OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 23, 2014, 12:52:31 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: My opinion on the Catholic Church  (Read 6997 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #45 on: March 06, 2005, 08:18:19 PM »

Here we go:

1. Peter cannot be "the rock" referred to by Jesus in Matt 16:18 because (drumroll, please) - there is a change in the gender of the noun! That's right, Jesus says (and I'll use go_reds5's original post for this) -

"Esy eisai Petros, kai panw se afth thn petra tha oikodomiso thn Ekklesia mou kai den tha thn katanikhsoun oi dynameis tou Adh" (Matt 16:18) - Jesus calls Simon a Masculine "Rock", and then uses a feminine "rock" to build His Church - and while the word for "rock" is supposed to be in the feminine, since He had used the masculine form earlier, He would have needed to use the masculine form of "rock" again.

2. The following comment is a paraphrase of what I've read in Fr. John Romanides' stuff: in Greek, there are two words that roughly translate to "proceed" in English, one that states a relationship of sender/sendee (like John proceeds from the office to pick up coffee), and another which signifyes the source of one's being/causality (like the baby proceeds from the mother). In Latin, there is only one such word, used by the Latin fathers interchangably, helping to further the confusion in theology between East and West before the schism.


-----------
{Edit - I can't believe I got go_reds5's name wrong!!! My apologies.}
« Last Edit: March 06, 2005, 08:19:32 PM by cleveland » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,446


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #46 on: March 06, 2005, 10:46:18 PM »

Cleveland,

Quote
1. Peter cannot be "the rock" referred to by Jesus in Matt 16:18 because (drumroll, please) - there is a change in the gender of the noun!  That's right, Jesus says (and I'll use go_reds5's original post for this)

Some Fathers did see Peter as the Rock, while others it was his faith, while for others it was both.  I think it's clearly a functional designation though; Peter's faith is right, therefore he is a rock.

The Catholics have a convincing response to the petros/petra thing. The original language spoken was Aramaic, and in Aramaic there is no gender in play here apparently, and it is kephas in both.  There are responses to that and counterresponses, which I am not too current on, but a cursory search of Catholics apologetics websites will reveal copious material objecting to the grammatical-difference-debunks-your-interpretation argument. I think that we need to have more complex responses to this problem if we are to make much headway with knowledgable Catholics.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #47 on: March 06, 2005, 10:56:57 PM »

Some Fathers did see Peter as the Rock, while others it was his faith, while for others it was both.

Something I placed on the Forum before but cannot locate it ....

Here is a quick summary of the way that
the Church Fathers interpreted that verse -
"Thou are Peter and upon this rock...."

Archbishop Kenrick, who was one of America's
extraordinary bishops, was opposed to the doctrine of
papal infallibilty and at the First Vatican Council
in 1869 he voted against it. He wanted to deliver
a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council
but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings.
He published his speech in Naples the following year.

It is important because he lists the five different
patristic interpretations of Matthew 16:18.


Let's look at how the Church Fathers line up over this verse:


1...."That St. Peter is the Rock" is taught
by seventeen (17) Fathers


2....That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock,
represented by Peter as its chief,
is taught by eight (8 ) Church Fathers


3....That St. Peter's faith is the Rock,
is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers


4....That Christ is the Rock,
is taught by sixteen Fathers (16)

5....That the rock is the whole body of the faithful.
Archbp. Kenrick gives no figure.


Archbishop Kenrick summarises

"If we are bound to follow the greater number
of Fathers in this matter,** then we must hold
for certain that the word "Petra" means not Peter
professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter."

**This is an important point by Archbishop Kenrick and
it should be given its full weight. It is RC doctrine
that where there is something disputed the choice must
be made for the consensus of the Fathers, the
consensus patrum.

You can look this up and check that I have it
accurately in
Friedrich, Docum ad illust. Conc. Vat. 1, pp. 185-246

As to who Archbishop Kenrick was.
Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm

Now in light of the fact that the large majority
of the Church Fathers do NOT teach that the Rock
is Saint Peter, I say that it is not fair to say that the
Orthodox are dunderheads over this matter.
Are the Church Fathers also dunderheads?


And you should remember that 65 of the bishops gathered
at the First Vatican Council REFUSED to vote for the
proposed dogma of papal infallibility. Were they
also blockheads? Wouldn't one say that IF the doctrine
had been so normal and accepted in the Catholic Church
in the centuries prior to Vatican I that there would
never have been such a solid block of resisting bishops
who refused to vote for it in 1869.
This was only 133 years ago, quite recently.

You can check these facts in several major Catholic writings...

"How the Pope Became Infallible" by August Bernhard Hasler.
"Infallible? - An Unresolved Enquiry" by Hans Kung.

They say that at the opening of Vatican I only 50 bishops
were in favour of Pope Pius IX's desire to have the Popes
declared infallible. 130 of the bishops had declared
beforehand that they were against Papal Infallibility,
and the rest of the bishops, 620 were undecided.











Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #48 on: March 06, 2005, 11:28:40 PM »


The Catholics have a convincing response to the petros/petra thing. The original language spoken was Aramaic, and in Aramaic there is no gender in play here apparently, and it is kephas in both. There are responses to that and counterresponses, which I am not too current on, but a cursory search of Catholics apologetics websites will reveal copious material objecting to the grammatical-difference-debunks-your-interpretation argument.


I have seen this put forth from the Roman Catholics many times. It did give me pause for lengthy thought.
But I have a problem with the position for the following reason.
While we can argue forever about which version, Greek or Aramaic, precedes the other, I am of the opinion they were contemporaneous in composition. Allowing that the verse was dictated in Aramaic and then translated into Greek at virtually the same time then begs the question - "Why is it rendered so in Greek?" Surely those involved knew exactly what they were writing. I can only conclude that they KNEW what they were writing and the meaning contained therein.
Logged

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

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #49 on: March 07, 2005, 12:46:07 AM »

Sometimes I think about the notation of a rivalry (Luke 22:24-27,Matt. 20:24-28, Mark 10:35-45) amongst the 12, who was the greater, maybe a influence on future thoughts/opinions.

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #50 on: March 07, 2005, 07:08:22 AM »


**P.S: In my opinion the Orthodox Church is NOT the true one. It is only 1/2 of the true church. The other 1/2 lies in Rome. No church was created after the Schism, but the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church was divided in two Holy Catholic and Apostolic Churches.


Quite simply, Christ cannot be divided, and each faithful bishop surrounded by his flock where Christ is manifest in the Eucharist is the fullness of the church, lacking absolutely nothing. In the same manner, each person who receives the body and blood of Christ in the Divine Liturgy, receives not a part of Christ's body and blood, but His whole body and blood.

Quote

But I had my reasons to convert. Here are some of them:

Concerning Filioque:

(excuse any spelling errors, I translated the text from Greek to English)
"Therefore, we declare that we follow the following Holy Fathers: Athanasius, Ilarius, Basilius, Gregorius the Theologist, Gregorius of Nyssa, Ambrosius, Theophilus, Ioannes Christostomus, Cyrillus, Augustine, Prokles, Leonta and their writings concerning true faith".

Council of Constantinople (553 AD)
-----------------
“He, with His word gives to the Holy Spirit, and whatever the Spirit has, It has it from the Word .”
Athanasius, Against Arrium:24 (362 AD)
-----------------
"The Spirit is God, from the Father and the Son."
Epiphanius (374 AD)
-----------------
"No one knows the Spirit but for the Father and the Son, the two from which It proceeds and recieves"
Epiphanius (374 AD)
-----------------
"Our Lord teaches us that the Spirit proceeds not from itself but from the Father and the Son."
Didymus the Blind (381 AD) ***NOT SURE IF HE WAS A HOLY FATHER RECOGNISED BY CONSTANTINOPLE.
-----------------
"The Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father but also from the Son."
Augustine, <<Trinity>> (408 AD)
-----------------
"Some might wonder if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well. For, the Son is Son of the Father only, and the Father is Father of the Son. But the Holy Spirit is not Spirit of the Father only or from the Son only but It is Spirit of them both."
Augustine
----------------
"For It [the Holy Spirit] is called Spirit of Truth, and Christ is the Truth and proceeds from Him [from the Son] as well as It proceeds from the Father."
Cyrillus, Epistole to Nestorians (430 AD)


Those are quotes from a few individual fathers. The teaching of the Church however, agreed upon by 150 bishops present at the second ecumenical council, and ratified by nearly 1000 bishops at subsequent councils, is that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father.

John.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,446


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #51 on: March 07, 2005, 09:33:18 AM »

The eighth ecumenical council of St Sophia (879) which repudiated the false council of 869, settled the filioque controversy.  The Council of Blachernae (1285) further refined the Orthodox teaching. I would suggest that one do further research into these councils if he is to understand the filique completely.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #52 on: March 07, 2005, 10:31:15 AM »


Concerning the Holy Light, beware for Lucifer can trick us and lead us to sin with so-called miracles.


The Holy Fire at Pascha in Jerusalem has been happening since long before the schism. Back then it was considered a miracle of the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Now it's considered a "so called" miracle, with the inference that it could be from the evil one? When did that change of attitude come about?
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,910


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #53 on: March 07, 2005, 01:32:15 PM »

I think when the Armenian Patriarch told everybody the Greek Patriarch simply lights the candles from a flame prepared beforehand.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
go_reds5
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #54 on: March 07, 2005, 02:57:08 PM »

...
« Last Edit: March 07, 2005, 02:59:29 PM by go_reds5 » Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #55 on: March 07, 2005, 04:17:00 PM »

Anastasios is correct.  It's an annoying (and innaccurate) over simplification to deny that any of the Fathers refered to St.Peter as "the rock" in any sense.

Rather, the whole picture is that St.Peter was "the rock" in a derivative sense - namely, because of his faith in Christ, Who is the Rock, being God in the flesh.  "Rock" is used in the Scriptures repeatedly as a symbol/sign for God.  Christ is that Rock - and the one who puts their faith in Him is one who builds upon a "sure foundation", and as such is also "confirmed", and indeed becomes capable of "confirming others."

OTOH, none of this indicates the later developments of Latin ecclessiology, which introduced the idea that an indisputable, irrevocable charism of "rockness" passed down the generations in some kind of dynastic succession - a succession limited solely to the Bishops of Rome.  While I can accept the idea that the traditional/canonical "first Bishop" (which the Patriarch/Pope of Rome once was) can play that role of "confirming the brethren" and act in a leadership capacity amongst Bishops, such an acceptance is entirely conditional on him being Orthodox in faith.  Sadly, I don't think one can honestly (or perhaps I should say, "as a sufficiently informed person") say that has been the case of Rome for centuries, and most particularly in recent decades.

Like St.Symeon of Thessaloniki, if the Pope were Orthodox (and by this I mean in faith - I'm not talking about adopting some variant of "Byzatine" liturgics), I would be willing to follow him not simply as St.Peter, but verily as Christ Himself (St.Symeon's thoughts, not original to me.)

Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #56 on: March 08, 2005, 04:31:12 AM »

I think when the Armenian Patriarch told everybody the Greek Patriarch simply lights the candles from a flame prepared beforehand.

Since when did what the Armenian Patriarch said have any bearing on what Catholics believe? IIRC it was actually the Armenian Patriarch who admitted to carrying a lighter "just in case", such as when the JP blew out his candle. Is this what you believe Deacon Lance, that a flame is prepared beforehand?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #57 on: March 08, 2005, 07:34:42 AM »

Is this what you believe Deacon Lance, that a flame is prepared beforehand?


Let us be believing and not unbelieving. Let us not become like the "bestial and senseless" men, as Pope Urban II decribes them -those unbelievers who scoff at the Holy Fire and who say it is a fraud on the part of the Patriarch (he uses matches or a lighter.)

Here is what Pope Urban said of the Holy Fire in 1096 when he was urging Western Christendom to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims:


"Of holy Jerusalem, brethren, we dare not speak, for we are exceedingly afraid and ashamed to speak of it. This very city, in which, as you all know, Christ Himself suffered for us, because our sins demanded it, has been reduced to the pollution of paganism and, I say it to our disgrace, withdrawn from the service of God. Such is the heap of reproach upon us who have so much deserved it! Who now serves the church of the Blessed Mary in the valley of Josaphat, in which church she herself was buried in body? But why do we pass over the Temple of Solomon, nay of the Lord, in which the barbarous nations placed their idols contrary to law, human and divine? Of the Lord's Sepulchre we have refrained from speaking, since some of you with your own eyes have seen to what abominations it has been given over. The Turks violently took from it the offerings which you brought there for alms in such vast amounts, and, in addition, they scoffed much and often 'at Your religion. And yet in that place (I say only what you already know) rested the Lord; there He died for us; there He was buried. How precious would be the longed for, incomparable place of the Lord's burial, even if God failed there to perform the yearly miracle! For in the days of His Passion all the lights in the Sepulchre and round about in the church, which have been extinguished, are relighted by divine command. Whose heart is so stony, brethren, that it is not touched by so great a miracle? Believe me, that man is bestial and senseless whose heart such divinely manifest grace does not move to faith!

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html

Here is a web page on the Holy Fire, with accounts from the Pope and from church authorities and pilgrims through the centuries.

http://www.holyfire.org/eng/


« Last Edit: March 08, 2005, 07:36:17 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
go_reds5
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #58 on: March 08, 2005, 09:26:46 AM »

The Letter of Clement to James
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
---
The Clementine Homilies
"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).
---
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

"There [John 6:68-69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8 ).
----
Pope Damasus I
"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
-----
Augustine
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. ... In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
-----
Council of Ephesus
"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
------
Council of Chalcedon
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).


Also see: http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
« Last Edit: March 08, 2005, 09:28:42 AM by go_reds5 » Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,910


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #59 on: March 08, 2005, 09:38:16 AM »

John,

You asked:
"Now it's considered a "so called" miracle, with the inference that it could be from the evil one? When did that change of attitude come about?"

I answered:
"I think when the Armenian Patriarch told everybody the Greek Patriarch simply lights the candles from a flame prepared beforehand."

Which has nothing at all to do with my belief but what I believe to be the cause of the attitude change.

You then ask:
"Is this what you believe Deacon Lance, that a flame is prepared beforehand?"

I believe in the miracle. I also believe that the recent inexcusable behavior of both the Greek and Armenian Patriarchs may have resulted in God withholding the miracle and the Patriarchs in question lighting the fire from a prepared flame. Who knows but the Patriarchs? However, would it be proven that the miracle has been a fraud these many centuries it would not affect my faith in the least because the True Light descends from heaven to earth at every Liturgy and this miracle is far greater than the Paschal Fire.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #60 on: March 08, 2005, 10:44:26 AM »

go_reds5,

Do you really think that this sort of proof texting is going to be at all convincing to any reasonably well read Orthodox Christian? We could just as easily use Patristic quotes to argue the reverse of what you are saying. For instance, Blessed Augustine talks frequently of the Rock on which the Church is built as being Christ and Peter's confession of faith in Him. St. Cyprian also, unless his words are taken out of context as you have done, cannot be seen to support modern Papal claims to authority over the Church. The fact is that the Patristic consensus (and often the individual Fathers quoted in Catholic apologetics) simply does not support the Roman Catholic position.

I have to say that I'm particularly puzzled by your use of the folowing:

Quote
Augustine
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. ... In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

In what way does this bolster the Roman Catholic position? All that it says is that Bl. Augustine could be certain of the Apostolic succession of the biishops of Rome, a succession which did not include any Donatists. He does not imply anywhere in your quote that they have a primacy of jurisdiction over the Church, nor that Peter had a primacy of authority over the other Apostles, nor even had he had such, that such authority could be inherited by his successors.

I must say that I was amazed to see your opening post on this thread. Up to now I've only known of one Orthodox Christian who converted to Catholicism, and she did so because of marrriage and was hardly devout in the first place. Do you mind my asking what it is that convinced you of the truth of Roman Catholicism over Orthodoxy? I really am interested, though I can't think of anything that would lead me to the decision you have made.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #61 on: March 08, 2005, 11:27:30 AM »

John,

You asked:
Quote
Quote
"Now it's considered a "so called" miracle, with the inference that it could be from the evil one? When did that change of attitude come about?"

I answered:
"I think when the Armenian Patriarch told everybody the Greek Patriarch simply lights the candles from a flame prepared beforehand."

Which has nothing at all to do with my belief but what I believe to be the cause of the attitude change.

You then ask:
Quote
"Is this what you believe Deacon Lance, that a flame is prepared beforehand?"

I believe in the miracle. I also believe that the recent inexcusable behavior of both the Greek and Armenian Patriarchs may have resulted in God withholding the miracle and the Patriarchs in question lighting the fire from a prepared flame. Who knows but the Patriarchs? However, would it be proven that the miracle has been a fraud these many centuries it would not affect my faith in the least because the True Light descends from heaven to earth at every Liturgy and this miracle is far greater than the Paschal Fire.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Obviously people have not seen the videos of people's hair, faces and hands in the fire remaining unburned or of the fire dancing all over the church is they do not believe in this miracle. Were it a fraud, when the Armenian patriarch tried to co-opt the flame and could not or when the flame was attempted and failed to be received on Gregorian Calendar 'Easter' then fire would have appeared. But insted in the later nothing came and in the former the flame shot through a pillar to light the Jerusalem Patriarch's candle, bypassing the Armenian patriarch completely.

Fr. Lance, when did the Armenian patriarch declare it to be a fraud?
« Last Edit: March 08, 2005, 11:30:56 AM by Диакон Николай » Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,910


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #62 on: March 08, 2005, 11:34:25 AM »

Fr. Deacon Nikolai,

I believe it was rather recently, although if I remember the article correctly I believe it maintained that the Armenians always maintained this.  I will search for it and post it if I find it.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #63 on: March 08, 2005, 11:46:29 AM »

Thank you Fr. Lance.

As an aside, do the Ruthenians always use the full title of Father Deacon when addressing a deacon? I know traditionally in the Russian Church that it is only used in formal situations, otherwise only Father is used. Likewise, when I have been a guest of traditional Greek Churches the word Deacon is never mentioned and I am only called Father Nikolai.

Of course our tradition also is not to call ourselves Father but only Deacon; which admittedly confuses some people.

Also in writing I am addressed as The Reverend Father/Deacon Nikolai on the envelope but I know the Latin practice would be to write to The Reverend Mister Firstname Lastname. Which do the Ruthenians do in formal addressing of an envelope?

I was just interested in the possible difference in the Ruthenian practice and Russian and Greek Orthodox traditions.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,446


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #64 on: March 08, 2005, 12:12:59 PM »

Quote
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

You have to realize that he repuidated this text when the Pope of Rome used this to bolster his claims, and changed this text, right? Why are you quoting the unrevised version?

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,910


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #65 on: March 08, 2005, 12:35:07 PM »

Fr. Nikolai,

In my Metropolia it is either Father Deacon or Deacon alone, never Father alone.  I suppose this is done to avoid confusing us with priests but on the otherhand the non-ordained monks of Holy Resurrection are accorded the title Father, as is proper, with out qualification.

My envelopes from the chancery are addressed Deacon Lance.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #66 on: March 09, 2005, 03:44:41 AM »


Dear go reds5,

Please see my post above. We know that some Church Fathers took the view which you give below. Btw, Augustine retracted what you have given below and announced that he himself did not believe that Peter was the Rock, but he said others could believe it if they wanted. This indicates that at Augustine's time, 400 years after the Church's foundation, there was no patristic consensus that the Rock equals Peter. If there had been, Augustine would not have denied it himself and left it as optional for others.

My post above says that 17 Church Fathers (aka early Bible Teachers!) can be found who believe that the Rock is Peter.

In contrast, there are 44 Church Fathers who do not believe that the Rock is Peter, but it is the faith in Christ's divinity.

There are a further 16 Church Fathers who do not believe that the Rock is Peter, but that it is Christ Himself.

See Message 47 above for all these statistics.

The majority consensus of the Fathers therefore goes against the "Peter is the Rock" belief.


Quote
The Letter of Clement to James
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church,
Quote
« Last Edit: March 09, 2005, 03:46:13 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Lemko Rusyn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Православно-католицька віра нашых вітців
Jurisdiction: Русиньска ґрекокатолицька церьков свого права
Posts: 118


Пресвятая Богородице Повчанская, спаси нас!


WWW
« Reply #67 on: March 09, 2005, 01:51:23 PM »

>>In my Metropolia it is either Father Deacon or Deacon alone, never Father alone.

Some Ruthenian parishes with a deacon list his name -- whether in ignorance, or in outright imitation of the Latin form -- as "Rev. Mr. So-and-So".
Logged
Tags: Roman Empire roman catholic Pope 
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 0.107 seconds with 50 queries.