Author Topic: Post schism doctrines of Rome  (Read 30696 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #360 on: January 15, 2009, 12:09:48 PM »
1. Excellent apologetics by papist
Really? I did not see it.

2. The Orthodox failed to show latin fathers who deny or has not used the idea of filioque
Are you kidding? The horrible mistake of inserting Filioque is probably the easiest apologetic for Holy Orthodoxy.  ;)

3. Mickey is justifying his conversion to Eastern Orthodox by Proclaiming the catholic church has fallen to heresy
LOL! You are funny marlo. I do not need to justify my conversion. The truth has justified my conversion.

You call the post schism innovations of Rome, "development of doctrine".

I call them heresy.






 


« Last Edit: January 15, 2009, 12:10:33 PM by Mickey »

Offline AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #361 on: January 15, 2009, 01:35:37 PM »
Quote
Quote from: marlo on Yesterday at 05:01:56 AM
3. Mickey is justifying his conversion to Eastern Orthodox by Proclaiming the catholic church has fallen to heresy
LOL! You are funny marlo. I do not need to justify my conversion. The truth has justified my conversion.

You call the post schism innovations of Rome, "development of doctrine".

I call them heresy.

I can't resist applauding your last sentence, dear Mickey: development of doctrine is indeed HERESY!
Catholic doctrine must have been believed:
1) everywhere. The Greeks never said "from the Father and the Son" in the entire history of the Church.
2) always. Before the (LOCAL) synod of Toledo no Council of bishops ever said "from the Father and the Son", an expression of faith which was used (with a very different approach than the Latins have) by Augustine and Ambrose...
3) by all. If the entire Easten Church NEVER used the word "Filioque" in their version of the Creed, there must of course be a reason, huh? And the 2nd Council of Nicaea also explicitly clarifies: "From the Father THROUGH the Son"...

Plus: "who proceeds from the Father" is the clear wording of Jesus. Why saying anything more?

In Christ,  Alex

PS: Peter has abandoned the fishing boat to follow Christ on his own, but he's now in a storm because of his lack of faith (and abundance of pride). Just my thought of course... But I'll keep praying to strengthen Peter's successors faith so that they get back on the boat of the Church, the true Ark in the deluge of heresy, moved by the wind of the Holy Spirit! Amen!
« Last Edit: January 15, 2009, 01:36:26 PM by AlexanderOfBergamo »
"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,795
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #362 on: January 15, 2009, 03:19:39 PM »
PS: Peter has abandoned the fishing boat to follow Christ on his own, but he's now in a storm because of his lack of faith (and abundance of pride).

I would be careful about making such presumptions. How would you explain the Eastern Church's struggles under Iconoclasm* or the Turkish and Soviet yokes? Was that the result of "lack of faith" and "abundance of pride"?

I would also submit that the storm of which you are speaking is one that all Christian churches face today---and it is a dilly.

*Of course, Iconoclasm itself was a the result of a presumption---now recognized as mistaken---that God allowed the catastrophic Islamic invasions because the Church had erred with graven images.

Online ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,522
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #363 on: January 15, 2009, 10:56:22 PM »

PS: Peter has abandoned the fishing boat to follow Christ on his own, but he's now in a storm because of his lack of faith (and abundance of pride). Just my thought of course... But I'll keep praying to strengthen Peter's successors faith so that they get back on the boat of the Church, the true Ark in the deluge of heresy, moved by the wind of the Holy Spirit! Amen!

Excellent analogy.
Successors of St. Peter at Antioch, not as recorded in Acts, but in Galatians.

PS: Peter has abandoned the fishing boat to follow Christ on his own, but he's now in a storm because of his lack of faith (and abundance of pride).

I would be careful about making such presumptions. How would you explain the Eastern Church's struggles under Iconoclasm* or the Turkish and Soviet yokes? Was that the result of "lack of faith" and "abundance of pride"?

The Turkish yoke has always been interpreted as chatisement for trusting in the princes of the Vatican, the sons of men, rather than the purity of the Orthodox Faith.

The Soviet yoke came as a chastisement ofor the persecusion in the Old Ritualist schism, and as a refinement by fire of the occultism and superstition that Peter the so called Great and his successors imported under the name of "enlightenment."

And the Muslim yoke came as chastisement for the infighting over Chalcedon, in which there very much was an abundance of pride, and an overidentification of the empire as the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.

Quote
I would also submit that the storm of which you are speaking is one that all Christian churches face today---and it is a dilly.


Yes, but some of us have embraced the nonsense in council and proceeding to enforce from the top down, with disasterous results just beginning to be reversed, if not they have not totally succumbed.


« Last Edit: January 15, 2009, 10:59:36 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Jakub

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,749
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #364 on: January 15, 2009, 11:32:59 PM »
" Ministros veritatis decet vera proferre ", "Servants of the truth ought speak the truth." - St. Hilary
An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.

Offline Jetavan

  • Argumentum ad australopithecum
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,580
  • Barlaam and Josaphat
    • The Mystical Theology
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #365 on: January 16, 2009, 02:49:13 PM »

The Soviet yoke came as a chastisement ofor the persecusion in the Old Ritualist schism, and as a refinement by fire of the occultism and superstition that Peter the so called Great and his successors imported under the name of "enlightenment."

Are you referring to the Masons?
If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.

Offline ignatius

  • Baptacathadox
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,696
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #366 on: January 16, 2009, 03:18:03 PM »
something must be happening within me... I feel no motivation to defend the teachings of the West. What is happening to me?  ;)
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Offline username!

  • Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,081
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #367 on: January 16, 2009, 04:05:28 PM »
something must be happening within me... I feel no motivation to defend the teachings of the West. What is happening to me?  ;)

Or do you mean you have no motivation to defend the teachings of the post-schism Roman Catholic Communion.  Just remember we EO have Western Rites, those whom adhere to the teachings of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church while practicing rites that are more like the church before the post-schismatic Roman Catholic Communion forced them into their fold at various times and eras in Western Europe.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2009, 06:42:14 PM by username! »

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #368 on: January 16, 2009, 04:34:04 PM »
Or do you mean you have no motivation to defend the teachings of the post-schism Roman Catholic Communion.  Just remember we EO have Western Rites, those whom adhere to the teachings of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church while practicing rites that are more like  the church before the post-schismatic Roman Catholic Communion forced them into their fold at various times in eras in Western Europe.

Excellent clarification!  ;D

Online ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,522
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #369 on: January 16, 2009, 07:08:32 PM »

The Soviet yoke came as a chastisement ofor the persecusion in the Old Ritualist schism, and as a refinement by fire of the occultism and superstition that Peter the so called Great and his successors imported under the name of "enlightenment."

Are you referring to the Masons?


Amongst other things: Russia was infested with New Agism (Blavatsky and her ilk), the avant-garde, secular humanism, rationalism, etc.  She wasn't so vacuumed packed against the "englightenment" as Greeki would have us believe.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Athanasios

  • Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,800
  • The Divine Mercy
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #370 on: January 20, 2009, 07:43:07 PM »
I can't resist applauding your last sentence, dear Mickey: development of doctrine is indeed HERESY!
The concept of the 'development of doctrine' has been with the Church since the beginning. The Ecumenical Councils of the first millenium, which the Eastern Orthodox profess to adhere to, are examples of this.


1) everywhere. The Greeks never said "from the Father and the Son" in the entire history of the Church.
The Greeks are not the whole Church. Nor is Greek the only language, or even is some regards the best language (if "best" can be applied to any human language). The wording "and the Son" doesn't work with the Greek verbs, but does in Latin, in which it implicitly mean "through the Son". It's not two-faced to say that in the Latin, "and the Son" means the same as "through the Son" -- it's just the way the Latin language is.

2) always. Before the (LOCAL) synod of Toledo no Council of bishops ever said "from the Father and the Son", an expression of faith which was used (with a very different approach than the Latins have) by Augustine and Ambrose...

Again, when the Creed in the Latin usage says "and the Son" it means the same as "through the Son". It's just the way that the Latin language reads in that context.

Here is the latest Vatican document clarifying what the Catholic Church means with the Filioque:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176&CFID=24742626&CFTOKEN=26987940
« Last Edit: January 20, 2009, 07:44:28 PM by Athanasios »
Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder

Offline username!

  • Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,081
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #371 on: January 20, 2009, 08:14:39 PM »

Athanasios could you give that example of Greek in Koine Greek? 
When you speak of "the whole church" what church are you talking about?

Offline Athanasios

  • Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,800
  • The Divine Mercy
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #372 on: January 20, 2009, 08:22:44 PM »

Athanasios could you give that example of Greek in Koine Greek? 
When you speak of "the whole church" what church are you talking about?

The Greek is epkeouris (sp?), while the Latin is procedit. The two verbs are similar, but they are not exactly the same. There really isn't a single Latin word that means the same exact thing as the Greek word -- hence why we have so much trouble understanding each other. Nothing new, humans have been dealing with such difficulties since Babel.


When I said 'the whole Church' I was referring to the Catholic Church -- but I don't think that the Eastern Orthodox Church is composed of ethnic Greeks either.
Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder

Offline wynd

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 504
  • Transfiguration
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #373 on: January 20, 2009, 08:52:38 PM »
The Greeks are not the whole Church. Nor is Greek the only language, or even is some regards the best language (if "best" can be applied to any human language).

I believe Alexander's point was that while the Latins may have believed and recited the filioque for hundreds of years, the Greeks have never done either, which makes the belief something that was not believed everywhere, always, by all.

Offline JoeS

  • (aka StMarkEofE)
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Global Warming Enthusiast.
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #374 on: January 20, 2009, 09:46:00 PM »
I can't resist applauding your last sentence, dear Mickey: development of doctrine is indeed HERESY!
The concept of the 'development of doctrine' has been with the Church since the beginning. The Ecumenical Councils of the first millenium, which the Eastern Orthodox profess to adhere to, are examples of this.


1) everywhere. The Greeks never said "from the Father and the Son" in the entire history of the Church.
The Greeks are not the whole Church. Nor is Greek the only language, or even is some regards the best language (if "best" can be applied to any human language). The wording "and the Son" doesn't work with the Greek verbs, but does in Latin, in which it implicitly mean "through the Son". It's not two-faced to say that in the Latin, "and the Son" means the same as "through the Son" -- it's just the way the Latin language is.

2) always. Before the (LOCAL) synod of Toledo no Council of bishops ever said "from the Father and the Son", an expression of faith which was used (with a very different approach than the Latins have) by Augustine and Ambrose...

Again, when the Creed in the Latin usage says "and the Son" it means the same as "through the Son". It's just the way that the Latin language reads in that context.

Here is the latest Vatican document clarifying what the Catholic Church means with the Filioque:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176&CFID=24742626&CFTOKEN=26987940


The last time I took English grammar the words "and" and "through" had completely different meanings. If what you say is now the norm, then why doesnt the Roman Catholic church change the words "and" to "through" to avoid this major confusion?  However, since neither words were part of the Conciliar Creed neither words are really required.  The Filioque is outdated and was so since it's inception.  Why is it necessary to make end around runs behind a councils back to add a phrase that isnt necessary to begin with?   I say, drop it and let the Creed be recited in it's original form as agreed to by all the church. 

JoeS (  aka StMarkEofE)

Online ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,522
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #375 on: January 20, 2009, 11:08:30 PM »
I can't resist applauding your last sentence, dear Mickey: development of doctrine is indeed HERESY!
The concept of the 'development of doctrine' has been with the Church since the beginning. The Ecumenical Councils of the first millenium, which the Eastern Orthodox profess to adhere to, are examples of this.

No, they are not.

They are examples of "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set" Proverbs 22:28.

An example is the IC, which any Church member of the early centuries would have no idea what you were speaking of, it was denounced as an innovation when it first appeared, but it got its promoters who eventually prevailed at the Vatican.

Ditto filioque.

1) everywhere. The Greeks never said "from the Father and the Son" in the entire history of the Church.
The Greeks are not the whole Church. Nor is Greek the only language, or even is some regards the best language (if "best" can be applied to any human language). The wording "and the Son" doesn't work with the Greek verbs, but does in Latin, in which it implicitly mean "through the Son". It's not two-faced to say that in the Latin, "and the Son" means the same as "through the Son" -- it's just the way the Latin language is.

Since Our Lord didn't speak Latin, nor the Evangelist, nor the Fathers who wrote the Creed, your reference to Latin is pretty irrelevant.

They did speak Greek, use Greek verbs.  It is best, as it is their Word.

2) always. Before the (LOCAL) synod of Toledo no Council of bishops ever said "from the Father and the Son", an expression of faith which was used (with a very different approach than the Latins have) by Augustine and Ambrose...

Again, when the Creed in the Latin usage says "and the Son" it means the same as "through the Son". It's just the way that the Latin language reads in that context.

According to the Vatican's catechsim, CCC 248:
Traditio orientalis imprimis notam exprimit Patris ut primae originis relate ad Spiritum. Profitens Spiritum « qui a Patre procedit » (Io 15,26), Eum affirmat a Patre per Filium procedere.74 Traditio vero occidentalis imprimis consubstantialem communionem inter Patrem et Filium affirmat, Spiritum ex Patre Filioque procedere dicens. Ipsa hoc « licite et rationabiliter »75 dicit, quia Personarum divinarum aeternus ordo in communione consubstantiali implicat Patrem, quatenus « est principium sine principio »,76 primam originem esse Spiritus, sed etiam, quatenus Filii unici est Pater, cum Illo unicum esse principium ex quo, « tamquam ex uno principio »,77 Spiritus procedit. Haec licita complementaritas, nisi exacerbetur, identitatem fidei in realitatem eiusdem mysterii proclamati non afficit.


Here is the latest Vatican document clarifying what the Catholic Church means with the Filioque:

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176&CFID=24742626&CFTOKEN=26987940

All very interesting.  Here is the oldest document clarifying what the Son means with proceed:
ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ·

 ܗܘ ܢܤܗܕ ܥܠܝ ܀ܕܡܢ ܠܘܬ ܐܒܝ ܢܦܩ ܡܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܐܬܐ ܦܪܩܠܛܐ ܗܘ ܕܐܢܐ ܡܫܕܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟܘܢ ܡܢ ܠܘܬ ܐܒܝ ܪܘܚܐ ܕܫܪܪܐ ܗܘ
« Last Edit: January 20, 2009, 11:09:57 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Online ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,522
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #376 on: January 20, 2009, 11:32:03 PM »

Athanasios could you give that example of Greek in Koine Greek? 
When you speak of "the whole church" what church are you talking about?

The Greek is epkeouris (sp?), while the Latin is procedit. The two verbs are similar, but they are not exactly the same. There really isn't a single Latin word that means the same exact thing as the Greek word -- hence why we have so much trouble understanding each other. Nothing new, humans have been dealing with such difficulties since Babel.

Funny how the Romanian peasants have succeeded where evidently the patricians of Rome can't.

Care din Tatăl purcede.  Orthodox.

Care de la Tatăl şi de la Fiul purcede.  What passes now as the theology of the filioque at the Vatican.

That wasn't so hard, now was it?





Quote
When I said 'the whole Church' I was referring to the Catholic Church -- but I don't think that the Eastern Orthodox Church is composed of ethnic Greeks either.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is the Catholic [a Greek word, btw] Church.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #377 on: January 21, 2009, 10:15:15 AM »
Again, when the Creed in the Latin usage says "and the Son" it means the same as "through the Son".

Are you saying that the Latin usage should be translated in English to "through the Son"?  All this time it has been a simple matter of a bogus translation? A misunderstanding?

Call the bishops!!!  ;D

Online ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,522
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #378 on: January 21, 2009, 11:03:37 AM »
Again, when the Creed in the Latin usage says "and the Son" it means the same as "through the Son".

Are you saying that the Latin usage should be translated in English to "through the Son"?  All this time it has been a simple matter of a bogus translation? A misunderstanding?

Call the bishops!!!  ;D

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

Offline Athanasios

  • Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,800
  • The Divine Mercy
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #379 on: January 22, 2009, 07:29:09 PM »
Again, when the Creed in the Latin usage says "and the Son" it means the same as "through the Son".

Are you saying that the Latin usage should be translated in English to "through the Son"?  All this time it has been a simple matter of a bogus translation? A misunderstanding?

Call the bishops!!!  ;D

The English language has its own problems -- and ICEL didn't help the matter any. But, the new translations are a marked improvement.

The phrase "and the Son" is probably the more accurate translation, but it belies the grammatical issues in the original Latin.
Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder

Offline Athanasios

  • Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,800
  • The Divine Mercy
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #380 on: January 22, 2009, 07:30:58 PM »
Funny how the Romanian peasants have succeeded where evidently the patricians of Rome can't.

Care din Tatăl purcede.  Orthodox.

Care de la Tatăl şi de la Fiul purcede.  What passes now as the theology of the filioque at the Vatican.

That wasn't so hard, now was it?

As I don't know Romanian, I can't comment.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is the Catholic [a Greek word, btw] Church.

Now, you know I disagree with you on this on a number of points -- but that is for another thread.
Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #381 on: January 23, 2009, 09:24:04 AM »
Now, you know I disagree with you on this on a number of points

Of course you disagree. Otherwise you would be Orthodox Catholic.  ;)
« Last Edit: January 23, 2009, 09:24:31 AM by Mickey »

Offline Orthodoc

  • Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,526
  • Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #382 on: January 23, 2009, 10:33:43 AM »
Again, when the Creed in the Latin usage says "and the Son" it means the same as "through the Son".

Are you saying that the Latin usage should be translated in English to "through the Son"?  All this time it has been a simple matter of a bogus translation? A misunderstanding?

Call the bishops!!!  ;D

LOL.  Sounds like my kids' revisionism.

It's either that or the fact that Rome has a hard time expressing itself!  Every time I hear this explanation I'm dumbfounded at the stupidity and absurdity of it!

Orthodoc
« Last Edit: January 23, 2009, 10:38:07 AM by Orthodoc »
Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

Offline Orthodoc

  • Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,526
  • Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #383 on: January 23, 2009, 10:36:02 AM »
Now, you know I disagree with you on this on a number of points

Of course you disagree. Otherwise you would be Orthodox Catholic.  ;)

As opposed to papal Catholic?

Orthodoc
Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

Online ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,522
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #384 on: January 23, 2009, 10:53:50 AM »
Now, you know I disagree with you on this on a number of points

Of course you disagree. Otherwise you would be Orthodox Catholic.  ;)

As opposed to papal Catholic?

Orthodoc

No, in Egypt we are papal Catholic.  And Orthodox.

And the Romanians are Roman Catholic.

The Ultramontanists are Vatican catholics.

As I responded to this incredibly silly article on another forum  :police: ::) :police:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm
Imposing Latin on everyone was universalist how?
Interjecting Rome everywhere doesn't make it less parochial, just a very big parish.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #385 on: January 23, 2009, 12:05:10 PM »
As opposed to papal Catholic?
I suppose the term "papal Catholic" would encompass all the "rites" that are in communion with the Pope of Rome. At the end of the day, the Eastern Catholics must adhere to all the Latin doctrines (even though many say that there are alternantive understandings of said doctrines).

But I believe that Holy Orthodoxy is the true catholic (universal) Church of Jesus Christ--the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church--the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.

As a side note: It is interesting that on a certain Roman Catholic discussion forum, if one refers to the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church as "Catholic"----you are in danger of being suspended or banned.

Sounds a bit insecure to me.  ;D
« Last Edit: January 23, 2009, 12:06:26 PM by Mickey »

Offline Orthodoc

  • Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,526
  • Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #386 on: January 23, 2009, 12:57:56 PM »
Now, you know I disagree with you on this on a number of points

Of course you disagree. Otherwise you would be Orthodox Catholic.  ;)

As opposed to papal Catholic?

Orthodoc

No, in Egypt we are papal Catholic.  And Orthodox.

And the Romanians are Roman Catholic.

The Ultramontanists are Vatican catholics.

As I responded to this incredibly silly article on another forum  :police: ::) :police:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm
Imposing Latin on everyone was universalist how?
Interjecting Rome everywhere doesn't make it less parochial, just a very big parish.

Then how do we Orthodox Catholics defend our catholicity from being attacked by revisionist historians centered in the Vatican?  So many times in so many places I have been attacked (even by Orthodox) for trying to defend the catholicity of my church.  To try and correct the Vatican perpetuated lie that we Orthodox left the Catholic Church!  Especially when they now consider the term ROMAN Catholic as insulting along with every other title with a descriptive word in front of the word Catholic that identifies them as part of the papal Church of Rome?  Just this past Sunday I had a conversation with a college student who is Roman Catholic and in the process of converting to Orthodoxy.  He was telling me that he once attended a Byzantine Catholic Liturgy on campus where his friends told the BC priest he was converting to Orthodoxy.  He said the BC priest became upset and asked him if he was aware that the Orthodox were once Catholics and left the Catholic Church!  It always amazes me when I hear of this type of response coming from one of their priests.  I wonder if it is a result of a faulty education or just  plain misinformation.  This is the reason I use terms like papal Catholic.  Not to insult but to distinguish the catholicity of my church and its right to correct misinformation that is perpetuated by those within the papal church.  And for it I have been accused of everything imaginable including having an infatuation with the Roman Catholic Church.

Are you suggesting we start using the term Vatican catholic since they no longer like the term Roman Catholic?  And their eastern rites seem to praise the pope in one sentence and become highly insulted if you use any terminology that identifies them as being under his authority in the next?

Orthodoc
« Last Edit: January 23, 2009, 01:09:52 PM by Orthodoc »
Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

Offline Orthodoc

  • Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,526
  • Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #387 on: January 23, 2009, 01:03:00 PM »
As opposed to papal Catholic?
I suppose the term "papal Catholic" would encompass all the "rites" that are in communion with the Pope of Rome. At the end of the day, the Eastern Catholics must adhere to all the Latin doctrines (even though many say that there are alternantive understandings of said doctrines).

But I believe that Holy Orthodoxy is the true catholic (universal) Church of Jesus Christ--the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church--the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.

As a side note: It is interesting that on a certain Roman Catholic discussion forum, if one refers to the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church as "Catholic"----you are in danger of being suspended or banned.

Sounds a bit insecure to me.  ;D

Mickey my brother you have come a long way.  We both have I salute you!   I am one of those who has been suspended or banned in other sites for defending the catholicity of my church.  I have even been chastised here way back when.

You and I are a perfect example on how former enemies can become solid friends through discussion and dialogue.

Orthodoc
« Last Edit: January 23, 2009, 01:04:40 PM by Orthodoc »
Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,795
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #388 on: January 23, 2009, 01:24:57 PM »

As a side note: It is interesting that on a certain Roman Catholic discussion forum, if one refers to the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church as "Catholic"----you are in danger of being suspended or banned.

Sounds a bit insecure to me.  ;D

Perhaps not---perhaps they would like to avoid confusion and wish to have only their Church referred to as the Catholic Church on their forum. Have they not that right? I have been repeatedly disciplined here for accidentally referring to my Church as "the Church." I'm sure I would receive further discipline if I started calling it "Holy Orthodoxy" or something like that.

Rather than all of this smug chest-thumping about names (and pointless too, since everybody is aware that we each consider ourselves making up the Orthodox and Catholic Church of Christ), how about we simply use the generally accepted terms? I'll help you:

-(Roman) Catholic Church (that in communion with the Pope in Rome). Less desirable but workable: "Latins"

-(Eastern) Orthodox Church (that in communion with the EP and each other). Less desirable but workable: "Greeks"

And there we are---more clarity and less bluster, no?


Online ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,522
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #389 on: January 23, 2009, 01:27:34 PM »
Now, you know I disagree with you on this on a number of points

Of course you disagree. Otherwise you would be Orthodox Catholic.  ;)

As opposed to papal Catholic?

Orthodoc

No, in Egypt we are papal Catholic.  And Orthodox.

And the Romanians are Roman Catholic.

The Ultramontanists are Vatican catholics.

As I responded to this incredibly silly article on another forum  :police: ::) :police:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm
Imposing Latin on everyone was universalist how?
Interjecting Rome everywhere doesn't make it less parochial, just a very big parish.

Then how do we Orthodox Catholics defend our catholicity from being attacked by revisionist historians centered in the Vatican?  So many times in so many places I have been attacked (even by Orthodox) for trying to defend the catholicity of my church.  To try and correct the Vatican perpetuated lie that we Orthodox left the Catholic Church!  Especially when they now consider the term ROMAN Catholic as insulting along with every other title with a descriptive word in front of the word Catholic that identifies them as part of the papal Church of Rome?  Just this past Sunday I had a conversation with a college student who is Roman Catholic and in the process of converting to Orthodoxy.  He was telling me that he once attended a Byzantine Catholic Liturgy on campus where his friends told the BC priest he was converting to Orthodoxy.  He said the BC priest became upset and asked him if he was aware that the Orthodox were once Catholics and left the Catholic Church!  It always amazes me when I hear of this type of response coming from one of their priests.  I wonder if it is a result of a faulty education or just  plain misinformation.  This is the reason I use terms like papal Catholic.  Not to insult but to distinguish the catholicity of my church and its right to correct misinformation that is perpetuated by those within the papal church.  And for it I have been accused of everything imaginable including having an infatuation with the Roman Catholic Church.

Are you suggesting we start using the term Vatican catholic since they no longer like the term Roman Catholic?  And their eastern rites seem to praise the pope in one sentence and become highly insulted if you use any terminology that identifies them as being under his authority in the next?

Orthodoc

I like Vatican for a number of reasons, not the least: 1) it is NOT the pope of Rome's cathedral, i.e. the site of St. Peter's Apostolic throne.  That's in St. John Lateran, which is not in the Vatican, and 2) St. Peter's is actually the titular church/methochion of Constantinople in Rome.  Very apropos that a hierarch that claims the Catholicism of the Orthodox Church should use as his symbol the church that symbolized the Church to whom Rome lost its primacy to because of her apostacy.

How do we defend it?  We state that the One, Holy, CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church continues to recite the Creed as the Fathers set their seal upon it.  Can the filioquists say that. No.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Online ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,522
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #390 on: January 23, 2009, 01:31:49 PM »

As a side note: It is interesting that on a certain Roman Catholic discussion forum, if one refers to the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church as "Catholic"----you are in danger of being suspended or banned.

Sounds a bit insecure to me.  ;D

Perhaps not---perhaps they would like to avoid confusion and wish to have only their Church referred to as the Catholic Church on their forum. Have they not that right? I have been repeatedly disciplined here for accidentally referring to my Church as "the Church." I'm sure I would receive further discipline if I started calling it "Holy Orthodoxy" or something like that.

Rather than all of this smug chest-thumping about names (and pointless too, since everybody is aware that we each consider ourselves making up the Orthodox and Catholic Church of Christ), how about we simply use the generally accepted terms? I'll help you:

-(Roman) Catholic Church (that in communion with the Pope in Rome). Less desirable but workable: "Latins"

-(Eastern) Orthodox Church (that in communion with the EP and each other). Less desirable but workable: "Greeks"

And there we are---more clarity and less bluster, no?



Ah, but the false analogy.  We are not Orthodox because we are in communion with the EP.  We are Orthodox because we are in communion with the Apostles and all their Orthodox Catholic successors.  Despite what you might have been told, EP Bartholomew is not an Eastern pope.  We do have a Pope, but his jurisdiction is only in All of Africa.  He was, however, mentioned as in the definition of Catholic (along with that of Rome) in the Roman Empire's definition of Catholic.


and since a lot was done in Syriac, Coptic, Arabic and Slavonic, no, Greek isn't workable either.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2009, 01:58:06 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,795
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #391 on: January 23, 2009, 01:42:05 PM »

Ah, but the false analogy.  We are not Orthodox because we are in communion with the EP.  We are Orthodox because we are in communion with the Apostles and all their Orthodox Catholic successors.  Despite what you might have been told, EP Bartholomew is not an Eastern pope.  We do have a Pope, but his jurisdiction is only in All of Africa.  He was, however, mentioned as in the definition of Catholic (along with that of Rome) in the Roman Empire's definition of Catholic.

I am fully aware of all this, which is why I wrote "in communion with the EP and with each other). I included the EP because many Orthodox still see communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch as the surest standard by which to judge whether a group is part of the Orthodox Church.

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,795
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #392 on: January 23, 2009, 01:42:17 PM »

Then how do we Orthodox Catholics defend our catholicity from being attacked by revisionist historians centered in the Vatican.  So many times in so many places I have been attacked (even by Orthodox) for trying to defend the catholicity of my church.  To try and correct the Vatican perpetuated lie that we Orthodox left the Catholic Church?  Especially when they now consider the term ROMAN Catholic as insulting along with every other title with a descriptive word in front of the word Catholic that identifies them as part of the papal Church of Rome?  Just this past Sunday I had a conversation with a college student who is Roman Catholic and in the process of converting to Orthodoxy.  He was telling me that he once attended a Byzantine Catholic Liturgy on campus where his friends told the BC priest he was converting to Orthodoxy.  He said the BC priest became upset and asked him if he was aware that the Orthodox were once Catholics and left the Catholic Church!  It always amazes me when I hear of theis coming from one of their priests.  I wonder if it is a result of a faulty education or just  plain misinformation.  This is the reason I use terms like papal Catholic.  Not to insult but to distinguish the catholicity of my church and its right to correct misinformation that is perpetuated by those within the papal church.  And for it I have been accused of everything imaginable including having an infatuation with the Roman Catholic Church.

Are you suggesting we start using the term Vatican catholic since they no longer like the term Roman Catholic and their eastern rites seem to prase the pope in one sentence and become highly insulted if you use any terminology that identifies them as being under his authority the next?

Orthodoc

"Vatican" can refer to Vatican Hill, upon which sits the Apostolic Palace, or to the Vatican City State, which was established in 1929.

If you are referring to the episcopal seat of the Bishop of Rome, with its governing authority over the Catholic Church, the correct term is "Holy See."

The Vatican City State is not the same as the Holy See, like the Phanar is not the same as the Ecumenical Patriarchate (which only moved there in 1599). The papal residence moved to Vatican Hill only in 1871---for most of history the papal residence was at the Lateran in Rome (near the Basilica of St. John Lateran, the cathedral church of Rome and the mother church of the Catholic Church worldwide) or on Quirinal Hill.

If you are referring to our Church itself, we simply call ourselves the "Catholic Church."


Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #393 on: January 23, 2009, 01:51:11 PM »
Mickey my brother you have come a long way.  We both have I salute you!   I am one of those who has been suspended or banned in other sites for defending the catholicity of my church.  I have even been chastised here way back when.

You and I are a perfect example on how former enemies can become solid friends through discussion and dialogue.

Orthodoc
Amen, my brother in Christ. You have helped me immeasurably during my journey and I will never forget it. God bless you!

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #394 on: January 23, 2009, 01:57:41 PM »
Perhaps not---perhaps they would like to avoid confusion and wish to have only their Church referred to as the Catholic Church on their forum.
If that was the case, people would not be suspended and/or secretly banned. No my friend there is more to it. But it is their forum and they have the right to suspend and ban whomever they wish.

Now let's talk about names:

Orthodox = right, correct, or true faith
Catholic = universal

Online ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,522
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #395 on: January 23, 2009, 02:04:57 PM »

Ah, but the false analogy.  We are not Orthodox because we are in communion with the EP.  We are Orthodox because we are in communion with the Apostles and all their Orthodox Catholic successors.  Despite what you might have been told, EP Bartholomew is not an Eastern pope.  We do have a Pope, but his jurisdiction is only in All of Africa.  He was, however, mentioned as in the definition of Catholic (along with that of Rome) in the Roman Empire's definition of Catholic.

I am fully aware of all this, which is why I wrote "in communion with the EP and with each other). I included the EP because many Orthodox still see communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch as the surest standard by which to judge whether a group is part of the Orthodox Church.

Only for those in his patriarchate.  As far as the diptychs are concerned, he gets highest priority, but communion is never defined in terms of being in communion with him.  It is always plural: patriarchs.  In fact, it being defined as NOT being in communion with him is how the Church of Russia became autocephalous.  "In communion with the hierarchs of the Orthodox diptychs."  That wasn't so hard.


Then how do we Orthodox Catholics defend our catholicity from being attacked by revisionist historians centered in the Vatican.  So many times in so many places I have been attacked (even by Orthodox) for trying to defend the catholicity of my church.  To try and correct the Vatican perpetuated lie that we Orthodox left the Catholic Church?  Especially when they now consider the term ROMAN Catholic as insulting along with every other title with a descriptive word in front of the word Catholic that identifies them as part of the papal Church of Rome?  Just this past Sunday I had a conversation with a college student who is Roman Catholic and in the process of converting to Orthodoxy.  He was telling me that he once attended a Byzantine Catholic Liturgy on campus where his friends told the BC priest he was converting to Orthodoxy.  He said the BC priest became upset and asked him if he was aware that the Orthodox were once Catholics and left the Catholic Church!  It always amazes me when I hear of theis coming from one of their priests.  I wonder if it is a result of a faulty education or just  plain misinformation.  This is the reason I use terms like papal Catholic.  Not to insult but to distinguish the catholicity of my church and its right to correct misinformation that is perpetuated by those within the papal church.  And for it I have been accused of everything imaginable including having an infatuation with the Roman Catholic Church.

Are you suggesting we start using the term Vatican catholic since they no longer like the term Roman Catholic and their eastern rites seem to prase the pope in one sentence and become highly insulted if you use any terminology that identifies them as being under his authority the next?

Orthodoc

"Vatican" can refer to Vatican Hill, upon which sits the Apostolic Palace, or to the Vatican City State, which was established in 1929.

If you are referring to the episcopal seat of the Bishop of Rome, with its governing authority over the Catholic Church, the correct term is "Holy See."

The Vatican City State is not the same as the Holy See, like the Phanar is not the same as the Ecumenical Patriarchate (which only moved there in 1599). The papal residence moved to Vatican Hill only in 1871---for most of history the papal residence was at the Lateran in Rome (near the Basilica of St. John Lateran, the cathedral church of Rome and the mother church of the Catholic Church worldwide) or on Quirinal Hill.

If you are referring to our Church itself, we simply call ourselves the "Catholic Church."



Yes, we know what you claim to be.  But I've seen it pointed out, countless times, that St. Ignatius of Antioch talks of the "Catholic Church," not of the "Orthodox Church," therefore the Orthodox broke off the "Catholic Church."  Utter nonsense.

I'll admit, I like your Phanar-Ecumenical Patriarchate analogy.

Although St. John might be the mother church of Egypt (St. Mark evangelized as the disciple of St. Peter from Rome), it had nothing else to do with the founding of other three patriarchates of the Catholic Church, two of which (Antioch, Jerusalem) predate Rome, and whose daughter Rome is.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2009, 02:11:07 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Orthodoc

  • Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,526
  • Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #396 on: January 23, 2009, 02:29:51 PM »

Then how do we Orthodox Catholics defend our catholicity from being attacked by revisionist historians centered in the Vatican.  So many times in so many places I have been attacked (even by Orthodox) for trying to defend the catholicity of my church.  To try and correct the Vatican perpetuated lie that we Orthodox left the Catholic Church?  Especially when they now consider the term ROMAN Catholic as insulting along with every other title with a descriptive word in front of the word Catholic that identifies them as part of the papal Church of Rome?  Just this past Sunday I had a conversation with a college student who is Roman Catholic and in the process of converting to Orthodoxy.  He was telling me that he once attended a Byzantine Catholic Liturgy on campus where his friends told the BC priest he was converting to Orthodoxy.  He said the BC priest became upset and asked him if he was aware that the Orthodox were once Catholics and left the Catholic Church!  It always amazes me when I hear of theis coming from one of their priests.  I wonder if it is a result of a faulty education or just  plain misinformation.  This is the reason I use terms like papal Catholic.  Not to insult but to distinguish the catholicity of my church and its right to correct misinformation that is perpetuated by those within the papal church.  And for it I have been accused of everything imaginable including having an infatuation with the Roman Catholic Church.

Are you suggesting we start using the term Vatican catholic since they no longer like the term Roman Catholic and their eastern rites seem to prase the pope in one sentence and become highly insulted if you use any terminology that identifies them as being under his authority the next?

Orthodoc

"Vatican" can refer to Vatican Hill, upon which sits the Apostolic Palace, or to the Vatican City State, which was established in 1929.

If you are referring to the episcopal seat of the Bishop of Rome, with its governing authority over the Catholic Church, the correct term is "Holy See."

The Vatican City State is not the same as the Holy See, like the Phanar is not the same as the Ecumenical Patriarchate (which only moved there in 1599). The papal residence moved to Vatican Hill only in 1871---for most of history the papal residence was at the Lateran in Rome (near the Basilica of St. John Lateran, the cathedral church of Rome and the mother church of the Catholic Church worldwide) or on Quirinal Hill.

If you are referring to our Church itself, we simply call ourselves the "Catholic Church."

Reply:  And in doing so, deny the validity of the other four Patriarchs you separated yourself from.  And perpetuate a lie and revision of historical facts.  It also enables you to manipulate history and mislead people.  Terms like Greek Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Orthodox Catholic that you identify yourselves with are misleading.  Your ancestors turned their backs on Orthodoxy and therefore have forfeited the right to be identfied with these terms. It is the Greek nation that are the Greek Catholics and all Orthodox that are the true Byzantine Catholics. since we never sepated ourselves fom that 'One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church in the Creed'.  You turned your backs on both Byzantium and Greek Orthodox religious ties.

Orthodoc
[/color]
« Last Edit: January 23, 2009, 02:32:31 PM by Orthodoc »
Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

Offline Veniamin

  • Fire for Effect!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,372
  • St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #397 on: January 23, 2009, 02:42:32 PM »
Is this really the best thing we have to argue about?  Yes, the terms "Orthodox" and "Catholic" both properly refer to what is commonly known as the Eastern Orthodox Church.  However, in normal discussion, if you use the term "Catholic," everyone knows you're talking about the Pope and those under his rule.  Likewise, if you use the term "Orthodox," everyone thinks you're talking about really conservative Jews.  Do we really need to argue about this when there are so many other things to worry about, which are far more important to our salvation?
Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #398 on: January 23, 2009, 02:59:49 PM »
Likewise, if you use the term "Orthodox," everyone thinks you're talking about really conservative Jews. 
LOL! Good one!  :laugh:

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #399 on: January 23, 2009, 03:00:58 PM »
Hey, what happen to my photo of Elder Joseph the Hesychast?!?

Offline Orthodoc

  • Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,526
  • Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #400 on: January 23, 2009, 03:06:51 PM »
Is this really the best thing we have to argue about?  Yes, the terms "Orthodox" and "Catholic" both properly refer to what is commonly known as the Eastern Orthodox Church.  However, in normal discussion, if you use the term "Catholic," everyone knows you're talking about the Pope and those under his rule.  Likewise, if you use the term "Orthodox," everyone thinks you're talking about really conservative Jews.  Do we really need to argue about this when there are so many other things to worry about, which are far more important to our salvation?

If we are to defend the truth of our faith against slander and lies then yes it is!

Orthodoc
Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #401 on: January 23, 2009, 07:12:16 PM »
Rather than all of this smug chest-thumping about names (and pointless too, since everybody is aware that we each consider ourselves making up the Orthodox and Catholic Church of Christ), how about we simply use the generally accepted terms? I'll help you:

-(Roman) Catholic Church (that in communion with the Pope in Rome). Less desirable but workable: "Latins"

-(Eastern) Orthodox Church (that in communion with the EP and each other). Less desirable but workable: "Greeks"
How about not.
If you try to refer to the Slavic Churches, OCA, Western Rite or Georgian Churches (among others) as "Greeks", they'll probably have your guts for garters, and likewise if you refer to the Eastern Rite Catholics as "Latins".
These are only "generally accepted terms" for some Latin Catholics.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,795
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #402 on: January 23, 2009, 10:24:48 PM »
How about not.
If you try to refer to the Slavic Churches, OCA, Western Rite or Georgian Churches (among others) as "Greeks", they'll probably have your guts for garters, and likewise if you refer to the Eastern Rite Catholics as "Latins".
These are only "generally accepted terms" for some Latin Catholics.

Agreed---though "Latins" is a very common name for us on these boards. They certainly are outdated terms, which is why I considered them less ideal.

Fixed quotation, that is all.

-- Nebelpfade
« Last Edit: January 24, 2009, 08:21:59 PM by Nebelpfade »

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #403 on: January 24, 2009, 08:01:54 PM »
Agreed---though "Latins" is a very common name for us on these boards.
Its a common term only for the "Latin Catholics" and is used to differentiate between "Latin Rite" and "Eastern and Oriental Rite" Catholics.

They certainly are outdated terms, which is why I considered them less ideal.
I don't think that "Latin" as in "Latin Rite" is an outdated term. But it cannot be applied to the Eastern and Oriental Rite Catholics.
In the Orthodox Church there are also some "Latin Rite" Churches among the WRO.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Entscheidungsproblem

  • Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,495
    • Amsterdam Declaration 2002
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #404 on: January 24, 2009, 09:36:43 PM »
Thread Split:  Posts about the nature of debate and "the Truth", can now be found here (How to Debate the Truth...).  This thread is found in the Private Section, so you will need to be granted access to view/post in it.  If you do not have access, please PM Fr. Chris.

Also, this thread is nearing its tenth page, and since it started off relatively vague, the subjects discussed have jumped constantly.  I believe, especially with the latest "naming" debate, that this thread has ran itself out.  Therefore, to help foster new threads and encourage productive discussions, this thread will be locked as of Monday, January 26th, 2009 at 20:00 EST.  So, wrap up what needs to be wrapped up, and if you have a new thought forming, please start a new thread.  Thank you!

-- Nebelpfade
« Last Edit: January 24, 2009, 09:37:24 PM by Nebelpfade »
As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS