OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 18, 2014, 03:38:50 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Women bishops: Jesus was happy with female apostles. What is the CofE's problem?  (Read 3800 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« on: July 07, 2012, 12:29:22 PM »

The Anglican church is embroiled in another debate over the role of women in its hierarchy. If the general synod refuses to back female bishops, it will be taking the wrong lessons from history For those arguing at the general synod about women bishops, it is probably too late to include much theology in their deliberations, but one prominent strand in the debates has been a theological jargon phrase, calculated as always to baffle outsiders to churchy stuff: the "apostolic succession". This is the idea that bishops stand in a continuous line of church leaders right back to the apostles chosen by Jesus.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/07/female-apostles-fine-for-jesus

I thought it was interesting reading, but can anybody bring light on what it says about Saint Paul?
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,900



« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2012, 01:10:42 PM »

The Anglican church is embroiled in another debate over the role of women in its hierarchy. If the general synod refuses to back female bishops, it will be taking the wrong lessons from history For those arguing at the general synod about women bishops, it is probably too late to include much theology in their deliberations, but one prominent strand in the debates has been a theological jargon phrase, calculated as always to baffle outsiders to churchy stuff: the "apostolic succession". This is the idea that bishops stand in a continuous line of church leaders right back to the apostles chosen by Jesus.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/07/female-apostles-fine-for-jesus

I thought it was interesting reading, but can anybody bring light on what it says about Saint Paul?

I was listening to BBC yesterday and they talked about this issue and one of the "conservatives" they had on there argued that "Jesus chose only male apostles, so we should only have a male episcopacy". While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood or female episcopacy, I have to say it was a very weak argument since Christ indeed had female apostles/disciples.

I still cannot believe the Church of England is continuing to draw farther and farther away from orthodoxy and from the rest of traditional Christianity. I can only hope that the Orthodox Church can pick up more of the refugees from their continual betrayal of Christianity.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,188


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2012, 01:50:55 PM »

The Anglican church is embroiled in another debate over the role of women in its hierarchy. If the general synod refuses to back female bishops, it will be taking the wrong lessons from history For those arguing at the general synod about women bishops, it is probably too late to include much theology in their deliberations, but one prominent strand in the debates has been a theological jargon phrase, calculated as always to baffle outsiders to churchy stuff: the "apostolic succession". This is the idea that bishops stand in a continuous line of church leaders right back to the apostles chosen by Jesus.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/07/female-apostles-fine-for-jesus

I thought it was interesting reading, but can anybody bring light on what it says about Saint Paul?

I was listening to BBC yesterday and they talked about this issue and one of the "conservatives" they had on there argued that "Jesus chose only male apostles, so we should only have a male episcopacy". While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood or female episcopacy, I have to say it was a very weak argument since Christ indeed had female apostles/disciples.

I still cannot believe the Church of England is continuing to draw farther and farther away from orthodoxy and from the rest of traditional Christianity. I can only hope that the Orthodox Church can pick up more of the refugees from their continual betrayal of Christianity.
We don't want their refugees unless they're actually willing to become Orthodox.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2012, 02:04:31 PM »

While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood

You do know you are wrong?

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,188


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2012, 02:08:36 PM »

While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood

You do know you are wrong?


Silly boy, don't you know that if you support a female priesthood, you are, in Devin's reckoning, NOT Orthodox? Wink (It's a "stacking the deck" fallacy.)
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 02:09:05 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

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


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2012, 04:03:32 PM »

While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood

You do know you are wrong?

I just have to point out an excellent and non-pejorative usage of "begging the question."  Well played, sir.
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®).
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,900



« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2012, 06:58:29 PM »

While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood

You do know you are wrong?

Not really, all Orthodox Christians oppose women being ordained to the priesthood.

_______________________________________

According to the Orthodox Church Today survey:
http://www.hartfordinstitute.org/research/OrthChurchFullReport.pdf

69% of Orthodox Christians feel women's ordination is not important or shouldn't be discussed, whereas only 10% think it is important.
Only 13% of GOA parishioners feel women's ordination is very important, and only 8% of OCA parishioners feel women's ordination is very important to be openly discussed.
Only 10% of GOA clergy feel women's ordination is very important to be openly discussed and only 6% of OCA priests feel women's ordination is very important to be openly discussed.

Only 3 out of 10 respondents feel they'd be comfortable seeing women as altar girls, deaconesses or priests. Yet at the same time, even less, 1 in 10 respondents feel they'd be comfortable allowing women into the Priesthood.

In fact, 51% of Orthodox Christians would openly oppose women being altar servers with 18% as unsure.
52% of Orthodox Christians would openly oppose women being deaconesses with 19% unsure.
As for the subject of women's ordination to the priesthood, an overwhelming majority, 77% of Orthodox Christians would openly oppose women's ordination to the Priesthood, with 13% as unsure.

The majority of those who would support women's ordination to the priesthood are of younger generations, and generally are middle-aged adults. The younger generations are significantly more opposed to it than the older generations. (this must be the factor of the liberal, hippy/baby-boom generation vs. modern generations)

In fact, only 5% of people under 45 support the idea of women's ordination to the priesthood. Whereas 15% of those between 45 and 64 support it.

Only 2% of conservative parishioners support women's ordination to the priesthood and only 7% of traditional parishioners support women's ordination. However, 20% of moderate-liberal parishioners would support women's ordination to the priesthood.

The survey also compares the Orthodox Church to the Roman Catholic Church...
In the Roman Catholic Church, 63% of parishioners would support women's ordination to the priesthood (with 93% supporting them as altar girls).
In the Orthodox Catholic Church, 10% of parishioners would support women's ordination to the priesthood (with 31% supporting them as altar girls).

_______________________________________________

Therefore, yes, I know what I'm talking about when I say all Orthodox Christians oppose women's ordination to the Priesthood. I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox. Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian". Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.

The same moderate-liberal parishioners support women's ordination to the priesthood, personal interpretation of scripture & tradition, new forms of liturgical worship and diversity of beliefs & practices. The majority of liberal-moderate parishioners reject the idea that to be Orthodox means to accept all the teachings and traditions of the Orthodox Church. They also feel the most freedom to pick and choose between various parishes to that which "suites" them the best. They also support a variety of completely different viewpoints on the Church life in their parish. They also say that they can more easily imagine themselves learning Christianity from non-Orthodox Christians. Another belief the liberal-moderates hold is that how one lives is more important than whether one is an Orthodox Christian. Only 67% of the moderate-liberal group believe there is one best and true interpretation and that the Orthodox Church teaches it, this is extremely low compared to the traditional & conservative groups.
The majority of liberal-moderate parishioners also believe that you don't need to obey the priest, go to church every Sunday, observe fasting periods or have an approved marriage in order to be a good Orthodox Christian.

Such a view(s) cannot be compatible with Orthodox Christianity and simply shows how far many of these people are from Orthodox Christianity. If one can be classified in that moderate-liberal group, they cannot be classified as an Orthodox Christian. You aren't Orthodox just because are a member of a certain church.

We can safely exclude the moderate-liberal group as Orthodox Christians because of their beliefs, their "micro-theology" just as safely as we can exclude the members of groups like "Axios", who are clearly not Orthodox Christians.

So yes, all Orthodox Christians agree that women's priesthood is not something that can be allowed in our Church.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 07:02:56 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,816



« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2012, 07:06:15 PM »

I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox. Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian". Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.

I didn't realise you had this authority. Are there any other groups you'd like to excommunicate?
Logged

Yes, yes, youth is wasted on the young. And so is accumulated experience wasted on the old, the positives of modernism wasted on moderns, the beauty of Christianity wasted on Christians, the utility of scholarship wasted on scholars, and on and on.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,900



« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2012, 07:08:26 PM »

I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox. Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian". Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.

I didn't realise you had this authority. Are there any other groups you'd like to excommunicate?

I didn't realize that one needed authority to speak the truth that we all know to be the case. To be Orthodox is to have the correct belief, plain and simple. We know what the right belief is as well because it is the Orthodox Church, and the Church has shown us what the truth is.

One doesn't have to be formally excommunicated to be outside of the church, we aren't that legalistic about it. Once one hold's views that they know to be contrary to the Church, they cease to be a part of the right-believing.

We seek to attain phronema. Right-belief and Right-practice... If we wish to change that phronema or refuse to want to conform to it, we are no longer Orthodox.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 07:11:20 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,609



WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2012, 07:10:50 PM »

If the CofE ordains women as deacons and priests, why not bishops? If your going to have female clergy be consistent.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
truthseeker32
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOAA- Denver
Posts: 372



« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2012, 07:27:08 PM »

Haven't clergymen such as Met. Kallistos Ware stated that women's ordination is not a closed issue? If it is not established dogma that men must now and always be the only sex to hold clergy positions it seems that there is room to be open to women's ordination.

BTW, appeal to majority is a logical fallacy, and excluding a chunk of Orthodox Christians (moderate/ liberal... whatever that means in this context) to serve your own purposes is intellectually dishonest.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,900



« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2012, 07:32:11 PM »

Haven't clergymen such as Met. Kallistos Ware stated that women's ordination is not a closed issue? If it is not established dogma that men must now and always be the only sex to hold clergy positions it seems that there is room to be open to women's ordination.

BTW, appeal to majority is a logical fallacy, and excluding a chunk of Orthodox Christians (moderate/ liberal... whatever that means in this context) to serve your own purposes is intellectually dishonest.

Actually Metropolitan Kallistos has said that it can and should be discussed. We have not yet discussed it, as he said, we must "think and pray more deeply" about it. He is NOT in support of them, but he is unconvinced by the arguments by either side.

Besides, his beatitude is just one man, and we have to measure them against all Saints and Church Fathers.

Metropolitan Anthony Bloom came out in support of women's ordination, so just because someone is a bishop doesn't mean that automatically makes them right.

Appeal to a majority is not a logical fallacy when it comes to Orthodox Christianity, because we are a church that REQUIRES that you believe according to the church, and practice according to the church. We're a church that requires conformity and unity. If you don't desire to conform or be a part of that unity, you aren't a part of the church.

OCA - Ordination of Women:
http://oca.org/questions/priesthoodmonasticism/ordination-of-women

Antiochian Archdiocese - Women's Ordination:
http://www.antiochian.org/node/17953

Fr. Alexander Schmemann:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/SchmemannOrdination.php

Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=06-01-022-f
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 07:41:30 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2012, 07:37:52 PM »

One doesn't have to be formally excommunicated to be outside of the church, we aren't that legalistic about it.

Ex (to go out of) Communicate (communion)

Quote
Once one hold's views that they know to be contrary to the Church, they cease to be a part of the right-believing.

Or they just receive Communion to condemnation until they either repent and confess (both sacramentally if it's and by confession of faith) what the Church believes or they are removed from communion with the Church either by clergy or their own doing.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,900



« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2012, 07:40:24 PM »

One doesn't have to be formally excommunicated to be outside of the church, we aren't that legalistic about it.

Ex (to go out of) Communicate (communion)

Quote
Once one hold's views that they know to be contrary to the Church, they cease to be a part of the right-believing.

Or they just receive Communion to condemnation until they either repent and confess (both sacramentally if it's and by confession of faith) what the Church believes or they are removed from communion with the Church either by clergy or their own doing.

You must noticed I said "formally" excommunicated. There is a difference between excommunicating yourself and receive communion to your condemnation vs. being excommunicated by your Priest or Bishop and not being able to receive communion at all.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,900



« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2012, 07:43:25 PM »

Also relevant:

Quote
"...I heard that the Church of England was being advised to declare women capable of Priests' Order. I am, indeed, informed that such a proposal is very unlikely to be seriously considered by the authorities. To take such a revolutionary step at the present moment, to cut ourselves off from the Christian past and to widen the divisions between ourselves and other Churches by establishing an order of priestesses in our midst, would be an almost wanton degree of imprudence. And the Church of England herself would be torn in shreds..." - C.S. Lewis
Logged
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2012, 08:15:31 PM »

So yes, all Orthodox Christians agree that women's priesthood is not something that can be allowed in our Church.

Statistics have never been an accurate measure of God's grace.
Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,900



« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2012, 08:27:06 PM »

So yes, all Orthodox Christians agree that women's priesthood is not something that can be allowed in our Church.

Statistics have never been an accurate measure of God's grace.

I'm not talking about God's grace unless you are assuming that there is no salvation outside our Church, which is something I am not suggesting.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2012, 09:33:55 PM »

There were no female Apostles.  Remember Apostle and disciple is not the same thing.  Also, there have never been any females ordained higher than deacon.  There are reasons and pop culture is not a justifiable cause to question the design of the Church.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2012, 09:36:28 PM »

Quote
If you don't desire to conform or be a part of that unity, you aren't a part of the church.

One of the many things which appealed to me about the Orthodox Church.
Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,391



« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2012, 11:10:09 PM »

While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood

You do know you are wrong?



No, he stated it quite accurately.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,188


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2012, 11:23:51 PM »

While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood

You do know you are wrong?

Not really, all Orthodox Christians oppose women being ordained to the priesthood.

...

Therefore, yes, I know what I'm talking about when I say all Orthodox Christians oppose women's ordination to the Priesthood. I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox.
SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, DEVIN! Angry You have no authority to decide that those who don't hold your "traditional" point of view are outside the Church, nor do you have any authority to speak for the nebulous "we".

Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian".
You, Devin, are not a bishop, so stop pretending to be one.

Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.
But you are not in a position of authority to excommunicate those who disagree with you. There is no de facto excommunication that I know of except that of missing the Eucharist for three consecutive weeks without an honorable reason. Anything else must be enforced by a priest or bishop, which you are not.

The same moderate-liberal parishioners support women's ordination to the priesthood, personal interpretation of scripture & tradition, new forms of liturgical worship and diversity of beliefs & practices. The majority of liberal-moderate parishioners reject the idea that to be Orthodox means to accept all the teachings and traditions of the Orthodox Church. They also feel the most freedom to pick and choose between various parishes to that which "suites" them the best. They also support a variety of completely different viewpoints on the Church life in their parish. They also say that they can more easily imagine themselves learning Christianity from non-Orthodox Christians. Another belief the liberal-moderates hold is that how one lives is more important than whether one is an Orthodox Christian. Only 67% of the moderate-liberal group believe there is one best and true interpretation and that the Orthodox Church teaches it, this is extremely low compared to the traditional & conservative groups.
The majority of liberal-moderate parishioners also believe that you don't need to obey the priest, go to church every Sunday, observe fasting periods or have an approved marriage in order to be a good Orthodox Christian.

Such a view(s) cannot be compatible with Orthodox Christianity and simply shows how far many of these people are from Orthodox Christianity. If one can be classified in that moderate-liberal group, they cannot be classified as an Orthodox Christian. You aren't Orthodox just because are a member of a certain church.
Neither is one Orthodox merely for agreeing with you.

We can safely exclude the moderate-liberal group as Orthodox Christians because of their beliefs, their "micro-theology" just as safely as we can exclude the members of groups like "Axios", who are clearly not Orthodox Christians.

So yes, all Orthodox Christians agree that women's priesthood is not something that can be allowed in our Church.
That's some very tautological reasoning if you ask me. "All Orthodox Christians, who by definition agree that women's priesthood cannot be permitted in our Church, believe that women's priesthood cannot be permitted in our Church." What the hell does that exercise in stacking the deck prove? Huh
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 12:11:40 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,188


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2012, 11:25:49 PM »

I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox. Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian". Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.

I didn't realise you had this authority. Are there any other groups you'd like to excommunicate?

I didn't realize that one needed authority to speak the truth that we all know to be the case. To be Orthodox is to have the correct belief, plain and simple. We know what the right belief is as well because it is the Orthodox Church, and the Church has shown us what the truth is.

One doesn't have to be formally excommunicated to be outside of the church, we aren't that legalistic about it.
No, Devin, YOU are. Do you also not realize that you are essentially espousing a variant of the invisible church heresy?
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 11:56:34 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,188


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #22 on: July 07, 2012, 11:28:48 PM »

There were no female Apostles.  Remember Apostle and disciple is not the same thing.
Correction: St. Mary Magdalene is often referred to as "apostle to the apostles", since Jesus sent her to announce to the apostles that He had risen from the dead.

Also, there have never been any females ordained higher than deacon.  There are reasons and pop culture is not a justifiable cause to question the design of the Church.
I can agree with that pov. Wink
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,188


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #23 on: July 07, 2012, 11:33:11 PM »

The Anglican church is embroiled in another debate over the role of women in its hierarchy. If the general synod refuses to back female bishops, it will be taking the wrong lessons from history For those arguing at the general synod about women bishops, it is probably too late to include much theology in their deliberations, but one prominent strand in the debates has been a theological jargon phrase, calculated as always to baffle outsiders to churchy stuff: the "apostolic succession". This is the idea that bishops stand in a continuous line of church leaders right back to the apostles chosen by Jesus.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/07/female-apostles-fine-for-jesus

I thought it was interesting reading, but can anybody bring light on what it says about Saint Paul?

I was listening to BBC yesterday and they talked about this issue and one of the "conservatives" they had on there argued that "Jesus chose only male apostles, so we should only have a male episcopacy". While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood or female episcopacy, I have to say it was a very weak argument since Christ indeed had female apostles/disciples.

I still cannot believe the Church of England is continuing to draw farther and farther away from orthodoxy and from the rest of traditional Christianity. I can only hope that the Orthodox Church can pick up more of the refugees from their continual betrayal of Christianity.
We don't want their refugees unless they're actually willing to become Orthodox.
You, Devin, demonstrate perfectly the wisdom of this statement. Like many converts, you come into the Church with all your p**s and vinegar against the traditions you left, and then once you're in the Church, you proceed in your anger to drive other people out.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 12:08:38 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,118


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


« Reply #24 on: July 07, 2012, 11:43:27 PM »

While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood

You do know you are wrong?

Not really, all Orthodox Christians oppose women being ordained to the priesthood.


I didn't realize Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) wasn't Orthodox; silly me.
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
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #25 on: July 07, 2012, 11:58:31 PM »


We don't want their refugees unless they're actually willing to become Orthodox.

... which is a rather peculiar statement to make given that the Church has made any number of changes to its 'orthodoxy'.   I am particularly thinking of the change that allows widows and widowers to remarry. 

Orthodoxy does not mean that nothing can change. 
Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #26 on: July 08, 2012, 12:02:03 AM »

So yes, all Orthodox Christians agree that women's priesthood is not something that can be allowed in our Church.

Statistics have never been an accurate measure of God's grace.

I'm not talking about God's grace unless you are assuming that there is no salvation outside our Church, which is something I am not suggesting.

Quite so - you were talking about statistics to which I addressed my point.
Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,188


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #27 on: July 08, 2012, 12:07:05 AM »


We don't want their refugees unless they're actually willing to become Orthodox.

... which is a rather peculiar statement to make given that the Church has made any number of changes to its 'orthodoxy'.   I am particularly thinking of the change that allows widows and widowers to remarry. 

Orthodoxy does not mean that nothing can change. 
I'm curious to know how you think that applies to the statement you quoted.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,900



« Reply #28 on: July 08, 2012, 12:17:22 AM »

I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox. Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian". Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.

I didn't realise you had this authority. Are there any other groups you'd like to excommunicate?

I didn't realize that one needed authority to speak the truth that we all know to be the case. To be Orthodox is to have the correct belief, plain and simple. We know what the right belief is as well because it is the Orthodox Church, and the Church has shown us what the truth is.

One doesn't have to be formally excommunicated to be outside of the church, we aren't that legalistic about it.
No, Devin, YOU are. Do you also not realize that you are essentially espousing a variant of the invisible church heresy?

Peter, if you wish to accuse me of heresy then you had better back it up!

As for what I said, I stand by it. The Church exists visibly here on earth, but there are people who are nominal members of it that do not hold to orthodoxy or orthopraxis, these people are not de facto members of the church. Cradles and converts don't get a free "in" just by being nominal members of the earthly Church.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,900



« Reply #29 on: July 08, 2012, 12:20:24 AM »

The Anglican church is embroiled in another debate over the role of women in its hierarchy. If the general synod refuses to back female bishops, it will be taking the wrong lessons from history For those arguing at the general synod about women bishops, it is probably too late to include much theology in their deliberations, but one prominent strand in the debates has been a theological jargon phrase, calculated as always to baffle outsiders to churchy stuff: the "apostolic succession". This is the idea that bishops stand in a continuous line of church leaders right back to the apostles chosen by Jesus.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/07/female-apostles-fine-for-jesus

I thought it was interesting reading, but can anybody bring light on what it says about Saint Paul?

I was listening to BBC yesterday and they talked about this issue and one of the "conservatives" they had on there argued that "Jesus chose only male apostles, so we should only have a male episcopacy". While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood or female episcopacy, I have to say it was a very weak argument since Christ indeed had female apostles/disciples.

I still cannot believe the Church of England is continuing to draw farther and farther away from orthodoxy and from the rest of traditional Christianity. I can only hope that the Orthodox Church can pick up more of the refugees from their continual betrayal of Christianity.
We don't want their refugees unless they're actually willing to become Orthodox.
You, Devin, demonstrate perfectly the wisdom of this statement. Like many converts, you come into the Church with all your p**s and vinegar against the traditions you left, and then once you're in the Church, you proceed in your anger to drive other people out.

Interesting because I doubt you know about the tradition I personally came out of. Even while in my old delusion, I was opposed to female ordination. It doesn't take much for a Christian to realize ordination of women is impossible. Our sacraments would be invalid unless a qualified Priest or Bishop performed them.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,900



« Reply #30 on: July 08, 2012, 12:30:14 AM »

While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood

You do know you are wrong?

Not really, all Orthodox Christians oppose women being ordained to the priesthood.

...

Therefore, yes, I know what I'm talking about when I say all Orthodox Christians oppose women's ordination to the Priesthood. I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox.
SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, DEVIN! Angry You have no authority to decide that those who don't hold your "traditional" point of view are outside the Church, nor do you have any authority to speak for the nebulous "we".
I am an Orthodox Christian who has been taught what Orthodoxy is. I can see the Orthodox Church and what it has taught for 2000 years. If a person attends and pays attention to catechism (it isn't just for catechumens) instead of trying to personally interpret things (which is something Orthodoxy restricts) then one will also learn the position of the Orthodox Church and what constitutes orthodoxy versus heterodoxy.

What the liberals believe is not compatible with our Church and smells far more of personal interpretation and personal opinion taking priority over the stance of the Church. However our Church operates on conformity, reliance on clergy, monastics and saints/fathers for interpretation, and the idea that we must let our Orthodoxy to shape our personal views.

Quote
Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.
But you are not in a position of authority to excommunicate those who disagree with you. There is no de facto excommunication that I know of except that of missing the Eucharist for three consecutive weeks without an honorable reason. Anything else must be enforced by a priest or bishop, which you are not.

I think you take a far too legalistic approach, much more akin to Roman Catholicism than Eastern Orthodoxy. There is most certainly de facto excommunication and self excommunication. This was even so before our churh even had canons. It has little to do with canons and law yet everything to do with orthodoxy and orthopraxis.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #31 on: July 08, 2012, 12:30:56 AM »

Devin I think you should take a break for a bit.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,275


WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 08, 2012, 12:32:32 AM »

Peter, if you wish to accuse me of heresy then you had better back it up!

As for what I said, I stand by it. The Church exists visibly here on earth, but there are people who are nominal members of it that do not hold to orthodoxy or orthopraxis,

What about the dead Orthodox?  Church triumphant; I think they are called.  The ones who are here are the Church militant.

these people are not de facto members of the church. Cradles and converts don't get a free "in" just by being nominal members of the earthly Church.

Can't you wait until Judgment Day?  Meanwhile, focus on your own salvation and your own struggles in which these posts of yours sound like you're either in a deep crisis of faith or you're looking for people to empathize with you.   Angry
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,188


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #33 on: July 08, 2012, 12:33:37 AM »

I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox. Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian". Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.

I didn't realise you had this authority. Are there any other groups you'd like to excommunicate?

I didn't realize that one needed authority to speak the truth that we all know to be the case. To be Orthodox is to have the correct belief, plain and simple. We know what the right belief is as well because it is the Orthodox Church, and the Church has shown us what the truth is.

One doesn't have to be formally excommunicated to be outside of the church, we aren't that legalistic about it.
No, Devin, YOU are. Do you also not realize that you are essentially espousing a variant of the invisible church heresy?

Peter, if you wish to accuse me of heresy then you had better back it up!
Devin, we believe that the Church is made up of those Christians gathered around their bishop to celebrate the Eucharist. I'm not aware that we make a distinction between those of "right belief" and those of "wrong belief" within the Church and say that those who don't hold to right belief are invisibly outside the Church. If you're in communion with an Orthodox bishop, you are in the Church. If you're not in communion with an Orthodox bishop, you are outside the Church. It's that simple.

The bishop has the authority to enforce right belief by excommunicating those who teach false doctrines, but once such a false teacher is excommunicated, he is formally outside the Church because he is no longer in communion with the bishop. The bishop also has the authority to recognize when one has repented of his heresy and to welcome such a penitent back into communion; once such a person is reinstated he is formally inside the Church by virtue of his communion with the bishop. The Church is defined by visible communion with an Orthodox bishop who is himself in communion with the universal communion of Orthodox bishops. There is no concept in Orthodoxy of an invisible church within the visible Church such that those who believe rightly are members of this invisible church and those who believe wrongly are outside this invisible church, even though they're visibly members of the Church by virtue of their communion with an Orthodox bishop. Such a concept denies our belief in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, which is why I call your teaching a heresy.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 12:41:13 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,900



« Reply #34 on: July 08, 2012, 12:45:30 AM »

I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox. Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian". Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.

I didn't realise you had this authority. Are there any other groups you'd like to excommunicate?

I didn't realize that one needed authority to speak the truth that we all know to be the case. To be Orthodox is to have the correct belief, plain and simple. We know what the right belief is as well because it is the Orthodox Church, and the Church has shown us what the truth is.

One doesn't have to be formally excommunicated to be outside of the church, we aren't that legalistic about it.
No, Devin, YOU are. Do you also not realize that you are essentially espousing a variant of the invisible church heresy?

Peter, if you wish to accuse me of heresy then you had better back it up!
Devin, we believe that the Church is made up of those Christians gathered around their bishop to celebrate the Eucharist. I'm not aware that we make a distinction between those of "right belief" and those of "wrong belief" within the Church and say that those who don't hold to right belief are invisibly outside the Church. If you're in communion with an Orthodox bishop, you are in the Church. If you're not in communion with an Orthodox bishop, you are outside the Church. It's that simple.

The bishop has the authority to enforce right belief by excommunicating those who teach false doctrines, but once such a false teacher is excommunicated, he is formally outside the Church because he is no longer in communion with the bishop. The bishop also has the authority to recognize when one has repented of his heresy and to welcome such a penitent back into communion; once such a person is reinstated he is formally inside the Church by virtue of his communion with the bishop. The Church is defined by visible communion with an Orthodox bishop who is himself in communion with the universal communion of Orthodox bishops. There is no concept of an invisible church within the visible Church such that those who believe rightly are members of this invisible church and those who believe wrongly are outside this invisible church. We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, and that Church is visible.

I won't deny a lot of what you say, some of what you say though sounds much more like the Roman Catholic view of ecclesiology.

Why do you think we are know as the Orthodox Church? We REQUIRE adherence to the correct teaching. If one doesn't adhere to the correct teaching (knowingly and willingly) they have excommunicated themselves and if they don't confess it and repent they are receiving the body and blood of Christ to their condemnation. I really bet you would hate my Priest, who asks during every confession if we differ with the Church on any of it's teachings, doctrines or traditions.

You seem to want a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy on those who don't hold to the Orthodox faith.

Orthodoxy isn't just about membership in the visible Church; it is about adherence to its teachings , traditions, doctrines, moral teachings and more. As I said, it is about orthodoxy and orthopraxis.

As I have already said before, just beig a nominal member of our Church doesn't give you and automatic "in".
If this makes one afraid for the coverts and cradles who don't attend and are only nominal members, then it should make you afraid for them and it should move you to convince them to come back to the Church and come back to Christ.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,275


WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 08, 2012, 12:54:59 AM »

I really bet you would hate my Priest, who asks during every confession if we differ with the Church on any of it's teachings, doctrines or traditions.

I wouldn't hate your Priest.

You seem to want a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy on those who don't hold to the Orthodox faith.

We are not to exalt ourselves.

Orthodoxy isn't just about membership in the visible Church; it is about adherence to its teachings , traditions, doctrines, moral teachings and more. As I said, it is about orthodoxy and orthopraxis.

It's about the Gospel and not the sola scriptura version.  In a few years, you will burn out and be like certain members of this forum who post nothing but gall.

As I have already said before, just beig a nominal member of our Church doesn't give you and automatic "in".
If this makes one afraid for the coverts and cradles who don't attend and are only nominal members, then it should make you afraid for them and it should move you to convince them to come back to the Church and come back to Christ.

The Prodigal Son came home on his own accord, which is what many of these "unchurched" Orthodox have to do.  Their conscience has to bother them enough to seek the Orthodox Church, which will welcome them back with open arms.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,900



« Reply #36 on: July 08, 2012, 01:02:17 AM »

Orthodox Ecclesiology:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx

He makes an important point that a Bishop ceases to be a Bishop the moment he ceases to believe and teach Orthodoxy. The same is true for all of us, we cease to be Orthodox when we stop believing Orthodoxy.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,188


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #37 on: July 08, 2012, 01:04:29 AM »

I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox. Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian". Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.

I didn't realise you had this authority. Are there any other groups you'd like to excommunicate?

I didn't realize that one needed authority to speak the truth that we all know to be the case. To be Orthodox is to have the correct belief, plain and simple. We know what the right belief is as well because it is the Orthodox Church, and the Church has shown us what the truth is.

One doesn't have to be formally excommunicated to be outside of the church, we aren't that legalistic about it.
No, Devin, YOU are. Do you also not realize that you are essentially espousing a variant of the invisible church heresy?

Peter, if you wish to accuse me of heresy then you had better back it up!
Devin, we believe that the Church is made up of those Christians gathered around their bishop to celebrate the Eucharist. I'm not aware that we make a distinction between those of "right belief" and those of "wrong belief" within the Church and say that those who don't hold to right belief are invisibly outside the Church. If you're in communion with an Orthodox bishop, you are in the Church. If you're not in communion with an Orthodox bishop, you are outside the Church. It's that simple.

The bishop has the authority to enforce right belief by excommunicating those who teach false doctrines, but once such a false teacher is excommunicated, he is formally outside the Church because he is no longer in communion with the bishop. The bishop also has the authority to recognize when one has repented of his heresy and to welcome such a penitent back into communion; once such a person is reinstated he is formally inside the Church by virtue of his communion with the bishop. The Church is defined by visible communion with an Orthodox bishop who is himself in communion with the universal communion of Orthodox bishops. There is no concept of an invisible church within the visible Church such that those who believe rightly are members of this invisible church and those who believe wrongly are outside this invisible church. We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, and that Church is visible.

I won't deny a lot of what you say, some of what you say though sounds much more like the Roman Catholic view of ecclesiology.
If so, that's only because you've branded your own personal ecclesiology as the definitive Orthodox position. AISI, I'm merely repeating the ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Antioch.

Why do you think we are know as the Orthodox Church? We REQUIRE adherence to the correct teaching.
Of course we do! I've never denied that.

If one doesn't adhere to the correct teaching (knowingly and willingly) they have excommunicated themselves
No, they have not. Again, there is no concept of an invisible Church within the visible Church.

and if they don't confess it and repent they are receiving the body and blood of Christ to their condemnation.
That may very well be true, but that's not because they're outside the "invisible" Church. If we can learn anything from the parable of the wheat and the tares, it's that there will always be within the Church wolves whom only God knows. They will eat and drink damnation upon themselves, yes, but that isn't because they're outside the Church.

I really bet you would hate my Priest, who asks during every confession if we differ with the Church on any of it's teachings, doctrines or traditions.
You're doing it again, Devin. You know how much I hate having someone else put words into my mouth. I've never stated my disagreement with any priest or bishop who enforces right belief. I've stated here only my disagreement with your thesis that wrong belief automatically puts one outside the Church.

You seem to want a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy on those who don't hold to the Orthodox faith.
You seem to have a problem with projecting onto me motives I never communicate. You really need to learn how to listen so you can stop these stupid projections.

Orthodoxy isn't just about membership in the visible Church; it is about adherence to its teachings , traditions, doctrines, moral teachings and more. As I said, it is about orthodoxy and orthopraxis.
Again, I've never denied this.

As I have already said before, just beig a nominal member of our Church doesn't give you and automatic "in".
And I've never said it does.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,188


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #38 on: July 08, 2012, 01:06:21 AM »

Orthodox Ecclesiology:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx

He makes an important point that a Bishop ceases to be a Bishop the moment he ceases to believe and teach Orthodoxy. The same is true for all of us, we cease to be Orthodox when we stop believing Orthodoxy.
And why do you believe Dr. Alexander Kalomiros to be the definitive authority on Orthodox ecclesiology?
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 01:13:08 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,900



« Reply #39 on: July 08, 2012, 01:12:00 AM »

Orthodox Ecclesiology:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx

He makes an important point that a Bishop ceases to be a Bishop the moment he ceases to believe and teach Orthodoxy. The same is true for all of us, we cease to be Orthodox when we stop believing Orthodoxy.
And why do you believe Dr. Alexander Kalomiros to be the definitive authority on Orthodox ecclesiology?

His view is supported by anyone else you can read, or listen to. Listen to Ancient Faith Radio, or Orthodox Christian Network. Or even read stuff from Conciliar Press, St Vladimirs Seminary, St Tikhons Seminary or Holy Cross. Read the websites of OCA, GOA and the Antiochians. Read the blogs of venerable and respected priests like Fr Stephen Freeman and Fr Joseph Honeycutt.

Don't get your views from personal interpretation or opinion, always put the views of other Orthodox before yours and mold your views to theirs. This excludes the liberal parishioners of course.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 01:13:44 AM by 88Devin12 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,188


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #40 on: July 08, 2012, 01:15:42 AM »

Orthodox Ecclesiology:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx

He makes an important point that a Bishop ceases to be a Bishop the moment he ceases to believe and teach Orthodoxy. The same is true for all of us, we cease to be Orthodox when we stop believing Orthodoxy.
And why do you believe Dr. Alexander Kalomiros to be the definitive authority on Orthodox ecclesiology?

His view is supported by anyone else you can read, or listen to. Listen to Ancient Faith Radio, or Orthodox Christian Network. Or even read stuff from Conciliar Press, St Vladimirs Seminary, St Tikhons Seminary or Holy Cross.

Don't get your views from personal interpretation or opinion, always put the views of other Orthodox before yours and mold your views to theirs. This excludes the liberal parishioners of course.
Let me rephrase my question then, since, after reading the article, I realize I asked it wrong. Why do you take Dr. Kalomiros's words regarding the bishop as applying to non-bishops?
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 01:15:57 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,900



« Reply #41 on: July 08, 2012, 01:20:35 AM »

Orthodox Ecclesiology:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx

He makes an important point that a Bishop ceases to be a Bishop the moment he ceases to believe and teach Orthodoxy. The same is true for all of us, we cease to be Orthodox when we stop believing Orthodoxy.
And why do you believe Dr. Alexander Kalomiros to be the definitive authority on Orthodox ecclesiology?

His view is supported by anyone else you can read, or listen to. Listen to Ancient Faith Radio, or Orthodox Christian Network. Or even read stuff from Conciliar Press, St Vladimirs Seminary, St Tikhons Seminary or Holy Cross.

Don't get your views from personal interpretation or opinion, always put the views of other Orthodox before yours and mold your views to theirs. This excludes the liberal parishioners of course.
Let me rephrase my question then, since, after reading the article, I realize I asked it wrong. Why do you take Dr. Kalomiros's words regarding the bishop as applying to non-bishops?

Because it is simple common sense, if you cease adhering to orthodoxy and orthopraxis, you no longer adhere to Orthodox Christianity, but to your own private heresy or heterodoxy.

Didn't Nestorius cease to be an Orthodox Christian the moment he believed in his heresy? I don't think we are so legalistic to say that it takes an official excommunication to do this, though that may be part of it.

It is no different than a wolf in sheepskin. They appear to be merely members of the flock, but in reality are far different and have no intention of following the shepherd(s) and their guidance.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,900



« Reply #42 on: July 08, 2012, 01:22:39 AM »

By the way, do you disagree with the statement that there are people out there who we do not know but are mystically members of Christ's Church, or that may be saved when they die???
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,188


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #43 on: July 08, 2012, 01:26:00 AM »

Orthodox Ecclesiology:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx

He makes an important point that a Bishop ceases to be a Bishop the moment he ceases to believe and teach Orthodoxy. The same is true for all of us, we cease to be Orthodox when we stop believing Orthodoxy.
And why do you believe Dr. Alexander Kalomiros to be the definitive authority on Orthodox ecclesiology?

His view is supported by anyone else you can read, or listen to. Listen to Ancient Faith Radio, or Orthodox Christian Network. Or even read stuff from Conciliar Press, St Vladimirs Seminary, St Tikhons Seminary or Holy Cross.

Don't get your views from personal interpretation or opinion, always put the views of other Orthodox before yours and mold your views to theirs. This excludes the liberal parishioners of course.
Let me rephrase my question then, since, after reading the article, I realize I asked it wrong. Why do you take Dr. Kalomiros's words regarding the bishop as applying to non-bishops?

Because it is simple common sense, if you cease adhering to orthodoxy and orthopraxis, you no longer adhere to Orthodox Christianity, but to your own private heresy or heterodoxy.

Didn't Nestorius cease to be an Orthodox Christian the moment he believed in his heresy? I don't think we are so legalistic to say that it takes an official excommunication to do this, though that may be part of it.

It is no different than a wolf in sheepskin. They appear to be merely members of the flock, but in reality are far different and have no intention of following the shepherd(s) and their guidance.
I don't disagree with any of this. I disagree only with your definition of Orthodoxy and with your thesis that those who don't adhere to Orthodoxy (as you define it) are automatically outside the Church even if their priests/bishops aren't aware of their non-adherence.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,188


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #44 on: July 08, 2012, 01:26:31 AM »

By the way, do you disagree with the statement that there are people out there who we do not know but are mystically members of Christ's Church, or that may be saved when they die???
Not relevant to my arguments in this debate, but now that you ask, I will answer in the affirmative to the former question. I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church and that this Church is a visible Church. I certainly recognize that God is working to bring all to salvation, so I will certainly never say that those outside the Church cannot be saved, just as I will never say that all those in the Church are guaranteed salvation by mere virtue of their church membership. However, I do not recognize those outside the visible Church as invisibly members of Christ's Church; likewise, I do not recognize anyone inside the visible Church as being invisibly NOT a member of Christ's Church.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 02:16:02 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 »  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 0.196 seconds with 72 queries.