OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 05:06:19 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  
Poll
Question: as  in topic's title
Oriental Orthodox Church - 76 (64.4%)
Catholic Church - 20 (16.9%)
High Church Anglicans - 17 (14.4%)
Old Catholics - 5 (4.2%)
Total Voters: 92

Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What Church is closest in teachings to the EO Church  (Read 4538 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« on: September 02, 2009, 03:33:57 AM »

I know that OO Church will win but I'm interested in second place, so you are allowed to have to votes. Any concerns from you highly appreciated.

I forgot about Old Catholics, can any admin ad them to the list?
« Last Edit: September 02, 2009, 04:01:58 AM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
SDMPNS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: raised in Metropolia which became the OCA now I belong to a GOA parish..
Posts: 540


Praise God for the beauty of Creation


« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2009, 08:12:45 AM »

My father was an Episcopalian and I remember being told by orthodox priests that if my mother and I were in a town with no Orthodox Church that we could attend an episcopalian church { we were told to not take communion} but NEVER attend a roman catholic church..
Logged
GammaRay
The Awful Preacher
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 574


Alexandros Papadiamantis


« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2009, 10:36:01 AM »

Isn't this ironic? The OOC and the EOC were one for much less than the RCC was, yet they are much closer to each other.
Logged

Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.
Pilgrim
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 304



« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2009, 03:00:16 PM »

I consider both the EOC and the OOC Orthodox, so I'd go for High Church Traditional Anglicans second and then....I guess Traditional Old Catholics third (are there any?).
Logged

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth help us to walk the way of Life, which is Christ Jesus.

St. Cyril, St. Leo, and St. Severus pray that the Church may be united and one, Eastern and Oriental.St. Issac the Syrian, pray that Assyria would return to the Holy Church. St. Gregory, pray for Rom
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2009, 03:44:56 PM »

I forgot about Old Catholics, can any admin ad them to the list?
I edited the poll to add Old Catholics to the list. Wink
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2009, 03:12:42 AM »

Isn't this ironic? The OOC and the EOC were one for much less than the RCC was, yet they are much closer to each other.

No, it is not. Despite I obviously knew that OOC will win I added them tho the list because What Church is closest in teachings to the EO Church apart from OO Church looks strange. You can vote two times, so first you vote on OO Church and second choice is for you.

I edited the poll to add Old Catholics to the list. Wink

God, grand him many children for his out-of-this-world kindness!
« Last Edit: September 03, 2009, 03:21:34 AM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2009, 11:45:29 AM »

I already consider OO/EO equally Orthodox so I voted for High Church Anglicans! Smiley I suppose a year ago I would have said Catholic, however the more I read up and listen to High Church Anglican speakers/bishops the more I feel they really are a bit closer to us theologically. However I have a great reverence for Rome and a family history there (Irish Catholic on my mom's side), so my heart might be a tad closer to Rome, but on matters of the faith I'd say High Church Anglicans are the closest to us.



« Last Edit: September 03, 2009, 11:49:56 AM by NorthernPines » Logged
ishaq
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Posts: 30


« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2009, 08:25:58 AM »

I already consider OO/EO equally Orthodox so I voted for High Church Anglicans! Smiley I suppose a year ago I would have said Catholic, however the more I read up and listen to High Church Anglican speakers/bishops the more I feel they really are a bit closer to us theologically. However I have a great reverence for Rome and a family history there (Irish Catholic on my mom's side), so my heart might be a tad closer to Rome, but on matters of the faith I'd say High Church Anglicans are the closest to us.

The poll is not accurate as Church of the East (COE) was not on the list.  They are the closest to the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC) as both are Eastern and Chalcedonian.  Besides both deeply venerate Mar Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus and Mar Ibas, Bishop of Edessa.  So, when I voted, I had no choice but to vote for High Church Anglikans as they are also closer to the EOC than the Non Chalcedonians.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2009, 08:29:27 AM »

How can Assyrian Church be Chalcedonian when it is not Ephesian? How can be Theodoret and Ibas venerated in EO Church as they were condemned on 5th Ecumenical Council?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2009, 02:48:57 PM »

Does the Assyrian church of the the east, cross themselves just like the Eastern Orthodox Faithful ....Curious
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2009, 09:51:11 PM »

Does the Assyrian church of the the east, cross themselves just like the Eastern Orthodox Faithful ....Curious

Yes they do it just like the Eastern Orthodox do.

I voted Oriental Orthodox. I don't see how Anglicans can beat Catholics but maybe I don't know much about them. They accept women priests and homosexuality do they not? If that is the case then my second choice in the Roman Catholics.
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #11 on: September 05, 2009, 04:29:04 PM »

We and the Oriental Orthodox believe essentially the same things.

All others have Christ in common with us, but their beliefs about who He is and how to relate to Him are so very different as to render them essentially other religions. Therefore, I have voted only for the OO.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2010, 12:10:50 PM »

How can Assyrian Church be Chalcedonian when it is not Ephesian? How can be Theodoret and Ibas venerated in EO Church as they were condemned on 5th Ecumenical Council?

Ibas and Blessed Theodoret were not condemned in their persons, i.e. they themselves were not anathematized at the 5th ecumenical council, only their condemnations of St. Cyril. Blessed Theodoret was rehabilitated at the 4th ecumenical council when he anathematized Nestorius. As for actual veneration of them in the Eastern Orthodox Church, Theodoret is called "Blessed Theodoret," but I have not been able to find him on any calendar, albeit the addition of saints to the calendar was, until recently, arbitrary, and still is in a way. But his non-anti-Cyrilian writings are accepted and widely read as authoritative. Still, I have not seen icons of any of them (not really evidence of anything), but I would question the assertion that they are "deeply venerated." Were that the case, there would be churches and icons at least. As it is, Blessed Theodoret, at least, is respected in the EOC, except by those dialoguing with the OO like Fr. John Romanides.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2010, 12:17:56 PM »

I voted OO, but I would say Rome comes in second. Although High Church Anglicans may appreciate a beautiful Mass, most of them are quite liberal with their theology and support the ordination of women and practicing homosexuals. Furthermore, the Anglicans seem to have the attitude of "whatever you believe is okay, as long as you don't make me believe it too."

I may disagree with Roman Catholic doctrine, but I give them credit for being clear as to what they believe and sticking to it.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #14 on: September 03, 2010, 09:14:39 PM »

Lutheranism ranks high
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 03, 2010, 10:51:29 PM »

I voted OO, but I would say Rome comes in second. Although High Church Anglicans may appreciate a beautiful Mass, most of them are quite liberal with their theology and support the ordination of women and practicing homosexuals. Furthermore, the Anglicans seem to have the attitude of "whatever you believe is okay, as long as you don't make me believe it too."

I may disagree with Roman Catholic doctrine, but I give them credit for being clear as to what they believe and sticking to it.

You confuse High Church Anglican with low church or liberal Anglican. They're High Church particularly because they reject those notions.

Just my 2 cents.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 04, 2010, 02:26:20 AM »

Isn't this ironic? The OOC and the EOC were one for much less than the RCC was, yet they are much closer to each other.

Not really. If the typical division of "Western Christianity" vs. "Eastern Christianity" means anything, it should indicate why.
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 #17 on: September 04, 2010, 02:26:20 AM »

Hmmm. I would have to say Old Catholics. Their ecclesiology is off, but so is that of the Anglicans, and Rome has many more divergent errors than ecclesiology, whereas the Old Catholics are otherwise pretty much the same.
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
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,066



« Reply #18 on: September 04, 2010, 05:12:04 AM »

The answer cannot be the Oriental Orthodox Churches, because these churches have not formally accepted all 7 Ecumenical Synods.  For whatever reasons, which are irrelevant, they do not accept them, while the Roman Catholic Church does accept all 7 Ecumenical Synods, even though there may be matters within which they take issue.  A primary test of ones Orthodoxy is his belief; and the Church's beliefs are expressed through its doctrine, which is defined by the Ecumenical Synods (Councils).
« Last Edit: September 04, 2010, 05:15:42 AM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,732


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 04, 2010, 10:22:42 AM »

Tougher one to answer than it seems!

The obvious shoot-from-the-hip answer: Rome.

Then I saw the OO were a choice. Obviously No. 1 (same ecclesiology, polity etc.) unless you consider them and the EO the same.

Depends on what you mean by high-church Anglicans. The classical ones like the Tractarians (19th-century founders of Anglo-Catholicism, including young Newman), on paper, sure. Similar appeal to antiquity, to the Fathers, to a true church with doctrine that once defined can't be changed. The trouble is they were wrong about Anglicanism: everything in it is subject to change by government order historically or now church vote so yes, they've long had people with Protestant beliefs and now women priests. Historically the high churchmen were the only Anglicans who bothered to talk to the Orthodox, which often gave the Orthodox the wrong idea that the high churchmen represented all Anglicans. When they - St Raphael (Hawaweeny) for example - found out otherwise they backtracked and forbade their people to go to those churches. OTOH St Tikhon was very friendly with them among the Episcopalians, Bishop Grafton for example.

Here the retired Greek cathedral rector studied at an Episcopal seminary in the '50s after he was ordained, and not a self-identified high-church seminary (General in NY), and was impressed by all the Catholic-minded Episcopal priests interested in what Orthodoxy teaches. He went to a reunion a few years ago and was hurt that this was gone. It's all liberal Protestant now.

Rather similar story with the Old Catholics as with the Anglicans: on paper they looked like aspiring WRO but they ended up being German Anglicans really. I understand the Eastern European ones are still relatively conservative: like RC but they're mostly ex-RC priests who switched to marry.

The probable reason some Orthodox were told, if no local Orthodox church, to go to the Episcopalians and not the RCs is because Orthodoxy and Rome are so much alike. The Romans would try to convert them to the one true church according to their lights; the Episcopalians often wouldn't.




Post modified to enforce compliance with the Moratorium  -PtA
« Last Edit: September 04, 2010, 01:33:17 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #20 on: September 04, 2010, 01:31:22 PM »

The answer cannot be the Oriental Orthodox Churches, because these churches have not formally accepted all 7 Ecumenical Synods.  For whatever reasons, which are irrelevant, they do not accept them, while the Roman Catholic Church does accept all 7 Ecumenical Synods, even though there may be matters within which they take issue.  A primary test of ones Orthodoxy is his belief; and the Church's beliefs are expressed through its doctrine, which is defined by the Ecumenical Synods (Councils).
And yet...  It seems the OO adhere more closely to the spirit of the 4th-7th Councils, even though they reject them formally, than do the Catholics, even though they profess their formal acceptance of 4-7 and so many "ecumenical" councils following.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2010, 01:59:38 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,071



« Reply #21 on: September 04, 2010, 01:36:33 PM »

I agree with PtA, that is why I voted for the OO.
Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 04, 2010, 02:14:40 PM »

The answer cannot be the Oriental Orthodox Churches, because these churches have not formally accepted all 7 Ecumenical Synods.  For whatever reasons, which are irrelevant, they do not accept them, while the Roman Catholic Church does accept all 7 Ecumenical Synods, even though there may be matters within which they take issue.  A primary test of ones Orthodoxy is his belief; and the Church's beliefs are expressed through its doctrine, which is defined by the Ecumenical Synods (Councils).
And yet...  It seems the OO adhere more closely to the spirit of the 4th-7th Councils, even though they reject them formally, than do the Catholics, even though they profess their formal acceptance of 4-7 and so many "ecumenical" councils following.

How does the west not accept the latter councils? They're obviously not Nestorian. Do you hate statues that much?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #23 on: September 04, 2010, 02:30:49 PM »

The answer cannot be the Oriental Orthodox Churches, because these churches have not formally accepted all 7 Ecumenical Synods.  For whatever reasons, which are irrelevant, they do not accept them, while the Roman Catholic Church does accept all 7 Ecumenical Synods, even though there may be matters within which they take issue.  A primary test of ones Orthodoxy is his belief; and the Church's beliefs are expressed through its doctrine, which is defined by the Ecumenical Synods (Councils).
And yet...  It seems the OO adhere more closely to the spirit of the 4th-7th Councils, even though they reject them formally, than do the Catholics, even though they profess their formal acceptance of 4-7 and so many "ecumenical" councils following.

How does the west not accept the latter councils? They're obviously not Nestorian. Do you hate statues that much?
1.  Please read my words again and tell me where I said that the West doesn't accept the latter councils.
2.  What does Nestorianism have to do with this?
3.  Why do you assume I hate statues?  And even if I did--I don't--what does that have to do with anything I've said here?
« Last Edit: September 04, 2010, 02:31:34 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 04, 2010, 03:21:03 PM »

The answer cannot be the Oriental Orthodox Churches, because these churches have not formally accepted all 7 Ecumenical Synods.  For whatever reasons, which are irrelevant, they do not accept them, while the Roman Catholic Church does accept all 7 Ecumenical Synods, even though there may be matters within which they take issue.  A primary test of ones Orthodoxy is his belief; and the Church's beliefs are expressed through its doctrine, which is defined by the Ecumenical Synods (Councils).
And yet...  It seems the OO adhere more closely to the spirit of the 4th-7th Councils, even though they reject them formally, than do the Catholics, even though they profess their formal acceptance of 4-7 and so many "ecumenical" councils following.

How does the west not accept the latter councils? They're obviously not Nestorian. Do you hate statues that much?
1.  Please read my words again and tell me where I said that the West doesn't accept the latter councils.
2.  What does Nestorianism have to do with this?
3.  Why do you assume I hate statues?  And even if I did--I don't--what does that have to do with anything I've said here?

You said "And yet...  It seems the OO adhere more closely to the spirit of the 4th-7th Councils, even though they reject them formally, than do the Catholics, even though they profess their formal acceptance of 4-7 and so many "ecumenical" councils following."

These deal with nestorianism and the iconoclasm. What did you mean?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #25 on: September 04, 2010, 03:41:08 PM »

The answer cannot be the Oriental Orthodox Churches, because these churches have not formally accepted all 7 Ecumenical Synods.  For whatever reasons, which are irrelevant, they do not accept them, while the Roman Catholic Church does accept all 7 Ecumenical Synods, even though there may be matters within which they take issue.  A primary test of ones Orthodoxy is his belief; and the Church's beliefs are expressed through its doctrine, which is defined by the Ecumenical Synods (Councils).
And yet...  It seems the OO adhere more closely to the spirit of the 4th-7th Councils, even though they reject them formally, than do the Catholics, even though they profess their formal acceptance of 4-7 and so many "ecumenical" councils following.

How does the west not accept the latter councils? They're obviously not Nestorian. Do you hate statues that much?
1.  Please read my words again and tell me where I said that the West doesn't accept the latter councils.
2.  What does Nestorianism have to do with this?
3.  Why do you assume I hate statues?  And even if I did--I don't--what does that have to do with anything I've said here?

You said "And yet...  It seems the OO adhere more closely to the spirit of the 4th-7th Councils, even though they reject them formally, than do the Catholics, even though they profess their formal acceptance of 4-7 and so many "ecumenical" councils following."

These deal with nestorianism and the iconoclasm. What did you mean?
Actually, the 4th-6th Councils dealt with Monophysitism and Montheletism, not with Nestorianism.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 04, 2010, 06:15:52 PM »

The answer cannot be the Oriental Orthodox Churches, because these churches have not formally accepted all 7 Ecumenical Synods.  For whatever reasons, which are irrelevant, they do not accept them, while the Roman Catholic Church does accept all 7 Ecumenical Synods, even though there may be matters within which they take issue.  A primary test of ones Orthodoxy is his belief; and the Church's beliefs are expressed through its doctrine, which is defined by the Ecumenical Synods (Councils).
And yet...  It seems the OO adhere more closely to the spirit of the 4th-7th Councils, even though they reject them formally, than do the Catholics, even though they profess their formal acceptance of 4-7 and so many "ecumenical" councils following.

How does the west not accept the latter councils? They're obviously not Nestorian. Do you hate statues that much?
1.  Please read my words again and tell me where I said that the West doesn't accept the latter councils.
2.  What does Nestorianism have to do with this?
3.  Why do you assume I hate statues?  And even if I did--I don't--what does that have to do with anything I've said here?

You said "And yet...  It seems the OO adhere more closely to the spirit of the 4th-7th Councils, even though they reject them formally, than do the Catholics, even though they profess their formal acceptance of 4-7 and so many "ecumenical" councils following."

These deal with nestorianism and the iconoclasm. What did you mean?
Actually, the 4th-6th Councils dealt with Monophysitism and Montheletism, not with Nestorianism.

Ok, still. How does the west not adhere to this?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #27 on: September 04, 2010, 06:29:22 PM »

The answer cannot be the Oriental Orthodox Churches, because these churches have not formally accepted all 7 Ecumenical Synods.  For whatever reasons, which are irrelevant, they do not accept them, while the Roman Catholic Church does accept all 7 Ecumenical Synods, even though there may be matters within which they take issue.  A primary test of ones Orthodoxy is his belief; and the Church's beliefs are expressed through its doctrine, which is defined by the Ecumenical Synods (Councils).
And yet...  It seems the OO adhere more closely to the spirit of the 4th-7th Councils, even though they reject them formally, than do the Catholics, even though they profess their formal acceptance of 4-7 and so many "ecumenical" councils following.

How does the west not accept the latter councils? They're obviously not Nestorian. Do you hate statues that much?
1.  Please read my words again and tell me where I said that the West doesn't accept the latter councils.
2.  What does Nestorianism have to do with this?
3.  Why do you assume I hate statues?  And even if I did--I don't--what does that have to do with anything I've said here?

You said "And yet...  It seems the OO adhere more closely to the spirit of the 4th-7th Councils, even though they reject them formally, than do the Catholics, even though they profess their formal acceptance of 4-7 and so many "ecumenical" councils following."

These deal with nestorianism and the iconoclasm. What did you mean?
Actually, the 4th-6th Councils dealt with Monophysitism and Montheletism, not with Nestorianism.

Ok, still. How does the west not adhere to this?
Do you mean, "adhere less closely to ..."?  I never said the West does NOT adhere to the latter councils.  The reason I ask is that you seem to misunderstand a lot of what I'm saying here.  I just want to make sure you understand correctly the text of my posts so that I can trust that you will continue to understand the text of my posts correctly.  You seem to be reading much into my posts that I did not say.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2010, 06:30:49 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 04, 2010, 10:35:51 PM »

The answer cannot be the Oriental Orthodox Churches, because these churches have not formally accepted all 7 Ecumenical Synods.  For whatever reasons, which are irrelevant, they do not accept them, while the Roman Catholic Church does accept all 7 Ecumenical Synods, even though there may be matters within which they take issue.  A primary test of ones Orthodoxy is his belief; and the Church's beliefs are expressed through its doctrine, which is defined by the Ecumenical Synods (Councils).

That is an absurd statement. You're analyzing how close we are in faith simply on the basis of which councils we share allegiance to, rather than what doctrine we have confessed.
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 #29 on: September 04, 2010, 10:35:51 PM »

Rather similar story with the Old Catholics as with the Anglicans: on paper they looked like aspiring WRO

Not really. "High Church Anglicans" on paper often do not look all that different from a Romanist. Old Catholics, on the other hand, on paper, look much more similar to "WRO".
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 #30 on: September 04, 2010, 10:35:51 PM »

The answer cannot be the Oriental Orthodox Churches, because these churches have not formally accepted all 7 Ecumenical Synods.  For whatever reasons, which are irrelevant, they do not accept them, while the Roman Catholic Church does accept all 7 Ecumenical Synods, even though there may be matters within which they take issue.  A primary test of ones Orthodoxy is his belief; and the Church's beliefs are expressed through its doctrine, which is defined by the Ecumenical Synods (Councils).
And yet...  It seems the OO adhere more closely to the spirit of the 4th-7th Councils, even though they reject them formally, than do the Catholics, even though they profess their formal acceptance of 4-7 and so many "ecumenical" councils following.

How does the west not accept the latter councils? They're obviously not Nestorian. Do you hate statues that much?
1.  Please read my words again and tell me where I said that the West doesn't accept the latter councils.
2.  What does Nestorianism have to do with this?
3.  Why do you assume I hate statues?  And even if I did--I don't--what does that have to do with anything I've said here?

You said "And yet...  It seems the OO adhere more closely to the spirit of the 4th-7th Councils, even though they reject them formally, than do the Catholics, even though they profess their formal acceptance of 4-7 and so many "ecumenical" councils following."

These deal with nestorianism and the iconoclasm. What did you mean?
Actually, the 4th-6th Councils dealt with Monophysitism and Montheletism, not with Nestorianism.

Constantinople II, the "Fifth Council", most certainly did deal with Nestorianism.
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #31 on: September 04, 2010, 10:38:39 PM »

The answer cannot be the Oriental Orthodox Churches, because these churches have not formally accepted all 7 Ecumenical Synods.  For whatever reasons, which are irrelevant, they do not accept them, while the Roman Catholic Church does accept all 7 Ecumenical Synods, even though there may be matters within which they take issue.  A primary test of ones Orthodoxy is his belief; and the Church's beliefs are expressed through its doctrine, which is defined by the Ecumenical Synods (Councils).
And yet...  It seems the OO adhere more closely to the spirit of the 4th-7th Councils, even though they reject them formally, than do the Catholics, even though they profess their formal acceptance of 4-7 and so many "ecumenical" councils following.

How does the west not accept the latter councils? They're obviously not Nestorian. Do you hate statues that much?
1.  Please read my words again and tell me where I said that the West doesn't accept the latter councils.
2.  What does Nestorianism have to do with this?
3.  Why do you assume I hate statues?  And even if I did--I don't--what does that have to do with anything I've said here?

You said "And yet...  It seems the OO adhere more closely to the spirit of the 4th-7th Councils, even though they reject them formally, than do the Catholics, even though they profess their formal acceptance of 4-7 and so many "ecumenical" councils following."

These deal with nestorianism and the iconoclasm. What did you mean?
Actually, the 4th-6th Councils dealt with Monophysitism and Montheletism, not with Nestorianism.

Constantinople II, the "Fifth Council", most certainly did deal with Nestorianism.
Okay.  I stand corrected. Embarrassed
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #32 on: September 04, 2010, 11:53:55 PM »

Rather similar story with the Old Catholics as with the Anglicans: on paper they looked like aspiring WRO

Not really. "High Church Anglicans" on paper often do not look all that different from a Romanist. Old Catholics, on the other hand, on paper, look much more similar to "WRO".

So you don't mind calling the "Old Catholics" by the name they wish to be called but still insist on calling us "Romanists."



Lynette Anne Curley kneels as she is ordained as a priest in the Old Catholic Church by Archbishop Bruce Simpson on May 18, 2002 at St. Andrew's Church in Mastic Beach, N.Y. The Old Catholic Church is an independent church, unaffiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, that allows women in the clergy, doesn't exclude ___________ [moratorium] and allows marriage of priests and bishops. The Catholic Church has come under fire recently for being too closed to changes in the Catholic doctrine.

-------

I put my vote in for the Catholic Church because to us the OO and the EO are basically the same.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #33 on: September 05, 2010, 12:42:52 AM »

I put my vote in for the Catholic Church because to us the OO and the EO are basically the same.
Okay.  That's nice. Undecided  Do you even understand what the question is? Huh
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 05, 2010, 04:22:25 AM »

Can anyone explain why the Anglican church is thought so highly of by Orthodox? Even our EOTC Church will use Anglican buildings in the absence of an Orthodox Church. But I really can't understand this, considering the immoral and godless roots of the Anglican church, not to mention the foul fruit we see it bearing today.


Selam
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 04:22:53 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #35 on: September 05, 2010, 05:12:51 AM »

Can anyone explain why the Anglican church is thought so highly of by Orthodox? Even our EOTC Church will use Anglican buildings in the absence of an Orthodox Church. But I really can't understand this, considering the immoral and godless roots of the Anglican church,
Do you think the Church of England started with Henry VIII?  Or are you identifying something else as the CoE's immoral and godless roots?  Prior to Henry VIII, the Church of England was merely the Roman Catholic Church in England.  I'm not aware that King Henry threw out all of the CoE's Catholic traditions when he took over the church and wrenched it away from Rome's control.

not to mention the foul fruit we see it bearing today.
You do realize that the Anglican Church is not just the Episcopal Church of the USA?  IIRC, the Anglican churches outside of the ECUSA tend to be much more conservative and not very tolerant of the shenanigans going on in the ECUSA.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 05, 2010, 05:25:52 AM »

Can anyone explain why the Anglican church is thought so highly of by Orthodox? Even our EOTC Church will use Anglican buildings in the absence of an Orthodox Church. But I really can't understand this, considering the immoral and godless roots of the Anglican church,
Do you think the Church of England started with Henry VIII?  Or are you identifying something else as the CoE's immoral and godless roots?  Prior to Henry VIII, the Church of England was merely the Roman Catholic Church in England.  I'm not aware that King Henry threw out all of the CoE's Catholic traditions when he took over the church and wrenched it away from Rome's control.

not to mention the foul fruit we see it bearing today.
You do realize that the Anglican Church is not just the Episcopal Church of the USA?  IIRC, the Anglican churches outside of the ECUSA tend to be much more conservative and not very tolerant of the shenanigans going on in the ECUSA.

I always thought the Church of England (Anglican Church) was effectively spawned by King Henry VIII's desire to divorce his wife against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

I do realize there are "conservative" Anglicans, especially in Africa; but I still think that historically the Anglican church began on a very ungodly foundation (not that it was necessarily any worse than the harlot that gave birth to her.)


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2010, 05:46:50 AM »

Actually, King Henry VIII didn't want to divorce his wife.  He rather believed that she had never actually been married to him, because she had been married to his brother first (before he died).  King Henry VIII essentially made himself Pope of the Church of England - believing that God wants Kings to be ruler of both Church and State.  At least, this is how the author of The Tudors comes off.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2010, 07:01:52 AM »

How does the west not accept the latter councils? They're obviously not Nestorian. Do you hate statues that much?

Rome did not accepted Chalcedonian canons related to the position of Patriarch of Constantinople and the Seventh Council canons due to bad translation from Greek to Latin (the translation messed "worship" and venerate"). IDK whether they did it later.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,732


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2010, 07:30:53 AM »

I voted for OO and Rome and didn't know at the time about the Moratorium.

Can anyone explain why the Anglican church is thought so highly of by Orthodox? Even our EOTC Church will use Anglican buildings in the absence of an Orthodox Church. But I really can't understand this, considering the immoral and godless roots of the Anglican church,

Some of the answer is in my first post here.

Before the 'Reformation' the Church in England was the Roman Catholic Church. No matter that Anglicanism wasn't founded literally for a divorce; it was founded for evil reasons. The king went into schism because he was selfish. So you have the bad principle of Erastianism - state control of the church, like the Soviets did to the Russian Orthodox - as one of Anglicanism's founding principles. But unlike, for example, the Russian Church declaring independence from the Greeks after Florence, Protestantism was brought into the new church partly for political reasons - the king wanted the northern German princes as allies against France and the southern German emperor.

But at the same time there are Anglican bishops and other theologians who kept a Catholic-like ('high') view of church authority (divine right of bishops) and, in principle but not in mid-1500s-mid-1800s liturgical practice (which was obviously Protestant), the sacraments.

177 years ago one of these theologians preached a sermon protesting the state shutting down a few dioceses (ironically those dioceses were in Ireland and were being shut down thanks to Roman Catholic emancipation - the Irish never accepted having Anglicanism literally forced on them); this sermon started Anglo-Catholicism, which by the end of the 1800s was imitating Roman Catholic practices.

Most Anglicans were Protestants, though, and after the 1700s many were privately unbelievers. That and the destruction of mediæval farm and village life in the Industrial Revolution at the same time were what Anglo-Catholicism was reacting to.

But because most Anglicans were Protestants, the high churchmen including Anglo-Catholics were the only Anglicans interested in talking to the Orthodox, which gave the Orthodox the wrong impression that these represented all Anglicans (the answer to Gebre's question), and the high churchmen themselves believed and said they alone got Anglicanism right and everybody else was wrong, so there you are.

lubeltri's post with the photo shows something else, vagantes, churches that split off from the Old Catholics. As shown here they often still call themselves Old Catholics but there are no Old Catholics in North America. But you can see in the pic something about the tiny vagantes: they often mix good high-church liturgics (like old-fashioned Roman Catholic practices, which resemble Orthodox practices) and credal orthodoxy with social liberalism like ordaining women and the Moratorium topic.

To be fair, the Anglicans have never commemorated liturgically like a saint Henry VIII or his daughter Elizabeth I (who refounded the Anglican Church after Henry's other daughter Mary as queen put English churches back under Rome).
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 07:51:01 AM by The young fogey » Logged

synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2010, 01:35:45 PM »

In my opinion only a Pole can try to contain entire libraries of knowledge in one multiple-choice question.
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #41 on: September 05, 2010, 01:53:44 PM »

I voted for OO and Rome and didn't know at the time about the Moratorium.

Can anyone explain why the Anglican church is thought so highly of by Orthodox? Even our EOTC Church will use Anglican buildings in the absence of an Orthodox Church. But I really can't understand this, considering the immoral and godless roots of the Anglican church,

Some of the answer is in my first post here.

Before the 'Reformation' the Church in England was the Roman Catholic Church. No matter that Anglicanism wasn't founded literally for a divorce; it was founded for evil reasons. The king went into schism because he was selfish. So you have the bad principle of Erastianism - state control of the church, like the Soviets did to the Russian Orthodox - as one of Anglicanism's founding principles. But unlike, for example, the Russian Church declaring independence from the Greeks after Florence, Protestantism was brought into the new church partly for political reasons - the king wanted the northern German princes as allies against France and the southern German emperor.

As I always understood it (and I didn't get my information from TV shows) Henry VIII actually did much to keep the practices of the Church of England closer to the Catholic side of things, pretty much battling Cranmer every step of the way over any innovations.  It wasn't until Edward VI that the Church of England took a sharply Protestant turn.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,732


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #42 on: September 05, 2010, 02:29:22 PM »

I voted for OO and Rome and didn't know at the time about the Moratorium.

Can anyone explain why the Anglican church is thought so highly of by Orthodox? Even our EOTC Church will use Anglican buildings in the absence of an Orthodox Church. But I really can't understand this, considering the immoral and godless roots of the Anglican church,

Some of the answer is in my first post here.

Before the 'Reformation' the Church in England was the Roman Catholic Church. No matter that Anglicanism wasn't founded literally for a divorce; it was founded for evil reasons. The king went into schism because he was selfish. So you have the bad principle of Erastianism - state control of the church, like the Soviets did to the Russian Orthodox - as one of Anglicanism's founding principles. But unlike, for example, the Russian Church declaring independence from the Greeks after Florence, Protestantism was brought into the new church partly for political reasons - the king wanted the northern German princes as allies against France and the southern German emperor.

As I always understood it (and I didn't get my information from TV shows) Henry VIII actually did much to keep the practices of the Church of England closer to the Catholic side of things, pretty much battling Cranmer every step of the way over any innovations.  It wasn't until Edward VI that the Church of England took a sharply Protestant turn.

Essentially true - Henry never really bought Protestantism and kept the Mass - in Latin - but:

1. The power went to his already big head - he wasn't always the fat old man in Holbein's painting; as a young man he was handsome and popular, like Prince William but with real power - so he liked fancying himself a reformer, which explains some of the changes.

2. What I wrote: although he hated them, sometimes he'd let the Protestants have free rein in England when he was trying to ally with the German Lutheran princes so for example an order would go out banning candles in front of images, then when he didn't need those Germans any more he'd revoke the order.

Under Edward, Cranmer cut loose and became openly Protestant but:

1. The text of 1549 was still cautious and Catholic - Cranmer was still testing the waters - compared to the 1552 one, also under Edward.

2. Out in the countryside the parishes did 1549 with the ceremonies of the old Mass.

3. 1552 wasn't used much outside big cities - books were rare and expensive. So:

4. After Queen Mary made England Catholic again, which most people were happy with, and Queen Elizabeth restarted Anglicanism, the changes hit most people with the 1559 Prayer Book, Protestant (the ceremonies of the Mass were gone) but not as radical as 1552 in the hope that the queen could thus persuade Catholics to switch.

Residual Catholic practice persisted until the 1580s: for example the Anglican priest would secretly celebrate Mass then sneak the consecrated Hosts to the people at the public Anglican Communion service. A few rich Catholics could afford the fines for not attending the official church and be left in peace; most people went along with the changes or else: from fines to torture to execution.

So by 1600 most English people were in the new church but treated it with the same reverence as they did the old (few ceremonies but the people wanted them done by the book); the 1600s English Civil War (when the Puritans temporarily took over) and 1700s 'Enlightenment' took away most of that faith.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 02:31:58 PM by The young fogey » Logged

jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #43 on: September 05, 2010, 02:57:59 PM »

I know that OO Church will win but I'm interested in second place, so you are allowed to have to votes. Any concerns from you highly appreciated.

I forgot about Old Catholics, can any admin ad them to the list?

I chose OO and Rome as being the closest.

Then I would choose Anglo-Catholics and Old Catholics as being the next closest.

« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 03:00:19 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #44 on: September 07, 2010, 09:21:44 AM »

I voted for OO and Rome and didn't know at the time about the Moratorium.

Can anyone explain why the Anglican church is thought so highly of by Orthodox? Even our EOTC Church will use Anglican buildings in the absence of an Orthodox Church. But I really can't understand this, considering the immoral and godless roots of the Anglican church,

Some of the answer is in my first post here.

Before the 'Reformation' the Church in England was the Roman Catholic Church. No matter that Anglicanism wasn't founded literally for a divorce; it was founded for evil reasons. The king went into schism because he was selfish. So you have the bad principle of Erastianism - state control of the church, like the Soviets did to the Russian Orthodox - as one of Anglicanism's founding principles. But unlike, for example, the Russian Church declaring independence from the Greeks after Florence, Protestantism was brought into the new church partly for political reasons - the king wanted the northern German princes as allies against France and the southern German emperor.

As I always understood it (and I didn't get my information from TV shows) Henry VIII actually did much to keep the practices of the Church of England closer to the Catholic side of things, pretty much battling Cranmer every step of the way over any innovations.  It wasn't until Edward VI that the Church of England took a sharply Protestant turn.

Just to clarify, I did not get my info from a TV show (I in fact never watched the miniseries).  Rather, I was speaking of the book Tudors: The Complete Story of Engalnd's Most Notorious Dynasty, by G.J. Meser

Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Tags: Ibas Theodoret 
Pages: 1   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 0.172 seconds with 74 queries.