Considering Orthodoxy

[Papist]

And like I said, with that reasoning Jerusalem would hold the Primacy. Wouldn't the place where Christ taught because of His superior teachings hold the Primacy. Yes, St. Peter and Paul being in Rome, has something to do with this, however the main reason was because it was the Capital of the Empire. So should we follow the Roman Church in heresy? Should we follow it when it left the Pentarchy. Without a doubt Rome was terrible orthodox until around the 9th and 10th centuries, this is also why it held the Primacy.

Besides St. Iraneaus was under the Roman Patriarchate, and would thus tell people to listen to his Church.

First, the Fathers did not teach that we must all agree with Jerusalem becuase of its origin. They taught that we must all agree with Rome because of its superior origin. That's the tradition of the Church. Second, Rome has never been in heresy. It has just never happened.

[Peter J]

Second, Rome has never been in heresy. It has just never happened.

Papist, why don't you instead work on convincing holdencaulfield of the truth of:

• Papal Infallibility
• Universal Jurisdiction
• The Filioque

which are, after all Catholic dogmas. It seems your priorities are a little confused.

[Peter J]

Then there was Pope Vigilius who was condemned at the 5th Ecumenical council and name dropped from the diptychs after reciting an encyclical which in modern roman standards would be considered an ex cathedra statement, he repented a few months later saying the devil lead him astray.  

This may sound trite, but my view is that Pope Vigilius was not defining a dogma. (I don't know whether he himself thought he was doing so, but that would not change the fact that he wasn't.)

[Peter J]

which in modern roman standards would be considered an ex cathedra statement

By the way, those "modern roman standards" are a particular interest of mine.

[Papist]

Papist, why don't you instead work on convincing holdencaulfield of the truth of:

which are, after all Catholic dogmas. It seems your priorities are a little confused.

Instead of what?
And I am not trying to convert him. This is an Eastern Orthodox forum and it would be inappropriate for me to do so. Just have a discussion.

[holdencaulfield]

First, the Fathers did not teach that we must all agree with Jerusalem becuase of its origin. They taught that we must all agree with Rome because of its superior origin. That's the tradition of the Church. Second, Rome has never been in heresy. It has just never happened.

Except for all the examples of when it was in heresy pre-1054, and we have already seen that many saints of the Churches disagreed with the Popes, they were often excommunicated, and we have seen that Ecumenical Councils are above the Pope (aka Pope Honorius). Futhermore, I was being hypothetical. If the Primacy of the Churches was based on theology Jerusalem would be first. However it is not, it's based on politics.

[holdencaulfield]

This may sound trite, but my view is that Pope Vigilius was not defining a dogma. (I don't know whether he himself thought he was doing so, but that would not change the fact that he wasn't.)

Ex Cathedra, is anything that has to do with faith or morals, so if he was teaching something to the entire Church, then that would be Ex Cathedra. However he only had the power to teach to the Roman Patriarchate, however the other Patriarchates could listen if they wanted to. It's funny how Ex Cathedra statements for the Catholic Church are only what the Church wants them to be. What about Pope Pius V's statement on how the Tridentine Form of the Mass could never be abolished. I guess Pope Paul VI forgot about that in his heretical rage.

[Peter J]

Instead of what?

Sorry if I was unclear. That post was meant as a response to the one right above it.

[Peter J]

Ex Cathedra, is anything that has to do with faith or morals,

Dude! Who've you been listening to?

[Papist]

Except for all the examples of when it was in heresy pre-1054, and we have already seen that many saints of the Churches disagreed with the Popes, they were often excommunicated, and we have seen that Ecumenical Councils are above the Pope (aka Pope Honorius).

Of course there are examples of people being disobedient to the Pope. There will always be sins the in the Church.

Futhermore, I was being hypothetical. If the Primacy of the Churches was based on theology Jerusalem would be first. However it is not, it's based on politics.

You are arguing against the great Church Father, St. Iraneaus on this one, not with me.

[holdencaulfield]

Dude! Who've you been listening to?

The First Vatican Council.

"that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals." (The First Vatican Council 4)

[holdencaulfield]

Of course there are examples of people being disobedient to the Pope. There will always be sins the in the Church.

Well then the entire Roman Church is in sin with that definition, as Pope Honorius is a heretic. Was the entire Church being heretics by disagreeing with him for being a heretic.

You are arguing against the great Church Father, St. Iraneaus on this one, not with me.

Am I? St. Irenæus made obvioussly did'nt believe in this himself because he later disagreed with Pope Victor. So there you have it. He obvioussly did not agree with this. Also we have clarified that some translations have the words "assemble" at not "agree".

[holdencaulfield]

I guess St. Irenæus is a heretic as well

"St. Irenæus wrote two treatises against him: "On the Monarchy [of God] and that God is not the Author of Evil", and "On the Ogdoad". Irenaeus also called Victor's attention to the dangerous writings of Florinus, who was probably degraded from his priestly functions by the pope and expelled from the Church (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", V, xv, 20)." (The Catholic Encyclopedia)

[holdencaulfield]

St. Irenæus

"for the 'Rock was Christ' Himself: thus does Jesus now give to His believing people power to drink spiritual waters, which spring up to life eternal." (Fragments LII)

[holdencaulfield]

Eusebius of Caesarea

"Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches." (Church History 5:24:18)

[Peter J]

(Started to put this in the other thread, then changed my mind.)

"that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals." (The First Vatican Council 4)

Ex Cathedra, is anything that has to do with faith or morals

You've completely misread what you quoted from Vatican I. It does not say "anything that has to do with faith or morals", but rather "defining doctrine concerning faith or morals". See the difference?

[username!]

Let us go easy on him--he is new to Holy Orthodoxy. 

It is always pertinent to remind every poster at all times whether 1 post or 10,000 posts to please address Eastern Orthodox Clergy properly on Oc.net.  More and more this trend to refer to Bishops by their first name only is becoming commonplace online.  It is our duty as faithful Christians entrusted to the care of our Bishops to assert that they are addressed properly, be it online, in an official letter, at a dinner, in confession or well, anywhere.
So while I appreciate your concerns I will repeat that it is proper to always address an Eastern Orthodox bishop by his full title here at oc.net.  -username!

 

[Papist]

Well then the entire Roman Church is in sin with that definition, as Pope Honorius is a heretic. Was the entire Church being heretics by disagreeing with him for being a heretic.

The word heretic had a much broader meaning in the early Church. It could even included those who acted wrong, not only those who taught heresy. Honorius was certainly guilty of being a week leader. But he never forumally promulgated heresy. Am I? St. Irenæus made obvioussly did'nt believe in this himself because he later disagreed with Pope Victor. So there you have it. He obvioussly did not agree with this. Also we have clarified that some translations have the words "assemble" at not "agree".
[/quote]
I believe that it is quite possible that he means "agree" by this term. You have provided a transliteration, but what exactly does he mean?

[holdencaulfield]

The word heretic had a much broader meaning in the early Church. It could even included those who acted wrong, not only those who taught heresy. Honorius was certainly guilty of being a week leader. But he never forumally promulgated heresy.

Pope Honorius was excommunicated as a heretic. If you want to argue against history go ahead. That's historical fact.

I believe that it is quite possible that he means "agree" by this term. You have provided a transliteration, but what exactly does he mean?

Rome was the Capital of the Roman Empire, all roads lead to Rome.

[holdencaulfield]

Origen

"But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it, hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, Upon this rock I will build My church? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Matthew be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, Matthew etc." (Commentary on Matthew 12:11)

[Papist]

Pope Honorius was excommunicated as a heretic. If you want to argue against history go ahead. That's historical fact.

Rome was the Capital of the Roman Empire, all roads lead to Rome.

I am not arguing against history. I agree. He was excommunicated as a heretic. But that word has a broader meaning than you seem to understand.

[SolEX01]

It is always pertinent to remind every poster at all times whether 1 post or 10,000 posts to please address Eastern Orthodox Clergy properly on Oc.net.  More and more this trend to refer to Bishops by their first name only is becoming commonplace online.  It is our duty as faithful Christians entrusted to the care of our Bishops to assert that they are addressed properly, be it online, in an official letter, at a dinner, in confession or well, anywhere.
So while I appreciate your concerns I will repeat that it is proper to always address an Eastern Orthodox bishop by his full title here at oc.net.  -username!

I could use some clarification:

#1 - I see references to MP (for Moscow Patriarchate) and EP (Ecumenical Patriarchate) - are these allowed and acceptable?
#2 - Do I have to use Metropolitan <Name> or His Emimence Metropolitan <Name> if I wish to refer to him in any posting?

[holdencaulfield]

I am not arguing against history. I agree. He was excommunicated as a heretic. But that word has a broader meaning than you seem to understand.

I know it does. So by definition a Pope can be a heretic. He was anathematized.

[Anastasios]

I could use some clarification:

#1 - I see references to MP (for Moscow Patriarchate) and EP (Ecumenical Patriarchate) - are these allowed and acceptable?
#2 - Do I have to use Metropolitan <Name> or His Emimence Metropolitan <Name> if I wish to refer to him in any posting?

The abbreviations are fine. What the objection to was just calling the bishop something like

Kallistos

or

+Kallistos

or using his former name Timothy Ware.

Don't worry, the thought police are not coming for anyone. We just want to make sure that bishops are referred to as

Metropolitan X
Bishop X

etc.  abbreviations are fine:

Met X

Bp X

[holdencaulfield]

I'm sure my quote by Origin is almost never used by Catholic Apologists, why? Because it destroys the Roman concept of the Papacy. I have more if you want them. I am pretty much converted over to Orthodoxy. Hey, I agree that Catholicism is correct on many things, however what Rome is now, is not the Church. It is interesting how now that I have looked actually into Orthodoxy, that they really have the better arguments, I just always ignored them before. Also there have been so many Popes that agree with the Orthodox faith for example Pope St. Leo III and Pope St. Gregory I.

[holdencaulfield]

The last straw for me was really the Filioque. It is so obviously heresy. I guess if you want to have heresy in the Creed, that's ok.

[SolEX01]

The abbreviations are fine. What the objection to was just calling the bishop something like

Kallistos

or

+Kallistos

or using his former name Timothy Ware.

Don't worry, the thought police are not coming for anyone. We just want to make sure that bishops are referred to as

Metropolitan X
Bishop X

etc.  abbreviations are fine:

Met X

Bp X

Thank You Deacon.  Just for clarification, How about Pat X for Patriarchs?  I'm just trying to avoid writing out the entire title since I find it easier to use the abbreviations.

[holdencaulfield]

SolEX01:

How about just Patriarch or Metropolitan?

[Anastasios]

Thank You Deacon.  Just for clarification, How about Pat X for Patriarchs?  I'm just trying to avoid writing out the entire title since I find it easier to use the abbreviations.

That's fine.

[holdencaulfield]

Ok I have some general questions for the Orthodox members here.

1) On Sunday I am visiting an OCA parish, just to make sure the OCA is 100% canonical and in communion with the other Patriarchates?

2) How traditional is the OCA, compared to the other Churches?

3) How easy is it to change your Jurisdiction in the Church?

4) Are there any Liturgical Abuses (or the Orthodox equivalent of what they are in the Catholic Church) that I should look for?

Thanks

[Αριστοκλής]

Ok I have some general questions for the Orthodox members here.

1) On Sunday I am visiting an OCA parish, just to make sure the OCA is 100% canonical and in communion with the other Patriarchates?

100% "canonical". In communion with all the other patriarchates. Autocephalous status not recognized by Ecumenical Patriarch (but still in communion through Moscow - the OCA's mother church) - this is not impediment to you.

2) How traditional is the OCA, compared to the other Churches?

As a general rule, probably more than some others.

3) How easy is it to change your Jurisdiction in the Church?

IF necessary, not difficult if one is in good standing with one's current jurisdiction. You may commune in any nonetheless without a formal switch.

4) Are there any Liturgical Abuses (or the Orthodox equivalent of what they are in the Catholic Church) that I should look for?

None come to mind.

[holdencaulfield]

@Αριστοκλής:

Thanks, so pretty much I should not have to worry about Liturgical Abuses at all? Amazing. I think the parish is pretty traditional, because I looked on the website and they had a Curtain behind the Royal Doors, and most women wore head coverings. Is that good? However the Royal Doors are very small like waist height, is that ok?

[Αριστοκλής]

@Αριστοκλής:

Thanks, so pretty much I should not have to worry about Liturgical Abuses at all? Amazing. I think the parish is pretty traditional, because I looked on the website and they had a Curtain behind the Royal Doors, and most women wore head coverings. Is that good? However the Royal Doors are very small like waist height, is that ok?

Sure it's 'good'. And if they lacked some of these things, it wouldn't matter (unless you're planning on wearing a headcovering which I would not recommend    ). These are but minor externals -  the True Faith is found in all of them. Some parishes may have curtains, some not especially those which came back to Orthodoxy after a sojourn as Eastern Catholic parishes. Some may have pews and more traditional ones, not. Again, doesn't matter in giving Glory to God. Don't make this too hard on yourself. Be joyful.

[holdencaulfield]

I will.

[Hesychios]

I will.

Hello my young friend. Always a pleasure. 

Pax et Bonum,
Michael

[Andrea]

Holdencaufield...

I just wanted to pipe up and say thanks for all the questions you've been asking.  I  followed your posts on another forum (FE, not CAF, can't bear to go there, LOL) and I have to say the answers you've been given have also been great help to me.

Enjoy Sunday!

Andrea

[The Iambic Pen]

I used to believe that she wasn't as well. But then:

• The Second Vatican Council
• The Novus Ordo

I just find this interesting, because dissenting traditionalist Catholics aren't real fans of those two things either, but they also tend to be huge supporters of papal authority...so long as the pope was pope before Vatican II, anyway...

The abbreviations are fine. What the objection to was just calling the bishop something like

Kallistos

or

+Kallistos

or using his former name Timothy Ware.

I can see why people might be confused, however.  On my copy of The Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Kallistos' name on the cover clearly says "Timothy Ware."

[ytterbiumanalyst]

I can see why people might be confused, however.  On my copy of The Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Kallistos' name on the cover clearly says "Timothy Ware."

Yes, unfortunately Met. Kallistos' book The Orthodox Church was published under the name of Timothy Ware, and thus Penguin (the publishing company) continues to reissue it with that name. To my knowledge, however, all of his other books use the name Kallistos Ware. It can be confusing to those who do not understand the name change.

[Papist]

I used to believe that she wasn't as well. But then:

• The Second Vatican Council
• The Novus Ordo

I just find this interesting, because dissenting traditionalist Catholics aren't real fans of those two things either, but they also tend to be huge supporters of papal authority...so long as the pope was pope before Vatican II, anyway...

The abbreviations are fine. What the objection to was just calling the bishop something like

Kallistos

or

+Kallistos

or using his former name Timothy Ware.

I can see why people might be confused, however.  On my copy of The Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Kallistos' name on the cover clearly says "Timothy Ware."

What? I'm a traditionalist but I love the Novus Ordo, when celebrated properly, and I love Vatican II when interprated in accord with holy tradition.

[searn77]

Holdencaufield...

I just wanted to pipe up and say thanks for all the questions you've been asking.  I  followed your posts on another forum (FE, not CAF, can't bear to go there, LOL) and I have to say the answers you've been given have also been great help to me.

Enjoy Sunday!

Andrea

Yeah, I have to agree and say thanks to everyone that participated on this thread. I am still considering becoming either Orthodox or Catholic though(although after reading this and other stuff I have to say Catholicism is pretty much out of the question. Although I have said this about Orthodoxy in the past so it's still going to take some time until I feel right about my decision.).

And to Andrea, what website is FE? And do you have the links to the posts from Holden that would pertain to the topic of choosing Orthodoxy or Catholicism on FE? I would greatly appreciate it

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Considering Orthodoxy