OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 06:58:04 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ecclesiologies with pictures  (Read 10299 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« on: July 02, 2010, 04:35:30 PM »

With these images I wanted to show in a graphic way the different ecclesiologies we find, that is, how each Christian confession sees the body of Christ.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Orthodox

It is one, entirely visible, with no divisions.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Romans.

It has two heads, one celestial and invisible which is Christ and one terrestrial and visible which is the Pope.


Here is the Anglican Body of Christ.

Same as for Romans, just changing the Pope for the king.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Protestant.

The invisibility of the head spread to the whole body. It is entirely invisible and can and must have various manifested physical forms adapted to its members.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Two Lungs theory


Finally, the Body of Christ as seen by Ecumenism

Mutilated into various parts and in need of healing by much "love", "dialogue" and "tolerance".
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2010, 06:28:53 PM »

Here is the Anglican Body of Christ.

Same as for Romans, just changing the Pope for the king.

Given the extension of the Anglican Communion beyond the Church of England, that's no longer really a fair criticism.
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
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2010, 06:47:54 PM »

Here is the Anglican Body of Christ.

Same as for Romans, just changing the Pope for the king.

Given the extension of the Anglican Communion beyond the Church of England, that's no longer really a fair criticism.

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,647


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2010, 06:55:50 PM »

With these images I wanted to show in a graphic way the different ecclesiologies we find, that is, how each Christian confession sees the body of Christ.
Don't you think your presentation excessively simplistic?
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 02, 2010, 06:59:36 PM »

Here is the Anglican Body of Christ.

Same as for Romans, just changing the Pope for the king.

Given the extension of the Anglican Communion beyond the Church of England, that's no longer really a fair criticism.

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

As far as I know, the English monarch only ever had authority over the Church of England. Now, at a certain point, as far as I understand it, other provinces of the empire were technically part of the Church of England, and thus subject to the monarch. However, I believe as soon as other provinces started establishing independence from the Church of England that likewise meant that the authority of the monarch went as a logical conclusion. However, it is possible that that was not the case and his/her authority gradually phased out in response to provincial independence. Either way, it is most certainly the case now that the English monarch has no authority outside of the UK provinces, and I'm pretty sure that he/she does not have authority in the non-English UK provinces (though not 100% on this one).
« Last Edit: July 02, 2010, 07:00:51 PM by deusveritasest » 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
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2010, 06:45:49 PM »

With these images I wanted to show in a graphic way the different ecclesiologies we find, that is, how each Christian confession sees the body of Christ.
Don't you think your presentation excessively simplistic?

No. They are just too explicit about the absurdity of non-orthodox eclesiologies. A body with two heads, being one invisible? An invisible body with multiple manifestations? Are we talking about Jesus Christ or an X-Man?

When St. Paul talks about the Church as the Body of Christ, he is obviously thinking of a normal body. That is Orthodox eclesiology. The jurisdictions, each parish, are members of the body, but the body as a whole is visible, unified... "normal". What is the point of saying that a lion is a big cat if the cat we have in mind has two horns, is as big as a car and ruminates? Obviously, I'm trying to sell to you a cow as a lion if I do that.

It is simple as the original image of a body is simple. It does defuse the elegant sophisms created to justify two-headed bodies, invisible bodies or a bunch of mutilated but autonomously living body pieces in need of healing by not making reference to them.

Romans do believe that the visible head of the body of Christ is the pope and that Christ's head is invisible. Protestants made things worse making the *whole* body invisible. Now what are the chances that these kinds of mutant bodies were what St. Paul had in mind instead of a normal body?

You know, I don't remember who, and God bless this person, but someone once told me that some false ideas are so intellectual and sophisticated that only very intelligent people could even understand their points and thus be deceived by them. I do think that is the case with the non-Orthodox eclesiologies.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2010, 06:51:25 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2010, 06:47:51 PM »

Here is the Anglican Body of Christ.

Same as for Romans, just changing the Pope for the king.

Given the extension of the Anglican Communion beyond the Church of England, that's no longer really a fair criticism.

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

As far as I know, the English monarch only ever had authority over the Church of England. Now, at a certain point, as far as I understand it, other provinces of the empire were technically part of the Church of England, and thus subject to the monarch. However, I believe as soon as other provinces started establishing independence from the Church of England that likewise meant that the authority of the monarch went as a logical conclusion. However, it is possible that that was not the case and his/her authority gradually phased out in response to provincial independence. Either way, it is most certainly the case now that the English monarch has no authority outside of the UK provinces, and I'm pretty sure that he/she does not have authority in the non-English UK provinces (though not 100% on this one).

Interesting. And how is it organized today then? In jurisdictions like Orthodoxy? Are the Anglicans in non-English lands indepedent and just in communion with England?
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2010, 07:00:56 PM »

Here is the Anglican Body of Christ.

Same as for Romans, just changing the Pope for the king.

Given the extension of the Anglican Communion beyond the Church of England, that's no longer really a fair criticism.

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

As far as I know, the English monarch only ever had authority over the Church of England. Now, at a certain point, as far as I understand it, other provinces of the empire were technically part of the Church of England, and thus subject to the monarch. However, I believe as soon as other provinces started establishing independence from the Church of England that likewise meant that the authority of the monarch went as a logical conclusion. However, it is possible that that was not the case and his/her authority gradually phased out in response to provincial independence. Either way, it is most certainly the case now that the English monarch has no authority outside of the UK provinces, and I'm pretty sure that he/she does not have authority in the non-English UK provinces (though not 100% on this one).

Interesting. And how is it organized today then? In jurisdictions like Orthodoxy? Are the Anglicans in non-English lands indepedent and just in communion with England?

The Archbishop of Canterbury has some sort of mediating role for the communion at large, but realistically his authority outside of England is slim. One of the most significant points of organization for the communion at large is the Lambeth Conference, which is a council where all the bishops of the communion are invited, occurring every 10 years. As to local affairs, each province is essentially entirely independent from the other, their bond being "full communion" with each other. So it isn't extremely different from the Byzantine ecclesiology.

[EDIT]: One more important point, from what I can tell, the respective governments of those Anglican provinces outside of England have no role in their governance, and even in England the Queen's role is now not all that great.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2010, 07:02:44 PM by deusveritasest » 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
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: 37,960



« Reply #8 on: July 03, 2010, 11:09:42 PM »

With these images I wanted to show in a graphic way the different ecclesiologies we find, that is, how each Christian confession sees the body of Christ.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Orthodox

It is one, entirely visible, with no divisions.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Romans.

It has two heads, one celestial and invisible which is Christ and one terrestrial and visible which is the Pope.


Here is the Anglican Body of Christ.

Same as for Romans, just changing the Pope for the king.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Protestant.

The invisibility of the head spread to the whole body. It is entirely invisible and can and must have various manifested physical forms adapted to its members.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Two Lungs theory


Finally, the Body of Christ as seen by Ecumenism

Mutilated into various parts and in need of healing by much "love", "dialogue" and "tolerance".
LOL.  Notice in the last one, how you can't get the picture.  How aprops.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,647


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2010, 01:05:01 AM »

With these images I wanted to show in a graphic way the different ecclesiologies we find, that is, how each Christian confession sees the body of Christ.
Don't you think your presentation excessively simplistic?

No. They are just too explicit about the absurdity of non-orthodox eclesiologies. A body with two heads, being one invisible? An invisible body with multiple manifestations? Are we talking about Jesus Christ or an X-Man?
And yet the Jehovah's Witnesses often criticize the Christian dogma of the Trinity quite simplistically by accusing us of worshiping a three-headed monstrosity.  We know how wrong they are.  That's why I like to believe that things are never explained as simplistically as we would like.
Logged
Feanor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 205



« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2010, 01:20:06 AM »

Actually, as an Ecumenist I see the Church, the Body of Christ, as unbroken, undivided, totally in tact. That is neither changed nor challenged by the fact that human beings, with all their failures and flaws, are unable to put aside their differences and co-operate, having instead divided the Body's administration and leadership. That is a sin, but the division there is merely human, not celestial or metaphysical.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2010, 09:22:15 AM »

Actually, as an Ecumenist I see the Church, the Body of Christ, as unbroken, undivided, totally in tact. That is neither changed nor challenged by the fact that human beings, with all their failures and flaws, are unable to put aside their differences and co-operate, having instead divided the Body's administration and leadership. That is a sin, but the division there is merely human, not celestial or metaphysical.

Oh Feanor!
Quote
But truth might
be changed by victory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Lg2AAXaWCU

You're doing it again.  Wink

Theology is the expression of the individual/group experience of God. Different theologies mean they are having very different experiences. Not the same God.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2010, 09:25:00 AM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2010, 11:32:13 AM »

If we are going to play this game then I suppose I could put up a picture of the various eastern metropolitans, especially all those who aren't in communion with one another.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2010, 12:38:43 PM »


This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true.  Undecided

With respect,

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #14 on: July 04, 2010, 12:44:58 PM »

That's why I like to believe that things are never explained as simplistically as we would like.

Here, here!  Thank you, Peter.  The pictures aren't "explicit". They're one person's misunderstanding of other people's Churches as, for example, the one on the Anglicans has been shown to be. 

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 04, 2010, 03:11:23 PM »

If we are going to play this game then I suppose I could put up a picture of the various eastern metropolitans, especially all those who aren't in communion with one another.


No, because they are not heads, but "successors of the apostles", therefore just members. As St. Paul said. By the way, in the NT, the Epistles, even the messages of Christ in Revelation, are always directed to local churches. That is true Christian eclesiology and administration. The rest, I'm sorry to say, is not.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 04, 2010, 03:13:32 PM »

Actually, as an Ecumenist I see the Church, the Body of Christ, as unbroken, undivided, totally in tact. That is neither changed nor challenged by the fact that human beings, with all their failures and flaws, are unable to put aside their differences and co-operate, having instead divided the Body's administration and leadership. That is a sin, but the division there is merely human, not celestial or metaphysical.

In that case, see picture for Protestant Body of Christ. Smiley
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 04, 2010, 03:15:43 PM »


This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true.  Undecided

With respect,

Ebor

But is that something that simply happens in practice despite authoritative dogmatic definitions saying otherwise, or is it what these dogmatic definitions stipulate?
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 04, 2010, 03:54:45 PM »

If anyone wants a "crazy" image of the Body of Christ using the local jurisdictions as it is since the NT as seen by the Church, here it is using the cross:



The fractal effect ( a drawing made of itself in smaller parts) leads to beautiful paintings http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/411302564_1a006b2c02.jpg  and also occurs in nature.
http://www.miqel.com/images_1/fractal_math_patterns/natural-patterns/broccoflower-fractal.jpg

Fractals and holograms are perfectly good modern images of the Church's ecclesiology, wich is not shared by the many heterodoxies.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2010, 03:57:52 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Feanor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 205



« Reply #19 on: July 04, 2010, 05:35:14 PM »

Actually, as an Ecumenist I see the Church, the Body of Christ, as unbroken, undivided, totally in tact. That is neither changed nor challenged by the fact that human beings, with all their failures and flaws, are unable to put aside their differences and co-operate, having instead divided the Body's administration and leadership. That is a sin, but the division there is merely human, not celestial or metaphysical.

Theology is the expression of the individual/group experience of God. Different theologies mean they are having very different experiences. Not the same God.

What makes you believe that? The few occasions in which I believe to have had 'experiences of God' had nothing to do with the complex theological matters which the churches are divided over. In all my 'spiritual experiences', it was love, dependance and submission which I felt always brought me closer to God; not an ontological understanding of the technical Christology of the Incarnation, nor whether the head of the church is the Ecumenical Patriarch or the Pope. These differences really can be put aside.
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 05, 2010, 02:18:53 AM »




This is the protestant view. You mind as well add the Church of England, and Anglicanism in general in this as well....for she has the branch theory.

I think out of all the pictures, this one is the most accurate. Especially when one looks at the connection between Christology, Ecclesiology, and Soteriology.

The Augustinian / protestant understanding of the invisible church theory makes their christology / ecclesiology / soteriology into some kind of wierd Ecclesial Nestorianism in where the one invisible divine christ person is hypostatic with multiple mere human christ persons......hundreds to thousands of them.











ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: July 05, 2010, 02:27:31 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

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

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 05, 2010, 07:42:17 PM »

Actually, as an Ecumenist I see the Church, the Body of Christ, as unbroken, undivided, totally in tact. That is neither changed nor challenged by the fact that human beings, with all their failures and flaws, are unable to put aside their differences and co-operate, having instead divided the Body's administration and leadership. That is a sin, but the division there is merely human, not celestial or metaphysical.

That sounds sort of Gnostic.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2010, 07:44:32 PM »


This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true.  Undecided

With respect,

Ebor

But is that something that simply happens in practice despite authoritative dogmatic definitions saying otherwise, or is it what these dogmatic definitions stipulate?

There really is no dogmatic definition as to what role the monarch of England is to have in Anglican provinces independent from the Church of England.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 05, 2010, 07:47:58 PM »

You mind as well add the Church of England, and Anglicanism in general in this as well....for she has the branch theory.

Tractarian branch theory is really quite different from Protestant invisible church conceptions.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #24 on: July 06, 2010, 10:35:46 AM »

With these images I wanted to show in a graphic way the different ecclesiologies we find, that is, how each Christian confession sees the body of Christ.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Orthodox

It is one, entirely visible, with no divisions.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Romans.

It has two heads, one celestial and invisible which is Christ and one terrestrial and visible which is the Pope.


Here is the Anglican Body of Christ.

Same as for Romans, just changing the Pope for the king.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Protestant.

The invisibility of the head spread to the whole body. It is entirely invisible and can and must have various manifested physical forms adapted to its members.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Two Lungs theory


Finally, the Body of Christ as seen by Ecumenism

Mutilated into various parts and in need of healing by much "love", "dialogue" and "tolerance".
The image provided for Catholics is inaccurate. Christ is seen as the head of the Catholic Church and the pope is merely a vicar or steward. Have you not seen The Lord of the Rings?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #25 on: July 06, 2010, 05:38:31 PM »

The image provided for Catholics is inaccurate. Christ is seen as the head of the Catholic Church and the pope is merely a vicar or steward. Have you not seen The Lord of the Rings?

I have seen Pope Pius XII Encyclical of 1943

Quote
40. But we must not think that He rules only in a hidden[59] or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Divine Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. You know, Venerable Brethren, that after He had ruled the "little flock"[60] Himself during His mortal pilgrimage, Christ our Lord, when about to leave this world and return to the Father, entrusted to the Chief of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded. Since He was all wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisible, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into heaven this Unam Sanctam;[61] and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.

41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.

Trying to avoid the "two-headed" figure above, which is the logical conclusion of the "visible-invisible heads" image, Pope Pius XII states an even greater blasphemy, that the Pope and Christ are one, that the Pope is Christ made visible:

Quote
Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head


Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.

Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
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: 37,960



« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2010, 06:09:09 PM »

Actually, as an Ecumenist I see the Church, the Body of Christ, as unbroken, undivided, totally in tact. That is neither changed nor challenged by the fact that human beings, with all their failures and flaws, are unable to put aside their differences and co-operate, having instead divided the Body's administration and leadership. That is a sin, but the division there is merely human, not celestial or metaphysical.

Theology is the expression of the individual/group experience of God. Different theologies mean they are having very different experiences. Not the same God.

What makes you believe that? The few occasions in which I believe to have had 'experiences of God' had nothing to do with the complex theological matters which the churches are divided over. In all my 'spiritual experiences', it was love, dependance and submission which I felt always brought me closer to God; not an ontological understanding of the technical Christology of the Incarnation, nor whether the head of the church is the Ecumenical Patriarch or the Pope. These differences really can be put aside.

The fact that you posit the EP or the pope of Rome as Head of the Church just shows that you have not grapsed their differences, which cannot be put aside.
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: 37,960



« Reply #27 on: July 06, 2010, 06:22:37 PM »


This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true.  Undecided

With respect,
With regret Undecided
Quote
Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.
The Act of Supremacy
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,647


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #28 on: July 06, 2010, 06:25:21 PM »

The image provided for Catholics is inaccurate. Christ is seen as the head of the Catholic Church and the pope is merely a vicar or steward. Have you not seen The Lord of the Rings?

I have seen Pope Pius XII Encyclical of 1943

Quote
40. But we must not think that He rules only in a hidden[59] or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Divine Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. You know, Venerable Brethren, that after He had ruled the "little flock"[60] Himself during His mortal pilgrimage, Christ our Lord, when about to leave this world and return to the Father, entrusted to the Chief of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded. Since He was all wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisible, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into heaven this Unam Sanctam;[61] and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.

41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.
And yet, St. Ignatius exhorts us to look upon the bishop as we would look upon Christ Himself.  (Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter VI)

Trying to avoid the "two-headed" figure above, which is the logical conclusion of the "visible-invisible heads" image, Pope Pius XII states an even greater blasphemy, that the Pope and Christ are one, that the Pope is Christ made visible:

Quote
Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head
That doesn't say that the Pope is Christ made visible.  Besides, don't we Orthodox understand the priest to be making Christ visibly present when he acts as liturgical minister of the sacramental mysteries?

Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host,
You're making this up, right?

which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.
Or else you're torturing Latin ecclesiology to make it fit your twisted polemics.  Like you, I don't agree with the Latin doctrine of the Church and its preaching of papal sovereignty, but I think you owe it to your opponent to make sure you understand him correctly so that your polemical arguments actually make cogent sense.  Right now you're just setting up a straw man so you can make it appear you're knocking something down.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2010, 06:30:54 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #29 on: July 06, 2010, 06:38:16 PM »

The "Act of Supremacy" is an historical document that does not apply today and has certainly not applied in the United States since the 18th Century.  So the head of the Anglican Communion is not Her Majesty Elizabeth II. 
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 06, 2010, 08:02:04 PM »


This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true.  Undecided

With respect,
With regret Undecided
Quote
Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.
The Act of Supremacy
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm

That only applies to the Church of England, not the entire Anglican Communion.
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
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: 37,960



« Reply #31 on: July 06, 2010, 08:07:58 PM »

The "Act of Supremacy" is an historical document that does not apply today and has certainly not applied in the United States since the 18th Century.

Our founding document is also an historical document, known as the New Testament, which has applied in all lands since the 1st century. Sorry your founding document didn't make three centuries.

Quote
  So the head of the Anglican Communion is not Her Majesty Elizabeth II. 
As far as the Anglicanism has a head, and can be called a communion, it's her majesty, the heir and successor spoken of in the Act with that "full power and authority."
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: 37,960



« Reply #32 on: July 06, 2010, 08:08:56 PM »


This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true.  Undecided

With respect,
With regret Undecided
Quote
Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.
The Act of Supremacy
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm

That only applies to the Church of England, not the entire Anglican Communion.
Pray tell, under what definition of "Anglican Communion."
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 #33 on: July 06, 2010, 08:13:19 PM »


This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true.  Undecided

With respect,
With regret Undecided
Quote
Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.
The Act of Supremacy
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm

That only applies to the Church of England, not the entire Anglican Communion.
Pray tell, under what definition of "Anglican Communion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion#Provinces_of_the_Anglican_Communion

Note that the Church of England constitutes only one of these 38 provinces.
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
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: 37,960



« Reply #34 on: July 06, 2010, 09:12:43 PM »


This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true.  Undecided

With respect,
With regret Undecided
Quote
Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.
The Act of Supremacy
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm

That only applies to the Church of England, not the entire Anglican Communion.
Pray tell, under what definition of "Anglican Communion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion#Provinces_of_the_Anglican_Communion

Note that the Church of England constitutes only one of these 38 provinces.
From your source (which is from the "Anglican Communion" web site)
Quote
Instruments of Communion
As mentioned above, the Anglican Communion has no international juridical organisation. The Archbishop of Canterbury's role is strictly symbolic and unifying; and the Communion's three international bodies are consultative and collaborative, their resolutions having no legal effect on the independent provinces of the Communion. Taken together, however, the four do function as "instruments of communion", since all churches of the communion participate in them. In order of antiquity, they are:
1. The Archbishop of Canterbury (ab origine) functions as the spiritual head of the Communion. He is the focus of unity, since no church claims membership in the Communion without being in communion with him. The present incumbent is Dr Rowan Williams.

2. The Lambeth Conference (first held in 1867) is the oldest international consultation. It is a forum for bishops of the Communion to reinforce unity and collegiality through manifesting the episcopate, to discuss matters of mutual concern, and to pass resolutions intended to act as guideposts. It is held roughly every ten years and invitation is by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

3. The Anglican Consultative Council (first met in 1971) was created by a 1968 Lambeth Conference resolution, and meets usually at three year intervals. The council consists of representative bishops, clergy, and laity chosen by the thirty-eight provinces. The body has a permanent secretariat, the Anglican Communion Office, of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is president.

4. The Primates' Meeting (first met in 1979) is the most recent manifestation of international consultation and deliberation, having been first convened by Archbishop Donald Coggan as a forum for "leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation."
The Queen appoints 1., who calls 2., runs 3., and chairs 4.
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 #35 on: July 06, 2010, 09:27:18 PM »


This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true.  Undecided

With respect,
With regret Undecided
Quote
Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.
The Act of Supremacy
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm

That only applies to the Church of England, not the entire Anglican Communion.
Pray tell, under what definition of "Anglican Communion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion#Provinces_of_the_Anglican_Communion

Note that the Church of England constitutes only one of these 38 provinces.
From your source (which is from the "Anglican Communion" web site)
Quote
Instruments of Communion
As mentioned above, the Anglican Communion has no international juridical organisation. The Archbishop of Canterbury's role is strictly symbolic and unifying; and the Communion's three international bodies are consultative and collaborative, their resolutions having no legal effect on the independent provinces of the Communion. Taken together, however, the four do function as "instruments of communion", since all churches of the communion participate in them. In order of antiquity, they are:
1. The Archbishop of Canterbury (ab origine) functions as the spiritual head of the Communion. He is the focus of unity, since no church claims membership in the Communion without being in communion with him. The present incumbent is Dr Rowan Williams.

2. The Lambeth Conference (first held in 1867) is the oldest international consultation. It is a forum for bishops of the Communion to reinforce unity and collegiality through manifesting the episcopate, to discuss matters of mutual concern, and to pass resolutions intended to act as guideposts. It is held roughly every ten years and invitation is by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

3. The Anglican Consultative Council (first met in 1971) was created by a 1968 Lambeth Conference resolution, and meets usually at three year intervals. The council consists of representative bishops, clergy, and laity chosen by the thirty-eight provinces. The body has a permanent secretariat, the Anglican Communion Office, of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is president.

4. The Primates' Meeting (first met in 1979) is the most recent manifestation of international consultation and deliberation, having been first convened by Archbishop Donald Coggan as a forum for "leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation."
The Queen appoints 1., who calls 2., runs 3., and chairs 4.

Yet:

-1 does not actually have authority over 2, 3, or 4; they make their decisions by voting.

-The quote itself says: "The Archbishop of Canterbury's role is strictly symbolic and unifying".

-It also says: "and the Communion's three international bodies are consultative and collaborative, their resolutions having no legal effect on the independent provinces of the Communion".
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
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: 37,960



« Reply #36 on: July 06, 2010, 09:31:48 PM »


This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true.  Undecided

With respect,
With regret Undecided
Quote
Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.
The Act of Supremacy
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm

That only applies to the Church of England, not the entire Anglican Communion.
Pray tell, under what definition of "Anglican Communion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion#Provinces_of_the_Anglican_Communion

Note that the Church of England constitutes only one of these 38 provinces.
From your source (which is from the "Anglican Communion" web site)
Quote
Instruments of Communion
As mentioned above, the Anglican Communion has no international juridical organisation. The Archbishop of Canterbury's role is strictly symbolic and unifying; and the Communion's three international bodies are consultative and collaborative, their resolutions having no legal effect on the independent provinces of the Communion. Taken together, however, the four do function as "instruments of communion", since all churches of the communion participate in them. In order of antiquity, they are:
1. The Archbishop of Canterbury (ab origine) functions as the spiritual head of the Communion. He is the focus of unity, since no church claims membership in the Communion without being in communion with him. The present incumbent is Dr Rowan Williams.

2. The Lambeth Conference (first held in 1867) is the oldest international consultation. It is a forum for bishops of the Communion to reinforce unity and collegiality through manifesting the episcopate, to discuss matters of mutual concern, and to pass resolutions intended to act as guideposts. It is held roughly every ten years and invitation is by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

3. The Anglican Consultative Council (first met in 1971) was created by a 1968 Lambeth Conference resolution, and meets usually at three year intervals. The council consists of representative bishops, clergy, and laity chosen by the thirty-eight provinces. The body has a permanent secretariat, the Anglican Communion Office, of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is president.

4. The Primates' Meeting (first met in 1979) is the most recent manifestation of international consultation and deliberation, having been first convened by Archbishop Donald Coggan as a forum for "leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation."
The Queen appoints 1., who calls 2., runs 3., and chairs 4.

Yet:

-1 does not actually have authority over 2, 3, or 4; they make their decisions by voting.

-The quote itself says: "The Archbishop of Canterbury's role is strictly symbolic and unifying".

-It also says: "and the Communion's three international bodies are consultative and collaborative, their resolutions having no legal effect on the independent provinces of the Communion".
Yet
Quote
 So the head of the Anglican Communion is not Her Majesty Elizabeth II.  
As far as the Anglicanism has a head, and can be called a communion, it's her majesty, the heir and successor spoken of in the Act with that "full power and authority."
Btw, have you read "Leviathan?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)
« Last Edit: July 06, 2010, 09:34:06 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #37 on: July 06, 2010, 09:39:41 PM »


This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true.  Undecided

With respect,
With regret Undecided
Quote
Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.
The Act of Supremacy
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm

That only applies to the Church of England, not the entire Anglican Communion.
Pray tell, under what definition of "Anglican Communion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion#Provinces_of_the_Anglican_Communion

Note that the Church of England constitutes only one of these 38 provinces.
From your source (which is from the "Anglican Communion" web site)
Quote
Instruments of Communion
As mentioned above, the Anglican Communion has no international juridical organisation. The Archbishop of Canterbury's role is strictly symbolic and unifying; and the Communion's three international bodies are consultative and collaborative, their resolutions having no legal effect on the independent provinces of the Communion. Taken together, however, the four do function as "instruments of communion", since all churches of the communion participate in them. In order of antiquity, they are:
1. The Archbishop of Canterbury (ab origine) functions as the spiritual head of the Communion. He is the focus of unity, since no church claims membership in the Communion without being in communion with him. The present incumbent is Dr Rowan Williams.

2. The Lambeth Conference (first held in 1867) is the oldest international consultation. It is a forum for bishops of the Communion to reinforce unity and collegiality through manifesting the episcopate, to discuss matters of mutual concern, and to pass resolutions intended to act as guideposts. It is held roughly every ten years and invitation is by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

3. The Anglican Consultative Council (first met in 1971) was created by a 1968 Lambeth Conference resolution, and meets usually at three year intervals. The council consists of representative bishops, clergy, and laity chosen by the thirty-eight provinces. The body has a permanent secretariat, the Anglican Communion Office, of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is president.

4. The Primates' Meeting (first met in 1979) is the most recent manifestation of international consultation and deliberation, having been first convened by Archbishop Donald Coggan as a forum for "leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation."
The Queen appoints 1., who calls 2., runs 3., and chairs 4.

Yet:

-1 does not actually have authority over 2, 3, or 4; they make their decisions by voting.

-The quote itself says: "The Archbishop of Canterbury's role is strictly symbolic and unifying".

-It also says: "and the Communion's three international bodies are consultative and collaborative, their resolutions having no legal effect on the independent provinces of the Communion".
Yet
Quote
 So the head of the Anglican Communion is not Her Majesty Elizabeth II.  
As far as the Anglicanism has a head, and can be called a communion, it's her majesty, the heir and successor spoken of in the Act with that "full power and authority."

You're just restating your own opinion. That proves nothing. It is more clear that the Anglican Communion actually has no head, though the particular province known as the Church of England itself does in the Queen of England.

Btw, have you read "Leviathan?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)

No, why?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
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: 37,960



« Reply #38 on: July 07, 2010, 12:40:27 AM »


This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true.  Undecided

With respect,
With regret Undecided
Quote
Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.
The Act of Supremacy
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm

That only applies to the Church of England, not the entire Anglican Communion.
Pray tell, under what definition of "Anglican Communion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion#Provinces_of_the_Anglican_Communion

Note that the Church of England constitutes only one of these 38 provinces.
From your source (which is from the "Anglican Communion" web site)
Quote
Instruments of Communion
As mentioned above, the Anglican Communion has no international juridical organisation. The Archbishop of Canterbury's role is strictly symbolic and unifying; and the Communion's three international bodies are consultative and collaborative, their resolutions having no legal effect on the independent provinces of the Communion. Taken together, however, the four do function as "instruments of communion", since all churches of the communion participate in them. In order of antiquity, they are:
1. The Archbishop of Canterbury (ab origine) functions as the spiritual head of the Communion. He is the focus of unity, since no church claims membership in the Communion without being in communion with him. The present incumbent is Dr Rowan Williams.

2. The Lambeth Conference (first held in 1867) is the oldest international consultation. It is a forum for bishops of the Communion to reinforce unity and collegiality through manifesting the episcopate, to discuss matters of mutual concern, and to pass resolutions intended to act as guideposts. It is held roughly every ten years and invitation is by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

3. The Anglican Consultative Council (first met in 1971) was created by a 1968 Lambeth Conference resolution, and meets usually at three year intervals. The council consists of representative bishops, clergy, and laity chosen by the thirty-eight provinces. The body has a permanent secretariat, the Anglican Communion Office, of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is president.

4. The Primates' Meeting (first met in 1979) is the most recent manifestation of international consultation and deliberation, having been first convened by Archbishop Donald Coggan as a forum for "leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation."
The Queen appoints 1., who calls 2., runs 3., and chairs 4.

Yet:

-1 does not actually have authority over 2, 3, or 4; they make their decisions by voting.

-The quote itself says: "The Archbishop of Canterbury's role is strictly symbolic and unifying".

-It also says: "and the Communion's three international bodies are consultative and collaborative, their resolutions having no legal effect on the independent provinces of the Communion".
Yet
Quote
 So the head of the Anglican Communion is not Her Majesty Elizabeth II.  
As far as the Anglicanism has a head, and can be called a communion, it's her majesty, the heir and successor spoken of in the Act with that "full power and authority."

You're just restating your own opinion. That proves nothing.

It proves you are missing the point.

Quote
It is more clear that the Anglican Communion actually has no head,

Actually it has more a head than it does a communion. That's the point.

Quote
though the particular province known as the Church of England itself does in the Queen of England.

Upon which the existence of a "Anglican Communion" depends. It otherwise has no raison d'etre.  The Anglican "communion" ceased when Mary ascended the throne and when Cromwell otherthrew the throne: it came back into existence with the Restoration. The "Church of Ireland," the "Scottich Episcopal Church" and the "Church in Wales" all owe their existence to being united to the English Crown. Until 1784 anyone in communion with the King of England not in the British Isles was under the jurisdiction of the bishop of London.  No English Crown, no Anglican communion.

So the Queen has no authority.  Neither does the Archbishop of Centebury, the Book of Common Prayer (no longer held in common), the Bible, Apostolic Tradition etc.

If you had, you'd know.
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
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 07, 2010, 09:54:01 AM »

Quote
Quote
I have seen Pope Pius XII Encyclical of 1943

Quote
40. But we must not think that He rules only in a hidden[59] or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Divine Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. You know, Venerable Brethren, that after He had ruled the "little flock"[60] Himself during His mortal pilgrimage, Christ our Lord, when about to leave this world and return to the Father, entrusted to the Chief of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded. Since He was all wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisible, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into heaven this Unam Sanctam;[61] and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.

41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.
And yet, St. Ignatius exhorts us to look upon the bishop as we would look upon Christ Himself.  (Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter VI)


"You're like a father to me" and "You are my father" are two very different concepts. What St. Ignatius says, if you are quoting him correctly is to look at the bishop as we would look upon Christ. What Pius XII said was in the same line of the second sentence: "The Pope and Christ are one" and not "The Pope is like Christ". Even if he was stating the second, by attributing exclusively to the Pope what is common to all bishops, he would be in mistake.

Quote
Quote
Trying to avoid the "two-headed" figure above, which is the logical conclusion of the "visible-invisible heads" image, Pope Pius XII states an even greater blasphemy, that the Pope and Christ are one, that the Pope is Christ made visible:

Quote
Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head
That doesn't say that the Pope is Christ made visible.  Besides, don't we Orthodox understand the priest to be making Christ visibly present when he acts as liturgical minister of the sacramental mysteries?

Because they are like Christ and because the bread and wine actually become the flesh and blood of Christ. So yes, that bread and that wine are one with Christ, and not visible symbols of Him. What Pius XII is claiming for his chair is such a sacramental union, though he does it analytically and not synthetically.

Quote
Quote
Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host,
You're making this up, right?

No. It was told me by a convert priest. It is a radical statement, but a perferctly acceptable conclusion of the idea that the pope and Christ are just one head. If the Pope *is* the visible head of the Body of Christ how could he not be present in the Eucharist, or is it a headless Body of Christ?

Quote
Quote
which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.
Or else you're torturing Latin ecclesiology to make it fit your twisted polemics.  Like you, I don't agree with the Latin doctrine of the Church and its preaching of papal sovereignty, but I think you owe it to your opponent to make sure you understand him correctly so that your polemical arguments actually make cogent sense.  Right now you're just setting up a straw man so you can make it appear you're knocking something down.

Peter, I'm sorry, but I think you're the one who does not understand Latin doctrine. It is far worse than an exalted perspective of a Patriarch. Papism, in the strict sense, is what it is. Not all RCs are actuall worshippers of the Pope but in what they consciouslly or uncounsciouslly deviate from that, they deviate from the synthesis of Latin doctrine.

See, for example, the ex-cathedra myth. The Pope is infallible only he speaks dogmatically ex-cathedra. When required to define what ex-cathedra means and to give examples of ex-cathedra statements, ambiguity ensues and the number of such statements varies from source to source. This is point one.

Point two consists of the many callings to obedience even to the non-ex-cathedra statements for various reasons.

A natural consequence of these two points, and which is never stated, is that, after all you should obey the Pope and the Pope alone in everything as it were a proclamation of God Himself. He is not God, but should be treated as if he was because he is "one with Him".

Latin apologetics is filled with these incomplete sylogisms. They say "every man is mortal", they say "Socrates is a man", and when someone points "Socrates is mortal" they shout "we never said that!" but get very glad when someone acts according to the conclusion.

Now, 1) the Body of Christ has a visible (the Pope) and an invisible head (Christ);  2) because there cannot be two heads, these two heads are one, what is torturing logic is the claim that the statement that the Pope is Christ made visible is iconic like in Orthodox theology which, by no means follows from 1 and 2.  Sure thing, that the Pope not only is an icon of Christ but is blasphemously usurping the role of Holy Spirit as Spirit of Truth, source of the Sacraments and revealer of Christ cannot be ever openly said, for the expression of this linguistically would defuse the madness that RC is, just like in any psychoanalysis.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 09:56:30 AM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #40 on: July 07, 2010, 10:01:09 AM »



Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.



I am sorry but this is just stupid and you know it. If anyone declared that the pope was present in the host, you know that such a person would be declared an idolatrous heretic. You are reading your own prejudiced view into the teachings of the Catholic Church and are demonstrating that your views cannot be taken seriously.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 10:01:38 AM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #41 on: July 07, 2010, 10:42:21 AM »



Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.



I am sorry but this is just stupid and you know it. If anyone declared that the pope was present in the host, you know that such a person would be declared an idolatrous heretic. You are reading your own prejudiced view into the teachings of the Catholic Church and are demonstrating that your views cannot be taken seriously.

blahblahblah, "I don't like it, so it's all prejudice, I won't hear it."

The priest who said it wasn't. Wink Plus since when logical syllogisms are "prejudices"?

1) The Pope is the visible head of the Church and Christ is the invisible head;
2) The Pope and Christ are one;

Which one follows?

3a) The relation of Pope and Christ is iconic as per Orthodox eclesiology for bishops, therefore "Pope and Christ are one" is just a figure of speech;

or

3b) The relation of the Pope and Christ is *more than* iconic and more intimate than that;

If 3a) and the Pope is just iconically Christ, so his sovereignity over the Church is also iconic, a symbol, "primus inter pares" and not substantial allowing actual government and intervation; that is the actual Orthodox Catholic eclesiology about the Primate.

If 3b) and the Pope is *more* iconic than the other bishops, if his relation is more intimate than the other bishops, than RC eclesiology would be right, for it would be *through* him that the others would have his legitimacy; *This* is the actual claim of RCs, that he is shepard of shepards, that he is the one who conveys legitimacy to sacraments. Now, is there something in between A is B and A represents B? Can something have more than close resemblance without being identity? Because if there were, "Pope and Christ are one" would still be a figure of speech pointing to this alternative. If there isn't, as I believe it is the case, then "Pope and Christ are one" is literall, which if it were true, would justify RC eclesiology and acts.

What is it? Which one follows from

1) H = C; (on heaven)
2) H = P; (on earth)

3) P = C (on earth)?

or

3) P = (an icon of) C?
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 10:52:56 AM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
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: 37,960



« Reply #42 on: July 07, 2010, 12:05:57 PM »



Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.



I am sorry but this is just stupid and you know it. If anyone declared that the pope was present in the host, you know that such a person would be declared an idolatrous heretic. You are reading your own prejudiced view into the teachings of the Catholic Church and are demonstrating that your views cannot be taken seriously.
He is quoting someone whom your much vaunted magisterium put in a position to teach.  Evidently, we can't take your magisterium seriously.

"See, for example, the ex-cathedra myth. The Pope is infallible only he speaks dogmatically ex-cathedra. When required to define what ex-cathedra means and to give examples of ex-cathedra statements, ambiguity ensues and the number of such statements varies from source to source. This is point one.

Point two consists of the many callings to obedience even to the non-ex-cathedra statements for various reasons.

A natural consequence of these two points, and which is never stated, is that, after all you should obey the Pope and the Pope alone in everything as it were a proclamation of God Himself. He is not God, but should be treated as if he was because he is "one with Him".

Latin apologetics is filled with these incomplete sylogisms. They say "every man is mortal", they say "Socrates is a man", and when someone points "Socrates is mortal" they shout "we never said that!" but get very glad when someone acts according to the conclusion."

Fabio nailed it.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 12:06:25 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #43 on: July 07, 2010, 12:56:18 PM »



Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.



I am sorry but this is just stupid and you know it. If anyone declared that the pope was present in the host, you know that such a person would be declared an idolatrous heretic. You are reading your own prejudiced view into the teachings of the Catholic Church and are demonstrating that your views cannot be taken seriously.
He is quoting someone whom your much vaunted magisterium put in a position to teach.  Evidently, we can't take your magisterium seriously.

"See, for example, the ex-cathedra myth. The Pope is infallible only he speaks dogmatically ex-cathedra. When required to define what ex-cathedra means and to give examples of ex-cathedra statements, ambiguity ensues and the number of such statements varies from source to source. This is point one.

Point two consists of the many callings to obedience even to the non-ex-cathedra statements for various reasons.

A natural consequence of these two points, and which is never stated, is that, after all you should obey the Pope and the Pope alone in everything as it were a proclamation of God Himself. He is not God, but should be treated as if he was because he is "one with Him".

Latin apologetics is filled with these incomplete sylogisms. They say "every man is mortal", they say "Socrates is a man", and when someone points "Socrates is mortal" they shout "we never said that!" but get very glad when someone acts according to the conclusion."

Fabio nailed it.
And the problem is that you are joining him in your bias. Do you think "one with Jesus" means onotoligcally one? Of course not and you know it. You just want to score points in your attack against the Catholic Church.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #44 on: July 07, 2010, 12:57:26 PM »



Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.



I am sorry but this is just stupid and you know it. If anyone declared that the pope was present in the host, you know that such a person would be declared an idolatrous heretic. You are reading your own prejudiced view into the teachings of the Catholic Church and are demonstrating that your views cannot be taken seriously.

blahblahblah, "I don't like it, so it's all prejudice, I won't hear it."

The priest who said it wasn't. Wink Plus since when logical syllogisms are "prejudices"?

1) The Pope is the visible head of the Church and Christ is the invisible head;
2) The Pope and Christ are one;

Which one follows?

3a) The relation of Pope and Christ is iconic as per Orthodox eclesiology for bishops, therefore "Pope and Christ are one" is just a figure of speech;

or

3b) The relation of the Pope and Christ is *more than* iconic and more intimate than that;

If 3a) and the Pope is just iconically Christ, so his sovereignity over the Church is also iconic, a symbol, "primus inter pares" and not substantial allowing actual government and intervation; that is the actual Orthodox Catholic eclesiology about the Primate.

If 3b) and the Pope is *more* iconic than the other bishops, if his relation is more intimate than the other bishops, than RC eclesiology would be right, for it would be *through* him that the others would have his legitimacy; *This* is the actual claim of RCs, that he is shepard of shepards, that he is the one who conveys legitimacy to sacraments. Now, is there something in between A is B and A represents B? Can something have more than close resemblance without being identity? Because if there were, "Pope and Christ are one" would still be a figure of speech pointing to this alternative. If there isn't, as I believe it is the case, then "Pope and Christ are one" is literall, which if it were true, would justify RC eclesiology and acts.

What is it? Which one follows from

1) H = C; (on heaven)
2) H = P; (on earth)

3) P = C (on earth)?

or

3) P = (an icon of) C?

There is a difference between being one with some one in that some one is in communion with another, as all Christians are united to Christ. The Pope is one with Christ in this sense, and also through his authority.

Then there is onotological oneness. As in the identity a=a. The Pope is not one with Christ in this sense.

The fact that you cannot see or that you refuse to see this is a clear demonstration of your deep seated and irrational prejudice against the Catholic Church. You are creating staw men for the sake of scoring points in your attack on the Catholic Faith. Unfortunatley Isa has joined you in this and I find it really disappointing.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 01:01:02 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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: 37,960



« Reply #45 on: July 07, 2010, 01:12:45 PM »



Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.



I am sorry but this is just stupid and you know it. If anyone declared that the pope was present in the host, you know that such a person would be declared an idolatrous heretic. You are reading your own prejudiced view into the teachings of the Catholic Church and are demonstrating that your views cannot be taken seriously.
He is quoting someone whom your much vaunted magisterium put in a position to teach.  Evidently, we can't take your magisterium seriously.

"See, for example, the ex-cathedra myth. The Pope is infallible only he speaks dogmatically ex-cathedra. When required to define what ex-cathedra means and to give examples of ex-cathedra statements, ambiguity ensues and the number of such statements varies from source to source. This is point one.

Point two consists of the many callings to obedience even to the non-ex-cathedra statements for various reasons.

A natural consequence of these two points, and which is never stated, is that, after all you should obey the Pope and the Pope alone in everything as it were a proclamation of God Himself. He is not God, but should be treated as if he was because he is "one with Him".

Latin apologetics is filled with these incomplete sylogisms. They say "every man is mortal", they say "Socrates is a man", and when someone points "Socrates is mortal" they shout "we never said that!" but get very glad when someone acts according to the conclusion."

Fabio nailed it.
And the problem is that you are joining him in your bias.

Calling the Vatican out on what it teaches, and the inconsistencies therein, isn't a bias. Except being biased in favor of Truth.

Quote
Do you think "one with Jesus" means onotoligcally one? Of course not and you know it.

One never knows with what the Vatican teaches at any given moment. "That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter him who is His representative on earth."  Given the strange ideas of the time machine of the IC and the semi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit of Kolbe, you ontological distinction may be without a difference.  Much like Paster Aeternus in practice.

Quote
You just want to score points in your attack against the Catholic Church.
I never atttach the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which I am a member.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,647


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #46 on: July 07, 2010, 01:16:18 PM »

Peter, I'm sorry, but I think you're the one who does not understand Latin doctrine. It is far worse than an exalted perspective of a Patriarch. Papism, in the strict sense, is what it is. Not all RCs are actuall worshippers of the Pope but in what they consciouslly or uncounsciouslly deviate from that, they deviate from the synthesis of Latin doctrine.

See, for example, the ex-cathedra myth. The Pope is infallible only he speaks dogmatically ex-cathedra. When required to define what ex-cathedra means and to give examples of ex-cathedra statements, ambiguity ensues and the number of such statements varies from source to source. This is point one.

Point two consists of the many callings to obedience even to the non-ex-cathedra statements for various reasons.

A natural consequence of these two points, and which is never stated, is that, after all you should obey the Pope and the Pope alone in everything as it were a proclamation of God Himself. He is not God, but should be treated as if he was because he is "one with Him".

Latin apologetics is filled with these incomplete sylogisms. They say "every man is mortal", they say "Socrates is a man", and when someone points "Socrates is mortal" they shout "we never said that!" but get very glad when someone acts according to the conclusion.

Now, 1) the Body of Christ has a visible (the Pope) and an invisible head (Christ);  2) because there cannot be two heads, these two heads are one, what is torturing logic is the claim that the statement that the Pope is Christ made visible is iconic like in Orthodox theology which, by no means follows from 1 and 2.  Sure thing, that the Pope not only is an icon of Christ but is blasphemously usurping the role of Holy Spirit as Spirit of Truth, source of the Sacraments and revealer of Christ cannot be ever openly said, for the expression of this linguistically would defuse the madness that RC is, just like in any psychoanalysis.
Fabio, are you a former RC?  If not, then I'm going to take my cues on what RC's believe from them, not from you.  I'll accept what Papist and his friends have to say about their church and craft my polemic to address that before I accept the witness of someone who uses juvenile stick figures to attack that of which he obviously knows nothing.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #47 on: July 07, 2010, 01:17:00 PM »



Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.



I am sorry but this is just stupid and you know it. If anyone declared that the pope was present in the host, you know that such a person would be declared an idolatrous heretic. You are reading your own prejudiced view into the teachings of the Catholic Church and are demonstrating that your views cannot be taken seriously.
He is quoting someone whom your much vaunted magisterium put in a position to teach.  Evidently, we can't take your magisterium seriously.

"See, for example, the ex-cathedra myth. The Pope is infallible only he speaks dogmatically ex-cathedra. When required to define what ex-cathedra means and to give examples of ex-cathedra statements, ambiguity ensues and the number of such statements varies from source to source. This is point one.

Point two consists of the many callings to obedience even to the non-ex-cathedra statements for various reasons.

A natural consequence of these two points, and which is never stated, is that, after all you should obey the Pope and the Pope alone in everything as it were a proclamation of God Himself. He is not God, but should be treated as if he was because he is "one with Him".

Latin apologetics is filled with these incomplete sylogisms. They say "every man is mortal", they say "Socrates is a man", and when someone points "Socrates is mortal" they shout "we never said that!" but get very glad when someone acts according to the conclusion."

Fabio nailed it.
And the problem is that you are joining him in your bias.

Calling the Vatican out on what it teaches, and the inconsistencies therein, isn't a bias. Except being biased in favor of Truth.

Quote
Do you think "one with Jesus" means onotoligcally one? Of course not and you know it.

One never knows with what the Vatican teaches at any given moment. "That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter him who is His representative on earth."  Given the strange ideas of the time machine of the IC and the semi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit of Kolbe, you ontological distinction may be without a difference.  Much like Paster Aeternus in practice.

Quote
You just want to score points in your attack against the Catholic Church.
I never atttach the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which I am a member.
Quite frankly Isa, if you are bent on believing that Catholics think that the Pope and Jesus are ontologically the same being, then I cannot have a discussion with you. I cannot reason with some one who refuses to reason.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #48 on: July 07, 2010, 01:17:59 PM »


I never atttach the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which I am a member.

You really want to start up this silly debate?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #49 on: July 07, 2010, 01:57:52 PM »

Quote
There is a difference between being one with some one in that some one is in communion with another, as all Christians are united to Christ. The Pope is one with Christ in this sense, and also through his authority.

Then there is onotological oneness. As in the identity a=a. The Pope is not one with Christ in this sense.


Precisely. That is where I wanted to get, the meaning of the "is" or the "=".

As you said yourself, it is not identity. It is a symbol. The Orthodox Catholic tradition presents the primate as an icon of Christ - just like the priest during Liturgy. And all the attributes, including authority, are likewise iconic. For an *iconic* identity, one gets just *iconic* authority. That is why the Primate is a *symbol* of unit and not an authority over the other bishops. He is a icon, not a king. Therefore, the attribution of actual authority and role as actual rule of truth in dogmatic questions is uncatholic.  Actual authority and actual infallibility would be possible only under actual identity.


Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #50 on: July 07, 2010, 02:45:33 PM »

Quote
Fabio, are you a former RC?  If not, then I'm going to take my cues on what RC's believe from them, not from you.


I am although from the "lapsed" kind.

But why is the Epistle of a Pope less relevant to you then what your peers say? Mature study is based on documents, not on hearsay from pals. Putting group acceptance over documents is more a mark of adolescent thinking than the lack of ability to make better drawings, a fault I admit being guilty of.

Quote
I'll accept what Papist and his friends have to say about their church and craft my polemic to address that before I accept the witness of someone who uses juvenile stick figures to attack that of which he obviously knows nothing.

I assume you already knew about that Epistle of Pius XII, about his infallible statement (or maybe not depending on what ex-cathedra is) that the Pope and Christ are one and other similar statements, since you obviously know more than nothing.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
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: 37,960



« Reply #51 on: July 07, 2010, 03:17:11 PM »



Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.



I am sorry but this is just stupid and you know it. If anyone declared that the pope was present in the host, you know that such a person would be declared an idolatrous heretic. You are reading your own prejudiced view into the teachings of the Catholic Church and are demonstrating that your views cannot be taken seriously.
He is quoting someone whom your much vaunted magisterium put in a position to teach.  Evidently, we can't take your magisterium seriously.

"See, for example, the ex-cathedra myth. The Pope is infallible only he speaks dogmatically ex-cathedra. When required to define what ex-cathedra means and to give examples of ex-cathedra statements, ambiguity ensues and the number of such statements varies from source to source. This is point one.

Point two consists of the many callings to obedience even to the non-ex-cathedra statements for various reasons.

A natural consequence of these two points, and which is never stated, is that, after all you should obey the Pope and the Pope alone in everything as it were a proclamation of God Himself. He is not God, but should be treated as if he was because he is "one with Him".

Latin apologetics is filled with these incomplete sylogisms. They say "every man is mortal", they say "Socrates is a man", and when someone points "Socrates is mortal" they shout "we never said that!" but get very glad when someone acts according to the conclusion."

Fabio nailed it.
And the problem is that you are joining him in your bias.

Calling the Vatican out on what it teaches, and the inconsistencies therein, isn't a bias. Except being biased in favor of Truth.

Quote
Do you think "one with Jesus" means onotoligcally one? Of course not and you know it.

One never knows with what the Vatican teaches at any given moment. "That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter him who is His representative on earth."  Given the strange ideas of the time machine of the IC and the semi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit of Kolbe, you ontological distinction may be without a difference.  Much like Paster Aeternus in practice.

Quote
You just want to score points in your attack against the Catholic Church.
I never atttach the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which I am a member.
Quite frankly Isa, if you are bent on believing that Catholics think that the Pope and Jesus are ontologically the same being, then I cannot have a discussion with you. I cannot reason with some one who refuses to reason.

Must be fun at CCD.

Pray tell, what distinction can you make in "That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter him who is His representative on earth,"  that makes a difference? Whether by Pastor Aeternas and Lumen Gentium, you have to accept and submit to that teaching. So you believe that the supreme pontiff isn't ontologically the same being. Good for you. What difference does that make? Pretty much like the "distinction" the Vatican holds that although the Virgin was conceived without sin she was still in need of the Redemption. In other words, no difference to speak of.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,647


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #52 on: July 07, 2010, 03:27:17 PM »

Quote
Fabio, are you a former RC?  If not, then I'm going to take my cues on what RC's believe from them, not from you.


I am although from the "lapsed" kind.

But why is the Epistle of a Pope less relevant to you then what your peers say? Mature study is based on documents, not on hearsay from pals.
Yes, mature study is based on documents, but on a direct reading of those documents, not on having someone interpret those documents for me.  However, if I were to trust someone's interpretation of those documents, I don't find your puerile polemics on this thread very convincing that it's your interpretation I should trust.

Putting group acceptance over documents is more a mark of adolescent thinking than the lack of ability to make better drawings, a fault I admit being guilty of.

Quote
I'll accept what Papist and his friends have to say about their church and craft my polemic to address that before I accept the witness of someone who uses juvenile stick figures to attack that of which he obviously knows nothing.

I assume you already knew about that Epistle of Pius XII, about his infallible statement (or maybe not depending on what ex-cathedra is) that the Pope and Christ are one and other similar statements, since you obviously know more than nothing.
I know a good spin job when I see it. Wink
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 03:31:34 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,654



WWW
« Reply #53 on: July 07, 2010, 03:29:51 PM »

I am not a Catholic and have never been a Catholic, but there are very clear and Patristic reasons why someone who was born without sin would need a redeemer. The whole thrust of St Cyril and St Severus is that we are not born sinners but become sinners, and that those infants who die at birth are without sin, yet they still need a redeemer.

We are not separated by God only because of our own personal sins, but because of the state of separation from God into which we are born. Even a sinless person, if there is such, is still separated from God and under the judgement issued against Adam.

I disagree very much with the Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception, but I do not see any fault in the idea that a sinless person still needs a Saviour. This is the patristic teaching.

It also seems to me to be a false argument to insist that the Pope of Rome must either have an iconic relation to Christ and therefore no authority, or an ontological relation and have divine authority. It is clear in our Orthodox ecclesiology that our bishops do have an iconic relation to Christ AND have a proper authority of their office. I do not agree at all with the papal doctrines, and think them worse defects than any Christological ones, but it would be entirely reasonable, even if false, to propose that the Pope of Rome has a particular iconic relation which grants a particular and proper authority. It could be argued, for instance, that bishops have a proper authority as being the locus of unity of their dioceses and act as icons of Christ in their diocese, while the Pope has a proper authority as being the locus of unity for the college of bishops, and acts as the icon of Christ in the college of bishops. I do not believe this at all, but it could be argued and would not be illogical, and would be adequately described in the various encyclicals which have been quoted.

Father Peter
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
Cymbyz
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 496



« Reply #54 on: July 07, 2010, 03:45:09 PM »

Perhaps it's an oversimplification, but certainly one reason why a sinless person needs a savior is that sin is not the central and pivotal effect of the Fall:  death is.   Just so, the Theotokos, not being God by nature, had to die, even though she was "full of grace."  Christ, by treading down Death by death, has assured us that the pivotal effect of the fall is dealt with; taking care of the sin problem is, if you will, a byproduct of that.
Logged

The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen
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: 37,960



« Reply #55 on: July 07, 2010, 03:47:51 PM »

I am not a Catholic and have never been a Catholic, but there are very clear and Patristic reasons why someone who was born without sin would need a redeemer. The whole thrust of St Cyril and St Severus is that we are not born sinners but become sinners, and that those infants who die at birth are without sin, yet they still need a redeemer.

I'm not very familiar unfortunately with Severus, but this doesn't jive with my read of St. Cyril's "On the Unity of Christ." Can you provide some quotes or summarize what arguments you are talking about, Father?


Quote
We are not separated by God only because of our own personal sins, but because of the state of separation from God into which we are born. Even a sinless person, if there is such, is still separated from God and under the judgement issued against Adam.

If they are born with ancestral sin (and all of us, save Christ, are) then they are not born without sin.


Quote
I disagree very much with the Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception, but I do not see any fault in the idea that a sinless person still needs a Saviour. This is the patristic teaching.
And what are they being saved from?

Quote
It also seems to me to be a false argument to insist that the Pope of Rome must either have an iconic relation to Christ and therefore no authority, or an ontological relation and have divine authority. It is clear in our Orthodox ecclesiology that our bishops do have an iconic relation to Christ AND have a proper authority of their office. I do not agree at all with the papal doctrines, and think them worse defects than any Christological ones, but it would be entirely reasonable, even if false, to propose that the Pope of Rome has a particular iconic relation which grants a particular and proper authority. It could be argued, for instance, that bishops have a proper authority as being the locus of unity of their dioceses and act as icons of Christ in their diocese, while the Pope has a proper authority as being the locus of unity for the college of bishops, and acts as the icon of Christ in the college of bishops. I do not believe this at all, but it could be argued and would not be illogical, and would be adequately described in the various encyclicals which have been quoted.

Father Peter
When one speaks of one head, all sorts of things proceed.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 03:48:21 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #56 on: July 07, 2010, 03:49:10 PM »

Perhaps it's an oversimplification, but certainly one reason why a sinless person needs a savior is that sin is not the central and pivotal effect of the Fall:  death is.   
Death is but the embodiement of sin.
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
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #57 on: July 07, 2010, 04:09:32 PM »

Putting group acceptance over documents is more a mark of adolescent thinking than the lack of ability to make better drawings, a fault I admit being guilty of.

Quote
I'll accept what Papist and his friends have to say about their church and craft my polemic to address that before I accept the witness of someone who uses juvenile stick figures to attack that of which he obviously knows nothing.

I assume you already knew about that Epistle of Pius XII, about his infallible statement (or maybe not depending on what ex-cathedra is) that the Pope and Christ are one and other similar statements, since you obviously know more than nothing.
I know a good spin job when I see it. Wink

Ah, one such as the one below dodging the question clearly made to insist in the poorly done ad homine silly addressed first at the quality of the drawings and now without base to the argument itself?

Quote
Fabio, are you a former RC?  If not, then I'm going to take my cues on what RC's believe from them, not from you.


I am although from the "lapsed" kind.

But why is the Epistle of a Pope less relevant to you then what your peers say? Mature study is based on documents, not on hearsay from pals.
Yes, mature study is based on documents, but on a direct reading of those documents, not on having someone interpret those documents for me.  However, if I were to trust someone's interpretation of those documents, I don't find your puerile polemics on this thread very convincing that it's your interpretation I should trust.[/quote]

That is why I will turn to Father Peter's argument which *does* address my argument in a mature way. Wink

Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #58 on: July 07, 2010, 04:44:23 PM »

It also seems to me to be a false argument to insist that the Pope of Rome must either have an iconic relation to Christ and therefore no authority, or an ontological relation and have divine authority. It is clear in our Orthodox ecclesiology that our bishops do have an iconic relation to Christ AND have a proper authority of their office. I do not agree at all with the papal doctrines, and think them worse defects than any Christological ones, but it would be entirely reasonable, even if false, to propose that the Pope of Rome has a particular iconic relation which grants a particular and proper authority. It could be argued, for instance, that bishops have a proper authority as being the locus of unity of their dioceses and act as icons of Christ in their diocese, while the Pope has a proper authority as being the locus of unity for the college of bishops, and acts as the icon of Christ in the college of bishops. I do not believe this at all, but it could be argued and would not be illogical, and would be adequately described in the various encyclicals which have been quoted.

Father Peter

Hello Father!

I see your point. But I am being more specific here. It is really related to the mode of that relation. I do not say that if the authority of the Primate is iconic than he has *no* authority. But that likewise his authority is iconic. This is the kind of authority of the bishops indeed.

We must address than the possibility you mentioned, that there are two types of iconic authority based on the "locus" of its exercise.

Let's consider that any group needs a "coordinating" position that will give consistency to it. That is why a council or even an assembly has a presiding chair. Of course, when the bishops are taken as a group, there is a need of a primate. We also have some writings that say that the kings and emperors are "images" of Christ on Earth. The "theory" behind all this is that in any leader-team relation we have an icon of Christ-Creation. That is good Orthodox Catholic eclesiology. The Bishop is the leader of a local community, he is *like* Christ towards them. The primate is a leader in meetings of Bishops, he is like Christ towards them.

That is not, however, Latin eclesiology. Because "Christ and the Pope" are one, there is a kind of identity between Christ and the Chair of the Pope (not each individual person that occupies it). The Pope authority overrides the bishops authority and is its very source. The leadership of the bishops is made conditional in relation to the leadership of the Pope who has authority over them and over their flock. The Latin confession is not catholic in the traditional sense that each local diocese is an image of the relation of Christ with the whole church. It is an inflated diocese with only bishop and hundreds of "auxiliary bishops".

Because of that, we can say that under Latin eclesiology, the primate is *the* icon of Christ par excellence with no churches that are "according to the whole" (catholic). The bishops are images of the Pope directly and just indirectly images of Christ. It is just one big unity. We do not have here Christ as the Rock upon which the others are based. Their claim is that we Christ, but that rock is "invisible" so upon it, together with it, being one with it, completing this imperfection for the manifestation of Christ, we have a visible rock, that one being the physical actual base of the others.

In Catholic eclesiology the primate is so just in a relative sense. Each local church is "according to the whole", that is, an image of the relation of Christ with the whole church. Because Bishops meet, and must act together, a leader exists among them, the primate, but he, too, is just a part. He *is* a leader among the bishops, but he is not an "übber-bishop" so to speak, of which the authority of all the other is dependent on. Each bishop is directly founded upon Christ-Rock, the leadership of the Primate, although blessed and approved by God, is not a intermediate between them.  

Another of saying that is that in Latin eclesiology, there is a college of bishops only because there is a primate, while in Catholic eclesiology, it is because we have a college that we have a primate. Also, that the authority of the primate being an icon of Christ's relation to Creation, is limitted to the activities of the episcopal college itself. Thus, he is a leader among the bishops, and a *symbol* of universal union. But he does not "break through" the iconicity of the bishops toward their flocks. That is why it is proper to say that Latin eclesiology is "two-headed" either we look from the bishops side or from the Christ-Church side.

In my opinion, this is somehow related to the diune god Fatherson-Holy Spirit of the Latins, but I still have not studied this relation further.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 04:57:23 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #59 on: July 08, 2010, 01:36:24 PM »

Fabio, why should anyone accept your authority to set forth the polity of someone else's church, especially considering the polemic you have thus far treated us to?
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: 37,960



« Reply #60 on: July 08, 2010, 01:58:45 PM »

Fabio, why should anyone accept your authority to set forth the polity of someone else's church, especially considering the polemic you have thus far treated us to?
By the same authority that stated the fact that the Soviet Union was not a democracy, although it had a constitution that said it was: "Article 2. All power in the USSR belongs to the people." Yeah, right.
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: 37,960



« Reply #61 on: July 08, 2010, 02:00:01 PM »


I never atttach the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which I am a member.

You really want to start up this silly debate?
What debate: it is a statement of fact.
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
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #62 on: July 08, 2010, 02:02:16 PM »

Fabio, why should anyone accept your authority to set forth the polity of someone else's church, especially considering the polemic you have thus far treated us to?

That is why I used an official document of the Pope. What's so hard to understand about that? Aleut, Papist and you, on the other hand, bring to confront that, just informal conversation of pals in a forum. In what I had wrong information - about the organization of the Aglican community - I simply asked questions and learned. You'll not find any polemic from my side regarding that. So much for I just trying to create polemycs.

Now, on the issue of the RC, despite an official epistle of an infallible Pope saying that the sky is red, people want to give a plethora of indirect, metaphorical meanings that are no-way implied in the clear-cut straight statement of the infallible Pope just to prevent admitting that he stated an absurdity and got it wrong. And when people claim that internet conversations between friends should have more proeminence than official documents issued by infallible authorities, it is *I* who would be trying to use an argument of authority? Please.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 02:03:52 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #63 on: July 08, 2010, 02:09:04 PM »

Fabio, why should anyone accept your authority to set forth the polity of someone else's church, especially considering the polemic you have thus far treated us to?
By the same authority that stated the fact that the Soviet Union was not a democracy, although it had a constitution that said it was: "Article 2. All power in the USSR belongs to the people." Yeah, right.

Exactly. Someone comes and say "God and I are one, I'm the visible aspect of what He is". When the common sense, unsophisticated people reply "Hey, you're trying to usurp God's place, putting yourself on His place" the only reply we get is "We never said that, don't be mean drawing this kind of absolutely unrelated conclusion. Bad, evil, mean, prejudicial! All I mean is that we have a special relation. So, obey me all the time because I may or may not be stating something infallible right now and not because I demand obedience like the one that is proper to God only. That's the only intelligent, tolerant, loving thing to do!"

One has to analyse claims *and* concrete acts to understand what is going on. And in the RC, regarding the Pope, it's mostly doublespeak.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 02:10:38 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,647


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #64 on: July 08, 2010, 03:42:42 PM »

Fabio, why should anyone accept your authority to set forth the polity of someone else's church, especially considering the polemic you have thus far treated us to?

That is why I used an official document of the Pope. What's so hard to understand about that?
That you, just like your buddy Isa, like to build your polemics on proof texts.  Yes, I recognize as an academic how important it is to cite authorities outside yourself if you want to communicate your point persuasively, but there's a very fine line between that legitimate practice on the one hand and shameless proof texting on the other.

Aleut, Papist and you, on the other hand, bring to confront that, just informal conversation of pals in a forum. In what I had wrong information - about the organization of the Aglican community - I simply asked questions and learned. You'll not find any polemic from my side regarding that. So much for I just trying to create polemycs.

Now, on the issue of the RC, despite an official epistle of an infallible Pope saying that the sky is red, people want to give a plethora of indirect, metaphorical meanings that are no-way implied in the clear-cut straight statement of the infallible Pope just to prevent admitting that he stated an absurdity and got it wrong. And when people claim that internet conversations between friends should have more proeminence than official documents issued by infallible authorities, it is *I* who would be trying to use an argument of authority? Please.
See my earlier comments on proof texting.  You're using a few statements from a pope, which you've likely removed from their proper context, to prove your point in an Internet discussion.  I think it totally legit, therefore, to question your use of this statement (as opposed to the statement itself) and compare your use of this statement against how our Catholic posters understand it.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 03:49:48 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #65 on: July 08, 2010, 03:58:32 PM »

Fabio, why should anyone accept your authority to set forth the polity of someone else's church, especially considering the polemic you have thus far treated us to?

That is why I used an official document of the Pope. What's so hard to understand about that?
That you, just like your buddy Isa, like to build your polemics on proof texts.  Yes, I recognize as an academic how important it is to cite authorities outside yourself if you want to communicate your point persuasively, but there's a very fine line between that legitimate practice on the one hand and shameless proof texting on the other.

Aleut, Papist and you, on the other hand, bring to confront that, just informal conversation of pals in a forum. In what I had wrong information - about the organization of the Aglican community - I simply asked questions and learned. You'll not find any polemic from my side regarding that. So much for I just trying to create polemycs.

Now, on the issue of the RC, despite an official epistle of an infallible Pope saying that the sky is red, people want to give a plethora of indirect, metaphorical meanings that are no-way implied in the clear-cut straight statement of the infallible Pope just to prevent admitting that he stated an absurdity and got it wrong. And when people claim that internet conversations between friends should have more proeminence than official documents issued by infallible authorities, it is *I* who would be trying to use an argument of authority? Please.
See my earlier comments on proof texting.  You're using a few statements from a pope, which you've likely removed from their proper context, to prove your point in an Internet discussion.  I think it totally legit, therefore, to question your use of this statement (as opposed to the statement itself) and compare your use of this statement against how our Catholic posters understand it.

The problem there Aleut, is that I did not bring a statement out of context. I brought the two paragraphs that are related to it, which are from a publically available document on the internet. I hope that you are not saying that the only honest thing would be to copy the entire document here. If in its immediate context (two paragraphs I made available here) or in the whole of the document there is something that can, in a straight-forward manner change the meaning of those statements, please, bring it to the discussion and I'll be glad to change my opinion if that is the case.

Here is the whole quote again:

Quote
Pope Pius XII Encyclical of 1943

40. But we must not think that He rules only in a hidden[59] or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Divine Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. You know, Venerable Brethren, that after He had ruled the "little flock"[60] Himself during His mortal pilgrimage, Christ our Lord, when about to leave this world and return to the Father, entrusted to the Chief of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded. Since He was all wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisible, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into heaven this Unam Sanctam;[61] and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.

41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 04:01:09 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,654



WWW
« Reply #66 on: July 08, 2010, 04:57:42 PM »

To be fair to Catholics, the context of any one passage is the entire Catholic Tradition. Any papal encyclical must be understood in the context of the Catholic Tradition, and especially any passage from an encyclical must be understood in the context of the Catholic Tradition.

It is not reasonable to excerpt a passage and explain it as YOU want to explain it without reference to how the wider and comprehensive Catholic Tradition interprets it. We may well disagree with that Catholic Tradition, but reading a passage with reference to that Tradition is the only proper way to proceed unless we have a narrowly polemical agenda.

Father Peter
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
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: 37,960



« Reply #67 on: July 08, 2010, 05:43:31 PM »

Fabio, why should anyone accept your authority to set forth the polity of someone else's church, especially considering the polemic you have thus far treated us to?

That is why I used an official document of the Pope. What's so hard to understand about that?
That you, just like your buddy Isa, like to build your polemics on proof texts.  

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.

Sorry, I'm a peeker.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,647


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #68 on: July 08, 2010, 05:51:29 PM »

^ And what does that have to do with the number of fleas on a dog's back? Huh
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: 37,960



« Reply #69 on: July 08, 2010, 05:58:25 PM »

To be fair to Catholics, the context of any one passage is the entire Catholic Tradition. Any papal encyclical must be understood in the context of the Catholic Tradition, and especially any passage from an encyclical must be understood in the context of the Catholic Tradition.

That's just the problem, Father. Century after century, papal bull after papal bull, crusade and after crusade.  The Vatican's tradition doesn't start at the "spirit of Vatican II."

Quote
It is not reasonable to excerpt a passage and explain it as YOU want to explain it without reference to how the wider and comprehensive Catholic Tradition interprets it. We may well disagree with that Catholic Tradition, but reading a passage with reference to that Tradition is the only proper way to proceed unless we have a narrowly polemical agenda.

Let's give an example you may be familiar with.  As you commemorate Pope Shenoudah, you are aware of that title.  Ordinarily, those hierarchs who submit to the Vatican are allowed to keep their titles, so the Syriac Patriarch of Antioch in submission is still called Patriarch, the Armenian primate in submission to the Vatican bears the title catholicos, etc. Not so Alexandria: neither the Copt who submited, nor the Melkite who appended it to is titles, nor the Latin that the Fifth Crusade was supposed to impose is allowed to have their Orthodox counterparts "Pope." The Vatican's communion isn't big enough for two popes. Another difference between it and the Church of the first millenium.
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: 37,960



« Reply #70 on: July 08, 2010, 06:01:58 PM »

^ And what does that have to do with the number of fleas on a dog's back? Huh
Don't know. Don't have a dog, or fleas.

As for taking the Vatican at its word, that should be self explanatiory.  So the Vatican claims that it hasn't reduced its episcopate to one bishop with a myriad of auxiliaries if not acolytes. Look at it in action.
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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,654



WWW
« Reply #71 on: July 08, 2010, 06:16:40 PM »

I do believe that the doctrine of ordinary papal jurisdiction essentially destroys the traditional ecclesiology of the Church.

But where I think I disagree with you is that if I was to write a paper on that topic I would want to thoroughly understand how the Catholic Church understands that doctrine and would not want to write as though my understanding was sufficient in itself. Having thoroughly understood the Catholic position I might want to say either that I disagreed with it, or that I understood what the Catholics wanted to say by it, but believed that it had unintended consequences.

But a proper discussion of a Catholic doctrine must surely require a proper appreciation of the Catholic context.

I have endured 16 years of being told what I believe by people who clearly do not know what I believe, therefore in regard to others I always want to try to hear what they believe from their own mouths as far as possible. I regularly meet with Catholic bishops and priests and therefore have no excuse for not finding out properly what they believe before I criticise a point of view.

Father Peter
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
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #72 on: July 08, 2010, 06:40:18 PM »



Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.



I am sorry but this is just stupid and you know it. If anyone declared that the pope was present in the host, you know that such a person would be declared an idolatrous heretic. You are reading your own prejudiced view into the teachings of the Catholic Church and are demonstrating that your views cannot be taken seriously.

blahblahblah, "I don't like it, so it's all prejudice, I won't hear it."

The priest who said it wasn't. Wink Plus since when logical syllogisms are "prejudices"?

1) The Pope is the visible head of the Church and Christ is the invisible head;
2) The Pope and Christ are one;

Which one follows?

3a) The relation of Pope and Christ is iconic as per Orthodox eclesiology for bishops, therefore "Pope and Christ are one" is just a figure of speech;

or

3b) The relation of the Pope and Christ is *more than* iconic and more intimate than that;

If 3a) and the Pope is just iconically Christ, so his sovereignity over the Church is also iconic, a symbol, "primus inter pares" and not substantial allowing actual government and intervation; that is the actual Orthodox Catholic eclesiology about the Primate.

If 3b) and the Pope is *more* iconic than the other bishops, if his relation is more intimate than the other bishops, than RC eclesiology would be right, for it would be *through* him that the others would have his legitimacy; *This* is the actual claim of RCs, that he is shepard of shepards, that he is the one who conveys legitimacy to sacraments. Now, is there something in between A is B and A represents B? Can something have more than close resemblance without being identity? Because if there were, "Pope and Christ are one" would still be a figure of speech pointing to this alternative. If there isn't, as I believe it is the case, then "Pope and Christ are one" is literall, which if it were true, would justify RC eclesiology and acts.

What is it? Which one follows from

1) H = C; (on heaven)
2) H = P; (on earth)

3) P = C (on earth)?

or

3) P = (an icon of) C?

There is a difference between being one with some one in that some one is in communion with another, as all Christians are united to Christ. The Pope is one with Christ in this sense, and also through his authority.

Then there is onotological oneness. As in the identity a=a. The Pope is not one with Christ in this sense.

The fact that you cannot see or that you refuse to see this is a clear demonstration of your deep seated and irrational prejudice against the Catholic Church. You are creating staw men for the sake of scoring points in your attack on the Catholic Faith. Unfortunatley Isa has joined you in this and I find it really disappointing.

I'm not sure what to think about Fabio's argument, but it seems to me you haven't addressed his most important question, namely, is there some third term between (a) identity (or what you called "ontological unity"), and (b) iconic representation which could be said to describe the pope's relationship with Christ?

Until you answer that satisfactorily, I'm afraid it looks to me as if you are indeed guilty of proposing incomplete syllogisms and then complaining when someone dares draw out the conclusion.

I agree with you that Fabio is using something like a straw-man argument, since I assume you do not actually believe the pope and Christ are ontologically one. Certainly I've never met any Catholics who'd claim this! But I think what Fabio is trying to get you to see is that maybe you should: if you draw out the logical conclusions of your ecclesiology, you would believe in Fabio's scarecrow. If that makes you uncomfortable, you should find a different ecclesiology that doesn't lead to idolatry. Until then, you'll be trying to hold onto disparate, contradictory beliefs while claiming them, against reason, to be non-contradictory.

Does that make any sense?
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,654



WWW
« Reply #73 on: July 08, 2010, 06:51:34 PM »

If you read the Catholic Cathechism on the Episcopal College, and in many other places, then it clearly describes the position of the Pope, and seems to me to clearly describe an ecclesiology which is not Orthodox. But it describes the Catholic view as the Catholic Church wishes it to be understood, and should therefore surely be the appropriate place to begin.

In the Catechism the local bishop is given jurisdiction over his local Church, which is as we would describe our hierarchy, but we would depart when the Catehchism says that the Pope has universal and unhindered jurisdiction over the whole Church, and when it says that a council of bishops has no authority apart from when in union with the Pope. This does deny the local bishop any jursidiction at all which is not actually subject to the Pope.

The Catechism seems coherent, but wrong from an Orthodox point of view. I see no value or charity in insisting that the Catholics believe something other than the Catechism teaches. The Catechism does not seem to me to teach that the Pope IS Christ, but that he acts with Christ's authority.

Father Peter
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
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #74 on: July 08, 2010, 06:58:39 PM »

You're using a few statements from a pope, which you've likely removed from their proper context, to prove your point in an Internet discussion.  I think it totally legit, therefore, to question your use of this statement (as opposed to the statement itself) and compare your use of this statement against how our Catholic posters understand it.

But what Fabio's arguing, if I understand him correctly, is that the Roman Catholic "context" is itself the problem, that is to say, taken as a whole, Latin doctrine appears full of incomplete syllogisms that the RC believer is asked to refrain from completing out loud.

The problem is exactly that "how our Catholic posters understand" their doctrine, and what their doctrine actually teaches may be two different things!
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #75 on: July 08, 2010, 07:00:02 PM »

To be fair to Catholics, the context of any one passage is the entire Catholic Tradition. Any papal encyclical must be understood in the context of the Catholic Tradition, and especially any passage from an encyclical must be understood in the context of the Catholic Tradition.

It is not reasonable to excerpt a passage and explain it as YOU want to explain it without reference to how the wider and comprehensive Catholic Tradition interprets it. We may well disagree with that Catholic Tradition, but reading a passage with reference to that Tradition is the only proper way to proceed unless we have a narrowly polemical agenda.

Father Peter

Father, as a linguist, I must disagree. Just like any kind of measure, to interpret a text, we must have a clearly defined reference. What you are saying is like saying the only way to know the position of an object is if we consider *all* the space in the universe. That is not abstractly impossible, but it is unfeasible in practice.

In a similar fashion, and that stands for Orhtodoxy as well, we cannot call Tradition as the only reference because it is simply too wide. The interextual possibilities are so many that basically any meaning can be derived from any singular piece being examined.

To analyse critically a text one has to *first* determine a limited scope of reference not to fall into polisemy.

We are analysing what the popes mean when they say they are one with God and that they are the visible aspect of what Jesus is invisibly. I chose an encyclical of a Pope, who, it's safe to assume, has studied these matters deeply. I have brought those statements. Aleut called for a wider context than loose sentences. I pointed out the context had already been given in the two paragraphs and that the whole document was freely available for an even wider context. Now that it was pointed out, there is a calling for an even larger context which, in my opinion, can make any sentence mean anything. Which by the way, is the argument some RCs friends had already made in trying to convince me that the Pope's infallibility is correct. As they have said "You just have to accept his statement. There are several ways of understanding it!" Of course there are! Everything can mean anything in a non-delimited context.

But, if an encyclical from a Pope, making reference to what another Pope had said before, about the nature of the Church and the role of his office is not contextualized enough, what is?
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 07:02:49 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #76 on: July 08, 2010, 07:08:38 PM »

I see no value or charity in insisting that the Catholics believe something other than the Catechism teaches.

I see limited value in it. I don't wish to be uncharitable toward Roman Catholics or to offend anyone on this thread. And I take Catholics at their word about what they believe.

However,

I'm mostly exploring what Fabio is saying because it is interesting to me as an argument. I don't think it's an illegitimate argument, because no one has yet explained to me the flaw in the reasoning. But I'm totally open to seeing the flaw. I'm no expert logician.

My mom, a Protestant, once told me 'I believe Jesus Christ is truly literally present in Communion.' I suggested that her belief in the real presence was inconsistent with her Protestant ecclesiology (and frankly with the teaching of her church). I think I was right, but of course, my mom wants to have her cake and eat it too. I think this situation is not unlike the one we're discussing. People often claim to believe things that ultimately, placed side-by-side, are contradictory. I think it's legitimate to call such beliefs into question.

People often grill us Orthodox on contradictions and we usually just shout "Mystery!" to get them off our backs. But just because I think Orthodoxy is true, doesn't mean I think it's out-of-bounds (or even uncharitable) for people to question what they see as contradictions in my belief system.

I think if we can all agree to be nice, we can do that sort of grilling here without too many feelings being hurt.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #77 on: July 08, 2010, 07:10:02 PM »

You're using a few statements from a pope, which you've likely removed from their proper context, to prove your point in an Internet discussion.  I think it totally legit, therefore, to question your use of this statement (as opposed to the statement itself) and compare your use of this statement against how our Catholic posters understand it.

But what Fabio's arguing, if I understand him correctly, is that the Roman Catholic "context" is itself the problem, that is to say, taken as a whole, Latin doctrine appears full of incomplete syllogisms that the RC believer is asked to refrain from completing out loud.

The problem is exactly that "how our Catholic posters understand" their doctrine, and what their doctrine actually teaches may be two different things!

That's exactly it JLatimer. You nailed my point. I know RCs don't believe in an identity of Christ and the Pope ontollogically. But unless a third term to conclude the syllogism is found, one must either accept this horrendous idea, or return to Orthodox eclesiology (iconic identity) which does not support the kind of administration the RCC currently has.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #78 on: July 08, 2010, 07:14:13 PM »

charity

Also, charity and misology are not the same thing. Neither are polemic and dialectic.

(i.e. we're all adults here and should be able to handle difficult questions and arguments)
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #79 on: July 08, 2010, 08:26:36 PM »

Just as a note to whoever thinks I don't understand what RCs believe about the Pope (which is, in my opinion, radically different from what several Popes of post-Caroligian periods have stated about themselves).

It is a relation of King (Christ) and Steward(the Pope). Since ancient times, and we see that even in the story of Joseph of Egypt, the lord of a house would give the keys of his treasury to a person of trust who administer it. In fact, one can reasonably argue that Joseph, in this respect, is a prefiguration of the primate as well.

However, there is an even better prefiguration of the role of the primate in the Old Testament, in the figure of Elliakin. Here is the passage:

Quote
Isaiah 22:14-25
And it was revealed in my ears by the LORD of hosts, Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die, saith the Lord GOD of hosts.

Thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, Go, repair to this treasurer, even to Shebna, who is over the house, and say,

What hast thou here? and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewed thee out a sepulcher here, as he that heweth him out a sepulcher on high, and that graveth a habitation for himself in a rock?

Behold, the LORD will carry thee away with a mighty captivity, and will surely cover thee.

With violence he will surely turn and toss thee like a ball into a wide country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.

And I will drive thee from thy station, and from thy state shall he pull thee down.

And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:

And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.

And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.

In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken it.

All the famous passage of Matthew breaths with reference to this. The donation of the keys. "I will pray for you to be steady", and so on. The keys as a symbols of a kind of governing power.

But the prefiguration shows more than RCs would like.

First, that this grace is *not* given in a irremovable way. Shebna before Elliakin had it, but lost it. Even Elliakin's privilege is foreseen to be lost in the future. Indeed,*when Eliakin abandoned his role as steward to put himself as king of Judah, under the name of Jehoiakim, by interference of Pharaoh*, among other things that brought great idolatry to the kingdom, he burned the prophecies of Jeremiah, in practice, though not in words, breaking apart with the Word of God and His people, and bringing about what had been foreseen, in spite of him being "fastened as a nail in a sure place":

Quote
Jeremiah 36

28 "Take another scroll and write on it all the words that were on the first scroll, which Jehoiakim king of Judah burned up. 29 Also tell Jehoiakim king of Judah, 'This is what the LORD says: You burned that scroll and said, "Why did you write on it that the king of Babylon would certainly come and destroy this land and cut off both men and animals from it?" 30 Therefore, this is what the LORD says about Jehoiakim king of Judah: He will have no one to sit on the throne of David; his body will be thrown out and exposed to the heat by day and the frost by night. 31 I will punish him and his children and his attendants for their wickedness; I will bring on them and those living in Jerusalem and the people of Judah every disaster I pronounced against them, because they have not listened.' "

 32 So Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to the scribe Baruch son of Neriah, and as Jeremiah dictated, Baruch wrote on it all the words of the scroll that Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And many similar words were added to them.

What God is telling us in this prefiguration is that, indeed, the prerrogatives of the Primate are high. But it does not belong to any person in particular. It was taken from Shebna to be given to Eliakin and later were taken from Eliakin as well. This is, my friends, Orthodox Catholic ecclesiology. The Primate was first Rome, now it is Constantinople and in the future, should Constantinople fall, could be Antioch, Alexandria or any other Patriarchal see.

The problem is that - despite not being said with these words, nor thus explicitily believed by RCs - they do *act* as if there was an "ontological" identity between the role of "steward of the King before the Church" and the role (not the person) of the Roman pope.

Because this remains unsaid but it is acted upon, worse "beasts" are raised in that silent realm. The role of the steward substitutes the role of the king himself. The other "officials" of the kingdom are seen to have their authority not from the king directly, but from the king *through* the steward. The steward is visible and the king is invisible.

I, particularly, do not think it is too odd, that we see, side by side to Orthodox statements about the primate as steward of the King in the Church, statements of absolute power as we saw in many Popes and others more ambiguous today that depend on "context".

The Caroligians, as a clan, used to be the stewards of the previous dinasty, the Merovingians. More and more, the stewards assumed roles of the kings, even going to war, being the "visible authority" while the "invisible king" remained in the castle. The "visible head" of the kingdom carried all the signs given by the "invisible king" and were ever more ruling the kingdom not in name of the king, but in name of themselves.

At last, Pepin, the Short, pressed the Pope asking if it was right that there was a powerless king. This way, he became the first Caroligian king. His son was Charlesmagne, who played more or less the same cards but with higher bets since the Emperor of the Roman Empire was, for the West, an "invisible king", thus allowing himself to play the role of the "visible head" in practice, although he never actually used the imperial titles. Much like papal discourse soon later, he would refrain from claiming a perfect identity with the emperor, but would reclaim all the related authority from those under his control.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepin_the_Short )

Again, in my opinion, this "caroligian virus" is what contaminated Rome and eventually led to its fall away from the Church. The steward more and more seeks power de facto that is proper to the King while vehemently denying in all de jure instances to assume it, until he has in practice usurped it and needs only an "authority" to letigitimize it socially.




« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 08:32:02 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #80 on: July 09, 2010, 02:44:13 AM »

Apology. Wrong thread.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2010, 02:53:52 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #81 on: July 10, 2010, 10:46:30 AM »

I know there is this idea (especially on the Internet) that the way to convert people is to make fun of their current belief system and make them realize how stupid it is.  It's amazing, however, how often that does NOT work out in real life.  Maybe it's because it wasn't the way Jesus did things.

Remember His conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well?  Did He show her amusing, cynical pictures indicating how dumb and heretical the Samaritans were for their beliefs?  Maybe that's in the new Orthodox Study Bible; it's not in my version.  Grin

My point being: caricaturing other people's beliefs and making them sound worse than they really are, in practice, is not going to win anyone to Christ.  And I assume that's what you're trying to do here - win people to the true church of Christ.  Right?  Huh
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #82 on: July 10, 2010, 01:34:45 PM »

Well, it has been proven that one of the basic purposes of the internet is to make it easier to assemble a group of like-minded people so we can congratulate ourselves on the correctness of our thought and ridicule the wrong-headed.
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #83 on: July 10, 2010, 02:21:54 PM »

Well, it has been proven that one of the basic purposes of the internet is to make it easier to assemble a group of like-minded people so we can congratulate ourselves on the correctness of our thought and ridicule the wrong-headed.

 Grin Hi Keble!  Nice to see you are still here.

I haven't been logging in here (or at any religious-discussion forum, for that matter) for several months, mainly because of threads like this, which tend to irritate me.  And now that I'm starting menopause, trust me - you do NOT want to irritate me.  Shocked   Cool   Cheesy
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #84 on: July 10, 2010, 02:31:40 PM »

And I assume that's what you're trying to do here - win people to the true church of Christ.  Right?  Huh

In this case, that's not what I, at least, am trying to do. I was trying to have a discussion with people, like-minded and different-minded alike, about an interesting theological topic, and about logic, and categories, and authority, and textual interpretation, and about the nature and value of arguments, etc..

Interesting discussions often include tough questions, difficult topics, uncomfortableness, and sometimes they even get heated [gasp!]: see Plato, collected works.

Generally I don't expect to win any body to Orthodoxy with an argument. A forum is an ideal place for mature, thinking people to engage in serious, interesting discussion. Alas, too often anything that makes anyone slightly uncomfortable is denigrated on this site as "polemic" (as if polemic was necessarily a pejorative anyway - read Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments: great, interesting book, polemic in style).

As I've suggested before, this is misology masquerading as charity.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,647


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #85 on: July 10, 2010, 02:48:16 PM »

Remember His conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well?  Did He show her amusing, cynical pictures indicating how dumb and heretical the Samaritans were for their beliefs?  Maybe that's in the new Orthodox Study Bible; it's not in my version.  Grin
It's not in the new OSB either, so I think your attempt at a sly cheap shot a bit off the mark. Wink  Otherwise, you make some very good points.
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #86 on: July 10, 2010, 05:25:28 PM »

Remember His conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well?  Did He show her amusing, cynical pictures indicating how dumb and heretical the Samaritans were for their beliefs?  Maybe that's in the new Orthodox Study Bible; it's not in my version.  Grin
It's not in the new OSB either, so I think your attempt at a sly cheap shot a bit off the mark. Wink  Otherwise, you make some very good points.

Now see, that's the whole problem with these forums!  You think I was making a cheap shot at the OSB and I wasn't - was actually trying to point out the opposite - the difference between what what is sometimes (regrettably) put forward on the Internet as Orthodoxy and what it actually teaches.  I have actually had good conversations with a lot of Orthodox friends, online and in person.  So my apologies if it sounded like I was being unkind - it wasn't intentional!   Embarrassed

As for the "convert priest" quoted above, I'm sure you'll agree that converts don't always get their facts straight.  And there are, shall we say, overly enthusiastic folks in every tradition.  I remember many years ago coming across a devotional pamphlet about Mary by some very well-meaning person who had somehow gotten the idea that we consume the flesh of MARY in the Eucharist as well as Jesus!  Her reasoning?  Jesus got His human nature (DNA) from Mary only; therefore, if you believe the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus, then ipso facto, ergo sum, it's Mary too!  Erm, makes sense, right?   Roll Eyes

Need I point out that that, also, is not what the Catholic Church teaches?  But I'm sure some non-RC person read that pamphlet and found more fuel for their "Roman Catholics worship Mary" beliefs.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2010, 05:26:48 PM by theistgal » Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #87 on: July 10, 2010, 05:31:19 PM »

And I assume that's what you're trying to do here - win people to the true church of Christ.  Right?  Huh

In this case, that's not what I, at least, am trying to do. I was trying to have a discussion with people, like-minded and different-minded alike, about an interesting theological topic, and about logic, and categories, and authority, and textual interpretation, and about the nature and value of arguments, etc..

Interesting discussions often include tough questions, difficult topics, uncomfortableness, and sometimes they even get heated [gasp!]: see Plato, collected works.

Generally I don't expect to win any body to Orthodoxy with an argument. A forum is an ideal place for mature, thinking people to engage in serious, interesting discussion. Alas, too often anything that makes anyone slightly uncomfortable is denigrated on this site as "polemic" (as if polemic was necessarily a pejorative anyway - read Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments: great, interesting book, polemic in style).

As I've suggested before, this is misology masquerading as charity.

It's one thing to ask tough questions.  It's another to post out-and-out falsehoods ("Catholics believe the Pope is part of the Eucharist!") and then claim Catholics are being immature when they object.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #88 on: July 10, 2010, 06:57:48 PM »

And I assume that's what you're trying to do here - win people to the true church of Christ.  Right?  Huh

In this case, that's not what I, at least, am trying to do. I was trying to have a discussion with people, like-minded and different-minded alike, about an interesting theological topic, and about logic, and categories, and authority, and textual interpretation, and about the nature and value of arguments, etc..

Interesting discussions often include tough questions, difficult topics, uncomfortableness, and sometimes they even get heated [gasp!]: see Plato, collected works.

Generally I don't expect to win any body to Orthodoxy with an argument. A forum is an ideal place for mature, thinking people to engage in serious, interesting discussion. Alas, too often anything that makes anyone slightly uncomfortable is denigrated on this site as "polemic" (as if polemic was necessarily a pejorative anyway - read Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments: great, interesting book, polemic in style).

As I've suggested before, this is misology masquerading as charity.

It's one thing to ask tough questions.  It's another to post out-and-out falsehoods ("Catholics believe the Pope is part of the Eucharist!") and then claim Catholics are being immature when they object.

Only that it was never stated that. I just quoted what a priest said as evidence that the "ad absurdum" conclusion of the sylogism could and was taken on occasion.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #89 on: July 10, 2010, 07:11:42 PM »

And plus let me say something. I was rather surprised by the claim of "offense" because of the drawings. I could expect, ugly, badly done, and even "simplory"- this one I think someone made - since I had done them as a kind of schematic thing and schemes - like the typical drawing of an atom - are more references than maps and usually fall greatly behind of what they represent. Yet, they *do* point to the real thing.

But, offensive?? This was rather surreal to me. It sounded like those people who when you say "Hi Jane, nice hair!" respond with with a lawsuit for sexual harassment.

If a body with an invisible head and a visible head is insulting in image, why is it not in words? It could have been a misrepresentation as was with the Anglican church. I was corrected, accepted, learned one more thing and moved on. I only would like to see this kind of indignation come when that same image is proposed even in words, even if by someone who claims to be the said visible head. Undecided
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #90 on: July 10, 2010, 08:48:05 PM »

Yet, they *do* point to the real thing.

They do not point to a real thing.  The drawings are your personal opinions put into graphic form.  Others disagree with your particular interpretations and have said so. 

These pictures are like the first posting today by a new member that was supposed to show how degraded Christians were compared to Muslims in their piety and practice, imho.  They are to show others as deficient compared with your chosen Church.  They are your ideas and not necessarily accurate nor true, as witness the case of Anglicans. (But the drawing cannot be changed to show that).

Quote
But, offensive?? This was rather surreal to me. It sounded like those people who when you say "Hi Jane, nice hair!" respond with with a lawsuit for sexual harassment.

How is that comparable please?  Your drawings were not any kind of compliment such as "nice hair" would be.  They were attempting to show that you think other Churches and Christian bodies are wrong while the one you chose is right.  Undecided  Do you really see any of them as like a compliment? 


Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
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: 37,960



« Reply #91 on: July 10, 2010, 10:55:52 PM »

I know there is this idea (especially on the Internet) that the way to convert people is to make fun of their current belief system and make them realize how stupid it is.  It's amazing, however, how often that does NOT work out in real life.  Maybe it's because it wasn't the way Jesus did things.

Remember His conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well?  Did He show her amusing, cynical pictures indicating how dumb and heretical the Samaritans were for their beliefs?  Maybe that's in the new Orthodox Study Bible; it's not in my version.  Grin

Is this in your version: "Jesus said to her "....You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship...."

Quote
My point being: caricaturing other people's beliefs and making them sound worse than they really are, in practice, is not going to win anyone to Christ.  And I assume that's what you're trying to do here - win people to the true church of Christ.  Right?  Huh
And where have other people's beliefs been made to sound worse than they really are?
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: 37,960



« Reply #92 on: July 10, 2010, 10:57:51 PM »

Well, it has been proven that one of the basic purposes of the internet is to make it easier to assemble a group of like-minded people so we can congratulate ourselves on the correctness of our thought and ridicule the wrong-headed.
We do that on the Feast of Orthodoxy because we can.
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: 37,960



« Reply #93 on: July 10, 2010, 11:02:02 PM »

Remember His conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well?  Did He show her amusing, cynical pictures indicating how dumb and heretical the Samaritans were for their beliefs?  Maybe that's in the new Orthodox Study Bible; it's not in my version.  Grin
It's not in the new OSB either, so I think your attempt at a sly cheap shot a bit off the mark. Wink  Otherwise, you make some very good points.

Now see, that's the whole problem with these forums!  You think I was making a cheap shot at the OSB and I wasn't - was actually trying to point out the opposite - the difference between what what is sometimes (regrettably) put forward on the Internet as Orthodoxy and what it actually teaches.  I have actually had good conversations with a lot of Orthodox friends, online and in person.  So my apologies if it sounded like I was being unkind - it wasn't intentional!   Embarrassed

As for the "convert priest" quoted above, I'm sure you'll agree that converts don't always get their facts straight.  And there are, shall we say, overly enthusiastic folks in every tradition.  I remember many years ago coming across a devotional pamphlet about Mary by some very well-meaning person who had somehow gotten the idea that we consume the flesh of MARY in the Eucharist as well as Jesus!  Her reasoning?  Jesus got His human nature (DNA) from Mary only; therefore, if you believe the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus, then ipso facto, ergo sum, it's Mary too!  Erm, makes sense, right?   Roll Eyes

Need I point out that that, also, is not what the Catholic Church teaches?

The Vatican doesn't teach it just yet...The IC was once condemned too.


Quote
But I'm sure some non-RC person read that pamphlet and found more fuel for their "Roman Catholics worship Mary" beliefs.

Roman Catholic fueled that fire.
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: 37,960



« Reply #94 on: July 10, 2010, 11:04:32 PM »

Yet, they *do* point to the real thing.

They do not point to a real thing.  The drawings are your personal opinions put into graphic form.  Others disagree with your particular interpretations and have said so. 

Then let them do their own drawing and substantiate it.

Quote
These pictures are like the first posting today by a new member that was supposed to show how degraded Christians were compared to Muslims in their piety and practice, imho.  They are to show others as deficient compared with your chosen Church.  They are your ideas and not necessarily accurate nor true, as witness the case of Anglicans. (But the drawing cannot be changed to show that).

That the drawing can't be changed to show that might hint that it is true.


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
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #95 on: July 10, 2010, 11:22:01 PM »

Yet, they *do* point to the real thing.

They do not point to a real thing.  The drawings are your personal opinions put into graphic form.  Others disagree with your particular interpretations and have said so.  


So ok,let's put it straight. I want to see the RCs say here straight that:

1) they do not believe that the Church has an invisible head in the Person of Jesus Christ and a visible head in the Pope;
2) That they utterly refuse the horrendous idea that the visible and invisible heads are one.

Say that, and prove that at the same time you are not diverging from RC teaching and that drawing will be wrong.

Quote
They are to show others as deficient compared with your chosen Church.

That is exactly what each church believe about each other.

Quote
Quote
But, offensive?? This was rather surreal to me. It sounded like those people who when you say "Hi Jane, nice hair!" respond with with a lawsuit for sexual harassment.

How is that comparable please?  Your drawings were not any kind of compliment such as "nice hair" would be.  They were attempting to show that you think other Churches and Christian bodies are wrong while the one you chose is right.  Undecided  Do you really see any of them as like a compliment?  

Ok, change the example to "Hey Jane, you should really change that haircut" and get a lawsuit for bullying.  

The point is that people is feeling offended by *seeing* what could have been said in words: that we believe the Orthodox Church is the Body of Christ and that the other confessions of faith are indeed defective: because their eclesiologies cannot properly represent a normal body. I did not remake the Anglican drawing because I'm not sure yet what kind of image would portray what I've been told. And be assured that I don't keep thinking of anything like "oh, how can I make them look bad into this", but really how in terms of a body that could be pictured.


« Last Edit: July 10, 2010, 11:23:19 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #96 on: July 11, 2010, 11:28:41 AM »


That the drawing can't be changed to show that might hint that it is true.


Nah. Just that we can't change our posts after a short time.  Cheesy
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #97 on: July 11, 2010, 11:57:33 AM »

Quote
How is that comparable please?  Your drawings were not any kind of compliment such as "nice hair" would be.  They were attempting to show that you think other Churches and Christian bodies are wrong while the one you chose is right.  Undecided  Do you really see any of them as like a compliment?  

Ok, change the example to "Hey Jane, you should really change that haircut" and get a lawsuit for bullying.  

"lawsuit for bullying".  Have you seen this personally?   

Saying things like that to another person is rude or cruel or simply out of line depending on the relationship the speaker has with "Jane".  Other people's feelings need to be taken into account, I was taught,and for a stranger or an acquaintance to make such a remark is inappropriate to say the least.  Do you really think that "Jane" would take such a blunt and personal comment as anything but hurtful and offensive?  Would you like to have strangers come up to you and make bald declarations to your face about your looks or some other personal aspect? If others say that they don't like it, would you insist that they're wrong and it's fine for you to make personal remarks because you think it's good for them?   What if "Jane" is wearing a wig because she has lost her hair due to cancer or happens to like her hair. Haircuts can be a matter of personal taste so why should just anyone get to be so forward in denigrating them?

Your drawings are your personal opinion of other Churches.  Are you intimately acquainted with all of them? Why do you think that that they should humbly accept your simplistic depictions as true? Why should they not object or be offended by an "outsider" passing such a personal judgment?  Can you put yourself in their place and consider if someone made some kind of drawing about EO that you knew wasn't accurate whether you would just accept it?

Quote
The point is that people is feeling offended by *seeing* what could have been said in words: that we believe the Orthodox Church is the Body of Christ and that the other confessions of faith are indeed defective: because their eclesiologies cannot properly represent a normal body.

I've read that many times and it is natural that those who choose to be in a particular Church believe that  it is the best and correct one.  The RCs say the same thing. There's no point in me being offended.   I don't believe that EO or RC is the only way to be a Christian and therefore I am not a member of either Church.  But I acknowledge that that is what is EO and RC believe.  I think people are feeling "offended" because of a claim that some simplistic drawings by one person are being put forth as accurate depictions and statements have been made about some Churches that are not true.


Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #98 on: July 12, 2010, 11:08:13 AM »



How is that comparable please?  Your drawings were not any kind of compliment such as "nice hair" would be.  They were attempting to show that you think other Churches and Christian bodies are wrong while the one you chose is right.  Undecided  Do you really see any of them as like a compliment?  


Ebor
I think his pictures are worse than that. They are meant to be an insult. They are meant to be strawmen built for easy attack. They are created for the purpose of scoring points in the Catholic vs. Orthodox or Protestant vs. Orthodox debates. Because they lack the purpose of honest dialogue, I believe that these pictures are about nothing more than pride. Speaking with Eastern Orthodox Christians who behave this way starts to wear on a person, and it tempts me to think that there is no purpose in discussing spiritual matters with EOs. ughhh.
Thankfully, most of the EOs that I have met in real life do not behave like the Netodox.

Ebor,
While I do not necessarily agree with your church on many matters, I appreciate how frimly you hold your convictions and how many protestants, such as yourself, do not go on the attack mode when confronted with other forms of Christianity.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 11:10:22 AM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #99 on: July 12, 2010, 11:17:12 AM »

So how would you respond if someone posted the same pictures you did, but for the Eastern Orthodox Christ, put maps of Greece and Russia on each of Christ's shoulders?

It would be an unfair criticism, right? But there are plenty of people out there who have the perception - incorrect, but it's there - that Eastern Orthodoxy is primarily an "ethnic" (usually Greek or Russian) religion rather than a universal one.  Thank God, that perception is changing, but it's definitely still out there - and be honest - there are still some EO's out there who fuel that perception.

It's very easy to find a weakness in someone else's religion and exploit it to make them look stupid.  Fun, too, isn't it?  Not very Christ-like, but who cares about that, right?  Grin
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
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: 37,960



« Reply #100 on: July 12, 2010, 01:01:21 PM »

So how would you respond if someone posted the same pictures you did, but for the Eastern Orthodox Christ, put maps of Greece and Russia on each of Christ's shoulders?

I'd say it was inaccurate, as it is. But then, although Orthodox, I am neither Greek nor Russian. Nor is Christ.


Quote
It would be an unfair criticism, right? But there are plenty of people out there who have the perception - incorrect, but it's there - that Eastern Orthodoxy is primarily an "ethnic" (usually Greek or Russian) religion rather than a universal one.  Thank God, that perception is changing, but it's definitely still out there - and be honest - there are still some EO's out there who fuel that perception.

Your last point is correct.

Quote
It's very easy to find a weakness in someone else's religion and exploit it to make them look stupid.  Fun, too, isn't it?  Not very Christ-like, but who cares about that, right?  Grin
LOL. But the weakness you speak of is the very heart of your creed.
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
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #101 on: July 12, 2010, 02:34:13 PM »



How is that comparable please?  Your drawings were not any kind of compliment such as "nice hair" would be.  They were attempting to show that you think other Churches and Christian bodies are wrong while the one you chose is right.  Undecided  Do you really see any of them as like a compliment?  


Ebor
I think his pictures are worse than that. They are meant to be an insult. They are meant to be strawmen built for easy attack. They are created for the purpose of scoring points in the Catholic vs. Orthodox or Protestant vs. Orthodox debates. Because they lack the purpose of honest dialogue, I believe that these pictures are about nothing more than pride. Speaking with Eastern Orthodox Christians who behave this way starts to wear on a person, and it tempts me to think that there is no purpose in discussing spiritual matters with EOs. ughhh.
Thankfully, most of the EOs that I have met in real life do not behave like the Netodox.

Ah! So, you actually think that someone can say (or not say) something - I clearly stated that the drawings were just schematic and not to be offensive - but, that their acts may be based on something they do not consciously believe about what they're doing, and even the contrary of that. Interesting. Smiley
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #102 on: July 12, 2010, 02:40:35 PM »

Quote
Quote
It's very easy to find a weakness in someone else's religion and exploit it to make them look stupid.  Fun, too, isn't it?  Not very Christ-like, but who cares about that, right?  Grin
LOL. But the weakness you speak of is the very heart of your creed.

Exactly. If someone points to the current excesses in the association of ethnic origins and the Church, we can point, not only to a generic "whole Tradition" but even to an encyclical that actually condemns ethnic phyletism from the Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1872.

This problem of modern Orthodoxy, then, goes against official doctrine. The "weakness" of the RC church is not a (historically) recent fad, but the very core of its eclesiological identity.

I repeat the question to the RC: do you or do you not believe that the Church has a visible head in the Pope and an invisible head in Christ and that, according to declarations of at least two infallible popes these two heads in fact constitute just one, because the Pope is on Earth what Christ in in Heaven?
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 02:40:55 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #103 on: July 12, 2010, 03:30:12 PM »

Quote
How is that comparable please?  Your drawings were not any kind of compliment such as "nice hair" would be.  They were attempting to show that you think other Churches and Christian bodies are wrong while the one you chose is right.  Undecided  Do you really see any of them as like a compliment?  

Ok, change the example to "Hey Jane, you should really change that haircut" and get a lawsuit for bullying.  

"lawsuit for bullying".  Have you seen this personally?  

Which? An event of bullying or a lawsuit because of it?


Quote
Saying things like that to another person is rude or cruel or simply out of line depending on the relationship the speaker has with "Jane".  Other people's feelings need to be taken into account, I was taught,and for a stranger or an acquaintance to make such a remark is inappropriate to say the least.  Do you really think that "Jane" would take such a blunt and personal comment as anything but hurtful and offensive?  Would you like to have strangers come up to you and make bald declarations to your face about your looks or some other personal aspect? If others say that they don't like it, would you insist that they're wrong and it's fine for you to make personal remarks because you think it's good for them?   What if "Jane" is wearing a wig because she has lost her hair due to cancer or happens to like her hair. Haircuts can be a matter of personal taste so why should just anyone get to be so forward in denigrating them?

You're right. It may be rude. But there are things more important than being polite. The politically correct world we live in pays a very high price for it avoids truths just because they sound offensive. As the black author Thomas Sowell put it, blacks systematically perform worse in certain school subjects, just like Asians systematically perform better in some other subjects. There is nothing in these statements that implicate a cause-and-effect relation between genetics and results, *but* if there weren't so many people shouting "racism!" if someone dares to say it, we could maybe find the reason why this happens probably in some socio-cultural conditions that can be changed to improve these people's lives. Likewise with religion. I love my RC and Protestant relatives and friends. My mother uses to receive a group of RC ladies for prayer nights once a month and while I lived with my parents I participated in it (yes, common prayer, condemned as heresy! oh the intolerance, the pride!)

But here is not a common meeting. It is a place to discuss religion and theology. It's like a science forum. If one says that "theory b" is wrong or even unelegant, this is not an offense. It's a statement for discussion.

Quote
Your drawings are your personal opinion of other Churches.
I'll ask once more: do or do not the RC believe that the Church has two heads, one visible on Earth in the person of the current Pope and another invisible in Heaven Who is Christ and that according two infallible popes these two heads are one? Is this my opinion or official doctrine?


Quote
 Are you intimately acquainted with all of them?

With some more than others. I have traditionalist and even Opus Dei friends and many Protestant friends, not to mention frequently reading RC and Protestant books. In fact RC Chesterton, Anglican C.S. Lewis and Protestant Lee Strobel were fundamental in my conversion to "generic" Christianity. The one I know less about is the Anglican church and not by chance it was where I made the grossest mistake.


Quote
Why do you think that that they should humbly accept your simplistic depictions as true? Why should they not object or be offended by an "outsider" passing such a personal judgment?

I never asked to be accepted. That's why I put it in a discussion forum. And in a Orthodox one, by the way. I would never be so insensitive to enter someone else's home to state unpleasant truths they do not want to hear. But, the idea that it is unfitting to do that in a forum that discusses theology, in a subsection for "hot" religious topics... that is what sounds out of place.

Quote
 Can you put yourself in their place and consider if someone made some kind of drawing about EO that you knew wasn't accurate whether you would just accept it?

First thing I would give them consideration. The assumption that I *know* something without a doubt or possibility of being wrong is the one that is prideful. Faith is trust on what can't be rationally known. That which can be rationally known is always open to discussion. Second, I actually did it when I left my spiritualist beliefs for generic Christianity and then for Orthodoxy. So, yes, I am pretty confortable with having my beliefs confronted and even changing them. And I *do* remember how I felt before that, I *do* remember cultivating feelings of offense and that I did not like it. But let me tell you this: truth is far better than what we like or don't. Worse than that: truth usually lies there where it hurts most (today I see that is part of the Mistery of the Cross). There will never be the loving meeting with truth without the painful crucification of our illusions. And RCism and Protestantism *are* illusions. I do not invade RC or Protestant churches to say that. I do that in an Orthodox forum in a sub-section for disturbing discussions. If not even here this could be so openly proclaimed, where else? Any suggestion otherwise amounts to be nothing less than a call to silence about the truth on what the Body of Christ is about. It's not about infalible bishops or books, but an infalible Spirit of Truth linking all the elements (kat'holos) of the Church by a common confession of faith and the common Flesh and Blood of Christ, spiritually and physically. It is One (and therefore undivided), it is Holy, it is Apostolic, it is visible and it is "kat' holic" and not "katta Pope" or "katta Bible".  A church that is invisibly "katta Christ" and visibly "katta Pope" is not where you want to be if you really want to be in Christ. It is a stumbling block and even if it is closer to God than where you before, there is more to go.

Quote
I've read that many times and it is natural that those who choose to be in a particular Church believe

Belief and/or faith are the heart of it. But hearts don't walk around alone. In fact, a heart alone is most probably a dead heart. There is *more* to it than just believing. That is why we say "Christ is risen. Indeed, He is risen."
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 04:00:09 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,647


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #104 on: July 12, 2010, 03:46:33 PM »



How is that comparable please?  Your drawings were not any kind of compliment such as "nice hair" would be.  They were attempting to show that you think other Churches and Christian bodies are wrong while the one you chose is right.  Undecided  Do you really see any of them as like a compliment?  


Ebor
I think his pictures are worse than that. They are meant to be an insult. They are meant to be strawmen built for easy attack. They are created for the purpose of scoring points in the Catholic vs. Orthodox or Protestant vs. Orthodox debates. Because they lack the purpose of honest dialogue, I believe that these pictures are about nothing more than pride. Speaking with Eastern Orthodox Christians who behave this way starts to wear on a person, and it tempts me to think that there is no purpose in discussing spiritual matters with EOs. ughhh.
Thankfully, most of the EOs that I have met in real life do not behave like the Netodox.
And not even a good number of the Netodox act as Fabio Leite has on this thread.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 03:49:53 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #105 on: July 12, 2010, 04:03:40 PM »

Focus, focus!

Do the RC believe that the Church has two heads, one visible on Earth in the person of the Pope of the day and another invisible head in Heaven Who is Christ and that according to two infallible popes these two heads are one? Is this my simplory insulting prideful opinion or official RC binding dogma?
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 04:04:35 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #106 on: July 12, 2010, 04:16:16 PM »

And I assume that's what you're trying to do here - win people to the true church of Christ.  Right?  Huh

In this case, that's not what I, at least, am trying to do. I was trying to have a discussion with people, like-minded and different-minded alike, about an interesting theological topic, and about logic, and categories, and authority, and textual interpretation, and about the nature and value of arguments, etc..

Interesting discussions often include tough questions, difficult topics, uncomfortableness, and sometimes they even get heated [gasp!]: see Plato, collected works.

Generally I don't expect to win any body to Orthodoxy with an argument. A forum is an ideal place for mature, thinking people to engage in serious, interesting discussion. Alas, too often anything that makes anyone slightly uncomfortable is denigrated on this site as "polemic" (as if polemic was necessarily a pejorative anyway - read Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments: great, interesting book, polemic in style).

As I've suggested before, this is misology masquerading as charity.

It's one thing to ask tough questions.  It's another to post out-and-out falsehoods ("Catholics believe the Pope is part of the Eucharist!") and then claim Catholics are being immature when they object.
I didn't post the quote you mention; neither did I accuse you of being immature. Let's just talk. No need for any of us to get upset. I understand why you feel under attack, and I am sorry if I've contributed to what you perceive as a hostile climate. I assure you though I am just interested in discussion.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
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: 37,960



« Reply #107 on: July 12, 2010, 04:21:37 PM »

Quote
Quote
It's very easy to find a weakness in someone else's religion and exploit it to make them look stupid.  Fun, too, isn't it?  Not very Christ-like, but who cares about that, right?  Grin
LOL. But the weakness you speak of is the very heart of your creed.

Exactly. If someone points to the current excesses in the association of ethnic origins and the Church, we can point, not only to a generic "whole Tradition" but even to an encyclical that actually condemns ethnic phyletism from the Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1872.

This problem of modern Orthodoxy, then, goes against official doctrine. The "weakness" of the RC church is not a (historically) recent fad, but the very core of its eclesiological identity.

I repeat the question to the RC: do you or do you not believe that the Church has a visible head in the Pope and an invisible head in Christ and that, according to declarations of at least two infallible popes these two heads in fact constitute just one, because the Pope is on Earth what Christ in in Heaven?
Maybe you should have a Janus head, with one visible face (the pope of Rome's) and the other invisible (Christ's).


For the Anglicans maybe a detached king's head.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 04:41:02 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #108 on: July 12, 2010, 04:23:01 PM »

On the subject of JRR Tolkien, kings, and stewards, I find The Return of the King makes exactly the point Fabio is making: I assume Tolkien, a devout RC by all accounts, must have believed in papal infallibility, and was surely familiar with Eliakin typology. But in his book, Tolkien shows us a steward, Denethor, who does exactly what the Orthodox here are saying popes do (and Eliakin did): he takes power that's not his and refuses to move over for the king! (cf. "the Grand Inquisitor" in _Brothers Karamazov_)
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #109 on: July 13, 2010, 10:20:17 AM »



How is that comparable please?  Your drawings were not any kind of compliment such as "nice hair" would be.  They were attempting to show that you think other Churches and Christian bodies are wrong while the one you chose is right.  Undecided  Do you really see any of them as like a compliment?  


Ebor
I think his pictures are worse than that. They are meant to be an insult. They are meant to be strawmen built for easy attack. They are created for the purpose of scoring points in the Catholic vs. Orthodox or Protestant vs. Orthodox debates. Because they lack the purpose of honest dialogue, I believe that these pictures are about nothing more than pride. Speaking with Eastern Orthodox Christians who behave this way starts to wear on a person, and it tempts me to think that there is no purpose in discussing spiritual matters with EOs. ughhh.
Thankfully, most of the EOs that I have met in real life do not behave like the Netodox.
And not even a good number of the Netodox act as Fabio Leite has on this thread.
I agree. I should have clarified, that most don't even go as far as Farbio Leite or Isa are going on this thread.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #110 on: July 13, 2010, 10:21:18 AM »

Focus, focus!

Do the RC believe that the Church has two heads, one visible on Earth in the person of the Pope of the day and another invisible head in Heaven Who is Christ and that according to two infallible popes these two heads are one? Is this my simplory insulting prideful opinion or official RC binding dogma?

Do the Orthodox believe that each diocese has two heads? One Christ and the other the Bishop?
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #111 on: July 13, 2010, 10:25:52 AM »

On the subject of JRR Tolkien, kings, and stewards, I find The Return of the King makes exactly the point Fabio is making: I assume Tolkien, a devout RC by all accounts, must have believed in papal infallibility, and was surely familiar with Eliakin typology. But in his book, Tolkien shows us a steward, Denethor, who does exactly what the Orthodox here are saying popes do (and Eliakin did): he takes power that's not his and refuses to move over for the king! (cf. "the Grand Inquisitor" in _Brothers Karamazov_)
You know that in the Old Testament Kingdom of David, there was a steward of the House as well right?

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him [as] a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house." - Isaiah 22:20-23


Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
LBK
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,141


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #112 on: July 13, 2010, 10:48:02 AM »

Quote
"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him [as] a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house." - Isaiah 22:20-23

Not sure how this passage can be applied to bishops - it's a classic prophecy on the incarnation of Christ, and the ever-virginity of the Mother of God. It has similar imagery to Ezekiel 43:27-44:4, which is one of the standard OT readings at Orthodox Vespers for feasts of the Mother of God:

The Lord said: “It will be when these days are over, on the eighth day, the priests shall offer your whole-burnt offerings and your peace offerings on the altar, and I shall accept you. Then He brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary that faces toward the east, but it was shut. So the Lord said to me, “This gate shall be shut. It shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it, because the Lord God of Israel will enter by it; therefore, it shall be shut. As for the prince, he will sit in it to eat bread before the Lord. He will go in by way of the gate chamber and go out the same way.” Then He brought me by way of the north gate to the front of the temple, and I looked, and behold, the house of the Lord was full of glory.
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: 37,960



« Reply #113 on: July 13, 2010, 10:53:03 AM »

On the subject of JRR Tolkien, kings, and stewards, I find The Return of the King makes exactly the point Fabio is making: I assume Tolkien, a devout RC by all accounts, must have believed in papal infallibility, and was surely familiar with Eliakin typology. But in his book, Tolkien shows us a steward, Denethor, who does exactly what the Orthodox here are saying popes do (and Eliakin did): he takes power that's not his and refuses to move over for the king! (cf. "the Grand Inquisitor" in _Brothers Karamazov_)
You know that in the Old Testament Kingdom of David, there was a steward of the House as well right?

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him [as] a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house." - Isaiah 22:20-23

Odd that the Vatican didn't know that for over a millenium.  The first published eisogesis I've seen on this is from the 19th century (the manuscript it is based on is from the 17th IIRC).  The notes of the Douay-Rheims, a Bible translated specifically to lure the English from the headship of the king to the headship of the Vatican, says only "Eliakim, a type of Christ."

Btw, as all Vatican apologists, you leave out the next verses:
 24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. 25 In that day, says the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord has spoken it."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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: 37,960



« Reply #114 on: July 13, 2010, 10:55:48 AM »

Focus, focus!

Do the RC believe that the Church has two heads, one visible on Earth in the person of the Pope of the day and another invisible head in Heaven Who is Christ and that according to two infallible popes these two heads are one? Is this my simplory insulting prideful opinion or official RC binding dogma?

Do the Orthodox believe that each diocese has two heads? One Christ and the other the Bishop?
No, but we don't claim the bishop is the visible head for the invisible head either. 

For all the talk, the Vatican explicitely reserves to itself the power to act without reference to the rest of the episcopate. That's the difference.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #115 on: July 13, 2010, 10:55:55 AM »

Quote
"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him [as] a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house." - Isaiah 22:20-23

Not sure how this passage can be applied to bishops - it's a classic prophecy on the incarnation of Christ, and the ever-virginity of the Mother of God. It has similar imagery to Ezekiel 43:27-44:4, which is one of the standard OT readings at Orthodox Vespers for feasts of the Mother of God:

The Lord said: “It will be when these days are over, on the eighth day, the priests shall offer your whole-burnt offerings and your peace offerings on the altar, and I shall accept you. Then He brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary that faces toward the east, but it was shut. So the Lord said to me, “This gate shall be shut. It shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it, because the Lord God of Israel will enter by it; therefore, it shall be shut. As for the prince, he will sit in it to eat bread before the Lord. He will go in by way of the gate chamber and go out the same way.” Then He brought me by way of the north gate to the front of the temple, and I looked, and behold, the house of the Lord was full of glory.
Really? You don't see the parallel between this adn Matthew 16?

"the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder" - Isaiah
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" - Matthew

"So he shall open and none shall shut" -Isaiah
"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" -Matthew

"And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place." - Isaiah
"On this rock I will build my Church" - Matthew

Are you sure that this passge from Isaiah doesn't know illustrate the Old Testament prefigure of the office of the Bishop?
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #116 on: July 13, 2010, 10:57:03 AM »

On the subject of JRR Tolkien, kings, and stewards, I find The Return of the King makes exactly the point Fabio is making: I assume Tolkien, a devout RC by all accounts, must have believed in papal infallibility, and was surely familiar with Eliakin typology. But in his book, Tolkien shows us a steward, Denethor, who does exactly what the Orthodox here are saying popes do (and Eliakin did): he takes power that's not his and refuses to move over for the king! (cf. "the Grand Inquisitor" in _Brothers Karamazov_)
You know that in the Old Testament Kingdom of David, there was a steward of the House as well right?

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him [as] a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house." - Isaiah 22:20-23

Odd that the Vatican didn't know that for over a millenium.  The first published eisogesis I've seen on this is from the 19th century (the manuscript it is based on is from the 17th IIRC).  The notes of the Douay-Rheims, a Bible translated specifically to lure the English from the headship of the king to the headship of the Vatican, says only "Eliakim, a type of Christ."

Btw, as all Vatican apologists, you leave out the next verses:
 24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. 25 In that day, says the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord has spoken it."

You really see no parallel between this and Matthew 16 and 18? Reeeeeeally? Not even a parallel to the office of the Bishop as the steward of his diocese?
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #117 on: July 13, 2010, 10:57:31 AM »

Focus, focus!

Do the RC believe that the Church has two heads, one visible on Earth in the person of the Pope of the day and another invisible head in Heaven Who is Christ and that according to two infallible popes these two heads are one? Is this my simplory insulting prideful opinion or official RC binding dogma?

Do the Orthodox believe that each diocese has two heads? One Christ and the other the Bishop?
No, but we don't claim the bishop is the visible head for the invisible head either. 

For all the talk, the Vatican explicitely reserves to itself the power to act without reference to the rest of the episcopate. That's the difference.
So the Bishop is not the leader of the diocese?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #118 on: July 13, 2010, 11:11:34 AM »

However well-intended this may have started out (and I frankly doubt that it was well-intended), this degenerated almost immediately into a sneering contest. On the terms that are being applied to the unOrthodox, I could just as well represent the eastern churches with a bunch of Jesuses in a WWF tournament. Once you start putting the polity in the place of Jesus, you either committing an act of idolatry or forcing it on someone else. If you are honest about it, you do it to yourself as well, which is why I doubt that this was ever well-intentioned.

The truth, of course, is that every church thinks that their polity acts in the name of and at the direction of Jesus. That is why it is called ministry.
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: 37,960



« Reply #119 on: July 13, 2010, 11:13:46 AM »

Quote
"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him [as] a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house." - Isaiah 22:20-23

Not sure how this passage can be applied to bishops - it's a classic prophecy on the incarnation of Christ, and the ever-virginity of the Mother of God. It has similar imagery to Ezekiel 43:27-44:4, which is one of the standard OT readings at Orthodox Vespers for feasts of the Mother of God:

The Lord said: “It will be when these days are over, on the eighth day, the priests shall offer your whole-burnt offerings and your peace offerings on the altar, and I shall accept you. Then He brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary that faces toward the east, but it was shut. So the Lord said to me, “This gate shall be shut. It shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it, because the Lord God of Israel will enter by it; therefore, it shall be shut. As for the prince, he will sit in it to eat bread before the Lord. He will go in by way of the gate chamber and go out the same way.” Then He brought me by way of the north gate to the front of the temple, and I looked, and behold, the house of the Lord was full of glory.
Really? You don't see the parallel between this adn Matthew 16?

"the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder" - Isaiah
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" - Matthew

"So he shall open and none shall shut" -Isaiah
"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" -Matthew

"And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place." - Isaiah
"On this rock I will build my Church" - Matthew

Are you sure that this passge from Isaiah doesn't know illustrate the Old Testament prefigure of the office of the Bishop?


"In that day, says the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord has spoken it." - Isaiah
"Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, you are a scandal unto me: because you savour not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men." - Matthew
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: 37,960



« Reply #120 on: July 13, 2010, 11:15:15 AM »

On the subject of JRR Tolkien, kings, and stewards, I find The Return of the King makes exactly the point Fabio is making: I assume Tolkien, a devout RC by all accounts, must have believed in papal infallibility, and was surely familiar with Eliakin typology. But in his book, Tolkien shows us a steward, Denethor, who does exactly what the Orthodox here are saying popes do (and Eliakin did): he takes power that's not his and refuses to move over for the king! (cf. "the Grand Inquisitor" in _Brothers Karamazov_)
You know that in the Old Testament Kingdom of David, there was a steward of the House as well right?

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him [as] a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house." - Isaiah 22:20-23

Odd that the Vatican didn't know that for over a millenium.  The first published eisogesis I've seen on this is from the 19th century (the manuscript it is based on is from the 17th IIRC).  The notes of the Douay-Rheims, a Bible translated specifically to lure the English from the headship of the king to the headship of the Vatican, says only "Eliakim, a type of Christ."

Btw, as all Vatican apologists, you leave out the next verses:
 24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. 25 In that day, says the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord has spoken it."

You really see no parallel between this and Matthew 16 and 18? Reeeeeeally? Not even a parallel to the office of the Bishop as the steward of his diocese?
I see no reason to set up bishops so they can "be removed...be broken and shall fall" so that the diocese "which hung thereon, shall perish."

And again, I see no reason to see what the Fathers didn't see, until your fathers imagined it post 1517.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 11:16:17 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: 37,960



« Reply #121 on: July 13, 2010, 11:17:17 AM »

Focus, focus!

Do the RC believe that the Church has two heads, one visible on Earth in the person of the Pope of the day and another invisible head in Heaven Who is Christ and that according to two infallible popes these two heads are one? Is this my simplory insulting prideful opinion or official RC binding dogma?

Do the Orthodox believe that each diocese has two heads? One Christ and the other the Bishop?
No, but we don't claim the bishop is the visible head for the invisible head either. 

For all the talk, the Vatican explicitely reserves to itself the power to act without reference to the rest of the episcopate. That's the difference.
So the Bishop is not the leader of the diocese?
Sure, as he is a member of the Holy Synod (we are not congregationalists).
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: 37,960



« Reply #122 on: July 13, 2010, 11:19:32 AM »

However well-intended this may have started out (and I frankly doubt that it was well-intended), this degenerated almost immediately into a sneering contest. On the terms that are being applied to the unOrthodox, I could just as well represent the eastern churches with a bunch of Jesuses in a WWF tournament. Once you start putting the polity in the place of Jesus, you either committing an act of idolatry or forcing it on someone else. If you are honest about it, you do it to yourself as well, which is why I doubt that this was ever well-intentioned.

The truth, of course, is that every church thinks that their polity acts in the name of and at the direction of Jesus. That is why it is called ministry.


Not every church, of course, is correct.

As appealing as the WWF image is, it doesn't reflect Orthodox ecclesiology as embodied in dogma. And it is dogma that the images are picturing.
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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,654



WWW
« Reply #123 on: July 13, 2010, 11:22:22 AM »

Surely an Orthodox ecclesiology sets the Bishop as the head of the diocese and the locus of unity for the diocese?

St Ignatius of Antioch says...

See that ye all follow the bishop...Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church....ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ....let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ.

Father Peter
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
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: 37,960



« Reply #124 on: July 13, 2010, 11:38:59 AM »

Surely an Orthodox ecclesiology sets the Bishop as the head of the diocese and the locus of unity for the diocese?

St Ignatius of Antioch says...

See that ye all follow the bishop...Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church....ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ....let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ.

Father Peter
Indeed! Each Orthodox bishop fullfills that role, and sees that role in his brother bishops on his Holy Synod, on those in the diptychs. But the Vatican has stated that every bishop is incomplete without the bishop of Rome, a concept that St. Ignatius knows nothing about.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #125 on: July 13, 2010, 11:41:54 AM »

Surely an Orthodox ecclesiology sets the Bishop as the head of the diocese and the locus of unity for the diocese?

St Ignatius of Antioch says...

See that ye all follow the bishop...Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church....ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ....let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ.

Father Peter
Indeed! Each Orthodox bishop fullfills that role, and sees that role in his brother bishops on his Holy Synod, on those in the diptychs.
So each diocese has two heads?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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: 37,960



« Reply #126 on: July 13, 2010, 11:51:27 AM »

Surely an Orthodox ecclesiology sets the Bishop as the head of the diocese and the locus of unity for the diocese?

St Ignatius of Antioch says...

See that ye all follow the bishop...Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church....ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ....let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ.

Father Peter
Indeed! Each Orthodox bishop fullfills that role, and sees that role in his brother bishops on his Holy Synod, on those in the diptychs.
So each diocese has two heads?
Nice try: Christ fullfills the role the Vatican assigns for itself in relationship to its bishops. The only One Head is Christ.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #127 on: July 13, 2010, 11:55:37 AM »

Surely an Orthodox ecclesiology sets the Bishop as the head of the diocese and the locus of unity for the diocese?

St Ignatius of Antioch says...

See that ye all follow the bishop...Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church....ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ....let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ.

Father Peter
Indeed! Each Orthodox bishop fullfills that role, and sees that role in his brother bishops on his Holy Synod, on those in the diptychs.
So each diocese has two heads?
Nice try: Christ fullfills the role the Vatican assigns for itself in relationship to its bishops. The only One Head is Christ.
More than a nice try. What is good for the goose is good for the Gander. Your church claims that it is a communion of Churches with The Church present in each diocese. If that is true, then each diocese has two heads, the bishop and Christ. What is more, since each diocese has its own bishop, then your church has many heads. By your logic, the best picture for the ecclesiology of your faith can be found here:

http://libcom.org/files/images/history/Hydra%5B1%5D.jpg

Of course, I do NOT think this is how the Eastern Orthodox Church actually is. You see I have more respect for your Church than that. But, I am just playing your game by your rules to demonstrate how silly your posts have been so far.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,654



WWW
« Reply #128 on: July 13, 2010, 11:56:12 AM »

To be fair, the Catholics are asking how we view our bishops. They are not asking about the role of the Pope.

I do consider that my bishop is the head of the local diocese, the local expression of the universal Orthodox Church, to which I belong, and he does have some iconic and representative role/position/ministry as representing Christ.

I don't have much trouble saying that the bishop is the representative head of the Church while Christ is the true head. I am not sure I'd say visible and invisible. Christ is not invisible and he is present at each Liturgy. The bishop represents the true head of the Church, but he does have a ministry himself of headship under Christ. He is not a pretend head of the local Church.

That doesn't mean that I accept the papal doctrines at all. I don't and think them un-Orthodox and anti-ecclesial. But this thing about two heads seems to me to be a false point of argument. It is not, it seems to me, that there are two heads in relation which is the problem, but that in the Catholic system the Pope is given universal powers which rightly belong to each bishop within his diocese.

This thread seems to have devolved into the polemics of one head good two heads bad rather than seeking to understand what is meant.

Father Peter
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #129 on: July 13, 2010, 12:00:29 PM »

To be fair, the Catholics are asking how we view our bishops. They are not asking about the role of the Pope.

I do consider that my bishop is the head of the local diocese, the local expression of the universal Orthodox Church, to which I belong, and he does have some iconic and representative role/position/ministry as representing Christ.

I don't have much trouble saying that the bishop is the representative head of the Church while Christ is the true head. I am not sure I'd say visible and invisible. Christ is not invisible and he is present at each Liturgy. The bishop represents the true head of the Church, but he does have a ministry himself of headship under Christ. He is not a pretend head of the local Church.

That doesn't mean that I accept the papal doctrines at all. I don't and think them un-Orthodox and anti-ecclesial. But this thing about two heads seems to me to be a false point of argument. It is not, it seems to me, that there are two heads in relation which is the problem, but that in the Catholic system the Pope is given universal powers which rightly belong to each bishop within his diocese.

This thread seems to have devolved into the polemics of one head good two heads bad rather than seeking to understand what is meant.

Father Peter

This is a very fair post. Thank you Father.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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: 37,960



« Reply #130 on: July 13, 2010, 12:46:08 PM »

Surely an Orthodox ecclesiology sets the Bishop as the head of the diocese and the locus of unity for the diocese?

St Ignatius of Antioch says...

See that ye all follow the bishop...Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church....ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ....let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ.

Father Peter
Indeed! Each Orthodox bishop fullfills that role, and sees that role in his brother bishops on his Holy Synod, on those in the diptychs.
So each diocese has two heads?
Nice try: Christ fullfills the role the Vatican assigns for itself in relationship to its bishops. The only One Head is Christ.
More than a nice try. What is good for the goose is good for the Gander. Your church claims that it is a communion of Churches with The Church present in each diocese. If that is true, then each diocese has two heads, the bishop and Christ. What is more, since each diocese has its own bishop, then your church has many heads. By your logic, the best picture for the ecclesiology of your faith can be found here:

http://libcom.org/files/images/history/Hydra%5B1%5D.jpg

Of course, I do NOT think this is how the Eastern Orthodox Church actually is. You see I have more respect for your Church than that. But, I am just playing your game by your rules to demonstrate how silly your posts have been so far.
The problem is you can't produce a SINGLE Orthodox document, let alone an infallible one, that proclaims the twisting you do here, whereas there is no shortage of documents the Vatican has put out and claim as infallible which state the bishop of Rome is the head of the Church.

So, goose, get the Orthodox word on the matter before you gander.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #131 on: July 13, 2010, 12:50:00 PM »

Surely an Orthodox ecclesiology sets the Bishop as the head of the diocese and the locus of unity for the diocese?

St Ignatius of Antioch says...

See that ye all follow the bishop...Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church....ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ....let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ.

Father Peter
Indeed! Each Orthodox bishop fullfills that role, and sees that role in his brother bishops on his Holy Synod, on those in the diptychs.
So each diocese has two heads?
Nice try: Christ fullfills the role the Vatican assigns for itself in relationship to its bishops. The only One Head is Christ.
More than a nice try. What is good for the goose is good for the Gander. Your church claims that it is a communion of Churches with The Church present in each diocese. If that is true, then each diocese has two heads, the bishop and Christ. What is more, since each diocese has its own bishop, then your church has many heads. By your logic, the best picture for the ecclesiology of your faith can be found here:

http://libcom.org/files/images/history/Hydra%5B1%5D.jpg

Of course, I do NOT think this is how the Eastern Orthodox Church actually is. You see I have more respect for your Church than that. But, I am just playing your game by your rules to demonstrate how silly your posts have been so far.
The problem is you can't produce a SINGLE Orthodox document, let alone an infallible one, that proclaims the twisting you do here, whereas there is no shortage of documents the Vatican has put out and claim as infallible which state the bishop of Rome is the head of the Church.

So, goose, get the Orthodox word on the matter before you gander.
Oh please Isa. You are playing games. In the same thread you claim that the Catholic Church can be represented as a two headed monster because of the Papacy. Yet, you know very well that each Bishop is the head of his own diocese in your Church, yet you don't recognize the hypocrisy in your statements. You know very well that these posts on your part are all about trying to score points in a polemical debate. However,  you don't like it when your own logic comes home to roost.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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: 37,960



« Reply #132 on: July 13, 2010, 01:34:22 PM »

Surely an Orthodox ecclesiology sets the Bishop as the head of the diocese and the locus of unity for the diocese?

St Ignatius of Antioch says...

See that ye all follow the bishop...Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church....ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ....let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ.

Father Peter
Indeed! Each Orthodox bishop fullfills that role, and sees that role in his brother bishops on his Holy Synod, on those in the diptychs.
So each diocese has two heads?
Nice try: Christ fullfills the role the Vatican assigns for itself in relationship to its bishops. The only One Head is Christ.
More than a nice try. What is good for the goose is good for the Gander. Your church claims that it is a communion of Churches with The Church present in each diocese. If that is true, then each diocese has two heads, the bishop and Christ. What is more, since each diocese has its own bishop, then your church has many heads. By your logic, the best picture for the ecclesiology of your faith can be found here:

http://libcom.org/files/images/history/Hydra%5B1%5D.jpg

Of course, I do NOT think this is how the Eastern Orthodox Church actually is. You see I have more respect for your Church than that. But, I am just playing your game by your rules to demonstrate how silly your posts have been so far.
The problem is you can't produce a SINGLE Orthodox document, let alone an infallible one, that proclaims the twisting you do here, whereas there is no shortage of documents the Vatican has put out and claim as infallible which state the bishop of Rome is the head of the Church.

So, goose, get the Orthodox word on the matter before you gander.
Oh please Isa. You are playing games. In the same thread you claim that the Catholic Church can be represented as a two headed monster because of the Papacy.
No, on the basis of what it claims ex cathedra for itself.

Quote
Yet, you know very well that each Bishop is the head of his own diocese in your Church,

Lumen Gentium:
Quote
7....The Head of this Body is Christ. He is the image of the invisible God....

18....And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion...this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God....

21...Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head...

22...the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.  This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, and made him shepherd of the whole flock; it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter, was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.  This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.  This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.

23. This collegial union is apparent also m the mutual relations of the individual bishops with particular churches and with the universal Church. The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful...

24...The canonical mission of bishops can come about by legitimate customs that have not been revoked by the supreme and universal authority of the Church, or by laws made or recognized be that the authority, or directly through the successor of Peter himself; and if the latter refuses or denies apostolic communion, such bishops cannot assume any office.

25...Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

The documents of recent Pontiffs regarding the jurisdiction of bishops must be interpreted in terms of this necessary determination of powers.

3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said "to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church." This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ's Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ's whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised—whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church's welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.

4. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands. Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church's Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always "fully active [in actu pleno]"; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase "with the consent of its head" is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term "consent" suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word "only" takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed. Cf. Modus 84.

It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of "College." This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is certainly firmly established in Tradition.

It doesn't explain how the image of the invisible God functions as the invisible head.

Oddly enough, it gets it right on the autocephalous Churches:
Quote
By divine Providence it has come about that various churches, established in various places by the apostles and their successors, have in the course of time coalesced into several groups, organically united, which, preserving the unity of faith and the unique divine constitution of the universal Church, enjoy their own discipline, their own liturgical usage, and their own theological and spiritual heritage. Some of these churches, notably the ancient patriarchal churches, as parent-stocks of the Faith, so to speak, have begotten others as daughter churches, with which they are connected down to our own time by a close bond of charity in their sacramental life and in their mutual respect for their rights and duties.(37*) This variety of local churches with one common aspiration is splendid evidence of the catholicity of the undivided Church. In like manner the Episcopal bodies of today are in a position to render a manifold and fruitful assistance, so that this collegiate feeling may be put into practical application.

Quote
yet you don't recognize the hypocrisy in your statements.

because there is none.

Quote
You know very well that these posts on your part are all about trying to score points in a polemical debate.

No, my point to enlarge the small print on your dogmatic statements.

Quote
However,  you don't like it when your own logic comes home to roost.

I wouldn't know. Hasn't happened yet.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #133 on: July 13, 2010, 01:36:32 PM »

Surely an Orthodox ecclesiology sets the Bishop as the head of the diocese and the locus of unity for the diocese?

St Ignatius of Antioch says...

See that ye all follow the bishop...Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church....ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ....let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ.

Father Peter
Indeed! Each Orthodox bishop fullfills that role, and sees that role in his brother bishops on his Holy Synod, on those in the diptychs.
So each diocese has two heads?
Nice try: Christ fullfills the role the Vatican assigns for itself in relationship to its bishops. The only One Head is Christ.
More than a nice try. What is good for the goose is good for the Gander. Your church claims that it is a communion of Churches with The Church present in each diocese. If that is true, then each diocese has two heads, the bishop and Christ. What is more, since each diocese has its own bishop, then your church has many heads. By your logic, the best picture for the ecclesiology of your faith can be found here:

http://libcom.org/files/images/history/Hydra%5B1%5D.jpg

Of course, I do NOT think this is how the Eastern Orthodox Church actually is. You see I have more respect for your Church than that. But, I am just playing your game by your rules to demonstrate how silly your posts have been so far.
The problem is you can't produce a SINGLE Orthodox document, let alone an infallible one, that proclaims the twisting you do here, whereas there is no shortage of documents the Vatican has put out and claim as infallible which state the bishop of Rome is the head of the Church.

So, goose, get the Orthodox word on the matter before you gander.
Oh please Isa. You are playing games. In the same thread you claim that the Catholic Church can be represented as a two headed monster because of the Papacy.
No, on the basis of what it claims ex cathedra for itself.

Quote
Yet, you know very well that each Bishop is the head of his own diocese in your Church,

Lumen Gentium:
Quote
7....The Head of this Body is Christ. He is the image of the invisible God....

18....And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion...this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God....

21...Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head...

22...the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.  This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, and made him shepherd of the whole flock; it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter, was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.  This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.  This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.

23. This collegial union is apparent also m the mutual relations of the individual bishops with particular churches and with the universal Church. The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful...

24...The canonical mission of bishops can come about by legitimate customs that have not been revoked by the supreme and universal authority of the Church, or by laws made or recognized be that the authority, or directly through the successor of Peter himself; and if the latter refuses or denies apostolic communion, such bishops cannot assume any office.

25...Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

The documents of recent Pontiffs regarding the jurisdiction of bishops must be interpreted in terms of this necessary determination of powers.

3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said "to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church." This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ's Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ's whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised—whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church's welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.

4. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands. Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church's Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always "fully active [in actu pleno]"; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase "with the consent of its head" is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term "consent" suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word "only" takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed. Cf. Modus 84.

It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of "College." This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is certainly firmly established in Tradition.

It doesn't explain how the image of the invisible God functions as the invisible head.

Oddly enough, it gets it right on the autocephalous Churches:
Quote
By divine Providence it has come about that various churches, established in various places by the apostles and their successors, have in the course of time coalesced into several groups, organically united, which, preserving the unity of faith and the unique divine constitution of the universal Church, enjoy their own discipline, their own liturgical usage, and their own theological and spiritual heritage. Some of these churches, notably the ancient patriarchal churches, as parent-stocks of the Faith, so to speak, have begotten others as daughter churches, with which they are connected down to our own time by a close bond of charity in their sacramental life and in their mutual respect for their rights and duties.(37*) This variety of local churches with one common aspiration is splendid evidence of the catholicity of the undivided Church. In like manner the Episcopal bodies of today are in a position to render a manifold and fruitful assistance, so that this collegiate feeling may be put into practical application.

Quote
yet you don't recognize the hypocrisy in your statements.

because there is none.

Quote
You know very well that these posts on your part are all about trying to score points in a polemical debate.

No, my point to enlarge the small print on your dogmatic statements.

Quote
However,  you don't like it when your own logic comes home to roost.

I wouldn't know. Hasn't happened yet.
Well Isa, its clear from this thread that you are not going to take an honest approach to this thread. Again, I refer you to what your logic leads to for you your Church:

http://libcom.org/files/images/history/Hydra%5B1%5D.jpg

Its unfortunate that you like to play these games. Sad You disappoint me alot lately. I had thought that this kind of behavior was above you. I will not engage you in this thread further until to you come to grips with reality on the matter.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 01:37:51 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #134 on: July 13, 2010, 01:49:32 PM »

However well-intended this may have started out (and I frankly doubt that it was well-intended), this degenerated almost immediately into a sneering contest. On the terms that are being applied to the unOrthodox, I could just as well represent the eastern churches with a bunch of Jesuses in a WWF tournament. Once you start putting the polity in the place of Jesus, you either committing an act of idolatry or forcing it on someone else. If you are honest about it, you do it to yourself as well, which is why I doubt that this was ever well-intentioned.

The truth, of course, is that every church thinks that their polity acts in the name of and at the direction of Jesus. That is why it is called ministry.


Not every church, of course, is correct.

As appealing as the WWF image is, it doesn't reflect Orthodox ecclesiology as embodied in dogma. And it is dogma that the images are picturing.

The problem with that claim is that you are claiming for Orthodoxy alone a dogma which all churches share (since after all they get it verse-for-verse out of St. Paul): that of Christ as the head and the Church as the body. Beyond that, it's all polity, and for the Orthodox to make claims about political unity is to discharge a shotgun in a greenhouse.
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: 37,960



« Reply #135 on: July 13, 2010, 01:55:44 PM »

Surely an Orthodox ecclesiology sets the Bishop as the head of the diocese and the locus of unity for the diocese?

St Ignatius of Antioch says...

See that ye all follow the bishop...Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church....ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ....let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ.

Father Peter
Indeed! Each Orthodox bishop fullfills that role, and sees that role in his brother bishops on his Holy Synod, on those in the diptychs.
So each diocese has two heads?
Nice try: Christ fullfills the role the Vatican assigns for itself in relationship to its bishops. The only One Head is Christ.
More than a nice try. What is good for the goose is good for the Gander. Your church claims that it is a communion of Churches with The Church present in each diocese. If that is true, then each diocese has two heads, the bishop and Christ. What is more, since each diocese has its own bishop, then your church has many heads. By your logic, the best picture for the ecclesiology of your faith can be found here:

http://libcom.org/files/images/history/Hydra%5B1%5D.jpg

Of course, I do NOT think this is how the Eastern Orthodox Church actually is. You see I have more respect for your Church than that. But, I am just playing your game by your rules to demonstrate how silly your posts have been so far.
The problem is you can't produce a SINGLE Orthodox document, let alone an infallible one, that proclaims the twisting you do here, whereas there is no shortage of documents the Vatican has put out and claim as infallible which state the bishop of Rome is the head of the Church.

So, goose, get the Orthodox word on the matter before you gander.
Oh please Isa. You are playing games. In the same thread you claim that the Catholic Church can be represented as a two headed monster because of the Papacy.
No, on the basis of what it claims ex cathedra for itself.

Quote
Yet, you know very well that each Bishop is the head of his own diocese in your Church,

Lumen Gentium:
Quote
7....The Head of this Body is Christ. He is the image of the invisible God....

18....And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion...this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God....

21...Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head...

22...the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.  This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, and made him shepherd of the whole flock; it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter, was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.  This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.  This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.

23. This collegial union is apparent also m the mutual relations of the individual bishops with particular churches and with the universal Church. The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful...

24...The canonical mission of bishops can come about by legitimate customs that have not been revoked by the supreme and universal authority of the Church, or by laws made or recognized be that the authority, or directly through the successor of Peter himself; and if the latter refuses or denies apostolic communion, such bishops cannot assume any office.

25...Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

The documents of recent Pontiffs regarding the jurisdiction of bishops must be interpreted in terms of this necessary determination of powers.

3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said "to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church." This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ's Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ's whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised—whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church's welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.

4. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands. Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church's Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always "fully active [in actu pleno]"; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase "with the consent of its head" is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term "consent" suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word "only" takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed. Cf. Modus 84.

It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of "College." This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is certainly firmly established in Tradition.

It doesn't explain how the image of the invisible God functions as the invisible head.

Oddly enough, it gets it right on the autocephalous Churches:
Quote
By divine Providence it has come about that various churches, established in various places by the apostles and their successors, have in the course of time coalesced into several groups, organically united, which, preserving the unity of faith and the unique divine constitution of the universal Church, enjoy their own discipline, their own liturgical usage, and their own theological and spiritual heritage. Some of these churches, notably the ancient patriarchal churches, as parent-stocks of the Faith, so to speak, have begotten others as daughter churches, with which they are connected down to our own time by a close bond of charity in their sacramental life and in their mutual respect for their rights and duties.(37*) This variety of local churches with one common aspiration is splendid evidence of the catholicity of the undivided Church. In like manner the Episcopal bodies of today are in a position to render a manifold and fruitful assistance, so that this collegiate feeling may be put into practical application.

Quote
yet you don't recognize the hypocrisy in your statements.

because there is none.

Quote
You know very well that these posts on your part are all about trying to score points in a polemical debate.

No, my point to enlarge the small print on your dogmatic statements.

Quote
However,  you don't like it when your own logic comes home to roost.

I wouldn't know. Hasn't happened yet.
Well Isa, its clear from this thread that you are not going to take an honest approach to this thread. Again, I refer you to what your logic leads to for you your Church:

http://libcom.org/files/images/history/Hydra%5B1%5D.jpg

Its unfortunate that you like to play these games. Sad You disappoint me alot lately. I had thought that this kind of behavior was above you. I will not engage you in this thread further until to you come to grips with reality on the matter.

Do let us know when you are ready to face what your own church says about itself in Lumen Gentium, a document it holds as infallible. And when you find a document of comparable double talk among the Orthodox.  Whichever comes first.
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: 37,960



« Reply #136 on: July 13, 2010, 02:05:52 PM »

However well-intended this may have started out (and I frankly doubt that it was well-intended), this degenerated almost immediately into a sneering contest. On the terms that are being applied to the unOrthodox, I could just as well represent the eastern churches with a bunch of Jesuses in a WWF tournament. Once you start putting the polity in the place of Jesus, you either committing an act of idolatry or forcing it on someone else. If you are honest about it, you do it to yourself as well, which is why I doubt that this was ever well-intentioned.

The truth, of course, is that every church thinks that their polity acts in the name of and at the direction of Jesus. That is why it is called ministry.


Not every church, of course, is correct.

As appealing as the WWF image is, it doesn't reflect Orthodox ecclesiology as embodied in dogma. And it is dogma that the images are picturing.

The problem with that claim is that you are claiming for Orthodoxy alone a dogma which all churches share (since after all they get it verse-for-verse out of St. Paul): that of Christ as the head and the Church as the body. Beyond that, it's all polity, and for the Orthodox to make claims about political unity is to discharge a shotgun in a greenhouse.

Your Protestantism is showing.  The hierarchal nature of the Church is not a governing policy anymore than the skeletal system of the human body is a person's choice as to how to run his body. I'd be interested is seeing the Swedish equivalent of the Act of Supremacy, the only other Protestant body to recognize this fact as the essence of the Church.
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
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #137 on: July 13, 2010, 03:32:01 PM »

However well-intended this may have started out (and I frankly doubt that it was well-intended), this degenerated almost immediately into a sneering contest. On the terms that are being applied to the unOrthodox, I could just as well represent the eastern churches with a bunch of Jesuses in a WWF tournament. Once you start putting the polity in the place of Jesus, you either committing an act of idolatry or forcing it on someone else. If you are honest about it, you do it to yourself as well, which is why I doubt that this was ever well-intentioned.

The truth, of course, is that every church thinks that their polity acts in the name of and at the direction of Jesus. That is why it is called ministry.


Not every church, of course, is correct.

As appealing as the WWF image is, it doesn't reflect Orthodox ecclesiology as embodied in dogma. And it is dogma that the images are picturing.

The problem with that claim is that you are claiming for Orthodoxy alone a dogma which all churches share (since after all they get it verse-for-verse out of St. Paul): that of Christ as the head and the Church as the body. Beyond that, it's all polity, and for the Orthodox to make claims about political unity is to discharge a shotgun in a greenhouse.

Your Protestantism is showing.  The hierarchal nature of the Church is not a governing policy anymore than the skeletal system of the human body is a person's choice as to how to run his body. I'd be interested is seeing the Swedish equivalent of the Act of Supremacy, the only other Protestant body to recognize this fact as the essence of the Church.

I do not see the accuracy of your analogy or even its relevance, and if you are going to point at hierarchy as the necessary mark, then the Roman have it and you do not. Or to put it in other words, you are making a claim to unity which is not realized in the world, especially considering the lack of communion among all the churches represented by their members in this forum who call themselves Orthodox.

It would be far better to abandon all the condescending analogies and deal with the worldly reality. Once you are claiming Christ as your head and refusing discussion of how that headship is realized in the world, you are making nothing more than a metaphysical claim which all churches make.
Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #138 on: July 13, 2010, 03:49:10 PM »

Surely an Orthodox ecclesiology sets the Bishop as the head of the diocese and the locus of unity for the diocese?

St Ignatius of Antioch says...

See that ye all follow the bishop...Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church....ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ....let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ.

Father Peter
Indeed! Each Orthodox bishop fullfills that role, and sees that role in his brother bishops on his Holy Synod, on those in the diptychs.
So each diocese has two heads?
Nice try: Christ fullfills the role the Vatican assigns for itself in relationship to its bishops. The only One Head is Christ.
More than a nice try. What is good for the goose is good for the Gander. Your church claims that it is a communion of Churches with The Church present in each diocese. If that is true, then each diocese has two heads, the bishop and Christ. What is more, since each diocese has its own bishop, then your church has many heads. By your logic, the best picture for the ecclesiology of your faith can be found here:

http://libcom.org/files/images/history/Hydra%5B1%5D.jpg

Of course, I do NOT think this is how the Eastern Orthodox Church actually is. You see I have more respect for your Church than that. But, I am just playing your game by your rules to demonstrate how silly your posts have been so far.

You're forgetting the distinction that was made between iconic and ontological unity. Certainly, the Orthodox bishop is the 'head' of his diocese, in that he is an iconic representation of the headship of Christ. But the question was asked of Catholics, do you not hold that the Pope is more than just an icon of Christ? Do you not hold that he is God on earth'? (the popes have spoken of themselves thusly.  I think there might even be some interesting connections here to the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood, in which the priest is considered to act in persona Christi in the Mass. This idea seems to me to have different implications than the Orthodox idea of the priest acting as an icon of Christ, or in the case of bishops, the 'high priest'.

I'd also like to bring up something I read in ole Dom Gregory Dix a few years ago: that the bishop acting as the head of the Eucharistic assembly, and particular when he takes his seat, facing the people, on the 'high place', surrounded by his presbyters, is acting as an icon, not of Christ per se, but of the Father. At least that seems to have been the case in the early church. In that case I suppose Christ was chiefly to be seen in the Eucharist itself? I'm not sure. Anyway, interesting to say the least.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 03:51:26 PM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #139 on: July 13, 2010, 04:00:07 PM »

However well-intended this may have started out (and I frankly doubt that it was well-intended), this degenerated almost immediately into a sneering contest. On the terms that are being applied to the unOrthodox, I could just as well represent the eastern churches with a bunch of Jesuses in a WWF tournament. Once you start putting the polity in the place of Jesus, you either committing an act of idolatry or forcing it on someone else. If you are honest about it, you do it to yourself as well, which is why I doubt that this was ever well-intentioned.

The truth, of course, is that every church thinks that their polity acts in the name of and at the direction of Jesus. That is why it is called ministry.


Not every church, of course, is correct.

As appealing as the WWF image is, it doesn't reflect Orthodox ecclesiology as embodied in dogma. And it is dogma that the images are picturing.

The problem with that claim is that you are claiming for Orthodoxy alone a dogma which all churches share (since after all they get it verse-for-verse out of St. Paul): that of Christ as the head and the Church as the body. Beyond that, it's all polity, and for the Orthodox to make claims about political unity is to discharge a shotgun in a greenhouse.

Your Protestantism is showing.  The hierarchal nature of the Church is not a governing policy anymore than the skeletal system of the human body is a person's choice as to how to run his body. I'd be interested is seeing the Swedish equivalent of the Act of Supremacy, the only other Protestant body to recognize this fact as the essence of the Church.

I like the skeleton analogy. Smiley
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #140 on: July 13, 2010, 04:08:26 PM »

However well-intended this may have started out (and I frankly doubt that it was well-intended), this degenerated almost immediately into a sneering contest. On the terms that are being applied to the unOrthodox, I could just as well represent the eastern churches with a bunch of Jesuses in a WWF tournament. Once you start putting the polity in the place of Jesus, you either committing an act of idolatry or forcing it on someone else. If you are honest about it, you do it to yourself as well, which is why I doubt that this was ever well-intentioned.

The truth, of course, is that every church thinks that their polity acts in the name of and at the direction of Jesus. That is why it is called ministry.


Not every church, of course, is correct.

As appealing as the WWF image is, it doesn't reflect Orthodox ecclesiology as embodied in dogma. And it is dogma that the images are picturing.

The problem with that claim is that you are claiming for Orthodoxy alone a dogma which all churches share (since after all they get it verse-for-verse out of St. Paul): that of Christ as the head and the Church as the body. Beyond that, it's all polity, and for the Orthodox to make claims about political unity is to discharge a shotgun in a greenhouse.

Your Protestantism is showing.  The hierarchal nature of the Church is not a governing policy anymore than the skeletal system of the human body is a person's choice as to how to run his body. I'd be interested is seeing the Swedish equivalent of the Act of Supremacy, the only other Protestant body to recognize this fact as the essence of the Church.

I do not see the accuracy of your analogy or even its relevance, and if you are going to point at hierarchy as the necessary mark, then the Roman have it and you do not. Or to put it in other words, you are making a claim to unity which is not realized in the world, especially considering the lack of communion among all the churches represented by their members in this forum who call themselves Orthodox.

It would be far better to abandon all the condescending analogies and deal with the worldly reality. Once you are claiming Christ as your head and refusing discussion of how that headship is realized in the world, you are making nothing more than a metaphysical claim which all churches make.


With the risk of sounding like an ecumenist: the sin of disunity within the body is of a different order than holding to a false ecclesiology which makes the true, organic unity of the Church (one holy catholic and apostolic) an impossibility. Even in St Paul's day, there was disunity in the Church, and so he instructed the members of the Church to repent, put away discord and strife, and be of one mind with one another. But as has been pointed out, we're not speaking of practical hurdles to practical unity; we're speaking of dogmatic ecclesiology. Rome says the only way to unity is submission to the pope. The Orthodox respectfully but forcefully disagree.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 04:09:58 PM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
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: 37,960



« Reply #141 on: July 13, 2010, 05:13:32 PM »


Your Protestantism is showing.  The hierarchal nature of the Church is not a governing policy anymore than the skeletal system of the human body is a person's choice as to how to run his body. I'd be interested is seeing the Swedish equivalent of the Act of Supremacy, the only other Protestant body to recognize this fact as the essence of the Church.

I do not see the accuracy of your analogy or even its relevance, and if you are going to point at hierarchy as the necessary mark, then the Roman have it and you do not. Or to put it in other words, you are making a claim to unity which is not realized in the world, especially considering the lack of communion among all the churches represented by their members in this forum who call themselves Orthodox.

It would be far better to abandon all the condescending analogies and deal with the worldly reality. Once you are claiming Christ as your head and refusing discussion of how that headship is realized in the world, you are making nothing more than a metaphysical claim which all churches make.
Trying to bring the Church down to this?

I might as well accept the Muslim claims of being the true Christians.

I brought up the Swedish Church to make the argument less Anglocentric, and the worldly reality is that the Swedish Church is the best example of another Protestant body that claims Apostolic succession more clearly.  There are others (now, for the most part, conviently lumped together in the Porvoo Agreement), but most of them being Lutheran, and the Augsburg Confession/Book of Concord itself does not have a well defined dogma on the episcopacy, the dogmatic statements on this matter leave much to be desired: the historic practice of the Swedish Church, like the Anglican, fills in some gaps.  One might through the Methodists in (who claim apostolic lineage, oddly enough, through a visiting Greek bishop), but since Wesley never claimed episcopal consecration (he held presbyters could do it), that is not without its problems.  These Protestants (and various vaganti) basically sum up the Protestants who claim Apostolic succession. Have I forgotten anyone?

Of course, then there is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church (both EO and OO), the Vatican (which in reality has a bishop, not a hierarchy, but is close enough) and her daughters (Altkatholisch, Polish National), and the Nestorian Church(es).  Have I left out anyone here?

So back to "metaphysical claims all churches make": No, the pictures of each ecclesiology is NOT the same, and it is a mistake to say it is. Or rather, it is a stacking the deck in favor of Protestant eccleisology, and Radical Reformer Liberal Protestant at that.  Those "churches" which have no apostolic hierarchy exercise no headship in the world. None. There claims are as valid as the Muslims saying that they believe Jesus is the Christ, the Bahai's claiming Him in the succession of their continuing line of prophets, or the Mormons claim to restore His Church. No hierarchy tracing back to the Apostles, no Church. And no Church, no Christ. Period.

Among the Protestants who claim Apostolic Succession, the Anglicans place the greatest store in it, perhaps matched by the Swedes and Finns (their primates would not take part in the installation of the ELCA presiding bishop, because of the issue of apostolic succession). The Finns, with their Church Act, may be the closest to this

But they all have the problem that their statements lack precision (It would be nice if this
http://www.porvoochurches.org/whatis/resources-0201-english-4.php
could be a basis on which to have a discussion).  So the Anglicans et alia don't like the image given herein. So they say they depend on the Book of Common Prayer, the problem that it is not Common across their "communion," would result in a body with a book for a head, and is a rather odd position for a church that holds "sola scriptura" as a dogma. The problem with all the Anglicans and Lutherans is their "apostolic succession" came by way of Erastianism.  That is the historic, real word reality: headship was realized in the world through the crown (this is true of the other Lutheran churches as well).

(btw, as a side note, the Orthodox primate of North America, Bp. John, when the US took over secular control of his diocese
Quote
Bishop Johannes, of the Russo-Greek Church on the Pacific coast, has ordered the prayer for the President of the United States, contained in the Liturgy of the Episcopal Church, to be used by the Greek Priests.
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2010/07/prayers-for-the-president/
this was to fulfil the apostolic command to "pray for the emperor," not as part of the apostolic succesion of the Church.  But the PECUSA's BCP came about because the church had to be cut loose of the British king, who had already given the US its independence.  And then the Americans had to go to the nonjurors, a group of the church with no basis of distinction in the church but in politics).

So that leaves the so called "Apostolic Churches," so called because of their valid historic claims (whether they are theologically valid as proved by history is a different question, here put aside).  And the pictures for them do not match.  The OO and EO are identical, as, on this issue, can be said of the ACE. Perhaps the Altkatholisch can be said to be here too, though the Episcopi vagantes cast that into doubt.  The PNCC could be seen in that picture.  The Vatican's view, however, cannot.

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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #142 on: July 14, 2010, 10:27:48 AM »

Surely an Orthodox ecclesiology sets the Bishop as the head of the diocese and the locus of unity for the diocese?

St Ignatius of Antioch says...

See that ye all follow the bishop...Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church....ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ....let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ.

Father Peter
Indeed! Each Orthodox bishop fullfills that role, and sees that role in his brother bishops on his Holy Synod, on those in the diptychs.
So each diocese has two heads?
Nice try: Christ fullfills the role the Vatican assigns for itself in relationship to its bishops. The only One Head is Christ.
More than a nice try. What is good for the goose is good for the Gander. Your church claims that it is a communion of Churches with The Church present in each diocese. If that is true, then each diocese has two heads, the bishop and Christ. What is more, since each diocese has its own bishop, then your church has many heads. By your logic, the best picture for the ecclesiology of your faith can be found here:

http://libcom.org/files/images/history/Hydra%5B1%5D.jpg

Of course, I do NOT think this is how the Eastern Orthodox Church actually is. You see I have more respect for your Church than that. But, I am just playing your game by your rules to demonstrate how silly your posts have been so far.

You're forgetting the distinction that was made between iconic and ontological unity. Certainly, the Orthodox bishop is the 'head' of his diocese, in that he is an iconic representation of the headship of Christ. But the question was asked of Catholics, do you not hold that the Pope is more than just an icon of Christ? Do you not hold that he is God on earth'? (the popes have spoken of themselves thusly.  I think there might even be some interesting connections here to the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood, in which the priest is considered to act in persona Christi in the Mass. This idea seems to me to have different implications than the Orthodox idea of the priest acting as an icon of Christ, or in the case of bishops, the 'high priest'.

I'd also like to bring up something I read in ole Dom Gregory Dix a few years ago: that the bishop acting as the head of the Eucharistic assembly, and particular when he takes his seat, facing the people, on the 'high place', surrounded by his presbyters, is acting as an icon, not of Christ per se, but of the Father. At least that seems to have been the case in the early church. In that case I suppose Christ was chiefly to be seen in the Eucharist itself? I'm not sure. Anyway, interesting to say the least.
No faithful Catholic anywhere believes that the Pope is God on earth. This is just a stupid post.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #143 on: July 14, 2010, 04:23:58 PM »

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

One among many statements of exceeding arrogance. Explain it away all you want - 'well, he doesn't really mean it that way', etc. - but of this at least I am sure: no Orthodox hierarch would ever even make such a ridiculous statement, regardless of what he meant by it.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« Reply #144 on: July 14, 2010, 04:47:28 PM »

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

One among many statements of exceeding arrogance. Explain it away all you want - 'well, he doesn't really mean it that way', etc. - but of this at least I am sure: no Orthodox hierarch would ever even make such a ridiculous statement, regardless of what he meant by it.

If you look at that quote in context he is speaking of the Church, the Body of Christ, not the Papacy. They're wrong on a lot of things, but you don't have to misrepresent their statements to win a debate, if Christ even cares about such debates.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,850



« Reply #145 on: July 14, 2010, 05:18:52 PM »

Among the Protestants who claim Apostolic Succession, the Anglicans place the greatest store in it, perhaps matched by the Swedes and Finns

Finnish Lutherans lost their apostolic succession on 1884 when all of their bishops died during the same year. Logically they chose a professor to ordain them new bishops after that. Roll Eyes

Nowadays they've got it back from the Anglicans though.
Logged

Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,654



WWW
« Reply #146 on: July 14, 2010, 06:06:14 PM »

Some Anglicans may place great store in it, many others don't accept it at all.

In my own town the local parish, where the priest is a family friend, is very Catholic in ritual, and over the other side of town is a parish which is essentially like a vibrant charismatic baptist church.

So it all depends.
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
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #147 on: July 14, 2010, 08:17:47 PM »

Many things have happened since I last visited this thread. I'll try to deal with each subject. If I leave any untouched, please, do remind me.

1) The relation of the orthodox bishop and Jesus Christ as "heads";

The answer to that is twofold and rather simple.

a) The bishop is head of the diocese. Not of the whole Catholic church. Each diocese is an image of the whole Church. The head of the whole Church is one and visible: Jesus Christ. That is what to be "katta holos" means. Like in a hologram, each piece is an *icon* of the whole. What leads to the second point;

b) Because the Church is "holographic" ("kata holos") the relation of the bishop-head of the *diocese* and Christ-head of the Church, is iconic. Thus to the sylogism I mentioned before, unlike the RC, we have a straight-forward answer: the "identity" of Christ and Bishop is iconic. It remains to be seen how the RC finish the sylogism.

2) I have addressed Eliakin as a prefiguration of the primate. Please, do refer to the post here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28540.msg451627.html#msg451627

3) The image of many bishops in the church with no "pope" among them.

Quote
The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
Revelation 1:20

The *seven* churches represent the wholeness of the Church. A college of churches, not one alone, is the symbol of  unity and wholeness. Later, in the same book, the Word of God continues:

Quote
And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: {wonder: or, sign}
Apocalipse 12:1

This woman has consistently been associated with both the Theotokos and the Church. As a symbol of the Church, she is *crowned with twelve stars* which is a representation of the Apostolic College and by succession, the Episcopal College.

So yes, there *is* an image of "many" as the Church:




There is no star singled out from that crown sustaining the unity of them all.  And if there is any doubt of who was the "visible" foundation of the Church, Our Lord informs us clearly about that:

"And the wall of the city ("of God") had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."
Revelation 21:14

So, we have Christ as the "head", the "Sun" of the New Jerusalem, and this new city is not built upon one foundation, but upon *twelve" foundations.

And if there rests any doubt about the traditional understanding of the Church about that, let's see the Shepherd of Hermas, in one of his parables.

Quote
And in the middle of the plain he showed me a great white rock, rising up from the plain. The rock was loftier than the mountains, being four-square, so that it could contain the whole world. Now this rock was ancient, and had a gate hewn out of it; but the gate seemed to me to have been hewed out quite recently. And the gate glistened beyond the brightness of the sun, so that I marvelled at the brightness of the gate.

I saw six men come, tall and glorious and alike in appearance and they summoned a multitude of men. And the others also which came were tall men and handsome and powerful. And the six men ordered them to build a tower above the gate. And there arose a great noise from those men who had come to build the tower, as they ran hither and thither round the gate.

And the six men ordered stones to come up from a certain deep place, and to go to the building of the tower. And there went up ten stones square and polished, [not] hewn from a quarry.

And the six men called to the virgins, and ordered them to carry all the stones which should go unto the building of the tower, and to pass through the gate and to hand them to the men that were about to build the tower.

Now the building of the tower was upon the great rock and above the gate. Those ten stones then were joined together, and they covered the whole rock. And these formed a foundation for the building of the tower. And [the rock and] the gate supported the whole tower.

And, after the ten stones, other twenty-five stones came up from the deep, and these were fitted into the building of the tower, being carried by the virgins, like the former. And after these thirty-five stones came up. And these likewise were fitted into the tower. And after these came up other forty stones. and these all were put into the building of the tower. So four rows were made in the foundations of the tower.

"First of all, Sir," say I, "explain this to me. The rock and the gate, what is it?" "This rock," saith he, "and gate is the Son of God."

"But the tower," say I, "what is it?" "The tower," saith he, "why, this is the Church.

"Now, Sir," say I, "show me why the tower is not built upon the ground, but upon the rock and upon the gate." "Because thou art senseless," saith he, "and without understanding [thou askest the question]." "I am obliged, Sir," say I, "to ask all questions of thee, because I am absolutely unable to comprehend anything at all; for all are great and glorious and difficult for men to understand."

"Listen," saith he. "The name of the Son of God is great and incomprehensible, and sustaineth the whole world. If then all creation is sustained by the Son [of God], what thinkest thou of those that are called by Him, and bear the name of the Son of God, and walk according to His commandments?

Seest thou then what manner of men He sustaineth? Even those that bear His name with their whole heart. He Himself then is become their foundation, and He sustaineth them gladly, because they are not ashamed to bear His name."

"But the stones, Sir," say I, "that came from the deep, and were fitted into the building, who are they?" "The first," saith he, "even the ten, that were placed in the foundations, are the first generation; the twenty-five are the second generation of righteous men; the thirty-five are God's prophets and His ministers; the forty are apostles and teachers of the preaching of the Son of God."

"Wherefore, Sir," say I, "did the forty stones also come up with them from the deep, though they had already received the seal?" "Because," saith he, "these, the apostles and the teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, after they had fallen asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached also to them that had fallen asleep before them, and themselves gave unto them the seal of the preaching.

http://www.goodnewsinc.org/othbooks/hermas.html





« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 08:47:55 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
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: 37,960



« Reply #148 on: July 14, 2010, 08:37:23 PM »

Among the Protestants who claim Apostolic Succession, the Anglicans place the greatest store in it, perhaps matched by the Swedes and Finns

Finnish Lutherans lost their apostolic succession on 1884 when all of their bishops died during the same year. Logically they chose a professor to ordain them new bishops after that. Roll Eyes

Nowadays they've got it back from the Anglicans though.

I thought they got it back from the Swedes, from whom they got it in the first place (the Lutheran ones that is: the Orthodox came from the other direction of course).
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
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #149 on: July 14, 2010, 09:14:19 PM »

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

One among many statements of exceeding arrogance. Explain it away all you want - 'well, he doesn't really mean it that way', etc. - but of this at least I am sure: no Orthodox hierarch would ever even make such a ridiculous statement, regardless of what he meant by it.

If you look at that quote in context he is speaking of the Church, the Body of Christ, not the Papacy. They're wrong on a lot of things, but you don't have to misrepresent their statements to win a debate, if Christ even cares about such debates.

So according to RC belief, the Pope holds upon this earth the place of God Almighty in the Body of Christ, according to the context? Indeed, if we read more of the text, we see that the Pope said that since he holds the place of God on Earth he felts "drawn to pray" thus, complementing Jesus' Sacerdotal Prayer: "(like you said) that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us."

So, as in the context, since the Pope holds the place of God on Earth, he thinks that the sacerdotal prayer of Jesus calling people to be one with Him, imply they should be one with the Pope as well. What does this context tell you?
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #150 on: July 14, 2010, 09:33:01 PM »

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

One among many statements of exceeding arrogance. Explain it away all you want - 'well, he doesn't really mean it that way', etc. - but of this at least I am sure: no Orthodox hierarch would ever even make such a ridiculous statement, regardless of what he meant by it.

If you look at that quote in context he is speaking of the Church, the Body of Christ, not the Papacy. They're wrong on a lot of things, but you don't have to misrepresent their statements to win a debate, if Christ even cares about such debates.

From what I can tell, he is, to the contrary, using the 'royal we' and referring explicitly to himself. He even mentions his old age (and I don't think he's referring there to the 2000 years of the church).

Quote
But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, Who, when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that His Disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us.  And as this Divine Prayer and Supplication does not include only the souls who then believed in Jesus Christ, but also every one of those who were henceforth to believe in Him, this Prayer holds out to Us no indifferent reason for confidently expressing Our hopes, and for making all possible endeavors in order that the men of every race and clime should be called and moved to embrace the Unity of Divine Faith.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
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: 37,960



« Reply #151 on: July 14, 2010, 09:43:23 PM »

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

One among many statements of exceeding arrogance. Explain it away all you want - 'well, he doesn't really mean it that way', etc. - but of this at least I am sure: no Orthodox hierarch would ever even make such a ridiculous statement, regardless of what he meant by it.

If you look at that quote in context he is speaking of the Church, the Body of Christ, not the Papacy. They're wrong on a lot of things, but you don't have to misrepresent their statements to win a debate, if Christ even cares about such debates.

From what I can tell, he is, to the contrary, using the 'royal we' and referring explicitly to himself. He even mentions his old age (and I don't think he's referring there to the 2000 years of the church).
LOL.
Logged

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

Posts: 6,917



« Reply #152 on: July 14, 2010, 09:57:37 PM »

From what I can tell, he is, to the contrary, using the 'royal we' and referring explicitly to himself. He even mentions his old age (and I don't think he's referring there to the 2000 years of the church).

I went and read everything again and I definitely misread the encyclical the first time. You are correct, and he indeed refers to himself as having the place of God Almighty on earth. I suppose this seemed so impossible to me that my brain had to read it another way. I am absolutely dumbfounded.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
****