What Would The Catholic Church Have To Concede?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
lovesupreme said:
theistgal said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
theistgal said:
podkarpatska said:
theistgal said:
Just wanted to say, Mor Ephrem, if all Orthodox were as understanding and compassionate towards us beknighted Romans as you, reunion would happen a lot faster.  :angel:
Frankly, I think that there are more of us who think along lines similar to those of Mor out there than a reading of threads online would indicate. But remember that on the Roman side of the divide there are plenty of 'it's my way or the highway to hell' types out there as well! (and a few even post here!) ;)
True, but more of us post here because we are in exile from the "highway to hell" types. :)
Well, JoesS2 is right. We need real unity not a happy nice false sense of unity. And unless some of those things are resolved, it won't be a true unity. It may not sound nice, but sometimes it needs to happen.
Yes. But you also need more people who understand not only what Roman Catholics actually believe but why, before criticizing them.  8)
They believe that the Pope is God, because he told them so. What's not to get?! ;D
Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility are real stumbling blocks.

Even in 1870, when the Pope of Rome forced this novel teaching on the hierarchy, some did not go along and lost their bishopric. While this event was the beginning of the Old Catholics, others simply went East and joined the Orthodox Church.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
2,319
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I have seen parishioners who are faithful lifelong churchgoers who after attending a bible class held after paraclesis by our priest, complain that they do not agree with some of his interpretations, and you will find that there are more than you think all over the Orthodox who do not agree, this also applies to the faithful of RC, so it is basically why this whole argument to me is rather pointless and basically never to be resolved, even as it has pointed out that it could.

I have faith in the mercy of God and not men, who can kill the body but not the soul (LK 12:4).
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
Sinful Hypocrite said:
I have seen parishioners who are faithful lifelong churchgoers who after attending a bible class held after paraclesis by our priest, complain that they do not agree with some of his interpretations, and you will find that there are more than you think all over the Orthodox who do not agree, this also applies to the faithful of RC, so it is basically why this whole argument to me is rather pointless and basically never to be resolved, even as it has pointed out that it could.

I have faith in the mercy of God and not men, who can kill the body but not the soul (LK 12:4).
When I used to attend the local Orthodox parish Bible Studies, the class largely consisted of inquirers, current catechumens, and those who were recently received into Orthodoxy. There were rarely any arguments as the folks present readily accepted whatever the priest said as the "gospel" truth.

However, it was after the Sunday sermons where disagreements were expressed. Our priest would go into the parish hall only to be confronted by certain angry parishioners, cradle Orthodox, who were very upset that the priest would dare to mention that a suicide* would normally not have a church burial. In fact, several priests were forced to resign or relocate when their sermons upset the folks in the parish council.

*When a popular teen girl had committed suicide over a breakup with her boyfriend, and had been given a funeral with the permission of the bishop, several other girls and boys also attempted suicide. The priest and the bishop then told the parish that suicides do not normally have a funeral in an attempt to stop the attempted suicides. Hence, a letter from the bishop was read to all parishioners.

How does the Catholic Church treat suicides? Do most or all get a Catholic funeral service and burial?
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,164
Reaction score
36
Points
48
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
theistgal said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
theistgal said:
podkarpatska said:
theistgal said:
Just wanted to say, Mor Ephrem, if all Orthodox were as understanding and compassionate towards us beknighted Romans as you, reunion would happen a lot faster.  :angel:
Frankly, I think that there are more of us who think along lines similar to those of Mor out there than a reading of threads online would indicate. But remember that on the Roman side of the divide there are plenty of 'it's my way or the highway to hell' types out there as well! (and a few even post here!) ;)
True, but more of us post here because we are in exile from the "highway to hell" types. :)
Well, JoesS2 is right. We need real unity not a happy nice false sense of unity. And unless some of those things are resolved, it won't be a true unity. It may not sound nice, but sometimes it needs to happen.
Yes. But you also need more people who understand not only what Roman Catholics actually believe but why, before criticizing them.  8)
I agree...there's plenty of stuff to criticise legitimately, and that's actually worth pursuing on its own terms.  But zeal without knowledge is always stupid, and often destructive.  

Podkarpatska is right, I hope.  There are mor(e) of us out there in real life, but they have lives.  I, on the other hand, am here on a Friday night.  :p
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,164
Reaction score
36
Points
48
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Maria said:
*When a popular teen girl had committed suicide over a breakup with her boyfriend, and had been given a funeral with the permission of the bishop, several other girls and boys also attempted suicide. The priest and the bishop then told the parish that suicides do not normally have a funeral in an attempt to stop the attempted suicides. Hence, a letter from the bishop was read to all parishioners.
What the heck...?
 

Charles Martel

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
6,805
Reaction score
0
Points
0
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Doctrines?

-The Filioque

-Papal Authority in the sense that Vatican I defines that, the Pope is greater than the Ecumenical Councils and has the right to determine doctrine for the entire Church when speaking ex cathedra.

Nobody has the right to determine doctrine in the Orthodox Church.

-Purgatory as a literal place where people are burned in fire; and Indulgences. As far as I know, Indulgences got to go, but Purgatory can be 'optionalized'.

-Substitutionary atonement as an optional view of looking at the Passion and Atonement of Christ.

-Original Sin as hereditary guilt, not as a single decisive action that caused corruption of the Creation, as being an optional view.

-The Immaculate Conception as an optional view of who St. Mary is.

-The Ecclesiology of Rome with a 'head' on top and the 'body' below needs to go. The Pope would simply be a figurehead, like any other Primate of any other area of the world.

Practices?

-Resumption of fasting on Wed. and Fri. and in preparation for Eucharist according to the liturgical life of the Church.

-Baptism as immersion, and following Baptism immediate 'Confirmation' of the baptized. In other words, infants who are baptized will be confirmed immediately following.

-Paedocommunion, infants are administered the Holy Eucharist following their entry into the Church through Baptism.

-Forced Clerical Celibacy.

-Vatican II Liturgy should be sacked or reformed. Or better yet, reinstitute the Old Roman, Mozarabic, Gallician, Celtic, Ambrosian Rites of the ancient Church.

-From what I understand of the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church, only the bread and not the wine is given to members. That would not be the case in an 'Orthodox Rome'.

That's all I can think of.
That;s it? Well, that should be easy enough.

Problem solved.
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
Mor Ephrem said:
Maria said:
*When a popular teen girl had committed suicide over a breakup with her boyfriend, and had been given a funeral with the permission of the bishop, several other girls and boys also attempted suicide. The priest and the bishop then told the parish that suicides do not normally have a funeral in an attempt to stop the attempted suicides. Hence, a letter from the bishop was read to all parishioners.
What the heck...?
Mass hysteria among the teenage boys and girls was ongoing. Life was hard and teens just wanted to be with their friend on the other side.

The Bishop and priest thought that some tough talk was needed. It worked.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,219
Reaction score
89
Points
48
Age
41
This is...  ..  *holds head with hands ala Jackie Chan*



Let's just get back to arguing over dogmas and doctrines. That made my head hurt less. Deal?
 

xOrthodox4Christx

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
7,322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Charles Martel said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Doctrines?

-The Filioque

-Papal Authority in the sense that Vatican I defines that, the Pope is greater than the Ecumenical Councils and has the right to determine doctrine for the entire Church when speaking ex cathedra.

Nobody has the right to determine doctrine in the Orthodox Church.

-Purgatory as a literal place where people are burned in fire; and Indulgences. As far as I know, Indulgences got to go, but Purgatory can be 'optionalized'.

-Substitutionary atonement as an optional view of looking at the Passion and Atonement of Christ.

-Original Sin as hereditary guilt, not as a single decisive action that caused corruption of the Creation, as being an optional view.

-The Immaculate Conception as an optional view of who St. Mary is.

-The Ecclesiology of Rome with a 'head' on top and the 'body' below needs to go. The Pope would simply be a figurehead, like any other Primate of any other area of the world.

Practices?

-Resumption of fasting on Wed. and Fri. and in preparation for Eucharist according to the liturgical life of the Church.

-Baptism as immersion, and following Baptism immediate 'Confirmation' of the baptized. In other words, infants who are baptized will be confirmed immediately following.

-Paedocommunion, infants are administered the Holy Eucharist following their entry into the Church through Baptism.

-Forced Clerical Celibacy.

-Vatican II Liturgy should be sacked or reformed. Or better yet, reinstitute the Old Roman, Mozarabic, Gallician, Celtic, Ambrosian Rites of the ancient Church.

-From what I understand of the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church, only the bread and not the wine is given to members. That would not be the case in an 'Orthodox Rome'.

That's all I can think of.
That;s it? Well, that should be easy enough.

Problem solved.
Let's start from the beginning... from whom does the Holy Spirit proceed?
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
Maria said:
Even in 1870, when the Pope of Rome forced this novel teaching on the hierarchy, some did not go along and lost their bishopric. While this event was the beginning of the Old Catholics, others simply went East and joined the Orthodox Church.
What bishops joined the Orthodox Church?
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
Jetavan said:
theistgal said:
So just out of curiosity, what would the Orthodox Church have to concede?
The Orthodox would have to give up pierogies.

However, with God all things are possible.
Why would the Orthodox have to give up pierogies when the Russian Eastern Catholics and Ukrainians also enjoy them?
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
Mor Ephrem said:
theistgal said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
theistgal said:
podkarpatska said:
theistgal said:
Just wanted to say, Mor Ephrem, if all Orthodox were as understanding and compassionate towards us beknighted Romans as you, reunion would happen a lot faster.  :angel:
Frankly, I think that there are more of us who think along lines similar to those of Mor out there than a reading of threads online would indicate. But remember that on the Roman side of the divide there are plenty of 'it's my way or the highway to hell' types out there as well! (and a few even post here!) ;)
True, but more of us post here because we are in exile from the "highway to hell" types. :)
Well, JoesS2 is right. We need real unity not a happy nice false sense of unity. And unless some of those things are resolved, it won't be a true unity. It may not sound nice, but sometimes it needs to happen.
Yes. But you also need more people who understand not only what Roman Catholics actually believe but why, before criticizing them.  8)
I agree...there's plenty of stuff to criticise legitimately, and that's actually worth pursuing on its own terms.  But zeal without knowledge is always stupid, and often destructive.  

Podkarpatska is right, I hope.  There are mor(e) of us out there in real life, but they have lives.  I, on the other hand, am here on a Friday night.  :p
A detailed, scholarly analysis about a vision for a united church was developed by the North American Orthodox Catholic Dialogue. For those with the time to carefully study the lengthy document, I would suggest reading " Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future", a paper issued by the North American  Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation heal at Georgetown  University, Washington, DC in 2010.

" It seems to be no exaggeration, in fact, to say that the root obstacle preventing the Orthodox and Catholic Churches from growing steadily towards sacramental and practical unity has been, and continues to be, the role that the bishop of Rome plays in the worldwide Catholic communion.  While for Catholics, maintaining communion in faith and sacraments with the bishop of Rome is considered a necessary criterion for being considered Church in the full sense, for Orthodox, as well as for Protestants, it is precisely the pope’s historic claims to authority in teaching and Church life that are most at variance with the image of the Church presented to us in the New Testament and in early Christian writings."  http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/steps-towards-reunited-church.cfm

No rose colored glasses there, the document is hopeful, but frank.

A summary lot this month's session held in Canada is here: "Orthodox And Catholic Theologians Call For Peace In Middle East, Discuss Church Relations" - See more at: http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/news/2013/orthodox-and-catholic-theologians-call-for-peace-in-middle-east-discuss-church-relations


 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
Maria said:
Jetavan said:
theistgal said:
So just out of curiosity, what would the Orthodox Church have to concede?
The Orthodox would have to give up pierogies.

However, with God all things are possible.
Why would the Orthodox have to give up pierogies when the Russian Eastern Catholics and Ukrainians also enjoy them?
Why wouldn't you get a joke at least once in history?
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Maria said:
Jetavan said:
theistgal said:
So just out of curiosity, what would the Orthodox Church have to concede?
The Orthodox would have to give up pierogies.

However, with God all things are possible.
Why would the Orthodox have to give up pierogies when the Russian Eastern Catholics and Ukrainians also enjoy them?
If your brother asks you to walk a mile, walk two.
 

Gunnarr

Archon
Joined
Jun 19, 2011
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
27
Finally another excuse to copy paste some material from a saint!

Saint John II, Metropolitan of Kiev. 1077-1089 AD

Letter to the Pope (It actually arrived to, scholars believe, an antipope)

"I have loved thy glory, O lord and blessed father, most worthy of the apostolic seat and vocation, who from afar hast looked down upon our humility and poverty, and cherishest us with the wings of love, and salutest us as thine own in thy charity, and inquirest specially concerning our true and orthodox faith, and when thou heardest admired, for so the bishop related to us of your blessedness. And since thou art such and so great a priest, I therefore in my poverty salute thee, honouring thy head and kissing thy hands and arms. Mayst thou be joyful and protected by the supreme hand of God, and may God Almighty grand good order to thee, thy spirituals, and us. I know not whence heresies have arisen respecting the true way of salvation and redemption ; and I cannot sufficiently wonder what devil was so malignant and envious, so hostile to the truth, and such an adversary to our mutual good-will, as to alienate our brotherly love from the whole Christian congregation, by saying that we are not Christians; we for our parts have from the beginning acknowledged that by the grace of God ye are Christians, although ye do not keep the faith of Christ in all things, and are in many things divided,— a fact which I will show you from the seven great synods by which the orthodox Christian faith has been established and definitely confirmed, in which also the wisdom of God has built herself a house as it were upon seven pillars. Moreover, all the popes who sat in these seven synods were held worthy of the chair of St. Peter, because they agreed with us. In the first synod was Pope Sylvester; in the second, Damasus; in the third, Celestinus; in the fourth, the most blessed Pope Leo; in the fifth, Vigil; in the sixth, Oaphanius, a venerable man, and learned in the Holy Scriptures; in the seventh, the holy Pope Adrian, who first sent Peter as bishop and abbot of the monastery of St. Savas, whence have subsequently arisen dissensions between us and you, which have principally prevailed in ancient Rana. Truly, there are many evil things done by you contrary to the divine laws and statues, of which we will briefly write to thy charity. First, concerning the unlawful observance of fasting on the Sabbath; secondly, concerning the great fast from which ye cut off a week, and eat meats, and allure men to you by the gluttony of feasting. You reject also those priests who lawfully marry wives. Ye also anoint a second time those who have been anointed in baptism by the presbyters, and say that baptisms may not be performed by simple priests but by bishops only. So likewise with respect to unwholesome unleavened bred, which manifestly indicates Jewish service or worship. And, which is the chief of all evils, ye have begun to alter and pervert those things which were ratified by the holy synods, and say of the Holy Ghost, that he not only proceeds from the Father but also from the Son, with many more things, concerning which your Blessedness ought to refer to your spiritual brother, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and to use all diligence that such errors should be at some time removed, and that we should be united in spiritual harmony, as St. Paul says in his instructive words, 'I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye think and speak the same thing, and that there be no division among you, and that ye be joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.'
We have written to you as much as we could of these six excesses; we will hereafter write to thy charity of other things also. For if it be true as we have heard, thou thyself wilt acknowledge with me that the canons of the holy apostles are transgressed by you, as well as the institutes of the seven great councils, at which all your first patriarchs were present, and united in pronouncing your doctrine to be in vain. And that you are manifestly wrong, I will now plainly prove. In the first place, with reference to fasting on the Sabbath, you see what the holy apostles, whose doctrine ye hold, taught respecting it, as well as the most blessed Pope Clement, the first after the Apostle St. Peter, who thus writes concerning the Sabbath, from the statutes of the apostles, as it is given in the sixty-forth canon :—If an ecclesiastic be found to fast on the Lord's day or the Sabbath, except the great Sabbath, let him be degraded; but if a layman do so, let him be excommunicated and separated from the Church. Secondly, with reference to general fasting, which ye corrupt. It is a heresy of the Jacobites and Armenians, who use sheep's milk even on the great holy fast, for what true Christian dares so to do or to think? Read the canons of the sixth great synod, in which your Pope Oaphanius forbids these things. We indeed, when we learned that in Armenia and some other places they ate cheese made from the sheep's milk at the great fast, ordered our people who were there to abstain from such food and from every sacrifice to the devils; from which, if a man abstain not, he should be separated from the Church; and if he be a priest, he should be suspended from performing the sacred offices. Moreover, the third error and sin is very great, concerning the marriage of priests, for ye forbid those who have wives to receive the Lord's body; whereas the holy council, which had held at Gangra, writes in the fourth canon, 'He who despises a priest who has a wife according to law, and says that it is not lawful to receive the sacrament at his hand, let him be accursed.' The council also says, 'Every deacon or priest putting away his own wife shall be deprived of his priesthood'. The fourth sin is the anointment of confirmation. It is not everywhere said in the councils, 'I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins'. If, therefore, there is one baptism, there will be also one anointing, and the virtue of the bishop will be the same as that of the priest. The fifth error is with reference to unleavened bread, which error indeed is the beginning and root of all heresy, as I will prove; and although it might be necessary to bring to proof many Scriptures, yet I will do otherwise, and for the present will merely say: That the Jews make unleavened bread in memory of their deliverance and flight from Egypt; but we are once for all Christians—we never were in Egyptian bondage—and we have been commanded to omit this kind of Jewish observances with respect to the Sabbath, unleavened bread, and circumcision. And as St. Paul says, whosoever follows one of them is bound to keep the whole law; for the same apostle says, 'Brethren, I have received from the Lord, that which also I have delivered unto you, how that the Lord on the night on which he was betrayed, took bread, blessed, and sanctified it, broke it and gave it to the holy disciples, saying, Take and eat, etc.' Consider what I say: he did not say, 'The Lord taking unleavened bread', but bread. That on that occasion, no unleavened bread was used,—and that it was not the Passover,—and that the Lord was not then eating the Passover with his disciples, is probably from the fact, that the Jews' Passover was eaten standing, which was not the case at Christ's supper, as the Scripture says, 'While they were lying down with the twelve'; also, 'And the disciple lay upon his bosom at supper'. For when he himself says, 'With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you', he does not understand the Jews' Passover, which he had often before eaten with them. Nor when he says, 'This do in remembrance of me', did he impose the necessity of doing as at the Jews' Passover. Nor does he give them unleavened bread, but bread, when he says 'Behold the bread which I give you''; and likewise to Judas, 'To whomsoever I shall give the bread when I have dipped it in the salt, he shall betray me'. But if ye argue, 'we use unleavened bread in the sacrament, because in divine things there is no admixture of the earthly', why then have ye forgotten divinity, and follow the rites of the Jews, walking in the heresy of Julian himself, of Mahomet, of Apollinarius, and Paul the Syrian, of Samosata, and Eutychius, and Dioscorus, and others, who were pronounced at the sixth Council to be most depraved heretics, and filled with the spirit of the devil? For why do ye say, 'I believe in God the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the Father and the Son'? Truly it is marvelous and horrible to speak of, that ye thus dare pervert the faith, while from the beginning it has been constantly sung in all the Churches throughout the whole world, 'I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who, together with the Father and the Son, is worshiped and glorified'. Why then do ye not say as all other Christians do, instead of making additions, and introducing a new doctrine, while on the other hand the Apostle declares, 'If any man preach to you more than those things which we have declared to you, let him be anathema.' I hope ye may not fall under that curse, for it is a dangerous and a fearful thing to alter and pervert the Scripture of God, composed by the saints. Do ye not know how very great is your error? For ye introduce two virtues, two wills, and two principles, with reference to the Holy Spirit, taking away and making of small account his honour, and ye conform to the Macedonian heresy, from which God preserve us. I bow myself at thy sacred feet, and beseech thee to cease from errors of this kind which are amongst you, and above all abstain from unleavened bread. I wished also to write something concerning strangled and unclean animals, and of monks eating meat, but if it please God, I will write of these hereafter. Excuse me of thy extreme charity that I have written to thee of these things. Examine the Scriptures and thou will find whether the things which are done by you ought to be done. I pray thee, my Lord, write to my Lord the Patriarch of Constantinople, and to the holy metropolitans who have in themselves the word of life, and shine as lights in the world. For it may be, that by their means God may inquire concerning errors of this sort, and correct and settle them. Afterwards, if it shall seem good to thee, write to me who am least among all others. I, Metropolitan of Russia, salute thee and all thy subjects, both clergy and laity. The holy bishops, monks, kings, and great men, salute thee also. The love of the Holy Spirit be with thee and all thine. Amen."

http://books.google.com/books?id=XP46AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false

An easy to read list of heresies of the Pope already in the 11th century according to this saint which would have to be abandoned...

1. The unlawful observance of fasting on the Sabbath
2. The great fast from which ye cut off a week, and eat meats, and allure men to you by the gluttony of feasting
3. You reject also those priests who lawfully marry wives
4. Ye also anoint a second time those who have been anointed in baptism by the presbyters, and say that baptisms may not be performed by simple priests but by bishops only.
5. Unwholesome unleavened bred, which manifestly indicates Jewish service or worship.
6. Which is the chief of all evils, ye have begun to alter and pervert those things which were ratified by the holy synods, and say of the Holy Ghost, that he not only proceeds from the Father but also from the Son,
7. "And many more things"

;D
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
Gunnarr said:
3. You reject also those priests who lawfully marry wives

;D
I would assume both Orthodox and RCs would reject priests who lawfully marry wives *after* they've become priests.  ;D
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,164
Reaction score
36
Points
48
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Gunnarr said:
An easy to read list of heresies of the Pope already in the 11th century according to this saint which would have to be abandoned...

1. The unlawful observance of fasting on the Sabbath
I guess the saint missed the part where Pope Leo I affirmed, at least with regard to the Ember Days, that they were of apostolic origin in the see of Rome.  This makes sense with what we know of history: Rome and parts of North Africa allowed for fasting on Saturdays even before the first ecumenical council.  So let's scratch this off the list. 

2. The great fast from which ye cut off a week, and eat meats, and allure men to you by the gluttony of feasting
You could argue this the other way around, too.  The strict observance of abstinence from meat and dairy products, wine, etc. even on Lenten Sundays goes against their paschal nature, and so a reprieve should be granted in honour of the Resurrection. 

I would like to know the fasting rule in Rome at the time this saint wrote.  I doubt there was more "indulgence" than what I just described.  And anyway, fasting customs were always different in the West from the East (and differed "from East to East"). 

3. You reject also those priests who lawfully marry wives
Discipline, not doctrine.  St Paul allows for married bishops, but this saint would've rejected such. 

4. Ye also anoint a second time those who have been anointed in baptism by the presbyters, and say that baptisms may not be performed by simple priests but by bishops only.
The first half of that sentence is, in essence, a complaint against the separation of the sacraments of initiation in the West, which were done all at once in the East.  I'll accept that complaint, even though it's worded erroneously. 

5. Unwholesome unleavened bred, which manifestly indicates Jewish service or worship.
Not a serious criticism coming from a Church in which ecclesiastical architecture is modeled after and interpreted in terms of the Jewish Temple. 

6. Which is the chief of all evils, ye have begun to alter and pervert those things which were ratified by the holy synods, and say of the Holy Ghost, that he not only proceeds from the Father but also from the Son,
The first complaint that is legitimate and needs no qualification. 

7. "And many more things"
IOW, "We reserve the right to be ticked off by anything we want whenever we want."
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
From Fr. Hopko, some things that the Pope would have to do:

*He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one" (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)

*The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply "subsistent relations" within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable "modalism." He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus' Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him.

*The pope would also insist that human beings can have real communion with God through God's uncreated divine energies and actions toward creatures, from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.

*He would also officially say that the immaculate conception of Christ's mother Mary from her parents, and Mary's total glorification in the risen Christ "at the right hand of the Father," are not properly explained in the papal bulls that originally accompanied the Roman church's "ex cathedra" dogmas on these two articles of faith. The pope would explain that Mary's conception by her parents was pure and holy without a need for God extraordinarily to apply "the merits of Christ" to Joachim and Anna's sexual act of conceiving her in order to free her from "the stain of original sin." And the pope would also have to make it clear that Mary really died, and was not assumed bodily into heaven before vanquishing death by faith in her Son Jesus.
 

lovesupreme

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
1,451
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jetavan said:
*The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply "subsistent relations" within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable "modalism." He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus' Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him.
The Pope/RCC doesn't teach this already?
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
lovesupreme said:
Jetavan said:
*The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply "subsistent relations" within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable "modalism." He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus' Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him.
The Pope/RCC doesn't teach this already?
Perhaps "officially", but isn't there a lot of talk in Catholic circles (perhaps stemming from Augustine) about, for instance, the Holy Spirit being the "love" that exists between the Father and the Son?
 

lovesupreme

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
1,451
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jetavan said:
lovesupreme said:
Jetavan said:
*The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply "subsistent relations" within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable "modalism." He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus' Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him.
The Pope/RCC doesn't teach this already?
Perhaps "officially", but isn't there a lot of talk in Catholic circles (perhaps stemming from Augustine) about, for instance, the Holy Spirit being the "love" that exists between the Father and the Son?
Your guess is as good, if not better, than mine. I'm not privy to the talk in Catholic circles.

At any rate, that's a catechetical problem, not a doctrinal one.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
lovesupreme said:
Jetavan said:
lovesupreme said:
Jetavan said:
*The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply "subsistent relations" within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable "modalism." He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus' Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him.
The Pope/RCC doesn't teach this already?
Perhaps "officially", but isn't there a lot of talk in Catholic circles (perhaps stemming from Augustine) about, for instance, the Holy Spirit being the "love" that exists between the Father and the Son?
Your guess is as good, if not better, than mine. I'm not privy to the talk in Catholic circles.

At any rate, that's a catechetical problem, not a doctrinal one.
In making this critique:

The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply "subsistent relations" within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable "modalism."

...it seems that Fr. Hopko has in mind something like this quote from then-Cardinal Ratzinger's An Introduction to Christianity:

"St. Augustine once enshrined this idea in the following formula: He is not called Father in reference to himself but only in relation to the Son; seen by himself he is simply God. Here the decisive point comes beautifully to light. 'Father' is purely a concept of relationship. Only in being for the other is he Father. In his own being in himself he is simply God. Person is the pure relation of being related, nothing else. Relationship is not something extra added to the person, as it is with us; it only exists at all as relatedness. (p. 183)
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
lovesupreme said:
Jetavan said:
lovesupreme said:
Jetavan said:
*The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply "subsistent relations" within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable "modalism." He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus' Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him.
The Pope/RCC doesn't teach this already?
Perhaps "officially", but isn't there a lot of talk in Catholic circles (perhaps stemming from Augustine) about, for instance, the Holy Spirit being the "love" that exists between the Father and the Son?
Your guess is as good, if not better, than mine. I'm not privy to the talk in Catholic circles.

At any rate, that's a catechetical problem, not a doctrinal one.
One thing that's clear is that both the RCC and we have our fair share of catachetical problems.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
lovesupreme said:
Jetavan said:
lovesupreme said:
Jetavan said:
*The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply "subsistent relations" within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable "modalism." He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus' Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him.
The Pope/RCC doesn't teach this already?
Perhaps "officially", but isn't there a lot of talk in Catholic circles (perhaps stemming from Augustine) about, for instance, the Holy Spirit being the "love" that exists between the Father and the Son?
Your guess is as good, if not better, than mine. I'm not privy to the talk in Catholic circles.

At any rate, that's a catechetical problem, not a doctrinal one.
Section 264 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

264 "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son" (St. Augustine, De Trin. 15, 26, 47: PL 42, 1095).

...suggests that the H.S. proceeds from the communion (or "love") of the Father and Son.
 

lovesupreme

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
1,451
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jetavan said:
lovesupreme said:
Jetavan said:
lovesupreme said:
Jetavan said:
*The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply "subsistent relations" within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable "modalism." He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus' Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him.
The Pope/RCC doesn't teach this already?
Perhaps "officially", but isn't there a lot of talk in Catholic circles (perhaps stemming from Augustine) about, for instance, the Holy Spirit being the "love" that exists between the Father and the Son?
Your guess is as good, if not better, than mine. I'm not privy to the talk in Catholic circles.

At any rate, that's a catechetical problem, not a doctrinal one.
Section 264 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

264 "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son" (St. Augustine, De Trin. 15, 26, 47: PL 42, 1095).

...suggests that the H.S. proceeds from the communion (or "love") of the Father and Son.
With all due respect, I think that's a stretch if you're going to accuse the Catechism teaching modalism, even modalism "lite."
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
lovesupreme said:
Jetavan said:
lovesupreme said:
Jetavan said:
lovesupreme said:
Jetavan said:
*The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply "subsistent relations" within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable "modalism." He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus' Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him.
The Pope/RCC doesn't teach this already?
Perhaps "officially", but isn't there a lot of talk in Catholic circles (perhaps stemming from Augustine) about, for instance, the Holy Spirit being the "love" that exists between the Father and the Son?
Your guess is as good, if not better, than mine. I'm not privy to the talk in Catholic circles.

At any rate, that's a catechetical problem, not a doctrinal one.
Section 264 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

264 "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son" (St. Augustine, De Trin. 15, 26, 47: PL 42, 1095).

...suggests that the H.S. proceeds from the communion (or "love") of the Father and Son.
With all due respect, I think that's a stretch if you're going to accuse the Catechism teaching modalism, even modalism "lite."
I would say that the Augustine quote (in which the Father is, in Himself, not the Father, but simply "God") from then-Cardinal Ratzinger's text on Christianity edges towards modalism.

This CCC quote, on the other hand, seems to undermine the distinct personhood of the Holy Spirit, making Him the result of the communion between the Father and the Son.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
2,319
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Maria said:
Sinful Hypocrite said:
I have seen parishioners who are faithful lifelong churchgoers who after attending a bible class held after paraclesis by our priest, complain that they do not agree with some of his interpretations, and you will find that there are more than you think all over the Orthodox who do not agree, this also applies to the faithful of RC, so it is basically why this whole argument to me is rather pointless and basically never to be resolved, even as it has pointed out that it could.

I have faith in the mercy of God and not men, who can kill the body but not the soul (LK 12:4).
When I used to attend the local Orthodox parish Bible Studies, the class largely consisted of inquirers, current catechumens, and those who were recently received into Orthodoxy. There were rarely any arguments as the folks present readily accepted whatever the priest said as the "gospel" truth.

However, it was after the Sunday sermons where disagreements were expressed. Our priest would go into the parish hall only to be confronted by certain angry parishioners, cradle Orthodox, who were very upset that the priest would dare to mention that a suicide* would normally not have a church burial. In fact, several priests were forced to resign or relocate when their sermons upset the folks in the parish council.

*When a popular teen girl had committed suicide over a breakup with her boyfriend, and had been given a funeral with the permission of the bishop, several other girls and boys also attempted suicide. The priest and the bishop then told the parish that suicides do not normally have a funeral in an attempt to stop the attempted suicides. Hence, a letter from the bishop was read to all parishioners.

How does the Catholic Church treat suicides? Do most or all get a Catholic funeral service and burial?
I am not sure about Catholic stance on this, but I have had some discussions among some groups who rightly believed that God will always prevail, and it has no bearing on what kind of burial you are given by a church.

I do not say this out of disrespect to anyones church, only that as fallible humans we are not the judge, only God can truly see a persons heart, and make the ultimate judgement, he may take into account what the church has done, but it can work against the church too.
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
Most Christian churches (not just Catholics) have struggled with the issue of how to bury people who've committed suicide. And with the advent of a better understanding of mental illness, most of them have become more lenient.

I remember a priest who would always say that we shouldn't despair even of Judas, because "there was always a chance he repented on the way down"!  ::)
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,164
Reaction score
36
Points
48
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
theistgal said:
Most Christian churches (not just Catholics) have struggled with the issue of how to bury people who've committed suicide. And with the advent of a better understanding of mental illness, most of them have become more lenient.
Coupled with this is the realisation that funeral rites are not merely about praying for the deceased but also help those left behind in the grieving process.  Our funeral rites help us process grief in a manner consistent with the gospel.  They don't ignore grief, but confront it, accept it, embrace it, give it voice, and put it in context of the living hope we have in the risen Christ. 
 

JoeS2

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,675
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
80
Location
Abington, PA USA
theistgal said:
Just wanted to say, Mor Ephrem, if all Orthodox were as understanding and compassionate towards us beknighted Romans as you, reunion would happen a lot faster.  :angel:
I personally feel you are falling away from us more and more each day as evidenced by these photos. 
I kinda like it the way it is.  You go your way and I'll go mine.  (I think that was a song wasn't it?)
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
JoeS2 said:
theistgal said:
Just wanted to say, Mor Ephrem, if all Orthodox were as understanding and compassionate towards us beknighted Romans as you, reunion would happen a lot faster.  :angel:
I personally feel you are falling away from us more and more each day as evidenced by these photos. 
I kinda like it the way it is.  You go your way and I'll go mine.  (I think that was a song wasn't it?)
Photos?  ???
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
By the way, speaking of doctrines taught as a result of apparitions of the Blessed Virgin, didn't St. Gregory the Wonderworker learn about the Trinity from the Blessed Virgin and John the Baptist?
 

Gunnarr

Archon
Joined
Jun 19, 2011
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
27
To Mor Ephraim,

I guess the saint missed the part where Pope Leo I affirmed, at least with regard to the Ember Days, that they were of apostolic origin in the see of Rome.  This makes sense with what we know of history: Rome and parts of North Africa allowed for fasting on Saturdays even before the first ecumenical council.  So let's scratch this off the list. 
Yes

You could argue this the other way around, too.  The strict observance of abstinence from meat and dairy products, wine, etc. even on Lenten Sundays goes against their paschal nature, and so a reprieve should be granted in honour of the Resurrection. 

I would like to know the fasting rule in Rome at the time this saint wrote.  I doubt there was more "indulgence" than what I just described.  And anyway, fasting customs were always different in the West from the East (and differed "from East to East"). 
I think he just said indulgence because of less fast days, therefore they are indulging themselves on times where there is a fast (in his view).

Discipline, not doctrine.  St Paul allows for married bishops, but this saint would've rejected such. 
That is not relevant, the ecumenical councils changes such things discouraging inheritance, now you are using the same tactic he uses

Not a serious criticism coming from a Church in which ecclesiastical architecture is modeled after and interpreted in terms of the Jewish Temple. 
yes good point

IOW, "We reserve the right to be ticked off by anything we want whenever we want."
Hey he did right after that say to speak to the Patriarch in Constantinople to learn more why they are wrong  ;D
 

ErmyCath

Elder
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
340
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Missouri
Mor Ephrem said:
ErmyCath said:
The question, then, is how can one sift the cultural from the doctrinal, whilst referring back to the pre-schism west, to come up with an authentic, organic version of non-Byzantine, Western-looking Orthodoxy?

I don't think it can be done. I think that as westerners become Orthodox, they will develop new modes of being Orthodox in the west and this will naturally be affected by the Byzantine heritage, as well as by various forms of western Chriatianity. I don't know that that's a bad thing, but it will take quite a while to sort out. I think it'll ultimately be more genuine than trying to somehow rediscover pre-schism practice.
Basically, I think I agree with you.  While I like some of the older Western rites, I have mixed feelings about resurrecting things that haven't been used continuously by a community.  For instance, I don't see a problem with WR Orthodox using recent forms of the traditional Roman rite, especially if they came into Orthodoxy with that rite.  I prefer this rite to so-called "Anglican" rites, but these, too, at least have some sort of continuous use into our day.  If these are used, I think it's only a matter of time before a new way of living out Orthodoxy in a Western form will develop.  I don't think the primary thing is to rediscover how to be a sixth-century WR Orthodox, but how to infuse what we do have and what we are living out with Orthodoxy. 

There is still the problem of stripping away the dogmatic from various practices, which is easy on a popular level because many people pay little attention to the doctrine behind a practice. On the other hand, RC dogmatics is itself quite complex in terms of simply knowing that something is dogma, doctrine, or otherwise. So, while your suggestions are practical at the lowest levels, I don't know that they work with reference to "Rome".
What do you mean?
Yeah, what I had in my head didn't really come across in what I wrote, did it?

I am trying to convey the basic teaching of the RCC that is the foundation of all the doctrines and dogmas - the teaching of the various levels of doctrine and their corresponding obligations on the faithful. This presents at least two problems in terms of reconciling RCC doctrine with Orthodoxy -- first, at a high level, there would need to be some backing off of the stratified nature of doctrinal delineation, and second, at the practical level, the doctrines themselves have spurred various devotions amongst the faithful where they are made manifest in practice.

In other words, it seems to me there would need to be a fundamental reworking of the way the RCC does theology.  And there would need to be a corresponding reworking of the way that theology is made manifest in the lives of the faithful.

I think the latter is quite possible, as many Catholics have already seen a shift in their devotional practices in the last 50 years because they have abandoned RCC theology and/or become more Protestantized (which is another practical consideration in any potential unification - rooting out Protestant influence in RCC practice).  I am not certain the former is possible though because the teaching on the levels of doctrine is itself a doctrine that controls RCC theology, at least ostensibly, since the ideas of doctrine, dogma, and deposit of faith are tied to the office of the pope, the sole source of doctrinal development.

In sum, my point is that RCC doctrine has developed in such a stratified manner that it seems impossible for it to retreat to a more experiential methodology.  One need only look at the post-Fathers RCC Doctors of the Church to see a group of mostly scholastic writers espousing mostly philosophical ideas (while noting with interest the more recently declared doctors are mystics).
 

JoeS2

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,675
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
80
Location
Abington, PA USA
theistgal said:
JoeS2 said:
theistgal said:
Just wanted to say, Mor Ephrem, if all Orthodox were as understanding and compassionate towards us beknighted Romans as you, reunion would happen a lot faster.  :angel:
I personally feel you are falling away from us more and more each day as evidenced by these photos. 
I kinda like it the way it is.  You go your way and I'll go mine.  (I think that was a song wasn't it?)
Photos?   ???
You would have to go back a little to Reply #152 showing young people handling the Eucharist both male and female.
 

JoeS2

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,675
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
80
Location
Abington, PA USA
theistgal said:
Most Christian churches (not just Catholics) have struggled with the issue of how to bury people who've committed suicide. And with the advent of a better understanding of mental illness, most of them have become more lenient.

I remember a priest who would always say that we shouldn't despair even of Judas, because "there was always a chance he repented on the way down"!  ::)
We sometimes cant know the mental state of those who have taken their lives.  Each case is different I suppose. That's why we have to rely on the Mercy of God for these poor folks.  But, Im not sure of what you meant by Judas repenting "on the way down".  Are you referring to the moment just before the noose broke his fall or his falling from grace in the after life?
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
JoeS2 said:
theistgal said:
JoeS2 said:
theistgal said:
Just wanted to say, Mor Ephrem, if all Orthodox were as understanding and compassionate towards us beknighted Romans as you, reunion would happen a lot faster.  :angel:
I personally feel you are falling away from us more and more each day as evidenced by these photos.  
I kinda like it the way it is.  You go your way and I'll go mine.  (I think that was a song wasn't it?)
Photos?   ???
You would have to go back a little to Reply #152 showing young people handling the Eucharist both male and female.
OK, but I didn't post those, and I don't go to churches where that takes place, so not sure why you addressed that message to me.

Also, I see no one answered my question about why, if the RC has to disavow Marian apparitions which affected their doctrines, the OC wouldn't have to do the same. Case in point: St. Gregory the Wonderworker.

The Theotokos and Apostle John appeared to St. Gregory in a dream, and taught him about the Holy Trinity. St. Gregory [of Nyssa] wrote down what was revealed to him.

    "The teaching about the Holy Trinity in Orthodox Theology is based on it. Subsequently it was used by the holy Fathers of the Church: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa. The Symbol of St Gregory of Neocaesarea was later examined and affirmed in the year 325 by the First Ecumenical Council, showing his enduring significance for Orthodoxy."
- Orthodox Wiki (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_the_Wonderworker

So here we have a fundamental doctrine of Orthodoxy based on a dream. Why isn't that on the same level as the confirmation of the (already-defined) Immaculate Conception at Lourdes?

 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,164
Reaction score
36
Points
48
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
theistgal said:
The Theotokos and Apostle John appeared to St. Gregory in a dream, and taught him about the Holy Trinity. St. Gregory [of Nyssa] wrote down what was revealed to him.

    "The teaching about the Holy Trinity in Orthodox Theology is based on it. Subsequently it was used by the holy Fathers of the Church: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa. The Symbol of St Gregory of Neocaesarea was later examined and affirmed in the year 325 by the First Ecumenical Council, showing his enduring significance for Orthodoxy."
- Orthodox Wiki (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_the_Wonderworker

So here we have a fundamental doctrine of Orthodoxy based on a dream. Why isn't that on the same level as the confirmation of the (already-defined) Immaculate Conception at Lourdes?
I never read or heard anything remotely like this in any book, article, class, or discussion about Trinitarian theology in three years of seminary.  An OrthodoxWiki stub quoting the OCA's hagiographies (which are riddled with errors or "massagings of truth" more often than I'd prefer) is not on the same level of every published book or article about the Lourdes apparitions and their messages.     
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top