OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 20, 2014, 01:02:06 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ecclesiologies with pictures  (Read 10104 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,376



« 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
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: 37,333



« 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
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: 37,333



« 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
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: 37,333



« 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
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: 37,333



« 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: 2,966



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: 6,376



« 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: 6,376



« 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: 12,182


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
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: 37,333



« 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: 2,966



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: 2,966



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: 2,966



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: 31,821


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: 2,966



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
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: 37,333



« 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: 12,182


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: 12,182


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: 12,182


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
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,480


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
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: 37,333



« 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
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: 37,333



« 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: 12,182


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: 12,182


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: 12,182


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
********
Online Online

Posts: 3,394



« 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
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: 37,333



« 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
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: 37,333



« 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
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: 37,333



« 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
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: 37,333



« 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: 2,627



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
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: 37,333



« 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: 12,182


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
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: 37,333



« 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: 12,182


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: 2,627



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: 12,182


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
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: 37,333



« 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: 12,182


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
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: 37,333



« 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: 12,182


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
********
Online Online

Posts: 3,394



« 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
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.226 seconds with 72 queries.