OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 01:27:16 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: First council of Toledo 397 - 400, Filioque  (Read 12821 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #135 on: June 06, 2011, 11:14:15 AM »

Christ is ascended!
St. Athanasius opposed Arianism, St. Leo opposed monophysitism (not to be confused with OO theology).  The Three Hiearchs (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory are also Pillars of Orthodoxy). For the same reason: they preached Orthodoxy against heresy.
That's not a practical approach nowadays when there are a plethora of heresies. It is best to just let orthodoxy stand on its own rather than to set it up against something.
the Church exercises demons before calling the Spirit in.

Well to each his own I guess. In the Catholic Church we exorcise demons.

Never had RICA, but I did go to a school run by the Vatican where we had religion class: unless some great change happened in the 90's, they talk plenty about the Protestants (not so much the Orthodox).  I listen to relevant radio, and there is constant reference to Protestants (again, not so much Orthodox: judging by the things they say, they want to pretend we don't exist, so as not to admit their apologetics and polemics against the Protestants won't work on us.

Interesting. I'd like to hear more about this Vatican-run school you attended.
http://www.gordontech.org/

Thanks for the link, but I don't think that school is Vatican-run.

Perhaps you just meant to say that it is Catholic (i.e. in communion with the Vatican)?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #136 on: June 06, 2011, 11:38:12 AM »

I would say this thread has gotten off-topic, but the OP itself wasn't a very honest question either, as subsequently revealed motives have shown. So, carry on. Beat that dead horse. It deserves it.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #137 on: June 06, 2011, 11:41:28 AM »

Christ is ascended!
Catholic veneration of St. Gregory Palamas and St. Photios notwithstanding, I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.

Wrong.  Orthodoxy defines itself by Christ and the Spirit Who makes Him manifest amongst us.  We clarify points in opposition to misconceptions, untruths, etc., but we define ourselves in, by, through, and in relation to Christ.

This is fine as an assertion, Father, but I sit here with a rather large library full of books by Orthodox priests and scholars and with very rare exception they begin with describing how what they are teaching or about to teach differs from the teachings of the nebulous "west" or more often specifically the Catholic west.

In English?

Such librairies don't exist in Russian, Serbian, Greek, etc. because they are not needed.  No one there compares the Orthodox to the Vatican, so there is no need to first correct misconceptions.


Nice try but many of them are translated from the original to English and those are the ones most likely to have the most to say about what Orthodoxy is not in terms of being not like the Catholic west
I didn't say such books do not exist: there is, after all a niche that they supply, and it would just make sense where the need is greatest that they would draw on such resources.  That would, of course, give a scewed view of what exists in Serbian, Russian, Greek etc. for those who cannot read those languages, particularly those, like yourself, with an agenda.

The Catechism that St. Innocent prepared in Aleut "Indication of the Way into the Kingdom of Heaven," the first catechism for North America, translated into many languages, including Russian (where thereupon it was used throughout the Russian Empire) mentions the Vatican only here:
Quote
It is important also to study our God-given faith in detail, since he who is indifferent toward truth is in danger of becoming easy prey for false teachers. It is so sad that many Orthodox Christians perish simply because of their disregard for Christ's teachings. Having access to the light, they wander in the dark.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kingdomofheaven.aspx

But then St. Innocent had the luxury of teaching in an Orthodox land (although there were heterodox: St. Innocent allowed the Lutherans to build their cathedral church, and allowed Polish priests to come into Alaska to minister to subjects in submission to the Vatican).  His sponsor, mentor and predecessor, Met. St. Philoret, also composed a cathechism which not only was long the official catechism of the Russian Church, used throughout the Empire, but also in the Kingdom of Greece, the Ottoman empire, etc...  And he only alludes, for instance, to the filioque, just so no one (like in Galicia, Poland, the Baltics states, Finland or among the Francophile nobility) was led astray by the Vatican's propoganda directed at them:
Quote
241.  Whence know we that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father?

This we know from the following words of Jesus Christ himself: But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. John xv. 26.

242.  Does the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father admit of any change or supplement?

No. First, because the Orthodox Church, in this doctrine, repeats the very words of Jesus Christ; and his words, without doubt, are an exact and perfect expression of the truth. Secondly, because the second œcumenical Council, whose chief object was to establish the true doctrine respecting the Holy Ghost, has without doubt sufficiently set forth the same in the Creed; and the Catholic Church [i.e. not the Vatican] has acknowledged this so decidedly, that the third œcumenical Council in its seventh canon forbade the composition of any new Creed.

For this cause John Damascene writes: Of the Holy Ghost, we both say that he is from the Father, and call him the Spirit of the Father; while we nowise say that he is from the Son, but only call him the Spirit of the Son. (Theol. lib. i. c. 11; v. 4.)
btw, for the OP's other thread on the need for many Patriarchs:
Quote
261.  How does it agree with the unity of the Church, that there are many separate and independent churches, as those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Russia?

These are particular churches, or parts of the one Catholic Church: the separateness of their visible organization does not hinder them from being all spiritually great members of the one body of the Universal Church, from having one Head, Christ, and one spirit of faith and grace. This unity is expressed outwardly by unity of Creed, and by communion in prayer and Sacraments.
http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

...They are also the ones most likely to get the Catholic teaching very confused so that what they are presenting to Orthodoxy is something we probably would not want to teach either.
Given the history of the selling of the "unions," I'm sure you wouldn't.  Clarity in what the Vatican teaches (and the vacancy in the Ruthenian hiearchy in Pittburgh while the new agent has been already sent to Kiev, the recent ban on married clergy issued in Italy to the Vatican's eastern agent in Romania (the western one there of course already bans married priests) on top of the ban in North America, obfuscation on the filioque in the requirements of being a "real Catholic" etc. should shed light on the real situation) isn't in the interest of "union."

And so the myths continue to be perpetuated...for those who are most willing to accept them and not look elsewhere or accept correction indoctrination/re-education.
Fixed that for you.

The only myths seem to be the misty illusion you have about the Vatican and her history and teaching.  I, and many, many others, have gone through the much vaunted CCC, only to be told, when we cite it, that it is not "authoritative"!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #138 on: June 06, 2011, 11:51:39 AM »

Christ is ascended!
St. Athanasius opposed Arianism, St. Leo opposed monophysitism (not to be confused with OO theology).  The Three Hiearchs (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory are also Pillars of Orthodoxy). For the same reason: they preached Orthodoxy against heresy.
That's not a practical approach nowadays when there are a plethora of heresies. It is best to just let orthodoxy stand on its own rather than to set it up against something.
the Church exercises demons before calling the Spirit in.

Well to each his own I guess. In the Catholic Church we exorcise demons.

Never had RICA, but I did go to a school run by the Vatican where we had religion class: unless some great change happened in the 90's, they talk plenty about the Protestants (not so much the Orthodox).  I listen to relevant radio, and there is constant reference to Protestants (again, not so much Orthodox: judging by the things they say, they want to pretend we don't exist, so as not to admit their apologetics and polemics against the Protestants won't work on us.

Interesting. I'd like to hear more about this Vatican-run school you attended.
http://www.gordontech.org/

Thanks for the link, but I don't think that school is Vatican-run.
I walked in every morning to the Vatican flag, and a portrait of its supreme pontiff, and his doctrines were what they taught in the classes (my freshman year I was the only one who knew all the holy days of obligation-the first question the brother asked to start the year-and the only one with a perfect score on the final exam (in the interest of full disclosure, one of the questions wasn't on the Vatican-it asked the denomination (Episcopalian) of the church we went to when we went on field trip to the cardinal's cathedral), and I was the only one not in submission to the Vatican in the class.  Every mass he had (and I took communion, btw, although I was Evangelical Lutheran), they commemorated "John Paul our pope."

Perhaps you just meant to say that it is Catholic (i.e. in communion with the Vatican)?
No.
Quote
270.  Why is the Church called Catholic, or, which is the same thing, Universal?

Because she is not limited to any place, nor time, nor people, but contains true believers of all places, times, and peoples.

The Apostle Paul says that the Word of the Gospel is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit (Coloss. i. 5, 6), and that in the Christian Church there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Coloss. iii. 11. They which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. Gal. iii. 9.

271.  What great privilege has the Catholic Church?

She alone has the sublime promises that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her; that the Lord shall be with her even to the end of the world; that in her shall abide the glory of God in Christ Jesus throughout all generations forever; and consequently that she shall never apostatize from the faith, nor sin against the truth of the faith, or fall into error.

We undoubtingly confess, as sure truth, that the Catholic Church can not sin, nor err, nor utter falsehood in place of truth; for the Holy Ghost, ever working through his faithful ministers the fathers and doctors of the Church, preserves her from all error. (Missive of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 12.)

272.  If the Catholic Church contains all true believers in the world, must we not acknowledge it to be necessary for salvation that every believer should belong to her?

Exactly so. Since Jesus Christ, in the words of St. Paul, is the Head of the Church, and he is the Saviour of the Body, it follows that, to have part in his salvation, we must necessarily be members of his body, that is, of the Catholic Church. Eph. v. 23.

The Apostle Peter writes that baptism saveth us after the figure of the ark of Noah. All who were saved from the general deluge were saved only in the ark; so all who obtain everlasting salvation obtain it only in the one Catholic Church.

273.  What thoughts and remembrances should we associate with the name of the Eastern Church?

In Paradise, planted in the East, was founded the first Church of our parents in innocence; and in the East, after the fall, was laid a new foundation of the Church of the redeemed, in the promise of a Saviour. In the East, in the land of Judæa, our Lord Jesus Christ, having finished the work of our salvation, laid the foundation of his own proper Christian Church: from thence she spread herself over the whole universe; and to this day the orthodox Catholic œcumenical faith, confirmed by the seven œcumenical Councils, is preserved unchanged in its original purity in the ancient Churches of the East, and in such as agree with them, as does by God's grace the Church of Russia.
http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

The school did not, and does not, "agree with them."
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 11:54:56 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #139 on: June 06, 2011, 12:01:45 PM »

Christ is ascended!
St. Athanasius opposed Arianism, St. Leo opposed monophysitism (not to be confused with OO theology).  The Three Hiearchs (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory are also Pillars of Orthodoxy). For the same reason: they preached Orthodoxy against heresy.
That's not a practical approach nowadays when there are a plethora of heresies. It is best to just let orthodoxy stand on its own rather than to set it up against something.
the Church exercises demons before calling the Spirit in.

Well to each his own I guess. In the Catholic Church we exorcise demons.

Never had RICA, but I did go to a school run by the Vatican where we had religion class: unless some great change happened in the 90's, they talk plenty about the Protestants (not so much the Orthodox).  I listen to relevant radio, and there is constant reference to Protestants (again, not so much Orthodox: judging by the things they say, they want to pretend we don't exist, so as not to admit their apologetics and polemics against the Protestants won't work on us.

Interesting. I'd like to hear more about this Vatican-run school you attended.
http://www.gordontech.org/

Thanks for the link, but I don't think that school is Vatican-run.
I walked in every morning to the Vatican flag, and a portrait of its supreme pontiff, and his doctrines were what they taught in the classes (my freshman year I was the only one who knew all the holy days of obligation-the first question the brother asked to start the year-and the only one with a perfect score on the final exam (in the interest of full disclosure, one of the questions wasn't on the Vatican-it asked the denomination (Episcopalian) of the church we went to when we went on field trip to the cardinal's cathedral), and I was the only one not in submission to the Vatican in the class.  Every mass he had (and I took communion, btw, although I was Evangelical Lutheran), they commemorated "John Paul our pope."

That sounds like a lot of support for my notion that said school is Catholic (i.e. in communion with the Vatican).

Perhaps you just meant to say that it is Catholic (i.e. in communion with the Vatican)?
No.
Quote
270.  Why is the Church called Catholic, or, which is the same thing, Universal?

Because she is not limited to any place, nor time, nor people, but contains true believers of all places, times, and peoples.

The Apostle Paul says that the Word of the Gospel is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit (Coloss. i. 5, 6), and that in the Christian Church there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Coloss. iii. 11. They which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. Gal. iii. 9.

271.  What great privilege has the Catholic Church?

She alone has the sublime promises that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her; that the Lord shall be with her even to the end of the world; that in her shall abide the glory of God in Christ Jesus throughout all generations forever; and consequently that she shall never apostatize from the faith, nor sin against the truth of the faith, or fall into error.

We undoubtingly confess, as sure truth, that the Catholic Church can not sin, nor err, nor utter falsehood in place of truth; for the Holy Ghost, ever working through his faithful ministers the fathers and doctors of the Church, preserves her from all error. (Missive of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 12.)

272.  If the Catholic Church contains all true believers in the world, must we not acknowledge it to be necessary for salvation that every believer should belong to her?

Exactly so. Since Jesus Christ, in the words of St. Paul, is the Head of the Church, and he is the Saviour of the Body, it follows that, to have part in his salvation, we must necessarily be members of his body, that is, of the Catholic Church. Eph. v. 23.

The Apostle Peter writes that baptism saveth us after the figure of the ark of Noah. All who were saved from the general deluge were saved only in the ark; so all who obtain everlasting salvation obtain it only in the one Catholic Church.

273.  What thoughts and remembrances should we associate with the name of the Eastern Church?

In Paradise, planted in the East, was founded the first Church of our parents in innocence; and in the East, after the fall, was laid a new foundation of the Church of the redeemed, in the promise of a Saviour. In the East, in the land of Judæa, our Lord Jesus Christ, having finished the work of our salvation, laid the foundation of his own proper Christian Church: from thence she spread herself over the whole universe; and to this day the orthodox Catholic œcumenical faith, confirmed by the seven œcumenical Councils, is preserved unchanged in its original purity in the ancient Churches of the East, and in such as agree with them, as does by God's grace the Church of Russia.
http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #140 on: June 06, 2011, 12:07:12 PM »

Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #141 on: June 06, 2011, 12:10:46 PM »

Christ is ascended!
I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Of course Orthodoxy defines itself as distinct to heterodox dogmas. I don't understand why people on this and other recent threads are suddenly so stunned to find that a Church which for millennia has used apophatic theology to explain it's dogmas, defines it's dogmas by what they are not......isn't that the whole gist of apophatic theology?

I think you are very sure of yourself, and not always with good reason.  I find it instructive that the Catholic Church never defines herself or her teachings by what any others do, but rather by Eucharist:

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Are we saying that knowledge is eternal life? Are we saying that to know the one true and living God will suffice to give us complete security for the future without need of anything else? Then how is “faith apart from works dead”? When we speak of faith, we mean the true knowledge of God and nothing else, since knowledge comes by faith. The prophet Isaiah tells us this: “If you do not believe, neither shall you understand.” But he is not talking about a knowledge that consists in barren speculations, which is entirely worthless. For one of the holy disciples said, “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe – and shudder.” What then shall we say to this? How is it that Christ speaks the truth when he says that eternal life is the knowledge of God the Father, the one true God, and with him of the Son? I think, indeed, we must answer that the saying of the Savior is completely true. For this knowledge is life, laboring as it were in birth of the whole meaning of the mystery and granting to us participation in the mystery of the Eucharist, whereby we are joined to the living and life-giving Word. And for this reason, I think, Paul says that the Gentiles are made fellow members of the body and fellow partakers of Christ, inasmuch as they partake in his blessed body and blood. And our members may in this sense be conceived of as being members of Christ. This knowledge, then, which also brings to us the Eucharist by the Spirit, is life. For it dwells in our hearts, reshaping those who receive it into sonship with him and molding them into incorruption and piety toward God through life, according to the Gospel. Our Lord Jesus Christ, then, knowing that the knowledge of the one true God brings to us and promotes our union with the blessings of which we have spoken, says that it is eternal life. It is the mother and nurse of eternal life, being in its power and nature pregnant with those things that cause life and lead to life.

Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 11.5 , in Joel C. Elowsky (ed). John 11-21 (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture) 231.
The Catholic Church does so define hereself, but as your ecclesiastical organization defines itself by submission to the Vatican (after all, what is the difference between the Eucharist of the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, which your Ruthenians hold as "valid," and that of your Ruthenians?), your point and its documentation (a rare occurance from you, btw) are off point.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #142 on: June 06, 2011, 12:19:12 PM »

Christ is ascended!
St. Athanasius opposed Arianism, St. Leo opposed monophysitism (not to be confused with OO theology).  The Three Hiearchs (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory are also Pillars of Orthodoxy). For the same reason: they preached Orthodoxy against heresy.
That's not a practical approach nowadays when there are a plethora of heresies. It is best to just let orthodoxy stand on its own rather than to set it up against something.
the Church exercises demons before calling the Spirit in.

Well to each his own I guess. In the Catholic Church we exorcise demons.

Never had RICA, but I did go to a school run by the Vatican where we had religion class: unless some great change happened in the 90's, they talk plenty about the Protestants (not so much the Orthodox).  I listen to relevant radio, and there is constant reference to Protestants (again, not so much Orthodox: judging by the things they say, they want to pretend we don't exist, so as not to admit their apologetics and polemics against the Protestants won't work on us.

Interesting. I'd like to hear more about this Vatican-run school you attended.
http://www.gordontech.org/

Thanks for the link, but I don't think that school is Vatican-run.
I walked in every morning to the Vatican flag, and a portrait of its supreme pontiff, and his doctrines were what they taught in the classes (my freshman year I was the only one who knew all the holy days of obligation-the first question the brother asked to start the year-and the only one with a perfect score on the final exam (in the interest of full disclosure, one of the questions wasn't on the Vatican-it asked the denomination (Episcopalian) of the church we went to when we went on field trip to the cardinal's cathedral), and I was the only one not in submission to the Vatican in the class.  Every mass he had (and I took communion, btw, although I was Evangelical Lutheran), they commemorated "John Paul our pope."

That sounds like a lot of support for my notion that said school is Catholic (i.e. in communion with the Vatican).
Well George Orwell taught us all the danger of terms being redefined, and you again demonstrate his point.  As for me, I'm going to stick with the definition of Patriarch St. Ignatius, who first attests to the term.

Perhaps you just meant to say that it is Catholic (i.e. in communion with the Vatican)?
No.
Quote
270.  Why is the Church called Catholic, or, which is the same thing, Universal?

Because she is not limited to any place, nor time, nor people, but contains true believers of all places, times, and peoples.

The Apostle Paul says that the Word of the Gospel is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit (Coloss. i. 5, 6), and that in the Christian Church there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Coloss. iii. 11. They which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. Gal. iii. 9.

271.  What great privilege has the Catholic Church?

She alone has the sublime promises that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her; that the Lord shall be with her even to the end of the world; that in her shall abide the glory of God in Christ Jesus throughout all generations forever; and consequently that she shall never apostatize from the faith, nor sin against the truth of the faith, or fall into error.

We undoubtingly confess, as sure truth, that the Catholic Church can not sin, nor err, nor utter falsehood in place of truth; for the Holy Ghost, ever working through his faithful ministers the fathers and doctors of the Church, preserves her from all error. (Missive of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 12.)

272.  If the Catholic Church contains all true believers in the world, must we not acknowledge it to be necessary for salvation that every believer should belong to her?

Exactly so. Since Jesus Christ, in the words of St. Paul, is the Head of the Church, and he is the Saviour of the Body, it follows that, to have part in his salvation, we must necessarily be members of his body, that is, of the Catholic Church. Eph. v. 23.

The Apostle Peter writes that baptism saveth us after the figure of the ark of Noah. All who were saved from the general deluge were saved only in the ark; so all who obtain everlasting salvation obtain it only in the one Catholic Church.

273.  What thoughts and remembrances should we associate with the name of the Eastern Church?

In Paradise, planted in the East, was founded the first Church of our parents in innocence; and in the East, after the fall, was laid a new foundation of the Church of the redeemed, in the promise of a Saviour. In the East, in the land of Judæa, our Lord Jesus Christ, having finished the work of our salvation, laid the foundation of his own proper Christian Church: from thence she spread herself over the whole universe; and to this day the orthodox Catholic œcumenical faith, confirmed by the seven œcumenical Councils, is preserved unchanged in its original purity in the ancient Churches of the East, and in such as agree with them, as does by God's grace the Church of Russia.
http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse.  In fact, I just did.  We are as Patriarch St. Ignatius of Antioch defined us over 19 centuries.  That since then Rome has redefined itself into the Vatican, and tries to redefine the Church and her Faith to follow suit, isn't our problem.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #143 on: June 06, 2011, 12:26:08 PM »

I could say the same in reverse.  In fact, I just did.  We are as Patriarch St. Ignatius of Antioch defined us over 19 centuries.  That since then Rome has redefined itself into the Vatican, and tries to redefine the Church and her Faith to follow suit, isn't our problem.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

And we'll be beating this dead horse with the same old Chick-like assertions...
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #144 on: June 06, 2011, 12:40:28 PM »

While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation. However, I don't think we are going to come to much more agreement than that.

But, just for fun, one of these days walk down the street and ask the first stranger you pass "Where is the nearest Catholic Church?"
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #145 on: June 06, 2011, 12:42:02 PM »

While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation.

P.S. Of course, if calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Anglicans were "the Catholic Church".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #146 on: June 06, 2011, 12:54:35 PM »

I could say the same in reverse.  In fact, I just did.  We are as Patriarch St. Ignatius of Antioch defined us over 19 centuries.  That since then Rome has redefined itself into the Vatican, and tries to redefine the Church and her Faith to follow suit, isn't our problem.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

And we'll be beating this dead horse with the same old Chick-like assertions...
...and the same cackling from the hen house it seems.

Patriarch St. Ignatius does not define the Catholic Church by any reference to Rome.  He speaks of the local bishop, and nothing of Rome putting him there, nothing about him commemorating Rome (over Antioch or Alexandria).  So totally unlike the situation of your Ruthenian see of Pittsburgh.

Since I've never seen any evidence that Chick knows the original meaning of "Catholic," but assUmes that it is catholic=Vatican, it seems that you are operating under the same assertions as Jack.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #147 on: June 06, 2011, 01:00:08 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation. However, I don't think we are going to come to much more agreement than that.

But, just for fun, one of these days walk down the street and ask the first stranger you pass "Where is the nearest Catholic Church?"
And if I did so in Moscow, Bucharest, Damascus etc...., I would get the correct answer.

Btw, I recall someone of your asociations asking what was up with the palms. When I said it was palm Sunday, he protested that that was last week, and to prove it, he asked the next person to walk into the hallway (this was in the dorm).  And since that person was George Pappas, he got the correct answer.

Only ask persons who know what they are talking about.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #148 on: June 06, 2011, 01:04:13 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation.

P.S. Of course, if calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Anglicans were "the Catholic Church".
If calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Vatican was "the Catholic Church," now wouldn't it?
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #149 on: June 06, 2011, 01:31:29 PM »

Christ founded the Church on the Rock (Petra) and called St. Peter the Stone (petros). But you already knew that.
And if course you know that this is the same lame argument that Protestants attempt to use against the Catholic Church's Petrine claims. In Aramaic (the language that Christ and the Apostles spoke) there was one word for Peter (Kepha), So Christ literally said "You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church." Greek is where you run into the different forms of the word rock.
So now you need to join with the Peshitta primacists to justify this false teaching?
Did Christ and the Apostles and the majority of those in first century Palestine speak Aramaic or didn't they?

the Church exercises demons before calling the Spirit in.
So everyone who is outside of Eastern Orthodoxy is under demonic influence?

Never had RICA, but I did go to a school run by the Vatican where we had religion class: unless some great change happened in the 90's, they talk plenty about the Protestants (not so much the Orthodox).  I listen to relevant radio, and there is constant reference to Protestants (again, not so much Orthodox: judging by the things they say, they want to pretend we don't exist, so as not to admit their apologetics and polemics against the Protestants won't work on us.
Anytime I hear Protestants brought up it is virtually always to point out some misconception that Protestants have about our Church that isn't true. In my experience, we do not take to bashing Protestant beliefs left and right. In fact, I am probably one of the most hardcore Catholics when it comes to giving Protestants a hard time, but since I was one before entering the Church I think I am allowed to vent my grievances.

Our apologetics don't work on you? That's funny, just a little ways back in the thread ozgeorge played the lame Petros/Petra to "disprove" Petrine primacy as believed in my Church. If you all want us to stop using Protestant apologetics on you then, here's a hint, stop acting like Protestants.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 01:32:50 PM by Wyatt » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #150 on: June 06, 2011, 01:54:08 PM »

Christ founded the Church on the Rock (Petra) and called St. Peter the Stone (petros). But you already knew that.
And if course you know that this is the same lame argument that Protestants attempt to use against the Catholic Church's Petrine claims. In Aramaic (the language that Christ and the Apostles spoke) there was one word for Peter (Kepha), So Christ literally said "You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church." Greek is where you run into the different forms of the word rock.
So now you need to join with the Peshitta primacists to justify this false teaching?
Did Christ and the Apostles and the majority of those in first century Palestine speak Aramaic or didn't they?
That they did, but they wrote in Greek, the language of all the inspired texts we have of the NT.

the Church exercises demons before calling the Spirit in.
So everyone who is outside of Eastern Orthodoxy is under demonic influence?
Why did the Apostles preface the rite of baptism with exercism?

Never had RICA, but I did go to a school run by the Vatican where we had religion class: unless some great change happened in the 90's, they talk plenty about the Protestants (not so much the Orthodox).  I listen to relevant radio, and there is constant reference to Protestants (again, not so much Orthodox: judging by the things they say, they want to pretend we don't exist, so as not to admit their apologetics and polemics against the Protestants won't work on us.
Anytime I hear Protestants brought up it is virtually always to point out some misconception that Protestants have about our Church that isn't true.
like the Anglo-Irish Catechism of 1870, carrying the Vatican's nihil obstate and imprematur, saying that infallibility was a "Protestant lie," l'm sure.

In my experience, we do not take to bashing Protestant beliefs left and right.
Can't speak to your experience, except that it, as you purport it, differs from that of your correligionists and what they broadcast.

In fact, I am probably one of the most hardcore Catholics when it comes to giving Protestants a hard time, but since I was one before entering the Church I think I am allowed to vent my grievances.
funny, I don't have any need to vent my grievances against the Protestants.

Our apologetics don't work on you? That's funny, just a little ways back in the thread ozgeorge played the lame Petros/Petra to "disprove" Petrine primacy as believed in my Church. If you all want us to stop using Protestant apologetics on you then, here's a hint, stop acting like Protestants.
I am not ozgeorge.

You're the one "prooftexting," and the one appealing to "original texts." Ozgeorge is dealing with the actual inspired text, which is in Greek. And the meaning that the Fathers, the vast majority and their consensus, taught on the identity of the Rock.  That you are protesting against the understanding of the Fathers isn't our problem.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #151 on: June 06, 2011, 02:19:15 PM »

That they did, but they wrote in Greek, the language of all the inspired texts we have of the NT.
Was the Greek the original copy of the NT, or just the earliest copy we have been able to find? Isn't the variation between petros and petra similar to the gender differences is languages such as Spanish, as in one is masculine and the other feminine? If that's the case then your argument is essentially like saying there is a difference in meaning in the words "uno" and "una."

Why did the Apostles preface the rite of baptism with exercism?
Either to expel evil or to prevent its influence. Still doesn't mean everyone is possessed that isn't Eastern Orthodox.

like the Anglo-Irish Catechism of 1870, carrying the Vatican's nihil obstate and imprematur, saying that infallibility was a "Protestant lie," l'm sure.
Infallibility still is a Protestant lie in the way that Protestants portray it. They think it is as ridiculous and exaggerated as if the Pope walks outside and declares the sky green, we must all believe it is green. I like the First Vatican Council because it finally put the whole question to rest. Yes, there are times when the Pope is infallible, but the council made it clear that him speaking infallibly on his own is quite rare and several conditions must be met before he can speak infallibly. This shouldn't be looked upon as a scandal by Protestants because there are many Protestants that hang onto every word their pastor says and elevate him above the authority that we believe the Pope has.

Can't speak to your experience, except that it, as you purport it, differs from that of your correligionists and what they broadcast.
Well when you are a Catholic convert, especially a convert from Protestantism, many times you have a lot of baggage that you have to, through prayer and Grace, eventually overcome.

funny, I don't have any need to vent my grievances against the Protestants.
Well I am glad that your experience of Protestantism was full of joy and happiness. Unfortunately not everyone has had that same experience.

I am not ozgeorge.

You're the one "prooftexting," and the one appealing to "original texts." Ozgeorge is dealing with the actual inspired text, which is in Greek. And the meaning that the Fathers, the vast majority and their consensus, taught on the identity of the Rock.  That you are protesting against the understanding of the Fathers isn't our problem.
Which fathers am I protesting? Also, did Jesus speak Aramaic or didn't He?
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 02:19:44 PM by Wyatt » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #152 on: June 06, 2011, 03:02:38 PM »

Christ is ascended!
That they did, but they wrote in Greek, the language of all the inspired texts we have of the NT.
Was the Greek the original copy of the NT, or just the earliest copy we have been able to find?

My, what a Protestant approach to scripture. 

The text as accepted by the Church is in Greek. You and the Protestants can argue if St. Matthew wrote it in Aramaic or Greek.

Isn't the variation between petros and petra similar to the gender differences is languages such as Spanish, as in one is masculine and the other feminine? If that's the case then your argument is essentially like saying there is a difference in meaning in the words "uno" and "una."
Not my argument, but no, as "uno" and "una" mean the same thing. "El papa" means "the Pope."  "La papa" means "the potato."  But if you want to insist on the similiarity, I won't stop you.

Why did the Apostles preface the rite of baptism with exercism?
Either to expel evil or to prevent its influence. Still doesn't mean everyone is possessed that isn't Eastern Orthodox.
Take your a chances.   If you are going to expel evil or prevent its influence, go to someone who can do that.

like the Anglo-Irish Catechism of 1870, carrying the Vatican's nihil obstate and imprematur, saying that infallibility was a "Protestant lie," l'm sure.
Infallibility still is a Protestant lie in the way that Protestants portray it. They think it is as ridiculous and exaggerated as if the Pope walks outside and declares the sky green, we must all believe it is green.
I've known plenty of your correlgionists who come close to that description.

There are plenty of Protestants who know of the dogma of infallibilty as the CCC teaches it, and still reject it, with reason.

I like the First Vatican Council because it finally put the whole question to rest.
Had it done that, the Vatican could give a list of all those infallible pronouncements.  Instead all its theologians have to read tea leaves.

Yes, there are times when the Pope is infallible, but the council made it clear that him speaking infallibly on his own is quite rare and several conditions must be met before he can speak infallibly.
yes, jesuitry would make sure he has wiggle room.

Give that Lumen Gentium demands submission to your supreme pontiff whether he is speaking infallibly or not, if you did believe as your characature of the Protestants' understanding of your belief, what would you be doing different?


This shouldn't be looked upon as a scandal by Protestants because there are many Protestants that hang onto every word their pastor says and elevate him above the authority that we believe the Pope has.
Well, Protestantism is the other side of the Vatican's coin.

Can't speak to your experience, except that it, as you purport it, differs from that of your correligionists and what they broadcast.
Well when you are a Catholic convert, especially a convert from Protestantism, many times you have a lot of baggage that you have to, through prayer and Grace, eventually overcome.

funny, I don't have any need to vent my grievances against the Protestants.
Well I am glad that your experience of Protestantism was full of joy and happiness. Unfortunately not everyone has had that same experience.

I am not ozgeorge.

You're the one "prooftexting," and the one appealing to "original texts." Ozgeorge is dealing with the actual inspired text, which is in Greek. And the meaning that the Fathers, the vast majority and their consensus, taught on the identity of the Rock.  That you are protesting against the understanding of the Fathers isn't our problem.
Which fathers am I protesting? Also, did Jesus speak Aramaic or didn't He?
St. John Chrysostom, for one.  Fr. Ambrose has posted the numbers and specifics here several times. 

Christ did speak Aramaic, but, except for a few words and senteneces-and this isn't one of them-all we have recorded is in Greek.  You can join the Protestants in their quest of conjecture to attempt to get beyond that fact.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #153 on: June 06, 2011, 03:16:06 PM »

The text as accepted by the Church is in Greek. You and the Protestants can argue if St. Matthew wrote it in Aramaic or Greek.
I was more just curious if there is an older copy that is in Aramaic. It doesn't matter though. The language that was spoke at the time was Aramaic, and Christ said "You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church. The meaning is clear in the original language spoken.

Not my argument, but no, as "uno" and "una" mean the same thing. "El papa" means "the Pope."  "La papa" means "the potato."  But if you want to insist on the similiarity, I won't stop you.
How can you be sure that the Petros/Petra thing is like el papa/la papa and not uno/una? Again, to reiterate, none of this matters because in the spoken language of Christ and the Apostles it was simply Kepha and Kepha.

Take your a chances.   If you are going to expel evil or prevent its influence, go to someone who can do that.
My priest can do that.

There are plenty of Protestants who know of the dogma of infallibilty as the CCC teaches it, and still reject it, with reason.
And that's their decision.

Had it done that, the Vatican could give a list of all those infallible pronouncements.  Instead all its theologians have to read tea leaves.
We know the teachings of our Church are true. Splitting hairs over whether any given teaching is an ex cathedra pronouncement or simply the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium doesn't seem like that crucial of a thing to know. Maybe it irritates those on the outside, but they are already irritated with us anyway so I don't see how that matters very much.  Cheesy

yes, jesuitry would make sure he has wiggle room.
What do you mean by that?

Give that Lumen Gentium demands submission to your supreme pontiff whether he is speaking infallibly or not, if you did believe as your characature of the Protestants' understanding of your belief, what would you be doing different?
There is a difference between obedience and submission. If the Pope says that the sky is green I don't have to believe that, but I would still respect his office as the Successor to St. Peter. I just might think he was having an off day that day. Tongue

Well, Protestantism is the other side of the Vatican's coin.
Protestantism is a different coin altogether.

St. John Chrysostom, for one.  Fr. Ambrose has posted the numbers and specifics here several times. 

Christ did speak Aramaic, but, except for a few words and senteneces-and this isn't one of them-all we have recorded is in Greek.  You can join the Protestants in their quest of conjecture to attempt to get beyond that fact.
You got some quotes for me?

So did Christ say or did He not say "you are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church?"
Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #154 on: June 06, 2011, 03:36:55 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation. However, I don't think we are going to come to much more agreement than that.

But, just for fun, one of these days walk down the street and ask the first stranger you pass "Where is the nearest Catholic Church?"
And if I did so in Moscow, Bucharest, Damascus etc...., I would get the correct answer.

Btw, I recall someone of your asociations asking what was up with the palms. When I said it was palm Sunday, he protested that that was last week, and to prove it, he asked the next person to walk into the hallway (this was in the dorm).  And since that person was George Pappas, he got the correct answer.

Only ask persons who know what they are talking about.
I have heard that in Russia Christian (Христиан) refers to Orthodoxy while other sects are more or less considered different religions. Interesting and encouraging to hear it is the same other places. Let it be our prayer that one day America will do likewise. Smiley

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #155 on: June 06, 2011, 05:35:06 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation. However, I don't think we are going to come to much more agreement than that.

But, just for fun, one of these days walk down the street and ask the first stranger you pass "Where is the nearest Catholic Church?"
And if I did so in Moscow, Bucharest, Damascus etc...., I would get the correct answer.

Btw, I recall someone of your asociations asking what was up with the palms. When I said it was palm Sunday, he protested that that was last week, and to prove it, he asked the next person to walk into the hallway (this was in the dorm).  And since that person was George Pappas, he got the correct answer.

Only ask persons who know what they are talking about.
I have heard that in Russia Christian (Христиан) refers to Orthodoxy while other sects are more or less considered different religions. Interesting and encouraging to hear it is the same other places. Let it be our prayer that one day America will do likewise. Smiley

In Christ,
Andrew

The catholic.com forum already does that -- with respect to Catholicism rather than Orthodox, I mean. In fact, they have a subforum called "Non-Catholic Religions".
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #156 on: June 06, 2011, 05:37:42 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation. However, I don't think we are going to come to much more agreement than that.

But, just for fun, one of these days walk down the street and ask the first stranger you pass "Where is the nearest Catholic Church?"
And if I did so in Moscow, Bucharest, Damascus etc...., I would get the correct answer.

Alright, I can see your point. I was referring to the fact that even Protestants, who don't have a dog in that fight, will acknowledge that the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #157 on: June 06, 2011, 05:40:09 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation.

P.S. Of course, if calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Anglicans were "the Catholic Church".
If calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Vatican was "the Catholic Church," now wouldn't it?

That statement doesn't make any sense, since the Vatican has never claimed to be the Catholic Church. What it has claimed is that all of us who are in full communion with it are, all together, the Catholic Church.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #158 on: June 06, 2011, 05:43:03 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse.  

So we agree on the logic of the situation. However, I don't think we are going to come to much more agreement than that.

But, just for fun, one of these days walk down the street and ask the first stranger you pass "Where is the nearest Catholic Church?"
And if I did so in Moscow, Bucharest, Damascus etc...., I would get the correct answer.

Alright, I can see your point. I was referring to the fact that even Protestants, who don't have a dog in that fight, will acknowledge that the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church.
Your siblings?  You all have many delusions in common.  Filioque, for instance: many Protestants will fight tooth and nail to defend it, for what reason I don't know.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 05:44:24 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #159 on: June 06, 2011, 05:50:42 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation.

P.S. Of course, if calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Anglicans were "the Catholic Church".
If calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Vatican was "the Catholic Church," now wouldn't it?

That statement doesn't make any sense, since the Vatican has never claimed to be the Catholic Church/.
Its website says otherwise.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm
What it has claimed is that all of us who are in full communion with it are, all together, the Catholic Church.
A distinction without a difference.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #160 on: June 06, 2011, 05:52:00 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation. However, I don't think we are going to come to much more agreement than that.

But, just for fun, one of these days walk down the street and ask the first stranger you pass "Where is the nearest Catholic Church?"
And if I did so in Moscow, Bucharest, Damascus etc...., I would get the correct answer.

Btw, I recall someone of your asociations asking what was up with the palms. When I said it was palm Sunday, he protested that that was last week, and to prove it, he asked the next person to walk into the hallway (this was in the dorm).  And since that person was George Pappas, he got the correct answer.

Only ask persons who know what they are talking about.
I have heard that in Russia Christian (Христиан) refers to Orthodoxy while other sects are more or less considered different religions. Interesting and encouraging to hear it is the same other places. Let it be our prayer that one day America will do likewise. Smiley

In Christ,
Andrew

The catholic.com forum already does that -- with respect to Catholicism rather than Orthodox, I mean. In fact, they have a subforum called "Non-Catholic Religions".
but they don't allow posts on the Vatican's faith posted there.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #161 on: June 06, 2011, 06:42:14 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation.

P.S. Of course, if calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Anglicans were "the Catholic Church".
If calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Vatican was "the Catholic Church," now wouldn't it?

That statement doesn't make any sense, since the Vatican has never claimed to be the Catholic Church/.
Its website says otherwise.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm
What it has claimed is that all of us who are in full communion with it are, all together, the Catholic Church.
A distinction without a difference.

It's an important distinction to me: if only the Vatican were the Catholic Church, that would mean that I weren't part of the Catholic Church.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #162 on: June 07, 2011, 12:10:37 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation.

P.S. Of course, if calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Anglicans were "the Catholic Church".
If calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Vatican was "the Catholic Church," now wouldn't it?

That statement doesn't make any sense, since the Vatican has never claimed to be the Catholic Church/.
Its website says otherwise.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm
What it has claimed is that all of us who are in full communion with it are, all together, the Catholic Church.
A distinction without a difference.

It's an important distinction to me: if only the Vatican were the Catholic Church, that would mean that I weren't part of the Catholic Church.
You can have the Vatican or the Catholic Church. Until the Vatican repents, you can't be part of both.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #163 on: June 07, 2011, 12:25:32 PM »

You can have the Vatican or the Catholic Church. Until the Vatican repents, you can't be part of both.

This assertion is far and away above your pay-grade. 

Father Ambrose says Orthdox faithful do not have to assent to any Orthodox teaching that they do not agree with.  I would think that is something you might want to work on before you come correcting the Catholic Church.
Logged

Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #164 on: June 07, 2011, 12:46:10 PM »

You can have the Vatican or the Catholic Church. Until the Vatican repents, you can't be part of both.

This assertion is far and away above your pay-grade. 

Father Ambrose says Orthdox faithful do not have to assent to any Orthodox teaching that they do not agree with.  I would think that is something you might want to work on before you come correcting the Catholic Church.

Mary, I think you may be misunderstanding Fr. Ambrose, whether that is the Fr. Ambrose on this forum or not. Orthodoxy is not a cafeteria of dogma by any means. If one does not believe what the Church teaches, he is not truly a member of the Church, does not truly have the Church for his mother, and cannot have God for his Father.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #165 on: June 07, 2011, 12:56:32 PM »

You can have the Vatican or the Catholic Church. Until the Vatican repents, you can't be part of both.

This assertion is far and away above your pay-grade. 

Father Ambrose says Orthdox faithful do not have to assent to any Orthodox teaching that they do not agree with.  I would think that is something you might want to work on before you come correcting the Catholic Church.

Mary, I think you may be misunderstanding Fr. Ambrose, whether that is the Fr. Ambrose on this forum or not. Orthodoxy is not a cafeteria of dogma by any means. If one does not believe what the Church teaches, he is not truly a member of the Church, does not truly have the Church for his mother, and cannot have God for his Father.

I was being provocative.  Not to be nasty but to point out, what I think is a fact, which is that we compare more readily in the definition and promulgation of the faith than we contrast.  Father Ambrose of NZ often leaves himself open to such comments by making it appear that there is no doctrinal authority in Orthodoxy, aside from ancient bishops in council...most of whose names we no longer remember..."we" being the laity.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #166 on: June 07, 2011, 01:06:55 PM »

Mary, I think you may be misunderstanding Fr. Ambrose, whether that is the Fr. Ambrose on this forum or not. Orthodoxy is not a cafeteria of dogma by any means. If one does not believe what the Church teaches, he is not truly a member of the Church, does not truly have the Church for his mother, and cannot have God for his Father.
This is exactly the position that our Church has as well, yet people consider it scandalous when it is us. When it's us it is the Magisterium "inflicting" stuff on the laity, but when it's Eastern Orthodoxy not budging on a teaching it's fine.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #167 on: June 07, 2011, 01:57:10 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation.

P.S. Of course, if calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Anglicans were "the Catholic Church".
If calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Vatican was "the Catholic Church," now wouldn't it?

That statement doesn't make any sense, since the Vatican has never claimed to be the Catholic Church/.
Its website says otherwise.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm
What it has claimed is that all of us who are in full communion with it are, all together, the Catholic Church.
A distinction without a difference.

It's an important distinction to me: if only the Vatican were the Catholic Church, that would mean that I weren't part of the Catholic Church.
You can have the Vatican or the Catholic Church. Until the Vatican repents, you can't be part of both.

I realize that you believe that, but that doesn't affect my point that the Vatican has never claimed to be the Catholic Church, but rather that all of us who are in full communion with it are, together, the Catholic Church.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #168 on: June 07, 2011, 03:16:10 PM »

Christ is ascended!
The text as accepted by the Church is in Greek. You and the Protestants can argue if St. Matthew wrote it in Aramaic or Greek.
I was more just curious if there is an older copy that is in Aramaic. It doesn't matter though. The language that was spoke at the time was Aramaic, and Christ said "You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church. The meaning is clear in the original language spoken.
Oh? Did you go back in the Way Back Machine and record Him, or is this one of those "private revelations" your ecclesiastical community specializes in to "support" its "teachings"?

The inspired text is the Greek, not matter what the original language spoken.  I know you and the Protestants have had a problem with that ever since St. Jerome overturned the boundary marks the Apostles set up, something that St. Augustine criticized him for.

As I am watching EWTN as I write.  Scott Hahn and others of his kind are blathering on with an old brother, whom I take as a craddle.  Scott is making a point about the differences between "neos" and "kanaios" for "new" in Greek, and making much of Christ saying "kanaios" for "new covenant," (now they are trying to explain Vatican II's results), which makes sense only if the Greek is the authoritative text (as Aramaic doesn't make the same distinction).

The problem is that it seems this Aramaic argument is promoted by those who don't know a thing about Aramaic, e.g.
Quote
The word kepha is Aramaic for a rock. Unlike nouns in the Greek language, Aramaic nouns are void of gender.
The Biblical Basis for the Papacy By John Salza
http://books.google.com/books?id=EvQJ_i7J4CEC&pg=PA47&dq=Aramaic+rock&cd=4#v=onepage&q=Aramaic%20rock&f=false
anyone who knows anything about Aramaic can see this for the foolishness it is.

This "argument" is 100% Scholastic through and through, whether Ultramontanist or Protestant, the same sides of the coin.  That you all act as if your argument can't be made from the authentic Greek, whereas the Fathers, both Orthodox and those slipping into Ultramontanism, had no problem for centuries to argue from the text as is.  This invention of an Aramaic primacy argument (which, as the majority of Aramaic speakers remained Orthodox shows, doesn't work among the natives) as something definitive is rather novel.

Not my argument, but no, as "uno" and "una" mean the same thing. "El papa" means "the Pope."  "La papa" means "the potato."  But if you want to insist on the similiarity, I won't stop you.
How can you be sure that the Petros/Petra thing is like el papa/la papa and not uno/una?
Because, unlike those who persue this line of arguement, I know Aramaic/Syriac.

If I were to pursue such an argument, I might make more of the fact that the word "Peter" in the Greek is not definite, and "this rock" is. But that isn't necessary.  More problematic for your agenda is that the verse is recorded in St. Matthew, the Gospel associated with the Church founded by St. Peter  of Antioch, and the Gospel associated with Rome, St. Mark, records the incident but not the renaming of St. Peter.

Again, to reiterate, none of this matters because in the spoken language of Christ and the Apostles it was simply Kepha and Kepha.

So your modern "experts" have conjectured, as scripture does not tell you.  Comparison of the LXX, Targums, Peshitta and other Aramaic/Syriac translations doesn't make that rock solid for you, especially as many of the translations are at pains at distinquishing the two, including using the Greek loan "bTrws."
Peter and the rock By Chrys C. Caragounis
http://books.google.com/books?id=YZgNPsOgSjQC&pg=PA26&dq=Aramaic+rock&cd=7#v=onepage&q=Aramaic%20rock&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=YZgNPsOgSjQC&pg=PA44&dq=%22discountenance+the+Greek+as+a+proper+word-play%22&hl=en&ei=I2buTZX1C4LY0QGv34DeAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22discountenance%20the%20Greek%20as%20a%20proper%20word-play%22&f=false

Btw, according to Armaic grammar, it would have been keph and kepha.  If indeed that is what it was.

Take your a chances.   If you are going to expel evil or prevent its influence, go to someone who can do that.
My priest can do that.
Does he claim that, or are you claiming that for him?  Or does the Vatican say he has special "faculties"?


There are plenty of Protestants who know of the dogma of infallibilty as the CCC teaches it, and still reject it, with reason.
And that's their decision.
and a wise one at that.

Had it done that, the Vatican could give a list of all those infallible pronouncements.  Instead all its theologians have to read tea leaves.
We know the teachings of our Church are true.
Like Unam Sanctam? The council of Clermont? Quantum praedecessores?  The teachings of Pope John XXII on the beatific vision?

Not to mention the false teaching of the filioque.

Splitting hairs over whether any given teaching is an ex cathedra pronouncement or simply the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium doesn't seem like that crucial of a thing to know.


Maybe it irritates those on the outside, but they are already irritated with us anyway so I don't see how that matters very much.  Cheesy
Well, when your "magisterium" preaches crusades and inquisitions, and then disown their responsibility by claims that it wasn't really "church teaching," it would tend to irritate people.  But since such people are listed by the Vatican as search and destroy targets, it wouldn't matter from your perspective.

And I fully agreement: the distinction between ex cathedra and ordinary magisterium, invented about the same time 18 centuries after the Apostles, is without a difference.  Which makes it all the more suspicious why your Vatican insists on making the distinction.  but then we have the answer-
yes, jesuitry would make sure he has wiggle room.
What do you mean by that?

Give that Lumen Gentium demands submission to your supreme pontiff whether he is speaking infallibly or not, if you did believe as your characature of the Protestants' understanding of your belief, what would you be doing different?
There is a difference between obedience and submission. If the Pope says that the sky is green I don't have to believe that, but I would still respect his office as the Successor to St. Peter. I just might think he was having an off day that day. Tongue
You might as well respect the Chief R

Well, Protestantism is the other side of the Vatican's coin.
Protestantism is a different coin altogether.
You are made of the same metal, and stamped with the same scholastic imprint.

St. John Chrysostom, for one.  Fr. Ambrose has posted the numbers and specifics here several times.  

Christ did speak Aramaic, but, except for a few words and senteneces-and this isn't one of them-all we have recorded is in Greek.  You can join the Protestants in their quest of conjecture to attempt to get beyond that fact.
You got some quotes for me?
"Talitha qumi!" "Ephphatha!" "Eli, Eli, lama sabakhthani?"

You have been supplied plenty.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28604.msg451932.html#msg451932

They are not going to go away.  One of may favorites:
Witega, you seem to say the Fathers often understood references to Peter as meaning the whole group of Apostles.  Does that apply here with Chrysostom's quote?

I found this quote, on the topic of it not only applying to the whole group of Apostles, but also to the lowly bishop of a rural town way down in the stix of Upper Egypt:

Due to the ongoing debate on the Fourth Council, I by chance was reaquainted with a text I thought appropriate here.  It is from the "Life of Shenoute" by his disciple St. Besa.  St. Shenoute's writings were the examplar of Coptic literature, but his chief claim to fame was cracking his staff over Nestorius' head at the Council of Ephesus.  In one episode, "One day," Besa says, "our father Shenoute and our Lord Jesus were sitting down talking together" (a very common occurance according to the Vita) and the Bishop of Shmin came wishing to meet the abbot.  When Shenoute sent word that he was too busy to come to the bishop, the bishop got angry and threatened to excommunicate him for disobedience:

Quote
The servant went to our father [Shenouti] and said to him what the bishop had told him.  But my father smiled graciously with laughter and said: "See what this man of flesh and blood has said! Behold, here sitting with me is he who created heaven and earth! I will not go while I am with him." But the Savior said to my father: "O Shenoute, arise and go out to the bishop, lest he excommunicate you. Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven' [Matthew 16:19].  When my father heard these words of the Savior, he arose, went out to the bishop and greeted him.

 Besa, Life of Shenoute 70-72 (trans. Bell). On the context of this story see Behlmer 1998, esp. pp. 353-354. Gaddis, There is No Crime for those who have Christ, p. 296
http://books.google.com/books?id=JGEibDA8el4C

Now this dates not only before the schism of East-West, and the Schism of Chalcedon, but nearly the Schism of Ephesus.  Now Shmin is just a town in southern Egypt, and the bishop there just a suffragan of Alexandria.  So it would seem to be odd if the Vatican's interpretation of Matthew 16:19 were the ancient one why this would be applied to a bishop far from Rome, in a land where St. Peter never founded any Church.  But it makes perfect sense from the Orthodox interpretation of Matthew 16:19, and indeed, according to "the Catholic Encyclopedia," the overwhelming consensus of the Fathers.


So did Christ say or did He not say "you are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church?"
We do not have St. Matthew recording Him so saying, so you cannot tell.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 03:23:28 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #169 on: June 07, 2011, 03:33:11 PM »

Christ is ascended!
You can have the Vatican or the Catholic Church. Until the Vatican repents, you can't be part of both.

This assertion is far and away above your pay-grade.
Who are you? Human resources?

Not my job to ascertain that fact.  Just to stick to it.

Father Ambrose says Orthdox faithful do not have to assent to any Orthodox teaching that they do not agree with.
No, Father does not, and unless you can quote him on that, it is dishonest (surprise) of you to so assert.

I

Christ I know, and Fr. Ambrose I know, but who are you?

would think that is something you might want to work on before you come correcting the Catholic Church.
Not correcting the Catholic Church.  Just the Vatican.

I'd correct those so called Orthodox you depend on, but since they remainless nameless (and for all purposes, nonexistent), that is rather hard.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 03:34:40 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #170 on: June 07, 2011, 03:37:23 PM »

Christ is ascended!
You can have the Vatican or the Catholic Church. Until the Vatican repents, you can't be part of both.

This assertion is far and away above your pay-grade. 

Father Ambrose says Orthdox faithful do not have to assent to any Orthodox teaching that they do not agree with.  I would think that is something you might want to work on before you come correcting the Catholic Church.

Mary, I think you may be misunderstanding Fr. Ambrose, whether that is the Fr. Ambrose on this forum or not. Orthodoxy is not a cafeteria of dogma by any means. If one does not believe what the Church teaches, he is not truly a member of the Church, does not truly have the Church for his mother, and cannot have God for his Father.
don't confuse her with the facts.  She has these secret Orthodox experts who have initiated her into the mysteries of the Faith that us named Orthodox don't know.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #171 on: June 07, 2011, 03:42:06 PM »

Christ is ascended!
You can have the Vatican or the Catholic Church. Until the Vatican repents, you can't be part of both.

This assertion is far and away above your pay-grade. 

Father Ambrose says Orthdox faithful do not have to assent to any Orthodox teaching that they do not agree with.  I would think that is something you might want to work on before you come correcting the Catholic Church.

Mary, I think you may be misunderstanding Fr. Ambrose, whether that is the Fr. Ambrose on this forum or not. Orthodoxy is not a cafeteria of dogma by any means. If one does not believe what the Church teaches, he is not truly a member of the Church, does not truly have the Church for his mother, and cannot have God for his Father.

I was being provocative.  Not to be nasty but to point out, what I think is a fact, which is that we compare more readily in the definition and promulgation of the faith than we contrast.  Father Ambrose of NZ often leaves himself open to such comments by making it appear that there is no doctrinal authority in Orthodoxy, aside from ancient bishops in council...most of whose names we no longer remember..."we" being the laity.
We being the Orthodox, your distinctions demanded by ultramontanist clericalism have no meaning.

and since Father Ambrose frequently refers to the authority of his bishops, your characterization is either mistaken or dishonest.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #172 on: June 07, 2011, 03:46:56 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Mary, I think you may be misunderstanding Fr. Ambrose, whether that is the Fr. Ambrose on this forum or not. Orthodoxy is not a cafeteria of dogma by any means. If one does not believe what the Church teaches, he is not truly a member of the Church, does not truly have the Church for his mother, and cannot have God for his Father.
This is exactly the position that our Church has as well, yet people consider it scandalous when it is us. When it's us it is the Magisterium "inflicting" stuff on the laity, but when it's Eastern Orthodoxy not budging on a teaching it's fine.
Because not budging from the True Faith is always a virtue and inflicting heresy is always a vice.

And you magisterium can't withstand scrutiny, either from its Latin extremists or us, on the muddled mess of Latinization and "sui juris ecclesiology" it has created from its "unions."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #173 on: June 07, 2011, 03:55:31 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation.

P.S. Of course, if calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Anglicans were "the Catholic Church".
If calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Vatican was "the Catholic Church," now wouldn't it?

That statement doesn't make any sense, since the Vatican has never claimed to be the Catholic Church/.
Its website says otherwise.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm
What it has claimed is that all of us who are in full communion with it are, all together, the Catholic Church.
A distinction without a difference.

It's an important distinction to me: if only the Vatican were the Catholic Church, that would mean that I weren't part of the Catholic Church.
You can have the Vatican or the Catholic Church. Until the Vatican repents, you can't be part of both.

I realize that you believe that,
Doesn't depend on what I believe, but on the boundaries our Fathers have set up.

but that doesn't affect my point that the Vatican has never claimed to be the Catholic Church,

no, the requirement of bishops throughout the world come and kiss his slipper was just a shoe fetish Roll Eyes


but rather that all of us who are in full communion with it are, together, the Catholic Church.
not if you are in communion with one struck from the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #174 on: June 07, 2011, 04:03:51 PM »

Mary, I think you may be misunderstanding Fr. Ambrose, whether that is the Fr. Ambrose on this forum or not. Orthodoxy is not a cafeteria of dogma by any means. If one does not believe what the Church teaches, he is not truly a member of the Church, does not truly have the Church for his mother, and cannot have God for his Father.
This is exactly the position that our Church has as well, yet people consider it scandalous when it is us. When it's us it is the Magisterium "inflicting" stuff on the laity, but when it's Eastern Orthodoxy not budging on a teaching it's fine.

Wyatt,
I make mistakes, but I try hard not to paint Roman Catholics or Roman Catholicism with a large brush and make sweeping generalizations. I would humbly encourage you to try and do the same. It is not easy and one may feel under compulsion to use the same tactics when attacked with stereotypes and arguments from emotion. I don't claim to know what a "magesterium" is, but I don't take the line that it inflicts anything on Roman Catholic laity. There are some/many Orthodox who have the same negative feeling toward the Orthodox Church as some Roman Catholics have toward the Roman Catholic Church or some Orthodox have toward the RCC. I'm just not sure it does more than fuel resentment in oneself to focus on it, and it certainly doesn't advance mutual understanding. I'm pretty tired of the tit for tat. If we cannot discuss something without resentment and taking and giving offense, it's best, I think, to refrain from saying anything about it. I'm not trying to accuse you, personally, Wyatt. I've just noticed an increase of bad feelings with these sorts of discussions. I, for one, think there is plenty that can be discussed on our similarities and differences, but that this can be done without inferring ulterior motives or resentment.
Forgive me,
Eric
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #175 on: June 07, 2011, 05:19:39 PM »

Btw, according to Armaic grammar, it would have been keph and kepha.  If indeed that is what it was.

IMHO, it took you an awfully long time to get to this point.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #176 on: June 07, 2011, 05:40:49 PM »

Mary, I think you may be misunderstanding Fr. Ambrose, whether that is the Fr. Ambrose on this forum or not. Orthodoxy is not a cafeteria of dogma by any means. If one does not believe what the Church teaches, he is not truly a member of the Church, does not truly have the Church for his mother, and cannot have God for his Father.
This is exactly the position that our Church has as well, yet people consider it scandalous when it is us. When it's us it is the Magisterium "inflicting" stuff on the laity, but when it's Eastern Orthodoxy not budging on a teaching it's fine.

Wyatt,
I make mistakes, but I try hard not to paint Roman Catholics or Roman Catholicism with a large brush and make sweeping generalizations. I would humbly encourage you to try and do the same. It is not easy and one may feel under compulsion to use the same tactics when attacked with stereotypes and arguments from emotion. I don't claim to know what a "magesterium" is, but I don't take the line that it inflicts anything on Roman Catholic laity. There are some/many Orthodox who have the same negative feeling toward the Orthodox Church as some Roman Catholics have toward the Roman Catholic Church or some Orthodox have toward the RCC. I'm just not sure it does more than fuel resentment in oneself to focus on it, and it certainly doesn't advance mutual understanding. I'm pretty tired of the tit for tat. If we cannot discuss something without resentment and taking and giving offense, it's best, I think, to refrain from saying anything about it. I'm not trying to accuse you, personally, Wyatt. I've just noticed an increase of bad feelings with these sorts of discussions. I, for one, think there is plenty that can be discussed on our similarities and differences, but that this can be done without inferring ulterior motives or resentment.
Forgive me,
Eric

I think we all have a tendency to be a bit biased against "the other side" (and I'm not exempting Catholics from that, just read the thread catholic answers forum bars orthodox discussion).

On the other hand, it is encouraging when you see people of good will on all sides (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, etc.) trying, at least, to treat one another fairly.

“In order to unite, we must first love one another. In order to love one another, we must first get to know one another.”
- Cardinal Suenens
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 05:42:25 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #177 on: June 07, 2011, 08:52:37 PM »

The third council of Toledo, introducing filioque, was held in 589.   Its decisions or the practice of saying filioque do not seem to be known to the East until the time of St. Photius, so there is really no need for them to have broken communion with Spain up to that point.  Obviously there was a reconciliation at that time due to the actions of St. Leo III.   

Filioque is a doctrinal matter, as is evidenced by the Tomos of the Orthodox Faith drawn up by the Synod of Constantinople (Vlachernae) in 1285, the Synod of Constantinople of 1482-4, and the Synodikon of the Holy Spirit.  Quotes such as that of St. Epiphanius mentioned above are demonstrated in these works to refer to the missio of the Spirit into the world. 

Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #178 on: June 07, 2011, 09:32:03 PM »


I'd correct those so called Orthodox you depend on, but since they remainless nameless (and for all purposes, nonexistent), that is rather hard.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

They know you

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #179 on: June 07, 2011, 09:35:39 PM »

Christ is ascended!

I'd correct those so called Orthodox you depend on, but since they remainless nameless (and for all purposes, nonexistent), that is rather hard.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

They know you

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Evidently not well enough.  And more important, they don't know Orthodoxy well enough.

And if they can't even show their face behind an internet name, well, what they have to say shouldn't interest any of us.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 09:36:57 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: filioque 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  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 0.28 seconds with 72 queries.