OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 24, 2014, 12:58:01 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Gates of Hell and Heresy in the OC  (Read 1738 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
homedad76
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Exploring Orthodoxy
Posts: 22



« on: December 26, 2013, 11:08:40 AM »

I know the RCC uses the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it" as one of their proofs of papal infallibility (something I am finding spurious since if Christ meant that literally for one person then shouldn't every utterance of the Pope be infallible? but I digress) but I am not entirely clear what it means to the Orthodox.  How do you interpret that in the light of the fact that nearly, if not every, patriarchate has at some point taught admitted heresy? (IE iconoclasm by Constantinople).  Is it because they have not all fallen into heresy at the same time that OC can claim the gates of hell have not prevailed?  I am technically a Roman Catholic right now but seriously looking at Orthodoxy and while I have issues with many things in the Roman church it does seem like only the RCC can make the claim to never have formally taught heresy except the Orthodox claim that infallibility does not rest with one person.  Is there any other teachings of the RCC that Orthodox claim is heresy (from what I understand the Immaculate Conception is not a heresy but simply something that the OC has no formal decision on and while it doesn't make allot of sense in OC thought it isn't expressly forbidden to believe it).

As I am sure most RC converts can attest leaving Rome is a serious decision.  I am beginning to find agreement with OC arguments against papal supremacy and disagreements with the weak arguments given by Catholic apologists.  But I also do find allot of Truth in the Catholic Church and would greatly miss some aspects of the Catholic mass that many other converts probably leave for (Eucharistic ministers, instrumental music, etc). so for converts and cradle orthodox alike, how do you jive Christs promise to protect the Church from heresy  with the heresies that have been taught and with the idea that the Orthodox Church seems to allow for much more flexibility of belief and readily admits that most things that bishops teach are not considered infallible but should be followed for the sake of obedience and only disregarded after serious prayer and conflict of conscience in the light of scripture and teachings of the Fathers.

Tim
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Banned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2013, 11:20:57 AM »

Have you ever considered looking at a Western Rite Orthodox parish? It may feel more comfortable to you.

I am not sure I can agree that the partriachates have promoted heresy. Closest I can think Odox view RCC being "heretical" would be ultramontanism, but that is stretching it.

I think my question on the gates of hell has more to do with why are there so many different schisms and factions. I haven't read a good apology that doesn't attempt to subvert into cleverness.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
homedad76
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Exploring Orthodoxy
Posts: 22



« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2013, 11:38:41 AM »

There is no western rite within 1000 miles from what I can tell and less then 20 it seems within the US since ROCOR has dismantled theres.  And I do like the reverence of the DL of SJC.

As for schisms and factions, as you put it, I dont think most orthodox would put these in one category.  A schism is a formal separation and schismatic churches are considered to no longer be fully part of the orthodox faith (even if they do continue apostolic succession for the purposes of the validity of the eucharist) while different factions are more like Greek Orthodox vs OCA, teach the same faith and big T traditions but differ on small t traditions and minor doctrinal points where flexibility is permitted by the Fathers with the understanding that neither can claim infallibility on those issues.

If I am off someone let me know.

Tim
Logged
homedad76
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Exploring Orthodoxy
Posts: 22



« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2013, 11:39:39 AM »


I am not sure I can agree that the partriachates have promoted heresy.

What about Iconoclasm and Nestorianism?
Logged
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2013, 11:43:15 AM »

I know the RCC uses the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it" as one of their proofs of papal infallibility (something I am finding spurious since if Christ meant that literally for one person then shouldn't every utterance of the Pope be infallible? but I digress) but I am not entirely clear what it means to the Orthodox.  How do you interpret that in the light of the fact that nearly, if not every, patriarchate has at some point taught admitted heresy? (IE iconoclasm by Constantinople). 
The Orthodox faith did not cease to exist everywhere, did it? And those patriarchs did not remain in heresy, did they?

Our ecclesiology doesn't demand a single patriarchate maintain spotless for the church to survive, while the RCC's does. The long view of history says those years when Constantinople, Antioch, etc. embraced X-doctrines were temporarily discouraging moments in a longer battle that was ultimately won.

Taking a step back from history, I’m of the opinion that most folks understanding of gates “prevailing” is flawed. One does not attack with gates. One defends gates.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL ORTHODOX CHURCH
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,855



« Reply #5 on: December 26, 2013, 12:23:29 PM »

The ROCOR Western Rite is NOT closed.

In fact, the website states "Two things of special note are that all existing Western Rite parishes remain in good standing and are canonically resident within the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and they continue to exist under the direct Omophorion of His Eminence, Metropolitan Hilarion.  More information on this and other upcoming developments can be found by going to www.rwrv.org/news ."
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #6 on: December 26, 2013, 03:11:23 PM »

I know the RCC uses the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it" as one of their proofs of papal infallibility (something I am finding spurious since if Christ meant that literally for one person then shouldn't every utterance of the Pope be infallible? but I digress) but I am not entirely clear what it means to the Orthodox.  How do you interpret that in the light of the fact that nearly, if not every, patriarchate has at some point taught admitted heresy? (IE iconoclasm by Constantinople).  Is it because they have not all fallen into heresy at the same time that OC can claim the gates of hell have not prevailed?  I am technically a Roman Catholic right now but seriously looking at Orthodoxy and while I have issues with many things in the Roman church it does seem like only the RCC can make the claim to never have formally taught heresy except the Orthodox claim that infallibility does not rest with one person.  Is there any other teachings of the RCC that Orthodox claim is heresy (from what I understand the Immaculate Conception is not a heresy but simply something that the OC has no formal decision on and while it doesn't make allot of sense in OC thought it isn't expressly forbidden to believe it).

As I am sure most RC converts can attest leaving Rome is a serious decision.  I am beginning to find agreement with OC arguments against papal supremacy and disagreements with the weak arguments given by Catholic apologists.  But I also do find allot of Truth in the Catholic Church and would greatly miss some aspects of the Catholic mass that many other converts probably leave for (Eucharistic ministers, instrumental music, etc). so for converts and cradle orthodox alike, how do you jive Christs promise to protect the Church from heresy  with the heresies that have been taught and with the idea that the Orthodox Church seems to allow for much more flexibility of belief and readily admits that most things that bishops teach are not considered infallible but should be followed for the sake of obedience and only disregarded after serious prayer and conflict of conscience in the light of scripture and teachings of the Fathers.

Tim

Pope Honorius I was condemned as a heretic by the 6th Ecumenical Council.  In fact, four out of the five patriarchs at that time were heretics, as Honorius of Rome, Sergius of Constantinople, Cyrus of Alexandria, and Makarios of Antioch, were all condemned as Monothelite heretics, and St. Sophronius of Jerusalem alone espoused the Church's teaching.  So, the gates of hell did not prevail against the Church despite Rome's heresy at that time, and despite 4 patriarchs espousing the heresy.   
 
Logged
Velsigne
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 432



« Reply #7 on: December 26, 2013, 04:04:41 PM »

I know the RCC uses the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it" as one of their proofs of papal infallibility (something I am finding spurious since if Christ meant that literally for one person then shouldn't every utterance of the Pope be infallible? but I digress) but I am not entirely clear what it means to the Orthodox.  How do you interpret that in the light of the fact that nearly, if not every, patriarchate has at some point taught admitted heresy? (IE iconoclasm by Constantinople).  Is it because they have not all fallen into heresy at the same time that OC can claim the gates of hell have not prevailed?  I am technically a Roman Catholic right now but seriously looking at Orthodoxy and while I have issues with many things in the Roman church it does seem like only the RCC can make the claim to never have formally taught heresy except the Orthodox claim that infallibility does not rest with one person.  Is there any other teachings of the RCC that Orthodox claim is heresy (from what I understand the Immaculate Conception is not a heresy but simply something that the OC has no formal decision on and while it doesn't make allot of sense in OC thought it isn't expressly forbidden to believe it).

Christ is born!

Could be that there is an underlying difference in how RCC learn to conceptualize what the Church is, and is not.  

Would you agree that the RCC considers the 'Catholic' church to be the visible head of the Pope and all the currently existing, visible parishes / peoples who are in communion with him?  

It would seem so, because your question seems to have an underlying assumption that having a fallible bishop on earth can cause the entire, universal Church to crumble.  

I'm asking this before I try to answer your question because I'm not sure I completely understand RCC ecclesiology and your take on it.  



As I am sure most RC converts can attest leaving Rome is a serious decision.  I am beginning to find agreement with OC arguments against papal supremacy and disagreements with the weak arguments given by Catholic apologists.  But I also do find allot of Truth in the Catholic Church and would greatly miss some aspects of the Catholic mass that many other converts probably leave for (Eucharistic ministers, instrumental music, etc). so for converts and cradle orthodox alike, how do you jive Christs promise to protect the Church from heresy  with the heresies that have been taught and with the idea that the Orthodox Church seems to allow for much more flexibility of belief and readily admits that most things that bishops teach are not considered infallible but should be followed for the sake of obedience and only disregarded after serious prayer and conflict of conscience in the light of scripture and teachings of the Fathers.

Tim

If I recall Western Civ classes, and not to put down the RCC, but haven't Popes negated other Pope's 'infallible' decisions, and has there not been multiple popes at once and at least one cross-dressing woman pope?   (It has been a few years since Western Civ).  So, how do you logically get around that?  How do you accept that one Pope decided to change the Creed, when previous Popes had agreed at the Ecumenical Councils to never change the Nicene Creed?  One RCC rationalization I've seen is the 'acorn' theory, that theology grows over time, but isn't that changing the Apostolic faith?  I'm not stating this to argue, but just to point out that the conditions that make you nervous about Orthodoxy already exist in the RCC, except only the Byzantine Catholics recite the Creed (without filioque) correctly as far as I know.  I did see a clip of Pope Benedict reciting the Creed in Greek once, and he recited it correctly, but that isn't standard RCC practice, so how can they change an essential of the faith, then change it back willy-nilly?  



I can understand how we get comfortable with something and don't want to change, or we fit in somewhere and don't want to go where we might not fit in as readily, just basically staying in a comfort zone.  I've seen this most recently in a man who converted to Christianity from being a gang-banger, and he just drifted around from one place to the next.  Then he found a group of other ex-gang bangers to hang out with and talk about God sometimes.  This is where he is comfortable, but will he spiritually grow much?  I can't really judge that in certainty because I'm not God.  But hearing all the heresy he 'preaches' while supposedly 'ministering' to others, I kind of doubt it (not that you are such an extreme case, but it is an example of a clear case of choosing what is comfortable and familiar over seeking Christ--or even being willing to logically think through the theological outcome of the schlock that floats around out there in 'American' Christianity, like 'blab it and grab it' theology for wealthier nations).    

I also remember back in the day that RCs were brought up being taught they would flat go to hell for not being Catholic.  They might have softened up a bit on that, but if you were one raised in that type of RCC, I would probably have some deep-seated fear about leaving the RCC too.

Note:  I came in as a un-churched convert, and it has been anything but comfortable and easy (especially since I'm not much of a 'joiner' and tend to be reclusive).  See John 6.68-70  I seriously considered the RCC, then learned about Orthodoxy and weighed the two.  

"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God"  That is basically what it all boils down to: who is Christ and where is His Church?  For me, there was nowhere else to go.

« Last Edit: December 26, 2013, 04:34:06 PM by Velsigne » Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 860


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2013, 01:24:37 AM »

I know the RCC uses the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it" as one of their proofs of papal infallibility (something I am finding spurious since if Christ meant that literally for one person then shouldn't every utterance of the Pope be infallible? but I digress) but I am not entirely clear what it means to the Orthodox.  How do you interpret that in the light of the fact that nearly, if not every, patriarchate has at some point taught admitted heresy? (IE iconoclasm by Constantinople).  Is it because they have not all fallen into heresy at the same time that OC can claim the gates of hell have not prevailed?  I am technically a Roman Catholic right now but seriously looking at Orthodoxy and while I have issues with many things in the Roman church it does seem like only the RCC can make the claim to never have formally taught heresy except the Orthodox claim that infallibility does not rest with one person.  Is there any other teachings of the RCC that Orthodox claim is heresy (from what I understand the Immaculate Conception is not a heresy but simply something that the OC has no formal decision on and while it doesn't make allot of sense in OC thought it isn't expressly forbidden to believe it).

As I am sure most RC converts can attest leaving Rome is a serious decision.  I am beginning to find agreement with OC arguments against papal supremacy and disagreements with the weak arguments given by Catholic apologists.  But I also do find allot of Truth in the Catholic Church and would greatly miss some aspects of the Catholic mass that many other converts probably leave for (Eucharistic ministers, instrumental music, etc). so for converts and cradle orthodox alike, how do you jive Christs promise to protect the Church from heresy  with the heresies that have been taught and with the idea that the Orthodox Church seems to allow for much more flexibility of belief and readily admits that most things that bishops teach are not considered infallible but should be followed for the sake of obedience and only disregarded after serious prayer and conflict of conscience in the light of scripture and teachings of the Fathers.

Tim

Pope Honorius I was condemned as a heretic by the 6th Ecumenical Council.  In fact, four out of the five patriarchs at that time were heretics, as Honorius of Rome, Sergius of Constantinople, Cyrus of Alexandria, and Makarios of Antioch, were all condemned as Monothelite heretics, and St. Sophronius of Jerusalem alone espoused the Church's teaching.  So, the gates of hell did not prevail against the Church despite Rome's heresy at that time, and despite 4 patriarchs espousing the heresy.  
 


Father, just a historical correction. The patriarchate if Rome was the only church to keep the orthodox faith during the monothelite heresy as the east was in the grips of this heresy. Pope Martin I and the monk St. Maximus the Confessor, the foremost opponents of monothelitism (which they interpreted as denying a human faculty of will to Christ), held a synod in Rome in 649 that condemned monoenergism and monothelitism before the Third Council of Constantinople happened.

As regards to Honorius. That is debatable as to whether he was a heretic. I won't go into this subject here as it is not the appropriate forum for debating this. But the very person who wrote to two problematic letters of Honorius that got him condemned is the person who would know best what was meant in this letters. This man was the Abbot John who was the scribe of  Pope Honorius and he had this to say regarding the letter and the phrase "one will" :

"We said that there is one will in the Lord, not of his divinity and humanity, but of his humanity solely"
 

« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 01:29:58 AM by Wandile » Logged

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church
should agree with this Church [of Rome] , on account of
its preeminent authority
St Irenaeus of Lyon

Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?
St. Cyprian
homedad76
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Exploring Orthodoxy
Posts: 22



« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2013, 11:12:19 AM »

Thanks for all the replies, they are actually really helpful.  I think the problem I was having was placing the patriarchs in the same place as RC put the pope, which I realize is incorrect.  They have pride of place not supremacy.  In fact I find it encouraging that even though these well respected men have fallen into heresy at times the whole Church could come together and come out against them.  If the non-patriarchate bishops had given the same degree of obedience to them as the RC bishops give to Rome we would very likely all be monothelites to this day.

Just a note to the poster who talked about infallible pronouncements being overwritten.. never happened as far as I know.  Because the requirements for an infallible pronouncement are narrow there have only been a a few in history (number is disputed).  Also Pope Joan is a complete myth.

Tim
Logged
Incognito777
Muted
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: N/A
Posts: 282


« Reply #10 on: December 28, 2013, 12:27:59 PM »

The gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church as a whole. Christ never said one man was infallible. The view that the Church as a whole will never fall into heresy, was even held by westerners (Albert the Great, Bonaventure, etc). The modern RCC view goes against all of tradition. Even if we granted for the sake of argument that Saint Peter was chief of the apostles, this in no way proves the Vatican I concept of papal infallibility and supreme universal jurisdiction. The Old Catholics, by the way, reject the doctrine of papal infallibility, as did most of Germany and many theologians at the time this novel doctrine was being introduced.

We Orthodox also reject the Filioque heresy. The RCC has changed and altered much of tradition, even including things like baptism.

Read, The Papacy, by Guettee;

Papalism, by Denny;

Popes And Patriarchs, by Whelton.

Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #11 on: December 28, 2013, 07:04:58 PM »

I know the RCC uses the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it" as one of their proofs of papal infallibility (something I am finding spurious since if Christ meant that literally for one person then shouldn't every utterance of the Pope be infallible? but I digress) but I am not entirely clear what it means to the Orthodox.  How do you interpret that in the light of the fact that nearly, if not every, patriarchate has at some point taught admitted heresy? (IE iconoclasm by Constantinople).  Is it because they have not all fallen into heresy at the same time that OC can claim the gates of hell have not prevailed?  I am technically a Roman Catholic right now but seriously looking at Orthodoxy and while I have issues with many things in the Roman church it does seem like only the RCC can make the claim to never have formally taught heresy except the Orthodox claim that infallibility does not rest with one person.  Is there any other teachings of the RCC that Orthodox claim is heresy (from what I understand the Immaculate Conception is not a heresy but simply something that the OC has no formal decision on and while it doesn't make allot of sense in OC thought it isn't expressly forbidden to believe it).

As I am sure most RC converts can attest leaving Rome is a serious decision.  I am beginning to find agreement with OC arguments against papal supremacy and disagreements with the weak arguments given by Catholic apologists.  But I also do find allot of Truth in the Catholic Church and would greatly miss some aspects of the Catholic mass that many other converts probably leave for (Eucharistic ministers, instrumental music, etc). so for converts and cradle orthodox alike, how do you jive Christs promise to protect the Church from heresy  with the heresies that have been taught and with the idea that the Orthodox Church seems to allow for much more flexibility of belief and readily admits that most things that bishops teach are not considered infallible but should be followed for the sake of obedience and only disregarded after serious prayer and conflict of conscience in the light of scripture and teachings of the Fathers.

Tim

Pope Honorius I was condemned as a heretic by the 6th Ecumenical Council.  In fact, four out of the five patriarchs at that time were heretics, as Honorius of Rome, Sergius of Constantinople, Cyrus of Alexandria, and Makarios of Antioch, were all condemned as Monothelite heretics, and St. Sophronius of Jerusalem alone espoused the Church's teaching.  So, the gates of hell did not prevail against the Church despite Rome's heresy at that time, and despite 4 patriarchs espousing the heresy.  
 


Father, just a historical correction. The patriarchate if Rome was the only church to keep the orthodox faith during the monothelite heresy as the east was in the grips of this heresy. Pope Martin I and the monk St. Maximus the Confessor, the foremost opponents of monothelitism (which they interpreted as denying a human faculty of will to Christ), held a synod in Rome in 649 that condemned monoenergism and monothelitism before the Third Council of Constantinople happened.

As regards to Honorius. That is debatable as to whether he was a heretic. I won't go into this subject here as it is not the appropriate forum for debating this. But the very person who wrote to two problematic letters of Honorius that got him condemned is the person who would know best what was meant in this letters. This man was the Abbot John who was the scribe of  Pope Honorius and he had this to say regarding the letter and the phrase "one will" :

"We said that there is one will in the Lord, not of his divinity and humanity, but of his humanity solely"
 



I think you misspelled hysterical.  In order for something to be a historical correction, it has to be historical.  The whole controversy began its apex with Sergius and Honorius.  The Orthodoxy of Pope Martin of Rome and Pope Eulogios of Alexandria on the defense against Monotheletism does not negate the heresy of Pope Honorius of Rome and Pope Cyrus of Alexandria.  While the Holy Synod of Bishops in Jerusalem rejected the teachings of the Bishop of Joppa who had invaded the Patriarchate upon the passing of St. Sophronios, there is no evidence that the Synod of Rome rejected the heretical teachings of Pope Honorius for quite some time.  And, whether you would like to dispute it or not, Honorius was condemned by several councils including the 6th Ecumenical.  This is undeniable.  Here is some light reading on the matter:  http://www.romancatholicism.org/honorius-heresy.html
  
« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 07:06:53 PM by Father H » Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2013, 07:20:12 PM »

BTW St. Leo II added his own condemnation of Honorius to that of the 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils, branding Honorius a heretic and traitor to the Roman See and the Apostolic Faith. 
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,634


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2013, 07:23:28 PM »

The gates of Hell did not prevail against the Church because Christ destroyed them.
Logged

"...you are the orphan, not the protagonist."

-St. Seraphim of Vyritsa, 'This was from me'
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,320


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2013, 07:54:43 PM »

The gates of Hell did not prevail against the Church because Christ destroyed them.

...and is destroying them, and will destroy them. I suppose.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,709


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2013, 10:52:27 PM »

I know the RCC uses the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it" as one of their proofs of papal infallibility (something I am finding spurious since if Christ meant that literally for one person then shouldn't every utterance of the Pope be infallible? but I digress) but I am not entirely clear what it means to the Orthodox.  How do you interpret that in the light of the fact that nearly, if not every, patriarchate has at some point taught admitted heresy? (IE iconoclasm by Constantinople).  Is it because they have not all fallen into heresy at the same time that OC can claim the gates of hell have not prevailed?  I am technically a Roman Catholic right now but seriously looking at Orthodoxy and while I have issues with many things in the Roman church it does seem like only the RCC can make the claim to never have formally taught heresy except the Orthodox claim that infallibility does not rest with one person.  Is there any other teachings of the RCC that Orthodox claim is heresy (from what I understand the Immaculate Conception is not a heresy but simply something that the OC has no formal decision on and while it doesn't make allot of sense in OC thought it isn't expressly forbidden to believe it).

As I am sure most RC converts can attest leaving Rome is a serious decision.  I am beginning to find agreement with OC arguments against papal supremacy and disagreements with the weak arguments given by Catholic apologists.  But I also do find allot of Truth in the Catholic Church and would greatly miss some aspects of the Catholic mass that many other converts probably leave for (Eucharistic ministers, instrumental music, etc). so for converts and cradle orthodox alike, how do you jive Christs promise to protect the Church from heresy  with the heresies that have been taught and with the idea that the Orthodox Church seems to allow for much more flexibility of belief and readily admits that most things that bishops teach are not considered infallible but should be followed for the sake of obedience and only disregarded after serious prayer and conflict of conscience in the light of scripture and teachings of the Fathers.

Tim

The Waldenses also used that "The gates of hell will not prevail against it", and they considered the RC church the anti-Christ.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,936


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 28, 2013, 11:00:22 PM »

They were wrong. Who cares about them?
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #17 on: December 29, 2013, 02:08:50 AM »

The gates of Hell did not prevail against the Church because Christ destroyed them.

So that this post does not get overlooked, I will quote it and give it a TU!
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #18 on: December 29, 2013, 02:09:47 AM »

The gates of Hell did not prevail against the Church because Christ destroyed them.

...and is destroying them, and will destroy them. I suppose.

He was talking in context about the heresies of old, and this is why he used past tense. 
Logged
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,320


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« Reply #19 on: December 29, 2013, 02:12:14 AM »

I thought we were talking about perceived heresies that persist to this day?  Huh
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #20 on: December 29, 2013, 02:30:00 AM »

I thought we were talking about perceived heresies that persist to this day?  Huh

NicholasMyra was actually (rightly) criticizing me a bit for engaging in minutia without pointing out the big picture that ends the argument (i.e. that Christ is the sole Head of the Church and already trampled down the gates and so there are no gates after that point to prevail against the Church, regardless of whether Honorius was a heretic or not).  You are right that overall it is yesterday today and forever.  But he was replying to the discussion about the papacy being steadfast in the first millennium and about the whole attempted (not very well mind you) defense of Honorius by my adversary, and the whole ensuing discussion.  Even if all 5 Patriarchs were heretics in the Monothelite controversy, the gates of hell did not prevail against it because the gates of hell no longer exist.   
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 860


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #21 on: December 29, 2013, 06:33:17 AM »

BTW St. Leo II added his own condemnation of Honorius to that of the 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils, branding Honorius a heretic and traitor to the Roman See and the Apostolic Faith.  

Father

i just want to make sure that you have completely disregarded the most reliable source, the very co-author's- of the letter- testimony of what was meant in order to continue slating a pope condemned by a council who was not even alive to defend himself? bearing in mind that anathemas against persons by ecumenical councils are not infallible. you simply disregard this evidence from the abbot John as if it doesnt exist and its significance?

The claim that Honorius is a heretic is based on his seemingly positive words to Sergius regarding the expression "one will":

Quote
"Wherefore we acknowledge one will of our Lord Jesus Christ,for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin"


Though used by the monothelites, the expression "one will" also admits of an orthodox interpretation. In Ins letter to the Romans, Paul writes of two wills at work within man—the "inner being" which delights in the law of God on the one hand, and the "different law" at work in the body which makes one a prisoner to the law of sin on the other (Romans 6:21-23). Such a conflict of wills within Jesus Christ's human nature is impossible, as Honorius explains, since God assumed that human nature that existed before the fall—"the nature which was created before sin"—and not the human nature that was corrupted by sin. Honorius uses "one will" in relation to Christ's human nature and not, as did the monothelites, to his person. If Honorius had denied a human will in Christ, there would have been no need to make such a distinction between the wills of pre- and post-fallen human nature.

The truth is, although monothelites such as Pyrrhus, Patriarch of Constantinople, did cite Honorius after his death, the Pope had orthodox defenders who insisted upon his orthodoxy and rejected the attempts of heretics to misuse his words. Maximus the Confessor, who was martyred by the monothelites, wrote that heretics
Quote
"lie against the Apostolic See itself in claiming Honorius to be one with their cause" (Ad Petrum illustrem, quoted in the online Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent).


Pope John IV  defended Honorius, saying he meant only to deny,  

Quote
"contrary wills of mind and flesh" (Apologia pro Honorio Papa, quoted by Joseph Costanzo, S.J., in The Historical Credibility of Hans Kung, 105).


These defenders were virulent opponents of monothelitism who would not dare countenance an expression they condemned unless they were convinced Honorius had in fact used it in an orthodox sense. No one ever accused them of heresy for having defended Honorius's use of "one will."

In his letter to the Emperor that was read to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Pope Agatho stated that he and all of his predecessors, thus inclusive of Honorius,
Quote
"have never ceased to exhort and warn them (i.e. the monothelites) with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma" (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 328—339).

 Honorius did indeed resist the heresy insofar as he urged "silence" with regard to the expression "one operation," which he rightly considered Eutychian.

Pope Leo II condemned and ratified the councils decision on Honorius because he "did not endeavor to preserve" the faith and for having "permitted" it to be assaulted, but not for having either invented, taught, or adhered to the heretical doctrine (Paul Bottalla, S.J., Pope Honorius Before the Tribunal of Reason and History, 111-112). Elsewhere, Leo II says :

Quote
"Honorius, who did not, as became the apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence" (Leonis II ad Episcopos Hispanie in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 7:455; emphasis added).
In summarry, Honorius failed to teach and was thus condemned
« Last Edit: December 29, 2013, 06:38:45 AM by Wandile » Logged

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church
should agree with this Church [of Rome] , on account of
its preeminent authority
St Irenaeus of Lyon

Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?
St. Cyprian
Wandile
Peter the Roman
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 860


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #22 on: December 29, 2013, 09:00:47 AM »

Father have you read St.Robbert Bellarmine's (Probably the best historian on the Papacy of all time) account on Honorius?  It is too long to post here but for all interested, here is the link to it:

http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/HonoriusCalumny.htm

it practically refutes all claims to Honorius a heretic an goes in to great detail on all the evidence involved. Its a good read. Like I said I don't want derail this thread so I'm gonna leave the Honorius issue here.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2013, 09:04:56 AM by Wandile » Logged

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church
should agree with this Church [of Rome] , on account of
its preeminent authority
St Irenaeus of Lyon

Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?
St. Cyprian
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,320


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« Reply #23 on: December 29, 2013, 09:16:00 AM »

I thought we were talking about perceived heresies that persist to this day?  Huh

NicholasMyra was actually (rightly) criticizing me a bit for engaging in minutia without pointing out the big picture that ends the argument (i.e. that Christ is the sole Head of the Church and already trampled down the gates and so there are no gates after that point to prevail against the Church, regardless of whether Honorius was a heretic or not).  You are right that overall it is yesterday today and forever.  But he was replying to the discussion about the papacy being steadfast in the first millennium and about the whole attempted (not very well mind you) defense of Honorius by my adversary, and the whole ensuing discussion.  Even if all 5 Patriarchs were heretics in the Monothelite controversy, the gates of hell did not prevail against it because the gates of hell no longer exist.  

I guess the sticking point for me is... of the dozens of quotes I've seen (and some of them I've posted), the Church Fathers speak as though the gates of hades do still exist, and I've not come across any that I can recall that say that they don't  any longer (or have already been destroyed, as an accomplished fact, whatever we might infer from iconography and other such things). This is where some of my confusion comes in with both this idea that NicholasMyra put forward, and also Agabus: I don't see what basis it has in the Church Fathers, or historical interpretation of Scripture, which is often said how the Orthodox do things. Not that a lapse from tradition is particularly troubling to me, I just don't expect to see it from people 'round these parts.

EDIT--To add a link to another thread where I mentioned some of the quotes.

But perhaps I am just still misunderstanding... in any case, I do find these types of threads interesting.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2013, 09:35:58 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,634


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #24 on: December 29, 2013, 04:53:39 PM »

I thought we were talking about perceived heresies that persist to this day?  Huh

NicholasMyra was actually (rightly) criticizing me a bit for engaging in minutia without pointing out the big picture that ends the argument (i.e. that Christ is the sole Head of the Church 

Father,

I was responding to the OP, I didn't mean to make it out that I was criticizing you.
Logged

"...you are the orphan, not the protagonist."

-St. Seraphim of Vyritsa, 'This was from me'
xOrthodox4Christx
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 1,941


xOrthodox4Christx
« Reply #25 on: December 29, 2013, 05:23:39 PM »

I thought we were talking about perceived heresies that persist to this day?  Huh

NicholasMyra was actually (rightly) criticizing me a bit for engaging in minutia without pointing out the big picture that ends the argument (i.e. that Christ is the sole Head of the Church and already trampled down the gates and so there are no gates after that point to prevail against the Church, regardless of whether Honorius was a heretic or not).  You are right that overall it is yesterday today and forever.  But he was replying to the discussion about the papacy being steadfast in the first millennium and about the whole attempted (not very well mind you) defense of Honorius by my adversary, and the whole ensuing discussion.  Even if all 5 Patriarchs were heretics in the Monothelite controversy, the gates of hell did not prevail against it because the gates of hell no longer exist.  

I guess the sticking point for me is... of the dozens of quotes I've seen (and some of them I've posted), the Church Fathers speak as though the gates of hades do still exist, and I've not come across any that I can recall that say that they don't  any longer (or have already been destroyed, as an accomplished fact, whatever we might infer from iconography and other such things). This is where some of my confusion comes in with both this idea that NicholasMyra put forward, and also Agabus: I don't see what basis it has in the Church Fathers, or historical interpretation of Scripture, which is often said how the Orthodox do things. Not that a lapse from tradition is particularly troubling to me, I just don't expect to see it from people 'round these parts.

EDIT--To add a link to another thread where I mentioned some of the quotes.

But perhaps I am just still misunderstanding... in any case, I do find these types of threads interesting.

My understanding is that the gates of Hades still exist, they are just left powerless by the work of Jesus Christ.
Logged

My posting on this forum is currently on hiatus, until mid-June 2014.

Have a nice spring. Smiley
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #26 on: December 29, 2013, 06:40:22 PM »

I thought we were talking about perceived heresies that persist to this day?  Huh

NicholasMyra was actually (rightly) criticizing me a bit for engaging in minutia without pointing out the big picture that ends the argument (i.e. that Christ is the sole Head of the Church 

Father,

I was responding to the OP, I didn't mean to make it out that I was criticizing you.

No need to apologize.  God spoke through you to me, even though you didn't intend it. 
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #27 on: December 29, 2013, 06:42:35 PM »

I thought we were talking about perceived heresies that persist to this day?  Huh

NicholasMyra was actually (rightly) criticizing me a bit for engaging in minutia without pointing out the big picture that ends the argument (i.e. that Christ is the sole Head of the Church and already trampled down the gates and so there are no gates after that point to prevail against the Church, regardless of whether Honorius was a heretic or not).  You are right that overall it is yesterday today and forever.  But he was replying to the discussion about the papacy being steadfast in the first millennium and about the whole attempted (not very well mind you) defense of Honorius by my adversary, and the whole ensuing discussion.  Even if all 5 Patriarchs were heretics in the Monothelite controversy, the gates of hell did not prevail against it because the gates of hell no longer exist.  

I guess the sticking point for me is... of the dozens of quotes I've seen (and some of them I've posted), the Church Fathers speak as though the gates of hades do still exist, and I've not come across any that I can recall that say that they don't  any longer (or have already been destroyed, as an accomplished fact, whatever we might infer from iconography and other such things). This is where some of my confusion comes in with both this idea that NicholasMyra put forward, and also Agabus: I don't see what basis it has in the Church Fathers, or historical interpretation of Scripture, which is often said how the Orthodox do things. Not that a lapse from tradition is particularly troubling to me, I just don't expect to see it from people 'round these parts.

EDIT--To add a link to another thread where I mentioned some of the quotes.

But perhaps I am just still misunderstanding... in any case, I do find these types of threads interesting.

From Holy Saturday:
Today Hell groans and cries, ‘It were better for me had I not accepted the one born of Mary, for he has come upon me and destroyed my might. He has smashed the gates of brass. Souls which before I held, he, being God, has raised’. Glory, O Lord, to your Cross and to your Resurrection!
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #28 on: December 29, 2013, 07:39:27 PM »

From Paschal Amvon Prayer:
"O Lord, God and our Savior, Jesus Christ, You shattered the bronze gates and iron bars, You freed the holy souls held fast in the depths of Hades, and let them appear to many after Your Resurrection..."
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,119


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #29 on: December 30, 2013, 03:06:49 AM »

From Paschal Amvon Prayer:
"O Lord, God and our Savior, Jesus Christ, You shattered the bronze gates and iron bars, You freed the holy souls held fast in the depths of Hades, and let them appear to many after Your Resurrection..."

The destruction of the gates is also seen on icons of the Resurrection. The gates are shown either broken in pieces, along with broken locks and keys, or are arranged in the form of a cross, on which Christ stands in triumph, as He rises out of Hades.

This cross motif is also seen in many icons of the Theophany, where Christ is seen standing on such a cross as He is being baptized in the Jordan. IIRC, similar imagery is found in the hymns of that feast.
Logged
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,511



« Reply #30 on: January 07, 2014, 12:47:41 AM »

the roads in hell are made of the skulls of priests, who were judged for the sins of their flock and were not corrected...

or so they say...  Grin

I think it is true though that the fathers often say the bishops, and the priests, are judged not only for their personal sins but also for those they are to lead

what does this have to do with OP? I dont know it is late at night
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,511



« Reply #31 on: January 07, 2014, 12:48:37 AM »

is it a heresy to believe the gates are made of bronze over brass or brass over bronze?

"Ask your priest!"
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Laurentius
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Possibly changing
Posts: 74


Look at the birds of the air... (Mt 6:26)


« Reply #32 on: January 08, 2014, 08:40:31 AM »

   

I also remember back in the day that RCs were brought up being taught they would flat go to hell for not being Catholic.  They might have softened up a bit on that, but if you were one raised in that type of RCC, I would probably have some deep-seated fear about leaving the RCC too.


That is what I was taught, and I can tell you that the very idea of leaving still gives me stomach problems.

To the OP:

The Church will continue to help people get to Heaven until the end of times. Christ gave us a new life saving covenant, built on the Apostolic Faith and the Sacraments. There is no "system" of how this will be done, instead all credit will be given to the Holy Spirit (a Person often neglected in the RCC). This is how I understand the Orthodox view...

God bless you! Christ is born!

Logged

Holy Mother of God, save us!
homedad76
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Exploring Orthodoxy
Posts: 22



« Reply #33 on: January 10, 2014, 12:08:58 PM »

Both the Orthodox church and the Catholic church believe in Extra Ecclasium Nullam Salas(sorry if I butchered the spelling) and both have their rigorists on the matter.  The way I was taught and what seems to be the current understanding of both is that all people that are saved are saved through the Church even if they are not members directly.  The Catholic church (as it tends to want to define everything in scholastic ways) uses terms like baptism of blood and baptism of desire while the Orthodox church(es?) tend to just leave it at God saves whom he pleases and leave the ways a mystery.

Really only about 5% or less of Catholics believe in all the things the church teaches especially on contraception.  And considering their is currently an excommunication on procuring abortion if one holds that the pill causes abortion a big chunk of catholics excommunicate themselves on a regular basis.
Logged
Thomas
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,712



« Reply #34 on: January 10, 2014, 02:35:16 PM »

Both the Orthodox church and the Catholic church believe in Extra Ecclasium Nullam Salas(sorry if I butchered the spelling) and both have their rigorists on the matter.  The way I was taught and what seems to be the current understanding of both is that all people that are saved are saved through the Church even if they are not members directly.  The Catholic church (as it tends to want to define everything in scholastic ways) uses terms like baptism of blood and baptism of desire while the Orthodox church(es?) tend to just leave it at God saves whom he pleases and leave the ways a mystery.


The Orthodox Church has utilized the terms "baptism of blood" in terms of a person who is unbaptised but become a martyr for their Chirstian belief before they were able to be  given water baptism and chrismation; likewis I have heard the term "baptism of desire" used with the Catechumen who dies prior to being baptised. In both cases the person is eligible for a Christian burial in the Orthodox Church as a member of the Church Triumphant. There have been cases where they have even been glorified as saints by the Orthodox Church.

Thomas
Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,031


« Reply #35 on: January 14, 2014, 01:22:32 PM »

I know the RCC uses the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it" as one of their proofs of papal infallibility (something I am finding spurious since if Christ meant that literally for one person then shouldn't every utterance of the Pope be infallible? but I digress) but I am not entirely clear what it means to the Orthodox.  How do you interpret that in the light of the fact that nearly, if not every, patriarchate has at some point taught admitted heresy? (IE iconoclasm by Constantinople).  Is it because they have not all fallen into heresy at the same time that OC can claim the gates of hell have not prevailed?  I am technically a Roman Catholic right now but seriously looking at Orthodoxy and while I have issues with many things in the Roman church it does seem like only the RCC can make the claim to never have formally taught heresy except the Orthodox claim that infallibility does not rest with one person.  Is there any other teachings of the RCC that Orthodox claim is heresy (from what I understand the Immaculate Conception is not a heresy but simply something that the OC has no formal decision on and while it doesn't make allot of sense in OC thought it isn't expressly forbidden to believe it).

As I am sure most RC converts can attest leaving Rome is a serious decision.  I am beginning to find agreement with OC arguments against papal supremacy and disagreements with the weak arguments given by Catholic apologists.  But I also do find allot of Truth in the Catholic Church and would greatly miss some aspects of the Catholic mass that many other converts probably leave for (Eucharistic ministers, instrumental music, etc). so for converts and cradle orthodox alike, how do you jive Christs promise to protect the Church from heresy  with the heresies that have been taught and with the idea that the Orthodox Church seems to allow for much more flexibility of belief and readily admits that most things that bishops teach are not considered infallible but should be followed for the sake of obedience and only disregarded after serious prayer and conflict of conscience in the light of scripture and teachings of the Fathers.

Tim

The gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church because God will protect it from heretics and even the most savage persecution. There have been times when Orthodox Patriarchs have fallen into heresy, but God always brings the Church back to the truth and eventually the heresy is identified and cast out of the Church. It also means that despite persecution from Jews, Romans, Muslims, Communists and modern secular American society that nothing on earth can destroy the Church. The Communists used every possible means to destroy Orthodoxy, but utterly failed.
Therefore, the statement that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church do not apply to one man or Patriarchate, but to the entire Church.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2014, 08:44:25 PM »

And modern American society persecutes the Church how exactly?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,031


« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2014, 09:15:41 PM »

And modern American society persecutes the Church how exactly?

First Orthodox Christianity is largely ignored by the American media, which is hostile towards all forms of traditional Christianity. The press portrays women's ordination as a basic civil right and those Churches like ours who do not ordain women as sexist and hopelessly out of date.  The media, our educational institutions, and the current president is intensely politically correct, and especially supports same sex marriage and fully supports the pro-gay agenda. Churches like ours that believe that homosexual acts are sinful are treated as "homomphobic." Now our government is forcing church related organizations to pay for health insurance that provides free abortion causing medications.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 14, 2014, 09:19:33 PM »

You seem to have no idea what persecution is.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,524



« Reply #39 on: January 14, 2014, 09:28:00 PM »

Also re: communists trying to destroy the OC. That's really a bombastic fantasy if there was one. One can say they tried to curtail its political influence and reduce it to a purely spiritual agency, but obliterate it, not really. But in a few locales for a variety of reasons, they were quite intent on rooting out the Greek Catholics. Which in the end didn't succed 100%, but it had a great measure of success. 70-80%.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,631



« Reply #40 on: January 14, 2014, 09:56:12 PM »

Also re: communists trying to destroy the OC. That's really a bombastic fantasy if there was one.
Stalin and company were never known for understatement.
One can say they tried to curtail its political influence and reduce it to a purely spiritual agency, but obliterate it, not really.
yes, really
But in a few locales for a variety of reasons, they were quite intent on rooting out the Greek Catholics. Which in the end didn't succed 100%, but it had a great measure of success. 70-80%.
They had less success against the Orthodox.  Hence the reason why, for instance, Stalin removed the religion question from the census after he got the results when he put it on.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,031


« Reply #41 on: January 14, 2014, 10:00:46 PM »

You seem to have no idea what persecution is.

There is more than one kind of persecution. Being ridiculed for our beliefs is also a form of persecution.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2014, 10:08:50 PM »

There is more than one kind of persecution. Being ridiculed for our beliefs is also a form of persecution.

Like faith, like persecution.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,905



« Reply #43 on: January 15, 2014, 01:24:44 PM »

Also re: communists trying to destroy the OC. That's really a bombastic fantasy if there was one.
Stalin and company were never known for understatement.
One can say they tried to curtail its political influence and reduce it to a purely spiritual agency, but obliterate it, not really.
yes, really
But in a few locales for a variety of reasons, they were quite intent on rooting out the Greek Catholics. Which in the end didn't succed 100%, but it had a great measure of success. 70-80%.
They had less success against the Orthodox.  Hence the reason why, for instance, Stalin removed the religion question from the census after he got the results when he put it on.

There's a book about monasticism in Communist Romania and, among other archive documents reproduced at the end, there is a report written by a Securitate officer on Orthodox and Roman-Catholic monasticism. He was saying that Catholic orders needed to be suppressed because their members were educated and politically dangerous ("reactionary" as the odious jargon was). As for Orthodox monasticism, which consisted mostly of "uneducated peasants", it would suffice to forbid the acceptance of novices (along with Decree 410/1959 to force all monks and nuns under 50 to leave their monasteries) - he predicted it would die out on its own, since it no longer was "culturally relevant". Of course, he was dead wrong: there are now less communists than Orthodox monks in Romania.

A "purely spiritual agency" needed to be purified of young monks and nuns - that was the ancien régime's priority.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 01:38:04 PM by Romaios » Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,524



« Reply #44 on: January 15, 2014, 01:55:57 PM »

That decree was only enforced between 1959-1964.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.176 seconds with 73 queries.