OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 26, 2014, 03:19:45 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  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Does the Orthodox Church still have apostolic succession?  (Read 5066 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« on: July 14, 2009, 01:07:27 PM »

How is the apostolic succesion preserved in the Orthodox Church (East) ?
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2009, 01:16:34 PM »

Though the apostolic laying on of hands (ordination) and the preservation of the apostolic preaching (correct teaching).

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostolic_succession
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2009, 01:30:53 PM »

Though the apostolic laying on of hands (ordination) and the preservation of the apostolic preaching (correct teaching).

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostolic_succession

Is the Church ultimately established by Apostolic Succession or is it found ultimately within the 'Holy Spirit' which dwells upon and within the 'Body of Believers'? Is Orthodoxy ultimately "Top-Down" or "Bottom-Up"?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 38,164



« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2009, 01:33:46 PM »

Though the apostolic laying on of hands (ordination) and the preservation of the apostolic preaching (correct teaching).

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostolic_succession

Is the Church ultimately established by Apostolic Succession or is it found ultimately within the 'Holy Spirit' which dwells upon and within the 'Body of Believers'? Is Orthodoxy ultimately "Top-Down" or "Bottom-Up"?

That is like asking if Christ is divine or human.
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,198


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2009, 01:41:38 PM »

Though the apostolic laying on of hands (ordination) and the preservation of the apostolic preaching (correct teaching).

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostolic_succession

Is the Church ultimately established by Apostolic Succession or is it found ultimately within the 'Holy Spirit' which dwells upon and within the 'Body of Believers'? Is Orthodoxy ultimately "Top-Down" or "Bottom-Up"?
It's both.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2009, 01:42:47 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2009, 01:43:00 PM »

from where did the apostolic succesion came into the East , and trough or how it remained ?
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 38,164



« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2009, 01:43:52 PM »

from where did the apostolic succesion came into the East , and trough or how it remained ?

Uh, from heaven.  Jerusalem is in the East.
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,198


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2009, 01:52:44 PM »

from where did the apostolic succesion came into the East , and trough or how it remained ?
The concept of Apostolic Succession played a large role in St. Irenaeus's 2nd century apologetics against the Gnostic heretics, which indicates that the concept was very likely known even toward the end of the Apostolic Age itself and that it has its roots in the public doctrine of the Apostles.
Logged
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2009, 02:07:11 PM »

from where did the apostolic succesion came into the East , and trough or how it remained ?

Uh, from heaven.  Jerusalem is in the East.

Try to be serious. Trough the laying of hands the apostolic succession was preserveth , I understand that , but didn`t  that somehow stopped trough the Schism , wasn`t the Pope , Papa Leon the IX , the successor of Peter and of the Holy See?Althought this might not have a lot of revelance it is important;how was it kept untill the freedom of religion accreditance by Constantine , and how was the East a part of the Holy See , was it trough it self , or only trough the communion with Rome?
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 5,009



« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2009, 02:15:30 PM »

Apostolic Succession has come down through the Church, not just by laying on of hands, but also by the passing on of the teachings of the Holy Apostles and staying true to how they lived and what they taught. There can be no apostolic succession without keeping the faith.

Also, we are the true church, not just because of our succession, but because of our faith. As is said by some: It is the Church (our Church) that has practiced, taught, fought and died for the faith of the Apostles, and has done so for the last 2,000 years.

The Church is unchanging, yet constantly evolving and growing. It was once a family of several hundred sent out at Pentecost, and has since grown to well over a hundred million here on earth alone. It has been a persecuted, bloodied and beaten family, while also a family with it's share of tiffs and even those who have left the family.

We have our disagreements, but our faith is one, and we are one body. Through the Eucharist, we become the Body of Christ in reality, not in symbology. Each Sunday, we join together as one body with the Church in heaven as a great cloud of witnesses to the world and to worship the Lord.

We have apostolic succession, but if that were all we had, we would be a corpse, a dying group. But because of our succession, and our adherence to the very faith of the Apostles, and all the above-mentioned reasons, we are living, breathing, and ever-growing.

Sorry for such a lengthy reply, but I wanted to really clarify some things according to my little knowledge I've gained thus far. Hopefully this is helpful...
Logged
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2009, 02:19:03 PM »

I`m not saying that we are not , but i`m speaking of the laying of hands things , does it have continuity from the apostles or not ? And how did the East benefit of that?I agree with you the preservation of faith , the passing of teachings and staying truth is more important, but although i`m interested in this manner aswell.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2009, 02:25:34 PM »

from where did the apostolic succesion came into the East , and trough or how it remained ?
In many ways of course. The four Patriarchates of the East have been founded by Apostles or their cooperators: Jerusalem was first held by st James (I think appointed by all the Apostles), the church of Antioch was founded by Paul and later led by Peter as first bishop; Alexandria was governed by st Mark, a disciple appointed by Peter to the bishopric, and in Constantinople a community was founded and ruled by st Andrew, the brother of Peter and one of the Twelve. Also, many churches of the east were ruled by other disciples and apostles; for example Ephesus by st John the Evangelist, or Cyprus by Titus, a co-worker of Paul. It should be said that the first churches were founded (as it is natural) in the East, having the Faith been established in Jerusalem first. On the contrary, st Luke in Acts symbolically puts an end to his narration with the arrival of the Gospel in Rome following Paul's missionary travel throughout Asia... in other words, Western Europe was the last part of the then-known-world (aka the Roman Empire) to be christianized!
The Eastern Churches were also the first ones to have a mature idea of Apostolic succession. St Ignatius, third Patriarch of Antioch on the See of st Peter, clearly had an idea of the role of the bishops appointed by the apostles, and the canons contained in the Apostolic Constitutions clearly state the rule for ordaining bishops: there must be at least two or three bishops present at the ordination of another bishop, so that the will of the entire Church might be represented (see the Jewish and Biblical idea of needing "two or three witnesses" to testify something). Also, the same canons give the bishop the absolute power to ordain his fellow presbyters and deacons as assistants in celebrating the sacraments and administering the communities under his homophorion.
It is also to be said that - unlike many other so-called catholic churches - we have also preserved the practice of male-priesthood-only, which is clearly put in these canons: according to these ecclesiastical rules, some churches claiming a valid episcopacy are fully outside of the church as for sacramental life, having invalid (and maybe ineffective) orders.

As for the Church of Rome, it is - as I said - the last church founded among the Patriarchates. Do you think that all bishops were invalidly ordained before the Church of Rome was founded? And anyway, where is it written that the Church of Rome needs to agree with an ordination so that it might be effective? If you look at papal documents, you will verify that even the Popes and Councils of the RCC agree that ordinations outside of Papal approval are valid (i.e. they produce true bishops having true power to administer the sacraments) but yet they are just "illicilty" ordained (i.e. that RCs should not consider them Catholic and shouldn't receive the sacraments from those who belong not to the communion with Rome). Put it simply, the validity of a sacrament such as consecration of bishops is independent of the See of Rome.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2009, 02:29:11 PM »

So from the apostolic fathers and pre-nicene creed fathers to the nicene fathers there is an intrerupted line of the laying of hands and the preservation trough the laying of hands continously?
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,485



« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2009, 02:31:01 PM »

i`m speaking of the laying of hands things , does it have continuity from the apostles or not ? And how did the East benefit of that?

The Apostolic Succession is maintained in the East as it always has been. I'm not sure I understand why you think it wouldn't? After all, it began in Jerusalem (the East, surely?) with the Apostles ordaining worthy men as successors and bishops who ordained worthy men as....etc. etc. on up to the present.

Can you explain a little more why you think the East wouldn't have Apostolic Succession?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #14 on: July 14, 2009, 02:37:37 PM »

Sure I agree the East was christianised first , and appointed by the apostles bishops and priests as it is written , katherineofdixie even though I know that the Pope is not "that" orthodox I feel like he is in benefit of something very privilegial and I feel a kind of special grace regarding the ordination of the Pope of Rome , maybe higher than the Orthodox one , even though the Papality has some bad things on it , maybe this can be from the impression Pope John Paul II left to me.I`m not denying anything , I`m just asking for a more clear persective and for the a better knowledge on this manners.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 5,009



« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2009, 02:39:21 PM »

You can also track our apostolic succession down to the Apostles, like in the churches in Alexandria, Jerusalem abd Antioch. I think Constantinople and Moscow may have it as well, is that correct?

It isn't just those churches that have Apostolic Succession though...

_____________

As for Rome, in my honest opinion, they lost their apostolic succession when they left the Church. As discussed before, apostolic succession is through faith as well as laying on of hands.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2009, 02:40:26 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2009, 02:40:31 PM »

I`m interested in the how thing
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2009, 02:40:46 PM »

Yes, of course. If you want, you can consult the official lists of the five Patriarchates for a better understanding.
For example this is the list of Patriarchs of Byzantium (later Constantinople) up to 330 AD:
    * 1. St. Andrew the Apostle (founder)
    * 2. St. Stachys the Apostle (38-54)
    * 3. St. Onesimus (54-68)
    * 4. Polycarpus I (69-89)
    * 5. Plutarch (89-105)
    * 6. Sedecion (105-114)
    * 7. Diogenes (114-129)
    * 8. Eleutherius (129-136)
    * 9. Felix (136-141)
    * 10. Polycarpus II (141-144)
    * 11. Athenodorus (144-148)
    * 12. Euzois (148-154)
    * 13. Laurence (154-166)
    * 14. Alypius (166-169)
    * 15. Pertinax (169-187)
    * 16. Olympianus (187-198)
    * 17. Mark I or Marcus I (198-211)
    * 18. Philadelphus (211-217)
    * 19. Cyriacus I (217-230)
    * 20. Castinus (230-237)
    * 21. Eugenius I (237-242)
    * 22. Titus (242-272)
    * 23. Dometius (272-284)
    * 24. Rufinus I (284-293)
    * 25. Probus (293-306)
    * 26. St. Metrophanes (306-314)
    * 27. St. Alexander (314-337)

These are the Patriarchs of Antioch up to the same date:
# Peter the Apostle (ca 37- ca 53)
# Evodius (ca 53-ca 69)
# Ignatius (ca 70-ca 107), who was martyred in the reign of Trajan. His seven non-canonical epistles are unique sources for the early Church
# Heron (107-127)
# Cornelius (127-154)
# Eros (154-169)
# Theophilus (ca 169- ca 182)
# Maximus I (182-191)
# Serapion (191-211)
# Ascelpiades the Confessor (211-220)
# Philetus (220-231)
# Zebinnus (231-237)
# Babylas the Martyr (237-ca 250)
# Fabius (253-256)
# Demetrius (ca 256—uncertain),
# Paul of Samosata (260-268)
# Domnus I (268/9-273/4)
# Timaeus (273/4-282)
# Cyril I (283-303)
# Tyrannus (304-314)
# Vitalis (314-320)
# Philogonus (320-323)
# Eustathius (324-330)
# Paulinus (330, six months)

These are the Patriarchs of Alexandria up to 339:
# Mark the Evangelist (43-63)
# Anianus (61-82)
# Avilius (83-95)
# Kedron (96-106)
# Primus (106-118)
# Justus (118-129)
# Eumenes (131-141)
# Markianos (142-152)
# Celadion (152-166)
# Agrippinus (167-178)
# Julian (178-189)
# Demetrius (189-232)
# Heraclas (232-248)
# Dionysius (248-264)
# Maximus (265-282)
# Theonas (282-300)
# Peter I (300-311)
# Achillas (312-313)
# Alexander I (313-326)
# Athanasius I (328-339)

And these are Patriarchs of Jerusalem:
   1. Marcus (135-)
   2. Cassianus
   3. Poplius
   4. Maximus I
   5. Julian I
   6. Gaius I
   7. Symmachus
   8. Gaius II (-162)
   9. Julian II (162-)
  10. Capion
  11. Maximus II
  12. Antoninus
  13. Valens
  14. Dolichianus (-185)
  15. Narcissus (185-)
  16. Dius
  17. Germanion
  18. Gordius (-211)

  Narcissus (restored) (-231)

   1. Alexander (231-249)
   2. Mazabanis (249-260)
   3. Imeneus (260-276)
   4. Zamudas (276-283)
   5. Ermon (283-314)
   6. Macarius I (314-333)
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #18 on: July 14, 2009, 02:43:00 PM »

Good posts Alessandro , keep them comming ma` man.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,590


« Reply #19 on: July 14, 2009, 02:45:08 PM »

So from the apostolic fathers and pre-nicene creed fathers to the nicene fathers there is an intrerupted line of the laying of hands and the preservation trough the laying of hands continously?

People didn't have google on that time. Christianity couldn't be spread by sending letters and writing books because it was forbidden. There wasn't any effective way to preach the Gospel apart from direct contact.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 5,009



« Reply #20 on: July 14, 2009, 02:48:37 PM »

Quote
People didn't have google on that time. Christianity couldn't be spread by sending letters and writing books because it was forbidden. There wasn't any effective way to preach the Gospel apart from direct contact.

Though letters were written, as we can see through the New Testament and Apostolic Writings. However you notice most of the time in those letters, the speaker or writer intended to personally visit those he was writing to.
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #21 on: July 14, 2009, 02:50:49 PM »

If you need to know the "how", I'll give you a further hint.
The Ecumenical councils instituted the Pentarchy for a specific purpose: granting apostolic succession. A Patriarch is elected by the bishops and laymen in the province, and the Patriarch himself looks for the liceity of consecrations to the episcopacy. After the institution of the first three Patriarchates (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch), the Church added Constantinople and Jerusalem, who possess the same functions. The hierarchy was an ecclesiastical law created by the Church (with a papal blessing, too!) to safeguard the validity of apostolic succession and the handing down of the "true faith".
It is also to be said that an apostate bishop, living in heresy, is no longer a true pope. When an hierarch confesses an heresy, he is automatically deposed by the Church as a result of an anathema. Since the Church of Rome has violated many canons (and specifically the Horus of Constantinople V . 879/880 AD against the additions in the Creed) and even the Pope of that time approved them (in the case of Constantinople V, it was Pope st John VIII), they were binding for the church entire, even for the bishop of Rome. Technically, thus, the Pope might be validly ordained and perform true sacraments (but this is to be doubted, since he performs them in the wrong fashion), but he still exercices his bishopric invalidly according to the canons: he is an ordinary non-canonical bishop, and not the true heir of Peter's ministry. Let's trust the other two successors of Peter: the bishop of Antioch and the bishop of Alexandria: they are also witnesses of st. Peter's ministry!

In Christ,   Alex
« Last Edit: July 14, 2009, 02:51:10 PM by AlexanderOfBergamo » Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,194


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #22 on: July 14, 2009, 02:57:16 PM »

....I know that the Pope is not "that" orthodox I feel like he is in benefit of something very privilegial and I feel a kind of special grace regarding the ordination of the Pope of Rome ....

Forgive me, but you have to learn to forget this.  There is absolutely NO TRUTH in it whatsoever.  This applies equally to the superstitious idea (circulated by some who should know better) that somehow an apostolic succession from Constantinople or Antioch or some other exalted place is superior to one from, say, Vladivostok.  Apostolic succession is apostolic succession, period.  An Orthodox bishop is an Orthodox bishop is an Orthodox bishop, period.   And from the Orthodox point of view, the Roman apostolic succession is either null and void (worst case scenario) or compromised, because they do not have Orthodox faith in fullness.  There is nothing "magic" about apostolic succession.  As other posters have pointed out, it is a combination of the physical passing on of the living faith of the apostles through the laying on of hands and the actual confession of this faith by the whole Church.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2009, 03:02:11 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #23 on: July 14, 2009, 03:04:56 PM »

The years I managed to see , and from my little knowledge about Pope John II , I felt that , he was the holiest person alive.I`m 21 now , so I haven`t seen many but that is how i felt , still feeling at the moment.I read somewhere (I`m not sure) that JP2 said the creed with Teoctist the one which says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.I think JP2 was close to orthodoxy.I like him.Eternal memory to Pope John Paul II and to Teoctist.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,194


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #24 on: July 14, 2009, 03:08:37 PM »

The years I managed to see , and from my little knowledge about Pope John II , I felt that , he was the holiest person alive.I`m 21 now , so I haven`t seen many but that is how i felt , still feeling at the moment.I read somewhere (I`m not sure) that JP2 said the creed with Teoctist the one which says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.I think JP2 was close to orthodoxy.I like him.Eternal memory to Pope John Paul II and to Teoctist.

He may well have been a very holy man, but this has absolutely nothing to do with apostolic succession. 
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #25 on: July 14, 2009, 03:11:25 PM »

RED , well they are both representants of the Apostolic Church East and West , of Orthodoxy and Catholicism those who can say indeed they have roots and bonds with the Apostles.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,590


« Reply #26 on: July 14, 2009, 03:22:16 PM »

The years I managed to see , and from my little knowledge about Pope John II , I felt that , he was the holiest person alive.I`m 21 now , so I haven`t seen many but that is how i felt , still feeling at the moment.I read somewhere (I`m not sure) that JP2 said the creed with Teoctist the one which says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.I think JP2 was close to orthodoxy.I like him.Eternal memory to Pope John Paul II and to Teoctist.

AFAIK Catholics can recitate any Creed which do not contradicts their faith. They can recitate Creed with filiouque or not. It does not make difference to them.
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #27 on: July 14, 2009, 03:27:03 PM »

1) No doubt even Gandhi was a saintly person: does this make him an Orthodox? Salvation and grace are two very different things, so that there are saints outside of the True Faith and empious people in the True Faith as well. Grace doesn't grant salvation, but salvation is easier and fuller through grace, if you like it put in these words.
2) John Paul II at times doubted even the Messianic prophecies of the OT, applying them to Israel in its entirety rather then Jesus personally. How could he be Orthodox?
3) He also pronounced the Creed with the Filioque. The anathema is to ANY addition or ANY different creed to be pronounced except for the Symbol of Nicaea as expanded at Constantinople I and ratified by all the churches in the following Ecumenical Councils. Those who do this are in heresy and schism.
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 38,164



« Reply #28 on: July 14, 2009, 03:50:52 PM »

from where did the apostolic succesion came into the East , and trough or how it remained ?

Uh, from heaven.  Jerusalem is in the East.

Try to be serious. Trough the laying of hands the apostolic succession was preserveth , I understand that , but didn`t  that somehow stopped trough the Schism , wasn`t the Pope , Papa Leon the IX , the successor of Peter and of the Holy See?Althought this might not have a lot of revelance it is important;how was it kept untill the freedom of religion accreditance by Constantine , and how was the East a part of the Holy See , was it trough it self , or only trough the communion with Rome?

Your profile says Orthodox, but your post says Ultramontanist.

No, the Schism affected only the validity, as the Ultramontanists say, of Pope Leo IX's ordinations, as he is the one who went into schism.  Besides St. Peter's successor at his first see of Antiich in 1054, Patriarch John VII, the Orthodox retained plenty of Orthodox Catholic bishops to continue Apostolic Succession: besides Antioch, the Ecumenical Patriarchs continued for New Rome, the Popes of Alexandria continued, as did the Patriarchs of the Mother Church of Jerusalem.  Rome's apostacy doesn't affect that at all, something that had been proven long ago when Rome set up a rival line of bishops in Antioch to St. Meletius.  The line died out, and now the four lines of "patriarchs" that the Vatican claims in Antioch all claim their orders through St. Meletius.

You are going to have to be more specific what you mean by "Holy See," as we have several.  If you mean Rome, only what is now the Autocephalous Churches of the Balkans which received their autocephaly from Constantinople were ever part of Rome's Patriarchate. Constantinople, whatever subordination she had to Rome, if she had any, was removed in 381: Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Armenia, Georgia, Ethiopia, India and Russia were never under Rome.

Excommunicating the Ortodox Catholic Church, the Vatican only hurt itself.  The curses of heretics are blessings.
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,198


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #29 on: July 14, 2009, 03:59:44 PM »

I`m interested in the how thing
Is Apostolic Succession some supernatural power, kinda like magic, that is passed on from bishops to their immediate successors by the laying on of hands?  If so, is this some kind of self-existent power that can be passed on outside the Church?  I ask these rhetorical questions--please don't answer them--to make the point that Apostolic Succession is really nothing more than another manifestation of the life of the Holy Spirit within the Church, that it is NOT some kind of special "grace" that exists alongside and in distinction from the Church, as your questions seem to imply.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2009, 04:00:42 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #30 on: July 14, 2009, 04:12:19 PM »

"the curses of heretics are blessings" LOL loved this!

Anyway, please Ialmisry don't be so vehement with Dan-Romania. John Paul II was of course a VERY charismatic public person, who "gave" an image of sanctity to the world. I'm not so sure of his sanctity, though. He embraced many Protestant ideas, supported abhorrent liturgical innovations, invoked a false ecumenism which smells of relativism... He just had a stronger attractive power towards the youth, which is of course the only reason why I prefer him to Benedict XVI. But still my favourite is John XXIII: I think they stopped him while he was trying to do something TRULY ecumenical and at the same time not so relativistic. Unfortunately, he didn't manage to do that :-(

A suggestion to you, dear Dan-Romania: read the epistular exchanges between Pope Gregory and the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, so that you can grasp the true meaning of the Papacy in the original Orthodox church!

Quote
"I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren."
Yet, the popes claim for superjurisdiction over all bishops... so they clearly are in heresy and precursors of Antichrist!


Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #31 on: July 14, 2009, 04:14:22 PM »

I`m interested in the how thing
Is Apostolic Succession some supernatural power, kinda like magic, that is passed on from bishops to their immediate successors by the laying on of hands?  If so, is this some kind of self-existent power that can be passed on outside the Church?  I ask these rhetorical questions--please don't answer them--to make the point that Apostolic Succession is really nothing more than another manifestation of the life of the Holy Spirit within the Church, that it is NOT some kind of special "grace" that exists alongside and in distinction from the Church, as your questions seem to imply.

Also look, dear Dan-Romania, at the episode of Simon Magus, and learn from it how there's no ocus pocus in the giving of the Life-giving Spirit of God!
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 38,164



« Reply #32 on: July 14, 2009, 04:20:08 PM »

I`m not saying that we are not , but i`m speaking of the laying of hands things , does it have continuity from the apostles or not ? And how did the East benefit of that?I agree with you the preservation of faith , the passing of teachings and staying truth is more important, but although i`m interested in this manner aswell.

For the first time in my life, I saw it in action in Pittsburgh.

Archmanderite Melchisedek had been picked by the Holy Synod, with the approval of the Faithful of the diocese (I've heard nothing but good on him).  The day of consecration, he was presented to the Metropolitan, in the midst of the Holy Synod (former members of the Synod were present, but, being susupended from service, did not take part but were on the side of the nave).  Arch. Melchisedek confessed the Creed, read his statement of belief in conformity to the Orthodox Faith, swore loyalty to the Church, obedience to her hierarchy, committment to upholding her Creed, Definitions of the Ecumenical Councils and canons.  The Metropolitan summoned him, laid hands on him with the rest of the Synod, prayed for the Holy Spirit, and then vested him in the episcopal robes and symbols of authority while the congregation shouted "axios" "worthy" to each vesting.

The Metropolitan and each of the bishops of the Synod went through the same thing (the fact that some hierarchs did not keep the promises made is why they were not involved in the ordination), and those who ordained them, back through to Russia, back through to Constantinople, back through to the Upper Room in Jerusalem among the Apostles.

You can see for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_EoZSqTVYk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trlrNcX3jHw
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
Warned
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: 38,164



« Reply #33 on: July 14, 2009, 04:25:28 PM »

So from the apostolic fathers and pre-nicene creed fathers to the nicene fathers there is an intrerupted line of the laying of hands and the preservation trough the laying of hands continously?

Yes.

You can also track our apostolic succession down to the Apostles, like in the churches in Alexandria, Jerusalem abd Antioch. I think Constantinople and Moscow may have it as well, is that correct?

It isn't just those churches that have Apostolic Succession though...

_____________

As for Rome, in my honest opinion, they lost their apostolic succession when they left the Church. As discussed before, apostolic succession is through faith as well as laying on of hands.

Every bishop has Apostolic Succession: otherwise he could not be a bishop.  We refer to the Patriarchal sees only as a means of shorthand, since the primate approves all ordinations, hence the succession at the chief See implicates the succession of all the sees under it.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2009, 04:29:24 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 38,164



« Reply #34 on: July 14, 2009, 04:37:01 PM »

"the curses of heretics are blessings" LOL loved this!

Anyway, please Ialmisry don't be so vehement with Dan-Romania.

I'm sorry my tongue in cheek didn't come across.

Quote
John Paul II was of course a VERY charismatic public person, who "gave" an image of sanctity to the world. I'm not so sure of his sanctity, though. He embraced many Protestant ideas, supported abhorrent liturgical innovations, invoked a false ecumenism which smells of relativism... He just had a stronger attractive power towards the youth, which is of course the only reason why I prefer him to Benedict XVI. But still my favourite is John XXIII: I think they stopped him while he was trying to do something TRULY ecumenical and at the same time not so relativistic. Unfortunately, he didn't manage to do that :-(

I was rather fond of JP II, and am of Benedict XVI.  That doesn't mean I could agree to put the one on the iconostasis, nor commune the other.

Quote
A suggestion to you, dear Dan-Romania: read the epistular exchanges between Pope Gregory and the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, so that you can grasp the true meaning of the Papacy in the original Orthodox church!

Quote
"I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren."
Yet, the popes claim for superjurisdiction over all bishops... so they clearly are in heresy and precursors of Antichrist!

In the same correspodence Pope St. Gregory tells the Pope of Alexandria (the title originated there, centuries before Rome took it) and Antioch that they are all bishops of the one Petrine See.

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
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #35 on: July 14, 2009, 04:44:08 PM »

so Rome made the schism?the first step?
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #36 on: July 14, 2009, 05:02:17 PM »

The years I managed to see , and from my little knowledge about Pope John II , I felt that , he was the holiest person alive.I`m 21 now , so I haven`t seen many but that is how i felt , still feeling at the moment.I read somewhere (I`m not sure) that JP2 said the creed with Teoctist the one which says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.I think JP2 was close to orthodoxy.I like him.Eternal memory to Pope John Paul II and to Teoctist.

Theres nothing Holy About that pope after all he did kiss the Quran..A book that denies Christ's Divinity, And Crucifixion,,He should of been defrocked....
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #37 on: July 14, 2009, 05:02:23 PM »

Though the apostolic laying on of hands (ordination) and the preservation of the apostolic preaching (correct teaching).

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostolic_succession

Is the Church ultimately established by Apostolic Succession or is it found ultimately within the 'Holy Spirit' which dwells upon and within the 'Body of Believers'? Is Orthodoxy ultimately "Top-Down" or "Bottom-Up"?

That is like asking if Christ is divine or human.

If there isn't an Ordained Priest among the people to preform the Mysteries can the people ordain from amongst their own or must the Mystery of Ordination come from Apostolic Succession?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #38 on: July 14, 2009, 05:14:14 PM »

so Rome made the schism?the first step?
Oooooof cooooourse!
Rome introduced, against Canon Law, the Filioque clause by decision of Pope Benedict VIII in 1014 AD. 40 years later a cardinal was sent to excommunicate Patriarch Michael Cerularius for not having the Filioque clause in use. As a reaction, he counter-excommunicated the See of Rome. They were IMPOSING a direct violation of the Horus confessed in perfect union and harmony by Pope John VIII when he agreed in anathematizing every addition to the Creed and in restoring Photius of Constantinople on the Patriarchal chair of st. Andrew the First-Called!
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #39 on: July 14, 2009, 05:20:05 PM »

Quote
I'm sorry my tongue in cheek didn't come across.
it was a brotherly suggestion, not a reproaching attitude, anyway! XD just wanted to convince myself too that anger leads people away from Faith while love and brotherly correction is far more useful!

Quote
That doesn't mean I could agree to put the one on the iconostasis, nor commune the other.
Indeed. You know, when a TV-journal improperly said that the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch had "concelebrated" at the Divine Liturgy at the last visit of Ratzinger in Constantinople, I almost had an heart-attack (I also didn't know that concelebration is not an Orthodox custom XD). Fortunately they used wrong words for a curtesy double-blessing which has nothing to do with concelebration and communion in sacramentis XD
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,647


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #40 on: July 14, 2009, 06:13:43 PM »

If there isn't an Ordained Priest among the people to preform the Mysteries can the people ordain from amongst their own

Absolutely not. Only an ordained priest or consecrated bishop can perform the Mysteries.

or must the Mystery of Ordination come from Apostolic Succession?

Yes. There is no wiggle room on this.
Logged
Sarah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 111


« Reply #41 on: July 14, 2009, 06:30:15 PM »

My priest said, and I hope I'm not misquoting him, that Apostolic Succession lies within the Church and not the man.  In other words, even if St. Peter himself ordained a man as a bishop, if that bishop started preaching heresy and not following the teachings of the Church, then he lost his Apostolic Succession.  Any other person he ordains after losing his Apostolic Succession does NOT have Apostolic Succession.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 38,164



« Reply #42 on: July 14, 2009, 06:38:11 PM »

The years I managed to see , and from my little knowledge about Pope John II , I felt that , he was the holiest person alive.I`m 21 now , so I haven`t seen many but that is how i felt , still feeling at the moment.I read somewhere (I`m not sure) that JP2 said the creed with Teoctist the one which says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.I think JP2 was close to orthodoxy.I like him.Eternal memory to Pope John Paul II and to Teoctist.

Theres nothing Holy About that pope after all he did kiss the Quran..A book that denies Christ's Divinity, And Crucifixion,,He should of been defrocked....

Definitely not one of his better moments....even more ironic in that according to Muslim law, he defiled the Quran (non Muslims are not allowed to touch 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
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,968



« Reply #43 on: July 14, 2009, 08:06:57 PM »

And these are Patriarchs of Jerusalem:
   1. Marcus (135-)
   2. Cassianus
   3. Poplius
   4. Maximus I
   5. Julian I
   6. Gaius I
   7. Symmachus
   8. Gaius II (-162)
   9. Julian II (162-)
  10. Capion
  11. Maximus II
  12. Antoninus
  13. Valens
  14. Dolichianus (-185)
  15. Narcissus (185-)
  16. Dius
  17. Germanion
  18. Gordius (-211)

  Narcissus (restored) (-231)

   1. Alexander (231-249)
   2. Mazabanis (249-260)
   3. Imeneus (260-276)
   4. Zamudas (276-283)
   5. Ermon (283-314)
   6. Macarius I (314-333)

Was St. James, the brother of the Lord not the first Patriarch of Jerusalem?
Logged
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #44 on: July 14, 2009, 09:07:00 PM »

Was St. James, the brother of the Lord not the first Patriarch of Jerusalem?

Yes, he was.
Logged
Tags: Apostolic succession 
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 0.151 seconds with 71 queries.