OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 21, 2014, 02:32:45 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How does the Catholic Church see Orthodox positions?  (Read 17063 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
MicahJohn
The Lonely Tenor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 58


« on: March 08, 2006, 10:20:35 AM »

Does the Catholic Church actually have any doctrinal disputes with the Orthodox, or do they accept everything, just that they want us to be under the pope?  Things like filioque, immaculate conception, satisfaction theory, do they really hinder the Catholics like they hinder Orthodox?  If the OC somehow chose to take the pope as supreme dude, would the Catholic Church require the OC to change any teachings at all?
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2006, 10:23:01 AM »

Depends on whom you ask.  JPII was more of the "let's just intercommune and it will all work out" camp while B16 is more of the "submit to us now, erstwhile ones."  But that is a gross oversimplication.

From the Catholic POV there is nothing to hinder intercommunion and even concelebration (they concelebrate and even consecrate with Nestorian bishops!) but they would expect us to submit to their teachings in any formal arrangement.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2006, 09:07:33 PM »

Does the Catholic Church actually have any doctrinal disputes with the Orthodox, or do they accept everything, just that they want us to be under the pope?  Things like filioque, immaculate conception, satisfaction theory, do they really hinder the Catholics like they hinder Orthodox?  If the OC somehow chose to take the pope as supreme dude, would the Catholic Church require the OC to change any teachings at all?

There are a great many differences in doctrine.

Take the filioque, for example. The Nicene Creed was added to by the RCC.

The text originally stated in part “And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father”

This was agreed to by all parts of the Church. Then in Spain the Latin text was tampered with and the word ‘filioque’ was added. Which changed the text to say “And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son

This was argued AGAINST by several Popes, but later Popes finally agreed to its addition.

We object for several reasons
a) the change was made unilaterally; the Pope has no right to tamper with a statement of faith made originally from an accord, which
b) stated it should never be changed, but more importantly,
c) it changes the nature of the Trinity by subverting the Holy Spirit to being an emination of the other two; a double procession.*

Other differences include that Catholics believe in Papal infaliblity, the Immaculate Conception, purgatory, etc.

*We believe that the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father (sometimes through the Son)
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,052


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2006, 09:25:40 PM »

Does the Catholic Church actually have any doctrinal disputes with the Orthodox, or do they accept everything, just that they want us to be under the pope?  Things like filioque, immaculate conception, satisfaction theory, do they really hinder the Catholics like they hinder Orthodox?  If the OC somehow chose to take the pope as supreme dude, would the Catholic Church require the OC to change any teachings at all?

I think Anastasios' answer is as close as it gets to what I've experienced myself.  Being an EO who went to a Benedictine school, it was actually one of the first questions I asked my priestmonk Latin teacher first year - getting a perspective on how they looked at the whole situation.  His answer was basically what I got at the time (from a guy who was cynical about the direction the Cath church was going in... he said if the church became any more liberal, he'd probably become Orthodox).  In an informal setting, they have no objection to immediate intercommunion; but as it stands now, official reconciliation will require submission at least to Papal Supremacy and the whole outgrowth of pseudo-Petrine ecclesiology.
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.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2006, 09:45:37 PM »

Saying that our differences are about the position of the Pope is only part of the story. We object to the pretensions of the Pope for several reasons;

a) they are an innovation

b) they change the structure of the Church (which is Christ's body here on earth)
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
MicahJohn
The Lonely Tenor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 58


« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2006, 11:59:38 PM »

Yes, I already know how we disagree with them, but I was asking the reverse.

Gosh, I just don't know...I didn't realize how far the Catholic Church has gone until I visited a "modern" one, which wasn't even very liberal according to my friend.  When all I knew of the Church was the way it used to be and Gregorian Chant and the solemn, regal stuff I saw at the big cathedral downtown, I thought there must be a way to reunite and fix things.  How could I reject all that, when it seemed to be really the "Orthodoxy of the West?"

Every parish is different, but to see how close Catholicism has come in many ways to the Protestantism I left, at least in form, I have much less hope in the idea of "reunion" than before.  We have diverged too far apart.  You can only reunite two estranged churches.  What I saw sure didn't seem like church anymore.

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: March 08, 2006, 11:59:55 PM by MicahJohn » Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2006, 01:06:55 AM »

I visited a RC church this past summer and came away with the same feeling. My sister's evangelical Presbyterian church is more formal and dignified than that service was (and why do RC churches always have bad choirs?) (or am I just spoiled because Presbyterians always have great choirs - and great organs - not that I am promoting organs in Orthodox churches by any means - this is just an observation. For whatever reason Presbyterian churches always have great organs and RC churches always have cheesy little ones that sound crappy - remember the one in the baptist church during the funeral scene in the Big Chill? They sound like that. Not to be critical, of course! Grin

A good friend of mine attends a Latin Rite RC church because he can't stand the barely 40 minute service that they call a mass at the local parish church.

All that said, however, I agree that RC's see Orthodox in a better light than Orthodox do RC's. I think they would more readily accept our priests, sacraments, etc.

The division between east and west is so wearisome that sometimes I feel like I would like to accept JPII's view, stated above by Anastasios. They say that for the first several hundred years after the schism, at the lay and parish levels, no one felt divided and still felt they were all part of one Church. In some ways, maybe that is happening today; at work, at school, out on the street, if you meet a RC who is devout and takes his/her faith seriously, amidst all the pagans, you feel like you've met a brother or sister. I bet at this grass roots level more RC's would tell you God is loving and that Christ died as an example of love than would posit an Angry God whose Son had to die to appease the wrath of the Father. That view seems to be now just the domain of the fudamentalists and strict Calvinists although Orthodox converts from the RC's would know better than I.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,052


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2006, 02:00:55 AM »

Saying that our differences are about the position of the Pope is only part of the story. We object to the pretensions of the Pope for several reasons;

a) they are an innovation

b) they change the structure of the Church (which is Christ's body here on earth)

I wasn't trying to list our differences; I was just attempting to respond to micahjohn's question that basically amounts to "what do they think we must do in order for our Churches to be reunited," which A and I (I hope) answered to the best of our experience.

If we wanted to get into the list of differences, then we'd need a pretty big thread to handle it.  But that isn't/wouldn't be productive at the moment.
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.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2006, 03:57:58 AM »

I wasn't trying to list our differences; I was just attempting to respond to micahjohn's question that basically amounts to "what do they think we must do in order for our Churches to be reunited," which A and I (I hope) answered to the best of our experience.

If we wanted to get into the list of differences, then we'd need a pretty big thread to handle it.  But that isn't/wouldn't be productive at the moment.

Everyone though seems to think it's just about the Pope. I hope you don't think I've misrepresented what you've said.

I'm ex-Catholic as a number here seem to be. Even as a boy I felt uncomfortable when the style changed in church and we had two hippy-like lads at the front with accoustic guitars. They made us sing "Let it Be", which shows how dumb they were (including the priest who wanted to be 'relevant') - given the fact that it's not a hymn
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,052


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2006, 07:34:37 AM »

Everyone though seems to think it's just about the Pope. I hope you don't think I've misrepresented what you've said.

I'm ex-Catholic as a number here seem to be. Even as a boy I felt uncomfortable when the style changed in church and we had two hippy-like lads at the front with accoustic guitars. They made us sing "Let it Be", which shows how dumb they were (including the priest who wanted to be 'relevant') - given the fact that it's not a hymn

No, you're right - it's not just about the Pope.

I just have a feeling (that was the OP question - what do you think) that if say the Pope and the EP were to sit down at a table, and each was to be asked what the other would need to do for reunion - a "non-negotiable" list in their eyes - then the EP would list off things like getting rid of the filioque, ending Papal Supremacy, ending azymes, restoration of baptism, restoration of the ancient Liturgical rites as mandatory, redistricting, etc.  And the Pope would probably say that the EO have to submit to Papal Supremacy.  On the other issues, they have already compromised in the past, and therefore would not force them for reunion (i.e. azymes, baptism, the Eastern Rite, etc.).  So my response to the question "What would the Catholics want us to do to reunite with them" is that, when push comes to shove, their only major sticking point will be Papal Supremacy and the doctrines that have grown out of it (Infallibility ex cathedra, the right of a Pope to nullify Ecumenical Synod, etc.).
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.
Michael
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2006, 08:07:37 AM »

We object for several reasons
a) the change was made unilaterally; the Pope has no right to tamper with a statement of faith made originally from an accord,

Agreed. Smiley

Quote
which
b) stated it should never be changed,

and again.  Smiley

Quote
but more importantly,
c) it changes the nature of the Trinity by subverting the Holy Spirit to being an emination of the other two; a double procession.*

Disagreed.

While the wording of the Latin Creed is different from the Orthodox Creed, in that the Latin has added filioque (or "and the Son" in English), the Roman Catholic Church does indeed believe the same thing as us Orthodox about the procession.

The difficulty doesn't lie in the words "and the Son" but rather in the meaning of the word "proceeds".

I explain.

The Greek verb used in the original version of the Creed is ekporeuesthai.  This means proceeds from in the sense of "finding its source and ultimate origin in".  When this was translated into Latin, the word procedere was used.  This is an accurate translation, because the Latin procedere also means "inding its source and ultimate origin in".  Therefore, it is right and proper to say that the Spirit proceeds (ekporeuesthai) from the Father.  Both Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and both Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree that there is only one generative and ultimate eternal source in the Trinity - the Father.

However...

The problem with translating the Creed into Latin is the same problem with any translation: not all words in one language have a direct equivalent in another language.

The Latin word procedere is indeed an accurate translation of the Greek ekporeuesthai, but it also has a secondary meaning - a meaning which does not exist in the original Greek.  The Latin procedere also means "proceeds" in the sense of "goes".  i.e. Let us proceed to the concert.  It refers to a temporal action of motion.  In this secondary sense, it is indeed correct to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and both Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree on this.  We have the temporal sendings of the Spirit by the Son in the Gospels, especially when he breathed on the Apostles and told them to receive the Holy Spirit.

The problem is that this secondary sense of the Latin procedere (which also exists in the English "to proceed") is a completely different verb in Greek - proeinai.  This verb does not appear in the original Greek version of the Creed which was affirmed by the Second Oecumenical Council.  The Creed speaks of the eternal procession of the Spirit, which is from the Father alone, and Rome has no authority, on its own, to introduce this second sense of the word into the Creed.

To further highlight the fact that Rome believes the same thing as the Orthodox, in Byzantine Catholic churches in communion with Rome, when they serve the Liturgy in Greek, they do not have the filioque, because, in Greek, adding the words and the Son with the verb ekporeuesthai would be heresy, and so they don't do it.  They only add it in Latin and English, and other languages with their roots in Latin, where the second sense of "proceed" exists.

Therefore, I agree that Rome changed the Creed.  I agree that this causes unnecessary confusion.  I agree that Rome has no authority to change the Creed alone.  However, we do believe the same things with respect to the Trinity, our differing versions of the Creed (in English, but not in greek), notwithstanding.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2006, 08:09:57 AM by Michael » Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2006, 08:25:58 AM »

Michael,

I would just temper your argument by saying that we believe the same thing about the Trinity as some RCs but not others. I've always found the official teaching on this from the RCC to be very confusing as some sources state one thing and some the opposite. RCs obviously have the same problem (and I've never yet come across one that knew about the two different Greek words used - obviously I'm talking about lay people) because I've talked to some who do hold to the view you describe here and others who are adamant (and can also cite sources) that the filioque is to be understood as the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from Father and Son as of one principle. That's the very doctrine we condemn. In other words, then, if we do indeed believe the same thing about the Trinity that the RCC officially teaches (and as I've said I'm not sure which interpretation is actually official) then the heirarchy of the RCC needs to clarify the teaching and correct those who misunderstand it. Obviously, I think the easiest way to do this would be to remove the filioque from the Creed and explain why they are doing this (to clear up the misunderstandings of RC laiety). I don't think they will do this, though, as that would mean admitting that they were wrong to make the addition in the first place.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2006, 09:40:57 AM »

Michael,

Have you read the work Crisis in Byzantium by Aristeides Papadakis (SVS Press)?  The fathers at the council of Blachernae were aware of the dual meanings of the Latin verb but this did not stop them from condeming again the filioque doctrine and its proponents (both Latin and Greek unionist) in 1285.  Unfortunately, I don't have the book at my home right now or I would get it out and write down the key points, but I highly recommend you purchase/borrow this book if you have an interest in the subject.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Michael
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2006, 09:49:02 AM »

Anastasios, thank you so much for the reference.  I should look that up.  I'll note the name of it now. Smiley

James, thanks for your points as well.  I think you're right; there is often confusion on both sides, partly from some RCs not actually being clear on what Rome believes about this, and partly from some Orthodox who seem to argue with what they think Rome's position is rather than listening to what Rome is telling us they actually believe.  Of course, they can hardly be blamed if they are getting mixed messages from Roman Catholic sources.

I came across this in my searching, which seems to show that my understanding of proeinai above isn't quite how Rome understands the verb, but it is still different from the original Greek.

Thanks again,
Michael
Logged
Ntinos
Σαλός
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2006, 11:12:36 AM »

Quote
No, you're right - it's not just about the Pope.

I just have a feeling (that was the OP question - what do you think) that if say the Pope and the EP were to sit down at a table, and each was to be asked what the other would need to do for reunion - a "non-negotiable" list in their eyes - then the EP would list off things like getting rid of the filioque, ending Papal Supremacy, ending azymes, restoration of baptism, restoration of the ancient Liturgical rites as mandatory, redistricting, etc.  And the Pope would probably say that the EO have to submit to Papal Supremacy.  On the other issues, they have already compromised in the past, and therefore would not force them for reunion (i.e. azymes, baptism, the Eastern Rite, etc.).  So my response to the question "What would the Catholics want us to do to reunite with them" is that, when push comes to shove, their only major sticking point will be Papal Supremacy and the doctrines that have grown out of it (Infallibility ex cathedra, the right of a Pope to nullify Ecumenical Synod, etc.).

Actually, is it important according to christian doctrine whether the highest ranking bishop is one or five? To many it would seem rational that only one man should govern the Church (ie the Pope).

Yes, I also believe such things would be innegotiatable.
Logged

Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,052


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2006, 11:47:22 AM »

Actually, is it important according to christian doctrine whether the highest ranking bishop is one or five? To many it would seem rational that only one man should govern the Church (ie the Pope).

Yes, I also believe such things would be innegotiatable.

Eh.... it's about ecclesiology - does one bishop have the right to interfere with the operation of another bishop's diocese?  The Orthodox answer is no, only a synod can interfere with a bishop's operation of his diocese (whether it be his local Synod, or the Patriarchal Synod, or an Ecumenical Synod).  The Catholic answer is yes, the Pope, through his universal jurisdiction (which we include when saying Supremacy, versus Primacy which does not include this principal) can do so.  So it's not about one vs. five (cause there isn't even five now, it's like 13).
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.
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #16 on: March 09, 2006, 02:54:39 PM »

I largely agree with traditional Catholic doctrine, exept for the Papal In. and Filioque.

But whats up with all that indulgences and prugatory? That sooo throws me off. So say I'm a hypothetical Catholic. I sin a mortal sin ie. I cheated on my wife (although I'm too young to be married and am not married). So I go to confession, and the priest tells me to do 1 rosary every day for the next month as a penance....

Does that mean (in Catholic theology) that because I am saying these rosaries, that when I die, I will suffer somewhat less in purgatory?

I've also heard of ppl doing rosaries on behalf of ppl already in purgatory...

The reason I ask is because I have some traditional catholic prayer cards at home. On the bottom, it says something like " 9 years indulgence"  or "350 days" and sometimes accompanied by a small latin word.

The very aspect of purgatory itself is weird: So after we die, we go to this fiery place for it to burn off all our sins to prepare us for heaven. So then what was all our prayers, fastings, communion, penance, no matter how small- all that goes down the drain basically once you die and your soul is purified...

If we don't believe in purgatory, we still have our version popularized by Fr. Seraphim Rose.
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #17 on: March 09, 2006, 03:42:00 PM »

Quote
ending azymes

While I think pre-manufactured communion wafers are a huge abuse of the liturgal symbolism involved in Communion - are azymes really that big of a deal, or can we just overlook them as something that is part of the Western Church now?

Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,643


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2006, 05:07:41 PM »

I largely agree with traditional Catholic doctrine, exept for the Papal In. and Filioque.

But whats up with all that indulgences and pugatory? That sooo throws me off. So say I'm a hypothetical Catholic. I sin a mortal sin ie. I cheated on my wife (although I'm too young to be married and am not married). So I go to confession, and the priest tells me to do 1 rosary every day for the next month as a penance....

Does that mean (in Catholic theology) that because I am saying these rosaries, that when I die, I will suffer somewhat less in purgatory?

I've also heard of ppl doing rosaries on behalf of ppl already in purgatory...

The reason I ask is because I have some traditional catholic prayer cards at home. On the bottom, it says something like " 9 years indulgence"  or "350 days" and sometimes accompanied by a small latin word.

The very aspect of purgatory itself is weird: So after we die, we go to this fiery place for it to burn off all our sins to prepare us for heaven. So then what was all our prayers, fastings, communion, penance, no matter how small- all that goes down the drain basically once you die and your soul is purified...

If we don't believe in purgatory, we still have our version popularized by Fr. Seraphim Rose.

Indulgences are the West's application of the idea of canonical penance, as in that compendium called The Rudder (Pedalion) in the Orthodox churches. As in 'commit this sin and on top of going to confession and absolution be banned from Communion or even standing in the church for X years'. Nothing peculiarly Western really.

The time aspect is widely misunderstood, though 'partial' and 'plenary' (Latin for 'full') can refer to 'time' (what is 'time' in dimensions other than ours?) in purgatory (more on which below). The years or days mean that the prayer is a substitute for that many years or days of canonical penance. The idea comes from the church having the power of the keys, an application also of intercession. IIRC the teaching is that the Pope can apply the 'treasury of merits' (prayers and good works of the saints and of men on earth) to you or whomever you pray for and so can assign 'partial' or 'plenary' status to certain prayers. Plenary means all the assigned canonical penance has been done, which may mean no time in purgatory but that's not what it literally means.

Yes, according to the teaching, if you say those rosaries, you may spend less time in purgatory. No-one knows doctrinally if one 'suffers' there/what form the purification takes. (More on which below.)

There's nothing odd about saying rosaries for the souls there - it's intercession, just like Orthodox praying for the dead.

Purgatory is simply the intermediate state, with which prayer for the dead makes sense. Though some Orthodox, including here, describe that state this way: that heaven and hell each have their own waiting rooms and there are helped by one's prayers, denying an intermediate state as such. In Roman Catholic teaching, purgatory is the equivalent of the one for heaven.

Purgatorial fire is not Roman Catholic doctrine.

Fr Seraphim (Rose) was talking not about purgatory but something different, before one goes to heaven, hell or the intermediate state: the particular judgement (doctrine or close to it according to both sides), described in Russian folklore as the 'aerial toll-houses' (not doctrine on either side), taking place in our air but in another dimension different to ours so we can't see it. (Heaven, hell and the intermediate state likewise are in a different, invisible dimension.) Here one is confronted with the sins one commited in life and learns his destination in the afterlife. According to the legend, people are in this state for about the first 40 days after death, which is why Orthodox services for the dead on the 40th day are popular. They can be prayed for during that time, which I think explains the common confusion online between this idea and purgatory.

Neither side claims to know who goes where in the afterlife - except canonised saints. Rome holds that if you sincerely prayed, communed, fasted, etc. you may not go to the intermediate state but straight to heaven after your particular judgement. (The general judgement will happen at the Second Coming - per the Creed - and resurrection of the body.)
Logged

Armando
Dead among the living
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 187

I gave up dreaming a long time ago...


« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2006, 07:13:43 PM »

First of all, from what I've heard from a local Catholic priest and bishop,
Purgatory as a doctrine has not been fully set. We imagine of hell as
a fiery place but in fact it's just absence of God. Imagine a world
just like ours, only a bit weirder and with Hitler running up and down
killing Jews wihtout anyone telling him not to. Purgatory might be a place
where the soul is reminded of her biggest sins and that gives the soul
a burning feeling. Not as in being touched by fire. Or it could just be a dark
room where you sit for hours till you are allowed up in heaven. Or it could be
non of the above. We just know that the soul will be purified before entering heaven.
Logged

Ten years have passed, the girl I loved
is now a woman, but I am still a child...
-Sad-ending fairytale, Miltos Paschalidis
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2006, 10:14:59 PM »

Disagreed.
While the wording of the Latin Creed is different from the Orthodox Creed, in that the Latin has added filioque (or "and the Son" in English), the Roman Catholic Church does indeed believe the same thing as us Orthodox about the procession.

The difficulty doesn't lie in the words "and the Son" but rather in the meaning of the word "proceeds".
Photius disagrees with you; see the Mystagogy
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #21 on: March 10, 2006, 12:57:59 AM »

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8380.msg110717#msg110717 date=1141933320]
While I think pre-manufactured communion wafers are a huge abuse of the liturgal symbolism involved in Communion - are azymes really that big of a deal, or can we just overlook them as something that is part of the Western Church now?
[/quote]

There seem to be a lot of Orthodox people out there who say that in the event of reunion with the Latin Church, the Latins would have to stop using azymes, except for a limited time or in areas where economia seemed to indicate that it made sense.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #22 on: March 10, 2006, 01:32:48 AM »

Thanks young fogey for your in-depth response. I get the purgatory, just not the "say this prayer and I'll spare ya 10 years in the waiting room"  so much. So, can this belief be held by an Orthodox? After all, both toll houses and purgatory are not necessarily based upon solid experience by the church fathers, unless they were mystically transported there and back, or had visions in which this was revealeved to them.

For example, the rosary was widely encouraged in the early 20th century when he BV Mary appeared in Portugal on a small tree to the three kids @ Fatima. She specifically asked them to pray the rosary and to conssecrate Russia to her. In my opinion, after the fall of communism, this has already been accomplished but many Catholics still don't think so. But the point is that she asked Western Catholics do this and not Eastern Orthodox for whatever reason...the West needed it more at the time etc. So both traditions on the after-life could very well hold the same truth in them but because this area is sooo shady, our churches habe historically interpreted them differently based on our cultures.

As for azymes, why make the Latins stop a tradition they've been doing since the begining. They were using azymes way before the split from the East and they were still considered Orthodox. Also, the Armenians use azymes and have been using it since before Chalcedon (so I've read).
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #23 on: March 10, 2006, 01:37:26 AM »

While the wording of the Latin Creed is different from the Orthodox Creed, in that the Latin has added filioque (or "and the Son" in English), the Roman Catholic Church does indeed believe the same thing as us Orthodox about the procession.

This is by no means certain.  There are those who would more or less agree with you, and would say that the filioque is not such a big deal.  There are many others, however, who take the line hinted at by montalban in his posts.  Among them are Vladimir Lossky, who eloquently argues in his classic work The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church that the filioque has had a tragic effect on the way the West views the life and operation of the Holy Spirit in the Church.  Personally, I have yet to see someone offer a substantial, articulate and convincing rebuttal to Lossky's thesis.  (Apparently, all that Cardinal Congar could say in reply is something to the effect that Lossky just wasn't right about this.  Okay.  So tell me why?)

James Bob
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #24 on: March 10, 2006, 01:40:33 AM »

As for azymes, why make the Latins stop a tradition they've been doing since the begining. They were using azymes way before the split from the East and they were still considered Orthodox. Also, the Armenians use azymes and have been using it since before Chalcedon (so I've read).

That doesn't make it alright.  Also, are you sure about the Armenians?  I've never heard this.  
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #25 on: March 10, 2006, 01:42:57 AM »

Quote
Also, are you sure about the Armenians?  I've never heard this. ÂÂ

It's true. They use azymes, and have used it for a very very long time. They don't add water to the chalice, either.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2006, 01:43:10 AM by yBeayf » Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #26 on: March 10, 2006, 01:43:36 AM »

Thanks young fogey for your in-depth response. I get the purgatory, just not the "say this prayer and I'll spare ya 10 years in the waiting room"  so much. So, can this belief be held by an Orthodox? After all, both toll houses and purgatory are not necessarily based upon solid experience by the church fathers, unless they were mystically transported there and back, or had visions in which this was revealeved to them.

The Orthodox are allowed to believe in a kind of middle state if they want to.  They are also free to not believe in any kind of middle state at all.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #27 on: March 10, 2006, 01:47:02 AM »

It's true. They use azymes, and have used it for a very very long time. They don't add water to the chalice, either.

Okay, thanks.  I knew about the water in the chalice thing, but not about azymes.  But I have to say that anitquity should not be an argument in and of itself for something being perfectly okay.  
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #28 on: March 10, 2006, 01:58:16 AM »

I largely agree with traditional Catholic doctrine, exept for the Papal In. and Filioque.

So.......does that mean that you agree with the doctrine of the immaculate conception, the assumption of the Theotokos without dieing, thomist thought and formulations, other scholastic and juridical doctrines concerning the nature of God and man, juridical Anselmian notions regarding our justification in Christ, extreme yet prevalent Augustinian interpretations of the meaning of the fall etc. etc?Huh
« Last Edit: March 10, 2006, 02:03:50 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2006, 03:12:40 AM »

I knew I was goona get hassled for writing that  Roll Eyes What I meant by this is that I agree with Catholic doctrine on the same points we agree on: Incarnation of Christ, Mary as Theotokos, Ever Virgin, Panagia, the Trinity, one in Essence, their traditional take on liturgy (ie. not Vatican II's casual take on liturgy and worship).'

the history is pretty clear in that the Theotokos was taken up to heaven after she fell asleep here on earth. The icon also shows it quite well- she is lying on a funeral pyre being incensed by the Apostles...

As for Immaculate Conception, I don't believe exactly in the way Catholics do, unless the Orthodox church is misunderstanding it. After all, the Theotokos did appear in France to St. Bernadette Soubirous telling her she was the "Immaculate Conception". Bernadettes body 150 years later is still incorrupt and can be seen today. AFAIK, nothing was added or done to help make the body last.  Could it be that the Theotokos was speaking of the Orthodox understanding of the Conception?

 http://www.ichrusa.com/saintsalive/bernad.htm

Some photos of Bernadette.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #30 on: March 10, 2006, 03:19:33 AM »

This is by no means certain.  There are those who would more or less agree with you, and would say that the filioque is not such a big deal.  There are many others, however, who take the line hinted at by montalban in his posts.  Among them are Vladimir Lossky, who eloquently argues in his classic work The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church that the filioque has had a tragic effect on the way the West views the life and operation of the Holy Spirit in the Church.  Personally, I have yet to see someone offer a substantial, articulate and convincing rebuttal to Lossky's thesis.  (Apparently, all that Cardinal Congar could say in reply is something to the effect that Lossky just wasn't right about this.  Okay.  So tell me why?)

James Bob

And also in "The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church" by Clark Carlton he states the Catholic belief in the filioque is one that changes the concept of the Trinity. And he notes that Catholic popes originally argued against its use.

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

Also, for the Roman church one must realise that when they are talking about something proceeding from the Father they are not talking about it the same way we are, as they fail to distinguish between God and His energies.

"Because the Frankish Filioque presupposes the identity of uncreated divine essence and energy, and because participation in the divine essence is impossible, the Latin tradition was led automatically into accepting communicated grace as created, leading to its objectification and magical priestly manipulation."
-John S. Romanides
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.03.htm
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
MicahJohn
The Lonely Tenor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 58


« Reply #31 on: March 10, 2006, 10:01:04 AM »

I actually just finished watching "The Song of Bernadette" which is the story of the Lourdes apparition.  I'm not quite sure what to think of it.  The incorruption of her body would seem to indicate some level of holiness...
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 10, 2006, 10:19:44 AM »

I actually just finished watching "The Song of Bernadette" which is the story of the Lourdes apparition.  I'm not quite sure what to think of it.  The incorruption of her body would seem to indicate some level of holiness...

I certainly don't want to make it sound like I think that this is what happened, but sometimes in the Church people are incorrupt for the exact opposite reason.  I would ask anyone more familiar with hagiography to expound on that.  Again, I am not suggesting Bernadette was demon possessed!  Just that incorruption is not an automatic guarantee of sanctity.

A.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,643


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 10, 2006, 10:40:21 AM »

Thanks young fogey for your in-depth response. I get the purgatory, just not the "say this prayer and I'll spare ya 10 years in the waiting room"  so much.

You're welcome. That's probably because being assigned a penance isn't standard Orthodox practice in confession (but not unheard of as Ware writes: the Greek for it is epitimion IIRC) but is normal RC practice. That and under Turkish rule confession largely dropped out of Greek practice. (IIRC, most parish priests didn't have the education and so weren't allowed to hear confessions; the bishop sent educated priest-confessors circuit-riding through his diocese - because of that the people could only confess occasionally.) So the idea of long, difficult canonical penances may have dropped out of popular Orthodox thinking except perhaps among avid readers of The Rudder. And so the notion of assigning prayers as substitutes for them is completely foreign to the average Orthodox. Understandable!
 
Quote
So, can this belief be held by an Orthodox?


It will probably be vehemently denied here but an observer can't see why not really.

Quote
After all, both toll houses and purgatory are not necessarily based upon solid experience by the church fathers, unless they were mystically transported there and back, or had visions in which this was revealeved to them.

My guess is none of it is defined doctrine to the Orthodox but simply longstanding belief and practice. The councils covered who Jesus is/the Trinity and the veneration of icons, not these matters AFAIK... because nobody challenged/denied them... until the Protestants came along.

Quote
For example, the rosary was widely encouraged in the early 20th century when he BV Mary appeared in Portugal on a small tree to the three kids @ Fatima. She specifically asked them to pray the rosary and to conssecrate Russia to her. In my opinion, after the fall of communism, this has already been accomplished but many Catholics still don't think so. But the point is that she asked Western Catholics do this and not Eastern Orthodox for whatever reason...the West needed it more at the time etc. So both traditions on the after-life could very well hold the same truth in them but because this area is sooo shady, our churches habe historically interpreted them differently based on our cultures.

Lourdes and Fátima aren't Catholic doctrine nor considered part of revelation as such - they're approved for private devotion as their content is unobjectionable to Roman Catholic theology,  and one can even name parish churches after them. But... no-one has to believe in them.

Regarding differences in rite and culture, you're right on the money.

People who want to force the rosary on the Eastern churches because they think the practices described at Fátima are meant to be universal are simply wrong. Probaby ignorant.

Quote
As for azymes, why make the Latins stop a tradition they've been doing since the begining. They were using azymes way before the split from the East and they were still considered Orthodox. Also, the Armenians use azymes and have been using it since before Chalcedon (so I've read).

That seems a nasty bit of Byzantinocentrism. As has been written here, yes, the Armenians do use them.

Quote
The Orthodox are allowed to believe in a kind of middle state if they want to.  They are also free to not believe in any kind of middle state at all.

Which seems to agree that the matter isn't defined to them. I've had the notion of two waiting rooms described to me by an Orthodox here as what Orthodoxy teaches, which I think is what Pravoslavbob means by not believing in a middle state. That nicely covers the practice of praying for the dead from that point of view.

But as I've written here before, the problem with that is like that with apocatastasis (an ultimate universalism: in the end all will be saved and freed from hell): it violates free will. So to an observer it seems to be heresy. Suppose you were evil in this life. According to orthodox Christianity on both sides, when you die you may go to hell for that. (Nobody knows for sure if any humans are in hell!) That's your choice, made here. But as nice as praying somebody out of hell sounds (Fr Seraphim (Rose) believed in that IIRC), it violates the freedom God gave you to refuse him. He is an ardent suitor, not a rapist, to use an imperfect metaphor.

As for the Immaculate Conception, both sides teach that Mary is immaculate. The difference is to do with how the East describes original sin, which is very hard to explain without making it seem like the Pelagian heresy so I'm not going to try. (Perhaps somebody with theological credentials can have a go at it.) One can fairly say that the RC definition, using Western concepts, isn't needed in the Orthodox theological system.

The methods of the Schoolmen of course have been widely used historically in Greece and Russia, particularly to combat Protestantism. Some modern Orthodox scholars don't like that and try to deny its legitimacy but IIRC that's led to some weird ideas like stavroclasm (Christ didn't redeem us on the cross but was only appearing to; he did in the Garden of Gethsemane!) or sounding like Greek or Russian versions of liberal Protestants (monasticism and even religion as a concept are bad*, etc.). 19th-century-bred Russians (the most 'European' of the Orthodox culturally?), for example, with their scholasticism seem more hospitable... and useful for communicating with Western man.

Mary's dying or not isn't doctrine on either side. The original story from the East, as shown in icons, says she did before being assumed body and soul into heaven.

*Schmemann's cool in context- mind-expanding in fact. Out of context, statements like these are dangerous to people's faith.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2006, 10:49:06 AM by The young fogey » Logged

montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #34 on: March 11, 2006, 12:07:00 AM »

I actually just finished watching "The Song of Bernadette" which is the story of the Lourdes apparition.  I'm not quite sure what to think of it.  The incorruption of her body would seem to indicate some level of holiness...
I don't know about the Lourdes one, but as to Fatima, according to "The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church" by Clark Carlton he shows some reasons to doubt it
a) "the virgin" predicted the end of WWI which was wrong (later it was changed to the correct date)
b) the dedication of a part of herself (her sacred heart) - dedicating to a piece of a person's body is foreign to Orthodox understanding
c) she asked that her heart be dedicated to the return of Russia - which means Catholics should try to convert Russian (Orthodox)
and
d) she appeared to kids - also not the usual way (as far as Orthodox are concerned) Clark (Innocent) Carlton says most appearences go to people spiritually ready for them.

Some of these points might apply to Lourdes
« Last Edit: March 11, 2006, 12:07:52 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #35 on: March 11, 2006, 12:52:07 AM »

For some reason I strongly believe in these aparitions....

a) I've heard that the dates of many apparitions were not 100% exact on purpose so as to warn people of what's coming, rather than a full predicition of the future.

c.) As for her asking that Russia be dedicated, this return is not necessarily a "return" from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. but rather from communism to Orthodoxy, which in Russia, widely venerates the mother of God. Russia today can be said that it is consecrated to the Mother of God compared to many other European countries.

d.) Maybe these innocent kids were spiritually ready for what they say and heard...
Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #36 on: March 11, 2006, 01:09:30 AM »

I'm with Timos on this one

"out of the mouths of babes" so to speak

BTW, I heard Clark Carlton speak last year; he's been a convert along time and still seems bitter toward his protestant upbringing. Kind of sad - would have thought he would have found some healing by this point.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #37 on: March 11, 2006, 02:28:56 AM »

For some reason I strongly believe in these apparitions....

a) I've heard that the dates of many apparitions were not 100% exact on purpose so as to warn people of what's coming, rather than a full predication of the future.

c.) As for her asking that Russia be dedicated, this return is not necessarily a "return" from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. but rather from communism to Orthodoxy, which in Russia, widely venerates the mother of God. Russia today can be said that it is consecrated to the Mother of God compared to many other European countries.

d.) Maybe these innocent kids were spiritually ready for what they say and heard...

As to Russia, it is apparent that the downfall of Communism did NOT stop the late Pope JPII from pursuing a mission to Russia (re: Fatima)

Here's what one Catholic site says...
" Since 1984 the moral and spiritual state of the world has obviously grown far worse: In the past 14 years there have been 600 million abortions, and wars have broken out all over the world. Mercy-killing and homosexual acts have been "legalized". In Russia itself a new law has just been passed which discriminates against the Catholic Church and in favor of Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and the Orthodox churches which forcibly occupied Catholic parishes under the Communists. Thus it is clear Russia is not converted to the Catholic Faith as Our Lady of Fatima promised would happen if Her request was done."
http://www.fatimapriest.com/faq02.html

Thus the emphasis is to convert Russians to CATHOLICISM!

Children are, I'm lead to believe by the book I cited, not usually 'ready' for such things. Also, the fact that the RCC is in schism from 'the' Church of God makes me suspect these visions.

"Let such words be a warning to all Orthodox Christians who might he intrigued by apparitions such as those at Fatima or Lourdes or Medjugorje. These occur outside the Church and are as such suspect."
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/mary_newage.aspx


(all emphasises above mine)
« Last Edit: March 11, 2006, 02:31:53 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #38 on: March 11, 2006, 02:29:48 AM »

I'm with Timos on this one

"out of the mouths of babes" so to speak

BTW, I heard Clark Carlton speak last year; he's been a convert along time and still seems bitter toward his protestant upbringing. Kind of sad - would have thought he would have found some healing by this point.
Given that the book I cited of his is about Catholicism your remark has no bearing.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



PS
« Reply #39 on: March 11, 2006, 02:36:18 AM »

For some reason I strongly believe in these aparitions....

a) I've heard that the dates of many apparitions were not 100% exact on purpose so as to warn people of what's coming, rather than a full predicition of the future.

c.) As for her asking that Russia be dedicated, this return is not necessarily a "return" from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. but rather from communism to Orthodoxy, which in Russia, widely venerates the mother of God. Russia today can be said that it is consecrated to the Mother of God compared to many other European countries.

d.) Maybe these innocent kids were spiritually ready for what they say and heard...

I forgot to add; you've not addressed the fact that she is one who wants a 'piece' of her to be dedicated to something; her 'Sacred Heart'. Mr. Clark points out that this is 'novel' in terms of Orthodoxy; so unless you're prepared to accept a lead from the Catholic Church on ways on which we should worship...

And getting back to consecrating of Russia, it goes beyond the threat of Communism:
Here's another Catholic site

"After the three days of darkness, St. Peter and St. Paul, having come down from Heaven, will preach in the whole world and designate a new Pope. A great light will flash from their bodies and will settle upon the cardinal who is to become Pope. Christianity, then, will spread throughout the world. He is the Holy Pontiff, chosen by God to withstand the storm. At the end, he will have the gift of miracles, and his name shall be praised over the whole earth. Whole nations will come back to the Church and the face of the earth will be renewed. Russia, England, and China will come into the Church." (Prophecy of Blessed Anna Maria Taigi (1769-1837 A.D.) who was Beatified by Pope Bendedict XV in 1920.)
http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/sept05tcw.htm#sep17
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,643


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 11, 2006, 10:09:19 AM »

Again, Fátima is not RC doctrine. (Neither is the prophecy of Blessed Anna Maria Taigi.) None of its practices are required of anyone. One can interpret it as describing the overthrow of Communism and the restoration of Russian Orthodoxy (a common view today) and/or the return of Russian Orthodoxy to communion with Rome (which isn't the same thing as Russia becoming Roman Rite and adopting devotions to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, etc.).

The official position of Rome is to work towards corporate reunion with the Orthodox and thus not engage in one-to-one proselytism in Russia, a policy that Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz has followed.

As part of the one-true-church claim Rome does passively and quietly accept such voluntary conversions but doesn't solicit them.

In fact there is a tiny, spontaneous revival of the Russian Byzantine Catholic Church in Russia that feels frozen out exactly because the Roman authorities don't want to offend the Orthodox.

Fr Nicholas Gruner of the Fatima Priest site is a free-lancer, and has been for some time, with no standing anymore in the Roman Catholic Church. He no more speaks for Rome than former Archbishop Gregory of Colorado does for the Orthodox communion.

Of course apparitions outside of Orthodoxy have no official standing, positive or negative, in that church. (So you're not going to see their churches named after them, etc.)

Devotion to hearts isn't part of the Orthodox tradition - it's very 17th-century French - but 1) it's a metaphor, 2) as we can't separate Christ's humanity from his divinity ÃÂ  la Nestorianism proper, it seems valid and 3) IMO 'you worship a heart' is a Protestant jibe down there with 'you worship a piece a bread', 'you worship paintings' or 'you worship saints'.

As Rome in theory respects the integrity of the Eastern rites, they're not supposed to have those heart devotions. The reason you see Eastern Catholics doing them is they disobeyed Rome and latinised themselves.
Logged

montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #41 on: March 11, 2006, 07:18:53 PM »

Again, Fátima is not RC doctrine. (Neither is the prophecy of Blessed Anna Maria Taigi.) None of its practices are required of anyone.

I don't know who you think has been saying otherwise. However when the Pope prays to the 'virgin' you can be assured that a large number of people will also do this. He did so May 13, 1982; when Pope John Paul II made his pilgrimage of thanksgiving to Fatima and made a public Act of Entrustment-Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in the Cova da Iria at Fatima. Maybe it's something all Catholics should ignore? Even if he declares it a directive from heaven?!?

Such as

"My child and My children, remember now, I have asked you to contact Pope John Paul II, and tell him he must rescind the treaty, the pact [Vatican-Moscow agreement] made with Russia; for only in that way shall you have a true peace." - Jesus, June 6, 1987

http://www.tldm.org/Directives/d07.htm

What is dangerous is that it is a 'suspect' revelation (given the reasons stated earlier)

One can interpret it as describing the overthrow of Communism and the restoration of Russian Orthodoxy (a common view today) and/or the return of Russian Orthodoxy to communion with Rome (which isn't the same thing as Russia becoming Roman Rite and adopting devotions to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, etc.).

One can... A truism! What is being interpreted (again I direct you to the sites I've cited earlier) is that regardless of the fall of Communism Russia must still be 'dedicated' to the Sacred Heart of the Virgin; so in effect Catholics are seeking to dedicate Orthodox Russia to a suspect visitation.


The official position of Rome is to work towards corporate reunion with the Orthodox and thus not engage in one-to-one proselytism in Russia, a policy that Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz has followed.

LOL! The Roman Church has always assured the Orthodox Church it wants accord. Whilst at the same time it does prosleytise to Russians and Orthodox everywhere. It is duplicitous of the RCC.

As part of the one-true-church claim Rome does passively and quietly accept such voluntary conversions but doesn't solicit them.

You're kidding. Wow, if you want to completley ignore the post I stated earlier where-in it shows that Russia is not yet CATHOLIC, that's fine.

Here's another site http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/b007ht.htm which deals with the fact Russia is not yet CATHOLIC. Although it does restate the 'offical' ban on conversions.

Nikolai Trofimchuk must be rolling in his grave.

See also

http://orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/UzzellRussia.php

In fact there is a tiny, spontaneous revival of the Russian Byzantine Catholic Church in Russia that feels frozen out exactly because the Roman authorities don't want to offend the Orthodox.

So what is this Catholic Church doing there? It itself is a result of Catholic 'missionary' work.

Fr Nicholas Gruner of the Fatima Priest site is a free-lancer, and has been for some time, with no standing anymore in the Roman Catholic Church. He no more speaks for Rome than former Archbishop Gregory of Colorado does for the Orthodox communion.

See the traditioncation site I've cited above in this post

Of course apparitions outside of Orthodoxy have no official standing, positive or negative, in that church. (So you're not going to see their churches named after them, etc.)

That's not true; as far as I know that Church acknowledges as genuine only those revelations given to it. My understanding of Orthodoxy being 'the Way' negates any attempts at reletivism you might desire with regards apparations.

Devotion to hearts isn't part of the Orthodox tradition - it's very 17th-century French - but 1) it's a metaphor, 2) as we can't separate Christ's humanity from his divinity ÃÂ  la Nestorianism proper, it seems valid and 3) IMO 'you worship a heart' is a Protestant jibe down there with 'you worship a piece a bread', 'you worship paintings' or 'you worship saints'.

As Rome in theory respects the integrity of the Eastern rites, they're not supposed to have those heart devotions. The reason you see Eastern Catholics doing them is they disobeyed Rome and latinised themselves.

Thanks for the fine apology. The 'sacred heart' cult continues. There are schools in the west named after it, etc. I don't know what kind of point you're trying to make because it's very much Catholic, eastern and western.



Look up "NewAdvent" under "s" and you'll see

Sacred Heart, Brothers of the
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Devotion to the
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Missionary Sisters of the
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Missionaries of the
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Society of the -- Founded in Belgium
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Society of the -- Founded in France
Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, Congregation of the
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #42 on: March 11, 2006, 07:31:21 PM »

Just for the record, I accept it is not 'dogma'...
The Church takes Marian (and other) apparitions quite seriously, and only after great care and study deems a particular apparition as "worthy of belief." There are only a few apparitions of Mary that have been given this status. No Catholic is "bound" to believe in these Marian apparitions, but he is quite safe in doing so and most assuredly should believe, accepting those approved apparitions with the faith of a child!
http://www.fisheaters.com/apparitions.html

Shortly after Veronica finished reading the articles in the daily newspaper pertaining to the "demise" of communism in the Soviet Union, and the subsequent birth of the new Commonwealth of Independent States, Our Lady appeared in what Veronica perceived as a message expressed in desperation:
     "Do not be deceived. Their father is the father of all liars: satan. Their master plan is in motion. Pray for the light. Minds are clouded. I repeat: it is a ruse. Wake up America or you will suffer much." - Our Lady, December 18, 1991
http://www.tldm.org/directives/d10.htm

The message also requires living the faith. Pope Pius XII, who knew the Fatima message well and was devoted to it, called Fatima the "reaffirmation of the Gospels." He said: "The time for doubting Fatima is past. Now is the time for action."

The Fatima message, properly interpreted, places Jesus in the holy Eucharist as central to our religious practices. Fatima is essentially eucharistic reparation, offered primarily through the sacrifice of the Mass, for the glory of God and the conversion of sinners. But "eucharistic reparation" includes other forms of devotion to the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, namely, visits to the Blessed Sacrament and all forms of eucharistic adoration, such as Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, Holy Hours, Night Vigils, etc.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0088.html

A great site giving regular updates on the conversion of Russia is at
http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/cr/toccr.asp

Which states as one of her predictions...
the emergence of Russia as a world power which would "spread its errors (including Communism) throughout the world ... raising up wars and persecutions against the Church";
http://www.fatima.org/whyfatima.htm
So 'communism' is but one of Russia's errors; Orthodoxy the other?

"... the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima in St. Petersburg which was financed by the Fatima Family Apostolate represents the beginning of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Russia. With that eventual triumph will come conversion."
http://www.fatimafamily.org/ruconv.html
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,643


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 11, 2006, 08:55:25 PM »

Quote
Shortly after Veronica finished reading the articles in the daily newspaper pertaining to the "demise" of communism in the Soviet Union...

Veronica as in the late Veronica Lueken? If so, know that the Bayside apparition/devotion was rejected by the Roman Catholic Church a long time ago.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2006, 10:46:28 PM by The young fogey » Logged

montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #44 on: March 11, 2006, 09:29:25 PM »

Veronica as in the late Veronica Leuken? If so, know that the Bayside apparition/devotion was rejected by the Roman Catholic Church a long time ago.
Firstly, I don't think that any of these visions is from Mary. But the 'source' of them has one thing on mind; the attack on Orthodox Russia.

Thanks for ignoring the rest of my post re Fatima and the attack on Russia

I should have, however noted that her apiritions are not recognised. Thanks for pointing that out.
A number of sites I will now cite to refer to that, viz http://www.catholicreason.com/shtml/bayside.shtml
and http://www.catholicplanet.com/apparitions/false08.htm
This last site has a good list of reasons why Veronica's messages are suspect. Interestingly one of these revolves around the as yet un-dogmatic 'Mediatrix' role of Mary - which some Catholics are pushing forward
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,643


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #45 on: March 11, 2006, 10:56:39 PM »

Quote
'Mediatrix' role of Mary

The theotokion in the Orthodox prayers after Communion:

O protectress of Christian that cannot be put to shame, O unfailing mediatrix before the creator, do not despise the prayerful voices of sinners, but in thy goodness hasten to assist us who trustfully cry out to thee: Inspire us to prayer, and hasten to hear our supplication. O Mother of God, intercede always in behalf of those who honour thee.
Logged

Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #46 on: March 11, 2006, 11:45:54 PM »

I've been at work all day, and I haven't read all the responses but, Montalban:

The Catholic church is free to interpret the Virgin Mary's words as it pleases. Does that mean just because the Catholic church says it and just because this apparition occured in a Catholic country, then the words of the Theotokos are to be interpreted in a Catholic way?

Not necessarily. The websites you quoted were Catholic sources so of course they will say that virgin Mary mean that Russia should become Catholic. In our point of view, perhaps the Panagia was really referring to the fall of communism being replaced by freedom of (Orthodox and truly "catholic") worship?

As for the sacred heart, it may not be as popular in the East, but neither is devotion to the "Protection of the Mother of God" or the Veil of the Theotokos in the West. I would think that the Virgin Mary has chosen different ways in which to show herself to the West versus the East, in the manner in which each society woudl understand and accept her message. Please do not refute me by saying that  "then in that case, people in India have had apparitions of the BVM because she is one of the many forms of Vishnu." Thats complete bs.

Also in Orthodoxy, Virgin Mary is often likened to the " mystical lamp stand" "the fiery throne" "the fiery bush" such a metaphor such as "sacred heart."

Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #47 on: March 12, 2006, 12:37:52 AM »

The theotokion in the Orthodox prayers after Communion:

O protectress of Christian that cannot be put to shame, O unfailing mediatrix before the creator, do not despise the prayerful voices of sinners, but in thy goodness hasten to assist us who trustfully cry out to thee: Inspire us to prayer, and hasten to hear our supplication. O Mother of God, intercede always in behalf of those who honour thee.
Several things to say...
I am interested in open debate. To this I find you snipping away in attempts to point score by selectively addressing only those things you think you can win out on.

Thus you resort to truisms, and half-truths.

Let's spell this out.

Veronica Lueken claims that Mary is a mediatrix more akin to a co-redemptress/redemptrix. The anti-Veronica Lueken site I cited states that this is 'distorted'. I agree, it is. You seem confused as to whether it is or not, because you quote the Orthodox stance on her being a 'mediator' which I would imagine the Catholic Church has no problem with. However my point that groups of Catholics are pushing for a 'co-redemptrix' stance on Mary remains untrue, so you citing the Orthodox calling on Mary to mediate is at best an attempt at distraction, for Catholics 'in general' and Orthodox agree that she mediates. Unless you want to turn around now and defend Veronica Lueken's interpretation; you seem confused at what it is you're trying to attack.

If however you can show that the Orthodox stance is as equally 'distorted' then please post something.

Second you again are intent on ignoring the large body of my posts and thus you seem only wishing to point score when you think you can make a mark.

I can't compel you to engage in honest debate, but ignoring the large volume of works from Catholics determined to attack Orthodox Russia is not very good.

Such is your wish to provide apologies for the Catholic Church you now cite Orthodox stances in agreement with Catholics on the nature of Mary that are somehow meant to refute someone such as Veronica Lueken, whom you seem to disagree with.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #48 on: March 12, 2006, 01:02:30 AM »

I've been at work all day, and I haven't read all the responses but, Montalban:

The Catholic church is free to interpret the Virgin Mary's words as it pleases. Does that mean just because the Catholic church says it and just because this apparition occured in a Catholic country, then the words of the Theotokos are to be interpreted in a Catholic way?
Of course Catholics are free to interpret the appearence of this spectre (because it's not Mary) anyway they want. And I'm free to point out that
i) in the Orthodox context, the visitations are suspect
a)RCC has to invent a new category to explain why she visited kids "gratiae gratis datae" )
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/marian_apparitions.aspx
b) they gave false predictions (such as when the war would end)
and
ii) they should serve as a wake-up call to Orthodox who believe Catholics simply want to 'restore' the Catholic Church in Russia.
Not necessarily. The websites you quoted were Catholic sources so of course they will say that virgin Mary mean that Russia should become Catholic. In our point of view, perhaps the Panagia was really referring to the fall of communism being replaced by freedom of (Orthodox and truly "catholic") worship?
You seem to have partly understood those web-sites. Yes, they seek Russia to become Catholic. What you've missed is that this is a continual mission DESPITE the fall of Communism. The 'defence of the Church against godless Communism' was an excuse that they can't continue to use. It's like taking the cause bellum away, and one side still wants to fight.
As for the sacred heart, it may not be as popular in the East, but neither is devotion to the "Protection of the Mother of God" or the Veil of the Theotokos in the West. I would think that the Virgin Mary has chosen different ways in which to show herself to the West versus the East, in the manner in which each society woudl understand and accept her message. Please do not refute me by saying that  "then in that case, people in India have had apparitions of the BVM because she is one of the many forms of Vishnu." Thats complete bs.
You've correctly argued against yourself, by showing the exact type of relativist argument that can be used vis a vie the Hindus. Let's expand this and say Jesus decided to 'appear' anyway He wished to the Hopi Indians, the Australian Aborigines and the Ainu of Japan.

You either believe that the Orthodox Church ios the Church or not. If you think Jesus established one church and then undermined his own words by popping up all over the world in different manifestations (and He'd be more likely to, than Mary), then that's up to you.
As to what Orthodox believe...
Speaking for the "fanatics," certainly no traditionalist Orthodox believer has ever disputed the fact that the Roman Catholic Church professes to be Christian. We simply believe that it has an errant Trinitarian doctrine, an un-Orthodox Christology (e.g., the theology of the "Sacred Heart"), an incorrect Mariology, and a faulty ecclesiology. We believe that it is separated from our Church, has lost Grace, and is outside the sphere of Orthodoxy, the only place where "Sister Churches" can possibly exist. Since Roman Catholics are without the Grace of Orthodoxy, not only their baptisms, but all of their sacraments are invalid within the Orthodox Church. It is for this reason, and not for "pastoral considerations," that the Great Church has consistently received Roman Catholics into Orthodoxy by Baptism. Political ecumenism, not the correction of its errors by Rome, and this divisive lie alone, accounts for any change in the current practices of the Å’cumenical Patriarchate.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/maximos_reply.aspx

And saying it's not 'popular' in the east is an unders-statement.
Also in Orthodoxy, Virgin Mary is often likened to the " mystical lamp stand" "the fiery throne" "the fiery bush" such a metaphor such as "sacred heart."
Maybe you need to brush up on what a Metaphor is.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metaphor)

If I say "Mary is like a mystical lamp stand" that is a figure of speech. If I say that prayers should be committed to Mary's big toe, then that's a command to dedicate prayers to a part of Mary; not what Mary represents - and if you can find Orthodox praying to a 'mystical lamp stand' let me know some citations.

I hope you don't want to argue that the "Body and Blood of Christ" in the Eucharist is a metaphor.

Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #49 on: March 12, 2006, 01:18:22 AM »

I'm going to bed now cuz its late but as for the metaphor, ur right I do need to brush up on it. I meant a "type" of BV Mary.

In the Akathist Hymn, it refers a lot in the first couple of stanzas (after "To the theotokos, when the melody changes to "most Holy Th. save us!) to the mystical lamp stand. It's not a prayer TO the lamp stand. The Hymn as you prolly know is a hymn TO the Panagia and refers to representation from the OT etc.

I'll have to get back at the other points later but you do raise some very good ones @ that.


Logged
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #50 on: March 12, 2006, 01:20:17 AM »

I can't compel you to engage in honest debate, but ignoring the large volume of works from Catholics determined to attack Orthodox Russia is not very good.

I checked some of the links which you had posted as having represented Catholic thought on "attacking" Orthodox Russia were either from fringe "traditionalist" Catholic sites (which dislike the Catholic Church as much as you seem to), or from sites of some far out, unapproved apparitions - neither of which would represent the official stance of the Catholic Church, or even the majority of Catholics.

I wondered how this would have happened as you said:

I'm ex-Catholic as a number here seem to be.

So, were you unaware of these facts before you posted the links?

In your time in the Catholic Church, had you ever heard from your priest to convert "them schismatic Orthodox" and consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?

Personally, I doubt it.

Seeing as how the majority of your posts have been aimed against the Catholic church I can't help but wonder if perhaps you are just harboring some negativity and "convert baggage" - meaning once one has converted they must prove the truth of their newly found faith by criticizing their previous affiliations.

Let me take a quote from a post of BrotherAidan, which is from earlier in the thread and substitute "Carl Carlton" with your user name, "montalban" and "protestant" with "Catholic".

BTW, I heard Clark Carlton montalban speak last year; he's been a convert along time and still seems bitter toward his protestant catholic upbringing. Kind of sad - would have thought he would have found some healing by this point.

« Last Edit: March 12, 2006, 01:50:16 AM by Arystarcus » Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #51 on: March 12, 2006, 02:10:24 AM »

Given that the book I cited of his is about Catholicism your remark has no bearing.

Montalban
thank you for your edifying and enlightening response

« Last Edit: March 12, 2006, 02:12:34 AM by BrotherAidan » Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #52 on: March 12, 2006, 02:15:59 AM »

I checked some of the links which you had posted as having represented Catholic thought on "attacking" Orthodox Russia were either from fringe "traditionalist" Catholic sites (which dislike the Catholic Church as much as you seem to), or from sites of some far out, unapproved apparitions - neither of which would represent the official stance of the Catholic Church, or even the majority of Catholics.
I have already noted that there's a difference between the 'official' words of peace of the RCC and it's actions. IF you want to cite something from the Catholic Church with regards to the discontinuance of the 'mission' to convert Russia, you're free to do so.

Which 'fringe' site was wrong about Mary calling for the conversion of Russia? Are you saying that the first Fatima shrine in Russia (http://www.fatimafamily.org/dedication.html) didn't happen?

I wondered how this would have happened as you said:
Ah, the hidden agenda Smiley Yes, you've hit upon the 'If he's ex-Catholic he must have an axe to grind'
So, were you unaware of these facts before you posted the links?
I've added corrections where needs be. You've missed them?

In your time in the Catholic Church, had you ever heard from your priest to convert "them schismatic Orthodox" and consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?
I was Catholic a long long time ago - sort of undermines your axe to grind theory, as I've subsequently explored Islam, Baha'i etc; this must also mean taht I can't comment on them either, hey?
Seeing as how the majority of your posts have been aimed against the Catholic church I can't help but wonder if perhaps you are just harboring some negativity and "convert baggage" - meaning once one has converted they must prove the truth of their newly found faith by criticizing their previous affiliations.

Let me take a quote from a post of BrotherAidan, which is from earlier in the thread and substitute "Carl Carlton" with your user name, "montalban" and "protestant" with "Catholic".
Given that the 'substance' of your rebuttal is nothing but to cast innuendo I look forward to an actual substantive discussion where you take a particular comment made (say from one of my 'fringe' citations and discuss it)

If you want to discuss the Fatima spectre at all, such as her false prediction about the end of WWI, please do so. But alas substance is missing from your posts.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #53 on: March 12, 2006, 02:16:33 AM »

Given that the book I cited of his is about Catholicism your remark has no bearing.

Montalban
thank you for your edifying and enlightening response


No problems Tongue
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #54 on: March 12, 2006, 02:37:36 AM »

Given that the book I cited of his is about Catholicism your remark has no bearing.

Montalban
thank you for your edifying and enlightening response


So far you're number three in the 'person has grudge, so what would you expect' school-of-debate

Yours being the funniest given Carlton Clark is an ex-Protestant so his 'grudge' against the RCC is not the same as that claimed against me for being ex-Catholic.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #55 on: March 12, 2006, 02:49:01 AM »

I have already noted that there's a difference between the 'official' words of peace of the RCC and it's actions. IF you want to cite something from the Catholic Church with regards to the discontinuance of the 'mission' to convert Russia, you're free to do so.

"the young fogey" has done this already - see below:

The official position of Rome is to work towards corporate reunion with the Orthodox and thus not engage in one-to-one proselytism in Russia, a policy that Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz has followed.

As part of the one-true-church claim Rome does passively and quietly accept such voluntary conversions but doesn't solicit them.

There ya go.  Cool

Which 'fringe' site was wrong about Mary calling for the conversion of Russia? Are you saying that the first Fatima shrine in Russia (http://www.fatimafamily.org/dedication.html) didn't happen?

The sites in questions are:




The first three links are tied to Fr. Nicholas Gruner, who as "the young fogey" said:

Fr Nicholas Gruner of the Fatima Priest site is a free-lancer, and has been for some time, with no standing anymore in the Roman Catholic Church. He no more speaks for Rome than former Archbishop Gregory of Colorado does for the Orthodox communion.

Ah, the hidden agenda Smiley Yes, you've hit upon the 'If he's ex-Catholic he must have an axe to grind'


I did not state it as if it were fact, what I said was:

I can't help but wonder...

I think you were reading something into my comment which was not there.

So, maybe I just struck some nerve and you felt convicted.  Wink  Tongue

I was Catholic a long long time ago - sort of undermines your axe to grind theory, as I've subsequently explored Islam, Baha'i etc; this must also mean that I can't comment on them either, hey?

No, it does not undermine.

The fact is you were Catholic, you only "explored" the rest.

At one time, I was a protestant, and I researched all sorts of things before I became Orthodox, but that does not make me a Lutheran, or a Mennonite, or a Mormon - does it?

Feel free to comment on your explorations all you like, I might learn something.  Smiley

I've added corrections where needs be. You've missed them?

No, I think you missed them, as the links which I commented on above are still in your posts.  Grin

Given that the 'substance' of your rebuttal is nothing but to cast innuendo I look forward to an actual substantive discussion where you take a particular comment made (say from one of my 'fringe' citations and discuss it)

If you want to discuss the Fatima spectre at all, such as her false prediction about the end of WWI, please do so. But alas substance is missing from your posts.

The above looks like a case of "substance" use abuse.  Tongue

To be honest with you, I am not concerned with Fatima in the least, nor any of the apparition's "false predictions".

Once again, I defer to "the young fogey". I have italicized and used bold to highlight the portions of the post which should inform you as to why I am unconcerned with Fatima.

Again, Fátima is not RC doctrine. (Neither is the prophecy of Blessed Anna Maria Taigi.) None of its practices are required of anyone. One can interpret it as describing the overthrow of Communism and the restoration of Russian Orthodoxy (a common view today) and/or the return of Russian Orthodoxy to communion with Rome (which isn't the same thing as Russia becoming Roman Rite and adopting devotions to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, etc.).

« Last Edit: March 12, 2006, 02:52:14 AM by Arystarcus » Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #56 on: March 12, 2006, 02:58:33 AM »

The sites in question are...
You missed the point. I asked you which of these is incorrect in saying that the the dedication has now ceased owing to the fall of communism
I did not state it as if it were fact, what I said was:
I can't help but wonder...
I know you implied it, hence I stated innuendo.
The above looks like a case of "substance" use abuse.
Thanks for another implied insult ÂÂ
To be honest with you, I am not concerned with Fatima in the least, nor any of the apparition's "false predictions".
You are indeed selective on what you want to comment on; hence missing questions etc.
Once again, I defer to "the young fogey". I have italicized and used bold to highlight the portions of the post which should inform you as to why I am unconcerned with Fatima.
Once again I reiterate that I've said it's not dogma (see post #42). But for someone not 'interested' in debating Fatima...
« Last Edit: March 12, 2006, 02:59:08 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #57 on: March 12, 2006, 02:58:50 AM »

Given that the book I cited of his is about Catholicism your remark has no bearing.

BrotherAiden,

In my opinion it does.

Apparently we just have different opinions, which is perfectly acceptable.  Smiley

Logged
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #58 on: March 12, 2006, 03:07:17 AM »

Thanks for another implied insult

I was merely making light of your overuse of the word "substance", in an attempt to lighten the mood.

Apparently, the use of a "smiley face" did not help my point to come across.

Sigh.  Roll Eyes   Undecided

Once again I reiterate that I've said it's not dogma (see post #42).

Then why dwell upon it?

But for someone not 'interested' in debating Fatima...

Are you implying something?  Shocked

(Another joke)  Wink  Smiley  Cheesy  Grin
« Last Edit: March 12, 2006, 03:07:49 AM by Arystarcus » Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #59 on: March 12, 2006, 04:40:51 AM »

I was merely making light of your overuse of the word "substance", in an attempt to lighten the mood.

Apparently, the use of a "smiley face" did not help my point to come across.

Sigh. ÂÂ Roll Eyes ÂÂ  Undecided

Then why dwell upon it?

Why dwell upon it? Now that is funny. You're the one who repeated in an above post re: that it's not dogma and you've even underlined it bringing this to my attention, even though
a) I've not stated it is dogma
and
b) you seem to wish to keep posting that you're not really interested in it, but you keep replying on this issue. you need to make up your mind.

And I note you've still avoided the question re: which 'fringe' post is wrong with regards the conversion of Russia. I half expect you to re-enter this debate, make another attempt at point scoring, then say you're not really interested in the subject (again! )
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #60 on: March 12, 2006, 05:25:50 AM »

Not dogma, but still...
"...by a decree dated 1 January 1996, it inscribed the commemoration of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as obligatory in the universal Roman Calendar."
http://www.crc-internet.org/JP1/ch3.htm

Communism has fallen, but...
"Despite the claims of ignorant optimists, today's Russia is not converting and is far, far worse than it was in 1917"
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/privaterevelation/russia.htm

Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #61 on: March 12, 2006, 03:06:50 PM »

Montalban, as for the "false dates" given in the apparitions, such things have occured in Orthodoxy. Many times the Theotokos has been credited for saving Constantinople from the barbarians. Thus the popular Akathist Hymn is chanted in honour of Her and the hymn "To You the Champion Leader" was written up.

However, in 1453, after an Akathist was chanted, the icon of the Theotokos fell from the hands of the people carrying it and a day(s) later, the City fell to the Turks.

So, because "The Theotokos let the City fall to the Turks" does that mean that us venerating the theotokos as "protectress and champion leader" wrong? Maybe we should stop chanting this Hymn, after all, its origins lie in the protection of the City.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #62 on: March 12, 2006, 03:57:28 PM »

Montalban, as for the "false dates" given in the apparitions, such things have occured in Orthodoxy. Many times the Theotokos has been credited for saving Constantinople from the barbarians. Thus the popular Akathist Hymn is chanted in honour of Her and the hymn "To You the Champion Leader" was written up.

However, in 1453, after an Akathist was chanted, the icon of the Theotokos fell from the hands of the people carrying it and a day(s) later, the City fell to the Turks.

So, because "The Theotokos let the City fall to the Turks" does that mean that us venerating the theotokos as "protectress and champion leader" wrong? Maybe we should stop chanting this Hymn, after all, its origins lie in the protection of the City.
That's a silly comparison. It's like saying that God has let us down because of some tragedy. Just because the people called upon Mary to intervene, and she didn't apparently, doesn't mean the same as a 'vision' appearing and saying something that wasn't true.

Look at the difference between me asking you to help, and you don't, to you telling me you'll help, and you don't.

One is an active act, a lie. The other is just me hoping for something.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #63 on: March 12, 2006, 04:26:17 PM »

Young Fogey,
That seems a nasty bit of Byzantinocentrism. As has been written here, yes, the Armenians do use them.

It's not, actually.  I forget the exact details, but there are a couple of things involved.  First of all, the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church believes that the meal that Jesus had the "last supper" at with his disciples was not the passover meal, as might seem to be the case in the synoptic gospels, where unleavened bread would have been used.  Rather, we take the lead of the Gospel of John, which indicates that it was a fellowship meal.  In this case, leavened bread would have been used.  I've also seen it written elsewhere that it's important that the bread be leavened for a few reasons, some of which (I think) are that the wheat used in the bread has been changed by humans into something different.  (That is, God's gift to us has been made into something different through our effort to be offered back to him:it's not just plain wheat.....or "partial" bread, which unleavened bread could be viewed as being.  The same goes for the wine used at the Eucharist: we don't use grape juice, which is more or less the gift as we received it from God, but something changed from the original gift into something that we offer back to Him:wine.)  I believe that the leaven is supposed to be important also in the sense that it represents, as it were, the resurrection of Christ.

Quote
As for the Immaculate Conception, both sides teach that Mary is immaculate. The difference is to do with how the East describes original sin, which is very hard to explain without making it seem like the Pelagian heresy so I'm not going to try. (Perhaps somebody with theological credentials can have a go at it.) One can fairly say that the RC definition, using Western concepts, isn't needed in the Orthodox theological system.

I'll take a crack at this Wink
Not only is it not needed, it's simply wrong.  The Immaculate Conception says that Mary was made free from all stain of original sin at the time of her conception.  For the Orthodox, this makes her somehow "superhuman", and takes away her solidarity with the human race.  For the fantastic thing about the Theotokos is that she chose, in cooperation with the grace of God, to be completely obedient to God in every way.  It's a reminder to us that we are also able to choose this most excellent way, if we wish, just like the Mother of God, if we call on God to help us.  

The Latin Church feels the need to dogmatize the Immaculate Conception because of the Great influence that St.  Augustine had on the theology of the West.  The later Western interpreters of Augustine, if not Augustine himself, seemed to believe that we inherit not just the results of Adam's sin (death), but also the guilt for his sin.  So the West sees a need to somehow separate the Theotokos from this guilt.  In the East, we acknowledge that all humanity shares the results of Adam's sin.  (Each one of us is just a unique personal manifestation of the one human nature.  We are all connected to each other, so if one member of the human race sins, we are all affected.  Of course, if one member of the human race does good, we are all affected in this way too!)  But we do not believe that we share the responsibility for the sin of Adam.  Hence, the Theotokos was born a normal human being, just like every one of us.  It is for this reason that I also believe that it is important to believe that Mary died.  She shares in all the characteristics of fallen humanity, except that she did not sin herself.  (There are some who believed that she did sin.  We had a big discussion about this a few months ago.  Personally, I don't think anyone should believe that she sinned.)  You can believe that she was assumed to heaven after her death if you wish, but as far as I can remember, as Orthodox believers it is important for us to believe that she died first.  

BTW, "immaculate" is a loaded term of Latin derivation.  It refers indirectly to the "spot" of original sin, since immaculate more or less literally means "without a spot" or "mark".  IMHO, we Orthodox really should refer to the Theotokos in English as "most pure" or something similar.

Quote
Mary's dying or not isn't doctrine on either side. The original story from the East, as shown in icons, says she did before being assumed body and soul into heaven.

Please see my rant above.   Wink

Rantfully yours,
Bobba-Jim
« Last Edit: March 13, 2006, 01:35:04 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #64 on: March 12, 2006, 04:32:31 PM »

Which seems to agree that the matter isn't defined to them. I've had the notion of two waiting rooms described to me by an Orthodox here as what Orthodoxy teaches, which I think is what Pravoslavbob means by not believing in a middle state. That nicely covers the practice of praying for the dead from that point of view.

Actually, I mean just what I wrote.  There is no one dogmatic position that an Orthodox believer must hold regarding a middle state of some kind after death.  You can believe in a waiting room if you want.  You can believe in a number of things.  But you are not obligated to believe anything at all about a middle state.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #65 on: March 12, 2006, 04:46:52 PM »

As for Immaculate Conception, I don't believe exactly in the way Catholics do, unless the Orthodox church is misunderstanding it. After all, the Theotokos did appear in France to St. Bernadette Soubirous telling her she was the "Immaculate Conception".

Well, that's what people in the Latin Church have interpreted St. Bernadette's words to be, anyway.  I have an amusing story about this.  I used to have a priest who was an Anglican priest before his conversion to Orthodoxy.  At his Anglican seminary, there was a wonderful old and very English professor who once said to his class that "saying that 'I am the Immaculate Conception' makes about as much sense as announcing that 'I am the diamond jubilee!'"
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #66 on: March 12, 2006, 07:52:36 PM »

Why dwell upon it? Now that is funny. You're the one who repeated in an above post re: that it's not dogma and you've even underlined it bringing this to my attention, even though
a) I've not stated it is dogma
and
b) you seem to wish to keep posting that you're not really interested in it, but you keep replying on this issue. you need to make up your mind.

Sigh.  Undecided

When I said, "Why dwell upon it", I meant Fatima as a whole, not whether or not it was dogma.

I really have no idea why an Orthodox Christian is concerned with a Catholic apparition, which is not considered dogmatic as it is a private revelation and does not need to believed by anyone.

That is why I said, "Why dwell upon it?"

It appears that you have missed my point, yet again.

And I note you've still avoided the question re: which 'fringe' post is wrong with regards the conversion of Russia.

I'm not avoiding anything. The post was not "fringe", only some of the groups who put out the websites which you have selectively quoted from.

Insofar as the conversion of Russia is concerned as "the young fogey" said,

One can interpret it as describing the overthrow of Communism and the restoration of Russian Orthodoxy (a common view today) and/or the return of Russian Orthodoxy to communion with Rome (which isn't the same thing as Russia becoming Roman Rite and adopting devotions to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, etc.).

As young fogey's post says, one can interpret the conversion of Russia in different ways. Show me something from the Vatican, or at least a reputable reference from a respected group who is in communion with Rome which says that Russia must be converted to the Catholic faith.  

That is all I am asking.

I half expect you to re-enter this debate, make another attempt at point scoring, then say you're not really interested in the subject (again! )

Point scoring? What on earth are you talking about, man?  Huh

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, as I am not trying to engage you in some kind of "apologetic debate".

Also, you have misquoted me (once again). I did not say I was "not really interested" in anything!

What I said was:

To be honest with you, I am not concerned with Fatima in the least, nor any of the apparition's "false predictions".

I'm not concerned with it because it is not dogma and nobody who is a member of the Catholic Church has to believe in any apparition, as they are of a private revelation.

Period.

I am beginning to wonder the benfit in replying to your posts as I have had to keep repeat myself (over and over again) and you persist in misconstruing the comments I have made.

 Roll Eyes

« Last Edit: March 12, 2006, 07:55:46 PM by Arystarcus » Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #67 on: March 12, 2006, 09:53:49 PM »

Sigh.  Undecided

When I said, "Why dwell upon it", I meant Fatima as a whole, not whether or not it was dogma.

I really have no idea why an Orthodox Christian is concerned with a Catholic apparition, which is not considered dogmatic as it is a private revelation and does not need to believed by anyone.
I’ve already stated why. It is because this apparition is directing Catholics to think that Russia should be converted.

That is why I said, "Why dwell upon it?"

It appears that you have missed my point, yet again.
No, I’ve already stated several times I agree it is not dogma. We’re in agreement, but you’re determined to bring it up again and again.
I'm not avoiding anything. The post was not "fringe", only some of the groups who put out the websites which you have selectively quoted from.
Which of these quotes was incorrect?
Insofar as the conversion of Russia is concerned as "the young fogey" said,

As young fogey's post says, one can interpret the conversion of Russia in different ways. Show me something from the Vatican, or at least a reputable reference from a respected group who is in communion with Rome which says that Russia must be converted to the Catholic faith.  
Again, I’ve already accepted that it can be interpreted in different ways.
That is all I am asking.
Point scoring? What on earth are you talking about, man?  Huh
I mean the fact you ignore my questions to you, continually repeat something we’re in agreement with, etc.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, as I am not trying to engage you in some kind of "apologetic debate".
You’re not engaging me in any kind of debate. Unless you think debate is to ignore a persons questions and to repeat statements such as these are ‘fringe’ cites (innuendo regards to their truth), or that as an ex-Catholic you can ‘publicly speculate’ as to my motives (innuendo), or that you can repeat ad infinitum that it’s not dogma to believe in Fatima… which as I’ve noted again and again I recognise, but have also added that the Pope, the leader of Catholics believes in it, and that shrines are being raised in honour of this spectre — and in Russia

Given you’re still going on with this style of discussion there’s not going to be any real progress on any issue. You might consider answering my questions.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #68 on: March 12, 2006, 09:56:55 PM »

Well, that's what people in the Latin Church have interpreted St. Bernadette's words to be, anyway.  I have an amusing story about this.  I used to have a priest who was an Anglican priest before his conversion to Orthodoxy.  At his Anglican seminary, there was a wonderful old and very English professor who once said to his class that "saying that 'I am the Immaculate Conception' makes about as much sense as announcing that 'I am the diamond jubilee!'"
I think it was Catherine of Sienna who argued against the Immaculate Conception; and she claimed to get visions from Mary too!

"The Immaculate Conception
Let's take the Immaculate Conception first. As you probably know, the Immaculate Conception of Mary was declared to be a dogma of the Church in 1854. Before that time, it was merely what we call a theolegoumenon (a theological opinion). Thus, before the Church solemnly defined it in 1854, Catholics were free to either believe in the Immaculate Conception or reject it. Indeed, even some of our greatest Catholic saints, such as Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux...had serious problems with the idea that she was conceived without original sin (although they believed she was personally sinless). Yet, despite this, there were also others in the Church, such as St. Bonaventure and Blessed Duns Scotus who championed the Immaculate Conception. So, the Immaculate Conception was a debated question in the Church for centuries."
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a28.htm
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #69 on: March 13, 2006, 02:42:52 AM »

Let's do a summation.

Some Orthodox might think that the Fatima spectre is from God. Reasons to doubt this have been stated, including the visitations were to kids, they involve dedication to a part of a person, the prophecies were inaccurate and were directed to converting Russia etc.

One Catholic has entered this debate saying the sites I cited were 'fringe' Catholic sites. I asked what within these sites that I cited does he dispute? Silence.

I noted that belief in Fatima is not dogma. I also noted that the Pope visited it, continued to praise the message (post #60), and places dedicated to the spectre are being opened in Russia and its cult is spreading there. Despite the fall of communism the 'mission' to Russia continues. And yes I agree that the message may be viewed by 'some' as meaning a fight against Communism, but as just noted, the cult is spreading despite the fall of Communism. Russia is still the target by Catholics BECAUSE of this spectre's faulty warning.

Another Catholic has restated its not dogma. I accept this (still). It doesn't negate the points I just raised. And the question still remains unanswered. All I get is the evasive "I don't care about it, so why should you", to which I've already addressed in the points as to why Orthodox should be wary of putting faith in an aspiration from outside the church.

Innuendo has been raised; questions as to my motives, etc. as an ex-Catholic. Still the question remains unanswered (repeated in various posts, such as #52). Repeats of 'it's not dogma', and 'I don't care" go on now like a mantra. Innuendo about the sites themsevles remain; they're 'fringe' sites. Then why's the Catholic Church still pushing the Fatima visitations into Russia?
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Ntinos
Σαλός
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


« Reply #70 on: March 13, 2006, 06:40:21 PM »

In regard to how the Fatima visions could be true about Russia and Catholicism, or if the children of the Fatima visions saw the same thing 'from their side'.

St. John of Kronstadt (+1908): “I foresee the restoration of a powerful Russia, still stronger and mightier than before. On the bones of these martyrs, remember, as on a strong foundation, will the new Russia we built - according to the old model; strong in her faith in Christ God and in the Holy Trinity! And there will be, in accordance with the covenant of the holy Prince Vladimir, a single Church! Russian people have ceased to understand what Rus’ is: it is the footstool of the Lord’s Throne! The Russian person must understand this and thank God that he is Russian”.

“The Church will remain unshaken to the end of the age, and a Monarch of Russia, if he remains faithful to the Orthodox Church, will be established on the Throne of Russia until the end of the age.”
« Last Edit: March 13, 2006, 06:41:44 PM by Ntinos » Logged

montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #71 on: March 14, 2006, 12:03:43 AM »

In regard to how the Fatima visions could be true about Russia and Catholicism, or if the children of the Fatima visions saw the same thing 'from their side'.

St. John of Kronstadt (+1908): “I foresee the restoration of a powerful Russia, still stronger and mightier than before. On the bones of these martyrs, remember, as on a strong foundation, will the new Russia we built - according to the old model; strong in her faith in Christ God and in the Holy Trinity! And there will be, in accordance with the covenant of the holy Prince Vladimir, a single Church! Russian people have ceased to understand what Rus’ is: it is the footstool of the Lord’s Throne! The Russian person must understand this and thank God that he is Russian”.

“The Church will remain unshaken to the end of the age, and a Monarch of Russia, if he remains faithful to the Orthodox Church, will be established on the Throne of Russia until the end of the age.”
Go, Russia! Go! Smiley
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Ntinos
Σαλός
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


« Reply #72 on: March 14, 2006, 07:02:39 AM »

You're referring to the Single Church thing, or the Czarist Russia part?

Heh, Czar Vladimir Putin  Grin Grin
Logged

Armando
Dead among the living
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 187

I gave up dreaming a long time ago...


« Reply #73 on: March 15, 2006, 11:25:12 AM »

Quote
Go, Russia! Go!

I hope you are kidding... Russia is one of the worst things ever happened to Europe.
The Soviet Union, now, is the worst thing ever happened to the world.
Logged

Ten years have passed, the girl I loved
is now a woman, but I am still a child...
-Sad-ending fairytale, Miltos Paschalidis
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #74 on: March 15, 2006, 12:32:17 PM »

Quote
The Soviet Union, now, is the worst thing ever happened to the world.

I think Nazi Germany or even the Ottoman empire could give them a run for their money.  
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,643


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #75 on: March 15, 2006, 01:06:14 PM »

I think the bolshies had the Turks and the Nazis beat.

And Armando isn't being fair to Russia really - they didn't invent Communism.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2006, 01:08:32 PM by The young fogey » Logged

montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #76 on: March 16, 2006, 07:13:31 AM »

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8380.msg111731#msg111731 date=1142440337]
I think Nazi Germany or even the Ottoman empire could give them a run for their money. ÂÂ
[/quote]
I agree.

Russia has a wonderful Orthodox tradition. They fought off Catholic Poland, Protestant Sweden, etc.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #77 on: March 16, 2006, 12:49:29 PM »

Quote
They fought off Catholic Poland

Definetly not one of the more Orthodox moments in Russian history.  Being barbaric towards fellow Christians.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #78 on: March 17, 2006, 06:42:57 AM »

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8380.msg111891#msg111891 date=1142527769]
Definetly not one of the more Orthodox moments in Russian history.  Being barbaric towards fellow Christians.
[/quote]

You mean that they defended themselves against Catholic aggression? What about the Crusade of 1204, should Orthodox have fought back?
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
MicahJohn
The Lonely Tenor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 58


« Reply #79 on: March 17, 2006, 02:50:39 PM »

Νεκτάριος, do tell me more about your avatar of Elder Joseph's chapel.  Where is it, who was he, have you seen it?
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #80 on: March 17, 2006, 03:23:17 PM »

Elder Joseph the Hesychast was a very holy spiritual father from Mount Athos.  He reposed in 1959.  The chapel in question is the church that his brotherhood used for several years during the 1950s.  
Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #81 on: March 19, 2006, 04:22:24 AM »

This is an incredibly politically incorrect inquiry on this board by an EO to other EO...
but here's my question, and I have wondered about this virtually since I learned of the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders when I first began learning about Orthodoxy.
 
Just how did Crusaders, hundreds of miles from home, manage to sack an Imperial capital?
Was the Byzantine empire that far in decline and that weakened internally by that point in history?
Shouldn't they have crushed them like an ant?

Second question:
Some EO, treat the sacking of Constantinople like a fresh, open wound that happened only yesterday. Where in this does "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us" apply?
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #82 on: March 19, 2006, 06:24:46 AM »

This is an incredibly politically incorrect inquiry on this board by an EO to other EO...
but here's my question, and I have wondered about this virtually since I learned of the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders when I first began learning about Orthodoxy.
 
Just how did Crusaders, hundreds of miles from home, manage to sack an Imperial capital?
See http://www.crusades.ws/contstantinople.html
Was the Byzantine empire that far in decline and that weakened internally by that point in history? Shouldn't they have crushed them like an ant?
The sacking of the city certainly put the nail in the coffin of the Roman empire. I note you call it the Byzantine empire. I call it the Roman Empire.
Second question:
Some EO, treat the sacking of Constantinople like a fresh, open wound that happened only yesterday. Where in this does "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us" apply?

They didn't just attack and capture the city. They persecuted Orthodox. They stole from the city; some items are still in Venice. In 1205 the Crusaders place Mt. Athos under Latin control and there were some here who were martyred for our faith.

The Athonite community was mortally threatened by the sacrilegious domination of a great part of Byzantine territory, including Athos, by the crusaders of the Fourth Crusade (1204). Now the HM, by a letter of Pope Innocent III (27 November 1206), was made subject politically to the ‘state’ of Thessaloniki under Boniface of Montserrat, and ecclesiastically to the ‘Bishop’ of Samareia-Sebasteia, a papal titular bishopric in Thrace (PL 215, 1030). From this point on, tyranny, pillaging, humiliations and murder became a way of life. The monasteries "were at once wiped out and utterly collapsed, and those living in them were slaughtered like sacrificial victims" (PG 145, 432 et seq., 140, 1061 BC).
http://www.mountathos.gr/active~mode~en{a5e1747a-01bb-4ca0-8ee5-5cc83c8b617a}View.html
« Last Edit: March 19, 2006, 06:26:13 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
MicahJohn
The Lonely Tenor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 58


« Reply #83 on: March 19, 2006, 10:13:14 AM »

Not to sound repetitive, but...

forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.
Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #84 on: March 19, 2006, 04:50:34 PM »

"put the nail in the coffin"

from the link you provided it appears there was some internal treachery by Greeks against Greeks and that the crusade had been usurped by continental european politial intrigue and was NOT ordered by the pope.

so europeans attacked asia minor; it wasn't the Latins vs. the Greeks; it just so hapened that the europeans had a  Western Church affiliation

to this day Christians put nationality over Church, even EO against EO (read the thread about Macedonia, if I have undestood it correctly)

I think it is time to "get over" Constantinople 1204; it would be like Texans still taking "remember the Alamo" seriously against Mexico
Logged
Ntinos
Σαλός
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


« Reply #85 on: March 19, 2006, 05:42:57 PM »

Quote
so europeans attacked asia minor; it wasn't the Latins vs. the Greeks; it just so hapened that the europeans had a  Western Church affiliation

to this day Christians put nationality over Church, even EO against EO (read the thread about Macedonia, if I have undestood it correctly)

If so, why would the Patriarch move over from Constantinople to Nicea, and why would a latin Patriarch take his place?
Logged

BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #86 on: March 20, 2006, 01:35:27 AM »

this gets to be like Cher talking to Nicholas Cage in Moonstruck...

"Get over it"

Orthodoxy needs to quit licking old wounds and get on with the work of the kingdom of God.
One can't always just say " we have right worship and right belief" and meanwhile it is the blue collar evangelicals running the local soup kitchen and shelter and the liberal protestants running the food bank

and who is even bothering with the millions of people that have never darkened the door of a church, post-moderns for whom religion is totally outside their experience? For whom Starbucks or a Sunday morning jog or walk with the dogs or coffee on the back deck is a more viable option than church? As soon as one even mentions this (the dreaded "e" word -- evangelism), the response is,"well we don't go door to door and pressure people like the evangelicals do; we are there for anyone who wants to 'come and see'" - which seems to me to be a nice excuse for sitting  on our collective arses.

For alot of Orthodox churches, I'm afraid it is going to be, "when the last ethnic Orthodox fully assimilates to North American culture, please blow out the candles and turn off the lights"

It's like asking contemporary white americans to make reparations for slavery. Just what do Orthodox want Roman Catholics to do about 1204? If they did do anything satisfactory all it would do is take away something for some Orthodox to feel sorry about themselves about.

Four years into this and alot of what I converted for just gets thwarted by the sos just getting rehashed and rehashed over and over again.

I apologize to whomever I am offending in writing this, but please, take a step back and listen to yourselves.

Who really has any ancestral connection to anyone who lived in Constantinople in 1204? And if they did, SO WHAT? That was 800 years ago!

the persecution of Russian Orthodox Christians under communism was a hundredfold worse than Constantinople 1204, yet people of other jurisdictions feel free to cast stones about how the Russian diaspora handled an unprecedented situation: whether metropolia (they are sell-outs), OCA (they shouldn't have autocephaly), ROCOR (oh they are not canonical), Russian Church Abroad (they're extreme). Well, how  woud YOU have handled it? ( and don't EVEN get me started on the shameful Antiochian bashing that goes on here and the still worse Western Rite bashing)

It's tiresome and demoralizing.

Rather than bash Catholics or protestants, how about inviting some pagan at work to church?
How about telling a neighbor, not about prostrations and nuances of liturgy, but that God so loved the world that He sent His only Son - to meet them in their despair and sin.

Maybe I am still too protestant, but shouldn't we convert people to CHRIST, then bring them into the fullness of the Church. Oh, I forgot -- we don't evangelize! Sorry that our Lord said to go into ALL the world and preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations. If that's not evangelism, then what on earth is it?

Really, help me out here because I am getting very frustrated and very confused. We're the true Church, but the only way in is to stumble upon it. I've read time and again on this board about cranky priests making catechumenates almost intentionally difficult. Did Cyril and Methodius do that? Did Paul of Tarsus? The pat answer is that in their spiritual wisdom they are doing this for the benefit of the catechumen. Are you sure of this? Is the priest that spiritual and in tune with the Holy Spirit? Especially in the decline of the current world Christian community. Are there any REAL spiritual fathers left? Any true staresky?

I think we're (OC.net post-ers) a bunch of blind people leading the blind. I wonder why I even post. I'm no better and probably a whole lot worse. The only I have going for me is that I have been aroung the block a few times in my almost 51 years and I have known some awesome Christians who have been Presbyterian, Baptist, Roman Catholic (really, ALOT of Roman Catholics), Anglican, Antiochian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox (sorry, I'm not leaving anyone out but I don't have any acquaintances among other jurisdictions)
« Last Edit: March 20, 2006, 08:51:55 AM by BrotherAidan » Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #87 on: March 20, 2006, 01:36:36 AM »

somehow I double posted, sorry
« Last Edit: March 20, 2006, 01:41:16 AM by BrotherAidan » Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,411


« Reply #88 on: March 20, 2006, 02:01:51 AM »

...and don't EVEN get me started on the shameful Antiochian bashing that goes on here...

Sounds to me like you attend an Antiochian parish and are being defensive about it.  There has been GOA and OCA bashing as well, so you're not alone.  There wouldn't be bashing if there wouldn't major issues to bash about.
Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #89 on: March 20, 2006, 02:06:11 AM »

actually I am a member of an OCA parish
Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #90 on: March 20, 2006, 02:14:36 AM »

Personally, I think the Antiochians have gotten over alot of the ethnicity issues and are moving forward and are actually evangelizing and so they are lightning rods for criticism. All the parked cars can more easily take aim at the one that is moving.

Being OCA, I think gives me somewhat objectivity on this one. I really think that the Antiochians get bashed on OC.net more than any other Orthodox group (ROCOR being in second place). That's if you take Western Rite out of the equation.
The most shrill comments on OC.net are reserved for Western Rite.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2006, 02:16:25 AM by BrotherAidan » Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #91 on: March 20, 2006, 02:25:20 AM »

Quote
Personally, I think the Antiochians have gotten over alot of the ethnicity issues and are moving forward and are actually evangelizing and so they are lightning rods for criticism.

I'm not Antiochian either, FWIW.  But, at least from my (limited) experience they are NOT past the ethnicity issue.  I don't think we are at the point where we can say any jurisdiction is past the ethnicity isse - instead we can speak of individuals and parishes.  I know some GOA priests that are as missionary minded as you can get.... so stereotypes only go so far.  
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #92 on: March 20, 2006, 05:16:18 AM »

Not to sound repetitive, but...

forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.
Those who ignore the past are condemned to relive it.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #93 on: March 20, 2006, 05:19:54 AM »

"put the nail in the coffin"

from the link you provided it appears there was some internal treachery by Greeks against Greeks and that the crusade had been usurped by continental european politial intrigue and was NOT ordered by the pope.
Never stated otherwise. The fact that there was internal divisions was not new to Constantinople politics. The crusaders exploiting divisions doesn't absolve them of responsibility.

Also, who's claimed that the Pope ordered it. Was it in my link?
so europeans attacked asia minor; it wasn't the Latins vs. the Greeks; it just so hapened that the europeans had a  Western Church affiliation
It was Latins vs. Greeks
to this day Christians put nationality over Church, even EO against EO (read the thread about Macedonia, if I have undestood it correctly)
This is true.
I think it is time to "get over" Constantinople 1204; it would be like Texans still taking "remember the Alamo" seriously against Mexico
It would be if the Catholic Church had merely left their attacks on Orthodoxy back then. They didn't. So, as noted above, those who ignore history are condemned to relive it.

But thanks for the Catholic apology.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #94 on: March 20, 2006, 05:20:53 AM »

If so, why would the Patriarch move over from Constantinople to Nicea, and why would a latin Patriarch take his place?
Indeed. The Catholic church, even without Papal 'approval' set about to attack Orthodox religious communities (on Mt Athos) and replace Orthodox positions with Catholic ones.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #95 on: March 20, 2006, 05:24:54 AM »

Personally, I think the Antiochians have gotten over alot of the ethnicity issues and are moving forward and are actually evangelizing and so they are lightning rods for criticism. All the parked cars can more easily take aim at the one that is moving.
I went to an Antiochian church in western Sydney boasting "English language services". I was the only one there of English-speaking background. After liturgy, the priest would nick off home and the people, those that hung around would all speak in Arabic, even when I was standing in their group.

Later that priest went on to do other things and a new priest was brought out from Syria, or Lebanon. He spoke poor English, and would do the homily entirely in Arabic, until another "Aussie" (a sub-deacon) came into the parish (he's now moved back to Newcastle); and then the sub-deacon would do the Homily.

Thus I have first-hand experience of the way Antiochians work. And this is after leaving another parish after being largely ignored by that priest (who NEVER sat down with me to discuss anything theological at all; a great help for those wishing to be chrismated).
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Thomas
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,785



« Reply #96 on: March 20, 2006, 07:07:50 PM »

I am sorry that your experience with the Antiochians were negative, myself on the other hand have found them to be the warmest and most welcoming  of the jurisdictions I have had contact with.  I hope that your future connections with them will be more positive.

Thomas
Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #97 on: March 20, 2006, 10:06:17 PM »

I am sorry that your experience with the Antiochians were negative, myself on the other hand have found them to be the warmest and most welcoming  of the jurisdictions I have had contact with.  I hope that your future connections with them will be more positive.

Thomas
I don't hold the whole church by their example. I'm convinced of Orthodoxy regardless of whom I meet.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Byzantine Catholic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #98 on: April 18, 2006, 11:08:24 PM »

Brother Aidan --

I read with great interest your post regarding evangelizing (or actually the lack of it) in Orthodoxy. ÂÂ

I would second your emotion to ask "What's with THAT anyway?" ÂÂ  

When I found the Eastern Catholic Church (BTW -- St. Ann's where I go is really very "unlatinized" in comparison with others)  I found myself, after entering into the fullness of her worship, feeling a certain ...........aaaaaaaaaaaaa.....sheesh.....how do I put it

well, certainly not anger, but something perhaps close to it in wondering why no one ever spoke to me regarding the Eastern Faith. ÂÂ  I have a Serbian Orthodox customer who knew me for a couple of years before I converted and he never once asked me if I had ever been to an Orthodox Pascha, or had seen a Presanctified Liturgy or asked me how I viewed my relationship to Christ.

JW's,  Mormons, and Fundamentalists, on the other hand, are always around as thick as flies on.............uhhhhhh, yeah well, you get the picture don't you?  How's that anyway?  Why do those with the TRUTH sit on it as if it is their particular precious possession that they don't really want to share with the world?  I mean, that is really NOT how the Early Church grew, is it?  You think THEY were silent about the fact that Jesus had risen from the dead and made partaking of the divine nature (1 Peter 4: 1 -- theosis) a reality for mankind?

I even went as far as to develope a complete evangelization package for the parish, along with an apologetics course to be used in apolgia for the Evangelical Bible thumpers were would surely meet along the way.

I don't think B -17's over Dresden in WWII went down in flames as fast as that did!!  Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes

Great.

I spoke with Fr. Thomas Loya from Chicago when he was at a seminar in Gettysburg 3 years ago and this is what he said to me:

"Either the Byzantine Catholic Church in America learns to evangelize or it dies off in the next 40 years."

And I think he's right.  Will the same thing happen to Holy Orthodoxy?  Will Americans continue to see both as just ethnic abnormalities and consider Evangelicalism to be the true face of Christianity in America?  Time will tell, but I for one am not real positive for the future of ethnic parishes in this country.

With all the converts being pulled out of the Catholic (and sometimes Orthodox Faiths -- especially in Europe by American "missionaries" --aka heresy bearers) one would think that the two sides of the same apostolic coin would look to that as more of a threat than rehashing the Sack of Constantinople.  Of course, given the present state of the Catholic Church,  if I were Orthodox, I myself would be casting a very wary eye towards Rome until She repents of all the New Age, modernist, ecumenicism-with-pagans-and Protestants nonsense and comes back to a more clear defining of and obedience to those truths which the Lord left with His apostles some 2000 years ago.

Just my .02.

Ed -- great sinner
« Last Edit: April 18, 2006, 11:09:27 PM by Byzantine Catholic » Logged

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God,  have mercy on me a sinner!
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,829


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #99 on: April 26, 2006, 03:26:11 PM »

Montalban,

Just some food for thought regarding your posts on this and many other threads where we've crossed paths.  This is not a post to comment on the substance of any of your posts; I really want to address your style.  You write with a lot of certitude (absolute conviction that you're right and that those who disagree with you just don't see the truth).  Maybe you're right.  Then again, maybe you're wrong.  I'm not calling your "correctness" into question.  My question to you is this: How do you know that you are right?

You quote the Fathers quite a bit to back up your arguments, but how do you know that you're not just quoting your own limited interpretation of the Fathers?  How do you know that you aren't just preaching a limited understanding of the Patristic Tradition?  To be honest, it just appears to me that you love to use prooftexts from the Holy Fathers, which is the best way I know to take Patristic teachings out of context.  "A prooftext taken out of context is only a pretext for a mistext."  How do you know that this isn't what you're doing?  You accuse other posters of "missing the point."  How do you know that you are not the one missing the point?  Do you even know what the real point is?

"Why is any of what you have to say important to the substance of our discussion?" you may want to ask me.  What I have to say has EVERYTHING to do with the substance of our discussion.  Your certitude insults people.  I have in the past tended to present my arguments with the same conviction of my correctness as you do on this forum.  People generally refused to listen to me because of my bluster.  I alienated them from the substance of my arguments because they thought me an arrogant b*****d.  I insulted them to the point that they just didn't think the substance of my arguments to be credible.  They actually thought my logic to be imbalanced because of my refusal to accept their points of view as being potentially equal in validity.  Present the substance of your arguments with a much more respectful, much less insulting style, and I think a lot more people will actually respect what you have to say.

- Peter
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,829


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #100 on: April 26, 2006, 03:35:08 PM »

Now back to the subject of this thread:

One Catholic (convert from Protestantism) friend told me many years ago that some of his objections to Orthodox Christianity are such as these:

  • Our Church's apparently more permissive attitude toward divorce and remarriage
  • Our Church's apparently more liberal attitude toward contraceptive birth control--I recognize that this is only true of some of our bishops, for many of our bishops are just as opposed to contraceptives as the papacy is.

What do we have to say to these charges?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,479



« Reply #101 on: April 27, 2006, 12:54:01 AM »

Peter

Even though I'm not Orthodox anymore, the arguments you listed are a bit of a pet peeve of mine, so I hope you will forgive me for rushing to Orthodoxy's defense!  As to why they are a pet peeve, it is because these are two of the main reasons that e-pologists like Dave Armstrong give for brushing aside Orthodoxy on their way to Catholicism. This, in my view (even as an agnostic) is downright strange (I'm trying to be nice!)

Quote
Our Church's apparently more permissive attitude toward divorce and remarriage

Indeed the Orthodox are. Or not. Depending on how you look at it. The Orthodox are more compassionate, in that they are willing to grant a divorce when one is obviously needed, rather than (like the RCC) making a person flip backwards through 10 hoops--for years on end, I might add--to get the Church to agree that they were never really married to begin with. I have talked to Catholic people who made a mistake when they were younger and married someone that they shouldn't have, and then had to wait, being made to feel guilty all the while, as they filled out all sorts of paper work about the intimate details of their lives for some cleric to read, and waited for years on end to finally be told that they could really get married (to someone different) now. ÂÂ

The Orthodox, while not as precisely following the letter of the words of Jesus, nonetheless follow the spirit of his teaching much better. If the Orthodox Church has deemed it proper to grant divorces for reasons other than adultery, and if the Orthodox Church really is part of the Church of Christ (one of the two lungs, in modern RC ecclesiology), and thus she is being led by the Holy Spirit, then why should she not be allowed to exercize economia (a dispensation) and grant divorces in more cases than are allowed for in Scripture? Certainly the Catholics do not limit themselves to Scriptural injunctions for their moral teachings and practices, but also rely on tradition, nature, and other authorities.

Quote
Our Church's apparently more liberal attitude toward contraceptive birth control--I recognize that this is only true of some of our bishops, for many of our bishops are just as opposed to contraceptives as the papacy is.

The funny thing about this argument is that Catholics always cite John Noonan's book on the subject... but if you read that book to the end, Mr. Noonan contradicts the traditional Catholic position! Noonan also believes that the Church's teachings on Contraception are based on Stoic philosophy (as opposed to, say, oral tradition). Thus, it makes me chuckle when conservative Catholics quote this book as though it's Gospel Truth. Noonan even points out more than once that NFP is not only contraception, but that the most important western theologian, Augustine, explicitly condemned it (well, the ancient version of it). Anyway, I think the contraception thing is a red herring.

First, as with divorce, the Church has the right to guide her flock as she wishes. If she wishes to let people go to a funeral at a Protestant Church, or see a Jewish doctor, or forbids her people from owning slaves, (all positions contradicting former canons/traditions) and so on, then she has a right to. The Catholics taunt Protestants as being unnecessarily bound to Scripture, but then the Catholics turn around and bind themselves to tradition unnecessarily. One day I hope that they develop a 'development of morality' doctrine to go along with their 'development of doctrine' belief. John Noonan, in his most recent book, A Church That Can and Cannot Change deals with this idea from a Catholic (albeit liberal Catholic) perspective.

The second reason that this argument is a red herring is because, as I already mentioned, the RCC herself allows contraception. It's called Natural Family Planning. Let them read Noonan and all the other books they want: the Church Fathers condemned the act of having sex while having the intention of avoiding pregnancy. It didn't matter to the fathers whether conception was avoided through "passive" or "active" means, or "unnatural" or "natural" means. They did not say "Potions are not ok, but the rythym method is," or anything of that sort. Those who spoke against contraception, spoke against all efforts to avoid conception. I might also add though that generally speaking, the Eastern Fathers were somewhat less concerned with this idea.

I mean, I don't want to play the East Vs. West card or anything, but I think that it's pretty clear from even a casual look at the topic of sexuality that the East was less strict than the west. This is clear not just when it comes to contraception, but also whether sexual pleasure is sinful, whether priests should be celibate, and so forth. I think that David Ford does a pretty good job at summarizing this in his book In Women and Men in the Early Church: The Full Views of St. John Chrysostom, which (apart from this debate) is probably also the best (and most practical) book on marriage that I've read.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2006, 12:56:03 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

I would strongly recommend Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by Fr Seraphim Rose.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,829


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #102 on: April 27, 2006, 01:51:39 AM »

Peter

Even though I'm not Orthodox anymore, the arguments you listed are a bit of a pet peeve of mine, so I hope you will forgive me for rushing to Orthodoxy's defense!  

PLEASE DO!  I support the Orthodox positions on the two issues I just brought up.  I just offered them for discussion because of my own awareness of at least one Catholic who has voiced these objections to me.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,479



« Reply #103 on: April 27, 2006, 02:51:17 AM »

Peter,

I hope I didn't send the wrong message, I wasn't implying that you were questioning Orthodox thought. For that matter, I don't have a problem with your friend voicing his opinion either. The thing that gets me riled a bit are professional writers (ie. people who make money off of texts that they publish) who use these arguments to persuade people, especially since the sources they use are inconsistent at best. I think there is--or at least, should be--a different standard for people who are actually publishing material in "real world" form, as opposed to people talking by email or on a discussion board. I remember struggling with whether to become Orthodox or Catholic years ago, I don't mean to say that Catholicism is completely unable to make a case for herself, I just don't really find the case that many apologists/epologists make to be anywhere near persuasive. I was just in a chatroom the last few nights and heard Catholics using the same (IMO, bad) arguments as I heard the exact same people using 2 years ago. I know that people tend to recycle the arguments which have seemed to work in the past (I'm more guilty of that tendency than most), but sometimes a change in arguments can be a good thing! Smiley
Logged

I would strongly recommend Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by Fr Seraphim Rose.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #104 on: April 27, 2006, 05:58:35 AM »

Montalban,

Just some food for thought regarding your posts on this and many other threads where we've crossed paths.  This is not a post to comment on the substance of any of your posts; I really want to address your style.  You write with a lot of certitude (absolute conviction that you're right and that those who disagree with you just don't see the truth).  Maybe you're right.  Then again, maybe you're wrong.  I'm not calling your "correctness" into question.  My question to you is this: How do you know that you are right?

You quote the Fathers quite a bit to back up your arguments, but how do you know that you're not just quoting your own limited interpretation of the Fathers?  How do you know that you aren't just preaching a limited understanding of the Patristic Tradition?  To be honest, it just appears to me that you love to use prooftexts from the Holy Fathers, which is the best way I know to take Patristic teachings out of context.  "A prooftext taken out of context is only a pretext for a mistext."  How do you know that this isn't what you're doing?  You accuse other posters of "missing the point."  How do you know that you are not the one missing the point?  Do you even know what the real point is?

"Why is any of what you have to say important to the substance of our discussion?" you may want to ask me.  What I have to say has EVERYTHING to do with the substance of our discussion.  Your certitude insults people.  I have in the past tended to present my arguments with the same conviction of my correctness as you do on this forum.  People generally refused to listen to me because of my bluster.  I alienated them from the substance of my arguments because they thought me an arrogant b*****d.  I insulted them to the point that they just didn't think the substance of my arguments to be credible.  They actually thought my logic to be imbalanced because of my refusal to accept their points of view as being potentially equal in validity.  Present the substance of your arguments with a much more respectful, much less insulting style, and I think a lot more people will actually respect what you have to say.

- Peter
How do I know I'm right? Well this particular section is about Orthodox-Catholic conversations so you, as an Orthodox ( ? ) asking me how I as an Orthodox believe the Orthodox church is correct seems puzzling - that I am 'convinced' of this even more so.

Yes, it's a strange man like me who actually cites Church Fathers as evidence. And well, citing a lot of them seems to be a greater sin. Shocked

Did this appear to confronting to you? Kiss
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #105 on: April 27, 2006, 05:59:47 AM »

Peter,

I hope I didn't send the wrong message, I wasn't implying that you were questioning Orthodox thought.

He does, but only when others argue with conviction.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #106 on: April 27, 2006, 06:07:57 AM »

Montalban,
You quote the Fathers quite a bit to back up your arguments,

"This is the early Christians' wisdom, not mine. I hope not to say anything original. If I do, ignore it."
Mathewes-Gren, F (2001), "The Illuminated Heart: The Ancient Chrstian Path of Transformation", Paraclete Press; Brewster MA, p2.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,479



« Reply #107 on: April 27, 2006, 06:14:42 AM »

Actually I agree with his assessment of your writing style. You talk as though the Fathers talk right through you... hate to break it to you, but unless you've been working out your salvation in a very saintly way (like a Seraphim of Sarov level) for many decades, you're probably mixing a lot of your own bias in with the words of the Fathers. "Just quoting Fathers" is not any more unbiased than when Evangelical Protestants "just quote Scriptures". In fact, it's the exact same proof-texting mentality, and it is harmful in both cases. The selection of which quotes to use is, in itself, a manifestation of a person's bias. You can put up disclaimers about just wanting to repeat the Fathers, but if John of Damascus couldn't give a perfectly accurate representation of what the early Fathers believed (e.g., he included the Canons of the Holy Apostles in his New Testament canon!  cf Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4, 17), then I surely don't expect that you will either.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2006, 06:15:23 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

I would strongly recommend Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by Fr Seraphim Rose.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #108 on: April 27, 2006, 07:58:24 AM »

"But if we are able to pluck anything profitable from outside sources, there is nothing to forbid that"
John of Damascus
Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith
Book IV Chapter XVII
http://www.balamand.edu.lb/theology/book_iv.htm

Actually I agree with his assessment of your writing style. You talk as though the Fathers talk right through you... hate to break it to you, but unless you've been working out your salvation in a very saintly way (like a Seraphim of Sarov level) for many decades, you're probably mixing a lot of your own bias in with the words of the Fathers. "Just quoting Fathers" is not any more unbiased than when Evangelical Protestants "just quote Scriptures". In fact, it's the exact same proof-texting mentality, and it is harmful in both cases. The selection of which quotes to use is, in itself, a manifestation of a person's bias. You can put up disclaimers about just wanting to repeat the Fathers, but if John of Damascus couldn't give a perfectly accurate representation of what the early Fathers believed (e.g., he included the Canons of the Holy Apostles in his New Testament canon!  cf Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4, 17), then I surely don't expect that you will either.

There's several problems with his (and it seems, your) attitude.
a) this 'criticism' is off-topic (and a month after my last posting on this topic anyway)
b) it is sailing both close to ad hom and strawman insofar as it is criticising me personally for being 'certain' and therefore 'rude' (rude, because of being certain, his novel idea!), and strawman which you here offer; to re-work my argument to a state of mere parroting church fathers... a la Protestants simply just quoting Scriptures. This false analysis of my arguments is terribly insulting and not very honest. Not only do I quote many Church Fathers in order to ascertain the mind-set of the Church I also cite other Church commentators and web-sites interpretations of those commentators, plus add my own reasons - which come last in an effort to be humble (as per Frederica Mathewes-Green above), which oddly you find as being more arrogant - to let the Church Fathers speak for themselves. I note in conjunction with this that he and you don't bother to actually address any of the quotes herein at all (preferring as you do to criticise my writing style). IF you felt I was misrepresenting any of them on any issue, you need only to address it, but that might involve a little more thought. I find you have things turned upside-down, and it is quite funny that you too should have such novel ideas on debating; such as to have certainty and conviction in what I write is something bad.

John of Damascus is a great church father, but just one man. In an argument I might choose to cite him, but I would prefer to ascertain what the whole church feels, and I would prefer to offer-up more than one Church Father. If you want to rely on his words alone, so be it (not that you've cited anything he's actually said - oddly you probably think that making a statement about what one Church Father might have said to be more weighty than me citing several fathers about what they actually did say). I find that quite incredible and awfully amusing.

And speaking of a Seraphim, Father Seraphim Rose (different one to whom you mention) is one commentator I have happily relied upon. Perhaps reliance upon the thoughts of others is for you to be arrogant.

I can't wait for your next off-topic criticism. Be sure to follow your own rules about rudeness and re-work my argument. Be sure not to be sure about what you're saying, lest you appear arrogant. Be sure also to only paraphrase or 'refer in passing' to what you think one Church Father said, instead of relying on direct quotes, or you might be accused of fudging evidence! I'm going to save your comments, in case your and/or mine are deleted as these ideas of yours are quite novel.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,479



« Reply #109 on: April 27, 2006, 11:41:43 AM »

 Roll Eyes
Logged

I would strongly recommend Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by Fr Seraphim Rose.
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,411


« Reply #110 on: April 27, 2006, 12:00:17 PM »

My, my, montalban, now you're getting awefully defensive.  If someone can't take any criticism, how do you think that reflects on them?  I'm sure you could find many Church Fathers that address that issue as well.  Just because you quote many Fathers and others doesn't mean you can't work on your writing style - I know that I sure as heck can!
Logged
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #111 on: April 27, 2006, 01:12:55 PM »

In nomine Ieus I offer you all Peace,

Is it possible to be humble and confident? If so can someone give us an example?  Grin


Peace.
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,829


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #112 on: April 27, 2006, 03:06:30 PM »

In nomine Ieus I offer you all Peace,

Is it possible to be humble and confident? If so can someone give us an example?  Grin


Peace.


Maybe I'm not the best person to answer these questions because I'm still struggling to learn how to be humble and confident at the same time.  But let me at least try to communicate some of the things I've learned while trying to temper my own natural certitude with humility and charity.

The first thing I try to do is put aside my own preconceived notions and prejudices and just research the issues.  I try to research from many different angles and study many different authorities, especially those who disagree with each other.  I pay special attention to those authorities who disagree with my own preconceived ideas.  If it's necessary for me to draw my own conclusions, I do so only after finishing my research and comparing my findings against values that I've formed from previous study and life experience.  Usually, once I've drawn a conclusion in this way, I'm confident of the correctness of my conclusion and can articulate it with confidence to other people.

However, when discussing my opinions with other people, I try to remind myself that I still don't know everything there is to know about the subject and that those persons I engage in discussion may know other aspects that I haven't yet learned.  As such, I try to keep my mind open to learning from them.  Even so, I still have the responsibility to present my arguments with confidence and certainty, and I must seek to reveal flaws that I see in the logic and research of the other participants in our discussion, all while maintaining my great respect for what they know together with a willingness to submit to correction when I recognize that I am proven wrong.  I must not enter a discussion with the goal of proving myself right and all the other participants wrong, for this shows absolutely no respect for the varied knowledge, education, and experiences of the other participants.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2006, 03:13:12 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #113 on: April 27, 2006, 03:39:53 PM »

Maybe I'm not the best person to answer these questions because I'm still struggling to learn how to be humble and confident at the same time.  But let me at least try to communicate some of the things I've learned while trying to temper my own natural certitude with humility and charity.

The first thing I try to do is put aside my own preconceived notions and prejudices and just research the issues.  I try to research from many different angles and study many different authorities, especially those who disagree with each other.  I pay special attention to those authorities who disagree with my own preconceived ideas.  If it's necessary for me to draw my own conclusions, I do so only after finishing my research and comparing my findings against values that I've formed from previous study and life experience.  Usually, once I've drawn a conclusion in this way, I'm confident of the correctness of my conclusion and can articulate it with confidence to other people.

However, when discussing my opinions with other people, I try to remind myself that I still don't know everything there is to know about the subject and that those persons I engage in discussion may know other aspects that I haven't yet learned.  As such, I try to keep my mind open to learning from them.  Even so, I still have the responsibility to present my arguments with confidence and certainty, and I must seek to reveal flaws that I see in the logic and research of the other participants in our discussion, all while maintaining my great respect for what they know together with a willingness to submit to correction when I recognize that I am proven wrong.  I must not enter a discussion with the goal of proving myself right and all the other participants wrong, for this shows absolutely no respect for the varied knowledge, education, and experiences of the other participants.

In nomine Ieus I offer you continued Peace Brother PeterTheAleut,

I believe you offer some very honest suggestions here but if you recognize that your conclusion is not borne from a 'complete' analysis of the data are you not admitting that your arguments are going to 'lack' the objectivity to carry confidence and certainity on the subject matter in question? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying here?

If one exercises humility does it necessitate a certain exercise of a willingness to 'lack' confidence in one's own grasp of the 'facts'?

Just asking...
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,829


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #114 on: April 27, 2006, 04:14:37 PM »

In nomine Ieus I offer you continued Peace Brother PeterTheAleut,

I believe you offer some very honest suggestions here but if you recognize that your conclusion is not borne from a 'complete' analysis of the data are you not admitting that your arguments are going to 'lack' the objectivity to carry confidence and certainity on the subject matter in question? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying here?

I don't think it's absolutely possible for anyone's conclusions to be borne from a 'complete' analysis of the data; the research of even the experts will still be somewhat incomplete.  That's why education and learning are never-ending.

Also, I don't think anyone's arguments can possibly be totally objective, for no one can avoid putting somewhat of him/her-self into the research or the presentation.  Even the most 'complete' research is still the research of a particular person or group of persons.  This personal aspect of research just cannot be removed entirely, no matter how hard we try.

Even so, it's still possible for me to be confident in what little I do know from my study and at the same time be open to learning what others have learned from their studies.

Quote
If one exercises humility does it necessitate a certain exercise of a willingness to 'lack' confidence in one's own grasp of the 'facts'?

Just asking...

Sometimes, yes.
Logged
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #115 on: April 27, 2006, 04:29:17 PM »

I don't think it's absolutely possible for anyone's conclusions to be borne from a 'complete' analysis of the data; the research of even the experts will still be somewhat incomplete.  That's why education and learning are never-ending.

Also, I don't think anyone's arguments can possibly be totally objective, for no one can avoid putting somewhat of him/her-self into the research or the presentation.  Even the most 'complete' research is still the research of a particular person or group of persons.  This personal aspect of research just cannot be removed entirely, no matter how hard we try.

Even so, it's still possible for me to be confident in what little I do know from my study and at the same time be open to learning what others have learned from their studies.

In nomine Ieus I offer you continued Peace Brother PeterTheAleut,

God appears to have blessed you with an abnormal amount of wisdom on this matter. Be ever thankful and it shouldn't ever need to leave you.

Peace and Blessings.
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,829


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #116 on: April 27, 2006, 04:39:29 PM »

In nomine Ieus I offer you continued Peace Brother PeterTheAleut,

God appears to have blessed you with an abnormal amount of wisdom on this matter. Be ever thankful and it shouldn't ever need to leave you.

Peace and Blessings.

Now, if only I can live by that wisdom. {sigh}
« Last Edit: April 27, 2006, 04:39:43 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #117 on: April 28, 2006, 04:47:17 AM »

My, my, montalban, now you're getting awefully defensive.  If someone can't take any criticism, how do you think that reflects on them?  I'm sure you could find many Church Fathers that address that issue as well.  Just because you quote many Fathers and others doesn't mean you can't work on your writing style - I know that I sure as heck can!
You're a funny one too. You think it's defensive to retort someone who's off-topic, and ad hom, well I guess I should just roll over and take it. Note too that I stated the reasons why I think he's wrong.

Sure he can work on style, as you can post offering nothing constructive too. (Sorry if this sounds too defnsive Kiss)

Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #118 on: April 28, 2006, 05:01:05 AM »

In nomine Ieus I offer you all Peace,

Is it possible to be humble and confident? If so can someone give us an example?  Grin


Peace.


I think one can. I think the style is summed up in the quote I cited earlier (in which I didn't spell her name correctly; mea culpa!)
"This is the early Christians' wisdom, not mine. I hope not to say anything original. If I do, ignore it."
Mathewes-Green, F (2001), "The Illuminated Heart: The Ancient Christian Path of Transformation", (Paraclete Press; Brewster MA), p2.

I think to cite Church Fathers (note plural) and other Orthodox commentators on those teachings is perfectly legitimate. I think also that it is the heart of Christianity to accept the truth of the Church with absolute certainty. The sin of Adam is to believe that one can, through their own abilities reason their way to truth. In the introduction to a book I'm just reading it says (in a slightly different emphasis being the education of Children) "Providing religious training for children in today's spiritually bankrupt society is not an easy task for parents or educators; yet it must be our primary goal. The consequences of neglecting a child's spiritual upbringing become (sic) more and more apparent as we see an ever-increasing number of Orthodox youth abandon the faith, or worse, attempt to combine it with popular world views that are irreconcilable with genuine Christianity (emphasis added)
White, E., (2004), "Walking in Wonder: Nurturing Orthodox Christian Virtues in Your Children", (Conciliar Press; Ben Lomond, Cal.), pp5-6

When one agrees to the Church Fathers over the alluring teachings of evolutionary science (or, materialism dressed up as science), one gets the type of comments seen on this thread, that's not even about such matters.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #119 on: April 28, 2006, 06:47:57 AM »

How does the Catholic Church see Orthodox positions?

You mean, after they read this thread?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #120 on: April 28, 2006, 07:33:57 AM »

You mean, after they read this thread?

Perhaps then they have a point in having a centralised authority.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2006, 07:45:28 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #121 on: April 28, 2006, 02:19:41 PM »

Perhaps then they have a point in having a centralised authority.

This is a little confusing. I know the church never STARTED out as having a centralized authority, and historically/geographically the Eastern churches never really needed a centralised authority because they looked to the Councils for authority.

Still, knowing that all priests and bishops of your church will (have to) teach the same thing (ie. as in the RCC) is really assuring.

I hate going to 3 different priests/elders/bishops, asking them the position on something like contraception etc, and getting 3 or more different answers. And then they say "seeee, I told you not to go to more than 1 person for spiritual advice because then you'll be confused from the different answers they give you." Whereas from the West, all you gotta do is pull out your catechism book. True many priests will give you their own lib, but thats not necessarily canonical on their part. In terms of faith and dogma, they are supposed to give you what is in the catechism/ what comes from Rome.

I'm not converting to western Catholicism any time soon (or ever), but its either we also need SOME centralised authority, we need a general pan-Orthodox council to adress these issues, or we need another Eumenical Council very very soon to set the issues aright.
Logged
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #122 on: April 28, 2006, 04:18:33 PM »

Quote
I hate going to 3 different priests/elders/bishops, asking them the position on something like contraception etc, and getting 3 or more different answers.
You ask two Orthodox priests a question, expect to get three answers. Smiley
Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #123 on: April 28, 2006, 04:56:26 PM »

Timos
Well, one thing I think on the centralized theory is that for the most part you will see aggreement with Orthodox priests.  However, things such as modern birth control and its prevelance, technology, etc., etc., are very recent and are gradually being worked out.  Often there is a consistance and one can even find that, but sometimes some priests may deviate.  
Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #124 on: April 28, 2006, 05:31:01 PM »

This is a little confusing. I know the church never STARTED out as having a centralized authority, and historically/geographically the Eastern churches never really needed a centralised authority because they looked to the Councils for authority.

Still, knowing that all priests and bishops of your church will (have to) teach the same thing (ie. as in the RCC) is really assuring.

I hate going to 3 different priests/elders/bishops, asking them the position on something like contraception etc, and getting 3 or more different answers. And then they say "seeee, I told you not to go to more than 1 person for spiritual advice because then you'll be confused from the different answers they give you." Whereas from the West, all you gotta do is pull out your catechism book. True many priests will give you their own lib, but thats not necessarily canonical on their part. In terms of faith and dogma, they are supposed to give you what is in the catechism/ what comes from Rome.

I'm not converting to western Catholicism any time soon (or ever), but its either we also need SOME centralised authority, we need a general pan-Orthodox council to adress these issues, or we need another Eumenical Council very very soon to set the issues aright.


In nomine Ieus I offer you Peace,

Does not your own Jurisdictional Authority offer this guidance (Metropolitan, Patriarch or ArchBishop, Bishop etc.)?

If one would characterize Orthodoxy without a centralized authority one could also characterize Catholicism without local authority. Trust me dear Brother the grass only 'appears' greener...

Peace.
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #125 on: April 28, 2006, 06:07:05 PM »


In nomine Ieus I offer you Peace,

Does not your own Jurisdictional Authority offer this guidance (Metropolitan, Patriarch or ArchBishop, Bishop etc.)?

If one would characterize Orthodoxy without a centralized authority one could also characterize Catholicism without local authority. Trust me dear Brother the grass only 'appears' greener...

Peace.


Yes our bishop does tell us what is right and wrong but I am talking about a basic inter-parochial level.

As for the Catholics, I know the official teachign is there, but I've heard some crazy things coming from Catholic priests like why rock masses are good, or why liturgical dancing is appropriate--things that most bishops are probably against.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #126 on: April 28, 2006, 08:26:03 PM »

This is a little confusing. I know the church never STARTED out as having a centralized authority, and historically/geographically the Eastern churches never really needed a centralised authority because they looked to the Councils for authority.
I agree that it is not a part of dogma (because the structure of the church reflects the nature of God; unity in diversity).

I was speaking from a purely functional point of view because it seems that when I debate based on what the Church Fathers say, it is reduced by some to be 'my opinion of what the church Fathers say'. Whereas if we had some centralised body of scholarship that could say "The Church Fathers mean ...." it might help.

Of course it would be impossible to do so now, because on one group would be universally recognised as having that authority - though the monks of Mount Athos probably have a higher degree of respect in matters of this kind.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,829


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #127 on: April 28, 2006, 11:22:19 PM »

How do I know I'm right? Well this particular section is about Orthodox-Catholic conversations so you, as an Orthodox ( ? ) asking me how I as an Orthodox believe the Orthodox church is correct seems puzzling - that I am 'convinced' of this even more so.

Yes, it's a strange man like me who actually cites Church Fathers as evidence. And well, citing a lot of them seems to be a greater sin.

Montalban,

I’m truly sorry that I failed to communicate what you needed to hear in a way that would not offend you.  I hope--now that you’ve decided to attack those such as Asteriktos, Elisha, and me who have only tried to help you see what you’re doing to others on this forum with your ‘know-it-all’ attitude--that you will allow me to offer a quote from one of your favorite modern Fathers to present to you what I tried to say before.

"The Patristic teaching on pain of heart," Fr. Seraphim wrote, "is one of the most important teachings for our days when 'head-knowledge' is so over-emphasized at the expense of the proper development of emotional and spiritual life....  The lack of this essential experience is what above all is responsible for the dilettantism, the triviality, the want of seriousness in the ordinary study of the Holy Fathers today; without it, one cannot apply the teachings of the Holy Fathers to one's own life.  One may attain to the very highest level of understanding with the mind of the teaching of the Holy Fathers, may have 'at one's fingertips' quotes from the Holy Fathers on every conceivable subject, may have 'spiritual experiences' which seem to be those described in the Patristic books, may even know perfectly all the pitfalls into which it is possible to fall in spiritual life--and still, without pain of heart, one can be a barren fig tree, a boring 'know-it-all' who is always 'correct,' or an adept in all the present-day 'charismatic' experiences, who does not know and cannot convey the true spirit of the Holy Fathers."1

I hope that what I’ve presented doesn’t come across as just another proof text, because I just don’t like playing that game.  I’m not into arguing to win debates because somebody always ends up getting hurt when I do, and I don’t like quoting the Scriptures or the Fathers just to prove the correctness of my points.  I struggle enough with pride already that I really just don’t want to be an ‘expert’ on the Holy Fathers.  If knowing the Fathers much less than I can with my intellect helps me to enter much more into the spirit of the Fathers with my heart, then I would much rather do this.  This just appears to me to be much more true to the Orthodox Faith than your head-knowledge.


1 - Hieromonk Damascene, Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works, Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2003 (work cited by Fr. Damascene: Father Seraphim Rose, "The Holy Fathers of Orthodox Spirituality: Introduction, III: How Not to Read the Holy Fathers," Orthodox Word, no. 65 (1975), p. 239)


Yes, you do have permission to copy from this post to share it in private emails with your friends.

- Peter
« Last Edit: April 28, 2006, 11:24:58 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #128 on: April 29, 2006, 05:55:37 AM »

Montalban,
I’m truly sorry that I failed to communicate what you needed to hear in a way that would not offend you.
You're not sorry. And you haven't offended me. Both these statements are reconcilable in the fact you're attempting to avoid real argument and instead paint an emotive picture of two protagonists, you the painfully humble preacher, and me the bitterly irrational student, who just doesn't listen to your genuine pleas.
I hope--now that you’ve decided to attack those such as Asteriktos, Elisha, and me who have only tried to help you see what you’re doing to others on this forum with your ‘know-it-all’ attitude--that you will allow me to offer a quote from one of your favorite modern Fathers to present to you what I tried to say before.
You are not. You are peeved that I have defended a position you don't adhere to. If you were about humbly guiding me in my errors, you'd have PM'd me. But you brought this up in public on a thread that is about Catholic/Orthodox ideas, and you did so one month after my last comment on this thread. But it's nice to know that there's people out there still taking the moral high-ground. The further emotive call to join the majority is again another ploy that shows that you're through with evidential discussion.
I hope that what I’ve presented doesn’t come across as just another proof text, because I just don’t like playing that game.
That's exactly why you posted it. You found a quote that you believe suits your argument. It is in fact terrible insulting that you would make an assumption implied by such a quote; that I don't follow an Orthodox life. But then, with your own self-belief in your calling you'd need to paint me as such a protagonist. Even despite your insults, I am amused by your obvious lack of introspection. I still have dialogue with you. I still take an effort to discern where I think you are wrong. And, I also have enough sense of self to realise that this too, can be seen as me taking a moral high-ground. So too the belief that I am the one being honest in this discussion.
I’m not into arguing to win debates because somebody always ends up getting hurt when I do,
Again this is simply projecting an ideal onto me and it helps you maintain the moral high-ground, in your own mind. Any time I've responded you and others suggested that it's because I'm hurt, or that I'm just not willing to accept your gracious attempts at a lesson, gracefully. It's all terribly amusing.
and I don’t like quoting the Scriptures or the Fathers just to prove the correctness of my points.  I struggle enough with pride already that I really just don’t want to be an ‘expert’ on the Holy Fathers.  If knowing the Fathers much less than I can with my intellect helps me to enter much more into the spirit of the Fathers with my heart, then I would much rather do this.  This just appears to me to be much more true to the Orthodox Faith than your head-knowledge.
But to ascertain what the Fathers believe one must read them. If they (a large number) say one thing, if other commentators, like the later Fr. Seraphim Rose suggest one thing then it is not the type of argument that you insist that I am having. But still, I guess that too is part of the self-deception one gets when taking a emotive argument as you now wish to have
Yes, you do have permission to copy from this post to share it in private emails with your friends.

- Peter
Your permission is irrelevant. You post in a public forum. You post such laughably emotive argument in effort to 'teach' me humility. Even when you are attempting to be insulting, I still find time to see the funny side of your projections; the very fact you cite that particular quote without knowing anything about me is a terrible slight, for you make assumption about the lief I lead - the clear implication being that I don't follow an Orthodox life). And you are of course being hypocritical when in fact in public you crow about how humble you try to be in the face of just plain pig-headed people like me. The whole thread of yours is so laughable in an ironic sense. Does this appear to be angry to you? I'm sure you can post "Oh, well, at least I tied to teach you"

The problem with your argument here however goes deeper. You've thrown away all attempts at dialogue on the 'issues' by continuing to make your personal observations. (I find it odd that when I defend myself you see this as being hurt, or angry). The arguments you should be having are based on the issues. You should call upon proofs from the Church Fathers, or you are indeed ignoring a vital source of material for the church. You try a very post-modern idea now that no one can know the minds of the Church Fathers, or that one can't be certain. You've thrown away in an instant the value of Patristic teaching. I know having certainty is of little value to you. The basis of your argument is that quoting the Church Fathers, quoting Orthodox web-sites, and citing other commentators on the Church Fathers (such as Seraphim Rose) is of no use. But I guess that it is far easier to just dismiss this rather than come up with any real argument yourself.

The fact that several of the posters here feel the same way counts to naught, when all choose not to base their beliefs on the teachings of the church. I for one will accept the guidance of such eminent minds over my own abilities, even in the face of the temptations of bewildering heresies that the modern world throws up
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #129 on: April 29, 2006, 05:57:00 AM »

Yes our bishop does tell us what is right and wrong but I am talking about a basic inter-parochial level.

As for the Catholics, I know the official teachign is there, but I've heard some crazy things coming from Catholic priests like why rock masses are good, or why liturgical dancing is appropriate--things that most bishops are probably against.
They have singular sources, such as a Catechism of faith.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #130 on: April 29, 2006, 06:21:57 AM »

Awwwww. Look! .......
A kitten!

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #131 on: April 29, 2006, 06:33:49 AM »

Awwwww. Look! .......
A kitten!

Go the cats!  Grin
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,829


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #132 on: April 29, 2006, 05:54:42 PM »

Peter

Even though I'm not Orthodox anymore, the arguments you listed are a bit of a pet peeve of mine, so I hope you will forgive me for rushing to Orthodoxy's defense!  As to why they are a pet peeve, it is because these are two of the main reasons that e-pologists like Dave Armstrong give for brushing aside Orthodoxy on their way to Catholicism. This, in my view (even as an agnostic) is downright strange (I'm trying to be nice!)

Asteriktos,

I love the detail you present in your defense of Orthodoxy against the Catholic complaints I've presented.  I wish I could articulate my views on the subject as clearly as you have.

I haven't done much in-depth study of how the RC church views a lot of issues, choosing to concentrate rather on deepening my knowledge of the Orthodox Faith, so don't look to me to speak as an expert on RC positions.  All I can say is that to me this whole discussion of RC objections to our handling of divorce and contraception boils down to Church authority.  Does the Pope have supreme authority to "bind and loose" within his own charism, or is this authority given to each and every bishop of the Church?

Since the EO and RC churches are not in communion with each other, it follows that the Orthodox owe no obedience to the Papacy's "supreme" authority.  Our Orthodox bishops have complete authority apart from Rome to guide each of the faithful to salvation as they see fit while discerning the mind of the Holy Spirit.  RC complaints about how our bishops exercise their pastoral authority to "bind and loose" regarding such specific life issues as divorce and contraception really mean nothing apart from their papacy's claims to supreme universal authority.  What these RC objections represent to me, then, is their desire that we should understand the Christian faith as they do and submit to the authority of Rome.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,829


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #133 on: April 29, 2006, 05:57:31 PM »

Awwwww. Look! .......
A kitten!

I love that kitty!  Grin

I got a few giggles today out of watching a cat try to catch a butterfly.  (Just so long as they LEAVE MY HAMSTER ALONE!!!  Angry)
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #134 on: April 29, 2006, 07:49:08 PM »

Asteriktos,

I love the detail you present in your defense of Orthodoxy against the Catholic complaints I've presented.  I wish I could articulate my views on the subject as clearly as you have.

I haven't done much in-depth study of how the RC church views a lot of issues, choosing to concentrate rather on deepening my knowledge of the Orthodox Faith, so don't look to me to speak as an expert on RC positions.  All I can say is that to me this whole discussion of RC objections to our handling of divorce and contraception boils down to Church authority.  Does the Pope have supreme authority to "bind and loose" within his own charism, or is this authority given to each and every bishop of the Church?

Since the EO and RC churches are not in communion with each other, it follows that the Orthodox owe no obedience to the Papacy's "supreme" authority.  Our Orthodox bishops have complete authority apart from Rome to guide each of the faithful to salvation as they see fit while discerning the mind of the Holy Spirit.  RC complaints about how our bishops exercise their pastoral authority to "bind and loose" regarding such specific life issues as divorce and contraception really mean nothing apart from their papacy's claims to supreme universal authority.  What these RC objections represent to me, then, is their desire that we should understand the Christian faith as they do and submit to the authority of Rome.
How do you determine the 'mind of the church'?
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Mother Anastasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: pre-schism Orthodox/Catholic
Jurisdiction: Independent
Posts: 209

SS Francis & Seraphim praying for unity.


WWW
« Reply #135 on: April 30, 2006, 05:13:03 AM »

Quote from: BrotherAidan link=topic=8380.msg110603#msg110603 date=1141880815
[color=green
The division between east and west is so wearisome that sometimes I feel like I would like to accept JPII's view, stated above by Anastasios. They say that for the first several hundred years after the schism, at the lay and parish levels, no one felt divided and still felt they were all part of one Church. In some ways, maybe that is happening today; at work, at school, out on the street, if you meet a RC who is devout and takes his/her faith seriously, amidst all the pagans, you feel like you've met a brother or sister. I bet at this grass roots level more RC's would tell you God is loving and that Christ died as an example of love than would posit an Angry God whose Son had to die to appease the wrath of the Father. That view seems to be now just the domain of the fudamentalists and strict Calvinists although Orthodox converts from the RC's would know better than I.
[/color]

Thank you Brother Aidan for your perspective. I am new to this forum and wonder if there are other souls here who are grieved over the institutionally fomented divisions and exclusions created by strict adherence to  the Letter of the Law?

There is so much holiness and beauty in both Latin and Orthodox,  created by
the Holy Spirit in souls that continually said, "Yes." to God.  Have we the right to exclude them, or discount their holy examples and teachings because they are not correct according to our human standards?  Can we call unholy, what God Himself has made Holy?

Mother Anastasia
Logged

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, so that they may all be one, as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #136 on: April 30, 2006, 06:10:06 AM »

[/color]

Thank you Brother Aidan for your perspective. I am new to this forum and wonder if there are other souls here who are grieved over the institutionally fomented divisions and exclusions created by strict adherence to  the Letter of the Law?

There is so much holiness and beauty in both Latin and Orthodox,  created by
the Holy Spirit in souls that continually said, "Yes." to God.  Have we the right to exclude them, or discount their holy examples and teachings because they are not correct according to our human standards?  Can we call unholy, what God Himself has made Holy?

Mother Anastasia

One could say that there's much holiness and beauty in Hinduism
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Mother Anastasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: pre-schism Orthodox/Catholic
Jurisdiction: Independent
Posts: 209

SS Francis & Seraphim praying for unity.


WWW
« Reply #137 on: April 30, 2006, 02:10:54 PM »


One could say that there's much holiness and beauty in Hinduism


But then one would not be refering to the sacramental church begun by Christ in 33 A.D.,  would they?  

Perhaps you could find a good Hindu forum for your insights brother.
Logged

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, so that they may all be one, as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
Mother Anastasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: pre-schism Orthodox/Catholic
Jurisdiction: Independent
Posts: 209

SS Francis & Seraphim praying for unity.


WWW
« Reply #138 on: April 30, 2006, 02:13:39 PM »

One could say that there's much holiness and beauty in Hinduism

But then one would not be referring to the Sacramental Church begun by Christ in 33 A.D., would  they?

Perhaps you could find a good Hindu forum on which to share your insights brother.
Logged

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, so that they may all be one, as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #139 on: April 30, 2006, 11:12:43 PM »

One could say that there's much holiness and beauty in Hinduism


But then one would not be refering to the sacramental church begun by Christ in 33 A.D.,  would they? ÂÂ

Perhaps you could find a good Hindu forum for your insights brother.
Indeed, not, but that still doesn't negate the sentence I made.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Mother Anastasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: pre-schism Orthodox/Catholic
Jurisdiction: Independent
Posts: 209

SS Francis & Seraphim praying for unity.


WWW
« Reply #140 on: May 07, 2006, 04:41:41 PM »

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, a perspective from Re: Heresy - Jurisdiction 175

Some canonical Orthodox  are not in agreement about the stain of original sin being cleansed through Baptism.  I believe that the Holy Spirit in His profound condescension and humility, provided a grace to help verify this doctrine.   When Theotokos appeared to Bernadette and called herself the "Immaculate Conception", those who were closed to Him would not accept it,  so they had to discredit Lourdes, even though to this day the body of Bernadette remains under glass for all to see, incorrupt.  And the miracles from Lourdes continue.

Given the evidence,  it is apparent that this doctrine and manifestation have been testified to by God in His Divine and Miraculous Intervention and Providence.  If what I say here is factual, then all that oppose this doctrine and its repercussions, have not withstood the RCC, they have withstood God Himself, in His  merciful provision to bring the two Churches together in orthodox understanding.
Logged

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, so that they may all be one, as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,323


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #141 on: May 07, 2006, 05:40:48 PM »

Some canonical Orthodox  are not in agreement about the stain of original sin being cleansed through Baptism. ÂÂ

Oh yah?  Like who?  

Quote
Given the evidence,  it is apparent that this doctrine and manifestation have been testified to by God in His Divine and Miraculous Intervention and Providence.

So one "appearance" to a person, which goes against a fuller understanding of the Theotokos which was hammered out in 2 of the Ecumenical councils is enough evidence??  Wow...that's a little problematic.  

Quote
If what I say here is factual, then all that oppose this doctrine and its repercussions, have not withstood the RCC, they have withstood God Himself, in His  merciful provision to bring the two Churches together in orthodox understanding.

I think if God had wanted to bring the 2 churches together he would have given a much greater sign than one signal (which is disputed) to one person.  But hey, I can't really speak for God...

My opinion is that he would have just stopped the pope and patrairch from excommunicating each other, but hey, men will be men (humans).  

And i'm not sure if going against this woman's vision is so much a blasphemy against God.  God put the vision there (hypothetically), and its up to us whether or not we're going to chose to accept it.  We make those kinds of decisions every day in terms of miraculous icons, etc.  Are we blaspheming an icon which may be a trick of the devil?  I think its a lot less clear-cut than you make it out to be...
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Mother Anastasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: pre-schism Orthodox/Catholic
Jurisdiction: Independent
Posts: 209

SS Francis & Seraphim praying for unity.


WWW
« Reply #142 on: May 07, 2006, 06:32:40 PM »

Serb1389:Oh yah?  Like who?   Sorry, I can't find it.  Since the threads have been moved around. But it was during a discussion on appartitions (it wasn't in the Medj thread) when someone said that in his Orthodox instruction, I believe in Yugoslavia, it was taught. Another contributor said that it was accepted in one of the councils)

So one "appearance" to a person, which goes against a fuller understanding of the Theotokos which was hammered out in 2 of the Ecumenical councils is enough evidence??  Wow...that's a little problematic.

It wasn't just one appearance, it was an event, with recurring apparitions, a miraculous spring,  hundreds of documented healings (now thousands), and the girl to whom these visions were given, became a nun, led an irreproachable life  and fell asleep in a holy manner.  Her body is preserved incorrupt.  

That should speak volumes about the importance to God of this doctrine.

   


I think if God had wanted to bring the 2 churches together he would have given a much greater sign than one signal (which is disputed) to one person.  But hey, I can't really speak for God...It takes time to change the hearts of men, God is gentle and works over time.  Look at the tensions that were eased by the appearance of The Virgin in Zeitun, Egypt.


My opinion is that he would have just stopped the pope and patriarch from excommunicating each other, but hey, men will be men (humans).  
[It seems that the gift of free will, brings with it the most painful consequences when abused, as well as the most glory to God when used rightly.

And i'm not sure if going against this woman's vision is so much a blasphemy against God. I never mentioned anything about blasphemy, I was just citing this example as evidence for God's position on the Immaculate Conception.  
« Last Edit: May 07, 2006, 06:37:03 PM by Mother Anastasia » Logged

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, so that they may all be one, as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #143 on: May 07, 2006, 07:41:43 PM »

Quote
I was just citing this example as evidence for God's position on the Immaculate Conception.

And Allah works wonders in Islam.  Hindus claim that their gods work wonders.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,829


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #144 on: May 07, 2006, 08:00:15 PM »

It wasn't just one appearance, it was an event, with recurring apparitions, a miraculous spring,  hundreds of documented healings (now thousands), and the girl to whom these visions were given, became a nun, led an irreproachable life  and fell asleep in a holy manner.  Her body is preserved incorrupt.
Personally, I think the "miraculous" manner of Bernadette's death may be a testament to her personal holiness and sanctity, but I don't see in this evidence for the truth of a dogma that was never believed "at all times, everywhere, and by all" until Pope Pius IX proclaimed it to be a dogma in 1854.  The Immaculate Conception dogma reeks of a soteriology that depends far too heavily on St. Augustine's definition of original sin.  What credit is given to how many of the Eastern Fathers viewed the sin of Adam and Eve?
« Last Edit: May 07, 2006, 08:02:27 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,323


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #145 on: May 08, 2006, 09:20:05 AM »

Sorry, I can't find it.  Since the threads have been moved around. But it was during a discussion on appartitions (it wasn't in the Medj thread) when someone said that in his Orthodox instruction, I believe in Yugoslavia, it was taught. Another contributor said that it was accepted in one of the councils)


I think you need to be much more specific here.  When you say "in Yugoslavia" I assume you are talking about the FORMER YUGOSLAVIA.  which constituted of several "regions" of which 2 were ultra-catholic.  The rest were either Islamic or Orthodox, so basing your assumption on such a diverse country, could lead to wrong assumptions.  This meaning, that if there was the theology of the immaculate conception comming out of Yugoslavia, then it was probobly out of CATHOLIC Croatia, so that would make sense.  This would also mean that there is no connection whatsoever to its use in an ORTHODOX country.  

Quote
It wasn't just one appearance, it was an event, with recurring apparitions, a miraculous spring,  hundreds of documented healings (now thousands), and the girl to whom these visions were given, became a nun, led an irreproachable life  and fell asleep in a holy manner.  Her body is preserved incorrupt.  

That should speak volumes about the importance to God of this doctrine.

I'm sorry, it doesn't speak volumes to me.  Dealing with the theotokos through mysticism is a very personal approach.  There is still the problem with this stuff contradicting the 2 Ecumenical councils.  Are you trying to say that the HS was not certain who to talk to??

Quote
I never mentioned anything about blasphemy, I was just citing this example as evidence for God's position on the Immaculate Conception.  

And I cited the Ecumenical councils.  So where does this leave us?  
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #146 on: May 08, 2006, 03:49:08 PM »

Personally, I think the "miraculous" manner of Bernadette's death may be a testament to her personal holiness and sanctity, but I don't see in this evidence for the truth of a dogma that was never believed "at all times, everywhere, and by all" until Pope Pius IX proclaimed it to be a dogma in 1854.  The Immaculate Conception dogma reeks of a soteriology that depends far too heavily on St. Augustine's definition of original sin.  What credit is given to how many of the Eastern Fathers viewed the sin of Adam and Eve?

Reply:

March 8, 2005
Patriarch Bartholomew on the “Immaculate Conception”
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/index.php?p=713

The Catholic Church found that it needed to institute a new dogma for Christendom about one thousand and eight hundred years after the appearance of the Christianity, because it had accepted a perception of original sin - a mistaken one for us Orthodox- according to which original sin passes on a moral stain or a legal responsibility to the descendants of Adam, instead of that recognized as correct by the Orthodox faith according to which the sin transmitted through inheritance the corruption, caused by the separation of mankind from the uncreated grace of God, which makes him live spiritually and in the flesh. Mankind shaped in the image of God, with the possibility and destiny of being like to God, by freely choosing love towards Him and obedience to his commandments, can even after the fall of Adam and Eve become friend of God according to intention; then God sanctifies them, as he sanctified many of the progenitors before Christ, even if the accomplishment of their ransom from corruption, that is their salvation, was achieved after the incarnation of Christ and through Him.

In consequence, according to the Orthodox faith, Mary the All-holy Mother of God was not conceived exempt from the corruption of original sin, but loved God above of all things and obeyed his commandments, and thus was sanctified by God through Jesus Christ who incarnated himself of her. She obeyed Him like one of the faithful, and addressed herself to Him with a Mother's trust. Her holiness and purity were not blemished by the corruption, handed on to her by original sin as to every man, precisely because she was reborn in Christ like all the saints, sanctified above every saint.

Her reinstatement in the condition prior to the Fall did not necessarily take place at the moment of her conception. We believe that it happened afterwards, as consequence of the progress in her of the action of the uncreated divine grace through the visit of the Holy Spirit, which brought about the conception of the Lord within her, purifying her from every stain.

As already said, original sin weighs on the descendants of Adam and of Eve as corruption, and not as legal responsibility or moral stain. The sin brought hereditary corruption and not a hereditary legal responsibility or a hereditary moral stain. In consequence the All-holy participated in the hereditary corruption, like all mankind, but with her love for God and her purity understood as an imperturbable and unhesitating dedication of her love to God alone she succeeded, through the grace of God, in sanctifying herself in Christ and making herself worthy of becoming the house of God, as God wants all us human beings to become. Therefore we in the Orthodox Church honor the All-holy Mother of God above all the saints, albeit we don't accept the new dogma of her Immaculate Conception. The non-acceptance of this dogma in no way diminishes our love and veneration of the All-holy Mother of God.
=============

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Mother Anastasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: pre-schism Orthodox/Catholic
Jurisdiction: Independent
Posts: 209

SS Francis & Seraphim praying for unity.


WWW
« Reply #147 on: May 09, 2006, 03:38:32 AM »

Reply:

March 8, 2005
Patriarch Bartholomew on the “Immaculate Conception”
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/index.php?p=713

The Catholic Church found that it needed to institute a new dogma...
If Patriarch Bartholomew, believes that his position is the correct one, I would hope and pray that he, seeing himself as a father with a deeper understanding of the mysteries of the faith, will rise above whatever antagonisms this may cause him and take the Catholic Church under his wing in intercessory prayer, as a mother hen cares for her chick.

« Last Edit: May 09, 2006, 05:17:06 AM by Mother Anastasia » Logged

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, so that they may all be one, as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
Mother Anastasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: pre-schism Orthodox/Catholic
Jurisdiction: Independent
Posts: 209

SS Francis & Seraphim praying for unity.


WWW
« Reply #148 on: May 09, 2006, 04:20:09 AM »

I think you need to be much more specific here.  When you say "in Yugoslavia" I assume you are talking about the FORMER YUGOSLAVIA.  which constituted of several "regions" of which 2 were ultra-catholic.  The rest were either Islamic or Orthodox, so basing your assumption on such a diverse country, could lead to wrong assumptions.  This meaning, that if there was the theology of the immaculate conception comming out of Yugoslavia, then it was probobly out of CATHOLIC Croatia, so that would make sense.  This would also mean that there is no connection whatsoever to its use in an ORTHODOX country. 
   
Re: Heresy?
« Reply #20 on: April 30, 2006, 10:48:07 PM »
   Reply with quoteQuote
However, we, the Orthodox, still hold the dogma of the Original Sin, as stated in the canons of the Council of Carthage (418), later recieved by the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople; the said dogma wasn't even an issue between the East and the West until very recently. Growing up in an Orthodox country I've always been taught that the Holy Baptism washes away the Original ("Ancestral", how we call it in Romanian) sin.

    
Re: Heresy?
« Reply #28 on: April 30, 2006, 11:35:34 PM »
   Reply with quoteQuote
Quote
recieved by the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople;

Well.... the only problem with that is that the 6th Ecumenical Council sometimes accepted contradictory canons and principles, so acceptance of a Council (or collection of Canons of a Church Father) is by no means a precise and dogmatic acceptance of every single doctrine or belief within those sources. The sources accepted by the 6th Ecuemenical Council endorsed a number of different views towards the apocrypha/deuterocanonical, for example. Sometimes the people who originally wrote the canons didn't even follow their own canons (e.g., the principle established at the 1st Ecumenical Council that bishops were not to go from city to city).



    
Re: Heresy?
« Reply #23 on: April 30, 2006, 11:12:36 PM »
   Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: augustin717 on April 30, 2006, 10:58:28 PM
We also believe that we share in that first sin, in some way.
We had religion classes in school there, and that is how we were taught by the parish priest.
That is not to say that our parish priest is the ultimate theological authority, but just to get an idea what the a regular Orthodox priest teaches his flock, in a non-polemical environment.

We share in the consequences, but not the sin itself. It has often been called the "ancestral curse." Even the Bible establshed the principle:

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16)


    
Re: Heresy?
« Reply #24 on: April 30, 2006, 11:15:11 PM »
   Reply with quoteQuote
But those that die without having been baptized, even the babes, is generally taught that they cannot inherit God's Kingdom, being severed from Christ.

    

Re: Heresy?
« Reply #31 on: April 30, 2006, 11:39:42 PM »
   Reply with quoteQuote
The Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow clearly teaches the dogma of the Original sin.
It is revisionist theology what Kalomiros does in his "The River of Fire".


    
Re: Heresy?
« Reply #32 on: April 30, 2006, 11:43:11 PM »
   Reply with quoteQuote
Asteriktos,
Do you know that, within the OC, unbaptized children are not even allowed a Christian burial, in an Orthodox cemetery. Back in my little town, there were a section, in a remote corner of the cemetery reserved for those that commited suicide and unbaptized children. It is clerar then, that the OC is not very hopeful as to their lot.




Logged

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, so that they may all be one, as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,323


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #149 on: May 09, 2006, 12:21:51 PM »

   
Re: Heresy?
« Reply #20 on: April 30, 2006, 10:48:07 PM »
   Reply with quoteQuote
However, we, the Orthodox, still hold the dogma of the Original Sin, as stated in the canons of the Council of Carthage (418), later recieved by the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople; the said dogma wasn't even an issue between the East and the West until very recently. Growing up in an Orthodox country I've always been taught that the Holy Baptism washes away the Original ("Ancestral", how we call it in Romanian) sin.


First of all I would like to say that I was speaking about Yugoslavia in the quote you provided.  In the reference above, you refer to Romania.  I don't know if that was on pupose, but they are two different countries, so i'm not sure where you were going with that...

Also, who are you quoting?  Also, can you provide the canon where the acception of Carthage happened?  Also, can you provide the canon of the Council of Carthage that talks about the acceptance of Original Sin?

 
   
Re: Heresy?
« Reply #28 on: April 30, 2006, 11:35:34 PM »
   Reply with quoteQuote
Quote
recieved by the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople;

Well.... the only problem with that is that the 6th Ecumenical Council sometimes accepted contradictory canons and principles, so acceptance of a Council (or collection of Canons of a Church Father) is by no means a precise and dogmatic acceptance of every single doctrine or belief within those sources. The sources accepted by the 6th Ecuemenical Council endorsed a number of different views towards the apocrypha/deuterocanonical, for example. Sometimes the people who originally wrote the canons didn't even follow their own canons (e.g., the principle established at the 1st Ecumenical Council that bishops were not to go from city to city).

This quote disproves the above statements about the acceptance of original sin.  So, why did you provide it? 

Quote
We share in the consequences, but not the sin itself. It has often been called the "ancestral curse." Even the Bible establshed the principle:

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16)

Catholic theology would make it more dichotomized and say that we do not just partake of the sin, it is "imbeded" into us (accentuation and quotes are mine).  It is a part of the hereditary things of this world, just like eyes, hair, etc.  (as far as my understanding goes)

Quote
But those that die without having been baptized, even the babes, is generally taught that they cannot inherit God's Kingdom, being severed from Christ.
 

I think God is a lot more loving than this makes Him out to be...

If this were true, with original sin, there would be millions of souls lost to a technicality and OUR legalism, not God's. 

Quote
The Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow clearly teaches the dogma of the Original sin.
It is revisionist theology what Kalomiros does in his "The River of Fire".

I would love to see this catechism and see exactly how he "clearly teaches the dogma of original sin" 

Quote
Do you know that, within the OC, unbaptized children are not even allowed a Christian burial, in an Orthodox cemetery. Back in my little town, there were a section, in a remote corner of the cemetery reserved for those that commited suicide and unbaptized children. It is clerar then, that the OC is not very hopeful as to their lot.

Firstly, were you talking to Asterikos there?  Or were you QUOTING him?

Secondly, a practice of one graveyard = one priest, is not an authoritative practice which can then characterize the entire church. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #150 on: May 09, 2006, 04:05:31 PM »

In nomine Iesu I offer you all peace,

Why don't we draw our definition for Original Sin from the horse's mouth.

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin" (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to the sin of Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis.
sourse

See my source for everything we're going to desire to know about it from the Catholic Understanding...

Peace and God Bless.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2006, 04:06:29 PM by francis-christopher » Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,323


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #151 on: May 09, 2006, 11:41:30 PM »

The link you provided has a couple of points I wanted to bring up. 

Quote
Moreover, in the following canon are cited the words of the Council of Carthage, in which there is question of a sin contracted by generation and effaced by generation [Denz., n. 102 (66)].

So was there a proclamation of the dogma?  Or a question of the sin being contracted vs. it being effaced by generation?  Because those are two different issues. 

The problem with this particular canon is that Mother Anastasia said that the ORTHODOX confirmed this canon in Carthage.  Whereas, in your link it is expressed as a CATHOLIC council. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Mother Anastasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: pre-schism Orthodox/Catholic
Jurisdiction: Independent
Posts: 209

SS Francis & Seraphim praying for unity.


WWW
« Reply #152 on: May 10, 2006, 01:15:13 AM »

.Also, who are you quoting?

I just took those off this forum,  they were replies to me.
Logged

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, so that they may all be one, as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
Mother Anastasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: pre-schism Orthodox/Catholic
Jurisdiction: Independent
Posts: 209

SS Francis & Seraphim praying for unity.


WWW
« Reply #153 on: May 10, 2006, 01:20:09 AM »



Quote from: Mother Anastasia on May 07, 2006, 04:41:41 PM
Some canonical Orthodox  are not in agreement about the stain of original sin being cleansed through Baptism.

Oh yah?  Like who? 

Brother, I was just giving you the quotes you asked for, I didn't say the "ORTHODOX confirmed" anything.
The top quote is what I did say.
Logged

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, so that they may all be one, as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,323


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #154 on: May 10, 2006, 10:43:09 AM »


Quote from: Mother Anastasia on May 07, 2006, 04:41:41 PM
Some canonical Orthodox  are not in agreement about the stain of original sin being cleansed through Baptism.

Brother, I was just giving you the quotes you asked for, I didn't say the "ORTHODOX confirmed" anything.
The top quote is what I did say.

I was trying to ask quickly because I had time.  Please forgive me for my terse questions. 

I was under the impression that all orthodox churches had the same dogmas and beliefs.  So that's why I was trying to figure out what you're talking about.  You still havn't really explained it to me, with specific examples....could you do that? 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Mother Anastasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: pre-schism Orthodox/Catholic
Jurisdiction: Independent
Posts: 209

SS Francis & Seraphim praying for unity.


WWW
« Reply #155 on: May 10, 2006, 06:41:58 PM »

  You still havn't really explained it to me, with specific examples....could you do that? 

I forgive you Smiley

I'm sorry Serb, I just haven't got the time to research all these peoples backgrounds to explain to you where they are coming from,  but I did quote the thread, I think it starts at #20, Re:Heresy. 

Maybe you could get in touch with them and get some good answers.
Logged

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, so that they may all be one, as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,323


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #156 on: May 10, 2006, 08:53:55 PM »

I had a tough time finding the exact location.  Is there any way you could give it to me as a link?  That would help greatly...
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Mother Anastasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: pre-schism Orthodox/Catholic
Jurisdiction: Independent
Posts: 209

SS Francis & Seraphim praying for unity.


WWW
« Reply #157 on: May 11, 2006, 01:50:03 AM »

I had a tough time finding the exact location.  Is there any way you could give it to me as a link?  That would help greatly...

It took me at least 30 minutes too:  Starts here:Page 2, Re-Heresy?/Author, the Wolf/Orthodox-Catholic discussion.

http://orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=32&topic=8922.15
Logged

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, so that they may all be one, as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,323


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #158 on: May 11, 2006, 02:07:48 PM »

Thank you SOOO much.   I really appreciate the hard work, it made the point a lot easier to understand. 

So, having said that, what did you want to say with those posts? 

That original sin (as it is in the RC) is exactly the same in the OC?? 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.5 seconds with 186 queries.