Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Haha yup, you're right there. The Orthodox haven't done a very good job of proselytising. Mostly because when they haven't been actively persecuted, they've been too poor to do much. Also, the ethnic silos haven't helped.

How is this different than the apostles?  Did anything of the sort keep them from proselytizing?

Actually, martyrdom did just that. The Christian Church was generally small and oppressed for its first 500 years.

Quote from: IllyricuмSacrum

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Quote from: IllyricuмSacrum

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Quote from: Kreuzritter1945

Quote from: Emitte Lucem Tuam

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Well, I guess the question at hand is whether the Papacy was instituted by God via Divine Revelation, or whether it's an innovation. To say the Pope is an absolute supreme authority puts him mighty close to God for our comfort.

No, I'm interested in learning and trying to figure out if I'm missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing it. The legal and metaphysical frameworks and means of dealing with Faith just weren't around pre-Schism. Neither was the Supreme, Universal, Infallible jurisdiction of the Papacy. It's not out of rebellion that it's disliked by the Orthodox, but because it breaks down the conciliar tradition of solving problems of Faith.

I'd like to talk with someone who understands the Orthodox mindset, but who could illuminate how and why Roman Catholicism is just so much clearer and more consistent. Tradition-wise, you guys are about the only ones who have an almost-Orthodox appreciation for the connection between Tradition and Faith.

I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.

My apologies if that rubs a bunch of people the wrong way... it's good to get stuff out there in the open for discussion IMHO.

I'm not sure what you are looking to accomplish here on CathInfo, Nick.  You aren't going to find converts to Eastern Orthodoxy if that's what you're looking for.  Perhaps Catholic Answers would be a more profitable fishing ground.  Most folks here don't have an Eastern "Orthodox" view point or way of thinking.  CathInfo is a hardcore ROMAN CATHOLIC site.  We are Western Roman Catholic to the core. Your posts seem very proselytizing towards traditional Roman Catholics to the Eastern Orthodox religion.  I'm definitely not sure if that'll fly here either.  Not many (if any) even go to an Eastern Catholic parish (what you may call "Uniate). Please listen to Bishop Sanborn's sermon which I posted earlier on another thread in "Crisis in the Church".  

Your church denies original sin, denies the papacy, accepts contraception or is in communion with those who do, allow divorce and re-marriage even though Christ condemned it, and denies the filioque.

The Roman Catholic Church seems to be thinking and acting on a horizontal, worldly level, while the Orthodox seem to be on the vertical plain. We meet in a small area, but for the most time we're talking past each other. The issues themselves are always open to discussion, since the teaching is based around what's the best "fit" with the Faith passed on. Disagreements abound, but that's ok, and always has been! :)

in other words, eastern Protestantism.
also, this mystical gobblygook EOers love to spout is a lot of cover.
Some conciliarists and neo-trads used to oohh and aaahh over this stuff, not anymore, I think. Too shallow.

No, the Protestants are all yours and have nothing much to do with the Orthodox. They used the Western, scholastic mindset to divide the Faith to a greater and greater extent. The consequence is that not many people in the West are very sure anymore Who it is that they worship or connect with in prayer.

The mystery for you is why this kind of division isn't on the Orthodox side.

Actually, the prots are yours. Let me explain. Many schismatics boast of how the east freed itself from the clutches of western scholasticism and latin theology manuals.......and jumped right into the the clutches of Lutheran and even Calvinist theology. In my worship-all-things-eastern phase of life I was into Schmemann. I'll admit, even today I would have little problem recommending his seminal work "For the Life of the World" However, as I got into more off his stuff, and I educated myself more into the True Faith I detected something fishy in his works. I realized I was basically reading the works of an eastern protestant. Schmemann was of the school of post18th century central European protestant-inspired schismatic scholars who were for remolding the Nationalistic churches completely on the protestant model. Their view on the Liturgy, Sacraments, priesthood and the Hierarchal nature of the Church was entirely protestant. (Why do you think anti-pope Bergy wants to remodel the church on the schismatic "synodal" plan?) They were speaking of the Church in much the same  as the novus ordians speak of the-people-of-God bunk way. And that was in the 17 or 18 hundreds!!!

Another of Schmemann's seminal work was on the mass. It is still used as a textbook in some seminaries, I believe. It was evident that his view was Protestant to the core. I had to flip back and forth the book for several hours (after reading it once all the way through) to see if there were any mentions of the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. I found one throwaway line that confirmed it. Schmemann and his ilk had contempt for any devotions of the "peasants" whether in church or in private. They believe that church should only be opened for one Sunday liturgy a week. And that's it! So much for the Spiritual Life.

Oh, btw, if the prots are our "problem" than Judas was entirely Our Lord's.

Schmemann's work is liked by some, disliked by others... no one's out to canonize him at the moment. No one speaks for all of Orthodoxy: if an idea is consistent with the existing Faith or shows the Faith better, it might be picked up. That's how things have always been done.

Synodal structure, by way of councils, has been the way the Orthodox have always operated, since the Apostles.

Yes, the Protestants are all the Western problem. There's no such Eastern equivalent. Schismatic groups such as the Old Believers (recently reconciled) and other churches not in communion with anyone else are the Eastern problem. They go into schism with valid bishops and priests, differences are brought forward, people get angry at each other and call each other anti-Christs, etc. and a few hundred years later once people have died and sober and saintly people take a good look at things, groups reconcile. Unlike in the West, changes do not involve serious attacks on Faith or the Sacraments.

No, Judas was his own problem. He hardened his heart to God and instead of receiving forgiveness, he killed himself in a last act of pride and despair. The Protestant revolt, although tragic, should be seen in the context of a disastrously bloated and corrupt Roman Catholic Church at the time.

and the protestants are there own problem
and the schismatics hardened their hearts to God's church
and their theology is more in line with the prots
and orthodoxy [patent pending] only goes back to about the 13th century
and it is ripe with crypto-protism as some of their hierarchs will admit
and Schmemann was part of a much larger and dominant school of theology
and you are on the road to hell

Quote from: gooch

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Hello all!

.

Hey Nick
in charity I must first tell you that you are on the road to hell as only true catholics will be saved, I went to one of your tribes forums and found they couldn't handle my truthful arguements...they had some differing opinions on basic truths so I  would like to know your answer to the following questions
 Is St Peter  the Rock in Matt 16..?
was St Peter the leader of the apostles?
was St Peter Bishop of Rome?


from your answers I'll know what direction to take the discussion in hopes to save your soul
In peace

To tell a person that they are on the road to hell seems to set yourself, or whoever said such a thing, as equal to God Himself. I would not go there, if I were you.

Yes
Yes
Yes. He was also the first bishop of Jerusalem and of Antioch. He also never claimed anything resembling infallible and complete universal authority over any of the other apostles. This has already been hashed out extensively, and all the changes in ecclesiology and understanding of Faith truly were on the Roman side.

If God's church has declared you are on the road to hell I will ofcourse go there

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: ʺ... all the
faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff
hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the
successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of
Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that
the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of
ordinary power over all others... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from
which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.

you answered the questions better than most orthodox I argue with,..but you say he never claimed authority over the other apostles so I ask you who did our Lord tell to rule His sheep, I'll give you a hint..read John 21

as for infallible
the word “infallible” actually means “cannot fail” or “unfailing.”  Therefore, the very term Papal Infallibility comes directly from Christ’s promise to St. Peter (and his successors) in Luke 22, that Peter has an unfailing Faith.

 now l'd like your comment on the following quote
t. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, A.D. 203: “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical Press, Vol. 1: 210.)

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Quote from: gooch

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Hello all!

.

Hey Nick
in charity I must first tell you that you are on the road to hell as only true catholics will be saved, I went to one of your tribes forums and found they couldn't handle my truthful arguements...they had some differing opinions on basic truths so I  would like to know your answer to the following questions
 Is St Peter  the Rock in Matt 16..?
was St Peter the leader of the apostles?
was St Peter Bishop of Rome?


from your answers I'll know what direction to take the discussion in hopes to save your soul
In peace

To tell a person that they are on the road to hell seems to set yourself, or whoever said such a thing, as equal to God Himself. I would not go there, if I were you.

Yes
Yes
Yes. He was also the first bishop of Jerusalem and of Antioch. He also never claimed anything resembling infallible and complete universal authority over any of the other apostles. This has already been hashed out extensively, and all the changes in ecclesiology and understanding of Faith truly were on the Roman side.

If God's church has declared you are on the road to hell I will ofcourse go there

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: ʺ... all the
faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff
hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the
successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of
Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that
the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of
ordinary power over all others... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from
which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.

you answered the questions better than most orthodox I argue with,..but you say he never claimed authority over the other apostles so I ask you who did our Lord tell to rule His sheep, I'll give you a hint..read John 21

as for infallible
the word “infallible” actually means “cannot fail” or “unfailing.”  Therefore, the very term Papal Infallibility comes directly from Christ’s promise to St. Peter (and his successors) in Luke 22, that Peter has an unfailing Faith.

 now l'd like your comment on the following quote
t. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, A.D. 203: “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical Press, Vol. 1: 210.)

We haven't established that you're in the True Church (historical evidence and logic points to being the schismatic church), so Vatican 1 really carries no weight for me.

Yes, I've already hashed out infallibility, and it never seemed to apply in the same way it does now to Roman bishops. Pope Honorious I was anathematized by both west and east as a heretic, for example, until this got in the way of increasing Roman claims to authority, and they stopped anathematizing him. Popes are quite fallible, and "ex-cathedra" is a flexible, debatable category that means nothing and amounts to little more than political butt covering.

Proof texts are actually pretty weak, although Protestants and those of a like mindset love them. Read them in the context of history and solid (not changing, or "developing") Tradition, and it'll mean something else to you. I won't bother posting Orthodox links that discuss this further, since there's many websites that hash it out in detail that you can look up in google in 10 seconds. I've read all of them, Roman Catholic and Orthodox, already.

Nick,

I do not believe that Eastern Orthodoxy can be the true faith of Jesus Christ.  To take just one example, look at contraception, artificial or otherwise.  Some Orthodox are okay with it; others consider it to be a mortal sin.  In traditional Roman Catholicism, Pope Pius XI definitively, and until the End of Time, settled the issue.  Contraception (that is, the willful and deliberate intent to disrupt the procreation of new life) is gravely sinful.  Period.  End of story.  The fact that the supposed occupant of the Chair of Peter notwithstanding, this fundamental revelation from the One and Triune God can never, ever change.

The Orthodox have not had an ecuмenical Council in over 1,000 years.  Doesn't that bother you?  Some Orthodox claim that they can have a valid ecuмenical Council without the participation of the West; others disagree.  So, even there, there is disagreement about a fundamental issue of the universal Church, that is, its ability to hold an ecuмenical Council.  Sede Catholics at least have Councils since the 7th all the way up to the First Vatican Council, and yet, you'd have us believe that all of the Church Councils of the Second Millennium are all invalid and that the universal Church is incapable of ever having another one.

Oh yes, and the ecuмenical councils issue. The labels (is it ecuмenical or not!!?!) don't really matter for us. What's important is that issues of Faith are worked out in a conciliar way... that is, bishops and priests sit down with each other, address the issue(s) at hand, and try to come up with a solution that's best in accordance with the Faith we've received. Sometimes it works, sometimes more councils are called and the process continues. It's always been like that, from the time of the Apostles onwards.

Call it what you want... the labels don't really matter when compared to the substance of what's going on there, which is working out the Faith in a conciliar way. Those councils happen at various scales all the time, to make sure that the Faith is kept universally on track. We've done this for 2000 years now!

Mortal sin... how do you, or anyone else (including the Pope) know that it's mortal? Only God is the judge here, and he's also far more powerful than the devil!

I know your position, but evil is not in the condom, since it's just a piece of latex! Evil is in the heart of someone who could choose to imitate God in co-creation, but does not for selfish reasons.

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Quote from: ggreg

It has been pretty crap at proselytising though hasn't it?

Pretty much the entire rest of the world was proselytised after the schism by the Roman Catholic Church.

I would find it difficult to believe that the Orthodox Church was correct and yet God allowed the false and heretical Roman Church to convert the Americas, Africa and SE Asia.  A thousand years is a heck of a long time to let the false religion flourish while the real one hardly grows except in the countries it was already in.

I have spent a lot of time in Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Greece and the orthodox Christians I met usually struck me as very undereducated about their faith.  Religion to them was more like a lucky horseshoe or talisman to make them healthy or wealthy.  It is rare to meet an Orthodox Christian in those countries who can have a basic conversation about theology or philosophy.

Haha yup, you're right there. The Orthodox haven't done a very good job of proselytising. Mostly because when they haven't been actively persecuted, they've been too poor to do much. Also, the ethnic silos haven't helped.

Yes, this illustrates an aspect of the divide between us. If you think that philosophical or theological discourses are what's most important and shows strength of Faith, we'll talk past each other. 5 minutes of digging online will find plenty of Orthodox people more than able to discuss philosophy or theology.

Sure, but I am talking about the bulk of churchgoers.  I know, very probably, more Orthodox Christians in Orthodox Christian lands than you do.  Very typically, when I have spoken to them, they don't know their arse from their elbow when it comes to the faith.  The diaspora of orthodox believers in non-orthodox countries and converts are unusual in that they actually know something about the faith.  Ask a typical Russian or Georgian or Greek and they are completely clueless.  They kiss icons like lucky charms and go through the motions but they would not be able to answer even 1/3 of the questions in the equivalent of the penny cathecism, if indeed such a think existed.

Since Christ told the apostles to proselytise, why would He leave the Orthodox without the political, military or economic means to do so for 1000 years if they were his true church and let the heretical or schismatic Roman Catholics steal the show?

Faith for us is experiential, not intellectual, lived, and not necessarily thought about. They kissing icons of Christ, the Theotokos, and the Saints, and through these simple signs of affection God is rightly glorified. :)

Christ left the Orthodox with hundreds upon thousands of martyrs in the past century alone. What else do we need to be a more powerful witness to Him?