Author Topic: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?  (Read 38868 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #315 on: January 24, 2011, 10:31:28 PM »
The Holy Fathers' definition of original sin is not "real" original sin?   We have never believed in Anselmian Thor-like blame of a child for his father's guilt and punishing the child for it.  

 :laugh:  Neither did Anselm.  :laugh:

I think you be thinkin' about them protestants!!

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #316 on: January 24, 2011, 10:55:04 PM »
The Holy Fathers' definition of original sin is not "real" original sin?   We have never believed in Anselmian Thor-like blame of a child for his father's guilt and punishing the child for it.  

 :laugh:  Neither did Anselm.  :laugh:

I think you be thinkin' about them protestants!!
I have noticed this problem. It seems as if few around have read St. Anselm. It reminds of the early-modern philosophers, like Descartes, Hume, and Kant who critiqued the Scholastics, and had very little exposure to what the Scholastics, especially Thomas, said.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #317 on: January 24, 2011, 11:25:44 PM »
That is somewhat like demonstating an absolute lack of understanding of phlogiston, Atlantis and unicorns.

Not cool.

And of course that is the problem with us trying to understand the transmission of the pontificate, which your supreme pontiff claims to be the foundation of the Church, when yourselves are at a loss to explain its transmission.  Odd how the Vatican has a long and complicated process of canonization to show someone is a saint, but no process of showing the transmission f the pontificate.  Since you have no visible means of transmitting that charism,

I know we've done this a few times.

It's not a transmitted charism. It's the nature of having the last word in an infallible church.

Pastor Aeternus isnt' a mandate for judicial review. It is a manifesto of immunity from error.  According to the Vatican, the infallible Church gathered in Ecumenical Council can't speak infallibly, and PA explicitely denies the supreme pontiff gets his power by acting as the Church's minister. So the charism isn't coming from the church, so where does it come from?

There is a long process for the Pope, too. It's a Papal election.

The last papal election was the first one in which acclamation wasn't a way of getting a pope (though the last time that happened was 1621). Another kink in Dan Brown's plot.  There have been a lot of ways of getting a pope, most of which are now banned.

how can you tell an "antipope" from a "pope"?  

One acts and preaches against the catholic faith.

If a Pope started preaching Arianism, probably gonna be an anti-Pope.[/quote]

The Church canonized what the Vatican calls the first antipope, St. Hippolytus.  Pope Dioscoros was canonically elected, and his rival Bonficae uncanonically appointed by Pope Felix IV. But the Vatican denies Dioscorous as an antipope, and claims Boniface as Pope Boniface II. Pope Dioscorus died three weeks later, but still had a reign longer than 4 other popes the Vatican claims now (and one, Stephen, which the Vatican has waivered on.  If it cant' get its list straight, how strong is that chain?).

So your visible head has no visible means to transmitt the inner grace of infallibility, supremacy, etc. Almighty God has not appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on these particular men?

No. He's consecrated a bishop, and then has the last word as nature of his office.

You've had pope-elects die before consecration (including the Pope Stephen II, upon which the Vatican goes back and forth on, a problem as Pope Stephen II made some dogmatic and canonical acts in enforcing clerical celibacy, which he signed "Pope Stephen the nineth," thereby acknowleding Stephen as his predecessor.  The Vatican makes lots of claims of deacons and priests exercising the pope's powers as his legate (e.g. deacon Hilary supposedly nullifying the council of Ephesus II, gathered at an Ecumenical Council-and hence necessitating the Council of Chalcedon), why can't the pope elect exercise his own powers, especially as you claim that the pontificate isn't a sacrament, isnt' conveyed by laying on of hands, and the bishop have no share in it.  No explanation how inferiors bless the better, contrary to what scripture says in Hebrews.  No explanition of why, if the pontifiate is not anothe order of the hierarchy, why the elect has to be consecrated a bishop.  I do recall scholastic argument on whether a man not a priest can be consecrated to the episcopacy, but don't recall how the dust settled. If the pontificate is seperate from the episcopate, how does it presuppose it?

How is is that you can condmen the  "invisible church," the "branch theory," Sedevacantism, over the lack of a visible head?  

They don't.

-"invisible church", there is only one Catholic Church, and it's in communion with Rome (that's how you know you're in it)
-"branch theory", same
-"sedevacantism", they may hold an "orthodox" faith, but they are outside the church. Symbolized by the same reason.
-the visible head dies, the office becomes defunct, with no visible means of reviving it, so no knowing what you are in-the personal union dies with the pontiff.
-the branches have no visible ties, and the pontifficates have no visible ties, same.
-the sedevacantists hold to the office. The fact that the list of office holders is not consistent shows that that is all you need to do, according to the Vatican.  And even if you accept Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, you are a sedevacantist in between.

You have demonstrated no visble means by which your "visible head" who serves as the visiblbe foundation of your ecclesiastical organization transmits that charism to his successor.

Because they don't.

Then it died with St. Peter.

Since your succession of visible heads have only invisible links to each other, why not invisible links between churches, branches, the empty see, etc.  

They aren't related.

Yes, they are.  When the visible head dies, who keeps your sui juris churches together, maintains that "subsists in the Catholic Church" glue, and provides that visible foundation claimed to be sine que non of the Church?

Visible heads are elected and hold their authority by position in the church. Invisible links are communion, if you don't have communion, you're not in the church.
Bishops are elected too. But they have to be consecrated for the "office and work" of the bishop to get that authority, according to the Vatican. So no consecration for the office and work of universal communion, you don't have it or a church.

Btw, why should we not take the Sedevacantists as attached to the cathedra Petri, in which case there has been no visible head for decades.  

Because they aren't attached to the head. They say so themselves.

But the office is what counts. You said so yourselves.

Have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar.  
Truths that are true in different manners.
You've yet to explain the manner of the pontificate.

Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop,  that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why?

They rejected their apostolic ordinations. You can't have a grace you reject. Even if this particular priest believes it, they must be ordained... Just in case.
You reject that the pope has an ordination from the Apostle Peter.  No just in case will due here, as you found your entire church on it.

Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands."  So no orders.

They rejected holy orders.

2000 years and no one has claimed holy orders for the pontiff.

And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands.  If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?
A pope must be a Catholic. If the Anglican is confirmed a Catholic, and the ordained a RC bishop, then yes.
You haven't established why he would have to be consecrated a RC bishop. or any bishop for that matter.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #318 on: January 24, 2011, 11:26:45 PM »
The Holy Fathers' definition of original sin is not "real" original sin?   We have never believed in Anselmian Thor-like blame of a child for his father's guilt and punishing the child for it.  

 :laugh:  Neither did Anselm.  :laugh:

I think you be thinkin' about them protestants!!
No, Anselm's ilk. The scholastics.
Quote
the appearance of St. Anselm's "Cur Deus Homo?" made a new epoch in the theology of the Atonement. It may be said, indeed, that this book marks an epoch in theological literature and doctrinal development. There are not many works, even among those of the greatest teachers, that can compare in this respect with the treatise of St. Anselm. And, with few exceptions, the books that have done as much to influence and guide the growth of theology are the outcome of some great struggle with heresy; while others, again, only summarize the theological learning of the age. But this little book is at once purely pacific and eminently original. Nor could any dogmatic treatise well be more simple and unpretending than this luminous dialogue between the great archbishop and his disciple Boso. There is no parade of learning, and but little in the way of appeal to authorities. The disciple asks and the master answers; and both alike face the great problem before them fearlessly, but at the same time with all due reverence and modesty. Anselm says at the outset that he will not so much show his disciple the truth he needs, as seek it along with him; and that when he says anything that is not confirmed by higher authority, it must be taken as tentative, and provisional. He adds that, though he may in some measure meet the question, one who is wiser could do it better; and that, whatever man may know or say on this subject, there will always remain deeper reasons that are beyond him. In the same spirit he concludes the whole treatise by submitting it to reasonable correction at the hands of others.

It may be safely said that this is precisely what has come to pass. For the theory put forward by Anselm has been modified by the work of later theologians, and confirmed by the testimony of truth. In contrast to some of the other views already noticed, this theory is remarkably clear and symmetrical. And it is certainly more agreeable to reason than the "mouse-trap" metaphor, or the notion of purchase money paid to Satan. Anselm's answer to the question is simply the need of satisfaction of sin. No sin, as he views the matter, can be forgiven without satisfaction. A debt to Divine justice has been incurred; and that debt must needs be paid. But man could not make this satisfaction for himself; the debt is something far greater than he can pay; and, moreover, all the service that he can offer to God is already due on other titles. The suggestion that some innocent man, or angel, might possibly pay the debt incurred by sinners is rejected, on the ground that in any case this would put the sinner under obligation to his deliverer, and he would thus become the servant of a mere creature. The only way in which the satisfaction could be made, and men could be set free from sin, was by the coming of a Redeemer who is both God and man. His death makes full satisfaction to the Divine Justice, for it is something greater than all the sins of all mankind. Many side questions are incidentally treated in the dialogue between Anselm and Boso. But this is the substance of the answer given to the great question, "Cur Deus Homo?". Some modern writers have suggested that this notion of deliverance by means of satisfaction may have a German origin. For in old Teutonic laws a criminal might pay the wergild instead of undergoing punishment. But this custom was not peculiar or to the Germans, as we may see from the Celtic eirig, and, as Riviere has pointed out, there is no need to have recourse to this explanation. For the notion of satisfaction for sin was already present in the whole system of ecclesiastical penance, though it had been left for Anselm to use it in illustration of the doctrine of the Atonernent.
Nihil Obstat. 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm
« Last Edit: January 24, 2011, 11:31:01 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #319 on: January 25, 2011, 01:02:33 AM »
That is somewhat like demonstating an absolute lack of understanding of phlogiston, Atlantis and unicorns.

Not cool.

And of course that is the problem with us trying to understand the transmission of the pontificate, which your supreme pontiff claims to be the foundation of the Church, when yourselves are at a loss to explain its transmission.  Odd how the Vatican has a long and complicated process of canonization to show someone is a saint, but no process of showing the transmission f the pontificate.  Since you have no visible means of transmitting that charism,

I know we've done this a few times.

It's not a transmitted charism. It's the nature of having the last word in an infallible church.

Pastor Aeternus isnt' a mandate for judicial review. It is a manifesto of immunity from error.  According to the Vatican, the infallible Church gathered in Ecumenical Council can't speak infallibly, and PA explicitely denies the supreme pontiff gets his power by acting as the Church's minister. So the charism isn't coming from the church, so where does it come from?

This is how PA defines transferring the office. It's given to whomever is made Pope, and succeeds the 'chair of Peter', as the Church's head:
Quote
Chapter 2.
3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].
http://www.fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html

There is a long process for the Pope, too. It's a Papal election.

The last papal election was the first one in which acclamation wasn't a way of getting a pope (though the last time that happened was 1621). Another kink in Dan Brown's plot.  There have been a lot of ways of getting a pope, most of which are now banned.

how can you tell an "antipope" from a "pope"?  

One acts and preaches against the catholic faith.

If a Pope started preaching Arianism, probably gonna be an anti-Pope.

The Church canonized what the Vatican calls the first antipope, St. Hippolytus.  Pope Dioscoros was canonically elected, and his rival Bonficae uncanonically appointed by Pope Felix IV. But the Vatican denies Dioscorous as an antipope, and claims Boniface as Pope Boniface II. Pope Dioscorus died three weeks later, but still had a reign longer than 4 other popes the Vatican claims now (and one, Stephen, which the Vatican has waivered on.  If it cant' get its list straight, how strong is that chain?).[/quote]

St. Hippolytus wrote many orthodox statements, but had his falling out in a period of his life.
Quote
He continued in opposition as antipope throughout the reigns of the two immediate successors of Callistus, Urban (222 or 223 to 230) and Pontius (230-35), and during this period, probably during the pontificate of Pontianus, he wrote the "Philosophumena". He was banished to the unhealthful island (insula nociva) of Sardinia at the same time as Pontianus; and shortly before this, or soon afterward, he became reconciled with the legitimate bishop and the Church of Rome.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07360c.htm

Pope Dioscoros is more convoluted. But, while popularly elected, the chair was eventually succeeded by Pope Boniface. As far as I understand, Dioscoros didn't do anything against the Church, but was merely a rival with Pope Boniface.

Needless to say the succession of Popes has been "interesting", but so has other Sees. And yet, Rome still somehow maintained the faith... at least until the end of the first millennium.  ;)

So your visible head has no visible means to transmitt the inner grace of infallibility, supremacy, etc. Almighty God has not appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on these particular men?

No. He's consecrated a bishop, and then has the last word as nature of his office.

You've had pope-elects die before consecration (including the Pope Stephen II, upon which the Vatican goes back and forth on, a problem as Pope Stephen II made some dogmatic and canonical acts in enforcing clerical celibacy, which he signed "Pope Stephen the nineth," thereby acknowleding Stephen as his predecessor.  

Quote
On the death of Zachary, a certain priest Stephen was unanimously elected to succeed him (about 23 March, 752); but on the third day after his election, whilst transacting some domestic affairs, he was struck with apoplexy, and expired on the next day. As he died before his consecration, earlier writers do not appear to have included him in the list of the popes; but, in accordance with the long standing practice of the Roman Church, he is now generally counted among them. This divergent practice has introduced confusion into the way of counting the Popes Stephen.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14288b.htm

It certainly is confusing. For him to be Pope, though, it's not because of "charism", but because of the office. I would think this is comparable to a cardinal. The cardinal is supposed to be a bishop, but a priest selected may receive permission to remain a priest.

The Vatican makes lots of claims of deacons and priests exercising the pope's powers as his legate (e.g. deacon Hilary supposedly nullifying the council of Ephesus II, gathered at an Ecumenical Council-and hence necessitating the Council of Chalcedon), why can't the pope elect exercise his own powers, especially as you claim that the pontificate isn't a sacrament, isnt' conveyed by laying on of hands, and the bishop have no share in it.  No explanation how inferiors bless the better, contrary to what scripture says in Hebrews.  No explanition of why, if the pontifiate is not anothe order of the hierarchy, why the elect has to be consecrated a bishop.  I do recall scholastic argument on whether a man not a priest can be consecrated to the episcopacy, but don't recall how the dust settled. If the pontificate is seperate from the episcopate, how does it presuppose it?

A man who is to be consecrated a bishop must go through the stages, as far as I've ever heard. It has been traditionally practiced where the man is ordained in succession a day to a few days apart.

There have been some "elects" that have exercised their pontifical power, though. I think it would be seen as improper mostly, for someone to exercise powers before assuming the office, however.

How is is that you can condmen the  "invisible church," the "branch theory," Sedevacantism, over the lack of a visible head?  

They don't.

-"invisible church", there is only one Catholic Church, and it's in communion with Rome (that's how you know you're in it)
-"branch theory", same
-"sedevacantism", they may hold an "orthodox" faith, but they are outside the church. Symbolized by the same reason.
-the visible head dies, the office becomes defunct, with no visible means of reviving it, so no knowing what you are in-the personal union dies with the pontiff.
-the branches have no visible ties, and the pontifficates have no visible ties, same.
-the sedevacantists hold to the office. The fact that the list of office holders is not consistent shows that that is all you need to do, according to the Vatican.  And even if you accept Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, you are a sedevacantist in between.
-visible head dies, church gets new man to sit in "the seat". A few days without a Pope, doesn't leave people forgetting where they were.
-??? I don't follow how it's the same.
-sedevacantists believe the office is not filled by a valid pope. They accept "the chair", but they think the current holder is an anti-pope. When a Pope dies, the chair is empty, true, but the church fills it.

You have demonstrated no visble means by which your "visible head" who serves as the visiblbe foundation of your ecclesiastical organization transmits that charism to his successor.

Because they don't.

Then it died with St. Peter.

The "chair" still exists.

Since your succession of visible heads have only invisible links to each other, why not invisible links between churches, branches, the empty see, etc.  

They aren't related.

Yes, they are.  When the visible head dies, who keeps your sui juris churches together, maintains that "subsists in the Catholic Church" glue, and provides that visible foundation claimed to be sine que non of the Church?

The Pope doesn't physically hold the church's together, in this way. He is the symbolic head. Being in communion with the chair of Peter (i.e. the Pope), signifies being "in" the Church.

Visible heads are elected and hold their authority by position in the church. Invisible links are communion, if you don't have communion, you're not in the church.
Bishops are elected too. But they have to be consecrated for the "office and work" of the bishop to get that authority, according to the Vatican. So no consecration for the office and work of universal communion, you don't have it or a church.

*taps chin... thinking*

I'll bring PA into it:
Quote
Chapter 3.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
http://www.fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html

The Pope is a bishop. That's his consecration. His administrative office is only much higher privileged.

Btw, why should we not take the Sedevacantists as attached to the cathedra Petri, in which case there has been no visible head for decades.  

Because they aren't attached to the head. They say so themselves.

But the office is what counts. You said so yourselves.

The office does count, and they don't think the current officeholder is valid.

Have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar.  
Truths that are true in different manners.
You've yet to explain the manner of the pontificate.

I'm sorry, I don't know how else to describe it. Perhaps a RC could explain it better.

Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop,  that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why?

They rejected their apostolic ordinations. You can't have a grace you reject. Even if this particular priest believes it, they must be ordained... Just in case.
You reject that the pope has an ordination from the Apostle Peter.  No just in case will due here, as you found your entire church on it.

?

Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands."  So no orders.

They rejected holy orders.

2000 years and no one has claimed holy orders for the pontiff.

Only being a bishop, but a patriarch of patriarchs.


And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands.  If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?
A pope must be a Catholic. If the Anglican is confirmed a Catholic, and the ordained a RC bishop, then yes.
You haven't established why he would have to be consecrated a RC bishop. or any bishop for that matter.

Because the Pontiff is an episcopal position, and is the head of the Roman Church as well as the (R) Catholic Church.

I'm going to need this.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #320 on: January 25, 2011, 01:08:24 AM »
The system of indulgences and the Pope's power to deliver people from Purgatory is so erratic that it borders on gross injustice.

Example:

1.  Bill Jones is a mass murderer and goes to the electric chair, and Glory to God, he repented.  His dear old mother is a wonderful and devout old soul and the day after his death she obtains a plenary indulgence for him.   He is sprung from Purgatory at once and enters Heaven.  Only 24 hours in  Purgatory.

2.  The next day Johnny Malloy goes to the chair but he has no old devout mother and no friends interested in obtaining an indulgence and applying it to his soul.... so he has to spend two million years of torment in Purgatory.

You see what I mean, the Pope has set up an iniquitous and rather unjust system.     Worse than that - it makes God Himself appear capricious.
There is so much wrong with this quote and your examples that it is almost too ridiculous to reply to, but since there are no doubt countless people on this forum who likely think this way I feel that I should offer an explanation. First, the Church grants indulgences for various works of piety, and does so by virtue of its power to bind and loose. Secondly, nowhere in the Church's doctrine of purgatory does it specifically explain the nature of Purgatory. It could be a painful fire or it could be simply a cleansing one. I tend to believe the latter, and am perfectly within my rights as a Catholic to do so since the anathema of Trent applies only to those who reject Purgatory, but it says nothing about its nature. Lastly, those examples you gave are pretty silly because the Church constantly remembers in her prayers during the Mass all those dead who have no one to pray for them, so the idea that anyone would spend "two million years" in Purgatory simply because no one they knew prayed for them is beyond absurd. Such people do have prayers being offered for them: the prayers of the Church.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #321 on: January 25, 2011, 01:08:24 AM »
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

Clearly certain ways of phrasing our objection have been extreme and not entirely inaccurate. However, the core objection, which I think it is safe to maintain, is that papal supremacy and papal infallibility pervert and diminish what we regard as the fullness of the doctrine of the High Priesthood of Christ.
It perverts nothing because Christ willed the Church to be built upon the Rock: St. Peter.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #322 on: January 25, 2011, 01:57:31 AM »
I'm a little short on time, but:
Pope Dioscoros is more convoluted. But, while popularly elected, the chair was eventually succeeded by Pope Boniface. As far as I understand, Dioscoros didn't do anything against the Church, but was merely a rival with Pope Boniface.
How could he do anything against the Church?  He was the canonically elected successor to St. Peter at Rome.

Needless to say the succession of Popes has been "interesting", but so has other Sees.
Not relevant, as no other see claims to be the foundation of the Church.
And yet, Rome still somehow maintained the faith
except when Pope Honorius didn't, while Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem did (Jerusalem has an excellent track record on that too, btw).

... at least until the end of the first millennium.  ;)
Oh, it had its problems before then.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #323 on: January 25, 2011, 01:58:32 AM »
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

Clearly certain ways of phrasing our objection have been extreme and not entirely inaccurate. However, the core objection, which I think it is safe to maintain, is that papal supremacy and papal infallibility pervert and diminish what we regard as the fullness of the doctrine of the High Priesthood of Christ.
It perverts nothing because Christ willed the Church to be built upon the Rock: St. Peter.
of Antioch.
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

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #324 on: January 25, 2011, 02:20:25 AM »
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

How does Orthodoxy convey the grace of the stages of theosis on her faithful?

Throught the Holy Mysteries, the signs of the Life of Christ in His Body, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apstolic Church.

How many stages are you eligible for per year? 
An infinite number.

At what age can you begin to convey theosis on others?
Depending on which, as soon as you receive them.

I thought as much.

Orthodoxy teaches sola fides then.

Ummmmm...........

Wah?

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #325 on: January 25, 2011, 02:26:36 AM »
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

Clearly certain ways of phrasing our objection have been extreme and not entirely inaccurate. However, the core objection, which I think it is safe to maintain, is that papal supremacy and papal infallibility pervert and diminish what we regard as the fullness of the doctrine of the High Priesthood of Christ.
It perverts nothing because Christ willed the Church to be built upon the Rock: St. Peter.

Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #326 on: January 25, 2011, 02:37:13 AM »
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

How does Orthodoxy convey the grace of the stages of theosis on her faithful?

Throught the Holy Mysteries, the signs of the Life of Christ in His Body, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apstolic Church.

How many stages are you eligible for per year? 
An infinite number.

At what age can you begin to convey theosis on others?
Depending on which, as soon as you receive them.

I thought as much.

Orthodoxy teaches sola fides then.
Ah, more Latin scholasticism.

I was not the one who says that Orthodoxy conveys theosis on the faithful.

All one needs to do is have faith in Orthodoxy...drink the Kool-Aid....and bingo!!...Theosis

Aren't you the one who first introduced that idea when asking SolEX01 your question?

As to Isa's answer, he did respond by saying that it is the Holy Mysteries of the Orthodox Church which convey theosis, so I don't know where you get the idea that he was saying that only believing in a certain doctrine conveys redemption.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #327 on: January 25, 2011, 02:38:52 AM »
The Holy Fathers' definition of original sin is not "real" original sin?   We have never believed in Anselmian Thor-like blame of a child for his father's guilt and punishing the child for it.  

 :laugh:  Neither did Anselm.  :laugh:

I think you be thinkin' about them protestants!!

Good job responding only to the weakest part of Father's post.  ::)

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,517
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #328 on: January 25, 2011, 02:40:06 AM »
I found this tidbit from a Catholic Apologists Training Website:

Quote
From a perspective of pure common sense and logic, what would be the point of founding a Church (which Christ clearly wanted to do) without giving her authority? If the Church has no power, what what is she? She is simply a collection of believers with no power to enforce laws or discipline those who are dissident – anyone could claim to be a member of her even if they denied all the tenets of her laws and beliefs!  Organizations logically require authority over their members and authority to determine what the criteria for membership are; otherwise they are not organizations at all, but simply a label without a clear definition.

When did the Holy Spirit, after Pentecost, bestow the Sacrament of Power on the Roman Catholic Church?   ???

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,278
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #329 on: January 25, 2011, 03:14:44 AM »
We can say where the Holy Spirit is, but we cannot say where he is not.

No, Bishop Kallistos Ware cannot say where He is not.

Offline Ortho_cat

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,392
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #330 on: January 25, 2011, 06:06:06 AM »
We can say where the Holy Spirit is, but we cannot say where he is not.

No, Bishop Kallistos Ware cannot say where He is not.

I doubt he's the first to express that teaching...
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 06:21:12 AM by Ortho_cat »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #331 on: January 25, 2011, 10:07:21 AM »
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

How does Orthodoxy convey the grace of the stages of theosis on her faithful?

Throught the Holy Mysteries, the signs of the Life of Christ in His Body, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apstolic Church.

How many stages are you eligible for per year? 
An infinite number.

At what age can you begin to convey theosis on others?
Depending on which, as soon as you receive them.

I thought as much.

Orthodoxy teaches sola fides then.
Ah, more Latin scholasticism.

I was not the one who says that Orthodoxy conveys theosis on the faithful.

All one needs to do is have faith in Orthodoxy...drink the Kool-Aid....and bingo!!...Theosis

Aren't you the one who first introduced that idea when asking SolEX01 your question?

As to Isa's answer, he did respond by saying that it is the Holy Mysteries of the Orthodox Church which convey theosis, so I don't know where you get the idea that he was saying that only believing in a certain doctrine conveys redemption.

Wha????

You don't drink the Kool-Aid....You don't got da mysteries....You don't got no theosis

Wuf

A certain doctrine conveys theosis...

You wanna talk about redemption?

Do you guys every really listen to yourselves?

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #332 on: January 25, 2011, 11:02:41 AM »

You are always welcome to my home.  There you will find what you think you already know.  It may or may not substantiate you nastiness toward me...


I do not wish to be nasty towards you, Mary, and I remember happier days in our correspondence a few years ago.  But I have been scandalised by your attempts to attack Orthodoxy, with allegations about abortion, sexual liberalism, hypocrisy about the Immaculate Conception, etc. As this aspect of your apologetics became apparent to me I realised that what you write needs opposing.  In this respect Fr Ambrose Young has been an eye opener for me since he never allows you to get away with disinformation nor does he allow you to pretend that there is agreement in areas where there is not.  I have learnt from him.

Please forgive me when I oppose you.
LOL. You're ridiculous.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #333 on: January 25, 2011, 11:17:11 AM »
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

Clearly certain ways of phrasing our objection have been extreme and not entirely inaccurate. However, the core objection, which I think it is safe to maintain, is that papal supremacy and papal infallibility pervert and diminish what we regard as the fullness of the doctrine of the High Priesthood of Christ.
It perverts nothing because Christ willed the Church to be built upon the Rock: St. Peter.
of Antioch.
No, I believe he lived in Capernaum.

Offline Rafa999

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,591
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #334 on: January 25, 2011, 11:18:07 AM »
Papist, by order of His Holiness John Paul II you are obliged to hear my viewpoint since we share a common faith. If the objections you posted are your sole objection on what I and others here have said on the papacy, then you are not of one mind with your own Church since it has no such problems:

Quote

COMMON CHRISTOLOGICAL DECLARATION
BETWEEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
AND THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST

His Holiness John Paul II, Bishop of Rome and Pope of the Catholic Church, and His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, Catholicos-Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, give thanks to God who has prompted them to this new brotherly meeting.

Both of them consider this meeting as a basic step on the way towards the full communion to be restored between their Churches. They can indeed, from now on, proclaim together before the world their common faith in the mystery of the Incarnation.

***

As heirs and guardians of the faith received from the Apostles as formulated by our common Fathers in the Nicene Creed, we confess one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten of the Father from all eternity who, in the fullness of time, came down from heaven and became man for our salvation. The Word of God, second Person of the Holy Trinity, became incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit in assuming from the holy Virgin Mary a body animated by a rational soul, with which he was indissolubly united from the moment of his conception.

Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity, consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us in all things but sin. His divinity and his humanity are united in one person, without confusion or change, without division or separation. In him has been preserved the difference of the natures of divinity and humanity, with all their properties, faculties and operations. But far from constituting "one and another", the divinity and humanity are united in the person of the same and unique Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ, who is the object of a single adoration.

Christ therefore is not an " ordinary man" whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and the prophets. But the same God the Word, begotten of his Father before all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was born of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity. The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is the reason why the Assyrian Church of the East is praying the Virgin Mary as "the Mother of Christ our God and Saviour". In the light of this same faith the Catholic tradition addresses the Virgin Mary as "the Mother of God" and also as "the Mother of Christ". We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety.

This is the unique faith that we profess in the mystery of Christ. The controversies of the past led to anathemas, bearing on persons and on formulas. The Lord's Spirit permits us to understand better today that the divisions brought about in this way were due in large part to misunderstandings.

Whatever our Christological divergences have been, we experience ourselves united today in the confession of the same faith in the Son of God who became man so that we might become children of God by his grace. We wish from now on to witness together to this faith in the One who is the Way, the Truth and the Life, proclaiming it in appropriate ways to our contemporaries, so that the world may believe in the Gospel of salvation.
***

The mystery of the Incarnation which we profess in common is not an abstract and isolated truth. It refers to the Son of God sent to save us. The economy of salvation, which has its origin in the mystery of communion of the Holy Trinity — Father, Son and Holy Spirit —, is brought to its fulfilment through the sharing in this communion, by grace, within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which is the People of God, the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Spirit.

Believers become members of this Body through the sacrament of Baptism, through which, by water and the working of the Holy Spirit, they are born again as new creatures. They are confirmed by the seal of the Holy Spirit who bestows the sacrament of Anointing. Their communion with God and among themselves is brought to full realization by the celebration of the unique offering of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist. This communion is restored for the sinful members of the Church when they are reconciled with God and with one another through the sacrament of Forgiveness. The sacrament of Ordination to the ministerial priesthood in the apostolic succession assures the authenticity of the faith, the sacraments and the communion in each local Church.

Living by this faith and these sacraments, it follows as a consequence that the particular Catholic churches and the particular Assyrian churches can recognize each other as sister Churches. To be full and entire, communion presupposes the unanimity concerning the content of the faith, the sacraments and the constitution of the Church. Since this unanimity for which we aim has not yet been attained, we cannot unfortunately celebrate together the Eucharist which is the sign of the ecclesial communion already fully restored.

Nevertheless, the deep spiritual communion in the faith and the mutual trust already existing between our Churches, entitle us from now on to consider witnessing together to the Gospel message and cooperating in particular pastoral situations, including especially the areas of catechesis and the formation of future priests.

In thanking God for having made us rediscover what already unites us in the faith and the sacraments, we pledge ourselves to do everything possible to dispel the obstacles of the past which still prevent the attainment of full communion between our Churches, so that we can better respond to the Lord's call for the unity of his own, a unity which has of course to be expressed visibly. To overcome these obstacles, we now establish a Mixed Committee for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.

Given at Saint Peter's, on 11 November 1994




But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
- 1 Corinthians 13:13



With Love I and others rebuke you Brother on the issue of the office of the papacy.
I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #335 on: January 25, 2011, 11:54:15 AM »
Papist, by order of His Holiness John Paul II you are obliged to hear my viewpoint

Not at all.  Not even God makes those kinds of demands.

We are simply asked not to call all y'all heretics.

Ok...we haven't been doing that as far as I can see.

Keep your rebukes...as they say...please  :)

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #336 on: January 25, 2011, 01:31:08 PM »
Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.
"And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch?" -St. Luke 6:39

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #337 on: January 25, 2011, 03:19:11 PM »
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

How does Orthodoxy convey the grace of the stages of theosis on her faithful?

Throught the Holy Mysteries, the signs of the Life of Christ in His Body, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apstolic Church.

How many stages are you eligible for per year? 
An infinite number.

At what age can you begin to convey theosis on others?
Depending on which, as soon as you receive them.

I thought as much.

Orthodoxy teaches sola fides then.
Ah, more Latin scholasticism.

I was not the one who says that Orthodoxy conveys theosis on the faithful.

All one needs to do is have faith in Orthodoxy...drink the Kool-Aid....and bingo!!...Theosis

Aren't you the one who first introduced that idea when asking SolEX01 your question?

As to Isa's answer, he did respond by saying that it is the Holy Mysteries of the Orthodox Church which convey theosis, so I don't know where you get the idea that he was saying that only believing in a certain doctrine conveys redemption.

Wha????

You don't drink the Kool-Aid....You don't got da mysteries....You don't got no theosis

Wuf

A certain doctrine conveys theosis...

You wanna talk about redemption?

Do you guys every really listen to yourselves?

The Mysteries are not a doctrine, they are a mystical reality.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #338 on: January 25, 2011, 03:20:35 PM »
Papist, by order of His Holiness John Paul II you are obliged to hear my viewpoint since we share a common faith. If the objections you posted are your sole objection on what I and others here have said on the papacy, then you are not of one mind with your own Church since it has no such problems:

Quote

COMMON CHRISTOLOGICAL DECLARATION
BETWEEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
AND THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST

His Holiness John Paul II, Bishop of Rome and Pope of the Catholic Church, and His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, Catholicos-Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, give thanks to God who has prompted them to this new brotherly meeting.

Both of them consider this meeting as a basic step on the way towards the full communion to be restored between their Churches. They can indeed, from now on, proclaim together before the world their common faith in the mystery of the Incarnation.

***

As heirs and guardians of the faith received from the Apostles as formulated by our common Fathers in the Nicene Creed, we confess one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten of the Father from all eternity who, in the fullness of time, came down from heaven and became man for our salvation. The Word of God, second Person of the Holy Trinity, became incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit in assuming from the holy Virgin Mary a body animated by a rational soul, with which he was indissolubly united from the moment of his conception.

Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity, consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us in all things but sin. His divinity and his humanity are united in one person, without confusion or change, without division or separation. In him has been preserved the difference of the natures of divinity and humanity, with all their properties, faculties and operations. But far from constituting "one and another", the divinity and humanity are united in the person of the same and unique Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ, who is the object of a single adoration.

Christ therefore is not an " ordinary man" whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and the prophets. But the same God the Word, begotten of his Father before all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was born of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity. The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is the reason why the Assyrian Church of the East is praying the Virgin Mary as "the Mother of Christ our God and Saviour". In the light of this same faith the Catholic tradition addresses the Virgin Mary as "the Mother of God" and also as "the Mother of Christ". We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety.

This is the unique faith that we profess in the mystery of Christ. The controversies of the past led to anathemas, bearing on persons and on formulas. The Lord's Spirit permits us to understand better today that the divisions brought about in this way were due in large part to misunderstandings.

Whatever our Christological divergences have been, we experience ourselves united today in the confession of the same faith in the Son of God who became man so that we might become children of God by his grace. We wish from now on to witness together to this faith in the One who is the Way, the Truth and the Life, proclaiming it in appropriate ways to our contemporaries, so that the world may believe in the Gospel of salvation.
***

The mystery of the Incarnation which we profess in common is not an abstract and isolated truth. It refers to the Son of God sent to save us. The economy of salvation, which has its origin in the mystery of communion of the Holy Trinity — Father, Son and Holy Spirit —, is brought to its fulfilment through the sharing in this communion, by grace, within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which is the People of God, the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Spirit.

Believers become members of this Body through the sacrament of Baptism, through which, by water and the working of the Holy Spirit, they are born again as new creatures. They are confirmed by the seal of the Holy Spirit who bestows the sacrament of Anointing. Their communion with God and among themselves is brought to full realization by the celebration of the unique offering of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist. This communion is restored for the sinful members of the Church when they are reconciled with God and with one another through the sacrament of Forgiveness. The sacrament of Ordination to the ministerial priesthood in the apostolic succession assures the authenticity of the faith, the sacraments and the communion in each local Church.

Living by this faith and these sacraments, it follows as a consequence that the particular Catholic churches and the particular Assyrian churches can recognize each other as sister Churches. To be full and entire, communion presupposes the unanimity concerning the content of the faith, the sacraments and the constitution of the Church. Since this unanimity for which we aim has not yet been attained, we cannot unfortunately celebrate together the Eucharist which is the sign of the ecclesial communion already fully restored.

Nevertheless, the deep spiritual communion in the faith and the mutual trust already existing between our Churches, entitle us from now on to consider witnessing together to the Gospel message and cooperating in particular pastoral situations, including especially the areas of catechesis and the formation of future priests.

In thanking God for having made us rediscover what already unites us in the faith and the sacraments, we pledge ourselves to do everything possible to dispel the obstacles of the past which still prevent the attainment of full communion between our Churches, so that we can better respond to the Lord's call for the unity of his own, a unity which has of course to be expressed visibly. To overcome these obstacles, we now establish a Mixed Committee for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.

Given at Saint Peter's, on 11 November 1994




But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
- 1 Corinthians 13:13



With Love I and others rebuke you Brother on the issue of the office of the papacy.


This post is hilarious.

You claim that you are of one faith and then rebuke a dogma of his Church.

 ::) ::) ::)

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #339 on: January 25, 2011, 03:21:17 PM »
Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.
"And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch?" -St. Luke 6:39

 ::) ::) ::)

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #340 on: January 25, 2011, 03:25:50 PM »
Papist, by order of His Holiness John Paul II you are obliged to hear my viewpoint since we share a common faith. If the objections you posted are your sole objection on what I and others here have said on the papacy, then you are not of one mind with your own Church since it has no such problems:

Quote

COMMON CHRISTOLOGICAL DECLARATION
BETWEEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
AND THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST

His Holiness John Paul II, Bishop of Rome and Pope of the Catholic Church, and His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, Catholicos-Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, give thanks to God who has prompted them to this new brotherly meeting.

Both of them consider this meeting as a basic step on the way towards the full communion to be restored between their Churches. They can indeed, from now on, proclaim together before the world their common faith in the mystery of the Incarnation.

***

As heirs and guardians of the faith received from the Apostles as formulated by our common Fathers in the Nicene Creed, we confess one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten of the Father from all eternity who, in the fullness of time, came down from heaven and became man for our salvation. The Word of God, second Person of the Holy Trinity, became incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit in assuming from the holy Virgin Mary a body animated by a rational soul, with which he was indissolubly united from the moment of his conception.

Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity, consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us in all things but sin. His divinity and his humanity are united in one person, without confusion or change, without division or separation. In him has been preserved the difference of the natures of divinity and humanity, with all their properties, faculties and operations. But far from constituting "one and another", the divinity and humanity are united in the person of the same and unique Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ, who is the object of a single adoration.

Christ therefore is not an " ordinary man" whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and the prophets. But the same God the Word, begotten of his Father before all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was born of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity. The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is the reason why the Assyrian Church of the East is praying the Virgin Mary as "the Mother of Christ our God and Saviour". In the light of this same faith the Catholic tradition addresses the Virgin Mary as "the Mother of God" and also as "the Mother of Christ". We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety.

This is the unique faith that we profess in the mystery of Christ. The controversies of the past led to anathemas, bearing on persons and on formulas. The Lord's Spirit permits us to understand better today that the divisions brought about in this way were due in large part to misunderstandings.

Whatever our Christological divergences have been, we experience ourselves united today in the confession of the same faith in the Son of God who became man so that we might become children of God by his grace. We wish from now on to witness together to this faith in the One who is the Way, the Truth and the Life, proclaiming it in appropriate ways to our contemporaries, so that the world may believe in the Gospel of salvation.
***

The mystery of the Incarnation which we profess in common is not an abstract and isolated truth. It refers to the Son of God sent to save us. The economy of salvation, which has its origin in the mystery of communion of the Holy Trinity — Father, Son and Holy Spirit —, is brought to its fulfilment through the sharing in this communion, by grace, within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which is the People of God, the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Spirit.

Believers become members of this Body through the sacrament of Baptism, through which, by water and the working of the Holy Spirit, they are born again as new creatures. They are confirmed by the seal of the Holy Spirit who bestows the sacrament of Anointing. Their communion with God and among themselves is brought to full realization by the celebration of the unique offering of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist. This communion is restored for the sinful members of the Church when they are reconciled with God and with one another through the sacrament of Forgiveness. The sacrament of Ordination to the ministerial priesthood in the apostolic succession assures the authenticity of the faith, the sacraments and the communion in each local Church.

Living by this faith and these sacraments, it follows as a consequence that the particular Catholic churches and the particular Assyrian churches can recognize each other as sister Churches. To be full and entire, communion presupposes the unanimity concerning the content of the faith, the sacraments and the constitution of the Church. Since this unanimity for which we aim has not yet been attained, we cannot unfortunately celebrate together the Eucharist which is the sign of the ecclesial communion already fully restored.

Nevertheless, the deep spiritual communion in the faith and the mutual trust already existing between our Churches, entitle us from now on to consider witnessing together to the Gospel message and cooperating in particular pastoral situations, including especially the areas of catechesis and the formation of future priests.

In thanking God for having made us rediscover what already unites us in the faith and the sacraments, we pledge ourselves to do everything possible to dispel the obstacles of the past which still prevent the attainment of full communion between our Churches, so that we can better respond to the Lord's call for the unity of his own, a unity which has of course to be expressed visibly. To overcome these obstacles, we now establish a Mixed Committee for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.

Given at Saint Peter's, on 11 November 1994




But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
- 1 Corinthians 13:13



With Love I and others rebuke you Brother on the issue of the office of the papacy.

First, this document is an attempt at ecumenical reconciliation, not dogmatic definition for Cathoics,  and in the points mentioned above, yes we agree.... sorta. If you notice the document is vague, as is the theological language you use. For example, your refusal to say that God sacrificed his blood for our sins demonstrates that your theological language tends towards nestorianism, rejecting the true unity of natures in the Person of Christ. I am not saying that you are a nestorian. I don't know. But what I do know is that language that your church uses is extremely dangerous. You need to understand that the person who is Christ, is God.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 03:27:18 PM by Papist »
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #341 on: January 25, 2011, 04:08:21 PM »
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

Clearly certain ways of phrasing our objection have been extreme and not entirely inaccurate. However, the core objection, which I think it is safe to maintain, is that papal supremacy and papal infallibility pervert and diminish what we regard as the fullness of the doctrine of the High Priesthood of Christ.
It perverts nothing because Christ willed the Church to be built upon the Rock: St. Peter.
of Antioch.
No, I believe he lived in Capernaum.
not once be became an Apostle. He settled his wife and children in Antioch. His descendants live in the area to this day.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #342 on: January 25, 2011, 04:12:01 PM »
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

How does Orthodoxy convey the grace of the stages of theosis on her faithful?

Throught the Holy Mysteries, the signs of the Life of Christ in His Body, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apstolic Church.

How many stages are you eligible for per year? 
An infinite number.

At what age can you begin to convey theosis on others?
Depending on which, as soon as you receive them.

I thought as much.

Orthodoxy teaches sola fides then.
Ah, more Latin scholasticism.

I was not the one who says that Orthodoxy conveys theosis on the faithful.

All one needs to do is have faith in Orthodoxy...drink the Kool-Aid....and bingo!!...Theosis

Aren't you the one who first introduced that idea when asking SolEX01 your question?

As to Isa's answer, he did respond by saying that it is the Holy Mysteries of the Orthodox Church which convey theosis, so I don't know where you get the idea that he was saying that only believing in a certain doctrine conveys redemption.

Wha????

You don't drink the Kool-Aid....You don't got da mysteries....You don't got no theosis

Wuf

A certain doctrine conveys theosis...

You wanna talk about redemption?

Do you guys every really listen to yourselves?
LOL. Someone has spiked your Kool-Aid.  We drink in a different spirit.
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

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #343 on: January 25, 2011, 04:29:03 PM »
LOL. Someone has spiked your Kool-Aid.  We drink in a different spirit.
From what I understand the Orthodox Church drinks from the same Spirit as the Catholic Church: God the Holy Spirit. But Izzy, I'd be careful if I were you, that you are actually drinking from the same Spirit as your church.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #344 on: January 25, 2011, 05:25:21 PM »
Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.
"And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch?" -St. Luke 6:39

 ::) ::) ::)
The Gospel of the Lord! Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ!

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #345 on: January 25, 2011, 05:25:21 PM »
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

Clearly certain ways of phrasing our objection have been extreme and not entirely inaccurate. However, the core objection, which I think it is safe to maintain, is that papal supremacy and papal infallibility pervert and diminish what we regard as the fullness of the doctrine of the High Priesthood of Christ.
It perverts nothing because Christ willed the Church to be built upon the Rock: St. Peter.
of Antioch.
No, I believe he lived in Capernaum.
not once be became an Apostle. He settled his wife and children in Antioch. His descendants live in the area to this day.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the office of St. Peter which still exists in Rome to this day.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #346 on: January 25, 2011, 06:11:33 PM »
Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.
"And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch?" -St. Luke 6:39

 ::) ::) ::)
The Gospel of the Lord! Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ!

Praised be the Gospel of the Lord. Cursed be your application of it.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #347 on: January 25, 2011, 06:13:49 PM »
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

Clearly certain ways of phrasing our objection have been extreme and not entirely inaccurate. However, the core objection, which I think it is safe to maintain, is that papal supremacy and papal infallibility pervert and diminish what we regard as the fullness of the doctrine of the High Priesthood of Christ.
It perverts nothing because Christ willed the Church to be built upon the Rock: St. Peter.
of Antioch.
No, I believe he lived in Capernaum.
not once be became an Apostle. He settled his wife and children in Antioch. His descendants live in the area to this day.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the office of St. Peter which still exists in Rome to this day.

Can't have the office of Saint Peter if you don't have the faith of Saint Peter.

Plus Rome wasn't the Church of Saint Peter. It was a Church of Saint Paul. Peter was barely involved at all with Rome beyond his martyrdom. Peter's actual Church is Antioch.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #348 on: January 25, 2011, 06:15:34 PM »
Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.
"And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch?" -St. Luke 6:39

 ::) ::) ::)
The Gospel of the Lord! Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ!

Praised be the Gospel of the Lord. Cursed be your application of it.

I guess this damning of another poster is ok with Forum rules?

What do you all think would happen if I damned or cursed an Orthodox poster's comments or his or her application of the faith?

I don't know what religion you belong to actually but as a Catholic I can tell you that to curse someone is a very grave sin with grave consequences for all concerned.

Mary
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 06:16:35 PM by elijahmaria »

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #349 on: January 25, 2011, 06:20:13 PM »
Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.
"And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch?" -St. Luke 6:39

 ::) ::) ::)
The Gospel of the Lord! Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ!

Praised be the Gospel of the Lord. Cursed be your application of it.

I guess this damning of another poster is ok with Forum rules?

What do you all think would happen if I damned or cursed an Orthodox poster's comments or his or her application of the faith?

I don't know what religion you belong to actually but as a Catholic I can tell you that to curse someone is a very grave sin with grave consequences for all concerned.

Mary

Obviously I am not judging Wyatt in his person. Your Second Council of Constantinople made it quite clear that we can judge some of the opinions or actions of a person without judging the entirety of the person. Obviously I am not judging him or damning him, but only labeling his application of Scripture as erroneous. Though I am not surprised that you of all people are trying to make more out of it than is real: you seem to do so regularly.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #350 on: January 25, 2011, 06:23:37 PM »
Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.
"And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch?" -St. Luke 6:39

 ::) ::) ::)
The Gospel of the Lord! Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ!

Praised be the Gospel of the Lord. Cursed be your application of it.

I guess this damning of another poster is ok with Forum rules?

What do you all think would happen if I damned or cursed an Orthodox poster's comments or his or her application of the faith?

I don't know what religion you belong to actually but as a Catholic I can tell you that to curse someone is a very grave sin with grave consequences for all concerned.

Mary

Obviously I am not judging Wyatt in his person. Your Second Council of Constantinople made it quite clear that we can judge some of the opinions or actions of a person without judging the entirety of the person. Obviously I am not judging him or damning him, but only labeling his application of Scripture as erroneous. Though I am not surprised that you of all people are trying to make more out of it than is real: you seem to do so regularly.

removed in case of Forum rule infringement
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 06:45:47 PM by elijahmaria »

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #351 on: January 25, 2011, 06:33:10 PM »
This is probably against the rules as it may be viewed as scolding, but I think ALL OF YOU on this thread should read the essay  "Christian Civility: The Test of Intra-Faith Relations" that is posted on this board.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 06:33:30 PM by podkarpatska »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #352 on: January 25, 2011, 06:44:56 PM »
This is probably against the rules as it may be viewed as scolding, but I think ALL OF YOU on this thread should read the essay  "Christian Civility: The Test of Intra-Faith Relations" that is posted on this board.

You are probably correct.  I will remove my posts.

Mary

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #353 on: January 25, 2011, 06:46:47 PM »
removed
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 06:47:26 PM by elijahmaria »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #354 on: January 25, 2011, 06:54:27 PM »
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

Clearly certain ways of phrasing our objection have been extreme and not entirely inaccurate. However, the core objection, which I think it is safe to maintain, is that papal supremacy and papal infallibility pervert and diminish what we regard as the fullness of the doctrine of the High Priesthood of Christ.
It perverts nothing because Christ willed the Church to be built upon the Rock: St. Peter.
of Antioch.
No, I believe he lived in Capernaum.
not once be became an Apostle. He settled his wife and children in Antioch. His descendants live in the area to this day.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the office of St. Peter which still exists in Rome to this day.
You're right, as St. Peter founded no such office as supreme pontiff, nor did he receive it from Christ.  His legitimate successor and his legitimate posterity  still exist in Antioch.  In Rome the Vatican killed them, adulterated the Faith and spawned pretenders.  That office stlll exists in the Vatican to this day, but it doesn't reach back to St. Peter's day.
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

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #355 on: January 25, 2011, 07:20:11 PM »
You're right
I know.

as St. Peter founded no such office as supreme pontiff
Of course not. Christ did.


nor did he receive it from Christ.
Wrong.

His legitimate successor and his legitimate posterity  still exist in Antioch.
A schismatic cannot be a successor to an Apostle.

In Rome the Vatican killed them, adulterated the Faith and spawned pretenders.  That office stlll exists in the Vatican to this day, but it doesn't reach back to St. Peter's day.
Now you've lost me. Killed who? How can a city-state kill someone or adulterate or spawn anything?

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #356 on: January 25, 2011, 07:20:24 PM »
Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.
"And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch?" -St. Luke 6:39

 ::) ::) ::)
The Gospel of the Lord! Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ!

Praised be the Gospel of the Lord. Cursed be your application of it.

I guess this damning of another poster is ok with Forum rules?

What do you all think would happen if I damned or cursed an Orthodox poster's comments or his or her application of the faith?

I don't know what religion you belong to actually but as a Catholic I can tell you that to curse someone is a very grave sin with grave consequences for all concerned.

Mary

Obviously I am not judging Wyatt in his person. Your Second Council of Constantinople made it quite clear that we can judge some of the opinions or actions of a person without judging the entirety of the person. Obviously I am not judging him or damning him, but only labeling his application of Scripture as erroneous. Though I am not surprised that you of all people are trying to make more out of it than is real: you seem to do so regularly.
As Mary already pointed out, you hardly have the authority to be handing out anathemas. :P

Offline Ortho_cat

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,392
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #357 on: January 25, 2011, 10:01:34 PM »
LOL. Someone has spiked your Kool-Aid.  We drink in a different spirit.
From what I understand the Orthodox Church drinks from the same Spirit as the Catholic Church: God the Holy Spirit. But Izzy, I'd be careful if I were you, that you are actually drinking from the same Spirit as your church.

mmm....kool-aid  ;D


Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #358 on: January 25, 2011, 10:19:10 PM »
You're right
I know.

as St. Peter founded no such office as supreme pontiff
Of course not. Christ did.


nor did he receive it from Christ.
Wrong.

His legitimate successor and his legitimate posterity  still exist in Antioch.
A schismatic cannot be a successor to an Apostle.

In Rome the Vatican killed them, adulterated the Faith and spawned pretenders.  That office stlll exists in the Vatican to this day, but it doesn't reach back to St. Peter's day.
Now you've lost me. Killed who? How can a city-state kill someone or adulterate or spawn anything?

The "spawn" business is a joke on Isa actually.  I've been waiting for someone to catch it.

IF the Catholic Church spawned schismatics then it is also the source of every other sinner in the Church, because evil spawns evil.

What does that say about all of the various schismatic groups of Orthodoxy's spawn?....and then what does that say about Orthodox Sinners...as spawn of the many and varied Orthodox churches....

What goes around comes around if you don't think it through.

M.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #359 on: January 25, 2011, 10:48:32 PM »
You're right
I know.
If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your error remaineth.

as St. Peter founded no such office as supreme pontiff
Of course not. Christ did.
Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.


nor did he receive it from Christ.
Wrong.
Yes, the claim that he received it from Christ is wrong.

His legitimate successor and his legitimate posterity  still exist in Antioch.
A schismatic cannot be a successor to an Apostle.
That's why the Vatican's four usurpers in Antioch do not succeed him.

And a heretic cannot succeed an Apostle, which is why St. Peter's chair at Rome lies empty, buried under the Vatican. But Bp. Siluan is ready.

In Rome the Vatican killed them, adulterated the Faith and spawned pretenders.  That office stlll exists in the Vatican to this day, but it doesn't reach back to St. Peter's day.
Now you've lost me. Killed who?

The Apostolic line at Rome.  The Apostles had no successor in Rome-as you point out
A schismatic cannot be a successor to an Apostle.
until Bp. Siluan arrived.

How can a city-state kill someone or adulterate or spawn anything?
Plenty of city states have the death penalty-the Vatican had it until 1969.  Its supreme pontiff called for generous use of it up until recently. On another thread Papist pines over it
Two possibilities.
1. He did in fact invoke his Papal teaching authority, BUT, did he invoke Papal Infallibility? Not certain that he did.

2. Heresey can be an even graver crime than murder because it can cause the eternal death of the soul. So, would it be wrong to put to death an arch-heretic like Martin Luther or Arius, if we are living in a Christian country? I am not certain that such would be wrong. It might be necessary to protect the faithful from spiritual death. I am not saying that I am certain on this point, just thinking outloud.

The Apostles begot us through the Gospel.  Your pontiffs begot you through their bulls.

And we still haven't gotten an explanation of how they arrogated the authority from pontiff to pontiff. It just happens.  I might as well believe a Pentacoastal baptism "in the name of Jesus" is valid, because they say it just happens.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 10:59:41 PM by ialmisry »
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