OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 10:55:21 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 6 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: List of terms of reunion with the Roman Catholics  (Read 10866 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #135 on: August 17, 2011, 08:42:34 PM »

Wait this looks like a Catholic NO Mass service?! What! No it is an Orthodox service!!!! Wow!!

No it most certainly doesn't, it is far more beautiful than the Novus Ordo.

Devin, there are some videos on youtube of the Novus Ordo Mass being celebrated ad orientem, in Latin, in Gregorian chant, with the use of incense, without altar girls or "extraordinary" lay ministers. I'll find some for you once I get home from work if you'd like.

Is it safe to assume your quarrel is with the abuse of the freedoms allowed to the Roman Church's priests under the Novus Ordo rubrics rather than with the Mass itself?

According to Pope St Pius V (Quo Primum), the Mass was never to be changed. Not only did the modernists in Rome change it, they changed the words of the Roman consecration, changing the very words of Christ Himself as well as the meaning, when they, in English, say "for you and for all" as opposed to "for you and for many'.
Have you seen Orthodox liturgies like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAqsE334akY
Logged
Xenia1918
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Praying for Divine guidance
Posts: 569



« Reply #136 on: August 17, 2011, 08:48:32 PM »

Wait this looks like a Catholic NO Mass service?! What! No it is an Orthodox service!!!! Wow!!

No it most certainly doesn't, it is far more beautiful than the Novus Ordo.

Devin, there are some videos on youtube of the Novus Ordo Mass being celebrated ad orientem, in Latin, in Gregorian chant, with the use of incense, without altar girls or "extraordinary" lay ministers. I'll find some for you once I get home from work if you'd like.

Is it safe to assume your quarrel is with the abuse of the freedoms allowed to the Roman Church's priests under the Novus Ordo rubrics rather than with the Mass itself?

According to Pope St Pius V (Quo Primum), the Mass was never to be changed. Not only did the modernists in Rome change it, they changed the words of the Roman consecration, changing the very words of Christ Himself as well as the meaning, when they, in English, say "for you and for all" as opposed to "for you and for many'.
Have you seen Orthodox liturgies like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAqsE334akY


According to what someone posted on that video link, its the Coptic church....are they actually in communion with Orthodoxy? I don't know.

In my case, my issues are not really with the liturgical abuses carried out in modern Roman churches....because I don't believe the novus ordo is a valid liturgy anyway by historic RC doctrinal standards. So I don't really care what they do at a novus ordo, its heretical by traditional RC standards anyway, IMO. Now if they carried out those abuses in a Tridentine Mass, THEN I would have serious issues with it!
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 08:50:32 PM by Xenia1918 » Logged

"O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth as their home in common with us..." (from the Prayer of St Basil the Great)

REAL RC: http://www.traditionalmass.org
REAL OC: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #137 on: August 17, 2011, 08:49:42 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

There is far to much vitriolic pontificating and posturing on this thread, Lord have His Mercy!

What has been utterly lost is so ironic considering the OP mentioned that the legalistic interpretations of Roman Catholic tradition are part of what must be addressed to reconcile with Orthodox, which is not nearly as legalistic as the Catholics.  In fact, the legalistic approach of the Roman Catholic tradition over history I feel is directly what has contributed to the Western mindset within Protestantism of literalist interpretations of Sola Scripture and also why the Catholic Church has had to practically reform away all of its culture and tradition since 1960 in order to appease the reality that the Canons are always ideals which we centralize our prayerful effort towards as a Body of Christ, but this is also why have priests to help individualize the Canons and Tradition to specific and changing needs of the laity under their pastoral care.

So that being said, why are so many of us here in Orthodox reflecting such a legalistic approach to Orthodox on points on this thread? It is a blatant and unnecessary contradiction and also sometimes been rather mean spirited..

I pray for us all in this regard, but we need to continue to emphasize a spiritual, love based approach over a legalistic examination of the Canon and Tradition, either of Orthodox or Roman Catholic.

Stay Blessed,
Habte Selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #138 on: August 17, 2011, 08:50:35 PM »

..
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 08:52:18 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,041


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #139 on: August 17, 2011, 08:52:35 PM »

I tried to compile some areas that we feel that the Roman Catholics need to change if union is ever to happen. This isn't a concrete list, nor is it comprehensive.

Repudiate/Reject:
1.   Papal Universal Jurisdiction
2.   Papal Infallibility
3.   Papal Petrine exclusivism (i.e., that only the Pope is Peter’s successor)
4.   Development of Doctrine (as seen by the West)
5.   The Filioque
6.   Original Sin understood as guilt transmitted via “propagation” (I’m told the RCC no longer believes this)
7.   The Immaculate Conception of Mary
8.   Divine Simplicity
9.   Merit and Satisfaction soteriology
10.   Purgatory and Indulgences
11.   Created grace (vs. uncreated)
12.   Painting of religious imagery contrary to the traditional forms. (For veneration and ecclesiastical use)
13.   Gregorian Reforms, Vatican I, Vatican II, and almost every Post-Schism Council
14.   Adoption of secular/heterodox music into liturgical worship.
15.   Mandatory clerical celibacy
16.   Use of Unleavened Bread
17.   Self-Flagellation/Mortification of the Flesh
18.   Allowing Priests/Bishops who have fallen into fornication to celebrate Liturgy/Mass
19.   Sitting during worship
20.   Punishment of heretics by temporal/physical means
21.   Legalistic theology
22.   Faith built on science/reason
23.   Satisfaction theory of atonement
24.   Transubstantiation as dogma
25.   Sacraments (vs. Mysteries)
26.   Assumption of Mary (vs. Dormition)
27.   Kneeling/Prostrating on Sundays
28.   Thomism and St. Augustine’s errors.

Accept/Restore:
1.   The authority of Ecumenical Councils over the Pope
2.   The Essence/Energies distinction
3.   Reconnect Confirmation/Chrismation back to Baptism rather than delaying it
4.   Administer Holy Communion (both body & blood) to all Church members, including infants
5.   Pre-Tridentine and Tridentine form(s) of Liturgy/Mass
6.   Praying to the liturgical East
7.   Traditional fasting, including Wed/Fri fasts and all fasting periods
8.   Canons as guide rather than law (related to 22)
9.   Traditional method of dating Pascha/Easter

I got some of the list from:
http://saintpaulemmaus.org/files/het...---Outline.pdf
Which is a file that serves as an outline for a podcast series titled "Orthodoxy & Heterodoxy", it's specifically for the program that discusses Orthodoxy & Roman Catholicism. (which is in two parts)
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxyheterodoxy/orthodox_and_roman_catholic_differences
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxyheterodoxy/orthodox_and_roman_catholic_differences_-part_2

Also, some points come from:
http://books.google.com/books?id=RJoRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA87&dq=LXV.+Held+1450&hl=en&ei=OTMETdK6NpXqnQfa5-HlDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=LXV.%20Held%201450&f=false
and can be seen at the very bottom of the page.

Lastly, more points are found here:
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

I know that it seems that many of these points might seem minor, but they all contributed (and still contribute) to the division, and in fact, were denounced at many Orthodox Councils and by many Orthodox Saints.
None of this is going to happen.
Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #140 on: August 17, 2011, 09:08:13 PM »

As far as 9.   Traditional method of dating Pascha/Easter
is concerned, I thought that even in the early Church there was a divergence of views on how to determine the date of Easter. So doesn't that mean that there is no "Traditional method." 

Logged
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,155


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #141 on: August 17, 2011, 09:09:27 PM »

As far as 9.   Traditional method of dating Pascha/Easter
is concerned, I thought that even in the early Church there was a divergence of views on how to determine the date of Easter. So doesn't that mean that there is no "Traditional method." 

First Ecumenical Council.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,576


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #142 on: August 17, 2011, 09:41:11 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

There is far to much vitriolic pontificating and posturing on this thread, Lord have His Mercy!

What has been utterly lost is so ironic considering the OP mentioned that the legalistic interpretations of Roman Catholic tradition are part of what must be addressed to reconcile with Orthodox, which is not nearly as legalistic as the Catholics.  In fact, the legalistic approach of the Roman Catholic tradition over history I feel is directly what has contributed to the Western mindset within Protestantism of literalist interpretations of Sola Scripture and also why the Catholic Church has had to practically reform away all of its culture and tradition since 1960 in order to appease the reality that the Canons are always ideals which we centralize our prayerful effort towards as a Body of Christ, but this is also why have priests to help individualize the Canons and Tradition to specific and changing needs of the laity under their pastoral care.

So that being said, why are so many of us here in Orthodox reflecting such a legalistic approach to Orthodox on points on this thread? It is a blatant and unnecessary contradiction and also sometimes been rather mean spirited..

I pray for us all in this regard, but we need to continue to emphasize a spiritual, love based approach over a legalistic examination of the Canon and Tradition, either of Orthodox or Roman Catholic.

Stay Blessed,
Habte Selassie

Amen x3
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #143 on: August 17, 2011, 09:52:43 PM »

As far as 9.   Traditional method of dating Pascha/Easter
is concerned, I thought that even in the early Church there was a divergence of views on how to determine the date of Easter. So doesn't that mean that there is no "Traditional method." 

First Ecumenical Council.
Then how come Bede wrote: "The Sunday following the full Moon which falls on or after the equinox will give the lawful Easter." But the astronomical vernal equinox  can fall on March 19, 20, or 21, while the ecclesiastical date is fixed by convention on March 21, and may not be the correct date of the  astronomical vernal equinox.
Logged
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #144 on: August 17, 2011, 10:13:09 PM »

Most of these points seem crazy to get hung up on.
There are some big ones, the Pope, indulgences, yada, yada, yada, I think the cooler heads here know which ones those are without anyone having to break them all down, which make such a "reunion" seem highly unlikely, but some of these things would be absurd to hold on to in the face of a reunion, especially as many of them are mere matters of perception, that can't even be quantified.
Can we tell Rome, "be Orthodox!"? Sure (though they probably won't listen). But can we tell them, "also, be exactly like us in every possible way, and accept as God's truth every minute judgment we've made against you."? No.

RE: the communion/alcohol thing. That said, it's pretty clear that any alcoholic, even the "real" sort (and I have issues with this term...) is perfectly capable, on a physical level, of communing. Whether he wants to psyche himself out over it, every tiramisu, and every drop of Listerine along the way, or not, is his own problem.
The thing that at one point made this issue complicated to me, as a former member of 12-step groups, was the somewhat pervasive idea of a "physical allergy" to alcohol/drugs. I could not and do not accept that idea.

Finally, wonderful thoughts a few posts back, habteselassie, especially re:accusations of legalism, in light of the nature of this discussion...
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 10:30:47 PM by JimCBrooklyn » Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #145 on: August 17, 2011, 10:28:31 PM »

The thing that at one point made this issue complicated to me, as a former member of 12-step groups, was the somewhat pervasive idea of a "physical allergy" to alcohol/drugs. I could not and do not accept that idea.
Here is a testimony:  " Lese February 28, 2011 at 19:08
Hannah — I would love to hear what you end up learning on your own. I have been battling a very bad reaction to wine and champagne and possibly beer for over 20 years. One day I could drink and then one day I couldn’t. I also have some other food allergies — mostly to MSG, nitrates. I have been to the hospital more than once over these reactions. It’s very scary. My symptoms are like yours, but my blood pressure also goes up and my heart begins to race and pound. I had a reaction today from having a rice wine vinegar in a salad dressing and immediately drank tons and tons of water to slow down the reaction. That has worked for me a lot. I have had to use an Epipen before to stop a reaction, but I now don’t have insurance and so have no back-up plan when this occurs. I feel lost over the years getting answers. No allergist has a test for sulfites. I am not sure what is the exact culprit. I have had my allergist tell me I can have some alcohol, but I am honestly afraid to try, so I don’t drink. If you have any advice, please let me know. Thank you!"
http://www.allergy-details.com/wine-allergy/allergy-wine-worst-reactions/

Logged
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #146 on: August 17, 2011, 10:30:34 PM »

The thing that at one point made this issue complicated to me, as a former member of 12-step groups, was the somewhat pervasive idea of a "physical allergy" to alcohol/drugs. I could not and do not accept that idea.
Here is a testimony:  " Lese February 28, 2011 at 19:08
Hannah — I would love to hear what you end up learning on your own. I have been battling a very bad reaction to wine and champagne and possibly beer for over 20 years. One day I could drink and then one day I couldn’t. I also have some other food allergies — mostly to MSG, nitrates. I have been to the hospital more than once over these reactions. It’s very scary. My symptoms are like yours, but my blood pressure also goes up and my heart begins to race and pound. I had a reaction today from having a rice wine vinegar in a salad dressing and immediately drank tons and tons of water to slow down the reaction. That has worked for me a lot. I have had to use an Epipen before to stop a reaction, but I now don’t have insurance and so have no back-up plan when this occurs. I feel lost over the years getting answers. No allergist has a test for sulfites. I am not sure what is the exact culprit. I have had my allergist tell me I can have some alcohol, but I am honestly afraid to try, so I don’t drink. If you have any advice, please let me know. Thank you!"
http://www.allergy-details.com/wine-allergy/allergy-wine-worst-reactions/


I think you've misunderstood me. I don't doubt the existence, or possibility of actual allergy to alcohol, at all. What I doubt is that the "alcoholic" is inherent physically allergic to alcohol, which some folks and some literature in a 12-step setting will push the idea of.
Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #147 on: August 17, 2011, 10:34:43 PM »

The thing that at one point made this issue complicated to me, as a former member of 12-step groups, was the somewhat pervasive idea of a "physical allergy" to alcohol/drugs. I could not and do not accept that idea.
Here is a testimony:  " Lese February 28, 2011 at 19:08
Hannah — I would love to hear what you end up learning on your own. I have been battling a very bad reaction to wine and champagne and possibly beer for over 20 years. One day I could drink and then one day I couldn’t. I also have some other food allergies — mostly to MSG, nitrates. I have been to the hospital more than once over these reactions. It’s very scary. My symptoms are like yours, but my blood pressure also goes up and my heart begins to race and pound. I had a reaction today from having a rice wine vinegar in a salad dressing and immediately drank tons and tons of water to slow down the reaction. That has worked for me a lot. I have had to use an Epipen before to stop a reaction, but I now don’t have insurance and so have no back-up plan when this occurs. I feel lost over the years getting answers. No allergist has a test for sulfites. I am not sure what is the exact culprit. I have had my allergist tell me I can have some alcohol, but I am honestly afraid to try, so I don’t drink. If you have any advice, please let me know. Thank you!"
http://www.allergy-details.com/wine-allergy/allergy-wine-worst-reactions/


I think you've misunderstood me. I don't doubt the existence, or possibility of actual allergy to alcohol, at all. What I doubt is that the "alcoholic" is inherent physically allergic to alcohol, which some folks and some literature in a 12-step setting will push the idea of.
Oh, I see what you mean now.
Logged
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #148 on: August 17, 2011, 11:11:39 PM »


Zeal without knowledge? LOL...
I wouldn't exactly call listening to many Orthodox podcasts, reading many Orthodox books and articles on the issue a "lack of knowledge".
You do know that acknowledging that you're smart, mature, etc. usually means that you just lost the game, right? And by the game, I mean life.
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #149 on: August 17, 2011, 11:29:29 PM »


Zeal without knowledge? LOL...
I wouldn't exactly call listening to many Orthodox podcasts, reading many Orthodox books and articles on the issue a "lack of knowledge".
You do know that acknowledging that you're smart, mature, etc. usually means that you just lost the game, right? And by the game, I mean life.
I thought you meant this:
http://www.losethegame.com/
Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #150 on: August 17, 2011, 11:31:41 PM »

Good grief. Fortunately it is not up to 88Devin12 to bring about the reunion of our communions.

I rather like these thoughts of reunion put forth by SCOBA:

http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html

Logged
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #151 on: August 17, 2011, 11:48:57 PM »


Zeal without knowledge? LOL...
I wouldn't exactly call listening to many Orthodox podcasts, reading many Orthodox books and articles on the issue a "lack of knowledge".
You do know that acknowledging that you're smart, mature, etc. usually means that you just lost the game, right? And by the game, I mean life.
I thought you meant this:
http://www.losethegame.com/
Ugh, I just lost! I haven't lost the game in a year or so.
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,190


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #152 on: August 18, 2011, 02:09:17 AM »

Wait this looks like a Catholic NO Mass service?! What! No it is an Orthodox service!!!! Wow!!

No it most certainly doesn't, it is far more beautiful than the Novus Ordo.

Devin, there are some videos on youtube of the Novus Ordo Mass being celebrated ad orientem, in Latin, in Gregorian chant, with the use of incense, without altar girls or "extraordinary" lay ministers. I'll find some for you once I get home from work if you'd like.

Is it safe to assume your quarrel is with the abuse of the freedoms allowed to the Roman Church's priests under the Novus Ordo rubrics rather than with the Mass itself?

According to Pope St Pius V (Quo Primum), the Mass was never to be changed. Not only did the modernists in Rome change it, they changed the words of the Roman consecration, changing the very words of Christ Himself as well as the meaning, when they, in English, say "for you and for all" as opposed to "for you and for many'.
Have you seen Orthodox liturgies like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAqsE334akY


According to what someone posted on that video link, its the Coptic church....are they actually in communion with Orthodoxy? I don't know.

In my case, my issues are not really with the liturgical abuses carried out in modern Roman churches....because I don't believe the novus ordo is a valid liturgy anyway by historic RC doctrinal standards. So I don't really care what they do at a novus ordo, its heretical by traditional RC standards anyway, IMO. Now if they carried out those abuses in a Tridentine Mass, THEN I would have serious issues with it!

I agree with you.

The Novus Ordo is a Lutheran Liturgy taken almost verbatim from the 1904 Lutheran Hymnal.
It is not an ancient Roman Catholic Liturgy.
We should preach the truth in love and call it what it is.
The Novus Ordo is a Protestant Liturgy.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 02:10:02 AM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 750



« Reply #153 on: August 18, 2011, 10:23:11 AM »

I never said freeze it. But there are certain boundaries which we must stay within. Western art and music are outside of those boundaries.

"Must stay within"?  Your so-called boundaries are way too narrow, even for Eastern Rite Orthodox.  Good thing you're not in charge.

You act like you are trying to justify the West. Guess what? They are in schism from the Holy Church and cannot be justified.

Not all of the West is in schism from the Orthodox Church.  You probably don't like the Western Rite, but it is a valid and canonical part of Orthodoxy.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #154 on: August 18, 2011, 10:41:11 AM »

Not really my problem. Its not an issue of semantics, but how they are understood practically and theologically. Its not about whether to call them sacraments or mysteries.

And yet, beyond claiming that there are differences in understanding, you have not yet explained what those differences are. What are the differences, in your mind, between how the Catholics view their Sacraments and how the Orthodox view their Mysteries?

You might want to read this:

Quote
Both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics recognize at least seven Sacraments or Mysteries: The Eucharist, Baptism, Chrismation, Ordination, Penance, Marriage and Holy Oil for the sick (which the Latins have traditionally called "Extreme Unction" and reserved for the dying).

Concerning the Sacraments in general, the Orthodox teach that their material elements (bread, wine, water, chrism, etc.) become grace-filled by the calling of the Holy Spirit (epiklesis). Roman Catholicism believes that the Sacraments are effective on account of the priest who acts "in the person of Christ."

At the same time, the Latins interpret the Sacraments in a legal and philosophical way. Hence, in the Eucharist, using the right material things (bread and wine) and pronouncing the correct formula, changes their substance (transubstantiation) into the Body and Blood of Christ. The visible elements or this and all Sacraments are merely "signs" of the presence of God.

The Orthodox call the Eucharist "the mystical Supper." What the priest and the faithful consume is mysteriously the Body and Blood of Christ. We receive Him under the forms of bread and wine, because it would be wholly repugnant to eat "real" human flesh and drink "real" human blood.

According to Roman Catholic teachings about the Sacraments (mystagogy), a person becomes a member of the Church through Baptism. "Original sin" is washed away. Orthodoxy teaches the same, but the idea of an "original sin" or "inherited guilt" (from Adam) has no part in her thinking. More will be said later on this matter.

Roman Catholics speak of "Confirmation" and the Orthodox of "Chrismation." "Confirmation" is separated from the Baptism and is performed by the bishop and not the priest; but "Chrismation" is performed with Baptism by a priest who has received "chrism" from the bishop. The Sacrament of "Confirmation" and "Chrismation" both mean the giving of the Holy Spirit. The Latins delay "confirming" (with "first communion") baptized infants not more than seven years, that is, until the time they have some appreciation of the gift of God.

The Orthodox Church links Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Communion, first the threefold immersion into sanctified water, the "new Christian" rising from the water into the fellowship of the Holy Spirit which leads to union with God. Such is the purpose of membership in the Church.

Ordination is the ceremony which, by the grace and calling of God, elevates a man to the priesthood. The sacerdotal priesthood has three orders: Bishop, presbyter (elder) and deacon. All Christians are priests by virtue of the baptism into Christ Who is priest, prophet and king - for which reason St. Peter refers to the Church as a "royal priesthood" (I Pet. 2:9). The bishop is the "high priest," the "president of the Eucharist and all the Mysteries. Presbyters and deacons are his assistants. The Latins hold that the presbyter acts "in the person of Christ" when, in fact, he does no more than represent the bishop who is "the living icon of Christ."

Strictly speaking, Penance - sometimes called "Confession" - should only be received by the believer as a means of re-admission to the Church. For a long time, Penance, or confession of sins, prayer and fasting was employed only for those who had been expelled from the Church ("excommunication") or who had voluntarily departed (apostasy). The present practice is to receive Penance from a bishop or presbyter for some serious sin before receiving Holy Communion.

Both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics consider Penance as a Sacrament. Each has different customs surrounding it, such as the confessional booth so common among the latter.

For Roman Catholics, Holy Matrimony is a binding, ostensibly an unbreakable, contract. The man and the woman marry each other with the "church" (bishop or priest) standing as a witness to it. Hence, no divorce under any conditions - no divorce but annulment of the marriage contract if some canonical defect in it may be found which renders it null and void (as if it never took place).

In Orthodoxy, Holy Matrimony is not a contract; it is the mysterious or mystical union of a man and woman - in imitation of Christ and the Church - in the presence of "the whole People of God" through her bishop or his presbyter. Divorce is likewise forbidden, but, as a concession to human weakness, it is allowed for adultery. Second and third marriages are permitted - not as a legal matter - out of mercy, a further concession to human weakness (e.g., after the death of a spouse). This Sacrament, as all Sacraments or Mysteries, is completed by the Eucharist, as St. Dionysius the Areopagite says.

As already mentioned, the Latins conceive Extreme Unction as the final Sacrament, the Sacrament which prepares the believer for death, purgatory and the Age to Come. In Orthodoxy, Holy Oil is received for healing. Often sickness is caused by sin; therefore, Holy Oil or Unction involved Confession of sins. At the end of the rite, the anointed receives Holy Communion.

The Orthodox Church also recognizes kingship, monasticism, blessings of the water, etc. as Mysteries.

Father Michael Azkoul

St. Catherine Mission, St. Louis, MO

http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

Ok, but what makes the Catholic understanding defective? What in your grand opinion must change about the Catholic view of the Sacraments?

Did you read that article? And the differences between our understandings? THOSE are the problems they need to change.

Fr. Michael Azkoul has left the Orthodox Church. His rants against Saint Augustine and "the West" are good examples of what to avoid.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #155 on: August 18, 2011, 11:02:29 AM »

The thing that at one point made this issue complicated to me, as a former member of 12-step groups, was the somewhat pervasive idea of a "physical allergy" to alcohol/drugs. I could not and do not accept that idea.
Here is a testimony:  " Lese February 28, 2011 at 19:08
Hannah — I would love to hear what you end up learning on your own. I have been battling a very bad reaction to wine and champagne and possibly beer for over 20 years. One day I could drink and then one day I couldn’t. I also have some other food allergies — mostly to MSG, nitrates. I have been to the hospital more than once over these reactions. It’s very scary. My symptoms are like yours, but my blood pressure also goes up and my heart begins to race and pound. I had a reaction today from having a rice wine vinegar in a salad dressing and immediately drank tons and tons of water to slow down the reaction. That has worked for me a lot. I have had to use an Epipen before to stop a reaction, but I now don’t have insurance and so have no back-up plan when this occurs. I feel lost over the years getting answers. No allergist has a test for sulfites. I am not sure what is the exact culprit. I have had my allergist tell me I can have some alcohol, but I am honestly afraid to try, so I don’t drink. If you have any advice, please let me know. Thank you!"
http://www.allergy-details.com/wine-allergy/allergy-wine-worst-reactions/


I think you've misunderstood me. I don't doubt the existence, or possibility of actual allergy to alcohol, at all. What I doubt is that the "alcoholic" is inherent physically allergic to alcohol, which some folks and some literature in a 12-step setting will push the idea of.

Stanley ain't reading well, he's been conflating the whole time.

The allergy or disease model in AA is just that a model to help its members try to understand something that is neither.

Again we are in agreement that no "real" alcoholic and by this I mean, if you ever were truly physically addicted to the point where death would happen likely if quitting without medical intervention, the most severe case (the scare quotes, being what they are) ain't going to go on a bender from Communion or all the other foods you listed.

The amount of alcohol in the Eucharist approaches stupidly small amounts relative to an ounce.

Most folks ain't going to even be able to drink an ounce of alcohol without being drunk or passing out.

As far as the rare case of an allergy to alcohol, which I have a hard time believing afflicts any significant portion of the population, it support the participation of everyone in one species.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #156 on: August 18, 2011, 11:19:29 AM »

The thing that at one point made this issue complicated to me, as a former member of 12-step groups, was the somewhat pervasive idea of a "physical allergy" to alcohol/drugs. I could not and do not accept that idea.
Here is a testimony:  " Lese February 28, 2011 at 19:08
Hannah — I would love to hear what you end up learning on your own. I have been battling a very bad reaction to wine and champagne and possibly beer for over 20 years. One day I could drink and then one day I couldn’t. I also have some other food allergies — mostly to MSG, nitrates. I have been to the hospital more than once over these reactions. It’s very scary. My symptoms are like yours, but my blood pressure also goes up and my heart begins to race and pound. I had a reaction today from having a rice wine vinegar in a salad dressing and immediately drank tons and tons of water to slow down the reaction. That has worked for me a lot. I have had to use an Epipen before to stop a reaction, but I now don’t have insurance and so have no back-up plan when this occurs. I feel lost over the years getting answers. No allergist has a test for sulfites. I am not sure what is the exact culprit. I have had my allergist tell me I can have some alcohol, but I am honestly afraid to try, so I don’t drink. If you have any advice, please let me know. Thank you!"
http://www.allergy-details.com/wine-allergy/allergy-wine-worst-reactions/


I think you've misunderstood me. I don't doubt the existence, or possibility of actual allergy to alcohol, at all. What I doubt is that the "alcoholic" is inherent physically allergic to alcohol, which some folks and some literature in a 12-step setting will push the idea of.

Stanley ain't reading well, he's been conflating the whole time.

The allergy or disease model in AA is just that a model to help its members try to understand something that is neither.

Again we are in agreement that no "real" alcoholic and by this I mean, if you ever were truly physically addicted to the point where death would happen likely if quitting without medical intervention, the most severe case (the scare quotes, being what they are) ain't going to go on a bender from Communion or all the other foods you listed.

The amount of alcohol in the Eucharist approaches stupidly small amounts relative to an ounce.

Most folks ain't going to even be able to drink an ounce of alcohol without being drunk or passing out.

As far as the rare case of an allergy to alcohol, which I have a hard time believing afflicts any significant portion of the population, it support the participation of everyone in one species.
Right. I just have known some folks who took Doc Silkworth quite literally (if you've ever run into BBSS people from New England, they're like evangelicals, just for AA. Anathema to anything, basically, that is not explicitly written in the first 164), and I once saw a girl berated by her sponsor for taking communion, and urged to change her sobriety date.

I know that this is not representative of AA-at-large at all. I have an overall positive view of AA (did lots to get me off the white and brown stuff), though I don't consider myself an alcoholic.

I just think it's a shame that there would be people denying themselves communion based on an idea that the second a drop of booze hits the lips, they'll wake up 8 days later in a gutter.
Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,361



« Reply #157 on: August 18, 2011, 11:36:33 AM »

*Edited because I was being unfairly uncharitable to a certain group of people.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 11:37:01 AM by Agabus » Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,361



« Reply #158 on: August 18, 2011, 11:37:57 AM »

Pews come from the Protestants, not from the Orthodox. They come from a misunderstanding of the services, and from a faulty theology. They have no place in Orthodox Churches.
There are pews in many Orthodox Churches in the USA. Why don't you first try to convince your Orthodox faithful that pews have no places in your Churches before attempting to require this rule on Roman Catholics who desire reunion with the Orthodox?
It's pointless. Zeal without knowledge comes to mind. Now as if Devin is gonna be the one asked to set the condition if such re-union were to happen. It's just another virtual reality game of his. He likes playing those.

Zeal without knowledge? LOL...
I wouldn't exactly call listening to many Orthodox podcasts, reading many Orthodox books and articles on the issue a "lack of knowledge".

This statement shows that you have much to learn...

From who? You think I'm going to read Latin or Western sources on the issue? The only valid sources are Orthodox ones, or ones favorable to the Orthodox Church.
Devin, I think the point they are trying to make is that reading smart books does not necessarily make one smart.

Wisdom. Let us attend.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,926



« Reply #159 on: August 18, 2011, 12:00:33 PM »

Not really my problem. Its not an issue of semantics, but how they are understood practically and theologically. Its not about whether to call them sacraments or mysteries.

And yet, beyond claiming that there are differences in understanding, you have not yet explained what those differences are. What are the differences, in your mind, between how the Catholics view their Sacraments and how the Orthodox view their Mysteries?

You might want to read this:

Quote
Both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics recognize at least seven Sacraments or Mysteries: The Eucharist, Baptism, Chrismation, Ordination, Penance, Marriage and Holy Oil for the sick (which the Latins have traditionally called "Extreme Unction" and reserved for the dying).

Concerning the Sacraments in general, the Orthodox teach that their material elements (bread, wine, water, chrism, etc.) become grace-filled by the calling of the Holy Spirit (epiklesis). Roman Catholicism believes that the Sacraments are effective on account of the priest who acts "in the person of Christ."

At the same time, the Latins interpret the Sacraments in a legal and philosophical way. Hence, in the Eucharist, using the right material things (bread and wine) and pronouncing the correct formula, changes their substance (transubstantiation) into the Body and Blood of Christ. The visible elements or this and all Sacraments are merely "signs" of the presence of God.

The Orthodox call the Eucharist "the mystical Supper." What the priest and the faithful consume is mysteriously the Body and Blood of Christ. We receive Him under the forms of bread and wine, because it would be wholly repugnant to eat "real" human flesh and drink "real" human blood.

According to Roman Catholic teachings about the Sacraments (mystagogy), a person becomes a member of the Church through Baptism. "Original sin" is washed away. Orthodoxy teaches the same, but the idea of an "original sin" or "inherited guilt" (from Adam) has no part in her thinking. More will be said later on this matter.

Roman Catholics speak of "Confirmation" and the Orthodox of "Chrismation." "Confirmation" is separated from the Baptism and is performed by the bishop and not the priest; but "Chrismation" is performed with Baptism by a priest who has received "chrism" from the bishop. The Sacrament of "Confirmation" and "Chrismation" both mean the giving of the Holy Spirit. The Latins delay "confirming" (with "first communion") baptized infants not more than seven years, that is, until the time they have some appreciation of the gift of God.

The Orthodox Church links Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Communion, first the threefold immersion into sanctified water, the "new Christian" rising from the water into the fellowship of the Holy Spirit which leads to union with God. Such is the purpose of membership in the Church.

Ordination is the ceremony which, by the grace and calling of God, elevates a man to the priesthood. The sacerdotal priesthood has three orders: Bishop, presbyter (elder) and deacon. All Christians are priests by virtue of the baptism into Christ Who is priest, prophet and king - for which reason St. Peter refers to the Church as a "royal priesthood" (I Pet. 2:9). The bishop is the "high priest," the "president of the Eucharist and all the Mysteries. Presbyters and deacons are his assistants. The Latins hold that the presbyter acts "in the person of Christ" when, in fact, he does no more than represent the bishop who is "the living icon of Christ."

Strictly speaking, Penance - sometimes called "Confession" - should only be received by the believer as a means of re-admission to the Church. For a long time, Penance, or confession of sins, prayer and fasting was employed only for those who had been expelled from the Church ("excommunication") or who had voluntarily departed (apostasy). The present practice is to receive Penance from a bishop or presbyter for some serious sin before receiving Holy Communion.

Both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics consider Penance as a Sacrament. Each has different customs surrounding it, such as the confessional booth so common among the latter.

For Roman Catholics, Holy Matrimony is a binding, ostensibly an unbreakable, contract. The man and the woman marry each other with the "church" (bishop or priest) standing as a witness to it. Hence, no divorce under any conditions - no divorce but annulment of the marriage contract if some canonical defect in it may be found which renders it null and void (as if it never took place).

In Orthodoxy, Holy Matrimony is not a contract; it is the mysterious or mystical union of a man and woman - in imitation of Christ and the Church - in the presence of "the whole People of God" through her bishop or his presbyter. Divorce is likewise forbidden, but, as a concession to human weakness, it is allowed for adultery. Second and third marriages are permitted - not as a legal matter - out of mercy, a further concession to human weakness (e.g., after the death of a spouse). This Sacrament, as all Sacraments or Mysteries, is completed by the Eucharist, as St. Dionysius the Areopagite says.

As already mentioned, the Latins conceive Extreme Unction as the final Sacrament, the Sacrament which prepares the believer for death, purgatory and the Age to Come. In Orthodoxy, Holy Oil is received for healing. Often sickness is caused by sin; therefore, Holy Oil or Unction involved Confession of sins. At the end of the rite, the anointed receives Holy Communion.

The Orthodox Church also recognizes kingship, monasticism, blessings of the water, etc. as Mysteries.

Father Michael Azkoul

St. Catherine Mission, St. Louis, MO

http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

Ok, but what makes the Catholic understanding defective? What in your grand opinion must change about the Catholic view of the Sacraments?

Did you read that article? And the differences between our understandings? THOSE are the problems they need to change.

Fr. Michael Azkoul has left the Orthodox Church. His rants against Saint Augustine and "the West" are good examples of what to avoid.

So just because he left, everything he ever said should be tossed out? I'd hate to see what you'd have to say about Origen.

His points in that quotation are right on with Orthodoxy.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #160 on: August 18, 2011, 12:10:26 PM »


Stanley ain't reading well, he's been conflating the whole time.

The allergy or disease model in AA is just that a model to help its members try to understand something that is neither.

Again we are in agreement that no "real" alcoholic and by this I mean, if you ever were truly physically addicted to the point where death would happen likely if quitting without medical intervention, the most severe case (the scare quotes, being what they are) ain't going to go on a bender from Communion or all the other foods you listed.

The amount of alcohol in the Eucharist approaches stupidly small amounts relative to an ounce.

Most folks ain't going to even be able to drink an ounce of alcohol without being drunk or passing out.

As far as the rare case of an allergy to alcohol, which I have a hard time believing afflicts any significant portion of the population, it support the participation of everyone in one species.
Right. I just have known some folks who took Doc Silkworth quite literally (if you've ever run into BBSS people from New England, they're like evangelicals, just for AA. Anathema to anything, basically, that is not explicitly written in the first 164), and I once saw a girl berated by her sponsor for taking communion, and urged to change her sobriety date.

I know that this is not representative of AA-at-large at all. I have an overall positive view of AA (did lots to get me off the white and brown stuff), though I don't consider myself an alcoholic.

I just think it's a shame that there would be people denying themselves communion based on an idea that the second a drop of booze hits the lips, they'll wake up 8 days later in a gutter.

That first 164 BS is everywhere especially in meetings where "Cleveland" founded. I can walk into just about any room and tell you after a meeting if it was "founded" within the New York, Akron, or Cleveland tradition.

I could say a lot more on the subject for better and worse, but we will leave it at that.

Best AA is usually in small places where folks know each other well.

Thank God for my first sponsor and second. And Dr. Bob. And Bill W., I love a loon. //:=)

/alkie talkie

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
AWR
Greetings from the Southern Jersey Shore.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 240


Expelled from Paradise


WWW
« Reply #161 on: August 18, 2011, 02:32:57 PM »

The list can’t just be one sided.  To reunite, the east must return to considering the bishop of Rome as the first among equals.  That in itself brings a list of what it would take for the east to see him in that light.

1.   First of all, the Orthodox would insist that the bishop of Rome hold the orthodox faith of the catholic church, and teach and defend true Christian doctrine.
2.   In order for the Pope of Rome to exercise presidency among the churches and Christian leadership in the world, his church would also have to exemplify proper Christian worship.
3.   And finally, structural and administrative changes must occur if the Pope of Rome will be accepted and recognized as the bishop who exercises presidency among the churches and serves as Christianity's world leader.


Fr. Thomas Hopko has a list of about twenty or so items that he thinks it will take listed here:
 
        http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php

His list for the east is simply:
Quote
The Orthodox churches would surely have to undergo many humbling changes in attitude, structure and behavior to be in sacramental communion with the Roman church and to recognize its presidency among the churches in the person of its pope. The Orthodox would certainly have to overcome their own inner struggles over ecclesiastical power and privilege. They would have to candidly admit their sinful contributions to Christian division and disunity, and to repent of them sincerely. They would also have to forego all desires or demands for other churches to repent publicly of their past errors and sins, being willing to allow God to consign everything of the past to oblivion for the sake of bringing about the reconciliation and reunion of Christians at the present time.

In a word, the Orthodox would have to sacrifice everything, excepting only the faith itself, for the sake of building a common future together with Christians who are willing and able to do so with them. Like Roman Catholics and Protestants, they would have to be willing to die with Christ to themselves and their personal, cultural and ecclesiastical interests for the sake of being in full unity with all who desire to be saved by the crucified Lord in the one holy church "which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all" (Eph 1.23), that is "the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." (1Tim 315)
Logged
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #162 on: August 18, 2011, 02:34:20 PM »

The list can’t just be one sided.  To reunite, the east must return to considering the bishop of Rome as the first among equals.  That in itself brings a list of what it would take for the east to see him in that light.

1.   First of all, the Orthodox would insist that the bishop of Rome hold the orthodox faith of the catholic church, and teach and defend true Christian doctrine.
2.   In order for the Pope of Rome to exercise presidency among the churches and Christian leadership in the world, his church would also have to exemplify proper Christian worship.
3.   And finally, structural and administrative changes must occur if the Pope of Rome will be accepted and recognized as the bishop who exercises presidency among the churches and serves as Christianity's world leader.


Fr. Thomas Hopko has a list of about twenty or so items that he thinks it will take listed here:
 
        http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php

His list for the east is simply:
Quote
The Orthodox churches would surely have to undergo many humbling changes in attitude, structure and behavior to be in sacramental communion with the Roman church and to recognize its presidency among the churches in the person of its pope. The Orthodox would certainly have to overcome their own inner struggles over ecclesiastical power and privilege. They would have to candidly admit their sinful contributions to Christian division and disunity, and to repent of them sincerely. They would also have to forego all desires or demands for other churches to repent publicly of their past errors and sins, being willing to allow God to consign everything of the past to oblivion for the sake of bringing about the reconciliation and reunion of Christians at the present time.

In a word, the Orthodox would have to sacrifice everything, excepting only the faith itself, for the sake of building a common future together with Christians who are willing and able to do so with them. Like Roman Catholics and Protestants, they would have to be willing to die with Christ to themselves and their personal, cultural and ecclesiastical interests for the sake of being in full unity with all who desire to be saved by the crucified Lord in the one holy church "which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all" (Eph 1.23), that is "the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." (1Tim 315)

Laser show.
Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #163 on: August 18, 2011, 02:53:38 PM »

I now predict that chances are high that on poster in this thread is gonna burn out within the next few years. That,s how the game ends, most of the time.
Not really, I guarantee you that won't happen.

Some Jew or something once said something about our plans giving God a chance to a play a joke on us or something.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #164 on: August 18, 2011, 02:56:18 PM »

His list for the east is simply:
Quote
The Orthodox churches would surely have to undergo many humbling changes in attitude, structure and behavior to be in sacramental communion with the Roman church and to recognize its presidency among the churches in the person of its pope. The Orthodox would certainly have to overcome their own inner struggles over ecclesiastical power and privilege. They would have to candidly admit their sinful contributions to Christian division and disunity, and to repent of them sincerely. They would also have to forego all desires or demands for other churches to repent publicly of their past errors and sins, being willing to allow God to consign everything of the past to oblivion for the sake of bringing about the reconciliation and reunion of Christians at the present time.

In a word, the Orthodox would have to sacrifice everything, excepting only the faith itself, for the sake of building a common future together with Christians who are willing and able to do so with them. Like Roman Catholics and Protestants, they would have to be willing to die with Christ to themselves and their personal, cultural and ecclesiastical interests for the sake of being in full unity with all who desire to be saved by the crucified Lord in the one holy church "which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all" (Eph 1.23), that is "the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." (1Tim 315)


Get a few hours of Fr. Thom speaking. Every time he quotes this verse, drink. One helluva game.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #165 on: August 18, 2011, 03:26:03 PM »

Now for my annoying point-by-point commentary! Grin

Quote
Repudiate/Reject:
1.   Papal Universal Jurisdiction
2.   Papal Infallibility
3.   Papal Petrine exclusivism (i.e., that only the Pope is Peter’s successor)
4.   Development of Doctrine (as seen by the West)
5.   The Filioque
6.   Original Sin understood as guilt transmitted via “propagation” (I’m told the RCC no longer believes this)
7.   The Immaculate Conception of Mary
8.   Divine Simplicity
9.   Merit and Satisfaction soteriology
10.   Purgatory and Indulgences
11.   Created grace (vs. uncreated)

With some qualifications, I agree with all of these.

Quote
12.   Painting of religious imagery contrary to the traditional forms. (For veneration and ecclesiastical use)

One this one, I'm going to depart. I actually like the artistic style of so-called "Western iconography." There are many beautiful icons of saints and events in this style. I do find Byzantine/Eastern icons far deeper theologically, the lack of realism allowing much more to be portrayed. The most common example I've seen is the Nativity of our Lord icon, in which Christ is often depicted in swaddling clothes much like grave clothes, and in a tomb recessed in a cave. This depiction cannot occur as such in Western style. Similarly, the depiction of Christ as a "little adult" in Eastern iconography, which is deep and beautiful theologically, cannot be done in the Western style.

Still, I don't see the theological "problems" with western iconography. I find it quite beautiful.


Quote
13.   Gregorian Reforms, Vatican I, Vatican II, and almost every Post-Schism Council
14.   Adoption of secular/heterodox music into liturgical worship.

Yes, although I would like to wade through the Reforms and Councils of #13 to hammer out those details.

Quote
15.   Mandatory clerical celibacy
16.   Use of Unleavened Bread
17.   Self-Flagellation/Mortification of the Flesh

Ultimately, I accept these. Clerical calibacy is a perfectly legitmate local tradition. I prefer having a married priest, myself, but if the Bishop of Rome opts to enforce clerical celibacy, I see nothing wrong with it.

Quote
18.   Allowing Priests/Bishops who have fallen into fornication to celebrate Liturgy/Mass

Agreed. Defrock/depose.

Quote
19.   Sitting during worship

Not a theological issue. I'm quite thoroughly a "traditional" (I think so anyway) Eastern Christian, and don't like pews. However, if the Roman church uses them, that's their right, even if I don't like it. I much prefer standing and think it would be better in general (and Orthodox churches with pews bug me!) but it doesn't make them heterodox.

Quote
20.   Punishment of heretics by temporal/physical means

We have both done this, and both defended it (some still do).

Quote
21.   Legalistic theology
22.   Faith built on science/reason
23.   Satisfaction theory of atonement
24.   Transubstantiation as dogma

I agree. #21 needs to be expounded, though. When I say this, I'm speaking of the system in the RCC that enforces the idea of a breach of legal contract with God, and that confession is needed to "clean the slate." Being a good Christian is often made into being a good lawyer and doing the right things. We see this is many of the devotions of the RCC as well (the promises of the rosary, scapulars, etc.) as well as in indulgences. This is not Orthodox.


Quote
25.   Sacraments (vs. Mysteries)

The only issue I take with the RCC view of Sacraments is that they limit them to seven. I much prefer the "sacramental life" approach of the East that sets no official list and sees a mystery as any point at which God enters our lives and how we should live for such communion with God through the Church.

Quote
26.   Assumption of Mary (vs. Dormition)
27.   Kneeling/Prostrating on Sundays

Thankfully, the RCC no longer teaches the Assumption of Mary prior to her Dormition. However, they should disallow this thought as a "pious opinion." The Theotokos did die, and is important to our Tradition. The RCC should make this clear.

As for #27, these are local customs. While I prefer not kneeling/prostrating on Sunday (save at the epiclesis, in some places) it's not a roadblock to communion (and just a bothersome to me is the lack of kneeling/prostrating in many Orthodox churches for weekday services!)

Quote
28.   Thomism and St. Augustine’s errors.

I would like to further expound on what these errors are, but I do believe there to be problems with Thomism and Augustinianism.


Quote
Accept/Restore:
1.   The authority of Ecumenical Councils over the Pope
2.   The Essence/Energies distinction
3.   Reconnect Confirmation/Chrismation back to Baptism rather than delaying it
4.   Administer Holy Communion (both body & blood) to all Church members, including infants
5.   Pre-Tridentine and Tridentine form(s) of Liturgy/Mass
6.   Praying to the liturgical East

Yes. With disagreement about the allergy discussion above. There are instances where this is a legitimate concern, and have been evidenced by previous posters in this thread. However, I also admire the faith of those like St. John the Wonderworker who partook of Eucharist spat out by the woman infected with rabes. May we all have such faith.

Quote
7.   Traditional fasting, including Wed/Fri fasts and all fasting periods

Yes. Although I would note that the West has an ancient and venerable fasting tradition that is separate from the Eastern. The traditional western fasting is what should be restored. By no means should the RCC be required to utilize Eastern fasting guidelines, to which they were never subjected.


Quote
8.   Canons as guide rather than law (related to 22)

Yes.

Quote
9.   Traditional method of dating Pascha/Easter


Maybe? This was an ancient problem that was finally resolved at Nicaea. However, with the current calendar problem, I wouldn't make a fuss about this. Although it is my hope that the whole Church would celebrate the feasts together (and most especially Pascha).



But that's just my two cents, FWIW.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #166 on: August 18, 2011, 03:30:24 PM »

And to answer AWR above, the Pope of Rome should rightfully be restored as first-among-equals if he were to re-unite with the Church. In this case, in order simply to re-unite, he should have already proven himself all of the things which that list requires. Therefore, upon the reception of the Roman church back into Communion, he should be considered the Ecumenical Patriarch of Rome, the first-among-equals of the Catholic Church.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,031


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #167 on: August 18, 2011, 03:36:08 PM »

I can agree with pretty much the whole list. However, I noticed one thing wasn't covered: do the archbishops and cardinals get to keep their cool hats?  Huh
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #168 on: August 18, 2011, 03:48:27 PM »

I thought the Immaculate Conception was an acceptable theologoumenon in Eastern Orthodoxy, or in the OP did you just mean that the fact it is a dogma in the Latin Church is a problem?
Logged
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #169 on: August 18, 2011, 03:56:35 PM »

I thought the Immaculate Conception was an acceptable theologoumenon in Eastern Orthodoxy, or in the OP did you just mean that the fact it is a dogma in the Latin Church is a problem?

Though it is "acceptable", it probably isn't accepted by most Orthodox, but I believe he is getting at, and any EO's who see this as a sticking point are also getting at it's presence as dogma.
Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,179



WWW
« Reply #170 on: August 18, 2011, 04:10:15 PM »

I can agree with pretty much the whole list. However, I noticed one thing wasn't covered: do the archbishops and cardinals get to keep their cool hats?  Huh


I think so. Archbishops also exist in Orthodoxy and Cardinals were discussed with Constantinople when they were created, which accepted them as a local practice for Rome.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #171 on: August 18, 2011, 04:19:34 PM »

I thought the Immaculate Conception was an acceptable theologoumenon in Eastern Orthodoxy, or in the OP did you just mean that the fact it is a dogma in the Latin Church is a problem?

Though it is "acceptable", it probably isn't accepted by most Orthodox, but I believe he is getting at, and any EO's who see this as a sticking point are also getting at it's presence as dogma.

This is one instance in which I may appear as "hyperdox" as Devin, and state that the IC is not Orthodox and should be neither dogma nor an acceptable theologumen.

I can agree with pretty much the whole list. However, I noticed one thing wasn't covered: do the archbishops and cardinals get to keep their cool hats?  Huh


I think so. Archbishops also exist in Orthodoxy and Cardinals were discussed with Constantinople when they were created, which accepted them as a local practice for Rome.


Agreed. I've heard some state that the College of Cardinals would have to be desolved for the RCC to become Orthodox, but I don't see a problem with it being a local tradition (although some changes may need to be made). Besides, cardinals are just cool.  Cool
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,619



« Reply #172 on: August 18, 2011, 04:21:16 PM »

I can agree with pretty much the whole list. However, I noticed one thing wasn't covered: do the archbishops and cardinals get to keep their cool hats?  Huh

I would think so, since many titular ranks in Orthodoxy, like protodeacon and protopresbyter can have some distinguishing items of clothing that are not normally worn by ordinary deacons and presbyters.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,926



« Reply #173 on: August 18, 2011, 05:14:06 PM »

The Cardinals (i would think) is perfectly acceptable. I think, per my (very) limited research, I had found that the Cardinals pre-date the schism by some time. (obviously, as Cardinal Humbert was a cardinal)

As for fasting and the date of Pascha. The latter is nailed down by an Ecumenical Council, and is one point that the Roman Catholic Church cannot keep as a local tradition, especially since their calendar inevitably causes them to hold Pascha at the same time as the Jews. (which is forbidden by the Councils and our Canons)

Of course, as Orthodox, we have the problem of the calendar issue with fasting. I think it was in Holy Scripture where it said it should be forbidden that one part of the Church be fasting while the other feasts. So essentially, as the Orthodox Church, we would have to resolve our calendar issue, and the Roman Catholics would also have to conform to whatever decision was made, so that the whole church fasts and feasts together. Fasting, when it comes to the major feasts/fasts, Wednesdays and Fridays, is something that cannot vary by local tradition, and it is a disgrace that we haven't yet resolved this ourselves in the Orthodox Church.

Now, another obstacle to unity, would be the obvious fact that we believe the St. Mark of Ephesus was a huge champion of Orthodoxy, and that the Council of Florence is regarded as a Robber Council, whereas in the West, it is regarded as an "Ecumenical Council". That there is absolutely no chance for the Orthodox Church to back down, at the very least, the Roman Catholic Church would have to rescend may of their councils as "Ecumenical" and for some, would have to denounce them as we do.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 05:31:05 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,619



« Reply #174 on: August 18, 2011, 05:42:59 PM »

As for fasting and the date of Pascha. The latter is nailed down by an Ecumenical Council, and is one point that the Roman Catholic Church cannot keep as a local tradition, especially since their calendar inevitably causes them to hold Pascha at the same time as the Jews. (which is forbidden by the Councils and our Canons)

And can you tell me which canon that would be? I've often heard of this mythical canon, but I've never seen it for myself.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 05:46:43 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #175 on: August 18, 2011, 06:18:22 PM »

As for fasting and the date of Pascha. The latter is nailed down by an Ecumenical Council, and is one point that the Roman Catholic Church cannot keep as a local tradition, especially since their calendar inevitably causes them to hold Pascha at the same time as the Jews. (which is forbidden by the Councils and our Canons)

And can you tell me which canon that would be? I've often heard of this mythical canon, but I've never seen it for myself.

The canons of Nicaea I state that the entire church should follow one rule for Pascha, and that it would be set independently of the Jewish passover, thus adopting the system the Alexandrian Church. It was several centuries later that the Alexandrian Church came to the method we have today, but since Nicaea I the Church has been following the calculations of Alexandria for setting the date of Pascha.

And so, I believe the actual computation method is up to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, but I don't believe there are actual canons which give the details of how that computation should occur. Still, the Roman Church (and some Orthodox churches) follow the Gregorian calendar for their Paschal calculations, in disobedience of Nicaea I.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 06:19:00 PM by Benjamin the Red » Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,619



« Reply #176 on: August 18, 2011, 06:28:07 PM »

As for fasting and the date of Pascha. The latter is nailed down by an Ecumenical Council, and is one point that the Roman Catholic Church cannot keep as a local tradition, especially since their calendar inevitably causes them to hold Pascha at the same time as the Jews. (which is forbidden by the Councils and our Canons)

And can you tell me which canon that would be? I've often heard of this mythical canon, but I've never seen it for myself.

The canons of Nicaea I state that the entire church should follow one rule for Pascha, and that it would be set independently of the Jewish passover, thus adopting the system the Alexandrian Church. It was several centuries later that the Alexandrian Church came to the method we have today, but since Nicaea I the Church has been following the calculations of Alexandria for setting the date of Pascha.

And so, I believe the actual computation method is up to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, but I don't believe there are actual canons which give the details of how that computation should occur. Still, the Roman Church (and some Orthodox churches) follow the Gregorian calendar for their Paschal calculations, in disobedience of Nicaea I.

Perhaps I should have been more clear; I was asking about this statement:

especially since their calendar inevitably causes them to hold Pascha at the same time as the Jews.

I've heard of this legendary canon before, that condemns allowing Pascha to come before Passover (a common argument against the Gregorian Calendar), but I've yet to see evidence for its existence.

Edit: To clarify, my intent is not to be argumentative. If such a canon exists, then the Roman Catholic Church is indeed in grave error. I have, however, never seen an actual canon referenced; instead, I always see people claiming that, "a canon exists." Well, which canon is it?
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 06:37:54 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #177 on: August 18, 2011, 06:49:49 PM »

The list can’t just be one sided.  To reunite, the east must return to considering the bishop of Rome as the first among equals.  That in itself brings a list of what it would take for the east to see him in that light.

1.   First of all, the Orthodox would insist that the bishop of Rome hold the orthodox faith of the catholic church, and teach and defend true Christian doctrine.
2.   In order for the Pope of Rome to exercise presidency among the churches and Christian leadership in the world, his church would also have to exemplify proper Christian worship.
3.   And finally, structural and administrative changes must occur if the Pope of Rome will be accepted and recognized as the bishop who exercises presidency among the churches and serves as Christianity's world leader.



FWIW I think this is an exemplary list of suggestions for consideration.  They are representative of strong principles but leave room for discussion on both sides and efforts to forge mutual understandings.

M.
Logged

88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,926



« Reply #178 on: August 18, 2011, 06:55:10 PM »

As for fasting and the date of Pascha. The latter is nailed down by an Ecumenical Council, and is one point that the Roman Catholic Church cannot keep as a local tradition, especially since their calendar inevitably causes them to hold Pascha at the same time as the Jews. (which is forbidden by the Councils and our Canons)

And can you tell me which canon that would be? I've often heard of this mythical canon, but I've never seen it for myself.

The canons of Nicaea I state that the entire church should follow one rule for Pascha, and that it would be set independently of the Jewish passover, thus adopting the system the Alexandrian Church. It was several centuries later that the Alexandrian Church came to the method we have today, but since Nicaea I the Church has been following the calculations of Alexandria for setting the date of Pascha.

And so, I believe the actual computation method is up to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, but I don't believe there are actual canons which give the details of how that computation should occur. Still, the Roman Church (and some Orthodox churches) follow the Gregorian calendar for their Paschal calculations, in disobedience of Nicaea I.

Perhaps I should have been more clear; I was asking about this statement:

especially since their calendar inevitably causes them to hold Pascha at the same time as the Jews.

I've heard of this legendary canon before, that condemns allowing Pascha to come before Passover (a common argument against the Gregorian Calendar), but I've yet to see evidence for its existence.

Edit: To clarify, my intent is not to be argumentative. If such a canon exists, then the Roman Catholic Church is indeed in grave error. I have, however, never seen an actual canon referenced; instead, I always see people claiming that, "a canon exists." Well, which canon is it?

Here you go:

Apostolic Canon 7:
"If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall celebrate the holy day of Easter before the vernal equinox, with the Jews, let him be deposed."
http://www.voskrese.info/spl/aposcanon.html

Apostolic Canon 70:
"If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the list of clergy, keeps fast or festival with the Jews, or receives from them any of the gifts of their feasts, as unleavened bread, any such things, let him be deposed. If he be a layman, let him be excommunicated."
http://www.voskrese.info/spl/aposcanon.html

It also might be in Nicaea or a subsequent council, but I'm not sure.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 06:55:23 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #179 on: August 18, 2011, 06:57:52 PM »

Of course, as Orthodox, we have the problem of the calendar issue with fasting. I think it was in Holy Scripture where it said it should be forbidden that one part of the Church be fasting while the other feasts. So essentially, as the Orthodox Church, we would have to resolve our calendar issue, and the Roman Catholics would also have to conform to whatever decision was made, so that the whole church fasts and feasts together. Fasting, when it comes to the major feasts/fasts, Wednesdays and Fridays, is something that cannot vary by local tradition, and it is a disgrace that we haven't yet resolved this ourselves in the Orthodox Church.

It's true. However, I wasn't necessarily referring to this, but rather the laws by which we fast. The East traditionally fasts from meat, cheese, wine and oil (and the details of this vary by local tradition). The West, however, never held to such a fast. For example, fish was never forbidden in the West, as in the East. Their fasting rules are simply different and always were. They should by no means be expected to uphold an eastern fasting tradition that they never followed.

Now, another obstacle to unity, would be the obvious fact that we believe the St. Mark of Ephesus was a huge champion of Orthodoxy, and that the Council of Florence is regarded as a Robber Council, whereas in the West, it is regarded as an "Ecumenical Council". That there is absolutely no chance for the Orthodox Church to back down, at the very least, the Roman Catholic Church would have to rescend may of their councils as "Ecumenical" and for some, would have to denounce them as we do.

Yes, the Council of Florence is a robber council, and would have to be repudiated by the Roman Church. They would also have to repudiate their Constantinople IV in favor of our Constantinople IV.

Lateran I and II, I think, are acceptable.

Lateran III may be, which limited the election of the pope to the cardinals. I don't have a problem with it, given some changes to the election of the cardinals occur.

Lateran IV, I think, is fine, as is Lyon I.

Lyon II must be done away with in part, as it attempted a false union between the East and West and dealt with conclave procedures (the latter may or may not be a problem). It also established the Dominicans and Fransiscans, with which I don't see a problem.

The Council of Vienne seems fine, along with Constance.

Lateran V is interesting, but I don't ultimately see a problem.

The Council of Trent is mostly all right, even though it defined strictly seven sacraments of the church, which the Orthodox never did. Not really wrong, just a very different way of seeing the mysteries of the church (see my earlier comments).

Vatican I is in need of repudiation for the most part. Obviously, the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope should be done away with. Much of what the council did about the relationship of faith and reason should probably be altered. However, the repudiations of rationalism, materialism and atheism are fine.

Vatican II is a mixed bag, as well. It helped the Church in relation to the world, but failed greatly in ecumenism.

Again...just my two cents!  Grin
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 07:02:55 PM by Benjamin the Red » Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Tags: ialmisry's b.s. 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  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 0.231 seconds with 72 queries.