OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 20, 2014, 08:08:33 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 12370 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #90 on: June 02, 2011, 09:03:33 PM »

This is getting even more confusing.
You ask a specific question and get direct answers. Now you wish to make a speculative generalization?
The filioque was indeed an issue but was not a problem outside of the see of Rome for  well prior to the eighth century, but as long as the Bishop of Rome adhered to orthodox faith the rest of the Church could not really do much about it.

That makes no sense since the pope was hardly the head of the universal Church at the time.

And THAT makes no sense. The Spanish bishops had just accepted the Bishop of Rome and in trying to rein in the lingering Arianism added the filioque. They were very much under him at that time.
And at NO time was the Bishop of Rome the "head" of the universal Church unless, of course, you are willing to allow that we have been correct all along (which we have been) and that his role WAS different then from what you folks claim now.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #91 on: June 02, 2011, 09:11:58 PM »

Instead of the "he said/she said" arguement, can we go back to substantiating our claims.
Logged


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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #92 on: June 02, 2011, 09:26:04 PM »

This is getting even more confusing.
You ask a specific question and get direct answers. Now you wish to make a speculative generalization?
The filioque was indeed an issue but was not a problem outside of the see of Rome for  well prior to the eighth century, but as long as the Bishop of Rome adhered to orthodox faith the rest of the Church could not really do much about it.

That makes no sense since the pope was hardly the head of the universal Church at the time.

And THAT makes no sense. The Spanish bishops had just accepted the Bishop of Rome and in trying to rein in the lingering Arianism added the filioque. They were very much under him at that time.
And at NO time was the Bishop of Rome the "head" of the universal Church unless, of course, you are willing to allow that we have been correct all along (which we have been) and that his role WAS different then from what you folks claim now.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Im bored..thass all
Logged

Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #93 on: June 02, 2011, 09:27:38 PM »

This is getting even more confusing.
You ask a specific question and get direct answers. Now you wish to make a speculative generalization?
The filioque was indeed an issue but was not a problem outside of the see of Rome for  well prior to the eighth century, but as long as the Bishop of Rome adhered to orthodox faith the rest of the Church could not really do much about it.

That makes no sense since the pope was hardly the head of the universal Church at the time.

And THAT makes no sense. The Spanish bishops had just accepted the Bishop of Rome and in trying to rein in the lingering Arianism added the filioque. They were very much under him at that time.
And at NO time was the Bishop of Rome the "head" of the universal Church unless, of course, you are willing to allow that we have been correct all along (which we have been) and that his role WAS different then from what you folks claim now.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Im bored..thass all

Me, too!
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #94 on: June 02, 2011, 09:28:35 PM »

Instead of the "he said/she said" arguement, can we go back to substantiating our claims.
But proper history is part of that process, no?
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #95 on: June 02, 2011, 10:47:25 PM »

This is getting even more confusing.
You ask a specific question and get direct answers. Now you wish to make a speculative generalization?
The filioque was indeed an issue but was not a problem outside of the see of Rome for  well prior to the eighth century, but as long as the Bishop of Rome adhered to orthodox faith the rest of the Church could not really do much about it.

That makes no sense since the pope was hardly the head of the universal Church at the time.

And THAT makes no sense. The Spanish bishops had just accepted the Bishop of Rome and in trying to rein in the lingering Arianism added the filioque. They were very much under him at that time.
And at NO time was the Bishop of Rome the "head" of the universal Church unless, of course, you are willing to allow that we have been correct all along (which we have been) and that his role WAS different then from what you folks claim now.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Im bored..thass all

Me, too!

 Smiley  But its only a temporary condition!!
Logged

Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #96 on: June 03, 2011, 10:02:51 AM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.

If Rome ceases to proclaim the faith once delivered to the Apostles, that faith believed always, everywhere, by all, then yes it is. The Church is defined in terms of truth, not in terms of cities.

Yes, in terms of truth, all is about truth, where do you stand?

With Saints Photios, Palamas, and Peter: in the Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church. Smiley

Pity, you missundertand The Rock is Christ, and he left the keys to Peter, Whose  succesors are in Rome.
Heretics and schismatics cannot succeed Apostles.

but St. Peter still has a successor in his first see
...
and the original Pope still succeeds St. Peter's disciple St. Mark the Evangelist


and all the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church with them continue to exercise the power of the keys.  Which is how you are locking yourself out of the Kingdom of Heaven.


Yes, What ever... perhap peter forgot his keys in Antiochi when moving to Rome.  I guess you can tell us now when did Saint Epiphnius rejecte that the Holy Spirit comes form the Son.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2011, 10:07:26 AM by Inquisitor » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,472


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #97 on: June 03, 2011, 10:56:47 AM »

Instead of the "he said/she said" arguement, can we go back to substantiating our claims.
But proper history is part of that process, no?

Proper history would be substantiation in this case, I would think.  Smiley
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
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: 37,641



« Reply #98 on: June 03, 2011, 11:25:07 AM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.

If Rome ceases to proclaim the faith once delivered to the Apostles, that faith believed always, everywhere, by all, then yes it is. The Church is defined in terms of truth, not in terms of cities.

Yes, in terms of truth, all is about truth, where do you stand?

With Saints Photios, Palamas, and Peter: in the Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church. Smiley

Pity, you missundertand The Rock is Christ, and he left the keys to Peter, Whose  succesors are in Rome.
Heretics and schismatics cannot succeed Apostles.

but St. Peter still has a successor in his first see
...
and the original Pope still succeeds St. Peter's disciple St. Mark the Evangelist


and all the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church with them continue to exercise the power of the keys.  Which is how you are locking yourself out of the Kingdom of Heaven.


Yes, What ever... perhap peter forgot his keys in Antiochi when moving to Rome. 
I guess so
Quote
In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church's power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth", etc. Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven. This interpretation, however, restricts the sense somewhat too narrowly; for the remission of sins is but one of the various ways in which ecclesiastical authority is exercised. We have examples of this use of the term is such passages as August., "De Doctrina Christi", xvii, xviii: "Quid liberatius et misericordius facere potuit. . .nisi ut omnia donaret conversis. . .Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae suae ut quae solveret in terra soluta essent in coelo" (How could He [Christ] have shown greater liberality and greater mercy. . .than by granting full forgiveness to those who should turn from their sins. . .He gave these keys to His Church, therefore, that whatever it should remit on earth should be remitted also in heaven) (P.L., XXIV, 25; cf. Hilary, "In Matt.", xvi, P.L., IX, 1010).

It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349).
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm
Quote
I guess you can tell us now when did Saint Epiphnius rejecte that the Holy Spirit comes form the Son.
It is your job to show that he believed that the Spirit proceedes from the Son.

Speaking of your job, have you translated all that Latin you posted, evidently in ignorance of all what it says?  Can you read it?  Understand 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
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #99 on: June 05, 2011, 01:53:29 AM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.

If Rome ceases to proclaim the faith once delivered to the Apostles, that faith believed always, everywhere, by all, then yes it is. The Church is defined in terms of truth, not in terms of cities.

Yes, in terms of truth, all is about truth, where do you stand?
On the Rock of Christ, leaning on His pillars of Orthodoxy He erected to hold up His Church.


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.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,892


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #100 on: June 05, 2011, 03:17:00 AM »

I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Christianity and Judaism have always defined themselves against the Nations.  Wink

Not trying to be offensive, just pointing out the perspective.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #101 on: June 05, 2011, 04:28:03 AM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.

If Rome ceases to proclaim the faith once delivered to the Apostles, that faith believed always, everywhere, by all, then yes it is. The Church is defined in terms of truth, not in terms of cities.

Yes, in terms of truth, all is about truth, where do you stand?
On the Rock of Christ, leaning on His pillars of Orthodoxy He erected to hold up His Church.


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.
"Orthodoxy" used to apply to the "Roman Church" too.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #102 on: June 05, 2011, 05:04:08 AM »

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?
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 05:04:44 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #103 on: June 05, 2011, 11:11:23 AM »

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.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #104 on: June 05, 2011, 12:00:44 PM »

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 like how my Church manages to define what it believes without denigrating other Christian communities.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,075


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #105 on: June 05, 2011, 12:33:06 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 12:33:22 PM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #106 on: June 05, 2011, 12:50:40 PM »

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.

It gets even stranger when some of them completely misrepresent the Catholic west and then go on to teach precisely what the Catholic west teaches that they have just denied that they teach.

Now I have to tell you, that is more than passing confusing to wade through in trying to figure out what it is precisely that Orthodoxy does teach. 

Your denial of it does not lend credibility to an already confused composite of teachings...because as I have noted before I have a dozen texts that are regularly used to catechize in Orthodox parishes and there are glaring inconsistencies contained among them with such things as original sin, the priesthood, the atonement and other regularly contested teachings.

Some day you might want to step outside and take a look back at what some of us out here actually are looking at.
Logged

Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,237



« Reply #107 on: June 05, 2011, 03:16:27 PM »

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 like how my Church manages to define what it believes without denigrating other Christian communities.
Have you been to Catholic Answers?  laugh

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #108 on: June 05, 2011, 03:19:40 PM »

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 like how my Church manages to define what it believes without denigrating other Christian communities.
Have you been to Catholic Answers?  laugh

In Christ,
Andrew
I have an account over there but I have never really been active. I belong to another Catholic forum that is a much smaller group and the people are nice and more respectful.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #109 on: June 05, 2011, 08:42:43 PM »

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 like how my Church manages to define what it believes without denigrating other Christian communities.
You do realise that for the first millennium we actually shared a common history. The dogmas defined by the first Seven Ecumenical Councils were decreed in opposition to heresies which were pronounced anathema. We approach the Truth by cutting away what is not true.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #110 on: June 05, 2011, 09:39:41 PM »

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 like how my Church manages to define what it believes without denigrating other Christian communities.
You do realise that for the first millennium we actually shared a common history. The dogmas defined by the first Seven Ecumenical Councils were decreed in opposition to heresies which were pronounced anathema. We approach the Truth by cutting away what is not true.

Until you cut off so much hair, that cutting anymore is cutting yourself.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #111 on: June 05, 2011, 10:00:55 PM »

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 like how my Church manages to define what it believes without denigrating other Christian communities.
You do realise that for the first millennium we actually shared a common history. The dogmas defined by the first Seven Ecumenical Councils were decreed in opposition to heresies which were pronounced anathema. We approach the Truth by cutting away what is not true.
Of course, but then again this is the 21st century. We're not going to burn heretics anymore either. Thankfully, there are many who realize there is a less harsh, more charitable way of dealing with people. Screaming heretic at every turn is not it.
Logged
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #112 on: June 05, 2011, 10:07:43 PM »

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?
Yes, but the author of this icon named three men venerated by the Orthodox for opposing the Roman Church - and they all lived in different times.

It would have been one thing if the icon showed St. Athanasius, St. Leo, and St. Photios, and was labeled "Pillars of Orthodoxy", because then Orthodoxy would be defined in the icon as opposed to heterodoxy - where St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus are grouped in this icon specifically because of opposition to the Roman Church.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #113 on: June 05, 2011, 10:10:28 PM »

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?
Yes, but the author of this icon named three men venerated by the Orthodox for opposing the Roman Church - and they all lived in different times.

It would have been one thing if the icon showed St. Athanasius, St. Leo, and St. Photios, and was labeled "Pillars of Orthodoxy", because then Orthodoxy would be defined in the icon as opposed to heterodoxy - where St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus are grouped in this icon specifically because of opposition to the Roman Church.
It would seem that, for many, Orthodoxy is built upon the foundation Romaphobic paranoia. Fortunately, the Rock that we are stabilized on is sturdier. Wink
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 10:11:23 PM by Wyatt » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #114 on: June 05, 2011, 10:34:10 PM »

Fortunately, the Rock that we are stabilized on is sturdier. Wink
You mean St. Peter? If I recall he wasn't so sturdy- having denied Christ three times and then choosing the wrong doctrinal side in the circumcision debate in the Church so that St. Paul had to say: "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Galatians 2:11)
The Orthodox Church is founded on Christ. Much more sturdier. Smiley
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #115 on: June 05, 2011, 10:51:38 PM »

Fortunately, the Rock that we are stabilized on is sturdier. Wink
You mean St. Peter? If I recall he wasn't so sturdy- having denied Christ three times and then choosing the wrong doctrinal side in the circumcision debate in the Church so that St. Paul had to say: "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Galatians 2:11)
The Orthodox Church is founded on Christ. Much more sturdier. Smiley
Actually I too was talking about Christ. St. Peter is only the Rock because the Supreme Rock (Christ) appointed him as such. That doesn't negate the fact that Christ is the Rock of the Catholic Church as well, but then again you already knew that. You're just again demonstrating the true rock of Orthodoxy, perhaps unintentionally.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #116 on: June 05, 2011, 11:12:28 PM »

St. Peter is only the Rock because the Supreme Rock (Christ) appointed him as such.
You think so? I disagree. The Rock on which Christ founded the Church was St. Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God- not St. Peter himself. But of course, you already knew that. Smiley

 
You're just again demonstrating the true rock of Orthodoxy, perhaps unintentionally.
Careful. Your Orthodoxophobia is showing. Smiley So much for your delusion that Catholicism is uber-nice to "other Christians".
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 11:17:40 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #117 on: June 05, 2011, 11:16:32 PM »

You think so? I disagree. The Rock on which Christ founded the Church was St. Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God- not St. Peter himself. But of course, you already knew that. Smiley
You think so, huh? Funny how the name Peter (Kepha) itself means "rock."

Careful. Your Orthodoxophobia is showing. Smiley
Funny thing about phobias is they are irrational fears. Not what often goes on here. Wink
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: 37,641



« Reply #118 on: June 05, 2011, 11:18:03 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?
Yes, but the author of this icon named three men venerated by the Orthodox for opposing the Roman Church - and they all lived in different times.

It would have been one thing if the icon showed St. Athanasius, St. Leo, and St. Photios, and was labeled "Pillars of Orthodoxy", because then Orthodoxy would be defined in the icon as opposed to heterodoxy - where St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus are grouped in this icon specifically because of opposition to the Roman Church.
The Vatican?  Like you said,  they are grouped as opposed to heterodoxy, or rather, heresy.

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.
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: 37,641



« Reply #119 on: June 05, 2011, 11:20:31 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 like how my Church manages to define what it believes without denigrating other Christian communities.
Have you been to Catholic Answers?  laugh

In Christ,
Andrew
I have an account over there but I have never really been active. I belong to another Catholic forum that is a much smaller group and the people are nice and more respectful.
Most choirs are to their preacher.
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 #120 on: June 05, 2011, 11:21:42 PM »

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. If, when going through RCIA classes, I would have been told "the Catholic Church teaches x and we are clearly correct unlike the Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox who teach y and z and are clearly heretical" I would have been totally turned off by it. The thing that drew me towards Catholicism was the fact that the Catholic Church didn't engage in bashing all the other religions.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 11:22:47 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #121 on: June 05, 2011, 11:23:57 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 like how my Church manages to define what it believes without denigrating other Christian communities.
Have you been to Catholic Answers?  laugh

In Christ,
Andrew
I have an account over there but I have never really been active. I belong to another Catholic forum that is a much smaller group and the people are nice and more respectful.
Most choirs are to their preacher.
No, I mean we have not only Eastern Orthodox Christians and Protestant Christians, but Muslims, agnostics, atheists, etc. and people are, for the most part, respectful to everyone.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #122 on: June 05, 2011, 11:24:28 PM »

You think so? I disagree. The Rock on which Christ founded the Church was St. Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God- not St. Peter himself. But of course, you already knew that. Smiley
You think so, huh? Funny how the name Peter (Kepha) itself means "rock."
Actually, "petros" ( St Peter's name) means "stone". "Petra" ( which is what Christ founded the Church on) means "rock". Christ founded the Church on the Rock (Petra) and called St. Peter the Stone (petros). But you already knew that.

Careful. Your Orthodoxophobia is showing. Smiley
Funny thing about phobias is they are irrational fears. Not what often goes on here. Wink
So your fears are rational? There is a cure for all fears - perfect love drives them all out.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 11:26:36 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,237



« Reply #123 on: June 05, 2011, 11:27:55 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?
Yes, but the author of this icon named three men venerated by the Orthodox for opposing the Roman Church - and they all lived in different times.

It would have been one thing if the icon showed St. Athanasius, St. Leo, and St. Photios, and was labeled "Pillars of Orthodoxy", because then Orthodoxy would be defined in the icon as opposed to heterodoxy - where St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus are grouped in this icon specifically because of opposition to the Roman Church.
The Vatican?  Like you said,  they are grouped as opposed to heterodoxy, or rather, heresy.

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.
So, Isa, could we say if those of the RCC taught heresy in, say Mongolia, we'd still be just as against the heresy as if it were anywhere else? Wink

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
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: 37,641



« Reply #124 on: June 05, 2011, 11:28:35 PM »

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.

It gets even stranger when some of them completely misrepresent the Catholic west and then go on to teach precisely what the Catholic west teaches that they have just denied that they teach.
Such as?

Now I have to tell you, that is more than passing confusing to wade through in trying to figure out what it is precisely that Orthodoxy does teach.
Hundreds of millions of us have no such problem.

Your denial of it does not lend credibility to an already confused composite of teachings...because as I have noted before I have a dozen texts that are regularly used to catechize in Orthodox parishes and there are glaring inconsistencies contained among them with such things as original sin, the priesthood, the atonement and other regularly contested teachings.
I do recall you claiming so many times, but did I miss you documenting such a charge?

Some day you might want to step outside and take a look back at what some of us out here actually are looking at.
You forget, many of us have. That's why we are now inside.
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: 37,641



« Reply #125 on: June 05, 2011, 11:31:41 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?
Yes, but the author of this icon named three men venerated by the Orthodox for opposing the Roman Church - and they all lived in different times.

It would have been one thing if the icon showed St. Athanasius, St. Leo, and St. Photios, and was labeled "Pillars of Orthodoxy", because then Orthodoxy would be defined in the icon as opposed to heterodoxy - where St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus are grouped in this icon specifically because of opposition to the Roman Church.
The Vatican?  Like you said,  they are grouped as opposed to heterodoxy, or rather, heresy.

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.
So, Isa, could we say if those of the RCC taught heresy in, say Mongolia, we'd still be just as against the heresy as if it were anywhere else? Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
Actually since in Mongolia the Orthodox are the Christian presence, we don't need to get sidetracked into correcting Vatican heresies, and can start out with correct doctrine straight.
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 #126 on: June 05, 2011, 11:33:52 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 your fears are rational? There is a cure for all fears - perfect love drives them all out.
I am striving for that perfect love through the sanctifying Grace I receive in the Sacraments of the Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 11:34:36 PM by Wyatt » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #127 on: June 05, 2011, 11:38:44 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?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
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: 37,641



« Reply #128 on: June 05, 2011, 11:40:34 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.

If, when going through RCIA classes, I would have been told "the Catholic Church teaches x and we are clearly correct unlike the Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox who teach y and z and are clearly heretical" I would have been totally turned off by it. The thing that drew me towards Catholicism was the fact that the Catholic Church didn't engage in bashing all the other religions.
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.
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: 6,123



« Reply #129 on: June 06, 2011, 08:13:10 AM »

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 like how my Church manages to define what it believes without denigrating other Christian communities.
You do realise that for the first millennium we actually shared a common history. The dogmas defined by the first Seven Ecumenical Councils were decreed in opposition to heresies which were pronounced anathema. We approach the Truth by cutting away what is not true.

That same principle still applies, in the Catholic Church. For example, the Council of Trent asserted the list of Old Testament books, 7 sacraments, Mary's perpetual virginity, etc., in response to those who were denying those teachings.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #130 on: June 06, 2011, 08:15:22 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.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,237



« Reply #131 on: June 06, 2011, 08:48:51 AM »

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?
Yes, but the author of this icon named three men venerated by the Orthodox for opposing the Roman Church - and they all lived in different times.

It would have been one thing if the icon showed St. Athanasius, St. Leo, and St. Photios, and was labeled "Pillars of Orthodoxy", because then Orthodoxy would be defined in the icon as opposed to heterodoxy - where St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus are grouped in this icon specifically because of opposition to the Roman Church.
The Vatican?  Like you said,  they are grouped as opposed to heterodoxy, or rather, heresy.

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.
So, Isa, could we say if those of the RCC taught heresy in, say Mongolia, we'd still be just as against the heresy as if it were anywhere else? Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
Actually since in Mongolia the Orthodox are the Christian presence, we don't need to get sidetracked into correcting Vatican heresies, and can start out with correct doctrine straight.
I guess I was trying to say that it wouldn't matter where heresies were coming from, Rome or elsewhere, Orthodoxy would offer the solution to the heresy. The Pillars of Orthodoxy are not a result of a hatred for the RCC or anything western, but for the certain false teachings that those Saints had to fight and overcame with the Lord's grace.

Of course, Protestants could say similar things to the RCC about people they have canonized. Theoretically, they could level criticism of folks like Thomas More and Francis de Sales in the same way the RCC complains about the Pillars and others. Right?

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #132 on: June 06, 2011, 09:27:30 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...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.

And so the myths continue to be perpetuated...for those who are most willing to accept them and not look elsewhere or accept correction.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #133 on: June 06, 2011, 09:30:46 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.

If you google his name you will find some student evaluations of his work as an Arabic teacher in Illinois.  Those evaluations will give you some fairly good insight into what we are dealing with here.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 09:31:28 AM by elijahmaria » 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: 37,641



« Reply #134 on: June 06, 2011, 10:27:33 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/
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 0.21 seconds with 72 queries.