OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 21, 2014, 02:31:20 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 9169 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« 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: 37,649



« 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: 37,649



« 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: 37,649



« 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: 37,649



« 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: 6,123



« 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: 37,649



« 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: 37,649



« 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: 32,212


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: 37,649



« 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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,717


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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #162 on: July 11, 2011, 09:43:28 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. 



I simply want the very best, for and from, our respective Churches.   I am not afraid of faith held in the tension of paradox and I don't wish to see any kind of sweeping change for either of us.  It is not at all necessary today any more than it was necessary during the first thousand years where faith was held in nothing but the tension of paradox and the hope of things unseen.

I love you too...sometimes I even pray about you and your physical and material good health and priestly well being.   Smiley
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: 37,649



« Reply #163 on: July 11, 2011, 10:01:06 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 addressed your piece of work, the Reformation, which came like a plague from without to inflict us with your sickness.

It has never been accepted as an Ecumenical Council, ever, for it dealt with external threats to the Catholic Church, i.e. us.  It has always  been accepted as a Pan Orthodox Council, as Orthodoxy's response to others' problems.
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: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #164 on: July 11, 2011, 12:53:43 PM »

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 addressed your piece of work, the Reformation, which came like a plague from without to inflict us with your sickness.

It has never been accepted as an Ecumenical Council, ever, for it dealt with external threats to the Catholic Church, i.e. us.  It has always  been accepted as a Pan Orthodox Council, as Orthodoxy's response to others' problems.
And thus, demonstrates that your beliefs have changed over time.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,212


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #165 on: July 13, 2011, 04:24:58 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


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.
So, am I to understand this as a retraction of your claims?
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: 37,649



« Reply #166 on: July 13, 2011, 04:52:03 PM »

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 addressed your piece of work, the Reformation, which came like a plague from without to inflict us with your sickness.

It has never been accepted as an Ecumenical Council, ever, for it dealt with external threats to the Catholic Church, i.e. us.  It has always  been accepted as a Pan Orthodox Council, as Orthodoxy's response to others' problems.
And thus, demonstrates that your beliefs have changed over time.
We innoculating the Faithful from the latest decay in your beliefs doesn't change ours any.  That's the idea of addressing them.
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 #167 on: July 13, 2011, 05:01:54 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


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.
So, am I to understand this as a retraction of your claims?

You asked me to take back my claim that Orthodox seminaries teach a false doctrine of the Eucharist.  That I have done by saying that I do not have access to the archives where I believe that claim was sustained.  Father Ambrose is the only one of the two of us with that access and so I must yield to his greater access.

I have done as you have asked.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2011, 05:03:04 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #168 on: July 13, 2011, 09:12:37 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


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.
So, am I to understand this as a retraction of your claims?

You asked me to take back my claim that Orthodox seminaries teach a false doctrine of the Eucharist.  That I have done by saying that I do not have access to the archives where I believe that claim was sustained.  Father Ambrose is the only one of the two of us with that access and so I must yield to his greater access.

I have done as you have asked.

I found only one reference to seminary in the thread on Orthodox-Forum.   It has no relevance to what Mary is claiming

Quote from: Orthodox-Forum

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Orthodox-Forum/message/37785

Re: [Orthodox-Forum] Re: Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity


In a message dated 1/18/04 114911, ephrembensusan@... writes:

<< Well, I know that the Jerusalem divines weren't exactly SVS grads or
anything, but they must have had *some* reason to adopt such language--maybe
they thought it was necessary to combat Lucaris. >>

Dear Ephrem:

Sure, they had a reason ... but to combat Cyril Lucaris, they went much too
far the other direction (no matter what seminary they did or didn't go to <g>).

Fr. Michael

I did the same search with other terms:  training and studies

Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,368


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #169 on: July 13, 2011, 11:15:22 PM »

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
+1

Game, set, and match...
Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #170 on: July 13, 2011, 11:21:15 PM »

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
+1

Game, set, and match...

Hardly.  Just more rude recasting of the teaching of the western Catholic Church.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #171 on: July 13, 2011, 11:30:22 PM »

Are we talking about rude, the opposite of polite, or rude, the opposite of refined?
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #172 on: July 13, 2011, 11:41:15 PM »

Are we talking about rude, the opposite of polite, or rude, the opposite of refined?

 Smiley
Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,368


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #173 on: July 14, 2011, 12:03:32 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
+1

Game, set, and match...

Hardly.  Just more rude recasting of the teaching of the western Catholic Church.
I don't think Fr. Ambrose is being rude. The Council of Jerusalem may have used the term transubstantiation, but it very explicitly distanced itself from and denied the Latin doctrine. Roman Catholic apologists who cite the usage of the term transubstantiation in that Council without bothering to note its denial of their doctrine are either guilty of bad hermeneutics or false witness, are they not?
« Last Edit: July 14, 2011, 12:17:20 AM by xariskai » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #174 on: July 14, 2011, 07:41:34 AM »

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.


The Patriarch of Lisbon has reversed himself.  Says he was unaware of the Pope's teaching and the Church's teaching on a male only priesthood.  It raises serious doubts when a senior member of the Magisterium is so ignorant!

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/policarpo-chiesa-donne-preti-policarpo-church-women-priests-policarpo-iglesia-mujeres-sac/
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #175 on: July 14, 2011, 10:02:04 AM »

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.


The Patriarch of Lisbon has reversed himself.  Says he was unaware of the Pope's teaching and the Church's teaching on a male only priesthood.  It raises serious doubts when a senior member of the Magisterium is so ignorant!

Yeah, that's pretty weird.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #176 on: July 14, 2011, 10:13:54 AM »

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.


The Patriarch of Lisbon has reversed himself.  Says he was unaware of the Pope's teaching and the Church's teaching on a male only priesthood.  It raises serious doubts when a senior member of the Magisterium is so ignorant!

Yeah, that's pretty weird.

It's not weird at all.  If you read the first translation of his interview, it is clear that he is NOT advocating an end to the all-male priesthood.

What he says is that there is 'no theological reason' for barring women from the priesthood.

What he says in his clarifying remarks is that it is not his habit to talk about such things.  He also says his remarks did not take into consideration [a pretty far cry from "not knowing"] the fact that Pope John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger had made strong statements indicating that the Church does not have the power to ordain women.

Well even that does not encompass the reality of the first interview because in the first interview the Cardinal says that not even the pope has the power to ordain women.

So what you have is a clunky translation and people out here who don't read well and another clunky attempt to clarify something that was clear to some from the beginning.

The worst thing that the Cardinal did was to express the findings of a commission established by the Vatican who indicated that there was no theological reason for there not to be women priests.   

Pope Paul VI called the all-male priesthood a part of anthropological theology. 

Pope Benedict XVI has said that if everything is accepted under the name of "Theology" then we loose the understanding of Theology and have Religious Studies in its place.

So the real import of that interview, it seems to me, is that we don't need another public discussion concerning the all-male priesthood but it would be very useful to have a public discussion on the meaning or various meanings of the word "Theology" in the Catholic Church.

Mary
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: 37,649



« Reply #177 on: July 14, 2011, 10:32:59 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
+1

Game, set, and match...

Hardly.  Just more rude recasting of the teaching of the western Catholic Church.
No, just more of the Catholic Church refusing the Vatican's recasting of Orthodox teaching.  Pat. Dositheos, and the Catholic Church with him, were just saying loud and clear to both the Protestants and those at Trent, a pox on both your houses, we don't believe as you do.
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 #178 on: July 14, 2011, 11:05:33 AM »


No, just more of the Catholic Church refusing the Vatican's recasting of Orthodox teaching.  Pat. Dositheos, and the Catholic Church with him, were just saying loud and clear to both the Protestants and those at Trent, a pox on both your houses, we don't believe as you do.
[/quote]

The Catholic Church teaches that there cannot be the essence of two things occupying precisely the same time and space...

To say otherwise is bad philosophy, bad science and even worse theology.

If Pat. Dositheos didn't get that...It's ok by me.... Smiley
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: 37,649



« Reply #179 on: July 14, 2011, 11:21:46 AM »

No, just more of the Catholic Church refusing the Vatican's recasting of Orthodox teaching.  Pat. Dositheos, and the Catholic Church with him, were just saying loud and clear to both the Protestants and those at Trent, a pox on both your houses, we don't believe as you do.

The Catholic Church teaches that there cannot be the essence of two things occupying precisely the same time and space...
The Catholic Church teaches the Hypostatic Union.  No wonder the Vatican just signed communion agreements with the Nestorians.

To say otherwise is bad philosophy, bad science and even worse theology.
If you want to persist in the arrogance of your Scholastics, don't expect us to follow you down that broad road through that wide gate.  For what happens when a handmaiden takes her place alongside her mistress, as the Scholastics did with philosophy and theology, consult the story of Hagar and Sarah.

If Pat. Dositheos didn't get that...It's ok by me.... Smiley
It's OK by the Catholic Church too, hence the Synod of Jerusalem.
Logged

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

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.238 seconds with 72 queries.