OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 20, 2014, 04:32:16 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Just a matter of 13 days?  (Read 8980 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« on: August 17, 2003, 07:41:40 AM »

In another thread, a poster said the following regarding the havoc caused by ecumenism and the heresies it entails...

Quote
Hard for me to get stirred up by arguments over the calendar, I guess.

I also have trouble seeing what's going on today as on the same level as the great Christological disputes of the past.

I must also beware of straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

It is particularly the second comment which deserves a response.  Rather than repeat the work of others, I'll supply the following link.  I'd be interested in comments on the site's content.

http://www.russianorthodoxautonomouschurchinamerica.com/kissofjudas/kiss_of_judascontents%20page%20new1.htm

Seraphim
Logged

Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2003, 12:39:39 PM »

Seraphim,

It's quotes like that on the link you provided that make me reluctant to pursue Orthodoxy.  On the one hand, there are quotes like those from Orthodox  Patriarchs which seem almost blasphemous in their syncretist sentiments.  OTOH, there are these groups who have broken off from the main bodies of Orthodoxy who claim to be traditianal and yet are accused of being "schismatic".  How does one choose the "right" Orthodox church without being a schismatic or a syncretist heretic?   Huh
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2003, 01:13:31 PM »

Well, since this seems to be the official webpage of this group-- it looks like the kind of junk found on any crank's webpages. They are blatantly schismatic.
Logged
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,239



« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2003, 01:34:43 PM »

Quote
How does one choose the "right" Orthodox church without being a schismatic or a syncretist heretic?

That's the same question I've been asking myself.
Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2003, 01:50:13 PM »

Quote
How does one choose the "right" Orthodox church without being a schismatic or a syncretist heretic?

That's the same question I've been asking myself.


If you figure out the solution, let me know.

Right now, I'm thinking that although I'm already a "schismatic" (assuming that Orthodox ecclesiology is correct), at least I'm NOT a syncretist.  Christ is THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life and NO ONE comes to the Father except by Him.  That's why I find it incredible that those who are called to shepherd God's flock are denying this very truth, implying that Mohammed is somehow an Apostle of God or that Buddhism is an acceptable path to God.  Can you imagine the Apostles Paul or Peter getting together with the priests of Zeus or Diana or Isis or Mithra and talking about how they all have different paths to the same God?!?!?   Unbelievable.  Angry  

At least Southern Baptists, despite all their faults, preach CHRIST and Him crucified and are not planning to stop "witnessing" to those who practice non-Christian religions.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2003, 02:36:52 PM »

Let me elaborate a bit.

First, they have a page detailing their apostolic succession. This is never a good sign.

Second, they don't seem to be for anything. The only seem to exist to separate themselves from other groups that either (a) aren't sufficiently hostile to "heretics" or (b) came down on the wrong side of certain spats.
Logged
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,239



« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2003, 04:26:58 PM »

Doubting Thomas,

Don't stress about it. Or rather, don't stress to the point that you despair or give up on Orthodoxy. From the Scriptures on, there has been nothing but disruption and division. Paul rebuked Peter to his face, for example, and wouldn't take John Mark with him on a missionary journal. In another place he harshly spoke of a person (a blacksmith, if I recall correctly), and he often used sarcasm or other rhetorical devices to get his point across (though from a patristic standpoint, we might say that he used such rhetorical devices in much the same way that Jesus did, not because he was controlled by emotion, but because this was the response that would best get the message across to the audience in question). Anyway, the point is, in every century of Church history--right from the first--there has not only been division among those in the Church and outside it, but disagreements and (seeming) division within the Church. Saints arguing (and even condeming and exiling) saints. Church Fathers calling other Church Fathers schismatics and so forth. This is nothing knew. We just have to learn to see past this human element to what the Church really is according to her nature: the union of God and man, a continuation of the incarnation. Even Jesus was dusty, probably had dirt under his nails, and had to "get rid of his digested food" (to put things delicately): even the incarnate God might not have been "clean and pristine" the way we like to imagine him.

PS. Regarding what keble said, I think it's generally good advice. Not universally applicable, but then what is when we speak of such things? I've noted a number of times to ROAC members the lack of anything positive or edifying on their sites. However, I have--after further looking--found more edifying and good articles and pages. And after having talked with a ROAC lay person and Priest over at the cafe, I don't think of them in the same way.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2003, 04:28:47 PM by Paradosis » Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2003, 04:57:40 PM »

Paradosis,

Thanks for the advice.

DT
« Last Edit: August 18, 2003, 04:58:22 PM by Doubting Thomas » Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2003, 03:28:13 AM »

In another thread, a poster said the following regarding the havoc caused by ecumenism and the heresies it entails...

Quote
Hard for me to get stirred up by arguments over the calendar, I guess.

I also have trouble seeing what's going on today as on the same level as the great Christological disputes of the past.

I must also beware of straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

It is particularly the second comment which deserves a response.  Rather than repeat the work of others, I'll supply the following link.  I'd be interested in comments on the site's content.

http://www.russianorthodoxautonomouschurchinamerica.com/kissofjudas/kiss_of_judascontents%20page%20new1.htm

Seraphim


Excuse me, Seraphim: normally I agree with most of what you write, but in this case you have grossly misrepresented what I had to say. Makes me wonder about what has happened to the quotes from the various patriarchs on the link you provided . . .

My comments had absolutely nothing to do with "the havoc caused by ecumenism and the heresies it entails". If you had read my posts more thoroughly, you would have seen that I am opposed to the Ecumenical Movement and our participation in it.

The comments you quote above were part of an exchange between Paradosis and myself regarding some sympathy I expressed for a comment by sinjinsmythe in which he expressed his dismay over Orthodox squabbling.

Again, they had absolutely NOTHING to do with "the havoc caused by ecumenism and the heresies it entails".

Let me reiterate: I am opposed to Orthodox participation in the Ecumenical Movement, which, as I remarked over on the thread in question, I suspect is the precursor to the appearance of Antichrist.

Just because I am not ready to wave the ROCOR or ROAC banners does not make me a pawn of ecumenism.

I have seen the link you provided. It is disturbing. My big question right now is: is it legit?

Anytime someone starts accusing everybody and his brother of being freemasons, I begin to wonder when the part about alien abductions and crop circles is coming.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2003, 10:27:42 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2003, 01:37:39 PM »

Keble,

Quote
First, they have a page detailing their apostolic succession. This is never a good sign.

I agree, in so far as it looks bad - anyone seeing that who is used to seeing pages put up by vangante groups will read a similarity there where one doesn't in fact exist.  It's in place because they want to demonstrate their bonifides, and little else.

Quote
Second, they don't seem to be for anything.

Keep in mind that it's because of the ecumenists themselves that an inordinate amount of time has to be spent dwelling on their errors, particularly when the ecumenists employ all manner of violence and propaganda against the "little flock" of the confessing Bishops.

Quote
The only seem to exist to separate themselves from other groups that either (a) aren't sufficiently hostile to "heretics" or (b) came down on the wrong side of certain spats.

Of course, that's an account so dumbed down as to no longer have any resemblence to the truth.

In general, there is little credible disagreement in the Orthodox world regarding the error of ecumenism, and that what "world Orthodoxy" is involved in is bad (ditto for the legitimacy of the "calendar" issue, which was the first step in pursuing ecumenism.)  Where the disagreement can be found in the "traditionalist" sphere, is on exactly how far gone the supposedly "official" local Churches are.  Those like Metropolitan Cyprian (who ROCOR is in communion with, and presumably adheres to his opinion) believe that while much of the "official" Orthodox world is erring, the grace of God has not departed from them, and they still have true mysteries.  OTOH, other Old Calendarists (like ROAC and the GOC of Greece) adhere to a more strict (and frankly, hard to argue with) interpretation of the Holy Canons, which state that heresy removes one from the Church, as does persistance in remaining in communion with heretics...and as such, if there is no "Churchness", obviously the indwelling of grace and grace bearing mysteries won't be there either.

Unfortunately, this latter issue has become divisive, because it has had practical consequences (for example, ROCOR's tenuous relationship as of late with Serbia and Jerusalem, though both in their own ways are either entangeled in ecumenism, or at least in active communion with those who are.)  Basically, it is (as I've said) a debate over just how far gone the "official Churches" are that has had unfortunate consequences.  Sadly/fortunately (depending on how one see's it), I think it's a breach which will not last long, given how things are going in "world Orthodoxy" on the whole.

Seraphim
Logged

Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2003, 01:39:36 PM »

Justin,

Quote
PS. Regarding what keble said, I think it's generally good advice. Not universally applicable, but then what is when we speak of such things? I've noted a number of times to ROAC members the lack of anything positive or edifying on their sites. However, I have--after further looking--found more edifying and good articles and pages. And after having talked with a ROAC lay person and Priest over at the cafe, I don't think of them in the same way.

I particularly agree with that last part (actually having contact with them really opened my mind up.)

Seraphim
Logged

Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2003, 02:35:42 PM »

Keble,

Quote
First, they have a page detailing their apostolic succession. This is never a good sign.

I agree, in so far as it looks bad - anyone seeing that who is used to seeing pages put up by vangante groups will read a similarity there where one doesn't in fact exist.  It's in place because they want to demonstrate their bonifides, and little else.

Ah, but the point is that their boni fides is in doubt-- if it weren't they wouldn't have to put up such a page. One can put this the other way, after all, and treat them as a vagante group which happens to have a valid succession.

Quote
Quote
Second, they don't seem to be for anything.

Keep in mind that it's because of the ecumenists themselves that an inordinate amount of time has to be spent dwelling on their errors, particularly when the ecumenists employ all manner of violence and propaganda against the "little flock" of the confessing Bishops.

You know, I don't buy this. They've built a website which has essentially nothing but a denunciad of every major Orthodox body. THere's no Christ offered there; the site is entirely about the own legitimacy as contrasted to that of the rest of Orthodoxy.

Quote
Quote
The only seem to exist to separate themselves from other groups that either (a) aren't sufficiently hostile to "heretics" or (b) came down on the wrong side of certain spats.

Of course, that's an account so dumbed down as to no longer have any resemblence to the truth.

I don't see "of course" anything. What I do see is Baptist polity applied at the episcopal level. Any issue becomes a reason for bishops to split off, and pretty soon you see churches torn in two over the number of fingers you hold up.

The irony is that as an Anglican I have no issue with the validity of ROAC's bishops even though I think their attitude is completely wrong. But they've obviously gone back to a pre-Nicene situation of squabbling bishops, which (if you believe Nicea) was a bad thing.

I can't discuss the calendar issue here, because, frankly, I can't say anything about it which is temperate in this context. But as you put it forth, the point is exclusion, and again we're back to the fraki issue.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2003, 02:37:16 PM by Keble » Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2003, 11:01:00 PM »

I probably should stay out of this thread, but I can't resist putting in my two cents about the calendar.

I see any calendar as an invention of man and certainly not a matter of essential doctrine.

Frankly, I wish the Orthodox Church had stuck with the Old Calendar simply to avoid unnecessary offense.

« Last Edit: August 20, 2003, 11:01:44 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2003, 11:31:17 PM »

Actually, Linus, most of Orthodoxy *is* on the so-called *Old* Calendar, e.g., the Church of Russia, most of the Church of Ukraine, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Church of Serbia.  It's the "New" Calendarists like you and me that are in the minority.  The American situation is an anomaly.  But even here the Old Calendar is well represented by the Russian Orthodox Diocese of Alaska within the OCA, the ROCOR, and the dioceses of the Serbian Patriarchate, most parishes of the ACROD, and all the parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate's American Administration.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #14 on: August 21, 2003, 01:37:12 AM »

Actually, Linus, most of Orthodoxy *is* on the so-called *Old* Calendar, e.g., the Church of Russia, most of the Church of Ukraine, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Church of Serbia.  It's the "New" Calendarists like you and me that are in the minority.  The American situation is an anomaly.  But even here the Old Calendar is well represented by the Russian Orthodox Diocese of Alaska within the OCA, the ROCOR, and the dioceses of the Serbian Patriarchate, most parishes of the ACROD, and all the parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate's American Administration.

Hypo-Ortho

Oops! Well I guess I sounded pretty ignorant (not unusual!).

Anyway, we all should have kept to the Old Calendar just to keep the peace among Orthodox Christians, if for no other reason.

Frankly, I have trouble understanding those who would create a schism over such a thing, whatever their perspective.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #15 on: August 21, 2003, 08:02:51 AM »

We should have kept the old calender for 2 reasons (at a minimum):

1) The "new" calendar was a decreed by the Pope (I think Gregory?) Even though the idea was REJECTED by a majority of the Christian world.

2) It was the first step down the road of ecumenism

« Last Edit: August 21, 2003, 08:03:36 AM by TomS » Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #16 on: August 21, 2003, 09:02:47 AM »

We should have kept the old calender for 2 reasons (at a minimum):

1) The "new" calendar was a decreed by the Pope (I think Gregory?) Even though the idea was REJECTED by a majority of the Christian world.

2) It was the first step down the road of ecumenism


As for point (1), the English finally got over it in 1752, so the Orthodox are at least in "good" company on that.

As for point (2), St. Tikhon was talking to the Anglicans before 1917, so you can hardly point to the calendar as the first step of ecumenism.
Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2003, 09:17:57 AM »

As for point (2), St. Tikhon was talking to the Anglicans before 1917, so you can hardly point to the calendar as the first step of ecumenism.


Sorry, but I disagree. The act  of  "talking" about going on a boat trip is a lot different then actually getting on the boat.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2003, 09:19:32 AM by TomS » Logged
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2003, 09:32:30 AM »

Quote
Sorry, but I disagree. The act  of  "talking" about going on a boat trip is a lot different then actually getting on the boat.

In addition, one thing not mentioned by ecumenists who use the example Keble brought up (of early 20th century dialogues between Orthodox and Anglicans) is that this process existed in large part because the Anglicans were misrepresenting themselves as being "long lost brothers" who had rejected papism.  This is precisely why these dialogues never went anywhere.

Seraphim
Logged

Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2003, 09:53:20 AM »

Quote
Ah, but the point is that their boni fides is in doubt-- if it weren't they wouldn't have to put up such a page. One can put this the other way, after all, and treat them as a vagante group which happens to have a valid succession.

They are typically put in doubt by new calendarists, who hypocritically say they are "graceless" and all sorts of other nasty things, yet turn around and view papism as a "sister" church.

Quote
You know, I don't buy this. They've built a website which has essentially nothing but a denunciad of every major Orthodox body. THere's no Christ offered there; the site is entirely about the own legitimacy as contrasted to that of the rest of Orthodoxy.

I agree that it's a miscalculation, but forgivable given that the major audience of this site (first and foremost) is going to be those coming from an Orthodox background of some kind.

Quote
I don't see "of course" anything. What I do see is Baptist polity applied at the episcopal level. Any issue becomes a reason for bishops to split off, and pretty soon you see churches torn in two over the number of fingers you hold up.

Well it's not "any" reason - the reasons given are pretty clearly defined.  I do agree, however, that the Church has been thrown into chaos due to heresy (and other historical upheavals of the 20th century), and of course this has given opportunity to no small amount of sin, even amongst those with the best of intentions regarding the true faith.

Quote
The irony is that as an Anglican I have no issue with the validity of ROAC's bishops even though I think their attitude is completely wrong. But they've obviously gone back to a pre-Nicene situation of squabbling bishops, which (if you believe Nicea) was a bad thing.

"Squabbling" over what though?  There's a certain difficulty in discussing these matters with you, since you are not even nominally in agreement with Orthodox doctrine.  That's not a slight, just a fact that means we're operating from very very different assumptions.

Quote
I can't discuss the calendar issue here, because, frankly, I can't say anything about it which is temperate in this context. But as you put it forth, the point is exclusion, and again we're back to the fraki issue.

The matter of the calendar is an issue of canonical order, as well as explicit anathemas that have been issued (and accepted universally by the Church of Christ) against the adoption of the Papal Calendar.

Seraphim
Logged

Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2003, 10:26:22 AM »

In addition, one thing not mentioned by ecumenists who use the example Keble brought up (of early 20th century dialogues between Orthodox and Anglicans) is that this process existed in large part because the Anglicans were misrepresenting themselves as being "long lost brothers" who had rejected papism.  This is precisely why these dialogues never went anywhere.

Not having been there, I couldn't say, but having heard Anglican complaints about the "failures' of dialogue, I have to conclude that the real problem is that the parties came to the table with cross purposes from the start. Using the language of blame under the circumstances seems inaccurate.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2003, 11:09:03 AM »

Quote
Ah, but the point is that their boni fides is in doubt-- if it weren't they wouldn't have to put up such a page. One can put this the other way, after all, and treat them as a vagante group which happens to have a valid succession.

They are typically put in doubt by new calendarists, who hypocritically say they are "graceless" and all sorts of other nasty things, yet turn around and view papism as a "sister" church.

I'm not going to get into who is graceless and who isn't. The point I'm trying to make is that they are doing the vagante thing of borrowing authority from a parent to whom they refuse to submit. From an Anglican perspective, they are legitimate-- but it's precisely the fact that this is so which is a problem!

Quote
Quote
You know, I don't buy this. They've built a website which has essentially nothing but a denunciad of every major Orthodox body. THere's no Christ offered there; the site is entirely about the own legitimacy as contrasted to that of the rest of Orthodoxy.

I agree that it's a miscalculation, but forgivable given that the major audience of this site (first and foremost) is going to be those coming from an Orthodox background of some kind.

I would substitute "understandable" for "forgivable". I have to question whether a public display like a website should aimed merely at convincing other Orthodox, and I question whether it would do even that. As a website to convince someone like me to convert to this church, it is a complete failure. It is a website that says, "We are sectarian cranks." Why should I disbelieve this message?

Quote
Quote
The irony is that as an Anglican I have no issue with the validity of ROAC's bishops even though I think their attitude is completely wrong. But they've obviously gone back to a pre-Nicene situation of squabbling bishops, which (if you believe Nicea) was a bad thing.

"Squabbling" over what though?  There's a certain difficulty in discussing these matters with you, since you are not even nominally in agreement with Orthodox doctrine.  That's not a slight, just a fact that means we're operating from very very different assumptions.

Well, the problem rather obviously isn't this at all. It's that I'm being forced to doubt that you are expressing a position that is Orthodox, which is to say, that it represents the Mind of the Orthodox Church. For instance.....

Quote
Quote
I can't discuss the calendar issue here, because, frankly, I can't say anything about it which is temperate in this context. But as you put it forth, the point is exclusion, and again we're back to the fraki issue.

The matter of the calendar is an issue of canonical order, as well as explicit anathemas that have been issued (and accepted universally by the Church of Christ) against the adoption of the Papal Calendar.

I've been around the calendar issue many times. This is obviously an issue of controversy within Orthodoxy, and the fallback on the canons is a form of argument which the Orthodox mainstream doesn't accept.
Logged
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,239



« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2003, 11:42:21 AM »

Quote
This is obviously an issue of controversy within Orthodoxy, and the fallback on the canons is a form of argument which the Orthodox mainstream doesn't accept.

What do you mean "mainstream"? I think you mean to say that the argument isn't persuasive to many in the west who you've talked to. But then, what does that say about those who you've talked to? What does it say to you when something condemned by numerous Orthodox councils and truly pan-Orthodox documents, is accepted with very little discussion--essentially at the whim of a few people? What does it say when people (who you identify as the mainstream) just accept it because it's been forced on them, and eventually come to apathetically accept it and attack those who actually try to hold to Orthodox tradition!? You make such a big deal about people "getting together in council and solving things". They already did that! They decided centuries ago to not allow the Papal calendar (and I'm sure they didn't mean by that that a Papal/Julian meshing would be acceptable). Yet, here you are apparently defending the calendar innovation.

Do you not see that you have done exactly what you accuse others of doing? You accuse others of going off half-cocked and leaving (what you perceive to be) the orthodox mainstream for unnecessary reasons (ie. sectarian reasons), yet by defending the calendar innovation you put yourself into the same grouping: those who cause division in the Orthodox body when there is no need. You accuse others of not standing for anything, but what do you stand for, Keble? What you stand for can apparently change over the course of time, depending on which way your theological fancy leads you in that particular year; ie. "sure the calendar wasn't allowed before, but... well... I just think it should be ok now, it's not really important why, let's just use it and attack those who would dare stand against our innovation". I've changed so very many of my own positions over time, but isn't it madness to claim that the Church mirrors my (or your) fickleness?
« Last Edit: August 21, 2003, 11:48:53 AM by Paradosis » Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2003, 02:27:34 PM »

Quote
This is obviously an issue of controversy within Orthodoxy, and the fallback on the canons is a form of argument which the Orthodox mainstream doesn't accept.

What do you mean "mainstream"? I think you mean to say that the argument isn't persuasive to many in the west who you've talked to.

No. I've been through calendar arguments in the Indiana list and in the newsgroups several times over. This is a non-issue in the west now, precisely because we've gotten over some of the bad reasons people in Orthodox commonly use. The civil calendar places the equinox on such and such a date (on which it in fact occurs) and the Gregorian Paschal calculation simply acknowledges that date and works out Easter on that basis. Nobody in the West sees any reason to use a calendar that's wrong about the equinox.

What I've seen in the Orthodoxy groups, however, is that this is still a hot issue. That there are pages on the OCA website and the Antiochian website which address the matter indicates that they feel the need to correct what they view as defective arguments made for the "Old Calendar".

As far as I know, the calendar computation does not in fact appear in a conciliar canon, and certainly not in those of Nicea. The mechanical calendar we use now is a creation of Dionysius Exiguus; it simply uses the Julian civil calendar as a given. If the Julian calendar had already been replaced by the Gregorian calendar earlier (in terms of the leap year calculation), Dionysius presumably would have used that instead and come up with something resembling the mechanical Gregorian calculation of Easter-- at any rate, we would still all be using the same calendar and there wouldn't be an issue.

That's exactly where the problem lies. In my extremely arrogant opinion, the OCA is true to the history of the matter, and the "canons!" argument is not. But that's beside the point. The point is that there is an ongoing debate about this, and it is based in the knowledge that the fathers were not astronomers, didn't pretend to astronomical knowledge, and were not aware of the errors in the Julian calendar. If I really wanted to grit my teeth about it, I would insist that the pre-Gregorian paschal calculation be applied to the Gregorian March 21st, giving yet another date. There is no canon which doctrinalizes the Julian civil calendar.

Even within Orthodoxy, therefore, it seems to me that one cannot claim that the "Old calendar" paschalion is doctrinal. That is why the question continues to be argued. From my admittedly prejudiced point of view, it seems that one component of the old calendar argument is in fact spiting the Catholic Church. It would be very difficult to justify much of what is said if the new civil calendar had been promulgated by a secular authority.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,907


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2003, 02:29:48 PM »

In an effort to be accurate, the "new" calendar is the Revised Julian Calendar and it is not the Gregorian. Technically, while it appears to be the Gregorian, it is in fact a more accurate calendar based on sidereal calculations.  Whether this "new" calendar was formulated to closely mirror the Gregorian, but still technically not be it, I cannot say. Given it's time of adoption I doubt "ecumenism" was the motive. I still suspect that the Turkish secularization efforts of the day were involved - Constantinople was then and still is now a captive See.
Having been raised in a New Calendar jurisdiction, but now in an Old Calendar parish, I prefer the Old and wish the change had not been forced. As this innovation is only about 80 years old, a short time in the life of the Church, I wonder if it will really stay.
It seems so easy to go back to the Julian and thereby make up the days lost at the time of the change. After all, our bishops are not infallible...
Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2003, 02:56:09 PM »

It would be even easier to accept the Aleppo solution and give the whole thing back to the astronomers.
Logged
Xenia
Harmless Little Fuzzball
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 114



How
« Reply #26 on: August 21, 2003, 07:36:45 PM »

How does one find the correct Orthodox Church?

Go the the one nearest your house that speaks a language that you understand.  Unless something is obviously amiss with that parish, it's the one God has for you.

-Xenia

Logged
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,239



« Reply #27 on: August 21, 2003, 08:01:01 PM »

If only it were that easy. Unfortunately, it's not. It wasn't in the first century, and it's still not today.
Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
Xenia
Harmless Little Fuzzball
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 114



« Reply #28 on: August 21, 2003, 08:46:02 PM »

But we don't want to fall into the Protestant bad habit of church shopping, do we?
Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #29 on: August 21, 2003, 08:53:37 PM »

I've been around the calendar issue many times. This is obviously an issue of controversy within Orthodoxy, and the fallback on the canons is a form of argument which the Orthodox mainstream doesn't accept.

I also think that the calendar issue is not really MENTIONED by the Orthodox diocese (e.g., GOA) who have accepted it, so the "mainstream" Orthodox are not AWARE of how their church has misled them. My wife's family certainly was not aware of the controversy, and they are cradle GOA. Niki was really surprised when I told her that the Greek church accepted something that was imposed by a Pope after the schism.

The adoption of the new calendar was wrong, and I don't know how to handle it. Niki, being cradle GOA, is really liberal, so I really can't "drag" her to a ROCOR church next Sunday. The idea of having to cover her head and stand on opposite sides of the church makes her head spin (and I have to say that I AGREE with her on this!)

« Last Edit: August 21, 2003, 08:59:23 PM by TomS » Logged
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,239



« Reply #30 on: August 21, 2003, 09:04:54 PM »

Church Shopping, no. On the other hand, let's put ourselves in the first century for a moment. There's these people "from James," these people saying that we have to obey all the OT laws, there's these people "from Paul," there's these other people who won't talk to the Apostle John but claim to have direct teachings from Jesus, and there's a plethora of other groups, all claiming the name Christian. Do we decide where to go to based on who the nearest group is? Perhaps this sounds like an extreme analogy, but if one digs deep into Orthodoxy one begins to see bigger and bigger differences between the various jurisdictions. Sometimes these differences are unimportant regarding communion between churches, sometimes they are important enough to necessitate the cessation of communion between certain groups. Therefore, it's not just sectarians saying "I am of Paul" or "I am of Apollos," but it's important to recognize that there really are modern day gnostics and judaizers (different errors than these groups, of course) and so forth running around claiming to have an authetic Christian teaching when they do not. I don't say they have things totally wrong, or that someone should "shop" for a Church (like I used to when I was a Protestant); but I don't think you can just "throw a dart" to pick a church (or an Orthodox jurisdiction), either: much prayer and study is required.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2003, 09:20:34 PM by Paradosis » Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #31 on: August 21, 2003, 11:39:26 PM »

Quote
From Paradosis:
Church Shopping, no. On the other hand, let's put ourselves in the first century for a moment. There's these people "from James," these people saying that we have to obey all the OT laws, there's these people "from Paul," there's these other people who won't talk to the Apostle John but claim to have direct teachings from Jesus, and there's a plethora of other groups, all claiming the name Christian.

Are you saying the differences between Orthodox jurisdictions are analogous to the differences between the 1st-century sectarians and heretics you name above?

Quote
From Paradosis: Do we decide where to go to based on who the nearest group is?

This is North America.

In most places one is truly blessed if there are any Orthodox churches within an hour's drive!

So the answer to your question is undoubtedly and unequivocally YES!

Quote
From Paradosis: Perhaps this sounds like an extreme analogy, but if one digs deep into Orthodoxy one begins to see bigger and bigger differences between the various jurisdictions.

"Big" and its comparatives are in the eyes of the beholder.

Quote
From Paradosis: Sometimes these differences are unimportant regarding communion between churches, sometimes they are important enough to necessitate the cessation of communion between certain groups.

Who decides when the differences are important enough to interrupt communion and create a schism?

We are still talking about Orthodox groups, are we not?

Quote
From Paradosis: Therefore, it's not just sectarians saying "I am of Paul" or "I am of Apollos," but it's important to recognize that there really are modern day gnostics and judaizers (different errors than these groups, of course) and so forth running around claiming to have an authetic Christian teaching when they do not.

Are you saying there are Orthodox jurisdictions preaching errors that are the equivalent of those of the Judaizers and Gnostics?

Quote
From Paradosis: I don't say they have things totally wrong, or that someone should "shop" for a Church (like I used to when I was a Protestant); but I don't think you can just "throw a dart" to pick a church (or an Orthodox jurisdiction), either: much prayer and study is required.

And a lot of gasoline and a long long drive, if one is overly picky about which brand of Orthodox church to attend.

I wonder about a group that was created in a crisis, whose autonomy was apparently meant to be temporary and to last only as long as the crisis lasted, maintaining its separate existence long after the crisis has passed. This in a nation that has an autocephalous church granted its autocephaly by the same Mother Church that gave the group in question its temporary, crisis autonomy.

It might behoove those who would remain separate to find continuing crises wherever they may be found.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Xenia
Harmless Little Fuzzball
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 114



« Reply #32 on: August 22, 2003, 12:02:04 AM »

In my own case, there are five "acceptable" Orthodox churches within reasonable driving distance of my house.  I'm not counting the local Coptic church.  The closest, my personal favorite (ROCOR, no pews, real votive candles, head covings, old calendar) speaks only Slavonic and Russian.  Exotic, but too hard for a non-Russian convert like myself.  The next closest is GOA.  They use Greek and English and don't seem to be teaching any heresy that I can see.  They have the Divine Liturgy, the Sacraments... this is the church God has for me.  The other churches run the gamut from another GOA to Jerusalem Patriarchate.  They are a bit farther away.  They have some features I like better, but who am I to argue with God?  Who am I to shop for "features?"   The priest at my GOA church loves me and hears my confession. He gives me good, sometimes hard advice.  This is what God has for me, and I rejoice in it.

I was a Protestant for 50 years. I'm tired of looking for the perfect church that fills my laundry list of preferences.  I am tired of trusting myself when it comes to choosing a church.  I'd rather throw myself at the mercy of God and go to the closest EO church where I can understand the language.  

-Xenia
Logged
Xenia
Harmless Little Fuzzball
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 114



« Reply #33 on: August 22, 2003, 12:09:50 AM »

Quote
From Paradosis: Perhaps this sounds like an extreme analogy, but if one digs deep into Orthodoxy one begins to see bigger and bigger differences between the various jurisdictions.

Well, stop digging, then!  Attend Divine Liturgy. Attend Confession. Receive the sacraments.  Keep your prayer rule. Read the Bible and the Holy Fathers and Saints' Lives.  Care for the poor. Be the best Orthodox Christian you can be.  Pray for the Orthodox Church.  This is what we are all called to do.

 Smiley Xenia
« Last Edit: August 22, 2003, 12:11:05 AM by Xenia » Logged
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,437



« Reply #34 on: August 22, 2003, 07:50:00 AM »

Very well put, Xenia.

Bobby
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #35 on: August 22, 2003, 07:52:53 AM »

I've been around the calendar issue many times. This is obviously an issue of controversy within Orthodoxy, and the fallback on the canons is a form of argument which the Orthodox mainstream doesn't accept.

I also think that the calendar issue is not really MENTIONED by the Orthodox diocese (e.g., GOA) who have accepted it, so the "mainstream" Orthodox are not AWARE of how their church has misled them. My wife's family certainly was not aware of the controversy, and they are cradle GOA. Niki was really surprised when I told her that the Greek church accepted something that was imposed by a Pope after the schism.

Tom, you are now simply affirming my point: that the calendar issue has been reduced to pope-spiting. Who cares whether the pope had anything to do with it?

Quote
The adoption of the new calendar was wrong, and I don't know how to handle it. Niki, being cradle GOA, is really liberal, so I really can't "drag" her to a ROCOR church next Sunday. The idea of having to cover her head and stand on opposite sides of the church makes her head spin (and I have to say that I AGREE with her on this!)

Well, I dunno-- when I went to St. John the Baptist with my wife, we both stood on the same side of the church. Maybe you should go to St. Gregorios instead-- or you could go to All Saints Convent in Catonsville for the headcovering part, though of course they are (gasp) Anglicans.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2003, 08:33:03 AM by Keble » Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #36 on: August 22, 2003, 08:23:07 AM »


KEBLE: I've been around the calendar issue many times. This is obviously an issue of controversy within Orthodoxy, and the fallback on the canons is a form of argument which the Orthodox mainstream doesn't accept.

TOM: I also think that the calendar issue is not really MENTIONED by the Orthodox diocese (e.g., GOA) who have accepted it, so the "mainstream" Orthodox are not AWARE of how their church has misled them. My wife's family certainly was not aware of the controversy, and they are cradle GOA. Niki was really surprised when I told her that the Greek church accepted something that was imposed by a Pope after the schism.

KEBLE: Tom, you are now simply affirming my point: that the calendar issue has been reduced to pope-spiting. Who cares whether the pope had anything to do with it?

No, I don't believe that I am not affirming your point. It has NOTHING to DO with pope-spiting, it has to do with the idea that the pope is a schismatic and is OUTSIDE the Church. By accepting the direction of a schismatic, the church has been corrupted.

« Last Edit: August 22, 2003, 08:35:06 AM by TomS » Logged
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,239



« Reply #37 on: August 22, 2003, 09:53:43 AM »

Stop digging? How can I do that? I am not called to do merely those things, not in this age where we have thousands of books at our disposal, can talk with priests (and bishops) online in seconds, etc. No, we are called to much more. But then, I think Christians were always called to much more than you are saying. Would it have been right for a monophysite or origenist to say "well, I'll just stay where I am and do my best. that'll be good enough."?

 When judgment day comes, I'm not going to take the chance of Jesus saying "why did you settle for that surface stuff? How shallow you are! You never knew me because you always settled for what was at hand. You were never willing to take the chance you'd get upset or actually have to struggle. You were afraid to dig deep enough to find me, and therefore I never knew you." I'll be blunt Xenia, what you propose sounds like a one way ticket to condemnation to me. Whether I'm right or not about all these jurisdictions is irrelevant in relation to what you are saying: we should never stop digging or exploring: if and when we do, we are spiritually dead. I used to wish I could stop digging, oddly enough that's the reason I became ROCOR. I thought that then I could "settle down and focus on my own sinfulness and spirituality". While there's a doubt, however--while there's a chance that you could be in the wrong place, you can't stop digging. Even if it is only digging every once in a while when you spot something making a bit of a mound in the ground.


Linus7

Quote
Are you saying the differences between Orthodox jurisdictions are analogous to the differences between the 1st-century sectarians and heretics you name above?

1) Acceptance of heterodox sacraments (baptism, eucharist, etc.); 2) Telling parishioners to attend heterodox churches and receive sacraments from them; 3) Continued participation in the pan-heretical ecumenical movement.

Yes, I'd say they are roughly equivalent lapses. Saint Vincent of Lerins, in his discussion of the Galatians where Paul discusses "those who preach a different Gospel," says that this passage is valid for all time. It is just as true in today's lapses as it was for the judaizers and so forth.

Quote
Who decides when the differences are important enough to interrupt communion and create a schism?

The bishops.

Quote
Are you saying there are Orthodox jurisdictions preaching errors that are the equivalent of those of the Judaizers and Gnostics?

Some jurisdictions today are worse.

Quote
I wonder about a group that was created in a crisis, whose autonomy was apparently meant to be temporary and to last only as long as the crisis lasted, maintaining its separate existence long after the crisis has passed.

I wonder about people who can't see that things change and sometimes, even when the crisis is over, new problems remain. No one could have forseen the rise of so prominent a heresy--a pan-heresy--as ecumenism. No one knew Sergianism would be held to even when the crisis was supposedly over. No one knew that most of world Orthodoxy would be running towards a cliff, and that the Church hierarchy in the Mother land attached at the hip with these people running towards a cliff. Ahh, but let's pretend that there are no problems, and that it's just all political stuff for the bishops to solve, and we need not worry ourselves. Sad

Quote
This in a nation that has an autocephalous church granted its autocephaly by the same Mother Church that gave the group in question its temporary, crisis autonomy.

Actually Saint Tikhon made it possible for ROCOR to exist. And few recognized the autocephaly of the OCA at the time; Constantinople and ROCOR still don't (and there are probably others). The autocephaly of the OCA is not canonical, though. Can a church under such a yoke make such decisions in an Orthodox manner? The MP is not the Mother Church, it is a communist creation. The MP may have a part to play in the eventual pan-Russian synod, but not because it is the mother church! If anything, it will be like Meletios of Antioch in the fourth century... UNcanonical before, but now accepted because of an Orthodox faith.

Quote
It might behoove those who would remain separate to find continuing crises wherever they may be found.

And it might be in the best interests of the comforted to find rationalizations to stay comfortable and cozy in their bed, even when someone is yelling "fire! fire!". Because there, in fact, is a fire, whether you want to wake up and figure out what to do about it or not. Ignoring it won't make the fire go out.

Justin
« Last Edit: August 22, 2003, 09:57:21 AM by Paradosis » Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
Xenia
Harmless Little Fuzzball
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 114



« Reply #38 on: August 22, 2003, 10:07:53 AM »

Quote
Stop digging? Yeah right. When judgment day comes, I'm not going to take the chance of Jesus saying "why did you settle for that surface stuff?

God bless you Paradosis, but spending one's short life here on earth digging up differences between the various jurisdictions of the One True Church is surface stuff.  The deep things of Christ are obtained through prayer, fasting, participating in the sacraments and obedience.  These activities can in no way be considered shallow.  I don't know what's going to happen to me on Judgment Day.  I have many faults for I am a very sinful person.  But I don't think I will be chastised  for not spending enough time seeking out faults in the various Orthodox jurisdictions.  

If some Orthodox churches seem to you to be falling away from the truth, the best thing is to pray.  Be the best Orthodox Christian you can be, and be a good example of a praying, fasting, confessing, sacramental Christian to those around you.  If much of Orthodoxy is on the rocks, as you seem to think, it's because of the prayerlessness and lack of obedience of individual Christians.  When the members of the body are cured, the whole body will be healthy.  In other words, the change needs to come from us.

-Xenia
« Last Edit: August 22, 2003, 10:13:02 AM by Xenia » Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #39 on: August 22, 2003, 10:12:15 AM »

I don't know, Justin.  With all your relentless digging and scrupulosity (much like Martin Luther, methinks), you'll end up with the fringe schismatics in the ROCiE, which claims to be the "real" successor of the ROCOR.  Sad

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #40 on: August 22, 2003, 10:36:36 AM »

No, I don't believe that I am not affirming your point. It has NOTHING to DO with pope-spiting, it has to do with the idea that the pope is a schismatic and is OUTSIDE the Church. By accepting the direction of a schismatic, the church has been corrupted.

You are affirming my point-- you are practically stating my point! The whole issue here is that the Pope is the promulgating point of this calendar reform. If it had come from a secular authority, you wouldn't be able to make this argument. If it had come before Dionysius came up with the formula, you wouldn't be able to make this argument either. The Julian calendar is objectively defective. It drifts away from the correct astronomical dates.

There is a compromise available, one which frees everyone from the civil calendar. It isn't being adopted because of the parochialism of some Orthodox, who are offended because Orthodox and Western experts "sinned" by co-operating with each other in working out the solution.

Truth is truth, whoever says it. Error is error, whoever says it.
Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #41 on: August 22, 2003, 12:06:39 PM »

You are affirming my point-- you are practically stating my point! The whole issue here is that the Pope is the promulgating point of this calendar reform. If it had come from a secular authority, you wouldn't be able to make this argument.

Must you ALWAYS ARGUE!

You are wrong Keble,

If it had been imposed by the EP under pressure from the Turkish Government, I STILL would reject it.

If it had been imposed by the EP under pressure from the Greek Government, I STILL would reject it.

If it had been imposed by the EP under pressure from the United Nations, I STILL would reject it.

If it had been imposed by the EP under pressure from the Russian Government, I STILL would reject it.

Is this finally getting through to you?Huh!!!

But, the more important question here is why do you not believe what I say? If I tell you that I reject it, and I tell you further that it is NOT because of the pope that I do so, why do you insist on telling me that that is not what I mean?

I really don't appreciate it.

Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #42 on: August 22, 2003, 01:16:48 PM »

If it had been imposed by the EP under pressure from the Turkish Government, I STILL would reject it.

If it had been imposed by the EP under pressure from the Greek Government, I STILL would reject it.

If it had been imposed by the EP under pressure from the United Nations, I STILL would reject it.

If it had been imposed by the EP under pressure from the Russian Government, I STILL would reject it.

And if it were imposed on you by the Orthodox churches gathered in council and with all but the hard-heads like ROCOR, ROAC, HOCNA, and the Greek Old Calendarists choosing to use it, or to use some other calendar (e.g. the Aleppo solution), would you reject it?

If Dionysius had written the Gregorian algorithm, you would have no choice. You would have to accept it, because it would already be your calendar, and you would happen to continue to share it with the Western churches. As it is, most American jurisdictions have chosen to use a Gregorian calculation for the fixed feasts and a Julian calculation (sort of) for the movable feasts. I see no canonical justification for disagreeing with this judgement. Furthermore, I can't see any canonical justification for asserting that Orthodoxy as a whole could not choose a different Paschalion, as long as they don't choose celebrating on 14 Nisan.

It is meaningless to accuse civil authorities of being schizmatics, so I don't see how I was supposed to draw an analogy from the Pope to the UN, or any other government for that matter. And if we're going to take this to that extreme, the Julian calendar is in schism with the sun and the moon and the earth. They determine when the solstice is, not the church.

Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #43 on: August 22, 2003, 01:25:20 PM »

Arrgghhh!!!

But you did not address my point. Which is that you SAID that I only rejected it because it was IMPOSED by the pope!

Is it absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for you to admit that you were WRONG in accusing me of that?
« Last Edit: August 22, 2003, 01:26:40 PM by TomS » Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #44 on: August 22, 2003, 01:51:02 PM »

Arrgghhh!!!

But you did not address my point. Which is that you SAID that I only rejected it because it was IMPOSED by the pope!

Is it absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for you to admit that you were WRONG in accusing me of that?

I admit to being guilty of overstatement. But you specifically did say:

Quote
it has to do with the idea that the pope is a schismatic and is OUTSIDE the Church. By accepting the direction of a schismatic, the church has been corrupted.

At the time you hadn't said a thing about civil authorities. So I don't think it was unreasonable to conclude that your opposition centered on the Pope as personifying the division between the Orthodox and Catholic churches.

BTW-- what about the question in my last posting?
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  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 0.142 seconds with 72 queries.