OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 02:49:07 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: to answer or not to answer that is the Question  (Read 1472 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Bishop Paul Andrew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: American Orthodox Catholic Church/ Holy Synod of North and South America.
Posts: 249



« on: June 24, 2006, 06:37:42 AM »

what really bugs me here is the way people give answers. Some of you do give good answers and some of you don't.
by what I mean is that you don't give a good answer that some one is looking to hear. hear are some of the answers given. 1.canon laws. two. not valid and not canonical. 3. you are not Orthodox. Looking to hear the correct answers.
question asked, 1.define which canon Law. 2. by who's authority. 3. by who's deffation.  when they don't give a streight answer it is carbage. One thing I have seen on this board some one asked some question and the asnwers came back as kook, troller, and Banned. Now I'll wait to see if I get some good answers or answers they want me to see and hear.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,110


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2006, 07:31:53 AM »

I would agree that some people have very little tact, and often very little concern for someone's psyche...

On the other hand, there are those who operate under the modus that if they are not direct and up front with someone - dare I say, very blunt with them - then they feel like they are doing them a disservice.  I, for one, have trouble being so blunt, but do prefer that people operate that way when interacting with me; I find that the people who are Orthodox and who are very up-front probably care more for me than those who will say nothing to my face (those people still say something, but it is usually to their buddies and normally behind one's back).

Now, on this board if someone says "vagante" or "invalid" or whatever, it would be helpful if they gave reference to why they say it, and the things within the church that support them.  Of course, the comments that you have singled out, such as "not canonical," "not Orthodox," and "not valid" are all ecclesiological and sacramental questions, which are quite complex yet simple.  And in these cases, it may be necessary for one to give pardon to the Orthodox posters who are quite protective of the church and who use these terms, for in general the Church is quite protective of itself and quite willing to define who's in communion and who's out.  The ability to intercommune in the parishes is the visible sign of the invisible unity provided by the SPirit and the Lord Himself; when we commemorate our bishops in the churches, and they commemorate their synodal president, and they commomorate their patriarch, and they commemorate the other patriarchs,  what is being affirmed at each level is:
1. these are the people whom we agree with in faith, 2. these are the people who define the boundaries of the church militant, 3. these are the people who can receive the Body and Blood of the Lord, for they are right and true in faith and participants in the Apostolic Faith.
Knowing this, those who fall outside of this ring of commemorations are not considered "Orthodox" by the fathers or the church militant.  This falls both ways: if HOCNA (correct spelling?) is "out of communion" with the other Patriarchates, then HOCNA is not "Orthodox" by the standards of the other Churches, and the other Churches are not "Orthodox" by the same ecclesiology which HOCNA holds themselves.

Where the tension here comes in is that we, on the ground level, would like to see unity and brotherhood amongst those whom we see holding the correct faith, even if sometimes they have broken or separated over administrative stuff (like ROCOR).  This is good and well, a good direction for the heart to point in; but the Church, through the writings of the Fathers and the decisions of the Synods which the people have upheld over time, directs our course in these matters: until the administrative disputes are settled, until the faith is the same, we cannot intercommune.  This is the reality of the matter, and it is the approach that some have taken to your presence and the presence of others here.

(Separation from communion is a serious matter for all parties involved.  Heresy is strongly condemned, and schism over non-doctrinal issues is seen as almost worse {for one is dividing Christ's body over trivial matters...}.  This is the same for us as it is for ROAC.)

I just hope that the people here, yourself and those who detract you and those who support you, are all able to deliver their messages in love and understanding; love doesn't have to water-down the message, and it doesn't mean getting defensive.  Hopefully I've been able to provide some perspective as to why people are responding the way they do.  Personally, I don't necessarily find all of them to be tasteful.  But then again, if you came to my church, and my priest asked me whether you should receive communion (which he wouldn't ask, btw), then I would say no, since we are not unified in belief and administration, you and I, and the Church has said in her infinite wisdom that these are necessary for us to be partakers of the same Body and Blood of Christ.
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.
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 #2 on: June 24, 2006, 09:01:56 AM »

what really bugs me here is the way people give answers.
Or perhaps you are not listening to what people are saying.
You asked what the relevance of Canon 36 of Trullo was- and I explained it as being that the Sees of the Church are defined by it, so Communion with them is a clear sign of membership in the Church.
You stated that ROCOR and the MP were in schism- and I corrected you that they were in fact not in schism.
You again disagreed and cited the "fact" that ROCOR and the MP were "returning to Communion" as evidence of schism- and I corrected you that it is a "raproachment" in terms of administration only since they never officially broke Communion, and that ROCOR has always been in Communion with the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Serbia, and therefore in de facto Communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church.
You seem to think that someone can be "Orthodox" without belonging to the Orthodox Church- and I said this is impossible.
Now you say you don't like the answers I gave you. So what else can I say but 'do as you like'?
« Last Edit: June 24, 2006, 09:03:53 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Bishop Paul Andrew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: American Orthodox Catholic Church/ Holy Synod of North and South America.
Posts: 249



« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2006, 03:58:59 PM »

Or perhaps you are not listening to what people are saying.
You asked what the relevance of Canon 36 of Trullo was- and I explained it as being that the Sees of the Church are defined by it, so Communion with them is a clear sign of membership in the Church.
You stated that ROCOR and the MP were in schism- and I corrected you that they were in fact not in schism.
You again disagreed and cited the "fact" that ROCOR and the MP were "returning to Communion" as evidence of schism- and I corrected you that it is a "raproachment" in terms of administration only since they never officially broke Communion, and that ROCOR has always been in Communion with the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Serbia, and therefore in de facto Communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church.
You seem to think that someone can be "Orthodox" without belonging to the Orthodox Church- and I said this is impossible.
Now you say you don't like the answers I gave you. So what else can I say but 'do as you like'?

in the canons of theÂÂ  Council of Trullo--- Canon 36 it talks about that Constantinople has equal privileges with the see of Rome followed by Alexandria followed by Antioch and then Jerusalem. this has nothing to do with each Church each Church being in-communion for I know that they are in-communion together. which is defined by the Canons but else where. sorry to rain on your parade.

ROCOR may have been in Communion iwth the Patriarch of Jerusalem were in shism with the MP and Yes I know they are incommunion Now. so don't tell me what I did say
« Last Edit: June 24, 2006, 04:25:37 PM by Father Paul Andrew » Logged
Bishop Paul Andrew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: American Orthodox Catholic Church/ Holy Synod of North and South America.
Posts: 249



« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2006, 04:50:59 PM »

Thank you Cleveland
I understand what you are saying. and you made a lot of points with me. I am one of those that will stand up to protect his Jurisdiction and Bishops, But I do understand where you are coming from.and I know what the canons say as well but I disagree with some of it. See what I found out was is that the canons say two different deffation. see what I am saying is that there is pro and there is con.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,110


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2006, 05:42:11 PM »

Right, and this is the place to debate the pro and con.  As long as people are providing support for their positions (specific writings, texts, logic behind their position) then we can learn and grow; if people only spit their opinions out, then all the threads become are complaint sessions.... which is a true shame.
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.
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.051 seconds with 34 queries.