Author Topic: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?  (Read 10655 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #90 on: January 15, 2018, 03:54:35 PM »
You state you are a catechumen.....have you discussed this 'problem' with your priest?

Yes, I did, and we had a real one on one about Orthodoxy that helped me a lot.
I'm done.

Offline ConstantinusMagnus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Faith: Catholic-Orthodox-Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Spain(Constantinople)
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #91 on: January 31, 2018, 12:42:31 PM »
Has anyone felt deceived or annoyed or felt like questioning their Faith when one notices the various contradictions in the history of the Church to what Orthodox priests or Orthodox theologians tell you? Or perhaps what you learn about Orthodoxy?

I feel like such a great portion of learning the differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism - from the Orthodox perspective - often comes from deceit, and it annoys me.

For example, I've heard about how statues are idolatrous and are an "innovation" by Roman Catholicism, and were never a part of the Tradition of the Church!

Yet.....






(From the 4th Century)



http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1901.htm

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/eusebius-and-christian-images/

Or how "evil" indulgences are by those accursed Roman Catholics!

Yet...

http://www.jameslikoudispage.com/Ecumenic/indulgences.htm
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Absolution_Certificates

Or how "Us Orthodox don't believe there are any Sacraments outside the Church!!!!"

Yet...Saint Augustine...

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2012/06/28/the-limits-of-the-church-by-fr-georges-florovsky/

Or "We Orthodox don't pray the Rosary! It is a heterodox devotion!"

Yet...

http://www.spokaneorthodox.com/rosary.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_the_Theotokos

Or "We Orthodox don't distinguish between Mortal and Venial Sin! This is a rationalistic distinction!"

Yet...

http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/exo_sintypes.aspx


Or "We can't stand that accursed realism in our iconography! I despise that Roman Catholic artwork!!!! I ESPECIALLY HATE HOW THEY PORTRAY GOD THE FATHER IN ICONOGRAPHY HOW DARE THEY hFASKDFHasdKFHASddflshkdflkhas!!!!"

Yet...



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Cathedral_of_Christ_the_Saviour_in_Moscow_06.JPG

https://ryanphunter.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/cathedral_of_christ_the_saviour_in_moscow_04.jpg


Or "We can't possibly receive people by Chrismation!!!! The Roman Catholics are heretics!!!"

Yet at various points in history, the Roman Catholics were received by Chrismation...and under Peter the Great, by just a Confession!

And there are just boggling questions about Orthodoxy in which I just don't flat out know the answer to. Like, how do we know if we are in communion with a heretical Church or not? If a Patriarchate falls into heresy and isn't excommunicated, is the entirety of that one Church damned to hell? I mean, when the Oriental Orthodox broke communion, did they just lose Grace and some ignorant peasant couldn't hypothesize about the difference between Miaphysitism or Dyophysitism? "Sorry God, I didn't know there was a difference between one union in nature and one union in hypostasis!" Did the Russian Orthodox Church lose Grace when the Soviets made it proclaim heresy?

What if the Orthodox Church splits into two; What if like 7/8 of the Orthodox Church falls into heresy? How would we know?

And then there are questions like contraception and divorce. Like, some priests say it is an excommunicatable sin to use condoms inside marriage, and will say it's eternally damnable to use NFP - but some priests will say "go ahead and do it all you want! Just don't do it too much and have kids!" How do we know what is moral and what isn't, on such an important issue? and for divorce, it is immoral unless its for a reason of adultery or immorality...yet Maria of Paris just divorced just to become a nun!

All of this boggles my mind; has anyone experienced doubt when they learn of these things?





Great post and observations by the way. I was seeing and feeling the same as a recent convert to orthodoxy from roman catholicism. Plus there is other major theological inconsistencies I noticed like the rejection of the Council of Florence. But what choice do we have today in 2018. Stay under the Heretical Novus Ordo Bishops under Pope Francs or switch over to the schismatic Orthodox Church under the patriarch of Constantinople? I rather be a schismatic with valid sacraments then a heretic with invalid sacraments.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 12:44:16 PM by ConstantinusMagnus »

Offline pasadi97

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,110
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #92 on: January 31, 2018, 03:11:56 PM »
Don't call schismatic a Church God shows is true. Eastern Orthodox Church. Do you know better than God.
Wise men that cite each other and that say orthodox is schismatic did not contact God in a long time. They are for a surprise when they do.
God the Father is great. God the Father is good.

Offline ConstantinusMagnus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Faith: Catholic-Orthodox-Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Spain(Constantinople)
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #93 on: January 31, 2018, 03:27:24 PM »
Don't call schismatic a Church God shows is true. Eastern Orthodox Church. Do you know better than God.
Wise men that cite each other and that say orthodox is schismatic did not contact God in a long time. They are for a surprise when they do.

You said God told you the Orthodox Church is not schismatic? Hahaha okay buddy.
The Orthodox Church did not accept the Council of Florence and the jurisdiction of Rome like everyone agreeded upon at the time of the council, so yes that makes orthodox schismatics.   
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 03:28:41 PM by ConstantinusMagnus »

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,529
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #94 on: January 31, 2018, 03:35:38 PM »
"Therefore I assert and protest, that to make a schism in the Church is no less an evil than to fall into heresy." - St. John Chrysostom, Homily 11 on Ephesians

Uh oh...
"Well, do I convince you, that one ought never to despair of the disorders of the soul as incurable? ...For even if thou shouldst despair of thyself ten thousand times, I will never despair of thee" - St. John Chrysostom

Offline ConstantinusMagnus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Faith: Catholic-Orthodox-Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Spain(Constantinople)
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #95 on: January 31, 2018, 03:37:07 PM »
"Therefore I assert and protest, that to make a schism in the Church is no less an evil than to fall into heresy." - St. John Chrysostom, Homily 11 on Ephesians

Uh oh...

Then we are all screwed
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 03:38:06 PM by ConstantinusMagnus »

Offline pasadi97

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,110
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #96 on: January 31, 2018, 05:07:44 PM »
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.

Read the Bible my friend. And the gates of Hell will not overcome the Church. So no schism.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 05:09:45 PM by pasadi97 »
God the Father is great. God the Father is good.

Offline ConstantinusMagnus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Faith: Catholic-Orthodox-Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Spain(Constantinople)
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #97 on: January 31, 2018, 06:37:55 PM »
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.

Read the Bible my friend. And the gates of Hell will not overcome the Church. So no schism.

Listen, stop telling me to pray and read the bible like I never read it. Who do you think you are? Who do you think I am? Stick to the topic and leave all personal things aside.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 06:38:15 PM by ConstantinusMagnus »

Offline ConstantinusMagnus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Faith: Catholic-Orthodox-Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Spain(Constantinople)
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #98 on: January 31, 2018, 06:48:23 PM »
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.

Read the Bible my friend. And the gates of Hell will not overcome the Church. So no schism.

Yes, Laetentur Caeli is the major document that came out of the council of florence that is massivly inconsistent with orthodox theology. I will discuss it with you if you refrain from name calling, assuming things about the other, or taking sneaky negative jabs at others.
Now, as far as your claim that because Mark of Ephesus did not agree upon the council and that some hows makes the entire council invalid, is just plain false. Because what your saying means that ALL councils EVER called are also INVALID. Why? Because there has never been a 100% consensus in any ecuemnical council. Many times even one of the 5 ancient Patriarchs goes against the rest of the council and the bishops and the Emperor would just denounce and replace them. There are dozens of examples of bishops dissenting from past ecumenical councils. Maybe even hundreds. So your argument that because one bishop didnt sign it, that somehow invalidates the Roman Emperor and the Pope and the Patrirach of Alexandria and Jeruslaem and Constaintople and all the 600 bishops that signed it, including moscow, ethiopians, coptics, armenians, everybody, is just ridiculous. What eles you got?

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,563
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #99 on: January 31, 2018, 06:49:49 PM »
For example, I've heard about how statues are idolatrous and are an "innovation" by Roman Catholicism, and were never a part of the Tradition of the Church!
Hearsay.

Quote
Or how "evil" indulgences are by those accursed Roman Catholics!
Men of the Church did evil things too. If they didn't, there would be no schism or heresy, since schismatics and heretics are almost always once part of the Church, or part of a body that ultimately split from her.

Quote
Or how "Us Orthodox don't believe there are any Sacraments outside the Church!!!!"
Not consensus patrum, doesn't mean it's wrong.

Quote
"We Orthodox don't pray the Rosary! It is a heterodox devotion!"
Those are different things. Still, I find it temerary to go saying anything RC is heterodox.

Quote
Or "We Orthodox don't distinguish between Mortal and Venial Sin! This is a rationalistic distinction!"
Some sins are mortal, as St. Paul says, but we don't have a pragmatic list of them like Roman Catholics do (not that the list is as legalistic as it may seem to us).

Quote
Or "We can't stand that accursed realism in our iconography! I despise that Roman Catholic artwork!!!! I ESPECIALLY HATE HOW THEY PORTRAY GOD THE FATHER IN ICONOGRAPHY HOW DARE THEY hFASKDFHasdKFHASddflshkdflkhas!!!!"
That's a hot issue inside Orthodoxy.

Quote
"We can't possibly receive people by Chrismation!!!! The Roman Catholics are heretics!!!"
More hearsay. Catholics are indeed heretics, but thet have sacramental matter on which form (grace) can be infused by Orthodox sacraments.

Quote
how do we know if we are in communion with a heretical Church or not? If a Patriarchate falls into heresy and isn't excommunicated, is the entirety of that one Church damned to hell? I mean, when the Oriental Orthodox broke communion, did they just lose Grace and some ignorant peasant couldn't hypothesize about the difference between Miaphysitism or Dyophysitism? "Sorry God, I didn't know there was a difference between one union in nature and one union in hypostasis!" Did the Russian Orthodox Church lose Grace when the Soviets made it proclaim heresy?

What if the Orthodox Church splits into two; What if like 7/8 of the Orthodox Church falls into heresy? How would we know?
Ask God. Or don't, this is his to say.  :P

Quote
for divorce, it is immoral unless its for a reason of adultery or immorality...yet Maria of Paris just divorced just to become a nun!
She divorced an apostate. Who knows if there wasn't any immortality involved as well?
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 06:50:57 PM by RaphaCam »
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,563
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #100 on: January 31, 2018, 06:54:28 PM »
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.
That's not a legalistic matter of number. If all bishops but one hadn't signed, the decision of those who didn't sign wouldn't be void. There is no ready form to know, the Council simply promulgated heresy.
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline ConstantinusMagnus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Faith: Catholic-Orthodox-Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Spain(Constantinople)
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #101 on: January 31, 2018, 07:06:20 PM »
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.
That's not a legalistic matter of number. If all bishops but one hadn't signed, the decision of those who didn't sign wouldn't be void. There is no ready form to know, the Council simply promulgated heresy.

The council of Florence does not promugate heresey. Being united under the Bishop of Rome is not heresey. There are dozens of valid churches all over the world in egypt, in ukraine, in armenia, and in many other places where they have churches that are united with Rome called Uniate Churches. They are a direct result of this document Laetentur Caeli. Today in 2018, almost 500 later after this document was signed, these uniate churches are not heretics or practice any heresies of any sort, they have not deviated from the faith, they got to keep their rites and their priesthood and their traditions and everything. You can find these Uniate communites all over the world. The one who deviated from the faith unfortunetly was the Pope himself and the great majority of Roman Bishops in the 1960s at the Vatican 2.
And yes you are correct in that Mark of Esphesus could not stop have stoped the council or have invalidate it somehow. Thats just not consistence with all the other ecuemnical councils and the legions of disenters in each one of them
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 07:09:41 PM by ConstantinusMagnus »

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 14,519
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #102 on: February 01, 2018, 10:43:43 AM »
A synod is validated or invalidated by its content, not by the number of bishops signing or not signing.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 572
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #103 on: February 01, 2018, 02:14:50 PM »
A synod is validated or invalidated by its content, not by the number of bishops signing or not signing.

If this is true, then there is no prior guarantee that the synod will be infallible and binding. Then how can the faithful follow the command of Christ simply to hear and obey the Church just on the fact of Her authoritative teaching? i.e. the faithful cannot know they are bound to hear and obey - not scrutinize and judge - the Church's judgment on the disputed question of Faith, if they must revisit the disputed question themselves to decide who is right. That is why there must be a prior guarantee that the Church is speaking in a synod, and that therefore the Council is to be accepted as infallible or authoritative.

Take any case, this will always be true - say St. Cyril and Nestorius at Ephesus. Both had their own respective anathematizations. The faithful are not expected to scrutinize both - and in many cases may not be able - and such a method of proceeding would lead us right back to square one, before the synod began, to pass an authoritative judgment, precisely on a disputed question of faith.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2018, 02:20:31 PM by Xavier »
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 869
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #104 on: February 01, 2018, 02:43:38 PM »
If this is true, then there is no prior guarantee that the synod will be infallible and binding. Then how can the faithful follow the command of Christ simply to hear and obey the Church just on the fact of Her authoritative teaching? i.e. the faithful cannot know they are bound to hear and obey - not scrutinize and judge - the Church's judgment on the disputed question of Faith, if they must revisit the disputed question themselves to decide who is right. That is why there must be a prior guarantee that the Church is speaking in a synod, and that therefore the Council is to be accepted as infallible or authoritative.

Take any case, this will always be true - say St. Cyril and Nestorius at Ephesus. Both had their own respective anathematizations. The faithful are not expected to scrutinize both - and in many cases may not be able - and such a method of proceeding would lead us right back to square one, before the synod began, to pass an authoritative judgment, precisely on a disputed question of faith.

Read John 10:26-29, there are always two sides, one guided by the passions and by the world and another guided by the love for Christ, so who has the truth ? You obviously cannot determined this by some scholastic mathematical formula that "guarantees you" where to go, rather you go where your heart is.

Offline juliogb

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 698
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #105 on: February 01, 2018, 02:54:35 PM »
I didn't understand that picture of a statue of white marble? Why is supposedly a orthodox inconsistency?

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 14,519
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #106 on: February 01, 2018, 03:21:56 PM »
A synod is validated or invalidated by its content, not by the number of bishops signing or not signing.

If this is true, then there is no prior guarantee that the synod will be infallible and binding.

Right. There is no such guarantee. Hence some synods have seemed to meet all the criteria and are nonetheless rejected.

Quote
Then how can the faithful follow the command of Christ simply to hear and obey the Church just on the fact of Her authoritative teaching? i.e. the faithful cannot know they are bound to hear and obey - not scrutinize and judge - the Church's judgment on the disputed question of Faith, if they must revisit the disputed question themselves to decide who is right. That is why there must be a prior guarantee that the Church is speaking in a synod, and that therefore the Council is to be accepted as infallible or authoritative.

Take any case, this will always be true - say St. Cyril and Nestorius at Ephesus. Both had their own respective anathematizations. The faithful are not expected to scrutinize both - and in many cases may not be able - and such a method of proceeding would lead us right back to square one, before the synod began, to pass an authoritative judgment, precisely on a disputed question of faith.

Ephesus was to some a triumph of orthodoxy and to others the opposite, and polemics did not cease just because the council had ruled and the emperor had confirmed it. Likewise after all the great councils. If there had been some commonly held conception that ecumenical councils are infallible, it might have sufficed to simply invoke this rule, but there was none. Otherwise Saint Cyril should have required the Easterners to accept the council of Ephesus; instead he dialogued with them and reached an agreed statement of faith with them, no part of which says, "Because the Council of Ephesus said so." Doubtless in these controversies many people simply sided with their local bishop and in doing so thought they were conforming to the church.

There is simply no model of authority that forestalls dispute or waives the need for discernment; those who vainly hope for such a model must be continually befuddled that God made us humans and not robots.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,114
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #107 on: February 02, 2018, 01:23:42 AM »
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.
That's not a legalistic matter of number. If all bishops but one hadn't signed, the decision of those who didn't sign wouldn't be void. There is no ready form to know, the Council simply promulgated heresy.

The council of Florence does not promugate heresey. Being united under the Bishop of Rome is not heresey. There are dozens of valid churches all over the world in egypt, in ukraine, in armenia, and in many other places where they have churches that are united with Rome called Uniate Churches. They are a direct result of this document Laetentur Caeli. Today in 2018, almost 500 later after this document was signed, these uniate churches are not heretics or practice any heresies of any sort, they have not deviated from the faith, they got to keep their rites and their priesthood and their traditions and everything. You can find these Uniate communites all over the world. The one who deviated from the faith unfortunetly was the Pope himself and the great majority of Roman Bishops in the 1960s at the Vatican 2.
And yes you are correct in that Mark of Esphesus could not stop have stoped the council or have invalidate it somehow. Thats just not consistence with all the other ecuemnical councils and the legions of disenters in each one of them

So to sum up, the RCC is invalid because of Vatican II but the sui iuris churches under the Pope are still fine? Well... that's a new idea.
I do stuff.

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,230
  • Faith: without works is dead.
  • Jurisdiction: Foolishness to the Greeks
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #108 on: February 02, 2018, 01:27:55 AM »
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.
That's not a legalistic matter of number. If all bishops but one hadn't signed, the decision of those who didn't sign wouldn't be void. There is no ready form to know, the Council simply promulgated heresy.

The council of Florence does not promugate heresey. Being united under the Bishop of Rome is not heresey. There are dozens of valid churches all over the world in egypt, in ukraine, in armenia, and in many other places where they have churches that are united with Rome called Uniate Churches. They are a direct result of this document Laetentur Caeli. Today in 2018, almost 500 later after this document was signed, these uniate churches are not heretics or practice any heresies of any sort, they have not deviated from the faith, they got to keep their rites and their priesthood and their traditions and everything. You can find these Uniate communites all over the world. The one who deviated from the faith unfortunetly was the Pope himself and the great majority of Roman Bishops in the 1960s at the Vatican 2.
And yes you are correct in that Mark of Esphesus could not stop have stoped the council or have invalidate it somehow. Thats just not consistence with all the other ecuemnical councils and the legions of disenters in each one of them

So to sum up, the RCC is invalid because of Vatican II but the sui iuris churches under the Pope are still fine? Well... that's a new idea.

He's got this idea that the liturgy itself invalidates all of the Roman church. Since under that logic it is the liturgical act itself that causes the invalidity, the churches that haven't adopted the reform should be a-OK.
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 OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,114
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #109 on: February 02, 2018, 01:58:59 AM »
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.
That's not a legalistic matter of number. If all bishops but one hadn't signed, the decision of those who didn't sign wouldn't be void. There is no ready form to know, the Council simply promulgated heresy.

The council of Florence does not promugate heresey. Being united under the Bishop of Rome is not heresey. There are dozens of valid churches all over the world in egypt, in ukraine, in armenia, and in many other places where they have churches that are united with Rome called Uniate Churches. They are a direct result of this document Laetentur Caeli. Today in 2018, almost 500 later after this document was signed, these uniate churches are not heretics or practice any heresies of any sort, they have not deviated from the faith, they got to keep their rites and their priesthood and their traditions and everything. You can find these Uniate communites all over the world. The one who deviated from the faith unfortunetly was the Pope himself and the great majority of Roman Bishops in the 1960s at the Vatican 2.
And yes you are correct in that Mark of Esphesus could not stop have stoped the council or have invalidate it somehow. Thats just not consistence with all the other ecuemnical councils and the legions of disenters in each one of them

So to sum up, the RCC is invalid because of Vatican II but the sui iuris churches under the Pope are still fine? Well... that's a new idea.

He's got this idea that the liturgy itself invalidates all of the Roman church. Since under that logic it is the liturgical act itself that causes the invalidity, the churches that haven't adopted the reform should be a-OK.

Sure, but they still commemorate the Pope liturgically (who he says is just a layman playing bishop). They also accept VII as a valid, nonheretical council that just happens to not apply to them, don't they?
« Last Edit: February 02, 2018, 02:03:49 AM by Volnutt »
I do stuff.

Offline Lepanto

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 472
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #110 on: February 02, 2018, 05:20:47 AM »
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.
That's not a legalistic matter of number. If all bishops but one hadn't signed, the decision of those who didn't sign wouldn't be void. There is no ready form to know, the Council simply promulgated heresy.

The council of Florence does not promugate heresey. Being united under the Bishop of Rome is not heresey. There are dozens of valid churches all over the world in egypt, in ukraine, in armenia, and in many other places where they have churches that are united with Rome called Uniate Churches. They are a direct result of this document Laetentur Caeli. Today in 2018, almost 500 later after this document was signed, these uniate churches are not heretics or practice any heresies of any sort, they have not deviated from the faith, they got to keep their rites and their priesthood and their traditions and everything. You can find these Uniate communites all over the world. The one who deviated from the faith unfortunetly was the Pope himself and the great majority of Roman Bishops in the 1960s at the Vatican 2.
And yes you are correct in that Mark of Esphesus could not stop have stoped the council or have invalidate it somehow. Thats just not consistence with all the other ecuemnical councils and the legions of disenters in each one of them

So to sum up, the RCC is invalid because of Vatican II but the sui iuris churches under the Pope are still fine? Well... that's a new idea.

He's got this idea that the liturgy itself invalidates all of the Roman church. Since under that logic it is the liturgical act itself that causes the invalidity, the churches that haven't adopted the reform should be a-OK.


Sure, but they still commemorate the Pope liturgically (who he says is just a layman playing bishop). They also accept VII as a valid, nonheretical council that just happens to not apply to them, don't they?
You surprised to find some logical inconsistencies with a Sedevacantist? 😉
una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro et Antistite nostro et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicæ et apostolicæ fidei cultoribus

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,114
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #111 on: February 02, 2018, 08:13:55 AM »
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.
That's not a legalistic matter of number. If all bishops but one hadn't signed, the decision of those who didn't sign wouldn't be void. There is no ready form to know, the Council simply promulgated heresy.

The council of Florence does not promugate heresey. Being united under the Bishop of Rome is not heresey. There are dozens of valid churches all over the world in egypt, in ukraine, in armenia, and in many other places where they have churches that are united with Rome called Uniate Churches. They are a direct result of this document Laetentur Caeli. Today in 2018, almost 500 later after this document was signed, these uniate churches are not heretics or practice any heresies of any sort, they have not deviated from the faith, they got to keep their rites and their priesthood and their traditions and everything. You can find these Uniate communites all over the world. The one who deviated from the faith unfortunetly was the Pope himself and the great majority of Roman Bishops in the 1960s at the Vatican 2.
And yes you are correct in that Mark of Esphesus could not stop have stoped the council or have invalidate it somehow. Thats just not consistence with all the other ecuemnical councils and the legions of disenters in each one of them

So to sum up, the RCC is invalid because of Vatican II but the sui iuris churches under the Pope are still fine? Well... that's a new idea.

He's got this idea that the liturgy itself invalidates all of the Roman church. Since under that logic it is the liturgical act itself that causes the invalidity, the churches that haven't adopted the reform should be a-OK.


Sure, but they still commemorate the Pope liturgically (who he says is just a layman playing bishop). They also accept VII as a valid, nonheretical council that just happens to not apply to them, don't they?
You surprised to find some logical inconsistencies with a Sedevacantist? 😉

No, just ever surprised at how many different variations of odd ideas there are on the internet. It's like the dark side of IDIC.
I do stuff.

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,563
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #112 on: February 02, 2018, 03:18:46 PM »
The Eastern Catholic Churches do believe Vatican II applies to them, they sent their own representatives and one document of the Council, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, specifically adresses them. A minority of them have even adopted Novus Ordo innovations (I've seen that on Maronites and Melkites).
« Last Edit: February 02, 2018, 03:19:18 PM by RaphaCam »
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,114
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #113 on: February 03, 2018, 03:13:35 PM »
The Eastern Catholic Churches do believe Vatican II applies to them, they sent their own representatives and one document of the Council, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, specifically adresses them. A minority of them have even adopted Novus Ordo innovations (I've seen that on Maronites and Melkites).

Oh, ok. I guess in my ignorance I just thought that since they all use their own rights, there wouldn't really be anything to Novus Ordo-ize. Guess I was wrong.

Thanks.
I do stuff.

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,563
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #114 on: February 03, 2018, 05:05:02 PM »
It's minoritary anyway.
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline peacenprayer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 201
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #115 on: February 07, 2018, 10:08:27 AM »
Ooooh, yes. Theres hypocritical stuff all over. Its especially a pain when its all about "those darn Catholics."

This kind of stuff has nearly pushed me away from the Orthodox many times... but when you hear folky, campy "hymns" durring a Catholic Mass in an ugly iconoclastic church and then bail only to hear them sing "Amazing Grace" in an Eastern Catholic church (among other things that will make you cring)... you'll suddenly appreciate all the not stupid things in the Orthodox Church.
We're fallen people. As such we tend to get caught up in team A vs team B. Look past the ugly, learn to know better, don't feed the trolls, and give glory to God for all things.
Ran away to wear a black night gown and a funny hat. Pray for me!

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,185
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #116 on: February 07, 2018, 11:05:49 AM »
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.

Read the Bible my friend. And the gates of Hell will not overcome the Church. So no schism.



Yes, Laetentur Caeli is the major document that came out of the council of florence that is massivly inconsistent with orthodox theology. I will discuss it with you if you refrain from name calling, assuming things about the other, or taking sneaky negative jabs at others.
Now, as far as your claim that because Mark of Ephesus did not agree upon the council and that some hows makes the entire council invalid, is just plain false. Because what your saying means that ALL councils EVER called are also INVALID. Why? Because there has never been a 100% consensus in any ecuemnical council. Many times even one of the 5 ancient Patriarchs goes against the rest of the council and the bishops and the Emperor would just denounce and replace them. There are dozens of examples of bishops dissenting from past ecumenical councils. Maybe even hundreds. So your argument that because one bishop didnt sign it, that somehow invalidates the Roman Emperor and the Pope and the Patrirach of Alexandria and Jeruslaem and Constaintople and all the 600 bishops that signed it, including moscow, ethiopians, coptics, armenians, everybody, is just ridiculous. What eles you got?

Nobody is claiming that it is null and void. The real question is. Whether or not Orthodoxy can continue on with only one bishop. History has proven that it can.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2018, 11:06:20 AM by Tzimis »

Offline jah777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,128
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #117 on: April 18, 2018, 03:00:07 PM »
Has anyone felt deceived or annoyed or felt like questioning their Faith when one notices the various contradictions in the history of the Church to what Orthodox priests or Orthodox theologians tell you? Or perhaps what you learn about Orthodoxy?

You bring up a lot that can be discussed but if you look deeper into any of these issues you will find that most of what is present in Orthodoxy contrary to Orthodox teaching has been a direct result of Latin influences.  In cases like indulgences, this was a direct result of Orthodox interaction with Latins but it did not spread throughout the Church and died out without any major fanfare.  The Latin (Roman Catholic) influence in Orthodox iconography, however, has persisted for a greater period of time in some local churches (particularly the Russian Orthodox Church).  The 7th Ecumenical Council of the Pre-Schism undivided Church formalized the Orthodox and Catholic principles of iconography.  The fact that early examples of statues can be found does not mean that statues ever became an integral part of Orthodox veneration.  We have to be careful not to assume that occasional deviations from Orthodox tradition imply that these deviations were once standard in Orthodox tradition.  In other words, we should be careful not to exaggerate the extent of these aberrations within Orthodoxy. 

You may be interested in what St. John the Wonderworker said regarding the Roman Catholic influence on Orthodox iconography:

http://archangelsbooks.com/articles/iconography/DiscourseIcon.asp

St. John was a Russian Orthodox bishop well acquainted with Westernized statues and paintings adorning Russian churches.  Among other things, he said:
Quote
Later, alien influence touched Iconography as well. Images of the Western type began to appear, perhaps beautiful from an artistic point of view, but completely lacking in sanctity, beautiful in the sense of earthly beauty, but even scandalous at times, and devoid of spirituality. Such were not Icons. They were distortions of Icons, exhibiting a lack of comprehension of what an Icon actually is.

The purpose of this article is, first of all, to promote an understanding of the true Icon, and secondly, to cultivate a love for the Icon and the desire that our churches and our homes be adorned with genuine Icons and not with Western paintings which tell us nothing about righteousness or sanctity, but are merely pleasant to look upon.

Regarding sacraments outside of the Church, St. Augustine's teachings on this are at odds with those of the Greek and Orthodox Fathers.  St. Augustine's teachings on this, and other topics, have never been accepted by the Orthodox Church.  Fr. George Florovsky was a wonderful church writer but his "Limits of the Church" depended solely on St. Augustine and did not properly reflect Orthodox teaching.  Fr. George wrote this piece when he was quite young and it was not a good reflection of his later theological maturity, but there are people who spread this around because it makes them feel good to think that the limits of the Church are more flexible than what the Orthodox Church has actually taught historically.

The same Fr. George Florovsky later wrote:
Quote
“As a member and a priest of the Orthodox Church, I believe that the Church in which I was baptized and raised ‘is’ in very truth ‘the Church’, i.e. ‘the true’ Church and the ‘only’ true Church. And I believe this for many reasons: owing to personal conviction and to internal confirmation of the Spirit, who breathes into the Sacraments of the Church. Therefore, I am compelled to regard all other Christian Churches as defective, and in many cases I can define the deficiencies of these other Churches accurately enough. Therefore, for me, Christian reunion is simply universal conversion to Orthodoxy. (…) “Judgement” has been given to the Son. No one has been appointed to pre-empt His judgement. Of course, the Church has Her command inside history. The command firstly to preach and preserve the word of truth. There is some rule of faith and order which must be considered as a canon. Whatever exists beyond is an “abnormality”. But this “abnormality” must be healed, and not simply be condemned. This is what justifies an Orthodox to participate in ecumenical dialogue, with the hope that with his witness the Truth of God makes possible to win human beings”.

A critique of this article of his can be found here:  https://orthodoxethos.com/post/fr-george-florovsky-on-the-boundaries-of-the-church

Regarding the Rosary - it is incorrectly said that St. Seraphim of Sarov prayed the Rosary and that there is an "Orthodox version" of the Rosary.  There is a long-standing tradition of using a prayer rope to repeat the Jesus Prayer or another short prayer ("Most Holy Theotokos, save us!" or "Rejoice, Mary full of grace.."), but not with times of meditating on or imagining different scenes as is done with the Rosary.  There are some Orthodox churches that attempt to resurrect a "Western Rite" of sorts, and in doing so sometimes adopt practices from the Roman Catholic West that may not really belong to Orthodox tradition.  So, a Western Rite parish within the Orthodox Church which is promoting the praying of the Rosary does not indicate that the Rosary is an Orthodox practice.  Aside from the vague attribution to St. Seraphim of Sarov, I am not aware of any Orthodox saints who taught the Rosary. 

Reception of converts - the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church after the Latinizing efforts of Peter the Great began to deviate from the Orthodox practice in receiving converts is unfortunate, as is the fact that so many Orthodox churches continue to deviate from the canons in the reception of converts, but these aberrations do not change the fact that the Church has canons of Ecumenical Councils that are very clear about these things.  For instance, in the 7th canon of the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was specifically stated that the Eunomian heretics had to be received into the Church through baptism because the Eunomians practiced baptism with only a single immersion.  This canon was also reiterated in the Council of Trullo.  Baptism consists of three full immersions in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  If a person has not already had three full immersions in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit then they are to be received by baptism.  This is why the Eastern Patriarchs in 1755 declared that all converts "from the West" be received by baptism, and why St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain said that Roman Catholics must be received by baptism.  Modern practice has mostly abandoned following the canons of the Church in this regard, mostly out of a desire for better Ecumenical relations with non-Orthodox, but that does not mean that this modern practice is therefore justified on the basis of Orthodox Tradition.

Where aberrations have occurred, this has come from lack of education of Orthodox priests and hierarchs regarding the canons and tradition of the Orthodox Church.  The same happens today and that is the cause of all of the confusion.  It is frustrating, but despite the aberrations that exist here and there, the Orthodox Church has retained the Orthodox faith and practice which leads to theosis.  The Orthodox Church continues to produce saints today that were just as filled with the Holy Spirit as the earliest saints and Desert Fathers.  To be counted among these saints, we should read their writings and imitate their examples.  I'm sure that despite the confusion and aberrations you have observed, if you look deeply and thoroughly, you will see in the Orthodox Church a fidelity to the faith, worship, and way of life of the undivided Pre-Schism Church that you will not find in any other Christian group.

Offline juliogb

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 698
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #118 on: April 20, 2018, 07:40:18 AM »
The Eastern Catholic Churches do believe Vatican II applies to them, they sent their own representatives and one document of the Council, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, specifically adresses them. A minority of them have even adopted Novus Ordo innovations (I've seen that on Maronites and Melkites).


Some time ago I saw a polemic about pentecostal style services in the greek catholic ukrainian church.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #119 on: April 20, 2018, 09:55:05 AM »
I didn't understand that picture of a statue of white marble? Why is supposedly a orthodox inconsistency?

At the time of posting, many Orthodox have - through polemic apologetics and through discussion - told me the horrifying effects that Paganism had in Roman iconography reintroduced into Rome by the Renaissance looking to Ancient Pagan Rome for inspiration of artwork, mainly in terms of using more realistic and "motioned" statues and artwork.... yet we have several of these statues of Christ from the 4th century that literally use the an even more precise mold from Pagan Rome than contemporary Roman artwork, even more so than the Renaissance introduced.

More than that, we have several of these statues from the 4th century when Orthodox have non stopped told me statues are a pagan invention that was created by the West during the time they fell into heresy...

The question is, which is more Pagan?

This:



Or this:



Both are literally supposed to be Christ the Good Shepherd.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 09:56:53 AM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #120 on: April 20, 2018, 09:58:31 AM »
I tend to chuck it over to both the unintentional sins of contemporary well-meaning Orthodox and the pride of members of the 1st Millenium Church in pursuing a cultural triumphalism, which of course leads to schism and disunity.

I'm glad we have no racists (including those who show off how tolerant they are but are extremely racist to those who aren't part of their closed off ethnic circle) in the Church today, right?
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 10:00:34 AM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 14,519
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #121 on: April 20, 2018, 10:00:30 AM »
Orthodox occasionally use statuary too. It's rare but it happens. The Orthodox who claim it is inherently pagan are wrong. Don't confuse silly modern apologetics with Orthodoxy itself.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #122 on: April 20, 2018, 10:02:39 AM »
Orthodox occasionally use statuary too. It's rare but it happens. The Orthodox who claim it is inherently pagan are wrong. Don't confuse silly modern apologetics with Orthodoxy itself.

Yeah, at the time of these postings, I was kind of melting down over letting go of cultural heritage that was familiar to me, and was venting off resentment towards those who caused schism out of pride in the past (on both the Orthodox side and the heterodox side) such that we now have 30,000 Christian denominations. But it's just an unfortunate consequence of our fallen, wicked world.

Imagine the world we would've lived in if we all had One Orthodox Faith with Ethiopian, Armenian, Roman, Gallician, Celtic, English, Mozarabic, Byzantine, Russian, and Coptic Liturgical Traditions, and we were all united together with the same Undivided Faith without any schism. Hubris prevented this, and such a beautiful thought is now permanently lost, such that people even to this very day feel the need to impose their own ideas of what ethnicity and culture the Church ought to be. I mean, even in the contemporary period, we still have instances of this idea of cultural supremacy, with the Russian Orthodox Church who tried to impose their own practice on the Carpatho Russians... I mean, WHY? Just because their chant sounded slightly different?

Admittedly, I'm kind of guilty of this too, as shown by my posts in the past.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 10:11:26 AM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline Jackson02

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 716
  • Our Lady of Walsingham
  • Faith: Genuine Orthodox Church
  • Jurisdiction: Inquiring
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #123 on: April 20, 2018, 02:05:27 PM »
I didn't understand that picture of a statue of white marble? Why is supposedly a orthodox inconsistency?

At the time of posting, many Orthodox have - through polemic apologetics and through discussion - told me the horrifying effects that Paganism had in Roman iconography reintroduced into Rome by the Renaissance looking to Ancient Pagan Rome for inspiration of artwork, mainly in terms of using more realistic and "motioned" statues and artwork.... yet we have several of these statues of Christ from the 4th century that literally use the an even more precise mold from Pagan Rome than contemporary Roman artwork, even more so than the Renaissance introduced.

More than that, we have several of these statues from the 4th century when Orthodox have non stopped told me statues are a pagan invention that was created by the West during the time they fell into heresy...

The question is, which is more Pagan?

This:



Or this:



Both are literally supposed to be Christ the Good Shepherd.

Even afterwards in Russia they were making ivory statues of the Theotokos and Christ.

« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 02:08:10 PM by Jackson02 »
"Don't keep Orthodoxy to yourself as if it were some private treasure. Share it!"

Fr. Seraphim Rose

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 14,519
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #124 on: April 20, 2018, 02:24:41 PM »
That hodegetria statue was done by Jonathan Pageau a couple years ago for a parish in Illinois.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 02:24:54 PM by Iconodule »
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline Jackson02

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 716
  • Our Lady of Walsingham
  • Faith: Genuine Orthodox Church
  • Jurisdiction: Inquiring
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #125 on: April 20, 2018, 03:22:15 PM »
That hodegetria statue was done by Jonathan Pageau a couple years ago for a parish in Illinois.
Oh. Well inconsistencies are still going on.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 03:23:40 PM by Jackson02 »
"Don't keep Orthodoxy to yourself as if it were some private treasure. Share it!"

Fr. Seraphim Rose

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 14,519
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #126 on: April 20, 2018, 03:28:25 PM »
What inconsistencies? You can find statues like that from Byzantine times. The anti-statue posture is 1-2 centuries old at most.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline Sethrak

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 561
  • Faith: Armenian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Etchmiadzin, Armenia
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #127 on: April 20, 2018, 05:04:27 PM »
We do not worship statues ~ nor ~ do Latin Christians today ``` Sorry ~ if ~ anyone has a problem ~ with ~ paintings, carvings or statures ~ don't be troubled ~ think and pray ```



Offline Sethrak

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 561
  • Faith: Armenian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Etchmiadzin, Armenia
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #128 on: April 20, 2018, 05:17:57 PM »
Just read part of a post ~ someone lamenting: "  we now have 30,000 Christian denominations."

Not so ~ and ~ not the fault of ~ The Universal Church ```

You see ~ anyone of the Protestant faith ~ can simply say : I am led by the Holy Spirit ~ to ~ Open the church of ~ " Jim The Snowboarder"  ```

This is true more so here in America ~ these ( described above ) are not denominations ~ just protestants ~ opening a business ```
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 05:19:41 PM by Sethrak »

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,529
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #129 on: April 20, 2018, 05:29:42 PM »
Just read part of a post ~ someone lamenting: "  we now have 30,000 Christian denominations."

º°o°º where ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ebor ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ when ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ need ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ her º°o°º
"Well, do I convince you, that one ought never to despair of the disorders of the soul as incurable? ...For even if thou shouldst despair of thyself ten thousand times, I will never despair of thee" - St. John Chrysostom

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,114
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #130 on: April 20, 2018, 06:35:16 PM »
Just read part of a post ~ someone lamenting: "  we now have 30,000 Christian denominations."

Not so ~ and ~ not the fault of ~ The Universal Church ```

You see ~ anyone of the Protestant faith ~ can simply say : I am led by the Holy Spirit ~ to ~ Open the church of ~ " Jim The Snowboarder"  ```

This is true more so here in America ~ these ( described above ) are not denominations ~ just protestants ~ opening a business ```

While that might be theoretically possible, "30,000" is still an inaccurate number arrived at by screwy counting methods. I'd say 5,000 or so is a better high end guestimate. Still not good, obviously (any situation with more denominations that any inquirer could possibly examine in their lifetime is still pretty bad- and of course the best case scenario would be if there were only one Christian Communion), but not as pearl clutch inducing as 30,000.

And he wasn't saying it was the fault of the Universal Church, just saying that it's a sad state of affairs.
I do stuff.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,249
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Metropolis of Denver
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #131 on: April 23, 2018, 10:42:50 PM »
The Eastern Catholic Churches do believe Vatican II applies to them, they sent their own representatives and one document of the Council, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, specifically adresses them. A minority of them have even adopted Novus Ordo innovations (I've seen that on Maronites and Melkites).
Some time ago I saw a polemic about pentecostal style services in the greek catholic ukrainian church.
The contemporary Roman Catholic ethos is Poundian: out with the old, in with the new!  Of course, as any institution that marries modernity, it quickly becomes a widow.  Alas, in my anecdotal experience all Eastern Catholic Churches have adopted the spirit of modern reformation injected by VII and no liturgy has remained intact and are nowadays farther from their original form.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline juliogb

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 698
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #132 on: April 26, 2018, 09:43:51 AM »
The Eastern Catholic Churches do believe Vatican II applies to them, they sent their own representatives and one document of the Council, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, specifically adresses them. A minority of them have even adopted Novus Ordo innovations (I've seen that on Maronites and Melkites).
Some time ago I saw a polemic about pentecostal style services in the greek catholic ukrainian church.
The contemporary Roman Catholic ethos is Poundian: out with the old, in with the new!  Of course, as any institution that marries modernity, it quickly becomes a widow.  Alas, in my anecdotal experience all Eastern Catholic Churches have adopted the spirit of modern reformation injected by VII and no liturgy has remained intact and are nowadays farther from their original form.

I went to a melkite parish twice, it was a service in the middle of the week, not sunday. I didnt see any weird inovation, what I found odd was the priest explaining that melkites were not orthodox, after liturgy in a kind of ''notification time'' (how do you guys call the moment when the priest/pastor tells about the incoming events and feasts?).

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 14,519
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #133 on: April 26, 2018, 09:55:11 AM »
what I found odd was the priest explaining that melkites were not orthodox, after liturgy in a kind of ''notification time''

Sometimes you just have to get the blood boiling with those "orthodox in communion with Rome" people. :)

Quote
(how do you guys call the moment when the priest/pastor tells about the incoming events and feasts?).

Usually "announcements" or something like that.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,249
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Metropolis of Denver
Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Reply #134 on: April 26, 2018, 10:38:47 AM »
The contemporary Roman Catholic ethos is Poundian: out with the old, in with the new!  Of course, as any institution that marries modernity, it quickly becomes a widow.  Alas, in my anecdotal experience all Eastern Catholic Churches have adopted the spirit of modern reformation injected by VII and no liturgy has remained intact and are nowadays farther from their original form.

I went to a melkite parish twice, it was a service in the middle of the week, not sunday. I didnt see any weird inovation, what I found odd was the priest explaining that melkites were not orthodox, after liturgy in a kind of ''notification time'' (how do you guys call the moment when the priest/pastor tells about the incoming events and feasts?).
Mostly, the innovations are in the details, especially in the translation of the liturgical texts, which have been happening quite a bit in the last couple of decades, probably related to the mandate from Rome for new translations based on the Latin text approved in 2001, though this applied only to the churches using the Roman liturgy.  As a matter of fact, often many Eastern Catholic Churches took to apply to themselves directives directed to the Latin Church from VII.  Of course, not at the expense of their own traditions, as it happened in the West.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός