OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 01:54:37 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: Something rotten in the state of ecumenism?  (Read 9731 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



« on: July 05, 2011, 01:51:40 PM »

I have a question to pose to my Orthodox brethren, but first let me admit something: I consider myself a traditional Catholic, so I may well be biased. (I won't be surprised if some of you respond to this post by saying that traditional Catholics like me “just don't understand” ecumenism.)

Assuming you're still reading after that admission, here's my big problem with ecumenism, stated in the simplest way I can think of: How is it that it's fine for “ecumenical-minded” Catholics, like Dr. Scott Hahn and Fr. Robert Taft, to makes statement like those quoted below, and yet if a traditional Catholic said the same things he would be decried as un-ecumenical and intolerant?


Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.


Quote from: an interview with Fr. Taft
Taft: To attempt to apply rational analysis to this is to fail to understand what the East is. Once you get over on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, the further you go South or East from anywhere, the worse everything gets, except the food. Logic gets worse, rationality gets worse, and everything ultimately winds up in hysteria and emotionalism. It’s futile to try and reason about this.

Interviewer: So the Catholic church is never going to persuade the Orthodox to accept the patriarchate?

Taft: No, and I don’t think we should even try. To hell with Moscow.


P.S. To anyone who is a Shakespeare fan/purist, sorry about the cheesy thread title.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2011, 02:10:09 PM »

Could you supply the references for those quotes, especially the one by Fr Taft?

To answer your question: I was not aware that either of the authors were "ecumenically minded." They might have been so at one point, but Fr Taft has been more than a little sour on the topic for many years.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Fabio Leite
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,438



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2011, 02:14:18 PM »

Much of Ecumenism is just the "revolutionary mentality", as defined by Olavo de Carvalho, applied to world religions and the Church in particular.

The reason why ecumenists can say such politically incorrect things and get away with it while traditionalist papists can't is that they are on the "right" side of the line: supporting ideas and values that would eventually converge to a "revolution" of the world. It's the same reason why Cuba and Iran criminalize homossexualism and get away with "cultural relativism", but if a Christian expresses his personal opinion that homossexualism is disgusting (even not being violent) than he's a bygot.

Olavo de Carvalho uses the expression in a restrict sense, not in the generic concept of "revolution". He defines it in these two articles:

http://www.philosophyseminar.com/texts/articles/124-the-revolutionary-mentality.html

http://www.theinteramerican.org/commentary/191-more-on-the-revolutionary-mentality.html

Here's a summary of the articles:

The revolutionary mind is a perfectly identifiable and continuous historical phenomenon, whose developments over five centuries may be traced in countless documents. This is the subject of an investigation that has occupied me for several years now.
The revolutionary mind is not essentially a political phenomenon, but a spiritual and psychological one, though its field of expression and its fundamental instrument is political action.

To make things easier, I use the expressions "revolutionary mind" and "revolutionary mentality" in order to distinguish between the concrete historical phenomenon, with its varied manifestations, and the essential and permanent characteristic that enables one to grasp its unity throughout time.

The "revolutionary mentality" is the permanent or transitory state of spirit in which an individual or a group believes himself capable of remodeling the whole society – if not human nature in general – through political action.

Socialism and Nazism are not revolutionary because they propose supremacy of a social class or of a race, but because they turn these goals into principles for a radical remodeling not only of the political order, but of all human life.

That is why it must be stressed that the meaning here given to the term "revolution" is at once more encompassing and more precise than the one generally attributed to it by historiography and by the current social sciences. Many socio-political processes usually called "revolutions" are not actually "revolutionary", because they do not partake of the revolutionary mentality, they do not aim at the total remodeling of society, culture and the human species, but work only to modify local and momentary situations, ideally for the better.

What truly characterizes the revolutionary movement is that it imposes the authority of a hypothetical future on the judgment of all the human species, present or past. By its very nature, the revolution is totalitarian and universally expansive: there is not a single aspect of human life that it does not intend to submit to its power, there is no region of the world where it does not wish to extend the tentacles of its influence.

1. A revolutionary does not understand injustice and evil as factors inherent in the human condition that can be attenuated but not eliminated, but rather as temporary anomalies created by a segment of humanity—the bourgeoisie, the Jews, Christians, etc.—which can be identified and punished, thereby extirpating the root of evil.

2. The guilty segment of mankind spreads evil and sin by exercising a power—economic, political, military, and cultural. Hence, it must be eliminated by means of a superior power, the revolutionary power, deliberately created to achieve this purpose.

3. The revolutionary power, like the Biblical God, “makes all things new.” There are no limits to the range and depth of revolutionary action.

4. The demand for proof (of the need for the total remodelling of society) is automatically impugned as a subterfuge for avoiding change and condemned ipso facto as an element to be eliminated. The revolution is its own foundation and cannot be questioned from the outside.

5. The crimes and mistakes of a fallen leader, not imputable to the future society, nor to the revolutionary process as such, nor to the revolutionary movement as a whole, can therefore only be explained as a residual effect of the condemned past: a revolutionary, by definition, sins only by not being sufficiently revolutionary.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,438



WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2011, 02:23:27 PM »

When Ecumenists:

1. Speak and work for a Future "Ideal" Church;
2. See themselves as present representatives of this future ideal church, therefore only accountable to this "FIC" and not to current and traditional morality;
3. Put the blame on "traditionalists" of every Church for "bygotry", schisms and general evilness and ignorance;
4. See and practice every slander and backstage politics to neutralize this "guilty segment" of society  - after all they are working under the ethics of the FIC, before which the "traditionalists" are really hereticals;

They put themselves deep in the "revolutionary mentality" front.

That is why I think it is more honest to start with the fact that we consider each other schismatic at best, heretic at worse and union is actually conversion. That is "yes, yes, no, no" to me.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2011, 02:27:38 PM »

I don't think it is fine for them to say such things. They are ignorant. Anyone who supports statements like those are likewise ignorant.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2011, 05:43:57 PM »

Could you supply the references for those quotes, especially the one by Fr Taft?

Sure. Interview with Jesuit Fr. Robert Taft of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, February 4, 2004.

The other quote is from Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism by Scott and Kimberly Hahn, 1993.

To answer your question: I was not aware that either of the authors were "ecumenically minded." They might have been so at one point, but Fr Taft has been more than a little sour on the topic for many years.

Come to think of it, I don't exactly know why Dr. Hahn and Fr. Taft are considered "ecumenical-minded". Just about every conversation on them that I've ever been involved in, took for granted that they are.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2011, 06:00:36 PM »

As I have mentioned before Scott Hahn can sometimes entertain his readers with his hilarious blunders and this is one of them.  Sometimes it really does pay to engage the brain and avoid making daft statements!!

Quote from: Scott Hahn

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology.

Does this mean that when Catholic theology reaches a satisfactory level of development and clarification it then starts to stagnate??!  

Or is it imperative that Catholic doctrine *never* stops developing?    Avoid stagnation at all cost.  The genuine Church shall be known by its never ending evolution of doctrine.   laugh

Last century we brought you the Immaculate Conception.  This century we are going to keep your attention by unveiling the Co-redemptrix.  And wait for it.... to stretch your mind in the 22nd century we shall be rolling out the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit!
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 06:06:18 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2011, 06:16:25 PM »

And wait for it.... to stretch your mind in the 22nd century we shall be rolling out the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit!
In whom?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2011, 06:30:23 PM »

And wait for it.... to stretch your mind in the 22nd century we shall be rolling out the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit!
In whom?

In the Immaculata.

Try a google search with   kolbe quasi incarnation
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 06:32:01 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2011, 06:38:06 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 06:38:49 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2011, 06:46:24 PM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology.

Yes, with just about all the definitions over and done with (apart from a few Marian ones) you are probably approaching the state of theological stagnation so feared by Scott Hahn.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #11 on: July 06, 2011, 06:51:40 PM »

Scott Hahn:

It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.


Seriously, the man should take his blinkers off.   *THIS* is what we have reaped in the 20th century  -- a harvest of 50 million martyrs who stand now before the throne of Jesus Christ and are already preparing the Church for a renewed flourishing of Christian faith and holiness. 

To take Russia as an example, in the last 20 years the monasteries have grown from just 4 under Communism to over 400. Monasteries and convents filled with monks and nuns, and fresh accommodation being built at as fast as can be.  So many aspirants that the Holy Synod has asked the abbots and abbesses  to discourage older married couples separating and going into monasteries and to concentrate on taking the younger applicants. The same situation in Serbia.  Everywhere young monks with black beards.

We give glory and praise to God for these holy Martyrs and what their prayers are now bringing about.

"In Memory Of The 50 Million Victims Of The Orthodox Christian Holocaust"

http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/memoryof.htm
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 #12 on: July 06, 2011, 06:52:31 PM »

And wait for it.... to stretch your mind in the 22nd century we shall be rolling out the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit!
In whom?

In the Immaculata.

Try a google search with   kolbe quasi incarnation
Google?  He can do a search here. We've dealt with it several times, with links to the Vatican's sources.
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 #13 on: July 06, 2011, 06:55:58 PM »

I have a question to pose to my Orthodox brethren, but first let me admit something: I consider myself a traditional Catholic, so I may well be biased. (I won't be surprised if some of you respond to this post by saying that traditional Catholics like me “just don't understand” ecumenism.)

Assuming you're still reading after that admission, here's my big problem with ecumenism, stated in the simplest way I can think of: How is it that it's fine for “ecumenical-minded” Catholics, like Dr. Scott Hahn and Fr. Robert Taft, to makes statement like those quoted below, and yet if a traditional Catholic said the same things he would be decried as un-ecumenical and intolerant?


Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.


Quote from: an interview with Fr. Taft
Taft: To attempt to apply rational analysis to this is to fail to understand what the East is. Once you get over on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, the further you go South or East from anywhere, the worse everything gets, except the food. Logic gets worse, rationality gets worse, and everything ultimately winds up in hysteria and emotionalism. It’s futile to try and reason about this.

Interviewer: So the Catholic church is never going to persuade the Orthodox to accept the patriarchate?

Taft: No, and I don’t think we should even try. To hell with Moscow.


P.S. To anyone who is a Shakespeare fan/purist, sorry about the cheesy thread title.
Fine with whom? Certainly not the Orthodox. Hahn's stupid statement and Fr. Taft's even more baseless (and ignorant) one have been dealt with us several times here.
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
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2011, 07:17:54 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #15 on: July 06, 2011, 07:31:36 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Hahn really does not know what he is talking about.

He takes a swipe at us because our theology is unchanging.

But then he praises us for our liturgy    ~which is also unchanging.

The last change to our "stagnant" liturgy was about the 12th century when we added in the priest's prayer at the beginning of the Anaphora/Canon.

"No one bound by worldly desires and pleasures is worthy to approach, draw near or minister to Thee, the King of glory.."
 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2011, 08:04:14 PM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.


Quote from: an interview with Fr. Taft
Taft: To attempt to apply rational analysis to this is to fail to understand what the East is. Once you get over on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, the further you go South or East from anywhere, the worse everything gets, except the food. Logic gets worse, rationality gets worse, and everything ultimately winds up in hysteria and emotionalism. It’s futile to try and reason about this.

Interviewer: So the Catholic church is never going to persuade the Orthodox to accept the patriarchate?

Taft: No, and I don’t think we should even try. To hell with Moscow.

I see two great Catholic theologians of the 20th century saying "To hell with Orthodoxy."

Well at least they are honest, unlike the Pope whom you say won't put all his cards on the table.

What are you saying to us, Peter?  Are you saying that we ought to take Hahn and Taft as the Vatican's true voice in the dialogue?  That we should abandon the dialogue?
Logged
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2011, 08:40:36 PM »

To take Russia as an example, in the last 20 years the monasteries have grown from just 4 under Communism to over 400. Monasteries and convents filled with monks and nuns, and fresh accommodation being built at as fast as can be.  So many aspirants that the Holy Synod has asked the abbots and abbesses  to discourage older married couples separating and going into monasteries and to concentrate on taking the younger applicants. The same situation in Serbia.  Everywhere young monks with black beards.

Growth in Orthodoxy in Russia is limited to only a few parts of the country. As impressive as the growth may be in a few places, elsewhere the Church is shrinking or has pulled out entirely. In the areas I do fieldwork, the Orthodox have decided not to maintain priests or rebuild churches in spite of demand, because the ROC in the area now considers itself only a church for ethnic Russians and not despised non-Russian-speaking minorities, so the Lutheran Church has come in to minister. There has been no return to the pre-Communist flourishing of the Church, when whole peoples were being brought to Christ. Rather, there has been a change of priorities that will leave most of the country abandoned.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 08:43:15 PM by CRCulver » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2011, 08:59:23 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Hahn really does not know what he is talking about.

He takes a swipe at us because our theology is unchanging.

But then he praises us for our liturgy    ~which is also unchanging.

The last change to our "stagnant" liturgy was about the 12th century when we added in the priest's prayer at the beginning of the Anaphora/Canon.

"No one bound by worldly desires and pleasures is worthy to approach, draw near or minister to Thee, the King of glory.."
 

Hi Father and Papist.

Is Dr. Hahn a traditional Catholic?

Of course, if he is, it might be wise to keep that quiet, since it could cause his popularity to plummet. But, more relevant to this thread, it would mean that I owe him an apology:

How is it that it's fine for “ecumenical-minded” Catholics, like Dr. Scott Hahn and Fr. Robert Taft, to makes statement like those quoted below, and yet if a traditional Catholic said the same things he would be decried as un-ecumenical and intolerant?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #19 on: July 06, 2011, 09:00:57 PM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.


Quote from: an interview with Fr. Taft
Taft: To attempt to apply rational analysis to this is to fail to understand what the East is. Once you get over on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, the further you go South or East from anywhere, the worse everything gets, except the food. Logic gets worse, rationality gets worse, and everything ultimately winds up in hysteria and emotionalism. It’s futile to try and reason about this.

Interviewer: So the Catholic church is never going to persuade the Orthodox to accept the patriarchate?

Taft: No, and I don’t think we should even try. To hell with Moscow.

I see two great Catholic theologians of the 20th century saying "To hell with Orthodoxy."

Well at least they are honest, unlike the Pope whom you say won't put all his cards on the table.

What are you saying to us, Peter?  Are you saying that we ought to take Hahn and Taft as the Vatican's true voice in the dialogue? 

Good question. I can definitely see some advantages to doing that. When it comes to ecumenism, neo-conservative Catholics are the 600-lb gorilla in the room, and "tak[ing] Hahn and Taft as the Vatican's true voice in the dialogue" would definitely make the gorilla happy.

That we should abandon the dialogue?

Also a good question, but I'm not going to try to tackle it here.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 06, 2011, 09:17:25 PM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.


Quote from: an interview with Fr. Taft
Taft: To attempt to apply rational analysis to this is to fail to understand what the East is. Once you get over on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, the further you go South or East from anywhere, the worse everything gets, except the food. Logic gets worse, rationality gets worse, and everything ultimately winds up in hysteria and emotionalism. It’s futile to try and reason about this.

Interviewer: So the Catholic church is never going to persuade the Orthodox to accept the patriarchate?

Taft: No, and I don’t think we should even try. To hell with Moscow.

I see two great Catholic theologians of the 20th century saying "To hell with Orthodoxy."

Well at least they are honest, unlike the Pope whom you say won't put all his cards on the table.

What are you saying to us, Peter?  Are you saying that we ought to take Hahn and Taft as the Vatican's true voice in the dialogue?  That we should abandon the dialogue?

The ex-Roman Catholic in me screams, "HAHN IS NOT A GREAT THEOLOGIAN!"

At best, he's an explainer of RC dogma to ex-Prots like himself.

Fr. Taft is the almost the opposite: an academic theologian trying to live in two worlds.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #21 on: July 06, 2011, 09:43:54 PM »

The ex-Roman Catholic in me screams, "HAHN IS NOT A GREAT THEOLOGIAN!"

At best, he's an explainer of RC dogma to ex-Prots like himself.
To me, that is a good theologian. Listening to Scott Hahn and reading his work helped me tremendously as I left Protestantism and joined the Catholic Church.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,438



WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 07, 2011, 12:03:25 AM »

And wait for it.... to stretch your mind in the 22nd century we shall be rolling out the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit!
In whom?

In the Immaculata.

Try a google search with   kolbe quasi incarnation
Google?  He can do a search here. We've dealt with it several times, with links to the Vatican's sources.

Oh my! I didn't know about that. Really? Quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit? I just watched a video on it ( http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9zb40_quasi-incarnation-of-the-holy-spir_news ), it's just jaw-dropping in the bad sense of the expression.

The Holy Spirit's infallibility acts only through ex cathedra statements of the Pope. The Holy Spirit acts only through Mary. Catapapism and now catamaryism... what happened to cata holicism?
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #23 on: July 07, 2011, 02:12:43 AM »

There has been no return to the pre-Communist flourishing of the Church, when whole peoples were being brought to Christ.


Do you have in mind such as the Aleuts of Alaska?  What other whole peoples were bring brought to Christ in the pre-Communist period?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #24 on: July 07, 2011, 02:15:51 AM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.


Quote from: an interview with Fr. Taft
Taft: To attempt to apply rational analysis to this is to fail to understand what the East is. Once you get over on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, the further you go South or East from anywhere, the worse everything gets, except the food. Logic gets worse, rationality gets worse, and everything ultimately winds up in hysteria and emotionalism. It’s futile to try and reason about this.

Interviewer: So the Catholic church is never going to persuade the Orthodox to accept the patriarchate?

Taft: No, and I don’t think we should even try. To hell with Moscow.

I see two great Catholic theologians of the 20th century saying "To hell with Orthodoxy."

Well at least they are honest, unlike the Pope whom you say won't put all his cards on the table.

What are you saying to us, Peter?  Are you saying that we ought to take Hahn and Taft as the Vatican's true voice in the dialogue?  That we should abandon the dialogue?

The ex-Roman Catholic in me screams, "HAHN IS NOT A GREAT THEOLOGIAN!"

At best, he's an explainer of RC dogma to ex-Prots like himself.


Yes, I think that statement by Father Irish Hermit was designed to have the efect of nails on a blackboard!   laugh Grin
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #25 on: July 07, 2011, 02:23:58 AM »

And wait for it.... to stretch your mind in the 22nd century we shall be rolling out the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit!
In whom?

In the Immaculata.

Try a google search with   kolbe quasi incarnation
Google?  He can do a search here. We've dealt with it several times, with links to the Vatican's sources.

Oh my! I didn't know about that. Really? Quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit? I just watched a video on it ( http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9zb40_quasi-incarnation-of-the-holy-spir_news ), it's just jaw-dropping in the bad sense of the expression.

The Holy Spirit's infallibility acts only through ex cathedra statements of the Pope. The Holy Spirit acts only through Mary. Catapapism and now catamaryism... what happened to cata holicism?

Yes, it's the zaniest theology around these days, from the Franciscan University.

But zany or not, many believe it will be the Fifth Marian Dogma.   Just give the Franciscans time to percolate it through the whole Roman Catholic Church.

Remember that dogma, according to Scott Hahn, must never stop developing, otherwise it becomes stagnant.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #26 on: July 07, 2011, 06:40:44 AM »

And wait for it.... to stretch your mind in the 22nd century we shall be rolling out the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit!
In whom?

In the Immaculata.

Try a google search with   kolbe quasi incarnation
Google?  He can do a search here. We've dealt with it several times, with links to the Vatican's sources.

Oh my! I didn't know about that. Really? Quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit? I just watched a video on it ( http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9zb40_quasi-incarnation-of-the-holy-spir_news ), it's just jaw-dropping in the bad sense of the expression.

The Holy Spirit's infallibility acts only through ex cathedra statements of the Pope. The Holy Spirit acts only through Mary. Catapapism and now catamaryism... what happened to cata holicism?

Yes, it's the zaniest theology around these days, from the Franciscan University.

But zany or not, many believe it will be the Fifth Marian Dogma.   Just give the Franciscans time to percolate it through the whole Roman Catholic Church.

Remember that dogma, according to Scott Hahn, must never stop developing, otherwise it becomes stagnant.

The Fifth-Marian-Dogma enthusiasts are, from what I've seen, generally very favorable towards quasi-incarnation talk as well. But, just to set the record straight, they don't include quasi-incarnation in their "Fifth Dogma". (Not that it matters very much to me. I consider myself a traditional Catholic, as you know.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #27 on: July 07, 2011, 06:53:35 AM »

The Fifth-Marian-Dogma enthusiasts are, from what I've seen, generally very favorable towards quasi-incarnation talk as well. But, just to set the record straight, they don't include quasi-incarnation in their "Fifth Dogma". (Not that it matters very much to me. I consider myself a traditional Catholic, as you know.)

The Franciscans have an unparalleled record of success in imposing on your Church the new Marian doctrines which they promote.    For centuries they fought tooth and nail with the Dominicans all across Europe in the parishes and universities.   The Dominicans were strongly opposed to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception...  The Franciscans beat them to pulp.  They will do the same for the Quasi-Incarnation.  Long live the new Hypostastic Union of Mary and the Holy Spirit!

This video clip on the Quasi-Incarnation from Dr Miravalle of the Franciscan University at Steubenville is truly horrific.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9zb40_quasi-incarnation-of-the-holy-spir_news
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,444


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #28 on: July 07, 2011, 07:51:21 AM »

"Truly horrific" is far too mild a description.  Tongue Tongue Angry
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 07, 2011, 10:56:58 AM »

bump:  Hate to see this ignored.  I am sure Father Ambrose has something Anti-Taftian to say about this.


Growth in Orthodoxy in Russia is limited to only a few parts of the country. As impressive as the growth may be in a few places, elsewhere the Church is shrinking or has pulled out entirely. In the areas I do fieldwork, the Orthodox have decided not to maintain priests or rebuild churches in spite of demand, because the ROC in the area now considers itself only a church for ethnic Russians and not despised non-Russian-speaking minorities, so the Lutheran Church has come in to minister. There has been no return to the pre-Communist flourishing of the Church, when whole peoples were being brought to Christ. Rather, there has been a change of priorities that will leave most of the country abandoned.

Also I agree with Schultz's assessments above.  Who cares what Scott and Father Robert say?...besides their mothers and Scott's wife?...this is only half a tease, but neither one has much chance of making it in the big leagues...speaking of theology in its classical sense.

M.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2011, 11:02:32 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #30 on: July 07, 2011, 11:07:59 AM »

Who cares what Scott and Father Robert say?...besides their mothers and Scott's wife?...this is only half a tease, but neither one has much chance of making it in the big leagues...speaking of theology in its classical sense.

I think they are significant, if only because of the sheer number of people who are influenced by them.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #31 on: July 07, 2011, 11:09:15 AM »

I don't think it is fine for them to say such things. They are ignorant. Anyone who supports statements like those are likewise ignorant.

As with my answer to pensateomnia, it's a bit difficult to provide evidence*. In my experience, it's generally taken for granted that those statements from Dr. Hahn and Fr. Taft are fine and dandy.

* Although this tidbit might help a little.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #32 on: July 07, 2011, 11:09:25 AM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #33 on: July 07, 2011, 11:14:30 AM »

I would like to add that I don't agree with the concept that EOs are theologically stagnant. That is one point were Hahn and I diverge. I think that theological innovation is a big part of Eastern Orthodoxy. One example is the fact that they used to believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and have since rejected those teachings. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception came from the East, not the West,  and yet, they currently reject that as well.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 07, 2011, 11:20:07 AM »

Who cares what Scott and Father Robert say?...besides their mothers and Scott's wife?...this is only half a tease, but neither one has much chance of making it in the big leagues...speaking of theology in its classical sense.

I think they are significant, if only because of the sheer number of people who are influenced by them.

Ya...Puts them right up there with mortal sin, using your criteria!!   laugh
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #35 on: July 07, 2011, 11:22:26 AM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #36 on: July 07, 2011, 11:25:45 AM »

I would like to add that I don't agree with the concept that EOs are theologically stagnant. That is one point were Hahn and I diverge. I think that theological innovation is a big part of Eastern Orthodoxy. One example is the fact that they used to believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and have since rejected those teachings. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception came from the East, not the West,  and yet, they currently reject that as well.

Good clarification. I was a little surprised when you said "as a traditional Catholic, I am [in] agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church", but now I get what you're saying.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #37 on: July 07, 2011, 11:28:21 AM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.   They deny it is true and then complain when it isn't in evidence.
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 #38 on: July 07, 2011, 11:43:17 AM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.   They deny it is true and then complain when it isn't in evidence.
check your code of canon law (or as it is offiically Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (CCEO)), there is no such thing as a "fully independent particular church" in the Vatican's ecclesiastical community.
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM

Your "facts" fall flat yet again.

But it is true that the Catholic Church's formal position toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal sister Churches who are in communion as fully independent particular Churches, in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church (where the Vatican's "supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the church which he can always freely exercise" has no place).
« Last Edit: July 07, 2011, 11:47:32 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
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #39 on: July 07, 2011, 11:45:34 AM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.

I think Taft gives quite a nice response to Hahn:
Quote
Do you agree that the central problem is the papacy?
Of course. What we’ve made out of the papacy is simply ridiculous. There’s no possible justification in the New Testament or anyplace else for what we’ve made out of the papacy. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in a Petrine ministry. I believe that Rome has inherited that Petrine ministry. But there’s no reason on God’s earth why the pope should be appointing the bishop of Peoria. None whatsoever. So we really need a devolution, a decentralization. The Catholic church has become so big that we need some kind of a synodal structure in the West the same way you have in the East. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ought to be a kind of synod of Catholic bishops in the United States. They ought to be able to elect the bishops. Leave Rome a veto, if you want. By the way, this would be no guarantee of better bishops. The notion that the locals will necessarily pick better people than Rome is obviously false, as anybody who knows the East understands. But at least people will see these guys as their bishops and not Rome’s. Make your own bed and sleep in it. The pope could say: ‘You don’t like the archbishop of New York? Hey, I didn’t name him.’
Logged
Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,199


Scheherazade


« Reply #40 on: July 07, 2011, 12:04:01 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?


By all means oppose Orthodoxy, but oppose reality, not some fantasy mental construct fashioned out of ignorance and bias.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2011, 12:04:34 PM by Paisius » 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 #41 on: July 07, 2011, 12:10:28 PM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.

I think Taft gives quite a nice response to Hahn:
Quote
Do you agree that the central problem is the papacy?
Of course. What we’ve made out of the papacy is simply ridiculous. There’s no possible justification in the New Testament or anyplace else for what we’ve made out of the papacy. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in a Petrine ministry. I believe that Rome has inherited that Petrine ministry. But there’s no reason on God’s earth why the pope should be appointing the bishop of Peoria. None whatsoever. So we really need a devolution, a decentralization. The Catholic church has become so big that we need some kind of a synodal structure in the West the same way you have in the East. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ought to be a kind of synod of Catholic bishops in the United States. They ought to be able to elect the bishops. Leave Rome a veto, if you want. By the way, this would be no guarantee of better bishops. The notion that the locals will necessarily pick better people than Rome is obviously false, as anybody who knows the East understands. But at least people will see these guys as their bishops and not Rome’s. Make your own bed and sleep in it. The pope could say: ‘You don’t like the archbishop of New York? Hey, I didn’t name him.’

Wonder if Hahn has ever read the Pedalion:
Quote
Nicea II caon 3. Every appointment of a bishop, or of a presbyter, or of a deacon made by (civil) rulers shall remain void in accordance with the Canon which says: "If any bishop comes into possession of a church by employing secular rulers, let him be deposed from office, and let him be excommunicated. And all those who communicate with him too." For it behooves anyone who is going to be promoted to a bishopric to be appointed by bishops, as was decreed by the holy Fathers assembled in Nicaea, in the Canon saying: "It is most fitting that a bishop should be installed by all those in his province. But if such a thing is difficult either because of the urgency of circumstances, or because of the distance to be traveled, at least three should meet together somewhere and by their votes combined with those of the ones absent and joining in the election by letter they should carry out the ordination thereafter. But as for the ratification of the proceedings, let it be entrusted in each province to the Metropolitan."

(Ap. cc. I, II, XXX, LXI; c. IV of the 1st; cc. V, XIII of Laodicea; c. LIX of Carthage; c. VII of Timothy.)


Interpretation.

The present Canon is composed of Ap. c. XXX and c. IV of the 1st. Since we have already explained these Canons, see the interpretation of them there, in order to spare us from repeating the same things about them here. The only thing in this Canon that is not found there, is that every appointment or election of a bishop, or of a presbyter, or of a deacon that is made by authority and power of civil rulers shall remain void and invalid; and that bishops are to be elected by bishops, in accordance with a process previously described; that is to say, on the other hand, that the fact that both presbyters and deacons are elected is made plain indeed by the present Canon, concerning which see the Footnote to Ap. c. II; as for the fact, moreover, that Christians ought to vote subsequently after the bishops for those about to be admitted to holy orders, this is made plain in the Interpretation of Ap. c. LXI. See also Ap. cc. I and II, and the Footnote to c. V of Laodicea.
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_ecumenical_rudder.htm#_Toc34001967
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 #42 on: July 07, 2011, 12:14:05 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?


By all means oppose Orthodoxy, but oppose reality, not some fantasy mental construct fashioned out of ignorance and bias.

Excellent advice for both Catholics and Orthodox:  and fits well with both of the quotes in question here.
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 #43 on: July 07, 2011, 12:18:36 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.   They deny it is true and then complain when it isn't in evidence.

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?


By all means oppose Orthodoxy, but oppose reality, not some fantasy mental construct fashioned out of ignorance and bias.

Excellent advice for both Catholics and Orthodox:  and fits well with both of the quotes in question here.
and other quotes.
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 #44 on: July 07, 2011, 12:32:37 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.   They deny it is true and then complain when it isn't in evidence.
check your code of canon law (or as it is offiically Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (CCEO)), there is no such thing as a "fully independent particular church" in the Vatican's ecclesiastical community.
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM

Your "facts" fall flat yet again.


No.  They do not fall flat as much as they have not been tried, yet.

This very reality is what the bilateral dialogue is trying to forge without totally jettisoning the teachings of papal primacy and infallibility. 

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 #45 on: July 07, 2011, 01:36:44 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.   They deny it is true and then complain when it isn't in evidence.
check your code of canon law (or as it is offiically Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (CCEO)), there is no such thing as a "fully independent particular church" in the Vatican's ecclesiastical community.
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM

Your "facts" fall flat yet again.


No.  They do not fall flat as much as they have not been tried, yet.

This very reality is what the bilateral dialogue is trying to forge without totally jettisoning the teachings of papal primacy and infallibility. 


not some fantasy mental construct fashioned out of ignorance and bias.
Excellent advice for both Catholics and Orthodox
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #46 on: July 07, 2011, 02:30:03 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?


By all means oppose Orthodoxy, but oppose reality, not some fantasy mental construct fashioned out of ignorance and bias.
I am opposing reality.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #47 on: July 07, 2011, 02:30:03 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?


By all means oppose Orthodoxy, but oppose reality, not some fantasy mental construct fashioned out of ignorance and bias.
I oppose what Eastern Orthodoxy has really become.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Fabio Leite
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,438



WWW
« Reply #48 on: July 07, 2011, 05:32:09 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?


By all means oppose Orthodoxy, but oppose reality, not some fantasy mental construct fashioned out of ignorance and bias.
I oppose what Eastern Orthodoxy has really become.

The repository of Truth. Oppose that as much as you want. It is preposterous that the Roman church, in trying to create facts to substantiate its inventions get texts from the Greeks, missinterpret them systematically and then say the Greeks didn't know what they were saying in first place.

The *whole* history of "infallible" dogmas is based on Roman interpretations of texts poetic in nature outside their proper context: the reading of the Catholic church in favor of a catapapic interpretation. Notice that this is not a calling of names, but a description.

Filioque: the whole Church (cata holos) understood and understands that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. That is a literal quote from Jesus' mouth. Everybody (cata holos) understood and understand that Jesus sends the Spirit to the world. Everybody (even the popes! -  cata holos) agreed that the Creed should be kept that way and the wordly sending of the Spirit explained in catechism. In fact "together glorified with the Father and the Son" already accounts for the special relation of the Spirit with the two other Persons at the same time. There comes a Frank emperor and ignorantly (or ill-intended) says that the inovation had been "dropped" and impose it on the gullible West which, not only accepts it but is even unable to humbly correct the historical blooper;

Authority of the Primate: Only God is infallible and He teaches through whatever mean, wherever He wants (cata holic teaching). The primate defends the Orthodox Faith and the world praises him for it. Then people misinterpret that as if orthodoxy of faith came from his authority (catapapic teaching) instead through the whole (cata holic) from the one only Infallible.

Honor of the Virgin Mary: She is called Immaculate in very specific poetic texts in the very specific theology of the Catholic church. People who didn't know Greek translate it with different degrees of quality into Latin, and instead of humbly asking those who were teaching them the meaning of such lofty expressions, simply proudly try to guess and imagine. Then they come up with a heretical teaching, and once again, like with the claim that the Greeks had "dropped" the Filioque, they delludedly claim that their guess had always existed and that the whole community (cata holic church) that *taught* them the use of the title "dropped" that "first" meaning. Romans in face of the Greek Church are like children who invent invisible friends and then blame their parents for having stopped talking with these invisible friends.

Let's put the record straight:

There are only two peoples that we see in the Gospel that convert to Christianity: part of the Jews and Greeks. Romans are there but in NT we don't still have any significant number in conversions. Greeks are still Orthodox this day, their language is a direct descedent of the language of the Gospel and the Greeks enjoyed a continuity of education and culture that the West couldn't dream of. The worst days of Byzantine education would be examples of schooling to many societies even today. They *know* what they meant and they know what they mean. When confronted by Greek texts ask the Greeks what they mean. The whole "recovery" of texts and meanings is something for those who either lost or never had access to the original texts. The Greeks never lost them and had access from the very Apostolic times. Again, they *know* what those texts mean and the non-Greeks should just be humble, silent and learn.

Romans were once brilliant students of the Greek. In philosophy and in theology they reduced these activities to the application on the governance of society and the state, moving from a confederation of free cities/jurisdictions to the imperial monarchy of a dictator. As pagans they conquered their teachers militarily. As Christians, they tried to do the same spiritually and failed, thanks God.

Their city fell and their area of the world went through an age of decadence that led them to, adding insult to injury, crown a ex-federate barbarian king who imposed his own people broken theology on the papacy. The first popes resisted, but the later ones couldn't. That was the second and most terrible fall of Rome. Talk about cesaropapism. Charlesmagne managed not only to decide church matters but to change the entire theology of the Romans. Not even in the worst days of imperial interference in Byzantium an emperor managed to change the theology of the Church so deeply and for so long as Charlesmagne did with the Roman church both by the filioque and by allowing/making the pope to crown him. Everytime a Roman shouts cesaropapism sounds like a neurotic person who projects his/her own psychological pains onto the passerbies. Roman theology is the apix and most outstanding success of cesaropapism in history.

This is all to say this: cultivate your heresies as you may, but do not slander those who mercifully tried to educate you for your own failings in understanding.

If you mistrust the Holy Spirit so much as to look for "exclusive channels", popes, bibles instead of looking for the Spirit of Truth according to the whole (cata holic), that's your problem. If you want to further your cognitive dissonance by believing "according to ex cathedra statements of the Pope" and yet calling yourselves those who believe "according to the whole" than that's your psychologist problem. But do not put your blasphemies in the mouth of the Fathers, for they knew well the limit between dogma and theolegumen and spoke accordingly about each.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2011, 05:45:01 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #49 on: July 07, 2011, 06:19:48 PM »

Growth in Orthodoxy in Russia is limited to only a few parts of the country. As impressive as the growth may be in a few places, elsewhere the Church is shrinking or has pulled out entirely. In the areas I do fieldwork, the Orthodox have decided not to maintain priests or rebuild churches in spite of demand, because the ROC in the area now considers itself only a church for ethnic Russians and not despised non-Russian-speaking minorities, so the Lutheran Church has come in to minister. There has been no return to the pre-Communist flourishing of the Church, when whole peoples were being brought to Christ. Rather, there has been a change of priorities that will leave most of the country abandoned.

I see that Mary has asked me to address the above but I cannot.  It seems to be something from CRCulver's personal experiences in Russia and I am not familiar with them.    I have not seen evidence of what he or she says from other sources. Maybe it would help if some sources are provided?
Logged
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #50 on: July 07, 2011, 06:23:30 PM »

One example is the fact that they used to believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and have since rejected those teachings. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception came from the East, not the West,  and yet, they currently reject that as well.
That's an interesting theory you have.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #51 on: July 07, 2011, 06:46:53 PM »

I don't think it is fine for them to say such things. They are ignorant. Anyone who supports statements like those are likewise ignorant.

As with my answer to pensateomnia, it's a bit difficult to provide evidence*. In my experience, it's generally taken for granted that those statements from Dr. Hahn and Fr. Taft are fine and dandy.

* Although this tidbit might help a little.

Just looking at Hahn's accusation against Orthodoxy.... it is codswallop.   

What does it mean for theology to be "stagnant"?   

What does he want us to do with our theology?  Update it every century?   Keep the doctrine of the Trinity evolving by introducing Mary as sharing a Hypostatic Union with the Holy Spirit?

Anyway, what are your own latest theological changes?   How do you rebutt Hahn's accusation of stagnation?

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 #52 on: July 07, 2011, 06:53:55 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?


By all means oppose Orthodoxy, but oppose reality, not some fantasy mental construct fashioned out of ignorance and bias.
I am opposing reality.
LOL. That you are.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #53 on: July 07, 2011, 06:59:18 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.
 

Is this true?  Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this.  He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.  

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria." laugh
« Last Edit: July 07, 2011, 07:00:01 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #54 on: July 07, 2011, 07:22:55 PM »

I would like to add that I don't agree with the concept that EOs are theologically stagnant. That is one point were Hahn and I diverge. I think that theological innovation is a big part of Eastern Orthodoxy. One example is the fact that they used to believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and have since rejected those teachings. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception came from the East, not the West,  and yet, they currently reject that as well.

Well, in an odd way you refute Hahn's accusation that our theology is stagnant.  As you point out, it is not stagnant at all.  Once we used to be burdened with some undeveloped erroneous beliefs.  But now we have developed our doctrine and rectified them.  Hey, look at us!    We got evolving theology just like the Catholics!!    laugh Grin  Who's going to tell Scott Hahn that he needs to revise his book?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #55 on: July 07, 2011, 09:20:20 PM »

I don't think it is fine for them to say such things. They are ignorant. Anyone who supports statements like those are likewise ignorant.

As with my answer to pensateomnia, it's a bit difficult to provide evidence*. In my experience, it's generally taken for granted that those statements from Dr. Hahn and Fr. Taft are fine and dandy.

* Although this tidbit might help a little.

Just looking at Hahn's accusation against Orthodoxy.... it is codswallop.   

What does it mean for theology to be "stagnant"?   

What does he want us to do with our theology?  Update it every century?   Keep the doctrine of the Trinity evolving by introducing Mary as sharing a Hypostatic Union with the Holy Spirit?

Anyway, what are your own latest theological changes?   How do you rebutt Hahn's accusation of stagnation?

Well, I guess I don't spend much time trying to rebut it. But I do question why it's fine for like Dr. Hahn, and other “ecumenical-minded” Catholics, to makes statements like those about the Orthodox, when a traditional Catholic who said the same things would be decried as un-ecumenical and intolerant. In other words, why is there a double-standard?

On a side note, I was just thinking about "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" (1994). As I understand it, the main idea was a dialogue situation that would be a lot more conservative than e.g. the World Council of Churches. I wonder if there will ever be a "Traditional Catholics and Orthodox Together". It could exclude Dr. Hahn and Fr. Taft since they aren't traditional Catholics.  Cheesy
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #56 on: July 07, 2011, 09:25:48 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.
 

Is this true?  Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this.  He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.  

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria." laugh

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion.  However there won't be the kind of aggressive rejection of either papal infallibility or primacy that you and others call for either.

That is what will have to be mutually considered and decided upon in advance of any move toward resumption of communion.

It has been stated categorically by the Vatican Organization that there will NEVER be another Unia.

I think that's a pretty good indicator.
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 #57 on: July 07, 2011, 09:28:02 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.
 

Is this true?  Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this.  He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.  

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria." laugh

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion.  However there won't be the kind of aggressive rejection of either papal infallibility or primacy that you and others call for either.

That is what will have to be mutually considered and decided upon in advance of any move toward resumption of communion.

It has been stated categorically by the Vatican Organization that there will NEVER be another Unia.

I think that's a pretty good indicator.
The Vatican believes in development in doctrine, and there is no such guarentee it won't develop back to Florence.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #58 on: July 07, 2011, 09:43:06 PM »

Is this true?  Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this.  He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union. 

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria." laugh
It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion.  However there won't be the kind of aggressive rejection of either papal infallibility or primacy that you and others call for either.

That is what will have to be mutually considered and decided upon in advance of any move toward resumption of communion.

It has been stated categorically by the Vatican Organization that there will NEVER be another Unia.

I think that's a pretty good indicator.


Here are the words of Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) who is the doyen of Russian theologians and always heads our delegations to Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.  I fear that you will assess it as providing the Archbishop of Rome with no more than a platitude. 

Metropolitan  Hilarion, speaking to "Inside The Vatican", 15 November 2007:

"We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of the
Universal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept.
This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of the
universal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.

"We recognize that there is a certain order in which the primates of the
Local Churches should be mentioned. In this order the Bishop of Rome
occupied the first place until 1054, and then the primacy of order in the
Orthodox Church was shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who until
the schism had been the second in order. But we believe that all primates of
the Local Churches are equal to one another, and none of them has
jurisdiction over any other."


From
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1925822/posts

And elsewhere he speaks even more strongly of the Russian Church NEVER accepting any concept of global primacy and papal primacy..
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #59 on: July 07, 2011, 09:44:28 PM »

The Vatican believes in development in doctrine, and there is no such guarentee it won't develop back to Florence.

I am counting on that not happening.  Very strong hope...as in expectation.

God willing.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #60 on: July 07, 2011, 10:02:57 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.
 

Is this true?  Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this.  He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.  

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria." laugh

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion.  However there won't be the kind of aggressive rejection of either papal infallibility or primacy that you and others call for either.

That is what will have to be mutually considered and decided upon in advance of any move toward resumption of communion.

It has been stated categorically by the Vatican Organization that there will NEVER be another Unia.

I think that's a pretty good indicator.
The Vatican believes in development in doctrine, and there is no such guarentee it won't develop back to Florence.

What does "develop back to Florence" mean? And is it the same as saying "revert back to Florence"?
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 #61 on: July 07, 2011, 10:04:36 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.
 

Is this true?  Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this.  He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.  

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria." laugh

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion.  However there won't be the kind of aggressive rejection of either papal infallibility or primacy that you and others call for either.

That is what will have to be mutually considered and decided upon in advance of any move toward resumption of communion.

It has been stated categorically by the Vatican Organization that there will NEVER be another Unia.

I think that's a pretty good indicator.
The Vatican believes in development in doctrine, and there is no such guarentee it won't develop back to Florence.

What does "develop back to Florence" mean? And is it the same as saying "revert back to Florence"?
It would, if I believed the Vatican ever left Florence.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #62 on: July 07, 2011, 10:04:55 PM »

Mary,  I wonder if your attitude stems from a belief that people such as Metropolitan Zizioulas represents the mind of the Church.

He doesn't.  You will find that Saint Justin Popovic was our best theologian of the last century and Saint Justin dismisses out of hand both papal primacy and papal infallibility.  You will find that the belief of the Church is faithfully expressed through Saint Justin and it is with him that the faithful will close ranks, not with Metropolitan Zizioulas.

To see Saint Justin's teaching on this point see message 84
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32532.msg517455.html#msg517455

Someone said we must be "real" and being real needs to include a realistic assessment of the belief of the pleroma of the Church on this matter.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #63 on: July 07, 2011, 10:07:03 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.
 

Is this true?  Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this.  He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.  

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria." laugh

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion. 

What is "it"?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #64 on: July 07, 2011, 10:16:47 PM »

Mary,  I wonder if your attitude stems from a belief that people such as Metropolitan Zizioulas represents the mind of the Church.

He doesn't.  You will find that Saint Justin Popovic was our best theologian of the last century and Saint Justin dismisses out of hand both papal primacy and papal infallibility.  You will find that the belief of the Church is faithfully expressed through Saint Justin and it is with him that the faithful will close ranks, not with Metropolitan Zizioulas.

Alright, since you've settled that, which represented the mind of the Church, St. Cyril of Alexandria or St. Celestine of Rome? Or was it St. John of Antioch?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #65 on: July 07, 2011, 10:19:44 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.
 

Is this true?  Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this.  He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.  

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria." laugh

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion.  

What is "it"?

In the context of the dialogue between Mary and me above,  "it" means the cards which the Pope has not laid on the discussion table about the power position he wants after union is achieved.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2011, 10:30:18 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #66 on: July 07, 2011, 10:25:48 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.
 

Is this true?  Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this.  He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.  

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria." laugh

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion. 

What is "it"?

In the context of the dialogue between Mary and me above,  "it" means the cards which the Pope hads not laid on the discussion table about the power position he wants after union is achieved.

Thanks. However, I'm not sure that's what she meant by "it". After all, she said "It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion."
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #67 on: July 07, 2011, 10:27:26 PM »

Mary,  I wonder if your attitude stems from a belief that people such as Metropolitan Zizioulas represents the mind of the Church.

He doesn't.  You will find that Saint Justin Popovic was our best theologian of the last century and Saint Justin dismisses out of hand both papal primacy and papal infallibility.  You will find that the belief of the Church is faithfully expressed through Saint Justin and it is with him that the faithful will close ranks, not with Metropolitan Zizioulas.

Alright, since you've settled that, which represented the mind of the Church, St. Cyril of Alexandria or St. Celestine of Rome? Or was it St. John of Antioch?

It is not I who will settle it.  It will be the Church and I'll bet dollars to bootstraps that the Church will back Saint Justin and not the well groomed and deodorised delegates at Theological Commissions.

Seriously..... while you can pretty much count on your Catholic faithful accepting what is decided by the Vatican,  you certainly cannot count on that with our people.

An example....... when the Greek Archbishop Stylianos of Sydney was quite active in ecumenical affairs and headed a delegation to Rome his flock came to believe that he had betrayed Orthodoxy in some way (I can't remember details.)

The first Sunday he was back in Sydney his people actually stoned him on the steps of his cathedral!   You see the power of the people, the power of grassroots Orthodoxy.

In point of fact they were quite mistaken and the poor Archbishop had not betrayed Orthodoxy at all!
« Last Edit: July 07, 2011, 10:40:19 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #68 on: July 07, 2011, 10:29:10 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.
 

Is this true?  Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this.  He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.  

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria." laugh

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion. 

What is "it"?

In the context of the dialogue between Mary and me above,  "it" means the cards which the Pope hads not laid on the discussion table about the power position he wants after union is achieved.

Thanks. However, I'm not sure that's what she meant by "it". After all, she said "It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion."

Because in this context she is assuming that the cards involve papal primacy, and she's quite right.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #69 on: July 07, 2011, 10:43:32 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.
 

Is this true?  Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this.  He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.  

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria." laugh

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion.  

What is "it"?

In the context of the dialogue between Mary and me above,  "it" means the cards which the Pope has not laid on the discussion table about the power position he wants after union is achieved.

Speak for yourself please.

"It" from my point of view is the idea that the papal Church will resume communion with Patriarchial Churches that are as independent then as they are now...in terms of taking care of their own traditional Churches in their own traditional ways.

No Unia!!
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #70 on: July 07, 2011, 10:57:08 PM »

Mary,  I wonder if your attitude stems from a belief that people such as Metropolitan Zizioulas represents the mind of the Church.

He doesn't.  You will find that Saint Justin Popovic was our best theologian of the last century and Saint Justin dismisses out of hand both papal primacy and papal infallibility.  You will find that the belief of the Church is faithfully expressed through Saint Justin and it is with him that the faithful will close ranks, not with Metropolitan Zizioulas.

Alright, since you've settled that, which represented the mind of the Church, St. Cyril of Alexandria or St. Celestine of Rome? Or was it St. John of Antioch?

It is not I who will settle it.  It will be the Church and I'll bet dollars to bootstraps that the Church will back Saint Justin and not the well groomed and deodorised delegates at Theological Commissions.

Alright, but you can see my point anyways, right? Namely, it wasn't so simple back then that you could just say "the belief of the Church is faithfully expressed through so-and-so" and that's all there is to it. Rather some people felt that Pat. Cyril best represented the mind of the Church, others thought Pope Celestine did, still others thought Pat. John did, etc.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #71 on: July 08, 2011, 12:02:49 AM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.
 

Is this true?  Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this.  He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.  

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria." laugh

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion.  

What is "it"?

In the context of the dialogue between Mary and me above,  "it" means the cards which the Pope has not laid on the discussion table about the power position he wants after union is achieved.

Speak for yourself please.


You were addressing me and that is how I understood your remark.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2011, 12:11:48 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #72 on: July 08, 2011, 12:10:56 AM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.
 

Is this true?  Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this.  He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union.  

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria." laugh

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion.  

What is "it"?

In the context of the dialogue between Mary and me above,  "it" means the cards which the Pope has not laid on the discussion table about the power position he wants after union is achieved.

Speak for yourself please.

"It" from my point of view is the idea that the papal Church will resume communion with Patriarchial Churches that are as independent then as they are now...in terms of taking care of their own traditional Churches in their own traditional ways.

No Unia!!

You see the attached condition..."in terms of taking care of their own traditional Churches in their own traditional ways."  Vatican-speak!!

No mention whether the Churches will enjoy the same conditions as they enjoy now in their relationships with one another.  No mention that the Church of Rome may be outvoted at Ecumenical Councils and that the decisions of the Churches will not require approval from Rome.  No mention that the Churches may depose the Archbishop of Rome if necessary.

Vatican-speak!!   
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #73 on: July 08, 2011, 08:34:48 AM »

Mary,  I wonder if your attitude stems from a belief that people such as Metropolitan Zizioulas represents the mind of the Church.

He doesn't.  You will find that Saint Justin Popovic was our best theologian of the last century and Saint Justin dismisses out of hand both papal primacy and papal infallibility.  You will find that the belief of the Church is faithfully expressed through Saint Justin and it is with him that the faithful will close ranks, not with Metropolitan Zizioulas.

Alright, since you've settled that, which represented the mind of the Church, St. Cyril of Alexandria or St. Celestine of Rome? Or was it St. John of Antioch?

It is not I who will settle it.  It will be the Church and I'll bet dollars to bootstraps that the Church will back Saint Justin and not the well groomed and deodorised delegates at Theological Commissions.

Seriously..... while you can pretty much count on your Catholic faithful accepting what is decided by the Vatican,  you certainly cannot count on that with our people.

An example....... when the Greek Archbishop Stylianos of Sydney was quite active in ecumenical affairs and headed a delegation to Rome his flock came to believe that he had betrayed Orthodoxy in some way (I can't remember details.)

The first Sunday he was back in Sydney his people actually stoned him on the steps of his cathedral!   You see the power of the people, the power of grassroots Orthodoxy.

In point of fact they were quite mistaken and the poor Archbishop had not betrayed Orthodoxy at all!

Only an Irishman would find this to be something to brag about and encourage others to emulate.

It's how Florence was over turned.

It's how the Unia was met.

But if I were to point that out, I'd be booed off the stage by you.

Yet here you brag on it.

Go for it.
 elijahmaria, the "only an Irishman..." comment crosses the ad hominem line.  You are hereby put on warned status for 7 days.  Please refrain from even toeing such a line in the future.  If you think this is in error, please appeal to Fr. George or FrChris.  -Schultz.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #74 on: July 08, 2011, 08:39:07 AM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.
   

Is this true?  Peter has pointed out that the Pope has not laid his cards on the table about this.  He will not reveal what authority and position he wishes to hold after union. 

It would be nice if you could substantiate what you say instead of presenting us with the usual "Dixit Maria." laugh

It is either to be truly considered or there will be no resumption of communion. 

What is "it"?

In the context of the dialogue between Mary and me above,  "it" means the cards which the Pope has not laid on the discussion table about the power position he wants after union is achieved.

Speak for yourself please.

"It" from my point of view is the idea that the papal Church will resume communion with Patriarchial Churches that are as independent then as they are now...in terms of taking care of their own traditional Churches in their own traditional ways.

No Unia!!

You see the attached condition..."in terms of taking care of their own traditional Churches in their own traditional ways."  Vatican-speak!!

No mention whether the Churches will enjoy the same conditions as they enjoy now in their relationships with one another.  No mention that the Church of Rome may be outvoted at Ecumenical Councils and that the decisions of the Churches will not require approval from Rome.  No mention that the Churches may depose the Archbishop of Rome if necessary.

Vatican-speak!!   

Get off it.

The details are what your well groomed and perfumed hierarchs are going to decide in concert with the Catholic Church.

You have such disdain for Orthodox pro-unionists...enough to stone them at the gate from the looks of your most recent posts.

I find that very indicative...and you say that Orthodoxy has to be afraid of the Catholic Church?....More like it should be afraid for their lives from their own.

Father Ambrose said:

Quote
It is not I who will settle it.  It will be the Church and I'll bet dollars to bootstraps that the Church will back Saint Justin and not the well groomed and deodorised delegates at Theological Commissions.

Seriously..... while you can pretty much count on your Catholic faithful accepting what is decided by the Vatican,  you certainly cannot count on that with our people.

An example....... when the Greek Archbishop Stylianos of Sydney was quite active in ecumenical affairs and headed a delegation to Rome his flock came to believe that he had betrayed Orthodoxy in some way (I can't remember details.)

The first Sunday he was back in Sydney his people actually stoned him on the steps of his cathedral!   You see the power of the people, the power of grassroots Orthodoxy.

In point of fact they were quite mistaken and the poor Archbishop had not betrayed Orthodoxy at all!

I don't see power here or historically.

But I do see the violence.  I am surprised you brag about it.  Ordinarily you try to hide it and point at the violence of the west.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2011, 08:42:21 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #75 on: July 08, 2011, 09:27:10 AM »

Nice try at introducing red herrings!  Sorry, not biting. Although if you want to talk about violence how about the battles Pope Pius IX fought against Italy, and he killed so many young Italian men that he made himself a prisoner in the Vatican protected by his troops to avoid being killed by the fathers and brothers of the dead Italian soldiers.  Shall we talk about how he tried to involve France and Spain in his violence against Italy but they were horrified and refused to bend to his will.
---

You must be aware though of the fact that after union the Archbishop of Rome will no longer be superior to Ecumenical Councils but subject to them.  Nor will he be superior to the other bishops but one of their equals.

Is acceptance of these conditions part of the secret cards which Benedict XVI has not yet revealed?  Will he accept the ancient canonical order of the Church or will he prefer to remain in isolation?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #76 on: July 08, 2011, 09:31:19 AM »

Nice try at introducing red herrings!  Sorry, not biting. Although if you want to talk about violence how about the battles Pope Pius IX fought against Italy, and he killed so many young Italian men that he made himself a prisoner in the Vatican protected by his troops to avoid being killed by the fathers and brothers of the dead Italian soldiers.  Shall we talk about how he tried to involve France and Spain in his violence against Italy but they were horrified and refused to bend to his will.
---

You must be aware though of the fact that after union the Archbishop of Rome will no longer be superior to Ecumenical Councils but subject to them.  Nor will he be superior to the other bishops but one of their equals.

Is acceptance of these conditions part of the secret cards which Benedict XVI has not yet revealed?  Will he accept the ancient canonical order of the Church or will he prefer to remain in isolation?

I expect that Orthodoxy will have to admit to primatial power rather than trying to hide it, as you try also to hide the historical violence displayed by Orthodox people.  Poor li'l ole us...does not play well in the real world.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2011, 09:32:21 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #77 on: July 08, 2011, 09:34:16 AM »


Get off it.

The details are what your well groomed and perfumed hierarchs are going to decide in concert with the Catholic Church.


Has nothing been learnt from the various union Councils which have all shipwrecked?

Have we not understood that the bishops may discuss and propose and that is quite right, it is part pf their holy work.    But it will be the fullness of the Church which will bring down the final judgement, either agreeing with the bishops or disagreeing.  And if it is the latter no union will succeed.

Why do I need to explain this to an Eastern Catholic? <sigh>
« Last Edit: July 08, 2011, 09:44:58 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Robert W
Self-appointed forum herald
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Finland
Posts: 469


Love is no feeling


« Reply #78 on: July 08, 2011, 09:37:07 AM »

blah bla "revolutionary mentality", bla.
I have nothing to add to this thread other than a "Thank you" to Fabio Leite for posting the piece about revolutionary mentality. The kind of mindset described is present, not only in ecumenism, but basically everywhere.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #79 on: July 08, 2011, 09:40:45 AM »



I expect that Orthodoxy will have to admit to primatial power rather than trying to hide


Read message 58, the Russian rejection of any global primatial power.

Quote

Poor li'l ole us...does not play well in the real world.

As with Florence you may detach a few bishops who will be attracted to Rome and you can give them cardinals' hats and play with them.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #80 on: July 08, 2011, 10:04:39 AM »



I expect that Orthodoxy will have to admit to primatial power rather than trying to hide


Read message 58, the Russian rejection of any global primatial power.

Quote

Poor li'l ole us...does not play well in the real world.

As with Florence you may detach a few bishops who will be attracted to Rome and you can give them cardinals' hats and play with them.

You don't even admit to local primatial power. 

And you have NO idea what may come out of these discussions when it comes down to fine points.  Could shock you.  Could disappoint me.

I want to see a resumption of communion on equal footing.

You want to see subservience or nothing.

Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #81 on: July 08, 2011, 10:36:22 AM »

You must be aware though of the fact that after union the Archbishop of Rome will no longer be superior to Ecumenical Councils but subject to them.  Nor will he be superior to the other bishops but one of their equals.

When I read this, my first thought was "Why? That wasn't the case after the Union of Brest." But then I saw that you anticipated that question:

Has nothing been learnt from the various union Councils which have all shipwrecked?

So it seems that you and I both believe that future unions will be different from the Union of Brest. But I'm not at all convinced that they will be as different as you say.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #82 on: July 08, 2011, 10:37:26 AM »

Nice try at introducing red herrings!  Sorry, not biting. Although if you want to talk about violence how about the battles Pope Pius IX fought against Italy, and he killed so many young Italian men that he made himself a prisoner in the Vatican protected by his troops to avoid being killed by the fathers and brothers of the dead Italian soldiers.  Shall we talk about how he tried to involve France and Spain in his violence against Italy but they were horrified and refused to bend to his will.

But you won't hear me boasting about those events.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #83 on: July 08, 2011, 12:06:07 PM »



I expect that Orthodoxy will have to admit to primatial power rather than trying to hide


Read message 58, the Russian rejection of any global primatial power.

Quote

Poor li'l ole us...does not play well in the real world.

As with Florence you may detach a few bishops who will be attracted to Rome and you can give them cardinals' hats and play with them.

You don't even admit to local primatial power.

Pardon me?  I refer you to my message no 382
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26409.msg522523.html#msg522523


In that message and in several others I have spoken of primacy at a national level

"Yes, we are discussing it at ALL levels (thanks to the insistence of Met Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper) and as you know the Orthodox Russians are vehemently denying it exists at the global level.  It exists only at the level for which the canons were formulated - regional, provincial and national.  Nothing higher.  

"Like it or not but Orthodoxy has no mechanism capable of adding a global level.  It could call an Ecumenical Council to consider the matter but after 2000 years of tradition and canon law it is highly unlikely that the Council would innovate about this and add a global level and formulate canons for its regulation.   Apart from the horror of a break with tradition the Church would be facing an even greater horror - widespread schism among the faithful who would refuse to accept the creation of a global primacy."



Quote
I want to see a resumption of communion on equal footing.

You want to see subservience or nothing.



We wish to see the canonical order of the Church restored in the West before we unite.  That means the deconstruction of the doctrine of papal supremacy which brings every member of the Church into subservience.


Canon 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Canon 333.3 No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

« Last Edit: July 08, 2011, 12:08:50 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #84 on: July 08, 2011, 12:10:11 PM »



I expect that Orthodoxy will have to admit to primatial power rather than trying to hide


Read message 58, the Russian rejection of any global primatial power.

Quote

Poor li'l ole us...does not play well in the real world.

As with Florence you may detach a few bishops who will be attracted to Rome and you can give them cardinals' hats and play with them.

You don't even admit to local primatial power. 

Pardon me?  I refer you to my message no 382
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26409.msg522523.html#msg522523


In that message and in several others I have spoken of primacy at a national level

"Yes, we are discussing it at ALL levels (thanks to the insistence of Met Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper) and as you know the Orthodox Russians are vehemently denying it exists at the global level.  It exists only at the level for which the canons were formulated - regional, provincial and national.  Nothing higher. 

"Like it or not but Orthodoxy has no mechanism capable of adding a global level.  It could call an Ecumenical Council to consider the matter but after 2000 years of tradition and canon law it is highly unlikely that the Council would innovate about this and add a global level and formulate canons for its regulation.   Apart from the horror of a break with tradition the Church would be facing an even greater horror - widespread schism among the faithful who would refuse to accept the creation of a global primacy."



Quote
I want to see a resumption of communion on equal footing.

You want to see subservience or nothing.


We wish to see the canonical order of the Church restored in the West before we unite.  That means the deconstruction of papal supremacy brings every member of the Church into subservience.


Canon 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Canon 333.3 No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.



All Canon 333.3 tells you is that if you don't want the answer, don't ask the question.

Orthodoxy has been working on that principle for 2000 years and apparently praxis makes perfect since you brag about not needing to have doctrine defined beyond the Big Seven...well...ok then!!   

Even your liturgies are subversive at that rate.  laugh
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #85 on: July 08, 2011, 12:17:10 PM »

Nice try at introducing red herrings!  Sorry, not biting. Although if you want to talk about violence how about the battles Pope Pius IX fought against Italy, and he killed so many young Italian men that he made himself a prisoner in the Vatican protected by his troops to avoid being killed by the fathers and brothers of the dead Italian soldiers.  Shall we talk about how he tried to involve France and Spain in his violence against Italy but they were horrified and refused to bend to his will.

But you won't hear me boasting about those events.

The notion that I was bragging about what took place in Sydney is something you have picked up from Mary.   

I introduced it to demonstrate that our faithful are not as passive as yours and that they have been taught to see themselves as meaningful and pro-active guardians of the faith.  Sandro Magister speaks of this difference in an article of his. A Roman Cathoic journalist, he puts it well, not fully accurately, but well enough.

Please see messsage 81
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31294.msg494555.html#msg494555
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #86 on: July 08, 2011, 12:28:45 PM »



I expect that Orthodoxy will have to admit to primatial power rather than trying to hide


Read message 58, the Russian rejection of any global primatial power.

Quote

Poor li'l ole us...does not play well in the real world.

As with Florence you may detach a few bishops who will be attracted to Rome and you can give them cardinals' hats and play with them.

You don't even admit to local primatial power.

Pardon me?  I refer you to my message no 382
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26409.msg522523.html#msg522523


In that message and in several others I have spoken of primacy at a national level

"Yes, we are discussing it at ALL levels (thanks to the insistence of Met Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper) and as you know the Orthodox Russians are vehemently denying it exists at the global level.  It exists only at the level for which the canons were formulated - regional, provincial and national.  Nothing higher. 

"Like it or not but Orthodoxy has no mechanism capable of adding a global level.  It could call an Ecumenical Council to consider the matter but after 2000 years of tradition and canon law it is highly unlikely that the Council would innovate about this and add a global level and formulate canons for its regulation.   Apart from the horror of a break with tradition the Church would be facing an even greater horror - widespread schism among the faithful who would refuse to accept the creation of a global primacy."



Quote
I want to see a resumption of communion on equal footing.

You want to see subservience or nothing.


We wish to see the canonical order of the Church restored in the West before we unite.  That means the deconstruction of papal supremacy brings every member of the Church into subservience.


Canon 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Canon 333.3 No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.




All Canon 333.3 tells you is that if you don't want the answer, don't ask the question.

Orthodoxy has been working on that principle for 2000 years and apparently praxis makes perfect since you brag about not needing to have doctrine defined beyond the Big Seven...well...ok then!!

You are showing an extraordinary flair for getting things wrong today.  If you were able to remember my messages accurately what I have in fact said is that our faith is not limited to the Seven Holy Councils, but it also draws on other aspects of Tradition - Scripture, the writings of the Fathers, our liturgy and hymnody, our iconography.     

If the Tradition is flowing along without any major challenge from any heresy it may simply be left in peace.   If heresy arises and it is unsettling the whole Church then a Council will be convened to clarify orthodox teaching and tradition.

All this is a far cry from your kind of superficial statement of "brag[ging] about not needing to have doctrine defined beyond the Big Seven..."

Again I point out how surprised I am to encouter this and other attitudes from someone who is a member of an Eastern Catholic Church.

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #87 on: July 08, 2011, 12:55:39 PM »


If the Tradition is flowing along without any major challenge from any heresy it may simply be left in peace.   If heresy arises and it is unsettling the whole Church then a Council will be convened to clarify orthodox teaching and tradition.

All this is a far cry from your kind of superficial statement of "brag[ging] about not needing to have doctrine defined beyond the Big Seven..."


This "flowing along without major challenge" has resulted in a variety of intra-Orthodox teachings on any number of issues, with no recourse to resolve deviance at all, save for an ecumenical council.

Such deviance is acceptable in Orthodoxy but is then derided and mocked when it appears in the long history of the Catholic Church.

You're all a muddle Father...an Irishman in King Constantine's Court.... angel



Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #88 on: July 08, 2011, 03:30:18 PM »

Nice try at introducing red herrings!  Sorry, not biting. Although if you want to talk about violence how about the battles Pope Pius IX fought against Italy, and he killed so many young Italian men that he made himself a prisoner in the Vatican protected by his troops to avoid being killed by the fathers and brothers of the dead Italian soldiers.  Shall we talk about how he tried to involve France and Spain in his violence against Italy but they were horrified and refused to bend to his will.

But you won't hear me boasting about those events.

The notion that I was bragging about what took place in Sydney is something you have picked up from Mary.  

Actually, as soon as I read post #67, I thought that the tone of it was troubling.


I introduced it to demonstrate that our faithful are not as passive as yours and that they have been taught to see themselves as meaningful and pro-active guardians of the faith.  Sandro Magister speaks of this difference in an article of his. A Roman Cathoic journalist, he puts it well, not fully accurately, but well enough.

Please see messsage 81
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31294.msg494555.html#msg494555

I think he's probably right in saying that the Orthodox patriarch is often seen, in the West, as another pope.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2011, 03:39:28 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #89 on: July 08, 2011, 07:24:29 PM »


If the Tradition is flowing along without any major challenge from any heresy it may simply be left in peace.   If heresy arises and it is unsettling the whole Church then a Council will be convened to clarify orthodox teaching and tradition.

All this is a far cry from your kind of superficial statement of "brag[ging] about not needing to have doctrine defined beyond the Big Seven..."


This "flowing along without major challenge" has resulted in a variety of intra-Orthodox teachings on any number of issues, with no recourse to resolve deviance at all, save for an ecumenical council.

Such deviance is acceptable in Orthodoxy


So we are presented with another "Dixit Maria."  Allegations of this and accusations of that but not a shred of substantiation nor specifics.  The tactic is way old!
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #90 on: July 08, 2011, 07:33:26 PM »


If the Tradition is flowing along without any major challenge from any heresy it may simply be left in peace.   If heresy arises and it is unsettling the whole Church then a Council will be convened to clarify orthodox teaching and tradition.

All this is a far cry from your kind of superficial statement of "brag[ging] about not needing to have doctrine defined beyond the Big Seven..."


This "flowing along without major challenge" has resulted in a variety of intra-Orthodox teachings on any number of issues, with no recourse to resolve deviance at all, save for an ecumenical council.

Such deviance is acceptable in Orthodoxy

One could ask about the deviance within Catholicism where there are 22 Eastern Churches which disagree with the Mother Church on weighty matters of faith, even to the extent of denying dogmas which have been declared infallibly by the Pope and Mother Church.  If one desires to examine the methodology of deviance one need look no further than the Catholic Church.

Again, I an surprised that an Eastern Catholic seems unaware of these things....  A Roman Catholic visiting a Ukrainian party.   laugh
« Last Edit: July 08, 2011, 07:55:34 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #91 on: July 08, 2011, 07:51:07 PM »

Speaking of deviancy in the Catholic Church, here is a Catholic Patriarch you shouldn't send to bilateral discussions striving for unity with us..

Cardinal José da Cruz Policarpo of Lisbon, Portugal, a veteran European prelate at one point considered a contender for the papacy, reportedly has said there’s “no fundamental theological obstacle” to the ordination of women as priests in the Catholic church.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2011, 08:10:02 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #92 on: July 08, 2011, 08:22:07 PM »

Nice try at introducing red herrings!  Sorry, not biting. Although if you want to talk about violence how about the battles Pope Pius IX fought against Italy, and he killed so many young Italian men that he made himself a prisoner in the Vatican protected by his troops to avoid being killed by the fathers and brothers of the dead Italian soldiers.  Shall we talk about how he tried to involve France and Spain in his violence against Italy but they were horrified and refused to bend to his will.

But you won't hear me boasting about those events.

The notion that I was bragging about what took place in Sydney is something you have picked up from Mary.  

Actually, as soon as I read post #67, I thought that the tone of it was troubling.

For many Orthodox the introduction of heresy into the Church, as these Greek faithful believed their bishop to be compliant with, is a greater evil than money changers in the temple.  Perhaps the example of Jesus the Saviour came to mind for them..... He actually made a whip and used violence to whip the money changers out of the temple, upending their tables and creating chaos and commotion.  He cleansed the temple by an act of violence.

There is an appointed time for everything.  There is a time for everything under heaven ~
 A time to give birth, and a time to die; A time to plant, and a time to uproot what is planted.
 A time to kill, and a time to heal; A time to tear down, and a time to build up.
 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; A time to mourn, and a time to dance.
 A time to throw stones, and a time to gather stones
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #93 on: July 08, 2011, 09:48:11 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?


By all means oppose Orthodoxy, but oppose reality, not some fantasy mental construct fashioned out of ignorance and bias.
I am opposing reality.
LOL. That you are.
LOL. Scott, you know what I meant. I am opposing what Eastern Orthodoxy has really become.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #94 on: July 08, 2011, 09:48:11 PM »

I would like to add that I don't agree with the concept that EOs are theologically stagnant. That is one point were Hahn and I diverge. I think that theological innovation is a big part of Eastern Orthodoxy. One example is the fact that they used to believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and have since rejected those teachings. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception came from the East, not the West,  and yet, they currently reject that as well.

Well, in an odd way you refute Hahn's accusation that our theology is stagnant.  As you point out, it is not stagnant at all.  Once we used to be burdened with some undeveloped erroneous beliefs.  But now we have developed our doctrine and rectified them.  Hey, look at us!    We got evolving theology just like the Catholics!!    laugh Grin  Who's going to tell Scott Hahn that he needs to revise his book?
Well, he is free to his opinion. But I agree with you on this point. Eastern Orthodoxy is ever changing. And everytime EOs decided that the don't like what they believed five hundred years in the past, they can simply refer to it as some kind of "captivity".
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #95 on: July 08, 2011, 10:34:24 PM »

I would like to add that I don't agree with the concept that EOs are theologically stagnant. That is one point were Hahn and I diverge. I think that theological innovation is a big part of Eastern Orthodoxy. One example is the fact that they used to believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and have since rejected those teachings. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception came from the East, not the West,  and yet, they currently reject that as well.

Well, in an odd way you refute Hahn's accusation that our theology is stagnant.  As you point out, it is not stagnant at all.  Once we used to be burdened with some undeveloped erroneous beliefs.  But now we have developed our doctrine and rectified them.  Hey, look at us!    We got evolving theology just like the Catholics!!    laugh Grin  Who's going to tell Scott Hahn that he needs to revise his book?
Well, he is free to his opinion. But I agree with you on this point. Eastern Orthodoxy is ever changing. And everytime EOs decided that the don't like what they believed five hundred years in the past, they can simply refer to it as some kind of "captivity".

Well, you had your chance to exterminate us five hundred years ago, following the teaching of the Angelic Doctor about killing heretics.  You should have taken it, but now you have reversed your teaching 180 degrees and can't kill us now.   Maybe you can go back to the true teaching sometime?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #96 on: July 09, 2011, 12:14:05 AM »


If the Tradition is flowing along without any major challenge from any heresy it may simply be left in peace.   If heresy arises and it is unsettling the whole Church then a Council will be convened to clarify orthodox teaching and tradition.

All this is a far cry from your kind of superficial statement of "brag[ging] about not needing to have doctrine defined beyond the Big Seven..."


This "flowing along without major challenge" has resulted in a variety of intra-Orthodox teachings on any number of issues, with no recourse to resolve deviance at all, save for an ecumenical council.

Such deviance is acceptable in Orthodoxy


So we are presented with another "Dixit Maria."  Allegations of this and accusations of that but not a shred of substantiation nor specifics.  The tactic is way old!

Not really.  Somewhere around here is a book list of texts used in Orthodox parishes to catechize converts and adults and frankly there's a great deal of variety contained in those texts and its perfectly acceptable.

I don't mind it myself.  But it makes you look silly when you insist that there's this miraculous unity of faith.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #97 on: July 09, 2011, 12:24:41 AM »


If the Tradition is flowing along without any major challenge from any heresy it may simply be left in peace.   If heresy arises and it is unsettling the whole Church then a Council will be convened to clarify orthodox teaching and tradition.

All this is a far cry from your kind of superficial statement of "brag[ging] about not needing to have doctrine defined beyond the Big Seven..."


This "flowing along without major challenge" has resulted in a variety of intra-Orthodox teachings on any number of issues, with no recourse to resolve deviance at all, save for an ecumenical council.

Such deviance is acceptable in Orthodoxy


So we are presented with another "Dixit Maria."  Allegations of this and accusations of that but not a shred of substantiation nor specifics.  The tactic is way old!

Not really.  Somewhere around here is a book list of texts used in Orthodox parishes to catechize converts and adults and frankly there's a great deal of variety contained in those texts and its perfectly acceptable.

I don't mind it myself.  But it makes you look silly when you insist that there's this miraculous unity of faith.

Are you going to give us any clues?   What are some of the deviant teachings?  We are really still stuck with one of your typical "Dixit Maria" assertions.  laugh
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #98 on: July 09, 2011, 12:26:52 AM »


If the Tradition is flowing along without any major challenge from any heresy it may simply be left in peace.   If heresy arises and it is unsettling the whole Church then a Council will be convened to clarify orthodox teaching and tradition.

All this is a far cry from your kind of superficial statement of "brag[ging] about not needing to have doctrine defined beyond the Big Seven..."


This "flowing along without major challenge" has resulted in a variety of intra-Orthodox teachings on any number of issues, with no recourse to resolve deviance at all, save for an ecumenical council.

Such deviance is acceptable in Orthodoxy


So we are presented with another "Dixit Maria."  Allegations of this and accusations of that but not a shred of substantiation nor specifics.  The tactic is way old!

Not really.  Somewhere around here is a book list of texts used in Orthodox parishes to catechize converts and adults and frankly there's a great deal of variety contained in those texts and its perfectly acceptable.

I don't mind it myself.  But it makes you look silly when you insist that there's this miraculous unity of faith.

Are you going to give us any clues?   What are some of the deviant teachings?  We are really still stuck with one of your typical "Dixit Maria" assertions.  laugh

I gave you more than clues.  I gave you the full citations of each text.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #99 on: July 09, 2011, 01:45:36 AM »



I gave you more than clues.  I gave you the full citations of each text.


You wrote

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists.  I am not going to sit here and type out text.  Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement.  And your nose must be growing !!  You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites.  To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2011, 02:09:27 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #100 on: July 09, 2011, 01:52:23 AM »

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists.  I am not going to sit here and type out text.  Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....


 Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of

an eternal priesthood

Not a major issue but see here

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20180.msg300372/topicseen.html#msg300372


Quote
the real presence in Eucharist

You have Orthodox textbooks and catechisms teaching the Real Absence?  The mind boggles.

Quote
varying teachings on the atonement and salvation

Variation and different emphases in these things are common to the Fathers.  You will find this patristic diversity still present in Orthodoxy.

See here
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frag_salv.aspx


Quote
varying perspectives on the ancestral sin

As we find in the Fathers.


The bottom line is that you do  not want to take Orthodoxy (or even Eastern Catholicism) on its own terms but you want it to conform to your rather Roman ideas of tidiness and consistency.  These presumptions on your part make your usefulness to the ecumenical dialogue questionable.
 Wink
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #101 on: July 09, 2011, 05:39:27 AM »

/\  The sinner known as Irish Hermit wishes to state --- he has known Mary for a number of years and has a love and respect for her.  The donnybrooks which we enjoy in public are not the sum total of our relationship. I am still not sure she isn't being bankrolled by the Vatican to destabilise Orthodoxy but then people think I could have the converse vocation. :-)
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #102 on: July 09, 2011, 07:46:30 AM »

I would like to add that I don't agree with the concept that EOs are theologically stagnant. That is one point were Hahn and I diverge. I think that theological innovation is a big part of Eastern Orthodoxy. One example is the fact that they used to believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and have since rejected those teachings. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception came from the East, not the West,  and yet, they currently reject that as well.

Well, in an odd way you refute Hahn's accusation that our theology is stagnant.  As you point out, it is not stagnant at all.  Once we used to be burdened with some undeveloped erroneous beliefs.  But now we have developed our doctrine and rectified them.  Hey, look at us!    We got evolving theology just like the Catholics!!    laugh Grin  Who's going to tell Scott Hahn that he needs to revise his book?
Well, he is free to his opinion. But I agree with you on this point. Eastern Orthodoxy is ever changing. And everytime EOs decided that the don't like what they believed five hundred years in the past, they can simply refer to it as some kind of "captivity".

Well, you had your chance to exterminate us five hundred years ago, following the teaching of the Angelic Doctor about killing heretics.  You should have taken it, but now you have reversed your teaching 180 degrees and can't kill us now.   Maybe you can go back to the true teaching sometime?

Oh, snap.

Sorry to contribute nothing, but I thought it was a good call by Father.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #103 on: July 09, 2011, 09:12:06 AM »



I gave you more than clues.  I gave you the full citations of each text.


You wrote

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists.  I am not going to sit here and type out text.  Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement.  And your nose must be growing !!  You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites.  To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.

She did provide a list on another thread. I don't remember which one.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #104 on: July 09, 2011, 09:16:54 AM »

/\  The sinner known as Irish Hermit wishes to state --- he has known Mary for a number of years and has a love and respect for her.  The donnybrooks which we enjoy in public are not the sum total of our relationship.

I bet that's why you thought I had confused you with her.

Wink
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #105 on: July 09, 2011, 11:47:41 AM »



I gave you more than clues.  I gave you the full citations of each text.


You wrote

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists.  I am not going to sit here and type out text.  Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement.  And your nose must be growing !!  You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites.  To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.


It's in another thread somewhere.  I am not worried about it.  The list exists.  There are 11 books listed.  There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #106 on: July 09, 2011, 11:50:04 AM »


The bottom line is that you do  not want to take Orthodoxy (or even Eastern Catholicism) on its own terms but you want it to conform to your rather Roman ideas of tidiness and consistency.  These presumptions on your part make your usefulness to the ecumenical dialogue questionable.
 Wink

Horse hockey, ducks. 

You just can't deal with someone well versed in both traditions without working overtime to discredit.  You might catch a few in that net but most active folks on this forum have seen your act before....

 laugh
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #107 on: July 09, 2011, 01:47:08 PM »


The bottom line is that you do  not want to take Orthodoxy (or even Eastern Catholicism) on its own terms but you want it to conform to your rather Roman ideas of tidiness and consistency.  These presumptions on your part make your usefulness to the ecumenical dialogue questionable.
 Wink
Horse hockey, ducks. 

You just can't deal with someone well versed in both traditions ....


In that case please take time in the future to substantiate what you write.   You rarely do that and your readers seem expected to take things just on your say-so.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #108 on: July 09, 2011, 02:09:39 PM »


The bottom line is that you do  not want to take Orthodoxy (or even Eastern Catholicism) on its own terms but you want it to conform to your rather Roman ideas of tidiness and consistency.  These presumptions on your part make your usefulness to the ecumenical dialogue questionable.
 Wink
Horse hockey, ducks. 

You just can't deal with someone well versed in both traditions ....


In that case please take time in the future to substantiate what you write.   You rarely do that and your readers seem expected to take things just on your say-so.

 I rarely say anything that cannot easily be researched right here on-line and if I cannot find it on-line or have not been able to do so then I generally look for a source.

But in the main I know enough of what I speak that I don't really need to go spending time I haven't got for a chatter-forum, just to satisfy my most active detractors.

Go fish... angel
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 #109 on: July 10, 2011, 09:12:14 AM »


The bottom line is that you do  not want to take Orthodoxy (or even Eastern Catholicism) on its own terms but you want it to conform to your rather Roman ideas of tidiness and consistency.  These presumptions on your part make your usefulness to the ecumenical dialogue questionable.
 Wink
Horse hockey, ducks.  

You just can't deal with someone well versed in both traditions ....


In that case please take time in the future to substantiate what you write.   You rarely do that and your readers seem expected to take things just on your say-so.

 I rarely say anything that cannot easily be researched right here on-line and if I cannot find it on-line or have not been able to do so then I generally look for a source.

But in the main I know enough of what I speak that I don't really need to go spending time I haven't got for a chatter-forum, just to satisfy my most active detractors.

Go fish... angel
I'll throw this fish back.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 09:13:47 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
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 #110 on: July 10, 2011, 09:26:22 AM »

^speaking of throwing fish back


I gave you more than clues.  I gave you the full citations of each text.


You wrote

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists.  I am not going to sit here and type out text.  Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement.  And your nose must be growing !!  You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites.  To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.


It's in another thread somewhere.  I am not worried about it.  The list exists.  There are 11 books listed.  There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.
the list is here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37330.msg590702.html#msg590702

I had started to post links to the actual documents, but my computer kept freezing.  It's quite a fruit salad, not only with apples and organges but a few bananas, cherries and even a cuquat or two!
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 09:31:55 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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #111 on: July 10, 2011, 10:04:03 AM »

^speaking of throwing fish back


I gave you more than clues.  I gave you the full citations of each text.


You wrote

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists.  I am not going to sit here and type out text.  Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement.  And your nose must be growing !!  You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites.  To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.


It's in another thread somewhere.  I am not worried about it.  The list exists.  There are 11 books listed.  There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.
the list is here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37330.msg590702.html#msg590702

I had started to post links to the actual documents, but my computer kept freezing.  It's quite a fruit salad, not only with apples and organges but a few bananas, cherries and even a cuquat or two!

Mary said, in message 98  "I gave you the full citations of each text"

In the jumble of links to which Ialmisry has referred us Mary has only referred us to Amazon. com and obviously she expects us to buy the books and go fishing for whatever texts she has in mind.

It simply is *not* right to say "I gave you the full citations of each text" when she never did at all.   She gave us a list of books to buy.   Pshaw!
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,444


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #112 on: July 10, 2011, 10:08:49 AM »

Quote
Mary said, in message 98  "I gave you the full citations of each text"

Seems she's got the terms citation and bibliography confused.  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: 37,963



« Reply #113 on: July 10, 2011, 10:40:02 AM »

^speaking of throwing fish back


I gave you more than clues.  I gave you the full citations of each text.


You wrote

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists.  I am not going to sit here and type out text.  Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement.  And your nose must be growing !!  You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites.  To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.


It's in another thread somewhere.  I am not worried about it.  The list exists.  There are 11 books listed.  There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.
the list is here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37330.msg590702.html#msg590702

I had started to post links to the actual documents, but my computer kept freezing.  It's quite a fruit salad, not only with apples and organges but a few bananas, cherries and even a cuquat or two!

Mary said, in message 98  "I gave you the full citations of each text"

In the jumble of links to which Ialmisry has referred us Mary has only referred us to Amazon. com and obviously she expects us to buy the books and go fishing for whatever texts she has in mind.

It simply is *not* right to say "I gave you the full citations of each text" when she never did at all.   She gave us a list of books to buy.   Pshaw!
I've started, with more success, to post links to the works she refers to (she doesn't cite anything), on the original thread.  I've read most, but I don't know what she is talking about as far as fundamental dogmatic differences. One things is she is comparing different genres, e.g. contrasting a dogmatic textbook like Pomozansky with a reformist essay like Schmemann's "For the Life of the World."

I will say from the list, if you have the money, it would be well spent.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 10:40:39 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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #114 on: July 10, 2011, 11:05:37 AM »

^speaking of throwing fish back


I gave you more than clues.  I gave you the full citations of each text.


You wrote

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists.  I am not going to sit here and type out text.  Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement.  And your nose must be growing !!  You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites.  To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.


It's in another thread somewhere.  I am not worried about it.  The list exists.  There are 11 books listed.  There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.
the list is here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37330.msg590702.html#msg590702

I had started to post links to the actual documents, but my computer kept freezing.  It's quite a fruit salad, not only with apples and organges but a few bananas, cherries and even a cuquat or two!

Mary said, in message 98  "I gave you the full citations of each text"

In the jumble of links to which Ialmisry has referred us Mary has only referred us to Amazon. com and obviously she expects us to buy the books and go fishing for whatever texts she has in mind.

It simply is *not* right to say "I gave you the full citations of each text" when she never did at all.   She gave us a list of books to buy.   Pshaw!
I've started, with more success, to post links to the works she refers to (she doesn't cite anything), on the original thread.  I've read most, but I don't know what she is talking about as far as fundamental dogmatic differences. One things is she is comparing different genres, e.g. contrasting a dogmatic textbook like Pomozansky with a reformist essay like Schmemann's "For the Life of the World."

I will say from the list, if you have the money, it would be well spent.

Please see my response.  Message 131
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37330.msg598144.html#msg598144
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #115 on: July 10, 2011, 11:31:16 AM »

^speaking of throwing fish back


I gave you more than clues.  I gave you the full citations of each text.


You wrote

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists.  I am not going to sit here and type out text.  Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement.  And your nose must be growing !!  You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites.  To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.


It's in another thread somewhere.  I am not worried about it.  The list exists.  There are 11 books listed.  There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.
the list is here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37330.msg590702.html#msg590702

I had started to post links to the actual documents, but my computer kept freezing.  It's quite a fruit salad, not only with apples and organges but a few bananas, cherries and even a cuquat or two!

Mary said, in message 98  "I gave you the full citations of each text"

In the jumble of links to which Ialmisry has referred us Mary has only referred us to Amazon. com and obviously she expects us to buy the books and go fishing for whatever texts she has in mind.

It simply is *not* right to say "I gave you the full citations of each text" when she never did at all.   She gave us a list of books to buy.   Pshaw!

This is dumb, Father.  The full citation of each book is on the Amazon page.  I don't give a hoot if anyone buys them or reads them or not.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #116 on: July 10, 2011, 11:33:48 AM »


I've started, with more success, to post links to the works she refers to (she doesn't cite anything), on the original thread.  I've read most, but I don't know what she is talking about as far as fundamental dogmatic differences. One things is she is comparing different genres, e.g. contrasting a dogmatic textbook like Pomozansky with a reformist essay like Schmemann's "For the Life of the World."

I will say from the list, if you have the money, it would be well spent.

What is common to these texts, as I have repeatedly said, is the fact that they are used in actual parishes for catechesis and teaching the Orthodox faith.

The books are used and read...and no...they are not always in full agreement on every point...and certainly not always in agreement with some of the most popular assertions from Internet Orthodox apologists, like yourself.
Logged

LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,444


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #117 on: July 10, 2011, 11:37:20 AM »

^speaking of throwing fish back


I gave you more than clues.  I gave you the full citations of each text.


You wrote

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists.  I am not going to sit here and type out text.  Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement.  And your nose must be growing !!  You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites.  To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.


It's in another thread somewhere.  I am not worried about it.  The list exists.  There are 11 books listed.  There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.
the list is here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37330.msg590702.html#msg590702

I had started to post links to the actual documents, but my computer kept freezing.  It's quite a fruit salad, not only with apples and organges but a few bananas, cherries and even a cuquat or two!

Mary said, in message 98  "I gave you the full citations of each text"

In the jumble of links to which Ialmisry has referred us Mary has only referred us to Amazon. com and obviously she expects us to buy the books and go fishing for whatever texts she has in mind.

It simply is *not* right to say "I gave you the full citations of each text" when she never did at all.   She gave us a list of books to buy.   Pshaw!

This is dumb, Father.  The full citation of each book is on the Amazon page.  I don't give a hoot if anyone buys them or reads them or not.

You've provided a bibliography, nothing more. You have NOT provided anything resembling citations of instances of deviations of Orthodox doctrine. Please put your money where your mouth is.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 11:38:43 AM by LBK » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #118 on: July 10, 2011, 11:41:16 AM »



You've provided a bibliography, nothing more. You have NOT provided anything resembling citations of instances of deviations of Orthodox doctrine.

This is nothing more than a distraction.  It won't kill people reading this forum to do some systematic work.  IF they cannot see the variations in teaching by systematic study, they surely will not "see" it when some Pape hands it to them on a plate.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 11:42:45 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,444


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #119 on: July 10, 2011, 11:51:04 AM »

Quote
Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....


You're the one making allegations that the Orthodox Church has vaccillated on the above teachings. You made the allegations, you back them up. Yup, all hat and no cattle, as usual.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,938


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #120 on: July 10, 2011, 11:56:38 AM »



You've provided a bibliography, nothing more. You have NOT provided anything resembling citations of instances of deviations of Orthodox doctrine.

This is nothing more than a distraction.  It won't kill people reading this forum to do some systematic work.
In a discussion or debate, the burden of proof falls on the person making assertions of fact to cite all the texts necessary to substantiate her assertions. Those whom she is trying to convince bear no burden of proof to prove her wrong. What this means practically for this debate is that Mary needs to do the systematic work necessary to back up her "Dixit Maria" statements. If she cannot or will not do so, we bear no responsibility whatsoever to do her work for her.

IOW, elijahmaria, it won't kill you to do the systematic work you would like to push off on us.

IF they cannot see the variations in teaching by systematic study, they surely will not "see" it when some Pape hands it to them on a plate.
But you can at least try to convince us.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 12:00:08 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #121 on: July 10, 2011, 11:58:53 AM »

Quote
Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....


You're the one making allegations that the Orthodox Church has vaccillated on the above teachings. You made the allegations, you back them up. Yup, all hat and no cattle, as usual.

I never said they vacillate...That's your addition to the mix.

I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

That is evident without the books for goodness sake!!

Which is why I am not going to rise to your bait here.  If something comes up in context or conversation, I may consider using the texts to make a point above...in my own words...not yours.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 11:59:46 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #122 on: July 10, 2011, 11:59:40 AM »

^speaking of throwing fish back


I gave you more than clues.  I gave you the full citations of each text.


You wrote

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists.  I am not going to sit here and type out text.  Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement.  And your nose must be growing !!  You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites.  To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.


It's in another thread somewhere.  I am not worried about it.  The list exists.  There are 11 books listed.  There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.
the list is here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37330.msg590702.html#msg590702

I had started to post links to the actual documents, but my computer kept freezing.  It's quite a fruit salad, not only with apples and organges but a few bananas, cherries and even a cuquat or two!

Mary said, in message 98  "I gave you the full citations of each text"

In the jumble of links to which Ialmisry has referred us Mary has only referred us to Amazon. com and obviously she expects us to buy the books and go fishing for whatever texts she has in mind.

It simply is *not* right to say "I gave you the full citations of each text" when she never did at all.   She gave us a list of books to buy.   Pshaw!

This is dumb, Father.  The full citation of each book is on the Amazon page.  I don't give a hoot if anyone buys them or reads them or not.

So when you claimed to have given "the full citations of each text" illustrating our "deviance" what you really meant was that you had given us a link to 12 books we can buy on Amazon.com?

I wonder if we can all start doing that?  "Hey, you want me to cite the text?  Read the book. Here's where you buy it!"
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,444


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #123 on: July 10, 2011, 12:02:36 PM »

Quote
Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....


Quote
I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

These are your words, Mary. I'm sure the rest of us are particularly interested in deviations within the Orthodox world in the teaching of the Real Presence.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #124 on: July 10, 2011, 12:11:24 PM »

Quote
Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....


Quote
I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

These are your words, Mary. I'm sure the rest of us are particularly interested in deviations within the Orthodox world in the teaching of the Real Presence.

That is one topic that I know for certain that Father Ambrose can address far better than I can do it.  It is a particularly sensitive one for him too, and he is always challenging other Orthodox clergy...and sadly he seems to loose the battle more often than not.  But I will let him address that.

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #125 on: July 10, 2011, 12:40:24 PM »

Quote
Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....


Quote
I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

These are your words, Mary. I'm sure the rest of us are particularly interested in deviations within the Orthodox world in the teaching of the Real Presence.
That is one topic that I know for certain that Father Ambrose can address far better than I can do it.  It is a particularly sensitive one for him too, and he is always challenging other Orthodox clergy...and sadly he seems to loose the battle more often than not.  But I will let him address that.

In the year 2004 there was a heavy debate sparked on the Yahoo group Orthodox-Forum by some unlearned clergy who denied that the soul and divinity of Christ are present in the Holy Gifts.   They based this claim on Scripture where Christ says "This is My body" and This is My blood" and he does not mention his soul and divinity.

To deny that soul and divinity are also in the Holy Gifts is a radical assault on the teaching of Chalcedon concerning the Hypostatic Union, the God-Man, etc.

This heretical position was being espoused by one silver-tongued monk from the OCA and one rather sorry priest.  Mary likes to make out that there was  truckload of clergy supporting the heresy but it was only two contributors to Orthodox-Forum.

So Mary and I formed an alliance in defence of the Hypostatic Union and sent many messages to the Orthodox-Forum to prove the point, with citations from Saint John of Damascus, Irenaeus of Lyons, Symeon the New Theologian, Fr Michael Pomazansky, various Greek theologians, etc. 

These messages can still be accessed on Orthodox-Forum.  Do a search using emrys for the Name of the Author  and using body blood soul divinity for the Subject Line.  But last time I looked the overtly heretical ones did not seem to be there any more. 

Months later I was surprised to receive a message from America from a bishop saying that the Orthodox-Forum debate had been brought to his attention and he had taken some measures to apprise the erring clergy of the Church's teaching.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #126 on: July 10, 2011, 12:42:43 PM »

Quote
Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....


Quote
I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

These are your words, Mary. I'm sure the rest of us are particularly interested in deviations within the Orthodox world in the teaching of the Real Presence.
That is one topic that I know for certain that Father Ambrose can address far better than I can do it.  It is a particularly sensitive one for him too, and he is always challenging other Orthodox clergy...and sadly he seems to loose the battle more often than not.  But I will let him address that.

In the year 2004 there was a heavy debate sparked on the Yahoo group Orthodox-Forum by some unlearned clergy who denied that the soul and divinity of Christ are present in the Holy Gifts.   They based this claim on Scripture where Christ says "This is My body" and This is My blood" and he does not mention his soul and divinity.

To deny that soul and divinity are also in the Holy Gifts is a radical assault on the teaching of Chalcedon concerning the Hypostatic Union, the God-Man, etc.

This heretical position was being espoused by one silver-tongued monk from the OCA and one rather sorry priest.  Mary likes to make out that there was  truckload of clergy supporting the heresy but it was only two contributors to Orthodox-Forum.

So Mary and I formed an alliance in defence of the Hypostatic Union and sent many messages to the Orthodox-Forum to prove the point, with citations from Saint John of Damascus, Irenaeus of Lyons, Symeon the New Theologian, Fr Michael Pomazansky, various Greek theologians, etc. 

These messages can still be accessed on Orthodox-Forum.  Do a search using emrys for the Name of the Author  and using body blood soul divinity for the Subject Line.  But last time I looked the overtly heretical ones did not seem to be there any more. 

Months later I was surprised to receive a message from America from a bishop saying that the Orthodox-Forum debate had been brought to his attention and he had taken some measures to apprise the erring clergy of the Church's teaching.


A more recent dialogue on the Indiana Orthodox list indicates that there's still much work to be done.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #127 on: July 10, 2011, 12:46:56 PM »

Quote
Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....


Quote
I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

These are your words, Mary. I'm sure the rest of us are particularly interested in deviations within the Orthodox world in the teaching of the Real Presence.

That is one topic that I know for certain that Father Ambrose can address far better than I can do it.  It is a particularly sensitive one for him too, and he is always challenging other Orthodox clergy...and sadly he seems to loose the battle more often than not. 

As you may see from my message above, the battle was not lost at all.  Episcopal intervention occurred and the true teaching was upheld.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #128 on: July 10, 2011, 12:50:12 PM »

Quote
Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....


Quote
I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

These are your words, Mary. I'm sure the rest of us are particularly interested in deviations within the Orthodox world in the teaching of the Real Presence.

That is one topic that I know for certain that Father Ambrose can address far better than I can do it.  It is a particularly sensitive one for him too, and he is always challenging other Orthodox clergy...and sadly he seems to loose the battle more often than not. 

As you may see from my message above, the battle was not lost at all.  Episcopal intervention occurred and the true teaching was upheld.

One bishop out of how many in this country?

But, as I said, the most recent engagement, in which you participated valiantly as always, does not indicate that there is any monolithic teaching concerning the Eucharist, at least in American Orthodoxy.  But since American Orthodoxy is part of universal Orthodoxy....I think my claim is sustained...in all fairness to the claim if not the messenger... Wink
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #129 on: July 10, 2011, 12:50:36 PM »

A more recent dialogue on the Indiana Orthodox list indicates that there's still much work to be done.

Yes, that was quite astounding.  A reader in the Greek Church saying that the divine energies of Christ are present in the Eucharist but His divine essence is absent.   Shocked



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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #130 on: July 10, 2011, 12:58:17 PM »

A more recent dialogue on the Indiana Orthodox list indicates that there's still much work to be done.

Yes, that was quite astounding.  A reader in the Greek Church saying that the divine energies of Christ are present in the Eucharist but His divine essence is absent.   Shocked


What concerned me even more are the priests who claim that what you tell them is not or was not part of their seminary training.

At any rate, the truth prevails and we all over-come the moments when it seems to be slipping fast down here on the ground.

I don't say that Orthodox is not monolithic in her teachings in order to say that I think she is heretical.  I point that out in order to fend off those who would condemn my Church for the same and similar kinds of things while presenting Orthodoxy as some sort of exemplar of unity in teaching at all levels. 

That simply is not a just or good comparison.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #131 on: July 10, 2011, 01:01:29 PM »

Quote
Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....


Quote
I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

These are your words, Mary. I'm sure the rest of us are particularly interested in deviations within the Orthodox world in the teaching of the Real Presence.

That is one topic that I know for certain that Father Ambrose can address far better than I can do it.  It is a particularly sensitive one for him too, and he is always challenging other Orthodox clergy...and sadly he seems to loose the battle more often than not. 

As you may see from my message above, the battle was not lost at all.  Episcopal intervention occurred and the true teaching was upheld.

One bishop out of how many in this country?

If you are aware of heretical bishops in the Church then as a Catholic you are not obliged to report them to their Synod but perhaps you could inform some of the circle of Orthodox priests and bishops with whom you mix?

Quote
But, as I said, the most recent engagement, in which you participated valiantly as always, does not indicate that there is any monolithic teaching concerning the Eucharist, at least in American Orthodoxy.

You are well aware of the true teaching which is taught at all Orthodox seminaries.  You have seen some of the material.  Indeed it is all on this very forum.  The fact that there are a couple of clerics in America who have never been near a seminary and who have fallen into heresy on this point is something you would be silly to overemphasise.  As silly as a claim that the recent statement from the Catholic Patriarch of Lisbon that catholic theology admits the ordination of women can be accepted as a generally held position in the Catholic Church


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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #132 on: July 10, 2011, 01:04:41 PM »


What concerned me even more are the priests who claim that what you tell them is not or was not part of their seminary training.

That would concern me also.  But not one priest did say that.

I cannot imagine even the worst seminary professor being unaware of the Hypostatic Union.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #133 on: July 10, 2011, 01:13:20 PM »

"Surveys indicate that from 70% to 80% of Catholics no longer believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.  This figure includes priests of all ranks. "

http://www.trosch.org/lit/euch-lit-summ-aud.html

Ecumenism, anybody?  Union?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #134 on: July 10, 2011, 01:44:41 PM »

^speaking of throwing fish back


I gave you more than clues.  I gave you the full citations of each text.


You wrote

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists.  I am not going to sit here and type out text.  Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement.  And your nose must be growing !!  You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites.  To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.


It's in another thread somewhere.  I am not worried about it.  The list exists.  There are 11 books listed.  There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.
the list is here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37330.msg590702.html#msg590702

I had started to post links to the actual documents, but my computer kept freezing.  It's quite a fruit salad, not only with apples and organges but a few bananas, cherries and even a cuquat or two!

Mary said, in message 98  "I gave you the full citations of each text"

In the jumble of links to which Ialmisry has referred us Mary has only referred us to Amazon. com and obviously she expects us to buy the books and go fishing for whatever texts she has in mind.

It simply is *not* right to say "I gave you the full citations of each text" when she never did at all.   She gave us a list of books to buy.   Pshaw!

This is dumb, Father.  The full citation of each book is on the Amazon page.  I don't give a hoot if anyone buys them or reads them or not.

So when you claimed to have given "the full citations of each text" illustrating our "deviance" what you really meant was that you had given us a link to 12 books we can buy on Amazon.com?

I wonder if we can all start doing that?  "Hey, you want me to cite the text?  Read the book. Here's where you buy it!"

You mean like citing the entire CCEO?

check your code of canon law (or as it is offiically Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (CCEO)), there is no such thing as a "fully independent particular church" in the Vatican's ecclesiastical community.
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM


Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #135 on: July 10, 2011, 01:46:32 PM »

Quote
Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....


You're the one making allegations that the Orthodox Church has vaccillated on the above teachings. You made the allegations, you back them up. Yup, all hat and no cattle, as usual.

I never said they vacillate...That's your addition to the mix.

I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

One might wonder why Orthodox take offense at this statement. Perhaps they have monolith envy.

:thoughtful:
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #136 on: July 10, 2011, 02:09:11 PM »

Quote
Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....


Quote
I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

These are your words, Mary. I'm sure the rest of us are particularly interested in deviations within the Orthodox world in the teaching of the Real Presence.

That is one topic that I know for certain that Father Ambrose can address far better than I can do it.  It is a particularly sensitive one for him too, and he is always challenging other Orthodox clergy...and sadly he seems to loose the battle more often than not. 

As you may see from my message above, the battle was not lost at all.  Episcopal intervention occurred and the true teaching was upheld.

One bishop out of how many in this country?

If you are aware of heretical bishops in the Church then as a Catholic you are not obliged to report them to their Synod but perhaps you could inform some of the circle of Orthodox priests and bishops with whom you mix?

Quote
But, as I said, the most recent engagement, in which you participated valiantly as always, does not indicate that there is any monolithic teaching concerning the Eucharist, at least in American Orthodoxy.

You are well aware of the true teaching which is taught at all Orthodox seminaries.  You have seen some of the material.  Indeed it is all on this very forum.  The fact that there are a couple of clerics in America who have never been near a seminary and who have fallen into heresy on this point is something you would be silly to overemphasise.  As silly as a claim that the recent statement from the Catholic Patriarch of Lisbon that catholic theology admits the ordination of women can be accepted as a generally held position in the Catholic Church




You are misremembering then.  Some of them claimed that they learned what they were telling you IN seminary.
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 #137 on: July 10, 2011, 03:58:06 PM »


I've started, with more success, to post links to the works she refers to (she doesn't cite anything), on the original thread.  I've read most, but I don't know what she is talking about as far as fundamental dogmatic differences. One things is she is comparing different genres, e.g. contrasting a dogmatic textbook like Pomozansky with a reformist essay like Schmemann's "For the Life of the World."

I will say from the list, if you have the money, it would be well spent.

What is common to these texts, as I have repeatedly said, is the fact that they are used in actual parishes for catechesis and teaching the Orthodox faith.

The books are used and read...and no...they are not always in full agreement on every point...and certainly not always in agreement with some of the most popular assertions from Internet Orthodox apologists, like yourself.
Can you mangage to at least allude to one example, just one point that they differ on.

I can right off the bat give you one, but I'm not doing your hw for you.
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: July 10, 2011, 04:07:07 PM »

^speaking of throwing fish back


I gave you more than clues.  I gave you the full citations of each text.


You wrote

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists.  I am not going to sit here and type out text.  Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement.  And your nose must be growing !!  You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites.  To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.


It's in another thread somewhere.  I am not worried about it.  The list exists.  There are 11 books listed.  There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.
the list is here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37330.msg590702.html#msg590702

I had started to post links to the actual documents, but my computer kept freezing.  It's quite a fruit salad, not only with apples and organges but a few bananas, cherries and even a cuquat or two!

Mary said, in message 98  "I gave you the full citations of each text"

In the jumble of links to which Ialmisry has referred us Mary has only referred us to Amazon. com and obviously she expects us to buy the books and go fishing for whatever texts she has in mind.

It simply is *not* right to say "I gave you the full citations of each text" when she never did at all.   She gave us a list of books to buy.   Pshaw!

This is dumb, Father.  The full citation of each book is on the Amazon page.  I don't give a hoot if anyone buys them or reads them or not.

So when you claimed to have given "the full citations of each text" illustrating our "deviance" what you really meant was that you had given us a link to 12 books we can buy on Amazon.com?

I wonder if we can all start doing that?  "Hey, you want me to cite the text?  Read the book. Here's where you buy it!"

You mean like citing the entire CCEO?

check your code of canon law (or as it is offiically Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (CCEO)), there is no such thing as a "fully independent particular church" in the Vatican's ecclesiastical community.
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM
If she, or anyone, can find such a thing as a "fully independent particular church" in the CCEO, I gave them to tools.  You seem to have missed the point of the challenge: no one can find a "fully independent particular church" in the CCEO, as no such thing exists under the CCEO, as I quoted:
the Vatican's "supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the church which he can always freely exercise"
Elijahmaria claims we can find the needle in that haystack she piled.  I state that it cannot be found because it doesn't exist, the same with the needle of a "fully independent particular church" in the CCEO haystack, that needle isn't there to be found, but I was, and am, quite explicit:despite what Elijahmaria tells us, it is not to be found.
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 #139 on: July 10, 2011, 04:16:06 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?


By all means oppose Orthodoxy, but oppose reality, not some fantasy mental construct fashioned out of ignorance and bias.
I am opposing reality.
LOL. That you are.
LOL. Scott,
who?
you know what I meant. I am opposing what Eastern Orthodoxy has really become
:all what God intends her to be, what He was today, yesterday and forever.
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 #140 on: July 10, 2011, 04:22:46 PM »

...in my own words...
sic semper Maria ex cathedra dixit.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 04:24:53 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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #141 on: July 10, 2011, 05:27:01 PM »

^speaking of throwing fish back


I gave you more than clues.  I gave you the full citations of each text.


You wrote

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists.  I am not going to sit here and type out text.  Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement.  And your nose must be growing !!  You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites.  To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.


It's in another thread somewhere.  I am not worried about it.  The list exists.  There are 11 books listed.  There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.
the list is here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37330.msg590702.html#msg590702

I had started to post links to the actual documents, but my computer kept freezing.  It's quite a fruit salad, not only with apples and organges but a few bananas, cherries and even a cuquat or two!

Mary said, in message 98  "I gave you the full citations of each text"

In the jumble of links to which Ialmisry has referred us Mary has only referred us to Amazon. com and obviously she expects us to buy the books and go fishing for whatever texts she has in mind.

It simply is *not* right to say "I gave you the full citations of each text" when she never did at all.   She gave us a list of books to buy.   Pshaw!

This is dumb, Father.  The full citation of each book is on the Amazon page.  I don't give a hoot if anyone buys them or reads them or not.

So when you claimed to have given "the full citations of each text" illustrating our "deviance" what you really meant was that you had given us a link to 12 books we can buy on Amazon.com?

I wonder if we can all start doing that?  "Hey, you want me to cite the text?  Read the book. Here's where you buy it!"

You mean like citing the entire CCEO?

check your code of canon law (or as it is offiically Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (CCEO)), there is no such thing as a "fully independent particular church" in the Vatican's ecclesiastical community.
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM
If she, or anyone, can find such a thing as a "fully independent particular church" in the CCEO, I gave them to tools. 

Well ... I guess that's allowable.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #142 on: July 10, 2011, 06:48:32 PM »

Quote
Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....


Quote
I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

These are your words, Mary. I'm sure the rest of us are particularly interested in deviations within the Orthodox world in the teaching of the Real Presence.

That is one topic that I know for certain that Father Ambrose can address far better than I can do it.  It is a particularly sensitive one for him too, and he is always challenging other Orthodox clergy...and sadly he seems to loose the battle more often than not. 

As you may see from my message above, the battle was not lost at all.  Episcopal intervention occurred and the true teaching was upheld.

One bishop out of how many in this country?

If you are aware of heretical bishops in the Church then as a Catholic you are not obliged to report them to their Synod but perhaps you could inform some of the circle of Orthodox priests and bishops with whom you mix?

Quote
But, as I said, the most recent engagement, in which you participated valiantly as always, does not indicate that there is any monolithic teaching concerning the Eucharist, at least in American Orthodoxy.

You are well aware of the true teaching which is taught at all Orthodox seminaries.  You have seen some of the material.  Indeed it is all on this very forum.  The fact that there are a couple of clerics in America who have never been near a seminary and who have fallen into heresy on this point is something you would be silly to overemphasise.  As silly as a claim that the recent statement from the Catholic Patriarch of Lisbon that catholic theology admits the ordination of women can be accepted as a generally held position in the Catholic Church




You are misremembering then.  Some of them claimed that they learned what they were telling you IN seminary.


For starters, there was no "some of them."   There were two people.  Your pretence that there were a bunch of people is a bit off.

Secondly, please cite the messages where it is claimed that they were taught in seminary that the human soul and the divinity of Jesus Christ is absent from the Eucharist. 

Please cite the seminaries involved.    Was it Jordanville?  Was it Saint Vladimir's?  Was it Saint Tikhon's?

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #143 on: July 10, 2011, 10:23:29 PM »

^speaking of throwing fish back


I gave you more than clues.  I gave you the full citations of each text.


You wrote

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists.  I am not going to sit here and type out text.  Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement.  And your nose must be growing !!  You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites.  To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.


It's in another thread somewhere.  I am not worried about it.  The list exists.  There are 11 books listed.  There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.
the list is here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37330.msg590702.html#msg590702

I had started to post links to the actual documents, but my computer kept freezing.  It's quite a fruit salad, not only with apples and organges but a few bananas, cherries and even a cuquat or two!

Mary said, in message 98  "I gave you the full citations of each text"

In the jumble of links to which Ialmisry has referred us Mary has only referred us to Amazon. com and obviously she expects us to buy the books and go fishing for whatever texts she has in mind.

It simply is *not* right to say "I gave you the full citations of each text" when she never did at all.   She gave us a list of books to buy.   Pshaw!

This is dumb, Father.  The full citation of each book is on the Amazon page.  I don't give a hoot if anyone buys them or reads them or not.

So when you claimed to have given "the full citations of each text" illustrating our "deviance" what you really meant was that you had given us a link to 12 books we can buy on Amazon.com?

I wonder if we can all start doing that?  "Hey, you want me to cite the text?  Read the book. Here's where you buy it!"

You mean like citing the entire CCEO?

check your code of canon law (or as it is offiically Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (CCEO)), there is no such thing as a "fully independent particular church" in the Vatican's ecclesiastical community.
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM
If she, or anyone, can find such a thing as a "fully independent particular church" in the CCEO, I gave them to tools.  You seem to have missed the point of the challenge: no one can find a "fully independent particular church" in the CCEO, as no such thing exists under the CCEO, as I quoted:
the Vatican's "supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the church which he can always freely exercise"
Elijahmaria claims we can find the needle in that haystack she piled.  I state that it cannot be found because it doesn't exist, the same with the needle of a "fully independent particular church" in the CCEO haystack, that needle isn't there to be found, but I was, and am, quite explicit:despite what Elijahmaria tells us, it is not to be found.

You are dithering dear.  Best to deal with what I say...not what you think I say or what you want me to say or what you are sure I say or what you ASSuME I say... laugh
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #144 on: July 10, 2011, 10:24:46 PM »

Quote
Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....


Quote
I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

These are your words, Mary. I'm sure the rest of us are particularly interested in deviations within the Orthodox world in the teaching of the Real Presence.

That is one topic that I know for certain that Father Ambrose can address far better than I can do it.  It is a particularly sensitive one for him too, and he is always challenging other Orthodox clergy...and sadly he seems to loose the battle more often than not. 

As you may see from my message above, the battle was not lost at all.  Episcopal intervention occurred and the true teaching was upheld.

One bishop out of how many in this country?

If you are aware of heretical bishops in the Church then as a Catholic you are not obliged to report them to their Synod but perhaps you could inform some of the circle of Orthodox priests and bishops with whom you mix?

Quote
But, as I said, the most recent engagement, in which you participated valiantly as always, does not indicate that there is any monolithic teaching concerning the Eucharist, at least in American Orthodoxy.

You are well aware of the true teaching which is taught at all Orthodox seminaries.  You have seen some of the material.  Indeed it is all on this very forum.  The fact that there are a couple of clerics in America who have never been near a seminary and who have fallen into heresy on this point is something you would be silly to overemphasise.  As silly as a claim that the recent statement from the Catholic Patriarch of Lisbon that catholic theology admits the ordination of women can be accepted as a generally held position in the Catholic Church




You are misremembering then.  Some of them claimed that they learned what they were telling you IN seminary.


For starters, there was no "some of them."   There were two people.  Your pretence that there were a bunch of people is a bit off.

Secondly, please cite the messages where it is claimed that they were taught in seminary that the human soul and the divinity of Jesus Christ is absent from the Eucharist. 

Please cite the seminaries involved.    Was it Jordanville?  Was it Saint Vladimir's?  Was it Saint Tikhon's?



Techy
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #145 on: July 10, 2011, 10:44:15 PM »

Quote
Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....


Quote
I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

These are your words, Mary. I'm sure the rest of us are particularly interested in deviations within the Orthodox world in the teaching of the Real Presence.

That is one topic that I know for certain that Father Ambrose can address far better than I can do it.  It is a particularly sensitive one for him too, and he is always challenging other Orthodox clergy...and sadly he seems to loose the battle more often than not. 

As you may see from my message above, the battle was not lost at all.  Episcopal intervention occurred and the true teaching was upheld.

One bishop out of how many in this country?

If you are aware of heretical bishops in the Church then as a Catholic you are not obliged to report them to their Synod but perhaps you could inform some of the circle of Orthodox priests and bishops with whom you mix?

Quote
But, as I said, the most recent engagement, in which you participated valiantly as always, does not indicate that there is any monolithic teaching concerning the Eucharist, at least in American Orthodoxy.

You are well aware of the true teaching which is taught at all Orthodox seminaries.  You have seen some of the material.  Indeed it is all on this very forum.  The fact that there are a couple of clerics in America who have never been near a seminary and who have fallen into heresy on this point is something you would be silly to overemphasise.  As silly as a claim that the recent statement from the Catholic Patriarch of Lisbon that catholic theology admits the ordination of women can be accepted as a generally held position in the Catholic Church




You are misremembering then.  Some of them claimed that they learned what they were telling you IN seminary.


For starters, there was no "some of them."   There were two people.  Your pretence that there were a bunch of people is a bit off.

Secondly, please cite the messages where it is claimed that they were taught in seminary that the human soul and the divinity of Jesus Christ is absent from the Eucharist. 

Please cite the seminaries involved.    Was it Jordanville?  Was it Saint Vladimir's?  Was it Saint Tikhon's?



Techy

So as far as you recall, it wasn't Jordanville teaching the absence of Christ's soul and divinity in the Eucharist, and it wasn't Saint Vladimir's and it wasn't Saint Tikhon's.  Maybe it was Saint Mary's-in-the-Meadow?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #146 on: July 10, 2011, 10:52:46 PM »



So as far as you recall, it wasn't Jordanville teaching the absence of Christ's soul and divinity in the Eucharist, and it wasn't Saint Vladimir's and it wasn't Saint Tikhon's.  Maybe it was Saint Mary's-in-the-Meadow?

As far as I recall there were several priests who said they learned their particular perspective on Eucharist in seminary.

What I am not buying is that you and one bishop have "fixed" things...with any universal uniformity...nor with any monolithic agreement concerning the living variety in Orthodox perspectives on Eucharist.

The answer is that the teaching of universal Orthodoxy on the matter depends on who you talk to on any given day.   
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #147 on: July 10, 2011, 11:04:08 PM »



So as far as you recall, it wasn't Jordanville teaching the absence of Christ's soul and divinity in the Eucharist, and it wasn't Saint Vladimir's and it wasn't Saint Tikhon's.  Maybe it was Saint Mary's-in-the-Meadow?
As far as I recall there were several priests who said they learned their particular perspective on Eucharist in seminary.

Well, we certainly know that it wasn't Jordanville since their curriculum is heavily based on Fr Michael Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" :--

"Although the bread and wine are transformed in the Mystery into the Body
and Blood of the Lord, He is present in this Mystery  with all His
being, that is, with His soul and with His very Divinity, which is
inseparably united to His humanity.

"... those who receive Communion receive the entire Christ in His being,
that is, in His soul and Divinity, as perfect God and perfect man."


So the Russians are teaching correctly.

The heresy must therefore be taught at one or other of the American OCA seminaries.

However I doubt this very much since

1.  The monk and the priest advocating the soul-less and divinity-less Eucharist did not go to any seminary

2.  Not one priest from either OCA seminary spoke up to support them.


Conclusion:  this heresy is being taught at Saint Mary's-in-the-Meadow.


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 #148 on: July 10, 2011, 11:08:04 PM »

If she, or anyone, can find such a thing as a "fully independent particular church" in the CCEO, I gave them to tools.  You seem to have missed the point of the challenge: no one can find a "fully independent particular church" in the CCEO, as no such thing exists under the CCEO, as I quoted:
the Vatican's "supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the church which he can always freely exercise"
Elijahmaria claims we can find the needle in that haystack she piled.  I state that it cannot be found because it doesn't exist, the same with the needle of a "fully independent particular church" in the CCEO haystack, that needle isn't there to be found, but I was, and am, quite explicit:despite what Elijahmaria tells us, it is not to be found.
You are dithering dear.  Best to deal with what I say...
I did.  I pointed out that you are talking about non-existent entitites.  Like these huge differences between Orthodox. Non-existent.

not what you think I say


or what you want me to say

you can say anything you like. In fact, you do.

or what you are sure I say or what you ASSuME I say... laugh
what you post is there for all to see. Unfortunately, so is the links and citations of your "magisterium" which we ASSuME, with all that is frought with that, teaches what you believe.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #149 on: July 10, 2011, 11:08:46 PM »

What I am not buying is that you and one bishop have "fixed" things...with any universal uniformity...nor with any monolithic agreement concerning the living variety in Orthodox perspectives on Eucharist.

You do know that you are talking hogswash?!!

Just one more "Dixit Maria" statement and this time a really offensive one.   As bad as if, to bring it into another context, someone were to speak of the "living variety in Catholic perspectives on same-sex unions among the clergy."

  
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: July 10, 2011, 11:27:15 PM »



So as far as you recall, it wasn't Jordanville teaching the absence of Christ's soul and divinity in the Eucharist, and it wasn't Saint Vladimir's and it wasn't Saint Tikhon's.  Maybe it was Saint Mary's-in-the-Meadow?
As far as I recall there were several priests who said they learned their particular perspective on Eucharist in seminary.

Well, we certainly know that it wasn't Jordanville since their curriculum is heavily based on Fr Michael Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" :--

"Although the bread and wine are transformed in the Mystery into the Body
and Blood of the Lord, He is present in this Mystery  with all His
being, that is, with His soul and with His very Divinity, which is
inseparably united to His humanity.

"... those who receive Communion receive the entire Christ in His being,
that is, in His soul and Divinity, as perfect God and perfect man."


So the Russians are teaching correctly.

The heresy must therefore be taught at one or other of the American OCA seminaries.

However I doubt this very much since

1.  The monk and the priest advocating the soul-less and divinity-less Eucharist did not go to any seminary

2.  Not one priest from either OCA seminary spoke up to support them.


Conclusion:  this heresy is being taught at Saint Mary's-in-the-Meadow.



Given the surveys that show the overwhelming majority of Orthodox (96-7% of both the GOA and the OCA) consider believing that in the Eucharist the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ as necessary, whereas 80% of the Vatican's followers deny it, the odds are that it was Saint Mary's-in-the-Meadow
http://www.orthodoxinstitute.org/files/OrthChurchFullReport.pdf

btw, on the alleged grand differences between Orthodox:
Quote
USA: new study of Orthodox laity finds more unity than division

Richard Cimino
5 Nov 2008

The first nationally representative survey of laity in Eastern Orthdoox churches in the US finds a strong sense of religious identity among them as well as few major differences with clergy. Unlike many Protestant and Catholic churches, there were few sharp divisions over such issues as the ordination of women, according to Alexei Krindatch who conducted the study for the Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute of Berkeley, California.
http://religion.info/english/articles/article_398.shtml
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,938


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #151 on: July 10, 2011, 11:29:19 PM »



So as far as you recall, it wasn't Jordanville teaching the absence of Christ's soul and divinity in the Eucharist, and it wasn't Saint Vladimir's and it wasn't Saint Tikhon's.  Maybe it was Saint Mary's-in-the-Meadow?

As far as I recall there were several priests who said they learned their particular perspective on Eucharist in seminary.

What I am not buying is that you and one bishop have "fixed" things...with any universal uniformity...nor with any monolithic agreement concerning the living variety in Orthodox perspectives on Eucharist.

The answer is that the teaching of universal Orthodoxy on the matter depends on who you talk to on any given day.   

Mary,

This particular attempt to insinuate a lack of unity in our doctrine on the Eucharist is particularly flagrant for its accusation that one or more of our seminaries is formally teaching heresy. You therefore have 48 hours (11:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Tuesday, July 12) to tell us exactly which of our seminaries is teaching this Eucharistic heresy or publicly recant your claim. Failure to satisfy either of these requirements will result in you being placed on Post Moderation until you do. Your habit of taking such unsubstantiated pot shots at our Church needs to stop and stop now.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #152 on: July 10, 2011, 11:34:16 PM »

The answer is that the teaching of universal Orthodoxy on the matter depends on who you talk to on any given day.

Let's look at a few references which refute your contention....

1.  2nd century Gaul - St Irenaeus of Lyons

2.  8th century Syria - St John of Damascus

3.  11th century Constantinople - St Symeon the New Theologian

4.  17th century Jerusalem - Confession of Dositheos

5.  19th century Greece -  Dyobouniotes

6.  20th century America  - Fr Michael Pomazanky



1) The first major one we find is Saint Irenaeus of Lyons who wrote that the
"Logos enters the holy Bread" but I cannot find the reference. Anybody know
the reference? Irenaeus is fully correct in his incarnational theology.


2) "On the Orthodox Faith" by St John of Damascus Chapter 13.

Concerning the holy and immaculate Mysteries of the Lord.

"The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of
Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself...

"Wherefore with all fear and a pure conscience and certain faith let us draw
near and it will assuredly be to us as we believe, doubting nothing. Let us
worship it in all purity both of soul and body: for it is twofold. Let us
draw near to it with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form
of the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One: and let us apply
our eyes and lips and brows and partake of the divine coal, in order that
the fire of the longing, that is in us, with the additional heat derived
from the coal may utterly consume our sins and illumine our hearts, and that
we may be inflamed and deified by the participation in the divine fire.
Isaiah saw the coal. But coal is not plain wood but wood united with fire:
in like manner also the bread of the communion is not plain bread but bread
united with divinity."

N.B. ***"Not plain bread but bread united with divinity"****


3) Saint Symeon the New Theologian:

"The grace of the Spirit, also called the fire of the Deity, belongs to our
God and Savior by nature, essentially. But his Body does not have the
same origin, for it comes from the holy and all-pure flesh of the Theotokos,
from her all-spotless blood. In assuming it from her, He made it into His
own....Ever since then, the Son of God and of the All-pure imparts to the
saints, that which proceeds from the **nature and the essence** of his
co-eternal Father, the grace of the Spirit, that is, **divinity**; and
from the nature and essence of her who really gave birth to Him, He gives
them the Flesh which He assumed from her."

"Forgiveness of sin and participation in life are bestowed on us not only in
the bread and wine of communion, but in *the divinity* which attends them
and **mysteriously mingles with them without confusion** ...If Christ is
God, His holy flesh is no longer mere flesh, but flesh and God inseparable
and yet without confusion visible in the flesh, that is, the bread, to the
bodily eyes. In His divinity He is invisible to the eyes of the body but is
perceived with the eyes of the soul."


4) The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith (as the
Confession of Dositheus became more widely known after it was sent to the
Anglicans fifty years after its 1672 adoption) states:

"We believe that in this sacred rite our Lord Jesus Christ is present
not symbolically (typikos), not figuratively (eikonikos), not by an
abundance of grace, as in the other Mysteries, not by a simple descent, as
certain Fathers say about Baptism, and not through a 'penetration' of the
bread, so that the Divinity of the Word should 'enter' into the bread
offered for the Eucharist, as the followers of Luther explain it rather
awkwardly and unworthily - but truly and actually, so that after the
sanctification of the bread and wine, the bread is changed,
transubstantiated, converted, transformed, into the actual true Body of the
Lord, which was born in Bethlehem of the Ever-Virgin, was baptized in the
Jordan, suffered, was buried, resurrected, ascended, sits at the right hand
of God the Father, and is to appear in the clouds of heaven; and the wine is
changed and transubstantiated into the actual true Blood of the Lord, which
at the time of His suffering on the Cross was shed for the life of the
world. Yet again, we believe that after the sanctification of the bread and
wine there remains no longer the bread and wine themselves, but the very
Body and Blood of the Lord, under the appearance of bread and wine." Thus
the Lord is in the Eucharist with **all His being,** and He is in each and
every particle, down to the tiniest. He does not depart after the time of
Communion, or at any time, so that the Body and Blood revert to their former
nature. The Holy Mysteries of the Eucharist should be given the same
worship and honor which we would give to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. "

5) This is from the writings of the Greek theologian Dyobouniotes:--

"The belief of the Church is further manifested in the reverence and
**worship of the Eucharist as such, independently of Communion.** The
faithful pay worship to the Holy Gifts after they have been consecrated, by
virtue of the Presence of our Lord, abiding under the form of bread and
wine. This worship belongs to the Consecrated Elements not abstractly but
concretely in their union with the Person of the Word of God.

"As the human nature of our Lord is an object of worship not as
regarded in itself, abstractly, but by virtue of the hypostatic union,
so the Holy Gifts are worshipped because they are the God-man, His Presence
with *soul and Divinity*, in every particle of the Consecrated
Elements.

"The Risen Christ, into whose Body and Blood the Elements are
transmuted, never dies, having a spiritual and glorified Body undivided
from His Blood. In the Eucharist He is present with all His constituent
elements, His *soul and His Divinity*, Body and Blood undivided."


6) Fr Michael Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology":--

"Although the bread and wine are transformed in the Mystery into the Body
and Blood of the Lord, He is present in this Mystery with all His being,
that is, with His soul and with His very Divinity, which is inseparably
united to His humanity.

"... those who receive Communion receive the entire Christ in His being,
that is, in His soul and Divinity, as perfect God and perfect man."

"... to the Holy Mysteries of the Eucharist there should be given the same
honour and worship that we are obliged to give to the Lord Jesus Christ
Himself."
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 11:45:20 PM by Irish Hermit » 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 #153 on: July 10, 2011, 11:34:52 PM »



So as far as you recall, it wasn't Jordanville teaching the absence of Christ's soul and divinity in the Eucharist, and it wasn't Saint Vladimir's and it wasn't Saint Tikhon's.  Maybe it was Saint Mary's-in-the-Meadow?

As far as I recall there were several priests who said they learned their particular perspective on Eucharist in seminary.

What I am not buying is that you and one bishop have "fixed" things...with any universal uniformity...nor with any monolithic agreement concerning the living variety in Orthodox perspectives on Eucharist.

The answer is that the teaching of universal Orthodoxy on the matter depends on who you talk to on any given day.   

I day say, all of your eleven "different" Orthodox books all teach the presences of Christ's divinity in the Eucharist, not just the one that Father quoted. As has every priest (Orthodox that is) I've ever come across any given day every day.  Don't know how this one slipped threw, but it seems he was dealt with.
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
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,444


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #154 on: July 10, 2011, 11:51:44 PM »

Quote
What I am not buying is that you and one bishop have "fixed" things...with any universal uniformity...nor with any monolithic agreement concerning the living variety in Orthodox perspectives on Eucharist.

The answer is that the teaching of universal Orthodoxy on the matter depends on who you talk to on any given day.   


Absolute rubbish, Mary, and you know it! I've been Orthodox only slightly less than you've been alive, and with long experience in both Greek and Slavic traditions. The yiayies and babushki would swiftly put paid to any priestly notion of divergent Orthodox "perspectives" on the Eucharist, if there was any delay in the bishop getting wind of it. Please, Mary, don't insult the intelligence of the "common" Orthodox!
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #155 on: July 10, 2011, 11:57:46 PM »


Given the surveys that show the overwhelming majority of Orthodox (96-7% of both the GOA and the OCA) consider believing that in the Eucharist the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ as necessary, whereas 80% of the Vatican's followers deny it, the odds are that it was Saint Mary's-in-the-Meadow
http://www.orthodoxinstitute.org/files/OrthChurchFullReport.pdf


If we go to page 155 of this survey,  we find that 97% answered that you cannot be an Orthodox Christian if you do not believe the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #156 on: July 11, 2011, 12:08:12 AM »



So as far as you recall, it wasn't Jordanville teaching the absence of Christ's soul and divinity in the Eucharist, and it wasn't Saint Vladimir's and it wasn't Saint Tikhon's.  Maybe it was Saint Mary's-in-the-Meadow?

As far as I recall there were several priests who said they learned their particular perspective on Eucharist in seminary.

What I am not buying is that you and one bishop have "fixed" things...with any universal uniformity...nor with any monolithic agreement concerning the living variety in Orthodox perspectives on Eucharist.

The answer is that the teaching of universal Orthodoxy on the matter depends on who you talk to on any given day.   

Mary,

This particular attempt to insinuate a lack of unity in our doctrine on the Eucharist is particularly flagrant for its accusation that one or more of our seminaries is formally teaching heresy. You therefore have 48 hours (11:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Tuesday, July 12) to tell us exactly which of our seminaries is teaching this Eucharistic heresy or publicly recant your claim. Failure to satisfy either of these requirements will result in you being placed on Post Moderation until you do. Your habit of taking such unsubstantiated pot shots at our Church needs to stop and stop now.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator


It's all right, Peter.  I am happy to turn the actual end of this discussion over to Father Ambrose.  I have no access to any records of the discussion that is in question here.  Father Ambrose has access to them, so I have to yield to him.

But it is true that he just engaged a similar discussion and was essentially shouted down and out by fellow priests.   So he is in a much better position than I am to speak of the matter.  I yield to his conclusions on the matter.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #157 on: July 11, 2011, 12:27:27 AM »

But it is true that he just engaged a similar discussion and was essentially shouted down and out by fellow priests.   So he is in a much better position than I am to speak of the matter.  I yield to his conclusions on the matter.

Your memory is not good.  The discussion to which you refer was on Indiana around the 22nd of last month with one ROCA priest and the silver-tongued OCA monk (unordained) about whether we should worship the consecrated elements outside of the Eucharist.  It was not about whether Christ is or is not present in the elements, either fully or partially.

Far from being "shouted down" as you say, people wrote to say how grateful they were that I had affirmed what they believed to be the Church's teaching.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2011, 12:30:31 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #158 on: July 11, 2011, 01:07:16 AM »

But it is true that he just engaged a similar discussion and was essentially shouted down and out by fellow priests.   So he is in a much better position than I am to speak of the matter.  I yield to his conclusions on the matter.

You are a noble opponent and I love you. 

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 #159 on: July 11, 2011, 02:48:01 AM »

The answer is that the teaching of universal Orthodoxy on the matter depends on who you talk to on any given day.

Let's look at a few references which refute your contention....

1.  2nd century Gaul - St Irenaeus of Lyons

2.  8th century Syria - St John of Damascus

3.  11th century Constantinople - St Symeon the New Theologian

4.  17th century Jerusalem - Confession of Dositheos

5.  19th century Greece -  Dyobouniotes

6.  20th century America  - Fr Michael Pomazanky



1) The first major one we find is Saint Irenaeus of Lyons who wrote that the
"Logos enters the holy Bread" but I cannot find the reference. Anybody know
the reference? Irenaeus is fully correct in his incarnational theology.


2) "On the Orthodox Faith" by St John of Damascus Chapter 13.

Concerning the holy and immaculate Mysteries of the Lord.

"The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of
Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself...

"Wherefore with all fear and a pure conscience and certain faith let us draw
near and it will assuredly be to us as we believe, doubting nothing. Let us
worship it in all purity both of soul and body: for it is twofold. Let us
draw near to it with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form
of the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One: and let us apply
our eyes and lips and brows and partake of the divine coal, in order that
the fire of the longing, that is in us, with the additional heat derived
from the coal may utterly consume our sins and illumine our hearts, and that
we may be inflamed and deified by the participation in the divine fire.
Isaiah saw the coal. But coal is not plain wood but wood united with fire:
in like manner also the bread of the communion is not plain bread but bread
united with divinity."

N.B. ***"Not plain bread but bread united with divinity"****


3) Saint Symeon the New Theologian:

"The grace of the Spirit, also called the fire of the Deity, belongs to our
God and Savior by nature, essentially. But his Body does not have the
same origin, for it comes from the holy and all-pure flesh of the Theotokos,
from her all-spotless blood. In assuming it from her, He made it into His
own....Ever since then, the Son of God and of the All-pure imparts to the
saints, that which proceeds from the **nature and the essence** of his
co-eternal Father, the grace of the Spirit, that is, **divinity**; and
from the nature and essence of her who really gave birth to Him, He gives
them the Flesh which He assumed from her."

"Forgiveness of sin and participation in life are bestowed on us not only in
the bread and wine of communion, but in *the divinity* which attends them
and **mysteriously mingles with them without confusion** ...If Christ is
God, His holy flesh is no longer mere flesh, but flesh and God inseparable
and yet without confusion visible in the flesh, that is, the bread, to the
bodily eyes. In His divinity He is invisible to the eyes of the body but is
perceived with the eyes of the soul."


4) The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith (as the
Confession of Dositheus became more widely known after it was sent to the
Anglicans fifty years after its 1672 adoption) states:

"We believe that in this sacred rite our Lord Jesus Christ is present
not symbolically (typikos), not figuratively (eikonikos), not by an
abundance of grace, as in the other Mysteries, not by a simple descent, as
certain Fathers say about Baptism, and not through a 'penetration' of the
bread, so that the Divinity of the Word should 'enter' into the bread
offered for the Eucharist, as the followers of Luther explain it rather
awkwardly and unworthily - but truly and actually, so that after the
sanctification of the bread and wine, the bread is changed,
transubstantiated, converted, transformed, into the actual true Body of the
Lord, which was born in Bethlehem of the Ever-Virgin, was baptized in the
Jordan, suffered, was buried, resurrected, ascended, sits at the right hand
of God the Father, and is to appear in the clouds of heaven; and the wine is
changed and transubstantiated into the actual true Blood of the Lord, which
at the time of His suffering on the Cross was shed for the life of the
world. Yet again, we believe that after the sanctification of the bread and
wine there remains no longer the bread and wine themselves, but the very
Body and Blood of the Lord, under the appearance of bread and wine." Thus
the Lord is in the Eucharist with **all His being,** and He is in each and
every particle, down to the tiniest. He does not depart after the time of
Communion, or at any time, so that the Body and Blood revert to their former
nature. The Holy Mysteries of the Eucharist should be given the same
worship and honor which we would give to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. "

5) This is from the writings of the Greek theologian Dyobouniotes:--

"The belief of the Church is further manifested in the reverence and
**worship of the Eucharist as such, independently of Communion.** The
faithful pay worship to the Holy Gifts after they have been consecrated, by
virtue of the Presence of our Lord, abiding under the form of bread and
wine. This worship belongs to the Consecrated Elements not abstractly but
concretely in their union with the Person of the Word of God.

"As the human nature of our Lord is an object of worship not as
regarded in itself, abstractly, but by virtue of the hypostatic union,
so the Holy Gifts are worshipped because they are the God-man, His Presence
with *soul and Divinity*, in every particle of the Consecrated
Elements.

"The Risen Christ, into whose Body and Blood the Elements are
transmuted, never dies, having a spiritual and glorified Body undivided
from His Blood. In the Eucharist He is present with all His constituent
elements, His *soul and His Divinity*, Body and Blood undivided."


6) Fr Michael Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology":--

"Although the bread and wine are transformed in the Mystery into the Body
and Blood of the Lord, He is present in this Mystery with all His being,
that is, with His soul and with His very Divinity, which is inseparably
united to His humanity.

"... those who receive Communion receive the entire Christ in His being,
that is, in His soul and Divinity, as perfect God and perfect man."

"... to the Holy Mysteries of the Eucharist there should be given the same
honour and worship that we are obliged to give to the Lord Jesus Christ
Himself."

I am so sick of this. "The Council of Jerusalem isn't a good council! It hasn't been accepted!"

Then someone goes and quotes it. The stupid thing says "transubstantiation".

You guys are a piece of work.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #160 on: July 11, 2011, 04:50:43 AM »

I am so sick of this. "The Council of Jerusalem isn't a good council! It hasn't been accepted!"

Then someone goes and quotes it. The stupid thing says "transubstantiation".

You guys are a piece of work.

The Council of Jerusalem uses a variety of words to denote the mysterious change of the bread and wine.  It places no special emphasis on any of them.  

"... after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed
into the true Body Itself of the Lord
, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried,
rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine
is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life
of the world. {John 6:51}"

But...... look what follows with regard to the word "transubstantiation" - the document deliberately distances itself from the Roman Catholic-Aristotelian interpretation of "transubstantiation".....

"Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into
the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine
to do so [the Roman Catholics] are involved in ignorance and impiety
, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration,
not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten,
transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord..."

http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html
« Last Edit: July 11, 2011, 04:54:39 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #161 on: July 11, 2011, 05:11:52 AM »

I am so sick of this. "The Council of Jerusalem isn't a good council! It hasn't been accepted!"

Then someone goes and quotes it. The stupid thing says "transubstantiation".

You guys are a piece of work.

Quote from: Greek Orthodox Church

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8038

e) Later Councils

The Orthodox Church considers itself to be the Church of Christ. From this point of view, any general and major councils even after the separation between Eastern and Western Christianity [1054] may still be considered and called "ecumenical councils." However, in deference to the "ecumenical problem" and as a matter of pastoral prudence and strategy, the Church has not given the name "ecumenical" to Councils that do not represent the "undivided Church" of the Byzantine Empire.

Nonetheless, important Councils convened in the East after the separation between Eastern and Western Christianity are as important in terms of establishing the faith and clearly enunciating its content. Such are the important Councils of 1341 and 1351, which established the Orthodox Christian doctrine concerning divine grace, the divine energies of God and the "uncreated light," according to the doctrine of St. Gregory Palamas.

Councils convened during the seventeenth century to counteract Protestant infiltrations in the East and establish the Orthodox doctrine vis-à-vis the Protestant teachings, like the Councils of Jassi [1662] and Jerusalem [1672] are also considered to be councils of relative importance. Documents produced by these Councils, or ratified by them, along with other important documents, such as "confessions of faith" by Orthodox prelates and teachers (St. Photios, Michael Cerularius, Mark of Ephesus, Gennadios of Constantinople, Jeremiah II of Constantinople, Metrophanes Kritopoulos, Peter Moghila, etc.) are given the name of "Symbolic Books" of the Orthodox Church. They are certainly witnesses of the Orthodox faith "once handed down to the saints" and perpetuated in the Orthodox Church. However, their authority is subjected to the authority of the Ecumenical Councils and the ancient Fathers of the Church.


The Greek Archdiocesan site remarks that the Symbolical Books are "witnesses of the Orthodox faith once handed to the Saints and perpetuated in the Orthodox Church."  It goes on to mention that they are subject to the authority of the Ecumenical Councils - naturally.


The following are the chief Orthodox doctrinal statements since 787 and comprise the Symbolical Books, particularly items 1-5:


1 The Encyclical Letter of Saint Photius (867)
2 The First Letter of Michael Cerularius to Peter of Antioch (1054)
3 The decisions of ‘the Councils of Constantinople in 1341 and 1351 on the Hesychast Controversy
4 The Encyclical Letter of Saint Mark of Ephesus (1440-1441).
5 The Confession of Faith by Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople (1455-1456)
6 The Replies of Jeremias the Second to the Lutherans (1573-1581)
7 The Confession of Faith by Metrophanes Kritopoulos (1625)
8 The Orthodox Confession by Peter of Moghila, in its revised form (ratified by the Council of Jassy, 1642)
9 The Confession of Dositheus (ratified by the Council of Jerusalem, 1672)
10 The Answers of the Orthodox Patriarchs to the Non-Jurors (1718, 1723)
11 The Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius the Ninth (1848)
12 The Reply of the Synod of Constantinople to Pope Leo the Thirteenth (1895)
13 The Encyclical Letters by the Patriarchate of Constantinople on Christian unity and on the ‘Ecumenical Movement’ (1920, 1952)

Logged