OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 30, 2014, 03:59:40 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodox patriarch hits at “unacceptable” attacks on ecumenism  (Read 7656 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #90 on: April 17, 2012, 02:09:15 PM »

Is it a problem if the heterodox say that their teachings, if interpreted either correctly or leniently, do not in any way conflict with Orthodox teachings?

Then that must be discussed in detail, point by point, instead of general condemnations.

Which heterodox group are you referring to?
Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,454



« Reply #91 on: April 17, 2012, 09:08:19 PM »

I don't doubt many EOs feels that way.

Most EO are fairly ignorant of the OO. Of course, few EO would deem dialogue with Monophysites who deny the humanity of Christ more important than dialogue with Catholics who are dogmatically very similar. However, among the EO who are well-read on the subject, I think such an approach to ecumenism is quite popular.

I am not aware of any OO church that is monophysite.

This.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #92 on: April 18, 2012, 02:38:08 AM »

The OO churches are miaphysite. They anathemize Eutyches.
Woud any anti-OOs recognize that fact please? After that, if they still think OOs are heretics, they should prove how miaphysitism, not monophysitism, is heretical.

The problem about the controversy within the EO church how to see the OOs is this: We who have a favourable view of the OOs know them personally and have had a serious theological dialogue with them. Whereas those who oppose the OO just shout "Heretics! Heretics!" and often have never met one in person, let alone studied their theology.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #93 on: April 18, 2012, 02:45:22 AM »

Is it a problem if the heterodox say that their teachings, if interpreted either correctly or leniently, do not in any way conflict with Orthodox teachings?

Then that must be discussed in detail, point by point, instead of general condemnations.

Which heterodox group are you referring to?
Those mentioned in reply or post #85.
Logged
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #94 on: April 18, 2012, 03:01:22 AM »

In post #85, I made a general statement. As for groups who claim to have the same theology as we do, I can think of the Old Catholics. But of course, we have told them that this is not true, since we cannot accept the Branch Theory. In addition to that, the Union of Utrecht now has female priests and blessings for homosexual couples.

And they have serious theological issues, too. They have removed the veneration of the saints from their liturgical texts, at least in Germany. Prof. Angela Berlis seems to say that the Holy Spirit is female, and many of their laypeople I met deny the ever-virginity of the Theotokos, or even the whole virgin birth, as well as the bodily ressurection.

And then, some Greek anti-ecumenists come and say the Old Catholics are closer to Orthodoxy than the OO... have they even met an Old Catholic?

(Note: All I said here applies to the Union of Utrecht. Now there also is a Union of Scranton, which I don't know well enough. It seems to me that their theology is quite Orthodox, except for the branch theory...)
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #95 on: April 18, 2012, 03:32:59 AM »

In post #85, I made a general statement. As for groups who claim to have the same theology as we do, I can think of the Old Catholics. But of course, we have told them that this is not true, since we cannot accept the Branch Theory. In addition to that, the Union of Utrecht now has female priests and blessings for homosexual couples.

And they have serious theological issues, too. They have removed the veneration of the saints from their liturgical texts, at least in Germany. Prof. Angela Berlis seems to say that the Holy Spirit is female, and many of their laypeople I met deny the ever-virginity of the Theotokos, or even the whole virgin birth, as well as the bodily ressurection.

And then, some Greek anti-ecumenists come and say the Old Catholics are closer to Orthodoxy than the OO... have they even met an Old Catholic?

(Note: All I said here applies to the Union of Utrecht. Now there also is a Union of Scranton, which I don't know well enough. It seems to me that their theology is quite Orthodox, except for the branch theory...)
I think that some Old Catholics have women priests, which should be a problem for the anti-ecumenical Greek True Orthodox. Anyway, the Roman Church more or less believes that many of the issues separating them from the Orthodox do not in fact conflict with Orthodox teachings if interpreted leniently. I am not sure about the question of papal infallibility, which perhaps would have to be completely reformed or weakened in a manner which would be acceptable to the East.
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,871


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #96 on: April 18, 2012, 03:42:28 AM »

Quote
I think that some Old Catholics have women priests, which should be a problem for the anti-ecumenical Greek True Orthodox.

ALL Orthodox, canonical or otherwise, regard this as a problem.
Logged
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #97 on: April 18, 2012, 09:21:03 AM »

ALL Orthodox, canonical or otherwise, regard this as a problem.
By conclusion, that would mean that anyone who has no problem with Old Catholic women priests, is not Orthodox. Is that what you are trying to say?
Logged
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #98 on: April 18, 2012, 09:30:43 AM »

the Roman Church more or less believes that many of the issues separating them from the Orthodox do not in fact conflict with Orthodox teachings if interpreted leniently. I am not sure about the question of papal infallibility, which perhaps would have to be completely reformed or weakened in a manner which would be acceptable to the East.

Well, then let them formulate these "lenient interpretations" in writing and present them to the Orthodox Church. Then our theologians can analyze them.

But as for my personal understanding, Rome is not yet ready to repent for its theological errors, even though they have repented for their political errors uch as the crusades.

I do not believe it is possible to reinterpret in an Orthodox way papal infalibility, and worse, papal universal jurisdiction but also some other things such as ex opere operato sacramental theology, indulgencies, the Roman Catholic view on original sin etc.

I think the Pope should rather admit he is NOT infallibale and some things have simply gone wrong in their theology. But if they are not ready to do that, PLEASE, dear Pope Benedict, do something real to end all these liturgial abuses that are common nowadays in masses...
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #99 on: April 18, 2012, 02:25:45 PM »

... since we cannot accept the Branch Theory.

Orthodox don't hesitate to attack Anglicans for their "Branch Theory" (that Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox are all the Church) and Catholics for the "Two Lung Theory" (that Catholics and Orthodox are  the Church); but no one can ever seem to tell me how the Orthodox theory that EOs and OOs are the Church is really different -- except that it obviously includes fewer groups.  Roll Eyes
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Zenovia
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 777


« Reply #100 on: April 18, 2012, 02:43:37 PM »

(ENInews). The spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians has written to Greece’s Orthodox state church, deploring anti-ecumenical statements by its leaders...
"In his statement on 4 March, Orthodoxy Sunday, Seraphim said he was anathematizing the “fallen arch-heretic,” Pope Benedict XVI, “and those in communion with him,” ..."
What are the consequences of this anathema for Roman Catholics? How would an anathema cast upon all Roman Catholics in the world by an Orthodox Metropolitan affect our eternal salvation?

I don't think it will affect your salvation, but it might the salvation of those giving out the anathemas.  Spiritual immaturity my dear man, spiritual immaturity.  Roll Eyes
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,817



« Reply #101 on: April 18, 2012, 02:47:51 PM »

... since we cannot accept the Branch Theory.

Orthodox don't hesitate to attack Anglicans for their "Branch Theory" (that Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox are all the Church) and Catholics for the "Two Lung Theory" (that Catholics and Orthodox are  the Church); but no one can ever seem to tell me how the Orthodox theory that EOs and OOs are the Church is really different -- except that it obviously includes fewer groups.  Roll Eyes
The only difference is the acceptance of the Fourth Council as Ecumenical, and yet they anathematize Eutyches and his heresy like we, and the Fourth Council, do.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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 #102 on: April 18, 2012, 03:04:22 PM »

... since we cannot accept the Branch Theory.

Orthodox don't hesitate to attack Anglicans for their "Branch Theory" (that Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox are all the Church) and Catholics for the "Two Lung Theory" (that Catholics and Orthodox are  the Church); but no one can ever seem to tell me how the Orthodox theory that EOs and OOs are the Church is really different -- except that it obviously includes fewer groups.  Roll Eyes

That is a valid criticism of those who think the EO and OO are already "the One Church". However that is not the official position of any EO synod or of the EO participants in the EO-OO dialogue (can't and won't speak for the OO in this case). The general position is that
a) we recognize that the other side is doctrinally orthodox, and therefore there is no doctrinal bar to reunion
b) reunion is possible without any explicit admission by the other side that it was their ancestors who went into schism
c) until b) occurs then one church (I would say the EO, OOs would say the OO) is "The One Church" and the other side is in schism, a situation that needs to be healed.
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
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #103 on: April 18, 2012, 04:43:56 PM »

the Roman Church more or less believes that many of the issues separating them from the Orthodox do not in fact conflict with Orthodox teachings if interpreted leniently. I am not sure about the question of papal infallibility, which perhaps would have to be completely reformed or weakened in a manner which would be acceptable to the East.

Well, then let them formulate these "lenient interpretations" in writing and present them to the Orthodox Church. Then our theologians can analyze them.

But as for my personal understanding, Rome is not yet ready to repent for its theological errors, even though they have repented for their political errors uch as the crusades.

I do not believe it is possible to reinterpret in an Orthodox way papal infalibility, and worse, papal universal jurisdiction but also some other things such as ex opere operato sacramental theology, indulgencies, the Roman Catholic view on original sin etc.

I think the Pope should rather admit he is NOT infallibale and some things have simply gone wrong in their theology. But if they are not ready to do that, PLEASE, dear Pope Benedict, do something real to end all these liturgial abuses that are common nowadays in masses...
My opinion (with is not worth very much) is that papal infallibility and supremacy is a seriously problematic issue for reunion, but that the other issues can be overcome more easily.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #104 on: April 18, 2012, 04:57:07 PM »

The Most Reverend Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus called extra anathema during the reading of the Synodikon on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. He added these to the list of anathema saying:

- The truly non-existent and fallen arch-heretic Pope and Patriarch of Old Rome Benedict XVI and those in communion with him, anathema, anathema, anathema.
So all Roman Catholics are officially anathematised three times by a standing Metropolitan of the Holy Orthodox Church? Is there some way that we can wash away this anathema from our souls?

Repent, and become Orthodox!
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: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #105 on: April 18, 2012, 04:58:46 PM »

The Most Reverend Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus called extra anathema during the reading of the Synodikon on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. He added these to the list of anathema saying:

- The truly non-existent and fallen arch-heretic Pope and Patriarch of Old Rome Benedict XVI and those in communion with him, anathema, anathema, anathema.
So all Roman Catholics are officially anathematised three times by a standing Metropolitan of the Holy Orthodox Church? Is there some way that we can wash away this anathema from our souls?

Just come into the Church.
Thank you kindly for that invitation. It is something that I have thought about. One thing that worries me is that Orthodox do not see a difference between venial and mortal sin; am I right about that? To me certain venial sins would not bar you from receiving Holy Communion, whereas a mortal sin would. Take for example, the sin of lying. Suppose that a telemarketeer calls you, interrupting your dinner and you answer the call. She says that she is selling a subscription to some ladies magazine and asks if your wife is there. Of course, your wife is right there, but you say no, she is not here and she won't be back anytime soon. You then hang up. You have lied about it, but it is a white lie, is it not? In the mind of a Roman, a venial (or lesser) sin would not disbar you from receiving Holy Communion.

It's none of the telemarketer's business. You lied to protect your wife from being victimized.
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: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #106 on: April 18, 2012, 04:59:40 PM »

Other means of absolution from venial sins in the RCC: the use of holy water to make the sign of the Cross (that's why the stoups are by the church doors), and recitation of the general confession ("I confess to Almighty God...") early in the Mass. Just thought I'd mention that.

And there are plenty of Orthodox prayers for forgiveness of sins.
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: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #107 on: April 18, 2012, 05:01:15 PM »

The Most Reverend Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus called extra anathema during the reading of the Synodikon on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. He added these to the list of anathema saying:

- The truly non-existent and fallen arch-heretic Pope and Patriarch of Old Rome Benedict XVI and those in communion with him, anathema, anathema, anathema.
- Martin Luther, John Calvin, Henry Zwingli, Henry the VIII the impious king, and those with them, and all the heretical offshoots of the Reformation, anathema, anathema, anathema.

Huh ... I guess he likes John Wesley. Who would have thought?

First, it's not the personal opinion of His Beatitude whom to anathematize, but an action of the Church--and these anathemas are read by all chief hierarchs and sometimes all hierarchs and clergy ever Sunday of Orthodoxy--it's part of the service.

Second, Wesley would be covered in the anathemas against all heretics in "To all heretics, anathema, anathema, anathema."
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: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #108 on: April 18, 2012, 05:02:08 PM »

Any hatemongery is not useful at all. Patriarch Bartholomew is correct in pointing that out.

As for "ecumenism", I do not think it is wrong per se to have a theological discussion with the heterodox (although I agree we should focus on the OO instead). The whole thing becomes a problem ONLY if someone denies Orthodox dogma.

The anathemas against heretics are hardly "hatemongery."
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: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #109 on: April 18, 2012, 05:03:48 PM »

Any hatemongery is not useful at all. Patriarch Bartholomew is correct in pointing that out.

As for "ecumenism", I do not think it is wrong per se to have a theological discussion with the heterodox (although I agree we should focus on the OO instead). The whole thing becomes a problem ONLY if someone denies Orthodox dogma.
Is it a problem if the heterodox say that their teachings, if interpreted either correctly or leniently, do not in any way conflict with Orthodox teachings?

Just how does one interpret, for example, that the Holy Gifts are "just symbols," and can therefore even be pizza and beer, in a way not in conflict with Orthodox teachings?
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: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #110 on: April 18, 2012, 05:06:42 PM »

The OO churches are miaphysite. They anathemize Eutyches.
Woud any anti-OOs recognize that fact please? After that, if they still think OOs are heretics, they should prove how miaphysitism, not monophysitism, is heretical.

The problem about the controversy within the EO church how to see the OOs is this: We who have a favourable view of the OOs know them personally and have had a serious theological dialogue with them. Whereas those who oppose the OO just shout "Heretics! Heretics!" and often have never met one in person, let alone studied their theology.

The issue is the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon. It's a very fine line, but it's still there. If it weren't, we'd be in communion by now. And we're not, as even the good conversations on this board show quite well--not due to intransigent arguers and ignoramii, but through careful consideration and theological questions.
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: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #111 on: April 18, 2012, 05:07:56 PM »

In post #85, I made a general statement. As for groups who claim to have the same theology as we do, I can think of the Old Catholics. But of course, we have told them that this is not true, since we cannot accept the Branch Theory. In addition to that, the Union of Utrecht now has female priests and blessings for homosexual couples.

And they have serious theological issues, too. They have removed the veneration of the saints from their liturgical texts, at least in Germany. Prof. Angela Berlis seems to say that the Holy Spirit is female, and many of their laypeople I met deny the ever-virginity of the Theotokos, or even the whole virgin birth, as well as the bodily ressurection.

And then, some Greek anti-ecumenists come and say the Old Catholics are closer to Orthodoxy than the OO... have they even met an Old Catholic?

(Note: All I said here applies to the Union of Utrecht. Now there also is a Union of Scranton, which I don't know well enough. It seems to me that their theology is quite Orthodox, except for the branch theory...)
I think that some Old Catholics have women priests, which should be a problem for the anti-ecumenical Greek True Orthodox. Anyway, the Roman Church more or less believes that many of the issues separating them from the Orthodox do not in fact conflict with Orthodox teachings if interpreted leniently. I am not sure about the question of papal infallibility, which perhaps would have to be completely reformed or weakened in a manner which would be acceptable to the East.

Women priests would be problematic for all Orthodox.
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: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #112 on: April 18, 2012, 05:09:08 PM »

ALL Orthodox, canonical or otherwise, regard this as a problem.
By conclusion, that would mean that anyone who has no problem with Old Catholic women priests, is not Orthodox. Is that what you are trying to say?

No. With women priests in Orthodoxy--which won't happen, so it's still a moot point. But, if you want it, those who would support Orthodox woman priests/priestesses are seriously mistaken at best and heretical at worst.
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: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #113 on: April 18, 2012, 05:10:06 PM »

... since we cannot accept the Branch Theory.

Orthodox don't hesitate to attack Anglicans for their "Branch Theory" (that Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox are all the Church) and Catholics for the "Two Lung Theory" (that Catholics and Orthodox are  the Church); but no one can ever seem to tell me how the Orthodox theory that EOs and OOs are the Church is really different -- except that it obviously includes fewer groups.  Roll Eyes
For the record, that is also an ecclesiological heresy. You're welcome.
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: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #114 on: April 18, 2012, 05:11:14 PM »

(ENInews). The spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians has written to Greece’s Orthodox state church, deploring anti-ecumenical statements by its leaders...
"In his statement on 4 March, Orthodoxy Sunday, Seraphim said he was anathematizing the “fallen arch-heretic,” Pope Benedict XVI, “and those in communion with him,” ..."
What are the consequences of this anathema for Roman Catholics? How would an anathema cast upon all Roman Catholics in the world by an Orthodox Metropolitan affect our eternal salvation?

I don't think it will affect your salvation, but it might the salvation of those giving out the anathemas.  Spiritual immaturity my dear man, spiritual immaturity.  Roll Eyes

It is the Church who anathematizes, not the man. The anathemas are made on the Sunday of Orthodoxy against all heretics, i.e. those who try to pervert the truth that God has revealed.
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: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #115 on: April 18, 2012, 05:13:13 PM »

the Roman Church more or less believes that many of the issues separating them from the Orthodox do not in fact conflict with Orthodox teachings if interpreted leniently. I am not sure about the question of papal infallibility, which perhaps would have to be completely reformed or weakened in a manner which would be acceptable to the East.

Well, then let them formulate these "lenient interpretations" in writing and present them to the Orthodox Church. Then our theologians can analyze them.

But as for my personal understanding, Rome is not yet ready to repent for its theological errors, even though they have repented for their political errors uch as the crusades.

I do not believe it is possible to reinterpret in an Orthodox way papal infalibility, and worse, papal universal jurisdiction but also some other things such as ex opere operato sacramental theology, indulgencies, the Roman Catholic view on original sin etc.

I think the Pope should rather admit he is NOT infallibale and some things have simply gone wrong in their theology. But if they are not ready to do that, PLEASE, dear Pope Benedict, do something real to end all these liturgial abuses that are common nowadays in masses...
My opinion (with is not worth very much) is that papal infallibility and supremacy is a seriously problematic issue for reunion, but that the other issues can be overcome more easily.

Immaculate Conception, the messing up of the Dormition, and the weirdness with purgatory and communion under one species (which there's been all this flip-flopping on) is also a cause for work.
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.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #116 on: April 18, 2012, 07:26:28 PM »

the Roman Church more or less believes that many of the issues separating them from the Orthodox do not in fact conflict with Orthodox teachings if interpreted leniently. I am not sure about the question of papal infallibility, which perhaps would have to be completely reformed or weakened in a manner which would be acceptable to the East.

Well, then let them formulate these "lenient interpretations" in writing and present them to the Orthodox Church. Then our theologians can analyze them.

But as for my personal understanding, Rome is not yet ready to repent for its theological errors, even though they have repented for their political errors uch as the crusades.

I do not believe it is possible to reinterpret in an Orthodox way papal infalibility, and worse, papal universal jurisdiction but also some other things such as ex opere operato sacramental theology, indulgencies, the Roman Catholic view on original sin etc.

I think the Pope should rather admit he is NOT infallibale and some things have simply gone wrong in their theology. But if they are not ready to do that, PLEASE, dear Pope Benedict, do something real to end all these liturgial abuses that are common nowadays in masses...
My opinion (with is not worth very much) is that papal infallibility and supremacy is a seriously problematic issue for reunion, but that the other issues can be overcome more easily.

Immaculate Conception, the messing up of the Dormition, and the weirdness with purgatory and communion under one species (which there's been all this flip-flopping on) is also a cause for work.
I don't think that those issues are quite as difficult at the papal questions.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #117 on: April 18, 2012, 08:00:30 PM »

... since we cannot accept the Branch Theory.

Orthodox don't hesitate to attack Anglicans for their "Branch Theory" (that Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox are all the Church) and Catholics for the "Two Lung Theory" (that Catholics and Orthodox are  the Church); but no one can ever seem to tell me how the Orthodox theory that EOs and OOs are the Church is really different -- except that it obviously includes fewer groups.  Roll Eyes

That is a valid criticism of those who think the EO and OO are already "the One Church".

Thank you. I was starting to feel like I was the only one who could see what's right in front of our collective nose.

The only difference is the acceptance of the Fourth Council as Ecumenical, and yet they anathematize Eutyches and his heresy like we, and the Fourth Council, do.

Branch Theory, by definition, only applies to Churches that aren't in heresy.

If I'm reading you correctly, your problem with Branch Theory is just a matter of which Churches it applies to, right?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,817



« Reply #118 on: April 18, 2012, 08:50:14 PM »

... since we cannot accept the Branch Theory.

Orthodox don't hesitate to attack Anglicans for their "Branch Theory" (that Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox are all the Church) and Catholics for the "Two Lung Theory" (that Catholics and Orthodox are  the Church); but no one can ever seem to tell me how the Orthodox theory that EOs and OOs are the Church is really different -- except that it obviously includes fewer groups.  Roll Eyes

That is a valid criticism of those who think the EO and OO are already "the One Church".

Thank you. I was starting to feel like I was the only one who could see what's right in front of our collective nose.

The only difference is the acceptance of the Fourth Council as Ecumenical, and yet they anathematize Eutyches and his heresy like we, and the Fourth Council, do.

Branch Theory, by definition, only applies to Churches that aren't in heresy.

If I'm reading you correctly, your problem with Branch Theory is just a matter of which Churches it applies to, right?
No. For one thing, two OO Churches (Coptic, Syriac) overlap with two EO Churches (Alexandria, Antioch).  Can't be branches if you are planted in the same place.
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
fleur-de-lys
Chestertonian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 80



« Reply #119 on: April 18, 2012, 09:02:07 PM »

I'm not sure I understand this bit about branch theory. If both Churches are Orthodox in faith, then what determines one as the One True Church over the other? The fault of the schism? But it seems that both parties are willing to shoulder a portion of blame for that. Perhaps I am wrong there. But if I'm not, then it seems one must admit to something like the branch theory. There was a muddle, really we're both the One True Church and now we recognize it, etc.
Logged

Between us, by the peace of God, such truth can now be told;

Yea, there is strength in striking root, and good in growing old.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #120 on: April 18, 2012, 09:07:18 PM »

I'm not sure I understand this bit about branch theory. If both Churches are Orthodox in faith, then what determines one as the One True Church over the other?

That's a good question.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,376


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #121 on: April 23, 2012, 02:39:06 PM »

You will see that some of your posts are missing.  This is because they were too polemical for Christian News, or even the Oriental Orthodox board.  They have therefore been moved to the EO-OO Private Board.  If you do not have access to that board please PM Fr. George. 

Here is the link:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,44286.0.html

Please make sure that you do not continue polemical discussion on this thread.  That stands for everyone.  Sticking to the OP doesn't hurt either.   police

-Serb1389. General Fora Moderator
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,426


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #122 on: April 23, 2012, 02:43:44 PM »

Quote
I'm not sure I understand this bit about branch theory. If both Churches are Orthodox in faith, then what determines one as the One True Church over the other?
Now that there is a growing agreeance that the two Christologies are essentially the same (OO and EO), Im not sure that the question is really valid anymore. Its all ego now.


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
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #123 on: April 23, 2012, 02:47:50 PM »

Aren't there also things like having different saints. Like Dioscorus?
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,799



« Reply #124 on: April 23, 2012, 02:52:32 PM »

Quote
I'm not sure I understand this bit about branch theory. If both Churches are Orthodox in faith, then what determines one as the One True Church over the other?
Now that there is a growing agreeance that the two Christologies are essentially the same (OO and EO), Im not sure that the question is really valid anymore. Its all ego now.


PP

Why it isn't valid anymore?
Logged

primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,426


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #125 on: April 23, 2012, 03:39:10 PM »

Quote
I'm not sure I understand this bit about branch theory. If both Churches are Orthodox in faith, then what determines one as the One True Church over the other?
Now that there is a growing agreeance that the two Christologies are essentially the same (OO and EO), Im not sure that the question is really valid anymore. Its all ego now.


PP

Why it isn't valid anymore?
Maybe valid isnt the right adjective. I said my previous comment because OO and EO both have said that the Christologies are essentially the same, but explained differently. To me, I think that reunion's only real roadblock is ego. So to me, I think that it is safe to say both have a legitimate claim to being the True Church, especially since they both, from their own admissions, believe essentially the same thing.

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
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 #126 on: April 23, 2012, 04:01:50 PM »

Aren't there also things like having different saints. Like Dioscorus?

Well, *anathemas against* certain of the other side's saints are an issue, but assuming all the other ducks were in a row, lifting the anathems would be basically a formality and not a real roadblock.

The simple existence of differing saints is not an issue. It is the norm for saints to be recognized and venerated locally first--and sometime exclusively. Sometimes the recognition and commemorations spread, sometimes it doesn't. But no Autocephalous Church actually has any duty to actively recognize/commemorate the saints of another local church. So each local church would simply keep their current calendar of saints. With the anathemas lifted there would be no bar to, over time, veneration of each other's saints to spread, the same way St. Seraphim of Sarov is now popular in Greece, and St. Nektarios of Pentapolis is popular in Russia, but that would be an organic, botto-up process, nothing formal or required.
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
Zenovia
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 777


« Reply #127 on: April 23, 2012, 06:41:40 PM »


Quote
How does an anathema affect a person or church when there is no communion to break?  Huh
Quote
That's funny! Cheesy

Quote
It's telling when someone says an anathema of any kind is "funny".

Quote
That's what I was thinking. I thought an anathema was quite serious.

If an anathema is severing someone from the Church, then how can a person be anathematized  if they are not within the Church? Wouldn't it be an oxymoron?  I'm surprised  you can't see the humor in that?    Grin
Logged
Zenovia
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 777


« Reply #128 on: April 23, 2012, 07:49:39 PM »

the Roman Church more or less believes that many of the issues separating them from the Orthodox do not in fact conflict with Orthodox teachings if interpreted leniently. I am not sure about the question of papal infallibility, which perhaps would have to be completely reformed or weakened in a manner which would be acceptable to the East.

Well, then let them formulate these "lenient interpretations" in writing and present them to the Orthodox Church. Then our theologians can analyze them.

But as for my personal understanding, Rome is not yet ready to repent for its theological errors, even though they have repented for their political errors uch as the crusades.

I do not believe it is possible to reinterpret in an Orthodox way papal infalibility, and worse, papal universal jurisdiction but also some other things such as ex opere operato sacramental theology, indulgencies, the Roman Catholic view on original sin etc.

I think the Pope should rather admit he is NOT infallibale and some things have simply gone wrong in their theology. But if they are not ready to do that, PLEASE, dear Pope Benedict, do something real to end all these liturgial abuses that are common nowadays in masses...
My opinion (with is not worth very much) is that papal infallibility and supremacy is a seriously problematic issue for reunion, but that the other issues can be overcome more easily.

Immaculate Conception, the messing up of the Dormition, and the weirdness with purgatory and communion under one species (which there's been all this flip-flopping on) is also a cause for work.

The Pope as I understood it didn't apologize for the Catholic Church, but rather for the actions of some within the Latin Church in regard to the Fourth Crusade.   And that's to Rome's credit, since horrendous actions have been taken by Orthodox leaders, such as the treachery by a Patriarch and Emperor towards the crusading army during the ill fated Third Crusade, not to mention the killings of thirty thousand Latins in Constantinople before the attack on the city.   

As for the infallibility of the Pope, it is only in matters of dogma and has been used two times.  One is the Immaculate Conception which was denied by some Catholic doctors of the Church, such as Saint Thomas Aquinas, and accepted by others such as Saint Katherine of Sienna, and was accepted by certain Orthodox theologians and not by others.  And as for the Dormition,  according to Bishop Kallistos Ware it was only redefined by the Orthodox when the Catholics decided to make it dogma.   

Not that we're wrong and the Catholics are right, heaven forbid.  Only that it's best to take a positive and understanding view towards the Latin Church.  After all those poor people have to contend with a structural Latin language that might be  great for law and  I guess for building empires, but not in theology since it puts boundaries around Church concepts when boundaries shouldn't exist.  For example making purgatory a place instead of a state of existence.  Semantics, it's all semantics, but look God wants it that way otherwise he wouldn't have destroyed the tower of Babel. 

I think the Pope established himself as  infallible  in order fight  Protestant concepts that were creeping into the Latin Church  in regard to the position, (or non position) of the Virgin Mary. When  an ignorant and uneducated Saint Bernadette said that the lady that spoke to her identified herself as the Immaculate Conception,   it was taken as a sign by  the Pope.  In order to impose the dogma on the Church he had to declare himself infallible.   

The Orthodox Synod at the time in Istanbul was quite upset, not  because of the dogma though since it wasn't fully defined, but because the Pope had overstepped himself and that it could lead to dangerous consequences in the future.  As for the Catholics, their  position probably was: 'Hey what's the big deal, don't you see we have a problem with our liberal Cardinals?'

Anyway this is only my viewpoint, so take it as you will.  Wink
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,014


"My god is greater."


« Reply #129 on: April 23, 2012, 07:53:04 PM »

... since we cannot accept the Branch Theory.

Orthodox don't hesitate to attack Anglicans for their "Branch Theory" (that Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox are all the Church) and Catholics for the "Two Lung Theory" (that Catholics and Orthodox are  the Church); but no one can ever seem to tell me how the Orthodox theory that EOs and OOs are the Church is really different -- except that it obviously includes fewer groups.  Roll Eyes

That is a valid criticism of those who think the EO and OO are already "the One Church".

Thank you. I was starting to feel like I was the only one who could see what's right in front of our collective nose.

The only difference is the acceptance of the Fourth Council as Ecumenical, and yet they anathematize Eutyches and his heresy like we, and the Fourth Council, do.

Branch Theory, by definition, only applies to Churches that aren't in heresy.

If I'm reading you correctly, your problem with Branch Theory is just a matter of which Churches it applies to, right?
No. For one thing, two OO Churches (Coptic, Syriac) overlap with two EO Churches (Alexandria, Antioch).  Can't be branches if you are planted in the same place.

Erm, I've never heard of branches planted in different places.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,871


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #130 on: April 23, 2012, 08:02:57 PM »

Quote
And as for the Dormition,  according to Bishop Kallistos Ware it was only redefined by the Orthodox when the Catholics decided to make it dogma.   

Either +Kallistos is being misrepresented, or he is quite wrong. The hymnography for the Dormition feast dates from no later than the 8th century, and clearly proclaims the Mother of God dying, before the translation of her body and soul to heaven. Never has the Orthodox Church taught that she was bodily assumed into heaven without dying first.

Orthodox iconography of the Dormition is also completely consistent in portraying the death of the Mother of God.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #131 on: April 23, 2012, 09:10:11 PM »

Quote
And as for the Dormition,  according to Bishop Kallistos Ware it was only redefined by the Orthodox when the Catholics decided to make it dogma.   

Either +Kallistos is being misrepresented, or he is quite wrong. The hymnography for the Dormition feast dates from no later than the 8th century, and clearly proclaims the Mother of God dying, before the translation of her body and soul to heaven. Never has the Orthodox Church taught that she was bodily assumed into heaven without dying first.

Orthodox iconography of the Dormition is also completely consistent in portraying the death of the Mother of God.

The only reason the Catholics call it the Assumption is to distinguish it from the Ascension. 

The Theotokos was taken into heaven while Jesus Ascended under his own power.

That is the only reason for the term.  A third of the dogmatic constitution on the Assumption talks about the long tradition of the Church concerning the death of the Mother of God.  It AFFIRMS her death.

This whole discussion about that issue is silly after a while.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #132 on: April 23, 2012, 09:26:32 PM »

I think the Pope established himself as  infallible  in order fight  Protestant concepts that were creeping into the Latin Church  in regard to the position, (or non position) of the Virgin Mary. When  an ignorant and uneducated Saint Bernadette said that the lady that spoke to her identified herself as the Immaculate Conception,   it was taken as a sign by  the Pope.  In order to impose the dogma on the Church he had to declare himself infallible.   

That logic makes sense, but the time table is off. The IC was dogmatically defined in 1854, which is before both the apparition (1858) and the dogmatic definition of Papal Infallibly (1870).
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,254


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #133 on: April 23, 2012, 09:42:44 PM »

I can't help to wonder sometimes....

Did a God that created this -

intend for us to be fighting over all this complex theological stuff?
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #134 on: April 23, 2012, 10:02:01 PM »

I can't help to wonder sometimes....

Did a God that created this -

intend for us to be fighting over all this complex theological stuff?

For what it's worth, the position taken by many of us Catholics is: that some of our dogmas needn't/shouldn't have been dogmatized, but since they have, in fact, been dogmatized we must respect that.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  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 0.17 seconds with 72 queries.