Topic: Catholicism Bad, Orthodoxy Good, and other polemical assertions

[pathofsolitude]

Split off from the "ewtn catholic answers forum bars..."
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13287.0.html
- Cleveland, Global Moderator

Dear friends,

It will do us no good to debate Satan's people. All true Christians know that the Wicked Warlord of the Tiber is Antichrist. No one filled with the Holy Spirit of God could sign up with someone who claims to have received from the Lord Jesus the power to control all the kingdoms of the earth and to command their armies to go to war. Much less someone who claims to be one and the same Head as Jesus Christ who everyone must obey as a condition to salvation. Granted they havent believed these things since the 60's but they believed them for a thousand years and now actually believe what is much much worse: that all religions lead to God. The Christians must flee every Roman Catholic apologist because they try to get us to submit to Antichrist. When St John the Apostle was confronted by wicked heretics he covered his ears and ran the other direction. Personally I am glad that the RC board ceased EO discussion.

[Ebor]

You are again making declarations about "All true Christians" though avoiding the other thread where you were asked to give support that your opinion is correct so that other people should accept it.  It has been unlocked since Wednesday so that you could reply.   Why should you be blindly accepted  as any kind of authority on the beliefs and history of the RC more then on any of the other topics which you made declarations on?

You seem to expect that others will simply take your words as law and when they are not, you refuse to actually engage in discussion but resort to perjoratives and unsupported statements.  Why should you be accepted as an authority on any of the subjects that you think others should bow to your interpretations? How does name-calling and sneering help your cause?

You are a Human Being posting, but all we see here are words, and unconvincing words at that.  Those who read your words are also Human Beings.  Would you speak to us face to face as you have disdainfully written here?

Ebor

[orthodoxlurker]

Dear friends,

...All true Christians know that the Wicked Warlord of the Tiber ...

I need to say that I don't think anyone is a Satan's man. No such a man exist. All and each one of us is God's one.

Though antichrist will use the power of deceipt and delude many, actually most of us, when his time come, so nobody should be excluded in advance from being him, including the Pope of Rome, the same princple should apply as well to our Patriarchs. May God forgive me for having said this - I don't think anyone of them ever demonstrated such an inclinations, or did some things that are historically proved for some (not all) Popes of Rome of the last thousand years. But no one could be excluded in advance.

Guys, let us not make the things worse than they already are. RCC are our ill brothers (ill like in illness, desease). Though we must be caucious with them, since the historically turned to violence against us too frequently, and we should bear in ming that's always possible again, we can't refuse dialogue. But we must bear in mind it's always dangerous.

They did create the board that we were supposed to participate. I came accross there by googling after the specific statement that was posted there by Fr Ambrose, and needed to register to PM him to ask a link to original news, since i translated it and needed a source, so I stayed after it. I had doubts about should I participate in a Catholic board, but good moderation and good discussions kept me there.

I could not have seen our bashing and prozelytizing (sp) of RCC there. But the arguments we were posting apparently annoyed some of them that couldn't have stood it anymore.

They did what they want for their money with their board. It was not about us, it was about the arguments of Holy Orthodox Faith that were too strong for thoose of them who thought we are supposed to be agreeable with errors of their theology. But we can't do that, it would amount to compromizing our Orthodoxy.

But we should all be caucious - it could end such a way in real life as it did with CAF. Once they see they can't prove their stance, some of them can get a bit "crazy".

It's not them. It's the deamons raiding htem.

Regards to all known posters here - obadiah, stashko, Hesychios, jimmy. Good to see you guys.

[pathofsolitude]

You are again making declarations about "All true Christians" though avoiding the other thread where you were asked to give support that your opinion is correct so that other people should accept it.  It has been unlocked since Wednesday so that you could reply.   Why should you be blindly accepted  as any kind of authority on the beliefs and history of the RC more then on any of the other topics which you made declarations on?

You seem to expect that others will simply take your words as law and when they are not, you refuse to actually engage in discussion but resort to perjoratives and unsupported statements.  Why should you be accepted as an authority on any of the subjects that you think others should bow to your interpretations? How does name-calling and sneering help your cause?

You are a Human Being posting, but all we see here are words, and unconvincing words at that.  Those who read your words are also Human Beings.  Would you speak to us face to face as you have disdainfully written here?

Ebor

I would absolutely tell you to face to face that the pope of rome, as well as his minions in scarlet, are antichrists. I tell people this in person very often.

Anyways for what I said about the pope read this:

UNAM SANCTAM (Promulgated November 18 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII)

...

Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

In regards to all religions leading to God, see Nostra Aetate, a document from the Second Vatican Council:

...

Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life", in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself

...

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.

...

Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.

Happy?? Is that the wicked apostate religion you want to belong to? I guarantee you that anyone who holds to these beliefs has absolutely nothing at all, I mean absolutely nothing, to do with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

To moderators, I am sorry to divert from the topic of this thread, but Ebor was trying to villainize me for not giving long pointless quotes like I gave here.

[pathofsolitude]

I need to say that I don't think anyone is a Satan's man. No such a man exist. All and each one of us is God's one.

What? My Lord says:

Matt 13:38 "and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one "

John 8:44 "You are of your father the devil , and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

1 John 3:8 "the one who practices sin is of the devil "

1 John 3:10 "This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother."

So then you are preaching a false religion. And if what you say is true, then children of the devil are your brothers, which would make the devil like your step-father or something. Apostasy!

[Hesychios]

Dear 'Path'

Please give it a rest. I am getting a headache reading your posts.

Besides, western Catholicism was Orthodox once, it can be again. What they really need from us is prayer and a charitable but resolute example to follow.

Do I expect any big changes over there for the better? Not by my efforts, but by the Holy Spirit. And perhaps not in my lifetime, but some day.

Michael

[Papist]

I would absolutely tell you to face to face that the pope of rome, as well as his minions in scarlet, are antichrists. I tell people this in person very often.

Anyways for what I said about the pope read this:
 

In regards to all religions leading to God, see Nostra Aetate, a document from the Second Vatican Council:
 

Happy?? Is that the wicked apostate religion you want to belong to? I guarantee you that anyone who holds to these beliefs has absolutely nothing at all, I mean absolutely nothing, to do with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

To moderators, I am sorry to divert from the topic of this thread, but Ebor was trying to villainize me for not giving long pointless quotes like I gave here.

Wow. Ex Catholic?

[Ebor]

I would absolutely tell you to face to face that the pope of rome, as well as his minions in scarlet, are antichrists. I tell people this in person very often.

OK. Thank you for answering my question.  And that is your opinion on the Bishop of Rome.  But that does not mean that others are required to accept it.  

Then again, do you want to bring people to your way of thinking or just declare your opinions?  As the old saying goes, "you catch more flies with honey then with vinegar." as my grandmother used to say.

Happy?? Is that the wicked apostate religion you want to belong to? I guarantee you that anyone who holds to these beliefs has absolutely nothing at all, I mean absolutely nothing, to do with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Well, since the first passage is from several hundred years ago and is not, as far as I know, the way things are though of now, it doesn't apply to the present. For the second, I would prefer to read all of it rather then three bits out of context to find out just what was the intent of the document.  The portions you cite appear to be saying that Human Beings have tried to seek God as they could (considering for instance that Gautama the Buddha predates the Birth of Our Lord by some centuries).  

I do not mean to offend you, but there could be some other meaning to writings besides that which you have decided is the only right one.

To moderators, I am sorry to divert from the topic of this thread, but Ebor was trying to villainize me for not giving long pointless quotes like I gave here.

 

"Villanize"? I was not in any way trying to make you a villan. I apologize for any poor writing on my part that gave that impression.  

Pertinent quotes *in support of one's assertions* are not "pointless" however.  The ones you provided give people some idea of what you are getting at and can be looked up to see if you are understanding them and using them in context.

Ebor

[Keble]

I would absolutely tell you to face to face that the pope of rome, as well as his minions in scarlet, are antichrists. I tell people this in person very often.

And so what? Why should anyone care whom you claim to be an antichrist? You're nothing but a pack of cards!

[lubeltri]

Well, since the first passage is from several hundred years ago and is not, as far as I know, the way things are though of now, it doesn't apply to the present.

Indeed, Unam Sanctam is not infallible by any means.

(and neither is Apostolicae Curae---hat tip to my Anglican friends Ebor and Keble)

[Ebor]

Indeed, Unam Sanctam is not infallible by any means.

(and neither is Apostolicae Curae---hat tip to my Anglican friends Ebor and Keble)

 

Thank you

Ebor

[scamandrius]

I would absolutely tell you to face to face that the pope of rome, as well as his minions in scarlet, are antichrists. I tell people this in person very often.

Wow. Ex Catholic?

He sounds like Martin Luther's kind of Lutheran!  They are in short supply today!

PoS,

Being a sinner and not humble in the least, I know it is hypocritical for me to say something, but would you please just reserve your "judgments" for another audience?  May I suggest a wall?  It will take what you have with good pleasure and never argue with you.  Perhaps I should just take the high road and not even read your posts, but, wow, these just make my day.

[JoeS]

Indeed, Unam Sanctam is not infallible by any means.

(and neither is Apostolicae Curae---hat tip to my Anglican friends Ebor and Keble)

What is the mechanism that makes a proclamation infallible?

[lubeltri]

What is the mechanism that makes a proclamation infallible?

Well, there's a decent discussion of it back on Catholic Answers: http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

A better discussion about exactly what papal statements have been infallible is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_papal_infallibility

"I'm never infallible. A Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, and I never speak ex cathedra." Pope Blessed John XXIII

[ignatius]

"I'm never infallible. A Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, and I never speak ex cathedra." Pope Blessed John XXIII

did John XXIII really say that? God Bless Him!

[lubeltri]

did John XXIII really say that? God Bless Him!

I can't confirm it. I'd have to look it up in something more reputable than Wikipedia. But it sounds like something he'd say. If he said it, he had a very good point---that instances of infallibility are an extremely rare occurrence, that popes are to preserve and safeguard the deposit of faith, not add to it.

[ignatius]

I can't confirm it. I'd have to look it up in something more reputable than Wikipedia. But it sounds like something he'd say. If he said it, he had a very good point---that instances of infallibility are an extremely rare occurrence, that popes are to preserve and safeguard the deposit of faith, not add to it.

Sound good to me. BTW, since your Catholic and this is a Catholic topic. What is your view of the ex cathedra statements of past Popes? What do you think personally about say... Mary being given a special unique charism to be without 'original sin'...

[Jakub]

RCC are our ill brothers (ill like in illness, desease).   A small note, I am not ill however I do accept donations of medicinal liqueurs to be shared and stored for those in need...thank you kindly

[Keble]

What is the mechanism that makes a proclamation infallible?

Well, it can't be made infallible; it can only be recognized to be so. The theory is that when certain processes are followed, the resulting theology can be so recognized.

AC wasn't strictly done according to the processes, so there was considerable RC doubt as to its infallibility. It's rather an odd thing anyway, because it basically consists of a nitpick about the consecration of Matthew Parker, upon whom all subsequent Anglican succession depended (at least to the 1880s). The Anglican response attacked this nitpick as applying to RC consecrations of a long period as well. What really muddled the whole issue was that after AC Old Catholic bishops participated heavily in Anglican consecrations, to the point where there were bishops whose succession no longer depended crucially upon Matthew Parker. thus mooting the issue.

[Timos]

pathofsolitude, when was the last time you had fun? Went out lately? ...with some nice friends? Orthodox or other...If you often say that Catholics are from the devil etc then you have too much time on your hands or are an extremist. Did you happen to remember such passages from the NT like "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you..." I would definitely be a hypocrite to say I do this all the time but we are not here to judge the pope or Catholics or whatever. Yes there are some major scruples in the way they put things together but that doesn't mean they're from the devil. As for heretics, they are those who hold unorthodox, incorrect belief....theres a difference between that and being a Voodoo kinda, Satan worshipper. If youre gonna bash others, do it to the Watchtower ppl or to the Mormons...lol just kidding- sorta.

[Veniamin]

pathofsolitude, when was the last time you had fun? Went out lately? ...with some nice friends? Orthodox or other...

Or had a drink?  You've certainly been giving us cause to do that lately.

[Pravoslavbob]

Well, it can't be made infallible; it can only be recognized to be so. The theory is that when certain processes are followed, the resulting theology can be so recognized.

AC wasn't strictly done according to the processes, so there was considerable RC doubt as to its infallibility. It's rather an odd thing anyway, because it basically consists of a nitpick about the consecration of Matthew Parker, upon whom all subsequent Anglican succession depended (at least to the 1880s). The Anglican response attacked this nitpick as applying to RC consecrations of a long period as well. What really muddled the whole issue was that after AC Old Catholic bishops participated heavily in Anglican consecrations, to the point where there were bishops whose succession no longer depended crucially upon Matthew Parker. thus mooting the issue.

   Don't really know why you're going on about Anglican orders here etc........that's rather removed from the topic of conversation really, isn't it?

[pathofsolitude]

And so what? Why should anyone care whom you claim to be an antichrist? You're nothing but a pack of cards!

Keble, you are Anglican right? [Forgive me if I'm wrong as I don't mean to insult you in that way.] Nearly every Anglican writer from the late sixteenth century to the late seventeenth century - a period of about a hundred years - believed that the Pope of Rome was "THE" Antichrist prophesied by St Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians. The literature on the topic is immense. Does that change your perspective?

[prodromas]

Keble, you are Anglican right? [Forgive me if I'm wrong as I don't mean to insult you in that way.] Nearly every Anglican writer from the late sixteenth century to the late seventeenth century - a period of about a hundred years - believed that the Pope of Rome was "THE" Antichrist prophesied by St Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians. The literature on the topic is immense. Does that change your perspective?

Pathofsolitude firstly from this "logic" that would mean that you should have the same Orthodox views as the patristics which you don't seem to have. Just because someone in there own flock believes something doesn't mean everyone else should and secondly patristics and theologians (Orthodox and otherwise) should not be solely interpreted by our situation but rather the context it is under consider for instance that this Anglican writer believed the Bishop of Rome was the Antichrist it would not surprise me if this view was shared by some eastern writers early post schism.

[Ebor]

Nearly every Anglican writer from the late sixteenth century to the late seventeenth century - a period of about a hundred years - believed that the Pope of Rome was "THE" Antichrist prophesied by St Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians. The literature on the topic is immense. Does that change your perspective?

Which writers are you thinking of, please?  As you there is a lot of Anglican writing.  It would be easier to read their exact words if authors/titles were given.  Also, that one century is not the sum-total of Anglican thought and looking at the political situation that it came out of (Attempt by Spain to invade and return England to RC, various plots to assassinate the Queen or King for the same purpose etc) there are other factors that apply.

Thank you in advance.

Ebor

[Keble]

Keble, you are Anglican right? [Forgive me if I'm wrong as I don't mean to insult you in that way.] Nearly every Anglican writer from the late sixteenth century to the late seventeenth century - a period of about a hundred years - believed that the Pope of Rome was "THE" Antichrist prophesied by St Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians. The literature on the topic is immense. Does that change your perspective?

One of the things about being Anglican is that, as (depending upon whom you ask) Protestants, we are allowed to change our minds and admit that we have been wrong. Anyway, it can't "change" my perspective, as I already knew about this.

And something else you should change is your evasive attacks when you are put to the point of producing some authority for all your ex cathedra pronouncements. You appeal to scripture as would any radical Protestant, completely in violation of the Orthodox principle that the Church must interpret scripture. When called on this sin, you switch to attacking my church, as though that had the slightest relevance. It's a complete waste time to attack the Anglican churches for their imperfections, for we agree that we, of ourselves, are imperfect. So what's your next tactic to avoid being put to the test? As it stands, you stand on your own authority; and in claiming to speak for the spirit, you are in peril of being condemned as a false prophet.

[pathofsolitude]

And something else you should change is your evasive attacks when you are put to the point of producing some authority for all your ex cathedra pronouncements. You appeal to scripture as would any radical Protestant, completely in violation of the Orthodox principle that the Church must interpret scripture.

Please dont accuse me of trying to use the apostolic memoirs "as would any radical Protestant." You should know good and well that I avoided quoting anything as long as possible until people demanded that I break out the socalled "Bible." I dont believe what I believe because some piece of paper told me. I know by experience.

in claiming to speak for the spirit, you are in peril of being condemned as a false prophet.

Good thing I'm not wrong! And for the record, a prophet is someone who speaks direct messages from God, which I never claimed to do. I am only telling my faith. Genuine Christians are taught all things inwardly by the Holy Spirit.

[pathofsolitude]

the Orthodox principle that the Church must interpret scripture.

I would like to ask Keble which "orthodox church" he is talking about. I know its not your Episcopalian prancing priests in purple. Could it be whats called "world orthodoxy" headed by His All Holiness Bartholomew? Ah. Well I dont follow that religion either. This is why:

http://www.vatican.va/special/assisi-participants_20020118_en.html

DAY OF PRAYER FOR PEACE IN THE WORLD
IN ASSISI (24 JANUARY 2002)

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

ORTHODOX CHURCHES

Ecumenical Patriarchate
- His Holiness Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch
- His Em. Gennadios, Archbishop, Metropolitan of the Greek Orthodox in Italy, Exarch of Southern Europe
- His Em. Emmanuel, Bishop of Reghion, Director of the Office of the Orthodox Church to the European Community
- Deacon Stefanos, Patriarchal Deacon
- Mr Basilios Karaghiorghis

Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa
- H.E. George Vladimirou, Bishop of Nilopolis, Patriarchal Vicar in Alexandria

Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East
- H.B. Ignace IV Hazim, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East
H.E. Lukas El Khoury, Auxiliary Bishop of the Patriarchate
- H.E. Gabriel Saliby, Metropolitan of Western and Central Europe
- Mr Dimitri Yamanoglu, Secretary to Metropolitan Saliby

Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem
- Rev. Archimandrite Nikolaos Nikodimos Farmakis
- Rev. Fr Rafaele Apostolos Anagnostakis

Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow
- H.E. Innokentij, Bishop of Korsun for Russian Orthodox faithful in France

Orthodox Patriarchate of Serbia
- H.E. Jovan, Metropolitan of Zagreb and Ljubljana

Orthodox Patriarchate of Romania
- H.E. Ioan Salagean, Bishop of Harghita and Covasna

Orthodox Church of Finland
- H.E. Ambrosius, Metropolitan elect of Helsinki

Orthodox Patriarchate of Bulgaria
- Rev. Archpriest Ivan Petkin, Episcopal Vicar for Central and Western Europe

Orthodox Church of Cyprus
- H.E. Vasilios, Bishop of Trimithus, Vicar of the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Nea Justiniana and All Cyprus
- Prof. Christos Economou

Orthodox Church of Poland
- Rev. Archimandrite Jerzy (Pankowki)

Orthodox Church of Albania
- H.B. Anastas, Archbishop of Tirana, Durres and of All Albania
- Rev. Fr Jani Trebicka, General Secretary of the Holy Synod


ANCIENT CHURCHES OF THE EAST

Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch
- H.E. Mor Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim, Metropolitan of Aleppo

Armenian Apostolic Church
- H.E. Khajak Barsamian, Primate of the Eastern Diocese of the United States of America

Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia
- H.E. Oshagan Choloyan, Archbishop, Prelate of the Eastern Coast of the United States of America and Canada

Orthodox Church of Ethiopia
- Rev. Fr Abba G. Egziabher G. Selassie, Rector of the Ethiopian Community of Rome
- Dr Tarekegne Taka, President of the Ethiopian Community in Italy

Syrian Orthodox Malankara Church, India
- Rev. Dr Mathew Baby

Assyrian Church of the East
- His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, Catholicos Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East
- H.E. Mar Bawai Ashur Soro, Assyrian Bishop of Seattle, General Secretary of the Interecclesial Commission for Ecumenical Relations

No institutional state church tells me what to do, okay? I follow the Lord Jesus Christ by his Holy Spirit. If there are no legitimate bishops left on earth I will still follow what I know is right.

I don't care if you disagree with the EP about his policies - feel free to do so.  But ad hominem attacks, even against 3rd parties, are not permitted here. Save the insults, and just discuss policies, positions, and theology.  - Cleveland, GM

[lubeltri]

I would like to ask Keble which "orthodox church" he is talking about. I know its not your Episcopalian prancing priests in purple. Could it be whats called "world orthodoxy" headed by His All Holiness Bartholomew? Ah. Well I dont follow that religion either. This is why:

No institutional state church tells me what to do, okay? I follow the Lord Jesus Christ by his Holy Spirit. If there are no legitimate bishops left on earth I will still follow what I know is right.

While you are following your "holy spirit," be more respectful of the Ecumenical Patriarch

{Mod edit} I changed the quote only to match my moderation of his above post.  I didn't touch anything else, lubeltri  - Cleveland, GM {/Mod edit}

[Fr. George]

No institutional state church tells me what to do, okay? I follow the Lord Jesus Christ by his Holy Spirit. If there are no legitimate bishops left on earth I will still follow what I know is right.

Really?  'Cause the Christians in the Bible respected the council of Elders.  Guess what?  That's an institutional Church.  Face it man - you can't hold up scripture as the authority and then say that "no institutional" church tells you what to do.  If you're only excluding "state" churches, that's fine - we don't have one here in America.  The EP that you mentioned is not a state Church.  So your comment is still off base.

[Ebor]

Please dont accuse me of trying to use the apostolic memoirs "as would any radical Protestant." You should know good and well that I avoided quoting anything as long as possible until people demanded that I break out the socalled "Bible." I dont believe what I believe because some piece of paper told me. I know by experience.

It has just struck me that rather then saying "Gospel" or New Testament or Epistles or any of the common names you refer to "apostolic memoirs".  This is interesting that there is a private/personal term used. It goes along with your use of "Genuine Christians" which you have yet to explain other then it seems to mean any who agree with *you*.

As to "socalled "Bible"" there is nothing alleged, doubtful or suspect about the collected OT, NT and Apocrapha being the "Bible" nor is the book that "in name only, but not in reality" which is what "so-called" means. 

You say that you know by "experience". May one ask just what your experience was please. When you had them did you test them to see if they were really from God?  Since you have shown some familiarity with the first letter of John what of this passage:

"1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. " (NIV)

"1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. " (KJV)

I give two translations because you have not replied about which translation of the Bible you prefer.

Good thing I'm not wrong! And for the record, a prophet is someone who speaks direct messages from God, which I never claimed to do. I am only telling my faith. Genuine Christians are taught all things inwardly by the Holy Spirit.

All things?  Then why is evangalism commanded by Our Lord?  Why did St. Paul and thousands upon thousands of people through 2 thousand years translate the scriptures into many languages, teach and guide multitudes to Christianity? What of the Creeds to lay out and clarify the points of Christianity?

What does "Genuine Christian" mean to you please?  What do such people do, pray, practice and how do they worship?  Would you please explain what you think?  Thank you in advance.

Ebor

[Fr. George]

As to "socalled "Bible"" there is nothing alleged, doubtful or suspect about the collected OT, NT and Apocrapha being the "Bible" nor is the book that "in name only, but not in reality" which is what "so-called" means. 

You say that you know by "experience". May one ask just what your experience was please. When you had them did you test them to see if they were really from God?  Since you have shown some familiarity with the first letter of John what of this passage:

"1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. " (NIV)

"1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. " (KJV)

I give two translations because you have not replied about which translation of the Bible you prefer. 

Just in case he doesn't like either:

Αγαπητοί, μή παντί πνεύματι πιστεύετε αλλά δοκιμάζετε τά πνεύματα ει εκ τού θεού εστιν, ότι πολλοί ψευδοπροφήται εξεληλύθασιν εις τόν κόσμον. (Nestle-Aland 27th Edition)

[Ebor]

I know its not your Episcopalian prancing priests in purple.

Well, considering that purple is reserved for Bishop's clothing and for the vestments in the seasons of Advent and Lent, this example of an alliterative yet gratuitous attempt at offending someone doesn't really have anything to do with the subject.  Do you have any personal experience with any Anglican or Episcopal parishes or clergy?  
(You can't just go by what you read in the papers and on-line   )

No institutional state church tells me what to do, okay? I follow the Lord Jesus Christ by his Holy Spirit. If there are no legitimate bishops left on earth I will still follow what I know is right.

Somehow this reminds me of "Every man his own pope", a common slanging against a nebulous "Protestantism".

Ebor

[Ebor]

Just in case he doesn't like either:

Αγαπητοί, μή παντί πνεύματι πιστεύετε αλλά δοκιμάζετε τά πνεύματα ει εκ τού θεού εστιν, ότι πολλοί ψευδοπροφήται εξεληλύθασιν εις τόν κόσμον. (Nestle-Aland 27th Edition)

Thank you, Cleveland.   

Ebor

[pathofsolitude]

First of all, can moderator cleveland please put edit brackets around the word "ALL" that he added into my post, because it looks like I wrote that. I certainly do not believe Mr Bartholomew or any man on earth, much less simply by their office[!], is "All Holy." Even my Lord Jesus questioned calling a man "good." Mark 10:18.

Okay, to Ebor:

I said to you that "genuine Christians are taught all things inwardly by the Holy Spirit." And you responded:

All things?  Then why is evangalism commanded by Our Lord?  Why did St. Paul and thousands upon thousands of people through 2 thousand years translate the scriptures into many languages, teach and guide multitudes to Christianity? What of the Creeds to lay out and clarify the points of Christianity?

Do you not believe that "genuine Christians are taught all things inwardly by the Holy Spirit"? Well maybe you will believe if you will read the words of the memoirs:

John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things , and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."

1 John 2:27 "As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."

So yes, "all things." To answer your questions- priests are commissioned to preach and teach and translate memoirs and hold meetings because these help people along the way. It is a *guidance*. But am I supposed to believe that Jesus is Lord [or any other doctrine] simply because some guy tells me? Or because I see it on a pieces of paper? Thats not the way of the apostles. In 1 Cor 2 St Paul says Christians believe by the Spirit. There is no other way to the truth, Ebor, unless you want to blindly follow "Christianity" just like the Muslims follow their religion. The Muslims have Mohammed for truth and you have the Pope for truth. Okay but I have the Lord Jesus *IN* me. Thats how I know.

Note: I am sorry for quoting from the memoirs.

[PeterTheAleut]

First of all, can moderator cleveland please put edit brackets around the word "ALL" that he added into my post, because it looks like I wrote that.

You mean the bold red font and the moderatorial statement to go with it are not enough to show that cleveland, and not you, wrote that?

I certainly do not believe Mr Bartholomew or any man on earth, much less simply by their office[!], is "All Holy." Even my Lord Jesus questioned calling a man "good." Mark 10:18.

So why do you call yourself good?

[Keble]

Mr./Ms./Whatever. pathofsolitude, what you seem to entirely lack are two things:

• You utterly fail to apply the slightest introspection to yourself.
• You utterly fail to consider that there are myriad others like you who claim the same authority and who disagree both with each other and with you.

I've had plenty of people claim to have a direct line to the Holy Spirit besides you, and they don't agree with each other, much less with your teachings. And that isn't a minor point, because here you teach us that we do not need anyone to teach us. There comes a point in any faintly coherent picture of Christianity where the centrality of teaching as an activity has to be conceded-- by doing it, if not by outright admission. And historical transmission of teaching is one of the key functions of the church. The patent oxymoron of your insistence on revelation alone is your version of that  concession; it resolves either to ignoring your teaching (as you teach) or taking you as the only valid teacher-- well, you and anyone else who happens to agree with you.

[pathofsolitude]

Mr./Ms./Whatever. pathofsolitude, what you seem to entirely lack are two things:

• You utterly fail to apply the slightest introspection to yourself.
• You utterly fail to consider that there are myriad others like you who claim the same authority and who disagree both with each other and with you.

I've had plenty of people claim to have a direct line to the Holy Spirit besides you, and they don't agree with each other, much less with your teachings. And that isn't a minor point, because here you teach us that we do not need anyone to teach us. There comes a point in any faintly coherent picture of Christianity where the centrality of teaching as an activity has to be conceded-- by doing it, if not by outright admission. And historical transmission of teaching is one of the key functions of the church. The patent oxymoron of your insistence on revelation alone is your version of that  concession; it resolves either to ignoring your teaching (as you teach) or taking you as the only valid teacher-- well, you and anyone else who happens to agree with you.

Then you better hasten back to Roman Catholicism or Byzantine Orthodoxy. How do *you* know that both of these churches are wrong in their [historically] exclusive beliefs that they alone are the [fullness of, at least] the true Church? Is it because your prancing priests in purple tell you so? Or is it because you use your own private interpretation? Uh oh!

The Hesychasts know that souls must arrive at Truth by union of the human and divine hypostaseis which produces the true experience. By this means we have all truth and even dont *need* an external authority to tell us. This is the clear teaching of Hesychast St John:

1 John 2:27 "As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."

Essentially I am saying the same thing as Gregory Palamas. How did he know that the Papalism - and by extension its bastard politically based child, Anglicanism - were actually demonically inspired religions? The children of God are entirely instructed by the divinity as the energies take full possession of their souls.

There are always going to be myriads of people and churches claiming different things. I ask you- what is the *way* by which you decide which "authority" is correct? If this is an external reality for you, I wish you luck, but the chances of you finding the truth that way are very slim.

BTW- Roman Catholics, Protestants, and other wicked heretics are not Hesychasts. So it doesnt surprise me in the least that they have been given over to believe the teachings of demons. The unique feature of the Saints is that they live in the Spirit and experience the light of divine glory. Roman Catholics are stuck in the dark nights of the soul. And Protestants are so bad off that they dont even know that they are in the pitch blackness of the darkest night. I follow the Faith of glory. Until one is in hypostatical and energetic union with my Master they will not know what I am talking about.

[PeterTheAleut]

Essentially I am saying the same thing as Gregory Palamas.

And what specifically did St. Gregory Palamas say about this?  Can you quote him and tell us where we can find this in his writings?

You see, pathofsolitude, this is part of your method that I find so objectionable.  You say such things as "the Desert Fathers say this"

In regards to patristics-
[bgcolor=#fff500]READ THE DESERT FATHERS [/bgcolor]
Pretty much everything I have to say is found in their writings. They are my inspiration. And they were much more spiritual than the bishops of the Empire who were actually functioning as politicians and servants of the Emperor. If anyone knows what society is all about its the Fathers of the desert.

or "St. Gregory Palamas says that" (see above) or "Orthodox theologians teach such and such..."

This is heresy!! Orthodox theologians teach that ...

or "I am merely teaching the position of historical Orthodoxy

This is what Orthodoxy teaches.

If they would broaden their spectrum a bit they would see that I am simply repeating the position of historical Orthodoxy.

Yet, the only quote of any Father or theologian I've ever seen from you was this commentary on a homily you attributed to Gregory Palamas in one of your earliest posts here:

Excerpts from the Homily on the Dormition
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/dormition.html

You're attempting to preach to some very committed and intelligent Orthodox Christians here, many of whom know the Fathers much better than you do.  If you want to convince such Patristics scholars of the veracity of your message, you had better be able to quote these Fathers and show us where you gleaned these quotes so we can read them for ourselves.  Otherwise, we can see right through your attempts to invoke the legacy of the Fathers (a.k.a. name-dropping) and recognize that what you preach here is nothing but your own self-devised doctrines.

[pathofsolitude]

Yet, the only quote of any Father or theologian I've ever seen from you was this commentary on a homily you attributed to Gregory Palamas in one of your earliest posts here

For the record, though Palamas taught the true Hesychastic Way, he was wrong on some points in the Mariological sermon I linked to from him. The only explanatoin is that he was not in enough union with God. Someone can know the way to Truth and yet fall short in getting there because of infidelity. I was merely using him as an example for Keble because he is probably the most famous Byzantine teacher of apostolic epistemology.

Anyways- if you are "scholars" [as you call yourselves] on Palamas you should know exactly what I am talking about in regards to his epistemology. I cant quote him right now because I dont own any of his books. I read them at the library.

Mostly what I have to say is esoteric knowledge. I am starting to see that its basically pointless for me to try to convince people about it by computer. You just have to see for yourselves. No patristic citations will help you if you guys reject what Hesychast St John says. Looks like I am soon going into early retirement from OCnet. I'm sure that will make many followers of Mr Bartholomew, Mr Ratzinger, and Mr Rowan Williams very happy.

[PeterTheAleut]

Anyways- if you are "scholars" [as you call yourselves] on Palamas you should know exactly what I am talking about in regards to his epistemology. I cant quote him right now because I dont own any of his books. I read them at the library.

But do you not recognize that when you preach as you do--it doesn't matter what doctrine you preach, even if it's the totally secular doctrine of why we need to refrain from frying with lard--you owe it to us to cite the sources of your ideas, giving direct quotes when necessary to convince us that you aren't just blowing smoke?  We bear no responsibility to you to do anything to verify your message by reading the Fathers for ourselves.  I'm just speaking from my own experience as an academic who has written his share of research papers and made his share of public presentations to classmates.  I was never allowed to just tell my audience, "many people hold my opinion; read them for yourselves," for that's considered the depth of intellectual laziness.  I was always required to tell my audience specifically whom I was quoting and where my citation could be found (think footnotes and a bibliography).  Unless you invest the energy to back up your preaching with such specific citations, you're just being lazy.

I am starting to see that its basically pointless for me to try to convince people about it by computer. You just have to see for yourselves.

You're absolutely correct about your online rant being pointless, but it's because we need to see you for ourselves, and this without the veil of anonymity standing between us and you.

No patristic citations will help you if you guys reject what Hesychast St John says.

You just don't get it, do you?  It's not St. John the Theologian we reject.  It is your interpretation of St. John that we reject.  (BTW, you're the only person I've ever met who actually refers to the Beloved Disciple as the Hesychast St. John.)

[ozgeorge]

The Hesychasts know that souls must arrive at Truth by union of the human and divine hypostaseis which produces the true experience.

Well, perhaps Nestorian hesychasts do.....

I am starting to see that its basically pointless for me to try to convince people about it by computer.

Ahhh...The penny drops.

[orthodoxlurker]

What? My Lord says:

Matt 13:38 "and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one "

John 8:44 "You are of your father the devil , and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

1 John 3:8 "the one who practices sin is of the devil "

1 John 3:10 "This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother."

So then you are preaching a false religion. And if what you say is true, then children of the devil are your brothers, which would make the devil like your step-father or something. Apostasy!

Apart from accusation that was painfull and hurting for me to read, you raised some valid points, but I think it is the consequence of misunderstanding my message. Kindly note that we were speaking about:

1) about God as the Creator (of all things, visible and invisible...)
2) about man and mankind
3) about the Pope of Rome
4) about the papal office (with it's competencies as defined on 1870 at Vatican II)
5) about all Christians in communion with the Pope of Rome for last almost thousand years
6) about antichrist - the man whom will come in the last time and will rule the world, to whom devil will borow all his cunningness and power of deception
7) about anricrhists, or advents of the antichrist

You rightfully quoted Matt 13:38, John 8:44 and 1 John 3:8 and 3:10, but they all refer to what man does, not to what man is. Man is created by God, not by devil.

I'd say each and every one of us is paving the way for antichrist by each sin one commits.

Regarding the Popes of Rome, I bet I can add items to any list you produce about their misdeeds against us "Easterners". So, their sins do pave the way to antichrist as every other sin paves it. Sins of a powerfull one bear stronger consequences than of a powerless one.

Regarding brotherhood, there are my brothers in Christ and my brothers in Adam. Each and every man is my brother in Adam. Otherone's sins are my own only to the extent I contributed to them.

We are forewarned about the antichrist, so I dare not referring to him
like I do any other man. But, suffice to say, it is his doings that will make him such.

Now, what is apostatic in my attitude, would you point, please?

[pathofsolitude]

I'm just speaking from my own experience as an academic who has written his share of research papers and made his share of public presentations to classmates.  I was never allowed to just tell my audience, "many people hold my opinion; read them for yourselves," for that's considered the depth of intellectual laziness.  I was always required to tell my audience specifically whom I was quoting and where my citation could be found (think footnotes and a bibliography).

I am starting to think that the difference between you and I is quite reminiscent of the difference between Barlaam and Palamas.

(BTW, you're the only person I've ever met who actually refers to the Beloved Disciple as the Hesychast St. John.)

All the Apostles were Hesychasts. So I say Hesychast St Peter, Hesychast St James, Hesychast St Matthew, and so on.

[ozgeorge]

I am starting to think that the difference between you and I is quite reminiscent of the difference between Barlaam and Palamas.

Oh please!
Before you start thinking of yourself as some great defender of Orthodoxy, don't you think you should get the basics right first? (see http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13309.msg183746.html#msg183746 )