OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 22, 2014, 12:18:43 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
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 7885 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,423


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


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: 861


Most Holy Theotokos Save 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

"Come ye take light from The Light that is never overtaken by night and glorify the Christ, who is risen from the dead"
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: 861


Most Holy Theotokos Save 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

"Come ye take light from The Light that is never overtaken by night and glorify the Christ, who is risen from the dead"
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: 6,123



« 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: 6,123



« 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: 861


Most Holy Theotokos Save 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

"Come ye take light from The Light that is never overtaken by night and glorify the Christ, who is risen from the dead"
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
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,423


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


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: 6,123



« 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: 6,123



« 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: 6,123



« 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
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,921



« 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: 6,123



« 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
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,921



« 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: 6,123



« 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: 2,435



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
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,921



« 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
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,423


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


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: 6,123



« 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: 2,435



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
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,921



« 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
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 0.22 seconds with 74 queries.