OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 23, 2014, 03:45:52 AM *
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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Do we have alot in common?  (Read 8828 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« on: October 14, 2006, 12:36:56 PM »

I love my brethren from the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Their liturgy is beautiful. Their focus on Theosis, which Catholics also believe in, is astounding. I appreciate their sacraments, veneration of our Holy Mother Mary, and love of the Fathers of the Church. Most especially, I love the Christocentric nature of the faith, another thing that we have in common. However, some who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox, or some who are not well educated in the faith view the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches as basically the same thing. I think it is matter of ignorance on their account. Personally, although I believe we share a common Apostolic CORE to our faith respective faiths,  the East and the West have been growing apart since the days of the Apostles. This, of course culminated in the Schism which divided Christendom into two separate bodies, one being the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and the other not (I will leave out the discussion about which one is Christ's Church because that is another issue). Even since the schism, we have grown further and further apart with the development the incompatible philosophies of Gregory Palamas and St. Thomas Aquinas. Now, it seems, that even the basic philosophies of our faiths are entirely different. The Catholic Church focuses on the objectivity and know-ability of truth. We believe in a realist philosophy and that the world is rational and through this rational and orderly world, we can know with certainty that their is one, perfect, all power, transcendent and holy God who is the primary cause of all things. The Eastern Orthodox appear to reject these ideas and focus on mystery. While the Catholic Church acknowledges the necessity of an experience of God to grow in holiness, we reject experience as a valid test for truth. From talking on these forums, it appears that experience is the number one indicator of determining the truth of the Christian faith for the the Eastern Orthodox (correct me if I am wrong). While Catholics acknowledge that God is super-rational, we deny that he is irrational. I have heard Eastern Orthodox Christians, on the other hand, state that God is both irrational and rational at the same time. Then of the course, there is the philosophical disagreement in which Catholics believe God is wholly simple and has no parts, where as the Eastern Orthodox see a difference between God's essence and his uncreated energies. Here we are much more in line with western thought and the Eastern Orthodox are more in line with Eastern/Platonic thought. Also, we disagree on issues such as redemption. Catholics believe in both Propitiation and Expiation when it comes to the nature of Christ's death on the Cross. The Eastern Orthodox only believe in Expiation. (As a side note, I think Protestants focus more on Propitiation than expiation). In the final analysis, Catholics favor western thought and Eastern Orthodox Christians favor eastern thought. This is not a critique of either way of thinking, nor is it a critique of either Church. Rather it is just an illustration of how different we have become. Catholicism is a western religion. Eastern Orthodoxy is an eastern religion. Will ever the two meet? Unfortunately, I am pessimistic about any future reunion between the two. That is heartbreaking but it seems to me to be the real state of affairs. Any thoughts?
« Last Edit: October 14, 2006, 01:35:04 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2006, 06:50:46 PM »

In nomine Iesu I offer you continued peace Papist,

Be pure, still, learn to yield, and climb to darkest heights; then you will come o'er all to contemplate your God. - Angelus Silesius

You really should read St. Clare of Assisi, The Cloud of Unknowing, St. Gregory I, our Doctor of the Church Saint John of the Cross, and our dear Saint Teresa of Avila and you would not be so quick to overlook the limits placed on cataphatic theology in our Latin Tradition.

Pax
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
Starlight
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of USA (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
Posts: 1,537


« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2006, 07:03:20 PM »

Both Orthodox and Catholic faithful worship one and the same God and Savior. While the tragic differences exist, this Common Ground, the greatest from all imagenable things means much more then any differences.
Being an Orthodox, I believe that we should treat other Christians with love and to pray to our God, for whom everything is possible, about the unity in terms of truth.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2006, 07:23:58 PM »

"Will ever the two meet? Unfortunately, I am pessimistic about any future reunion between the two. That is heartbreaking but it seems to me to be the real state of affairs. Any thoughts?"

For once we agree completely.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2006, 07:27:57 PM »

In nomine Iesu I offer you continued peace Papist,

Be pure, still, learn to yield, and climb to darkest heights; then you will come o'er all to contemplate your God. - Angelus Silesius

You really should read St. Clare of Assisi, The Cloud of Unknowing, St. Gregory I, our Doctor of the Church Saint John of the Cross, and our dear Saint Teresa of Avila and you would not be so quick to overlook the limits placed on cataphatic theology in our Latin Tradition.

Pax
I was not critiquing. simply comparing. You must remember that the scholastic view is dogmatic in that Vatican II states that we must believe, as Catholics, that we can know God exists, and we can know this by reason alone. It also teaches that a Catholic must believe that miracles, such as the resurrection, gives evidence for the Christian faith. I am not arguing in favor of this or against this. That is another disscusion. I am just pointing out that this is what our dogma is.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2006, 12:55:43 AM »

I was not critiquing. simply comparing. You must remember that the scholastic view is dogmatic in that Vatican II states that we must believe, as Catholics, that we can know God exists, and we can know this by reason alone. It also teaches that a Catholic must believe that miracles, such as the resurrection, gives evidence for the Christian faith. I am not arguing in favor of this or against this. That is another disscusion. I am just pointing out that this is what our dogma is.

In nomine Iesu I offer you continued peace Papist,

Just remember the Dogmas of Holy Tradition are given to us to illuminate our way along our journey to encounter the Divine; to stare into them for any length of time merely makes one blind and they fail at their intended purpose.

Pax
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
GOCTheophan
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2006, 08:11:06 AM »

Here we are much more in line with western thought and the Eastern Orthodox are more in line with Eastern/Platonic thought. Also, we disagree on issues such as redemption. Catholics believe in both Propitiation and Expiation when it comes to the nature of Christ's death on the Cross. The Eastern Orthodox only believe in Expiation. (As a side note, I think Protestants focus more on Propitiation than expiation). In the final analysis, Catholics favor western thought and Eastern Orthodox Christians favor eastern thought. This is not a critique of either way of thinking, nor is it a critique of either Church. Rather it is just an illustration of how different we have become. Catholicism is a western religion. Eastern Orthodoxy is an eastern religion. Will ever the two meet? Unfortunately, I am pessimistic about any future reunion between the two. That is heartbreaking but it seems to me to be the real state of affairs. Any thoughts?

Dear Papist,

I promised the moderator of this site that I wouldnt use that word, but since I dont know your name I dont have a chioce but to use it. First off the difference between Roman Catholic and Orthodox teaching on the Redemption is simply that we confess that Christ's sacrafice on the Cross was offered to the Holy Trinity while you believe that it was offered to the Father alone- part of playing down the Holy Spirit that we see in the Filoque and your underdstanding of how the Sacraments come to be. Anybody telling you different is a modernist and an anathemized heretic themselves.

Second of, what do you mean by Eastern Platonic thought? In actual fact out of the two Arisitotle is was more influential in supplying the framework for the Father's to express their neotic vision than Plato. Orthodox theology is based on the direct vision and supra-logical comprehension of Divine Truth through it's uncreated Grace, and not on philosphy and the wisdom of this world. We too believe that God is simple- yet we also (like you?) believe He is Three persons- dont you see how the fallen reason can only confront the ultimate Mystery in the silence of prayer?

Remember also that once upon a time the west looked a lot more "Eastern" in terms of its whole approach- we see movements like Jansenism as late as the 17 th and 18 th centuries which show a great nostalgia for Orthodoxy (one of the leading Jansenists said that the Church went mad after St Bernard of Clairaux!). Seek out what is geniunely Spiritual in Roman Catholicism and you will end up Orthodox.

The other news is that have you not heard of the Balamand agreement?

Theophan.
Logged
GOCTheophan
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2006, 08:14:48 AM »

IYou must remember that the scholastic view is dogmatic in that Vatican II states that we must believe, as Catholics, that we can know God exists, and we can know this by reason alone. It also teaches that a Catholic must believe that miracles, such as the resurrection, gives evidence for the Christian faith.

We can know that God exists by reason alone, but what about such mysteries as the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation?
I agree without the Resurrection I would find Christianity hard to accept.

Theophan.
Logged
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 #8 on: October 15, 2006, 08:57:38 AM »

I agree without the Resurrection I would find Christianity hard to accept.
Huh There would be nothing to accept. There would be no Christianity if there was no Resurrection. The Resurrection is the basis of the Christian Faith.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2006, 12:58:39 PM »

Huh There would be nothing to accept. There would be no Christianity if there was no Resurrection. The Resurrection is the basis of the Christian Faith.

Tell that to Spong LOL
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
rosborn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


Searching for home


« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2006, 01:10:30 PM »

Tell that to Spong LOL

I wouldn't be surprised to hear some Catholic bishops saying the same thing.  I have words very close to this coming from some pulpits in the Catholic Church.  Sadly, with and every passing year that I am Catholic the Catholic Church appears more and more like the Episcopal Church.

Rob
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2006, 02:14:00 PM »

In nomine Iesu I offer you continued peace Papist,

Just remember the Dogmas of Holy Tradition are given to us to illuminate our way along our journey to encounter the Divine; to stare into them for any length of time merely makes one blind and they fail at their intended purpose.

Pax
The Dogmas of Holy Tradition are truth and flow from him who is Truth itself. To become well aquainted with them and to apply them to one's life is come to know our Divine Savior himself. To meditate upon them for any length of times makes one blind to the world but better capable of seeing Him who is Truth.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2006, 02:26:10 PM »

" Sadly, with and every passing year that I am Catholic the Catholic Church appears more and more like the Episcopal Church "

I agree...the Roman Rite Church in America is flooded by illicit acts... and don't ask for particulars...for they are widely known.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2006, 02:38:21 PM »

Dear Papist,

I promised the moderator of this site that I wouldnt use that word, but since I dont know your name I dont have a chioce but to use it.
LOL. You are free to call me papist. I picked the name because I thought it was funny. There was a time when I took it as an insult but I accept it as a term that describes something I am vary proud of: I am loyal to the Pope, Christ's vicar on earth, the steward of the house in Christ's Kingdom. Of course, you must remember, that what is more important to me than being a Papist, is that fact that I am a Christian, a follower of the Divine King and LORD of the Universe. However, I believe that to be a full fledged Christian, one should be a papist. Smiley But my name is Christopher. But you may call me what you wish.
First off the difference between Roman Catholic and Orthodox teaching on the Redemption is simply that we confess that Christ's sacrafice on the Cross was offered to the Holy Trinity while you believe that it was offered to the Father alone- part of playing down the Holy Spirit that we see in the Filoque and your underdstanding of how the Sacraments come to be. Anybody telling you different is a modernist and an anathemized heretic themselves.
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the Eastern Orthodox reject the idea of Atonement, i.e. propitiation?
Second of, what do you mean by Eastern Platonic thought? In actual fact out of the two Arisitotle is was more influential in supplying the framework for the Father's to express their neotic vision than Plato. Orthodox theology is based on the direct vision and supra-logical comprehension of Divine Truth through it's uncreated Grace, and not on philosphy and the wisdom of this world. We too believe that God is simple- yet we also (like you?) believe He is Three persons- dont you see how the fallen reason can only confront the ultimate Mystery in the silence of prayer?
It is my understaning that the Eastern Orthodox believe that God deals with the world through his "uncreated energies" something that the Eastern Orthodox believe is separate from God's essences. In this way, God is not seen a entirely simply. Furthermore, By dealing with the created world through something separate from himself, then God would be more like the Platonic god who does not deal directly with the world but rather from separate demi-urges. Thus the Eastern Orthodox view, championed by Gregory Palams is much more platonic. The Contrast is the Thomistic/Aristotilian view in western Christianity in which God is entirely simple. There is not a distinction in God between his essence and engergies because they are the same thing. In God, all of his attributes are one. The only distinction in God, according to western thought, is between the three persons/hypostasises but even these differences are not differences in being but in relation between persons. As for comprehending the divine Trinity, I do agree with you that such a mystery is beyon human reason, and we would not know it to be true apart from supernatural revelation. So, yes this mystery should be approached in silent prayer, but, we should describe what we can concerning this mystery in the most rational and precise language possible as was done in the councils. Food for thought though: Some western Christians are starting to wonder if it can be demonstrated philosophically that God is three persons. They are starting to think that there might be a rational way to do this. If there is, it would still maintain that the Trinity is in the realm of mystery because proving it is so would not exhaust the mystery, nor would it allow us to understand the mystery which is beyond human comprehension.
Remember also that once upon a time the west looked a lot more "Eastern" in terms of its whole approach- we see movements like Jansenism as late as the 17 th and 18 th centuries which show a great nostalgia for Orthodoxy (one of the leading Jansenists said that the Church went mad after St Bernard of Clairaux!). Seek out what is geniunely Spiritual in Roman Catholicism and you will end up Orthodox.
I would not claim that any similarities between jansenism and Eastern Orthodoxy is a good thing. Janesenism was painfully heretical. I have way to much respect for the Eastern Orthodox to compare them to Jansenists.  Furthermore, It is my opion that the Eastern Orthodox were much more like the Eastern Catholic Churches of today at one time, especially with their appeals to and defense of the papacy and the like. For an Eastern Orthodox to seek out what is genuinely true in Eastern Orthodoxy is to become Eastern Catholic.
The other news is that have you not heard of the Balamand agreement?

Theophan.
No, I have not. please do share. Many blessings in Christ.
P.S. The original intention of this thread was not to debate these points but to discuss whether or not we really have that much in common. Do you think we do? I am not sure I do.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2006, 02:41:31 PM »

" Sadly, with and every passing year that I am Catholic the Catholic Church appears more and more like the Episcopal Church "

I agree...the Roman Rite Church in America is flooded by illicit acts... and don't ask for particulars...for they are widely known.

james
That is why I hope that this current Holy Father can make it clear that the American Latin Church is in schism. Only by revealing the wound do I think that it can be healed. That being said, I think that many of the Eastern Catholic Churches are in some kind of schism as well,  with their refusal to accept Papal authority as it is defined in the first Vatican Council. Hopefully, we Catholics will soon find our St. Athanasius to deal with the modern crisis in the Church.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #15 on: October 15, 2006, 02:44:14 PM »

I wouldn't be surprised to hear some Catholic bishops saying the same thing.  I have words very close to this coming from some pulpits in the Catholic Church.  Sadly, with and every passing year that I am Catholic the Catholic Church appears more and more like the Episcopal Church.

Rob
But hope has come, my fellow Christian!!! The new Bishops that have been seleted by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI have been amazing men, orthodox, God-loving, and devout. The liberals are on their way out. They are a dying breed.
Many blessings in Christ
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #16 on: October 15, 2006, 03:17:59 PM »

Quote
The liberals are on their way out. They are a dying breed.

But two generations now have been raised as liberal Catholics - that is the only Catholicism that they know.  People at my former Catholic parish would be a loss if their liturgical dancers, choir music they clap along with and such were to be removed from them. 

Another myth floating around out there is that younger Catholics are vastly conservative.  I live in the epicenter of Life teen - none of these people are conservative.  Even when I was still Catholic I thought Msgr. Dale was a sham... and I think that opinion has been vidicated. 

Not to simply rant for the sake of ranting, but I don't think it is realistic to expect a grand return to traditional Roman Catholicism anytime soon.  While I do think the election of Pope Benedict is a positive step, it is too little too late. 
Logged
rosborn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


Searching for home


« Reply #17 on: October 15, 2006, 03:29:49 PM »

But hope has come, my fellow Christian!!! The new Bishops that have been seleted by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI have been amazing men, orthodox, God-loving, and devout. The liberals are on their way out. They are a dying breed.
Many blessings in Christ

Maybe . . . .

However, the same was thought about the bishops appointed by John Paul II and far too many have faltered in their duties.  Shoot, even John Paul II shirked his responsibility to hold bishops accountable.  What good is the Petrine office if not to steer the Catholic Church properly?  The Vatican knew about these abuses and did nothing to stop them.

Oh, the face of the episcopacy may be changing in the Catholic Church but the damage has been done and it is doubtful that healing will ever occur.  Why?  Because of the deep seeded nature of the wound.  Diocese after diocese has embraced such heresy as goddess worship, women running parishes, questionable teachings on sacramental life and so forth.  Even if all of the bishops were to come around and start practicing orthodoxy the priests and parishes, for the most part, are bastions of heterodox behavior and practices.

I, for one, am not encouraged.  Benedict, great man that he is, hasn't really admonished any bishop for his scandalous behavior.  I mean, if he is what the Catholic Church claims he is, then he has an obligation to right the wrongs.  If he isn't what the Catholic Church claims he is then he is just another bishop with no authority other than that which he exercises within his own diocese.  That, in the end, begs the question concerning the claims of the papacy, etc.  Truly, I see by John Paul II's inaction and Benedict's inaction a impotency of the papacy and validation of thos claiming that the papacy means nothing.

So, I do not agree with you lofty assessment.

Rob
Logged
GOCTheophan
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


« Reply #18 on: October 15, 2006, 03:45:02 PM »

.Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the Eastern Orthodox reject the idea of Atonement, i.e. propitiation?

Dear Christopher,

I will correct you. You are wrong about this but thats not your fault. Basically Met Anthony Krapovitsky of possibly sorrowful memory has had his heretical ideas on redemption accepted by most of what calls itself Orthodoxy today even though they reject his stand on Soviet power, false ecumenism and sacred Monarchy.

Here is the True Orthodox Dogma of Redemption:

http://romanitas.ru/eng/The%20Mystery%20of%20Redemption.htm

You will see its not that different from what Rome used to teach before Vatitican II.

I cant answer your other points just yet but I would recommend you read St Gregory's Triads. His attack on Plato and Neo-Platonism is quiet blunt.

Theophan.
Logged
rosborn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


Searching for home


« Reply #19 on: October 15, 2006, 03:47:07 PM »

But two generations now have been raised as liberal Catholics - that is the only Catholicism that they know.  People at my former Catholic parish would be a loss if their liturgical dancers, choir music they clap along with and such were to be removed from them.

Indeed!  There is no way to right this ship.  At least half of the Catholics in the United States are used to this kind of liturgy.  If you took this away, all of a sudden. they be at such a huge loss that they would stop going to church.  That would amount to billions of dollars lost in contributions and would leave a Church, already in financial distress because of the sex abuse scandals, financially bankrupt.  Does anyone honestly think that the Catholic bishops in the United States are going to create a situation in which this occurs?

Another myth floating around out there is that younger Catholics are vastly conservative.  I live in the epicenter of Life teen - none of these people are conservative.  Even when I was still Catholic I thought Msgr. Dale was a sham... and I think that opinion has been vidicated.

True.  The Life Teen movement has introduced even more Protestant innovations into liturgical worship.  One of the main things that is proffered in Life Teen is bringing everyone up around the altar to celebrate Mass.  Everyone is invited, even the non-Catholic friends of the Catholic youth.  Additionally, the priest that started Life Teen has had questionable dealings with men himself.  I have read accounts of him in hot tubs, nude, with young men.  In my opion, not a good example to start a teen movement on.

Not to simply rant for the sake of ranting, but I don't think it is realistic to expect a grand return to traditional Roman Catholicism anytime soon.  While I do think the election of Pope Benedict is a positive step, it is too little too late. 

Pope Benedict is a great man.  However, he is not exercising his position the way that the Catholic Church has defined it.  What I mean by this is the Catholic Church has stated that the pope is the head of the Catholic Church and that the pope is the head of the bishops.  That he has the right and obligation to oversee his fellow bishops.  By not excommunicating those teaching heresy and promulgating the sex abuse scandal he is not doing what the Catholic Church teaches about him.  Therefore, the "Office of Peter" means nothing in the Catholic Church anymore.

Rob
Logged
GOCTheophan
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


« Reply #20 on: October 15, 2006, 03:49:06 PM »

Janesenism was painfully heretical. I have way to much respect for the Eastern Orthodox to compare them to Jansenists.

What do you know about them though? They were heroic but misguided monastics battling the sentimentalizing and centralizing powers of the Jesuits and their hypocritical and down right dishonest postition on Papal power. They were the western Church as it existed in the time of Bernard of Clairaux.

Theophan.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #21 on: October 15, 2006, 06:24:54 PM »

But two generations now have been raised as liberal Catholics - that is the only Catholicism that they know.  People at my former Catholic parish would be a loss if their liturgical dancers, choir music they clap along with and such were to be removed from them. 

Another myth floating around out there is that younger Catholics are vastly conservative.  I live in the epicenter of Life teen - none of these people are conservative.  Even when I was still Catholic I thought Msgr. Dale was a sham... and I think that opinion has been vidicated. 

Not to simply rant for the sake of ranting, but I don't think it is realistic to expect a grand return to traditional Roman Catholicism anytime soon.  While I do think the election of Pope Benedict is a positive step, it is too little too late. 
Even as a traditional Catholic, I do not believe that Life Teen is a bad thing. I just think it needs reform. In fact, Life Teen has taken steps towards refrom to come more into line with liturgical norms. As for the return of traditional Catholicism... Like I said, younger Catholics like myself are vastly more conservative than our parents. I am a traditionalist Catholic, while my parents were charismatic. My room mate is also a traditionalist and his parents are not even practicing Catholics. We see that the "spirit of vatican II" is just a sham and want a return to the letter of vatican II. Every new bishop that His Holiness has chosen for the USA has been amazing and they appear to be fighting for the revival of orthodox Catholicism in the USA and for the revival of the Tridentine Liturgy. Furthermore, it looks like His Holiness has just signed off on the idea of a universal indult for the old mass. Hope is indeed here.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #22 on: October 15, 2006, 06:29:19 PM »

What do you know about them though? They were heroic but misguided monastics battling the sentimentalizing and centralizing powers of the Jesuits and their hypocritical and down right dishonest postition on Papal power. They were the western Church as it existed in the time of Bernard of Clairaux.

Theophan.

LOL. If they fought against Papal power and the Jesuits at the time, then they are definitely not heroic. LOL Cheesy
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #23 on: October 15, 2006, 06:31:32 PM »

Dear Christopher,

I will correct you. You are wrong about this but thats not your fault. Basically Met Anthony Krapovitsky of possibly sorrowful memory has had his heretical ideas on redemption accepted by most of what calls itself Orthodoxy today even though they reject his stand on Soviet power, false ecumenism and sacred Monarchy.

Here is the True Orthodox Dogma of Redemption:

http://romanitas.ru/eng/The%20Mystery%20of%20Redemption.htm

You will see its not that different from what Rome used to teach before Vatitican II.

I cant answer your other points just yet but I would recommend you read St Gregory's Triads. His attack on Plato and Neo-Platonism is quiet blunt.

Theophan.

Interesting. I have heard very strict and conservative Eastern Orthodox Christians state that the atonement is heresey. Take a look a the posts concerning this issue on the Eastern Christianity sub-forum over on Catholic Answers. Fr. Ambrose, a very conservitive, anti-Latin priest-monk from the ROCOR comdemns the atonement as a western innovation.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #24 on: October 15, 2006, 06:45:02 PM »

Maybe . . . .

However, the same was thought about the bishops appointed by John Paul II and far too many have faltered in their duties.  Shoot, even John Paul II shirked his responsibility to hold bishops accountable.  What good is the Petrine office if not to steer the Catholic Church properly?  The Vatican knew about these abuses and did nothing to stop them.

Oh, the face of the episcopacy may be changing in the Catholic Church but the damage has been done and it is doubtful that healing will ever occur.  Why?  Because of the deep seeded nature of the wound.  Diocese after diocese has embraced such heresy as goddess worship, women running parishes, questionable teachings on sacramental life and so forth.  Even if all of the bishops were to come around and start practicing orthodoxy the priests and parishes, for the most part, are bastions of heterodox behavior and practices.

I, for one, am not encouraged.  Benedict, great man that he is, hasn't really admonished any bishop for his scandalous behavior.  I mean, if he is what the Catholic Church claims he is, then he has an obligation to right the wrongs.  If he isn't what the Catholic Church claims he is then he is just another bishop with no authority other than that which he exercises within his own diocese.  That, in the end, begs the question concerning the claims of the papacy, etc.  Truly, I see by John Paul II's inaction and Benedict's inaction a impotency of the papacy and validation of thos claiming that the papacy means nothing.

So, I do not agree with you lofty assessment.

Rob
Our blessed LORD Jesus Christ is the divine physician and is capable of healing all wounds, no matter how deep they go. Besides, I am still holding out for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2006, 06:46:21 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #25 on: October 15, 2006, 07:36:44 PM »

Quote
Even as a traditional Catholic, I do not believe that Life Teen is a bad thing. I just think it needs reform. In fact, Life Teen has taken steps towards refrom to come more into line with liturgical norms.

I'm from and live one parish over from where Life Teen was founded - so I have a lot of first hand experience dealing with them.  That is, unfortunately, the youth of the Catholic Church -the idea that there is some conservative revival is just unrealistic hope.  For a more realistic picture of today's Catholic youth, go to campus Newman Center where you are likely to find pro-homosexuality groups and groups devoted to every other popular leftist cause - here is your conservative youth setting the church back on the right path!

Quote
Every new bishop that His Holiness has chosen for the USA has been amazing and they appear to be fighting for the revival of orthodox Catholicism in the USA and for the revival of the Tridentine Liturgy.

I think Pope Benedict is playing the same game as Pope John Paul II - appoint a few conservatives, give some lip service to traditional things yet do nothing in reality to stop radical liberals from doing whatever they please.  For all the hype of the Petrine office, the Petrine office hasn't been able to stop chaos from erupting within Catholicism.   

Quote
I have heard very strict and conservative Eastern Orthodox Christians state that the atonement is heresey. Take a look a the posts concerning this issue on the Eastern Christianity sub-forum over on Catholic Answers. Fr. Ambrose, a very conservitive, anti-Latin priest-monk from the ROCOR comdemns the atonement as a western innovation.

My take on this based on some writings of Fr. Seraphim Rose and my own time spent questioning various priests and monastics is that the mainline Orthodox position is none of the above.  Atonement is one anology (as in one of many) to describe the Christ-event, but the problem in Western Christendom is using atonement as the SOLE way of understanding and view the Christ-event.  In Orthodoxy the primary way of viewing the Christ-event is that Christ came as the great healer and the church is the hospital (for this Metr. Hierotheos Vlachos' Orthodox Spirituality is a very good source, not to be confused with other books of the same title but different authors).  Some Orthodox are just giddy with zeal and xenophobia to reject and condemn anything that Catholics might believe (honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if some of these types question the divinity of Christ because the Latins believe in it).  Hence the current situation in Orthodoxy today.  But, for the time being it is an open issue with well respected clergy being of differing opinions on the matter.   
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #26 on: October 15, 2006, 07:48:48 PM »

I'm from and live one parish over from where Life Teen was founded - so I have a lot of first hand experience dealing with them.  That is, unfortunately, the youth of the Catholic Church -the idea that there is some conservative revival is just unrealistic hope.  For a more realistic picture of today's Catholic youth, go to campus Newman Center where you are likely to find pro-homosexuality groups and groups devoted to every other popular leftist cause - here is your conservative youth setting the church back on the right path!
My experience is that people such as those you described eventually fall away from the Church leaving the kind of people that I am talking about.
I think Pope Benedict is playing the same game as Pope John Paul II - appoint a few conservatives, give some lip service to traditional things yet do nothing in reality to stop radical liberals from doing whatever they please.  For all the hype of the Petrine office, the Petrine office hasn't been able to stop chaos from erupting within Catholicism.   
There is no reason to assume this. Pope Benedict is much more conserative than Pope John Paul. He is changing the Church by place conservative bishops. John Paul did not put much work into selecting bishops, whereas B16 is. But he does not come down with a heavy hammer because I don't think he wants to risk schism.

My take on this based on some writings of Fr. Seraphim Rose and my own time spent questioning various priests and monastics is that the mainline Orthodox position is none of the above.  Atonement is one anology (as in one of many) to describe the Christ-event, but the problem in Western Christendom is using atonement as the SOLE way of understanding and view the Christ-event.  In Orthodoxy the primary way of viewing the Christ-event is that Christ came as the great healer and the church is the hospital (for this Metr. Hierotheos Vlachos' Orthodox Spirituality is a very good source, not to be confused with other books of the same title but different authors).  Some Orthodox are just giddy with zeal and xenophobia to reject and condemn anything that Catholics might believe (honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if some of these types question the divinity of Christ because the Latins believe in it).  Hence the current situation in Orthodoxy today.  But, for the time being it is an open issue with well respected clergy being of differing opinions on the matter.   
Interesting. I did not know that their was differing view points among the Eastern Orthodox concerning this issue.  We in the Catholic Church accept the other analogies as well. I just think that atonement theology takes a place of prominace. Remember, we refer to Christ as the divine physician.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #27 on: October 15, 2006, 08:42:59 PM »

Quote
Interesting. I did not know that their was differing view points among the Eastern Orthodox concerning this issue.  We in the Catholic Church accept the other analogies as well. I just think that atonement theology takes a place of prominace. Remember, we refer to Christ as the divine physician.

The role of divine physician is not treated in nearly the same way as the Orthodox tend to view it.  Google "Hierotheos Vlachos" and skim through some of his works that are online if you'd like to see first hand how the Orthodox approach this matter differently.  There certainly are some subtle nuances here that lead to very different expressions. 
Logged
sdcheung
it's as if..Saint Photios and Saint Mark Ephesus, has come back
Banned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,325


...even though Romania Falls, another will Rise...


« Reply #28 on: October 15, 2006, 09:05:05 PM »

nope not an Iota of commonality between us. And lets hope it will stay like that...
Orthodoxy or Death!
Logged


Keep Breed Mixing, and this Maine Coon Cat will be the last of it's kind. /\
No profanities in your sig line if you're going to post in the public forum.
rosborn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


Searching for home


« Reply #29 on: October 15, 2006, 09:15:21 PM »

Even as a traditional Catholic, I do not believe that Life Teen is a bad thing. I just think it needs reform. In fact, Life Teen has taken steps towards refrom to come more into line with liturgical norms. As for the return of traditional Catholicism... Like I said, younger Catholics like myself are vastly more conservative than our parents. I am a traditionalist Catholic, while my parents were charismatic. My room mate is also a traditionalist and his parents are not even practicing Catholics. We see that the "spirit of vatican II" is just a sham and want a return to the letter of vatican II. Every new bishop that His Holiness has chosen for the USA has been amazing and they appear to be fighting for the revival of orthodox Catholicism in the USA and for the revival of the Tridentine Liturgy. Furthermore, it looks like His Holiness has just signed off on the idea of a universal indult for the old mass. Hope is indeed here.

Just how many bishops has the new Holy Father appointed in the United States?

Yes, the Pope has authorized on a universal indult for the old Mass but it is up to the discretion of individual bishops to allow its use.  That ain't gonna happen.

Rob
Logged
rosborn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


Searching for home


« Reply #30 on: October 15, 2006, 09:23:38 PM »

My experience is that people such as those you described eventually fall away from the Church leaving the kind of people that I am talking about.

I admire your optimism but this simply is not the case.  These are the very people who are finding their way into upper level positions within each diocese.

There is no reason to assume this. Pope Benedict is much more conserative than Pope John Paul. He is changing the Church by place conservative bishops. John Paul did not put much work into selecting bishops, whereas B16 is. But he does not come down with a heavy hammer because I don't think he wants to risk schism.

But this is precisely what needs to happen if the Catholic Church is to survive.  When you exterminate rats from a building you don't leave a few and call it good.  You root out or kill the entire lot and then you seal up the holes they crawled in through.  Again, I don't think that Benedict has had much of an opportunity to install all that many bishops in the United States in the little over a year that he has been pontiff.
Logged
rosborn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


Searching for home


« Reply #31 on: October 15, 2006, 09:48:16 PM »

There is no reason to assume this. Pope Benedict is much more conserative than Pope John Paul. He is changing the Church by place conservative bishops. John Paul did not put much work into selecting bishops, whereas B16 is. But he does not come down with a heavy hammer because I don't think he wants to risk schism.

Apparently not.  Benedict XVI appointed George H. Niederauer as the Archbishop of San Francisco.  Niederauer is very pro-homosexual and has recently started to allow the Archdiocese of San Francisco to start allowing adoption to homosexual couples.  Doesn't sound very conservative to me.

Rob
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #32 on: October 15, 2006, 09:54:01 PM »

The role of divine physician is not treated in nearly the same way as the Orthodox tend to view it.  Google "Hierotheos Vlachos" and skim through some of his works that are online if you'd like to see first hand how the Orthodox approach this matter differently.  There certainly are some subtle nuances here that lead to very different expressions. 
Thanks for the suggestion. I will definitely read some of his works.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #33 on: October 15, 2006, 09:57:49 PM »

nope not an Iota of commonality between us. And lets hope it will stay like that...
Orthodoxy or Death!
I don't think it goes quite that far.
Similarities:
Scripture and Tradition
Faith and Works
deifying/Sanctifying grace
Belief in the Sacraments
similar, but not identical ecclesiology
The TRINITY!!!!!
The incarnation and hypostatic union
Veneration of the Holy Mother of God
Intercession of the saints
etc...
Although there are many differences, there are definitely some similarities. Many blessings in Christ brother.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #34 on: October 15, 2006, 10:00:53 PM »

Just how many bishops has the new Holy Father appointed in the United States?

Yes, the Pope has authorized on a universal indult for the old Mass but it is up to the discretion of individual bishops to allow its use.  That ain't gonna happen.

Rob
I think around ten but I can't be sure. As more of the old liberal bishops retire, I think it is gonna get even better. As for the indult, I really think that it would be too much of a fight for any bishops to oppose it. The pressure from Rome will be great. The reason why it is at the discretion of individual bishops is that the Bishop is always the head Liturgist of his jurisdiction.
Many blessings in Christ.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #35 on: October 15, 2006, 10:02:13 PM »

I admire your optimism but this simply is not the case.  These are the very people who are finding their way into upper level positions within each diocese.

But this is precisely what needs to happen if the Catholic Church is to survive.  When you exterminate rats from a building you don't leave a few and call it good.  You root out or kill the entire lot and then you seal up the holes they crawled in through.  Again, I don't think that Benedict has had much of an opportunity to install all that many bishops in the United States in the little over a year that he has been pontiff.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. But I am happy that you faith is important enough to you to take these matters seriously.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #36 on: October 15, 2006, 10:03:17 PM »

Apparently not.  Benedict XVI appointed George H. Niederauer as the Archbishop of San Francisco.  Niederauer is very pro-homosexual and has recently started to allow the Archdiocese of San Francisco to start allowing adoption to homosexual couples.  Doesn't sound very conservative to me.

Rob
Could you provide me with a source on this information because I do not know much about this particular situation. All the Bishops that I know of that the Holy Father has appointed are extremely orthodox.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
rosborn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


Searching for home


« Reply #37 on: October 15, 2006, 10:11:28 PM »

Could you provide me with a source on this information because I do not know much about this particular situation. All the Bishops that I know of that the Holy Father has appointed are extremely orthodox.

From the February 2006 edition of First Things magazine:

"Troubling also to those who watch this pontificate with hopeful concern is Benedict’s appointment of George H. Niederauer as Levada’s successor in San Francisco. While in Salt Lake City, Bishop Niederauer had a reputation of being, as it is said, gay-friendly. He broke with other religious leaders in opposing a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The announcement of his appointment to San Francisco was met with great public rejoicing by Dignity, New Ways Ministry, and other gay advocacy groups."

From the August 27, 2006 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle:

"In an adroit end-run against a Vatican ban on granting adoptions to same-sex couples, Catholic Charities of San Francisco will launch a new project in coming weeks that experts say will lead to the placement of hundreds of foster children around the state every year.

While the agency will no longer directly place children in homes, it will provide staff and financial resources to connect needy children to adoptive parents, expanding from 25 placements a year to assisting in the adoptions of as many as 800 children annually, say those involved in the program.

The move averts a conflict between state anti-discrimination laws and church doctrine, which considers the placement of children with gay or lesbian couples to be "gravely immoral.'' "

Rob


Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #38 on: October 15, 2006, 10:14:15 PM »

From the February 2006 edition of First Things magazine:

"Troubling also to those who watch this pontificate with hopeful concern is Benedict’s appointment of George H. Niederauer as Levada’s successor in San Francisco. While in Salt Lake City, Bishop Niederauer had a reputation of being, as it is said, gay-friendly. He broke with other religious leaders in opposing a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The announcement of his appointment to San Francisco was met with great public rejoicing by Dignity, New Ways Ministry, and other gay advocacy groups."

From the August 27, 2006 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle:

"In an adroit end-run against a Vatican ban on granting adoptions to same-sex couples, Catholic Charities of San Francisco will launch a new project in coming weeks that experts say will lead to the placement of hundreds of foster children around the state every year.

While the agency will no longer directly place children in homes, it will provide staff and financial resources to connect needy children to adoptive parents, expanding from 25 placements a year to assisting in the adoptions of as many as 800 children annually, say those involved in the program.

The move averts a conflict between state anti-discrimination laws and church doctrine, which considers the placement of children with gay or lesbian couples to be "gravely immoral.'' "

Rob



This is deeply disturbing and seems out of place for His Holiness who has appointed so many traditional Bishops.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
rosborn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


Searching for home


« Reply #39 on: October 15, 2006, 10:21:10 PM »

This is deeply disturbing and seems out of place for His Holiness who has appointed so many traditional Bishops.

He did so on the advice of Archbishop Loverda, who replaced him as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  Which, by the way, is the same manner that John Paul II utilized to appoint bishops - word of mouth of other bishops.

Here's the thing - the bishopric in the United States will never change if it continues to be an "old boys network" where bishops are appointed on the advice of other bishops.  I don't know how Archbishop Chaput of Denver ever made it through the "old boys network" but is truly a bishop to be modeled.  He is a great shepherd who should be looked at as a shining example of what we, as Catholics, need in our leadership.

Rob
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #40 on: October 15, 2006, 10:22:58 PM »

Quote
This is deeply disturbing and seems out of place for His Holiness who has appointed so many traditional Bishops.

Or it simply shows that submission to Rome is absolutely not a way to ensure one is preserving their orthodoxy.  The criterion of authentic Christianity must be sought elsewhere.      
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #41 on: October 15, 2006, 10:37:52 PM »

That universal indult will be null and void in Los Angeles... and Pope Benedict has good intentions but the power in Rome lies with the Curia... this is the 2nd rumor regarding the Mass of Pius V or Missal of 1962 this year...

I rather worship in authenic spirit and truth then appease the progressives and feminists, let them eat croissants I say...

james
« Last Edit: October 15, 2006, 10:48:32 PM by Jakub » Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
rosborn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


Searching for home


« Reply #42 on: October 15, 2006, 10:48:46 PM »

That universal indult will be null and void in Los Angeles...

james

As will be the case across most of the United States - even in my diocese of Lansing, Michigan.  The bishops in the U.S. have never shown any propensity to follow what the Vatican wants so why should they now.  Certainly, the approval of the indult is a great thing but it is nothing more than hot air and will never become a widespread practice.

Rob
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #43 on: October 15, 2006, 11:29:37 PM »

Or it simply shows that submission to Rome is absolutely not a way to ensure one is preserving their orthodoxy.  The criterion of authentic Christianity must be sought elsewhere.      
I am sorry but your conclusion does not follow from your premise. At least having a Peterine ministry allows us to know what is and what is not orthodoxy. In my opinion, the Eastern Orthodox have no way of determining what is orthodoxy and have gone into comoplete heresy on certain matters such as the use of artificial birth control and divorce. No, I am sorry my friend, your conclusion does not follow.
Many blessings in Christ
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #44 on: October 15, 2006, 11:30:26 PM »

That universal indult will be null and void in Los Angeles... and Pope Benedict has good intentions but the power in Rome lies with the Curia... this is the 2nd rumor regarding the Mass of Pius V or Missal of 1962 this year...

I rather worship in authenic spirit and truth then appease the progressives and feminists, let them eat croissants I say...

james
Which is why I would never leave the universal Ark of Salvation to worship elsewhere.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #45 on: October 15, 2006, 11:31:32 PM »

As will be the case across most of the United States - even in my diocese of Lansing, Michigan.  The bishops in the U.S. have never shown any propensity to follow what the Vatican wants so why should they now.  Certainly, the approval of the indult is a great thing but it is nothing more than hot air and will never become a widespread practice.

Rob
I think with regard to this matter, Rome will be putting alot of pressure on the Bishops and the traditional Catholics will be pushing equally hard. I think the Bishops will not want to fight this fight.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #46 on: October 15, 2006, 11:36:39 PM »

The question remains. DO WE HAVE THAT MUCH IN COMMON?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #47 on: October 15, 2006, 11:37:14 PM »

I am sorry but your conclusion does not follow from your premise. At least having a Peterine ministry allows us to know what is and what is not orthodoxy. In my opinion, the Eastern Orthodox have no way of determining what is orthodoxy and have gone into comoplete heresy on certain matters such as the use of artificial birth control and divorce. No, I am sorry my friend, your conclusion does not follow.
Many blessings in Christ

Considering that we had our teaching on divorce centuries before the schism, that is a bit hard to swallow.  If you want to debate that I'd suggest you dig up an old thread on divorce and see where Catholics have not done a good job here debating us, and let's have a go at it! Smiley

As to your point, I think that the conclusion of Nektarios does follow the premise. What good is having an office that says what is and isn't heresy if hardly anyone recognizes its authority to make such pronouncments unilaterally? An office should exist for a purpose, not just exist even though it is not serving the function it is intended for.  For instance, the papacy is supposed to be able to teach infallibly, yet there is confusion as to when a document is itself infallible, c.f. the debate even on Catholic sites surrounding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1994. Infallible or not?  Roman Catholicism seems to be authority based: we possess a certain office, so we have a right to teach this and that and you must obey.  For Orthodox, it's clearly the opposite: those who are holy because they have become close to Christ are the most likely to be Orthodox and by demonstrating their Orthodoxy they are made bishops. It doesn't always happen but more often than not it does work that way.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #48 on: October 15, 2006, 11:39:04 PM »

The question remains. DO WE HAVE THAT MUCH IN COMMON?
Well I think that we have a lot in common but given the fact that we have to have everything (dogmatically) in common to be in communion, what is the point of celebrating our closeness? Until you are baptized in the Church of Christ or such time as your bishops repent and are restored in their orders into Orthodoxy if that is how the Church decides to handle things, from our POV you are not in the Church and from your POV we are schismatics and possibly heretics so in the end, so what?  Sure let's cooperate on social issues and make a stand against secularism, but that's about it.

A.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #49 on: October 15, 2006, 11:40:03 PM »

Considering that we had our teaching on divorce centuries before the schism, that is a bit hard to swallow.  If you want to debate that I'd suggest you dig up an old thread on divorce and see where Catholics have not done a good job here debating us, and let's have a go at it! Smiley

As to your point, I think that the conclusion of Nektarios does follow the premise. What good is having an office that says what is and isn't heresy if hardly anyone recognizes its authority to make such pronouncments unilaterally? An office should exist for a purpose, not just exist even though it is not serving the function it is intended for.  For instance, the papacy is supposed to be able to teach infallibly, yet there is confusion as to when a document is itself infallible, c.f. the debate even on Catholic sites surrounding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1994. Infallible or not?  Roman Catholicism seems to be authority based: we possess a certain office, so we have a right to teach this and that and you must obey.  For Orthodox, it's clearly the opposite: those who are holy because they have become close to Christ are the most likely to be Orthodox and by demonstrating their Orthodoxy they are made bishops. It doesn't always happen but more often than not it does work that way.

Anastasios
The good of the office is that I can always know what I should or should not believe. Whenever the Pope teaches in any kind of official capacity, whenever he is defining or clarifying dogma for all the faithful, then I am bound to that teaching. Very simple. Very useful.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #50 on: October 15, 2006, 11:44:38 PM »

I know what I should or should not beleive because God gave me a conscience and I can test the objective criteria he has given me: both personal because if I am believing an error it pricks my conscience and I suffer increased sinfulness.  If I am living in Christ, I do not believe or accept errors, and public because the Church has gone through this on a large scale via thousands of fathers and mothers of the church being divinized and united to Christ over thousands of years, who bear witness via writings.  Those who are heretics have as a root of their heresy personal sin; there are no holy heretics, despite the appearence to the contrary (by heretic in this case I mean those who are born Orthodox and create their own heterodox opinions).

A.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2006, 11:45:32 PM by Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #51 on: October 15, 2006, 11:51:56 PM »

Well I think that we have a lot in common but given the fact that we have to have everything (dogmatically) in common to be in communion, what is the point of celebrating our closeness? Until you are baptized in the Church of Christ or such time as your bishops repent and are restored in their orders into Orthodoxy if that is how the Church decides to handle things, from our POV you are not in the Church and from your POV we are schismatics and possibly heretics so in the end, so what?  Sure let's cooperate on social issues and make a stand against secularism, but that's about it.

A.
And that is how I see it as well. From my POV until your bishops repent and seek communion with the Catholic Church, then we are not in communion. From your POV, we need to repent. So, what I am saying, is that those who engage in this whole "sister church" nonsense should drop it. One of the two Churches is the body of Christ and the other is not. We can pray together, and work towards Christianizing (is that a word? LOL) society but that is it.
Many blessings in Christ.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #52 on: October 15, 2006, 11:53:31 PM »

I know what I should or should not beleive because God gave me a conscience and I can test the objective criteria he has given me: both personal because if I am believing an error it pricks my conscience and I suffer increased sinfulness.  If I am living in Christ, I do not believe or accept errors, and public because the Church has gone through this on a large scale via thousands of fathers and mothers of the church being divinized and united to Christ over thousands of years, who bear witness via writings.  Those who are heretics have as a root of their heresy personal sin; there are no holy heretics, despite the appearence to the contrary (by heretic in this case I mean those who are born Orthodox and create their own heterodox opinions).

A.
This whole, "I know the truth because my conscience tells me so" turns every individual Christian in to his very own Pope. If this idea is true, I get to decide what is true. And no one can tell me otherwise. I would much rather trust an objective criteria than my own conscience.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #53 on: October 16, 2006, 12:43:10 AM »

To emphasize what Anastasios said, we do not follow our conscience as mere individuals but under the guidance of a spiritual father who is in communion with the entire church.  While you accuse us of lack of unity and falling into heresies because we don't have a pope - I'd encourage you to read Orthodox sources and see for yourself.  Despite 1000 years sinces the schism, Orthodoxy operating in multiple languages and cultures, hundreds of years of Islamic rule in the heartland of Orthodoxy, almost a century of communism: Orthodoxy is remarkably intact and unified.  On the other hand, do a straw poll of lay Catholics (or even clergy for that matter) on whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is infallible or not - count how many clergy and prominent laity ignore or flat out state they believe Humana Vitae to be in error.  Obviously something isn't working as planned.  The whole argument that without the Petrine office the church would denegrate into chaos doesn't hold up with North America and Europe - the Catholic Church is in chaos and neither Pope John Paul II nor Pope Benedict really seem to be doing anything about it. 

As for having a lot in commom (and it is a lot not alot)... on an official level we do - the major Trinitarian, Christological, sacramental beliefs etc.  Less and less do we share the same ethos.  To be honest, I think 95% + of Orthodox parishes in the United States border on pathetic, but the insanity that is commonplace in your typical Catholic parish in this nation would revolt most Orthodox people.  Slowly, I think American Orthodoxy is reforming itself whereas American Catholicism is growing crazier and crazier (the few times I've been back to (American) Catholic  Churches in the past couple of years are always more and more shocking) - hence the divide on a cultural level will only grow.  On a positive note, I did get the chance to visit a couple of Catholic churches of mostly Hungarian population which were very solid this summer.  Then again I had some negative experiences at a couple of Catholic parishes in Germany (i.e think of a congregation full of OC.net's very own Matthew777).  Perhaps some isolated pockets in Europe are better, but by and large - I don't see there being that much in common between the average Catholic and the average Orthodox person.     
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #54 on: October 16, 2006, 12:58:23 AM »

To emphasize what Anastasios said, we do not follow our conscience as mere individuals but under the guidance of a spiritual father who is in communion with the entire church.  While you accuse us of lack of unity and falling into heresies because we don't have a pope - I'd encourage you to read Orthodox sources and see for yourself.  Despite 1000 years sinces the schism, Orthodoxy operating in multiple languages and cultures, hundreds of years of Islamic rule in the heartland of Orthodoxy, almost a century of communism: Orthodoxy is remarkably intact and unified.  On the other hand, do a straw poll of lay Catholics (or even clergy for that matter) on whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is infallible or not - count how many clergy and prominent laity ignore or flat out state they believe Humana Vitae to be in error.  Obviously something isn't working as planned.  The whole argument that without the Petrine office the church would denegrate into chaos doesn't hold up with North America and Europe - the Catholic Church is in chaos and neither Pope John Paul II nor Pope Benedict really seem to be doing anything about it. 

As for having a lot in commom (and it is a lot not alot)... on an official level we do - the major Trinitarian, Christological, sacramental beliefs etc.  Less and less do we share the same ethos.  To be honest, I think 95% + of Orthodox parishes in the United States border on pathetic, but the insanity that is commonplace in your typical Catholic parish in this nation would revolt most Orthodox people.  Slowly, I think American Orthodoxy is reforming itself whereas American Catholicism is growing crazier and crazier (the few times I've been back to (American) Catholic  Churches in the past couple of years are always more and more shocking) - hence the divide on a cultural level will only grow.  On a positive note, I did get the chance to visit a couple of Catholic churches of mostly Hungarian population which were very solid this summer.  Then again I had some negative experiences at a couple of Catholic parishes in Germany (i.e think of a congregation full of OC.net's very own Matthew777).  Perhaps some isolated pockets in Europe are better, but by and large - I don't see there being that much in common between the average Catholic and the average Orthodox person.     
I did not say that you are not united in your faith. What I did say is that Eastern Orthodox have no way of determining what is true or not true anymore.
many blessings in Christ
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #55 on: October 16, 2006, 01:11:55 AM »

Quote
What I did say is that Eastern Orthodox have no way of determining what is true or not true anymore.

That is a charge leveled against the Orthodox frequently, but it is not entirely accurate.  The entire Palamite controversy occured after the schism and was settled within Orthodoxy.  Various other heresies and schisms have came about and have been dealt with in the Orthodox world.  Is it a slow and often times messy process?  Indeed!  But, the first seven councils were a mess as well and the Church survived without an infallible pope to guide.  If you are interested, please read some of the theologians and fathers of the post-schism Orthodox Church - then you could see first hand that the Orthodox do have their own methodology of obeying Holy Tradition from the scriptures, councils, fathers, bishops etc.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #56 on: October 16, 2006, 08:24:52 AM »

This whole, "I know the truth because my conscience tells me so" turns every individual Christian in to his very own Pope. If this idea is true, I get to decide what is true. And no one can tell me otherwise. I would much rather trust an objective criteria than my own conscience.

No, it's not internal though! My point is that any choice we make has a result that can be measured by ourselves AND OTHERS. We don't trust ourselves--that's why we have spiritual fathers--but nevertheless it can be measured that if we are heretics, our spiritual life basically falls apart.

A.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #57 on: October 16, 2006, 11:26:53 AM »

That is a charge leveled against the Orthodox frequently, but it is not entirely accurate.  The entire Palamite controversy occured after the schism and was settled within Orthodoxy.  Various other heresies and schisms have came about and have been dealt with in the Orthodox world.  Is it a slow and often times messy process?  Indeed!  But, the first seven councils were a mess as well and the Church survived without an infallible pope to guide.  If you are interested, please read some of the theologians and fathers of the post-schism Orthodox Church - then you could see first hand that the Orthodox do have their own methodology of obeying Holy Tradition from the scriptures, councils, fathers, bishops etc.
They may think they have setteled the issue but, still, I do not see any objective criteria in Eastern Orthodoxy for determining truth. They say Scripture and Tradition, but how do they  determine what is true Tradtion?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #58 on: October 16, 2006, 11:56:55 AM »

They may think they have setteled the issue but, still, I do not see any objective criteria in Eastern Orthodoxy for determining truth. They say Scripture and Tradition, but how do they  determine what is true Tradtion?

Is the Church of Rome so far removed from its Orthodox roots that the concept of concilarity and the role of bishops as guardians has been lost?
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #59 on: October 16, 2006, 12:34:20 PM »

Is the Church of Rome so far removed from its Orthodox roots that the concept of concilarity and the role of bishops as guardians has been lost?
No of course not. But you guys have no way of determining which bishops are within the Church and which are not. No way to know which councils are binding on the Church and which are not. We do: the Pope.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #60 on: October 16, 2006, 12:50:45 PM »

Hmmm. Looks like we have gotten way off topic. Don't you love forums! Grin
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #61 on: October 16, 2006, 01:09:25 PM »

We are indeed blessed...Papist and Orthodoc, opposite sides of one coin...good grief Charlie Brown...

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #62 on: October 16, 2006, 01:30:28 PM »

No of course not. But you guys have no way of determining which bishops are within the Church and which are not. No way to know which councils are binding on the Church and which are not. We do: the Pope.

I thought so. You have no knowledge or understanding of the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch who DOES fill the function once enjoyed by Rome, "all rights and priviledges". Communion with the EP is tantamount to being 'in' the Church. This is not a requirement in western-style legalistic sense, but a simple fact.
Perhaps you are thinking of the few small local churches not-in-communion? You've got them too.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
GOCTheophan
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


« Reply #63 on: October 16, 2006, 02:10:32 PM »

Hearsay.  I've never heard this.  Provide evidence or I have no reason to believe that you are nothing but a troll.  This better be something from the past decade too.

Elisha have you ever been to Russia? Do you have actual Russian friends who arent "nice and middle class"? Are you that much cut off from reality of contemporary Russian life that you have never heard this? Try actually living in Russia as opposed to visting as a tourist or on some ROCOR FSB-junket.

My first reaction was not to respond to what you have written given that those who wish to believe what they will about the MP in mine and other experiances cannot be made to see the reality no matter how much evidence is placed infront of them. Your references to "trolls" and "tin hats" show you have a sarcastic spirit which seems to accompany the resistance to truth.

There is no way that I will be so foolish as to engage in a discourse with you.

You are however, in my wretched prayers.

Theophan.
Logged
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #64 on: October 16, 2006, 02:36:16 PM »

Please take ROCOR and MP debates elsewhere.  This has no place in this thread nor in this section.  i have cut off the new thread and moved it to Free-for-All.  The title shouldn't be too hard to miss. 
Daniel
Orthodox-Catholic Moderator
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.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #65 on: October 16, 2006, 08:33:28 PM »

I thought so. You have no knowledge or understanding of the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch who DOES fill the function once enjoyed by Rome, "all rights and priviledges". Communion with the EP is tantamount to being 'in' the Church. This is not a requirement in western-style legalistic sense, but a simple fact.
Perhaps you are thinking of the few small local churches not-in-communion? You've got them too.
No. I know about the EP, the Patriarch of Constantinople. Some of the people I have discussed the EP with have really down played his role. For example, one Christian I have talked to from the ROCOR almost made it sound as if the Patriarch of Moscow, Alexy II, should have more authority than the EP. Second, what is the theological justification for having an EP? Third, why do the Eastern Orthodox not look to a petrine see as the first among equals such as Alexandria or Antioch? Can you help me to understand the situation? Fourth, why does the Eastern Orthodox Church select an Eastern Orthodox Bishop of Rome? Can you help me understand all of this? Thank you. Many blessings in Christ.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #66 on: October 17, 2006, 01:03:00 AM »

Quote
They may think they have setteled the issue but, still, I do not see any objective criteria in Eastern Orthodoxy for determining truth. They say Scripture and Tradition, but how do they  determine what is true Tradtion?

We use the same methodology as the Church did for the first seven councils.  The controversies then did not get settled quickly - and there was no infallible pope to step in.  And actually... there have been times where even with a papacy things aren't cut and dried http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism  then there is the situation that in the United States, at least, a great many clergy will tell their flock to ignore things like Humana Vitae

To really answer your question of how do we determine what Holy Tradition actually is - I'd ask you how many Orthodox sources have you read (and not internet polemics!)?  For example, a great many works on dogmatic theology were produced in Russia before the revolution - one of the best being Fr. Michael Pmozansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" which has been translated into English.  The more important writings of Metr. Hierotheos Vlachos are also translated into English.  For a good general intoduction try Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church - which most public libraries have.  If you intend to debate with Orthodox people over apologetics you really should understand where they are coming from - using primary sources.  In the same way, I find it laughable with Orthodox apologists seem to know nothing of the ethos of Roman Catholicism, none of her modern saints, classical writings or spirituality - these two types can do nothing more than simply talk past eachother and repeat their own preconcieved notions of what the other confession is. 
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #67 on: October 17, 2006, 01:06:10 AM »

We use the same methodology as the Church did for the first seven councils.  The controversies then did not get settled quickly - and there was no infallible pope to step in.  And actually... there have been times where even with a papacy things aren't cut and dried http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism  then there is the situation that in the United States, at least, a great many clergy will tell their flock to ignore things like Humana Vitae

To really answer your question of how do we determine what Holy Tradition actually is - I'd ask you how many Orthodox sources have you read (and not internet polemics!)?  For example, a great many works on dogmatic theology were produced in Russia before the revolution - one of the best being Fr. Michael Pmozansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" which has been translated into English.  The more important writings of Metr. Hierotheos Vlachos are also translated into English.  For a good general intoduction try Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church - which most public libraries have.  If you intend to debate with Orthodox people over apologetics you really should understand where they are coming from - using primary sources.  In the same way, I find it laughable with Orthodox apologists seem to know nothing of the ethos of Roman Catholicism, none of her modern saints, classical writings or spirituality - these two types can do nothing more than simply talk past eachother and repeat their own preconcieved notions of what the other confession is. 
I agree.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #68 on: October 17, 2006, 01:10:44 AM »

Lo and behold the powers of google:

http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0824.HTM

If you skim around here fairly large excerpts of his books are offered http://www.vic.com/~tscon/pelagia/htm/index.htm

And for good measure - http://www.westernorthodox.com/khomiakov
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #69 on: October 17, 2006, 01:20:55 AM »

Last but not least for the evening, a huge chunk of the afore mentioned book by Timothy (now Bishop Kallistos) Ware: http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/orthodoxy.aspx

As a word of warning, the other things from that website I'd be careful about.... the vast majority is very good and the webmaster has taken great care to put up some wonderful material, but it tends to be a little extreme in its views on some issues. 
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #70 on: October 17, 2006, 02:07:21 AM »

To really answer your question of how do we determine what Holy Tradition actually is - I'd ask you how many Orthodox sources have you read (and not internet polemics!)?  For example, a great many works on dogmatic theology were produced in Russia before the revolution - one of the best being Fr. Michael Pmozansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" which has been translated into English.

Father Michael Pomazansky's work was not produced before the revolution, but in the 1960's.  Personally, I don't know why some people on this forum like this book.  From what I've seen, it's anti-intellectual, ahistorical,  and at times a plug for "tradition" instead of "Tradition."
« Last Edit: October 17, 2006, 02:09:15 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #71 on: October 17, 2006, 02:22:05 AM »

Quote
Father Michael Pomazansky's work was not produced before the revolution, but in the 1960's.  Personally, I don't know why some people on this forum like this book.  From what I've seen, it's anti-intellectual, ahistorical,  and at times a plug for "tradition" instead of "Tradition."

Right, I mispoke about the dating of Fr. Pmazansky's work, but he was hismelf a product of the pre-revolutionary seminary system.  For the purposes I mentioned, such as describing authority and how we interpret what is actually Holy Tradition - there is nothing "anti-intellectual, ahistorical,  and at times a plug for "tradition" instead of "Tradition."" about Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. 
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #72 on: October 17, 2006, 02:30:35 AM »

For the purposes I mentioned, such as describing authority and how we interpret what is actually Holy Tradition - there is nothing "anti-intellectual, ahistorical,  and at times a plug for "tradition" instead of "Tradition."" about Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. 

Is too.  (Standing by to receive your "is not."  Wink)
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #73 on: October 17, 2006, 02:46:40 AM »

Quote
Is too.  (Standing by to receive your "is not."  )

Actually if you make a strong allegation like that, it is usually done so with an explanation and evidence for your position.  Even assuming you are correct - I gave a very wide range of sources, so it can be assumed that the defects in any one of them will most likely be made up for in the others. 
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #74 on: October 17, 2006, 07:37:54 AM »

No. I know about the EP, the Patriarch of Constantinople. Some of the people I have discussed the EP with have really down played his role. For example, one Christian I have talked to from the ROCOR almost made it sound as if the Patriarch of Moscow, Alexy II, should have more authority than the EP. Second, what is the theological justification for having an EP? Third, why do the Eastern Orthodox not look to a petrine see as the first among equals such as Alexandria or Antioch? Can you help me to understand the situation? Fourth, why does the Eastern Orthodox Church select an Eastern Orthodox Bishop of Rome? Can you help me understand all of this? Thank you. Many blessings in Christ.

1) Why a "petrine see"?
2) Meaning NOt select? We're stupid and are still waiting for Rome to come to its senses.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #75 on: October 17, 2006, 08:22:02 AM »

and at times a plug for "tradition" instead of "Tradition."

The fact that you make such a distinction already reveals why you wouldn't like that book Wink
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #76 on: October 17, 2006, 09:25:07 AM »

1) Why a "petrine see"?
2) Meaning NOt select? We're stupid and are still waiting for Rome to come to its senses.
1) Do the Eastern Orthodox not believe that Peter was the first among equals?
2) yeah, that's what I meant.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #77 on: October 17, 2006, 11:59:58 AM »

The Petrine See opened the "windows of the Church" and what happened...35 years of wandering and confusion...Rome fell asleep at the wheel and is too afraid to make the nescessary corrections...upsetting the laity...I fear the Almighty not the laity.

I don't see these events happening in Orthodoxy...

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #78 on: October 17, 2006, 12:11:48 PM »

The Petrine See opened the "windows of the Church" and what happened...35 years of wandering and confusion...Rome fell asleep at the wheel and is too afraid to make the nescessary corrections...upsetting the laity...I fear the Almighty not the laity.

I don't see these events happening in Orthodoxy...

james
Birthcontrol, divorce, hmmm.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #79 on: October 17, 2006, 12:27:22 PM »

1) Do the Eastern Orthodox not believe that Peter was the first among equals?
2) yeah, that's what I meant.

Saint Peter, yes.

Popes in error, no.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #80 on: October 17, 2006, 12:31:18 PM »

Second, what is the theological justification for having an EP?

Theological justification? All Bishops are "equal," but someone has to hold the presidency of a large Synod or liturgical gathering. Rome is no longer in communion with the East, thus the bishop who held the second place of honor according to canons from Ecumenical Councils and long-standing tradition fills the gap (See Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council (eventually accepted as such by Rome) and Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council).

Quote
Third, why do the Eastern Orthodox not look to a petrine see as the first among equals such as Alexandria or Antioch?

Because after the First Ecumenical Council, no one in the Church did, including Rome. The Canons of the following Ecumenical Councils and the practice of the Universal Church recognized Constantinople as the second See of the Empire, despite the history and apostolicity of Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch (which, of course, is older than Rome herself!). These things are obviously fluid, or Rome wouldn't have supplanted her Mother Churches.

Quote
Can you help me to understand the situation?

This is a complicated subject. Church governance is highly fluid within the first five centuries and not at all as clear as apologists of yore have made it seem. For example, even Leo Donald Davis (noted Roman Catholic historian of the Ecumenical Councils) admits that Ossius of Cordoba presided over the First Ecumenical Council. While he was from the West, he was not a papal legate. He was, in the words of Jorg Ulrich, "the theological adviser and 'court bishop' of the emperor, and as such he had the chairmanship in the council and a hand in its proceedings and agenda." [Jorg Ulrich, "Nicaea and the West" Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 51., No. 1 (Mar., 1997), pp. 10-24]. And, yet, how far did Ossius' perogatives extend? Well, the first to speak was an Eastern Bishop -- probably the Patriarch of Antioch, according to Davis. So, who's "in charge"? What does "being in charge" mean? Unfortunately, we don't have many records from the First Ecumenical Council. But we do have substantial records (including minutes) by the time of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. And who presides there? The imperial commissioners -- not even an imperially appointed bishop.

Some things to consider: As Francis Dvornik has written, even at the time of the New Testament, letters were addressed to the churches in the capitals of the provinces, and these "capital" churches were then charged with spreading the word to the rest of the province [Francis Dvornik (1966) Byzantium and the Roman Primacy]. In other words, the Church (very naturally) mirrored the existing structure of the State. Thus, the pre-Imperial model of Church government was assuredly eparchial by the start of the fourth century, meaning that each eparchy (or region, as definited by the State) of the Empire had its own "Metropolitan Bishop" and possibly even a Synod (cf. Canon 4 of Nicaea I). It is not suprisingly that this form of Church government, since it is itself determined by the boundaries of the State, began to change with the Empire. In fact, we see within the canons of Nicea some indication that the "autocephaly" of each eparchial Metropolitanate was not entirely uniform: Canon 6 speaks of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome as having some sort of supra-metropolitan status because of "ancient custom." What exactly this ancient custom is -- if it comes from an ecclesial tradition, in that all three Sees are Apostolic, or if it comes from the fact that all three cities held long-time positions of importance in the diocesan structure of the Empire -- is not clear. Regardless, Canon 6 of Nicea goes on to emphasize that this "ancient custom" should not be seen as an infringement upon the continued validity of provincial independence elsewhere. Thus, Nicea leaves us with a somewhat confused picture of the Church, wherein it is not easy to determine with certainty exactly where ecclesial criteria end and Imperial influence begins.

In general, this trend is what Dvornik termed the principle of "accommodation" (vis-à-vis that of apostolicity). Dvornik argues that the Church, from its earliest days, "conformed itself, for the organization of its ecclesiastical administration, to the political divisions of the Roman Empire.” [Francis Dvornik (1966), p. 29.] This made sense for reasons of practicality, administration and efficiency. With the advent of a Christian State, however, this process of accommodation took on a new ethos and developed its own sort of theological justification. Furthermore, the creation of a new capital in Constantinople created a kind of magnificent anomaly in the Empire's civil administration: Byzantium had not even been the capital of its province, much less its diocese (a secular term, remember!), and so, under the principle of accommodation, its Bishop had been a suffragan to the See of Heraclea. Byzantium's new status as an Imperial city, however, obviously exempted it from such subordination in the civil realm, but what of its ecclesial status? Constantine could name a small town after himself and transform it into an Imperial city, but could he re-make the shape of the Church as well? It turns that he could not -- at least not overnight. The rise of Constantinople in both civil and ecclesiastical authority was a gradual process, a process that got its first major jumpstart at the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381, especially from its third canon, the first official attempt to secure an ecclesiastical place worthy of the capital's bishop. We should not forget that it was Meletius of Antioch who presided at Constantinople I, that there were no Roman legates, and that only about 150 Bishops from Thrace, Asia Minor and Egypt were in attendance. [F. Dvornik (1966) Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, pp. 44-45.] And, yet, both the Orthodox and Roman Churches now recognize the council as Ecumenical!

It is hardly surprising that at such a council we should find a canon that speaks about the presbeia of Constantinople. Canon 3, as it has typically been translated, reads: "The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the Primacy of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is New Rome." [J. Stevenson (1978) Creeds, Councils and Controversies, p. 148.]  However, as Peter L'Huillier has indicated, "Primacy of honour" is a rather inadequate translation of ta presbeia tis timis, which actually means "the prerogatives of honor." [P. L'Huillier (1996) The Church of the Ancient Councils, p. 122.] This error seems to date back to the earliest Latin translations of the canon – a fact that may have influenced Rome's dislike for the canon, particularly after Chalcedon (the Fourth Ecumenical Council). While the canons of Constantinople I do not explicitly establish a principle of "territorial accommodation," they are the first canons to employ the term "dioceses" and to adopt this secular category for the Church (still in use today). In fact, the canons of Constantinople I go so far as to make sure that the ecclesial divisions of the Church accurately reflect the most current political events: Canon 2 mentions that Egypt should be considered a separate "synod" from the "East" – even though Egypt had not been made into its own diocese until 380, only one year before the council. [A.H.M Jones (1964) The Later Roman Empire, p. 46.]

Anyway, these are just some initial thoughts. Things are fluid in all periods of Church history -- and influenced by a variety of factors -- even in the modern period of the Roman Catholic Church. Fr. John Erikson, an Orthodox scholar, reminds us:

Quote
The good news from among Catholics is that developments in ecclesiology from Vatican II onward have helped to place the question of papal primacy in a new light. Particularly significant was the council's rediscovery of episcopacy as a true and proper order, "that by episcopal consecration is conferred the fullness of the sacrament of orders." [Lumen Gentium 21]   In principle, therefore, it is now recognized that the jurisdiction of the bishops, and not just their "power of orders," is derived directly from Christ through sacramental ordination rather than by delegation from the Pope.  Equally important was discovery of the collegial nature of the episcopate and the beginnings of a more satisfactory way of accounting for the pope's place within the episcopal college.  Theologians like Rahner, Congar, McBrien, Semmelroth and others can argue that "there is only one subject of supreme authority in the Church:  the episcopal college under papal leadership which can operate in two ways:  through a strictly collegial act [e.g., a general council] or through a personal act of the pope as head of the college." [Patrick Granfield, The Limits of the Papacy (New York: Crossroads, 1990) 85.]   Seen in this perspective, every primatial action in principle is collegial in nature.  Primatial ministry in principle is situated within the episcopal college, not outside it or over it, and the exercise of this ministry must be evaluated accordingly.


Anyway, In case you haven't already seen these articles, you'll find much more information about this (especially what comes during the fifth century and on) here:

The Origins and Authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church by Demetrios J. Constantelos

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8148.asp

Constantinople and Rome: A Survey of the Relations between the Byzantine and the Roman Churches, by Milton V. Anastos

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_6.html

Quote
Fourth, why does the Eastern Orthodox Church select an Eastern Orthodox Bishop of Rome?

There is no Eastern Orthodox Bishop of Rome, nor has there been one since the Schism. The first Eastern Orthodox Bishop to take up residence in Italy was elected a titular Bishop with a seat in Naples in November of 1970. He now has the title "Metropolitan of Italy" -- specifically NOT "Metropolitan of Rome."

That said, there are MANY Roman Catholics hierarchs who have been set up by the Vatican as competing Metropolitans and even Patriarchs of traditional Eastern Orthodox Sees, including the Roman Catholic Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, established by the Latin Crusaders; the various Melkite Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria -- not to mention the equally Catholic (yet somehow still distinct Catholic bishop of the same city), the Maronite Patriarch of Antioch, who has the title "Patriarch of Antioch and All the East." And one shouldn't forget the other Catholic Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, i.e. the COPTIC Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria and the Syrian Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, nor the Catholic Archbishop-Major of Kiev-Halych and All Rus, whom the Vatican has considered giving the title "Patriarch of All Rus." Astounding!

Phew! I'm getting a headache just trying to figure it all out.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2006, 12:33:35 PM by pensateomnia » Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,461


« Reply #81 on: October 17, 2006, 12:35:27 PM »

Elisha have you ever been to Russia? Do you have actual Russian friends who arent "nice and middle class"? Are you that much cut off from reality of contemporary Russian life that you have never heard this? Try actually living in Russia as opposed to visting as a tourist or on some ROCOR FSB-junket.

My first reaction was not to respond to what you have written given that those who wish to believe what they will about the MP in mine and other experiances cannot be made to see the reality no matter how much evidence is placed infront of them. Your references to "trolls" and "tin hats" show you have a sarcastic spirit which seems to accompany the resistance to truth.

There is no way that I will be so foolish as to engage in a discourse with you.

You are however, in my wretched prayers.

Theophan.

It doesn't matter that I haven't been to Russian and have only been around middle-class Russian-Americans.  I wasn't the one who threw out a deliberately inflammatory claim of "Icons of Stalin".  I stand by my troll remark until I see some evidence of these so called "Icons".  Even then, I don't think it is as grave as you think. 
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #82 on: October 17, 2006, 12:39:47 PM »

I actually did a google search and found an icon of stalin on a russian nationalist website but since I don't read Russian I have no idea if it is supposed to be real or just a photoshop job LOL
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #83 on: October 17, 2006, 03:22:45 PM »

Saint Peter, yes.

Popes in error, no.
I wasn't asking about Popes. But the reason why I ask is because if Peter was the first among equals, why is the EP not a petrine see like Antioch or Alexandria?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
sdcheung
it's as if..Saint Photios and Saint Mark Ephesus, has come back
Banned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,325


...even though Romania Falls, another will Rise...


« Reply #84 on: October 17, 2006, 03:45:01 PM »

I wasn't asking about Popes. But the reason why I ask is because if Peter was the first among equals, why is the EP not a petrine see like Antioch or Alexandria?

since when was the throne of Alexandria founded on Peter? It was Mark., who founded that throne.
Logged


Keep Breed Mixing, and this Maine Coon Cat will be the last of it's kind. /\
No profanities in your sig line if you're going to post in the public forum.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #85 on: October 17, 2006, 04:11:04 PM »

since when was the throne of Alexandria founded on Peter? It was Mark., who founded that throne.
My mistake, many blessings in Christ
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #86 on: October 17, 2006, 04:16:46 PM »

I wasn't asking about Popes. But the reason why I ask is because if Peter was the first among equals, why is the EP not a petrine see like Antioch or Alexandria?

Looks like you must read the Fourth Ecumenical Council (which the RCC finally accepted in its entirety in the 13th Century AFTER installing a Latin patriarch in Constantinople) for your answer.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #87 on: October 17, 2006, 05:35:17 PM »

Looks like you must read the Fourth Ecumenical Council (which the RCC finally accepted in its entirety in the 13th Century AFTER installing a Latin patriarch in Constantinople) for your answer.
Seems like the cannon concerning constantinople is more of a diciplinary one and not a dogmatic one. Furthermore, it seems to have been done for political reasons and not for theological ones.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #88 on: October 17, 2006, 08:22:51 PM »

Quote
Birthcontrol, divorce, hmmm.

IME Orthodoxy has always encouraged large families.  We simply don't play word games and pretend that NFP isn't birth control.  As a practical matter Humana Vitae is almost entirely ignored in the Catholic world. 

As for allowing second marriages out of economy, it isn't any different in practice than the way in which annulments work in this country.  Marriages that have been years in legnth and produced children are annulled - is that reasonable? 
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #89 on: October 17, 2006, 08:25:56 PM »

IME Orthodoxy has always encouraged large families.  We simply don't play word games and pretend that NFP isn't birth control.  As a practical matter Humana Vitae is almost entirely ignored in the Catholic world. 

As for allowing second marriages out of economy, it isn't any different in practice than the way in which annulments work in this country.  Marriages that have been years in legnth and produced children are annulled - is that reasonable? 
Not the same thing and you know it. NFP has to do with practicing self control and AFB has to do with sex on demand. As for annullments: If they were never truely marriages in the first place, then yes, it is very reasonable.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #90 on: October 17, 2006, 08:47:12 PM »

Quote
Not the same thing and you know it. NFP has to do with practicing self control and AFB has to do with sex on demand

NFP is still a form of brith control.  Because it requires some inconvience and isn't as effective as other forms doesn't mean its not a form of birth control. 

Quote
As for annullments: If they were never truely marriages in the first place, then yes, it is very reasonable.

That is playing with words and loopholes - it is silly to call a marriage that has lasted for years and produced children to never have existed.  The end result with an ecclesiatical divorce is really not that different than an annulment. 
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #91 on: October 17, 2006, 11:11:58 PM »

NFP is still a form of brith control.  Because it requires some inconvience and isn't as effective as other forms doesn't mean its not a form of birth control. 
But the philosophy is different. One encourages the controling of one's passions, the other does not.
That is playing with words and loopholes - it is silly to call a marriage that has lasted for years and produced children to never have existed.  The end result with an ecclesiatical divorce is really not that different than an annulment. 
Maybe from an existentialist point of view. But if there is such a thing as a true sacrament and an action that is an empty shell, as you Orthodox assert, then there can be true sacramental marriages and marriages that are not. Do you not recognize this? Do not some Eastern Orthodox Christians have their marriage blessed by the Eastern Orthodox Church when they enter into your religioin?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #92 on: October 18, 2006, 11:10:33 AM »

Seems like the cannon concerning constantinople is more of a diciplinary one and not a dogmatic one.

The extent of any See's jurisdiction is always a disciplinary matter, never dogmatic. (Perhaps that obvious distinction changed for a time in the medieval or post-Reformation Roman Catholic Church, but, if so, Vatican II has largely reversed the innovation.)

Quote
Furthermore, it seems to have been done for political reasons and not for theological ones.

First, there were theological ones (just not ones exclusively based on post-Damasus ideas of Petrine primacy). Second, were there no such political motivations underpinning the contemporaneous canons that speak of Rome's presbeia (not to mention later developments)?

An aside: Why do Catholic lay people on the Internet consistently ignore the current position of their Church? These issues have been exhaustively discussed and largely resolved in several official Orthodox-Catholic theological dialogues.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2006, 11:18:49 AM by pensateomnia » Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #93 on: October 18, 2006, 11:22:06 AM »

Quote
An aside: Why do Catholic lay people on the Internet consistently ignore the current position of their Church? These issues have been exhaustively discussed and largely resolved in several official Orthodox-Catholic theological dialogues.

Probably for the same reason that Orthodox anti-ecumenists such as myself ignore most things coming from those joint dialogues. But there is a bit of a difference in the two; with Rome you have a centralized authority that has officially approved a lot of this stuff; with Orthodoxy, the universal acceptance of these things is far from accomplished.

I respect people like Papist that stand up for their Church's historical position. I don't mesh well with the Vatican doublespeak of today.

Anstasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #94 on: October 18, 2006, 11:41:49 AM »

I respect people like Papist that stand up for their Church's historical position.

Historical positions are one thing. Peer-reviewed historical evidence -- accepted by scholars, bishops, even the Pope -- is another. The first is a claim or an interpretation of evidence; the other is (more or less) the basic set of information that requires interpretation (or re-interpretation).

People (of all sorts) have a tendency to repeat the former without reading the latter. Or, worse yet, to summarily reject the latter on the sole grounds that it does not conform to the former.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #95 on: October 18, 2006, 12:06:19 PM »

The extent of any See's jurisdiction is always a disciplinary matter, never dogmatic. (Perhaps that obvious distinction changed for a time in the medieval or post-Reformation Roman Catholic Church, but, if so, Vatican II has largely reversed the innovation.)

First, there were theological ones (just not ones exclusively based on post-Damasus ideas of Petrine primacy). Second, were there no such political motivations underpinning the contemporaneous canons that speak of Rome's presbeia (not to mention later developments)?

An aside: Why do Catholic lay people on the Internet consistently ignore the current position of their Church? These issues have been exhaustively discussed and largely resolved in several official Orthodox-Catholic theological dialogues.
We ignore them because they are not matters of faith, have not been defined as such, and becasue they contradict the things that are matters of Catholic faith. Papal infallibility and Universal jurisdiction, although some modern Popes may not like them, are still matters of faith, and even they cannot overturn them by their actions or  questionable comments. According to the Church's own defintion of Schism, which is a matter of faith, the Eastern Orthodox are in schism. According to the Church's own definition of heresy, the Eastern Orthodox are in heresy and the actions of a Pope or his statements that are non-binding on the faithful cannot change that. If pope were to try to teach heresy with regard to these matters then one could immediately assume that he is not a true Pope but an anti-Pope and there is no reason to pay him allegance. I am not saying the current Pope is an anti-Pope. In fact, I think he is a most honorable Pope, as was John Paul the Great, of blessed memory, but they did do and say some questionable things.
Many blessings in Christ
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #96 on: October 18, 2006, 12:07:48 PM »

Probably for the same reason that Orthodox anti-ecumenists such as myself ignore most things coming from those joint dialogues. But there is a bit of a difference in the two; with Rome you have a centralized authority that has officially approved a lot of this stuff; with Orthodoxy, the universal acceptance of these things is far from accomplished.

I respect people like Papist that stand up for their Church's historical position. I don't mesh well with the Vatican doublespeak of today.

Anstasios
And I respect people such as you who clearly define and defend the postion of their own Church and do not water it down for the sake of false ecumenism. Thank for your kind words Anstasios. I respect you as well.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #97 on: October 18, 2006, 04:13:32 PM »

We ignore them because they are not matters of faith

Is NFP a matter of faith?
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #98 on: October 21, 2006, 02:32:18 AM »

Actually if you make a strong allegation like that, it is usually done so with an explanation and evidence for your position.  Even assuming you are correct - I gave a very wide range of sources, so it can be assumed that the defects in any one of them will most likely be made up for in the others. 

I don't have the book myself, so I can't reference some of (what I find to be) the offending bits and critique them.  I haven't been able to find other critiques.  With regard to your second assertion, I don't know if you gave a "very wide range" of sources as you claim, but I don't doubt that you are nonetheless correct about "making up for defects."
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Panagiotis
Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Phanar
Posts: 406


Advocating Liberty Since 1973


WWW
« Reply #99 on: October 22, 2006, 12:08:31 AM »

Will ever the two meet? Unfortunately, I am pessimistic about any future reunion between the two. That is heartbreaking but it seems to me to be the real state of affairs. Any thoughts?
To get back to your original post, I shall answer the question posed form just my personal point of view.

Do I see a re-union of the two churches? No.
My thoughts on this a.k.a. why? Because  God revealed the truth and showed us His complete plan once Jesus Christ established His Church and God placed His Spirit upon the Earth to guide Her. The Papacy of Rome decided that, through rationalist Western thought, certain issues must be brought up to better understand and explain, like communion and the Mysteries. After time, thing which are still outright unexplainable, but they happen, became doctrines and no longer Mysteries. Yet at the same time, new doctrines were made to try and explain the unexplainable Mysteries' explanations. Eventually this became so out of hand that doctrines were put upon doctrines to explain the explanations of yet more doctrines which the Section of the Catholic Church was starting to see some unexplainable things in the West as just a remnant of the Mystery itself.

After time, the Mysteries became doctrinal explanations and not so mysterious anymore. Funny names like Transubstantiation and Papal Primacy became common and to furthermore confuse Christ's Church the Pope himself started turning these created doctrines of explaning the unexplainable into the core principles of the Faith. Sadly this upset the whole Church and made everyone sad, except those who thought that these explanations of the explanations of the unexplainable Mysteries were a normal part of Jesus' Church.

So after some time of dealing with these unfortunate doctrinal issues and trying to show the Pope that the Mysteries are something that cannot be explained, the Pope began to believe that making up doctrines and using them as a rule of the CHurch, of course this is a rational humanistic approach to the unexplainable. He declared himself the Ruler of the Church, based solely on some of those explanations of the explanations of the unexplainable doctrines which turned Mysteries into "sacraments" and made Peter the "First Among Equals" into "Lord Ruler of Jesus Christ's Church, second only to Jesus Himself and Infallible" except of course the Magisterium yes-men. Needless to say, once the rest of the Whole Church said this was not right and Mysteries are unexplainable, the Pope of ROme took his notion elsewhere and started misbehaving, even enough to insult Christ's Mother, our Mother, and make her into something God never intended, a Co-Redeemer.

So this little explanation is why I do not see Rome ever playing fairly and not accepting the Truth of Her origins, simply because Rome tries to explain the unexplainable and eventually gets foot-in-mouth disease just about every century or two on some doctrine based on another doctrine trying to explain another doctrine which explains a doctrine which is just a mystery to everyone honestly, except God. So this is why I say "No".

Blessings,
Panagiotis
Logged


"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #100 on: October 22, 2006, 02:36:43 AM »

To get back to your original post, I shall answer the question posed form just my personal point of view.

Do I see a re-union of the two churches? No.
My thoughts on this a.k.a. why? Because  God revealed the truth and showed us His complete plan once Jesus Christ established His Church and God placed His Spirit upon the Earth to guide Her. The Papacy of Rome decided that, through rationalist Western thought, certain issues must be brought up to better understand and explain, like communion and the Mysteries. After time, thing which are still outright unexplainable, but they happen, became doctrines and no longer Mysteries. Yet at the same time, new doctrines were made to try and explain the unexplainable Mysteries' explanations. Eventually this became so out of hand that doctrines were put upon doctrines to explain the explanations of yet more doctrines which the Section of the Catholic Church was starting to see some unexplainable things in the West as just a remnant of the Mystery itself.

After time, the Mysteries became doctrinal explanations and not so mysterious anymore. Funny names like Transubstantiation and Papal Primacy became common and to furthermore confuse Christ's Church the Pope himself started turning these created doctrines of explaning the unexplainable into the core principles of the Faith. Sadly this upset the whole Church and made everyone sad, except those who thought that these explanations of the explanations of the unexplainable Mysteries were a normal part of Jesus' Church.

So after some time of dealing with these unfortunate doctrinal issues and trying to show the Pope that the Mysteries are something that cannot be explained, the Pope began to believe that making up doctrines and using them as a rule of the CHurch, of course this is a rational humanistic approach to the unexplainable. He declared himself the Ruler of the Church, based solely on some of those explanations of the explanations of the unexplainable doctrines which turned Mysteries into "sacraments" and made Peter the "First Among Equals" into "Lord Ruler of Jesus Christ's Church, second only to Jesus Himself and Infallible" except of course the Magisterium yes-men. Needless to say, once the rest of the Whole Church said this was not right and Mysteries are unexplainable, the Pope of ROme took his notion elsewhere and started misbehaving, even enough to insult Christ's Mother, our Mother, and make her into something God never intended, a Co-Redeemer.

So this little explanation is why I do not see Rome ever playing fairly and not accepting the Truth of Her origins, simply because Rome tries to explain the unexplainable and eventually gets foot-in-mouth disease just about every century or two on some doctrine based on another doctrine trying to explain another doctrine which explains a doctrine which is just a mystery to everyone honestly, except God. So this is why I say "No".

Blessings,
Panagiotis
Actually I was just asking if we had that much in common anymore. I don't think we do. In fact, I don't think reunion will happen this side of heaven because the collective conscience of the Eastern Orthodox Church is far too seared for the Eastern Orthodox to back into commuion. Options:
1) The Pope in Rome says, "oops, we were wrong" and goes into union with the Eastern Orthodox dropping distinctively Catholic dogmas. But then, Catholics like myself must assume that since said Pope is a heretic, he is not a true Pope, was never truely appointed the Pope and then the Chair of Peter is empty. In a sense, we become Sedavacantists and there still remains a Catholic Church and an Eastern Orthodox Church.
2) The Eastern Partriarchs say, "OOps. We were wrong" and come back into the Church and union with Rome. But then, the Eastern Orthdox Christians who don't like Rome say, "no way" and then split off and there remains an Eastern Orthodox Church not in communion with Rome.
You see, either way, there will always be two separate bodies this side of heaven.
Many blessings in Christ.
Many Blessings in Christ.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Panagiotis
Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Phanar
Posts: 406


Advocating Liberty Since 1973


WWW
« Reply #101 on: October 22, 2006, 04:07:51 AM »

I believe you and I agree on this, good sir.

Blessings to you, Papist. May this Schismatic pray for this other Schismatic. lol

May the Lord Bless You and Keep You,
Panagiotis
Logged


"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #102 on: March 01, 2012, 12:21:05 AM »

NFP is still a form of brith control.  Because it requires some inconvience and isn't as effective as other forms doesn't mean its not a form of birth control. 
But the philosophy is different. One encourages the controling of one's passions, the other does not.
So if the couple are willing to bear the consequences, sex 24/7 is all good, or is that "controlling of one's passions"?

That is playing with words and loopholes - it is silly to call a marriage that has lasted for years and produced children to never have existed.  The end result with an ecclesiatical divorce is really not that different than an annulment. 
Maybe from an existentialist point of view. But if there is such a thing as a true sacrament and an action that is an empty shell, as you Orthodox assert, then there can be true sacramental marriages and marriages that are not. Do you not recognize this? Do not some Eastern Orthodox Christians have their marriage blessed by the Eastern Orthodox Church when they enter into your religioin?
Yes, but since chrismation doesn't operate to annull their marriage, what is your point?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 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 0.301 seconds with 130 queries.