OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 18, 2014, 11:32:40 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Did the Pope miss this passage?  (Read 15787 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,192


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #135 on: December 31, 2004, 07:53:53 PM »



'sokay - I take nothing personally on an internet board.

You're a good sport, Tom.  Afro
« Last Edit: December 31, 2004, 07:54:16 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #136 on: December 31, 2004, 09:48:36 PM »

I tried to find that topic at orlapubs yesterday alot of the links did not work, got a direct link to the said topic from that site ?

james
Surely Iakovos,

Main list-  http://www.orlapubs.com/AR/TOC.html

What Jack needs to understand and answer (not just print out) - http://www.orlapubs.com/AR/R9.html
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,749



« Reply #137 on: January 01, 2005, 12:31:37 AM »

Grazie for the links. Now it will take a little time & a few views to start digesting it, though I have no concerns regarding the primacy issue, original sin etc.

Roman/Latin thought & Greek/Eastern thought is like apples & oranges, gotta understand the presentation.

I'm getting close... patience, Rome/Constantinople was'nt built in a day.

May 2005 be better for all,
james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,831



WWW
« Reply #138 on: January 01, 2005, 12:39:06 AM »

TonyS,

I'm sorry (as in lo siento, not disculpe) that you misunderstood me.  I don't think for a moment that the slavic peoples that were basically herded from one church into another by governmental decree bought into the idea that nothing had changed.  Many knew that a real change had happened, even if, externally speaking, it was done in a very superficial manner.  My point in all that I posted was that, even though all that happened externally was just a "bishop switch," they were no longer Orthodox Christians...they were part of another Church...a fact of which many were no doubt aware...but my mentioning of this to Jack in the first place was due to his attempt to blur the significance of conversions from Orthodoxy to Catholicism and thus justify them.  That was all.

That being said if someone wishes to become Russian GC he/she/they should be allowed, as they should be allowed to become anything they want confessionally.

I agree.  And many have remained Orthodox, in spite of the fact that it would be relatively easy to become Catholic, or "Orthodox in communion with Rome," as some Eastern Catholics refer to themselves.

Quote
Off topic:  In Slavonic the response to the Christmas greeting is in the plural, I noticed on metropolitan HERMAN's pastoral letter it is as you have it sans punctuation.  However when the greeting is exchanged even between individuals it remains in the plural.  It seems then it should be "glorifiquenle" in order to be an accurate translation.

Huh.  Makes sense...all the people saying it to one another...glorif+¡quenle, todos ustedes en vez de "glorif+¡cale, t+¦"...-+y qui+¬n ser+í "t+¦"?  -+El sacerdote, no m+ís?  Me gusta m+ís tu versi+¦n de la contestaci+¦n.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #139 on: January 01, 2005, 09:04:40 AM »


Off topic:  In Slavonic the response to the Christmas greeting is in the plural, I noticed on metropolitan HERMAN's pastoral letter it is as you have it sans punctuation.  However when the greeting is exchanged even between individuals it remains in the plural.  It seems then it should be "glorifiquenle" in order to be an accurate translation. 

TonyS

Equally off topic, the response in Greek is in the plural also.  Afro
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
TonyS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 705


« Reply #140 on: January 01, 2005, 01:57:08 PM »

TonyS,

I'm sorry (as in lo siento, not disculpe) that you misunderstood me. I don't think for a moment that the slavic peoples that were basically herded from one church into another by governmental decree bought into the idea that nothing had changed. Many knew that a real change had happened, even if, externally speaking, it was done in a very superficial manner. My point in all that I posted was that, even though all that happened externally was just a "bishop switch," they were no longer Orthodox Christians...they were part of another Church...a fact of which many were no doubt aware...but my mentioning of this to Jack in the first place was due to his attempt to blur the significance of conversions from Orthodoxy to Catholicism and thus justify them. That was all.



I agree. And many have remained Orthodox, in spite of the fact that it would be relatively easy to become Catholic, or "Orthodox in communion with Rome," as some Eastern Catholics refer to themselves.



Huh. Makes sense...all the people saying it to one another...glorif+¡quenle, todos ustedes en vez de "glorif+¡cale, t+¦"...-+y qui+¬n ser+í "t+¦"? -+El sacerdote, no m+ís? Me gusta m+ís tu versi+¦n de la contestaci+¦n.

Pedro,

I do not buy into the story that the mases in 1596 and 1646 either all agreed or even knew what was happening.  Certainly where there was communication people knew, but that was very limited outside of the cities.  Someone once IIRC argued that the people would have not gone to the (now) GC parish...well, how would they not have?  Catch the bus to the next parish, ride in a car down the freeway to the local Orthodox parish?  Anyway, I am not sure what the whole point is or was.  I merely wanted to address the issue that for some indeed it has been merely a change of bishop and apparently that has been judged adequate. 

Regarding the response, it is not my version.  It is what those who use Slavonic (and I would imagine any modern Slavic language response in the vernacular) use, apparently as Aristokles notes that is also the pattern in Greek.

You may check the metropolitan's letter in Russian.  In modern Ukrainian the usage seems to be the hortative first person plural, but the form may be the same as the indicative, someone who knows Ukrainian better should pronounce on that.   The Romanian appears to be in the plural as well.  The Polish is in the hortative/imperative, 1st person plural.  You can check out the other languages in which the letter is made available.

Similarly, when the greeting "Christ is among us" is used in Slavonic even between two it is in the first person plural, not dual.   It would make sense to be in the singular when it is exchanged among two but I have not seen that pattern except in the version you used as presented on the OCA site.   The fact that it lack even proper punctuation (which would be an exclamation point [!]) leads me to think it is a typo.

TonyS
Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender
and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner
...
I'll see you when yo
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #141 on: January 01, 2005, 07:10:10 PM »


Surely Iakovos,

Main list-  http://www.orlapubs.com/AR/TOC.html

What Jack needs to understand and answer (not just print out) - http://www.orlapubs.com/AR/R9.html

I love it when you play rough Aristokles.  Can you point out something in particular that you think I don't understand, as opposed to a whole website that makes many points?
Logged

NULL
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #142 on: January 01, 2005, 08:25:35 PM »

On the other hand, I'm sorry, Demetri, about not getting back to you months ago after you kindly referred me to the website.  To be honest, I got busy with other things and forgot.  But when I looked at the site before, and as I examine it again, I do not see anything at the site that should keep Catholics and Orthodox from reunion with a little benevolent discussion.  The website is way too big for me to respond to point by point.  But let's start with the idea that the western Church does not properly appreciate the distinction between the essence and energies of God.

Originally, the idea goes back to the Cappadocian Fathers.  Certainly the Catholic Church does not reject St. Basil the Great who said that we know God from his energies, but that we cannot draw near to his essence.  But the doctrine was further developed in the Orthodox Church after the schism by St. Gregory Palamas.  The occasion was his defense of the Hesychasts who were attacked by one Barlaam the Calabrian, who rejected the Hesychasts' claim to attain a vision of the Divine and Uncreated Light. 

One part that we western Christians aren't supposed to get is the idea that grace is not just a gift, but a manifestation of God, and a personal encounter with him.  But it's not that we don't get it.  It's just that we never had to defend the Hesychasts, and so the doctrine was never developed in the west to the extent that it was in the east.  And because St. Gregory Palamas taught after the schism, little or none of his teaching permeated over.  Now there may be some Catholics that reject St. Gregory's doctrine, I don't know.  But it is certainly not contrary to Catholicism. 

I think this situation is a lot like the controversy surrounding the Assumption.  The Orthodox Church never formulated a dogma in this area to the same extent the Catholic Church did.  I submit that the reason for that is that the Orthodox Church never had to confront Protestants to the same extent the Catholic Church did.

Historical situations give rise to historical developments.  It was inevitable that there would be different developments once we decided to have separate histories.  That is why Pope John Paul II has suggested that we hae reunion talks based on the circumstances when the Church was undivided.
Logged

NULL
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #143 on: January 01, 2005, 08:39:47 PM »

I appreciate your optimism, Jack; but I'm way too tired this evening to properly digest your comments. I did anticipate your Hesychast points in advance, however.
As we are still in the "discovery" phase, counselor, anything else stirke you as a post-schism Orthodox development?

I'll spend more time tomorrow afternoon after church on this.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #144 on: January 03, 2005, 08:54:47 AM »

One part that we western Christians aren't supposed to get is the idea that grace is not just a gift, but a manifestation of God, and a personal encounter with him. But it's not that we don't get it. It's just that we never had to defend the Hesychasts, and so the doctrine was never developed in the west to the extent that it was in the east. And because St. Gregory Palamas taught after the schism, little or none of his teaching permeated over. Now there may be some Catholics that reject St. Gregory's doctrine, I don't know. But it is certainly not contrary to Catholicism.

From the Catholic Encyclopaedia regarding Hesychasm;

Hesychasm... an obscure speculation,... the wildest form of mystic extravagance....

... The likeness of this process of auto-suggestion to that of fakirs, Sunnyasis, and such people all over the East is obvious."

... the grossly magic practices of the later Hesychasts

... a system of auto-suggestion

... strong element of the pantheism that so often accompanies mysticism in the fully developed Hesychast system

... Hesychasm was the famous real distinction between essence and attributes (specifically one attribute -- energy) in God. This theory, fundamentally opposed to the whole conception of God in the Western Scholastic system

... a significant witness of the decay of a lost cause
Logged
gphadraig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 220

OC.net


« Reply #145 on: January 03, 2005, 09:41:45 AM »

Thank you, prodromos, I found similar anti-hesychast statements in a book - not immediately to hand - by a Baptist writer.Will try to root round and find it.........
Logged

Age is honourable and youth noble
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #146 on: January 03, 2005, 10:18:02 AM »

If you do a search in the Catholic Encyclopedia onJohn of the Cross you will find that the commentary about him is very good. Now from what I understand Saint John of the Cross was a practioner of hesycasm and very Eastern in his writings. So there we have it denounce the "system" but honor the practioner of "the wildest form of mystic extravagance" in fact Saint him, if he is in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Surely we can all see how strange such notions are. The sad reality is that what is read in the aforemention Enpyhcopedia is believed to be true by many Latins who turn to it for understanding various Latin positions.

How do those in the unia overlook statement of that nature?

Here is a comment by Anthony Dragani. "The theological writings of St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross, for instance, are remarkably similar to Eastern theology. And both of these Western saints are revered as doctors of the Church, even though their theology is as mystical as that of any hesychast."

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
« Last Edit: January 03, 2005, 12:26:36 PM by MatthewPanchisin » Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #147 on: January 03, 2005, 11:30:03 AM »

Hmm, John of the Cross was canonised by the Catholic Church in 1726 and the Catholic Encyclopaedia edition is from 1910. Good point Matthew.

John

FTR, I must credit Father Ambrose with digging up that polemic on hesychasm
Logged
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #148 on: January 03, 2005, 02:41:58 PM »

TonyS,

but my mentioning of this to Jack in the first place was due to his attempt to blur the significance of conversions from Orthodoxy to Catholicism and thus justify them. 


If I'm not mistaken, what I was trying to point out was what I perceive as an inconsistency between the claim that Catholicism is a different religion than Orthodoxy and the objection to its proselytism in Russia, assuming full disclosure.  I don't remember trying to blur anything, unless you're referring to my underlying premise that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are, in the last analysis, the same religion.
Logged

NULL
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #149 on: January 03, 2005, 03:15:57 PM »



From the Catholic Encyclopaedia regarding Hesychasm;

Hesychasm... an obscure speculation,... the wildest form of mystic extravagance....

... The likeness of this process of auto-suggestion to that of fakirs, Sunnyasis, and such people all over the East is obvious."

... the grossly magic practices of the later Hesychasts

... a system of auto-suggestion

... strong element of the pantheism that so often accompanies mysticism in the fully developed Hesychast system

... Hesychasm was the famous real distinction between essence and attributes (specifically one attribute -- energy) in God. This theory, fundamentally opposed to the whole conception of God in the Western Scholastic system

... a significant witness of the decay of a lost cause

First of all, the Catholic Encyclopedia, while an invaluable resource, is not a debate stopping authority regarding the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Secondly, I read the article, and the tenor of the whole, while not favorable to Hesychasm, is less rabid than the quotes would suggest.  Moreover, as MatthewPanchisin points out, we have our own mystics.  And, yes, I'll bet that in days gone by Catholic writers would have gauged their sympathies to alignments, just as I'll bet that Orthodox writers have done the same.

I won't argue about whether Hesychasm is contrary to Aristotelianism.  But we, like you, are not followers of Aristotle; we are followers of Christ.  Aristotle, through St. Thomas Aquinas, has certainly had more influence on the western Church than in the east.  And the Catholic Church has certainly used Aristotelian terminology to explain her doctrines.  That doesn't mean that we think that those doctrines must be explained in that way, or even that they are best explained in that way.  If I'm not mistaken, in the material Demetri submitted for my consideration, the author suggests that the categories communicated by the Greek language are the best for communicating Christian doctrine, and that a lack of understanding those categories results in error.  I don't know if that is the position of the Orthodox Church as a whole, but the Catholic Church has no parallel position.

In any event, the distinction between the essence and energies of God originates, as far as I know, with the Cappadocian Fathers, so I can't imagine that the Catholic Church would dismiss it out of hand.  It is true, however, that it is not an article of faith.  Actually, I think most Catholic mystics (not necessarily the famous ones) are the crass materialists that Barlaam the Calabrian objected to.  I by no means qualify as a mystic.  I sometimes can't even tell if I'm hungry.  But when I have experienced the presence of God I have never bothered with the question of whether I am experiencing essence or energy.  Indeed, I wonder aloud if God is really so stand offish as to not let us experience his essence.
Logged

NULL
Columba
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66

St. Columba of Iona, pray for us...


« Reply #150 on: January 03, 2005, 03:22:00 PM »

Hmmm, I don't know, I think the differences between Rome and the rest of the Patriarchial Sees have been well documented by both parties. Now I for one, would love for the bishops of both churches to sit down and talk things out. The problem lies in the fact that we would be there for different reasons. The Church of Rome would be there to negotiate and compromise. The Orthodox would be there to make Rome see it's errors and try to bring the Roman Church back to it's original state, one of Orthodoxy. I don't see the Church of Rome reversing 951 years of doctrinal and dogmatic changes to the Faith any time soon. We, the Orthodox, are called to be patient, loving, and prayerful for our brethern from Rome. In the end, it won't be the Hierarchies of our churches which will bring us back together, in my own opinion, it will be the laity. In forums like this, where we sit down and talk to one another and try to come to a mutual understanding if nothing else.
Logged
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #151 on: January 06, 2005, 05:39:25 AM »

I appreciate your optimism, Jack; but I'm way too tired this evening to properly digest your comments. I did anticipate your Hesychast points in advance, however.
As we are still in the "discovery" phase, counselor, anything else stirke you as a post-schism Orthodox development?

I'll spend more time tomorrow afternoon after church on this.

Demetri

Let's just eat the elephant one bite at a time.
Logged

NULL
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #152 on: January 07, 2005, 01:54:23 PM »

Let's just eat the elephant one bite at a time.

Well, Jack, my friend, despite the fast being concluded, elephant is not a meat on my menu. So too, neither is ecumenical dialogue. As I said, I do not intend to debate you as if this is a corporate negotiation or a plea-bargain session. It is not surprising to me that an attorney can take a 29 (should be 30) point enumeration of issues and quickly dismiss it as 'workable'. Therein lies the rub. While I do not denigrate your church, I feel no particular pull at unity for the sake of unity. Perhaps you could take the list, digest it as you will, and offer your brief to the Vatican. Your good  intentions are noted here.
I see that in some posts you aver that we did not face a Reformation and that your councils after 7 were mostly in response to that later schism. Unfortunately, we Orthodox (at least some of us) see the Church of Rome as a Reformation church and as such many of our local synods after 7th are motivated in kind.
It also does not surprise me that Pope John Paul II (for whom I have stated my respect here before) wishes to start 'dialogue' at the far end when we were together. He has no choice. The problem is that path is doomed to failure. Why? In my personal opinion the schism cracks began in the mid-5th century, deepened in the 9th, became most evident in the 11th, tempered in hardness in the 13th, and FINAL in 1870. I know this is not the Orthodox 'take', but prior to Vatican I, reunion was possible. Since, simply. No.
If ending the schism is to happen, it will only be done by rolling it back up, not by starting all over again.
I am impressed, BTW; it took me 14 months to study the orlapub site. You assimilated it in days  Afro

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Tabby
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


« Reply #153 on: January 20, 2005, 02:35:24 PM »


 Although I am Orthodox, I respect the Pope and think he is a holy man. It always rather makes me cringe when I hear a layman demanding that the Pope "repent his errors" Smiley It is just rather silly and at worst , a little like Ian Paisley railing '"Antichrist" as he did to the Pope at the European Parliament several years ago.

  As for the Pope acting as a "Lord" or "lording it over others", indeed Popes in the past have done that but I believe our Orthodox objections to Papal Infallibility rest on stronger grounds then just a fear of "papal monarchy"  We hold to the ancient view of the Church in Council being infallible.
 I think this Pope certainly lives up to one of his titles "Servus Servorum Dei"


Out of all the religions that I have been to...most people had their own perspective of the pope which was usually negative and others really anti......you are the first I have encountered who I can accept and respect this view....I remember growing up...I had so many misconceptions of the RCC and the Pope...of course what was I thinking to believe a non catholic (anti catholic at that) over the source...

I totally totally respect your answer here....
« Last Edit: January 20, 2005, 02:37:42 PM by Tabby » Logged

"If only I could die because then I would not die" ~ St. John of the Cross

"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" (Jn 3;16) "Mary so loved us that she gave her only b
msopts
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


OC.net


« Reply #154 on: February 01, 2005, 01:02:52 AM »


<<Pokrov.org is a site from a group of people who seek to limit or cut the relationship with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. They have just been denied an appeal regarding a case they lost. It is very pathetic as they are capable of many gross distortions to get what they want.>>

Excuse me, but you appear to have pokrov.org confused with some other group. Pokrov has not instituted legal action against anyone. Accordingly we have neither lost a case nor an appeal.

I would also have to disagree that pedophilia and other forms of abuse are unknown among Orthodox priests. Clergy abuse is not about sex, it is about power. Whether or not a priest has a wife is no guarantee that he is not a sexual predator. Abusers are no more hampered by marriage vows than they are by vows of celibacy. While I'm fairly sure that there are fewer Orthodox predators in terms of sheer numbers, I'm also pretty positive that the percentage of abusive priests would be very comparable.

Melanie Jula Sakoda
<www.pokrov.org>

(I fixed the quote problem only--Anastasios)
« Last Edit: February 01, 2005, 01:16:56 AM by Anastasios » Logged

NULL
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #155 on: February 01, 2005, 04:07:52 AM »


Excuse me, but you appear to have pokrov.org confused with some other group. Pokrov has not instituted legal action against anyone. Accordingly we have neither lost a case nor an appeal.


I must have missed Matthew's earlier post. It certainly sounds like he confused pokrov with OCL

John.
Logged
Tags: Valid Sacraments 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.092 seconds with 48 queries.