Topic: Is it right for the Vatican to financially support the Eastern Orthodox Church?

[lubeltri]

What is it about young converts? I'm sorry, but do some of them think they have to prove something? "I'll read everything there is to read (or just act like it), and then go shove it in someone else's face"?

 

The only thing he's doing is pushing people away.

What is that line about salt losing it's saltiness, and becoming worthless or something like that?
Yeah..I read that somewhere.

What are you people afraid of?
When were you planning on sharing the words of Saints like :
St. Symeon states, of the pope, “not only do we have no communion, but we also call him a heretic. On account of their blasphemy against the Holy Spirit with their teaching of the Filioque, they forfeited the presence of the Holy Spirit and therefore everything of theirs is deprived of Grace."

Was it part of the plan?
Get in close, then drop it on them over coffee?
People NEED to hear this stuff.
As I said, it's not a matter of feelings.
It's a matter of Truth.

Going on like it's all ok, that's not just wrong, that's tragic.

I hope, in the midst of your continuing obsession with Catholicism, you find a little time to do some Greek Orthodoxy. You are Greek Orthodox, I understand? If the anti-Christ is imminent as you think, then it might best to work on that rather than spend your time attacking filthy, stinking Romish evils.

[Eykos]

You lot view Christ as coming to take the hit for mankind's sin, kind of like a "whipping boy".

This is wrong. Very wrong.

I thought that the teaching was according to Scripture: “Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Ephesians 5:2).
How should we view this Scriptural teaching?

"God became man, so that man might become god"
-St. Athanasius the Great.

Christ became man, suffered, died, freed those in the tomb, rose again, defeating death..
..that by joining with Christ in Communion, we might partake of the same suffering, the same death, and the same resurrection.

He defeated death, then offered his essence to us, that we might do the same.

There's a beautiful icon of Christ, with the Cross laying down forming a bridge over Hades, with Christ guiding souls across.


It's got nothing to do with "atonement" or him "taking the hit" for mankind.

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

And?
Isaiah. It's a good book. What's your point?

[Eykos]

What is it about young converts? I'm sorry, but do some of them think they have to prove something? "I'll read everything there is to read (or just act like it), and then go shove it in someone else's face"?

 

The only thing he's doing is pushing people away.

What is that line about salt losing it's saltiness, and becoming worthless or something like that?
Yeah..I read that somewhere.

What are you people afraid of?
When were you planning on sharing the words of Saints like :
St. Symeon states, of the pope, “not only do we have no communion, but we also call him a heretic. On account of their blasphemy against the Holy Spirit with their teaching of the Filioque, they forfeited the presence of the Holy Spirit and therefore everything of theirs is deprived of Grace."

Was it part of the plan?
Get in close, then drop it on them over coffee?
People NEED to hear this stuff.
As I said, it's not a matter of feelings.
It's a matter of Truth.

Going on like it's all ok, that's not just wrong, that's tragic.

I hope, in the midst of your continuing obsession with Catholicism, you find a little time to do some Greek Orthodoxy. You are Greek Orthodox, I understand? If the anti-Christ is imminent as you think, then it might best to work on that rather than spend your time attacking filthy, stinking Romish evils.

I'm answering this thread, while keeping up with two others, another on another forum, watching a Youtube video and playing Risk online in the background.
You're not THAT important.

[lubeltri]

I'm answering this thread, while keeping up with two others, another on another forum, watching a Youtube video and playing Risk online in the background.
You're not THAT important.

Glad to hear it.  Knock yourself out.

[Alcuin]

I think probably what we should do is make sure to call each other heretics and schismatics as much as possible, make sure to emphasize that we're the only ones who know the truth, and generally act like bad language removed - MK towards one another.

That seems like the best approach.

Scurrilous language won't be tolerated here. 7-day-long warning - Michał Kalina.

[Eykos]

I think probably what we should do is make sure to call each other heretics and schismatics as much as possible, make sure to emphasize that we're the only ones who know the truth, and generally act like bad language removed - MK towards one another.

That seems like the best approach.

I've not been a bad language removed - MK to anyone.

I'm just not going to "soften" the words of the Saints for the sake of the Catholics here.

Why anyone would do such a disservice to anyone is beyond me.

[biro]

I think probably what we should do is make sure to call each other heretics and schismatics as much as possible, make sure to emphasize that we're the only ones who know the truth, and generally act like bad language removed - MK towards one another.

That seems like the best approach.

Sure!  

[lubeltri]

I think probably what we should do is make sure to call each other heretics and schismatics as much as possible, make sure to emphasize that we're the only ones who know the truth, and generally act like bad language removed - MK towards one another.

That seems like the best approach.

I've not been a bad language removed - MK to anyone.

I'm just not going to "soften" the words of the Saints for the sake of the Catholics here.

Why anyone would do such a disservice to anyone is beyond me.

Indeed. In fact, you are doing me a great service---by confirming my desire to remain a Catholic. Thanks, Kyle!  

[ozgeorge]

And any..any..any..union with the Perfect, One, True Church, with a rotting, fracturing, thousand years worth of decomposed flesh covered, dying Catholic church plays right into the hands of the Antichrist, and signals the beginning of the endtimes.

The "endtimes" must have begun in 1439 then.

No, but Constantinople fell and Hagia Sophia was desecrated as punishment.
The next one will be much, much worse.

Goodness me. You must have quite a charism to know the Divine judgements with such certitude.  
Seriously though, I can see from your posts that you have a sharp mind. It just worries me that your current zeal is a bit misdirected, and that when you finally realise this, you will be burnt out. I can't tell you how to live your life. The only thing I can offer you is to allow you to make the same mistakes I did and not say 'I told you so'.

[Eykos]

I think probably what we should do is make sure to call each other heretics and schismatics as much as possible, make sure to emphasize that we're the only ones who know the truth, and generally act like bad language removed - MK towards one another.

That seems like the best approach.

I've not been a bad language removed - MK to anyone.

I'm just not going to "soften" the words of the Saints for the sake of the Catholics here.

Why anyone would do such a disservice to anyone is beyond me.

Indeed. In fact, you are doing me a great service---by confirming my desire to remain a Catholic!  

You make the choice, you answer for it.

[Eykos]

And any..any..any..union with the Perfect, One, True Church, with a rotting, fracturing, thousand years worth of decomposed flesh covered, dying Catholic church plays right into the hands of the Antichrist, and signals the beginning of the endtimes.

The "endtimes" must have begun in 1439 then.

No, but Constantinople fell and Hagia Sophia was desecrated as punishment.
The next one will be much, much worse.

Goodness me. You must have quite a charism to know the Divine judgements with such certitude.  
Seriously though, I can see from your posts that you have a sharp mind. It just worries me that your current zeal is a bit misdirected, and that when you finally realise this, you will be burnt out. I can't tell you how to live your life. The only thing I can offer you is to allow you to make the same mistakes I did and not say 'I told you so'.

Every Greek child knows why Constantinople fell, it's no secret.

[ozgeorge]

And any..any..any..union with the Perfect, One, True Church, with a rotting, fracturing, thousand years worth of decomposed flesh covered, dying Catholic church plays right into the hands of the Antichrist, and signals the beginning of the endtimes.

The "endtimes" must have begun in 1439 then.

No, but Constantinople fell and Hagia Sophia was desecrated as punishment.
The next one will be much, much worse.

Goodness me. You must have quite a charism to know the Divine judgements with such certitude.  
Seriously though, I can see from your posts that you have a sharp mind. It just worries me that your current zeal is a bit misdirected, and that when you finally realise this, you will be burnt out. I can't tell you how to live your life. The only thing I can offer you is to allow you to make the same mistakes I did and not say 'I told you so'.

Every Greek child knows why Constantinople fell, it's no secret.

Yes. Constantinople fell because such was the Will of God. But suffering is not necessarily a punishment, or do you now think that Christ was crucified as a punishment?

[lubeltri]

Yes. Constantinople fell because such was the Will of God. But suffering is not necessarily a punishment, or do you now think that Christ was crucified as a punishment?

 

George. Seriously. Coffee-spurtingly funny.

[Eykos]

And any..any..any..union with the Perfect, One, True Church, with a rotting, fracturing, thousand years worth of decomposed flesh covered, dying Catholic church plays right into the hands of the Antichrist, and signals the beginning of the endtimes.

The "endtimes" must have begun in 1439 then.

No, but Constantinople fell and Hagia Sophia was desecrated as punishment.
The next one will be much, much worse.

Goodness me. You must have quite a charism to know the Divine judgements with such certitude.  
Seriously though, I can see from your posts that you have a sharp mind. It just worries me that your current zeal is a bit misdirected, and that when you finally realise this, you will be burnt out. I can't tell you how to live your life. The only thing I can offer you is to allow you to make the same mistakes I did and not say 'I told you so'.

Every Greek child knows why Constantinople fell, it's no secret.

Yes. Constantinople fell because such was the Will of God. But suffering is not necessarily a punishment, or do you now think that Christ was crucified as a punishment?

No, but that's different than God withdrawing his protection from the holiest city on Earth.
When the Icon of the Theotokos (Can't remember which one) ascended into Heaven on the Eve of the city falling, it was a sign that God had withdrawn his protection.

Any monk on Athos can tell you why Constantinople fell.

It was because of the Church's betrayal of what had been entrusted to it with the false union.


Come on people, is there not a Greek or Serb among you?
I've had this told to me by elderly Greek ladies hundreds of times..

Goodness..what kind of Orthodox forum is this?

[ozgeorge]

And any..any..any..union with the Perfect, One, True Church, with a rotting, fracturing, thousand years worth of decomposed flesh covered, dying Catholic church plays right into the hands of the Antichrist, and signals the beginning of the endtimes.

The "endtimes" must have begun in 1439 then.

No, but Constantinople fell and Hagia Sophia was desecrated as punishment.
The next one will be much, much worse.

Goodness me. You must have quite a charism to know the Divine judgements with such certitude.  
Seriously though, I can see from your posts that you have a sharp mind. It just worries me that your current zeal is a bit misdirected, and that when you finally realise this, you will be burnt out. I can't tell you how to live your life. The only thing I can offer you is to allow you to make the same mistakes I did and not say 'I told you so'.

Every Greek child knows why Constantinople fell, it's no secret.

Yes. Constantinople fell because such was the Will of God. But suffering is not necessarily a punishment, or do you now think that Christ was crucified as a punishment?

No, but that's different than God withdrawing his protection from the holiest city on Earth.
When the Icon of the Theotokos (Can't remember which one) ascended into Heaven on the Eve of the city falling, it was a sign that God had withdrawn his protection.

Why is it different? What wrong did Job do that God withdrew His protection from him? Do you remember God's answer to Job's friends who suggested various "reasons" or "explanations" for Job's suffering. Have a read again.

Any monk on Athos can tell you why Constantinople fell.
It was because of the Church's betrayal of what had been entrusted to it with the false union.

My first Spiritual Father was Elder Paisius. My second was Elder Joseph of Vatopedi. I have spent three Great Fasts on the Holy Mountain. I have heard no such thing as you suggest.

Come on people, is there not a Greek or Serb among you?

I am Pontian. My Grandparents and Parents on both sides were refugees who fled the burning of Smyrna in rickety fishing boats on the night of September 13th 1922.

I've had this told to me by elderly Greek ladies hundreds of times..

Really? "Hundreds" of times?

Goodness..what kind of Orthodox forum is this?

It is a place where people can share ideas. But don't be surprised if everyone doesn't share yours.

[WetCatechumen]

What, is there a strong push to not step on the toes of the Papists?

Catholic doctrine is wrong.
They view Christ in terms of "The Atonement".

Meaning that the Christ that they know, is fundamentally different than the Christ that the True Church knows.

They have no concept of Theosis.

Even if they weren't separated from the grace of the True Church (and they are), they STILL would hold nothing any more Salvific than say, the Mormon church. (Which is nothing Salvific at all, mind you)

It's not a matter of hurt feelings or politeness, it's just the truth.
You'll find many that try to disagree.
You'll find many on the wrong side of every discussion.
You found many well-intentioned Orthodox on the wrong side of the Iconoclastic controversy, and they suddenly found themselves heretics and cut off from Grace.

I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.

Get over it, renounce Catholicism and become Orthodox.
Salvation is here. The Vatican can do nothing for you.


This sudden push for "Union" is simply a fulfillment of prophesy, I don't expect it to go away.
Elder Joseph said flat out that the Spirit of Antichrist is pushing for a False Union in preparation for his coming.
The True Church will probably be underground by the time my children are grown.
Sad. But those days are upon us.

That is patently untrue. We have a very strongly developed concept of deification (the Latin word for the same thing).

As for the comment about Mormonism - well, I know some Mormons. Lots of Mormons, actually. I went to Sacrament Meeting today to bid farewell to one of my friends who is about to leave on his mission, and went to a party this evening to greet a friend who just returned and say farewell to yet another friend leaving on his mission.

Yeah, their religion is wrong - really wrong. But I know men who do have not valid baptisms who show forth evidence of the grace of Christ in their life. Is it sacramental grace? No. It's not. But I recognize the fruits of the Holy Spirit when I see it.

The reality is much more complex than your post reveals. Mormonism doesn't have sacramental grace - the Catholic Church does - in fact, it has the fullness of it. Obviously, we disagree on this point.

But even Mormonism teaches the Resurrection. They teach charity. They teach love of neighbor and of God. Yes, their concepts of the One True God are severely warped - but there are the vestiges of truth within it - and those vestigies, while I have no idea if they will effect the salvation of some of my close friends, they at least bring forth true spiritual and Christian fruit which can only be the work of the Holy Spirit.

So many sheep without, so many wolves within. The issue is so much more complex than you seem to believe.

[WetCatechumen]

And any..any..any..union with the Perfect, One, True Church, with a rotting, fracturing, thousand years worth of decomposed flesh covered, dying Catholic church plays right into the hands of the Antichrist, and signals the beginning of the endtimes.

The "endtimes" must have begun in 1439 then.

No, but Constantinople fell and Hagia Sophia was desecrated as punishment.
The next one will be much, much worse.

Goodness me. You must have quite a charism to know the Divine judgements with such certitude.  
Seriously though, I can see from your posts that you have a sharp mind. It just worries me that your current zeal is a bit misdirected, and that when you finally realise this, you will be burnt out. I can't tell you how to live your life. The only thing I can offer you is to allow you to make the same mistakes I did and not say 'I told you so'.

Every Greek child knows why Constantinople fell, it's no secret.

Yes. Constantinople fell because such was the Will of God. But suffering is not necessarily a punishment, or do you now think that Christ was crucified as a punishment?

No, but that's different than God withdrawing his protection from the holiest city on Earth.
When the Icon of the Theotokos (Can't remember which one) ascended into Heaven on the Eve of the city falling, it was a sign that God had withdrawn his protection.

Any monk on Athos can tell you why Constantinople fell.

It was because of the Church's betrayal of what had been entrusted to it with the false union.


Come on people, is there not a Greek or Serb among you?
I've had this told to me by elderly Greek ladies hundreds of times..

Goodness..what kind of Orthodox forum is this?

Then why didn't it rise again after your bishops pulled a 180 and began to follow Mark of Ephesus, the lone man who stood up against the "false" Union of Ferrara-Florence?

When union began to dissolve from the 9th Century to the 15th Century, why did God punish the Greek churches with domination under Islam and persecution but rewarded the Latin Church with salvation from Islam, allowing it to convert nearly the entirety of the New World to its form of Christianity, to push into Africa and India and Japan and China. It is because of this salvation from Islam that the number of Roman Catholics (yes, many are merely nominal - but the same is laid at the feet of the Orthodox) is four times that of the Orthodox and Greek Catholics combined.

Sorry, but this logic makes as much sense to me as Hurricane Katrina being a punishment for New Orleans' wickedness (it may have been - but I am not a prophet and cannot say) or a punishment for gay marriage or whatever.

As Job proves, sometimes, for the benefit of men who are holy and have not sinned, God sometimes withdraws his protection for other reasons.

[Salpy]

I am asking that people stop posting personal information from outside the forum about other posters.  Thank you.

[Peter J]

You lot view Christ as coming to take the hit for mankind's sin, kind of like a "whipping boy".

This is wrong. Very wrong.

I thought that the teaching was according to Scripture: “Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Ephesians 5:2).
How should we view this Scriptural teaching?

"God became man, so that man might become god"
-St. Athanasius the Great.

Christ became man, suffered, died, freed those in the tomb, rose again, defeating death..
..that by joining with Christ in Communion, we might partake of the same suffering, the same death, and the same resurrection.

He defeated death, then offered his essence to us, that we might do the same.

There's a beautiful icon of Christ, with the Cross laying down forming a bridge over Hades, with Christ guiding souls across.


It's got nothing to do with "atonement" or him "taking the hit" for mankind.

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

Nice.

[Peter J]

Some Protestants must have the same cultural issues, because I've heard quite a number of Protestants (or "non-denominationals") ask questions like "Are you Christian or Catholic," meaning to put Catholics into a whole other category from themselves.

That sounds about right.

BTW, the Catholic Answers Forum has a sub-forum called "Non-Catholic Religions". (You know, like Hinduism, Protestantism, Mormonism, Islam, Orthodoxy, Buddhism, etc.)

[Peter J]

To their mindset, one cannot be a Christian without being a member of the Church.

So the Ukranian Greek Eastern Catholics are not Christians?
BTW, they are not Catholics either, according to what I read here.
So let me see if I have this correct: it is only the Eastern Orthodox who are Christians and Catholics?
Do you also exclude the Armenian Orthodox or the Oriental Orthodox and say they are not Christians also?  

That's a good question.

[podkarpatska]

Our Lord said that to beware of false prophets in sheeps' clothing and that not all who cry out 'Lord, Lord' shall enter into His Kingdom. I will put my trust in the long established teachings of the Church and not fall under the sway of this elder or that elder whose words may not have passed the test of time. Mere residence on one mountain or another, residing in this city or that city, or sitting upon one throne or another for that matter does not imbue one with Grace or necessarily the truth.

[biro]

Our Lord said that to beware of false prophets in sheeps' clothing and that not all who cry out 'Lord, Lord' shall enter into His Kingdom. I will put my trust in the long established teachings of the Church and not fall under the sway of this elder or that elder whose words may not have passed the test of time. Mere residence on one mountain or another, residing in this city or that city, or sitting upon one throne or another for that matter does not imbue one with Grace or necessarily the truth.

True. I need to pray, also.

[Jharek Carnelian]

I'm answering this thread, while keeping up with two others, another on another forum, watching a Youtube video and playing Risk online in the background.
You're not THAT important.

Matthew 25:40

 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Or in other words ALL men are THAT important.

[Wyatt]

No, but that's different than God withdrawing his protection from the holiest city on Earth.

This is not true. Old Rome is fine.

[elijahmaria]

I'm answering this thread, while keeping up with two others, another on another forum, watching a Youtube video and playing Risk online in the background.
You're not THAT important.

Matthew 25:40

 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Or in other words ALL men are THAT important.

Perfect 

[ozgeorge]

You lot view Christ as coming to take the hit for mankind's sin, kind of like a "whipping boy".

This is wrong. Very wrong.

I thought that the teaching was according to Scripture: “Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Ephesians 5:2).
How should we view this Scriptural teaching?

"God became man, so that man might become god"
-St. Athanasius the Great.

Christ became man, suffered, died, freed those in the tomb, rose again, defeating death..
..that by joining with Christ in Communion, we might partake of the same suffering, the same death, and the same resurrection.

He defeated death, then offered his essence to us, that we might do the same.

There's a beautiful icon of Christ, with the Cross laying down forming a bridge over Hades, with Christ guiding souls across.


It's got nothing to do with "atonement" or him "taking the hit" for mankind.

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

Nice.

Which isn't atonement, no matter how much you insist it is.

"To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the evil one, sold under sin, and received pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask, to who was this offered and to what cause? If to the evil one, fie upon the outrage! The robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and as such has an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone all together.
But first I ask, how? For it was not by Him (God) that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only Begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac when he was being offered by his father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in place of a human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself and overcome the tryant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things."
-St. Gregory the Theologian, Second Oration on Pascha

[Wyatt]

"To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the evil one, sold under sin, and received pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask, to who was this offered and to what cause? If to the evil one, fie upon the outrage! The robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and as such has an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone all together.
But first I ask, how? For it was not by Him (God) that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only Begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac when he was being offered by his father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in place of a human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself and overcome the tryant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things."
-St. Gregory the Theologian, Second Oration on Pascha

The Paschal sacrifice was atonement according to the second definition of atonement on Merriam Webster:

atonement - the reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atonement


All of the Old Testament sacrifices, which were a foretaste of the ultimate sacrifice of the Lamb of God, were for the purpose of atoning for sins, so what makes you think that Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross was not for atonement of sins?

[ozgeorge]

"To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the evil one, sold under sin, and received pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask, to who was this offered and to what cause? If to the evil one, fie upon the outrage! The robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and as such has an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone all together.
But first I ask, how? For it was not by Him (God) that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only Begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac when he was being offered by his father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in place of a human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself and overcome the tryant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things."
-St. Gregory the Theologian, Second Oration on Pascha

The Paschal sacrifice was atonement according to the second definition of atonement on Merriam Webster:

atonement - the reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atonement


All of the Old Testament sacrifices, which were a foretaste of the ultimate sacrifice of the Lamb of God, were for the purpose of atoning for sins, so what makes you think that Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross was not for atonement of sins?

Because the Christ I worship established the New Covenant. If you guys wish to stay in the Old Covenant that's fine, but Orthodoxy will never hold that Christ offered a satisfaction for sin.

[Wyatt]

Because the Christ I worship established the New Covenant. If you guys wish to stay in the Old Covenant that's fine, but Orthodoxy will never hold that Christ offered a satisfaction for sin.

So what do the Eastern Orthodox believe was the reason for Christ's death?

Also, I disagree with your insinuation that, just because we don't have the same understanding of Christ, that we somehow worship a different Christ. I disagree with Protestants but I would never say they worship a false Christ since they are not Catholic.

[Veniamin]

"To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the evil one, sold under sin, and received pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask, to who was this offered and to what cause? If to the evil one, fie upon the outrage! The robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and as such has an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone all together.
But first I ask, how? For it was not by Him (God) that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only Begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac when he was being offered by his father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in place of a human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself and overcome the tryant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things."
-St. Gregory the Theologian, Second Oration on Pascha

The Paschal sacrifice was atonement according to the second definition of atonement on Merriam Webster:

atonement - the reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atonement


All of the Old Testament sacrifices, which were a foretaste of the ultimate sacrifice of the Lamb of God, were for the purpose of atoning for sins, so what makes you think that Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross was not for atonement of sins?

And which Ecumenical Council ratified the definition promulgated by Messrs. Merriam and Webster?

[Wyatt]

"To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the evil one, sold under sin, and received pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask, to who was this offered and to what cause? If to the evil one, fie upon the outrage! The robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and as such has an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone all together.
But first I ask, how? For it was not by Him (God) that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only Begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac when he was being offered by his father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in place of a human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself and overcome the tryant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things."
-St. Gregory the Theologian, Second Oration on Pascha

The Paschal sacrifice was atonement according to the second definition of atonement on Merriam Webster:

atonement - the reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atonement


All of the Old Testament sacrifices, which were a foretaste of the ultimate sacrifice of the Lamb of God, were for the purpose of atoning for sins, so what makes you think that Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross was not for atonement of sins?

And which Ecumenical Council ratified the definition promulgated by Messrs. Merriam and Webster?

LOL. So now you don't accept definitions of words that weren't explicitly defined by an ecumenical council? Nice. Better quit speaking English then because I'm pretty sure none of the words you just used were ratified by an ecumenical council.

[elijahmaria]

"To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the evil one, sold under sin, and received pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask, to who was this offered and to what cause? If to the evil one, fie upon the outrage! The robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and as such has an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone all together.
But first I ask, how? For it was not by Him (God) that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only Begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac when he was being offered by his father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in place of a human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself and overcome the tryant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things."
-St. Gregory the Theologian, Second Oration on Pascha

To me, as a Catholic, this represents quite well the theological meaning of atonement.

M.

[Veniamin]

And which Ecumenical Council ratified the definition promulgated by Messrs. Merriam and Webster?

LOL. So now you don't accept definitions of certain words that weren't explicitly defined by an ecumenical council? Nice. Better quit speaking English then because I'm pretty sure none of the words you just used were ratified by an ecumenical council.

Fixed it for you.  You might want to work on not jumping to erroneous generalizations.

[ozgeorge]

"To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the evil one, sold under sin, and received pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask, to who was this offered and to what cause? If to the evil one, fie upon the outrage! The robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and as such has an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone all together.
But first I ask, how? For it was not by Him (God) that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only Begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac when he was being offered by his father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in place of a human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself and overcome the tryant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things."
-St. Gregory the Theologian, Second Oration on Pascha

To me, as a Catholic, this represents quite well the theological meaning of atonement.

M.

Then repeat after me and we are on the same page:
"I publicly profess and hold that the Sacrifice of Golgotha was in no way a 'satisfaction' offered to atone for sins nor to pay a penalty or punishment owing for sins".

[Wyatt]

Then repeat after me and we are on the same page:
"I publicly profess and hold that the Sacrifice of Golgotha was in no way a 'satisfaction' offered to atone for sins nor to pay a penalty or punishment owing for sins".

Then what, pray tell, was the purpose of the sacrifice of Calvary?

[elijahmaria]

"To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the evil one, sold under sin, and received pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask, to who was this offered and to what cause? If to the evil one, fie upon the outrage! The robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and as such has an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone all together.
But first I ask, how? For it was not by Him (God) that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only Begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac when he was being offered by his father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in place of a human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself and overcome the tryant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things."
-St. Gregory the Theologian, Second Oration on Pascha

To me, as a Catholic, this represents quite well the theological meaning of atonement.

M.

Then repeat after me and we are on the same page:
"I publicly profess and hold that the Sacrifice of Golgotha was in no way a 'satisfaction' offered to atone for sins nor to pay a penalty or punishment owing for sins".

I publicly profess and hold that Catholics do not teach penal restitution or penal satisfaction!!

I do however believe that Christ died to restore mankind and the world to their pre-lapsarian state of original justice, thus the meaning of atonement is one that is restorative, not punitive.

M.

[ozgeorge]

Then repeat after me and we are on the same page:
"I publicly profess and hold that the Sacrifice of Golgotha was in no way a 'satisfaction' offered to atone for sins nor to pay a penalty or punishment owing for sins".

Then what, pray tell, was the purpose of the sacrifice of Calvary?

So that Christ could enter Hades and rob it and trample it underfoot, denying death and the devil any Victory. This is the Faith of the Fathers, the Voice of the Church in her ancient Liturgical prayers and hymns. Now since you have known nothing but the errors you have been taught about penal satisfaction, I don't expect you to understand this, but I assure you that this is the belief of the true Christian Faith.

[elijahmaria]

Then repeat after me and we are on the same page:
"I publicly profess and hold that the Sacrifice of Golgotha was in no way a 'satisfaction' offered to atone for sins nor to pay a penalty or punishment owing for sins".

Then what, pray tell, was the purpose of the sacrifice of Calvary?

So that Christ could enter Hades and rob it and trample it underfoot, denying death and the devil any Victory. This is the Faith of the Fathers, the Voice of the Church in her ancient Liturgical prayers and hymns. Now since you have known nothing but the errors you have been taught about penal satisfaction, I don't expect you to understand this, but I assure you that this is the belief of the true Christian Faith.

George dahlinks!!  That is Calvin what you are "quoting"....It ain't Ketlick!

[Wyatt]

Then repeat after me and we are on the same page:
"I publicly profess and hold that the Sacrifice of Golgotha was in no way a 'satisfaction' offered to atone for sins nor to pay a penalty or punishment owing for sins".

Then what, pray tell, was the purpose of the sacrifice of Calvary?

So that Christ could enter Hades and rob it and trample it underfoot, denying death and the devil any Victory. This is the Faith of the Fathers, the Voice of the Church in her ancient Liturgical prayers and hymns. Now since you have known nothing but the errors you have been taught about penal satisfaction, I don't expect you to understand this, but I assure you that this is the belief of the true Christian Faith.

Indeed we believe this too. In our Liturgy during certain parts of the year we sing "dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life." It doesn't seem like it's an either/or situation, but rather both/and. The death part doesn't make sense if there was no atonement needed. Since Christ is God, He could have conquered death and the devil anyway He wanted. Why would He choose to die on the Cross instead? What is the purpose of sacrifice if not for atonement? You make the point that we are no longer in the Old Covenant, but the Old Covenant points to and foreshadows the New, so it only makes sense that the New Covenant, while being different in many ways, would also resemble the Old.

The idea that Christ's death on the Cross was not for the purpose of saving us from sin is quite strange, and sounds heretical.

[synLeszka]

That is patently untrue. We have a very strongly developed concept of deification (the Latin word for the same thing).

As for the comment about Mormonism - well, I know some Mormons. Lots of Mormons, actually. I went to Sacrament Meeting today to bid farewell to one of my friends who is about to leave on his mission, and went to a party this evening to greet a friend who just returned and say farewell to yet another friend leaving on his mission.

Yeah, their religion is wrong - really wrong. But I know men who do have not valid baptisms who show forth evidence of the grace of Christ in their life. Is it sacramental grace? No. It's not. But I recognize the fruits of the Holy Spirit when I see it.

The reality is much more complex than your post reveals. Mormonism doesn't have sacramental grace - the Catholic Church does - in fact, it has the fullness of it. Obviously, we disagree on this point.

But even Mormonism teaches the Resurrection. They teach charity. They teach love of neighbor and of God. Yes, their concepts of the One True God are severely warped - but there are the vestiges of truth within it - and those vestigies, while I have no idea if they will effect the salvation of some of my close friends, they at least bring forth true spiritual and Christian fruit which can only be the work of the Holy Spirit.

So many sheep without, so many wolves within. The issue is so much more complex than you seem to believe.

Perhaps, those missionaries were the ones who come to Poland, and walk on patrols down our streets. I had a Togan-Vietnamese Mormon convince me that he is Polish, and that his last name is Kowalski. Those Mormons have this name-tags on which they have Polish sounding lastnames, or what Americans think Polish lastnames sound like. "Szhytski" "Łomyjaniski" "Fakutarski" It is funny how the incorporate American curses into their nametags. I do not understand it though.
Once, I dialogued to them, it did not work, they did not convert. Since then I resort to cursing them in English and asking them to leave. This is successful, but then they send new recruits. Although people take religion seriously here. I have a friend who studies Turk. St, who told a Turk, "either get baptised or die, Christ is God." Then, he added Mohamed is a swine. Sadly, I rarely see Paweł since he is now studying in Turkey.

[Jharek Carnelian]

That is patently untrue. We have a very strongly developed concept of deification (the Latin word for the same thing).

As for the comment about Mormonism - well, I know some Mormons. Lots of Mormons, actually. I went to Sacrament Meeting today to bid farewell to one of my friends who is about to leave on his mission, and went to a party this evening to greet a friend who just returned and say farewell to yet another friend leaving on his mission.

Yeah, their religion is wrong - really wrong. But I know men who do have not valid baptisms who show forth evidence of the grace of Christ in their life. Is it sacramental grace? No. It's not. But I recognize the fruits of the Holy Spirit when I see it.

The reality is much more complex than your post reveals. Mormonism doesn't have sacramental grace - the Catholic Church does - in fact, it has the fullness of it. Obviously, we disagree on this point.

But even Mormonism teaches the Resurrection. They teach charity. They teach love of neighbor and of God. Yes, their concepts of the One True God are severely warped - but there are the vestiges of truth within it - and those vestigies, while I have no idea if they will effect the salvation of some of my close friends, they at least bring forth true spiritual and Christian fruit which can only be the work of the Holy Spirit.

So many sheep without, so many wolves within. The issue is so much more complex than you seem to believe.

Perhaps, those missionaries were the ones who come to Poland, and walk on patrols down our streets. I had a Togan-Vietnamese Mormon convince me that he is Polish, and that his last name is Kowalski. Those Mormons have this name-tags on which they have Polish sounding lastnames, or what Americans think Polish lastnames sound like. "Szhytski" "Łomyjaniski" "Fakutarski" It is funny how the incorporate American curses into their nametags. I do not understand it though.
Once, I dialogued to them, it did not work, they did not convert. Since then I resort to cursing them in English and asking them to leave. This is successful, but then they send new recruits. Although people take religion seriously here. I have a friend who studies Turk. St, who told a Turk, "either get baptised or die, Christ is God." Then, he added Mohamed is a swine. Sadly, I rarely see Paweł since he is now studying in Turkey.

That sounds like a very wrongheaded way to evangelise honestly. It may be taking religion seriously and with zeal but I think it's a combative approach unlikely to yield worthwhile results very often. As to your other points, Mormons fortunately are something that are rare in the UK or Ireland. We have an excess of Jehovah's Witnesses though and in this area of London where I live presently numerous members of the Seventh Day Adventist movement. When I was younger I used to get cross with them, now I emulate my father who will either politely say 'no thank you' or the subject interests him chat politely for a time. I think his approach is far better than my youthful one was.

[Jharek Carnelian]

I'm answering this thread, while keeping up with two others, another on another forum, watching a Youtube video and playing Risk online in the background.
You're not THAT important.

Matthew 25:40

 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Or in other words ALL men are THAT important.

Perfect 

Christ is, I am sadly most certainly not, however I felt as Christ's words have divine lucidity it might be fruitful to borrow from our master at that point.

[elijahmaria]

I'm answering this thread, while keeping up with two others, another on another forum, watching a Youtube video and playing Risk online in the background.
You're not THAT important.

Matthew 25:40

 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Or in other words ALL men are THAT important.

Perfect 

Christ is, I am sadly most certainly not, however I felt as Christ's words have divine lucidity it might be fruitful to borrow from our master at that point.

The choice of texts and the text...is perfect.  I think we must learn to call that synergy....

[synLeszka]

That sounds like a very wrongheaded way to evangelise honestly. It may be taking religion seriously and with zeal but I think it's a combative approach unlikely to yield worthwhile results very often. As to your other points, Mormons fortunately are something that are rare in the UK or Ireland. We have an excess of Jehovah's Witnesses though and in this area of London where I live presently numerous members of the Seventh Day Adventist movement. When I was younger I used to get cross with them, now I emulate my father who will either politely say 'no thank you' or the subject interests him chat politely for a time. I think his approach is far better than my youthful one was.

Our religion was built on the swords of soldiers, not on the tracts of learned theologians.
Perhaps English manners are good for Londoners, the rest of the world does not need twofaced Anglo-Saxon culture. Anglo-Saxon manners are good for Anglos; no, thank you.