the Catholic Church didn't offer Communion to Orthodox before Vatican II. The Orthodox did drop its anathema against the Catholic Church about the same time as Vatican II. Was that it?
Also, why should the Catholic Church principally define itself vis a vis what it considers a heretical group of "bad boys", the Protestants, and not based on the division between the Pope of Rome and all the other Patriarchs? The Catholic Church is alot closer to Old Catholics and anti-Vatican II sects than to Orthodox. Does it give any of them the Eucharist? It appears that after Vatican II the Catholic Church accepts the Orthodox church's legitimacy in a way it doesn't accept theirs. Why?

The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Eucharist valid.

That's because this is the official RC teaching and practice regarding communion. Rome acknowledges all the Orthodox sacraments, including communion, to be valid. From this point of view, the same Body and Blood of the same Christ is being served on the altars in both churches by priests sharing the same priestly ordination from bishops sharing the same episcopal ordination. And according to the Code of Canon Law - canon 844 s 3 "Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed."
First, this does not explain why the Catholic Church denied Orthodox the Eucharist before Vatican II.
Second, why does Rome believe the Orthodox Eucharist is valid? Does an incantation by priests make something necessarily true, and if so, what is the basis for this?
Third, if the episcopal ordination in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches is the same, why wouldn't the Anglicans' or Old Catholics' episcopal orsination be the same too?
Fourth, Canon 844 seems to contradict the Catholic Catechism 1401: When... a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist... to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church... provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions."
The Catholic Church considers Orthodox to be in "imperfect communion" with Rome. I think that is accurate. But Orthodox do NOT affirm the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation regarding the Eucharist.

Vatican II.
It is obvious that Vatican II, which I believe all Catholic bishops accept, changed the Catholic Church's treatment of Orthodoxy. But to leave the explanation at that would be empty. "Pope Says So" or "that's What the Church Teaches" might completely satisfy those with blind faith, but it doesn't convince me. My lack of blind faith is why I am trying to understand the Orthodox Church's teaching.

3. THE CHURCHES NEVER OFFICIALLY EXCOMMUNICATED EACHOTHER
A friend in my OCF group said that it's not clear when exactly the official excommunications occurred. The churches were in union with eachother for a long time while holding different doctrines like the filioque. Humbertus' 1054 excommunication was directed at the person of the Patriarch of Constantinople and vice verse. I assume there may have also been a personal excommunication of the person of the Pope by Constantinople. He added like Stanley says that many of the grounds sounded like nit-picking. Taken to its extreme, this could suggest there was no excommunication of the entire church by the other church.
It also appears to be  inaccurate to say that the Orthodox have separated themselves from Rome, when it was Cardinal Humbertus who delivered the bull of excommunication in 1054. And many of the grounds listed for the excommunication appear to be rather flimsy and insupportable by today's standards.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,143


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #110 on: June 07, 2010, 12:58:52 PM »

Sorry, we in the East didn't get that memo.  We were still under the mistaken impression that Christ is still the Head of the Church.

I doubt they would claim otherwise. The more common conception appears to be of the BoR being Christ's "Vicar" rather than him being the actual head.
No, the application of the term "head" by the Vatican to itself has gone to its head, such that it doesn't always include the disclaimer "visible" with the use of the term.

Hmmmm. Perhaps that is just poor use of language. Because I've never seen them express Ultramontanism to such a high degree that I get the sentence that they are questioning the headship of Christ, just introducing a perverted version of it.
Same thing.

Not at al. Christ is our Lord and God. The Pope is merely his steward.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #111 on: June 07, 2010, 02:51:56 PM »

This is only persuasive if
1. Their position is based on teachings taken before they broke at Chalcedon. And in fact even before Chalcedon we recognized heretic baptisms.

I don't necessarily agree. I do not think that acceptance of heretical baptisms has entered into a dogmatic status, and I think there have been some sources which have explicitly rejected such a position.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,176



WWW
« Reply #112 on: June 07, 2010, 03:42:00 PM »

It is my understanding that the African Oriental Orthodox Churches... have only begun to recognize EO Baptisms (though still not Chrismations) as a result of the Agreed Statements.
I do not think that acceptance of heretical baptisms has entered into a dogmatic status, and I think there have been some sources which have explicitly rejected such a position.

Deus,

The Sixth Ecumenical Council decided:
Quote
As for... those from similar heresies, they have to give us certificates (called libelli) and anathematize their heresy... Dioscorus... and those who entertain their beliefs, and all the aforementioned heresies, and thus they are allowed to partake of Holy Communion.

Oriental Orthodox consider Dioscorus a saint. Our acceptance of Orientals' baptism instead of rebaptism comes from the Sixth Ecumenical Council instead of any stated agreements with Oriental orthodox.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #113 on: June 07, 2010, 05:24:19 PM »

It is my understanding that the African Oriental Orthodox Churches... have only begun to recognize EO Baptisms (though still not Chrismations) as a result of the Agreed Statements.
I do not think that acceptance of heretical baptisms has entered into a dogmatic status, and I think there have been some sources which have explicitly rejected such a position.

Deus,

The Sixth Ecumenical Council decided:
Quote
As for... those from similar heresies, they have to give us certificates (called libelli) and anathematize their heresy... Dioscorus... and those who entertain their beliefs, and all the aforementioned heresies, and thus they are allowed to partake of Holy Communion.

Oriental Orthodox consider Dioscorus a saint. Our acceptance of Orientals' baptism instead of rebaptism comes from the Sixth Ecumenical Council instead of any stated agreements with Oriental orthodox.

Then why did you say "before Chalcedon we recognized heretic baptisms"?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,176



WWW
« Reply #114 on: June 07, 2010, 05:47:19 PM »

I do not think that acceptance of heretical baptisms has entered into a dogmatic status, and I think there have been some sources which have explicitly rejected such a position.
Oriental Orthodox consider Dioscorus a saint. Our acceptance of Orientals' baptism instead of rebaptism comes from the Sixth Ecumenical Council instead of any stated agreements with Oriental orthodox.
Then why did you say "before Chalcedon we recognized heretic baptisms"?

You said that acceptance of nonOrthodox baptisms is not dogma for the Orthodox Church. I answered that the Sixth Ecumenical Council officially accepted Oriental baptism because you are Oriental and might find that heartening.

Please read replies #52 and 107 above about why the Church accepted nonOrthodox baptisms before Chalcedon (451 AD).
« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 05:57:57 PM by rakovsky » Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #115 on: June 07, 2010, 06:03:50 PM »



Quote from: KingClovis

Are you aware of how much money the Vatican is at present lashing out to Churches that by our standards are at the very least schismatic if not outright heretical and burn with hatred for us?

Its scandalous.


Mary Brought up the same thing,Vatican giving financial aid to Holy Orthodoxy ,Neither of them explaining it... Huh





What Aid...... Grin

Conn....Rome Thur it's crusades  raped ,murdered and pillaged the Holy Orthodox East..and also Thur it's fascist Croatian/Fransiscan Ustasha during world war  two..Serbia has a case pending against the Vatican from what i read. the pope is sitting on the bloody soaked Loot ,looted from Serbs, gypsies Jews and Others..So what Aid are we talking About...hum.. Grin
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #116 on: June 07, 2010, 11:47:41 PM »



Quote from: KingClovis

Are you aware of how much money the Vatican is at present lashing out to Churches that by our standards are at the very least schismatic if not outright heretical and burn with hatred for us?

Its scandalous.


Mary Brought up the same thing,Vatican giving financial aid to Holy Orthodoxy ,Neither of them explaining it... Huh





What Aid...... Grin

Conn....Rome Thur it's crusades  raped ,murdered and pillaged the Holy Orthodox East..and also Thur it's fascist Croatian/Fransiscan Ustasha during world war  two..Serbia has a case pending against the Vatican from what i read. the pope is sitting on the bloody soaked Loot ,looted from Serbs, gypsies Jews and Others..So what Aid are we talking About...hum.. Grin



Most of the bloody loot is in museums and private collections.

The non-loot that was brought to Rome for safekeeping is still there.  I expect that if any of the Orthodox Churches in Europe and the Mediterranean were really reading to take it all back and guarantee its safekeeping there would have been petitions made in triplicate. 

So Mr. Stashko should hope we don't charge rent for the care and upkeep of antiquities which is not a "cheap" enterprise.

In any event it is not a good thing to allow this kind of warping of a history that is bad enough in reality...on both sides.

Don't Orthodox believers realize how much money the Vatincan has given to Orthodoxy in central Europe and Russia to help rebuild churches and seminaries?  What do they think is happening during this visit to Cyprus.  Do they really think that there's not going to be "gifts" offered and received in the Cyprus church?

Bad business not to acknowledge the good while distorting the errors and evils of the past.

M.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #117 on: May 27, 2011, 09:23:21 PM »

I found this article rather interesting:

Why Not "Open Communion"?

-PJ

Thanks for that! I especially appreciate this paragraph in the article which articulates eloquently what I've often wanted to say to people who asked me this question but couldn't find the words:
Quote
The real issue, however, is not one of obedience or disobedience to rules and regulations.  If the Orthodox preserve the sanctity of the Eucharist as a supreme obligation, it is because of the often stated truth that communion in the Body and Blood of Christ is the very end or fulfillment of Christian existence.  It can not, for example, be reduced to a means by which to achieve "Christian unity."  (In any case, Church history has made it clear that sharing of Communion among Churches of conflicting theological teachings never results in lasting unity.)

I had quite forgotten about that article. But, re-reading it earlier today, I discovered that I like it a lot. (I'm glad that I brought it to my attention. Grin)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #118 on: May 27, 2011, 09:23:48 PM »

ALONSO,

The Forum's Main Question "Why Not Open Communion" applies to Catholics too, because the Catholic church doesn't have Open Communion either. Please read earlier posts on the forum, Thanks.

Indeed we don't.

BTW, on a recent thread I mentioned an article called "Intercommunion: why Catholics need not 'apologise'". The author should have written a follow-up called "Intercommunion: why Orthodox need not 'apologise'".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #119 on: May 27, 2011, 09:32:11 PM »

You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of harisplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #120 on: May 28, 2011, 03:58:52 AM »

You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of harisplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I am not sure about that. For example, I have read where some people claim that the declaration  of Pope John Paul II that women cannot be priests, was an infallible statement and cannot be changed? Do you think it is possible to change this teaching?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #121 on: May 28, 2011, 08:05:54 AM »

You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of harisplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I am not sure about that. For example, I have read where some people claim that the declaration  of Pope John Paul II that women cannot be priests, was an infallible statement and cannot be changed? Do you think it is possible to change this teaching?

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. When I said that "There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less", I wasn't implying that I'm one of those people.

Also, every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but that doesn't mean that every infallible statement is ex cathedra.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #122 on: May 28, 2011, 10:49:57 AM »

Just on the point about transubstantiation, if it's helpful, the Catholic teaching is that the essence (That whereby the thing is intelligible by the mind as what it is, in scholastic terminology) changes to the body and blood of Christ, while the species or accidents (the physical attributes) remain the same. I never thought this was much less mystical or mysterious than in Orthodoxy.

Consubstantiation teaches that the eucharist becomes intelligible both as the body and blood of Christ and as bread.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #123 on: May 28, 2011, 11:32:40 AM »

You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of harisplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I am not sure about that. For example, I have read where some people claim that the declaration  of Pope John Paul II that women cannot be priests, was an infallible statement and cannot be changed? Do you think it is possible to change this teaching?
I think that's a case where the statement is infallible because because the Pope is simply upholding a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, which is also infallible. It is not ex cathedra, though. As Peter J said, though, something does not have to be ex cathedra to be true.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #124 on: May 28, 2011, 12:18:12 PM »

Christ is risen!
You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of harisplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I know, but their supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI isn't one of them.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2011, 12:35:19 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #125 on: May 28, 2011, 12:24:31 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of hairsplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I am not sure about that. For example, I have read where some people claim that the declaration  of Pope John Paul II that women cannot be priests, was an infallible statement and cannot be changed? Do you think it is possible to change this teaching?
I think that's a case where the statement is infallible because because the Pope is simply upholding a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, which is also infallible. It is not ex cathedra, though. As Peter J said, though, something does not have to be ex cathedra to be true.

I guess not.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2011, 12:25:23 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #126 on: May 28, 2011, 12:26:13 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of hairsplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I am not sure about that. For example, I have read where some people claim that the declaration  of Pope John Paul II that women cannot be priests, was an infallible statement and cannot be changed? Do you think it is possible to change this teaching?
I think that's a case where the statement is infallible because because the Pope is simply upholding a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, which is also infallible. It is not ex cathedra, though. As Peter J said, though, something does not have to be ex cathedra to be true.

I guess not.
It's really simple. You're the one making it complex.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #127 on: May 28, 2011, 12:34:44 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of hairsplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I am not sure about that. For example, I have read where some people claim that the declaration  of Pope John Paul II that women cannot be priests, was an infallible statement and cannot be changed? Do you think it is possible to change this teaching?
I think that's a case where the statement is infallible because because the Pope is simply upholding a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, which is also infallible. It is not ex cathedra, though. As Peter J said, though, something does not have to be ex cathedra to be true.

I guess not.
It's really simple. You're the one making it complex.
I always read the fine print.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #128 on: May 28, 2011, 12:40:53 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of hairsplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I am not sure about that. For example, I have read where some people claim that the declaration  of Pope John Paul II that women cannot be priests, was an infallible statement and cannot be changed? Do you think it is possible to change this teaching?
I think that's a case where the statement is infallible because because the Pope is simply upholding a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, which is also infallible. It is not ex cathedra, though. As Peter J said, though, something does not have to be ex cathedra to be true.

I guess not.
It's really simple. You're the one making it complex.
I always read misread the fine print.
Yep.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #129 on: May 28, 2011, 01:07:56 PM »

Christ is risen!
Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I know, but their supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI isn't one of them.

Are you now criticizing us based on the fact that our pope doesn't fly off the handle?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #130 on: May 28, 2011, 01:08:43 PM »

P.S. Ah, so your looking for an official list of ex cathedra statements, eh?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #131 on: May 28, 2011, 01:32:44 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of hairsplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I am not sure about that. For example, I have read where some people claim that the declaration  of Pope John Paul II that women cannot be priests, was an infallible statement and cannot be changed? Do you think it is possible to change this teaching?
I think that's a case where the statement is infallible because because the Pope is simply upholding a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, which is also infallible. It is not ex cathedra, though. As Peter J said, though, something does not have to be ex cathedra to be true.

I guess not.
It's really simple. You're the one making it complex.
I always read misread the fine print.
Yep.
filioque
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #132 on: May 28, 2011, 01:34:07 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
P.S. Ah, so your looking for an official list of ex cathedra statements, eh?
Given the nature of the claim, that shouldn't be too much to ask.  I don't recall Pastor Aeternus reverting to gnosticism and saying such pronouncements were secrets.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #133 on: May 28, 2011, 03:08:01 PM »

I think that's a case where the statement is infallible because because the Pope is simply upholding a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, which is also infallible. It is not ex cathedra, though. As Peter J said, though, something does not have to be ex cathedra to be true.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
I thought that ex cathedra simply means that the teaching is made with the intention of invoking infallibllity. Now are we being told on this thread that the teaching that women cannot be priests was not made with that intention?
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.”
How come this declaration is not ex cathedra?
And even if you say it is not ex cathedra, are there not Catholics who claim it was declared ex cathedra. So why would that not confirm the claim that there is no agreement among Catholics about which beliefs have been declared infallibly or ex cathedra? 
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html


Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #134 on: May 28, 2011, 06:10:57 PM »

I thought that ex cathedra simply means that the teaching is made with the intention of invoking infallibllity.

Absolutely not!
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags: communion baptism open communion 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  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 0.233 seconds with 72 queries.