OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 21, 2014, 06:24:49 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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Discernment is this hard?  (Read 1923 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« on: June 08, 2012, 08:07:14 PM »

Standby.

Standby.

Rant on.

So, God's Church has been split for 1,000 years. Really, 1,500 years with the OO. And nothing has changed. God's Church, that the gates of Hell won't prevail against, has been split. Do your mental gymnastics, but that's it. REAL people have been separated from this "communion" thing. And nothing has changed. Not only has is not changed, but people spend YEARS trying to figure out which is the real slim shady.

TRUTH shouldn't be this hard. Something is wrong with this picture. I've heard the explanations... but they don't hold any water anymore. The reality is ridiculous.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2012, 08:28:19 PM »

Whoa hang on. What exactly do you mean split? I consider both the EO and OO to be equally Orthodox and consider both to a part of the Orthodox Church. I consider what happened at the third Ecumenical Council was more or less an internal disagreement that the EO later tried to rectify with the later Ecumenical Councils, which according to the statement of faith I don't believe the OO would disagree with.

Or even if we take your split theory here, either the OO or EO is God's Church and one of them the gates of Hell didn't prevail.

It's unfortunate to see the schisms and apostasies, but we are dealing with fallible human beings. However the truth still has prevailed over Hell -> Orthodox Church.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 08, 2012, 08:30:37 PM »

Whoa hang on. What exactly do you mean split? I consider both the EO and OO to be equally Orthodox and consider both to a part of the Orthodox Church. I consider what happened at the third Ecumenical Council was more or less an internal disagreement that the EO later tried to rectify with the later Ecumenical Councils, which according to the statement of faith I don't believe the OO would disagree with.

Or even if we take your split theory here, either the OO or EO is God's Church and one of them the gates of Hell didn't prevail.

Yet, only some consider this a communion without communion.

It's unfortunate to see the schisms and apostasies, but we are dealing with fallible human beings. However the truth still has prevailed over Hell -> Orthodox Church.

We are dealing with fallible human beings... but are we dealing with God?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #3 on: June 08, 2012, 08:32:22 PM »

Yet, only some consider this a communion without communion.
Who?

Quote
We are dealing with fallible human beings... but are we dealing with God?
It's both.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #4 on: June 08, 2012, 08:45:02 PM »

Let me add something as well, I am open to the perspectives on the OO. I think Salpy agrees with me but differs in what happend at the 3rd Ecumenical Council IIRC, but I might be wrong. I'd love to see what Severian, Habte, Gebre say on the matter.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #5 on: June 08, 2012, 09:52:20 PM »

So, God's Church has been split for 1,000 years. Really, 1,500 years with the OO. And nothing has changed. God's Church, that the gates of Hell won't prevail against, has been split.

The divisions are real, they do matter, and while I would personally love to see them healed, I'm not going to pretend that they just don't exist. And of the three churches that you mention, not one of them fully agrees with the bolded statement. I will admit that I do personally have trouble discerning the nature of the divisions (at least the ones you mention above) at times, but only when it come to defining the Church Eucharistically and trying to reconcile the fact that division exists with things like some churches teaching the reality of sacraments in other communions and in some cases offering them to members of other communions for pastoral reasons.

Quote
Something is wrong with this picture.

I agree. I don't like the divisions that have occurred between the EO, OO, and RC churches.

Quote
The reality is ridiculous sad.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2012, 10:03:03 PM »

What do you mean they do not fully agree with that statement?
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,123


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2012, 10:04:41 PM »

What do you mean they do not fully agree with that statement?

Well that very last part that Melodist bolded is not something that, I would think, any Church would agree with in the sense that Andrei seems to be speaking.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2012, 10:08:25 PM »

What do you mean they do not fully agree with that statement?

Of the three churches mentioned in the OP, not one teaches that the Church is divided, but all three teach that they are the Church and the other two seperated themsleves and are no longer united to the Church (them).
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,997


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2012, 10:09:07 PM »

The Church did still prevail. We can logically conclude that the Church Jesus was referring to when He mentioned the Gates of Hades never prevailing against is either the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church or the Oriental Orthodox Church. Therefore, whichever one it is, it is still in existence today despite schisms.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2012, 10:10:07 PM »

What do you mean they do not fully agree with that statement?

Of the three churches mentioned in the OP, not one teaches that the Church is divided, but all three teach that they are the Church and the other two seperated themsleves and are no longer united to the Church (them).
I'm talking about the Gates of Hell statement.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #11 on: June 08, 2012, 10:13:36 PM »

I'm talking about the Gates of Hell statement.

The Church has not split. The Church is one communion of churches, not multiple communions. At least that's the traditional teaching found in all three traditions mentioned in the OP.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #12 on: June 08, 2012, 10:15:12 PM »

I'm talking about the Gates of Hell statement.

The Church has not split. The Church is one communion of churches, not multiple communions. At least that's the traditional teaching found in all three traditions mentioned in the OP.
So that being said, it comes down to discerning which one of the three traditions is correct.

Are you saying that you are not of the opinion that EO and OO are equally Orthodox and not the Orthodox Church as a whole?
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,525


« Reply #13 on: June 08, 2012, 10:18:53 PM »

Just a thought... the early Church Fathers understood the "gates of hades" prophecy in a number of ways, specifically that:

- Heresy would not overcome the Church
- Secular forces would not destroy the Church
- Sin would not destroy the Church
- Sin would not destroy individual members of the Church unless they gave in (sort of the "God will not test us beyond what we can take" type thing)

I don't recall the idea that the prophecy meant there wouldn't be divisions, disagreements, etc. And regarding heresy, I suppose even if you think another group has fallen into heresy, you could say that they are a dead branch which fell off, and therefore their fall into heresy does not nullify or disprove the prophecy.

EDIT--I can grab some quotes about the patristic understanding of the phrase if anyone wants them.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2012, 10:19:43 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Large Marge sent me...
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2012, 10:21:25 PM »

Just a thought... the early Church Fathers understood the "gates of hades" prophecy in a number of ways, specifically that:

- Heresy would not overcome the Church
- Secular forces would not destroy the Church
- Sin would not destroy the Church
- Sin would not destroy individual members of the Church unless they gave in (sort of the "God will not test us beyond what we can take" type thing)

I don't recall the idea that the prophecy meant there wouldn't be divisions, disagreements, etc. And regarding heresy, I suppose even if you think another group has fallen into heresy, you could say that they are a dead branch which fell off, and therefore their fall into heresy does not nullify or disprove the prophecy.

EDIT--I can grab some quotes about the patristic understanding of the phrase if anyone wants them.
And all of that makes perfectly sense except "The Church" because you would need to define the Church, and which one is it. That's what Andrew is trying to discern here.

I always understood it to mean that Satan wouldn't conquer over God's Church.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,525


« Reply #15 on: June 08, 2012, 10:24:04 PM »

I suppose that's an external vs. internal issue. I agree that, from the outside looking in, it's not a simple matter to figure out who got it correct.
Logged

Large Marge sent me...
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #16 on: June 08, 2012, 10:25:46 PM »

Are you saying that you are not of the opinion that EO and OO are equally Orthodox and not the Orthodox Church as a whole?

If they were, then they would not exist as two entirely seperate communions of churches. The division exists, at times I wonder about the nature of that division, but the fact is that division does currently really exist.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2012, 10:27:16 PM »

I also think I may have found an error in my thinking. There was a discussions awhile ago between myself, Salpy and I think it was Nicholas, anyway we pretty much said that both EO and OO are the Orthodox Church but then why should someone choose one or the other? Would our salvation not be dependent upon being a member of EO or OO?
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2012, 10:28:52 PM »

Are you saying that you are not of the opinion that EO and OO are equally Orthodox and not the Orthodox Church as a whole?

If they were, then they would not exist as two entirely seperate communions of churches. The division exists, at times I wonder about the nature of that division, but the fact is that division does currently really exist.
There's a Christology joke in there.

But isn't the more or less a superficial division? It isn't anything like the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox schism. But can't EO and OO commune in either Church?
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2012, 10:52:07 PM »

I also think I may have found an error in my thinking. There was a discussions awhile ago between myself, Salpy and I think it was Nicholas, anyway we pretty much said that both EO and OO are the Orthodox Church

The Chuch is traditionally defined by the dyptichs. We are very close in our beliefs (some might argue the differences in belief aren't substantial or worth being divided). We are close in our practice (the only differences I'm aware of are nothing more than cultural). The two Patriarchs and synods of Antioch have agreed to allow the laity of the other to participate in the sacramental life of their own church for pastoral reasons but do not allow clergy to concelebrate. Despite the closeness shown in this example, there is no recognition on the dyptichs or concelebration of the clergy. Not to mention the namecalling and questioning of each other's saints, writings, and councils, but this board has enough threads about that...

Quote
but then why should someone choose one or the other?

Historical, geographical, cultural, theological support on controversies (Chalcedon).

Quote
Would our salvation not be dependent upon being a member of EO or OO?

I'm not the one who decides which individuals go where at the final judgement or why. I obviously do have an opinion on who is correct on the issues that divide though and believe that to be more spiritually beneficial.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2012, 10:52:29 PM by Melodist » Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2012, 10:52:23 PM »

So, God's Church has been split for 1,000 years. Really, 1,500 years with the OO. And nothing has changed.


Not much has changed because no church involved in the Chalcedonian or 1054 schisms has decided that they were in fact wrong in formulating their earlier stances and sticking to them until today. The assumption is that we are divided on key doctrinal issues, and as doctrine matters, we will not rush to communion before we have resolved these doctrinal issues. I fail to see the problem with this considered approach, though I am just as unhappy with the reality of the division.

Quote
God's Church, that the gates of Hell won't prevail against, has been split. Do your mental gymnastics, but that's it.


Not really. While there have been incredible strides made in advancing the understanding between the churches on those matters that separate us, each church has proven remarkably consistent in defending the doctrines by which the schisms were originally justified, and each one also insists that these same doctrines were not invented to justify the schism, but rather rose to that level when the other churches decided that they could not abide by what they had previously affirmed. So in their own views, the church of Christ (the OO for the OO, the EO for the EO, the RC for the RC) has never been split. It's not really mental gymnastics to say "We are right in 2012 just as we were in 1054" or what have you. The question is, of course, how that statement is substantiated.

Quote
REAL people have been separated from this "communion" thing. And nothing has changed. Not only has is not changed, but people spend YEARS trying to figure out which is the real slim shady.


A certain kind of person may do this, but all of us no matter where we end up has been born into this world of schism, and yet have found our homes wherever they may be. There does come a point when you have to throw in your lot with someone if you are ever going to get out of this limbo, and maybe some people never reach that point, but I'll tell you: no matter what we're talking about, the obsession with making everything perfect has led to a lot of unfinished business, so you should really consider for yourself how you reconcile your idea that these schisms are "ridiculous" with the reality that you are apparently unable to get past them and accept God's faith as you've found it, where you've found it.

Quote
TRUTH shouldn't be this hard.


And it isn't. Accepting it and making a decision and sticking with it is.

Quote
I've heard the explanations... but they don't hold any water anymore. The reality is ridiculous.

If I had decided on my ecclesiastical affiliation based on Christological debate, I might agree with you. As it is, this is the least ridiculous situation I can think of. Yes, we are not in communion with the Byzantines as of yet, but we once were, and we are actively trying to discern whether we should be again. From all the indications I have seen from the EO churches, we are not alone in this serious deliberation. This is the discernment that is hard, but luckily it mostly doesn't concern the average believer in the churches. We instead stick to what we know is Orthodox, not because we can necessarily say that everything else isn't (if we could, we wouldn't presumably be engaged in these talks with the other churches), but because, to paraphrase the well-known EO statement, in this way we know where the Orthodox Church is. Smiley
Logged

Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #21 on: June 09, 2012, 03:33:32 PM »

I'm disappointed there hasn't been more discussion in this thread today.
Logged

Tasting is Believing
Priolo Gargallo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Heritage~ Italo Greek; attending OCA
Posts: 33



« Reply #22 on: June 09, 2012, 04:11:32 PM »

Is it an acceptable belief that the Body of Christ is the entirety of those belonging to Apostolic communions (RC,OO,EO,ACCE), though we are divided on Earth?
Logged

Most holy Theotokos, save us!
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #23 on: June 09, 2012, 08:23:37 PM »

Is it an acceptable belief that the Body of Christ is the entirety of those belonging to Apostolic communions (RC,OO,EO,ACCE), though we are divided on Earth?

Wouldn't a Catholic say 'yes' and everyone else 'no'?
Logged

Tasting is Believing
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #24 on: June 09, 2012, 08:56:42 PM »

Are you saying that you are not of the opinion that EO and OO are equally Orthodox and not the Orthodox Church as a whole?

If they were, then they would not exist as two entirely seperate communions of churches. The division exists, at times I wonder about the nature of that division, but the fact is that division does currently really exist.

This is spot on.

Despite the good feelings expressed, particularly on this forum where it is part of the code of conduct, very few believe or endorse the idea that the EO and OO are equally Orthodox.



Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #25 on: June 09, 2012, 08:57:34 PM »

Are you saying that you are not of the opinion that EO and OO are equally Orthodox and not the Orthodox Church as a whole?

If they were, then they would not exist as two entirely seperate communions of churches. The division exists, at times I wonder about the nature of that division, but the fact is that division does currently really exist.

This is spot on.

Despite the good feelings expressed, particularly on this forum where it is part of the code of conduct, very few believe or endorse the idea that the EO and OO are equally Orthodox.


So then many are wrong.

And we already discussed that "division above".

« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 08:58:33 PM by Achronos » Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #26 on: June 09, 2012, 09:04:26 PM »

Are you saying that you are not of the opinion that EO and OO are equally Orthodox and not the Orthodox Church as a whole?

If they were, then they would not exist as two entirely seperate communions of churches. The division exists, at times I wonder about the nature of that division, but the fact is that division does currently really exist.

This is spot on.

Despite the good feelings expressed, particularly on this forum where it is part of the code of conduct, very few believe or endorse the idea that the EO and OO are equally Orthodox.


So then many are wrong.

And we already discussed that "division above".

What do you mean by many being wrong?  Does that mean that many who don't follow your line of thinking on this are wrong?

This isn't a question of numbers really.  The EO Church does not view the OO Church as equally Orthodox.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
mabsoota
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,688


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #27 on: June 10, 2012, 12:34:06 PM »

i'm not sure u can say that 'very few' posters on this website believe the EO and OO are equally orthodox.
i certainly believe we are all equally orthodox; which is why i visit EO churches as often as i can.
 Cool
« Last Edit: June 10, 2012, 12:34:55 PM by mabsoota » Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #28 on: June 10, 2012, 12:56:02 PM »

I think Cognomen is primarily referring to the opinion of the EO church leadership. It is reasonable to suppose that we aren't so far from them on this point, either, or else our priests who serve us here in Albuquerque, NM would not caution me that I am not to receive from the EO (even if permitted by them), or similarly refuse to commune EO here (a hypothetical, but still they are quite insistent on this point, since after all, we are not the same church). To the extent that not everyone holds these views, which is good (as I personally believe that the schism will only be healed if both churches come to see each other in one another), it should still be recognized that our leadership is, like the EO leadership, sufficiently committed to our own vision of Orthodox Christianity not to compromise on our Christology or denigrate our saints by unconditional acceptance of those who accept neither as Orthodox.
Logged

Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #29 on: June 10, 2012, 02:13:14 PM »

i'm not sure u can say that 'very few' posters on this website believe the EO and OO are equally orthodox.

Regarding posters on this website, you're right, but that is not a particularly representative sample of EO/OO relations. In other words, what Dzheremi said.

I hope for the best though and have warm feelings towards our OO brothers and sisters in Christ.  But divisions and a dominant view that the churches are not equally Orthodox, recognized and continued from both sides, exist. The recent poster looking for a husband wouldn't be prohibited from marrying an EO if they didn't.

I have a hard time easily disregarding Andriu's question.

Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #30 on: June 10, 2012, 05:08:34 PM »

Despite the good feelings expressed, particularly on this forum where it is part of the code of conduct, very few believe or endorse the idea that the EO and OO are equally Orthodox.
So then many are wrong.

And we already discussed that "division above".

One word - dyptichs. As long as they say we are divided, then we are. To what extent, why, and personal opinions on whether or not we should be may be up for discussion, but the fact that division does exist isn't.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #31 on: June 10, 2012, 05:22:16 PM »

Speaking of the diptychs, just yesterday while searching for something else I found an intriguing bit of history about the diptychs of the Chalcedonians in Alexandria that some here might find interesting. I know I did. From the Claremont Coptic Encyclopedia (searchable version of W.H.C. Frend's Coptic Encyclopedia), entry on Roman Pope Leo I:

Quote
In 458 and 459, Leo attempted to justify the papal attitude toward Chalcedon. The emperor forwarded Leo's letters to Timothy (anti-Chalcedonian Coptic Patriarch -- dzh.), whose reply that he was prepared to condemn Eutyches, as well as the Tome of Leo and the Council of Chalcedon, defined the attitude of the anti-Chalcedonian (later, monophysite and Coptic) church in Alexandria from thenceforth (Zacharias Rhetor Historia ecclesiastica 4.6). The emperor was, however, dissatisfied with Timothy's reply, and he had Timothy arrested and removed from Alexandria at the end of 459. Leo had the satisfaction of seeing the line of Chalcedonian patriarchs continued in Alexandria by TIMOTHY SALOFACIOLUS ("little white turban") in the spring of 460. He showed some independence from Rome, and one of Leo's last acts was to protest the inclusion of Dioscorus on the diptychs containing the names of those to be remembered at the celebration of the Eucharist in his church.

This is the first I'd read of Dioscoros being commemorated in any part of the EO church! Shocked Though as an EO friend pointed out, it is entirely conceivable that the Chalcedonian Timothy would agree with the Tome of Leo's Christological definitions and yet disagree with the Council's deposition of HH Pope Dioscoros, but I digress...I was just happy to see yet another piece of evidence that all things are not as cut and dry as later polemics make them out to be, as I know full well from being taught Coptic history by our priests that there was more to oppose about Chalcedon than just the Tome (though of course that remains central and, depending on who you ask, irresolvable).
Logged

Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #32 on: June 10, 2012, 05:40:30 PM »

Despite the good feelings expressed, particularly on this forum where it is part of the code of conduct, very few believe or endorse the idea that the EO and OO are equally Orthodox.
So then many are wrong.

And we already discussed that "division above".

One word - dyptichs. As long as they say we are divided, then we are. To what extent, why, and personal opinions on whether or not we should be may be up for discussion, but the fact that division does exist isn't.

Alright so taking the dyptichs in consideration here, so the Church is divided but that doesn't exclude unification now does it? So once the Church is united again, I don't see the problem.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #33 on: June 10, 2012, 05:47:46 PM »

Alright so taking the dyptichs in consideration here, so the Church is divided but that doesn't exclude unification now does it? So once the Church is united again, I don't see the problem.

Reunion is possible, and if it should happen then we will be one Curch, until then we are two seperate chuches and not the same one.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #34 on: June 10, 2012, 07:12:01 PM »

Alright so taking the dyptichs in consideration here, so the Church is divided but that doesn't exclude unification now does it? So once the Church is united again, I don't see the problem.

Reunion is possible, and if it should happen then we will be one Curch, until then we are two seperate chuches and not the same one.
I just can't come to agree with that.

It's not a formal division. Look at what the OO confess in faith, there are no different than us really. They aren't schismatics either because their motive was not to seperate the Body of Christ into two parts.

Chalcedon is not infallible.

My general opinion is the EO and OO are equally Orthodox and belong to the Orthodox Church. We just differ on the usage of the Christological termnology. One side adopts the more Cyrillian Christology the other not so much.

People might argue with me on this, and that's fine, but I think both sides are discussing the same thing except the terms are different.

A lot of the discussions on the forum here are simply outdated. Agreement on faith issues was already reached in the 1990 Chambesy agreement.
Basically it goes like this: The OO recognize that the 4 later councils teach Orthodox theology. The EO recognize that the wording of these 4 councils is not the only way to express Orthodox theology. Just because the OO prefer the terminology of St. Cril of Alexandria (also a saint in the EO church, doesn't mean they are heretics.
Good stuff.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2012, 07:17:21 PM by Achronos » Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #35 on: June 10, 2012, 07:52:52 PM »

Alright so taking the dyptichs in consideration here, so the Church is divided but that doesn't exclude unification now does it? So once the Church is united again, I don't see the problem.

Reunion is possible, and if it should happen then we will be one Curch, until then we are two seperate chuches and not the same one.
I just can't come to agree with that.

It's not a formal division.

Agree with whatever you want, but Melodist is accurately representing the reality of the situation.  There is a formal division, and it has existed for a millennium and a half.


Quote
My general opinion is the EO and OO are equally Orthodox and belong to the Orthodox Church. We just differ on the usage of the Christological termnology. One side adopts the more Cyrillian Christology the other not so much.

People might argue with me on this, and that's fine, but I think both sides are discussing the same thing except the terms are different.

Yes, people and both churches will argue with you on this.  Believe what you want, but it's just your opinion and does not represent that of the EO Church.  Sorry if we're behind the times.


Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #36 on: June 10, 2012, 08:04:52 PM »

Just to clarify are you saying that the OO do not have grace?
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #37 on: June 10, 2012, 08:10:31 PM »

Just to clarify are you saying that the OO do not have grace?

Not at all.  I'm very appreciative of the similarities between the churches, and I find them to be a compelling argument for Orthodoxy.  I was simply restating that there has been a break between the two, and that neither views the other as equally orthodox.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #38 on: June 10, 2012, 08:13:06 PM »

Just to clarify are you saying that the OO do not have grace?

Not at all.  I'm very appreciative of the similarities between the churches, and I find them to be a compelling argument for Orthodoxy.  I was simply restating that there has been a break between the two, and that neither views the other as equally orthodox.
But on the statement of faith we both agree though, which the Ecumenical Councils have no bearing on.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #39 on: June 10, 2012, 08:27:38 PM »

Just to clarify are you saying that the OO do not have grace?

Not at all.  I'm very appreciative of the similarities between the churches, and I find them to be a compelling argument for Orthodoxy.  I was simply restating that there has been a break between the two, and that neither views the other as equally orthodox.
But on the statement of faith we both agree though, which the Ecumenical Councils have no bearing on.

It's a good start, but it does not recognize that each church is equally orthodox, nor does it nullify existing differences, e.g. dyptichs and teachings from saints/those not acknowledged, parallel and often competing bishops, etc.  Pat. Athenagoras lifted the anathema from 1054, but that hasn't "stuck" nor indicated unity with the Roman Church (although I readily admit that I believe EOs and OOs are far closer in faith).

Can anyone provide the anathemas that are read during certain EO services?
 
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #40 on: June 10, 2012, 08:33:06 PM »

Just to clarify are you saying that the OO do not have grace?

All I'm saying is that the sharing of Communion is Church unity and is what identifies and defines the Church. This intercommunion between churches is maintained among our bishops through commemoration in the dyptichs. Not one single EO church is in formal Communion with any OO church. This makes us seperate ecclesial bodies.

That's it. I'm not identifying whether or not we express the same faith using different terminology. I'm not identifying who can or can't be saved. I'm not identifying whether God can/does/how works in other churches. Like I said earlier, the fact that the two churches of Antioch officially allow intercommunion of the faithful in certain situations combined with the fact that this could not be without (at least unofficial) acknowledgement of Christ in the sacraments combined with Christ Himself as our center of unity makes me wonder at times about the nature of our division. The same could be said about Rome's attitude toward our sacraments and the attitude of some EO churches (which does vary in different churches) toward Rome's sacraments. All that aside, without going into how or why or if we should be, we are seperate bodies.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 8,012



« Reply #41 on: June 11, 2012, 10:33:37 AM »

For the "Gates of hell" bit, I think that as long as one correctly believing Christian draws breath the Church can be rebuilt after going through mass apostasy/heresy.  As long as one Bishop can create new priests we are OK.  And really, as long as any true writings exist the Church can resurrect itself.  In this age of international communication the Church is stronger than ever before.  In the old days it was easy to persecute and stamp out local Churches.  Just kill everyone in the area, burn the writings and Icon, demolish the churches and you are there.  Now, people can spread the Gospel from thousands of miles away.  Anyone with google (or another comparable search engine) can find the Word of God without even needing a physical Bible.  With a printer they can make a complete Bible or Psalter or Gospel book.  Technology has always brought new evils into this world, but God and His servants have always found ways to utilize these same things to do His will.  So no, even though there is division in the Church, I think it is becoming HARDER for the gates of hades.

As for the OO/EO discussion...IDK.  I have never met or spoken with an OO in RL.  But some of the people I respect most on this forum are Coptic or Ethiopian.  I fully believe in the Chalcedonian council and believe that it is the Orthodox teaching, but as far as faith goes, I see more of it from amongst them.  This is a hard issue for me.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #42 on: June 11, 2012, 08:59:21 PM »

As for the OO/EO discussion...IDK.  I have never met or spoken with an OO in RL.

I have, and to be honest, I don't see any significant difference between us and them as far as what we actually believe, and have met some of them who would seem to believe the same. I'm just not willing to lie about the fact that our churches currently remain divided. It is not uncommon to find someone in my church visiting from an OO church. They are not communed, but they do visit and some on a regular basis every couple of months or so. They come to see our guest speakers and have read books written by contemporary authors of ours. Unfortunately, I am not as familiar with their contemporary authors and speakers.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
mabsoota
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,688


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #43 on: June 12, 2012, 03:26:09 PM »

before a trip to a foreign country, i asked my confession father if it was allowed to receive EO Holy Communion. he said it was if the EO priest agreed it (knowing i was OO) and if there were no OO churches around.
i also have heard of EO priests who have agreed for EO people to take OO Holy communion when there were no nearby churches.
so it's not a 'cut and dried' no intercommunion situation.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #44 on: June 12, 2012, 03:47:06 PM »

Is it an acceptable belief that the Body of Christ is the entirety of those belonging to Apostolic communions (RC,OO,EO,ACCE), though we are divided on Earth?

Acceptable to whom?
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: 6,667


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 12, 2012, 04:50:42 PM »

Its all ego really. Human ego to blame. Oddly enough that seems to be the cause for most BS going on.

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
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,511


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #46 on: June 13, 2012, 11:48:10 AM »

The Church did still prevail. We can logically conclude that the Church Jesus was referring to when He mentioned the Gates of Hades never prevailing against is either the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church or the Oriental Orthodox Church. Therefore, whichever one it is, it is still in existence today despite schisms.

JamesR, in this logic though, one could say that the protestants were a schism.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,511


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #47 on: June 13, 2012, 11:54:22 AM »

Alright so taking the dyptichs in consideration here, so the Church is divided but that doesn't exclude unification now does it? So once the Church is united again, I don't see the problem.

Reunion is possible, and if it should happen then we will be one Curch, until then we are two seperate chuches and not the same one.
I just can't come to agree with that.

It's not a formal division. Look at what the OO confess in faith, there are no different than us really. They aren't schismatics either because their motive was not to seperate the Body of Christ into two parts.

Chalcedon is not infallible.

My general opinion is the EO and OO are equally Orthodox and belong to the Orthodox Church. We just differ on the usage of the Christological termnology. One side adopts the more Cyrillian Christology the other not so much.

People might argue with me on this, and that's fine, but I think both sides are discussing the same thing except the terms are different.

A lot of the discussions on the forum here are simply outdated. Agreement on faith issues was already reached in the 1990 Chambesy agreement.
Basically it goes like this: The OO recognize that the 4 later councils teach Orthodox theology. The EO recognize that the wording of these 4 councils is not the only way to express Orthodox theology. Just because the OO prefer the terminology of St. Cril of Alexandria (also a saint in the EO church, doesn't mean they are heretics.
Good stuff.

While logically I think you are correct, there is a big caveat.

The relationship hasn't been healed or reconciled for a LOOOONG time for some reason.  If there was a legitimate way to mend the relationships, and specific clarity to be bridged up, then it probably would have happened by now.

Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 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 0.16 seconds with 74 queries.