OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 23, 2014, 10:58:10 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 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church  (Read 39502 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #450 on: December 15, 2010, 12:35:23 AM »

It is said that Orthodox do not listen to their hierarchs. Hierarchs cite Berdyaev and praise his theory of creative act. Central to this theory is the dignity of the human person, which is the centre of the Christianity of the future. Every person possesses his dignity and calling them "trash" is libel.
No, it's not libel. It's just supremely insulting. Sad
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #451 on: December 15, 2010, 01:26:56 AM »

Atrocities against Roman Catholics in modern day Russia

A forum member has just sent me this video clip with the message...

"you want cases of orthodox hate against catholics? I give you this example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7esUOmVB8U8

Do others see this as Orthodox hatred for Roman Catholics?


Why don't you talk about what the Serbs did to the Croats in their imperial expansionist activities
You meant when they guarded the Ottoman March of the Austro-Hungarian Empire?

Twist and Shout!!
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #452 on: December 15, 2010, 01:50:13 PM »

I have the utmost respect for the Eastern Orthodox Church, and would never think to proselytize an Eastern Orthodox Christian precisely because I recognize their Church as a valid Church. What I like to see more than anything though is an EO Christian who practices their faith out of love for Eastern Orthodoxy, not simply out of hate of the RCC.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,771


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #453 on: December 15, 2010, 03:46:23 PM »

I have the utmost respect for the Eastern Orthodox Church, and would never think to proselytize an Eastern Orthodox Christian precisely because I recognize their Church as a valid Church. What I like to see more than anything though is an EO Christian who practices their faith out of love for Eastern Orthodoxy, not simply out of hate of the RCC.

While I do not personally share the strong views of some posters,which upset you (rightly so IMHO), I have to defend them against your remark. While they may have justifiably fierce opposition to the institution of the Papacy  and its historical actions (particularly with respect to the unholy merger of temporal power and spiritual authority within the Holy See from the dark ages through the post-Enlightenment era) and to certain of the dogmatic differences that separate us, you are being extremely judgmental in your brash statement that their faith is motivated only by what you choose to call 'hate of the RCC.'

From personal experience, I have to point out that while time has healed many of the wounds caused to my family and the Greek Catholic community by the arrogance, indifference and hubris of Rome and having lived among parishes and  people who suffered greatly and lost much that was dear to them in the process, I fully understand the bitterness and hard feelings that many Orthodox retain. That being said, many Greek Catholics never viewed themselves during their time in the Unia as not acting out of love for their Church and when they were betrayed by the leaders of the Church, they recognized that returning to canonical Orthodoxy was the only way to preserve their traditions and honor that very Faith. Likewise, I know that those who remained Greek Catholic believed the same, only in reverse. This was true despite decades of extremely heated and vitriolic rhetoric from both sides that is preserved in the journals and publications of that time. So...do not dare to judge the basis of any man or woman's faith.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #454 on: December 15, 2010, 04:09:50 PM »

I have the utmost respect for the Eastern Orthodox Church, and would never think to proselytize an Eastern Orthodox Christian precisely because I recognize their Church as a valid Church. What I like to see more than anything though is an EO Christian who practices their faith out of love for Eastern Orthodoxy, not simply out of hate of the RCC.

While I do not personally share the strong views of some posters,which upset you (rightly so IMHO), I have to defend them against your remark. While they may have justifiably fierce opposition to the institution of the Papacy  and its historical actions (particularly with respect to the unholy merger of temporal power and spiritual authority within the Holy See from the dark ages through the post-Enlightenment era) and to certain of the dogmatic differences that separate us, you are being extremely judgmental in your brash statement that their faith is motivated only by what you choose to call 'hate of the RCC.'

From personal experience, I have to point out that while time has healed many of the wounds caused to my family and the Greek Catholic community by the arrogance, indifference and hubris of Rome and having lived among parishes and  people who suffered greatly and lost much that was dear to them in the process, I fully understand the bitterness and hard feelings that many Orthodox retain. That being said, many Greek Catholics never viewed themselves during their time in the Unia as not acting out of love for their Church and when they were betrayed by the leaders of the Church, they recognized that returning to canonical Orthodoxy was the only way to preserve their traditions and honor that very Faith. Likewise, I know that those who remained Greek Catholic believed the same, only in reverse. This was true despite decades of extremely heated and vitriolic rhetoric from both sides that is preserved in the journals and publications of that time. So...do not dare to judge the basis of any man or woman's faith.

Thank you for your charity and your keen eye for human strengths as well as our frailties.  Thank you for everything that you have said here!!

Mary
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #455 on: December 16, 2010, 08:27:33 AM »

* b u m p *

I thought I would bump this thread so that Papist and others have a place to speak about Orthodox atrocities against Roman Catholics.

I bumped this thread so that Catholics would be able to justify their repeated claims in another thread of Orthodox persecution and slaughter.

So far there is a bit of a deafening silence.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #456 on: December 16, 2010, 09:29:00 AM »

(as with all my posts, please correct me where you think I'm wrong)

Podkarpatska reminded me of this.

In the west, the Church claimed the power (more so during the middle ages) over state governments in terns if being able to appoint and depose state leaders, as well as influence policy. In the east, it appears the "emperor" or other state governments were given some power over the Church.

If this is an accurate view, it seems that the west made it's position best favorable to the Church, to ensure less influence on outside (not clerical or spiritual) forces acting on Church policy and theology.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #457 on: December 16, 2010, 09:45:53 AM »

(as with all my posts, please correct me where you think I'm wrong)

Podkarpatska reminded me of this.

In the west, the Church claimed the power (more so during the middle ages) over state governments in terns if being able to appoint and depose state leaders, as well as influence policy. In the east, it appears the "emperor" or other state governments were given some power over the Church.

If this is an accurate view, it seems that the west made it's position best favorable to the Church, to ensure less influence on outside (not clerical or spiritual) forces acting on Church policy and theology.

This claimed freedom from the secular powers can be a bit of a myth fostered by Westerners.

See message 6 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29465.msg465634/topicseen.html#msg465634
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #458 on: December 16, 2010, 10:00:17 AM »

(as with all my posts, please correct me where you think I'm wrong)

Podkarpatska reminded me of this.

In the west, the Church claimed the power (more so during the middle ages) over state governments in terns if being able to appoint and depose state leaders, as well as influence policy. In the east, it appears the "emperor" or other state governments were given some power over the Church.

If this is an accurate view, it seems that the west made it's position best favorable to the Church, to ensure less influence on outside (not clerical or spiritual) forces acting on Church policy and theology.

This claimed freedom from the secular powers can be a bit of a myth fostered by Westerners.

See message 6 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29465.msg465634/topicseen.html#msg465634


If secular powers could appoint the local bishops, how do we know the faith was truly preserved, and not at the whim of the local secular authority? Isn't that the claim with what happened in the west when the Normans appointed the Pope? The Normans had a different theological focus than the Eastern powers?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #459 on: December 16, 2010, 10:30:13 AM »

....What I like to see more than anything though is an EO Christian who practices their faith out of love for Eastern Orthodoxy, not simply out of hate of the RCC.

I go days on end without ever thinking about relations between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, and I work and live in milieus with many Roman Catholics.  I certainly don`t hate them or their Church.   Roll Eyes  Maybe you need to take a break from the computer sometimes.  You know, go for a walk in a park or go and see a movie or something.  In fact, many of us participating on this forum might be well advised to try and do the same thing once in a while.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 638


militantsparrow
« Reply #460 on: December 16, 2010, 10:38:25 AM »

I love the Orthodox Churches. I love the hierarchs, priests, and laity I've met. I love their writings, approach to spirituality and etc. (pardon the Latin  Wink
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,771


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #461 on: December 16, 2010, 10:46:21 AM »

(as with all my posts, please correct me where you think I'm wrong)

Podkarpatska reminded me of this.

In the west, the Church claimed the power (more so during the middle ages) over state governments in terns if being able to appoint and depose state leaders, as well as influence policy. In the east, it appears the "emperor" or other state governments were given some power over the Church.

If this is an accurate view, it seems that the west made it's position best favorable to the Church, to ensure less influence on outside (not clerical or spiritual) forces acting on Church policy and theology.

This claimed freedom from the secular powers can be a bit of a myth fostered by Westerners.

See message 6 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29465.msg465634/topicseen.html#msg465634


If secular powers could appoint the local bishops, how do we know the faith was truly preserved, and not at the whim of the local secular authority? Isn't that the claim with what happened in the west when the Normans appointed the Pope? The Normans had a different theological focus than the Eastern powers?

I know that this is going off topic, but throughoug history, the East has its fair share of civil authorities either overtly interfering with the electin of, or outright 'appointing' Bishops and even Patriarchs. For example, in today's Russia, would it be realistic to expect that the Church could select a new Primate who did not have the 'blessing' if you will, of the secular government? As a counterpoint, in the west would any government really care who was the head of any particular church? (I know that some leaders could be a 'burr' in the side of a particular government, but would a western government 'care' in the sense that one thinks that the Russian government might 'care'.) Just a thought.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #462 on: December 16, 2010, 11:38:54 AM »

(as with all my posts, please correct me where you think I'm wrong)

Podkarpatska reminded me of this.

In the west, the Church claimed the power (more so during the middle ages) over state governments in terns if being able to appoint and depose state leaders, as well as influence policy. In the east, it appears the "emperor" or other state governments were given some power over the Church.

If this is an accurate view, it seems that the west made it's position best favorable to the Church, to ensure less influence on outside (not clerical or spiritual) forces acting on Church policy and theology.

This claimed freedom from the secular powers can be a bit of a myth fostered by Westerners.

See message 6 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29465.msg465634/topicseen.html#msg465634


If secular powers could appoint the local bishops, how do we know the faith was truly preserved, and not at the whim of the local secular authority?

Because the Catholic Church world wide saw to it.  Unlike the Vatican, no one bishop speaks for the Church.


Quote
Isn't that the claim with what happened in the west when the Normans appointed the Pope? The Normans had a different theological focus than the Eastern powers?
The Normans/Franks/Saxons expoused heresy, and forced the pope of Rome to fully implement it.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2010, 11:50:29 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #463 on: December 16, 2010, 11:55:01 AM »

(as with all my posts, please correct me where you think I'm wrong)

Podkarpatska reminded me of this.

In the west, the Church claimed the power (more so during the middle ages) over state governments in terns if being able to appoint and depose state leaders, as well as influence policy. In the east, it appears the "emperor" or other state governments were given some power over the Church.

If this is an accurate view, it seems that the west made it's position best favorable to the Church, to ensure less influence on outside (not clerical or spiritual) forces acting on Church policy and theology.
Though that describes the situation under Pope Innocent III, it does not describe the situation during the Pornocratia, the Avignon papacy, the Age of Englightenment (when absolute monarchs dictated to the hiearchy within their realm), etc. Somewhere here I posted the legal control the Habsburgs exercised over the Vatican by the power of Placet.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #464 on: December 19, 2010, 01:39:54 PM »

I go days on end without ever thinking about relations between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, and I work and live in milieus with many Roman Catholics.  I certainly don`t hate them or their Church.   Roll Eyes  Maybe you need to take a break from the computer sometimes.  You know, go for a walk in a park or go and see a movie or something.  In fact, many of us participating on this forum might be well advised to try and do the same thing once in a while.
You have a very valid point. The only problem is I honestly do not know any Eastern Orthodox Christians in real life. A friend of mine became Eastern Orthodox after moving away, but I only have contact with him through Facebook now. I was hoping to get a grasp of what Eastern Orthodoxy is all about by joining this forum, so hopefully you can see where my frustration comes from in this situation.
Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #465 on: December 28, 2010, 12:01:28 AM »

The Orthodox have apostolic succession and the seven sacraments. It is a defect that they are not in communion with Rome, as it harms the catholicity of the Church, but Orthodox faith is perfectly valid for salvation.

The Orthodox often feel that the Catholic is the "ruler" over the western Church or that Catholics would have the Pope "Speak for everyone". They make much of the doctrine of Papal infallibility. This is not the case. The Pope, as the head of the College of Bishops, has the authority to issue a dogmatic definition of the Magisterium. In this case, the infallibility which inheres in the Magisterium ensures the truth of the definition. The Pope cannot introduce new dogmas in this manner, he can only offer definitions of dogmas already held by the Magisterium.

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #466 on: January 03, 2011, 08:26:43 PM »

The Orthodox have apostolic succession and the seven sacraments. It is a defect that they are not in communion with Rome, as it harms the catholicity of the Church, but Orthodox faith is perfectly valid for salvation.

The Orthodox often feel that the Catholic is the "ruler" over the western Church or that Catholics would have the Pope "Speak for everyone". They make much of the doctrine of Papal infallibility. This is not the case. The Pope, as the head of the College of Bishops, has the authority to issue a dogmatic definition of the Magisterium. In this case, the infallibility which inheres in the Magisterium ensures the truth of the definition. The Pope cannot introduce new dogmas in this manner, he can only offer definitions of dogmas already held by the Magisterium.
This is a very good post.

Really, as a Catholic, I don't really think about the Pope all that much. That is not to say that he is not important or I don't respect him (because he is and I do) but there are a lot bigger aspects of the faith which I give more attention to. Namely the Eucharist, which the Catechism calls the "source and summit of the Christian life."
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #467 on: January 03, 2011, 10:17:08 PM »


The Orthodox have apostolic succession and the seven sacraments.


Around 14 really.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #468 on: January 04, 2011, 02:23:29 PM »


The Orthodox have apostolic succession and the seven sacraments.


Around 14 really.
What are the 14 EO Sacraments?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,183


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #469 on: January 04, 2011, 02:37:53 PM »


The Orthodox have apostolic succession and the seven sacraments.


Around 14 really.
What are the 14 EO Sacraments?

Yeah, that would be interesting to discuss. I can only think of 9...

1. Baptism
2. Chrismation
3. Communion
4. Confession
5. Holy Orders
6. Marriage
7. Holy Unction
8. Consecrating a church
9. Tonsuring a monk
Logged
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: AOCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #470 on: January 04, 2011, 02:39:09 PM »

We don't have just seven (or even fourteen) sacraments... We have unlimited sacraments (but we call them mysteries)...

We have a few that are prominent and very important to the Orthodox Christian life, but there are an innumerable number of mysteries/sacraments.
Logged
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 971



« Reply #471 on: January 04, 2011, 02:53:46 PM »


The Orthodox have apostolic succession and the seven sacraments.


Around 14 really.
What are the 14 EO Sacraments?

Yeah, that would be interesting to discuss. I can only think of 9...

1. Baptism
2. Chrismation
3. Communion
4. Confession
5. Holy Orders
6. Marriage
7. Holy Unction
8. Consecrating a church
9. Tonsuring a monk

Blessing of water, blessing of chrism, service of burial...
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,183


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #472 on: January 04, 2011, 03:05:45 PM »

Took me a moment to find this, I couldn't remember where I had read it... it might be of interest regarding the current discussion...

Quote
Byzantine theology ignores the Western distinction between "sacraments" and "sacramentals," and never formally committed itself to any strict limitation of the number of sacraments. In the patristic period there was no technical term to designate "sacraments" as a specific category of church acts: the term mysterion was used primarily in the wider and general sense of "mystery of salvation," [2] and only in a subsidiary manner to designate the particular actions which bestow salvation. In this second sense, it was used concurrently with such terms as "rites" or "sanctifications." [3] Theodore the Studite in the ninth century gives a list of six sacraments: the holy "illumination" (baptism), the "synaxis" (Eucharist), the holy chrism, ordination, monastic tonsure, and the service of burial. [4] The doctrine of the "seven sacraments" appears for the first time--very charateristically--in the Profession of Faith required from Emperor Michael Paleologus by Pope Clement IV in 1267. [5] The Profession had been prepared, of course, by Latin theologians.

The obviously Western origin of this strict numbering of the sacraments did not prevent it from being widely accepted among Eastern Christians after the thirteenth century, even among those who fiercely rejected union with Rome. It seems that this acceptance resulted not so much from the influence of Latin theology as from the peculiarly medieval and Byzantine fascination with symbolic numbers: the number seven, in particular, evokaed an association with the seven gifts of the Spirit in Isaiah 11:2-4. But among Byzantine authors who accept the “seven sacraments,” we find different competing lists.

The monk Job (thirteenth century), author of a dissertation on the sacraments, includes monastic tonsure in the list, as did Theodore the Studite, but combines as one sacrament penance and the anointing of the sick. [6] Symeon of Thessalonica (fifteenth century) also admit’s the sacramental character of the monastic tonsure, but classifies it together with penance, [7] considering the anointing as a separate sacrament. Meanwhile, Joasaph, Metropolitan of Ephesus, a contemporary of Symeon’s, declares: “I believe that the sacraments of the Church are not seven, but more,” and he gives a list of ten, which includes the consecration of a church, the funeral service, and the monastic tonsure. [8]

Obviously, the Byzantine Church never committed itself formally to any specific list; many authors accept the standard series of seven sacraments--baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, holy orders, matrimony, penance, and the anointing of the sick--while others give a long list, and still others emphasize the exclusive and prominent importance of baptism and the Eucharist, the basic Christian initiation into “new life.” Thus Gregory Palamas proclaims that “in these two [sacraments], our whole salvation is rooted, sice the entire economy of the God-man is recapitulated in them.” [9] And Nicholas Cabasilas composes his famous book on The Life in Christ as a commentary on baptism, Chrismation, and the Eucharist.


[2] See, for example, Chrysostom, Hom. 7, 1 in 1 Cor.; PG 61:55.

[3] Chrysostom, Catecheses baptism ales, ed. A Wenger, Sources Chretiennes 50 (Paris: Cerf, 1957, II, 17, p. 143.

[4] Ep. II, 165; PG 99:1524B.

[5] G.M. Jugie, Theologia dogmatica Christianorum orientalium, III, (Paris, 1930), p. 16.

[6] Quoted by M. Jugie, ibid., pp. 17-18.

[7] De sacramentis, 52; PG 155:197A.

[8] Responsa canonica, ed. A.I. Almazov (Odessa, 1903), p. 38

[9] Hom. 60, ed. So Oikonomos (Athens, 1860), p. 250


--Fr. John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, (Fordham University Press, 1979), pp. 191-192
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #473 on: January 05, 2011, 12:31:51 AM »

Let us start counting some of the sacred things which we see as Mysteries....

1. Baptism

2. Chrismation

3. Eucharist

4. Confession

5. Crowning

6. Holy Orders

7. Prayer Oil

8. Tonsure (of monk or nun)

9. Blessing of Theophany Water (Agiasmo)

10. Consecration of Church

11. Anointing of Monarch

12. Funeral Absolution

13. .... ?
Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #474 on: January 05, 2011, 01:19:36 AM »

13. Prayers for the Dead

14. Exorcism

15. Relics


Let us start counting some of the sacred things which we see as Mysteries....

1. Baptism

2. Chrismation

3. Eucharist

4. Confession

5. Crowning

6. Holy Orders

7. Prayer Oil

8. Tonsure (of monk or nun)

9. Blessing of Theophany Water (Agiasmo)

10. Consecration of Church

11. Anointing of Monarch

12. Funeral Absolution

13. .... ?

Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #475 on: January 09, 2011, 04:04:35 PM »

In Orthodox sacramentology, does the taking of monastic tonsure by a married person negate the existence of the tonsured's marriage?
I have noticed in Tsarist statutes that one of the reasons for the dissolution of marriage is the acceptance of monastic tonsure. Does this belief still exist today?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #476 on: January 09, 2011, 04:30:30 PM »

In Orthodox sacramentology, does the taking of monastic tonsure by a married person negate the existence of the tonsured's marriage?
I have noticed in Tsarist statutes that one of the reasons for the dissolution of marriage is the acceptance of monastic tonsure. Does this belief still exist today?
What do you mean by "negate?"
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #477 on: January 10, 2011, 10:48:26 PM »

In Orthodox sacramentology, does the taking of monastic tonsure by a married person negate the existence of the tonsured's marriage?
I have noticed in Tsarist statutes that one of the reasons for the dissolution of marriage is the acceptance of monastic tonsure. Does this belief still exist today?

Seeing as how the monastic life and married life are viewed as two distinct and separate realities, I would imagine that accepting one from being in the other would dissolve the previously established one.
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
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,290


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #478 on: January 11, 2011, 01:09:28 PM »

In Orthodox sacramentology, does the taking of monastic tonsure by a married person negate the existence of the tonsured's marriage?
I have noticed in Tsarist statutes that one of the reasons for the dissolution of marriage is the acceptance of monastic tonsure. Does this belief still exist today?

Seeing as how the monastic life and married life are viewed as two distinct and separate realities, I would imagine that accepting one from being in the other would dissolve the previously established one.

I know someone who very recently left his family to become a Monk. Apparently the Bishop has allowed it.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #479 on: January 11, 2011, 01:21:40 PM »

In Orthodox sacramentology, does the taking of monastic tonsure by a married person negate the existence of the tonsured's marriage?
I have noticed in Tsarist statutes that one of the reasons for the dissolution of marriage is the acceptance of monastic tonsure. Does this belief still exist today?

Seeing as how the monastic life and married life are viewed as two distinct and separate realities, I would imagine that accepting one from being in the other would dissolve the previously established one.

I know someone who very recently left his family to become a Monk. Apparently the Bishop has allowed it.
Then he should be deposed.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,473


« Reply #480 on: January 11, 2011, 01:29:04 PM »

In Orthodox sacramentology, does the taking of monastic tonsure by a married person negate the existence of the tonsured's marriage?
I have noticed in Tsarist statutes that one of the reasons for the dissolution of marriage is the acceptance of monastic tonsure. Does this belief still exist today?

Seeing as how the monastic life and married life are viewed as two distinct and separate realities, I would imagine that accepting one from being in the other would dissolve the previously established one.

I know someone who very recently left his family to become a Monk. Apparently the Bishop has allowed it.
Then he should be deposed.
I know about one Priest who did that to become a Bishop.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #481 on: January 11, 2011, 01:45:19 PM »

In Orthodox sacramentology, does the taking of monastic tonsure by a married person negate the existence of the tonsured's marriage?
I have noticed in Tsarist statutes that one of the reasons for the dissolution of marriage is the acceptance of monastic tonsure. Does this belief still exist today?

Seeing as how the monastic life and married life are viewed as two distinct and separate realities, I would imagine that accepting one from being in the other would dissolve the previously established one.

I know someone who very recently left his family to become a Monk. Apparently the Bishop has allowed it.
Then he should be deposed.
I know about one Priest who did that to become a Bishop.
Ditto.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #482 on: January 11, 2011, 02:08:18 PM »

Leaving one's family to become a monastic is not unheard of.  I met a monk who retired from his job and, with his wife's blessing, left her his pension and home to live the monastic life.  As long as the family is cared for and the spouse agrees, it is not a problem.

It should not be used as a means of escaping debts or responsibilities.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,771


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #483 on: January 11, 2011, 04:14:37 PM »

Leaving one's family to become a monastic is not unheard of.  I met a monk who retired from his job and, with his wife's blessing, left her his pension and home to live the monastic life.  As long as the family is cared for and the spouse agrees, it is not a problem.

It should not be used as a means of escaping debts or responsibilities.


In today's world, it would be wrong, from my point of view, for one to leave one's family for the monastic life if one's children were still in their minority. I really could have no respect for a man who would do so to become a Bishop.
Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #484 on: January 11, 2011, 05:26:35 PM »

In Orthodox sacramentology, does the taking of monastic tonsure by a married person negate the existence of the tonsured's marriage?
I have noticed in Tsarist statutes that one of the reasons for the dissolution of marriage is the acceptance of monastic tonsure. Does this belief still exist today?

Seeing as how the monastic life and married life are viewed as two distinct and separate realities, I would imagine that accepting one from being in the other would dissolve the previously established one.

I know someone who very recently left his family to become a Monk. Apparently the Bishop has allowed it.
Then he should be deposed.

Why?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #485 on: January 11, 2011, 05:34:08 PM »

In Orthodox sacramentology, does the taking of monastic tonsure by a married person negate the existence of the tonsured's marriage?
I have noticed in Tsarist statutes that one of the reasons for the dissolution of marriage is the acceptance of monastic tonsure. Does this belief still exist today?

Seeing as how the monastic life and married life are viewed as two distinct and separate realities, I would imagine that accepting one from being in the other would dissolve the previously established one.

I know someone who very recently left his family to become a Monk. Apparently the Bishop has allowed it.
Then he should be deposed.

Why?
"What God has joined together let no man put asunder."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #486 on: January 12, 2011, 08:09:47 AM »

In Orthodox sacramentology, does the taking of monastic tonsure by a married person negate the existence of the tonsured's marriage?
I have noticed in Tsarist statutes that one of the reasons for the dissolution of marriage is the acceptance of monastic tonsure. Does this belief still exist today?

Seeing as how the monastic life and married life are viewed as two distinct and separate realities, I would imagine that accepting one from being in the other would dissolve the previously established one.

I know someone who very recently left his family to become a Monk. Apparently the Bishop has allowed it.
Then he should be deposed.

Why?
"What God has joined together let no man put asunder."

It's not a man though, it is the Church.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #487 on: January 12, 2011, 10:21:52 AM »

In Orthodox sacramentology, does the taking of monastic tonsure by a married person negate the existence of the tonsured's marriage?
I have noticed in Tsarist statutes that one of the reasons for the dissolution of marriage is the acceptance of monastic tonsure. Does this belief still exist today?

Seeing as how the monastic life and married life are viewed as two distinct and separate realities, I would imagine that accepting one from being in the other would dissolve the previously established one.

I know someone who very recently left his family to become a Monk. Apparently the Bishop has allowed it.
Then he should be deposed.

Why?
"What God has joined together let no man put asunder."

It's not a man though, it is the Church.

It's not the Church in the sense of a council. It's a managerial decision by a man. A decision that can, and will be criticized.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #488 on: January 12, 2011, 11:05:02 AM »

In Orthodox sacramentology, does the taking of monastic tonsure by a married person negate the existence of the tonsured's marriage?
I have noticed in Tsarist statutes that one of the reasons for the dissolution of marriage is the acceptance of monastic tonsure. Does this belief still exist today?

Seeing as how the monastic life and married life are viewed as two distinct and separate realities, I would imagine that accepting one from being in the other would dissolve the previously established one.

I know someone who very recently left his family to become a Monk. Apparently the Bishop has allowed it.
Then he should be deposed.

Why?
"What God has joined together let no man put asunder."

It's not a man though, it is the Church.
Not the Church of St. Paul. 
"To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband.  (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) --and that the husband should not divorce his wife....Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #489 on: January 12, 2011, 11:47:49 AM »

He is talking about having to divorce your wife to be a Christian.  Of course, we would say that such an idea, even if the spouse is not a believer, is unnecessary and evil.

However, the context is when a couple decides within the marriage to separate so that one or more may pursue the monastic life.  Here, I don't think it is a problem so long as both agree it is for the best.  After all, we do not force a couple to stay together if they really do not want to.  We do grant divorces.  In the cases I am aware of, a divorce is not granted, but one or both simply move into the monastic community.  What I am unclear on is whether the Church would grant the Great Schema (i.e. final vows) to a monk with a living spouse.

So long as the Church allows for voluntary separation without canonical punishment (you'd be surprised at the number of clergy who live even in different states from their wives), it seems the monastic issue should fit right in.

As for the remark about minor children, I thought I made that clear when discussing the need not to avoid resposibilities when entering into monastic life.


Not the Church of St. Paul. 
"To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband.  (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) --and that the husband should not divorce his wife....Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free."
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,290


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #490 on: January 12, 2011, 11:57:53 AM »

In Orthodox sacramentology, does the taking of monastic tonsure by a married person negate the existence of the tonsured's marriage?
I have noticed in Tsarist statutes that one of the reasons for the dissolution of marriage is the acceptance of monastic tonsure. Does this belief still exist today?

Seeing as how the monastic life and married life are viewed as two distinct and separate realities, I would imagine that accepting one from being in the other would dissolve the previously established one.

I know someone who very recently left his family to become a Monk. Apparently the Bishop has allowed it.
Then he should be deposed.

Maybe you didn't understand. They are dissolving the marriage as I understand it..   
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,290


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #491 on: January 12, 2011, 12:00:20 PM »

In Orthodox sacramentology, does the taking of monastic tonsure by a married person negate the existence of the tonsured's marriage?
I have noticed in Tsarist statutes that one of the reasons for the dissolution of marriage is the acceptance of monastic tonsure. Does this belief still exist today?

Seeing as how the monastic life and married life are viewed as two distinct and separate realities, I would imagine that accepting one from being in the other would dissolve the previously established one.

I know someone who very recently left his family to become a Monk. Apparently the Bishop has allowed it.
Then he should be deposed.

Why?
"What God has joined together let no man put asunder."

BTW.. I tend to agree with you but I think there are some details we cant Judge from afar.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,771


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #492 on: January 12, 2011, 12:36:41 PM »

He is talking about having to divorce your wife to be a Christian.  Of course, we would say that such an idea, even if the spouse is not a believer, is unnecessary and evil.

However, the context is when a couple decides within the marriage to separate so that one or more may pursue the monastic life.  Here, I don't think it is a problem so long as both agree it is for the best.  After all, we do not force a couple to stay together if they really do not want to.  We do grant divorces.  In the cases I am aware of, a divorce is not granted, but one or both simply move into the monastic community.  What I am unclear on is whether the Church would grant the Great Schema (i.e. final vows) to a monk with a living spouse.

So long as the Church allows for voluntary separation without canonical punishment (you'd be surprised at the number of clergy who live even in different states from their wives), it seems the monastic issue should fit right in.

As for the remark about minor children, I thought I made that clear when discussing the need not to avoid resposibilities when entering into monastic life.


Not the Church of St. Paul.  
"To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband.  (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) --and that the husband should not divorce his wife....Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free."

The responsibilities of being a child's father or mother are much more than financial. The needs of a child are far more complex than that. How can one reconcile a parent leaving minor children to enter a monastery even when the parents may be separated or divorced? In such cases, regular and normal visitation with the children is needed and beneficial to both the child and the parent in most circumstances. It is often difficult enough for the children of married clergy to deal with the Church as teens or even as adults. I can not imagine what a father or mother leaving a child to enter a monastery would do to a child. Such an action on the part of the parent making that choice strikes me as being selfish and, frankly, just plain wrong. A Bishop who would countenance such actions is not, in my opinion, properly shepherding his flock.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 12:37:45 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #493 on: January 12, 2011, 01:10:03 PM »

Where did I say that responsibility is merely financial?  I'm confused by your response, because I don't think I ever said such a thing.


The responsibilities of being a child's father or mother are much more than financial. The needs of a child are far more complex than that. How can one reconcile a parent leaving minor children to enter a monastery even when the parents may be separated or divorced? In such cases, regular and normal visitation with the children is needed and beneficial to both the child and the parent in most circumstances. It is often difficult enough for the children of married clergy to deal with the Church as teens or even as adults. I can not imagine what a father or mother leaving a child to enter a monastery would do to a child. Such an action on the part of the parent making that choice strikes me as being selfish and, frankly, just plain wrong. A Bishop who would countenance such actions is not, in my opinion, properly shepherding his flock.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #494 on: January 12, 2011, 01:40:53 PM »

In Orthodox sacramentology, does the taking of monastic tonsure by a married person negate the existence of the tonsured's marriage?
I have noticed in Tsarist statutes that one of the reasons for the dissolution of marriage is the acceptance of monastic tonsure. Does this belief still exist today?

Seeing as how the monastic life and married life are viewed as two distinct and separate realities, I would imagine that accepting one from being in the other would dissolve the previously established one.

I know someone who very recently left his family to become a Monk. Apparently the Bishop has allowed it.
Then he should be deposed.

Why?
"What God has joined together let no man put asunder."

BTW.. I tend to agree with you but I think there are some details we cant Judge from afar.
Yes. I know a couple who both went into the monastery, which I had no problem with, but then I knew all the details (or all that I needed to know).  An exception which most definitely must not be taken as a rule.  I've heard of another case, where the whole family entered the monastery and convent, which was a disaster waitiing to happen. A whole family ending up in a monastery is one thing, entering one as a family (especially with under age children), is another.

So there may be details which would not call for deposion the bishop in the original example, but when a hubands "leaves his family," that should be the rule. But I get the feeling you and I (and perhaps Fr. Girgis) are agreed on that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »   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 72 queries.