OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 21, 2014, 05:33:46 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Do we have alot in common?  (Read 8905 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 12,417


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: 12,417


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: 12,417


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: 3,194


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: 12,417


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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« 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 0.072 seconds with 40 queries.