OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 22, 2014, 11:35:17 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Do you consider us like brothers?  (Read 7918 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #45 on: February 07, 2006, 09:20:58 PM »

Charity at its finest.

Of course immediately followed by,

GiC is Orthodox? I would have never guessed by his posts...  Tongue

But, all in all, I really just find it amusing.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #46 on: February 07, 2006, 10:02:21 PM »

Quote
Charity at its finest

I think GiC's gross hypocrisy is much more serious.  He says Rome is the canonical Western Church - he should join it then.  It is not uncharitable to point that out. 
Logged
Carpatho-Rusyn
Just Orthodox
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


WWW
« Reply #47 on: February 07, 2006, 10:19:21 PM »

I dont know what I believe any more...

NOW we're getting somewhere!
Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.
- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk
Carpatho-Rusyn
Just Orthodox
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


WWW
« Reply #48 on: February 07, 2006, 10:28:23 PM »

Perhaps we should take this into mind and at least not accept converts from Roman Catholicism

You call others to be charitable, as if your statement above showed any charity or understanding. 
You refuse to clarify or defend your statement or answer any queries regarding it. Probably because it is totally inexplicable or defensible. So, in the name of charity, I will let the matter drop here. Running in circles makes me dizzy.
Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.
- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,461


« Reply #49 on: February 07, 2006, 10:43:29 PM »

But they [referring to Rome] WERE the Canonical Western Church...
Were.  As in the past.  That is the import part.  They separated themselves by their new theology, praxis and deeds.  As far as one converting to Orthodoxy goes, Rome isn't owed anything.  End of story.

But your welcome to believe whatever you want of course.
Logged
amnesiac99
Always Hopeful, Yet Discontent
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 93

Create in me a clean heart, O God


WWW
« Reply #50 on: February 07, 2006, 10:56:15 PM »

I find little to no point in arguing with greekischristian. With almost every post he makes here, he demeans or shows contempt for traditional Orthodox piety and worship. He even referred to parishes where the women wear head coverings as "cultish" because they don't mesh or fit in with our "modern western society," as if modern western society was something to be proud of or emulated.

Quite frankly, I think the suggestion that he join the Roman Church is well stated. The Orthodox Church does not, as made clear by words of the Patriarch in the Phanar of which he is a "secret agent," regard the Roman See as the canonical western church and has not since 1054. One does not gain ecclesial authority by virtue of being in a certain place, but by adherence to the Apostolic, Orthodox, and Catholic faith, and Rome does not fully adhere to that faith. That is not my stance, but the stance of the Holy Orthodox Church. He is perfectly entitled to his own beliefs (which apparently even he is unclear about), but to present himself as some sort of spokesman or expert on Orthodoxy is laughable.

I mean no disrespect when I say, why don't you join the Roman Catholic Church, given your view of her? You clearly do not see the Holy Orthodox Church according to her own self-understanding, so why tarry?
Logged

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy upon and save us. Amen!
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #51 on: February 07, 2006, 11:36:17 PM »

You call others to be charitable, as if your statement above showed any charity or understanding. 
You refuse to clarify or defend your statement or answer any queries regarding it. Probably because it is totally inexplicable or defensible. So, in the name of charity, I will let the matter drop here. Running in circles makes me dizzy.

First of all, I didn't call anyone to be charitable, cleveland did, secondly I responded to your two great objections to my statement, a) you dont think the novus ordo mass is 'traditonal' enough, from what I understand of it it's quite traditional with one of the Eucharistic prayers being almost the equivalent of traditional catholic mass, and the other three being historical reconsturctions...and b) you disagree with Catholic ecclesiology, and I pointed out that this is of little consequence save for the formal relationships of the bishops to each other, and while it may be enough to prevent administrative communion, it is not enought to prevent spiritual communion
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #52 on: February 07, 2006, 11:46:07 PM »

I find little to no point in arguing with greekischristian. With almost every post he makes here, he demeans or shows contempt for traditional Orthodox piety and worship. He even referred to parishes where the women wear head coverings as "cultish" because they don't mesh or fit in with our "modern western society," as if modern western society was something to be proud of or emulated.

Are you sure I refered to them as 'cultish'? I usually use the adjective 'cultic,' but maybe you're right, I can't properly remember my exact post.

Quote
Quite frankly, I think the suggestion that he join the Roman Church is well stated. The Orthodox Church does not, as made clear by words of the Patriarch in the Phanar of which he is a "secret agent," regard the Roman See as the canonical western church and has not since 1054.

But far more charitable things have been said about Rome by our Patriarchs that you seem to be willing to admit, ever hear or read anything from His All-Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras, of Most Blessed Memory, on the subject? I may be advocating a posistion slightly more tolerant than most, but it's hardly on the fringe.

Quote
but to present himself as some sort of spokesman or expert on Orthodoxy is laughable.

I dont believe I have presented myself as a spokesman of Orthodoxy, my statements carry as much weight as the arguments that back them up, and quite frankly speaking that's all the weight anyone's statements here carry.

Quote
I mean no disrespect when I say, why don't you join the Roman Catholic Church,

right...

Quote
given your view of her? You clearly do not see the Holy Orthodox Church according to her own self-understanding, so why tarry?

Because I'm the 'Secret Agent for the Phanar' not the 'Secret Agent for the Vatican.'
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Carpatho-Rusyn
Just Orthodox
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


WWW
« Reply #53 on: February 08, 2006, 08:28:32 AM »

For a good and thoroughly Orthodox (unlike that of greekischristian) understanding of the relationship between Rome and Orthodoxy, I would suggest Rev. Father Thomas Hopko's article on the matter: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php

Excellent advice. The article clearly points our that our differences are more than just "administrative" misunderstandings to be solved by good hearted ecclesiastics. With the presence of a RC hierarchy which is so clearly enamored of the so-called Vatican II reforms, unity is clearly a long way away. Even those who admit that many of  the 'reforms' were not in keeping with the 'spirit of Vatican II', i.e, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, I do not see one thing in Hopko's article that Rome would concede.
Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.
- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk
Carpatho-Rusyn
Just Orthodox
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


WWW
« Reply #54 on: February 08, 2006, 08:33:11 AM »

First of all, I didn't call anyone to be charitable, cleveland did...

I stand corrected on that point. However, I stand by all that followed.

Quote
you disagree with Catholic ecclesiology, and I pointed out that this is of little consequence save for the formal relationships of the bishops to each other, and while it may be enough to prevent administrative communion, it is not enought to prevent spiritual communion

And just how do you define "spirtual communion"?
Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.
- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk
irene
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167

OC.net


« Reply #55 on: February 08, 2006, 10:50:27 AM »

Just my two cents, but it seems like this thread is taking on a life of its own, and isn't all that charitable.
If someone were wondering about Orthodoxy, they might get scared away.  Seems like a lot of one ups.

Logged
amnesiac99
Always Hopeful, Yet Discontent
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 93

Create in me a clean heart, O God


WWW
« Reply #56 on: February 08, 2006, 11:02:01 AM »

But far more charitable things have been said about Rome by our Patriarchs that you seem to be willing to admit, ever hear or read anything from His All-Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras, of Most Blessed Memory, on the subject? I may be advocating a posistion slightly more tolerant than most, but it's hardly on the fringe.



Firstly, I must apologize for the sarcastic and nasty nature of my last post. I hope you will forgive me.

And I have read much of the positive things which have been stated about the Roman Church by our hierarchs and theologians. Hierarchs and theologians, however, cannot change anything on their own; they need the consent of the whole church. I, for myself, admire a great many things about the Roman Church, as I do the Oriental Orthodox Church. I was pleased, for example, when our priest prayed in the liturgy for the repose of the soul of "John Paul II, Pope of Rome," even though such an action is uncanonical, for it was done in a spirit of love and humility.

I do not back away from my position that to say the Church of Rome is the "canonical western church" is a fringe position, however. It is a church that subsides both in heresy and schism, which makes the work of evangelism even more important then ecumenism. Our work should be to bring the Roman See back into the fullness of the orthodox catholic faith, not merely re-establish administrative unity. As Patriarch Nicholas III of Constantinople said, "When the Pope of Rome professes the orthodox faith, there will be unity."
Logged

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy upon and save us. Amen!
Thomas
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,828



« Reply #57 on: February 08, 2006, 04:26:27 PM »

Thank you amnesiac for correcting your tone on your own. Guys please remember that this forum is the Convert Forum and please try to tone down polemics and passions to clearly present the faith in a positive tone to new converts and those inquirors seeking basic information and enlightment about all the ranges of orthodox belief and practices. If you have a problem with one jurisdictions practices versus another may I suggest that the Faith Forum or free-for-all or one of the new private discussion forums now available would be more appropriate and free-wheeling with less damage to those seeking basic information and adjustment to their new convert status.

In Christ,
Thomas
« Last Edit: February 08, 2006, 04:29:24 PM by Thomas » Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
Carpatho-Rusyn
Just Orthodox
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


WWW
« Reply #58 on: February 08, 2006, 05:13:06 PM »

Thank you amnesiac for correcting your tone on your own. Guys please remember that this forum is the Convert Forum and please try to tone down polemics and passions to clearly present the faith in a positive tone to new converts and those inquirors seeking basic information and enlightment about all the ranges of orthodox belief and practices. If you have a problem with one jurisdictions practices versus another may I suggest that the Faith Forum or free-for-all or one of the new private discussion forums now available would be more appropriate and free-wheeling with less damage to those seeking basic information and adjustment to their new convert status.

In Christ,
Thomas


Brother Moderator,

The problem was NOT over "one juridictions practice versus another." It was rather, the position of one particular member who claimed that perhaps the Orthodox Church should have a moritorium on accepting Roman Catholic converts. This is presenting the faith in a positive tone? Does it provide enlightenmnent about the range of Orthodox faith and practice? In my opinion it did not. As I myself am a convert from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy, the member, in my opinon, had to be challenged. While I agree that some inquirers may not be ready to handle some of our internal "issues" let's not whitewash who or what we are.

Thank you for your concern.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2006, 05:14:27 PM by Carpatho-Rusyn » Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.
- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk
Thomas
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,828



« Reply #59 on: February 08, 2006, 06:07:44 PM »

Thankyou Carpatho-Rusyn,

I think my main point is that the convert  forum, in my opinion and as it was explained to me, is not the place to discuss these issues as they are more appropriately addressed in other areas. For example, I know that there are some who will in an extreme interpretation of the Balmond Agreement say that what GIC is saying is in agreement with the Balmond Agreement.  We also know that the stance that a jurisdiction talkes on the Balmond Agreement will flavour the discussions from members of one Orthodox jurisdiction to another jurisdiction.  I am hopeful that we can avoid these polemics in the convert forum and stick to the basics and leave these disagreements to the other forums mentioned.  I see the convert forum as a more evangelical ministry of the the OC Net and thus should be less controversial nature or be an exhibition of Orthodox disunity at its worse . As a convert of over 18 years, I do not know if I would have looked at the Orthodox Church had I been presented the human imperfections of its members before I knew of the glory of its teachings and practice as it was taught by the Holy Fathers and Holy Tradition. I think this should be our focus on the Convert Forum. Forgive me if I have offended you dearest brother.

In Christ,
Thomas
Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
victoriasilvana
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #60 on: February 09, 2006, 12:23:41 AM »


"not accept converts from Roman Catholicism"

Sorry to give my humble opinion: isn't this blasphemy?
Have this person ever read the story of Cornelius and St Peter?
 
Selecting people for the Church is monstruous.
Didn't Jesus say "Follow me"? Who are you then to say who shouldn't join the Church?
Catholics are not impure, there isn't anything impure!
I can't believe it.
Logged
jlerms
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 826


O sweet Jesus, cleanse my soul.


« Reply #61 on: February 09, 2006, 12:34:37 AM »

Dear Sister Victoria, 

I for one agree with you.  Please remember that there are many here on the forum who espouse different opinions.  I have learned a lot from others here...however there are times when I must ignore some of the things written. 0ur Lord Jesus Christ comes first and foremost in our lives and  it is only the failings of men who utter these unkind words.  God be with you and don't let anyone prevent you from seeking His church.

Juliana
Logged
irene
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167

OC.net


« Reply #62 on: February 09, 2006, 09:54:38 AM »

Pride before the fall.........
shouldn't seminarians, long time members of the church,  be sensitive to inquirers, instead of getting caught up in all of this?   My heart is saddened that Victoria is being exposed to this...it really isn't right, and it is getting more misconstrued.   And it's not a matter of 'well, people should be informed of all of this' because that's NOT the "heart" of Orthodoxy, it is your opinion, and it is a battlefield now here.   And, if you read Victoria's last post, it is stirring up a lot of emotion.
Victoria, I deeply apologize.  You have not had the greatest start in your search from the beginning, and I hope you know this isn't truly representative of Orthodox.  Keep praying, keep up the search, you are in the right place, humbly looking for the 'love'. 
Logged
Carpatho-Rusyn
Just Orthodox
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


WWW
« Reply #63 on: February 09, 2006, 03:06:53 PM »

Pride before the fall.........
shouldn't seminarians, long time members of the church,  be sensitive to inquirers, instead of getting caught up in all of this?   My heart is saddened that Victoria is being exposed to this...it really isn't right, and it is getting more misconstrued.   And it's not a matter of 'well, people should be informed of all of this' because that's NOT the "heart" of Orthodoxy, it is your opinion, and it is a battlefield now here.   And, if you read Victoria's last post, it is stirring up a lot of emotion.
Victoria, I deeply apologize.  You have not had the greatest start in your search from the beginning, and I hope you know this isn't truly representative of Orthodox.  Keep praying, keep up the search, you are in the right place, humbly looking for the 'love'. 

Dear sister,

I agree with your sentiment but this is what happens all the time. Someone makes a blatently offensive statement. On one hand some feel the obligation to deal with it and then they take the heat from the self righteous who sit on the sidelines and talk about kindness. It's a no win situation really. You can say, well why not just let it roll of your back, but I think error should be exposed to the light and not allowed to fester in the darkness.

Now you all know what I am talking about so lets get it out in the open. At least for my clarification of thought, IS THERE ONE JURISDICTION RIGHT NOW THAT BELIEVES CATHOLICS SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS CONVERTS? OR WAS THAT JUST THE SINGLE OPINION OF ONE PERSON ON THIS THREAD?
Because THAT one post will turn off many more inquirers than our little "squabble" clarifying it ever could.   

In peace,
Douglas Alexis
Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.
- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk
StBrigid
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Posts: 81

Coptic Orthodox


WWW
« Reply #64 on: February 09, 2006, 04:23:08 PM »

Selecting people for the Church is monstruous.
Didn't Jesus say "Follow me"? Who are you then to say who shouldn't join the Church?
Victoria, I can sympathize somewhat with your situation.  When I first became an "Orthodox inquirer," I didn't live near enough to a church to become a catechumen.  Fortunately I had plans to move, anyway, so I only had to wait a year or two before I could be in a parish.

Don't be too troubled by the brother's statements- I don't think he meant that Catholics are "impure," rather that the Catholic Church is Orthodox already so you don't need to convert.  Not many Orthodox share his opinion, from what I can tell, and neither do I.

Ironically, however, when I couldn't visit an Orthodox church, I sometimes did go to Catholic mass or an Anglican service.  I didn't take communion and it wasn't the same, at all, but we do what we have to do.  In the meantime I also tried to learn as much about the Orthodox faith as I could.  You're quite right that what we are searching for is Jesus Christ.  In coming to know Him, there are no dead ends, and nothing that can stop us or keep us away.

If I were you, I would try to see the priest again.  Tell him that you want to learn about the Orthodox faith and need to have someone to answer your questions.  If he won't see you or puts you off again, try to find another Orthodox priest or deacon to talk to.  Be patient and persistent.

I agree with what you said earlier, we who have an Orthodox community are lucky!  I pray you can find the same, and peace in Jesus Christ in the meantime.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #65 on: February 09, 2006, 04:51:46 PM »

Now you all know what I am talking about so lets get it out in the open. At least for my clarification of thought, IS THERE ONE JURISDICTION RIGHT NOW THAT BELIEVES CATHOLICS SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS CONVERTS? OR WAS THAT JUST THE SINGLE OPINION OF ONE PERSON ON THIS THREAD?

The only jurisdiction who doesn't want conversion of the Catholics are the Catholics, so the answer to your question is the latter - a single opinion.
Logged

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

Posts: 77


WWW
« Reply #66 on: February 09, 2006, 05:14:37 PM »

The only jurisdiction who doesn't want conversion of the Catholics are the Catholics,

 Cheesy

Quote
so the answer to your question is the latter - a single opinion.

Thank you.
Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.
- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #67 on: February 09, 2006, 05:29:47 PM »

Excellent advice. The article clearly points our that our differences are more than just "administrative" misunderstandings to be solved by good hearted ecclesiastics. With the presence of a RC hierarchy which is so clearly enamored of the so-called Vatican II reforms, unity is clearly a long way away. Even those who admit that many of  the 'reforms' were not in keeping with the 'spirit of Vatican II', i.e, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, I do not see one thing in Hopko's article that Rome would concede.

In many ways Vatican II brought Rome and Orthodoxy closer together, it opened the way to greater tolerance of each other, it established a respect that had been lost for centuries.

And just how do you define "spirtual communion"?

We hold essentially the same faith, the only disagreements are in administrative functions, technicalities of how patriarchs and their synods interact and how the patriarchs interact amongst themselves.

I do not back away from my position that to say the Church of Rome is the "canonical western church" is a fringe position, however.

Regardless of how mainstream (or not) you believe my position to be it is technically correct by the letter of the law, Rome and her authority was established by an Oecumenical Synod and ONLY an Oecumenical Synod can actually remove her from the Church, and only such a Synod, no imperial, endimousa, or pan-orthodox synod has this authority, for they are all subject to the 7 Synods.

Quote
It is a church that subsides both in heresy and schism, which makes the work of evangelism even more important then ecumenism. Our work should be to bring the Roman See back into the fullness of the orthodox catholic faith, not merely re-establish administrative unity. As Patriarch Nicholas III of Constantinople said, "When the Pope of Rome professes the orthodox faith, there will be unity."

And in what ways does Rome disagree with the essence of the Faith? And, no I'm not talking about liturgical preferences or administrative details. Where has she departed from the faith of the 7 Synods?

Thank you amnesiac for correcting your tone on your own. Guys please remember that this forum is the Convert Forum and please try to tone down polemics and passions to clearly present the faith in a positive tone to new converts and those inquirors seeking basic information and enlightment about all the ranges of orthodox belief and practices. If you have a problem with one jurisdictions practices versus another may I suggest that the Faith Forum or free-for-all or one of the new private discussion forums now available would be more appropriate and free-wheeling with less damage to those seeking basic information and adjustment to their new convert status.


Should not all who wish to convert be fully aware of all disputes and issues? Let them see it all upfront, and make up thier mind if they really want to convert. If the truth about the workings of the Church scares someone away it might be better for all involved if they do not convert. And I am far from the first to say such things, I have heard this said by many bishops. (I recall a story of a Bishop talking to now Bishop Kallistos Ware prior to his conversion, and this Bishop's advice was something to the effect, 'The Orthodox Church is the One, True, Historical, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, but under no circumstances should you join it.' As the bishop then sent him back to the Anglicans, telling him to try and make peace with them if possible, obviously it was not but surely it was healthy to second guess such a big decision before it was made).

"not accept converts from Roman Catholicism"

Sorry to give my humble opinion: isn't this blasphemy?
Have this person ever read the story of Cornelius and St Peter?
 
Selecting people for the Church is monstruous.
Didn't Jesus say "Follow me"? Who are you then to say who shouldn't join the Church?
Catholics are not impure, there isn't anything impure!
I can't believe it.

The argument I presented was not that Catholicism was impure, but just the opposite, that it is pure.

Pride before the fall.........
shouldn't seminarians, long time members of the church,  be sensitive to inquirers, instead of getting caught up in all of this?   My heart is saddened that Victoria is being exposed to this...it really isn't right, and it is getting more misconstrued.   And it's not a matter of 'well, people should be informed of all of this' because that's NOT the "heart" of Orthodoxy, it is your opinion, and it is a battlefield now here.   And, if you read Victoria's last post, it is stirring up a lot of emotion.

I argue from reason and not emotion, and I hope to be responded to in kind. If you object to the point that I made give me reasons why, dont just object on emotional grounds.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Carpatho-Rusyn
Just Orthodox
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


WWW
« Reply #68 on: February 09, 2006, 07:15:16 PM »

In many ways Vatican II brought Rome and Orthodoxy closer together, it opened the way to greater tolerance of each other, it established a respect that had been lost for centuries.

Brother,

Tolerance and respect do not a marriage make. Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI were perhaps well meaning. The implementation of the Second Vatican Council was anything but Orthodox. The results of the council were innovation, novelty, and a loss of grace. We had more in common with the Catholic Church during the age of the Traditional Latin Mass. Now we have dirt in common. The mutual lifting of the excommunications in the 1960's was a nice administrative adjustment that accomplished nothing of substance. Like all cosmetics it washes off.

Regards, 
Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.
- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #69 on: February 10, 2006, 12:58:35 AM »

Tolerance and respect do not a marriage make. Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI were perhaps well meaning. The implementation of the Second Vatican Council was anything but Orthodox. The results of the council were innovation, novelty, and a loss of grace. We had more in common with the Catholic Church during the age of the Traditional Latin Mass. Now we have dirt in common. The mutual lifting of the excommunications in the 1960's was a nice administrative adjustment that accomplished nothing of substance. Like all cosmetics it washes off.

I've had this conversation with members of SSPX, which you unfortunately sound all to like, and none of them have ever really given me all that great of an answer, certainly not a convincing one, so here it goes, but perhaps you can...what exactly did Rome do at the Second Vatican Council that was so terribly heterodox and such an abandonment of the faith they held previously? All I see that came out of that council, was liturgical reform, with even the new eucharistic prayers having some historical source (there are numerous apologetics of this by Roman Catholics online that I could look up if necessary), plus they decided to be somewhat nicer to non-catholics, oh and the Pope stopped wearing his Tiara (and was no longer coronated)...I really dont see the great apostacy you seem to insist happened.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #70 on: February 10, 2006, 01:29:50 AM »

...it is technically correct by the letter of the law, Rome and her authority was established by an Oecumenical Synod and ONLY an Oecumenical Synod can actually remove her from the Church, and only such a Synod, no imperial, endimousa, or pan-orthodox synod has this authority, for they are all subject to the 7 Synods.

You make an interesting observation, one that I've never heard (or even thought about) before.

Why hasn't this ever been adressed?

I am quite interested in hearing what everyone's thoughts on this are.  Smiley
Logged
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #71 on: February 10, 2006, 01:59:14 AM »

You make an interesting observation, one that I've never heard (or even thought about) before.

Why hasn't this ever been adressed?

I am quite interested in hearing what everyone's thoughts on this are.  Smiley

It doesn't take a Synod to depose a heretic, for one. But strictly speaking, an Ecumenical Synod did condemn what became Romam doctrine! More striking is the fact that Rome was part of this Council, and agreed to it! This happened at the Eighth Ecumenical Council* (Constantinople IV 879/880). This is not the Ignatian Council, the Roman pseudo-council which was condemned, but the later one, also nown as the Photian Council, which was fully Orthodox. Here is a link to a page explaining one major aspect aspect of this Council: http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html

In the end, it was Rome which ended up condemning itself. Whatever the case, it is clear that the earlier Ecumenical Councils didn't keep Patriarchs that fell ito heresy around. A clear precedent was set: depose/excommunicate all those who fall into heresy, Patriarchs and laymen alike. The "legalistic loophool" that GiC pointed out is just that: a legalistic application of canons from a carefully seleted group of Councils in order to justify keeping heretical leaders in the Church.


*While we have a neat little package we call the "Seven Ecumenical Councils," there are others which the Church as a whole accepts.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,173


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #72 on: February 10, 2006, 03:13:35 AM »

No synod expelled Judas, for Jesus appointed him, and the betrayal of Judas excluded him, regardless of whether the Apostle's knew of what was going on. Likewise, the bishops of the Church, through apostolic succession, were established by Jesus Christ (as the Church of Rome says explicitly in the First Century letter to the Corinthians attributed to Clement). Thus, it is the same thing. If Rome falls, then Rome falls, no Ecumenical synod is needed to confirm this fall. Are we now going to say that Judas*, and countless heretics, are really still part of the Church, since they weren't formally excluded by the Church at an Ecumenical Council? There have only been seven (or perhaps nine) in nearly two thousands years of Christian history, and these one bunched up within a (roughly) four hundred year period. How could we possibly think that such a system is necessary? Are we saying that everyone who deviated from the faith since 787 is still part of the Church since they haven't been condemned by an Ecumenical Council?


* I do not mean to be comparing Catholics to Judas, I'm only bringing him up to help articulate why I think such comments as have been uttered on this thread are incorrect... I really don't have the patience to go even further into these issues though...


EDIT-- Ok, after signing offline for the night, I realised something and after telling myself that I wouldn't sign back online, here I am anyway. I have to be up for work in 6 1/2 hours, so I'll make this quick! Smiley I realised after signing off that the above didn't directly deal with the question at hand, since the question specifically was about a see appointed it's place by an Ecumenical Council. However, even on that point I think it fails on a few different grounds. No one, so far as I am aware, ever taught such a thing. Who was the first person in the Christian tradition to say that if an Ecumenical Council grants certain rights, that only an Ecumenical Council can take away those rights? And what is to be made of other (non-Ecumenical) councils, such as the one Bizzle brought up, which clearly believed things to be quite different?  Rome was originally given it's place for political and cultural reasons, as well as spiritual ones. And if it has ceased being a bastion of Orthodoxy, there is no more need to prop it up as one of the five most important sees. Essentially, I don't understand where this belief came from that nothing (relative to the pentarchy) can be done without an Ecumenical Council authorizing it. Indeed, I wonder what GIC would deem an Ecumenical Council... would a Council excluding Rome be Ecumenical since you consider her part of the Church? And if Rome would have to participate, how could she ever be expected to exclude herself, and if she saw that that was going to be the conclusion, would she not simply declare the council a synod of robbers?
« Last Edit: February 10, 2006, 03:35:33 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
Carpatho-Rusyn
Just Orthodox
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


WWW
« Reply #73 on: February 10, 2006, 03:10:16 PM »

I've had this conversation with members of SSPX, which you unfortunately sound all to like, and none of them have ever really given me all that great of an answer, certainly not a convincing one, so here it goes, but perhaps you can...what exactly did Rome do at the Second Vatican Council that was so terribly heterodox and such an abandonment of the faith they held previously? All I see that came out of that council, was liturgical reform, with even the new eucharistic prayers having some historical source (there are numerous apologetics of this by Roman Catholics online that I could look up if necessary), plus they decided to be somewhat nicer to non-catholics, oh and the Pope stopped wearing his Tiara (and was no longer coronated)...I really dont see the great apostacy you seem to insist happened.

If I sound like an SSPXer, you are sounding more like a liberal ecumenical hot-tubber. (Let's al jump in the water's fine!)For the record, I'm not SSPX now, nor have I ever been. Nor have I ever attended an SSPX liturgy nor do I know any SSPX priests. I was educated in Catholic schools for 16+ years. Four of those were spent in a Roman Catholc College-Seminary and I spent three years after that in the NY Province Society of Jesus (Jesuits). They were hardly bastions of Roman Catholic Traditionalism. Please read my post carefully. I didn't say Vatican II was a heterodox council. While I have theological issues with the Decrees on Ecumenism and Religious Freedom, I said it was all in the implementation of the council that led to an increase in Roman Catholic heterodoxy. If you can't see it, you never will. If your conversations with SSPX members were to no avail I doubt any explanation of mine will ever convince you.

Regards.

PS. Its almost two hours later but i think I need to make something clear. I am Orthodox. The internal divisions, issues, and problems of the Roman Catholic Church concern me no more. I became Orthodox precisely because the Catholic Church is not. And I will end my participation in this discussion on that point.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2006, 04:50:26 PM by Carpatho-Rusyn » Logged

Man, learn the sickness of thy soul, for without acknowlegdement of illness there is no healing....Christ alone can heal us, who sigh and pray to him with faith.
- St. Tikhon of Zadonsk
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #74 on: February 12, 2006, 12:32:50 PM »

Regardless of how mainstream (or not) you believe my position to be it is technically correct by the letter of the law, Rome and her authority was established by an Oecumenical Synod and ONLY an Oecumenical Synod can actually remove her from the Church, and only such a Synod, no imperial, endimousa, or pan-orthodox synod has this authority, for they are all subject to the 7 Synods.

While this is technically correct, there is an omission. While the other Patriarchates cannot depose the Bishop of Rome without an Oecumenical Synod, when he departed from the Orthodox faith we were justified in breaking communion with him, according to the 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod under St. Photios the Great. However, it is because of the above mentioned fact of the Authority of the Oecumenical Synods that we have never replaced the Bishop of Rome with an Orthodox Bishop, and leave the See intact. However, the fact that the See or Bishop cannot be deposed without an Oecumenical Synod does not change the fact that they are out of communion with the Orthodox. It's not enough to be a Bishop with Apostolic Succession in a Canonical See, Communion with the rest of the Church is even more essential.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
irene
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167

OC.net


« Reply #75 on: February 12, 2006, 02:31:15 PM »

GIC, I want to apologize, she said at the beginning, she only wanted a yes or no to her question, and it was turning into a somewhat heated theology debate.   I was very pained by her searching/seeking experience, and felt some TLC and encouragement, not theological debate, would have been better.  It wasn't you persay, it was a general overall gut feeling it's not what she wanted or needed.  So, sorry for putting my two cents in where it didn't really belong.  At least from the experience, I know her name, and can pray for her. 

Irene     
Logged
Thomas
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,828



« Reply #76 on: February 12, 2006, 06:29:32 PM »

As this topic in the forum is becoming contentious and beyond what the intent of the initial  inquirory topic was I am closing it . Further expanison of this discussion may be started and further developed in the Orthodox-Catholic Forum or the Faith Forum.

In Christ,
Thomas
Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
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 0.138 seconds with 59 queries.