OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 26, 2014, 01:28:00 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: In your opinion what is a good enough reason for Christians to unite into one church?
Everyone else needs to agree 100% with my church's theology. - 36 (48%)
Jesus is the only thing that matters, theology is stupid. - 0 (0%)
RC's EO's and OO's should lift the anathemas and let each other co-exist in communion. - 14 (18.7%)
A compromised or an agreed upon statement of faith is all that's necessary for all Christians regardless of faith. - 4 (5.3%)
Unity?!  I hope those heretics burn in Hell! - 3 (4%)
Other.  EXPLAIN!!!! - 18 (24%)
Total Voters: 75

Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Christian unity: Poll  (Read 9657 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« on: April 12, 2009, 09:03:58 PM »

I hope this poll doesn't get moderated.  Feel free to remain anonymous if you voted for option #5.  I'm really just interested in knowing what the general spirit of the people on this forum is.  Is christian unity important to people?  Please give an explanation if you voted "other".

God bless,

Marc
Logged
Kav
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: romanian in USA
Posts: 61


« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2009, 09:34:45 PM »

One of the first errors I made after crismation was pride.

I was ORTHODOX!

Clever little me, I had collected $200 100fold times passing go, had a Get out of Jail free  card and bought Park Place  out from under Joel Olsteen, Reverand Shuller and that pink wigged lady on CBN.

I was no less in error than the smug people who believe in a rapture limited to so many people.

This is a critical time for humanity. but then, It has ALWAYS been a critical time, be it the Plague, National Socialism or Climate Change.

Secular humanism, a word I don't quite understand but equate with selfish hubrisism, elements of Islam intent on a messianic fullfilment of the Madi's arrival, the current economic slump  are all rich material for spreading the gospel.

And the irony is, in a few generations none of these will scare us, in their turn just another page in history, replaced by anything from global water shortages to a meteor we need to bump with a nuclear cue stick.

But meanwhile, I know what the gospel has done for me, what it could do as the simple majority of belief it now holds in total but not united majority of numbers.

I'd really like to attend Litergy with that lady as guest. I just hope she leaves that pink wig at home.

 
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,497


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2009, 09:48:04 PM »

I hope this poll doesn't get moderated.
I did modify one vulgar word to replace it with something more acceptable, but outside of that the poll is okay by moderatorial standards.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2009, 10:04:19 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,205


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2009, 10:41:53 PM »

I was gona put "other" and say something along the lines of:  when all of the bishops get together and agree on ecclesiology, theology, etc. with each other, in a constructive and easy to understand manner, which is REPRESENTATIVE of the people they "represent" (or are supposed to represent).  I would say that's the ideal situation. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,450


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2009, 10:51:31 PM »

I think that uniting ALL of Christianity is not likely. But I think that possibly someday the OO, EO and at least Eastern Catholic churches have a really good shot at uniting in the far off future.
Logged
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2009, 10:56:41 PM »

One may also ask, "to what extent is it appropriate to refer to those outside the Church as Christian?"
Logged
Kav
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: romanian in USA
Posts: 61


« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2009, 11:12:23 PM »

Oh great, I can see it now, a bunch of orthodox homeboys doing drivebyes in some Dutch Reform nieghborhood flashing our version of crossing only to return to find the meeting hall tagged in a  Book of kells vibrant coloured latin.

Haven't we have enough wars over 'who is Christian?'
Logged
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2009, 11:20:17 PM »

Oh great, I can see it now, a bunch of orthodox homeboys doing drivebyes in some Dutch Reform nieghborhood flashing our version of crossing only to return to find the meeting hall tagged in a  Book of kells vibrant coloured latin.

Haven't we have enough wars over 'who is Christian?'

You don't think a definition of "Christian" is needed before speaking of Christian unity?
Logged
Kav
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: romanian in USA
Posts: 61


« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2009, 11:34:40 PM »

Watching the obligatory epics of Easter television programming that should be easy- brown army surplus blankets from wardrobe are the Christians or Jews.
Everybody else is wearing  polyester in bright colours.
Logged
buzu
Moderated
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: greek
Posts: 16


« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2009, 11:38:17 PM »

I voted other. I think everyone needs to agree on the constant teaching of the church catholic. It doesnt have to be "my church only", if theres a vital council which decreed something, and if the Orthodox church agrees with the descision then it can be added as one of our own and vica versa. Of course while this theory sounds good , truth be told we disagree on way too much.
 Please refrain from posting until your dual user names (buzu & buzuxi) are sorted out.
ozgeorge (Global Moderator)
 
 Duplicate accounts are banned.

If you are having difficulties logging in as buzuxi, contact Fr Anastasios.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2009, 09:46:18 AM by FrChris » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2009, 01:11:14 AM »

I don't understand option 4:

"A compromised or an agreed upon statement of faith is all that's necessary for all Christians regardless of faith."

I thought that is what the Symbol of Faith was.

Except, of course, it is not agreed on.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2009, 08:37:43 AM »

I hope this poll doesn't get moderated.
I did modify one vulgar word to replace it with something more acceptable, but outside of that the poll is okay by moderatorial standards.

Just so everyone knows, it wasn't a "four letter word", it was a proper English word that means "a child born out of wedlock" but used in a derogatory manner - for hyperbolic impact of course Smiley

I think option #4 would have made more sense if I have had put "regardless of denomination", but that could have also raised issues because many do not consider the traditional churches as part of "denominational christianity."  How about "regardless of one's affiliation to a legal entity representative of an organized religious group claiming to be christian that may or may not span beyond international borders and may or may not require representation by a legal corporation in all or part of it's international constituents"?
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 13, 2009, 08:49:21 AM »

I voted "other," simply because, in my opinion (for all its worth) all of the listed statements are more or less missing the point and may be used by those who disagree with them as examples of something wrong. For one example, saying "everyone HAS to agree with my Church's teaching" has a connotation of forcing people to have certain views, which is never a good thing.

Perhaps my answer to the question, what's good for Church unity is simply, stay faithful and show everyone around you that you are a child of God.
Logged

Love never fails.
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #13 on: April 13, 2009, 09:15:46 AM »

My opinion is that unity should not be done touching the integrity of truth . It should be like a great council between Church Elders and debating for a long long time , every dogma and every belief being depicted in four . My idea is that Orthodoxy is the closest to the Truth , I don`t know taught every Orthodox dogma , but i also don`t disconsider the Catholics even if they fallen into some heresies . If any unity affects the truth in little ,than that unity should not be made . Thought I must say I consider unity in some way , but only in the true . Also my humble opinion is that we , the orthodox are in one of the best religious of all , and have one of the best doctrine , and teaches the true , mainly as it was left by the Church Fathers to the early Church trought the testimony of the seven councils .
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2009, 08:48:46 AM »

I voted "other," simply because, in my opinion (for all its worth) all of the listed statements are more or less missing the point and may be used by those who disagree with them as examples of something wrong. For one example, saying "everyone HAS to agree with my Church's teaching" has a connotation of forcing people to have certain views, which is never a good thing.

Perhaps my answer to the question, what's good for Church unity is simply, stay faithful and show everyone around you that you are a child of God.
Leading by example.  This is good.
Logged
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,874


« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2009, 10:05:28 AM »

Other. There will be no Christian unity outside of Orthodoxy without compromising Orthodoxy. OTH, I believe there are many true Christians not physically in the Orthodox church and the Lord knows better than I.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
truthstalker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Evangelical Presbyterian
Posts: 166


« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2009, 11:41:41 PM »

I marked "other." We should strive for unity because that is the will of Jesus as expressed in High Priestly Prayer (John 17).
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,168



WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2010, 06:08:35 AM »

Everyone else needs to agree 100% with my church's theology.     
I voted for other, but I should have voted for this one. I believe that my church's teaching is right- the Nicene Creed is an accurate statement of Christianity.
From a Christian perspective, everyone else needs to become one with Christ, and part of that would be to agree 100% with the basic teachings of Christianity. The Orthodox Church has preserved those teachings.

Everyone needs to agree 100% with the theology of the church to unite fully with Christ in mind, so therefore the churches should accept the basic teachings of the early church, unite, and teach Christians these teachings.
Logged
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2010, 06:25:42 AM »

I can't believe that there are 10 people or 32 percent of the votes, that want the heretics to burn. Where's the love of God?
http://www.oodegr.com/english/swthria/odos1.htm

Some have attempted to interpret the notions of "hell", of "enlightenment", of "salvation" and of "perdition" on the basis of their own scant experiences, given that they have never had even the faintest sighting of the reality of the future aeon.  This is why they say certain things somewhat altered to those who are further behind them on the road. And they in turn distort those things even more, and relay them even more altered to the others who are behind them.  This is how heresies are created.  However, this is also how the religiously INTOLERANT are created. These are usually the ones who believe themselves to be very close to the end of the road, and who even see mirages of the Kingdom (which are actually images that are a far cry from those of reality).  These people threaten the others with "eternal hell" and they confront God as though He were a "common sadist" and "unjust" - a God that one can only fear and hate.  It is people like these who become the cause for "the road to the Truth to be blasphemed", according to the words of the Bible. And while in reality they are under the impression that they are nearing the end of the road, they are actually still at the beginning – quite simply because they are displaying hatred, when this course is inextricably interwoven with LOVE (since the end of this road leads to God, Who is "Love").[i/]

Don't worry the blind can be saved too. just read the rest of this amazing article that I've posted.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,168



WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 11, 2010, 07:15:48 AM »

Quote
I can't believe that there are 10 people or 32 percent of the votes, that want the heretics to burn. Where's the love of God?
Maybe they are joking.
It is hard to think of someone who WANTS the heretics to burn in hell. After all, I think the evil Catholic Inquisition claimed that it was saving the people it tortured.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2010, 07:17:51 AM by rakovsky » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,950


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #20 on: June 11, 2010, 01:42:03 PM »

I can't believe that there are 10 people or 32 percent of the votes, that want the heretics to burn. Where's the love of God?

10 people have not voted to burn... 3 have.  10 voted for "Other."
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #21 on: June 11, 2010, 04:02:33 PM »

Quote
I can't believe that there are 10 people or 32 percent of the votes, that want the heretics to burn. Where's the love of God?
Maybe they are joking.
It is hard to think of someone who WANTS the heretics to burn in hell. After all, I think the evil Catholic Inquisition claimed that it was saving the people it tortured.

The physical punishments that accompanied guilty verdicts by the inquisitional courts were actually carried out by the state and not the Catholic Church.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,522



« Reply #22 on: June 11, 2010, 05:12:27 PM »

I voted other. I think it would need to be a combination of:

Quote
Everyone else needs to agree 100% with my church's theology.
RC's EO's and OO's should lift the anathemas and let each other co-exist in communion.
A compromised or an agreed upon statement of faith is all that's necessary for all Christians regardless of faith.


My personal opinon would be that unity within Orthodoxy (at least EO) would need to be straightened out before coming to any kind of agreed unity with other churches outside of that communion. Christian unity is still something that should be worked toward and prayed for.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,168



WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 11, 2010, 05:45:03 PM »

Quote
I can't believe that there are 10 people or 32 percent of the votes, that want the heretics to burn. Where's the love of God?
Maybe they are joking.
It is hard to think of someone who WANTS the heretics to burn in hell. After all, I think the evil Catholic Inquisition claimed that it was saving the people it tortured.

The physical punishments that accompanied guilty verdicts by the inquisitional courts were actually carried out by the state and not the Catholic Church.

Sure Due. I would be saying the same thing from a Catholic viewpoint. But OOPS you are missing a big point. The VERDICTS and executions were carried out by the state, but the interrogating tortures were supervised by the Catholic Church. They even put a clack cloth over the crucifix during the tortures to hide from Jesus what they were doing. I saw it on TV so I know it is true.

The point is that even while the Catholic Inquisition tortured people and its leaders approved of and were instrumental in the executions, indeed used political machinations in some cases to encourage them, the rationale was that they were saving the "heretics" from hell. The mentality though is very evil, shown by the fact that they were covering up crucifixes while doing this.

I am unaware of whether the "Office of the Holy Inquisition" was used against Orthodox. I do know that Orthodox were persecuted in Catholic countries like Austria and Poland, that the Inquisition had a very BAD reputation in Russia as seen in Dostoyevsky's works, and indeed Catholic orders had a reputation as being secretive, manipulative, and repressive, as seen by the term "Jesuitical" being used not infrequently in the Russian language to mean those things.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #24 on: June 12, 2010, 04:48:15 AM »

Quote
I can't believe that there are 10 people or 32 percent of the votes, that want the heretics to burn. Where's the love of God?
Maybe they are joking.
It is hard to think of someone who WANTS the heretics to burn in hell. After all, I think the evil Catholic Inquisition claimed that it was saving the people it tortured.

The physical punishments that accompanied guilty verdicts by the inquisitional courts were actually carried out by the state and not the Catholic Church.

Sure Due. I would be saying the same thing from a Catholic viewpoint. But OOPS you are missing a big point. The VERDICTS and executions were carried out by the state, but the interrogating tortures were supervised by the Catholic Church. They even put a clack cloth over the crucifix during the tortures to hide from Jesus what they were doing. I saw it on TV so I know it is true.

The point is that even while the Catholic Inquisition tortured people and its leaders approved of and were instrumental in the executions, indeed used political machinations in some cases to encourage them, the rationale was that they were saving the "heretics" from hell. The mentality though is very evil, shown by the fact that they were covering up crucifixes while doing this.

I am unaware of whether the "Office of the Holy Inquisition" was used against Orthodox. I do know that Orthodox were persecuted in Catholic countries like Austria and Poland, that the Inquisition had a very BAD reputation in Russia as seen in Dostoyevsky's works, and indeed Catholic orders had a reputation as being secretive, manipulative, and repressive, as seen by the term "Jesuitical" being used not infrequently in the Russian language to mean those things.
There are some books written by Henry Charles Lea on the inquisition and I think that he mentions there were cases in Milan or Venice, I am not sure which,  (but not the Spanish Inquisition), where a few people were brought forward for espousing the "Greek heresy."
But that is another topic.
For the question concerning Christian unity, yeah, it would be nice if at least there were some sort of loose union, but quite honestly, I don't see where either the RC or EO really want reunion. Oh, yes, there is hopeful and flowery talk about it,  but do they really want it? I don;t think so. For one thing, the RC know that the EO will never accept papal infallibility or universal papal jurisdiction, but where is the rewording and softening of this teaching to make it acceptable from the Orthodox viewpoint? For the EO, they go around saying that the RC baptism is invalid because sprinking or pouring does not qualify as a triple immersion whcih is required by the Church canons. So from the start all the RC Sacraments are invalid, and the Pope himself is a heretical layman without any priestly powers.
For another clue as to how much reunion is really wanted, there is a Church in Jerusalem, the Holy Sepulchre Church where control of the building is shared by EO, Armenian, RC, and others to a lesser extent such as the Coptic, Ethiopian and Syrian Orthodox. But is there charity in this most holy of Churches? I don;t see it. What I see is each side fiercely claiming to its rights and willing to declare all out war on the other over the slightest itty bitty minor issue, such as for example when in 2002 a Coptic monk was getting hot sitting in the sun, so he moved his chair just the slightest bit to a shaded area. Immediately, a brutal barbaric warlike fistfight broke out leaving eleven people almost dead and requiring hospitalisation.
If the RC and EO really wanted reunion, they would have been able to hammer things out long ago. But no, neither side wants to budge from the status quo. That's just the way things are.
Logged
Sloga
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 830



« Reply #25 on: June 12, 2010, 05:04:01 AM »

the EO and OO need to unify sooner than later and I believe it is very doable. This needs to be done on whatever grounds required and I feel a compromise between the two will not hurt any theological stands. After that, let the Romans and Protestants come to us, if they like. No budging in that area.
Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,168



WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 12, 2010, 05:45:39 AM »

I was surprised to hear about what you said about the "Greek heresy"!!!

Quote
For the EO, they go around saying that the RC baptism is invalid because sprinking or pouring does not qualify as a triple immersion whcih is required by the Church canons.
I think this is debated. Anyway, Roman Catholics are accepted into Orthodoxy (minus Greek) by Chrismation without rebaptism.


You are right that if both churches wanted a reunion enough, they COULD do it.

It would be a big mistake though in saying it is both the churches' faults equally for failing to work things out. Let's say you and I sit down to work things out and negotiate.

The cards you hold in your hand is the chair of the Pope/Patriach of Rome and a claim of unequaled papal supremacy and infallibility.

The cards I hold are the chairs of all the ancient Patriarchs and claims that we are all equal in authority as Jesus' disciples.

Practically speaking, there is not a compromise on this that will make both sides happy based on POWER. POWER is the biggest practical cause of the division I believe. So this is what we will negotiate in this round.

Let's say I accept your claim. Then I am absolutely under you and I have to conform my doctrines to Rome. Then all I did was become Eastern Catholic, mere autonomy under a single earthly dictator. I am under your power now as my superior and you are not under mine so long as you rule me.

If you give up Unequaled Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, it will be an enormous loss in your eyes. It is like a King accepting a small parliament! And giving up infallibility? It is like a "god" becoming admitting he can be wrong. Wow! Is the Pope going to give that up? Look at the presumptions the Vatican makes. It has it's own state! Its one chair controlled nearly all the western world from 1450 until the Reformation. It ran the Crusades against Islam, pillaging Byzantium on the way. The current Pope belong to the Office of the Inquisition (renamed). How many holy orders and governments swore to it and what secrets does it have in its archives? The name of the Pope is so awe-ful for millions and millions of catholics all over the world. Is he going to lower himself to be a mere "equal" of our Patriarchs, weak besides Russia and Greece?

From a Machievellian standpoint of power, Rome is not going to give up its claims to authority and become a mere "equal", constrained in its innovations and decisions by "weakling" Patriarchs. And considering the abuses of power and theological innovations in the Catholic Church I do not believe the Orthodox Church should submit itself to Rome as its Supreme Ruler.

OK, you and I can compromise. I can say the Pope is equal, and you can say he has primacy (firstness). We can agree that the Pope is "first among equals." We can agree that he gets first place physically in chairing meetings, but all our Patriarchates are autocephalous and he doesn't speak for us if we disagree on something.

This is reasonable to me. It gives Rome some honor without giving up our independence and rights. This compromise is the Orthodox position and is the best I see for Rome's position without submitting everyone to the one-man dictatorship of someone who has not replaced Jesus.


The blame I see for not accepting such a compromise, for not agreeing to autocephaly, indeed for previously forcing Latin ways on Byzantine Catholics, is ultimately Rome's. And why should Rome politically have bowed to Greece, crushed under Turkey, or faraway cold "barbarian" Russia? Now that Greece is independent in the last century maybe Rome is thinking about it more.


I do hope that the churches will unite, but I believe there is a strong reasons of political power why Rome has not chosen to do so long ago as you say.

On the Orthodox Church's terms there would be equality, but on Rome's terms Rome would have Supremacy.

Rome is powerful and has supremacy in the west, why would it want to lower its administrative power to that of the weaker, smaller chairs of the other apostles?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #27 on: June 12, 2010, 04:13:48 PM »

I was surprised to hear about what you said about the "Greek heresy"!!!
Mr. Lea has a number of books on the Inquisition and unfortunately, I don;t have them in front of me right now. A lot of them are on the Google books, and I have been debating about buying an e-reader, perhaps the Sony, where I could read these easily, but as yet I have not bought one. As I recall, there were a few people, I guess they were RC or former RC, brought before the Inquisition (not the Spanish but one in what is now Italy) for the "Greek heresy". There was no mention made of their being tortured, only questioned about it.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #28 on: June 12, 2010, 04:30:44 PM »

I was surprised to hear about what you said about the "Greek heresy"!!!

Quote
For the EO, they go around saying that the RC baptism is invalid because sprinking or pouring does not qualify as a triple immersion whcih is required by the Church canons.
I think this is debated. Anyway, Roman Catholics are accepted into Orthodoxy (minus Greek) by Chrismation without rebaptism.


You are right that if both churches wanted a reunion enough, they COULD do it.

It would be a big mistake though in saying it is both the churches' faults equally for failing to work things out. Let's say you and I sit down to work things out and negotiate.

The cards you hold in your hand is the chair of the Pope/Patriach of Rome and a claim of unequaled papal supremacy and infallibility.

The cards I hold are the chairs of all the ancient Patriarchs and claims that we are all equal in authority as Jesus' disciples.

Practically speaking, there is not a compromise on this that will make both sides happy based on POWER. POWER is the biggest practical cause of the division I believe. So this is what we will negotiate in this round.

Let's say I accept your claim. Then I am absolutely under you and I have to conform my doctrines to Rome. Then all I did was become Eastern Catholic, mere autonomy under a single earthly dictator. I am under your power now as my superior and you are not under mine so long as you rule me.

If you give up Unequaled Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, it will be an enormous loss in your eyes. It is like a King accepting a small parliament! And giving up infallibility? It is like a "god" becoming admitting he can be wrong. Wow! Is the Pope going to give that up? Look at the presumptions the Vatican makes. It has it's own state! Its one chair controlled nearly all the western world from 1450 until the Reformation. It ran the Crusades against Islam, pillaging Byzantium on the way. The current Pope belong to the Office of the Inquisition (renamed). How many holy orders and governments swore to it and what secrets does it have in its archives? The name of the Pope is so awe-ful for millions and millions of catholics all over the world. Is he going to lower himself to be a mere "equal" of our Patriarchs, weak besides Russia and Greece?

From a Machievellian standpoint of power, Rome is not going to give up its claims to authority and become a mere "equal", constrained in its innovations and decisions by "weakling" Patriarchs. And considering the abuses of power and theological innovations in the Catholic Church I do not believe the Orthodox Church should submit itself to Rome as its Supreme Ruler.

OK, you and I can compromise. I can say the Pope is equal, and you can say he has primacy (firstness). We can agree that the Pope is "first among equals." We can agree that he gets first place physically in chairing meetings, but all our Patriarchates are autocephalous and he doesn't speak for us if we disagree on something.

This is reasonable to me. It gives Rome some honor without giving up our independence and rights. This compromise is the Orthodox position and is the best I see for Rome's position without submitting everyone to the one-man dictatorship of someone who has not replaced Jesus.


The blame I see for not accepting such a compromise, for not agreeing to autocephaly, indeed for previously forcing Latin ways on Byzantine Catholics, is ultimately Rome's. And why should Rome politically have bowed to Greece, crushed under Turkey, or faraway cold "barbarian" Russia? Now that Greece is independent in the last century maybe Rome is thinking about it more.


I do hope that the churches will unite, but I believe there is a strong reasons of political power why Rome has not chosen to do so long ago as you say.

On the Orthodox Church's terms there would be equality, but on Rome's terms Rome would have Supremacy.

Rome is powerful and has supremacy in the west, why would it want to lower its administrative power to that of the weaker, smaller chairs of the other apostles?
OK. that is your POV. It is true that RC are stubborn and could modify and soften this teaching on Papal primacy, but I read that for the EO it is not enough for the Pope to convert to EO. What has to take place is that after the Pope converts, then each individual bishop and priest would have to convert individually. Still, that would not be enough, because after this had occurred, each individual Catholic would have to convert to EO, one by one. Only then would there be reunion.  As I see it, neither side wants to budge one itty bitty tiny bit from their positions. They are blabbering about reunion, but if they really wanted it, they could hammer things out. there are a lot of examples as to how the two sides work together at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Church needed a new dome and how many years did it take before they agreed to a plan for the dome? Was it 20 or 30? Each side presented the other with a beautiful detailed plan for reconstruction only to have it turned down by the other side?
Then there was the case of a door at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre which was slightly open at the RC part of the Church during a promenade by an EO group. One side demanded the door be closed tight, the other said they wanted it opened just a crack for the air and a brutal and vicious bloody fist fight broke out between the EO and RC over this ridiculous issue at the most Holy Church in the world. How many people ended up in the hospital over this? I don't see this as a shining example of Christian charity as preached by Our Divine Lord?
Each side blames the other and each side wants to hold its ground. As long as this attitude prevails, I am sorry, but there will be no reunion between RC and EO.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #29 on: June 12, 2010, 04:34:45 PM »

I was surprised to hear about what you said about the "Greek heresy"!!!

Quote
For the EO, they go around saying that the RC baptism is invalid because sprinking or pouring does not qualify as a triple immersion whcih is required by the Church canons.
I think this is debated. Anyway, Roman Catholics are accepted into Orthodoxy (minus Greek) by Chrismation without rebaptism.


You are right that if both churches wanted a reunion enough, they COULD do it.

It would be a big mistake though in saying it is both the churches' faults equally for failing to work things out. Let's say you and I sit down to work things out and negotiate.

The cards you hold in your hand is the chair of the Pope/Patriach of Rome and a claim of unequaled papal supremacy and infallibility.

The cards I hold are the chairs of all the ancient Patriarchs and claims that we are all equal in authority as Jesus' disciples.

Practically speaking, there is not a compromise on this that will make both sides happy based on POWER. POWER is the biggest practical cause of the division I believe. So this is what we will negotiate in this round.

Let's say I accept your claim. Then I am absolutely under you and I have to conform my doctrines to Rome. Then all I did was become Eastern Catholic, mere autonomy under a single earthly dictator. I am under your power now as my superior and you are not under mine so long as you rule me.

If you give up Unequaled Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, it will be an enormous loss in your eyes. It is like a King accepting a small parliament! And giving up infallibility? It is like a "god" becoming admitting he can be wrong. Wow! Is the Pope going to give that up? Look at the presumptions the Vatican makes. It has it's own state! Its one chair controlled nearly all the western world from 1450 until the Reformation. It ran the Crusades against Islam, pillaging Byzantium on the way. The current Pope belong to the Office of the Inquisition (renamed). How many holy orders and governments swore to it and what secrets does it have in its archives? The name of the Pope is so awe-ful for millions and millions of catholics all over the world. Is he going to lower himself to be a mere "equal" of our Patriarchs, weak besides Russia and Greece?

From a Machievellian standpoint of power, Rome is not going to give up its claims to authority and become a mere "equal", constrained in its innovations and decisions by "weakling" Patriarchs. And considering the abuses of power and theological innovations in the Catholic Church I do not believe the Orthodox Church should submit itself to Rome as its Supreme Ruler.

OK, you and I can compromise. I can say the Pope is equal, and you can say he has primacy (firstness). We can agree that the Pope is "first among equals." We can agree that he gets first place physically in chairing meetings, but all our Patriarchates are autocephalous and he doesn't speak for us if we disagree on something.

This is reasonable to me. It gives Rome some honor without giving up our independence and rights. This compromise is the Orthodox position and is the best I see for Rome's position without submitting everyone to the one-man dictatorship of someone who has not replaced Jesus.


The blame I see for not accepting such a compromise, for not agreeing to autocephaly, indeed for previously forcing Latin ways on Byzantine Catholics, is ultimately Rome's. And why should Rome politically have bowed to Greece, crushed under Turkey, or faraway cold "barbarian" Russia? Now that Greece is independent in the last century maybe Rome is thinking about it more.


I do hope that the churches will unite, but I believe there is a strong reasons of political power why Rome has not chosen to do so long ago as you say.

On the Orthodox Church's terms there would be equality, but on Rome's terms Rome would have Supremacy.

Rome is powerful and has supremacy in the west, why would it want to lower its administrative power to that of the weaker, smaller chairs of the other apostles?
Actually, I think that Rome is going to have to modify or redefine its previous teaching on papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction for any progress to be made. It is just not acceptable to the EO as it stands now.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,168



WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 12, 2010, 05:38:48 PM »

Quote
Actually, I think that Rome is going to have to modify or redefine its previous teaching on papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction for any progress to be made. It is just not acceptable to the EO as it stands now.

Thank you for recognizing this. Byzantine Catholics converted to Orthodoxy "en-masse", not individually. If Catholic doctrines and practices became acceptable enough to Orthodoxy, then the Catholic church would have gone back to the pre-schism ways. Some huge service could be held to do this. This is not a big stumbling block, nor are fine points of doctrine, where people can sit down and search for the original meaning without administrative consequences.

The main stumbling block I believe is POWER.

On the Orthodox Church's terms there would be equality, but on Rome's terms Rome would have Supremacy. Rome is the largest Christian church, is exceedingly powerful, and its supremacy is obeyed in the west and by thousands of Eastern Catholics. Why would Rome settle for less?

Luther and millions of reformationist catholics wanted the Pope to abandon supremacy to the point where they split off. The Pope does not care about their "personal opinions" and modern Lutherans' pro-union "blabbering" as you say. You would need a very large majority of Roman Catholics to demand the Pope accept equality with the eastern weaklings and far-off Russians. Or you would need Orthodoxy in the east to gain as much earthly POWER before the Pope would treat the chairs of the other apostles as equal.

POWER is the main reason for the split, I believe.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2010, 05:40:03 PM by rakovsky » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2010, 06:35:20 PM »

Something close to #1. Everyone has to agree with the OO on doctrines that are fundamental to salvation, and they have to only recognize documents, councils, formulas, and concepts that are faithful to those doctrines, and reject those that are not.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #32 on: July 12, 2010, 07:29:03 PM »

I voted for "RC's EO's and OO's should lift the anathemas and let each other co-exist in communion," but after having voted for that I realize that that should only be the first step. We should then work on Protestants coming back into the fold, but I do not think that will be able to happen in any large capacity until the Apostolic Churches are reunited. I hesitate to say any more than that and I especially hesitate to speculate on how such a reunion would occur as everyone has their own opinion on what would have to happen for that to take place. I don't think it's necessarily going to happen the way most think it will have to happen and I don't think it will happen at all as long as human pride gets in the way. It's going to have to be a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #33 on: July 12, 2010, 07:41:07 PM »

the EO and OO need to unify sooner than later and I believe it is very doable. This needs to be done on whatever grounds required and I feel a compromise between the two will not hurt any theological stands. After that, let the Romans and Protestants come to us, if they like. No budging in that area.
I second all counts.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #34 on: July 12, 2010, 07:54:44 PM »

Quote
I can't believe that there are 10 people or 32 percent of the votes, that want the heretics to burn. Where's the love of God?
Maybe they are joking.
It is hard to think of someone who WANTS the heretics to burn in hell. After all, I think the evil Catholic Inquisition claimed that it was saving the people it tortured.

The physical punishments that accompanied guilty verdicts by the inquisitional courts were actually carried out by the state and not the Catholic Church.

Sure Due. I would be saying the same thing from a Catholic viewpoint. But OOPS you are missing a big point. The VERDICTS and executions were carried out by the state, but the interrogating tortures were supervised by the Catholic Church. They even put a clack cloth over the crucifix during the tortures to hide from Jesus what they were doing. I saw it on TV so I know it is true.

The point is that even while the Catholic Inquisition tortured people and its leaders approved of and were instrumental in the executions, indeed used political machinations in some cases to encourage them, the rationale was that they were saving the "heretics" from hell. The mentality though is very evil, shown by the fact that they were covering up crucifixes while doing this.

I am unaware of whether the "Office of the Holy Inquisition" was used against Orthodox. I do know that Orthodox were persecuted in Catholic countries like Austria and Poland, that the Inquisition had a very BAD reputation in Russia as seen in Dostoyevsky's works, and indeed Catholic orders had a reputation as being secretive, manipulative, and repressive, as seen by the term "Jesuitical" being used not infrequently in the Russian language to mean those things.
There's a reason for that:
Quote
The sound principles of Catholicism, however, were maintained and propagated by the Jesuits who, suppressed by the Holy See and exiled from the Catholic nations, found an asylum and the centre of their future revival in Russia. In 1779 Catharine II invited the Jesuits to exercise their ministry in White Russia, and in 1786 they had in Russia six colleges and 178 members. Their number increased so much that Pius VII re-established their order for Russia, where it returned to life under Father Gruber. In 1801 the society had 262 members, and 347 in 1811. The Jesuits retained a lively gratitude for the hospitality that they had received in Russia, and worked with zeal to convert it to Catholicism.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13253a.htm

reminds me of the fables of the spider/scorpion/snake biting/stinging the bird/turtle helping it across the river.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,168



WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 12, 2010, 07:55:13 PM »

I voted for "RC's EO's and OO's should lift the anathemas and let each other co-exist in communion," but after having voted for that I realize that that should only be the first step. We should then work on Protestants coming back into the fold, but I do not think that will be able to happen in any large capacity until the Apostolic Churches are reunited.

It is more likely that Protestants, Orientals, and Orthodox will all join together than Catholics will join with Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and the Orientals. the reason is that the Pope considers himself Supreme, unequal, sometimes infallible, and as such demands OBEDIENCE in all matters of faith. Consequently, no one can reunite with Rome without abandoning all of their autocephaly and own separate faith beliefs.

This is reflected in Orthodox and Protestants belonging to the ecumenical WCC (whatever its faults) without the Catholic Church.

There is a huge imbalance of political power and a doctrinal obstacle about UNRIVALED SUPREMACY and OBEDIENCE that exists between the Catholic Church and all other churches.

With the reduction of the power of Bysantium/Greece and Egypt/Alexandria as ancient power-rivals, I do see a much more likely chance that power will not obscure our views and we can much more objectively review doctrinal differences while staying loyal to our own traditions and good faith ecumenism between eachother.


It may turn out that the Chalcedonian churches are closest to eachother in terms of basic foundations of understanding of God's nature, but because of the strong political power situations, (which allegedly added to problems around Chalcedon), we may be able to overcome these divisions  between the 7-Council Orthodox and Oriental churches.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #36 on: July 12, 2010, 08:43:46 PM »

I voted for "RC's EO's and OO's should lift the anathemas and let each other co-exist in communion," but after having voted for that I realize that that should only be the first step. We should then work on Protestants coming back into the fold, but I do not think that will be able to happen in any large capacity until the Apostolic Churches are reunited.

It is more likely that Protestants, Orientals, and Orthodox will all join together than Catholics will join with Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and the Orientals. the reason is that the Pope considers himself Supreme, unequal, sometimes infallible, and as such demands OBEDIENCE in all matters of faith. Consequently, no one can reunite with Rome without abandoning all of their autocephaly and own separate faith beliefs.

This is reflected in Orthodox and Protestants belonging to the ecumenical WCC (whatever its faults) without the Catholic Church.

There is a huge imbalance of political power and a doctrinal obstacle about UNRIVALED SUPREMACY and OBEDIENCE that exists between the Catholic Church and all other churches.

With the reduction of the power of Bysantium/Greece and Egypt/Alexandria as ancient power-rivals, I do see a much more likely chance that power will not obscure our views and we can much more objectively review doctrinal differences while staying loyal to our own traditions and good faith ecumenism between eachother.


It may turn out that the Chalcedonian churches are closest to eachother in terms of basic foundations of understanding of God's nature, but because of the strong political power situations, (which allegedly added to problems around Chalcedon), we may be able to overcome these divisions  between the 7-Council Orthodox and Oriental churches.

It's funny that you say that. I was a Protestant all my life until I entered the Catholic Church in 2007. I, my dad, and my cousin all joined at the same time. All of us were formerly Protestant Christians. The next year a friend of mine as well as two of my dad's friends (all former Protestants) joined the Catholic Church. Right now a good friend of mine (a Protestant) is attending Catholic inquiry classes. He usually drives me to Mass and attends Mass with me because I have a disability and need transportation. Through doing this for me he has become interested in the Catholic faith.

If you have ever watched EWTN and seen the Journey Home, everyday you hear stories of mostly former Protestants who entered the Catholic Church. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know for myself, the Pope never "demanded" anything from me whenever I was a Protestant. I came to Rome willingly. I would imagine the same is true for the others as well. Wink

Now that I think about it...perhaps we don't need reunion of the Apostolic Churches before reaching out to Protestants. Seems like the Protestants are coming home just fine. Smiley
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 08:48:03 PM by Wyatt » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #37 on: July 12, 2010, 10:14:55 PM »

I voted for "RC's EO's and OO's should lift the anathemas and let each other co-exist in communion," but after having voted for that I realize that that should only be the first step. We should then work on Protestants coming back into the fold, but I do not think that will be able to happen in any large capacity until the Apostolic Churches are reunited.

It is more likely that Protestants, Orientals, and Orthodox will all join together than Catholics will join with Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and the Orientals. the reason is that the Pope considers himself Supreme, unequal, sometimes infallible, and as such demands OBEDIENCE in all matters of faith. Consequently, no one can reunite with Rome without abandoning all of their autocephaly and own separate faith beliefs.

This is reflected in Orthodox and Protestants belonging to the ecumenical WCC (whatever its faults) without the Catholic Church.

There is a huge imbalance of political power and a doctrinal obstacle about UNRIVALED SUPREMACY and OBEDIENCE that exists between the Catholic Church and all other churches.

With the reduction of the power of Bysantium/Greece and Egypt/Alexandria as ancient power-rivals, I do see a much more likely chance that power will not obscure our views and we can much more objectively review doctrinal differences while staying loyal to our own traditions and good faith ecumenism between eachother.


It may turn out that the Chalcedonian churches are closest to eachother in terms of basic foundations of understanding of God's nature, but because of the strong political power situations, (which allegedly added to problems around Chalcedon), we may be able to overcome these divisions  between the 7-Council Orthodox and Oriental churches.

It's funny that you say that. I was a Protestant all my life until I entered the Catholic Church in 2007. I, my dad, and my cousin all joined at the same time. All of us were formerly Protestant Christians. The next year a friend of mine as well as two of my dad's friends (all former Protestants) joined the Catholic Church. Right now a good friend of mine (a Protestant) is attending Catholic inquiry classes. He usually drives me to Mass and attends Mass with me because I have a disability and need transportation. Through doing this for me he has become interested in the Catholic faith.

If you have ever watched EWTN and seen the Journey Home, everyday you hear stories of mostly former Protestants who entered the Catholic Church. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know for myself, the Pope never "demanded" anything from me whenever I was a Protestant. I came to Rome willingly. I would imagine the same is true for the others as well. Wink

Now that I think about it...perhaps we don't need reunion of the Apostolic Churches before reaching out to Protestants. Seems like the Protestants are coming home just fine. Smiley
Yes:
Logged

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

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,522



« Reply #38 on: July 12, 2010, 11:13:54 PM »

It seems to me that reunion of churches would be easier between the EO (and old believers), OO, RC (and traditionalist catholics), ACE, and possibly but not probably the Anglican Communion than any of the other protestant churches. I say this because the churches mentioned are all single bodies with a structured (although somewhat differently) authority with the bishop as the shepherd of the local church maintained by mutual intercommunion, acceptance, and shared faith with the other bishops of that particular church. It just seems to me to be alomst impossible for any other protestant church to come into communion with any of the churches named above simply because of the differences in ecclesiology and structure of authority. They could not simply share communion but would have to convert either indiviudally as persons or at best individual parishes/churches under the authority of another church. Basically, it would be easier for the Pope of Rome, the Patriarchs of the EO, The Patriarchs of the OO, the Cathilicos(? forgive me if I use the wrong term) of the ACE, and even possibly the Archbishop of Canterbury to all come to an agreement (with their particular churches) than it would for even one of the churches mentioned here to come to an agreement with any protestant denomination as a whole. Lutherans have enough liturgical tradition to possibly establish a distinct liturgical rite under the authority of another jurisdiction but lack the ecclesiological organization to just declare intercommunion with any of the churches mentioned here.

Just an observation.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,168



WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 13, 2010, 02:18:16 AM »

I voted for "RC's EO's and OO's should lift the anathemas and let each other co-exist in communion," but after having voted for that I realize that that should only be the first step. We should then work on Protestants coming back into the fold, but I do not think that will be able to happen in any large capacity until the Apostolic Churches are reunited.

It is more likely that Protestants, Orientals, and Orthodox will all join together than Catholics will join with Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and the Orientals. the reason is that the Pope considers himself Supreme, unequal, sometimes infallible, and as such demands OBEDIENCE in all matters of faith. Consequently, no one can reunite with Rome without abandoning all of their autocephaly and own separate faith beliefs.

This is reflected in Orthodox and Protestants belonging to the ecumenical WCC (whatever its faults) without the Catholic Church.

There is a huge imbalance of political power and a doctrinal obstacle about UNRIVALED SUPREMACY and OBEDIENCE that exists between the Catholic Church and all other churches.

With the reduction of the power of Bysantium/Greece and Egypt/Alexandria as ancient power-rivals, I do see a much more likely chance that power will not obscure our views and we can much more objectively review doctrinal differences while staying loyal to our own traditions and good faith ecumenism between eachother.


It may turn out that the Chalcedonian churches are closest to eachother in terms of basic foundations of understanding of God's nature, but because of the strong political power situations, (which allegedly added to problems around Chalcedon), we may be able to overcome these divisions  between the 7-Council Orthodox and Oriental churches.

It's funny that you say that. I was a Protestant all my life until I entered the Catholic Church in 2007. I, my dad, and my cousin all joined at the same time. All of us were formerly Protestant Christians. The next year a friend of mine as well as two of my dad's friends (all former Protestants) joined the Catholic Church. Right now a good friend of mine (a Protestant) is attending Catholic inquiry classes. He usually drives me to Mass and attends Mass with me because I have a disability and need transportation. Through doing this for me he has become interested in the Catholic faith.

If you have ever watched EWTN and seen the Journey Home, everyday you hear stories of mostly former Protestants who entered the Catholic Church. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know for myself, the Pope never "demanded" anything from me whenever I was a Protestant. I came to Rome willingly. I would imagine the same is true for the others as well. Wink

Now that I think about it...perhaps we don't need reunion of the Apostolic Churches before reaching out to Protestants. Seems like the Protestants are coming home just fine. Smiley

My 2 cents: Protestants should come home to Catholic Church, with apostolic succession and subjection to church traditions. Catholics should, if possible, urge their leaders to abandon inventions of the early Middle Ages- the filioque, papal infallibility, required obedience to pope in all matters of faith, purgatory.

Luther might have thrown the baby out with the bath water, but there was alot of bath water with accumulated baby fluids.


I like Catholics. Only bad thing is if the "Leadership" abuses them, and says they "MUST" bow down as if it is vicar of Christ on earth or something.

Regards, Sympathies, and Blessings on your spiritual journey.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 02:19:48 AM by rakovsky » Logged
Antonious Nikolas
Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,705


Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra


WWW
« Reply #40 on: July 13, 2010, 03:42:11 PM »

One may also ask, "to what extent is it appropriate to refer to those outside the Church as Christian?"

I agree.  And I think that anyone who tries to characterize what you're saying as uncharitable is misinterpreting your post.

"Self-identifying" as Christian isn't enough.  Some sort of working definition needs to be established for the purposes of discussion.

If I don't believe the Lord Jesus is God in the Flesh, rose from the dead, or even worked any miracles, but I follow His "moral teachings" a la Jefferson's The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth am I a Christian?

If I don't believe in the Holy Trinity and claim such a concept is foreign to the New Testament am I a Christian?

If I incorporate spirit possession and other polytheistic practices into my "worship" and cloak it in a Christian veneer, am I a Christian?

If I believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ came back again as Haile Selassie, am I a Christian?

If I am a polygamist because I think such a thing is a "Biblical concept which Jesus never specifically removed" am I a Christian?

If I "follow Jesus but not the distortions of Paul or Constantine" am I a Christian?

If I believe that the Bible forbids "interracial" relationships and that God made some "races" better than others, am I a Christian?

If I believe that I can be a Christian and simultaneously be a Mason, a Skull & Bones member, or a "Christian Buddhist" am I a Christian?

If I believe that Jehovah is a man who lives on another planet and came down to "father" the Lord Jesus in a conventional human manner, am I a Christian?

Plenty of people who self-identify as "Christian" believe in exactly these sorts of things.  I made a point not to put a single thing on my little list there unless I had personally dialogued with a person who had told me just such a thing at some point in my life.  I don't think establishing a working definition for the purposes of dialogue or discussion is a bad thing, but rather a necessary thing.
Logged

“Nothing is better than to realize one’s weakness and ignorance and nothing is worse than not to be aware of them.” - St. Peter of Damascus
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,168



WWW
« Reply #41 on: July 13, 2010, 06:34:24 PM »

One may also ask, "to what extent is it appropriate to refer to those outside the Church as Christian?"

I agree.  And I think that anyone who tries to characterize what you're saying as uncharitable is misinterpreting your post.
I think it could be uncharitable, although it could be not mainly out of uncharitability, but just a definition of Christianity


"Self-identifying" as Christian isn't enough.  Some sort of working definition needs to be established for the purposes of discussion.

If I don't believe the Lord Jesus is God in the Flesh, rose from the dead, or even worked any miracles, but I follow His "moral teachings" a la Jefferson's The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth am I a Christian?
I think so, you are follower of Christ.

If I don't believe in the Holy Trinity and claim such a concept is foreign to the New Testament am I a Christian?
I think you are follower of Christ.

If I incorporate spirit possession and other polytheistic practices into my "worship" and cloak it in a Christian veneer, am I a Christian?
This sounds like the [crazy?] Charismatic movement in the Catholic Church. If it is just incorporation of bad practices, but faith is Christian, I think still Christian you are.

If I believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ came back again as Haile Selassie, am I a Christian?
It seems not, because you are follower of combined Selassie-Jesus, and I think that has been infiltrated too much by another person. it's not just rejection of doctrines, you are following another person as if Jesus. It's arguable you are Christian, but I think no.

If I am a polygamist because I think such a thing is a "Biblical concept which Jesus never specifically removed" am I a Christian? I think so, just following ecil practices.

If I "follow Jesus but not the distortions of Paul or Constantine" am I a Christian?
Yep.

If I believe that the Bible forbids "interracial" relationships and that God made some "races" better than others, am I a Christian?
Yeah, but you need help on this.

If I believe that I can be a Christian and simultaneously be a Mason, a Skull & Bones member, or a "Christian Buddhist" am I a Christian?

Not a very consistent one in practice, but if you do believe in Jesus and not in Jebulon (Masons' God), then yeah.

If I believe that Jehovah is a man who lives on another planet and came down to "father" the Lord Jesus in a conventional human manner, am I a Christian?

This is so different than Jesus, and the writings they use are so different than the Bible, that it's as if they are not talking about the same human being.



So in conclusion, the idea of Rastafarians and Mormons actually is so distant from the human person Jesus, that I think no. At least with Jefferson and JWs, they have the right human being in mind. They do put themselves under the person who was Jesus, even if their understanding or obedience is very confused or wrong. With Rastafarians and Mormons they actually are not under the same person- the Rastas have combined Him with another human individual, and the Mormons as you said are talking of someone from another planet, not someone from Bethlehem and heaven. So it's just that they do not think of the person Jesus with wrong understanding, they are thinking of someone physically different.

Meanwhile, I think that Arians, Jehovah's witnesses, and now that I think of it, even Muslims are Christians because they follow the person who is Christ. However, they have very wrong understandings about who he is (they don't believe He is fully God, I think), and they also have wrong scriptures. But we can go to Bethlehem, the Theotokos, and His birth, and I think Muslims and JWs would say, yes, that's Him, we follow Him.

But with Rastas, they would say here's Selassie physically, this is physically Jesus, and the answer is No, He isn't. And with Mormons, you would go looking for Jesus at time of His birth on another planet and wouldn't find his physical body there. Also, if Masons do in fact deny Christ (I have heard this is in their writings someplace), then they aren't Christian. Also, if they worship Jebulon as a combination of ancient deities, then it seems their God isn't the same one as Christianity's, Islam, or Judaism's, it is actually a combination of non-Jehovah deities.

Further, Satanism and Scientology are not "churches." One is the opposite of a church and the other is a tax scheme with a "crossed-out cross" and explicit satanic origins- a strong statement but this is very strongly the hidden case!
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 06:47:04 PM by rakovsky » Logged
Antonious Nikolas
Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,705


Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra


WWW
« Reply #42 on: July 13, 2010, 08:48:59 PM »

You're very astute at discerning exactly what most of these folks actually were.  Well done!  Cheesy

I have to say, though, that while I agree with you on certain points, I disagree on others.  I guess my definition of a Christian is a little more narrow than yours, but that's cool.  We're neither of us definitive.

I suppose in a way it boils down to what we mean by the term Christian.  If, as you say, we mean merely "a follower of Christ", whatever we may conceive of Christ as being, then I suppose we'd have to include those who think He was merely "a man" (Jeffersonian deists, "Christian Buddhists", Muslims), a hybrid sired by a spaceman (Mormons - remember, they think a humanoid Jehovah came from another planet - not his son Jesus, whom he sired on Earth), and those who worship Him alongside or in combination with other deities ("Christian Rastas", some polytheistic cultists).

However, if by Christian we mean a follower of the Faith actually established by Christ and His Apostles in the first century AD, the definition becomes much more narrow.  Depending on who you talk to, this could mean members of the authentic Apostolic Churches only, or members of one particular communion.  I think that an organic, authentic continuity with the Church established by Christ and His Apostles should be part of the definition somewhere, and this certainly narrows the field for me.

Using the former definition, unity between all "Christians" would be impossible and undesirable (unless, of course, they recanted all their heretical beliefs).  Using the latter, it would be difficult, but quite possible indeed (especially in the case of unity with the EO and the OO and maybe some of the other Apostolic Churches after much honest discussion and the recanting of certain points by those who are in error - maybe 1000 years from now! - LOL!) and I'd love to see this happen eventually.
Logged

“Nothing is better than to realize one’s weakness and ignorance and nothing is worse than not to be aware of them.” - St. Peter of Damascus
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,168



WWW
« Reply #43 on: July 13, 2010, 09:25:28 PM »

Quote
You're very astute at discerning exactly what most of these folks actually were.  Well done!  Cheesy

I have to say, though, that while I agree with you on certain points, I disagree on others.  I guess my definition of a Christian is a little more narrow than yours, but that's cool.  We're neither of us definitive.
Sure, if it means right knowledge, understanding of, and following Christ, very few nonOrthodox might fit it.
Even very few Orthodox will fit this, because we have not physically met him in his time, we only do our best to learn more. Many of us do not have such complete knowledge, and have misunderstandings.

You might be able to say that nonChalcedonians, or Catholics, or other groups' "understanding" of Christ is so different, or they are not in The canonical church, so that they are not Christian. But I disagree, and not just on a spiritual level, where I say I think Protestants follow Jesus too. It seems that Christian is supporter/follower of Christ, and I believe that many JWs are sincere in their attempt to follow him, and the Him is the same individual- Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Whether they recognize that Christ is also God, they still follow Christ.

Quote
I suppose in a way it boils down to what we mean by the term Christian.  If, as you say, we mean merely "a follower of Christ", whatever we may conceive of Christ as being, then I suppose we'd have to include those who think He was merely "a man" (Jeffersonian deists, "Christian Buddhists", Muslims), a hybrid sired by a spaceman (Mormons - remember, they think a humanoid Jehovah came from another planet - not his son Jesus, whom he sired on Earth), and those who worship Him alongside or in combination with other deities ("Christian Rastas", some polytheistic cultists).

Did you read my post where I said Mormons are not Christian? I don't think it is "whatever we may conceive of Christ as being". If you are not worshipping Jesus born in Bethlehem, you are worshipping a different individual, a hybrid sired by a spaceman (Mormons - remember, they think a humanoid Jehovah came from another planet - not his son Jesus, whom he sired on Earth),
Also, those who worship Him alongside or in combination with other deities ("Christian Rastas", some polytheistic cultists) are not Christian, I think, because they have combined Him with someone else-Selassie- so it is no longer really Jesus. I mean, if a tadpole turns into a frog, it's not a tadpole anymore. I don't think that Jesus of Nazareth is Selassie. So worshipping a combined Jesus-Selassie is not Christian, because I don't think such exists.

It's true that Jesus being God is different from just being Jesus. But people who still believe in Jesus and not that Jesus IS God (like Muslims) still believe in Jesus Christ. So there is a difference I think. I am surprised to conclude, by the way, that a supposed Byzantine misconception that Islam was a Christian apocryphal sect (it relies on apocryphal writings) is true in this sense.


Quote
However, if by Christian we mean a follower of the Faith actually established by Christ and His Apostles in the first century AD, the definition becomes much more narrow.  Depending on who you talk to, this could mean members of the authentic Apostolic Churches only, or members of one particular communion.  I think that an organic, authentic continuity with the Church established by Christ and His Apostles should be part of the definition somewhere, and this certainly narrows the field for me.
I am not sure of this. There were centurions were followed Christ and believed in him, yet were outside the institutional church, so I don't believe that being Christian is part of the definition itself, although it could be EVIDENCE that the person is a Christian.
The Centurion might not have had right understanding or been baptised (such is true with some martyrs I think), but I think we can say he and others were followers and Christians

Quote
Using the former definition, unity between all "Christians" would be impossible and undesirable (unless, of course, they recanted all their heretical beliefs).  
OK.

Quote
Using the latter, it would be difficult, but quite possible indeed and I'd love to see this happen eventually.
So what? We can't change meanings of words just to make it sound like now all the Christians are together when the TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANS unite. Then you just move the debate over to who is a "traditional Christian". And it could turn out that wacko noncanonical sects are more "traditional Christian" by your definition, than some big churches, yet we still find it best to focus on mainstream churches, and not wacko compound "Orthodox" sects.

So rather than get into mind problems of who is Christian, and happily define it as "just us", we should say it means follower and believer in Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 09:26:47 PM by rakovsky » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #44 on: July 13, 2010, 10:06:31 PM »

I voted for "RC's EO's and OO's should lift the anathemas and let each other co-exist in communion," but after having voted for that I realize that that should only be the first step. We should then work on Protestants coming back into the fold, but I do not think that will be able to happen in any large capacity until the Apostolic Churches are reunited.

It is more likely that Protestants, Orientals, and Orthodox will all join together than Catholics will join with Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and the Orientals. the reason is that the Pope considers himself Supreme, unequal, sometimes infallible, and as such demands OBEDIENCE in all matters of faith. Consequently, no one can reunite with Rome without abandoning all of their autocephaly and own separate faith beliefs.

This is reflected in Orthodox and Protestants belonging to the ecumenical WCC (whatever its faults) without the Catholic Church.

There is a huge imbalance of political power and a doctrinal obstacle about UNRIVALED SUPREMACY and OBEDIENCE that exists between the Catholic Church and all other churches.

With the reduction of the power of Bysantium/Greece and Egypt/Alexandria as ancient power-rivals, I do see a much more likely chance that power will not obscure our views and we can much more objectively review doctrinal differences while staying loyal to our own traditions and good faith ecumenism between eachother.


It may turn out that the Chalcedonian churches are closest to eachother in terms of basic foundations of understanding of God's nature, but because of the strong political power situations, (which allegedly added to problems around Chalcedon), we may be able to overcome these divisions  between the 7-Council Orthodox and Oriental churches.

It's funny that you say that. I was a Protestant all my life until I entered the Catholic Church in 2007. I, my dad, and my cousin all joined at the same time. All of us were formerly Protestant Christians. The next year a friend of mine as well as two of my dad's friends (all former Protestants) joined the Catholic Church. Right now a good friend of mine (a Protestant) is attending Catholic inquiry classes. He usually drives me to Mass and attends Mass with me because I have a disability and need transportation. Through doing this for me he has become interested in the Catholic faith.

If you have ever watched EWTN and seen the Journey Home, everyday you hear stories of mostly former Protestants who entered the Catholic Church. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know for myself, the Pope never "demanded" anything from me whenever I was a Protestant. I came to Rome willingly. I would imagine the same is true for the others as well. Wink

Now that I think about it...perhaps we don't need reunion of the Apostolic Churches before reaching out to Protestants. Seems like the Protestants are coming home just fine. Smiley

My 2 cents: Protestants should come home to Catholic Church, with apostolic succession and subjection to church traditions. Catholics should, if possible, urge their leaders to abandon inventions of the early Middle Ages- the filioque, papal infallibility, required obedience to pope in all matters of faith, purgatory.

Luther might have thrown the baby out with the bath water, but there was alot of bath water with accumulated baby fluids.


I like Catholics. Only bad thing is if the "Leadership" abuses them, and says they "MUST" bow down as if it is vicar of Christ on earth or something.

Regards, Sympathies, and Blessings on your spiritual journey.
Perhaps the other issues you have mentioned can be softened or clarified to be made acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches, but, personally, I would not agree to abandoning Purgatory.
Purgatory just makes a whole lot of sense to me as I don;t see anyone burning in hellfire eternally for some of the lessor sins. There are so many examples and it is just too obvious that there are lessor sins and there are greater sins and that many of the lessor sins, although they may be a blemish or imperfection on your soul, do not merit eternal damnation in hell. So, no, I would not in good conscience,  be able to give up this idea of Purgatory, although, like I said, I would agree to a modification, softening, or clarification of the other teachings so that they can be reformulated in such a way as to be acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches. 
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #45 on: July 13, 2010, 10:06:33 PM »

My 2 cents: Protestants should come home to Catholic Church,

You don't think that they should return to your church directly, if possible, instead?
Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,705


Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra


WWW
« Reply #46 on: July 13, 2010, 10:09:18 PM »

Well, I suppose you'll define "Christians" according to your own criteria and I'll define them according to mine.  Your way may seem logical to you, but it seems arbitrary in places to me.

For example, a tadpole is still the same creature once it becomes a frog.  It has just changed its physical form, and I'm sure that is what a Rasta would say about Haile Selassie, who they regard as "Christ in His Kingly Character", the same man in a different form.

I could tell you why I disagree with you proclamations regarding the Protestants, Mormons, and JWs as well, but it'd all be to no avail.  Your criteria makes sense to you, and mine makes sense to me.

Perhaps the original poster and creator of the poll should define "Christian" for us according to his terms.
Logged

“Nothing is better than to realize one’s weakness and ignorance and nothing is worse than not to be aware of them.” - St. Peter of Damascus
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #47 on: July 13, 2010, 10:15:41 PM »

Perhaps the other issues you have mentioned can be softened or clarified to be made acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches, but, personally, I would not agree to abandoning Purgatory.
Purgatory just makes a whole lot of sense to me as I don;t see anyone burning in hellfire eternally for some of the lessor sins. There are so many examples and it is just too obvious that there are lessor sins and there are greater sins and that many of the lessor sins, although they may be a blemish or imperfection on your soul, do not merit eternal damnation in hell. So, no, I would not in good conscience,  be able to give up this idea of Purgatory, although, like I said, I would agree to a modification, softening, or clarification of the other teachings so that they can be reformulated in such a way as to be acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches. 

I think you are misunderstanding the issue with Purgatory. We actually do believe in the purgation of minor sins. Actually, there have been some writers who have said that we believe in the purgation of "the most grievous of sins". The problem with Purgatory is not the purgation. It is the matter of it being a third thing. There is not a foretaste of bliss or torment in Purgatory. It is thus set up as a third state. But we believe that there can only be two states in relation to God: bliss or torment. Any purgation that occurs must happen within those. Thus there is purgation but no third place or state known as Purgatory.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #48 on: July 13, 2010, 10:42:26 PM »

Perhaps the other issues you have mentioned can be softened or clarified to be made acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches, but, personally, I would not agree to abandoning Purgatory.
Purgatory just makes a whole lot of sense to me as I don;t see anyone burning in hellfire eternally for some of the lessor sins. There are so many examples and it is just too obvious that there are lessor sins and there are greater sins and that many of the lessor sins, although they may be a blemish or imperfection on your soul, do not merit eternal damnation in hell. So, no, I would not in good conscience,  be able to give up this idea of Purgatory, although, like I said, I would agree to a modification, softening, or clarification of the other teachings so that they can be reformulated in such a way as to be acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches. 

I think you are misunderstanding the issue with Purgatory. We actually do believe in the purgation of minor sins. Actually, there have been some writers who have said that we believe in the purgation of "the most grievous of sins". The problem with Purgatory is not the purgation. It is the matter of it being a third thing. There is not a foretaste of bliss or torment in Purgatory. It is thus set up as a third state. But we believe that there can only be two states in relation to God: bliss or torment. Any purgation that occurs must happen within those. Thus there is purgation but no third place or state known as Purgatory.
Well, if it is going to be a matter of semantics, then it seems like Purgatory or belief in purgation  is not a problem after all.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #49 on: July 13, 2010, 10:49:36 PM »

Perhaps the other issues you have mentioned can be softened or clarified to be made acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches, but, personally, I would not agree to abandoning Purgatory.
Purgatory just makes a whole lot of sense to me as I don;t see anyone burning in hellfire eternally for some of the lessor sins. There are so many examples and it is just too obvious that there are lessor sins and there are greater sins and that many of the lessor sins, although they may be a blemish or imperfection on your soul, do not merit eternal damnation in hell. So, no, I would not in good conscience,  be able to give up this idea of Purgatory, although, like I said, I would agree to a modification, softening, or clarification of the other teachings so that they can be reformulated in such a way as to be acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches. 

I think you are misunderstanding the issue with Purgatory. We actually do believe in the purgation of minor sins. Actually, there have been some writers who have said that we believe in the purgation of "the most grievous of sins". The problem with Purgatory is not the purgation. It is the matter of it being a third thing. There is not a foretaste of bliss or torment in Purgatory. It is thus set up as a third state. But we believe that there can only be two states in relation to God: bliss or torment. Any purgation that occurs must happen within those. Thus there is purgation but no third place or state known as Purgatory.
Well, if it is going to be a matter of semantics, then it seems like Purgatory or belief in purgation  is not a problem after all.


It's not just a matter of semantics. It seems to us that the Roman tradition creates a third state that is neither torment or bliss. This idea we reject.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,168



WWW
« Reply #50 on: July 13, 2010, 10:55:33 PM »

Perhaps the other issues you have mentioned can be softened or clarified to be made acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches, but, personally, I would not agree to abandoning Purgatory.
Purgatory just makes a whole lot of sense to me as I don;t see anyone burning in hellfire eternally for some of the lessor sins. There are so many examples and it is just too obvious that there are lessor sins and there are greater sins and that many of the lessor sins, although they may be a blemish or imperfection on your soul, do not merit eternal damnation in hell. So, no, I would not in good conscience,  be able to give up this idea of Purgatory, although, like I said, I would agree to a modification, softening, or clarification of the other teachings so that they can be reformulated in such a way as to be acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches. 

Jesus washes away your sins, mortal and venial. The psychology that you MUST be punished is Old Testament. I believe God loves us and can forgive us. That is what the atonement is about. If you come into communion with Jesus and he forgives you, no "need" for purgatory. What you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Purgatory seems to me perhaps even more spurious than some other ideas like the filioque, which could be "reinterpreted" or something.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,168



WWW
« Reply #51 on: July 13, 2010, 11:02:33 PM »

My 2 cents: Protestants should come home to Catholic Church,

You don't think that they should return to your church directly, if possible, instead?

They Should! As you said I think elsewhere, the Orthodox Church is the catholic Church.
If going through the Catholic church helps them on the process it seems good. However, I am not sure if it is helpful to reject some problems for others. Maybe I am placing apostolic succession, liturgical forms, and church tradition above other things. But it seems like a person could have a strong focus on returning to the early church, and the popular idea among Protestants is that Catholicism is the early church + distortions, whereas the idea is that Protestantism is just "Biblical-style" Christianity with no concern for replicating the early church or traditions. So going back to Catholic church could be part of a search for the early church. This is the feeling I get when I see the structure and forms of Catholicism as more similar to Orthodoxy.

On the other hand, MAYBE THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE! I think Luther wanted to get back to authentic Christianity. Maybe a catholic could give up the inventions, go to Protestantism, feel alot is missing, and then find Orthodoxy. So I am not sure.

Your thoughts on whether joining Catholicism is a step forward for Protestants, please?
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #52 on: July 13, 2010, 11:09:02 PM »

Your thoughts on whether joining Catholicism is a step forward for Protestants, please?

I do think that the Protestants actually did make some improvements over Romanism.

And I do tend to think that some of the High Reformation Protestants might actually be closer to orthodoxy than the Romanists.

But overall I think Romanism is closer to orthodoxy than Protestantism and a Protestant joining the Roman church would be a step in the right direction.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #53 on: July 13, 2010, 11:09:26 PM »

Perhaps the other issues you have mentioned can be softened or clarified to be made acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches, but, personally, I would not agree to abandoning Purgatory.
Purgatory just makes a whole lot of sense to me as I don;t see anyone burning in hellfire eternally for some of the lessor sins. There are so many examples and it is just too obvious that there are lessor sins and there are greater sins and that many of the lessor sins, although they may be a blemish or imperfection on your soul, do not merit eternal damnation in hell. So, no, I would not in good conscience,  be able to give up this idea of Purgatory, although, like I said, I would agree to a modification, softening, or clarification of the other teachings so that they can be reformulated in such a way as to be acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches. 

Jesus washes away your sins, mortal and venial. The psychology that you MUST be punished is Old Testament. I believe God loves us and can forgive us. That is what the atonement is about. If you come into communion with Jesus and he forgives you, no "need" for purgatory. What you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Purgatory seems to me perhaps even more spurious than some other ideas like the filioque, which could be "reinterpreted" or something.

Hal,

You bring up another fundamental problem there is with Purgatory.

It is primarily founded on the idea that all sins must eventually be punished, and that "mortal sins" must be absolved or punish in eternal hellfire, whereas "venial sins" can be punished in Purgatory and then move someone onto Heaven. They even teach that if a venial sin has been absolved that the punishment for it still has to be suffered in Purgatory.

On this point we are also inclined to disagree. Not only do absolved sins need any longer be punished, but God is not ultimately concerned with punishments of sins in and of itself anyway. For us purgation is a matter of preparing and changing the soul to be compatible with God's Kingdom, not a legal concern.
Logged

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

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,522



« Reply #54 on: July 13, 2010, 11:12:37 PM »

My understanding is that one of the main differences has to do with purgatory (purgation, purification, whatever term you wish to use) is the RC use of legalistic language to describe it as a legal punishment vs the Orthodox expression of something similar to a refining process. This difference leads to the practice where a legal punishment can be declared to be remitted (indulgences), where you can not just declare a refining process to be past a certain point.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #55 on: July 13, 2010, 11:16:58 PM »

Perhaps the other issues you have mentioned can be softened or clarified to be made acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches, but, personally, I would not agree to abandoning Purgatory.
Purgatory just makes a whole lot of sense to me as I don;t see anyone burning in hellfire eternally for some of the lessor sins. There are so many examples and it is just too obvious that there are lessor sins and there are greater sins and that many of the lessor sins, although they may be a blemish or imperfection on your soul, do not merit eternal damnation in hell. So, no, I would not in good conscience,  be able to give up this idea of Purgatory, although, like I said, I would agree to a modification, softening, or clarification of the other teachings so that they can be reformulated in such a way as to be acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches. 

I think you are misunderstanding the issue with Purgatory. We actually do believe in the purgation of minor sins. Actually, there have been some writers who have said that we believe in the purgation of "the most grievous of sins". The problem with Purgatory is not the purgation. It is the matter of it being a third thing. There is not a foretaste of bliss or torment in Purgatory. It is thus set up as a third state. But we believe that there can only be two states in relation to God: bliss or torment. Any purgation that occurs must happen within those. Thus there is purgation but no third place or state known as Purgatory.
Well, if it is going to be a matter of semantics, then it seems like Purgatory or belief in purgation  is not a problem after all.


It's not just a matter of semantics. It seems to us that the Roman tradition creates a third state that is neither torment or bliss. This idea we reject.
If you reject it then why do you pray for the dead? Surely one already experiencing bliss doesn't need prayers, and prayers will do nothing for one who is already experiencing the torments of hell.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #56 on: July 13, 2010, 11:22:35 PM »

Perhaps the other issues you have mentioned can be softened or clarified to be made acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches, but, personally, I would not agree to abandoning Purgatory.
Purgatory just makes a whole lot of sense to me as I don;t see anyone burning in hellfire eternally for some of the lessor sins. There are so many examples and it is just too obvious that there are lessor sins and there are greater sins and that many of the lessor sins, although they may be a blemish or imperfection on your soul, do not merit eternal damnation in hell. So, no, I would not in good conscience,  be able to give up this idea of Purgatory, although, like I said, I would agree to a modification, softening, or clarification of the other teachings so that they can be reformulated in such a way as to be acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches. 

I think you are misunderstanding the issue with Purgatory. We actually do believe in the purgation of minor sins. Actually, there have been some writers who have said that we believe in the purgation of "the most grievous of sins". The problem with Purgatory is not the purgation. It is the matter of it being a third thing. There is not a foretaste of bliss or torment in Purgatory. It is thus set up as a third state. But we believe that there can only be two states in relation to God: bliss or torment. Any purgation that occurs must happen within those. Thus there is purgation but no third place or state known as Purgatory.
Well, if it is going to be a matter of semantics, then it seems like Purgatory or belief in purgation  is not a problem after all.


It's not just a matter of semantics. It seems to us that the Roman tradition creates a third state that is neither torment or bliss. This idea we reject.
If you reject it then why do you pray for the dead? Surely one already experiencing bliss doesn't need prayers, and prayers will do nothing for one who is already experiencing the torments of hell.

Those experiencing the foretaste of Heaven after their death may still be in need of purification before they are able to actually enter into the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven.

And yes, we believe that prayers may affect the fate of those experiencing the foretaste of eternal torment.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #57 on: July 13, 2010, 11:25:59 PM »

Those experiencing the foretaste of Heaven after their death may still be in need of purification before they are able to actually enter into the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven.
You just described Purgatory.

And yes, we believe that prayers may affect the fate of those experiencing the foretaste of eternal torment.
Here I would disagree as this makes it sound like you can essentially "pray someone out of Hell" which the Catholic Church rejects. Everyone undergoing purification that can be helped by the prayers of the Church Militant are already saved. One who is damned cannot be saved by any amount of prayers.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,168



WWW
« Reply #58 on: July 13, 2010, 11:33:06 PM »

Well, I suppose you'll define "Christians" according to your own criteria and I'll define them according to mine.  Your way may seem logical to you, but it seems arbitrary in places to me.

For example, a tadpole is still the same creature once it becomes a frog.  It has just changed its physical form, and I'm sure that is what a Rasta would say about Haile Selassie, who they regard as "Christ in His Kingly Character", the same man in a different form.

I could tell you why I disagree with you proclamations regarding the Protestants, Mormons, and JWs as well, but it'd all be to no avail.  Your criteria makes sense to you, and mine makes sense to me.

Perhaps the original poster and creator of the poll should define "Christian" for us according to his terms.

Authoritative Russian Dictionary Ozheg's says:

Толковый словарь Ожегова
Ожегов Сергей Иванович

ОЖЕГОВ Сергей Иванович (1900-64) - российский языковед, лексиколог, лексикограф, исследователь норм русского литературного языка, доктор филологических наук.

ХРИСТИАНИ́Н, -а, мн. -ане, -ан, муж. Последователь христианства.
• Духовные христиане возникшее на рубеже 1718 вв. направление в сектантстве (духоборы, молокане, хлысты и нек-рые др.), противопоставляющее себя православной церкви и провозглашающее веру в то, что святой дух может воплотиться в каждом отдельном человеке.


Russian Dictionary HAS SPOKEN!

Christian: Follower of Christianity.
Example: *Spiritual Christians arose on the edge of 1718 AD directed to sektarianism (Spiritfighters- group supported by Tolstoy that emigrated to Canada, Milkdrinkers-peaceniks who moved to North Dakota, whippers - Rasputin I think and some others), conflicting themselves with the Orthodox Church and announcing belief that the Holy Spirit can incarnate in every separate person.

The example here are basically kinds of Russian protestant movements, although they do not use the word Protestant. I think that Tolstoy tried to follow Jesus, although he didn't believe in the miracles, and I think the SpiritFighters sect (similar to Quakerism), probably had similar beliefs.




However interesting, INTERPRETIVE RUSSIAN DICTIONARY OZHEG'S continues:

ХРИСТИА́НСТВО, -а, ср. Одна из трёх мировых религий, основанная на культе (служение божеству и связанные с этим действия, обряды) Сына Божия Иисуса Христа как Богочеловека и спасителя мира, возникшая в нач. 1 в. н. э. в Римской империи и существующая в трёх основных направлениях: православии, католицизме и протестантизме. Исповедовать х. Принятие христианства на Руси (988-989 гг.).

Christianity: One of three world religions, founded on the cult (serving deity/divineness and related with this acts, rituals) of the Son of God Jesus Christ as God-man [yes we say God-man in Russian] and savior of the world, arisen in the first century of our era in Roman empire and existing in three main directions: orthodoxy, catholicism, and protestantism. Acceptance of Christianity on HOLY MOTHERLAND TOTALLY GREAT AND AWESOME RUS (988-989 years).



Consequently, maybe you can reply to me that religions that aren't based on worship of Son of God Jesus Christ AS God-Man and savior of the world are not "Christian."

Interesting.

Regards.

Russian Dictionary Has Spoken.

« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 11:45:09 PM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,168



WWW
« Reply #59 on: July 13, 2010, 11:42:53 PM »

Perhaps the other issues you have mentioned can be softened or clarified to be made acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches, but, personally, I would not agree to abandoning Purgatory.
Purgatory just makes a whole lot of sense to me as I don;t see anyone burning in hellfire eternally for some of the lessor sins. There are so many examples and it is just too obvious that there are lessor sins and there are greater sins and that many of the lessor sins, although they may be a blemish or imperfection on your soul, do not merit eternal damnation in hell. So, no, I would not in good conscience,  be able to give up this idea of Purgatory, although, like I said, I would agree to a modification, softening, or clarification of the other teachings so that they can be reformulated in such a way as to be acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches. 

I think you are misunderstanding the issue with Purgatory. We actually do believe in the purgation of minor sins. Actually, there have been some writers who have said that we believe in the purgation of "the most grievous of sins". The problem with Purgatory is not the purgation. It is the matter of it being a third thing. There is not a foretaste of bliss or torment in Purgatory. It is thus set up as a third state. But we believe that there can only be two states in relation to God: bliss or torment. Any purgation that occurs must happen within those. Thus there is purgation but no third place or state known as Purgatory.
Well, if it is going to be a matter of semantics, then it seems like Purgatory or belief in purgation  is not a problem after all.

it's not semantics.

I looked into this a few years ago. Roman Catholic idea of purgatory is based on place in Paul's letters talking about fire burning things. Orthodox interpretation is that the sins are burned up and trashed, not the person. Peace.

Maybe an analogy is that when someone comes to Christianity we aren't supposed to hold previous sins against them, and don't think God will either when they repent of them. That's supposed to be true for everyone.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,168



WWW
« Reply #60 on: July 13, 2010, 11:47:33 PM »

Those experiencing the foretaste of Heaven after their death may still be in need of purification before they are able to actually enter into the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven.

I don't think this part is an official doctrine of the Orthodox church, if by purification you mean physical burning up of the believer, as opposed to just the sins.


Anyway, while this is a spurious doctrine, the real OBSTACLE to communion is PAPAL INFALLIBILITY and unequaled SUPREMACY, because you can't have any disagreements about faith with the Pope if you reunite with him, he becomes your boss on everything in matters of faith. Basically, we can't reunite and yet still retain any autocephaly or own differences of doctrine. And Pope won't give it up because of POWER. He still has alot of political power right now, unlike I think Orientals. Whatever the disagreements of Christ's nature, I see reunion as much more possible with Orientals if not for this reason alone, despite all the declarations by the Vatican of the "soon reunion" with Orthodox. Only way to get around this is for Catholics to make VERY strong urges on Pope to give this up, and I don't know how it's possible, because it's considered so important.  Undecided

« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 11:53:27 PM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,168



WWW
« Reply #61 on: July 13, 2010, 11:57:50 PM »

I think it's easy for Orthodox to say to Orientals with the current political situation, look, is all this Monophysite and non-Constantinople-II Miaphysite stuff what you believe? They could say of course not, we reject it, and accept the Miaphysitism that Constantinople II allowed. then reunion and acceptance of the 7 Councils. It could happen fast with the facts on the ground.

With Roman Catholicism, the idea of infallibility and unequal Supremacy is very hard block, unfortunately. Very unfortunate. And I think folks don't realize how big this one is compared to all the other differences like wafers.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #62 on: July 14, 2010, 01:07:06 AM »

Perhaps the other issues you have mentioned can be softened or clarified to be made acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches, but, personally, I would not agree to abandoning Purgatory.
Purgatory just makes a whole lot of sense to me as I don;t see anyone burning in hellfire eternally for some of the lessor sins. There are so many examples and it is just too obvious that there are lessor sins and there are greater sins and that many of the lessor sins, although they may be a blemish or imperfection on your soul, do not merit eternal damnation in hell. So, no, I would not in good conscience,  be able to give up this idea of Purgatory, although, like I said, I would agree to a modification, softening, or clarification of the other teachings so that they can be reformulated in such a way as to be acceptable to the other Apostolic Churches. 

I think you are misunderstanding the issue with Purgatory. We actually do believe in the purgation of minor sins. Actually, there have been some writers who have said that we believe in the purgation of "the most grievous of sins". The problem with Purgatory is not the purgation. It is the matter of it being a third thing. There is not a foretaste of bliss or torment in Purgatory. It is thus set up as a third state. But we believe that there can only be two states in relation to God: bliss or torment. Any purgation that occurs must happen within those. Thus there is purgation but no third place or state known as Purgatory.
Well, if it is going to be a matter of semantics, then it seems like Purgatory or belief in purgation  is not a problem after all.


It's not just a matter of semantics. It seems to us that the Roman tradition creates a third state that is neither torment or bliss. This idea we reject.
If you reject it then why do you pray for the dead? Surely one already experiencing bliss doesn't need prayers, and prayers will do nothing for one who is already experiencing the torments of hell.
We have been around this a time or two.  We pray for the departed because the Church has always done so. Period.

Your church once said "kill them all. Let God sort them out." Somewhat similar concept: we let the Lord apply prayers as He sees fit. We pray in time, He answers from eternity.

The Vatican's obsession of systemizing everything gets it in a lot of trouble.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,168



WWW
« Reply #63 on: July 14, 2010, 01:13:14 AM »

We have been around this a time or two.  We pray for the departed because the Church has always done so. Period.

Your church once said "kill them all. Let God sort them out." Somewhat similar concept: we let the Lord apply prayers as He sees fit. We pray in time, He answers from eternity.

The Vatican's obsession of systemizing everything gets it in a lot of trouble.

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

Wow, dude!  Shocked
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #64 on: July 14, 2010, 01:14:59 AM »

Those experiencing the foretaste of Heaven after their death may still be in need of purification before they are able to actually enter into the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven.
You just described Purgatory.

And yes, we believe that prayers may affect the fate of those experiencing the foretaste of eternal torment.
Here I would disagree as this makes it sound like you can essentially "pray someone out of Hell" which the Catholic Church rejects. Everyone undergoing purification that can be helped by the prayers of the Church Militant are already saved. One who is damned cannot be saved by any amount of prayers.
The Lordn's hand is not shortened that He cannot save.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #65 on: July 14, 2010, 01:16:22 AM »

We have been around this a time or two.  We pray for the departed because the Church has always done so. Period.

Your church once said "kill them all. Let God sort them out." Somewhat similar concept: we let the Lord apply prayers as He sees fit. We pray in time, He answers from eternity.

The Vatican's obsession of systemizing everything gets it in a lot of trouble.

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

Wow, dude!  Shocked
Sorry, you're right: it was "God knows His own."
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #66 on: July 14, 2010, 01:27:44 AM »

Here I would disagree as this makes it sound like you can essentially "pray someone out of Hell" which the Catholic Church rejects. Everyone undergoing purification that can be helped by the prayers of the Church Militant are already saved. One who is damned cannot be saved by any amount of prayers.

If my sister's fiance wasn't even a Christian and committed suicide, but by praying for him I can offer him one drop of cool water on his tongue to relieve his suffering, then I am compelled to do this out of Christian love and charity. It is my hope and deepest wish that all will be saved and made divine. Kyrie Eleison.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 01:28:29 AM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #67 on: July 14, 2010, 02:11:41 PM »

Here I would disagree as this makes it sound like you can essentially "pray someone out of Hell" which the Catholic Church rejects. Everyone undergoing purification that can be helped by the prayers of the Church Militant are already saved. One who is damned cannot be saved by any amount of prayers.

If my sister's fiance wasn't even a Christian and committed suicide, but by praying for him I can offer him one drop of cool water on his tongue to relieve his suffering, then I am compelled to do this out of Christian love and charity. It is my hope and deepest wish that all will be saved and made divine. Kyrie Eleison.
Yes, I hope so too, BUT Jesus mentions eternal hellfire in Matthew 25:41. Why would He talk about hell if it did not exist. Further, with reference to Purgatory, it just seems so reasonable to me that for the lessor sins, and I can give you many obvious examples of these, people will not go to the eternal hellfire as mentioned in Matthew 25:41, but will suffer a lessor fate, the temporary fate of Purgatory. Now it is said that this difference is not a matter of semantics and it is not merely a difference of opinion on what constitutes purification after death.  Well, if that is the case, it is not for me to decide this of course, but  I personally would not want any reunion where I would have to give up a belief in Purgatory. 
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #68 on: July 14, 2010, 02:49:50 PM »

We have been around this a time or two.  We pray for the departed because the Church has always done so. Period.

Your church once said "kill them all. Let God sort them out." Somewhat similar concept: we let the Lord apply prayers as He sees fit. We pray in time, He answers from eternity.

The Vatican's obsession of systemizing everything gets it in a lot of trouble.
If you believe that prayers for the dead are efficacious then you must believe that there is some sort of intermediate state that the soul is in after death but before entering heaven. Just because we have a name for that state (Purgatory) doesn't mean it's wrong. It seems like most Orthodox are more uncomfortable with the word than the concept. You must believe that there is an intermediate state because both heaven and hell are eternal states that the soul is in that cannot be changed by any number of prayers.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #69 on: July 14, 2010, 03:04:22 PM »

Here I would disagree as this makes it sound like you can essentially "pray someone out of Hell" which the Catholic Church rejects. Everyone undergoing purification that can be helped by the prayers of the Church Militant are already saved. One who is damned cannot be saved by any amount of prayers.

If my sister's fiance wasn't even a Christian and committed suicide, but by praying for him I can offer him one drop of cool water on his tongue to relieve his suffering, then I am compelled to do this out of Christian love and charity. It is my hope and deepest wish that all will be saved and made divine. Kyrie Eleison.
Yes, I hope so too, BUT Jesus mentions eternal hellfire in Matthew 25:41. Why would He talk about hell if it did not exist. Further, with reference to Purgatory, it just seems so reasonable to me that for the lessor sins, and I can give you many obvious examples of these, people will not go to the eternal hellfire as mentioned in Matthew 25:41, but will suffer a lessor fate, the temporary fate of Purgatory. Now it is said that this difference is not a matter of semantics and it is not merely a difference of opinion on what constitutes purification after death.  Well, if that is the case, it is not for me to decide this of course, but  I personally would not want any reunion where I would have to give up a belief in Purgatory. 

Well, since you have figured out our eternal fates, I guess He need not come back for the Last Judgement.
Logged

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

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


« Reply #70 on: July 14, 2010, 03:06:43 PM »

We have been around this a time or two.  We pray for the departed because the Church has always done so. Period.

Your church once said "kill them all. Let God sort them out." Somewhat similar concept: we let the Lord apply prayers as He sees fit. We pray in time, He answers from eternity.

The Vatican's obsession of systemizing everything gets it in a lot of trouble.
If you believe that prayers for the dead are efficacious then you must believe that there is some sort of intermediate state that the soul is in after death but before entering heaven. Just because we have a name for that state (Purgatory) doesn't mean it's wrong. It seems like most Orthodox are more uncomfortable with the word than the concept. You must believe that there is an intermediate state because both heaven and hell are eternal states that the soul is in that cannot be changed by any number of prayers.
yes.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #71 on: July 14, 2010, 03:07:20 PM »

We have been around this a time or two.  We pray for the departed because the Church has always done so. Period.

Your church once said "kill them all. Let God sort them out." Somewhat similar concept: we let the Lord apply prayers as He sees fit. We pray in time, He answers from eternity.

The Vatican's obsession of systemizing everything gets it in a lot of trouble.
If you believe that prayers for the dead are efficacious then you must believe that there is some sort of intermediate state that the soul is in after death but before entering heaven.

No, I don't.

Quote
Just because we have a name for that state (Purgatory) doesn't mean it's wrong.

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.

Quote
It seems like most Orthodox are more uncomfortable with the word than the concept. You must believe that there is an intermediate state because both heaven and hell are eternal states that the soul is in that cannot be changed by any number of prayers.
And we have another who has relieved the Lord of the responsibility of the Last Judgement....
Logged

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

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


« Reply #72 on: July 14, 2010, 03:08:37 PM »

Here I would disagree as this makes it sound like you can essentially "pray someone out of Hell" which the Catholic Church rejects. Everyone undergoing purification that can be helped by the prayers of the Church Militant are already saved. One who is damned cannot be saved by any amount of prayers.

If my sister's fiance wasn't even a Christian and committed suicide, but by praying for him I can offer him one drop of cool water on his tongue to relieve his suffering, then I am compelled to do this out of Christian love and charity. It is my hope and deepest wish that all will be saved and made divine. Kyrie Eleison.
Yes, I hope so too, BUT Jesus mentions eternal hellfire in Matthew 25:41. Why would He talk about hell if it did not exist. Further, with reference to Purgatory, it just seems so reasonable to me that for the lessor sins, and I can give you many obvious examples of these, people will not go to the eternal hellfire as mentioned in Matthew 25:41, but will suffer a lessor fate, the temporary fate of Purgatory. Now it is said that this difference is not a matter of semantics and it is not merely a difference of opinion on what constitutes purification after death.  Well, if that is the case, it is not for me to decide this of course, but  I personally would not want any reunion where I would have to give up a belief in Purgatory. 

Well, since you have figured out our eternal fates, I guess He need not come back for the Last Judgement.
I am reading  Matthew 25:41 and trying to make sense of what is said there. This refers, I think, to the last judgement.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 03:14:36 PM by stanley123 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #73 on: July 14, 2010, 03:15:51 PM »

Here I would disagree as this makes it sound like you can essentially "pray someone out of Hell" which the Catholic Church rejects. Everyone undergoing purification that can be helped by the prayers of the Church Militant are already saved. One who is damned cannot be saved by any amount of prayers.

If my sister's fiance wasn't even a Christian and committed suicide, but by praying for him I can offer him one drop of cool water on his tongue to relieve his suffering, then I am compelled to do this out of Christian love and charity. It is my hope and deepest wish that all will be saved and made divine. Kyrie Eleison.
Yes, I hope so too, BUT Jesus mentions eternal hellfire in Matthew 25:41. Why would He talk about hell if it did not exist. Further, with reference to Purgatory, it just seems so reasonable to me that for the lessor sins, and I can give you many obvious examples of these, people will not go to the eternal hellfire as mentioned in Matthew 25:41, but will suffer a lessor fate, the temporary fate of Purgatory. Now it is said that this difference is not a matter of semantics and it is not merely a difference of opinion on what constitutes purification after death.  Well, if that is the case, it is not for me to decide this of course, but  I personally would not want any reunion where I would have to give up a belief in Purgatory. 

Well, since you have figured out our eternal fates, I guess He need not come back for the Last Judgement.
I am reading  Matthew 25:41 and trying to make sense of what is said there. This refers, I think, to the last judgement.
Yes, and?
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #74 on: July 14, 2010, 03:45:04 PM »

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
So in your view, someone can be prayed out of hell essentially?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #75 on: July 14, 2010, 04:10:24 PM »

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
So in your view, someone can be prayed out of hell essentially?
God knows His own. Let Him sort them out.
Logged

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

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


« Reply #76 on: July 14, 2010, 04:11:36 PM »

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #77 on: July 14, 2010, 04:15:16 PM »

We're saying that we pray for the "dead" because we know that it helps them. That's all that we know. The Church has always done it out of love, and we continue to do so.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #78 on: July 14, 2010, 04:20:17 PM »

We're saying that we pray for the "dead" because we know that it helps them. That's all that we know. The Church has always done it out of love, and we continue to do so.
Has it been revealed by God that it helps to pray for the dead?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,289


Mzack. Uglyface creatures, unite!


« Reply #79 on: July 14, 2010, 04:25:19 PM »

A few random thoughts... humans won't be put into what we call hell until after the last judgment (cf Rev. 20)... St. Mark of Ephesus and other Orthodox seem to have no problem with the idea that the condition of people in the afterlife can be changed through things like prayers... that doesn't necessarily mean that there is a third place that the dead go to...
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #80 on: July 14, 2010, 05:02:24 PM »

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Who claimed that?
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #81 on: July 14, 2010, 06:42:41 PM »

Those experiencing the foretaste of Heaven after their death may still be in need of purification before they are able to actually enter into the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven.
You just described Purgatory.

I don't think so. I think there some highly substantial differences.

For one, as far as I know, what I am talking about is primarily a blissful state, the foretaste of Heaven, that also involves purification as a secondary quality.

Purgatory, on the other hand, does not appear to be a blissful state (and thus not really a foretaste of Heaven at all), but rather a place of suffering and punishment that is necessary to prepare and individual for their actual entrance into the blissful state.

Their being a state that is neither bliss nor torment essentially establishes a third thing that we clearly do not believe in.

Another thing is that Purgatory is about suffering the necessary punishments for sins. We do not believe that there is a necessary punishment for sins. Rather we believe that God is only concerned with converting and turning sinners from sin to conformity to His image; the purgation we are talking about is, as was previously said, a "refining" rather than a punishment.

And yes, we believe that prayers may affect the fate of those experiencing the foretaste of eternal torment.
Here I would disagree as this makes it sound like you can essentially "pray someone out of Hell" which the Catholic Church rejects. Everyone undergoing purification that can be helped by the prayers of the Church Militant are already saved. One who is damned cannot be saved by any amount of prayers.

Perhaps I was overstepping the extent of this teaching a little bit. Unless one strains the logical implication out of Peter Mogila's statement that even "the most grievous of sins may be forgiven" (those unrepentant with the most grievous of sins are most likely in torment), there really is no official statement that says that those judged for torment at the particular judgment may be purified. The explicit official teaching is found only with regards to the faithful who have been judged to bliss. On the other hand, in terms of individual understandings and opinions, I have found it to be quite a common teaching for Eastern Christians to say that even those judged to be damned at the particular judgment may still be saved.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #82 on: July 14, 2010, 06:50:00 PM »

I don't think this part is an official doctrine of the Orthodox church, if by purification you mean physical burning up of the believer, as opposed to just the sins.

No, I don't. I essentially just mean sanctification in some sense; being removed from sin.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #83 on: July 14, 2010, 06:51:30 PM »

I think it's easy for Orthodox to say to Orientals with the current political situation, look, is all this Monophysite and non-Constantinople-II Miaphysite stuff what you believe? They could say of course not, we reject it, and accept the Miaphysitism that Constantinople II allowed. then reunion and acceptance of the 7 Councils. It could happen fast with the facts on the ground.

Even if we possibly believe in the Miaphysitism that Constantinople II allowed for, we still wouldn't believe in Chalcedon.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #84 on: July 14, 2010, 06:53:02 PM »

It is my hope and deepest wish that all will be saved and made divine.

Amen!  Smiley
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #85 on: July 14, 2010, 07:07:17 PM »

If you believe that prayers for the dead are efficacious then you must believe that there is some sort of intermediate state that the soul is in after death but before entering heaven.

Of course there is. Actually, Eastern Christianity is really the most affirming of an intermediate state. The West has traditionally taught that it is possible to enter into the state of eternal punishment or eternal bliss even before the Final Judgment, and that they are able to spiritually experience the full and eventual state of bliss or torment. Eastern Christians, on the other hand, typically hold that people in general do not enter into the place/state of eternal damnation or salvation until after the Final Judgment, and that there experience of bliss or torment is incomplete: a mere "foretaste". If anything we believe and teach a stronger view of an intermediate state. That is not the issue here, which it seems like you two are failing to understanding. It is rather only the nature of the intermediate state that is being debated.

Just because we have a name for that state (Purgatory) doesn't mean it's wrong.

No, it doesn't. But that's not the issue. The issue is that we believe different things about the intermediate state. To go over it again:

1. You believe that the damned enter into their (spiritually) full and eternal state of torment at death. We do not.

2. You believe that those judged to enter into bliss at their particular judgment likewise do so in their (spiritually) full and eternal state. We do not.

3. For those still in need of purification to enter into the state of bliss, you believe that they enter into a third state of punishment and suffering (not torment) to prepare them for bliss. We do not. We believe that the state of purification would either occur in the midst of the one foretaste of bliss or the one foretaste of torment.

4. You believe that all must eventually suffer all the punishment due all their sins. We do not.

You must believe that there is an intermediate state because both heaven and hell are eternal states that the soul is in that cannot be changed by any number of prayers.

That's not entirely what we believe. We believe that most people, with very few exceptions, will not enter into the fullness of torment or bliss at their death, but will none the less be judged as one the path to damnation or salvation and will be granted a foretaste of bliss or torment. We generally believe that within these states that it is possible for peoples' fates to be changed.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #86 on: July 14, 2010, 08:19:20 PM »

I think there is a big misunderstanding amongst many Orthodox on here as to what Catholics actually believe about Purgatory. As far as I know, the Council of Trent only requires that we believe in an intermediate state that the soul is in as it's being purified and prepared for heaven. As far as whether Purgatory is a painful experience or not is up for debate as the Catholic Church, to my knowledge, has not defined the nature of Purgatory. The Catholic Church only requires that we, as Catholics, believed in Purgatory, yet is silent on its nature. I've heard people say it's a hellish, torturous state to be in, and I've heard others say it is peaceful. We'll know once get there I suppose. The idea of Purgatory being hellish I think developed in the Middle Ages, but the Catholic Church has never defined that point of view as an official doctrine or dogma. As such, it is merely theological opinion, much like limbo of the infants.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #87 on: July 14, 2010, 08:34:18 PM »

I think there is a big misunderstanding amongst many Orthodox on here as to what Catholics actually believe about Purgatory.

Many of the Orthodox are former communicants of the Vatican. We know what you are talking about. We just reject it.

Quote
As far as I know, the Council of Trent only requires that we believe in an intermediate state that the soul is in as it's being purified and prepared for heaven. As far as whether Purgatory is a painful experience or not is up for debate as the Catholic Church, to my knowledge, has not defined the nature of Purgatory. The Catholic Church only requires that we, as Catholics, believed in Purgatory, yet is silent on its nature. I've heard people say it's a hellish, torturous state to be in, and I've heard others say it is peaceful. We'll know once get there I suppose. The idea of Purgatory being hellish I think developed in the Middle Ages, but the Catholic Church has never defined that point of view as an official doctrine or dogma. As such, it is merely theological opinion, much like limbo of the infants.

Hopefully purgatory will go the way of limbo.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #88 on: July 14, 2010, 10:07:31 PM »

Hopefully purgatory will go the way of limbo.
Not possible. Limbo was never an official doctrine of the Catholic Church, but Purgatory was and is. Doctrines cannot change.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #89 on: July 14, 2010, 10:40:57 PM »

Hopefully purgatory will go the way of limbo.
Not possible. Limbo was never an official doctrine of the Catholic Church, but Purgatory was and is. Doctrines cannot change.
LOL. Doctrinal developement. You guys do it all the time. We call it doctrinal drift. We don't suffer from it.
Logged

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

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


« Reply #90 on: July 14, 2010, 10:53:57 PM »

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Who claimed that?
I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God  revealed no such thing, and the Apostles  taught no such thing.
Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?
G
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #91 on: July 14, 2010, 11:14:17 PM »

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Who claimed that?
I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God  revealed no such thing, and the Apostles  taught no such thing.
Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?
Of course.  Your church even calls St. John of Damascus a doctor who stated
Quote
All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour, seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion.  For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable. to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.i.i.html
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #92 on: July 15, 2010, 10:21:18 AM »

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Who claimed that?
I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God  revealed no such thing, and the Apostles  taught no such thing.
Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?
Of course.  Your church even calls St. John of Damascus a doctor who stated
Quote
All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour, seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion.  For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable. to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.i.i.html
St. John of Damascus is one of my favorites and I whole-heartedly agree with him here.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #93 on: July 15, 2010, 10:30:22 AM »

Hopefully purgatory will go the way of limbo.
Not possible. Limbo was never an official doctrine of the Catholic Church, but Purgatory was and is. Doctrines cannot change.
LOL. Doctrinal developement. You guys do it all the time. We call it doctrinal drift. We don't suffer from it.
If all doctrine was clarified to the utmost extent then why did Christ send the Holy Spirit to the Church to guide it into all truth? Also, don't act so smug about not having doctrinal development. I'm sure some of the Christians who were alive when the First Council of Nicea was held thought that there was some "doctrinal drift" going on when the Holy Trinity was defined. Yet, as an Orthodox Christian you accept this doctrinal development even though the word Trinity was probably not used much before the Council and is certainly not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Doctrinal development is not a bad thing. Completely changing doctrine outright would be bad, but we do no such thing. We do, however, believe that through time the Holy Spirit draws us to a deeper understanding of Godly things.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 10:30:58 AM by Wyatt » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #94 on: July 15, 2010, 10:40:48 AM »

Hopefully purgatory will go the way of limbo.
Not possible. Limbo was never an official doctrine of the Catholic Church, but Purgatory was and is. Doctrines cannot change.
LOL. Doctrinal developement. You guys do it all the time. We call it doctrinal drift. We don't suffer from it.
If all doctrine was clarified to the utmost extent then why did Christ send the Holy Spirit to the Church to guide it into all truth? Also, don't act so smug about not having doctrinal development. I'm sure some of the Christians who were alive when the First Council of Nicea was held thought that there was some "doctrinal drift" going on when the Holy Trinity was defined. Yet, as an Orthodox Christian you accept this doctrinal development even though the word Trinity was probably not used much before the Council and is certainly not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Doctrinal development is not a bad thing. Completely changing doctrine outright would be bad, but we do no such thing. We do, however, believe that through time the Holy Spirit draws us to a deeper understanding of Godly things.

Get ready for some Apologetic Acrobatics from the Anti-Catholics buddy.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #95 on: July 15, 2010, 10:52:11 AM »

Hopefully purgatory will go the way of limbo.
Not possible. Limbo was never an official doctrine of the Catholic Church, but Purgatory was and is. Doctrines cannot change.
LOL. Doctrinal developement. You guys do it all the time. We call it doctrinal drift. We don't suffer from it.
If all doctrine was clarified to the utmost extent then why did Christ send the Holy Spirit to the Church to guide it into all truth? Also, don't act so smug about not having doctrinal development. I'm sure some of the Christians who were alive when the First Council of Nicea was held thought that there was some "doctrinal drift" going on when the Holy Trinity was defined. Yet, as an Orthodox Christian you accept this doctrinal development even though the word Trinity was probably not used much before the Council and is certainly not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Doctrinal development is not a bad thing. Completely changing doctrine outright would be bad, but we do no such thing. We do, however, believe that through time the Holy Spirit draws us to a deeper understanding of Godly things.

Get ready for some Apologetic Acrobatics from the Anti-Catholics buddy.

I take it you've been down this road before, eh?  laugh
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #96 on: July 15, 2010, 11:38:02 AM »

Hopefully purgatory will go the way of limbo.
Not possible. Limbo was never an official doctrine of the Catholic Church, but Purgatory was and is. Doctrines cannot change.
LOL. Doctrinal developement. You guys do it all the time. We call it doctrinal drift. We don't suffer from it.
If all doctrine was clarified to the utmost extent then why did Christ send the Holy Spirit to the Church to guide it into all truth? Also, don't act so smug about not having doctrinal development. I'm sure some of the Christians who were alive when the First Council of Nicea was held thought that there was some "doctrinal drift" going on when the Holy Trinity was defined. Yet, as an Orthodox Christian you accept this doctrinal development even though the word Trinity was probably not used much before the Council and is certainly not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Doctrinal development is not a bad thing. Completely changing doctrine outright would be bad, but we do no such thing. We do, however, believe that through time the Holy Spirit draws us to a deeper understanding of Godly things.

Get ready for some Apologetic Acrobatics from the Anti-Catholics buddy.

I take it you've been down this road before, eh?  laugh
Oh boy yes. The anti-Catholics will try and pretend that there was no doctrinal development between the time of the Apostles and the seventh ecumenical council, but read Justin Martyr, Iraneaus of Lyons, etc. Their understanding of the Three person of the Trinity is no where near as developed as the Trinitarian doctrine of the Ecumenical Councils. BTW, do the second century Fathers ever mention that icons are windows into heaven? Oh, and was there even a practice of private confession in the early Church, or was this done publicly before the whole body of believers in a given town? Did St. Clement expound on the Palamite version of the essence/energies distinction?  I'm just saying.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 11:38:44 AM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #97 on: July 15, 2010, 03:50:36 PM »

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Who claimed that?
I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God  revealed no such thing, and the Apostles  taught no such thing.
Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?
Of course. 
Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?
Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?
Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?
Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?
Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?
Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later?
Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?
Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #98 on: July 15, 2010, 04:53:06 PM »

Hopefully purgatory will go the way of limbo.
Not possible. Limbo was never an official doctrine of the Catholic Church, but Purgatory was and is. Doctrines cannot change.
LOL. Doctrinal developement. You guys do it all the time. We call it doctrinal drift. We don't suffer from it.
If all doctrine was clarified to the utmost extent then why did Christ send the Holy Spirit to the Church to guide it into all truth? Also, don't act so smug about not having doctrinal development. I'm sure some of the Christians who were alive when the First Council of Nicea was held thought that there was some "doctrinal drift" going on when the Holy Trinity was defined.
Yes, the Arians.
Quote
Yet, as an Orthodox Christian you accept this doctrinal development
You have been reading the DaVinci code. Christ didn't become divine at Nicea I.
Quote
even though the word Trinity was probably not used much before the Council and is certainly not explicitly mentioned in Scripture.
The word "Bible" isn't in the scripture either, but the canon wasn't made up when the term was coined.
Quote
Doctrinal development is not a bad thing.
Depends how you feel about heresy.
Quote
Completely changing doctrine outright would be bad, but we do no such thing.
LOL. Your Vatican does it all the time. Pope Leo III puts the original Creed on the doors of saint Peter in Rome, banning the filioque.  Pope Leo IX of Rome sends his delegate to excommunicate the East for refusing to add the filioque. Sorry, those two positions are not compatable.
Quote
We do, however, believe that through time the Holy Spirit draws us to a deeper understanding of Godly things.
Like gnosis?
Logged

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

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



« Reply #99 on: July 15, 2010, 04:59:15 PM »


Hopefully purgatory will go the way of limbo.
Not possible. Limbo was never an official doctrine of the Catholic Church, but Purgatory was and is. Doctrines cannot change.
LOL. Doctrinal developement. You guys do it all the time. We call it doctrinal drift. We don't suffer from it.
If all doctrine was clarified to the utmost extent then why did Christ send the Holy Spirit to the Church to guide it into all truth? Also, don't act so smug about not having doctrinal development. I'm sure some of the Christians who were alive when the First Council of Nicea was held thought that there was some "doctrinal drift" going on when the Holy Trinity was defined. Yet, as an Orthodox Christian you accept this doctrinal development even though the word Trinity was probably not used much before the Council and is certainly not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Doctrinal development is not a bad thing. Completely changing doctrine outright would be bad, but we do no such thing. We do, however, believe that through time the Holy Spirit draws us to a deeper understanding of Godly things.

Get ready for some Apologetic Acrobatics from the Anti-Catholics buddy.

I take it you've been down this road before, eh?  laugh
Oh boy yes. The anti-Catholics will try and pretend that there was no doctrinal development between the time of the Apostles and the seventh ecumenical council, but read Justin Martyr, Iraneaus of Lyons, etc. Their understanding of the Three person of the Trinity is no where near as developed as the Trinitarian doctrine of the Ecumenical Councils. BTW, do the second century Fathers ever mention that icons are windows into heaven? Oh, and was there even a practice of private confession in the early Church, or was this done publicly before the whole body of believers in a given town? Did St. Clement expound on the Palamite version of the essence/energies distinction?  I'm just saying.
I'm going to repost something long (yeah, I know, suprise) but may not have the time to comment more.  I originally argued this against Sola Scriptura for the only source of the Faith.  I'll adapt it to the OP.

An example of what happens when Sola Scriptura runs against Apostolic Tradition:
Joshua Joshua 22:10 And when they came to the region about the Jordan, that lies in the land of Canaan, the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas'seh built there an altar by the Jordan, an altar of great size. 11 And the people of Israel heard say, "Behold, the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas'seh have built an altar at the frontier of the land of Canaan, in the region about the Jordan, on the side that belongs to the people of Israel." 12 And when the people of Israel heard of it, the whole assembly of the people of Israel gathered at Shiloh, to make war against them. 13 Then the people of Israel sent to the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas'seh, in the land of Gilead, Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar the priest, 14 and with him ten chiefs, one from each of the tribal families of Israel, every one of them the head of a family among the clans of Israel. 15 And they came to the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manas'seh, in the land of Gilead, and they said to them, 16 "Thus says the whole congregation of the LORD, 'What is this treachery which you have committed against the God of Israel in turning away this day from following the LORD, by building yourselves an altar this day in rebellion against the LORD? 17 Have we not had enough of the sin at Pe'or from which even yet we have not cleansed ourselves, and for which there came a plague upon the congregation of the LORD, 18 that you must turn away this day from following the LORD? And if you rebel against the LORD today he will be angry with the whole congregation of Israel tomorrow. 19 But now, if your land is unclean, pass over into the LORD's land where the LORD's tabernacle stands, and take for yourselves a possession among us; only do not rebel against the LORD, or make us as rebels by building yourselves an altar other than the altar of the LORD our God. 20 Did not Achan the son of Zerah break faith in the matter of the devoted things, and wrath fell upon all the congregation of Israel? And he did not perish alone for his iniquity.'"

21 Then the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manas'seh said in answer to the heads of the families of Israel, 22 "The Mighty One, God, the LORD! The Mighty One, God, the LORD! He knows; and let Israel itself know! If it was in rebellion or in breach of faith toward the LORD, spare us not today 23 for building an altar to turn away from following the LORD; or if we did so to offer burnt offerings or cereal offerings or peace offerings on it, may the LORD himself take vengeance. 24 Nay, but we did it from fear that in time to come your children might say to our children, 'What have you to do with the LORD, the God of Israel ? 25 For the LORD has made the Jordan a boundary between us and you, you Reubenites and Gadites; you have no portion in the LORD.' So your children might make our children cease to worship the LORD. 26 Therefore we said, 'Let us now build an altar, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice, 27 but to be a witness between us and you, and between the generations after us, that we do perform the service of the LORD in his presence with our burnt offerings and sacrifices and peace offerings; lest your children say to our children in time to come, "You have no portion in the LORD."' 28 And we thought, If this should be said to us or to our descendants in time to come, we should say, 'Behold the copy of the altar of the LORD, which our fathers made, not for burnt offerings, nor for sacrifice, but to be a witness between us and you.' 29 Far be it from us that we should rebel against the LORD, and turn away this day from following the LORD by building an altar for burnt offering, cereal offering, or sacrifice, other than the altar of the LORD our God that stands before his tabernacle!"

30 When Phin'ehas the priest and the chiefs of the congregation, the heads of the families of Israel who were with him, heard the words that the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manas'sites spoke, it pleased them well. 31 And Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar the priest said to the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manas'sites, "Today we know that the LORD is in the midst of us, because you have not committed this treachery against the LORD; now you have saved the people of Israel from the hand of the LORD." 32 Then Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar the priest, and the chiefs, returned from the Reubenites and the Gadites in the land of Gilead to the land of Canaan, to the people of Israel, and brought back word to them. 33 And the report pleased the people of Israel; and the people of Israel blessed God and spoke no more of making war against them, to destroy the land where the Reubenites and the Gadites were settled. 34 The Reubenites and the Gadites called the altar Witness; "For," said they, "it is a witness between us that the LORD is God."

Now, note the following:

The Sola Scriptura folks were quite correct: the Law given to Moses had restricted sacrifices to one altar before the one Tabernacle. Btw, the tribes living on the East of the Jordan was a deviation from what God had commanded, revealed in His Word, and to which the Prophet Moses objected (Numbers 32, especially verses 6-15). Sort of like the innovation of the monarchy (I Kingdoms/Samuel 8, esp. verses 6-7), but we go a Messiah out of that (I Chronicles 17). Yet it is those who add Tradition to the mix who save Israel that day, as the chiefs of the Assembly/Congregation (we would say "Church") of Israel admit.

However, the Sola Scriptura first accuse the Eastern tribes of rebelling against God's Word, setting something that they see in addition to, and hence in opposition to (in their mind) in order to supplant God's Word, and replacing the Word of God with the traditions of men. And their solution? Just stick to the text and cross over to us.

The Eastern tribes had the foresight to see that, people being people, and sin being sin, that the Books of Moses were not going to suffice to stop Israel from sin. Those on the West Bank would focus on the literal promises to Abraham (which said nothing of the East Bank) and would interpret it in a manner which suited their sense of sensibilities: the Promised Land should fit our idea of the Land of Canaan (sort of like the idea of eating Body and Blood). Acting on this, they would exclude the Easterners, leading them to sin.

So the solution? Set up an interpretation of the letter of the law that preserved an indisputable indication of its spirit. And this they did.

A Melkite priest gave the best one word definition of Chrsitianity: witness.

Now, the problem most Protestants have with Tradition is the idea that the Church which set it up has tried to suppliment, and hence oppose, in order to supplant, Scripture.

We do not believe in, say, the Real Presense because St. Ignatius of Antioch, whom the Aposles ordained themselves as successor of St. Peter in the place where the disciples were first called Christians, writes in c. 105:
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from the prayer, because they will not confess that the Eucharist is the self same flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

we believe in the Real Presence because He said, "This is My Body," "This is My Blood." Rising, He appeared and was known to the Apostles in the breakding of the bread that first Pascha (Luke 24:13-36 NOT btw, in His opening of the scriptures, though that did make their heart burn). Those who continued steadfast in the Apostles' doctrines communed in the breaking of bread in the prayers of the DL every Sunday from the Resurrection until June 7, 2009 (Acts 2:42, 20:7), which we received, delievered to us by the Apostles from the Lord (I Cor. 11:23. btw. when these words were written, the Church had been gathering on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:7) for over two decades).

Now, the Aposles weren't doing this because of the verses quoted. Rather the verses were written to record what the Apostles did, what they were doing, believing, teaching, whether by word or letter (I Thess. 2:15) so those who followed could stand fast and hold these traditions, and withdraw (I Thes. 3:6) from those who refused to walk according to the traditions which they delievered and which we received.

St. Ignatius stood fast and held that tradition, and did not neglect that gift that was given him by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, guarding what was committed to him. (I Tim. 4:14, 6:20) St. Ignatius set in order bishops in every city as the Aposltes commanded, to hold fast the faithful word as it had been taught, by word or letter, to both exhort and convict by sound doctrine those of a different opinion (heresia) who contradicted, and refused to walk according to that tradition. (cf. Titus 1:5-9). As the letters show, strong in the grace of Christ Jesus, he was committing these traditions he heard by word from the Apostles to the Faithful to teach others. (2 Tim. 2:1-2), that the Catholic Church continue in breaking the bread, the communion of the self same Body of Christ (I Cor. 10:16).

We do not believe in the Real Presence because St. Ignatius says so: he received the same Faith we received, and he stands as a Witness that God has erected between the Apostles and us, as a sign post as to whether we walk according to the Tradition of the Apostles or not. "Lo! I am with you always (Greek: "all the days") even unto the end of the age." Those were His parting words. And so He has: rather than standing gazing, the Church has raised up witnessses to that same Faith, who stand as witnesses between us and the Apostles. We have not abandoned the Bible for the Fathers (and Mothers!). Rather surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, we are able to point to the Witness, like the Eastern Tribes to the altar on the Jordan, to show that we are right in our interpretation of Scripture, including the Words of Institution (themselves written in the Gospels to reflect Church practice). Every generation, we can document, from the Apostles to this day, those who, if they lived in our day, would come to OUR Church and commune with us (of course, closed communion is part of that Apostolic Tradition). Their Faith is our Faith, and that is the value of their words, not that they replace the Bible. Rather they preserve the full import of the Bible.

Tradition is giving our ancestors, our Fathers, the ones who passed down the Faith and copied and preserved the Bible, a vote.

Catechesis means "echo," and Christ's Word has roared throughout the generations through Apostolic Tradition.

As our priest says, if you come up with an interpretation of Scripture that no one else has, be cautious and ask yourself if you are wrong. If it contradicts what has gone before, YOU ARE DEFINITELY WRONG.

How to interpret Acts 8:31? The believers of sola scriptura cannot tell us. They have no one to guide them.
I'm going to repost something long (yeah, I know, suprise) but may not have the time to comment more.  I originally argued this against Sola Scriptura for the only source of the Faith.  I'll adapt it to the OP.....
Title of the thread confused the Consensus Patrum as a Source of Faith: the Consensus does not provide the Source of Faith, it reflects it.

There is only one soure of the Faith, Christ.  How that one source is transmitted, and how its transmition is verified, is what is at issue.

The Faith is transitted in the Holy Mysteries: as the Fathers say, Christ has passed into the Holy Mysteries, the signs of Christ's life within His Body, the Church.  When the Church acts as the Body of Christ, as a Body, in unity with her Head, then she speaks infallibly.  That is why the assent of the Faithful is needed, for instance, for the Ecumenicity of a Council.

There is, for no instance, no objective criteria on which to base the canon of the Bible.  Authorship by an Apostle does not determine the canon of the NT: St. Luke, strictly speaking, is not an Apostle-he does not include himself in the company of eyewitness and ministers of the Word from the beginning (Luke 1:2, cf. Acts 1:21-2). Yet there is no question of it being in the Orthodox canon.  St. Clement's first epistle (I'll leave aside the question of the second) which was reckoned as Scripture: after Clement received his doctrine directly from the Apostles, and not as an eyewitness of Christ, the same way  St. Luke received his doctrine.  Clement's epistles are approved by the Apostolic Canons (85), but yet St. Luke is canonized and St. Clement is not.  If an archaeologist dug up St. Paul's missing Epistles or when they dug up the Gospels that record Acts 20:35, or the Jesus seminar could prove that St. Thomas wrote the Gospel named after him, none were or would be accepted into the canon.  The Church has spoken.  Many Fathers and Churches deemed Reveltion spurious, but the Church accepted it into the canon, and even if textual criticism would able to prove that St. John did not write it, it would remain in the canon as the Church has received it as an expression of her Faith in the return of her Bridegroom.

And that is why the Bible is canonized: it is not that the Church collected documents that the Apostles wrote.  Rather, they looked at what the Faithful had produced in the bosom of the Church, recognized herself in it, and adopted it as her self revelation.  Sort of like when parents see themselves in their children, and leave them as their legacy.  The Bible is not like the America Constitution, which brought a new government into order which is derived from that constition: it is like the Canadian Constitution, which merely codifies the system of government in place.  When St. Paul refers to Christ's life, he is not teaching history. He is appealing to an audience who already knows His life. Case in point: St. Paul's account of the Mystical Supper predates all the Gospels' accounts of it.  But he is not telling the Corinthians nothing that they do not already know (I Corin. 11:23)  In fact the ongoing Great Canon of the DL helped shape the Gospels' account.

That is why Sola Scriptura doesn't work: it is like owning the manuel, but not owning the car.

St. Theophan deals with the issue of why we say prayers written by the saints.  It is not because they are a replacement for Scripture nor for our own words.  But as we do not know how to pray as we ought, we look to those who did.  The saints we know (because they have been glorified, and their words consecrated by the usage of the Church) had reached the stage where the Holy Spirit spoke within them at prayer.  In that state, they composed in human language their thoughts in that state.  Using these words as guideposts, we are trying to follow them into the state where the Holy Spirit gives utterance to our prayers.  As the lesson of the Samaritan woman shows: the Samaritans came because of what she told them, but they reached a point at which they believed from knowing Him for themselves (John 4:43).

So too the Liturgy: the Church gathered as the Body of Christ so that He made be in their midst have put that experience into words.  The Church as a whole has adopted the Liturgy as the public expression of that experience, hence the appeal of liturgical texts for dogma: lex credendi, lex orandi.  But in that order: we do not believe that Christ is in the Eucharist because the DL says so, rather because we believe so, and experience Him in the Eucharist, that the DL so says.

So too the Dogmatic Definitions of the Ecumenical Councils.  The Faith cannot be added too.  No development of doctrine, if it was not in the Apostles' preaching it cannot be in the Dogma of the Church.  When heresy infected the Body of Christ, the Body of Christ, as a Body, mustered its antibodies, the Fathers and developed an immunity, the Dogmatic Definitions, to the heresy.  They did not add to the Faith: as the body already has the antibody proteins but only puts them to work to form a defense against the foreign pathogen, so too the Fathers only erect from pre-existing materials a boundary marker which the Orthodox may not move.  The Fathers confessed the same Faith, but in different words to ensure it remained the same Faith.  The expression of Faith changes only so that the Faith can remain the same, something litrugists should keep in mind.

The iconography writes an icon only when he follows the canon the Church has laid down for the visual expression of her Faith. Otherwise he is a forger and a counterfeiter (like our deluded friend Lentz).  The icon is the expression of the Church, not personal agendas, and just like a counterfeiter tries to make his money look real but it has no value, so too the icongrapher who oversteps the Church's bounds.  That is why we appeal to the icons when we are asked about what we believe, because they are backed by the full Faith and Credit of the Church.

No Church Father is infallible: only Christ is infallible, and the Church's infallibility flows from her being His Body.  But that flows only when she acts as a Body, like in Ecumenical Council.  Any individual member cannot act infallibility, so why the claim of the alleged "visible head" to speak infallibly cannot be accepted.  So too, no one should expect every word of an individual Father to be infallible.  It is only in as much as they reflect the common Faith, between us and them and lived in the Church now, that they constitute the Consensus Patrum.  What they served, as I pointed out in my OP, as a witness between us and heretics, so when they claim that the Real Presence is an innovation, that we point to St. Ignatius etc.: they witenss to the Faith as we witness to the Faith.

Which is the point of my OP to the OP: merely extended Sola Scriptura to included Ecumenical Councils and certain Fathers misses the point.  These are not the source of Faith: they are witnesses, like the altar on the Jordan, to make sure we have kept the Faith.

I'm just saying.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #100 on: July 15, 2010, 05:03:24 PM »

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Who claimed that?
I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God  revealed no such thing, and the Apostles  taught no such thing.
Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?
Of course.
Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?
Have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?
Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?
Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?
Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?
Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?
Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later?
Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?
Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.
Straining gnats so we can swallow camels, are we?

You still seem to be accusing me of sola scriptura, when I haven't (nor do I) appealed to sola scriptura.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 05:04:41 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

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


« Reply #101 on: July 15, 2010, 05:08:04 PM »

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Who claimed that?
I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God  revealed no such thing, and the Apostles  taught no such thing.
Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?
Of course.
Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?
Have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?
Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?
Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?
Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?
Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?
Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later?
Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?
Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.
Straining gnats so we can swallow camels, are we?

You still seem to be accusing me of sola scriptura, when I haven't (nor do I) appealed to sola scriptura.
I see you are backtracking on this idea that one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles. I gave a list of several examples, where this is not strictly followed. 
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #102 on: July 15, 2010, 05:12:06 PM »

Yes, the Arians.
So when it's the Arians getting upset over the doctrinal development of the Trinity, they are heretics, but when doctrinal development doesn't suit the East, they're free to just leave and dub Rome heretical. Double standard much?

You have been reading the DaVinci code. Christ didn't become divine at Nicea I.
I never said that that was when Christ became divine. I said that was the Council where the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was defined. Are you asserting that the doctrine of the Trinity was as clear and developed before Nicea as it was after Nicea? If that's the case it begs the question: why have Ecumenical Councils at all if the faith was already given to us and everything was already sown up?

The word "Bible" isn't in the scripture either, but the canon wasn't made up when the term was coined.
That's because the Bible didn't exist as a whole whenever the Scriptures were being written. Conversely, the Holy Trinity existed before it was formally recognized by Nicea. As such, there's no excuse for it not being in the New Testament unless.....oh wait for it.............it was a doctrinal development.

Depends how you feel about heresy.
Hate the heresy love the heretic.

LOL. Your Vatican does it all the time. Pope Leo III puts the original Creed on the doors of saint Peter in Rome, banning the filioque.  Pope Leo IX of Rome sends his delegate to excommunicate the East for refusing to add the filioque. Sorry, those two positions are not compatable.
I would imagine Pope Leo III left out the filioque more because he didn't want to rock the boat with the East. Whether he actually thought it was heretical in and of itself I don't know, but I would imagine he didn't have anything against the filioque personally. He was being a diplomat.

Like gnosis?
Was Nicea a gnostic council?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #103 on: July 15, 2010, 05:21:27 PM »

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Who claimed that?
I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God  revealed no such thing, and the Apostles  taught no such thing.
Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?
Of course.
Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?
Have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?
Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?
Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?
Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?
Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?
Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later?
Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?
Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.
Straining gnats so we can swallow camels, are we?

You still seem to be accusing me of sola scriptura, when I haven't (nor do I) appealed to sola scriptura.
I see you are backtracking on this idea that one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles.
Not at all. Just correcting your error.
Quote
I gave a list of several examples, where this is not strictly followed.
Yes, the monologue with yourself is very amusing. For starters, the first item on your list, have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?
Logged

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

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



« Reply #104 on: July 15, 2010, 05:32:02 PM »

Yes, the Arians.
So when it's the Arians getting upset over the doctrinal development of the Trinity, they are heretics, but when doctrinal development doesn't suit the East, they're free to just leave and dub Rome heretical. Double standard much?
No, consistent standard. We reject the Vatican's heretical doctrinal development of the Trinity, like we rejected the Arians'.

You have been reading the DaVinci code. Christ didn't become divine at Nicea I.
I never said that that was when Christ became divine. I said that was the Council where the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was defined. Are you asserting that the doctrine of the Trinity was as clear and developed before Nicea as it was after Nicea? If that's the case it begs the question: why have Ecumenical Councils at all if the faith was already given to us and everything was already sown up?
I think you mean sewn up. Look at my post above, about the antibodies.

The word "Bible" isn't in the scripture either, but the canon wasn't made up when the term was coined.
That's because the Bible didn't exist as a whole whenever the Scriptures were being written. Conversely, the Holy Trinity existed before it was formally recognized by Nicea. As such, there's no excuse for it not being in the New Testament unless.....oh wait for it.............it was a doctrinal development.
Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.

Depends how you feel about heresy.
Hate the heresy love the heretic.
Then do not confirm the heretic in his heresy.

LOL. Your Vatican does it all the time. Pope Leo III puts the original Creed on the doors of saint Peter in Rome, banning the filioque.  Pope Leo IX of Rome sends his delegate to excommunicate the East for refusing to add the filioque. Sorry, those two positions are not compatable.
I would imagine
imagining is where problems start.
Quote
Pope Leo III left out the filioque more because he didn't want to rock the boat with the East. Whether he actually thought it was heretical in and of itself I don't know, but I would imagine he didn't have anything against the filioque personally. He was being a diplomat.
So was cardinal umberto.

Like gnosis?
Was Nicea a gnostic council?
No, but then it wasn't claiming to "develop" anything, and wasn't enunciating things never heard before.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 05:32:30 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #105 on: July 15, 2010, 05:49:23 PM »

No, consistent standard. We reject the Vatican's heretical doctrinal development of the Trinity, like we rejected the Arians'.
It seems you reacted to the West the same way that the Arians reacted to the Church when the doctrine of the Trinity was formally defined.

I think you mean sewn up. Look at my post above, about the antibodies.
Yeah, I thought it was sewn after I posted it but wasn't sure. Good thing this is a theological discussion and not grammar class.  Wink

Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.
If you mean that the Church is a stagnant organization that has no use for the Holy Spirit because everything has already been revealed and needs no further clarification, of course the Vatican isn't going to "see" that because that notion is false.

Then do not confirm the heretic in his heresy.
I agree, which is why I'll stay in Full Communion with the Roman Pontiff, thanks. Cheesy

So was cardinal umberto.
You will have to elaborate because I am unfamiliar with him.

No, but then it wasn't claiming to "develop" anything, and wasn't enunciating things never heard before.
What was the purpose of the Council then if everything was already fully developed and known beforehand?
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,168



WWW
« Reply #106 on: July 15, 2010, 05:53:44 PM »

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Who claimed that?
I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God  revealed no such thing, and the Apostles  taught no such thing.
Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?
Of course.
Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?
Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?
Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?
Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?
Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?
Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later?
Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?
Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.

Hey Stanley.

I do think the Orthodox Church has changed its practices over the centuries, and you can find similarities between the general development of ideas. However, I think the idea of a single Pope as always infallible whenever he talks ex Cathedra so strongly contradicts basic ideas of man's fallibility, that it's pretty wrong. I think that Catholic church has made big inventions around the time of the schism and after. Orthodox church has changed or made new things, but not nearly as strongly or enough to say that it breaks with the fundamentals of Apostolic teaching.

Main problem is the blind obedience to Pope who is seen as unequal with all other apostles and infallible vicar of Christ. It's leading toward an idea of an "anti-Christ", someone seen as "Christ on earth", but who is not. Problems like original sin, purgatory, ban on contraceptives absolutely, are secondary IMO. And I think that the Catholic Church makes belief in ALL these doctrines absolutes, unlike Orthodox Church. Also, I don't think this is a reflection on Catholics, since probably 80% actually don't believe in all of these things.

Best wishes
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 05:54:02 PM by rakovsky » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #107 on: July 15, 2010, 07:16:59 PM »

No, consistent standard. We reject the Vatican's heretical doctrinal development of the Trinity, like we rejected the Arians'.
It seems you reacted to the West the same way that the Arians reacted to the Church when the doctrine of the Trinity was formally defined.

I'm sure you see it that way.

I think you mean sewn up. Look at my post above, about the antibodies.
Yeah, I thought it was sewn after I posted it but wasn't sure. Good thing this is a theological discussion and not grammar class.  Wink

Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.
If you mean that the Church is a stagnant organization that has no use for the Holy Spirit because everything has already been revealed and needs no further clarification, of course the Vatican isn't going to "see" that because that notion is false.
Didn't read my post above, did you?

Now I look like my baby picture, despite I'm taller, weight more, right now have a 5 o'clock (actually more) shadow. That's development.

I also have a cross tattoo on my wrist which you will search in vain for on my baby pictures.  You call that developement but its not quite that: no matter how old I got, that tattoo wasn't going to appear until I had them apply it with the needle.

My best friend has four kidnies, from two kidney transplants. Not quite development there either.  He looks like his baby picture, though, too.

I have my doubts about those who have a "sex change," that they resemble their baby picture in specific ways, but I concede that their faces are probably the same.  You would have to get plastic surgery to change that, like Michael Jackosn.

I remember when he married Miss Presley, someone said they would believe it when she had a baby that looked like he used to look. Not like this:


But that's the problem: ya'll at the Vatican can't make a distinction between growing and radical plastic surgery, because it's all change=development.  So you appropriate it as a license to attribute the most outlandish things to the "deposit of Faith."

Then do not confirm the heretic in his heresy.
I agree, which is why I'll stay in Full Communion with the Roman Pontiff, thanks. Cheesy


So was cardinal umberto.
You will have to elaborate because I am unfamiliar with him.
The envoy pope Leo IX sent to impose the filioque on the One, Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church in the East.

No, but then it wasn't claiming to "develop" anything, and wasn't enunciating things never heard before.
What was the purpose of the Council then if everything was already fully developed and known beforehand?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20719.msg453992/topicseen.html#msg453992
Logged

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

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


« Reply #108 on: July 15, 2010, 07:37:40 PM »

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Who claimed that?
I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God  revealed no such thing, and the Apostles  taught no such thing.
Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?
Of course.
Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?
Have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?
Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?
Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?
Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?
Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?
Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later?
Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?
Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.
Straining gnats so we can swallow camels, are we?

You still seem to be accusing me of sola scriptura, when I haven't (nor do I) appealed to sola scriptura.
I see you are backtracking on this idea that one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles.
Not at all. Just correcting your error.
Quote
I gave a list of several examples, where this is not strictly followed.
Yes, the monologue with yourself is very amusing. For starters, the first item on your list, have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?
Yes. I agree it is a monologue, because you are not responding to the observation that your assumptions are untenable.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #109 on: July 15, 2010, 07:42:13 PM »

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Who claimed that?
I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God  revealed no such thing, and the Apostles  taught no such thing.
Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?
Of course.
Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?
Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?
Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?
Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?
Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?
Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later?
Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?
Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.

Hey Stanley.

I do think the Orthodox Church has changed its practices over the centuries, and you can find similarities between the general development of ideas. However, I think the idea of a single Pope as always infallible whenever he talks ex Cathedra so strongly contradicts basic ideas of man's fallibility, that it's pretty wrong. I think that Catholic church has made big inventions around the time of the schism and after. Orthodox church has changed or made new things, but not nearly as strongly or enough to say that it breaks with the fundamentals of Apostolic teaching.

Main problem is the blind obedience to Pope who is seen as unequal with all other apostles and infallible vicar of Christ. It's leading toward an idea of an "anti-Christ", someone seen as "Christ on earth", but who is not. Problems like original sin, purgatory, ban on contraceptives absolutely, are secondary IMO. And I think that the Catholic Church makes belief in ALL these doctrines absolutes, unlike Orthodox Church. Also, I don't think this is a reflection on Catholics, since probably 80% actually don't believe in all of these things.

Best wishes
I can see this argument, as I have already said before, and yes, it has to be discussed and looked at very seriously,  but it is not the point that I was addressing. The point concerns the objection to the teaching on Purgatory on the basis that it was not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, or that it was not explicitly taught by the Apostles. I would not go with such an argument, since I see developments in Orthodox teaching also.
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,169


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #110 on: July 15, 2010, 09:33:09 PM »

Dear Papist

You wrote:

Quote
BTW, do the second century Fathers ever mention that icons are windows into heaven?

St Dionysius the Areopagite, baptised into the faith by Apostle Paul in the first century AD, is frequently quoted by St John of Damascus in his treatise On the Divine Images. Here are some of St Dionysius' writings which St John uses as references, which clearly proclaim icons as windows into heaven:

Instead of attaching the common conception to images, we should look upon what they symbolise, and not despise the divine mark and character which they portray, as sensible images of mysterious and heavenly visions.

Sensible images do indeed show forth invisible things.

And, yes, I am quite aware of the attribution by modern scholars of the above to a "pseudo-Dionysius". The point is, that nothing of what St John used as references (and he quoted many other early Fathers, such as Sts John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Epiphanius of Cyprus, and others) are contradictory to Orthodox doctrine, theology or thought. Let's not forget that St John of Damascus is, in effect, a patron saint of Orthodox hymnography and iconography. Also, let's not forget that iconography, even in its most primitive form, has existed from the earliest days of Christianity. A surprising amount of catacomb "art" survives to this day.


Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,289


Mzack. Uglyface creatures, unite!


« Reply #111 on: July 15, 2010, 09:38:38 PM »

And, yes, I am quite aware of the attribution by modern scholars of the above to a "pseudo-Dionysius".

Just wanted to point out that the debate concerning the writings attributed to Dionysius goes back at least 1100 years...
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #112 on: July 15, 2010, 09:38:54 PM »

Is there a consensus that St. Dionysius (New Testament personality) was really the author of the Aeropagite corpus? I'm not denigrating the writings (Fr. Meyendorff wasn't that fond of them or "neo-Platonism" in general), it's more a question of authorship.

Edit: never mind, I just scanned some aditional sentences. It's an old debate.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 09:40:06 PM by John Larocque » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #113 on: July 15, 2010, 10:01:27 PM »

No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Who claimed that?
I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God  revealed no such thing, and the Apostles  taught no such thing.
Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?
Of course.
Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?
Have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?
Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?
Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?
Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?
Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?
Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later?
Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?
Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.
Straining gnats so we can swallow camels, are we?

You still seem to be accusing me of sola scriptura, when I haven't (nor do I) appealed to sola scriptura.
I see you are backtracking on this idea that one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles.
Not at all. Just correcting your error.
Quote
I gave a list of several examples, where this is not strictly followed.
Yes, the monologue with yourself is very amusing. For starters, the first item on your list, have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?
Yes. I agree it is a monologue, because you are not responding to the observation that your assumptions are untenable.
I observed a lot of assertions to that, but, with the failure demonstrated to distinguish normal growth from radical plastic surgery or even the attachment of an extra head, there really isn't anything to respond to the assertion of developement as giving license to change, any change.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #114 on: July 15, 2010, 10:11:16 PM »

And, yes, I am quite aware of the attribution by modern scholars of the above to a "pseudo-Dionysius".

Just wanted to point out that the debate concerning the writings attributed to Dionysius goes back at least 1100 years...

LOL. Which means its attribution to St. Dionysius is older, and the writings older still.  Btw, the debate goes back further: the authorship was debated by Severus before Justinian I in 532. They can't be much older, at least as a corpus, as he refers to the recitation of the Creed in the DL, something not introduced until 475 by Patriarch Peter (the OO: note well, EO opposed to OO and their ways).
http://books.google.com/books?id=Es8IUlpYMGAC&pg=PA85&dq=Peter+the+fuller+Creed+liturgy&hl=en&ei=R78_TOi7CMGCnQeX37jOBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Peter%20the%20fuller%20Creed%20liturgy&f=false
Our Vatican friends, no doubt, will now rejoice that the IC, filioque, papal infallibility and supremacy and all the rest of its innovations have now been vindicated. Roll Eyes
Logged

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

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,289


Mzack. Uglyface creatures, unite!


« Reply #115 on: July 15, 2010, 10:32:10 PM »


LOL. Which means its attribution to St. Dionysius is older, and the writings older still.  Btw, the debate goes back further...

Ok... were you under the impression that I thought differently?  Smiley
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #116 on: July 15, 2010, 10:37:26 PM »


LOL. Which means its attribution to St. Dionysius is older, and the writings older still.  Btw, the debate goes back further...

Ok... were you under the impression that I thought differently?  Smiley
Just making sure.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: unity ecumenism 
Pages: 1 2 3 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 0.471 seconds with 145 queries.