OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 22, 2014, 05:38:33 PM *
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 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Which church is more open to reuniting??  (Read 14576 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,492



« Reply #180 on: April 05, 2012, 06:17:25 PM »

There was no teaching on slavery in the first place.
According to: "Slavery As Moral Problem: In the Early Church and Today"
By Jennifer A. Glancy
there was a Church Council or Synod at Gangra in 340 AD which leads one to the conclusion that the New Testament compels Christians to support the institution of slavery.  What is then your interpretation of the teachings at the Council of Gangra, 340 AD and why would you disagree with Glancy?
http://books.google.com/books?id=jz_emYLEnCcC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=slavery+and++Gangra&source=bl&ots=Cu4ismTgA4&sig=9OTQQxA-HCeTqNsk4n0Fs6QDSkI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Qhh-T46uHYmriQLE-qWcDg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=slavery%20and%20%20Gangra&f=false

This is not to say anything in particular about your questions, but just to add--the canons from the Council of Gangra were adopted/validated/authoritized at what the Orthodox consider the Sixth Ecumenical Council (ie. Canon 2 of the Council of Trullo).
Logged

Lt. Ray Makonnen: "You know, Captain, every year of my life I grow more and more convinced that the wisest and the best is to fix our attention on the good and the beautiful. If you just take the time to look at it."

Capt. Frank Chapman: "You're some guy, Makonnen."
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #181 on: April 05, 2012, 06:21:02 PM »

"Slaves obey your masters" is not an endorsement of slavery. Anyone who says it is is guilty of twisting the Apostle's words and will have to answer to him for it.
How then do you explain the enslavement of Roma (gypsies) in Orthodox monasteries in Romania?

How do you explain the enslavement of Native Americans by Franciscans?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #182 on: April 05, 2012, 06:21:31 PM »

--instead of demonstrating that you don't understand Orthodoxy's teachings,...
This is why I am on this board, to try to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Does the Orthodox Church believe that St. Peter was one of the first bishops in the Orthodox Church or not? Does the Orthodox Church today believe that slaves should submit to their harsh masters? 

If you want to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church, I would not recommend the Internet.

The Orthodox Church venerates St. Peter as an apostle. Bishops rank below apostles. Canonically, bishops cannot be rulers of several different sees, as St. Peter was Apostle in Antioch and Rome.

You are not seeking the Church's teachings, but throwing out red herrings.
Was St. Peter a bishop in the Orthodox Church?

He was an Apostle. He appointed bishops.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,305


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #183 on: April 05, 2012, 06:25:08 PM »

There was no teaching on slavery in the first place.
According to: "Slavery As Moral Problem: In the Early Church and Today"
By Jennifer A. Glancy
there was a Church Council or Synod at Gangra in 340 AD which leads one to the conclusion that the New Testament compels Christians to support the institution of slavery.  What is then your interpretation of the teachings at the Council of Gangra, 340 AD and why would you disagree with Glancy?
http://books.google.com/books?id=jz_emYLEnCcC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=slavery+and++Gangra&source=bl&ots=Cu4ismTgA4&sig=9OTQQxA-HCeTqNsk4n0Fs6QDSkI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Qhh-T46uHYmriQLE-qWcDg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=slavery%20and%20%20Gangra&f=false
I assume you are referring to Canon 3

Quote
If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema
This has nothing to do with promoting slavery, and everything to do with honoring the authority that God put over someone and for slaves to obey their masters as was in the context of the scriptural command.

This does not promote slavery anymore than the biblical command for wives to obey their husbands promotes masculine domination of women.

 I think that attaching 21st century morality to 4th century reality is about as silly as saying Jesus was a Republican or a Communist or other such drivel.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #184 on: April 05, 2012, 06:34:52 PM »

There was no teaching on slavery in the first place.
According to: "Slavery As Moral Problem: In the Early Church and Today"
By Jennifer A. Glancy
there was a Church Council or Synod at Gangra in 340 AD which leads one to the conclusion that the New Testament compels Christians to support the institution of slavery.  What is then your interpretation of the teachings at the Council of Gangra, 340 AD and why would you disagree with Glancy?
http://books.google.com/books?id=jz_emYLEnCcC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=slavery+and++Gangra&source=bl&ots=Cu4ismTgA4&sig=9OTQQxA-HCeTqNsk4n0Fs6QDSkI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Qhh-T46uHYmriQLE-qWcDg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=slavery%20and%20%20Gangra&f=false
I assume you are referring to Canon 3

Quote
If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema
This has nothing to do with promoting slavery, and everything to do with honoring the authority that God put over someone and for slaves to obey their masters as was in the context of the scriptural command.

This does not promote slavery anymore than the biblical command for wives to obey their husbands promotes masculine domination of women.

 I think that attaching 21st century morality to 4th century reality is about as silly as saying Jesus was a Republican or a Communist or other such drivel.

PP

Amen. If the Church was for slavery, it would have been required by the canons for those who could to own slaves.

Besides this, we need to look at historical context. "Slavery" in all ages of history was not simply involuntary servitude. In many cases, the lives of slaves were much better than the lives of free people, and the slaves were not aware of how awfully oppressed they were because they could not own property or marry without permission, etc.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,305


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #185 on: April 05, 2012, 06:41:05 PM »

Quote
Amen. If the Church was for slavery, it would have been required by the canons for those who could to own slaves
Exactly.

Quote
Besides this, we need to look at historical context. "Slavery" in all ages of history was not simply involuntary servitude. In many cases, the lives of slaves were much better than the lives of free people, and the slaves were not aware of how awfully oppressed they were because they could not own property or marry without permission, etc
In many, but clearly, not all cases this was true as slaves (especially the educated slaves from the East) were investments and treated well.

I would also like to say that Professor Glancy has been known to put specific leanings in her writings depending on if she had an axe to grind. She happens to be a pretty unapologetic feminist.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #186 on: April 05, 2012, 07:00:48 PM »

"Slaves obey your masters" is not an endorsement of slavery. Anyone who says it is is guilty of twisting the Apostle's words and will have to answer to him for it.
How then do you explain the enslavement of Roma (gypsies) in Orthodox monasteries in Romania?

How do you explain the enslavement of Native Americans by Franciscans?
As I indicated above, there has been a change in the teaching and the world did not come to an end. At one time slavery was accepted, but now it is not.  Similarly, if the Roman Church were to modify its teaching on papal supremacy and infallibility to keep it in line with the position taught before 1054, the world would not come to an end and the sky would not fall.

Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #187 on: April 05, 2012, 07:09:44 PM »

Quote
I assume you are referring to Canon 3

Quote
If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema
This has nothing to do with promoting slavery, and everything to do with honoring the authority that God put over someone and for slaves to obey their masters as was in the context of the scriptural command.

This does not promote slavery anymore than the biblical command for wives to obey their husbands promotes masculine domination of women.
.

That teaching has been changed has it not? For example, suppose a Christian were to find a young black female enslaved by a mature white male who was treating her harshly. Suppose further, that there was every opportunity for this Christian to easliy free and liberate this young black woman from her horrible enslavement. Would that Christian be bound by the command given under the pain of anathema at Gangra and refuse to help the young black woman to run away and not serve her master with good-will, or, given the available opportunity to do so,  should that Christian help this young black lady to flee and to refuse to submit to her white master?
I would say that this particular teaching has obviously changed from what it was at Gangra. So too, it would not be the end of the world if the Roman Church were to modify and soften its teaching on the papacy.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 07:10:31 PM by stanley123 » Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,305


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #188 on: April 05, 2012, 07:15:31 PM »

Quote
That teaching has been changed has it not? For example, suppose a Christian were to find a young black female enslaved by a mature white male who was treating her harshly. Suppose further, that there was every opportunity for this Christian to easliy free and liberate this young black woman from her horrible enslavement. Would that Christian be bound by the command given under the pain of anathema at Gangra and refuse to help the young black woman to run away and not serve her master with good-will, or, given the available opportunity to do so,  should that Christian help this young black lady to flee and to refuse to submit to her white master?
This is not a letimate example as Slavery is now illegal. The Christian would be bound to the law of the land.

Quote
I would say that this particular teaching has obviously changed from what it was at Gangra. So too, it would not be the end of the world if the Roman Church were to modify and soften its teaching on the papacy
That would be very difficult to do, especially because the church taking such a strong statement on supremacy and infallibility. I think the Church has painted itself in the corner on these issues.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #189 on: April 05, 2012, 07:18:42 PM »

Quote
That teaching has been changed has it not? For example, suppose a Christian were to find a young black female enslaved by a mature white male who was treating her harshly. Suppose further, that there was every opportunity for this Christian to easliy free and liberate this young black woman from her horrible enslavement. Would that Christian be bound by the command given under the pain of anathema at Gangra and refuse to help the young black woman to run away and not serve her master with good-will, or, given the available opportunity to do so,  should that Christian help this young black lady to flee and to refuse to submit to her white master?
This is not a letimate example as Slavery is now illegal. The Christian would be bound to the law of the land.

Quote
I would say that this particular teaching has obviously changed from what it was at Gangra. So too, it would not be the end of the world if the Roman Church were to modify and soften its teaching on the papacy
That would be very difficult to do, especially because the church taking such a strong statement on supremacy and infallibility. I think the Church has painted itself in the corner on these issues.

PP
It is a legitimate example, because I was speaking of a time and place when slavery was legal. Say for example, in the Southern US before the civil war. 
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #190 on: April 05, 2012, 07:21:06 PM »

Quote
So, Mary, since we are as Orthodox invited to receive the Eucharist in a Roman Church today without being required to accept the concepts of papal infallibility, papal universal jurisdiction and the Pope as Christ's representative here on Earth - why would any Roman or Greek Catholic feel compelled to accept the same terms of discipline?

To me, Rome's entire 'raison d'etre' collapsed when the invitation to the Orthodox to communion was so offered. Perhaps we are the fools for turning our back since there does not seem to be a logical syllogism to answer the dilemma.

Any takers with a response?
I understand that there are Eastern Orthodox priests who allow Oriental Orthodox to receive Holy Communion?
Would this be strictly forbidden and against the rules, or if not, then what is the logical answer to the dilemma that the two Churches, EO and OO are not united, but OO are in some cases allowed the Sacrament?

Your analogy is not really responsive as neither the EO church nor the OO church espouses a position vis-a-vis receipt of the Eucharist akin to that of the Church of Rome. As Mary stated, the RCC would freely permit an RCC priest to commune a practicing EO Christian should such a person present him or herself at the chalice.
[/quote]
Just as in certain cases, the EO allow the OO to receive Holy communion, so too the RCC allows it as an indication of its love for the Orthodox Christian.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 07:23:22 PM by stanley123 » Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,305


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #191 on: April 05, 2012, 07:22:08 PM »

Quote
That teaching has been changed has it not? For example, suppose a Christian were to find a young black female enslaved by a mature white male who was treating her harshly. Suppose further, that there was every opportunity for this Christian to easliy free and liberate this young black woman from her horrible enslavement. Would that Christian be bound by the command given under the pain of anathema at Gangra and refuse to help the young black woman to run away and not serve her master with good-will, or, given the available opportunity to do so,  should that Christian help this young black lady to flee and to refuse to submit to her white master?
This is not a letimate example as Slavery is now illegal. The Christian would be bound to the law of the land.

Quote
I would say that this particular teaching has obviously changed from what it was at Gangra. So too, it would not be the end of the world if the Roman Church were to modify and soften its teaching on the papacy
That would be very difficult to do, especially because the church taking such a strong statement on supremacy and infallibility. I think the Church has painted itself in the corner on these issues.

PP
It is a legitimate example, because I was speaking of a time and place when slavery was legal. Say for example, in the Southern US before the civil war.  
Now that you have put it in a time frame for me, I appreciate that. I thought you were referring to the present day. My opinion would be that the person would have to refer to what the Church has stated on the issue. If the Church says slavery is wrong, then if the guy is able to save the girl, do so.

I know it seems like a cop out answer, but I really have never given that much thought and I'd rather not b.s. you. I see Fr. Aidan (akimel) on, so hopefully he can give me a better answer.

PP
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 07:22:54 PM by primuspilus » Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #192 on: April 05, 2012, 07:26:18 PM »

As I am sure been said more than once, Rome is welcome to come home any time. However it MUST give up the heresies that define it today
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #193 on: April 05, 2012, 07:28:32 PM »

Quote
That teaching has been changed has it not? For example, suppose a Christian were to find a young black female enslaved by a mature white male who was treating her harshly. Suppose further, that there was every opportunity for this Christian to easliy free and liberate this young black woman from her horrible enslavement. Would that Christian be bound by the command given under the pain of anathema at Gangra and refuse to help the young black woman to run away and not serve her master with good-will, or, given the available opportunity to do so,  should that Christian help this young black lady to flee and to refuse to submit to her white master?
This is not a letimate example as Slavery is now illegal. The Christian would be bound to the law of the land.

Quote
I would say that this particular teaching has obviously changed from what it was at Gangra. So too, it would not be the end of the world if the Roman Church were to modify and soften its teaching on the papacy
That would be very difficult to do, especially because the church taking such a strong statement on supremacy and infallibility. I think the Church has painted itself in the corner on these issues.

PP
It is a legitimate example, because I was speaking of a time and place when slavery was legal. Say for example, in the Southern US before the civil war.  
Now that you have put it in a time frame for me, I appreciate that. I thought you were referring to the present day. My opinion would be that the person would have to refer to what the Church has stated on the issue. If the Church says slavery is wrong, then if the guy is able to save the girl, do so.

I know it seems like a cop out answer, but I really have never given that much thought and I'd rather not b.s. you. I see Fr. Aidan (akimel) on, so hopefully he can give me a better answer.

PP
Ok.
My only point here in giving an example of a change in teaching on slavery  is that it is not inconceivable that the RCC could modify its position on the papacy to correspond with the pre-1054 AD  teaching. I don't think it would be such a big problem as some posters have indicated.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,305


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #194 on: April 05, 2012, 07:33:33 PM »

Quote
My only point here in giving an example of a change in teaching on slavery  is that it is not inconceivable that the RCC could modify its position on the papacy to correspond with the pre-1054 AD  teaching. I don't think it would be such a big problem as some posters have indicated
I do however, believe that if the RCC changed its position on supremacy and infallibility (Please Lord make it so) you'd have, I would think, at least 2 groups break off in schism, one being a pretty major one (SSPX). Of course, this is all IMHO Smiley

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,305


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #195 on: April 05, 2012, 07:35:22 PM »

NOTE: My meaning by the SSPX is that they would completely have a "screw you" moment. I am aware of its canonical status Smiley
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,370



« Reply #196 on: April 05, 2012, 07:51:13 PM »

"Slaves obey your masters" is not an endorsement of slavery. Anyone who says it is is guilty of twisting the Apostle's words and will have to answer to him for it.
How then do you explain the enslavement of Roma (gypsies) in Orthodox monasteries in Romania?

How do you explain the enslavement of Native Americans by Franciscans?
As I indicated above, there has been a change in the teaching and the world did not come to an end. At one time slavery was accepted, but now it is not.  Similarly, if the Roman Church were to modify its teaching on papal supremacy and infallibility to keep it in line with the position taught before 1054, the world would not come to an end and the sky would not fall.
of course not, the Vatican would just fall and come to an end. 

Really, you talk as if you can't distinguish between the US Constitution being amended by the 13th Amendment, and an amendment replacing the president with an absolute monarch.

The Vatican has put its papacy up as a dogma equal to that of the Incarnation. It can't just back track that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #197 on: April 05, 2012, 08:00:31 PM »

Quote
I assume you are referring to Canon 3

Quote
If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema
This has nothing to do with promoting slavery, and everything to do with honoring the authority that God put over someone and for slaves to obey their masters as was in the context of the scriptural command.

This does not promote slavery anymore than the biblical command for wives to obey their husbands promotes masculine domination of women.
.

That teaching has been changed has it not?

You have yet to offer *any* evidence that the teaching has changed. And you've repeatedly misrepresented what the teaching was in the first place even as others corrected you.

This does at least provide the answer to my original question--you don't see the problem with the Pope revoking a previously promulgated dogma because you aren't terribly concerned about the concept of truth.



Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #198 on: April 05, 2012, 08:43:10 PM »

Quote
I would say that this particular teaching has obviously changed from what it was at Gangra. So too, it would not be the end of the world if the Roman Church were to modify and soften its teaching on the papacy
That would be very difficult to do, especially because the church taking such a strong statement on supremacy and infallibility. I think the Church has painted itself in the corner on these issues.

PP

I have to agree with you here, primuspilus, the situations aren't all that similar. EOs don't consider Gangra an ecumenical council, so it's no big problem to disagree with what it said.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 08:43:58 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,492



« Reply #199 on: April 05, 2012, 08:44:20 PM »

EOs don't consider Gangra an ecumenical council

See my post above.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 08:44:49 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Lt. Ray Makonnen: "You know, Captain, every year of my life I grow more and more convinced that the wisest and the best is to fix our attention on the good and the beautiful. If you just take the time to look at it."

Capt. Frank Chapman: "You're some guy, Makonnen."
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #200 on: April 05, 2012, 08:49:07 PM »

There was no teaching on slavery in the first place.
According to: "Slavery As Moral Problem: In the Early Church and Today"
By Jennifer A. Glancy
there was a Church Council or Synod at Gangra in 340 AD which leads one to the conclusion that the New Testament compels Christians to support the institution of slavery.  What is then your interpretation of the teachings at the Council of Gangra, 340 AD and why would you disagree with Glancy?
http://books.google.com/books?id=jz_emYLEnCcC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=slavery+and++Gangra&source=bl&ots=Cu4ismTgA4&sig=9OTQQxA-HCeTqNsk4n0Fs6QDSkI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Qhh-T46uHYmriQLE-qWcDg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=slavery%20and%20%20Gangra&f=false

This is not to say anything in particular about your questions, but just to add--the canons from the Council of Gangra were adopted/validated/authoritized at what the Orthodox consider the Sixth Ecumenical Council (ie. Canon 2 of the Council of Trullo).

Oh!
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #201 on: April 05, 2012, 08:59:53 PM »

I understand that there are Eastern Orthodox priests who allow Oriental Orthodox to receive Holy Communion?
Would this be strictly forbidden and against the rules, or if not, then what is the logical answer to the dilemma that the two Churches, EO and OO are not united, but OO are in some cases allowed the Sacrament?

A priest who did so would be in error, unless for some unforeseen reason, in a pastoral situation,( I really can't think of any possible reason, but the Bishop has the responsibility of making the decision), he had the permission of his Bishop to do so. If he was doing it without his Bishop's knowledge and permission, he would probably learn very quickly what the words "Spiritual Court" really mean, once his Bishop found out.

I'm not really sure what you mean here, but intercommunion between EOs and OOs is a well established fact.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #202 on: April 05, 2012, 09:02:26 PM »

--instead of demonstrating that you don't understand Orthodoxy's teachings,...
This is why I am on this board, to try to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Does the Orthodox Church believe that St. Peter was one of the first bishops in the Orthodox Church or not? Does the Orthodox Church today believe that slaves should submit to their harsh masters? 

If you want to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church, I would not recommend the Internet.

The Orthodox Church venerates St. Peter as an apostle. Bishops rank below apostles. Canonically, bishops cannot be rulers of several different sees, as St. Peter was Apostle in Antioch and Rome.

You are not seeking the Church's teachings, but throwing out red herrings.

I can't believe you didn't say "throwing red meat on the floor", or whatever it is that you all love to say.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,207


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #203 on: April 05, 2012, 09:12:15 PM »

Another article of interest to this thread:  "The Myth of Schism" by David B. Hart.

thanks for the link   interesting and provocative....
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,043


« Reply #204 on: April 05, 2012, 09:25:33 PM »

I understand that there are Eastern Orthodox priests who allow Oriental Orthodox to receive Holy Communion?
Would this be strictly forbidden and against the rules, or if not, then what is the logical answer to the dilemma that the two Churches, EO and OO are not united, but OO are in some cases allowed the Sacrament?

A priest who did so would be in error, unless for some unforeseen reason, in a pastoral situation,( I really can't think of any possible reason, but the Bishop has the responsibility of making the decision), he had the permission of his Bishop to do so. If he was doing it without his Bishop's knowledge and permission, he would probably learn very quickly what the words "Spiritual Court" really mean, once his Bishop found out.

I'm not really sure what you mean here, but intercommunion between EOs and OOs is a well established fact.

I'm not sure what you mean here by "an established fact", but this is not exactly true. I am merely an OO (Coptic) catechumen, but even I know that communion of EOs in our churches is by no means the norm. To the extent that it happens, it is in response to local pastoral situations, but does not establish precedents. For instance, it is allowed that a mixed Coptic-Greek couple who are married in Alexandria (home of both the Coptic and Greek patriarchates in Egypt) may be allowed to intercommune, but that does not mean that I can go to the local Greek Orthodox church and commune there. In fact, the priest who serves us here in Albuquerque has been quite clear that he will not commune EOs in our church. I haven't asked him, but I don't doubt that the priest of the Greek church would say the same about us. There's simply no need for it, even if both (or some subset of both) might want it. We are, sadly, not unified yet.

Contrast that with the situation back in my home area of N. California where there are no OO churches at all and you'll find that lots of Eritreans and Ethiopians commune at the local OCA and Bulgarian churches. Again, it is a response to pastoral need, and God bless the Bulgarians, Russians, Greeks, Serbs, Arabs, and others who have accepted the Habesha Orthodox. It's a wonderful thing that they are responsive to brothers and sisters in need, and it brings the best food in the world to the otherwise dolma and spanakopita-heavy Glendi festival that they hold every year at St. Seraphim of Sarov Church. </shameless plug>
Logged

witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #205 on: April 05, 2012, 09:39:30 PM »

Quote
I would say that this particular teaching has obviously changed from what it was at Gangra. So too, it would not be the end of the world if the Roman Church were to modify and soften its teaching on the papacy
That would be very difficult to do, especially because the church taking such a strong statement on supremacy and infallibility. I think the Church has painted itself in the corner on these issues.

PP

I have to agree with you here, primuspilus, the situations aren't all that similar. EOs don't consider Gangra an ecumenical council, so it's no big problem to disagree with what it said.

Asteriktos corrected the authority issue, but is still not at all similar. The canon from Gangra simply says you aren't to induce a slave to leave his master 'under pretence of religion'. It doesn't cover anything else--like legally freeing the slave, condemning slavery as an institution, working the Underground railroad to help slaves that have already fled their master or even inducing a slave to leave his master for some non-religious reason. All it forbids is telling a slave 'it's your Christian duty/right to flee.'

Comparing it to a change in a dogmatic stance--particularly when it hasn't even been changed--demonstrates a distinct lack of interest in actual substantive conversation.

Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #206 on: April 05, 2012, 09:46:19 PM »

I understand that there are Eastern Orthodox priests who allow Oriental Orthodox to receive Holy Communion?
Would this be strictly forbidden and against the rules, or if not, then what is the logical answer to the dilemma that the two Churches, EO and OO are not united, but OO are in some cases allowed the Sacrament?

A priest who did so would be in error, unless for some unforeseen reason, in a pastoral situation,( I really can't think of any possible reason, but the Bishop has the responsibility of making the decision), he had the permission of his Bishop to do so. If he was doing it without his Bishop's knowledge and permission, he would probably learn very quickly what the words "Spiritual Court" really mean, once his Bishop found out.

I'm not really sure what you mean here, but intercommunion between EOs and OOs is a well established fact.

I'm not sure what you mean here by "an established fact"

If you're wondering if I'm saying that every EO and OO priest does it, the answer is No I'm not saying that. I'm sure there are many who don't (and I'm sure many posters are going to ignore the fact that I said that, and try to "convince" me). The situation I'm familiar with is intercommunion between the Antiochian Orthodox Church (EO) and the Syrian Orthodox Church (OO).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,043


« Reply #207 on: April 05, 2012, 10:07:01 PM »

I understand that there are Eastern Orthodox priests who allow Oriental Orthodox to receive Holy Communion?
Would this be strictly forbidden and against the rules, or if not, then what is the logical answer to the dilemma that the two Churches, EO and OO are not united, but OO are in some cases allowed the Sacrament?

A priest who did so would be in error, unless for some unforeseen reason, in a pastoral situation,( I really can't think of any possible reason, but the Bishop has the responsibility of making the decision), he had the permission of his Bishop to do so. If he was doing it without his Bishop's knowledge and permission, he would probably learn very quickly what the words "Spiritual Court" really mean, once his Bishop found out.

I'm not really sure what you mean here, but intercommunion between EOs and OOs is a well established fact.

I'm not sure what you mean here by "an established fact"

If you're wondering if I'm saying that every EO and OO priest does it, the answer is No I'm not saying that. I'm sure there are many who don't (and I'm sure many posters are going to ignore the fact that I said that, and try to "convince" me). The situation I'm familiar with is intercommunion between the Antiochian Orthodox Church (EO) and the Syrian Orthodox Church (OO).

Again, why you should think that this establishes EO-OO intercommunion as anything other than a response to pastoral needs is a mystery. Some highlights from the last time Syriac Orthodox-Antiochian Orthodox intercommunion came up here should be kept in mind:

This topic was debated "ad nausem" by many Orthodox sites (including this one) for years. This statement made in the early 1990's was directed to those rural areas where both the Antiochian and Syriac churches have few in numbers. It was a form of "economia"  It was not accepted throughout the Antiochian church and was severely criticized by other Orthodox patriarchates. There is no official inter-communion between these two churches only respect and mutual support (which is required in an area where Christians are a persecuted minority)

As far as intercommunion between EO and OO, it also takes place in the United States when distance to an EO/OO church is a factor.

There exist informal pastoral agreements between the Antiochians and the Melkites in their countries of origin.  There is also a formal pastoral agreement between the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholics and informal agreements between both of those and the Antiochians and Melkites.  The provisions of these relate to pastoral care of each other's faithful in places and at times when their own presbyters are not available to them.
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #208 on: April 06, 2012, 12:11:15 AM »

Quote
I would say that this particular teaching has obviously changed from what it was at Gangra. So too, it would not be the end of the world if the Roman Church were to modify and soften its teaching on the papacy
That would be very difficult to do, especially because the church taking such a strong statement on supremacy and infallibility. I think the Church has painted itself in the corner on these issues.

PP

I have to agree with you here, primuspilus, the situations aren't all that similar. EOs don't consider Gangra an ecumenical council, so it's no big problem to disagree with what it said.

Asteriktos corrected the authority issue, but is still not at all similar. The canon from Gangra simply says you aren't to induce a slave to leave his master 'under pretence of religion'. It doesn't cover anything else--like legally freeing the slave, condemning slavery as an institution, working the Underground railroad to help slaves that have already fled their master or even inducing a slave to leave his master for some non-religious reason. All it forbids is telling a slave 'it's your Christian duty/right to flee.'

Comparing it to a change in a dogmatic stance--particularly when it hasn't even been changed--demonstrates a distinct lack of interest in actual substantive conversation.


According to Keith Bradley, Slavery and Society at Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1994), p. 151:” To pious slaves the teachings on obedience and submission automatically
foreclosed all possibility of agitating for freedom, of seeking material
improvements, of resisting servitude. Freedom of spirit and hopes of eternal
life, they were repeatedly told, were all that mattered. . . . Christianity
brought change, therefore, but from the servile perspective it was change
not for the better but for the worse.”
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #209 on: April 06, 2012, 12:19:28 AM »

You have yet to offer *any* evidence that the teaching has changed.
Can you name one Father or Doctor of the Orthodox Church who was an unqualified abolitionist?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,492



« Reply #210 on: April 06, 2012, 01:00:44 AM »

You have yet to offer *any* evidence that the teaching has changed.
Can you name one Father or Doctor of the Orthodox Church who was an unqualified abolitionist?

I would again recommend the book Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching by John T. Noonan, which I believe I recommended on another thread. This book is not perfect (and I fully support reading the critiques/reviews of it), but fwiw it does mention a fairly broad range of approaches to this problem in Christianity across the centuries.* Relevant to this particular post, some early Fathers were indeed abolitionists of one type or another, some for example saving money/donations so they could buy slaves and then set them free. I would say who if I still had the book or had access to it on Google books (other than snippet view), but unfortunately I don't...


*While usury was covered briefly in this book, and I think a few other subjects touched upon, slavery was the main focus.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 01:03:26 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Lt. Ray Makonnen: "You know, Captain, every year of my life I grow more and more convinced that the wisest and the best is to fix our attention on the good and the beautiful. If you just take the time to look at it."

Capt. Frank Chapman: "You're some guy, Makonnen."
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #211 on: April 06, 2012, 01:25:13 AM »

You have yet to offer *any* evidence that the teaching has changed.
Can you name one Father or Doctor of the Orthodox Church who was an unqualified abolitionist?

I would again recommend the book Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching by John T. Noonan, which I believe I recommended on another thread. This book is not perfect (and I fully support reading the critiques/reviews of it), but fwiw it does mention a fairly broad range of approaches to this problem in Christianity across the centuries.* Relevant to this particular post, some early Fathers were indeed abolitionists of one type or another, some for example saving money/donations so they could buy slaves and then set them free. I would say who if I still had the book or had access to it on Google books (other than snippet view), but unfortunately I don't...


*While usury was covered briefly in this book, and I think a few other subjects touched upon, slavery was the main focus.
However, didn't Noonan contend that there was a change in the teaching in the sense that slavery was first thought to be not sinful, but later on was declared to be intrinsically evil?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #212 on: April 06, 2012, 01:27:56 AM »

Quote
My only point here in giving an example of a change in teaching on slavery  is that it is not inconceivable that the RCC could modify its position on the papacy to correspond with the pre-1054 AD  teaching. I don't think it would be such a big problem as some posters have indicated
I do however, believe that if the RCC changed its position on supremacy and infallibility (Please Lord make it so) you'd have, I would think, at least 2 groups break off in schism, one being a pretty major one (SSPX). Of course, this is all IMHO Smiley

PP
This is probably true, but already the SSPX has problems with Vatican II.
Logged
Samson4ll
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantium
Posts: 22



« Reply #213 on: April 06, 2012, 02:29:51 AM »

--instead of demonstrating that you don't understand Orthodoxy's teachings,...
This is why I am on this board, to try to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Does the Orthodox Church believe that St. Peter was one of the first bishops in the Orthodox Church or not? Does the Orthodox Church today believe that slaves should submit to their harsh masters? 

If you want to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church, I would not recommend the Internet.

The Orthodox Church venerates St. Peter as an apostle. Bishops rank below apostles. Canonically, bishops cannot be rulers of several different sees, as St. Peter was Apostle in Antioch and Rome.

You are not seeking the Church's teachings, but throwing out red herrings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Meletius_IV_of_Constantinople
"Meletius IV (Greek: Μελέτιος Μεταξάκης) was the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople from 1921 to 1923.[1] He also served as Greek Patriarch of Alexandria under the episcopal name Meletius II from 1926 to 1935.[2] He was the only Eastern Orthodox hierarch in history to serve successively as the senior bishop of three autocephalous churches (before his election to the Ecumenical Patriarchate he had briefly headed the Church of Greece in Athens)."
Logged

"God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."
St. Augustine
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #214 on: April 06, 2012, 02:41:38 AM »

A stance I find puzzling, honestly. Why offer communion to someone (someones)- the symbol of, well, communion- if you're not really in communion?
I thought that the Moscow Patriarchate had decided at one time to admit Romans to Holy Communion under certain circumstances. If Romans are not really in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church, why would the Moscow Patriarchate give Holy Communion to Romans in certain circumstances?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #215 on: April 06, 2012, 08:37:10 AM »

If you're wondering if I'm saying that every EO and OO priest does it, the answer is No I'm not saying that. I'm sure there are many who don't (and I'm sure many posters are going to ignore the fact that I said that, and try to "convince" me). The situation I'm familiar with is intercommunion between the Antiochian Orthodox Church (EO) and the Syrian Orthodox Church (OO).

Again, why you should think that this establishes EO-OO intercommunion as anything other than a response to pastoral needs is a mystery.

I don't know what statement you're responding to, but I'm just telling you the facts, not expressing an opinion about them.

From the agreement between the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church: "9) If one priest of either Church happens to be in a certain area he will serve the Divine Mysteries for the members of both Churches including the Divine Liturgy and the sacrament of holy matrimony."
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #216 on: April 06, 2012, 11:27:11 AM »

Wow! I was gone for a day and I come back and theres over 200 responses. Ha. Going to try and get caught up!
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,093


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #217 on: April 06, 2012, 11:52:01 AM »

A stance I find puzzling, honestly. Why offer communion to someone (someones)- the symbol of, well, communion- if you're not really in communion?
I thought that the Moscow Patriarchate had decided at one time to admit Romans to Holy Communion under certain circumstances. If Romans are not really in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church, why would the Moscow Patriarchate give Holy Communion to Romans in certain circumstances?

It is my understanding and please correct me if I am wrong, but it is what we refer to as "economia", ie, Lacking a Catholic priest at time of death or near death situations an Orthodox priest may administer Holy Unction, Confession and Holy Communion to a Roman Catholic.   But, keep in mind, we are talking about extreme situations and not the norm, and can only be used with the discretion of the priest.  There is no guarantee that this will happen under these situations.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,043


« Reply #218 on: April 06, 2012, 12:05:54 PM »

If you're wondering if I'm saying that every EO and OO priest does it, the answer is No I'm not saying that. I'm sure there are many who don't (and I'm sure many posters are going to ignore the fact that I said that, and try to "convince" me). The situation I'm familiar with is intercommunion between the Antiochian Orthodox Church (EO) and the Syrian Orthodox Church (OO).

Again, why you should think that this establishes EO-OO intercommunion as anything other than a response to pastoral needs is a mystery.

I don't know what statement you're responding to, but I'm just telling you the facts, not expressing an opinion about them.

From the agreement between the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church: "9) If one priest of either Church happens to be in a certain area he will serve the Divine Mysteries for the members of both Churches including the Divine Liturgy and the sacrament of holy matrimony."

I am responding to your original statement that intercommunion between EO and OO is an "established fact". I find that misleading. As JoeS2 has just responded to Stanley123, these are pastoral responses to extreme situations. As there are many areas of the world where EO and OO live side by side and a persecuted alike by non-Christian powers, such agreements have developed because it is by no means guaranteed that a believer of either church will be able to attend his own church when in need. These are demonstrations of love and care, not open intercommunion as you would find between churches within either communion on the basis of a common faith (Antiochian Orthodox and Romanian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox, etc).
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #219 on: April 06, 2012, 12:10:51 PM »

The Reason why we cannot say that the Catholic Church has suffered ontological damage as a result of the schism, is that it would mean that it is no longer the Body of Christ in the same way that it was before the schism. But the the Church is always complete and whole. Christ is not divided.

Which is, of course, why the language of wounding is employed.  The inference being that we are one, and that the schism wounds but does not truly divide...and in fact and in reality the fact that we still intercommunue in ANY way is proof of that puddin'

Mary
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #220 on: April 06, 2012, 12:19:38 PM »

Quote
Like it was said in another thread, the EO/OO problem should be handled first and foremost.

Thats a good point.

Just curious, are there any Catholics who would like to comment?  Im not trying to start a war here, I just wouldnt mind hearing another perspective.

Tags editted - MK.

It seems to me the fact that the chalice in the Catholic Church is open for Orthodox believers...even if it is not received...indicates that the Catholic Church recognizes Orthodoxy in communion already.  So the question of desire is really answered in the willingness to enter into communion, as is.

M.

So, Mary, since we are as Orthodox invited to receive the Eucharist in a Roman Church today without being required to accept the concepts of papal infallibility, papal universal jurisdiction and the Pope as Christ's representative here on Earth - why would any Roman or Greek Catholic feel compelled to accept the same terms of discipline?

To me, Rome's entire 'raison d'etre' collapsed when the invitation to the Orthodox to communion was so offered. Perhaps we are the fools for turning our back since there does not seem to be a logical syllogism to answer the dilemma.

Any takers with a response?

If by Rome's raison d'etre you are referring directly to the papal office then it does not collapse but is fulfilled in opening the chalice to Orthodox believers.  The primary purpose of the papal office is unity in faith.   

We had unity of faith before anyone held a council to define anything at all.

I would suggest that faith is far more than an itemized set of beliefs, and it is that unity that we seek in an apostolic church, one, catholic and holy.  If Orthodoxy is recognized as apostolic, one, catholic and holy then it stands to reason that Orthodox believers be welcomed to the chalice.

The rest is simply working out issues of authority and jurisdiction.

Mary

Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #221 on: April 06, 2012, 12:26:16 PM »



I am responding to your original statement that intercommunion between EO and OO is an "established fact". I find that misleading. As JoeS2 has just responded to Stanley123, these are pastoral responses to extreme situations. As there are many areas of the world where EO and OO live side by side and a persecuted alike by non-Christian powers, such agreements have developed because it is by no means guaranteed that a believer of either church will be able to attend his own church when in need. These are demonstrations of love and care, not open intercommunion as you would find between churches within either communion on the basis of a common faith (Antiochian Orthodox and Romanian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox, etc).

Communion is communion.  It seems to me that there would be no communion with any other Christian group, even in periods of extreme duress.  Only those who are agreed to hold apostolic succession are, in this day in age, communion under duress.  There's a reason for that.    The reason makes the lack of full and open communion even more deplorable.

Mary
Logged

Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #222 on: April 06, 2012, 12:41:49 PM »

--instead of demonstrating that you don't understand Orthodoxy's teachings,...
This is why I am on this board, to try to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Does the Orthodox Church believe that St. Peter was one of the first bishops in the Orthodox Church or not? Does the Orthodox Church today believe that slaves should submit to their harsh masters? 

If you want to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church, I would not recommend the Internet.

The Orthodox Church venerates St. Peter as an apostle. Bishops rank below apostles. Canonically, bishops cannot be rulers of several different sees, as St. Peter was Apostle in Antioch and Rome.

You are not seeking the Church's teachings, but throwing out red herrings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Meletius_IV_of_Constantinople
"Meletius IV (Greek: Μελέτιος Μεταξάκης) was the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople from 1921 to 1923.[1] He also served as Greek Patriarch of Alexandria under the episcopal name Meletius II from 1926 to 1935.[2] He was the only Eastern Orthodox hierarch in history to serve successively as the senior bishop of three autocephalous churches (before his election to the Ecumenical Patriarchate he had briefly headed the Church of Greece in Athens)."

Funny you should put this hear as if most didn't already know about this controversial figure, a Free Mason, and someone who trampled on several canons.

Anyway, it's a moot point. St. Peter was an Apostle.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Samson4ll
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantium
Posts: 22



« Reply #223 on: April 06, 2012, 12:45:00 PM »

--instead of demonstrating that you don't understand Orthodoxy's teachings,...
This is why I am on this board, to try to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Does the Orthodox Church believe that St. Peter was one of the first bishops in the Orthodox Church or not? Does the Orthodox Church today believe that slaves should submit to their harsh masters? 

If you want to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church, I would not recommend the Internet.

The Orthodox Church venerates St. Peter as an apostle. Bishops rank below apostles. Canonically, bishops cannot be rulers of several different sees, as St. Peter was Apostle in Antioch and Rome.

You are not seeking the Church's teachings, but throwing out red herrings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Meletius_IV_of_Constantinople
"Meletius IV (Greek: Μελέτιος Μεταξάκης) was the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople from 1921 to 1923.[1] He also served as Greek Patriarch of Alexandria under the episcopal name Meletius II from 1926 to 1935.[2] He was the only Eastern Orthodox hierarch in history to serve successively as the senior bishop of three autocephalous churches (before his election to the Ecumenical Patriarchate he had briefly headed the Church of Greece in Athens)."

Funny you should put this hear as if most didn't already know about this controversial figure, a Free Mason, and someone who trampled on several canons.

Anyway, it's a moot point. St. Peter was an Apostle.

St James was an apostle too, and also a bishop.
Logged

"God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."
St. Augustine
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #224 on: April 06, 2012, 12:48:05 PM »

--instead of demonstrating that you don't understand Orthodoxy's teachings,...
This is why I am on this board, to try to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Does the Orthodox Church believe that St. Peter was one of the first bishops in the Orthodox Church or not? Does the Orthodox Church today believe that slaves should submit to their harsh masters? 

If you want to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church, I would not recommend the Internet.

The Orthodox Church venerates St. Peter as an apostle. Bishops rank below apostles. Canonically, bishops cannot be rulers of several different sees, as St. Peter was Apostle in Antioch and Rome.

You are not seeking the Church's teachings, but throwing out red herrings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Meletius_IV_of_Constantinople
"Meletius IV (Greek: Μελέτιος Μεταξάκης) was the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople from 1921 to 1923.[1] He also served as Greek Patriarch of Alexandria under the episcopal name Meletius II from 1926 to 1935.[2] He was the only Eastern Orthodox hierarch in history to serve successively as the senior bishop of three autocephalous churches (before his election to the Ecumenical Patriarchate he had briefly headed the Church of Greece in Athens)."

Funny you should put this hear as if most didn't already know about this controversial figure, a Free Mason, and someone who trampled on several canons.

Anyway, it's a moot point. St. Peter was an Apostle.

St James was an apostle too, and also a bishop.

But not one of the Twelve.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »   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 0.189 seconds with 72 queries.