OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 12:46:17 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: My view changed despite my efforts  (Read 5545 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #45 on: December 01, 2009, 08:55:25 PM »

Blatant subordinationism.

And blasphemous to claim such knowledge.
Huh
You guys and your exagerated objections.   Cheesy
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 626


militantsparrow
« Reply #46 on: December 01, 2009, 11:07:02 PM »

The bolded part is circular reasoning at its most basic. Rome didn't even claim that for itself for hundreds of years; but allow it to grab for power in a particular political/cultural context, give the mechanism of "do whatever a Pope wants to" a neat Latin name, and you have created a whole new thing, unchecked and unimpeachable. If you don't like it or it is in complete conflict with orthodoxy, reference an "organic evolution and continuous revelation" and 90% of people will swallow it.  And even if Rome did have the special task of holding the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" together, it certainly did a piss poor job of it and blew out apostolic sees purely in the name of its own authority- that is the tail wagging the dog.

Sorry, but it pains me.

Wow! Android, I did not mean to upset you. Nor was I trying to give a defense of Catholicism. Like I stated earlier, I really didn't want to start making these intellectual arguments just yet. My post which you referenced was simply me trying to give my reasoning from a very high level.

With that said, however, I believe Papist and others have answered your comment about circular reasoning.

I don't think its a fair statement to say that Rome did a "piss poor" job of holding together the Church. Sure the Catholic Church has it's fair share of stains, but so too does the Orthodox Church. If you believe the Orthodox Church is the original ancient Church then it would seem the OC failed to hold the church together perfectly as well. It lost the Assyrian Church, the Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholicism.

My point is that neither the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church have spotless records which we can use as a gage to determine who is the true church. Both, however, are still around and many of the leaders of both Churches are trying to bring them back together again. I think this is necessary and important. Mudslinging by either side is not going to help anything. That's what broke the two apart so many years ago.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2009, 11:19:18 PM by militantsparrow » Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 626


militantsparrow
« Reply #47 on: December 01, 2009, 11:14:39 PM »

I really hate being "put into the position" of having to sound like I'm denigrating St. Peter. I believe he was "chief of the apostles", a great leader, great bishop, great Saint, etc., and I believe that the See of Rome could be prime among the patriarchates....but, supremacy, universal jurisdiction, infallibility? No. Instituted by Christ? Come on.

Android,
Why did Rome have a place of primacy? Why did the patriarchates have a place of primacy? Why was Constantinople elevated to second in primacy only after Rome?
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,581



« Reply #48 on: December 02, 2009, 12:15:44 AM »

Quote
My view changed despite my efforts

I know the feeling Smiley Funny how things turn out sometimes.
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #49 on: December 02, 2009, 03:09:26 AM »

Blatant subordinationism.

And blasphemous to claim such knowledge.
Huh
You guys and your exagerated objections.   Cheesy

Quote
What then is Procession?  Do you tell me what is the Unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us go mad for prying into the mystery of God. And who are we to do these things, we who cannot even see what lies at our feet, or number the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days of Eternity, much less enter into the Depths of God, and supply an account of that Nature which is so unspeakable and transcending all words?
-St. Gregory the Theologian, Fifth Theological Oration, On the Holy Spirit

Honorius probably thought those people fussing about two wills were 'exagerating' as well.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2009, 03:12:25 AM by witega » Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #50 on: December 02, 2009, 03:21:15 AM »

I really hate being "put into the position" of having to sound like I'm denigrating St. Peter. I believe he was "chief of the apostles", a great leader, great bishop, great Saint, etc., and I believe that the See of Rome could be prime among the patriarchates....but, supremacy, universal jurisdiction, infallibility? No. Instituted by Christ? Come on.

Android,
Why did Rome have a place of primacy?


St. Ireneus says its because it had maintained the apostolic tradition--which was very true in 180 A.D. when he was writing. And in 500 A.D. Not so much in the last millenia.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #51 on: December 02, 2009, 03:31:58 AM »

I'm having difficulty reconciling Papist's POV with the Council of Florence on this matter. I thought that the filioque may have been just a disagreement on semantics between east and west, but judging by the statement at the CoF it seems to be bigger than that; they seem to be implying that the Holy Spirit proceeds simultaneously from the Father and the Son. Sorry to bring this off topic.  Perhaps we could branch this off into a separate thread, because I would like to continue discussing this if possible.  police
« Last Edit: December 02, 2009, 03:32:27 AM by Ortho_cat » Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #52 on: December 02, 2009, 06:33:48 AM »

I'm having difficulty reconciling Papist's POV with the Council of Florence on this matter. I thought that the filioque may have been just a disagreement on semantics between east and west, but judging by the statement at the CoF it seems to be bigger than that; they seem to be implying that the Holy Spirit proceeds simultaneously from the Father and the Son. Sorry to bring this off topic.  Perhaps we could branch this off into a separate thread, because I would like to continue discussing this if possible.  police

The filioque wasn't necessarily a mere theological dispute, but must be placed in it's proper context of the times.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
android
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GO Archdiocese of America- Southeast US
Posts: 158


« Reply #53 on: December 02, 2009, 11:09:52 AM »

The bolded part is circular reasoning at its most basic. Rome didn't even claim that for itself for hundreds of years; but allow it to grab for power in a particular political/cultural context, give the mechanism of "do whatever a Pope wants to" a neat Latin name, and you have created a whole new thing, unchecked and unimpeachable. If you don't like it or it is in complete conflict with orthodoxy, reference an "organic evolution and continuous revelation" and 90% of people will swallow it.  And even if Rome did have the special task of holding the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" together, it certainly did a piss poor job of it and blew out apostolic sees purely in the name of its own authority- that is the tail wagging the dog.

Sorry, but it pains me.

Wow! Android, I did not mean to upset you. Nor was I trying to give a defense of Catholicism. Like I stated earlier, I really didn't want to start making these intellectual arguments just yet. My post which you referenced was simply me trying to give my reasoning from a very high level.

With that said, however, I believe Papist and others have answered your comment about circular reasoning.

I don't think its a fair statement to say that Rome did a "piss poor" job of holding together the Church. Sure the Catholic Church has it's fair share of stains, but so too does the Orthodox Church. If you believe the Orthodox Church is the original ancient Church then it would seem the OC failed to hold the church together perfectly as well. It lost the Assyrian Church, the Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholicism.

My point is that neither the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church have spotless records which we can use as a gage to determine who is the true church. Both, however, are still around and many of the leaders of both Churches are trying to bring them back together again. I think this is necessary and important. Mudslinging by either side is not going to help anything. That's what broke the two apart so many years ago.

You didn't upset me, per se, but I can't read something heartfelt from someone like that, who has made the hasty decision you have, and not feel "pained" a bit.

Let's be honest, your draw to Orthodoxy occurred over a period of time. Presumably, prayer and contemplation accompanied that period of your life. Then, ALL OF THE SUDDEN, the scales are lifted and everything is okay.

I've felt that before- not just with faith, but relationships, work, political views, etc. There is a natural psychological desire to resolve confusion by submitting to the status quo- for you, in this case, that means submission to Rome.

I'll be honest- I can read the "keys to the kingdom" verse 100 times and, depending on my mood and a variety of factors, I can think either way about it. Sometimes, it seems clear to me that Jesus was speaking to Peter as the rock, other times, it seems clear to me that Jesus was making a statement about Peter's faith. More often than not, it seems clear to me that Christ was trying to draw a correct answer out of Peter and make it an example- "I will build my church out of people who believe that I am the Son of God".  When read in the context of the other encounters with Peter (Peter falling in the water for lack of faith, Christ predicting Peter's thrice denial at the Last Supper, etc.) it seems clear the Christ loved Peter, but infallibility and control over Christ's church and fellow apostles CLEARLY wasn't part of the calculus.

Regardless, the point is that reading that (and other verses) and "going with what feels right" is a classic Protestant trap, egged on by sola scriptura. When something "feels right", it's not time to give into it, wipe our brow and be glad our time of troubles and confusion is over. It usually means we are giving in to our natural inclinations, which we know aren't always our allies.  Discomfort and struggle are a more constant Christian companion than clarity and steely resolve-- at least for those who are at the spiritual stage you seem to be at (I should know, I'm where you are, if not steps behind).

And, I don't think Papist answered my question/comment at all, and I made a bunch of other points that Papist and others have ignored.

Message boards are horrible in conveying tone- so I'm sorry this sounds more blunt and "jerky" than I intend. However, we are on an Orthodox board and when people say they believe infallibility/supremacy of Peter (which again, somehow translates to his being bishop of rome, still not a clear connection) was "instituted by Christ" and willingly accept the idea that the Pope is infallible I feel like I must stand and be counted.

Regarding primacy- the status of Rome as an imperial city, coupled with the martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul, accorded Rome a special place, one that would translate to performing ceremonial tasks to open/close synods, or hear appeals, etc.  You can read Scripture and the Fathers/Councils harmoniously and conclude that Jerusalem was special, Constantinople was special, Rome was very special- but that all bishops benefit from Apostolic Succession (duh), that the pentarchy and conciliar approach to resolving disputes is correct (as instituted by Acts), and that relative honor among the Sees does not translate to theological, jurisdictional and dogmatic superiority. Why is that so hard?
Logged
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 626


militantsparrow
« Reply #54 on: December 02, 2009, 08:08:00 PM »

Android,
This will be my last attempt at explaining my position before I move on from this thread. All I wanted to do was to be honest with everyone and let them know where I stood. But it appears I have ruffled some feathers and mine are beginning to be ruffled as well.

You didn't upset me, per se, but I can't read something heartfelt from someone like that, who has made the hasty decision you have, and not feel "pained" a bit.

My decision wasn't hasty.

Quote
Let's be honest, your draw to Orthodoxy occurred over a period of time. Presumably, prayer and contemplation accompanied that period of your life. Then, ALL OF THE SUDDEN, the scales are lifted and everything is okay.

Yes. But it's not as if my being drawn to Orthodoxy was without purpose. I've learned a great deal about the Eastern and Oriental Churches as well as the once unbroken ancient church. And besides, maybe God's just giving me a break for now. I could wake up next month and be right back to being drawn towards Orthodoxy. But for now I am very comfortable being Catholic and that's not an easy thing to do.

Quote
I've felt that before- not just with faith, but relationships, work, political views, etc. There is a natural psychological desire to resolve confusion by submitting to the status quo- for you, in this case, that means submission to Rome.

This is certainly a possibility. I was torn apart inside over the thought I would have to change faiths and leave my church. But staying Catholic isn't a walk in the park either. There are many truths about the Catholic church which turn my stomach and I simply cannot defend.

Quote
I'll be honest- I can read the "keys to the kingdom" verse 100 times and, depending on my mood and a variety of factors, I can think either way about it.

I've never seen it as anything but Christ referring to Peter as the Rock because of his faith. I don't see how it could be interpreted any differently.

Quote
Regardless, the point is that reading that (and other verses) and "going with what feels right" is a classic Protestant trap, egged on by sola scriptura. When something "feels right", it's not time to give into it, wipe our brow and be glad our time of troubles and confusion is over. It usually means we are giving in to our natural inclinations, which we know aren't always our allies.  Discomfort and struggle are a more constant Christian companion than clarity and steely resolve-- at least for those who are at the spiritual stage you seem to be at (I should know, I'm where you are, if not steps behind).

I agree with you. But I did not choose what felt right. If I did, I would be an Orthodox catechumen by now. Orthodoxy still "feels" more right to me.

Quote
And, I don't think Papist answered my question/comment at all, and I made a bunch of other points that Papist and others have ignored.

Ok. I was not trying to reason the validity of papal infallibility. I was trying to juxtapose the notion held by many Orthodox (that they know Orthodoxy is true because it is orthodox) against the view I hold (that I know what is orthodox because I believe the Catholic Church is tasked with maintaining orthodoxy). But with that said, and as Papist and others have said, both the Catholic and Orthodox points of view fall under circular reasoning.

Quote
Message boards are horrible in conveying tone- so I'm sorry this sounds more blunt and "jerky" than I intend. However, we are on an Orthodox board and when people say they believe infallibility/supremacy of Peter (which again, somehow translates to his being bishop of rome, still not a clear connection) was "instituted by Christ" and willingly accept the idea that the Pope is infallible I feel like I must stand and be counted.

Fair enough.

Quote
Regarding primacy- the status of Rome as an imperial city, coupled with the martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul, accorded Rome a special place, one that would translate to performing ceremonial tasks to open/close synods, or hear appeals, etc.  You can read Scripture and the Fathers/Councils harmoniously and conclude that Jerusalem was special, Constantinople was special, Rome was very special- but that all bishops benefit from Apostolic Succession (duh), that the pentarchy and conciliar approach to resolving disputes is correct (as instituted by Acts), and that relative honor among the Sees does not translate to theological, jurisdictional and dogmatic superiority. Why is that so hard?

Every Catholic who supports the idea of Rome's universal jurisdiction has just as many quotes from scripture and church fathers to support their point of view as do Orthodox for their point of view. If the answer was as obvious as you suggest everyone would belong to the same church--at least those who want to be in the right one.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2009, 08:11:38 PM by militantsparrow » Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 626


militantsparrow
« Reply #55 on: December 02, 2009, 08:45:11 PM »

I'm having difficulty reconciling Papist's POV with the Council of Florence on this matter. I thought that the filioque may have been just a disagreement on semantics between east and west, but judging by the statement at the CoF it seems to be bigger than that; they seem to be implying that the Holy Spirit proceeds simultaneously from the Father and the Son. Sorry to bring this off topic.  Perhaps we could branch this off into a separate thread, because I would like to continue discussing this if possible.  police

Ortho_cat,
I'd be interested in furthering discussion on this point as well. If you do start another thread, would you be so kind as to send me a PM?

Thank you.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #56 on: December 02, 2009, 09:56:07 PM »

I'm having difficulty reconciling Papist's POV with the Council of Florence on this matter. I thought that the filioque may have been just a disagreement on semantics between east and west, but judging by the statement at the CoF it seems to be bigger than that; they seem to be implying that the Holy Spirit proceeds simultaneously from the Father and the Son. Sorry to bring this off topic.  Perhaps we could branch this off into a separate thread, because I would like to continue discussing this if possible.  police
Your perspective is interesting to me because I think that my view is the view of council of Florence. At leasts that's how I understand it given that the council states that "through" the Son and "From" the Son mean the same thing.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #57 on: December 02, 2009, 09:57:17 PM »



Honorius probably thought those people fussing about two wills were 'exagerating' as well.
If that was his opinion then he was wrong.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #58 on: December 03, 2009, 02:43:10 AM »

I'm having difficulty reconciling Papist's POV with the Council of Florence on this matter. I thought that the filioque may have been just a disagreement on semantics between east and west, but judging by the statement at the CoF it seems to be bigger than that; they seem to be implying that the Holy Spirit proceeds simultaneously from the Father and the Son. Sorry to bring this off topic.  Perhaps we could branch this off into a separate thread, because I would like to continue discussing this if possible.  police

Ortho_cat,
I'd be interested in furthering discussion on this point as well. If you do start another thread, would you be so kind as to send me a PM?

Thank you.
I was going to start a new thread, but I did a forum search on past topics regarding the filioque and I found a plethora of them.  I will fish through them for a while and see if I can't find my answers there first.

« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 02:45:35 AM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Tags: That Irenaeus quote 
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.09 seconds with 41 queries.