OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 09:23:27 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: I tought that the Emperor was the head of your church  (Read 10754 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« on: April 07, 2004, 12:51:20 AM »

I thought that the emperor was the head of your church? well not anymore since there is no more emperor.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2004, 12:58:03 AM »

I thought that the emperor was the head of your church? well not anymore since there is no more emperor.

1) Please stop changing the subject heading each and every time you post.

2) Tone down the rhetoric. Christ is the head of our Church.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,402


« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2004, 12:59:36 AM »

I thought that the emperor was the head of your church? well not anymore since there is no more emperor.

romanbyzantium,
I'm finding it rather difficult to believe you are trying to honestly ask valid questions with statements like this.  This statement downright reeks of trolling.  You must be rather naive indeed to believe otherwise.

Of course the emperor is not the head of the Church!  That is downright ludicrous.  Christ is the Head of the Church.
Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2004, 01:03:26 AM »

romanbyzantium,
I'm finding it rather difficult to believe you are trying to honestly ask valid questions with statements like this.  This statement downright reeks of trolling.  You must be rather naive indeed to believe otherwise.

Of course the emperor is not the head of the Church!  That is downright ludicrous.  Christ is the Head of the Church.  

I meant to say temporal head. Why are you guys getting so upset? correct me if I am wrong but, please stop the name calling. educate me instead.

so what was the role of the emperor in your church? am I allowed to ask this question without being called names?
Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2004, 01:05:23 AM »

1) Please stop changing the subject heading each and every time you post.

2) Tone down the rhetoric. Christ is the head of our Church.

anastasios

what rhetoric? This is what I was taught about your church. I am only asking if this is true. Also, I meant to say the temporal head. Of course christ is the head.

So what was the emperor role in your church? be patient with me I am learning about your church. just as I would be if you asked questions about my church.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2004, 01:14:23 AM »

Dear RB,

OK, I will take it that you are sincere.  I mistook you for being confrontational because this is a charge made against us oftentimes by people opposed to Orthodoxy, and popularized by the anti-Orthodox (and anti-Christian in general)  writer Gibbon.

No, the emperor is NOT the head of the Church (if there still was one).  he could interfere, true, but that was not becaues the Church really wanted him to.  And from time to time, emperors were censured by the patriarch of Constantinople in various ways.

A classic example: Emperor Leo wanted to marry a fourth time but was not allowed even though he tried to force it.

My apologies for jumping on you. If you are interested in learning more, I am glad, and we can recommend some good books for you if you'd like.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2004, 01:20:13 AM »

Dear RB,

OK, I will take it that you are sincere.  I mistook you for being confrontational because this is a charge made against us oftentimes by people opposed to Orthodoxy, and popularized by the anti-Orthodox (and anti-Christian in general)  writer Gibbon.

No, the emperor is NOT the head of the Church (if there still was one).  he could interfere, true, but that was not becaues the Church really wanted him to.  And from time to time, emperors were censured by the patriarch of Constantinople in various ways.

A classic example: Emperor Leo wanted to marry a fourth time but was not allowed even though he tried to force it.

My apologies for jumping on you. If you are interested in learning more, I am glad, and we can recommend some good books for you if you'd like.

anastasios

me understand about your church. any books, websites, etc.  I am going to buy the Bishop Kalisto book that someone recommended. btw, don't think that I am against your church because I am not. actually, I have a couple of relatives that are orthodox.

I do hope that someday are churches would unite. everything in christ is possible., even this. Smiley
Logged
theodore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 194


« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2004, 05:38:02 AM »

I thought that the emperor was the head of your church? well not anymore since there is no more emperor.

This question is ludicrous.  The Eastern Roman Emperors were no different in their involvment with the Church than were the Western Roman Emperors.  The only difference is that the Eastern Empire lasted a thousand years longer than did the Western Empire.  This type of assertion of yours sounds like the Protestant canards that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by the Emperor St. Constantine.  You need to find a different mode of attack, since YOUR Church has Emperors in it's past as well.  Additionally, please take the time to learn some history from unbiased sources, as where-ever you're getting these notions from, (Jack Chick comics maybe?) is twisting history to fit an agenda rather than teach the truth.  Perhaps then you won't make such insulting and untrue claims.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2004, 06:40:14 AM »

How ironic that romanbyzantium posts this!
Doesn't he realize that his pope is both a secular head of state as well as head of his church?
The Vatican is a separate country- in a sense its head is the "head" of his church.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2004, 08:21:12 AM »

What you really had in the Eastern part of the Empire was a type of cohabitation between the ecclesial and imperial powers during the Byzantine period.  The Emperor interfered in the life of the Church from time to time, and the Patriarchs interfered in the life of the Emperor and the State from time to time as well.  But by and large they cooperated with each other and supported each other.

In terms of the Emperor being the "head" ... well, he certainly wasn't viewed that way.  The Emperor did convene councils, but this was not based on ecclesiastical law, but rather became the tradition following the example of Constantine, who himself convened the first ecumenical council.  That didn't make Constantine the head of the church, however.

There are two great resource works on this.  The first is "The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire" by Hussey.  The second is "Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions" by John Meyendorff.  The former author is a secular Byzantine scholar (but a very learned one!) and the latter was an Orthodox priest and scholar.

Brendan
Logged

B
ania
Life according to Abe Simpson:
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,097



« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2004, 09:48:42 AM »

Ummmm...  I just got completely & totally lost with all the title changing...  What emperor???  Head of which church?  The Orthodox Church? In that case, considering there were multiple branches in multiple  countries/empires at any given time, which one are you talking about...?  Sorry maybe I have ADD, but I'm having trouble following this conversation...
« Last Edit: April 07, 2004, 09:49:12 AM by ania » Logged

Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2004, 10:50:22 AM »

This question is ludicrous.  The Eastern Roman Emperors were no different in their involvment with the Church than were the Western Roman Emperors.  The only difference is that the Eastern Empire lasted a thousand years longer than did the Western Empire.  This type of assertion of yours sounds like the Protestant canards that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by the Emperor St. Constantine.  You need to find a different mode of attack, since YOUR Church has Emperors in it's past as well.  Additionally, please take the time to learn some history from unbiased sources, as where-ever you're getting these notions from, (Jack Chick comics maybe?) is twisting history to fit an agenda rather than teach the truth.  Perhaps then you won't make such insulting and untrue claims.


PLease never ever compare me to protestants. Smiley

It was not an attack but an inquiry as to the role of the emperor in your church. I made that clear in previous posts.

Jack Trick is to busy writing about my church and finding news ways of attack it and does not have enough time in his hands to include the orthodox.  For now he is ours. you could have him later after he is finished with us. Grin
Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2004, 10:51:21 AM »

What you really had in the Eastern part of the Empire was a type of cohabitation between the ecclesial and imperial powers during the Byzantine period.  The Emperor interfered in the life of the Church from time to time, and the Patriarchs interfered in the life of the Emperor and the State from time to time as well.  But by and large they cooperated with each other and supported each other.

In terms of the Emperor being the "head" ... well, he certainly wasn't viewed that way.  The Emperor did convene councils, but this was not based on ecclesiastical law, but rather became the tradition following the example of Constantine, who himself convened the first ecumenical council.  That didn't make Constantine the head of the church, however.

There are two great resource works on this.  The first is "The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire" by Hussey.  The second is "Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions" by John Meyendorff.  The former author is a secular Byzantine scholar (but a very learned one!) and the latter was an Orthodox priest and scholar.

Brendan

Thank you Brendan I will add these two books to the list. You have been very helpful.
Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2004, 10:53:01 AM »

How ironic that romanbyzantium posts this!
Doesn't he realize that his pope is both a secular head of state as well as head of his church?
The Vatican is a separate country- in a sense its head is the "head" of his church.

Demetri

His both head of state of Vatican city and as pope temporal head of the church. Buit, Jesus is the Head of the Church.
Logged
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2004, 11:16:42 AM »

His both head of state of Vatican city and as pope temporal head of the church. Buit, Jesus is the Head of the Church.
RomanByzantium,

For the 2nd time, please stop changing the subject in each of your posts. It is rather difficult to follow.

Thx,
Capn
Logged
ania
Life according to Abe Simpson:
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,097



« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2004, 12:31:02 PM »

If your talking about the Byzantine Emporor, he was never head of the church, though, like in many countries, often got involved in church politics (I know the Pope of Rome often stuck his nose into Catholic monarchies).   In Constantinople & other places, since Orthodoxy was the state religion, it was often involved in politics, and  the emporor, ruler, whatever would also get involved in religion.  It was common for Orthodox bishops & kings to be brothers or relatives.  But to say the monarchs were the heads of the church is just uneducated.  Only 2 people that I can think of are both heads of state & heads of churches (there might be others), Queen Elizabeth II & Pope John Paul II.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2004, 12:31:49 PM by ania » Logged

Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2004, 12:42:31 PM »

RomanByzantium,

For the 2nd time, please stop changing the subject in each of your posts. It is rather difficult to follow.

Thx,
Capn

i was responding to what Demetri said?  How did I change the topic?
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2004, 12:49:54 PM »

When you hit reply, you insert comments into the "SUBJECT" header.  If you don't do that, then the reply will automatically have the same subject as the rest of the thread.  It gets confusing when every post has a different subject.  The reason a subject heading can be changed is in case someone wants to bring up a related sub-topic in a general thread.  But it is to be used sparingly.

If you aren't following the technical details of this, I will take the time to practice with you.  Just hit "reply" and post "test" in the body of your message and hit return, and you will notice that the subject heading is the same as the post you are replying to.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2004, 12:53:36 PM »

post test
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2004, 12:58:47 PM »

RB,

Good, you did that right.  From now on, just do that, and if you REALLY need to change the subject line, you can do it, but only if it is for a good reason, like the thread changes completely (example: you are talking about baptism, and someone wants to mention communion in the same thread.  You could then change the subject line). Use that sparingly, though.

Thanks for your patience.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
theodore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 194


« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2004, 01:41:56 PM »

PLease never ever compare me to protestants. Smiley

It was not an attack but an inquiry as to the role of the emperor in your church. I made that clear in previous posts.

Jack Trick is to busy writing about my church and finding news ways of attack it and does not have enough time in his hands to include the orthodox.  For now he is ours. you could have him later after he is finished with us. Grin

Sorry if I miscronstrued that as an attack, but I've never heard any credible sources refer to the Eastern (or Western) Roman Emperors as being the head of the Church.  I assumed that anyone who would presume such a false and inflammatory idea would be in attack mode, and that such an idea would likely originate from some unsavory source.   And in regards to Tricky Chicky, well...   he seems to be Rome obsessed in most of his propaganda.  Hopefully he doesn't turn the full force of his demon inspired vitriol on the Orthodox, who he regards as sharing in many of the same "heresies" as Roman Catholicism.
Logged
lellimore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


OC.net


« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2004, 02:23:13 PM »

Jack Trick is to busy writing about my church and finding news ways of attack it and does not have enough time in his hands to include the orthodox.  For now he is ours. you could have him later after he is finished with us. Grin
Hey, he attacked the Russian Orthodox Church not too long ago lol (quite predictably, he denied that there was any real difference between RCism and OCism, and therefore his comments about the former apply also to the latter)
Logged
MsGuided
Pharmakolytria
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478


St. Anastasia


« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2004, 02:45:20 PM »

I have heard similar things to what RB has mentioned.  I was discussing Orthodoxy with a priest in my RC church and he spoke of his slight distaste for it by mentioning a double-headed eagle in which he said that one head was for the emperor and the other head either for the pope or for Christ, trying to say that the emperor was thus equal in authority and/or reverence.  

But this is a RC priest, and he is a bit of a nut.

Kim
Logged

"Forgive me that great love leads me to talking nonsense." Barsanuphius
theodore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 194


« Reply #23 on: April 07, 2004, 03:36:18 PM »

I have heard similar things to what RB has mentioned.  I was discussing Orthodoxy with a priest in my RC church and he spoke of his slight distaste for it by mentioning a double-headed eagle in which he said that one head was for the emperor and the other head either for the pope or for Christ, trying to say that the emperor was thus equal in authority and/or reverence.  

But this is a RC priest, and he is a bit of a nut.

Kim

It's unfortunate that this sort of nonsensical slandering occurs.  The double-headed eagle was the symbol of the Roman Empire, with one head facing East, and one head facing West , which was symbolic of the empire's universality.  If he doesn't like Orthodoxy, fine.  But he shouldn't just make stuff up.
Logged
Historynut
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


OC.net


« Reply #24 on: April 09, 2004, 12:03:23 AM »

Brendan covered this pretty well already but I am a chatter box so heres my two cents. In the Eastern Empire the Emperor had absolute authority over worldy things and the church was in charge of spiritual matters. The Emperors could and did interfere with the life of the church and one emperor.....whose name eludes me for the momement stript many of the churches of constaninople of their gold to pay for the defense of the Empire with the patriarch being essentially forced to go along with it. Anyway one thing that is worth pointing out is that it was to a large degree the lack of a powerful secular leader in the west that led the pope to become a secular as well as a religious leader and also in a round about way led to much of the expansion of papal power in the religious world.
Logged

NULL
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #25 on: April 09, 2004, 01:04:20 AM »

Brendan covered this pretty well already but I am a chatter box so heres my two cents. In the Eastern Empire the Emperor had absolute authority over worldy things and the church was in charge of spiritual matters. The Emperors could and did interfere with the life of the church and one emperor.....whose name eludes me for the momement stript many of the churches of constaninople of their gold to pay for the defense of the Empire with the patriarch being essentially forced to go along with it. Anyway one thing that is worth pointing out is that it was to a large degree the lack of a powerful secular leader in the west that led the pope to become a secular as well as a religious leader and also in a round about way led to much of the expansion of papal power in the religious world.

Wel,l in the west the emperor and the pope were always battling each other over the emperor meddling in church affairs. guess who won? Grin
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #26 on: April 10, 2004, 07:19:00 AM »

Wel,l in the west the emperor and the pope were always battling each other over the emperor meddling in church affairs. guess who won? Grin

Which emperor? The eastern or the western? The western, you know the ones that insisted on the filioque? Who DID win?

Demetri
Logged

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

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #27 on: April 10, 2004, 11:40:08 AM »

Which emperor? The eastern or the western? The western, you know the ones that insisted on the filioque? Who DID win?

Demetri

Well, it was not the emperor Demetri. The filioque started in Spain and there is nothing wrong with the filioque.

why do you think that their is something wrong with it when there are some circles in orthodoxy that no longer see it as a problem. I believe even Bishop Kalisto.

So yeah the church won over the medling emperor!
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,402


« Reply #28 on: April 10, 2004, 01:57:20 PM »

Well, it was not the emperor Demetri. The filioque started in Spain and there is nothing wrong with the filioque.

why do you think that their is something wrong with it when there are some circles in orthodoxy that no longer see it as a problem. I believe even Bishop Kalisto.

So yeah the church won over the medling emperor!

 Roll Eyes  rb, you really are a confused individual.

1)  Yes, there is something wrong with the filioque.

2)  And, the "emperor" DID win - by influencing the Papacy from outside.

I'm sure Demetri can point you to some information better more than I can.
Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #29 on: April 10, 2004, 03:02:25 PM »

Roll Eyes  rb, you really are a confused individual.

1)  Yes, there is something wrong with the filioque.

2)  And, the "emperor" DID win - by influencing the Papacy from outside.

I'm sure Demetri can point you to some information better more than I can.

1. first, stop the name calling. you sound like a protestant. If i wanted to get abused like this I would just go over to CARM.  Tongue
2. there is nothing wrong with the filioque. you guys just don't understand it. read the church fathers.
3. what emperor would that be?

« Last Edit: April 10, 2004, 03:03:53 PM by romanbyzantium » Logged
theodore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 194


« Reply #30 on: April 10, 2004, 03:58:00 PM »

1. first, stop the name calling. you sound like a protestant. If i wanted to get abused like this I would just go over to CARM.  Tongue
2. there is nothing wrong with the filioque. you guys just don't understand it. read the church fathers.
3. what emperor would that be?

The filioque adds a layer of complexity which needs heavy explaining in order to make theological sense.

The filioque was resisted by Popes who were being pressured by the Frankish kings to add that to the creed.  As a result one of the Popes had the creed inscribed on a silver plaque WITHOUT the filioque on St. Peters Basilica in Rome to drive home his point.  This plaque is still there.  A later Pope succumbed to the requests of the Frankish King Charlemagne whom he also crowned as "Emperor", and added the filioque to the Creed.
Logged
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #31 on: April 10, 2004, 06:53:26 PM »

ANATHMA TO YOU ROMANBYZANTIUM!

Someone needs to say this to this emissary of the evil one. I would invite you all to stop being lurred into this man traps. I have been sitting back and thinking that this person is an honest seeker interested in dialog but his last statement about the filioque proves that he has been sent here by the evil one to make our Holy Week and Pascha unfruitful.

Go and ask any good  Roman Catholic theologian and they will tell you that the filioque should be removed from the creed. By saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the son is a sin aginast the Holy Spirit for it lessens the equality of the Spirit.

I try to be open to people but eventually something must be said when they are so misinformed. Romanbyzantium only goal by making the statements he is making is to get people upset and rilled up because what is he is spouting is not only false but flat out inflamitory.

Logged

Joseph
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #32 on: April 10, 2004, 07:14:08 PM »

ANATHMA TO YOU ROMANBYZANTIUM!

Someone needs to say this to this emissary of the evil one. I would invite you all to stop being lurred into this man traps. I have been sitting back and thinking that this person is an honest seeker interested in dialog but his last statement about the filioque proves that he has been sent here by the evil one to make our Holy Week and Pascha unfruitful.

Go and ask any good  Roman Catholic theologian and they will tell you that the filioque should be removed from the creed. By saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the son is a sin aginast the Holy Spirit for it lessens the equality of the Spirit.

I try to be open to people but eventually something must be said when they are so misinformed. Romanbyzantium only goal by making the statements he is making is to get people upset and rilled up because what is he is spouting is not only false but flat out inflamitory.



1. First, get a grip. stop the hretoric. lay off the cursing, ok. how dare you ! you have no right.
2. yeah, I have ask good roman catholic theologians such as various church fathers and many popes. There is nothing wrong with the filioque. If you have anything constructive to add then add. The filioque is consistent with ECF.
3. you are trying to shut me up.
4. what makes you think that you are not the one misinformed? Nor am I making statements to get people rilled up.
5. stop bearing false witness against me. cause you don't know me.
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #33 on: April 10, 2004, 07:29:27 PM »

Guys,

Put a cork in it for the remaining hours, very disrespectful, especially to the Lord.


james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.
Tony
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


« Reply #34 on: April 10, 2004, 07:43:35 PM »

Calling RB an emissary of Satan is just wrong.


ANATHMA TO YOU ROMANBYZANTIUM!

Someone needs to say this to this emissary of the evil one. I would invite you all to stop being lurred into this man traps. I have been sitting back and thinking that this person is an honest seeker interested in dialog but his last statement about the filioque proves that he has been sent here by the evil one to make our Holy Week and Pascha unfruitful.

Go and ask any good  Roman Catholic theologian and they will tell you that the filioque should be removed from the creed. By saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the son is a sin aginast the Holy Spirit for it lessens the equality of the Spirit.

I try to be open to people but eventually something must be said when they are so misinformed. Romanbyzantium only goal by making the statements he is making is to get people upset and rilled up because what is he is spouting is not only false but flat out inflamitory.


Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #35 on: April 10, 2004, 07:50:17 PM »

Calling RB an emissary of Satan is just wrong.

I would have never expected that comment coming from an orthodox christian. from a protestant yes, from an orthodox, never in a million year.  :'(

All of those comments just because I said that there was nothing wrong with the filioque. :'(
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #36 on: April 10, 2004, 07:55:37 PM »


2. there is nothing wrong with the filioque. you guys just don't understand it. read the church fathers.

When I actually started reading the Church Fathers IN CONTEXT (i.e. sitting down and reading their works in their entirety) I realized just how ORTHODOX they are, not Roman Catholic!

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 10, 2004, 07:58:56 PM »

ANATHMA TO YOU ROMANBYZANTIUM!

Please use the "report post" feature instead of anathematizing fellow board members.

I think romanbyzantium is off--way off--but why not try explaining WHY the filioque is wrong to him? I think the language barrier is what is causing him some communication problems; he has stated that English is not his first language.

Not all "good Roman theologians" disagree with the filioque.  Scott  Hahn for instance argues for it strongly. I think he's wrong, but nevertheless there it is being argued.

When I first investigated Orthodoxy I thought a lot like romanbyzantium.  But through friendly and Christian acting Orthodox I was convinced.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #38 on: April 10, 2004, 08:00:58 PM »

I would have never expected that comment coming from an orthodox christian. from a protestant yes, from an orthodox, never in a million year.  :'(

All of those comments just because I said that there was nothing wrong with the filioque. :'(

The Orthodox here perceive you as being too agressive; saying things like "read the Church Fathers, you don't understand them" is not going to lead people to like you.  You need to phrase yourself better, such as, "The Church fathers seem to teach X, Y, or Z" or "I read St _____ and he said _____".  Generalized statements don't help.

I have pointed out that the language barrier might be cause of some of the tension, but you for your part have to be more cautious with overgeneralizing things and being too agressive.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Historynut
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


OC.net


« Reply #39 on: April 10, 2004, 09:15:43 PM »

Seriously name calling never solves anything but exacerbates the problem now RB may well think all EO are fanatics unwilling to discuss the issues in a civil tone. All RB really needs to do is study his church history preferably from a non-Catholic source to realize that many of the things he holds as proper parts of tradition are actually additions in later years. Papal infallibility, the filioque, etc....
Logged

NULL
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #40 on: April 10, 2004, 09:24:09 PM »

Seriously name calling never solves anything but exacerbates the problem now RB may well think all EO are fanatics unwilling to discuss the issues in a civil tone. All RB really needs to do is study his church history preferably from a non-Catholic source to realize that many of the things he holds as proper parts of tradition are actually additions in later years. Papal infallibility, the filioque, etc....

Why in the world would I have to go to a non catholic source to learn about my history.  why not just stay with the source. That would be like me learning about your history from a protestant point of view. I am sure, that if you would like for me to learn about your history, you would like for me to stay with orthodox sources. Now, why do you recommend that I go outside of my church's history? Do you see what I mean?

I am very aware of my church history. I am very well aware when papal infallibilty and filioque came in to play.

I hope that this was not to aggressive.

Logged
Historynut
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


OC.net


« Reply #41 on: April 10, 2004, 09:57:05 PM »

Ok obvisouly you have done very little research in your academic studies. If you have an issue that has caused contraversy between two parties, or more, and you already have a bias toward one of the two sides and all you do to back up your opinion is read sources that agree with you your not going to have a balanced view point on the issue. Therefore you need to read outside your comfort zone by reading sources you dont agree with, personally I like reading what few protestant church histories i have come across for exactly this reason. This is essentially what you are already doing by going to this board and asking questions whose answers you may or may not agree with. Now you just have to take it the next step and read scholarly works on the issues which i have seen you say you are going to do by ordering books by Timothy Ware. Am I saying that you should ignore Catholic biased sources no of course not but if you want to understand the historic churches you have to read sources from the two main sides the EO and RCC and maybe even the Oriental Orthodox if you can find anything.

If your aware of the fact that the Catholic church has added essentially new components to the faith then why are you still Catholic? I mean I was raised protestant and when i had decided that what I wanted to be a part of the Historical church it was inovations like purgatory etc. in the RCC that led me to the EO.
Logged

NULL
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #42 on: April 10, 2004, 10:29:15 PM »

Ok obvisouly you have done very little research in your academic studies. If you have an issue that has caused contraversy between two parties, or more, and you already have a bias toward one of the two sides and all you do to back up your opinion is read sources that agree with you your not going to have a balanced view point on the issue. Therefore you need to read outside your comfort zone by reading sources you dont agree with, personally I like reading what few protestant church histories i have come across for exactly this reason. This is essentially what you are already doing by going to this board and asking questions whose answers you may or may not agree with. Now you just have to take it the next step and read scholarly works on the issues which i have seen you say you are going to do by ordering books by Timothy Ware. Am I saying that you should ignore Catholic biased sources no of course not but if you want to understand the historic churches you have to read sources from the two main sides the EO and RCC and maybe even the Oriental Orthodox if you can find anything.

If your aware of the fact that the Catholic church has added essentially new components to the faith then why are you still Catholic? I mean I was raised protestant and when i had decided that what I wanted to be a part of the Historical church it was inovations like purgatory etc. in the RCC that led me to the EO.

1. the history church has been adding from the very beginning. There where things that the 4th and 5th century church believed that the 3rd had no idea of.  This has been the nature of the church. I am very sure that you wouldn't call what the church believed in the 5th and 4th century innovations compare to that which was believed in the 3rd and 2nd century. Because if this is the case, then we have all left it behind a long time ago.

You know we don't make up teachings out of thin air but build on the beliefs of the church fathers. you might disagree but that is the way we see it. Nor am I looking for converts or be converted. that is not why  I am here  I am here is to talk.

2. I have already mentioned that there where ECF fathers that believed in filioque. this is very easy to produce. Nor am I looking for contraversy(sp). and if you disagree then that is ok too. we agree to disagree. but that still doesn't mean that we could have civil dialouge and understand each other.

3. I am roman catholic because I choose to be roman catholic. and my church is no less historic than yours or the oriental churches.

4. another reason why I am not orthodox is because it is to foreign for me. I was born a roman catholic and I will die a roman catholic.  from what I have seen, the  orthodox churches are along national line. being in a greek, russian, romanian church is not for me. cause I am not any of these nationalities or belong to these cultures.

Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #43 on: April 10, 2004, 10:33:07 PM »

Why in the world would I have to go to a non catholic source to learn about my history.  why not just stay with the source. That would be like me learning about your history from a protestant point of view. I am sure, that if you would like for me to learn about your history, you would like for me to stay with orthodox sources. Now, why do you recommend that I go outside of my church's history? Do you see what I mean?

I am very aware of my church history. I am very well aware when papal infallibilty and filioque came in to play.

I hope that this was not to aggressive.



No, we wouldn't want you to go to Orthodox sources. We would like you to go to historical sources that are not tied to or funded by a religious organization with a point of view to push.  When I read history, I read Catholic writers, Protestant writers, and Orthodox.  One of the best introductions to Christian doctrine is Kelley, who was Anglican!

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #44 on: April 10, 2004, 10:34:52 PM »

RB,

The Eastern Churches did not believe in the filioque.  Three or four of them wrote "through the Son" but this is not the same thing.  I don't have time to get into it right now as I am about to go off to Pascha services. But maybe later.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.126 seconds with 72 queries.