Funny: Europe according to the Vatican map

Kasatkin fan

High Elder
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
636
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Western Canada
Cognomen said:
ialmisry said:
...but if Abp. Rowan was received into Orthodoxy, it would be as a layman.
Why would this be, if others are allowed to make guided transitions into the clergy?  Would it be a formality?
Given that he's married, he couldn't be accepted as a bishop. Those who knowledgable are quite often ordained immediatly after chrismation, but he would likely be received as a layman, even if he was ordained immediatly after.
 

Vlad

Elder
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
471
Reaction score
0
Points
0
lubeltri said:
Proud citizen and subject of the Papal States!

Long live our sovereign, the Bishop of Rome!

Nice Photoshop. Ratzinger would never wear the tiara. He's a modernist.
 

Vlad

Elder
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
471
Reaction score
0
Points
0
As to the original post funny stuff.
 

Shlomlokh

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
1,356
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Roanoke, VA
Well, it didn't take long for this thread to veer off course. :p

In Christ,
Andrew
 

Kasatkin fan

High Elder
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
636
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Western Canada
Cognomen said:
^ Right.  So it would be a formality.  I'm not implying that formalities have no meaning, but it's not as if his time in the laity would be substantial (or much over 24hrs).
In most juristictions anyway, I suppose I'd expect him to be ordained to the priesthood shortly after. Although my former bishop, IIRC, was an Anglican priest who converted, and had to reattend seminary before he was ordained Orthodox.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
The Spirit has descended!
Vlad said:
lubeltri said:
Proud citizen and subject of the Papal States!

Long live our sovereign, the Bishop of Rome!

Nice Photoshop. Ratzinger would never wear the tiara. He's a modernist.
LOL. I was waiting for someone else to notice the incongruity.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
The Spirit has descended!
Kasatkin fan said:
Cognomen said:
^ Right.  So it would be a formality.  I'm not implying that formalities have no meaning, but it's not as if his time in the laity would be substantial (or much over 24hrs).
In most juristictions anyway, I suppose I'd expect him to be ordained to the priesthood shortly after. Although my former bishop, IIRC, was an Anglican priest who converted, and had to reattend seminary before he was ordained Orthodox.
No Anglican/episcopalian cleric has ever been received into Orthodoxy  as having orders.
 

Kasatkin fan

High Elder
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
636
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Western Canada
ialmisry said:
The Spirit has descended!
Kasatkin fan said:
Cognomen said:
^ Right.  So it would be a formality.  I'm not implying that formalities have no meaning, but it's not as if his time in the laity would be substantial (or much over 24hrs).
In most juristictions anyway, I suppose I'd expect him to be ordained to the priesthood shortly after. Although my former bishop, IIRC, was an Anglican priest who converted, and had to reattend seminary before he was ordained Orthodox.
No Anglican/episcopalian cleric has ever been received into Orthodoxy  as having orders.
Never said as much. However Protestant clergy have been accepted and ordained immediatly as clergy, which is what this dialogue has been about.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Kasatkin fan said:
ialmisry said:
The Spirit has descended!
Kasatkin fan said:
Cognomen said:
^ Right.  So it would be a formality.  I'm not implying that formalities have no meaning, but it's not as if his time in the laity would be substantial (or much over 24hrs).
In most juristictions anyway, I suppose I'd expect him to be ordained to the priesthood shortly after. Although my former bishop, IIRC, was an Anglican priest who converted, and had to reattend seminary before he was ordained Orthodox.
No Anglican/episcopalian cleric has ever been received into Orthodoxy  as having orders.
Never said as much. However Protestant clergy have been accepted and ordained immediatly as clergy, which is what this dialogue has been about.
Not the start:
Cognomen said:
ialmisry said:
...but if Abp. Rowan was received into Orthodoxy, it would be as a layman.
Why would this be, if others are allowed to make guided transitions into the clergy?  Would it be a formality?
Which was answering this:
lubeltri said:
ialmisry said:
I know that according to the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, he is not, but he is a bishop of Rome, if we are going to use that title for all ecclesiastical communities. Like we call the Episcopalian bishop of Chicago "a bishop of Chicago." Just not a bishop of Chicago like the 3(?) Orthodox bishops of Chicago (we have more, but the others have their titular sees elsewhere).
According to your Ecumenical Patriarch, His All-Holiness Bartholomew, Benedict XVI is "His Beatitude, the Bishop of Rome." Not "layman of the Vatican", as you would prefer to call him. If you have a problem with that, take it up with His All-Holiness, not with me.  :)
Many Protestant clergy, even Baptist, have been ordained nearly immediately after being received.  But they have to be ordained: no Orthodox Church has ever recognized Protestant "orders." It is not, for instance, like Protestants' marriages being received when they are. (In fact, the Antiochian archdiocese requires converts to be remarried with the Orthodox service before ordination).
 

Kasatkin fan

High Elder
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
636
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Western Canada
ialmisry said:
Kasatkin fan said:
ialmisry said:
The Spirit has descended!
Kasatkin fan said:
Cognomen said:
^ Right.  So it would be a formality.  I'm not implying that formalities have no meaning, but it's not as if his time in the laity would be substantial (or much over 24hrs).
In most juristictions anyway, I suppose I'd expect him to be ordained to the priesthood shortly after. Although my former bishop, IIRC, was an Anglican priest who converted, and had to reattend seminary before he was ordained Orthodox.
No Anglican/episcopalian cleric has ever been received into Orthodoxy  as having orders.
Never said as much. However Protestant clergy have been accepted and ordained immediatly as clergy, which is what this dialogue has been about.
Not the start:
Cognomen said:
ialmisry said:
...but if Abp. Rowan was received into Orthodoxy, it would be as a layman.
Why would this be, if others are allowed to make guided transitions into the clergy?  Would it be a formality?
Which was answering this:
lubeltri said:
ialmisry said:
I know that according to the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, he is not, but he is a bishop of Rome, if we are going to use that title for all ecclesiastical communities. Like we call the Episcopalian bishop of Chicago "a bishop of Chicago." Just not a bishop of Chicago like the 3(?) Orthodox bishops of Chicago (we have more, but the others have their titular sees elsewhere).
According to your Ecumenical Patriarch, His All-Holiness Bartholomew, Benedict XVI is "His Beatitude, the Bishop of Rome." Not "layman of the Vatican", as you would prefer to call him. If you have a problem with that, take it up with His All-Holiness, not with me.  :)
Many Protestant clergy, even Baptist, have been ordained nearly immediately after being received.  But they have to be ordained: no Orthodox Church has ever recognized Protestant "orders." It is not, for instance, like Protestants' marriages being received when they are. (In fact, the Antiochian archdiocese requires converts to be remarried with the Orthodox service before ordination).
I said dialogue, not conversation.  ;)
Certainly the conversation started otherwise.
 

Alpo

Merarches
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
9,878
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Vlad said:
Nice Photoshop. Ratzinger would never wear the tiara. He's a modernist.
What do you mean by "modernist" and what makes you think His Holiness is one? I've understood that his Catholicism is fairly traditional.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
88Devin12 said:
Was reading about internet "memes" and found this:

http://www.zazzle.com/europe_according_to_the_vatican_poster-228241982411366618

Europe according to the Vatican... Kind of funny...

Warning, it is not politically correct, and may offend some.
Love it!
 

lubeltri

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Archdiocese of Boston
Kasatkin fan said:
Wyatt said:
lubeltri said:
ialmisry said:
I know that according to the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, he is not, but he is a bishop of Rome, if we are going to use that title for all ecclesiastical communities. Like we call the Episcopalian bishop of Chicago "a bishop of Chicago." Just not a bishop of Chicago like the 3(?) Orthodox bishops of Chicago (we have more, but the others have their titular sees elsewhere).
According to your Ecumenical Patriarch, His All-Holiness Bartholomew, Benedict XVI is "His Beatitude, the Bishop of Rome." Not "layman of the Vatican", as you would prefer to call him. If you have a problem with that, take it up with His All-Holiness, not with me.  :)
He's not infallible, so they can throw out anything he says whenever what he says is inconvenient.  ;)
Given that he is leader of only a small percentage of Orthodox Christians, what he says, though valuable, is not the final word.

An interesting comment you make though, your pope is supposedly infallible yet Catholics are always throwing out anything he says that is inconvenient.
Nice job exposing your total ignorance of the dogma of papal infallibility. Time Magazine or the New York Times or the ravings of a guy at the water cooler are not the best sources for clearing up this ignorance.  ::)
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
lubeltri said:
Kasatkin fan said:
Wyatt said:
lubeltri said:
ialmisry said:
I know that according to the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, he is not, but he is a bishop of Rome, if we are going to use that title for all ecclesiastical communities. Like we call the Episcopalian bishop of Chicago "a bishop of Chicago." Just not a bishop of Chicago like the 3(?) Orthodox bishops of Chicago (we have more, but the others have their titular sees elsewhere).
According to your Ecumenical Patriarch, His All-Holiness Bartholomew, Benedict XVI is "His Beatitude, the Bishop of Rome." Not "layman of the Vatican", as you would prefer to call him. If you have a problem with that, take it up with His All-Holiness, not with me.  :)
He's not infallible, so they can throw out anything he says whenever what he says is inconvenient.  ;)
Given that he is leader of only a small percentage of Orthodox Christians, what he says, though valuable, is not the final word.

An interesting comment you make though, your pope is supposedly infallible yet Catholics are always throwing out anything he says that is inconvenient.
Nice job exposing your total ignorance of the dogma of papal infallibility. Time Magazine or the New York Times or the ravings of a guy at the water cooler are not the best sources for clearing up this ignorance.  ::)
You're awfully optimistic.

I don't know what Time Magazine or the New York Times say about Papal Infallibility; but I did spend a lot of time on the Catholic Answers Forum (catholic.com), and you would not believe the amount of ignorance among Catholics concerning P.I.
 
Top