OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 30, 2014, 12:31:40 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 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Question..  (Read 16985 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #45 on: January 07, 2004, 11:56:23 PM »

Here's the Greek Orthodox view on the situation.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp
Logged

Peace
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #46 on: January 08, 2004, 01:01:19 AM »

Quote
Outside Orthodox lists I just call myself what I am - an Orthodox Christian. I belong to the Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria under Pope Shenouda.

Outside Orthodox lists - and even some in them - the majority of folk have no clue about Orthodox communities.

Just tell others you belong to that group that goes around mutilating squirrels, that's what i normally do  Tongue
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,630



WWW
« Reply #47 on: January 08, 2004, 05:05:22 AM »

The Council of 869 was overturned by the Council of 879 which was cosigned by Pope John VIII.

See The Photian Schism by Francis Dvornik.

Hiya

But the RC do still count it as the 8th Ecumenical council.

When did they overturn Pope John VIII approval of it?

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,630



WWW
« Reply #48 on: January 08, 2004, 05:17:38 AM »

Somewhere along the line someone has to cry "uncle" and some taxonomy has to be accepted apart from all the competing claims to be The Church. Otherwise discourse is impossible.

I agree, but my point was that in a discussion it is possible to speak of EO and OO, or Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy in general, or Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism and Oriental Orthodoxy specifically.

But if we speak of Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy that carries the suggestion that Oriental Orthodoxy is not Orthodox, which would be fine in a conversation between Eastern Orthodox but is problematic in a conversation with members of other communities.

Serge objected to my use of Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox as rude, but he had not objected to Linus7's use of Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox.

I do not and did not wish to be rude at all and would not normally make such a distinction except that I was half playfully responding to Linus7 who in frustration at me (I think) wanted to suggest that there was a big distinction between his idea of Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy.

As far as people knowing which community is which, well even the best informed colleagues at work here, who have been to Cyprus many times and visited monasteries and churches, think that Orthodoxy means a particular faith and that Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox are just local varieties of that faith. They are not interested at all in who is calling who a schismatic. Nor indeed are many lay folk, or even priests and a whole lot of bishops.

Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #49 on: January 08, 2004, 07:40:46 AM »

I wish to commend Keble/D.P.'s referee talents and say PT does have a valid complaint.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #50 on: January 08, 2004, 08:44:44 AM »

Quote
peterfarrington: I do not and did not wish to be rude at all and would not normally make such a distinction except that I was half playfully responding to Linus7 who in frustration at me (I think) wanted to suggest that there was a big distinction between his idea of Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy.

There is a big distinction between Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy.

I think many here downplay it - perhaps out of an admirable desire to foster Christian unity - but it does exist.

The OO reject the last four of the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church!

If that is not a BIG difference, then I do not know what is.

Those four councils form a large portion of the Church's big "T" Tradition.

The OO also do not regard several of the saints of the Orthodox Church as saints and recognize as saints some whom the Orthodox Church would view as highly questionable at best.

That is also a BIG difference.

My impression is that what really unites some who contribute to the discussions on this particular forum (the Catholic-Orthodox Forum) is not their mutual Orthodoxy but rather their shared opposition to Rome.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,630



WWW
« Reply #51 on: January 08, 2004, 09:17:22 AM »

I'm sorry Linus7 but that's just a load of rubbish. I have no 'opposition to Rome' at all. I became Orthodox as a result of reading and benefitting from lots of Roman Catholic materials, I greatly value my visits to French Roman Catholic Christian places, and nearly all the relics of the saints which I have in my stewardship have been in the careful devotion of Roman Catholic Christians.

I find it frankly disturbing that you will not consider the substance of the latter councils, and the almost complete agreement which is found in that content between the EO and OO. I am sad that you think that belief about an event is more important than the content of the event.  

There is no point in me continuing. :'(
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,890


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #52 on: January 08, 2004, 09:41:32 AM »

Subdeacon Peter,

But at the end of the day from an  Eastern Orthodox point of view if Oriental Orthodox will not ascribe to the belief that Christ has two natures/diophysis, miaphysis being unacceptable, they will be viewed as heterodox.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,630



WWW
« Reply #53 on: January 08, 2004, 09:47:24 AM »

But the Oriental Orthodox freely ascribe to the confession that Christ is fully human and fully Divine, and that these natures are utterly different and maintain their difference in the union.

If miaphysis, meaning 'one incarnate hypostasis' is unacceptable then Eastern Orthodoxy is heresy. I have not read that St Cyril is unacceptable among the Eastern Orthodox.

Miaphysis does not mean 'one nature' when translated into Eastern Orthodox terminology. It means 'one hypostasis'.

The non-Chalcedonians have always confessed that Christ is completely and perfectly human and completely and perfectly divine, without confusion or mixture. Anything else is blasphemy.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2004, 09:47:59 AM by peterfarrington » Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #54 on: January 08, 2004, 10:42:33 AM »

Quote
Linus7:
There is a big distinction between Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy.

I think many here downplay it - perhaps out of an admirable desire to foster Christian unity - but it does exist.

The OO reject the last four of the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church!

If that is not a BIG difference, then I do not know what is.

Those four councils form a large portion of the Church's big "T" Tradition.

Linus7, that distinctions exist is evident; but in an effort to "foster Christian unity" I must examine your position here more closely.

In this current effort, but not the first effort historically, at EO-OO rapproachment I see the following situation:
1) Some agreed framework is being reached on the Christological issues, if any at this point in time.
2) The OO communion is balking at having to accept the councils beyond Chalcedon (and parts of Chalcedon as it stands) which they feel as unnecessary due to their not being involved in those heresies/issues.
3) The EO communion has set the re-union "bar" at the level of the first seven councils. This is MOST interesting. The Oecumenical Patriarch states in a video interview available on the GOAA website that SEVEN council acceptance is necessary. Seven? We have 9 councils ecumenically received. So it seems that  even the EP's position is flexible to a degree. The only reason I can find that we are the "Church of the Seven Councils" is the fact that that term was used to define the commonality between the RC and EO during the failed re-union attempts in the past. Yes, we do use the term now, but we have more and those beyond seven are, what, deemed less a part of our Church?

It would seem there could be wiggle-room here IF both sides wish. Before Linus7 falls out of his chair and beats his keyborad to pieces, he often uses the phrase "I cannot believe that Christ meant..." in his papal studies posts. I cannot believe that Christ meant ONLY legal definitions to define Faith in Him.

Quote
The OO also do not regard several of the saints of the Orthodox Church as saints and recognize as saints some whom the Orthodox Church would view as highly questionable at best.

That is also a BIG difference.
Agreed; this is a big point, but is it insurmountable?
Quote
My impression is that what really unites some who contribute to the discussions on this particular forum (the Catholic-Orthodox Forum) is not their mutual Orthodoxy but rather their shared opposition to Rome.

I do agree this sub-thread has left the Catholic-Othodox realm, but I find this statement insulting. In 451 there was no Roman Catholic Church and no Eastern Orthodox Church - just an "orthodox Catholic Church" (with the Nestorians in schism). When I ponder the Oriental Orthodox Church I never even think about their stance on Rome (the Roman Catholic Church today)

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #55 on: January 08, 2004, 10:59:12 AM »

Quote
Aristokles: It would seem there could be wiggle-room here IF both sides wish. Before Linus7 falls out of his chair and beats his keyborad to pieces, he often uses the phrase "I cannot believe that Christ meant..." in his papal studies posts. I cannot believe that Christ meant ONLY legal definitions to define Faith in Him.

I don't recall using the expression, "I cannot believe Christ meant . . . ," that often, if ever, but that is a small point.

Who is arguing for "legal definitions" of the faith?

But a key element of the Orthodox doctrine of the infallibility of the Church includes the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church. "Wiggle" on four out of seven of them and you've wiggled out of a large portion of Church authority and infallibility.

What's left then?

If we were wrong about the last four, who is to say we were right about the first three?

Quote
Linus7:
The OO also do not regard several of the saints of the Orthodox Church as saints and recognize as saints some whom the Orthodox Church would view as highly questionable at best.

That is also a BIG difference.

Quote
Aristokles: Agreed; this is a big point, but is it insurmountable?

Perhaps not, but I certainly don't see how it can be overcome without considerable revision of Church history.

Quote
Linus7:
My impression is that what really unites some who contribute to the discussions on this particular forum (the Catholic-Orthodox Forum) is not their mutual Orthodoxy but rather their shared opposition to Rome.

Quote
Aristokles: I do agree this sub-thread has left the Catholic-Othodox realm, but I find this statement insulting. In 451 there was no Roman Catholic Church and no Eastern Orthodox Church - just an "orthodox Catholic Church" (with the Nestorians in schism). When I ponder the Oriental Orthodox Church I never even think about their stance on Rome (the Roman Catholic Church today)

Demetri

But it wasn't "thinking about the Oriental Orthodox Church" that caused you to take peterfarrington's side on this thread. It was your mutual opposition to the idea that the Bishop of Rome might have enjoyed a primacy of jurisdiction based on Christ's words to St. Peter.

That was my point.

The two of you do not share a mutual Orthodoxy. Your idea of Orthodoxy and his are different.

What unites you on this particular thread is the idea that the popes held only a primacy of honor.

I do not see how it is insulting to point that out.

It is the simple truth.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2004, 11:00:11 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #56 on: January 08, 2004, 11:03:48 AM »

Quote
peterfarrington: I'm sorry Linus7 but that's just a load of rubbish. I have no 'opposition to Rome' at all. I became Orthodox as a result of reading and benefitting from lots of Roman Catholic materials, I greatly value my visits to French Roman Catholic Christian places, and nearly all the relics of the saints which I have in my stewardship have been in the careful devotion of Roman Catholic Christians.

Who's loading rubbish?

"I have no 'opposition to Rome' at all" ?  Shocked

 Grin



Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #57 on: January 08, 2004, 11:14:57 AM »

Quote
If we were wrong about the last four, who is to say we were right about the first three?

Slava Isusu Christu!

While I'm sure Peter will answer this better than I, I believe Peter has said time and time again that the OO agree with the outcome of the last four councils, the doctrines that they taught.  

For some reason, the OO don't feel like they have to "recognize" something they've always "recognized".

Personally, from what I've read, I'm inclined to agree with him.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #58 on: January 08, 2004, 11:15:50 AM »

Linus
If you go back and review my posts both in this thread and on others (Thou Art Peter, etc) you will see that I am not taking either "side", but have admitted to the validity of both positions in the past, including agreeing in large part with yours. In between.  All the world is in between two poles (no pun), not merely on the extremes.
On this thread I think the only post I have made was in reference to the Orthodox / Oriental Orthodox LABELS. I don't recall taking any position pro or con Rome.
Demetri
« Last Edit: January 08, 2004, 11:16:54 AM by +æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,890


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #59 on: January 08, 2004, 11:19:38 AM »

Subdeacon Peter,

Physis=nature, Hypostasis=Person, Miaphysis=one composite nature, to Eastern Orthodox.  It is considered an inaccurate term and therefore is unacceptable.  St. Cyril is not considered heretical, but the term miaphysis is considered deficient and it is why Chalcedon demanded the term diophysis.  Orientals can say they believe that Christ is fully human and fully God until they are blue in the face but unless they are at least willing to concede diophysis is orthodox belief they will be considered heterodox by Eastern Orthodox.  The Catholic Church, on the otherhand, seems willing to accept that miaphysis is equivalent to diophysis, the real difference lying in language/philosophical barriers.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,630



WWW
« Reply #60 on: January 08, 2004, 11:40:29 AM »

Fr Deacon Lance.

The OO have conceded that diophysis is an orthodox belief.

"In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology as well as of the above common affirmations, we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion."

and

"The Oriental Orthodox agree that the Orthodox are justified in their use of the two-natures formula, since they acknowledge that the distinction is "in thought alone" (th qewria monh)."

This was signed by many Eastern Orthodox bishops and theologians and has been synodically received by the OO churches.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #61 on: January 08, 2004, 11:44:44 AM »

Quote
If we were wrong about the last four, who is to say we were right about the first three?

Slava Isusu Christu!

While I'm sure Peter will answer this better than I, I believe Peter has said time and time again that the OO agree with the outcome of the last four councils, the doctrines that they taught.  

For some reason, the OO don't feel like they have to "recognize" something they've always "recognized".

Personally, from what I've read, I'm inclined to agree with him.  

You may agree, Schultz, but the Church has said, "These Seven Councils are holy and ecumenical and, where they have spoken on faith and morals, infallible" (or words to that effect).

The Orthodox doctrine is that the Church is infallible.

If that is so then assent to the Seven Councils is not a negotiable option.

One cannot be Orthodox and say, "I share the faith of the Seven Councils but reject the notion that the last four of them were holy and ecumenical."

And that because of a fifth-century schism that came about as a reaction to the decisions of the Fourth Council!
« Last Edit: January 08, 2004, 11:53:21 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
moronikos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ...and they were first called Christians in Antioch
Posts: 150


I'm trying to think, but nothing happens!


WWW
« Reply #62 on: January 08, 2004, 11:47:16 AM »

The Council of 869 was overturned by the Council of 879 which was cosigned by Pope John VIII.

See The Photian Schism by Francis Dvornik.

Hiya

But the RC do still count it as the 8th Ecumenical council.

When did they overturn Pope John VIII approval of it?

PT

Peter you are correct.  Dustin, you are correct as well.

The RCC still reckons the council of 869 as an ecumenical council even though John VIII approved the council of 879 that overturned the previous council.  I think the RCC pretends that the council of 879 does not exist.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #63 on: January 08, 2004, 11:47:53 AM »

Linus,

But Peter believes what you and I believe regarding everything Holy Orthodoxy teaches about the faith, the Apostolic Faith.  

That is what is important...the Faith.  The Councils are merely vehicles for the teaching of that Faith.

I think you're missing the forest through the trees.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #64 on: January 08, 2004, 11:59:44 AM »

Linus,

But Peter believes what you and I believe regarding everything Holy Orthodoxy teaches about the faith, the Apostolic Faith.  

That is what is important...the Faith.  The Councils are merely vehicles for the teaching of that Faith.

I think you're missing the forest through the trees.

But there is more than one kind of tree in the forest.

The Christological tree is one kind.

Do we cut down the tree of Ecclesial Infallibility because it obscures our view of the Christological trees we have planted?

If the Church is infallible, and one of the chief ways she expresses her infallibility is through ecumencial councils, then how do we make four out of seven of them optional?

And how do we make them optional for some and mandatory for others?

The Church was right about those four councils or she was not.

If she was not, then she is not infallible, and we should all become Protestants.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2004, 12:00:11 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #65 on: January 08, 2004, 12:09:56 PM »

But Linus, dear dear Linus, Peter has said time and time again that he nurtures the SAME tree we do.

You're beginning to sound like our resident ROAC folks.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #66 on: January 08, 2004, 12:12:47 PM »

Quote
Aristokles: It would seem there could be wiggle-room here IF both sides wish. Before Linus7 falls out of his chair and beats his keyborad to pieces, he often uses the phrase "I cannot believe that Christ meant..." in his papal studies posts. I cannot believe that Christ meant ONLY legal definitions to define Faith in Him.

I don't recall using the expression, "I cannot believe Christ meant . . . ," that often, if ever, but that is a small point.

We need a 'tongue-in-cheek' smilely face.

Quote
Who is arguing for "legal definitions" of the faith?

But a key element of the Orthodox doctrine of the infallibility of the Church includes the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church. "Wiggle" on four out of seven of them and you've wiggled out of a large portion of Church authority and infallibility.

What's left then?

If we were wrong about the last four, who is to say we were right about the first three?


Linus7,
You mis-read me. I condemn denying any of the NINE Councils, not merely  4-7.  You assume I am blindly accepting a three council union. I am not. But if the EP can ignore two councils and deposit the Faith only in the first seven, well, that's how I define 'wiggle-room'. I'm not saying I LIKE it.

Schultz has obviously got it right (about Faith)!

Demetri

{Edited so as not to endorse ROAC comment which was posted while I was writing my post}
« Last Edit: January 08, 2004, 01:45:06 PM by +æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Boswell
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74

Bi, poly, trans and ex-Orthodox


« Reply #67 on: January 08, 2004, 01:10:12 PM »

Schutz,
You sound like an angry Anglo-Catholic (Old Catholic, etc.) who is trying to show that they have the same faith as an Orthodox, yet is not Orthodox i.e. trying to recieve communion. Wasn't it William Palmer who had his beliefs all laid out, and was still refused Holy Communion by Moscow? Every statement about Orthodox intercommunion I've read has stated that it isn't good enough for a heterodox to believe everything Orthodoxy does...they must be Orthodox.
Why make an exception for Non-Chalcedonians?
Logged
Boswell
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74

Bi, poly, trans and ex-Orthodox


« Reply #68 on: January 08, 2004, 01:13:20 PM »

By changing the Councils, you're changing the apostolic deposit of faith, what the Orthodox Church has always believed through her liturgy, and isn't a matter to be cliched away...and that's a rhetorical cheap shot by invoking ROAC. However, it is a good way to FUD (fear, uncertaintly, doubt) up the waters of discussion-a good way to discredit Linus.

Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #69 on: January 08, 2004, 01:32:38 PM »

Boswell,

Actually, I'm one of those heretical Ruthenian Catholics.  I'm not trying to legitimatize anything, but merely discussing this subject with my fellow posters.  I don't see how you can possibly construe that I'm "angry" at anything.  

As for FUDdying up the waters, it was merely a weak attempt at humor.  Pardon me if you didn't get it.  I'm sure many others here did.  Possibly even Linus himself (I hope so, at least!)
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,630



WWW
« Reply #70 on: January 08, 2004, 03:52:21 PM »

You know I don't actually need anyones validation of my Orthodox faith. I am fortunate that God has brought me to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I have been pleased to find that most EO also have this same faith and my bishops have taught me to consider that they are also the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is on this basis that EO bishops and priests offer communion to isolated OO and OO bishops and priests offer communion to isolated EO. I will spend all of my life trying to bring reconciliation to those who have the same faith. If others don't want that then that's their look out before the judgement seat.

There is no point me taking part in these exercises of polemics so I guess I'll drop out of such threads and restrict myself to ones about non-controversial matters. I had thought that OCnet was a more positive place than others in terms of supporting reconciliation than it seems to be, and I have a life to live that doesn't need constant abuse. The same old polemics surface which prevent any real effort at reconciliation. I hope I'm happy to push the envelope and see what's possible but there's no point being on threads with posts that just reproduce the same old same old.

But I'm moderately happy, disappointed rather than angry, and glad that there are lots of intelligent and spiritual folk here who do help me to grow in my faith.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2004, 03:56:25 PM by peterfarrington » Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #71 on: January 08, 2004, 06:14:42 PM »

I've got an idea Smiley

When we finally get one of those time machine thingies working lets whizz back to 1st or 2nd century Palestine, grab one of the Christians and bring him back to the 21st century. Then we can tell him that he isn't an Orthodox Christian unless he accepts the 7 (or 9) ecumenical councils Cheesy

Draw a circle on the ground and call everything inside it Orthodox and everything outside heresy. Now stand in the middle of it. You are now an Orthodox Christian on the day of Pentecost and will remain so as long as you stal insife the circle.
Now build walls at three locations on the circle (1st three ecumenical councils). If you stay inside the circle you are an Orthodox Christian, if you step outside, you are not. This is where the OO's are.
Now build four more walls on the circle (or six Wink) so you have a total of seven (or nine) walls. Stay inside the circle and you are Orthodox, step outside and you're not. This is EO territory.

The area bound by the circle does not change the whole time whether there are nine walls or none. It neither grows nor shrinks, the only difference is that the walls make the boundary of the circle more clearly defined.

There, that's my "analogies that probably suck" quota for the year all used up.

John
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #72 on: January 08, 2004, 06:29:17 PM »

Sub-Dn Peter

[You know I don't actually need anyones validation of my Orthodox faith. I am fortunate that God has brought me to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.}

I'm glad.  I didn't get the idea you were seeking anyone's validation.  I and many others who post here don't seek validation for our faith whether it be RC or EO or OO.  I think we should try to help those who might be seeking such validation.

[There is no point me taking part in these exercises of polemics so I guess I'll drop out of such threads and restrict myself to ones about non-controversial matters. I had thought that OCnet was a more positive place than others]

I hope this is not what you will do.  Your view point enriches discussions.  Yes it does tend to get polemical but that is something we should not be afraid of.  If, those of us who are honestly interested in dialogue in charity, dropped out of the threads that might be controversial this would be a boring forum and those who are "polemical bullies" would rule the roost. (Just a note here but I am NOT saying any who have posted on this thread are "polemical bullies"!) These "polemical bullies" usually get their facts wrong anyway. So please don't refrain from posting.  I think we all need to be a little kinder to each other.

Ubi caritas Deus ibi est.
Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #73 on: January 08, 2004, 06:29:44 PM »

I like it brother John, it is a simple formula.


james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #74 on: January 08, 2004, 06:32:24 PM »

Bless you, Carpo-Rusyn. I could not have said that better in twice as many words.
Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #75 on: January 08, 2004, 10:26:14 PM »

Carpo-Rusyn -

Am I a "polemical bully" because I dared to mention that OO and EO are not one and the same, that we do have some very real and significant differences?

I was taught that the Orthodox Church is the Church of the Seven Councils, that the Church is infallible in what is declared by her bishops assembled in such ecumenical councils, and that the findings of those councils are an important part of Holy Tradition.

I have seen many members of this web site only too gladly point out the differences between RCs and EOs, like the filioque, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, etc.

It is okay to recognize those differences, I guess, but not the gulf separating the EO and OO.

I am not opposed to charitable dialogue. I recognize the essential doctrinal orthodoxy of the OO, at least as far as I understand it. I have commented on it myself.

But the different attitudes of the OO and EO toward the last four of the Seven Ecumenical Councils are a very real and significant problem.

The OO attitude toward some EO saints is likewise a problem, as is the EO attitude toward some OO saints.

It is not "bullying" to mention these differences.

I hope there is some way to work them out.

But I don't think that way can possibly be to downplay the ecumenical councils, or to label some of them as "political" or part of a growing Roman heterodoxy.

Personally, I don't see any reason for anyone to be offended. There was no name-calling involved. I never called anyone the "M-word," for example.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2004, 10:29:17 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #76 on: January 08, 2004, 10:32:36 PM »

Linus

Maybe you didn't read this part of my post:

{(Just a note here but I am NOT saying any who have posted on this thread are "polemical bullies"!) }

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #77 on: January 08, 2004, 11:03:26 PM »

Linus

Maybe you didn't read this part of my post:

{(Just a note here but I am NOT saying any who have posted on this thread are "polemical bullies"!) }

Carpo-Rusyn

Yeah, I saw it, but since I am this thread's "bad guy" I didn't find that disclaimer very convincing (sorry) and felt the need to respond as I did.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #78 on: January 08, 2004, 11:13:39 PM »

By changing the Councils, you're changing the apostolic deposit of faith, what the Orthodox Church has always believed through her liturgy, and isn't a matter to be cliched away...and that's a rhetorical cheap shot by invoking ROAC. However, it is a good way to FUD (fear, uncertaintly, doubt) up the waters of discussion-a good way to discredit Linus.



Thanks, Boswell.

Well and succinctly put.

Schultz -

I know you were being somewhat facetious with the ROAC bit.

Everyone here knows I am not ROAC.

Some of them think I am a closet papist, but ROAC? Never!
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #79 on: January 08, 2004, 11:52:41 PM »

C'mon guys,

Its a new year, let's be a smidge more charitable towards one another, there is enough grief outside the OC Net family.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #80 on: January 09, 2004, 12:32:59 AM »

i second James.

It is depressing enough in the world as is.  We should be refuge from earthly cares here, at least somewhat, and get along charitably.
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #81 on: January 09, 2004, 02:03:45 AM »

Yes it is true, you could say this is our refuge from the outside world.

We must keep the OC Net familia peaceful, Capitan Roberto.

james
« Last Edit: January 09, 2004, 02:10:13 AM by Jakub » Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #82 on: January 09, 2004, 08:41:35 AM »

Personally, I don't see anything uncharitable about this thread.

Is it uncharitable to say that there are differences between the OO and the EO?

Why would someone be offended because such differences exist and are mentioned?
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #83 on: January 09, 2004, 02:13:23 PM »

I believe this thread has left the original topic, which was the cause of the East/West schism and primacy between Rome & Constantinople.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
gbmtmas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



« Reply #84 on: January 09, 2004, 09:50:52 PM »

Your church is OO, Peter. There are many points of departure between it and the Orthodox Church,

There may indeed be some differences between the EOs and OOs--and some complications of history; however, I would venture to say that we EOs and OOs are MUCH closer to each other than the EOs and the RCs!  

gbmtmas
Logged

+God Be Merciful To Me A Sinner (GBMTMAS)+
gbmtmas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



« Reply #85 on: January 09, 2004, 10:16:28 PM »

Really?

If that is true then Christ Himself has no authority!

How many people put His commands into "actual practice?"

Besides, you are assuming that the words of the bishops at Chalcedon were merely "ecclesial diplomacy," that they were somehow not serious about them.

I really don't understand this statement.  Subdeacon Peter argued (rightly IMO) that despite the flowery language displayed in some communications (such as the letter of the Synod of Chalcedon you quoted), the real punch is in the Church's practice/praxis.  How does your reply adequately respond to Peter's statement?  The fact that the Church continued to execute Canon 28, and reiterated it's validity in the Council of Trullo lays the axe to the root in the Eastern Church's true attitude regarding Pope Leo's rejection of that canon.  I do not see, in any fashion, how the praxis of the Church (contra the wishes of the Pope of Rome) can be analogous the failure to put the commands of Christ into actual practice.


Quote
I am not familiar enough with the other cases you cited to comment other than to say that authority cannot be judged by specific instances of disobedience.


This is not meant in a condescending manner in any way, shape or form...I really do mean this in a brotherly way: I would urge you.  I would implore you most earnestly to do some research if / when you can find the time.  A couple of interesting studies may be:

1) The Pascha controversy
2) The Stephen/Cyprianic controversy
3) The history of the execution of canon 28 of Chalcedon
4) The situation of Pope Vigilius/the Three Chapters/the 5th EC and the Church in the West
5) The situation of Pope Honorios and the 6th EC
6) The Pelagian controversy in N. Africa after the death of Pope Innocent I
7) The schism of Pope Nicholas against St. Photios

I'm sure there are more examples--as I've already seen briefly mentioned; however, the above-mentioned situations provide some fuel for a study in Church history where there was tension between the Church and the Pope of Old Rome.

gbmtmas
Logged

+God Be Merciful To Me A Sinner (GBMTMAS)+
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #86 on: January 09, 2004, 11:21:46 PM »

Linus

I didn't know you were this thread's "bad guy", it was no disclaimer.

I echo Jakub and the Commodore (shiver me timbers!) in their wishes to be more charitable.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #87 on: January 11, 2004, 10:23:42 PM »

Your church is OO, Peter. There are many points of departure between it and the Orthodox Church,

There may indeed be some differences between the EOs and OOs--and some complications of history; however, I would venture to say that we EOs and OOs are MUCH closer to each other than the EOs and the RCs!  

gbmtmas

There may be some differences?

I am not so sure that Eastern Orthodoxy is closer to Oriental Orthodoxy than it is to Roman Catholicism. I can think of at least four very substantial ways in which that is not true, not to mention the many more pre-Schism saints that the EOC has in common with the RCC than she has in common with the OOC.

It is interesting how the differences we have with the RCC are magnified while the differences we have with the OOC are downplayed.

If both are wrong, why is one preferable to the other?
« Last Edit: January 11, 2004, 11:10:39 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #88 on: January 11, 2004, 11:04:24 PM »

Quote
Linus7:
Really?

If that is true then Christ Himself has no authority!

How many people put His commands into "actual practice?"

Besides, you are assuming that the words of the bishops at Chalcedon were merely "ecclesial diplomacy," that they were somehow not serious about them.

Quote
gbtmas: I really don't understand this statement.  Subdeacon Peter argued (rightly IMO) that despite the flowery language displayed in some communications (such as the letter of the Synod of Chalcedon you quoted), the real punch is in the Church's practice/praxis.  How does your reply adequately respond to Peter's statement?

Well, if you had actually followed the argument, you would see that I was responding to Peter's assertion that because there are historical cases in which popes were ignored or disobeyed that proves they held no more than a primacy of honor.

My point was this: if authority is measured by obedience, then Christ Himself has very little if any authority because few people obey Him.

As I remarked at one point, if compliance is the measure of authority, then Stalin had more authority than Christ.

The words used by the bishops at Chalcedon were either true or they were not. "Flowery language" cannot account for the things they wrote about St. Leo. He was either St. Peter's successor or he was not. He was either "the head of all the churches" or he was not.

Quote
gbtmas: The fact that the Church continued to execute Canon 28, and reiterated it's validity in the Council of Trullo lays the axe to the root in the Eastern Church's true attitude regarding Pope Leo's rejection of that canon.  I do not see, in any fashion, how the praxis of the Church (contra the wishes of the Pope of Rome) can be analogous the failure to put the commands of Christ into actual practice.

How does Canon 28 or any of what you are calling "praxis" refute the idea that the bishops of Rome held more than a mere primacy of honor?

Only if you attribute little or no value to the many assertions of papal authority by the councils and Fathers can you arrive at the conclusion that the Church never recognized it.

It is a historical fact that there were conflicts in the Church.

Are those the rule?

Or are we to rely on the actual stated principles?

When Arius disobeyed Bishop St. Alexander, did that prove that Alexander had no authority over his presbyters?


Quote
Linus7:
I am not familiar enough with the other cases you cited to comment other than to say that authority cannot be judged by specific instances of disobedience.

Quote
gbtmas: This is not meant in a condescending manner in any way, shape or form...I really do mean this in a brotherly way: I would urge you.  I would implore you most earnestly to do some research if / when you can find the time.  A couple of interesting studies may be:

1) The Pascha controversy
2) The Stephen/Cyprianic controversy
3) The history of the execution of canon 28 of Chalcedon
4) The situation of Pope Vigilius/the Three Chapters/the 5th EC and the Church in the West
5) The situation of Pope Honorios and the 6th EC
6) The Pelagian controversy in N. Africa after the death of Pope Innocent I
7) The schism of Pope Nicholas against St. Photios

I'm sure there are more examples--as I've already seen briefly mentioned; however, the above-mentioned situations provide some fuel for a study in Church history where there was tension between the Church and the Pope of Old Rome.

gbmtmas

I have read about those things.

My response to Peter was not a confession of complete ignorance.

I've read Whelton's Two Paths: Papal Monarchy or Collegial Tradition twice. I am familiar with its arguments. I have also read some other anti-RCC Orthodox books.

It is interesting how central the pope's role seems to have been in the history of the Church.

Why is that?

If his primacy was merely honorific, why worry about what he thought?

Why ask him to hear appeals or resolve disputes?

Why pay any more attention to one of his letters than to those of any other bishop?

Why be concerned about when he celebrated Pascha?



« Last Edit: January 12, 2004, 12:52:22 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
gbmtmas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



« Reply #89 on: January 14, 2004, 09:47:24 PM »

Well, if you had actually followed the argument, you would see that I was responding to Peter's assertion that because there are historical cases in which popes were ignored or disobeyed that proves they held no more than a primacy of honor.

My point was this: if authority is measured by obedience, then Christ Himself has very little if any authority because few people obey Him.

As I remarked at one point, if compliance is the measure of authority, then Stalin had more authority than Christ.

The words used by the bishops at Chalcedon were either true or they were not. "Flowery language" cannot account for the things they wrote about St. Leo. He was either St. Peter's successor or he was not. He was either "the head of all the churches" or he was not.How does Canon 28 or any of what you are calling "praxis" refute the idea that the bishops of Rome held more than a mere primacy of honor?

The problem that I have with your statement is threefold:

1) You should perhaps refrain from putting words in my mouth that I did not utter (“How does Canon 28 or any of what you are calling "praxis" refute the idea that the bishops of Rome held more than a mere primacy of honor”).  My view of the primacy that the Roman Catholic Papacy held is more akin to the Orthodox Fathers of the 12th through 15th centuries, rather than that of modern polemicists.

2) I have no idea what your view of the Roman Papacy is.  After having read all of this thread, it seems that you don’t agree with some of the conclusions of “Orthodox anti-RCC polemicists”, while at the same time you seem to have indicated that the current Roman Catholic claims regarding their Papacy are perhaps exaggerated.  Yet, in this entire thread, I have not seen your view of the Roman Catholic Papacy articulated - except in a context of what you don’t believe.  Perhaps you could share what, precisely you believe regarding the Roman Catholic Papacy, it’s relation to St. Peter, your understanding of primacy, and perhaps what you agree/disagree with Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

3) I do not consider a supplicatory letter to be grounds enough to establish a dogma on its own.  The words (read authoritative) of canon 28 clearly explain the basis upon which the Council Fathers were allocating a secondary primacy to New Rome and why Old Rome maintained its position as “first.”  Canon 28 was affirmed by the Fathers of Chalcedon—despite the protestations of Pope Leo the Great.  Furthermore, canon 28 was reaffirmed in the Council of Trullo, which holds canonical weight in the East.  Thus, I continue to have difficulty viewing the Church’s execution of canon 28 as indicative of any incongruence with her authentic Tradition.

 
Quote
It is a historical fact that there were conflicts in the Church.

Canon 28 wasn’t a “conflict” in the Church.  It was a canon of an Ecumenical Council, issued by Fathers of that Council.  Again, this canon was reaffirmed by the Council of Trullo.  This is hardly “conflict” - in terms of disobedience against a legitimate authority.

Quote
Or are we to rely on the actual stated principles?

I would say that the issuance and execution of the canons of the Ecumenical Councils qualify as “stated principles.”  I would say that the anathema of the 6th EC is most definitely a “state principle.”  I would say that the 5th EC’s condemnation of the Three Chapters is a “stated principle” against heresy—and Pope Vigilius’ initial opposition to this condemnation, which led to his name being struck from the diptychs is a “stated principle.”

Quote
When Arius disobeyed Bishop St. Alexander, did that prove that Alexander had no authority over his presbyters?I have read about those things.

Was Pope Liberius’ waffling on Semi-Arianism deserving of obedience, or was Hilary of Poitiers quite correct in anathematizing the Pope for his temporary fluctuation?
Who was correct—Vigilius, or the 5th EC?  Ultimately, the 5th EC won the battle against the Three Chapters.
Should the Church have simply followed the lead of Pyrrhus and Honorius, or was the 6th EC correct in execrating their memory?
Should Photius the Great have simply acquiesced to the wishes of Pope Nicholas?  In the end, Photius was vindicated in what is regarded as the 8th EC in the Orthodox Church (879 AD).

 
Quote
I've read Whelton's Two Paths: Papal Monarchy or Collegial Tradition twice. I am familiar with its arguments. I have also read some other anti-RCC Orthodox books.

If this is all you have read, then I would highly recommend reading more scholarly books, and avoiding polemicists (both Orthodox and Roman Catholic).  If you wish, I will be more than happy to provide you with a decent list of books.  

Quote
It is interesting how central the pope's role seems to have been in the history of the Church.  Why is that?

He was the bishop of the imperial city of the empire—a metropolis and large center of activity.  At the same time, his see was a (not “the only”) successor of St. Peter.

Quote
If his primacy was merely honorific, why worry about what he thought?

You need to define what you mean by “merely honorific.”  

Quote
Why ask him to hear appeals or resolve disputes?

Because, according to the canons, the bishop in a metropolitan see can hear appeals under certain, defined conditions.

Quote
Why pay any more attention to one of his letters than to those of any other bishop?

Generally speaking, I would venture to say that a letter from an Orthodox Pope of Old Rome is most certainly not held in higher esteem that a letter written by Orthodox Ignatius, also the successor of Peter, but in Antioch.  However, if you are referring to Pope Leo’s Tomos, then it is evident, from a perusal of the Council minutes, that the Chalcedonian Fathers accepted the Tomos on its orthodox merit.


Logged

+God Be Merciful To Me A Sinner (GBMTMAS)+
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.136 seconds with 72 queries.