Green Umbrella vs. Cyrillic (Was: I am Godless)

Jason.Wike

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
0
Points
0
dzheremi said:
What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times. Why else do you think we're still not in union with one another? If it were as simple as declaring this or that an ecumenical council that MUST be held to, then we wouldn't see multiple attempts at reunion councils fall flat. The people know their faith, and they wouldn't accept betrayal at Florence from bishops who had been pressured to sign on to something that does not reflect their faith. There is no such thing as "such and such a bishop signed off on it, therefore it's X, Y, Z", the way the Romans have decided applies to their Pope (yet another thing we don't listen to from them). Bishops can be wrong, just like councils that one particular church declares to be preserving the true faith can be doing something else instead.
The whole Mark of Ephesus ideal vs. the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong), another one of Orthodoxy's grand stands of cognitive dissonance. Its no wonder anyone that tries to become Orthodox and isn't content with "Its all a mysterion! Don't think about anything!" ends up schizo.
 

OrthoNoob

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jason.Wike said:
dzheremi said:
What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times. Why else do you think we're still not in union with one another? If it were as simple as declaring this or that an ecumenical council that MUST be held to, then we wouldn't see multiple attempts at reunion councils fall flat. The people know their faith, and they wouldn't accept betrayal at Florence from bishops who had been pressured to sign on to something that does not reflect their faith. There is no such thing as "such and such a bishop signed off on it, therefore it's X, Y, Z", the way the Romans have decided applies to their Pope (yet another thing we don't listen to from them). Bishops can be wrong, just like councils that one particular church declares to be preserving the true faith can be doing something else instead.
The whole Mark of Ephesus ideal vs. the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong), another one of Orthodoxy's grand stands of cognitive dissonance. Its no wonder anyone that tries to become Orthodox and isn't content with "Its all a mysterion! Don't think about anything!" ends up schizo.
No one has ever told me that my priest or my bishop is "Christ on earth." I wonder if I should ask Father whether he is?
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
25
Location
Netherlands
Green_Umbrella said:
Αριστοκλής said:
But I do say the Council of Florence from what I know right now looks ecumenical.
A council, coerced to its conclusion and rejected by the Church (the faithful) is not ecumenical.
Watching Cryillic debate the people on the other forum is like watching architects arguing the building codes to a skyscraper with me being the cement mixer. I have no idea what they are talking about. 

;D

I do not know...yet.  ;)
Don't worry, you won't have to see it anymore, the mods banned me. Real debate can't take place over there.

dzheremi said:
Yes, Green Umbrella, the people have rejected councils which did not reflect the Orthodox faith, and bishops and priests who have been guilty of the same tampering have been deposed.
You can take that from a Copt  ;)
 

dzheremi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jason.Wike said:
[...]the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong)
If that teaching is so oft-repeated, how come I've never heard it? The bishop is Christ on earth? Nope, we don't have any thoughts of our bishops (any of them) being the "Vicar of Christ". That's an RC thing, not Orthodox.
 

Green_Umbrella

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
William said:
Green_Umbrella!  :'(
I copy and paste comment here from another forum..

Originally Posted by Cyrillic View Post
I disagree. I don't think the Council of Florence was ecumenical. I do not see how that can be seriously disputed.
Originally Posted by Green_Umbrella
Please correct me if I am wrong because I am very much a layman.

The Emporer himself and every representative from the east agreed and signed on the dotted line except one, Mark of Ephesus. If that is not ecumenical what is ecumenical? I do not think ecumenical could exist.

Your side rolled over. Unless you have some new information and that is very possible, that is the way I see it.
And from that point a debate opened. I was learning a lot. I do not see anything to be sad about.
 

Green_Umbrella

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Cyrillic said:
Green_Umbrella said:
Αριστοκλής said:
But I do say the Council of Florence from what I know right now looks ecumenical.
A council, coerced to its conclusion and rejected by the Church (the faithful) is not ecumenical.
Watching Cryillic debate the people on the other forum is like watching architects arguing the building codes to a skyscraper with me being the cement mixer. I have no idea what they are talking about. 

;D

I do not know...yet.  ;)
Don't worry, you won't have to see it anymore, the mods banned me. Real debate can't take place over there.

dzheremi said:
Yes, Green Umbrella, the people have rejected councils which did not reflect the Orthodox faith, and bishops and priests who have been guilty of the same tampering have been deposed.
You can take that from a Copt  ;)
That is ok. They banned me too.  ;D ...and some other people.  :eek: It is too bad. I was learning a lot but whatever.  ::)

They drop the axe pretty quick over there on that forum it seems.
 

OrthoNoob

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
0
Points
0
dzheremi said:
Jason.Wike said:
[...]the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong)
If that teaching is so oft-repeated, how come I've never heard it? The bishop is Christ on earth? Nope, we don't have any thoughts of our bishops (any of them) being the "Vicar of Christ". That's an RC thing, not Orthodox.
In point of fact, the EOs have a saying (attributed, I think, to St. John Chrysostom): "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."
 

Apples

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
4,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jason.Wike said:
dzheremi said:
What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times. Why else do you think we're still not in union with one another? If it were as simple as declaring this or that an ecumenical council that MUST be held to, then we wouldn't see multiple attempts at reunion councils fall flat. The people know their faith, and they wouldn't accept betrayal at Florence from bishops who had been pressured to sign on to something that does not reflect their faith. There is no such thing as "such and such a bishop signed off on it, therefore it's X, Y, Z", the way the Romans have decided applies to their Pope (yet another thing we don't listen to from them). Bishops can be wrong, just like councils that one particular church declares to be preserving the true faith can be doing something else instead.
The whole Mark of Ephesus ideal vs. the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong), another one of Orthodoxy's grand stands of cognitive dissonance. Its no wonder anyone that tries to become Orthodox and isn't content with "Its all a mysterion! Don't think about anything!" ends up schizo.
It's nice to see that you don't actually know anything about Orthodoxy. It makes your hatred of it more forgivable.
 

Apples

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
4,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Green_Umbrella said:
William said:
Green_Umbrella!  :'(
I copy and paste comment here from another forum..

Originally Posted by Cyrillic View Post
I disagree. I don't think the Council of Florence was ecumenical. I do not see how that can be seriously disputed.
Originally Posted by Green_Umbrella
Please correct me if I am wrong because I am very much a layman.

The Emporer himself and every representative from the east agreed and signed on the dotted line except one, Mark of Ephesus. If that is not ecumenical what is ecumenical? I do not think ecumenical could exist.

Your side rolled over. Unless you have some new information and that is very possible, that is the way I see it.
And from that point a debate opened. I was learning a lot. I do not see anything to be sad about.
Your post on CAF (?) was very definitive ("I don't see how that can be disputed") for someone who hasn't made up their mind.

Look up St. Athanasius. A Catholic as well as Orthodox saint, he was at one point more or less the only bishop who did not subscribe to the semi-Arian creed of Arminium and is seen as a hero for it.
 

HabteSelassie

Archon
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
3,314
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

William said:
Green_Umbrella said:
William said:
Green_Umbrella!  :'(
I copy and paste comment here from another forum..

Originally Posted by Cyrillic View Post
I disagree. I don't think the Council of Florence was ecumenical. I do not see how that can be seriously disputed.
Originally Posted by Green_Umbrella
Please correct me if I am wrong because I am very much a layman.

The Emporer himself and every representative from the east agreed and signed on the dotted line except one, Mark of Ephesus. If that is not ecumenical what is ecumenical? I do not think ecumenical could exist.

Your side rolled over. Unless you have some new information and that is very possible, that is the way I see it.
And from that point a debate opened. I was learning a lot. I do not see anything to be sad about.
Your post on CAF (?) was very definitive ("I don't see how that can be disputed") for someone who hasn't made up their mind.

Look up St. Athanasius. A Catholic as well as Orthodox saint, he was at one point more or less the only bishop who did not subscribe to the semi-Arian creed of Arminium and is seen as a hero for it.
Yes, and as graceful as our Father generally is, he also seemed rather bitter at times, but then again, I suppose that is what happens when you're exiled five times and folks are trying to kill you :)

God bless the legacy of our rightful Saint Athanasius, perhaps the only Patriarch with a Moses the Ethiopian attitude and approach!

stay blessed,
habte selassie
 

Michael36

Jr. Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Points
0
OrthoNoob said:
dzheremi said:
Jason.Wike said:
[...]the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong)
If that teaching is so oft-repeated, how come I've never heard it? The bishop is Christ on earth? Nope, we don't have any thoughts of our bishops (any of them) being the "Vicar of Christ". That's an RC thing, not Orthodox.
In point of fact, the EOs have a saying (attributed, I think, to St. John Chrysostom): "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."
Actually the saying is: "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of Priests and the Bishops are the lamp posts"
 

Green_Umbrella

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
William said:
Green_Umbrella said:
William said:
Green_Umbrella!  :'(
I copy and paste comment here from another forum..

Originally Posted by Cyrillic View Post
I disagree. I don't think the Council of Florence was ecumenical. I do not see how that can be seriously disputed.
Originally Posted by Green_Umbrella
Please correct me if I am wrong because I am very much a layman.

The Emporer himself and every representative from the east agreed and signed on the dotted line except one, Mark of Ephesus. If that is not ecumenical what is ecumenical? I do not think ecumenical could exist.

Your side rolled over. Unless you have some new information and that is very possible, that is the way I see it.
And from that point a debate opened. I was learning a lot. I do not see anything to be sad about.
Your post on CAF (?) was very definitive ("I don't see how that can be disputed") for someone who hasn't made up their mind.

Look up St. Athanasius. A Catholic as well as Orthodox saint, he was at one point more or less the only bishop who did not subscribe to the semi-Arian creed of Arminium and is seen as a hero for it.
Well, If you look at my post they all include words like,  ¨I think...¨  ¨I am not sure...¨  ¨Please correct me if I am wrong ..¨  ¨How do you know this and where can I find this information?¨

That is not someone who has their mind made up.

And I still can find no information on where the Greeks demanded the council be ratified by the local synods before it would be accepted by the east. Who says that, where is that written. I have been offered no link to prove that. Is that a historic fact or spin. Show me. Evidence please.

Here is a good example and this is from today after the bans...

Originally Posted by Cyrillic
No, hypocrisy like that would be docrinal development. Orthodoxy doesn't do that.

Besides, my point was that canon 28 was as valid in 451, 1054 and 1215. The Pope's acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement doesn't change a thing about that.
and the response...

I realize he can't respond, but I want to highlight an error here. In 451 the Pope rejected Canon 28, and the Council said it would have no force without his assent. Later Popes did accept this rearrangement of the order of Sees, yet Cyrillic does not call this the "hypocrisy of doctrinal development" that "Orthodoxy doesn't do".

If the Patriarchate of Rome can change its position on a Canon, why can't the Patriarch of Moscow? And if a Canon that is rejected now can be approved later, then there is no place to say that the rejection of "Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction" now by the Orthodox constitutes an Ecumenical condemnation of the teaching that brands it as heresy.

Unfortunately the Eastern Orthodox position on Councils presented here is unworkable, and contradicts the history of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
Now is Cyrillic correct here or the other person? I do not know. I have no idea. It is all news to me. Some people here act like everyone is born with this knowledge. It is unfortunate they banned everyone there because I was learning a lot. But they pay for the site and he who pays the piper calls the tune.
 

 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,115
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Age
41
Michael36 said:
OrthoNoob said:
dzheremi said:
Jason.Wike said:
[...]the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong)
If that teaching is so oft-repeated, how come I've never heard it? The bishop is Christ on earth? Nope, we don't have any thoughts of our bishops (any of them) being the "Vicar of Christ". That's an RC thing, not Orthodox.
In point of fact, the EOs have a saying (attributed, I think, to St. John Chrysostom): "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."
Actually the saying is: "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of Priests and the Bishops are the lamp posts"
I don't know about the saying, but in his 3rd Homily on Acts St. John says most bishops won't be saved.
 

Jason.Wike

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I don't know anything? Actually it is amazing you guys apparently don't even study your own religion/history.

Priests are icons of Christ. Kings are, as well. The same role that political envoys played in the secular world Priests served for the Kingdom of God. Just as political envoys were treated as if they themselves were actually the King they represented, priests are likewise for Christ. It may be depreciated in Anglo American Orthodoxy but if you actually pick up any books on Orthodoxy from before 1950's its probably in every one of them.
 

OrthoNoob

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jason.Wike said:
I don't know anything? Actually it is amazing you guys apparently don't even study your own religion/history.

Priests are icons of Christ. Kings are, as well. The same role that political envoys played in the secular world Priests served for the Kingdom of God. Just as political envoys were treated as if they themselves were actually the King they represented, priests are likewise for Christ. It may be depreciated in Anglo American Orthodoxy but if you actually pick up any books on Orthodoxy from before 1950's its in every one of them.
There's some truth to that. Priests are icons of Christ, and although I don't have any proof for it, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to find out that that's also true of kings. That doesn't mean we owe them unconditional obedience and the phrase "Christ on earth" is a bit deceptive in that regard.

Every human being is also an icon of Christ, in a sense. The priests arguably are more so, since they represent Christ liturgically as well as the way we all do. But one doesn't pay the same honor to an icon that one does to God.
 

HabteSelassie

Archon
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
3,314
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Jason.Wike said:
I don't know anything? Actually it is amazing you guys apparently don't even study your own religion/history.

Priests are icons of Christ. Kings are, as well. The same role that political envoys played in the secular world Priests served for the Kingdom of God. Just as political envoys were treated as if they themselves were actually the King they represented, priests are likewise for Christ. It may be depreciated in Anglo American Orthodoxy but if you actually pick up any books on Orthodoxy from before 1950's its in every one of them.
Tisk.. Tisk..

It must sure be easy there to throw all those stones from outside looking in, perhaps one day you should come in an actually join us in worship rather then scathing criticism beyond your experience?

stay blessed,
habte selassie
 

Jason.Wike

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
0
Points
0
dzheremi said:
Jason.Wike said:
[...]the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong)
If that teaching is so oft-repeated, how come I've never heard it? The bishop is Christ on earth? Nope, we don't have any thoughts of our bishops (any of them) being the "Vicar of Christ". That's an RC thing, not Orthodox.
I didn't say anything about "Vicar of Christ" did I?

The Place of the Bishop in the Orthodox Church.
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
25
Location
Netherlands
Green_Umbrella said:
Originally Posted by Cyrillic
No, hypocrisy like that would be docrinal development. Orthodoxy doesn't do that.

Besides, my point was that canon 28 was as valid in 451, 1054 and 1215. The Pope's acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement doesn't change a thing about that.
and the response...

I realize he can't respond, but I want to highlight an error here. In 451 the Pope rejected Canon 28, and the Council said it would have no force without his assent. Later Popes did accept this rearrangement of the order of Sees, yet Cyrillic does not call this the "hypocrisy of doctrinal development" that "Orthodoxy doesn't do".

If the Patriarchate of Rome can change its position on a Canon, why can't the Patriarch of Moscow? And if a Canon that is rejected now can be approved later, then there is no place to say that the rejection of "Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction" now by the Orthodox constitutes an Ecumenical condemnation of the teaching that brands it as heresy.

Unfortunately the Eastern Orthodox position on Councils presented here is unworkable, and contradicts the history of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
Now is Cyrillic correct here or the other person? I do not know. I have no idea. It is all news to me. Some people here act like everyone is born with this knowledge. It is unfortunate they banned everyone there because I was learning a lot. But they pay for the site and he who pays the piper calls the tune.
I'm not a very impartial judge here, so I'll leave that one for others.
 

Green_Umbrella

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Cyrillic said:
Green_Umbrella said:
Originally Posted by Cyrillic
No, hypocrisy like that would be docrinal development. Orthodoxy doesn't do that.

Besides, my point was that canon 28 was as valid in 451, 1054 and 1215. The Pope's acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement doesn't change a thing about that.
and the response...

I realize he can't respond, but I want to highlight an error here. In 451 the Pope rejected Canon 28, and the Council said it would have no force without his assent. Later Popes did accept this rearrangement of the order of Sees, yet Cyrillic does not call this the "hypocrisy of doctrinal development" that "Orthodoxy doesn't do".

If the Patriarchate of Rome can change its position on a Canon, why can't the Patriarch of Moscow? And if a Canon that is rejected now can be approved later, then there is no place to say that the rejection of "Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction" now by the Orthodox constitutes an Ecumenical condemnation of the teaching that brands it as heresy.

Unfortunately the Eastern Orthodox position on Councils presented here is unworkable, and contradicts the history of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
Now is Cyrillic correct here or the other person? I do not know. I have no idea. It is all news to me. Some people here act like everyone is born with this knowledge. It is unfortunate they banned everyone there because I was learning a lot. But they pay for the site and he who pays the piper calls the tune.
I'm not a very impartial judge here, so I'll leave that one for others.
Well, Papal infallibility seems a bit much. ¨..the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error..¨ I think I am not buying that. But is it not true that the Byzantine Emperors acted and claimed the same position over the eastern churches as the Popes today claim over the western churches? Was not the Eastern Empires form of government one of Caesaropapism?

The Emperor was head of the Church and claimed infallibility in the east?

 
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
25
Location
Netherlands
Green_Umbrella said:
Well, Papal infallibility seems a bit much. ¨..the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error..¨ I think I am not buying that.
Good.

Green_Umbrella said:
But is it not true that the Byzantine Emperors acted and claimed the same position over the eastern churches as the Popes today claim over the western churches? Was not the Eastern Empires form of government one of Caesaropapism?
Well, not exactly. Some emperors tried to introduce heresy but each time they failed. For example the monothelitism of Constans II or the iconoclasm of Leo III and Constantine V etc. etc.

Green_Umbrella said:
The Emperor was head of the Church and claimed infallibility in the east?
Emperors were never the head of the Church (the only head of the Church is Christ) and they never claimed infallibility.

Perhaps a mod should split this thread to keep things on topic.
 
Top