OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 30, 2014, 07:00:58 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 10722 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #225 on: August 19, 2011, 09:06:21 PM »

If you think I'm hyperdox, you might want to take a look at what our Saints say, especially St Mark of Ephesus...


"The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics... we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creed filioque and confess the Creed as we do."

"It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism—the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God."

"We seek and we pray for our return to that time when, being united, we spoke the same things and there was no schism between us."

If those all genuine quotes from Mark of Ephesus, it only proves he is as prone to errors as you are. When someone says that the Pope exalts himself "equal to God" I can no longer take them seriously.
Logged
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #226 on: August 19, 2011, 09:09:16 PM »

If you think I'm hyperdox, you might want to take a look at what our Saints say, especially St Mark of Ephesus...


"The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics... we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creed filioque and confess the Creed as we do."

"It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism—the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God."

"We seek and we pray for our return to that time when, being united, we spoke the same things and there was no schism between us."

If those all genuine quotes from Mark of Ephesus, it only proves he is as prone to errors as you are. When someone says that the Pope exalts himself "equal to God" I can no longer take them seriously.

Its why Saint Mark is one of the champions of Orthodoxy, he refused to abandon Christ at the Robber Council of Florence, and in fact, brought one of the signers back into the fold. All the others who signed became apostates and eventually left for the Latin Church, or were exiled by the Orthodox people. Such is the fate of those who would abandon the faith of Jesus Christ and his Church. They will be forever remembered as enemies of the church and as apostates. Yet St. Mark will always be remembered as remaining faithful to Christ and to Christ's Church.

Its just sickening how the so-called "Orthodox" signed at Florence, especially after our Patriarch was murdered by the Vatican, who also conveniently posted a letter of submission next to his body. It is St. Mark and his followers who defiantly stood up against the Pope and told him to shove his tiara where it belongs, and declare that as Orthodox, we will never bow to him as long as he refuses to accept the Orthodox faith.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 09:11:28 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #227 on: August 19, 2011, 09:10:41 PM »

If you think I'm hyperdox, you might want to take a look at what our Saints say, especially St Mark of Ephesus...


"The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics... we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creed filioque and confess the Creed as we do."

"It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism—the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God."

"We seek and we pray for our return to that time when, being united, we spoke the same things and there was no schism between us."

His list is shorter than yours.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
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 #228 on: August 19, 2011, 09:12:46 PM »

I'm sorry but you won't convince me unless you use Orthodox sources.
If you're in college, your professors must find you a joy.

I grit my teeth and bear it, especially now that I have this thesis class. Theory, and this stupid "abstract thinking" is complete bull. If someone can't explain their idea literally, then they should just keep it to themselves (excluding religion). In my book, people that write abstract theories, and philosophers have pretty much no credibility. (especially when it comes to architecture)

Actually, I accept non-Orthodox scholars when it comes to things not about Orthodoxy. But if its about my faith, I accept only Orthodox sources, or sources in agreement with the Orthodox position.
(however I would include Church history in this, and I refuse to accept any non-Orthodox source when it comes to Church history)
I think that this line of thinking can be very dangerous, but I don't know if I want to send the thread into that direction.
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
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #229 on: August 19, 2011, 09:13:51 PM »

If you think I'm hyperdox, you might want to take a look at what our Saints say, especially St Mark of Ephesus...


"The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics... we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creed filioque and confess the Creed as we do."

"It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism—the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God."

"We seek and we pray for our return to that time when, being united, we spoke the same things and there was no schism between us."

His list is shorter than yours.

Your point?

And I think most people here assume that I think every one of those points is a deal-breaker and should be a permanent obstacle for communion. Yet I never said such a thing, and in fact, I recognize that there are priorities to each item, yet each item is evidence of the schism and should be resolved eventually, though some take precedence over the others.

I think some people honestly don't even care what I write, they just choose to twist and construe it all they want to, regardless of anything I say. So be it, that just makes them trolls.
Logged
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #230 on: August 19, 2011, 09:15:45 PM »

I'm sorry but you won't convince me unless you use Orthodox sources.
If you're in college, your professors must find you a joy.

I grit my teeth and bear it, especially now that I have this thesis class. Theory, and this stupid "abstract thinking" is complete bull. If someone can't explain their idea literally, then they should just keep it to themselves (excluding religion). In my book, people that write abstract theories, and philosophers have pretty much no credibility. (especially when it comes to architecture)

Actually, I accept non-Orthodox scholars when it comes to things not about Orthodoxy. But if its about my faith, I accept only Orthodox sources, or sources in agreement with the Orthodox position.
(however I would include Church history in this, and I refuse to accept any non-Orthodox source when it comes to Church history)
I think that this line of thinking can be very dangerous, but I don't know if I want to send the thread into that direction.
Absolutely not, when it comes to faith, we absolutely must plant our feet firmly in the ground, and refuse to give even an inch. Open-mindedness is useless with our faith. We should learn about other faiths, but in no way ever regard them as remotely comparable, or equal to our own.

Open-mindedness is very overrated, at least when it comes to matters of the Orthodox faith.

If the Orthodox Church says that Justinian and Constantine are Saints, then they are, no doubt about it. It doesn't matter what "dirt" is brought up on them. Like my earlier example with St. Cyril, I don't care what secular scholars say, the Church says he is a Saint, and wasn't guilty of killing Hypatia, therefore, he wasn't. The Church insists that St. Peter the Aleut is a Saint and that he really existed, anything contrary is wrong.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 09:18:05 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #231 on: August 19, 2011, 09:17:20 PM »

It almost sounds like he's saying "I will only accept Orthodox sources to prove my religion anything outside of that is wrong."
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,296



« Reply #232 on: August 19, 2011, 09:18:21 PM »

And I think most people here assume that I think every one of those points is a deal-breaker and should be a permanent obstacle for communion. Yet I never said such a thing, and in fact, I recognize that there are priorities to each item, yet each item is evidence of the schism and should be resolved eventually, though some take precedence over the others.
Out of curiosity -- honest curiosity -- I would like to see your prioritized list.
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
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #233 on: August 19, 2011, 09:18:53 PM »

It almost sounds like he's saying "I will only accept Orthodox sources to prove my religion anything that contradicts it is wrong."
fixed...
Logged
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #234 on: August 19, 2011, 09:25:34 PM »

Repudiate/Reject:
Absolutely must be resolved before any union (high priority):
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

Should be mostly resolved before any union (medium priority):
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)
13.   Gregorian Reforms, Vatican I, Vatican II, and almost every Post-Schism Council
14.   Adoption of secular/heterodox music into liturgical worship.
17.   Self-Flagellation/Mortification of the Flesh
18.   Allowing Priests/Bishops who have fallen into fornication to celebrate Liturgy/Mass
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
26.   Assumption of Mary (vs. Dormition)
28.   Thomism and St. Augustine’s errors.

Can be resolved after union (low priority):
12.   Painting of religious imagery contrary to the traditional forms. (For veneration and ecclesiastical use)
15.   Mandatory clerical celibacy
16.   Use of Unleavened Bread
19.   Sitting during worship
25.   Sacraments (vs. Mysteries)
27.   Kneeling/Prostrating on Sundays

Accept/Restore:
Absolutely must be resolved before any union (high priority):
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
7.   Traditional fasting, including Wed/Fri fasts and all fasting periods
9.   Traditional method of dating Pascha/Easter
Add.    Acceptance of some post-schism Orthodox councils and all Saints.

Should be mostly resolved before any union (medium priority):
6.   Praying to the liturgical East
8.   Canons as guide rather than law (related to 22)
« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 09:28:58 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,307


« Reply #235 on: August 19, 2011, 09:31:48 PM »

I'm sorry but you won't convince me unless you use Orthodox sources. My statement about Latin came from an Orthodox Christian and nothing any non-orthodox says will convince me otherwise...

Heterodox writings and opinions are immediately put under suspicion unless they support the orthodox opinion, which is the truth, no other faith is true or correct.

The trouble with this stance is that you are not making a religious argument. You're making a linguistic argument (apparently using religious sources, for some reason), which has nothing in itself to do with religion but that you tried to connect it to Bible translation, to the detriment of the point you were trying to make.

But I know better at this point in the thread than to continue to feed the trollodox. Have fun being a church unto yourself, Your Grace.

Logged

Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #236 on: August 19, 2011, 09:34:59 PM »

Your point?

And I think most people here assume that I think every one of those points is a deal-breaker and should be a permanent obstacle for communion. Yet I never said such a thing, and in fact, I recognize that there are priorities to each item, yet each item is evidence of the schism and should be resolved eventually, though some take precedence over the others.

If they're not a deal-breaker, then they're not necessary for reunion to happen.

4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27 from the dirst list and 2, 5, 6 (my church faces literal NW), 8, and 9 (theirs is actually better than ours but I submit to celebrating with the Church) can all be sen as cultural expressions. They really should be non-issues, and there are another handful of issues that shouldn't be absolutely condemned but reevaluated and reformulated to be understood within an Orthodox context and not held as being universally dogmatic (post schism councils for example).
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
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 #237 on: August 19, 2011, 09:39:50 PM »

So you are infallible in determining what is Orthodox or not? What about Western rite? What about Orthodox who might be more "liberal" on some things and not on others? Is there a scale, much like your communion list?

And one of the first books I read about Orthodoxy was written by a Protestant who, I think, nailed all of the general points of the faith (probably not his intention to lead people to Orthodoxy, but whatever, it happened).

The faith believes that Orthodox people can be wrong. We are not infallible nor right, just because we happen to be Orthodox. Closer to the truth? Maybe, maybe not.

I get the general idea, and it's not a bad idea to avoid obsessively reading a Druze's view of Orthodoxy, but to outright refuse to CONSIDER any sources that are not Orthodox is all sorts of crazy.
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
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #238 on: August 19, 2011, 09:44:32 PM »

Your point?

And I think most people here assume that I think every one of those points is a deal-breaker and should be a permanent obstacle for communion. Yet I never said such a thing, and in fact, I recognize that there are priorities to each item, yet each item is evidence of the schism and should be resolved eventually, though some take precedence over the others.

If they're not a deal-breaker, then they're not necessary for reunion to happen.

4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27 from the dirst list and 2, 5, 6 (my church faces literal NW), 8, and 9 (theirs is actually better than ours but I submit to celebrating with the Church) can all be sen as cultural expressions. They really should be non-issues, and there are another handful of issues that shouldn't be absolutely condemned but reevaluated and reformulated to be understood within an Orthodox context and not held as being universally dogmatic (post schism councils for example).

I think that people use that "oh, couldn't it just be a difference between rites" issue to try to shuffle it under the table... Different rites does NOT mean totally different expressions in the same church. (for example, like the Roman Rite & Eastern Rite in the RCC) Different rites, in my mind, equals subtle differences, like between EO and OO. Our Churches have different "rites", but they are very strikingly similar, and very little is divergent.

Do you not recognize that the West had correct iconography until after the schism? Even then, it didn't diverge until shortly after the schism, just look at Francis of Assisi's crucifix...

In the ancient church you had the Byzantine Rite, the Gallican Rite, the Celtic Rite, the Roman Rite, the Mozarabic rite, as well as the other Eastern Rites and Western Rites not mentioned.

Yet at that point, they didn't have the massive differences that currently exist between the Eastern Rites and the Roman Rite. Variation between rites doesn't mean they are completely different from one another, but have slight differences.

So quit trying to sweep these issues under the rug by trying to brand them as "cultural differences" and "differences between rites"... That's just complete bull and you know it, unless you want the Orthodox Church to become like the Roman Catholic Church and exist in a bi-polar nature (such as with the Roman Rite and the Eastern Rite)...
Logged
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #239 on: August 19, 2011, 09:46:00 PM »

So you are infallible in determining what is Orthodox or not? What about Western rite? What about Orthodox who might be more "liberal" on some things and not on others? Is there a scale, much like your communion list?

And one of the first books I read about Orthodoxy was written by a Protestant who, I think, nailed all of the general points of the faith (probably not his intention to lead people to Orthodoxy, but whatever, it happened).

The faith believes that Orthodox people can be wrong. We are not infallible nor right, just because we happen to be Orthodox. Closer to the truth? Maybe, maybe not.

I get the general idea, and it's not a bad idea to avoid obsessively reading a Druze's view of Orthodoxy, but to outright refuse to CONSIDER any sources that are not Orthodox is all sorts of crazy.

But did I ever say that? No... What I said was, if it contradicts Orthodox teaching, then it is rejected. I accept non-Orthodox sources as long as they support the Orthodox viewpoint.

For example, I read Steven Runicman's book, "The Great Church in Captivity", which was absolutely wonderful, and I consider all his points to be valid, which are supported by the Orthodox Church and our version of history. But I outright reject anything he says that contradicts what the Church has said and/or what our version of history has traditionally been.

When it comes to the Christian faith, the Orthodox version of its history is THE correct version of its history.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 09:48:26 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 #240 on: August 19, 2011, 09:48:18 PM »

Your point?

And I think most people here assume that I think every one of those points is a deal-breaker and should be a permanent obstacle for communion. Yet I never said such a thing, and in fact, I recognize that there are priorities to each item, yet each item is evidence of the schism and should be resolved eventually, though some take precedence over the others.

If they're not a deal-breaker, then they're not necessary for reunion to happen.

4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27 from the dirst list and 2, 5, 6 (my church faces literal NW), 8, and 9 (theirs is actually better than ours but I submit to celebrating with the Church) can all be sen as cultural expressions. They really should be non-issues, and there are another handful of issues that shouldn't be absolutely condemned but reevaluated and reformulated to be understood within an Orthodox context and not held as being universally dogmatic (post schism councils for example).

I agree with this statement, and mostly agree with the list. Although, I would have to remove 4, 6, 7 and 26 (of the repudiate/reject) from the list. I would say these are real barriers that must be resolved prior to union. Of course, 6, 7 and 26 are all connected. Resolving 6 should resolve the other two. 4, however, is absolutely unOrthodox and not acceptable.

I would also say that 15, 16, 19, and 27 could be removed entirely. I don't see them as obstacles to union at all, and would never demand they change (although 19 and 27 bother me more than a little as a practice, they aren't indicative of a church's Orthodoxy. There are Orthodox communities of the Eastern Rite which also practice this...as much as I don't like that, it's fact).
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
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 #241 on: August 19, 2011, 09:50:52 PM »

But there are several things that the Orthodox don't agree on (several, hah). What is your definition of "agreeing with Orthodoxy?"

When we're talking about the basics, yes, that isn't too bad. When you delve into little t-traditions and certain things that some accept as true while others leave it up to interpretation, it gets messy. So if an author disagrees with one of your points, would his point be invalid and not worth considering?
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
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #242 on: August 19, 2011, 09:53:58 PM »

But there are several things that the Orthodox don't agree on (several, hah). What is your definition of "agreeing with Orthodoxy?"

When we're talking about the basics, yes, that isn't too bad. When you delve into little t-traditions and certain things that some accept as true while others leave it up to interpretation, it gets messy. So if an author disagrees with one of your points, would his point be invalid and not worth considering?


I'm talking about the majority opinion by the moderate/traditional Orthodox, which is pretty much what is supported by the most Saints, and has been the consistent view of the Church throughout its history. There are some minor things, and of course, some would be up for debate. But in those cases, we should only consider the Orthodox viewpoint, because anything outside of that is outside the Church, and thus has no credibility to say what is the most Orthodox view. When it comes to our history, then what our Church teaches is the correct view, no matter how many so-called "scholars" contradict it.

For example, the Church has declared Origen to be anathema. Yet some scholars would contradict that and say he didn't do anything worthy of being excommunicated. Yet I would argue that doesn't matter, the church has declared him to be anathema, and therefore, he was in the wrong. (though a lot of his theology was good, and borrowed by Saints & Church Fathers)

Or for example, the Church has said that St. Peter the Aleut is a Saint, and really existed. Yet there are some, even within Orthodoxy that suggest he never existed. This is completely wrong because it contradicts what the Church has said, regardless of the so-called "evidence" to the contrary.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 09:56:41 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #243 on: August 19, 2011, 09:54:49 PM »

And one of the first books I read about Orthodoxy was written by a Protestant who, I think, nailed all of the general points of the faith (probably not his intention to lead people to Orthodoxy, but whatever, it happened)/
What book?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
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 #244 on: August 19, 2011, 10:00:31 PM »

Daniel Clendenin's Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective. Surprisingly even handed and although I felt that evangelical Christianity was wrong at that point, this book started convincing me that Orthodoxy was RIGHT.

He also wrote an article entitled "Why I'm Not Orthodox" for  Christianity Today, but too late. THAT did not convince me!

Not to say that his book was the only thing to win me over (being in an Orthodox church for the very first time was the final nail in that coffin), but it pointed out a lot of differences between Eastern and Western understandings, and by the time I finished the book, I gained an appreciation for the so-termed "Eastern" approach to Christianity. Maybe too much of an appreciation. Sorry, Mr. Clendenin Wink
« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 10:01:19 PM by IsmiLiora » 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
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,307


« Reply #245 on: August 19, 2011, 10:12:33 PM »

Hahaha. I love hearing those kinds of stories, Liora. Thank you for sharing. I'll have to check out that book (though I am already well convinced that Orthodoxy is the true faith). For me, my former Father of Confession (a Dominican) frequently read to me from a book he had of the hymns of St. Ephrem the Syrian, which certainly made me more receptive to God's nudging me into the Coptic Orthodox Church. I don't know what he'd think if I told him that, but I have to assume that that is NOT the outcome he intended!  Grin
Logged

Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,296



« Reply #246 on: August 19, 2011, 10:30:31 PM »

He also wrote an article entitled "Why I'm Not Orthodox" for  Christianity Today, but too late. THAT did not convince me!
He wrote that article, as well as several others, because he was taking a lot of heat for not being hard on Orthodoxy.
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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #247 on: August 20, 2011, 12:44:25 AM »

If you think I'm hyperdox, you might want to take a look at what our Saints say, especially St Mark of Ephesus...


"The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics... we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creed filioque and confess the Creed as we do."

"It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism—the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God."

"We seek and we pray for our return to that time when, being united, we spoke the same things and there was no schism between us."

If those all genuine quotes from Mark of Ephesus, it only proves he is as prone to errors as you are. When someone says that the Pope exalts himself "equal to God" I can no longer take them seriously.

Its why Saint Mark is one of the champions of Orthodoxy
Then he should have stuck with proclaiming the teachings of Eastern Orthodoxy rather than making ridiculous statements about our Church which shows he obviously knew very little about our Church.
Logged
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #248 on: August 20, 2011, 01:00:23 AM »

If you think I'm hyperdox, you might want to take a look at what our Saints say, especially St Mark of Ephesus...


"The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics... we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creed filioque and confess the Creed as we do."

"It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism—the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God."

"We seek and we pray for our return to that time when, being united, we spoke the same things and there was no schism between us."

If those all genuine quotes from Mark of Ephesus, it only proves he is as prone to errors as you are. When someone says that the Pope exalts himself "equal to God" I can no longer take them seriously.

Its why Saint Mark is one of the champions of Orthodoxy
Then he should have stuck with proclaiming the teachings of Eastern Orthodoxy rather than making ridiculous statements about our Church which shows he obviously knew very little about our Church.

He knew enough to know that the RCC is heretical and that the Pope wanted nothing less than power and control. He's far more of a Saintly figure than any post-schism person the RCC has to offer.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #249 on: August 20, 2011, 01:40:16 AM »

If you think I'm hyperdox, you might want to take a look at what our Saints say, especially St Mark of Ephesus...


"The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics... we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creed filioque and confess the Creed as we do."

"It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism—the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God."

"We seek and we pray for our return to that time when, being united, we spoke the same things and there was no schism between us."

If those all genuine quotes from Mark of Ephesus, it only proves he is as prone to errors as you are. When someone says that the Pope exalts himself "equal to God" I can no longer take them seriously.

Its why Saint Mark is one of the champions of Orthodoxy
Then he should have stuck with proclaiming the teachings of Eastern Orthodoxy rather than making ridiculous statements about our Church which shows he obviously knew very little about our Church.

He knew enough to know that the RCC is heretical and that the Pope wanted nothing less than power and control. He's far more of a Saintly figure than any post-schism person the RCC has to offer.
Oh? How so? Have you studied our post-schism Saints extensively enough that you are qualified to make such a statement?

If I were you I would spend some time in prayer and reflection before responding to this post. I mean, you want to be a good witness to the Eastern Orthodox faith, and sense I'm a Romanist heathen my soul could very well depend on the example you set.
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: 1,591



« Reply #250 on: August 20, 2011, 01:46:12 AM »

If you think I'm hyperdox, you might want to take a look at what our Saints say, especially St Mark of Ephesus...


"The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics... we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creed filioque and confess the Creed as we do."

"It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism—the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God."

"We seek and we pray for our return to that time when, being united, we spoke the same things and there was no schism between us."

If those all genuine quotes from Mark of Ephesus, it only proves he is as prone to errors as you are. When someone says that the Pope exalts himself "equal to God" I can no longer take them seriously.

Its why Saint Mark is one of the champions of Orthodoxy
Then he should have stuck with proclaiming the teachings of Eastern Orthodoxy rather than making ridiculous statements about our Church which shows he obviously knew very little about our Church.

He knew enough to know that the RCC is heretical and that the Pope wanted nothing less than power and control. He's far more of a Saintly figure than any post-schism person the RCC has to offer.

Keep digging.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
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 0.114 seconds with 53 queries.