OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 30, 2014, 10:06:47 AM *
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  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Thinking About Orthodoxy  (Read 9033 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Frobie
Quasi Vero Monaco
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 633


Rublev's Trinity


WWW
« Reply #45 on: November 07, 2003, 04:18:50 PM »

I think he was talking about www.ccel.org, not OC.net
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #46 on: November 07, 2003, 06:56:51 PM »

Justinianus

As this is an Orthodox board I think it'd be bad manners to actively discourage those seeking Orthodoxy.  

Your eye glass analogy is very good but you know I see it the other way.  When I was an RC I had perfect vision no glasses needed but then my vision clouded due to my own pride and self-will when I became Orthodox.  Now that I am RC again I feel like the scales have fallen from my eyes and can see the glory of God with blinding clarity.

As far as the RC out on the road to a bad end well I disagree.  Christ told Peter the gates of hell would not prevail against it.  There's a book called "The Spirit of Catholicism" by Karl Adam (very good book for anyone interested in RCC by the way).  The intro of the book has an excerpt from Macaulay on the persistence of the RCC which is rather moving for us RC's.  If you can check it out.

Carpo-Rusyn



Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #47 on: November 07, 2003, 07:01:53 PM »

In the same vein I don't see any reason why a Catholic must "convert" to Orthodoxy or why any Orthodox must "convert" to Catholicism. If someone feels there is a compelling personal reason to change juristictions that should be the only real reason to switch. In a way shouldn't we stay where God put's us and do the best we can to make that community the best it can be? Even before the schism bishops felt that people shouldn't be switching from one juristiction to another without good reason.
These are explosive words to be sure.  I can say that I indeed had compelling personal reasons to change to the Orthodox Church.  If I had stayed as a Roman Catholic, I do not think I would have had as rich a spiritual life as I have now.  The more I studied it the more doubts and confusion set in.  Inheriting the sin guilt of Adam and Eve, the Immaculate Conception, the filioque, papal infallability, growth in the earthly authority of the Pope of Rome since 1054, the causes of the Protestant Reformation, and the disregard for the Holy Traditions as a result of Vatican II, humanistic theology, the need to define every spiritual mystery in legalistic terms.


All these things caused confusion and serious doubts in my mind.  Since embracing Orthodoxy, all of that is gone and my Christian life has been enhanced as a result.

As a young man, I was not a wishy washy Catholic either.  In college and in the military I was a devout Roman Catholic, who attended mass daily and had a few priests as friends.  I had big debates with Protestant Fundamentalists and JW's defending Catholicism.  I am well aware of all the defenses of Catholicism, I used them myself.  

Sometimes, when I reflect on where I was and where I am now.  I am thankful with all my heart for the spiritual growth and the enlightenment from the Holy Spirit I have received.  I have no regrets about my Roman Catholic upbringing.  I am grateful for it.  I have no animosity towards the Roman church, I just feel the Roman church has lost much over the years and is going down a path that will lead to a bad end.  The Roman Church needs to look back into it past and rediscover itself and its roots.  

The way I think about it for me is as an eye doctor analogy.  As a Roman Catholic I had eye glasses of the wrong prescription.  I could still see Christ, but the image was blurry and a little distorted.  Now as an Orthodox, I have eye glasses of the correct prescription and I see our Lord clearly and can fully appreciate his glory.

Please do not discourage those wanting to seek that glory.  By sincere prayer and supplication to the Lord a Christian will follow the path to Jesus Christ.

I agree with you which is why I said there may be personal reasons to switch juristictions. God has put roadblocks in my path that makes it clear he does not want me to  leave The Catholic Church.  So I'll obey his will and do the best I can.
Peace,
Polycarp

Logged

Peace
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #48 on: November 07, 2003, 07:37:05 PM »

As a former RC I can say I've always had problems with the way the Pope claimed Infallibility. If  Saint Peter was the "Rock" (and not his faith in Christ) then why would Antioch not be the home of the Pope? Saint Peter founded the See of Antioch in AD 34( Acts 2:26) before the See of Rome. Also when the problem arose between Saints Peter and Paul it was Saint James that called the First Ecumenical counsel from his See of Jerusalem. This leads me to believe  that the Jerusalem See was the most important. Only later was the See of Rome raised to its level of primacy (honorary title), and  only then because it was the crossroads of the world.

So if you do believe the Church was formed on the Rock of Peter then the Patriarch of Antioch is the real head of the Church. Antioch and not Rome is that Christ told Peter the  gates of hell would not prevail against it.

This was just one of the many questions that led me to do research on the Church. This research eventually enabled me to find Orthodoxy. Of course this is all my interpretation so I could be off the wall. Smiley
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #49 on: November 07, 2003, 07:51:49 PM »

Innocent

Actuallythe see of Rome didn't achieve its primacy because it was the center of the world but because Peter and Paul were martyred there.

Also the primacy was invested by Christ in Peter as he was leader of the apostolic band the Prince of Apostles.  Peter was bishop of Antioch but he died in Rome hence the primacy enduring in Rome.  Of course if primacy were based upon a see being the center of the world then that would've been Alexandria which actually did rank after Rome in order of precedence (someone will correct me if my memory is failing me).

Not trying to convert you of course just clearing up a point about RCC.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #50 on: November 07, 2003, 07:54:12 PM »

Innocent

I forgot about the council of Jerusalem.  James led the council as it was his see the ordinary of a see always takes first place in any meeting of brother bishops.

CR
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #51 on: November 07, 2003, 08:09:44 PM »

Quote
I believe both the latin and Eastern Churches are the true Church.
Quote

I really wish I could say the same, but I can't help reflecting on the contradiction such a belief, albeit well-intentioned, entails. The two Churches teach certain mutually exclusive and irreconcilable doctrines - either the dogma of papal infallibility is true, or false; either the dogma of purgatory is true or false, and so on. The dichotomy is inevitable...either the Roman Catholic Church is correct, or the Orthodox Catholic Church is correct. Right cannot equal wrong, and darkness cannot co-exist with light.

Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #52 on: November 07, 2003, 08:16:57 PM »

Quote
Actuallythe see of Rome didn't achieve its primacy because it was the center of the world but because Peter and Paul were martyred there.
Quote

I believe it was both. Canon III of the Council of Constantinople 381 A.D. and Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon affirm the primacy according to the importance of the city, hence Constantinople was accorded the primacy after Rome because she was the "New Rome." Yet Rome, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem were far more prestigious in terms of their spiritual significance.
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #53 on: November 07, 2003, 08:51:03 PM »

Byzantino

[either the Roman Catholic Church is correct, or the Orthodox Catholic Church is correct.]

That's the big question for alot of people.

[The two Churches teach certain mutually exclusive and irreconcilable doctrines]

Some of the doctrines not all.  We both teach the original kerygma--Xt has died, Xt is risen, Xt will come again.  There are many other things we hold in common.

[The Canon III of the Council of Constantinople 381 A.D. and Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon affirm the primacy according to the importance of the city]

I need to brush up on the early councils. Thanks

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #54 on: November 07, 2003, 09:02:40 PM »

Quote
Some of the doctrines not all.
Quote

Exactly, which is why i said 'certain' doctrines, i.e. some doctrines.

God bless!
Logged
Chuck S.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


Place Personal Text Here


« Reply #55 on: November 07, 2003, 11:30:32 PM »


Forgiv me in advance if my post seems harsh or abrassive. It isn't meant to be judgemental, because there are many things in the Roman Church I admire.
But  I'm really quite shocked by this thread to say the least.

One point, Rome was the center of the world in the 1st Century, it was the capital of the Roman Empire. It was the richest city in the Empire, and most important. Ephesus was considered the second most important city, then Alexandria. Alexandra was the center of the world when it came to "studies" but Rome itself was the Capital and was the politcal center of the world.

Now some points one why I believe the Roman Bishop's claims are basically unfounded and often illogical.

If the Pope was always supreme ruler of the Church, then what was the need for the 7 Councils to begin with? When Arius began his teaching why didn't everyone go to the Bishop of Rome (who btw was NOT called Pope in 325, that title belonged soley to the Bishop of Alexandria) and ask the Roman Bishop to fix the problem? Why was there a need for Nicea when the Roman Bishop could just say "No! Arius is wrong cuz I said so! That settles it!"

Rome summons no worldwide Councils now, the Pope just declares what is Truth. Why wasn't this done during the biggest heresis in history?

If whoever sits at the Roman See is infallible then how was it at least one Pope was excomunicated for heresy?

If the Bishop of Rome was always infallible, then why wasn't this declared a Church dogma until very recent history?

I thought Rome claimed the See of St. Peter and claims infallibility because the Roman Bishop is the Successor of St. Peter. So why doesn't the Church of Antioch make this claim if all the Apostles knew it? St. Paul didn't seem to know it.  The Roman Church doesn't claim infallibility because Peter was martyred in Rome, they claim it because they are Peter's Successors. (when it fact St. Paul is the founder of the Church in Rome and thus are Paul's successor's) Again, Antioch knows of no such primacy!

St. Peter himself was not infallible, and according to Jesus the, servants are not greater than the master. How can Peter's Successors be infallible but not Peter himself? Isn't that contradicting the words of Christ and making the servants greater than the master?

The Bishop of Alexandria was called "Pope" 100's of years before the Bishop of Rome. Often times the Bishop of Rome wrote letters asking the Bishop of Alexandria for advice on doctrinal matters. But if the Roman Bishop was infallible, then why would he need advice from anyone?

If the Bishop of Rome is inffalible, then why have dogmas changed? Is God changing His mind or just the Pope changing? In the 16th Century on the heels of the Reformation Rome delcared only those in the Roman Church could be saved, but now days Rome says salvation is not limited to the Roman Church, but also Orthodox, Prostestants, and even Muslims and Hindus?

These are just some of the logical contradictions that are inherent in the dogmas surrouding the Bishop of Rome. There are dozens and dozens more, but I will not go into them.

One last point, Pope John Paul II has publically declared it wrong for Roman Catholics to try and convert your Orthodox brethren. Now I'm not saying anyone here was trying to do that. I cannot see into anyones hearts. But IF (and I'm  just saying IF) anyone was trying to do that, then you were disobeying your Patriarch, and since he is infallible, by disobeying you would be saying he was wrong, and thus be excomunicating yourself from the Church because you MUST believe as a Catholic, that  the Pope cannot be wrong. Otherwise you're not a Catholic.

Again, I dont really know if anyone was trying to convert Orthodox, or not. It "appears" to me, that this thread began to go at least in the direction of trying to disprove Orthodox doctrine. But having come into the conversation late, I may be totally wrong.

I apologize if this was offensive to anyone, I certainly do not mean to be judgemental. And its entirely possible my post has been inappropriate as I am just a guest here. But I just found some of what was said in this particular forum, disturbing.

Your sinful brother in Christ, Chuck

Logged

In Christ, Thomas
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #56 on: November 07, 2003, 11:32:52 PM »

Quote
I believe both the latin and Eastern Churches are the true Church.
Quote

I really wish I could say the same, but I can't help reflecting on the contradiction such a belief, albeit well-intentioned, entails. The two Churches teach certain mutually exclusive and irreconcilable doctrines - either the dogma of papal infallibility is true, or false; either the dogma of purgatory is true or false, and so on. The dichotomy is inevitable...either the Roman Catholic Church is correct, or the Orthodox Catholic Church is correct. Right cannot equal wrong, and darkness cannot co-exist with light.



What I'm saying is that the reunified Catholic Church is or will be the true Church. Till then each side is taking care of it's own juristictions.
Both sides make the claim of being the true Church but we all know in our hearts the true Church would be one as it was before the great schism.
Logged

Peace
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #57 on: November 07, 2003, 11:47:25 PM »


Forgiv me in advance if my post seems harsh or abrassive. It isn't meant to be judgemental, because there are many things in the Roman Church I admire.
But  I'm really quite shocked by this thread to say the least.

One point, Rome was the center of the world in the 1st Century, it was the capital of the Roman Empire. It was the richest city in the Empire, and most important. Ephesus was considered the second most important city, then Alexandria. Alexandra was the center of the world when it came to "studies" but Rome itself was the Capital and was the politcal center of the world.

Now some points one why I believe the Roman Bishop's claims are basically unfounded and often illogical.

If the Pope was always supreme ruler of the Church, then what was the need for the 7 Councils to begin with? When Arius began his teaching why didn't everyone go to the Bishop of Rome (who btw was NOT called Pope in 325, that title belonged soley to the Bishop of Alexandria) and ask the Roman Bishop to fix the problem? Why was there a need for Nicea when the Roman Bishop could just say "No! Arius is wrong cuz I said so! That settles it!"

Rome summons no worldwide Councils now, the Pope just declares what is Truth. Why wasn't this done during the biggest heresis in history?

If whoever sits at the Roman See is infallible then how was it at least one Pope was excomunicated for heresy?

If the Bishop of Rome was always infallible, then why wasn't this declared a Church dogma until very recent history?

I thought Rome claimed the See of St. Peter and claims infallibility because the Roman Bishop is the Successor of St. Peter. So why doesn't the Church of Antioch make this claim if all the Apostles knew it? St. Paul didn't seem to know it.  The Roman Church doesn't claim infallibility because Peter was martyred in Rome, they claim it because they are Peter's Successors. (when it fact St. Paul is the founder of the Church in Rome and thus are Paul's successor's) Again, Antioch knows of no such primacy!

St. Peter himself was not infallible, and according to Jesus the, servants are not greater than the master. How can Peter's Successors be infallible but not Peter himself? Isn't that contradicting the words of Christ and making the servants greater than the master?

The Bishop of Alexandria was called "Pope" 100's of years before the Bishop of Rome. Often times the Bishop of Rome wrote letters asking the Bishop of Alexandria for advice on doctrinal matters. But if the Roman Bishop was infallible, then why would he need advice from anyone?

If the Bishop of Rome is inffalible, then why have dogmas changed? Is God changing His mind or just the Pope changing? In the 16th Century on the heels of the Reformation Rome delcared only those in the Roman Church could be saved, but now days Rome says salvation is not limited to the Roman Church, but also Orthodox, Prostestants, and even Muslims and Hindus?

These are just some of the logical contradictions that are inherent in the dogmas surrouding the Bishop of Rome. There are dozens and dozens more, but I will not go into them.

One last point, Pope John Paul II has publically declared it wrong for Roman Catholics to try and convert your Orthodox brethren. Now I'm not saying anyone here was trying to do that. I cannot see into anyones hearts. But IF (and I'm  just saying IF) anyone was trying to do that, then you were disobeying your Patriarch, and since he is infallible, by disobeying you would be saying he was wrong, and thus be excomunicating yourself from the Church because you MUST believe as a Catholic, that  the Pope cannot be wrong. Otherwise you're not a Catholic.

Again, I dont really know if anyone was trying to convert Orthodox, or not. It "appears" to me, that this thread began to go at least in the direction of trying to disprove Orthodox doctrine. But having come into the conversation late, I may be totally wrong.

I apologize if this was offensive to anyone, I certainly do not mean to be judgemental. And its entirely possible my post has been inappropriate as I am just a guest here. But I just found some of what was said in this particular forum, disturbing.

Your sinful brother in Christ, Chuck

 

Hey Chuck,
How are ya?  Wink
The Roman Pontiff dosen't preside in the manner you seem to think. The Pope dosen't just sit there and dictate to everyone as he cranks out theological dogmas or something. In a way that is a last resort. Before the great schism each patriarch would take care of his local area. The Pope would only have to be involved if the partiarch couldn't fix the problem in the area of his influence or if the problem was wide spread. Since the schism The pope is the only Patriarch in the Western part of the Church so he has to be involved in the affairs of all who are under his authority. The Western Church has spread to the four corners of the world so it looks like he is doing something unusual in that he has to be involved in affairs everywhere.
Also I believe that the bishops of Rome took some time to come to a full understanding of what their role in the Church should be. Of coarse there's all the politics that eventually came into play. Pope John Paul II said that for renuification conscessions would have to be made to accomidate the Orthodox.
Logged

Peace
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #58 on: November 08, 2003, 12:28:09 AM »

Chuck

[Rome summons no worldwide Councils now, the Pope just declares what is Truth.]

Well what was Trent, and Vatican 1 and 2?  The Pope doesn't declare what the truth is.  The Pope has only defined 3 dogmas infallibly-Immaculate Conception 1854,
papal infallibility1870, and Assumption 1950.

[when it fact St. Paul is the founder of the Church in Rome and thus are Paul's successor's]

Could you cite the scriptural evidence for this?  There were already Christians in Rome when Paul got there.

[One last point, Pope John Paul II has publically declared it wrong for Roman Catholics to try and convert your Orthodox brethren. Now I'm not saying anyone here was trying to do that. I cannot see into anyones hearts. But IF (and I'm  just saying IF) anyone was trying to do that, then you were disobeying your Patriarch, and since he is infallible, by disobeying you would be saying he was wrong, and thus be excomunicating yourself from the Church because you MUST believe as a Catholic, that  the Pope cannot be wrong. Otherwise you're not a Catholic.]

Chuck I really don't think anyone was trying to convert anyone here.  It was more a matter of explaining the truth about the RCC.  Also even if someone were to try to convert an Orthodox he wouldn't under Roman canon law incur excommunication.  It don't work that way. I think myself and other RCs were just trying to clear up some common misconceptions. If a few post on an internet form would convert someone I'd be amazed.

Carpo-Rusyn

Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #59 on: November 08, 2003, 08:41:29 AM »

Chuck

[Rome summons no worldwide Councils now, the Pope just declares what is Truth.]

Well what was Trent, and Vatican 1 and 2?  The Pope doesn't declare what the truth is.  The Pope has only defined 3 dogmas infallibly-Immaculate Conception 1854,
papal infallibility1870, and Assumption 1950.

Carpo-Rusyn

What a HOOT! Infallibly 'defining' infallibility....Of course your "only" 3 just happen to be a REALLY BIG three.  Roll Eyes

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #60 on: November 08, 2003, 08:45:22 AM »

Demetri

These were the only 3 dogams that have been defined excathedra.  I was just showing Chuck that the pope has called councils not just sat in the apostolic palace thinking, "What new truth can I declare today".

And yeah.  Sometimes I have trouble with, "I infallibily say I am infallible" But only sometimes

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #61 on: November 08, 2003, 09:00:04 AM »

Dear: Justinianus,

Slava Isusu Christu!

What branch of the military were you in? Im enlisted in the US Marine Corps, going to boot camp on June 28th 2004. I am now really think about converting to Greek Orthodoxy because of the historical quotes and books and other documents at www.ccel.org. I found this site it was linked to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese web site.
They have old books and they put them online its called "History of the Christian Church" and the papacy it looks to me is that, back then is not what it looked like today. Even the latin fathers such as Ambrose, and Augustine even Jerome believe that Peters Confession was the "Rock" they recanted their statements if i read the text right but still their original statements were in favor of Orthodoxy, if any buddy could put some more quotes in favor of Orthodoxy It would be of much appreciated help, on my Journey.

In Christ+
IC XC NI KA



Conratulations on the USMC!

I was US Naval Officer for 4 years. Spent a good amount of time with the Marines.  Attended Marine bootcamp during the summer as a midshipman.  I can not believe what I went through, but once you do get through, you feel good about what you accomplished.  I take it as a very positive experience, even though I had to do so many push ups!

Get yourself into physical shape before you go or else it will be harder!  Smiley

The authority of the papacy is one issue that separates the two churches.  There were an number of church fathers quoted so far that have mentioned the subject and you can explore their writings in their full context.

One your spiritual journey, I can recommend a couple of things.  Prayer is essential.  A humble prayer asking the Lord Jesus Christ to help and guide you on the path.  Also,do not focus on the negatives.  This is how Satan can confuse someone.  Instead of asking why not the papacy, ask, what is the Orthodox Church?  How do they worship and how is it related to Salvation.  What did the Church fathers say about the Church and salvation.  What is prayer, how should I pray?  By exploring orthodoxy fully, not just on a specific issue, you will get the full picture and your question on the papacy will be answered along with many others.  Orthodox views on the authority of the Popes does not come from the Church fathers alone.  There are other reasons in addition to the Church fathers.  There are a number of books you can read on Orthodoxy, I would recommend The Orthodox Church and the The Orthodox Way by Timothy (Kallistos) Ware.  Also expore the different Orthodox Church websites.  www.oca.org has a bunch of resources that can help out.
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #62 on: November 08, 2003, 09:44:29 AM »

This topic can go back between us for quite a long time.  Even if we all came complete agreement or even complete disagreement, it is a matter that needs to be resolved between the Pope and the Orthodox bishops.  It is also a debate that has been going on since 1054, so I do not think  we can all settle it here.  Since the bishops are the guardians of their flock, they are the ones entrusted to work such matters out.  

If someone has questions on matters of faith, we should do our best to help them and avoid debating unless an error is brought forth.

I joined this board to discuss various topics with fellow Orthodox Christians and help to learn and grow in faith.  I was first on the Byzantine Catholic forum, but found the endless debates on the papacy and the discussion of Latin theology of little spiritual benefit me.  So I enquired about an Orthodox forum to get away from all that.

I also find some of the posting made by the Roman Catholic and Protestant members of great value.  As long as we all stay focused on the Christ, we can all post meaningfully.

Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #63 on: November 08, 2003, 10:54:03 AM »

Justinianus,


Well said!

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Byzantine Christian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 96


« Reply #64 on: November 09, 2003, 07:14:02 PM »

Dear: Orthodoc

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Did you get that quote from St. John Chrysostom was it the 53 Homily on Matthew, or was it the 54th Homily, I found it in the 54th on Newadvent.org

In Christ
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #65 on: November 09, 2003, 07:36:07 PM »

Dear: Orthodoc

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Did you get that quote from St. John Chrysostom was it the 53 Homily on Matthew, or was it the 54th Homily, I found it in the 54th on Newadvent.org

In Christ

----------

The source I got it from stated it as the 53rd Homily of St John.

Orthodoc
Logged

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

Posts: 96


« Reply #66 on: November 09, 2003, 10:45:45 PM »

Dear: Orthodoc,

I was reading St. John Chrysostoms 53 Homily on Matthew,
and I didnt find that quote in that Letter. I found it on in the 54th Homily on Matthew at newadvent.org and it was non-existant at www.ccel.org,
do you get it from any specific site or from a book?

In Christ+
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #67 on: November 10, 2003, 01:36:37 AM »

[I was reading St. John Chrysostoms 53 Homily on Matthew,
and I didnt find that quote in that Letter. I found it on in the 54th Homily on Matthew at newadvent.org and it was non-existant at www.ccel.org,
do you get it from any specific site or from a book?]


I copied and pasted it from my files.  I had origiannly gotten it from a website that no longer appears!

Orthodoc


Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
shanmo9
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


OC.net


« Reply #68 on: November 27, 2003, 10:57:18 AM »

As a former RC, need I remind everyone that Our Lord said'"
By their fruits you will them"  look at the fruits of both churches.
Especially recent fruits--nuff said.
Logged

Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me a sinner!
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.094 seconds with 50 queries.