OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 28, 2014, 12:28:04 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Which do you believe are legitimate obstacles to reunion?
Papal Infallibility - 76 (11.1%)
Papal Supremacy/Universal Jurisdiction - 75 (10.9%)
Filioque Clause - 53 (7.7%)
Proselytism (of other side) - 16 (2.3%)
Clerical Celibacy - 29 (4.2%)
Leavened/Unleavened Bread - 19 (2.8%)
Dating of Pascha - 21 (3.1%)
Purgatory (as doctrine) - 52 (7.6%)
Immaculate Conception (as doctrine) - 58 (8.4%)
Divorce (stances on) - 31 (4.5%)
The Epiclesis (or lack of) - 12 (1.7%)
Thomistic Theology (Aquinas) - 37 (5.4%)
Hesychasm - 11 (1.6%)
Merit and Satisfaction soteriology - 40 (5.8%)
Transubstantiation - 23 (3.3%)
Assumption of Mary (as doctrine) - 28 (4.1%)
Merit/Satisfaction Soteriology - 32 (4.7%)
Philosophy & Scholasticism (as opposed to Empirical Theology) - 27 (3.9%)
Original Sin (vs. Ancestral Sin) - 47 (6.8%)
Total Voters: 80

Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodox-Catholic Obstacles to Reunion? (A Poll)  (Read 8019 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« on: March 19, 2011, 07:20:50 AM »

I would like to start a poll here discussing the obstacles of reunion between Orthodox and Roman Catholics, and which issues we believe are legitimate obstacles and which can be circumvented via economy.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2011, 08:53:34 AM »

I would think that when the theological issues are resolved there will be two things which will prevent the Roman Catholic Pope and hierarchy coming into communion with the Church. 

These are contraception and a second marriage after divorce.
Logged
Shiranui117
Formerly known as "Wandering Sheep"
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: ACROD/OCA
Posts: 150


PUDDI PUDDI!


« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2011, 09:13:46 AM »

I selected both the options involving the Pope, and all the Roman Catholic dogmas except the Assumption. Original sin was on that list as well, as it leads to the difference in understanding of the Immaculate Conception, which seems to me to be little more than a dogmatization of Roman Catholic understanding of Original Sin, to the exclusion of Byzantine theology. The Filioque is most likely an issue in my eyes. The typical Roman Catholic explanation of Purgatory (as well as such, IMHO, nigh-heretical things as the "Sabbatine Priveledge" and all promises going along with the Brown Scapular) may prove problematic, but the basic doctrine (i.e. Souls in need of purification undergo it after death, our prayers can help them, theirs can help us) is agreeable to most Orthodox, from what I can tell.
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2011, 11:08:48 AM »

Many of those items - including filioque - could be resolved if they fixed the liturgy,  or rather, the way Catholics worship on a regular basis. Two of the earliest dividing points which predate the schism, filioque and azymes, are primarily liturgical ones. I endorse the conclusions of this book, linking Rome's liturgical troubles to ultrmontanism:
http://www.amazon.com/Banished-Heart-Heteropraxis-Catholic-Fundamental/dp/0567442209
« Last Edit: March 19, 2011, 11:14:42 AM by John Larocque » Logged
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2011, 10:08:17 AM »

So would in general, you consider it to be a rejection of Vatican II and possibly Vatican I?
Logged
Shiranui117
Formerly known as "Wandering Sheep"
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: ACROD/OCA
Posts: 150


PUDDI PUDDI!


« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2011, 10:42:16 PM »

So would in general, you consider it to be a rejection of Vatican II and possibly Vatican I?
I believe that's a fair statement of what I believe would need to happen. Rome would need to become "Roman Orthodox," so to speak, and do away with the questionable practices and devotions that she's accumulated over the years (such things as the Brown Scapular's Sabbatine Privilege, the Medal Cross of St. Benedict, perhaps some aspects of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart conception) and the Pope would have to humble himself and accept his status as first among equals, if such a status is to be given him in the reunited Church. Several things about the Roman mindset (emphasis on apparitions, the Pope, promises attached to trinkets and fixation on body parts of Jesus and Mary) would need adjustment in my opinion.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2011, 12:49:40 AM »

I would think that when the theological issues are resolved there will be two things which will prevent the Roman Catholic Pope and hierarchy coming into communion with the Church. 

These are contraception and a second marriage after divorce.
LOL. Two things they have ipso facto no personal experience.

Their laity have adopted our approach to contraception.  As for divorce, their corban factories are to loose in dispensing it, but otherwise the practices are compatable (but should be tightened up).
Logged

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

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2011, 04:12:12 AM »

I would think that when the theological issues are resolved there will be two things which will prevent the Roman Catholic Pope and hierarchy coming into communion with the Church.  

These are contraception and a second marriage after divorce.

Didn't think of these.  The Roman Church's (exaggerated) focus on Humanae Vitae and subsequent pastoral and theological "cloud" that surrounds this document will provide a somewhat significant barrier to reunion.  The RC annulment process is quite lax, especially in the USA ('pay and pray', really).  The Roman and Orthodox positions on marriage are not that far apart.  An orthodox Orthodox priest will not take the decision to permit a second remarriage lightly.  Likewise, Rome (or at least the American hierarchy) should take the annulment process more seriously.  I believe that the Orthodox pastoral approach to remarriage and the Roman canonical-legal approach to remarriage can be reconciled if both parties return to a more serious and personal appraisal of the issue.

I was surprised to see a wide and even spectrum of concerns about reunification.  I am convinced that Rome would gladly agree to let the Orthodox brethren continue to confess the Symbol of Constantinople without the filioque.  I do not see why the Latins need to recite it anymore, especially given that the theological disputes that occasioned the innovation are long concluded.  Nevertheless, any "deal" would probably allow the Roman West to continue to recite the filioque.  

As for the battle between Augustinian/Scholastic thought and Eastern theological traditions: again, I do not see Rome forcing Easterners to adopt "original sin" and its logical derivations, such as the Immaculate Conception.  Also, I do not see an imposition of Scholasticism on the East.  Pope Benedict himself subscribes to the notion that the Eastern and Western understanding of key theological issues are complementary orthodox viewpoints on dogma and doctrine, not adversarial and mutually heretical positions.  The ball is in the Orthodox court on this one: given their general position that the filioque, Augustinian notions of sin and redemption, and Scholasticism are heresies, I doubt that many Orthodox would consent to the notion that both Eastern and Western teachings on important doctrines and dogmas are equally valid.

I am convinced, as I have stated many times before, that Rome's blind spot is not theological but political.  The socio-political and historical wounds that the West have inflicted on the East have been quickly forgotten in the West but are still quite bitter in the East.  So long as Rome neglects this important facet of dialogue, it will get nowhere.

Also, the Novus Ordo either has to go, or at least certain abusive practices (laypeople distributing Communion, gross liturgical abuse) must be conclusively abolished, for the Orthodox to even consider serious negotiation.  This is where Orthodoxy can change Catholicism for the better -- and this is why the Orthodox should be key protagonists in the rescue of Catholicism, even if reunion does not come to pass.          
« Last Edit: March 23, 2011, 04:14:54 AM by jordanz » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2011, 10:07:43 AM »

Nevertheless, any "deal" would probably allow the Roman West to continue to recite the filioque.  

I tend to doubt this. Orthodox theologians have disseminated why the Filioque is so important, though every Roman Catholic I've ever talked to simply don't get the importance.

There are threads on this elsewhere, but briefly: the Creed describes the ontological source of the Holy Spirit, and He cannot proceed from both Father and Son ontologically. The filioque does not specify that this "procession" is economical, and if it is, it should have been described better, because the current form is too ambiguous to be in such a definitive statement as the Creed.

The only acceptable outcomes I can see are this:

A. Rewrite the Filioque in a theologically accurate way, changing the Creed for everyone

This would be wildly unpopular, but could be necessary upon reunion to recatechize Catholics and correct any wrong ideas they may have about the Spirit.

B. Remove the Filioque and return to the original

Obviously the best solution. The heresy that needed to clause is over, as you point out.

But having some continue to say the clause simply for sentimental reasons is not acceptable. There are too many important theological reasons why the Creed cannot remain in its Western form.
Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2011, 12:47:14 PM »

There are threads on this elsewhere, but briefly: the Creed describes the ontological source of the Holy Spirit, and He cannot proceed from both Father and Son ontologically. The filioque does not specify that this "procession" is economical, and if it is, it should have been described better, because the current form is too ambiguous to be in such a definitive statement as the Creed.

Agreed.  This is why most Roman theologians that I have read are not enormously concerned about the possible removal of the filioque.  I certainly wouldn't care.  The centrality of the Holy Spirit and pneumatology in Christianity is so important that Rome should yield on the filioque as a concession.  I don't know what we're going to do about the Credo settings, but we'll invent melismas to cover over the absence, I suppose.  

I hate to reduce ecumenism to a tit-for-tat trade, but Easterners will have to find a way to at least recognize Augustinian theology as orthodox, even while teaching the Eastern understanding of ancestral sin and the role of Mary in salvation.  I just cannot see why some Orthodox absolutely refuse to consider the possibility that St. Augustine of Hippo is not a heretic.  This intransigent stance strikes me more as polemic than thoughtful theological reflection.  The distance between ancestral vs. original sin and the "preserved grace of Mary" vs. the Immaculate Conception is not huge.  The Eastern and Western understanding of human salvation and Baptism can be bridged.  Disputes over the Western custom of pouring/sprinking versus Eastern immersion is a very minor issue that has been inflated well beyond its importance.  Really, why do some Orthodox rebaptise Romans simply because we receive a triune pouring on the crown of the head rather than a triune immersion at Baptism?  The formula, intent, and ministry of the aposolic clergy are identical in both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.  This practice strikes me as insulting and sectarian at best.  

If Rome is willing to drop the filioque (which I suspect it is) and more than willing to accept Eastern doctrinal formulations as valid, then the Orthodox should place behind their theo-political contentions and at least consider the merit of Western teachings and practices.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2011, 12:47:57 PM by jordanz » Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,441



WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2011, 02:21:11 PM »


I hate to reduce ecumenism to a tit-for-tat trade, but Easterners will have to find a way to at least recognize Augustinian theology as orthodox, even while teaching the Eastern understanding of ancestral sin and the role of Mary in salvation.  I just cannot see why some Orthodox absolutely refuse to consider the possibility that St. Augustine of Hippo is not a heretic.  This intransigent stance strikes me more as polemic than thoughtful theological reflection.  The distance between ancestral vs. original sin and the "preserved grace of Mary" vs. the Immaculate Conception is not huge.  The Eastern and Western understanding of human salvation and Baptism can be bridged.  Disputes over the Western custom of pouring/sprinking versus Eastern immersion is a very minor issue that has been inflated well beyond its importance.  Really, why do some Orthodox rebaptise Romans simply because we receive a triune pouring on the crown of the head rather than a triune immersion at Baptism?  The formula, intent, and ministry of the aposolic clergy are identical in both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.  This practice strikes me as insulting and sectarian at best.  

If Rome is willing to drop the filioque (which I suspect it is) and more than willing to accept Eastern doctrinal formulations as valid, then the Orthodox should place behind their theo-political contentions and at least consider the merit of Western teachings and practices.

I don't think any of the Orthodox believe St Augustine is a heretic.  Some of us might believe he was a bit mistaken about original sin and the procession of the Spirit, but there is a difference between misguided opinion and outright heresy.  Now, some of Rome's conclusions following from St Augustine's writings might be heretical, but less so, perhaps, than your average Calvinist. 

The main question, for the Orthodox, isn't whether reunion means that Rome can keep certain pious opinions, as the Immaculate Conception once was, but whether or not we'll be forced to take in Rome's misguided doctrines, as the Immaculate Conception now is.   

And, I'm sorry, but Orthodoxy is the fullness of the faith.  Any merits of Western teaching we have retained, it's all the unnecessary baggage that must be left at the door.  You are only allowed two carry-on items, of no more than 35 lbs each, and they must fit in the overhead bins.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,700


WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2011, 02:34:43 PM »

Merit/Satisfaction was listed twice.

I don't think Proselytism is as significant of an issue perhaps when dealing with the Eastern Catholics.  Rome would have to clarify their existence and force them to become Latin Rite like the rest of Roman Catholicism or allow them to schism.  Rome would have to abolish the Eastern Catholic eparchies in the United States and elsewhere and force them under the nearest Latin Rite Diocese/Archdiocese.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy can easily agree on the dates of Easter unless the West would have to reprint their magazines and booklets based on recalculated Ordinary Time (which I have found very interesting reading when I had no access to other religious texts).

I don't see Heshcyasm as a major barrier - more like an issue of semantics and ontology.

I selected 15 "obstacles."   Smiley
Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #12 on: March 23, 2011, 03:24:33 PM »

The main question, for the Orthodox, isn't whether reunion means that Rome can keep certain pious opinions, as the Immaculate Conception once was, but whether or not we'll be forced to take in Rome's misguided doctrines, as the Immaculate Conception now is. 

I doubt that Rome would force the IC on the Orthodox, but it would likely want to preserve the pious opinion as part of Western piety.  If the IC were "de-dogmatized" and returned to pious opinion, but remained liturgically binding only on the Latins, then why would the Orthodox care about the nuances of Western ritual?  There are other Western customs that the Orthodox would have to grin and bear, such as the use of unleavened bread in the Mass, the Roman method (but not the formula) of baptism, Benediction, the Roman understanding of religious and monastic life etc.  I can't see why there can't be some unity in diversity.                   

Also, I sense that many Protestant converts to Orthodoxy do not want to have anything to do with Roman Catholic identity and ritual due to historical baggage.  This is a third rail that often has little to do with theological issues and more to do with socio-cultural disputes.  This is especially true in North America.

I don't think Proselytism is as significant of an issue perhaps when dealing with the Eastern Catholics.  Rome would have to clarify their existence and force them to become Latin Rite like the rest of Roman Catholicism or allow them to schism.  Rome would have to abolish the Eastern Catholic eparchies in the United States and elsewhere and force them under the nearest Latin Rite Diocese/Archdiocese.

Why couldn't the various sui juris Eastern Catholic churches be given Orthodox autocephaly?  I don't see why their eparchies would be forced to merge under the Roman diocesan system.  I could see Moscow denying renunited Ukrainian Catholics autocephaly (heck, they've steadfastly refused to give it to the Ukrainian Orthodox -- and now there's a noncanonical Ukrainian eparchy because of the dispute), but would Moscow respect Ukrainian autocephaly as a condition of reunification with Rome? 

Catholicism and Orthodoxy can easily agree on the dates of Easter unless the West would have to reprint their magazines and booklets based on recalculated Ordinary Time (which I have found very interesting reading when I had no access to other religious texts).

Why can't we continue to have Gregorian calendar Western Churches with their Easter calculation, and Julian calendar Eastern Churches with their Easter calculation?  I don't see why two calendars can't coexist.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,700


WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2011, 03:51:15 PM »

I don't think Proselytism is as significant of an issue perhaps when dealing with the Eastern Catholics.  Rome would have to clarify their existence and force them to become Latin Rite like the rest of Roman Catholicism or allow them to schism.  Rome would have to abolish the Eastern Catholic eparchies in the United States and elsewhere and force them under the nearest Latin Rite Diocese/Archdiocese.

Why couldn't the various sui juris Eastern Catholic churches be given Orthodox autocephaly?

The subject of autocephaly continues to be debated among the Orthodox.  Until that discussion is resolved, autocephaly isn't like ordering a Happy Meal from McDonalds....   Smiley

I don't see why their eparchies would be forced to merge under the Roman diocesan system.  I could see Moscow denying renunited Ukrainian Catholics autocephaly (heck, they've steadfastly refused to give it to the Ukrainian Orthodox -- and now there's a noncanonical Ukrainian eparchy because of the dispute), but would Moscow respect Ukrainian autocephaly as a condition of reunification with Rome?

The topic of Ukraine is mired in geopolitics; so is autocephaly....  The solution may be uglier than the problem....   Undecided 

Catholicism and Orthodoxy can easily agree on the dates of Easter unless the West would have to reprint their magazines and booklets based on recalculated Ordinary Time (which I have found very interesting reading when I had no access to other religious texts).

Why can't we continue to have Gregorian calendar Western Churches with their Easter calculation, and Julian calendar Eastern Churches with their Easter calculation?  I don't see why two calendars can't coexist.

Calendars don't bother me - unlike some people.  I never heard of Old Calendar Roman Catholics although I imagine that they exist, somewhere....   Shocked
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2011, 03:54:05 PM »

Papal supremacy (jurisdictional and doctrinal), the filioque, and Chalcedon are the three biggest issues.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2011, 05:14:48 PM »

I said Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy/Universal Jurisdiction, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, and Original Sin. Though these are things which I believe are obstacles, that does not necessarily mean that, in the event of a reunion, the Eastern Churches would have to outright integrate each and everyone of these things into their theology. Some of these the East would only have to begin to recognize as legitimate teachings/practices of the Latin Church.
Logged
Shiranui117
Formerly known as "Wandering Sheep"
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: ACROD/OCA
Posts: 150


PUDDI PUDDI!


« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2011, 05:31:03 PM »

I don't think Proselytism is as significant of an issue perhaps when dealing with the Eastern Catholics.  Rome would have to clarify their existence and force them to become Latin Rite like the rest of Roman Catholicism or allow them to schism.  Rome would have to abolish the Eastern Catholic eparchies in the United States and elsewhere and force them under the nearest Latin Rite Diocese/Archdiocese.

Why couldn't the various sui juris Eastern Catholic churches be given Orthodox autocephaly?  I don't see why their eparchies would be forced to merge under the Roman diocesan system.  I could see Moscow denying renunited Ukrainian Catholics autocephaly (heck, they've steadfastly refused to give it to the Ukrainian Orthodox -- and now there's a noncanonical Ukrainian eparchy because of the dispute), but would Moscow respect Ukrainian autocephaly as a condition of reunification with Rome? 
Or, better yet: Why not reunite the Eastern Catholics to their Orthodox counterparts? Aside from groups like the Maronites who have no counterpart, that is. Having two different Ukrainian Churches, one formerly Eastern Catholic and one formerly Eastern Orthodox makes no sense. Let the groups who share the same traditions, yet are separated by the schism, reunite with each other.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2011, 06:34:29 PM »

From a perspective from the other side?

Assumption

Isn't our doctrine that Saint Mary reposed, the Lord ushered her soul into Heaven, three days later resurrected her, and then assumed her bodily into Heaven sufficient? Isn't that essentially the doctrine you hold to?

Transubstantiation

Isn't it sufficient that we hold that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ notwithstanding the status of the bread and wine themselves afterward?

Original Sin

Isn't our view of the inherited Adamic curse sufficient?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2011, 06:59:45 PM »

From a perspective from the other side?

Assumption

Isn't our doctrine that Saint Mary reposed, the Lord ushered her soul into Heaven, three days later resurrected her, and then assumed her bodily into Heaven sufficient? Isn't that essentially the doctrine you hold to?


I thought the Orthodox doctrine of the Dormition was that she died, her soul went to heaven, and her body was assumed to heaven to be united with her body. I didn't think she literally rose like Lazarus or Christ.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2011, 07:05:02 PM »

From a perspective from the other side?

Assumption

Isn't our doctrine that Saint Mary reposed, the Lord ushered her soul into Heaven, three days later resurrected her, and then assumed her bodily into Heaven sufficient? Isn't that essentially the doctrine you hold to?

Transubstantiation

Isn't it sufficient that we hold that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ notwithstanding the status of the bread and wine themselves afterward?

Original Sin

Isn't our view of the inherited Adamic curse sufficient?
Uh...did you miss what I said? I said this would not require the Eastern Churches to outright adopt our theology, but only recognize that our theological understanding is legitimate. Meaning the Eastern (and Oriental) Orthodox would need to come to a point where they do not protest our teachings on Original Sin, Transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, etc. They would not need to assimilate these into their traditions, but rather simply acknowledge it is not heretical for the Latin Church to profess these teachings.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,237


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2011, 07:13:16 PM »

LOL at clerical celibacy getting 17 votes so far.
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #21 on: March 23, 2011, 07:20:17 PM »

LOL at clerical celibacy getting 17 votes so far.
I would love to know who all voted for that. Sadly it was probably uninformed RCs. :/
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #22 on: March 23, 2011, 07:35:44 PM »

LOL at clerical celibacy getting 17 votes so far.
I would love to know who all voted for that. Sadly it was probably uninformed RCs. :/

I'm sorry for letting you down.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 23, 2011, 09:56:03 PM »

From a perspective from the other side?

Assumption

Isn't our doctrine that Saint Mary reposed, the Lord ushered her soul into Heaven, three days later resurrected her, and then assumed her bodily into Heaven sufficient? Isn't that essentially the doctrine you hold to?

Transubstantiation

Isn't it sufficient that we hold that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ notwithstanding the status of the bread and wine themselves afterward?

Original Sin

Isn't our view of the inherited Adamic curse sufficient?
Uh...did you miss what I said? I said this would not require the Eastern Churches to outright adopt our theology, but only recognize that our theological understanding is legitimate. Meaning the Eastern (and Oriental) Orthodox would need to come to a point where they do not protest our teachings on Original Sin, Transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, etc. They would not need to assimilate these into their traditions, but rather simply acknowledge it is not heretical for the Latin Church to profess these teachings.

Oh, I thought you were talking about coming to unity of doctrine on these issues. So I thought you were talking about to what degree we would need to come into uniformity with your doctrines, and was a little confused, as it seems we are already sufficiently one on those issues, at least from your side of things.

BTW, I don't see how there is any distinction concerning the Assumption of Saint Mary, other than that perhaps our own doctrine is more defined in this case, asserting that Saint Mary truly reposed.
Logged

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,622



« Reply #24 on: March 23, 2011, 09:59:13 PM »

LOL at clerical celibacy getting 17 votes so far.
I would love to know who all voted for that. Sadly it was probably uninformed RCs. :/

RC Priests probably, well the 17 who would marry a woman.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,622



« Reply #25 on: March 23, 2011, 10:01:29 PM »

I said Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy/Universal Jurisdiction, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, and Original Sin. Though these are things which I believe are obstacles, that does not necessarily mean that, in the event of a reunion, the Eastern Churches would have to outright integrate each and everyone of these things into their theology. Some of these the East would only have to begin to recognize as legitimate teachings/practices of the Latin Church.

Ain't never going to happen. From heresy to the superfluous.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #26 on: March 23, 2011, 10:11:03 PM »

RC Priests probably, well the 17 who would marry a woman.

Oh SNAP!  Shocked (I did have my suspicions with BOTH the priests I knew very well, but of course it is none of my business if they are upholding their vow of celibacy.)

Are there a lot of disgruntled deacons voting here? Mad that you only made it the halfway point?  Wink

In all seriousness, the people that I have discussed Orthodoxy with view married clergy as the BIGGEST selling point (that and confession without having the priest tell you to say a certain number of Hail Marys based on what you just confessed. Yes. I used to compete with my sister and find out how many prayers we were assigned when I was younger. For some reason, I usually got the most.  Roll Eyes I like to think it's because I ACKNOWLEDGED more sins).

My biggest major stumbling points would be Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy and Purgatory. The first two need to break, and I'm not sure if that will happen in my lifetime...or ever, for that matter.
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,622



« Reply #27 on: March 23, 2011, 10:38:42 PM »

I don't see Heshcyasm as a major barrier - more like an issue of semantics and ontology.

The hesychasts are just remaining silent on the issue.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,441



WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 23, 2011, 11:09:09 PM »

I don't see Heshcyasm as a major barrier - more like an issue of semantics and ontology.

The hesychasts are just remaining silent on the issue.

 laugh laugh laugh
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #29 on: March 24, 2011, 02:32:04 AM »

Or, better yet: Why not reunite the Eastern Catholics to their Orthodox counterparts? Aside from groups like the Maronites who have no counterpart, that is. Having two different Ukrainian Churches, one formerly Eastern Catholic and one formerly Eastern Orthodox makes no sense. Let the groups who share the same traditions, yet are separated by the schism, reunite with each other.

Perhaps the former Eastern Catholics (I'm thinking of the Slavic Eastern Catholics here, in particular), would not want to be involved with the politics of Moscow vs. the former Soviet churches.  

RC Priests probably, well the 17 who would marry a woman.

Great comeback!  Actually, this is a very valid observation.  I have met gay Roman priests who have candidly said that they would feel strange working alongside a regular married RC clergy.  The restoration of optional celibacy to the Roman presbyterate will be one of the most healthy psychological developments Rome will ever undertake, should it do so (and I hope it does).  I don't think that all gay RC priests are pedos, or that all gay priests are promiscuous.  However, having a predominately gay clergy is demographically unbalanced.  Need some diversity there.

Let's be honest though -- there have to be gay celibate Orthodox clergy.  Or, is homosexuality in the clergy just not discussed as much in Orthodoxy as it is in the Roman church?  (lay Catholics talk about this issue more frequently than you might think)

My biggest major stumbling points would be Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy and Purgatory. The first two need to break, and I'm not sure if that will happen in my lifetime...or ever, for that matter.

Of the three, Purgatory might "give" more easily than you think.  Pope Benedict has recently remarked that Purgatory is more conceptual/metaphorical than an actual place of fire and brimstone.  That is merging closer to the Orthodox "pious opinion" on the issue and the teaching of theosis.  Also, Pope Benedict has quietly shelved Limbo (another Augustinian logical oddity).  Lots of subtle advances on this front.  
« Last Edit: March 24, 2011, 02:33:08 AM by jordanz » Logged
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #30 on: March 24, 2011, 09:07:40 AM »


Of the three, Purgatory might "give" more easily than you think.  Pope Benedict has recently remarked that Purgatory is more conceptual/metaphorical than an actual place of fire and brimstone.  That is merging closer to the Orthodox "pious opinion" on the issue and the teaching of theosis.  Also, Pope Benedict has quietly shelved Limbo (another Augustinian logical oddity).  Lots of subtle advances on this front.  
Oh, actually, I do know that!  Cheesy I just think that it should go by the by-way completely - just my opinion on it. For me, purgatory/limbo is a pretty important issue (because I REALLY don't know how they can justify that), although I'm sure that others on the list are more important to the other members.

Papal Infallibility is probably #1, if I had to guess. Once that goes, who knows what might happen?
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #31 on: March 24, 2011, 09:13:27 AM »

Let's be honest though -- there have to be gay celibate Orthodox clergy.  

I'm sure there are.
Logged
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #32 on: March 24, 2011, 09:25:31 AM »


Great comeback!  Actually, this is a very valid observation.  I have met gay Roman priests who have candidly said that they would feel strange working alongside a regular married RC clergy.  The restoration of optional celibacy to the Roman presbyterate will be one of the most healthy psychological developments Rome will ever undertake, should it do so (and I hope it does).  I don't think that all gay RC priests are pedos, or that all gay priests are promiscuous.  However, having a predominately gay clergy is demographically unbalanced.  Need some diversity there.

Let's be honest though -- there have to be gay celibate Orthodox clergy.  Or, is homosexuality in the clergy just not discussed as much in Orthodoxy as it is in the Roman church?  (lay Catholics talk about this issue more frequently than you might think)
Hm, I do agree with this (and yes, lay Catholics guess and argue about the sexuality of their own priests a lot!). I guess the gay clergy do have a point about concerns with working alongside married RC clergy, but it's a move that I am cheering on from the sidelines. This needs to happen, big time.

And as long as they remained celibate, their homosexuality is between them, God and their main confessor. I
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,622



« Reply #33 on: March 24, 2011, 09:45:03 AM »

At least we have established jordanz has a sense of humor. I can place him outside the sandbox.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,812


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 24, 2011, 09:51:05 AM »

Let's be honest though -- there have to be gay celibate Orthodox clergy.  

I'm sure there are.

ah...you betcha...
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #35 on: March 24, 2011, 01:27:00 PM »

Papal Infallibility is probably #1, if I had to guess. Once that goes, who knows what might happen?

Personally, I don't think Papal Infallibility should be regarded as #1.

On one of the other threads ialmisry recently asked whether the Cathechism of the Catholic Church is an ex cathedra document -- which personally I find a strange thing to ask: isn't it obvious that it isn't? But anyhow, one worthwhile thing that came out of the discussion was this from LBK:

Is not the the content of the CCC what all Roman Catholics should affirm? Is this not the document that those who wish to enter the RCC have to absorb and abide by? If they don't, i.e. if the CCC is "optional", does this not make a mockery of what the RCC expects of its prospective entrants?  Whether it's ex cathedra or not kinda misses the point, dontcha think??

(boldface added)

My answer to that is Yes, I think worry about whether it's ex cathedra or not does miss the point to a certain extent. I don't know how many (if any) ex cathedra statements there have been, and frankly it's not something I worry about.

For example, I know that we Catholics have been required to belief in the Immaculate Conception ever since Pope Pius IX issued "Ineffabilis Deus" on 8 December 1854. Now, did "Ineffabilis Deus" contain an ex cathedra statement? Yes, according to Pope John Paul II, but personally I would just say that I don't know -- what difference does it really make anyhow?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #36 on: March 24, 2011, 01:41:41 PM »

On one of the other threads ialmisry recently asked whether the Cathechism of the Catholic Church is an ex cathedra document -- which personally I find a strange thing to ask: isn't it obvious that it isn't?

One current theological debate among traditional Catholics is the infallibility of the "new" (actually, restored) doctrine that the Mass is a propitiation sacrifice and the "Paschal Mystery".  The doctrine that the Mass is the Paschal Mystery is not new: it was just de-emphasized at Trent in response to the Reformation.  Yet, if the entire contents of the CCC is infallible, then Catholics must confess both the dogmatic definition of Trent and the new emphasis on the Paschal Mystery.  While most traditional priests I know assent to the doctrine of the Paschal Mystery, most publicly preach the dogma of Trent.  In response, a good number of progressive Catholics ignore the Tridentine dogma and hyper-emphasize the Paschal Mystery.

I wish that Rome were to issue a separate encyclical that re-affirms the dogma of the Mass.  That document would certainly be ex cathedra.    
« Last Edit: March 24, 2011, 01:44:37 PM by jordanz » Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #37 on: March 25, 2011, 03:44:19 AM »

I can say that I would like to see them return to the church
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #38 on: March 25, 2011, 06:51:08 AM »

Given the shambles with which the Chambesy meeting has just ended, with the Primates of the Churches unable to agree about their ranking, I would say that one of the primary obstacles to reunion with the Church of Rome may be the Primates themselves and their incapability of reaching agreement on such an issue.  After all, if they cannot even agree as to what order they will sit around a table... Shocked

I was pleased to see the exceptional humility shown by the Church of Serbia which informed the Primates that it would willingly accept to move down from 5th place to 6th place to allow Georgia to move up to 5th place.   
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #39 on: March 25, 2011, 10:46:31 AM »

Given the shambles with which the Chambesy meeting has just ended, with the Primates of the Churches unable to agree about their ranking, I would say that one of the primary obstacles to reunion with the Church of Rome may be the Primates themselves and their incapability of reaching agreement on such an issue.  After all, if they cannot even agree as to what order they will sit around a table... Shocked

I was pleased to see the exceptional humility shown by the Church of Serbia which informed the Primates that it would willingly accept to move down from 5th place to 6th place to allow Georgia to move up to 5th place.   

God will provide.  Don't worry.  You have more folks praying for peace and unity within Orthodox jurisdictions than you realize.
Logged

Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 25, 2011, 10:48:30 AM »

Given the shambles with which the Chambesy meeting has just ended, with the Primates of the Churches unable to agree about their ranking, I would say that one of the primary obstacles to reunion with the Church of Rome may be the Primates themselves and their incapability of reaching agreement on such an issue.  After all, if they cannot even agree as to what order they will sit around a table... Shocked

I was pleased to see the exceptional humility shown by the Church of Serbia which informed the Primates that it would willingly accept to move down from 5th place to 6th place to allow Georgia to move up to 5th place.   

Met. Hilarion Confident Pan-Orthodox Synod will Resume in “Near Future”
http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/2011/03/met-hilarion-confident-pan-orthodox-synod-will-resume-in-near-future/
Logged


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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #41 on: March 25, 2011, 11:45:27 AM »

Given the shambles with which the Chambesy meeting has just ended, with the Primates of the Churches unable to agree about their ranking, I would say that one of the primary obstacles to reunion with the Church of Rome may be the Primates themselves and their incapability of reaching agreement on such an issue.  After all, if they cannot even agree as to what order they will sit around a table... Shocked

I was pleased to see the exceptional humility shown by the Church of Serbia which informed the Primates that it would willingly accept to move down from 5th place to 6th place to allow Georgia to move up to 5th place.  

God will provide.  Don't worry.  You have more folks praying for peace and unity within Orthodox jurisdictions than you realize.

Hush!!!  I correspond with a few of the holy fathers on Mount Athos and they say that many of them see the chaos of Chambesy and the inability of the Primates to agree on who gets to be served raki first as a direct intervention of the Holy Spirit to protect the Church from the miseries and even schisms which they believe will come upon the Church if this soi-disant Great Council goes ahead.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 11:53:38 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #42 on: March 25, 2011, 11:51:50 AM »

Given the shambles with which the Chambesy meeting has just ended, with the Primates of the Churches unable to agree about their ranking, I would say that one of the primary obstacles to reunion with the Church of Rome may be the Primates themselves and their incapability of reaching agreement on such an issue.  After all, if they cannot even agree as to what order they will sit around a table... Shocked

I was pleased to see the exceptional humility shown by the Church of Serbia which informed the Primates that it would willingly accept to move down from 5th place to 6th place to allow Georgia to move up to 5th place.  

God will provide.  Don't worry.  You have more folks praying for peace and unity within Orthodox jurisdictions than you realize.

I do realise.  Every day thousands of church services are offered to God and every one contains the prayer in the Great Litany which commences every service ..."for the welfare of the holy Churches of God and for the union of all...."
« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 11:52:28 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 25, 2011, 11:53:34 AM »

Given the shambles with which the Chambesy meeting has just ended, with the Primates of the Churches unable to agree about their ranking, I would say that one of the primary obstacles to reunion with the Church of Rome may be the Primates themselves and their incapability of reaching agreement on such an issue.  After all, if they cannot even agree as to what order they will sit around a table... Shocked

I was pleased to see the exceptional humility shown by the Church of Serbia which informed the Primates that it would willingly accept to move down from 5th place to 6th place to allow Georgia to move up to 5th place.   

God will provide.  Don't worry.  You have more folks praying for peace and unity within Orthodox jurisdictions than you realize.

Hush!!!  I correspond with a few of the holy fathers on Mount Athos and they say that many of them see the chaos of Chambesy and the inability of the Primates to agree on who gets to be served raki first is a direct intervention of the Holy Spirit to protect the Church from the miseries and even schisms which they believe will come upon the Church if this soi-disant Great Council goes ahead.


Tell your brother monks not to tempt God by putting their desires before the Will of the Master.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #44 on: March 25, 2011, 12:03:32 PM »

Given the shambles with which the Chambesy meeting has just ended, with the Primates of the Churches unable to agree about their ranking, I would say that one of the primary obstacles to reunion with the Church of Rome may be the Primates themselves and their incapability of reaching agreement on such an issue.  After all, if they cannot even agree as to what order they will sit around a table... Shocked

I was pleased to see the exceptional humility shown by the Church of Serbia which informed the Primates that it would willingly accept to move down from 5th place to 6th place to allow Georgia to move up to 5th place.   

God will provide.  Don't worry.  You have more folks praying for peace and unity within Orthodox jurisdictions than you realize.

Hush!!!  I correspond with a few of the holy fathers on Mount Athos and they say that many of them see the chaos of Chambesy and the inability of the Primates to agree on who gets to be served raki first is a direct intervention of the Holy Spirit to protect the Church from the miseries and even schisms which they believe will come upon the Church if this soi-disant Great Council goes ahead.


Tell your brother monks not to tempt God by putting their desires before the Will of the Master.

I would agree with our holy monastic father and theologian Saint Justin Popovic that it is not the will of the Master.  He implored the Churches not to go ahead with plans for it. We do not want this Council.

The idea for this Great Orthodox Council was born in the giddy atmosphere of post Vatican II.  "Look, the Catholics have just had one; we should do the same."   And so the Orthodox looked around and dredged up topics for an agenda to justify an unnecessary Council.  The enthusiasm of those times in the 1970s has withered away as we have seen the unexpected consequences of Vatican II.    God preserve us from such.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #45 on: March 25, 2011, 12:14:57 PM »

Given the shambles with which the Chambesy meeting has just ended, with the Primates of the Churches unable to agree about their ranking, I would say that one of the primary obstacles to reunion with the Church of Rome may be the Primates themselves and their incapability of reaching agreement on such an issue.  After all, if they cannot even agree as to what order they will sit around a table... Shocked

I was pleased to see the exceptional humility shown by the Church of Serbia which informed the Primates that it would willingly accept to move down from 5th place to 6th place to allow Georgia to move up to 5th place.  

God will provide.  Don't worry.  You have more folks praying for peace and unity within Orthodox jurisdictions than you realize.

Hush!!!  I correspond with a few of the holy fathers on Mount Athos and they say that many of them see the chaos of Chambesy and the inability of the Primates to agree on who gets to be served raki first is a direct intervention of the Holy Spirit to protect the Church from the miseries and even schisms which they believe will come upon the Church if this soi-disant Great Council goes ahead.


Tell your brother monks not to tempt God by putting their desires before the Will of the Master.

I would agree with our holy monastic father and theologian Saint Justin Popovic that it is not the will of the Master.  He implored the Churches not to go ahead with plans for it. We do not want this Council.

The idea for this Great Orthodox Council was born in the giddy atmosphere of post Vatican II.  "Look, the Catholics have just had one; we should do the same."   And so the Orthodox looked around and dredged up topics for an agenda to justify an unnecessary Council.  The enthusiasm of those times in the 1970s has withered away as we have seen the unexpected consequences of Vatican II.    God preserve us from such.

There is never a time when councils bring immediate good.  Each council has had to be watched over time to see the good results and to have the faithful accept or receive the teachings from the councils.  The same is true for the second Vatican council and the same would be true for any future universal council in Orthodoxy.  God reveals his providence in his own time.

You have no way of knowing from here, except by oracle.  I find it preferable in my own life and in my understanding of the Church to accept God's ordinary silence in the short term, and to heed His Will and pray that it be done, without needing or demanding more than that.

I will continue to pray that Orthodoxy forges sufficient unity to do God's will.

M.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 12:18:07 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,812


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #46 on: March 25, 2011, 01:35:58 PM »

Given the shambles with which the Chambesy meeting has just ended, with the Primates of the Churches unable to agree about their ranking, I would say that one of the primary obstacles to reunion with the Church of Rome may be the Primates themselves and their incapability of reaching agreement on such an issue.  After all, if they cannot even agree as to what order they will sit around a table... Shocked

I was pleased to see the exceptional humility shown by the Church of Serbia which informed the Primates that it would willingly accept to move down from 5th place to 6th place to allow Georgia to move up to 5th place.  

God will provide.  Don't worry.  You have more folks praying for peace and unity within Orthodox jurisdictions than you realize.

I do realise.  Every day thousands of church services are offered to God and every one contains the prayer in the Great Litany which commences every service ..."for the welfare of the holy Churches of God and for the union of all...."


A commemoration of which I am fond of reminding some of my fellow Orthodox about on a near daily basis it seems!
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #47 on: March 25, 2011, 08:50:02 PM »

I hope God helps open Catholics eyes to their errors
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #48 on: March 25, 2011, 09:31:21 PM »

I hope God helps open Catholics eyes to their errors

I hope God opens Orthodox eyes to the fact that some of what they hold dear against the Catholic Church is not real.
Logged

montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #49 on: March 25, 2011, 09:44:17 PM »

I hope God opens Orthodox eyes to the fact that some of what they hold dear against the Catholic Church is not real.

They're real enough. All the additions and changes Catholics have made have taken them far from His church
« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 09:45:49 PM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #50 on: March 25, 2011, 09:52:31 PM »

I hope God opens Orthodox eyes to the fact that some of what they hold dear against the Catholic Church is not real.

They're real enough. All the additions and changes Catholics have made have taken them far from His church

I don't think so at all.  I think  Orthodoxy has a 'love-to-hate' list which is about 99% false.  I ought to know, because I am the Catholic who does not recognize much of what Orthodox believers tell me that I believe or that my Church teaches.  Those are the things I think we need to get rid of and try establishing a whole new list of real things that are recognizable to Catholics.  That's what I am talking about and that is what you seem to have real difficulty grasping, though you are not alone by any means.

It is also what makes me excited about some of the things that Met. Hilarion of the MP says because I believe he recognizes that there are some serious mistakes being made on the part of Orthodox believers when it comes to what the Catholic Church teaches...and has taught over time.

Best you can do with that really is tell me I am deluded and don't know what my Church teaches and at that point all I can do is laugh.

M.
Logged

Altar Server
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 978


Holy Father Seraphim, Pray to God for us!


« Reply #51 on: March 25, 2011, 09:59:34 PM »

Irish Hermit,

Father Bless!

What bad things do you think will come from the great council if it does happen?
Logged

All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #52 on: March 25, 2011, 10:03:06 PM »

I don't think so at all.  I think  Orthodoxy has a 'love-to-hate' list which is about 99% false.  I ought to know, because I am the Catholic who does not recognize much of what Orthodox believers tell me that I believe or that my Church teaches.  Those are the things I think we need to get rid of and try establishing a whole new list of real things that are recognizable to Catholics.  That's what I am talking about and that is what you seem to have real difficulty grasping, though you are not alone by any means.

It is also what makes me excited about some of the things that Met. Hilarion of the MP says because I believe he recognizes that there are some serious mistakes being made on the part of Orthodox believers when it comes to what the Catholic Church teaches...and has taught over time.

Best you can do with that really is tell me I am deluded and don't know what my Church teaches and at that point all I can do is laugh.

M.

Petrine Primacy the way Catholics believe it - some kind of special charism being held by Peter and then transferred to only one of the several Sees he founded would be the first error that springs to mind.

Given that Ingatius of Antioch, when writing on the offices of the church said it consisted of only priest, deacon and bishop, not bishop of bishops.

The amount of times I've seen Catholic apologists misquote ECFs is to me truly telling of the RCC's position - that would resort to such falsehoods.

But then that's a position that held the "Donation of Constantine" up as evidence even long after it was shown to be a forgery
« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 10:05:28 PM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #53 on: March 25, 2011, 10:06:52 PM »

I don't think so at all.  I think  Orthodoxy has a 'love-to-hate' list which is about 99% false.  I ought to know, because I am the Catholic who does not recognize much of what Orthodox believers tell me that I believe or that my Church teaches.  Those are the things I think we need to get rid of and try establishing a whole new list of real things that are recognizable to Catholics.  That's what I am talking about and that is what you seem to have real difficulty grasping, though you are not alone by any means.

It is also what makes me excited about some of the things that Met. Hilarion of the MP says because I believe he recognizes that there are some serious mistakes being made on the part of Orthodox believers when it comes to what the Catholic Church teaches...and has taught over time.

Best you can do with that really is tell me I am deluded and don't know what my Church teaches and at that point all I can do is laugh.

M.

Petrine Primacy the way Catholics believe it - some kind of special charism being held by Peter and then transferred to only one of the several Sees he founded would be the first error that springs to mind.

Given that Ingatius of Antioch, when writing on the offices of the church said it consisted of only priest, deacon and bishop, not bishop of bishops.

The amount of times I've seen Catholic apologists misquote ECFs is to me truly telling of the RCC's position - that would resort to such falsehoods.

But then that's a position that held the "Donation of Constantine" up as evidence even long after it was shown to be a forgery

Yep.  I am familiar with the list. 
Logged

montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #54 on: March 25, 2011, 10:15:12 PM »

I don't think so at all.  I think  Orthodoxy has a 'love-to-hate' list which is about 99% false.  I ought to know, because I am the Catholic who does not recognize much of what Orthodox believers tell me that I believe or that my Church teaches.  Those are the things I think we need to get rid of and try establishing a whole new list of real things that are recognizable to Catholics.  That's what I am talking about and that is what you seem to have real difficulty grasping, though you are not alone by any means.

It is also what makes me excited about some of the things that Met. Hilarion of the MP says because I believe he recognizes that there are some serious mistakes being made on the part of Orthodox believers when it comes to what the Catholic Church teaches...and has taught over time.

Best you can do with that really is tell me I am deluded and don't know what my Church teaches and at that point all I can do is laugh.

M.

Petrine Primacy the way Catholics believe it - some kind of special charism being held by Peter and then transferred to only one of the several Sees he founded would be the first error that springs to mind.

Given that Ingatius of Antioch, when writing on the offices of the church said it consisted of only priest, deacon and bishop, not bishop of bishops.

The amount of times I've seen Catholic apologists misquote ECFs is to me truly telling of the RCC's position - that would resort to such falsehoods.

But then that's a position that held the "Donation of Constantine" up as evidence even long after it was shown to be a forgery

Yep.  I am familiar with the list. 

So am I. But making gernalisations about Orthodox being mistaken about 'something', I believe, doesn't add to dialogue.

« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 10:19:26 PM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #55 on: March 25, 2011, 10:19:01 PM »

The Catholic Catechism makes this mistake:
881: The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope

The Keys were given to all the Apostles. It is implied that ‘the keys’ were given to other Apostles
Matthew 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

This later verse  shows all the Apostles being made equal. Jesus says this to all the Apostles. Note he is talking of binding and loosing. Although He doesn’t mention ‘the keys’ here He's using the same terms as He did when He gave the keys to Peter ; binding and loosing. How do you go about binding and loosing without the keys?

Other verses make the same implication; of power to all in heaven and on earth.

John 20:23 "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
 
Matthew 18:19 "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.

Which is what Augustine notes...Augustine
“He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.”
On Christian Doctrine Book I.
Chapter 18.17 The Keys Given to the Church
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #56 on: March 26, 2011, 01:08:54 AM »

Irish Hermit,

Father Bless!

What bad things do you think will come from the great council if it does happen?

This article by Saint Justin the New is useful in understanding the concerns which some Orthodox have.

'On a Summoning of the Great Council of the Orthodox Church'
Archimandrite Justin Popovich

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stjustin_council.aspx
Logged
Altar Server
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 978


Holy Father Seraphim, Pray to God for us!


« Reply #57 on: March 26, 2011, 01:24:36 AM »

Irish Hermit,

Father Bless!

What bad things do you think will come from the great council if it does happen?

This article by Saint Justin the New is useful in understanding the concerns which some Orthodox have.

'On a Summoning of the Great Council of the Orthodox Church'
Archimandrite Justin Popovich

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stjustin_council.aspx
Thank you Father!
Logged

All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #58 on: March 26, 2011, 05:00:18 AM »

You can’t become Orthodox because it is the best choice…
 
you must become Orthodox because it is the only choice.

http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/about/#axzz1Hh5eb7cD
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #59 on: March 26, 2011, 08:14:52 AM »

I hope God helps open Catholics eyes to their errors

I hope God opens Orthodox eyes to the fact that some of what they hold dear against the Catholic Church is not real.

ROFL
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #60 on: March 26, 2011, 08:14:52 AM »

I hope God helps open Catholics eyes to their errors

I hope God opens Orthodox eyes to the fact that some of what they hold dear against the Catholic Church is not real.

Oh really?

How about the Dual Causation of the Holy Spirit, God as a Tripartite Energy (with Created Grace being a further heretical consequence), Purgatory and the Papal Treasury of Merits, Development of Dogma, the Divine Inspiration and Salvific Nature of all Religions (a heresy stemming from the 20th-century Freemasonic takeover of the Vatican), the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, the Sacramentalogy of Opere Operato, etc., as well as the canonical violations of claiming jurisdiction for the Pope in all dioceses, adding to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, Rejection of Married Priests, Mutation or Mutilation of the Mysteries of Holy Baptism, Chrismation, Confession, and Lord’s Divine Liturgy and Eucharist (unleavened wafers, removal of the invocation of the Holy Spirit, etc.), and the papal decrees ordering or sanctioning the robbery, torture, murder, enslavement, and other forms of inhuman maltreatment of insubordinate or non-Roman Catholic persons.
http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_roman_catholics.shtml
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #61 on: March 26, 2011, 08:52:58 AM »

Dude, some of those aren't even religious heresies, but debate over church order and governance.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #62 on: March 26, 2011, 11:40:41 AM »

I hope God helps open Catholics eyes to their errors

I hope God opens Orthodox eyes to the fact that some of what they hold dear against the Catholic Church is not real.

Oh really?

How about the Dual Causation of the Holy Spirit, God as a Tripartite Energy (with Created Grace being a further heretical consequence), Purgatory and the Papal Treasury of Merits, Development of Dogma, the Divine Inspiration and Salvific Nature of all Religions (a heresy stemming from the 20th-century Freemasonic takeover of the Vatican), the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, the Sacramentalogy of Opere Operato, etc., as well as the canonical violations of claiming jurisdiction for the Pope in all dioceses, adding to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, Rejection of Married Priests, Mutation or Mutilation of the Mysteries of Holy Baptism, Chrismation, Confession, and Lord’s Divine Liturgy and Eucharist (unleavened wafers, removal of the invocation of the Holy Spirit, etc.), and the papal decrees ordering or sanctioning the robbery, torture, murder, enslavement, and other forms of inhuman maltreatment of insubordinate or non-Roman Catholic persons.
http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_roman_catholics.shtml

All of this is Orthodox teaching.  Has nothing to do with what the Catholic Church teaches, or what I believe.  It's the very kind of thing that keeps the schism alive but does nothing to foster mutual understanding nor does it establish the truth of Catholic teaching in any way.

You may believe all of it but it is not what you say it is, so it is really nobody's reality at all.  It's a kind of false witness.   

That kind of dishonesty will end at some point.  Not sure how yet but I am hearing glimmers of it from Metropolitan Hilarion [ROC] almost as though he is trying to prepare everyone for things to come. 

M.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #63 on: March 26, 2011, 11:44:02 AM »

I hope God opens Orthodox eyes to the fact that some of what they hold dear against the Catholic Church is not real.

Oh really?

How about the Dual Causation of the Holy Spirit, God as a Tripartite Energy (with Created Grace being a further heretical consequence), Purgatory and the Papal Treasury of Merits, Development of Dogma, the Divine Inspiration and Salvific Nature of all Religions (a heresy stemming from the 20th-century Freemasonic takeover of the Vatican), the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, the Sacramentalogy of Opere Operato, etc., as well as the canonical violations of claiming jurisdiction for the Pope in all dioceses, adding to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, Rejection of Married Priests, Mutation or Mutilation of the Mysteries of Holy Baptism, Chrismation, Confession, and Lord’s Divine Liturgy and Eucharist (unleavened wafers, removal of the invocation of the Holy Spirit, etc.), and the papal decrees ordering or sanctioning the robbery, torture, murder, enslavement, and other forms of inhuman maltreatment of insubordinate or non-Roman Catholic persons.
http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_roman_catholics.shtml

Yes, how about that indeed.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #64 on: March 26, 2011, 11:48:37 AM »

You can’t become Orthodox because it is the best choice…
 
you must become Orthodox because it is the only choice.

Oddly enough, that's a pretty good description of why I don't convert to Orthodoxy.

Orthodox often try to convince me that Orthodoxy is a better choice that Roman Catholicism, but the thing is that even if they succeed it won't be enough to cause me to break off communion with the Pope.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #65 on: March 26, 2011, 11:54:05 AM »

You can’t become Orthodox because it is the best choice…
 
you must become Orthodox because it is the only choice.

Oddly enough, that's a pretty good description of why I don't convert to Orthodoxy.

Orthodox often try to convince me that Orthodoxy is a better choice that Roman Catholicism, but the thing is that even if they succeed it won't be enough to cause me to break off communion with the Pope.
You have a very good and interesting point here. This is actually what drew me in to the Catholic Church. I found the fact that Catholic doctrine was presented and allowed to stand on its own without our RCIA teacher tearing down the beliefs of others to be quite refreshing. Our Church is the first Church I have encountered which is like that. This is certainly not something that is present amongst Protestant denominations, as they often try to tear down other denominations as well as the Catholic Church to try to justify their own teachings/existence.

Sadly, this seems to be a trend in Eastern Orthodoxy. Since I have been on this forum, I have heard a lot more about what Eastern Orthodoxy is not rather than what it is (i.e.  As Eastern Orthodox, we believe A because the Roman Catholics believe B which is clearly heretical).
Logged
Altar Server
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 978


Holy Father Seraphim, Pray to God for us!


« Reply #66 on: March 26, 2011, 12:12:54 PM »

You can’t become Orthodox because it is the best choice…
 
you must become Orthodox because it is the only choice.

Oddly enough, that's a pretty good description of why I don't convert to Orthodoxy.

Orthodox often try to convince me that Orthodoxy is a better choice that Roman Catholicism, but the thing is that even if they succeed it won't be enough to cause me to break off communion with the Pope.
You have a very good and interesting point here. This is actually what drew me in to the Catholic Church. I found the fact that Catholic doctrine was presented and allowed to stand on its own without our RCIA teacher tearing down the beliefs of others to be quite refreshing. Our Church is the first Church I have encountered which is like that. This is certainly not something that is present amongst Protestant denominations, as they often try to tear down other denominations as well as the Catholic Church to try to justify their own teachings/existence.

Sadly, this seems to be a trend in Eastern Orthodoxy. Since I have been on this forum, I have heard a lot more about what Eastern Orthodoxy is not rather than what it is (i.e.  As Eastern Orthodox, we believe A because the Roman Catholics believe B which is clearly heretical).

Wyatt,

Thats not what orthodoxy is like off the internet Smiley If it was I wouldn't have converted. I came to Orthodoxy already having problems with Catholicism and not once did my priest tell me that the Catholic view was wrong...he would always just state the orthodox view and leave it up to me to decide. 
Logged

All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #67 on: March 26, 2011, 12:53:22 PM »

You can’t become Orthodox because it is the best choice…
 
you must become Orthodox because it is the only choice.

Oddly enough, that's a pretty good description of why I don't convert to Orthodoxy.

Orthodox often try to convince me that Orthodoxy is a better choice that Roman Catholicism, but the thing is that even if they succeed it won't be enough to cause me to break off communion with the Pope.
You have a very good and interesting point here. This is actually what drew me in to the Catholic Church. I found the fact that Catholic doctrine was presented and allowed to stand on its own without our RCIA teacher tearing down the beliefs of others to be quite refreshing. Our Church is the first Church I have encountered which is like that. This is certainly not something that is present amongst Protestant denominations, as they often try to tear down other denominations as well as the Catholic Church to try to justify their own teachings/existence.

Sadly, this seems to be a trend in Eastern Orthodoxy. Since I have been on this forum, I have heard a lot more about what Eastern Orthodoxy is not rather than what it is (i.e.  As Eastern Orthodox, we believe A because the Roman Catholics believe B which is clearly heretical).

Wyatt,

Thats not what orthodoxy is like off the internet Smiley If it was I wouldn't have converted. I came to Orthodoxy already having problems with Catholicism and not once did my priest tell me that the Catholic view was wrong...he would always just state the orthodox view and leave it up to me to decide. 

It may be more polite face to face, but I don't think that the lack of understanding is any better face to face...in reality.   I think if I pushed the issue in real life I'd find the same kind of missed-understandings of Catholic teaching in real life that I find here on the Internet.  In fact I know for a fact I would.

M.
Logged

Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #68 on: March 26, 2011, 03:01:58 PM »

I hope God helps open Catholics eyes to their errors

I hope God opens Orthodox eyes to the fact that some of what they hold dear against the Catholic Church is not real.

Oh really?

How about the Dual Causation of the Holy Spirit, God as a Tripartite Energy (with Created Grace being a further heretical consequence), Purgatory and the Papal Treasury of Merits, Development of Dogma, the Divine Inspiration and Salvific Nature of all Religions (a heresy stemming from the 20th-century Freemasonic takeover of the Vatican), the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, the Sacramentalogy of Opere Operato, etc., as well as the canonical violations of claiming jurisdiction for the Pope in all dioceses, adding to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, Rejection of Married Priests, Mutation or Mutilation of the Mysteries of Holy Baptism, Chrismation, Confession, and Lord’s Divine Liturgy and Eucharist (unleavened wafers, removal of the invocation of the Holy Spirit, etc.), and the papal decrees ordering or sanctioning the robbery, torture, murder, enslavement, and other forms of inhuman maltreatment of insubordinate or non-Roman Catholic persons.
http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_roman_catholics.shtml

All of this is Orthodox teaching.  Has nothing to do with what the Catholic Church teaches, or what I believe.  It's the very kind of thing that keeps the schism alive but does nothing to foster mutual understanding nor does it establish the truth of Catholic teaching in any way.

You may believe all of it but it is not what you say it is, so it is really nobody's reality at all.  It's a kind of false witness.   

That kind of dishonesty will end at some point.  Not sure how yet but I am hearing glimmers of it from Metropolitan Hilarion [ROC] almost as though he is trying to prepare everyone for things to come. 

M.

If it's so dishonest then why do people convert from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy. Or even Byzantine Catholics to Orthodoxy.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #69 on: March 26, 2011, 08:52:48 PM »

You can’t become Orthodox because it is the best choice…
 
you must become Orthodox because it is the only choice.

Oddly enough, that's a pretty good description of why I don't convert to Orthodoxy.

Orthodox often try to convince me that Orthodoxy is a better choice that Roman Catholicism, but the thing is that even if they succeed it won't be enough to cause me to break off communion with the Pope.

Why's that?
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #70 on: March 26, 2011, 08:54:54 PM »

I hope God helps open Catholics eyes to their errors

I hope God opens Orthodox eyes to the fact that some of what they hold dear against the Catholic Church is not real.
Although I support people converting from RCC to Orthodoxy - which is what I did - your reasoning here is, I believe, very flawed.

Catholics I'm sure can point to conversions to Catholicism

The fact that there are conversions to and from churches means one can't point to one particular group's conversion as a proof/sign of God's work, unless one applies post apori beliefs to that.

Oh really?

How about the Dual Causation of the Holy Spirit, God as a Tripartite Energy (with Created Grace being a further heretical consequence), Purgatory and the Papal Treasury of Merits, Development of Dogma, the Divine Inspiration and Salvific Nature of all Religions (a heresy stemming from the 20th-century Freemasonic takeover of the Vatican), the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, the Sacramentalogy of Opere Operato, etc., as well as the canonical violations of claiming jurisdiction for the Pope in all dioceses, adding to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, Rejection of Married Priests, Mutation or Mutilation of the Mysteries of Holy Baptism, Chrismation, Confession, and Lord’s Divine Liturgy and Eucharist (unleavened wafers, removal of the invocation of the Holy Spirit, etc.), and the papal decrees ordering or sanctioning the robbery, torture, murder, enslavement, and other forms of inhuman maltreatment of insubordinate or non-Roman Catholic persons.
http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_roman_catholics.shtml

All of this is Orthodox teaching.  Has nothing to do with what the Catholic Church teaches, or what I believe.  It's the very kind of thing that keeps the schism alive but does nothing to foster mutual understanding nor does it establish the truth of Catholic teaching in any way.

You may believe all of it but it is not what you say it is, so it is really nobody's reality at all.  It's a kind of false witness.   

That kind of dishonesty will end at some point.  Not sure how yet but I am hearing glimmers of it from Metropolitan Hilarion [ROC] almost as though he is trying to prepare everyone for things to come. 

M.

If it's so dishonest then why do people convert from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy. Or even Byzantine Catholics to Orthodoxy.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #71 on: March 26, 2011, 09:40:02 PM »

[quote author=Aposphet link=topic=34550.msg548146#msg548146 date=1301166118

If it's so dishonest then why do people convert from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy. Or even Byzantine Catholics to Orthodoxy.
[/quote]

To be honest with you, I do not know precisely...better said...I have not created boxes for those whom I know personally, so I don't have neat categories that I can enumerate easily at a time like this.

There are a couple of things that stand out to me over the years.  

One is that many Catholics are what I call pass-through Catholics.  They come from protestant backgrounds;  they are poorly catechized in many respects;  they are let down by what they perceive as a lack of spiritual life in parishes;  they are scandalized by the venality that they discover in the clergy, the loss of solemnity in the mass and in the vocational life; they are oppressed by bad liturgical practice and to them the smaller more reverential, more sensually beautiful rites and rituals are too much of a draw to be resisted, and they've never really absorbed the full teaching of the Catholic Church in a way that is sufficient to help them overcome some of the negatives so there's nothing holding them really.  I understand these people and I know that the Catholic Church has failed them in many ways and they have made a good choice by moving through the Catholic Church into Orthodoxy.

Many eastern Catholics just get tired of futzing around with the shenanigans that they find in their own eastern Catholic Churches, they are tired of feeling like the fifth wheel on the wagon and so they move into Orthodoxy and feel as though they've come home and are perfectly happy, and I think I understand them as well, and I expect in most cases they too have made a good choice.

These are the positive things I've seen.

What creates the more negative responses to the Catholic Church, I do not know.  But I do know that much of what is reflected back to me from venues like this one has NO relationship to what I've been taught, what I believe, and certainly comes nowhere near an understanding my spiritual life and how that gets fed, and how attached it is to the lives of the saints, the heritage of the fathers and the liturgical cycle, and liturgical prayer.  If I try to cut around the ugliness in the hopes of getting to something better, my efforts are shredded and handed back to me with a "thanks but no thanks"...or worse.

At any rate, I came very very close to moving into Orthodoxy but I have to tell you I could never do what some of you folks do with respect to the Catholic Church.  It just would not be happening.  So I am where I started and that's fine.  I am sorry there is not communion, because I'd be with you in a heart beat.  

Who knows what is next.  I am not sorry or discontent that I am where I am.  I am very sorry that we are not in communion.

Mary

« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 09:41:41 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,812


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #72 on: March 26, 2011, 10:16:39 PM »

[
These are the positive things I've seen.

What creates the more negative responses to the Catholic Church, I do not know.  But I do know that much of what is reflected back to me from venues like this one has NO relationship to what I've been taught, what I believe, and certainly comes nowhere near an understanding my spiritual life and how that gets fed, and how attached it is to the lives of the saints, the heritage of the fathers and the liturgical cycle, and liturgical prayer.  If I try to cut around the ugliness in the hopes of getting to something better, my efforts are shredded and handed back to me with a "thanks but no thanks"...or worse.

At any rate, I came very very close to moving into Orthodoxy but I have to tell you I could never do what some of you folks do with respect to the Catholic Church.  It just would not be happening.  So I am where I started and that's fine.  I am sorry there is not communion, because I'd be with you in a heart beat.  

Who knows what is next.  I am not sorry or discontent that I am where I am.  I am very sorry that we are not in communion.

Mary



I appreciate and can somewhat understand Mary's position. Sometimes she becomes overly zealous or emotional in her defense of Catholicism, but she also has the strength of her convictions to recognize others who have made different choices than she has in life and, more importantly, she has the courage of her convictions to recognize that all is not 'perfect' within her Church.

Many of us from the Orthodox side do share her concerns about the misconceptions and many misrepresentations of her Church and its teachings that are aired frequently on these pages. Many more of us, at least on these pages, are unwilling or unable to admit that even within our own Orthodox Church that all is not 'perfect'. I agree with Metropolitan Hilarion that we need to concentrate on those seminal moral issues facing the modern world and stress the shared Christian values our Apostolic heritage has bestowed upon both of our Churches.

I can not understand why, when one reads the parallel thread on Orthodox Protestant discussions one rarely,if ever, finds the vitriolic language and playground boosterism that we direct to Catholicism. I am not suggesting that we should act on those pages in a similar manner, but I often wonder why we have such strong feelings towards our separated brothers who share so much more in common with us than we express towards any number of the non sacramental Protestant denominations?

Like I have said over and over again, having many family members who remain pious and God-fearing Eastern Catholics and being bound to keep alive the honored memories of my God-fearing and pious ancestors who kept Faith alive after the Unia before our families returned to the fullness of the Orthodox Faith, I will never accept the mocking taunts and one-liners that many seem to feel compelled to post in their attempts to defend Orthodoxy. Likewise, I can not accept the Catholics who choose to respond in kind. 
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #73 on: March 26, 2011, 11:15:50 PM »

You can’t become Orthodox because it is the best choice…
 
you must become Orthodox because it is the only choice.

Oddly enough, that's a pretty good description of why I don't convert to Orthodoxy.

Orthodox often try to convince me that Orthodoxy is a better choice that Roman Catholicism, but the thing is that even if they succeed it won't be enough to cause me to break off communion with the Pope.

Why's that?

Well it's pretty much like you said before*: even if I were to believe that Orthodoxy were a “better choice” than Catholicism, that wouldn't be enough to get me to convert. Rather, I would need to believe that Orthodoxy was the “only choice”, i.e. that remaining Catholic wasn't an option.

To put it in more concrete terms, if I believed that the Pope was in heresy, then I would break off communion with the RCC and become Orthodox.


* Although now it seems likely that you didn't mean that I way I took it.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #74 on: March 27, 2011, 01:16:16 AM »

You can’t become Orthodox because it is the best choice…
 
you must become Orthodox because it is the only choice.

Oddly enough, that's a pretty good description of why I don't convert to Orthodoxy.

Orthodox often try to convince me that Orthodoxy is a better choice that Roman Catholicism, but the thing is that even if they succeed it won't be enough to cause me to break off communion with the Pope.

Why's that?

Well it's pretty much like you said before*: even if I were to believe that Orthodoxy were a “better choice” than Catholicism, that wouldn't be enough to get me to convert. Rather, I would need to believe that Orthodoxy was the “only choice”, i.e. that remaining Catholic wasn't an option.

To put it in more concrete terms, if I believed that the Pope was in heresy, then I would break off communion with the RCC and become Orthodox.


* Although now it seems likely that you didn't mean that I way I took it.

I was Catholic. I went to Catholic schools. I still remember feeling uneasy when at Mass we stopped with traditional hymns and swapped to songs like "Let it Be"

However for me there was no alternative, because all I knew was the RCC and Protestantism.

When I was looking at Orthodoxy a number of my Catholic friends all sent me similar quote lists allegedly showing ECF supporting the Papacy.

Were I to just go on volume of evidence I would have remained within RCC, however I started to look more closely at the quotes.

Some of the changes are minor, such as this one:
Rome is called the Apostolic throne. (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35).

When in fact it says 'an' Apostolic throne. Some are more serious such as stating from John Chrysostom that Peter was given authority over the world, and ignoring that he states John (the Son of Thunder) had the same powers.

I realised that a church that would rely on such dubious evidence doesn't have much of a stance - and they've done this before, such as the Donation of Constantine.

For instance a site called Scripture Catholic website offers: 1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.
 
The Bible actually says...
1 Corinthians 9:3 This is my defence to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don't we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas[a]? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?
 
I would think that two people are singled out here, James (called His brother), and Peter (and Barnabas is named too). But if you assume Papal power then Peter does stand out.


Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #75 on: March 27, 2011, 08:05:17 AM »

You can’t become Orthodox because it is the best choice…
 
you must become Orthodox because it is the only choice.

Oddly enough, that's a pretty good description of why I don't convert to Orthodoxy.

Orthodox often try to convince me that Orthodoxy is a better choice that Roman Catholicism, but the thing is that even if they succeed it won't be enough to cause me to break off communion with the Pope.

Why's that?

Well it's pretty much like you said before*: even if I were to believe that Orthodoxy were a “better choice” than Catholicism, that wouldn't be enough to get me to convert. Rather, I would need to believe that Orthodoxy was the “only choice”, i.e. that remaining Catholic wasn't an option.

To put it in more concrete terms, if I believed that the Pope was in heresy, then I would break off communion with the RCC and become Orthodox.


* Although now it seems likely that you didn't mean that I way I took it.

I was Catholic. I went to Catholic schools. I still remember feeling uneasy when at Mass we stopped with traditional hymns and swapped to songs like "Let it Be"

That's a new one on me. (Not the song, I mean, the idea of singing it in church is new to me.) I do remember singing a lot of "Gather us is", "Let us build the city of God", and sometimes "Lord of the Dance". And "Sing a new song".

However for me there was no alternative, because all I knew was the RCC and Protestantism.

When I was looking at Orthodoxy a number of my Catholic friends all sent me similar quote lists allegedly showing ECF supporting the Papacy.

Were I to just go on volume of evidence I would have remained within RCC, however I started to look more closely at the quotes.

Some of the changes are minor, such as this one:
Rome is called the Apostolic throne. (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35).

When in fact it says 'an' Apostolic throne. Some are more serious such as stating from John Chrysostom that Peter was given authority over the world, and ignoring that he states John (the Son of Thunder) had the same powers.

I realised that a church that would rely on such dubious evidence doesn't have much of a stance - and they've done this before, such as the Donation of Constantine.

For instance a site called Scripture Catholic website offers: 1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.
 
The Bible actually says...
1 Corinthians 9:3 This is my defence to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don't we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas[a]? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?
 
I would think that two people are singled out here, James (called His brother), and Peter (and Barnabas is named too). But if you assume Papal power then Peter does stand out.

Yes, those kinds of statements can really be annoying. Here's one I recently read on a catholic.com forum: "At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12)."
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #76 on: March 27, 2011, 08:07:45 AM »

On a side note, montalban, how do you view Orthodox who convert to the RCC?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #77 on: March 27, 2011, 08:38:37 AM »

You can’t become Orthodox because it is the best choice…
 
you must become Orthodox because it is the only choice.

Oddly enough, that's a pretty good description of why I don't convert to Orthodoxy.

Orthodox often try to convince me that Orthodoxy is a better choice that Roman Catholicism, but the thing is that even if they succeed it won't be enough to cause me to break off communion with the Pope.

Why's that?

Well it's pretty much like you said before*: even if I were to believe that Orthodoxy were a “better choice” than Catholicism, that wouldn't be enough to get me to convert. Rather, I would need to believe that Orthodoxy was the “only choice”, i.e. that remaining Catholic wasn't an option.

To put it in more concrete terms, if I believed that the Pope was in heresy, then I would break off communion with the RCC and become Orthodox.


* Although now it seems likely that you didn't mean that I way I took it.

I was Catholic. I went to Catholic schools. I still remember feeling uneasy when at Mass we stopped with traditional hymns and swapped to songs like "Let it Be"

That's a new one on me. (Not the song, I mean, the idea of singing it in church is new to me.) I do remember singing a lot of "Gather us is", "Let us build the city of God", and sometimes "Lord of the Dance". And "Sing a new song".

However for me there was no alternative, because all I knew was the RCC and Protestantism.

When I was looking at Orthodoxy a number of my Catholic friends all sent me similar quote lists allegedly showing ECF supporting the Papacy.

Were I to just go on volume of evidence I would have remained within RCC, however I started to look more closely at the quotes.

Some of the changes are minor, such as this one:
Rome is called the Apostolic throne. (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35).

When in fact it says 'an' Apostolic throne. Some are more serious such as stating from John Chrysostom that Peter was given authority over the world, and ignoring that he states John (the Son of Thunder) had the same powers.

I realised that a church that would rely on such dubious evidence doesn't have much of a stance - and they've done this before, such as the Donation of Constantine.

For instance a site called Scripture Catholic website offers: 1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.
 
The Bible actually says...
1 Corinthians 9:3 This is my defence to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don't we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas[a]? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?
 
I would think that two people are singled out here, James (called His brother), and Peter (and Barnabas is named too). But if you assume Papal power then Peter does stand out.

Yes, those kinds of statements can really be annoying. Here's one I recently read on a catholic.com forum: "At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12)."
.

The thing about that Council was, he really didn't settle the discussion. As St. Peter was the one in the wrong, whereas St. Paul was the one upholding orthodoxy, as St. Peter had fallen to the heresy of Judaizing. Thankfully after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #78 on: March 27, 2011, 09:10:22 AM »

The thing about that Council was, he really didn't settle the discussion. As St. Peter was the one in the wrong, whereas St. Paul was the one upholding orthodoxy, as St. Peter had fallen to the heresy of Judaizing. Thankfully after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy.

We're really getting off on a tangent now, but I'm quite puzzled by your last sentence, so I have to ask:
1. At what point after the Council of Jerusalem did St. Paul "repent and return to Orthodoxy"?
2. What was he returning from?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #79 on: March 27, 2011, 10:57:51 AM »

The thing about that Council was, he really didn't settle the discussion. As St. Peter was the one in the wrong, whereas St. Paul was the one upholding orthodoxy, as St. Peter had fallen to the heresy of Judaizing. Thankfully after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy.

We're really getting off on a tangent now, but I'm quite puzzled by your last sentence, so I have to ask:
1. At what point after the Council of Jerusalem did St. Paul "repent and return to Orthodoxy"?
2. What was he returning from?

1. Obviously we do not know precisely as it isn't recorded, nor do I think it's necessary to know precisely when he did.
2. He was returning from Judaizing, which was one of the primary subjects of the Council. Him and St. Paul had been sparring for a while on the issue, and the Council of Jerusalem ruled in favor of St. Paul and against St. Peter. Judaizing is a heresy and once the Council ruled against it, I believe it's safe to say that St. Peter repented of it.

At the very least, St. Peter was sympathetic to the Judaizers and hadn't condemned them as St. Paul had.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #80 on: March 27, 2011, 12:18:33 PM »

Unfortunately, instead of clarifying, your last post just made things even more bizarre.

The thing about that Council was, he really didn't settle the discussion. As St. Peter was the one in the wrong, whereas St. Paul was the one upholding orthodoxy, as St. Peter had fallen to the heresy of Judaizing. Thankfully after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy.

We're really getting off on a tangent now, but I'm quite puzzled by your last sentence, so I have to ask:
1. At what point after the Council of Jerusalem did St. Paul "repent and return to Orthodoxy"?
2. What was he returning from?

1. Obviously we do not know precisely as it isn't recorded, nor do I think it's necessary to know precisely when he did.
2. He was returning from Judaizing, which was one of the primary subjects of the Council. Him and St. Paul had been sparring for a while on the issue,

I assume you meant to say "him and St. Peter", unless you're now talking about 2 different St. Pauls (or unless your talking about St. Paul sparring with himself).

and the Council of Jerusalem ruled in favor of St. Paul and against St. Peter. Judaizing is a heresy and once the Council ruled against it, I believe it's safe to say that St. Peter repented of it.

At the very least, St. Peter was sympathetic to the Judaizers and hadn't condemned them as St. Paul had.

How does any of that support the idea that "after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy" (or that he had any need of doing so)?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,441



WWW
« Reply #81 on: March 27, 2011, 12:33:05 PM »

Unfortunately, instead of clarifying, your last post just made things even more bizarre.

The thing about that Council was, he really didn't settle the discussion. As St. Peter was the one in the wrong, whereas St. Paul was the one upholding orthodoxy, as St. Peter had fallen to the heresy of Judaizing. Thankfully after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy.

We're really getting off on a tangent now, but I'm quite puzzled by your last sentence, so I have to ask:
1. At what point after the Council of Jerusalem did St. Paul "repent and return to Orthodoxy"?
2. What was he returning from?

1. Obviously we do not know precisely as it isn't recorded, nor do I think it's necessary to know precisely when he did.
2. He was returning from Judaizing, which was one of the primary subjects of the Council. Him and St. Paul had been sparring for a while on the issue,

I assume you meant to say "him and St. Peter", unless you're now talking about 2 different St. Pauls (or unless your talking about St. Paul sparring with himself).

and the Council of Jerusalem ruled in favor of St. Paul and against St. Peter. Judaizing is a heresy and once the Council ruled against it, I believe it's safe to say that St. Peter repented of it.

At the very least, St. Peter was sympathetic to the Judaizers and hadn't condemned them as St. Paul had.

How does any of that support the idea that "after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy" (or that he had any need of doing so)?

I believe in the first post that started this little tangent the poster meant St Peter as opposed to St Paul, and just didn't catch his original mistake when you responded and bolded it. 
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #82 on: March 27, 2011, 12:51:16 PM »

Okay, lots to unpack here.  Let's take on a few of the less common misunderstandings about Catholicism right now.

the Divine Inspiration and Salvific Nature of all Religions (a heresy stemming from the 20th-century Freemasonic takeover of the Vatican)

Don't tell me you believe in those whack conspiracy theories about Vatican II.  If you and the SSPX can come up with irrefutable evidence that Msgr. Bugnini was a Freemason, let me know.  I really really dislike the hack job that Bugnini did on our Holy Mass, but I wouldn't stoop to conspiracy theories.

Dignitatis Humanae does not teach indifferentism.  It merely states that "error has no rights, but people do".  In other words, while the fullness of Christ's True Church subsists in the Vicar of Christ and his See, followers of other apostolic Christian churches, Protestantism, other religions, can practice their faith in good conscience and with freedom from political or social coercion.  That does not mean that the Roman Church has ceased subsisting in the Church of Christ, or that Protestantism or other religions are equal in magisterial value as Rome.  Rome merely recognizes that people have the right to persist "in error" because of the sacrosanct nature of human conscience.

the Sacramentalogy of Opere Operato

The Orthodox also teach ex opere operato, but has not refined the teaching to the scholastic level that Rome has devised.  This teaching simply states that the sacraments are valid when performed by ordained ministers, regardless of the sins committed by the ministers.  For example, if a priest says Mass in mortal sin, the Mass is a Mass.  The priest may receive the Eucharist unworthily, but the Mass is full of grace.

Rejection of Married Priests

Married men may be ordained to the Latin Rite priesthood by dispensation.  These men are usually former Anglican priests or Lutheran pastors who wed when in their former ministries.  They must first be ordained deacons and then receive presbyterial ordination (often these two events take place in the span of a few days, or even on the same day.)

Eastern Catholic priests follow the Orthodox discipline.  In past years there has been political pressure from Latin prelates to forbid the ordination of married Eastern Catholic men to the diaconate, but this has changed in recent years.     

removal of the invocation of the Holy Spirit

I presume you mean that there is no "strong" and explicit epiclesis in the Roman Canon similar to the Byzantine versions.  First, the Roman Canon is a pre-schism Orthodox eucharistic prayer.  This eucharistic prayer has been affirmed by Orthodox prelates.  Furthermore, the Roman Canon was translated and celebrated in Glagolithic, Church Slavonic, and Greek by canonical Orthodox priests under the approval of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow.

It is true that the Roman Canon has a "weak" pneumatology.  First, the West did not have to deal with trinitarian heresy to the same degree as the East.  Also, the Roman Canon does have epiclesis prayers, but they are not as "strong" or as explicit as the Byzantine epiclesis.  The prayers quam oblationem and supplices te rogamus, and especially the latter, can be viewed as prayers of the transformative action of the Holy Spirit.  There is no academic proof that the Roman Canon contained a Byzantine-style epiclesis at any time during its formation.  As said, the strong Eastern emphasis on pneumatology was not as imperative during the formation of Roman liturgy.   
« Last Edit: March 27, 2011, 12:53:25 PM by jordanz » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #83 on: March 27, 2011, 01:25:44 PM »

Wyatt,

Thats not what orthodoxy is like off the internet Smiley If it was I wouldn't have converted. I came to Orthodoxy already having problems with Catholicism and not once did my priest tell me that the Catholic view was wrong...he would always just state the orthodox view and leave it up to me to decide. 
That is refreshing to hear. It sounds like you have a great Priest. I hope many more Eastern Orthodox Priests are like this.
Logged
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #84 on: March 27, 2011, 01:38:12 PM »

Unfortunately, instead of clarifying, your last post just made things even more bizarre.

The thing about that Council was, he really didn't settle the discussion. As St. Peter was the one in the wrong, whereas St. Paul was the one upholding orthodoxy, as St. Peter had fallen to the heresy of Judaizing. Thankfully after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy.

We're really getting off on a tangent now, but I'm quite puzzled by your last sentence, so I have to ask:
1. At what point after the Council of Jerusalem did St. Paul "repent and return to Orthodoxy"?
2. What was he returning from?

1. Obviously we do not know precisely as it isn't recorded, nor do I think it's necessary to know precisely when he did.
2. He was returning from Judaizing, which was one of the primary subjects of the Council. Him and St. Paul had been sparring for a while on the issue,

I assume you meant to say "him and St. Peter", unless you're now talking about 2 different St. Pauls (or unless your talking about St. Paul sparring with himself).

and the Council of Jerusalem ruled in favor of St. Paul and against St. Peter. Judaizing is a heresy and once the Council ruled against it, I believe it's safe to say that St. Peter repented of it.

At the very least, St. Peter was sympathetic to the Judaizers and hadn't condemned them as St. Paul had.

How does any of that support the idea that "after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy" (or that he had any need of doing so)?

I believe in the first post that started this little tangent the poster meant St Peter as opposed to St Paul, and just didn't catch his original mistake when you responded and bolded it. 

exactly lol i didn't notice that
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,812


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #85 on: March 27, 2011, 02:02:08 PM »

Okay, lots to unpack here.  Let's take on a few of the less common misunderstandings about Catholicism right now.

the Divine Inspiration and Salvific Nature of all Religions (a heresy stemming from the 20th-century Freemasonic takeover of the Vatican)

Don't tell me you believe in those whack conspiracy theories about Vatican II.  If you and the SSPX can come up with irrefutable evidence that Msgr. Bugnini was a Freemason, let me know.  I really really dislike the hack job that Bugnini did on our Holy Mass, but I wouldn't stoop to conspiracy theories.

Dignitatis Humanae does not teach indifferentism.  It merely states that "error has no rights, but people do".  In other words, while the fullness of Christ's True Church subsists in the Vicar of Christ and his See, followers of other apostolic Christian churches, Protestantism, other religions, can practice their faith in good conscience and with freedom from political or social coercion.  That does not mean that the Roman Church has ceased subsisting in the Church of Christ, or that Protestantism or other religions are equal in magisterial value as Rome.  Rome merely recognizes that people have the right to persist "in error" because of the sacrosanct nature of human conscience.

the Sacramentalogy of Opere Operato

The Orthodox also teach ex opere operato, but has not refined the teaching to the scholastic level that Rome has devised.  This teaching simply states that the sacraments are valid when performed by ordained ministers, regardless of the sins committed by the ministers.  For example, if a priest says Mass in mortal sin, the Mass is a Mass.  The priest may receive the Eucharist unworthily, but the Mass is full of grace.

Rejection of Married Priests

Married men may be ordained to the Latin Rite priesthood by dispensation.  These men are usually former Anglican priests or Lutheran pastors who wed when in their former ministries.  They must first be ordained deacons and then receive presbyterial ordination (often these two events take place in the span of a few days, or even on the same day.)

Eastern Catholic priests follow the Orthodox discipline.  In past years there has been political pressure from Latin prelates to forbid the ordination of married Eastern Catholic men to the diaconate, but this has changed in recent years.     

removal of the invocation of the Holy Spirit

I presume you mean that there is no "strong" and explicit epiclesis in the Roman Canon similar to the Byzantine versions.  First, the Roman Canon is a pre-schism Orthodox eucharistic prayer.  This eucharistic prayer has been affirmed by Orthodox prelates.  Furthermore, the Roman Canon was translated and celebrated in Glagolithic, Church Slavonic, and Greek by canonical Orthodox priests under the approval of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow.

It is true that the Roman Canon has a "weak" pneumatology.  First, the West did not have to deal with trinitarian heresy to the same degree as the East.  Also, the Roman Canon does have epiclesis prayers, but they are not as "strong" or as explicit as the Byzantine epiclesis.  The prayers quam oblationem and supplices te rogamus, and especially the latter, can be viewed as prayers of the transformative action of the Holy Spirit.  There is no academic proof that the Roman Canon contained a Byzantine-style epiclesis at any time during its formation.  As said, the strong Eastern emphasis on pneumatology was not as imperative during the formation of Roman liturgy.   

Don't confuse us with the facts!  Wink
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #86 on: March 27, 2011, 02:16:52 PM »

Unfortunately, instead of clarifying, your last post just made things even more bizarre.

The thing about that Council was, he really didn't settle the discussion. As St. Peter was the one in the wrong, whereas St. Paul was the one upholding orthodoxy, as St. Peter had fallen to the heresy of Judaizing. Thankfully after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy.

We're really getting off on a tangent now, but I'm quite puzzled by your last sentence, so I have to ask:
1. At what point after the Council of Jerusalem did St. Paul "repent and return to Orthodoxy"?
2. What was he returning from?

1. Obviously we do not know precisely as it isn't recorded, nor do I think it's necessary to know precisely when he did.
2. He was returning from Judaizing, which was one of the primary subjects of the Council. Him and St. Paul had been sparring for a while on the issue,

I assume you meant to say "him and St. Peter", unless you're now talking about 2 different St. Pauls (or unless your talking about St. Paul sparring with himself).

and the Council of Jerusalem ruled in favor of St. Paul and against St. Peter. Judaizing is a heresy and once the Council ruled against it, I believe it's safe to say that St. Peter repented of it.

At the very least, St. Peter was sympathetic to the Judaizers and hadn't condemned them as St. Paul had.

How does any of that support the idea that "after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy" (or that he had any need of doing so)?

I believe in the first post that started this little tangent the poster meant St Peter as opposed to St Paul, and just didn't catch his original mistake when you responded and bolded it. 

exactly lol i didn't notice that

Seems like that's a problem with a lot of conversations, both on this board and elsewhere. People are so much more interested in talking than listening that when they hear a question they launch into a lecture without even knowing what was asked.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #87 on: March 27, 2011, 02:23:12 PM »


Don't confuse us with the facts!  Wink

 Cheesy  I think we'd have a much better time of it hanging together than hanging separately.
Logged

FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,441



WWW
« Reply #88 on: March 27, 2011, 03:04:54 PM »

Unfortunately, instead of clarifying, your last post just made things even more bizarre.

The thing about that Council was, he really didn't settle the discussion. As St. Peter was the one in the wrong, whereas St. Paul was the one upholding orthodoxy, as St. Peter had fallen to the heresy of Judaizing. Thankfully after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy.

We're really getting off on a tangent now, but I'm quite puzzled by your last sentence, so I have to ask:
1. At what point after the Council of Jerusalem did St. Paul "repent and return to Orthodoxy"?
2. What was he returning from?

1. Obviously we do not know precisely as it isn't recorded, nor do I think it's necessary to know precisely when he did.
2. He was returning from Judaizing, which was one of the primary subjects of the Council. Him and St. Paul had been sparring for a while on the issue,

I assume you meant to say "him and St. Peter", unless you're now talking about 2 different St. Pauls (or unless your talking about St. Paul sparring with himself).

and the Council of Jerusalem ruled in favor of St. Paul and against St. Peter. Judaizing is a heresy and once the Council ruled against it, I believe it's safe to say that St. Peter repented of it.

At the very least, St. Peter was sympathetic to the Judaizers and hadn't condemned them as St. Paul had.

How does any of that support the idea that "after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy" (or that he had any need of doing so)?

I believe in the first post that started this little tangent the poster meant St Peter as opposed to St Paul, and just didn't catch his original mistake when you responded and bolded it. 

exactly lol i didn't notice that

Seems like that's a problem with a lot of conversations, both on this board and elsewhere. People are so much more interested in talking than listening that when they hear a question they launch into a lecture without even knowing what was asked.

Always assume the best about people: I myself often tend to get names starting with the same consonant confused and will say (or type, in this case) "Bill" when I meant "Brian".  Typing just makes it worst, because on rereading my mind is already prejudiced toward my meaning rather than what my eyes claim to see on the screen.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #89 on: March 27, 2011, 03:16:54 PM »

Unfortunately, instead of clarifying, your last post just made things even more bizarre.

The thing about that Council was, he really didn't settle the discussion. As St. Peter was the one in the wrong, whereas St. Paul was the one upholding orthodoxy, as St. Peter had fallen to the heresy of Judaizing. Thankfully after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy.

We're really getting off on a tangent now, but I'm quite puzzled by your last sentence, so I have to ask:
1. At what point after the Council of Jerusalem did St. Paul "repent and return to Orthodoxy"?
2. What was he returning from?

1. Obviously we do not know precisely as it isn't recorded, nor do I think it's necessary to know precisely when he did.
2. He was returning from Judaizing, which was one of the primary subjects of the Council. Him and St. Paul had been sparring for a while on the issue,

I assume you meant to say "him and St. Peter", unless you're now talking about 2 different St. Pauls (or unless your talking about St. Paul sparring with himself).

and the Council of Jerusalem ruled in favor of St. Paul and against St. Peter. Judaizing is a heresy and once the Council ruled against it, I believe it's safe to say that St. Peter repented of it.

At the very least, St. Peter was sympathetic to the Judaizers and hadn't condemned them as St. Paul had.

How does any of that support the idea that "after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy" (or that he had any need of doing so)?

I believe in the first post that started this little tangent the poster meant St Peter as opposed to St Paul, and just didn't catch his original mistake when you responded and bolded it. 

exactly lol i didn't notice that

Seems like that's a problem with a lot of conversations, both on this board and elsewhere. People are so much more interested in talking than listening that when they hear a question they launch into a lecture without even knowing what was asked.

Always assume the best about people: I myself often tend to get names starting with the same consonant confused and will say (or type, in this case) "Bill" when I meant "Brian".  Typing just makes it worst, because on rereading my mind is already prejudiced toward my meaning rather than what my eyes claim to see on the screen.

On the same general subject, I seem to have numbers dyslexia, and I have to check about 2-3 times to finally realize if I've made a mistake... (like I might see 57 as 75, or 1453 as 1543 or 526 as 625)
But yeah, for some reason I was thinking St. Peter in my head and accidentally typed St. Paul...
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #90 on: March 27, 2011, 03:58:46 PM »

To be honest with you, I do not know precisely.
That's all you had to say, but let's examine how full of yourself you are.

Quote
One is that many Catholics are what I call pass-through Catholics.  They come from protestant backgrounds;
And? Many converts into Orthodoxy are former Protestants.

[quotethey are poorly catechized in many respects;[/quote]
Compare the catechism to Orthodoxy, and RC is MUCH better with their catechism.

Quote
they are let down by what they perceive as a lack of spiritual life in parishes;
And the fact that this could be true?

Quote
they are scandalized by the venality that they discover in the clergy,
Who wouldn't be?

Quote
the loss of solemnity in the mass and in the vocational life;
More of that "doctrinal development", gotta love RC apostasy.

Quote
they are oppressed by bad liturgical practice and to them the smaller more reverential, more sensually beautiful rites and rituals are too much of a draw to be resisted, and they've never really absorbed the full teaching of the Catholic Church in a way that is sufficient to help them overcome some of the negatives so there's nothing holding them really.
That's a bold claim, and in fact a terrible generalized assertion. I've abosrbed much of the Catholic theology and came to the conclusion that it will crumble evntually with the progression of the post modern movement. Once you elimiate the mystery of certain theologies, it's only a matter of time when scrutiny will dismantle it's logicality.

The biggest problem with the RCC is it's multiplicity of theologies under one insitituion, versus Orthodoxy which is oneness in the same faith but a multiplicity in it's jurisdictions (Greek, Serbian, Antiochian, etc), I'm glad Orthodoxy holds true to the One of the four marks of the Church.

Quote
I understand these people and I know that the Catholic Church has failed them in many ways and they have made a good choice by moving through the Catholic Church into Orthodoxy.
Catholic Church has failed quite a number of people for centuries, it's nothing new.

Quote
At any rate, I came very very close to moving into Orthodoxy but I have to tell you I could never do what some of you folks do with respect to the Catholic Church.  It just would not be happening.  So I am where I started and that's fine.  I am sorry there is not communion, because I'd be with you in a heart beat.  

Pride > Truth. Good to see where you stand.

The sad fact that you would of embraced Orthodoxy but stuck to your pride, speaks volumes about your character. I don't know why people like Fr. Ambrose or Isa bother to debate with you
« Last Edit: March 27, 2011, 04:00:13 PM by Aposphet » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #91 on: March 27, 2011, 04:06:04 PM »

[quote author=Aposphet link=topic=34550.msg548493#msg548493 date=1301255926

The sad fact that you would of embraced Orthodoxy but stuck to your pride, speaks volumes about your character. I don't know why people like Fr. Ambrose or Isa bother to debate with you
[/quote]

 laugh laugh laugh

Took you all this time to get an answer together and this is the BEST you could do?
Logged

Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #92 on: March 27, 2011, 04:08:34 PM »

Not really, I don't put effort into talking with trolls.
 For this post which is only indicative of your continued obtuseness in learning how to interact with posters with whom you disagree without resorting to personal comments, you are being put on Post Moderation for 20 days.  If you think this is in error, please PM Fr. George or FrChris.  -Schultz.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #93 on: March 27, 2011, 04:19:34 PM »

Unfortunately, instead of clarifying, your last post just made things even more bizarre.

The thing about that Council was, he really didn't settle the discussion. As St. Peter was the one in the wrong, whereas St. Paul was the one upholding orthodoxy, as St. Peter had fallen to the heresy of Judaizing. Thankfully after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy.

We're really getting off on a tangent now, but I'm quite puzzled by your last sentence, so I have to ask:
1. At what point after the Council of Jerusalem did St. Paul "repent and return to Orthodoxy"?
2. What was he returning from?

1. Obviously we do not know precisely as it isn't recorded, nor do I think it's necessary to know precisely when he did.
2. He was returning from Judaizing, which was one of the primary subjects of the Council. Him and St. Paul had been sparring for a while on the issue,

I assume you meant to say "him and St. Peter", unless you're now talking about 2 different St. Pauls (or unless your talking about St. Paul sparring with himself).

and the Council of Jerusalem ruled in favor of St. Paul and against St. Peter. Judaizing is a heresy and once the Council ruled against it, I believe it's safe to say that St. Peter repented of it.

At the very least, St. Peter was sympathetic to the Judaizers and hadn't condemned them as St. Paul had.

How does any of that support the idea that "after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy" (or that he had any need of doing so)?

I believe in the first post that started this little tangent the poster meant St Peter as opposed to St Paul, and just didn't catch his original mistake when you responded and bolded it. 

exactly lol i didn't notice that

Seems like that's a problem with a lot of conversations, both on this board and elsewhere. People are so much more interested in talking than listening that when they hear a question they launch into a lecture without even knowing what was asked.

Always assume the best about people: I myself often tend to get names starting with the same consonant confused and will say (or type, in this case) "Bill" when I meant "Brian".  Typing just makes it worst, because on rereading my mind is already prejudiced toward my meaning rather than what my eyes claim to see on the screen.


Yes, especially if he/she is Orthodox and you're on an Orthodox forum.

On the other hand, I'm Roman Catholic so there's less reason to assume the best about me, like assuming that I know what I'm talking about with respect to the Council of Jerusalem.

But my point is that it seems clear that 88Devin12 didn't bother to read my questions
Quote
1. At what point after the Council of Jerusalem did St. Paul "repent and return to Orthodoxy"?
2. What was he returning from?
very carefully before he launched into his lecture.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #94 on: March 27, 2011, 04:21:21 PM »

Not really, I don't put effort into talking with trolls.

 laugh laugh laugh

Brilliant
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #95 on: March 27, 2011, 04:27:13 PM »

I don't know why people like Fr. Ambrose or Isa bother to debate with you

Interesting ... did you recently change your profile? Did it always say "I got Wheaties" or is that new? Just curious.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2011, 04:28:04 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,237


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #96 on: March 27, 2011, 04:28:17 PM »

I don't know why people like Fr. Ambrose or Isa bother to debate with you

Interesting ... did you recently change your profile? I mean, did it always say "I GOT WHEATIES!" or that new? Just curious.

He just recently got the Wheaties  police
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #97 on: March 27, 2011, 04:29:12 PM »

I don't know why people like Fr. Ambrose or Isa bother to debate with you

Interesting ... did you recently change your profile? Did it always say "I got Wheaties" or is that new? Just curious.

I GOT THE WHEATIES
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,441



WWW
« Reply #98 on: March 27, 2011, 04:57:41 PM »


Always assume the best about people: I myself often tend to get names starting with the same consonant confused and will say (or type, in this case) "Bill" when I meant "Brian".  Typing just makes it worst, because on rereading my mind is already prejudiced toward my meaning rather than what my eyes claim to see on the screen.


Yes, especially if he/she is Orthodox and you're on an Orthodox forum.

On the other hand, I'm Roman Catholic so there's less reason to assume the best about me, like assuming that I know what I'm talking about with respect to the Council of Jerusalem.

But my point is that it seems clear that 88Devin12 didn't bother to read my questions
Quote
1. At what point after the Council of Jerusalem did St. Paul "repent and return to Orthodoxy"?
2. What was he returning from?
very carefully before he launched into his lecture.

The only assumption I made regarding you was that when you said:
Quote
Yes, those kinds of statements can really be annoying. Here's one I recently read on a catholic.com forum: "At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12)."

you were commiserating with us over the silly statements from some of your fellow Roman Catholics,  much the same as I'd roll my eyes when some of our more, ahhh, "enthusiastic" Orthodox posters states something regarding Roman Catholicism that goes way overboard. I had nothing to contribute at that time, but it seemed to spark a rant in 88Devin that was not necessarily directed toward you, but rather your quote.  Everything after that was you and 88Devin talking past each other, due to his typo.  I know from previous posts of 88Devin's he has mild dyslexia and I know my own problem with names starting with similar consonants, and made my statement to call his attention to the fact that you were indeed talking past each other and that he was glossing over his typo.  My further statement regarding assumptions was merely an attempt to bring to light the fact that not all times people talk at cross-purposes are due to willful inattention by one party or another:  Some people just don't have good reading comprehension. 

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #99 on: March 27, 2011, 05:04:42 PM »


Always assume the best about people: I myself often tend to get names starting with the same consonant confused and will say (or type, in this case) "Bill" when I meant "Brian".  Typing just makes it worst, because on rereading my mind is already prejudiced toward my meaning rather than what my eyes claim to see on the screen.


Yes, especially if he/she is Orthodox and you're on an Orthodox forum.

On the other hand, I'm Roman Catholic so there's less reason to assume the best about me, like assuming that I know what I'm talking about with respect to the Council of Jerusalem.

But my point is that it seems clear that 88Devin12 didn't bother to read my questions
Quote
1. At what point after the Council of Jerusalem did St. Paul "repent and return to Orthodoxy"?
2. What was he returning from?
very carefully before he launched into his lecture.

The only assumption I made regarding you was that when you said:
Quote
Yes, those kinds of statements can really be annoying. Here's one I recently read on a catholic.com forum: "At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12)."

you were commiserating with us over the silly statements from some of your fellow Roman Catholics,  much the same as I'd roll my eyes when some of our more, ahhh, "enthusiastic" Orthodox posters states something regarding Roman Catholicism that goes way overboard.

I think PeterJ was using a bit of irony in his post.  The statement in question is actually a quote from Acts....no?

Logged

88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #100 on: March 27, 2011, 05:19:36 PM »

Unfortunately, instead of clarifying, your last post just made things even more bizarre.

The thing about that Council was, he really didn't settle the discussion. As St. Peter was the one in the wrong, whereas St. Paul was the one upholding orthodoxy, as St. Peter had fallen to the heresy of Judaizing. Thankfully after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy.

We're really getting off on a tangent now, but I'm quite puzzled by your last sentence, so I have to ask:
1. At what point after the Council of Jerusalem did St. Paul "repent and return to Orthodoxy"?
2. What was he returning from?

1. Obviously we do not know precisely as it isn't recorded, nor do I think it's necessary to know precisely when he did.
2. He was returning from Judaizing, which was one of the primary subjects of the Council. Him and St. Paul had been sparring for a while on the issue,

I assume you meant to say "him and St. Peter", unless you're now talking about 2 different St. Pauls (or unless your talking about St. Paul sparring with himself).

and the Council of Jerusalem ruled in favor of St. Paul and against St. Peter. Judaizing is a heresy and once the Council ruled against it, I believe it's safe to say that St. Peter repented of it.

At the very least, St. Peter was sympathetic to the Judaizers and hadn't condemned them as St. Paul had.

How does any of that support the idea that "after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy" (or that he had any need of doing so)?

I believe in the first post that started this little tangent the poster meant St Peter as opposed to St Paul, and just didn't catch his original mistake when you responded and bolded it. 

exactly lol i didn't notice that

Seems like that's a problem with a lot of conversations, both on this board and elsewhere. People are so much more interested in talking than listening that when they hear a question they launch into a lecture without even knowing what was asked.

Always assume the best about people: I myself often tend to get names starting with the same consonant confused and will say (or type, in this case) "Bill" when I meant "Brian".  Typing just makes it worst, because on rereading my mind is already prejudiced toward my meaning rather than what my eyes claim to see on the screen.


Yes, especially if he/she is Orthodox and you're on an Orthodox forum.

On the other hand, I'm Roman Catholic so there's less reason to assume the best about me, like assuming that I know what I'm talking about with respect to the Council of Jerusalem.

But my point is that it seems clear that 88Devin12 didn't bother to read my questions
Quote
1. At what point after the Council of Jerusalem did St. Paul "repent and return to Orthodoxy"?
2. What was he returning from?
very carefully before he launched into his lecture.

... Actually yes, I responded to your questions...
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,34550.msg548429.html#msg548429

Also if you read my post more carefully, you also see that I had pointed out that St. Peter was the one that had been in the wrong, not St. Paul.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,34550.msg548413.html#msg548413

It had been clarified since then that my reply that said: "Thankfully after the council, St. Paul repented and returned to Orthodoxy."
Was simply a typo, and St. Paul should have been typed as St. Peter... (an honest mistake)

So my statement and reply still stands. St. Peter fell into the error of Judaizing, whereas St. Paul upheld the Orthodox faith. Judaizing was rejected at the Council of Jerusalem, and St. Peter thus had to repent of his Judaizing. (and thankfully did)
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #101 on: March 27, 2011, 05:26:30 PM »


Always assume the best about people: I myself often tend to get names starting with the same consonant confused and will say (or type, in this case) "Bill" when I meant "Brian".  Typing just makes it worst, because on rereading my mind is already prejudiced toward my meaning rather than what my eyes claim to see on the screen.


Yes, especially if he/she is Orthodox and you're on an Orthodox forum.

On the other hand, I'm Roman Catholic so there's less reason to assume the best about me, like assuming that I know what I'm talking about with respect to the Council of Jerusalem.

But my point is that it seems clear that 88Devin12 didn't bother to read my questions
Quote
1. At what point after the Council of Jerusalem did St. Paul "repent and return to Orthodoxy"?
2. What was he returning from?
very carefully before he launched into his lecture.

The only assumption I made regarding you was that when you said:
Quote
Yes, those kinds of statements can really be annoying. Here's one I recently read on a catholic.com forum: "At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12)."

you were commiserating with us over the silly statements from some of your fellow Roman Catholics,  much the same as I'd roll my eyes when some of our more, ahhh, "enthusiastic" Orthodox posters states something regarding Roman Catholicism that goes way overboard. I had nothing to contribute at that time, but it seemed to spark a rant in 88Devin that was not necessarily directed toward you, but rather your quote.  Everything after that was you and 88Devin talking past each other, due to his typo.  I know from previous posts of 88Devin's he has mild dyslexia and I know my own problem with names starting with similar consonants, and made my statement to call his attention to the fact that you were indeed talking past each other and that he was glossing over his typo.  My further statement regarding assumptions was merely an attempt to bring to light the fact that not all times people talk at cross-purposes are due to willful inattention by one party or another:  Some people just don't have good reading comprehension. 

Fair enough. I try to be "on guard" when I'm participating on forums like this or catholic.com (even more so with the latter, oddly enough). Unfortunately, that may sometimes turn into just being "defensive", in a negative sense.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #102 on: March 27, 2011, 05:47:39 PM »

Quote
Orthodox-Catholic obstacles to reunion?

The Lord Jesus Christ himself says through the mouth of His saints, no such union will be possible for His church. The Church is The Church of his saints and without them there's no Church.

Great saints, living and dead (all of them are living and even more dead saints are more living then living sinful dead like us), all say these from all Orthodox countries (Greece, Serbia, Georgia, Russia, Romania). One example of this: Great Romanian saint (not canonized yet but for me it matters none) of 20th century, elder Arsenis Boca, says:
Quote
Ecumenism? It is the heresy of all heresies; The fall of the Church through its own servants; The instrument of the west; Only the rotten debris fall from the Orthodox Church be they bishopss, priests, monks, or layman. Let us return to Holy Tradition, Dogmas and Canons of the Holy Fathers, of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Otherwise to hell - including our bishops. God forbid.

Mother Gavrilia, saintly woman, woman of God, answers when asked:
Quote
P.G.: Mother Gabriele, you have travelled all over the world.  You have become familiar with so many Monastic Orders: Roman Catholic, Buddhist, Hinduist. You have seen Organizations, Protestant Missionaries. You witnessed how their Missionary work was generously financed…yet you, a poor, Orthodox Nun, had such limited material margins, either to facilitate you, or for offering to others. Did it ever occur to you that it might have been better, if you were something else, other than an Orthodox?

Mother Gabriele: God forbid! No! It never crossed my mind, not for an instant, because that is precisely what I can boast!  I remember one time, when I was in Indira Ghandi’s office (Note: this was during her first trip to India, when she was still in the laity) and we were discussing a project of theirs. Just then, a woman came in and said to her (in front of me): “Is that a Catholic Nun that’s talking to you?” And Ghandi replied to her: “No, she is from the Orthodox Church. You haven’t heard of it, because it doesn’t exist in India, but it is an entirely different Church”…And when I came to Jerusalem, in our extremely humble Monastery in 1959, there came some Catholic nuns, who said to me: “This is Christ’s true Way of Life, because you here are deprived of everything…we, however, have all the comforts”…Can you understand what I am saying? (Page 291 of "The Ascetic Of Love")

It is remarkable, how she never agreed to joint praying, in spite of her friendships and associations with people from other dogmas.  We saw this with our own eyes, when she lived in Athens; she would receive phone calls from heterodox nuns, who would say to her: “We’ll come over, to pray together”… “I never pray vocally, and I never pray with company; only alone, or in the Church”, she would say to them, “but you’re welcome to come over for a nice cup of tea and tell me all your news”, she would add.

Even though she lived and moved within so many heterodox and other religions, there was not a single trace of Syncretism in her spiritual life and in matters of Worship. And this was doubly appreciated by her fellow travellers (…) In fact, one day someone made a derogatory remark about our Most Holy Mother (those who have so much as mentioned Her name to Protestants, can understand this).

Gabriele allowed a few minutes to pass, then, taking aside the person responsible, said to him: “My brother, I’m sorry, but I have to tell you that from tomorrow, I will no longer be with you”.  He became very upset and sorrowed, because he had never seen that expression on her face before. She then explained to him: “I cannot tolerate listening to such words about the One I love the most, after Christ.”  Naturally, apologies were expressed, and this kind of incident was not repeated. (Page 96-97 of the same book)

Last quotes are especially priceless. It shows that we don't need to pray together at all to be good friends and to love a man of different religion, different walk. I myself have friends who are protestants, Muslisms or even Atheists. I do not deride them and I respect them as much as my Orthodox friends. But we should say "no" to common prayers not to mention union.

P.S. The Saints mentioned walk the Way of God and for that  they will the Way. No other way is salvific for our souls. "Let us return to Holy Tradition, Dogmas and Canons of the Holy Fathers".
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #103 on: March 27, 2011, 06:04:04 PM »

I don't know why people like Fr. Ambrose or Isa bother to debate with you

Interesting ... did you recently change your profile? I mean, did it always say "I GOT WHEATIES!" or that new? Just curious.

He just recently got the Wheaties  police

Ah ... I noticed his "I don't know why people like Fr. Ambrose or Isa bother to debate with you" statement and thought to myself "That's funny ... doesn't his profile say he's a fan of Isa?" Then I checked, and discovered it didn't say that, which made me wonder if he'd recently changed it.

(I guess I should really be spending my time on more productive things.  Embarrassed  Cheesy )
« Last Edit: March 27, 2011, 06:07:56 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #104 on: March 27, 2011, 06:40:18 PM »

I don't know why people like Fr. Ambrose or Isa bother to debate with you

Interesting ... did you recently change your profile? I mean, did it always say "I GOT WHEATIES!" or that new? Just curious.

He just recently got the Wheaties  police

Ah ... I noticed his "I don't know why people like Fr. Ambrose or Isa bother to debate with you" statement and thought to myself "That's funny ... doesn't his profile say he's a fan of Isa?" Then I checked, and discovered it didn't say that, which made me wonder if he'd recently changed it.

(I guess I should really be spending my time on more productive things.  Embarrassed  Cheesy )


Wait you think I was being derogrative to ISa and Fr. Ambrose?
« Last Edit: March 27, 2011, 06:40:41 PM by Aposphet » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #105 on: March 27, 2011, 07:13:10 PM »

Wait you think I was being derogrative to ISa and Fr. Ambrose?

No. Why, should I have thought that?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #106 on: March 28, 2011, 03:29:35 PM »

I was pleased to see the exceptional humility shown by the Church of Serbia which informed the Primates that it would willingly accept to move down from 5th place to 6th place to allow Georgia to move up to 5th place.   

...

Huh?

What happened to:

1. Constantinople
2. Alexandria
3. Antioch
4. Jerusalem
5. Russia
6. Serbia

?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #107 on: March 28, 2011, 09:45:51 PM »

I was pleased to see the exceptional humility shown by the Church of Serbia which informed the Primates that it would willingly accept to move down from 5th place to 6th place to allow Georgia to move up to 5th place.   

...

Huh?

What happened to:

1. Constantinople
2. Alexandria
3. Antioch
4. Jerusalem
5. Russia
6. Serbia

?

What happened to ... well, you probably already know what I'm going to say. Wink
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,622



« Reply #108 on: March 28, 2011, 09:53:48 PM »

Not really, I don't put effort into talking with trolls.

Talking to yourself must come easy.

Dude, seriously:  Roll Eyes

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=3843

Like her content or not, she's been here longer than you and provides substantive content on a board often at times less than sympathetic to her stuff.

She ain't no troll.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #109 on: March 28, 2011, 10:03:14 PM »

I was pleased to see the exceptional humility shown by the Church of Serbia which informed the Primates that it would willingly accept to move down from 5th place to 6th place to allow Georgia to move up to 5th place.   

...

Huh?

What happened to:

1. Constantinople
2. Alexandria
3. Antioch
4. Jerusalem
5. Russia
6. Serbia

?

What happened to ... well, you probably already know what I'm going to say. Wink

And you don't already know the answer to that one?
Logged

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

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #110 on: March 28, 2011, 10:14:30 PM »

The whole precedence and numbering business is pointless.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #111 on: March 28, 2011, 10:16:05 PM »

Not really, I don't put effort into talking with trolls.

Talking to yourself must come easy.
K.

Quote
Dude, seriously:  Roll Eyes

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=3843

Like her content or not, she's been here longer than you and provides substantive content on a board often at times less than sympathetic to her stuff.

She ain't no troll.

Her only purpose on an Orthodox board is to somehow "educate" us about the "misconceptions" of the Catholic Church, but does not delve into discussing Orthodox faith, theology, history and the like. Her presence is extraneous and has exhibited troll like behavior in the past. Her primary intent is to provoke an emotional response from the Orthodox without actually providing any substantial discourse.

Instead of addressing what I replied to, she quipped one quote. But thanks for adding nothing to this discussion.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,622



« Reply #112 on: March 28, 2011, 10:20:32 PM »

Her only purpose on an Orthodox board is to somehow "educate" us about the "misconceptions" of the Catholic Church, but does not delve into discussing Orthodox faith, theology, history and the like. Her presence is extraneous and has exhibited troll like behavior in the past. Her primary intent is to provoke an emotional response from the Orthodox without actually providing any substantial discourse.

Instead of addressing what I replied to, she quipped one quote. But thanks for adding nothing to this discussion.

If you only had such insight into your own psyche.

You might notice there are inter-Orthodox and other faith subforums.

You might want to go back read some of the threads you start here, before throwing stones.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #113 on: March 28, 2011, 10:26:15 PM »

Her only purpose on an Orthodox board is to somehow "educate" us about the "misconceptions" of the Catholic Church, but does not delve into discussing Orthodox faith, theology, history and the like. Her presence is extraneous and has exhibited troll like behavior in the past. Her primary intent is to provoke an emotional response from the Orthodox without actually providing any substantial discourse.

Instead of addressing what I replied to, she quipped one quote. But thanks for adding nothing to this discussion.

If you only had such insight into your own psyche.
Love the ad hominems, there an ignore button on this board?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,622



« Reply #114 on: March 28, 2011, 11:11:25 PM »

Her only purpose on an Orthodox board is to somehow "educate" us about the "misconceptions" of the Catholic Church, but does not delve into discussing Orthodox faith, theology, history and the like. Her presence is extraneous and has exhibited troll like behavior in the past. Her primary intent is to provoke an emotional response from the Orthodox without actually providing any substantial discourse.

Instead of addressing what I replied to, she quipped one quote. But thanks for adding nothing to this discussion.

If you only had such insight into your own psyche.
Love the ad hominems, there an ignore button on this board?

An ad hominem is not a fallacy necessarily. Weird to decry it, when nearly the entirety of a few posts of yours were just that.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #115 on: March 28, 2011, 11:35:58 PM »

Her only purpose on an Orthodox board is to somehow "educate" us about the "misconceptions" of the Catholic Church, but does not delve into discussing Orthodox faith, theology, history and the like. Her presence is extraneous and has exhibited troll like behavior in the past. Her primary intent is to provoke an emotional response from the Orthodox without actually providing any substantial discourse.

Instead of addressing what I replied to, she quipped one quote. But thanks for adding nothing to this discussion.

If you only had such insight into your own psyche.
Love the ad hominems, there an ignore button on this board?

An ad hominem is not a fallacy necessarily. Weird to decry it, when nearly the entirety of a few posts of yours were just that.

Never claimed it was a logical fallacy. What's so funny to me is that you interjected in this discussion, late at that, and tried to take a stab at me with an eye roll worthy insult. As I said you're only reason for posting in this thread and the other Catholic one was to pick a fight, but what's new.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #116 on: March 28, 2011, 11:41:59 PM »

I was pleased to see the exceptional humility shown by the Church of Serbia which informed the Primates that it would willingly accept to move down from 5th place to 6th place to allow Georgia to move up to 5th place.   

...

Huh?

What happened to:

1. Constantinople
2. Alexandria
3. Antioch
4. Jerusalem
5. Russia
6. Serbia

?
Yes, Serbs did right thing simply because they are Orthodox and being Orthodox means to say and follow the truth first of all. And the truth is Orthodox Church of Georgia became autocephalous in the 5th century. Since then OCG has been 5th, after the Church of Jerusalem, on the diptychs. There's a diptych during the time of Florence-Ferrera council from 15th century where OCG is placed 6th, but on this diptych Rome was named first. Russia became autocephalous in 16th century. These are historical facts. During this time they requested to be put 3d (after Church of Alexandria) but that could not have been done for a definite reason. So and thus Russia was offered 5th place (not including Rome) and OCG was moved down to 6th, which probably was beneficial for the whole Orthodoxy. In 19th century Russians against all truth and Orthodox faith annulled the autocephaly of OCG. Later it was restored (in 1947) and our Patriarch was back to 6th place. Then there were some problems with Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople refusing to recognize OCG as autocephalous. After historical proof of OCG's autocephaly was presented to them they finally recognized OCG as autocephalous. In fact there was an attampt from the Church of Antioch to subdue OCG under their jurisdiction in the 11th century but Great Georgian Saint Georgi Athoneli (George the Athonite) proved them wrong (another interesting story).

OCA has on its website the diptych from 2008 and this is the list:
Quote
To His Holiness, BARTHOLOMEW, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and
Ecumenical Patriarch: Many Years!

To His Beatitude, THEODOROS, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa: Many
Y ears!

To His Beatitude, IGNATIUS, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East: Many Years!

To His Beatitude, THEOPHILUS, Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem and All Palestine: Many Years!

To His Holiness, ALEKSY, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia: Many Years!

To His Holiness, ILIA, Catholicos and Patriarch of All Georgia: Many Years!

To His Holiness, PAVLE, Patriarch of Serbia: Many Years!

To His Beatitude, DANIEL, Patriarch of Romania: Many Years!

To His Holiness, MAXIM, Patriarch of Bulgaria: Many Years!

To His Beatitude, CHRYSOSTOMOS, Archbishop of New Justiniana and All Cyprus: Many Years!

To His Beatitude, IERONYMOS, Archbishop of Athens and All Greece: Many Years!

To His Beatitude, ANASTASIOS, Archbishop of Tirana and All Albania: Many Years!

To His Beatitude, SAWA, Metropolitan of Warsaw and All Poland: Many Years!

To His Beatitude, KRYSTOF, Metropolitan of the Czech Lands and Slovakia: Many Years!

To His Beatitude, JONAH, Archbishop of Washington, Metropolitan of All America and Canada: Many Years!

To all Orthodox Metropolitans, Archbishops, and Bishops: Many Years! To all Orthodox Christians: Many Years!

Same for 2007, 2009 and 2010.

P.S. I do not care where in this list Our Mother Church is. Most important thing is the revival of faith in Georgia. All this was the info since many people do not know about it.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #117 on: March 29, 2011, 12:46:42 AM »

Her only purpose on an Orthodox board is to somehow "educate" us about the "misconceptions" of the Catholic Church, but does not delve into discussing Orthodox faith, theology, history and the like. Her presence is extraneous and has exhibited troll like behavior in the past. Her primary intent is to provoke an emotional response from the Orthodox without actually providing any substantial discourse.

Instead of addressing what I replied to, she quipped one quote. But thanks for adding nothing to this discussion.

If you only had such insight into your own psyche.
Love the ad hominems, there an ignore button on this board?

An ad hominem is not a fallacy necessarily. Weird to decry it, when nearly the entirety of a few posts of yours were just that.

Thank you Orthonorm...thanks very much.
Logged

mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #118 on: March 29, 2011, 02:44:44 AM »

So and thus Russia was offered 5th place (not including Rome) and OCG was moved down to 6th, which probably was beneficial for the whole Orthodoxy.

Why do you think that?
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #119 on: April 01, 2011, 05:46:23 PM »

So and thus Russia was offered 5th place (not including Rome) and OCG was moved down to 6th, which probably was beneficial for the whole Orthodoxy.

Why do you think that?
Sorry for late response. To answer your question, it was just my opinion. I do not want to blame Russians all the time (though they did unimaginable evil to Georgian Orthodox Church); so I said what I said. Besides during that period Russia was strongest Orthodox country and could "defend" (nothing can really defend Orthodoxy other then God himself) Orthodoxy. To do so they could have requested certain privileges - nothing unusual politically speaking.
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #120 on: April 02, 2011, 05:28:12 AM »

I don't really mind ,Curious Though ,How did Russia end up being ahead of Serbia in the diptychs...Since the Balkans has Orthodox Christianty 200 yrs earlier.....I wouldn't mind even if serbia is last on the list.... it say's the Last shall be First In the Kingdom...... Grin
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #121 on: April 02, 2011, 06:55:50 AM »

Nobody has yet picked up on what I was trying to get at. That quote says that the Church of Serbia would be willing to move down from spot #5. However, I have never heard of Serbia being in spot #5 either way. I have heard of Russia being spot #5. I have heard of Georgia being spot #5. I have never heard of Serbia being spot #5. What's the deal?
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #122 on: April 02, 2011, 06:58:14 AM »

I don't really mind ,Curious Though ,How did Russia end up being ahead of Serbia in the diptychs...

Because Russia has actually retained autocephaly for the past 500 or so years. Serbia attained autocephaly first before Russia, but it hasn't maintained it consistently through that period of time, so it was dropping in and out of the diptychs.
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #123 on: April 03, 2011, 02:48:31 AM »

Nobody has yet picked up on what I was trying to get at. That quote says that the Church of Serbia would be willing to move down from spot #5. However, I have never heard of Serbia being in spot #5 either way. I have heard of Russia being spot #5. I have heard of Georgia being spot #5. I have never heard of Serbia being spot #5. What's the deal?
Sorry, I did not notice that and I was thinking Serbia moved down from spot 6 to 7 and Georgia from 7 to 6, when I gave you my response. I think it was mechanical error on Irish Hermits side.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #124 on: April 03, 2011, 12:25:54 PM »

Does where a Church ranks on the diptychs of the Eastern Orthodox Church really matter that much though? I mean, there are no privileges to a high rank since, according to Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, they are all equal, right?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #125 on: April 03, 2011, 03:45:15 PM »

Does where a Church ranks on the diptychs of the Eastern Orthodox Church really matter that much though? I mean, there are no privileges to a high rank since, according to Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, they are all equal, right?

Good question. Maybe this is an area where "we're not as different as we thought".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #126 on: April 05, 2011, 10:47:46 AM »

1.Abp.Sviatoslav was enthroned as archbishop major of the Catholic Kyiv Patriarchate
2. Russian Patriarch Cyril wants to accept Ukrainian citizenship and become Patriarch of Moscow and Kyiv!!!(Polish source: http://www.rp.pl/artykul/637526_Bitwa-religijna-o-Kijow.html )
3. Huh
I would like to scream: Ecumenism is in its final stages(!!) The Rhine has stopped flowing into the Tiber! Ecumenism is slowly dying, but its death is covered by the fact, that one of the Rhine fathers is reverting the Church to the orthodox course. I think that in the next Papacy, we might hear condemnations of syncretism by the Pope.
The Ukrainian nation has regained its independence, and wants to be a part of Europe, not Eurasia, the Catholic Patriarch of Kyiv has been enthroned, now I expect the Holy Ghost, in 20-50 years will convert the entire Ukrainian nation to its true faith, the Greko-Slavonic Catholic Faith. Just the thing is that the Ukrainian nationalists from Galicja should give up reading Evola and Doncov, and, read and preach the Gospels.
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #127 on: April 05, 2011, 11:10:31 AM »

2. Russian Patriarch Cyril wants to accept Ukrainian citizenship and become Patriarch of Moscow and Kyiv!!!(Polish source: http://www.rp.pl/artykul/637526_Bitwa-religijna-o-Kijow.html )

KP Hierarchs suppose that "Russian Patriarch Cyril wants to accept Ukrainian citizenship and become Patriarch of Moscow and Kyiv!!!". Please, read carefully.


Quote
Just the thing is that the Ukrainian nationalists from Galicja should give up reading Evola and Doncov, and, read and preach the Gospels.

Just the thing is that the Ukrainians should stop being Ukrainians.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,812


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #128 on: April 05, 2011, 03:45:28 PM »

2. Russian Patriarch Cyril wants to accept Ukrainian citizenship and become Patriarch of Moscow and Kyiv!!!(Polish source: http://www.rp.pl/artykul/637526_Bitwa-religijna-o-Kijow.html )

KP Hierarchs suppose that "Russian Patriarch Cyril wants to accept Ukrainian citizenship and become Patriarch of Moscow and Kyiv!!!". Please, read carefully.


Quote
Just the thing is that the Ukrainian nationalists from Galicja should give up reading Evola and Doncov, and, read and preach the Gospels.

Just the thing is that the Ukrainians should stop being Ukrainians.

Well, if my Google translator from the Polish is correct, it sounds as if the 'information' being reported upon comes from the UOC-KP side. Does anyone have source material that directly ties this into the MP?

Such a move would not be well received in much of Ukraine, to say the least. However, the notion that it would cause a mass migration to Greek Catholicism seems to be not much more than a pipe dream.

I think that my own background allows me to say, let Greek Catholics be Greek Catholics if that is what they desire, but let the Orthodox resolve their own issues.

Once again, as they all fiddle around, both Orthodox and Greek Catholics, the only beneficiaries of this are the Protestants and the secular Russians.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #129 on: April 05, 2011, 08:01:04 PM »

At the risk of sounding ignorant, synLeszka's just sounded weird to me. (At first I figured it was because I'm Catholic; then I realized that he/she is too.) So I'm just kinda waiting to see what else is said.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #130 on: April 08, 2011, 10:20:02 AM »

I would like to start a poll here discussing the obstacles of reunion between Orthodox and Roman Catholics, and which issues we believe are legitimate obstacles and which can be circumvented via economy.

This may not be addressing your question precisely, but I think one of the biggest reasons that ecumenical progress isn't made is that many people are interested in a sort of cheap ecumenism -- as in, "We're already all the same."
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #131 on: April 08, 2011, 01:07:13 PM »

I would like to start a poll here discussing the obstacles of reunion between Orthodox and Roman Catholics, and which issues we believe are legitimate obstacles and which can be circumvented via economy.

This may not be addressing your question precisely, but I think one of the biggest reasons that ecumenical progress isn't made is that many people are interested in a sort of cheap ecumenism -- as in, "We're already all the same."
It is for this reason that I am glad to have found this forum. Even though it is saddening that there is so much that separates us, at least I am not being ignorantly optimistic like I used to be.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #132 on: April 09, 2011, 02:07:31 PM »

This may not be addressing your question precisely, but I think one of the biggest reasons that ecumenical progress isn't made is that many people are interested in a sort of cheap ecumenism -- as in, "We're already all the same."
It is for this reason that I am glad to have found this forum. Even though it is saddening that there is so much that separates us, at least I am not being ignorantly optimistic like I used to be.

Let me guess ... you used to be Anglican?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #133 on: April 09, 2011, 11:15:04 PM »

This may not be addressing your question precisely, but I think one of the biggest reasons that ecumenical progress isn't made is that many people are interested in a sort of cheap ecumenism -- as in, "We're already all the same."
It is for this reason that I am glad to have found this forum. Even though it is saddening that there is so much that separates us, at least I am not being ignorantly optimistic like I used to be.

Let me guess ... you used to be Anglican?
No. United Methodist, catechized in Lutheran School, then Wesleyan.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,237


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #134 on: April 09, 2011, 11:21:53 PM »

This may not be addressing your question precisely, but I think one of the biggest reasons that ecumenical progress isn't made is that many people are interested in a sort of cheap ecumenism -- as in, "We're already all the same."
It is for this reason that I am glad to have found this forum. Even though it is saddening that there is so much that separates us, at least I am not being ignorantly optimistic like I used to be.

Let me guess ... you used to be Anglican?

While I would prefer the term overly optimistic instead of the one used above, almost every person* that is Roman Catholic that I've met could be described in this way. There seems to be a general idea that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are just sister Churches or basically the same Church, and it was merely some pesky political issues a long long time ago in a land far far away that resulted in the division.


*I am excluding 1) people who post on internet forums, and 2) people who are in traditionalist Catholic groups.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 11:22:50 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #135 on: April 10, 2011, 02:48:11 PM »

This may not be addressing your question precisely, but I think one of the biggest reasons that ecumenical progress isn't made is that many people are interested in a sort of cheap ecumenism -- as in, "We're already all the same."
It is for this reason that I am glad to have found this forum. Even though it is saddening that there is so much that separates us, at least I am not being ignorantly optimistic like I used to be.

Let me guess ... you used to be Anglican?

While I would prefer the term overly optimistic instead of the one used above, almost every person* that is Roman Catholic that I've met could be described in this way. There seems to be a general idea that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are just sister Churches or basically the same Church, and it was merely some pesky political issues a long long time ago in a land far far away that resulted in the division.


*I am excluding 1) people who post on internet forums, and 2) people who are in traditionalist Catholic groups.

Let me start by saying that what I posted to Wyatt yesterday afternoon (to wit "Let me guess ... you used to be Anglican?") was meant as a joke. Granted, it wasn't a very good joke, and may have even been a little mean-spirited in the way it stereotypes Anglicans.

Funny thing is, I think you've illustrated that Orthodox tend to stereotype Catholics in much the same way that Catholics stereotype Anglicans. Okay, sure there are lot of Catholics (and Anglicans of course) who favor some sort of cheap ecumenism, or whatever you want to call it; but take a look at the official dialogues (whether Catholic-Orthodox, Catholic-Anglican, Orthodox-Anglican, etc.). Do you really think that those meetings are nothing more than "You know what? We're really the same already. Let just go ahead and declare full communion with each other. If anyone complains we'll say that they're unecumenical."?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #136 on: April 10, 2011, 02:50:42 PM »


Quote
Just the thing is that the Ukrainian nationalists from Galicja should give up reading Evola and Doncov, and, read and preach the Gospels.

Just the thing is that the Ukrainians should stop being Ukrainians.
A ha!
Huh It sounds as if that is an apology of Sovietism. The funny thing being is that in Belarus and Ukraine, the governments are more pro-Soviet than in Russia. I do not understand this but it is so.
Julius Evola was an Italian neo-pagan imperialist fascist ideologian, who lived in the 20th century, who today is quite popular in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.
(I think everyone knows that I like to create an alternate reality on the internet.)
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,237


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #137 on: April 10, 2011, 02:53:03 PM »

Funny thing is, I think you've illustrated that Orthodox tend to stereotype Catholics in much the same way that Catholics stereotype Anglicans. Okay, sure there are lot of Catholics (and Anglicans of course) who favor some sort of cheap ecumenism, or whatever you want to call it; but take a look at the official dialogues (whether Catholic-Orthodox, Catholic-Anglican, Orthodox-Anglican, etc.). Do you really think that those meetings are nothing more than "You know what? We're really the same already. Let just go ahead and declare full communion with each other. If anyone complains we'll say that they're unecumenical."?

I was mostly thinking of conversations with Catholic family members, especially my grandparents and uncle. Nonetheless, I don't think--and I shouldn't have implied--that so many Catholics are willy nilly about such things. So, fair enough, I was indeed stereotyping and shouldn't have done so.
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Mark Bej
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Jurisdiction: UGCC
Posts: 3


« Reply #138 on: April 12, 2011, 07:40:25 PM »

SolEX01 wrote:

I don't think Proselytism is as significant of an issue perhaps when dealing with the Eastern Catholics.  Rome would have to clarify their existence and force them to become Latin Rite like the rest of Roman Catholicism or allow them to schism.  Rome would have to abolish the Eastern Catholic eparchies in the United States and elsewhere and force them under the nearest Latin Rite Diocese/Archdiocese.

Most Eastern Catholics (further: ECs) certainly start out that way as a result of their parents' choice to baptize them in that communion. However, as adults, they remain ECs by their own choice. Their disappearance and/or absorption have wished for by the more polemical on both sides of the East-West Christian divide, but such a wish is unrealistic.

"Force [Eastern Catholics] to become Latin Rite" how? And would this not violate the 34th Apostolic Canon? Would this not be exactly the sort of overbearing, egregious exercise of papal primacy that is at the heart of the problem? Might this not become a repetition of what happened in the Antiochian and Alexandrian churches in the first millenium? And who would carry out the dictum? There is no Empire to enforce this sort of thing? And would not the press have a field day? "United Catholic-Orthodox hierarchy expels 100+ bishops." And what of the Eastern Catholics' own wishes? Are their wishes not to be respected, and have they no right of self-determination?

"Allow them to schism" ... I'm not sure what the implication is. Do you mean to schism into their own, non-canonical (from the view of a newly reunited Rome-Constantinople) jurisdiction? But this would seem to oppose exactly one of the major complaints of the Orthodox vis-à-vis Uniatism, that union merely resulted in a different schism. "God persuades, He does not compel; for violence is foreign to the divine nature" [Letter to Diognetus, 2nd c.]

"Rome would have to abolish the Eastern Catholic eparchies" ... Presumably, you mean that the eparchies of the current Orthodox communion would be preserved. Very well, but which ones? Who would be protos in the United States, for example? The Russian metropolitan? Or the Greek? Or would the country be split into Alaska and northern west coast for the former, and the rest of the country for the latter? And who decides? Or ... since the diocese of the (RC) Archbishop of Baltimore would be the oldest founded among all the dioceses of the putatively reunited church, would all of the present Orthodox parishes come under the jurisdiction of the local Latin bishop?

I think that there is far too little realization, by both sides, of the desire, yes, historically, but even to the present day, of the current EC churches to be/remain in communion with both Rome and Constantinople. This was certainly the case with at least the Melkites, who managed to maintain communion far beyond 1054 (let alone 863), possibly as late 1724, and the Ukrainian bishops, who managed the same through at least the Tatar onslaught (1240). Regardless, the affinity for Rome that resulted in the unia is ofter far overinterpreted as a desire to become Latin. Where Rome and Constantinople to be reconciled, rest assured that the EC churches would unite with their counterparts in the Orthodox church, not with the Latins, and schism. With respect to the largest of the Eastern Catholic churches, the Ukrainian, one thing that surely will not happen is a forced union with the Moscow Patriarchate - the recognition of the claims of Moscow by Jeremiah II was one of the issues that helped decide the question of union little more than a decade later.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,237


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #139 on: April 12, 2011, 07:43:28 PM »

Welcome to the forum, Mark.
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 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 0.496 seconds with 169 queries.