Calling All Orthodox!

[GaryTaylor]

When spending much time on the internet, one of the most obvious things is the need to pick-and-choose (so to speak) what to read. Here on CAF we’ve got the “Ignore List” feature, which, experience tells me, more people ought to use (although I admit that I don’t use it myself, because for me deciding which posts to read is more of an art than a science).

Sorry for going off on a tangent and/or waxing philosophical, but hopefully some readers can benefit from my thoughts.

Oh I do benefit from your thoughts, and I feel the same also.

And I feel important you read and comment on mine, and do let us know when you find through your “art” that illusive post you speak of.

 

[RyanBlack]

“Romanizes does not speak for Orthodoxy.”

So what was I ignorant of Ryan? That Romanizes doesn’t speak for Orthodoxy? How about all the poison he spreads. Like professed on their thread and every one that comes up on sin? How about them the ignorant speaking for the Orthodox? But they aren’t ignorant?

Who’s being ignorant now Ryan?

So I was ignorant of the heterodox writing of Romanizes. But he was ignorant of the Truth all who promote it are also ignorant? But I notice you have nothing to say about all that. Just be uncharitable and carry on as usual for you? Don’t say a word about the stone. It will be on the next thread also for sure. So how does that help unity? Oh it doesn’t.

Or was I ignorant of the difference of Ancestral and Original sin, which you would rather talk uncharitable than address and it doesn’t seem anyone can articulate?

So who is speaking for Orthodoxy today?

Ignorant of actual Orthodox teaching, namely, that the Orthodox do in fact teach that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. The only other possible conclusion, Gary, is that you were intentionally distorting Orthodox teaching. I would prefer to believe that is not the case.

How would you react if someone were to claim that the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is not truly divine on the basis of their claim that Fr. Roger Haight says so? Would you not either conclude that the person is either ignorant of actual Catholic teaching, or intentionally distorting Catholic Church. Fr. Roger Haight is not a bishop, and does not speak for the Catholic Church, just as Fr. John Romanides was not a bishop, and did not speak for the Orthodox Church. Just to clarify, it is not my intent to equate the seriousness of the errors of Haight with those of Romanides, but the analogy works.

 

[RyanBlack]

Please do and come back and report to Ryan. And your right Ryans insulting language doesn’t speak well for any “Christian”

And spreading false information about another church does?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Ignorant of actual Orthodox teaching, namely, that the Orthodox do in fact teach that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. The only other possible conclusion, Gary, is that you were intentionally distorting Orthodox teaching. I would prefer to believe that is not the case.

How would you react if someone were to claim that the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is not truly divine on the basis of their claim that Fr. Roger Haight says so? Would you not either conclude that the person is either ignorant of actual Catholic teaching, or intentionally distorting Catholic Church. Fr. Roger Haight is not a bishop, and does not speak for the Catholic Church, just as Fr. John Romanides was not a bishop, and did not speak for the Orthodox Church. Just to clarify, it is not my intent to equate the seriousness of the errors of Haight with those of Romanides, but the analogy works.

Who is speaking for the Orthodox Church that’s what I want to read, so the distortion doesn’t continue.

Ancestral Sin Wiki Pedia check it out…

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/golubov_rags_of_mortality.htm

It can be said that while we have not inherited the guilt of Adam’s personal sin, because his sin is also of a generic nature, and because the entire human race is possessed of an essential, ontological unity,[12] we participate in it by virtue of our participation in the human race. “The imparting of Original Sin by means of natural heredity should be understood in terms of the unity of the entire human nature, and of the homoousiotitos [13] of all men, who, connected by nature, constitute one mystic whole. Inasmuch as human nature is indeed unique and unbreakable, the imparting of sin from the first-born to the entire human race descended from him is rendered explicable: ‘Explicitly, as from the root, the sickness proceeded to the rest of the tree, Adam being the root who had suffered corruption’” [St. Cyril of Alexandria].

CCC Thomas Aquinas - 405 The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.

This is the Ancestral Sin footnote, which is somewhat balanced, however, the Church isn’t teaching Augustine strictly, thus the teaching authority.

Bl. Augustine: first, that man suffers death because he is guilty for the sin of Adam, and second, that the nature of man is so corrupt as to render man incapable of exercising free will in the work of salvation (the doctrine of predestination).

First Augustine stated; “Man suffered death because he is guilty “for” the sin of Adam” Not guilty “of” the personal sin of Adam. No different than St Cyril above, “as from the root, the sickness proceeded to the rest of the tree” Its an injustice in the sense of related guilt of the actual sin and transgression Adam committed, we are guilty by association of all being from Adam as one. So however the Root caught the fatal issue(we are not guilty of this). the rest of the tree(us) was guilty by association of the root.

Second its well known Augustine had a couple views on reprobate, and submitted both to paper. However at the end of the day his view is stated by the fact he remained in the Church and rendered the Church the final arbiter.

“Technically speaking, in their writings the Eastern Fathers and Orthodox theologians do not use the Latin term introduced by Blessed Augustine in his treatise “De Peccato originali,” but instead translate this concept by means of two cognate terms in both Greek and Russian, namely, progoniki amartia (= pervorodnyi grekh in Russian) and to propatorikon amartima (= praroditel’skii grekh), which is properly translated “ancestral sin.” These terms allow for a more careful nuancing of the various implications contained in the one Latin term.”

This is recent there is nothing early historically documented on this, these views correctly understood are one of the same leading people to believe in a “assumption” of strictly Eastern and Western concepts of sin and the fall of man. That’s not reality. And the fact Calvin didn’t listen to the teaching authority he opted for the door number two with Augustine and reprobate, he graduated and defined what Augustine was contemplating on paper and often debating in excess as stated in the above article, that’s true, its called blowing things out of proportion to make a point. However along with other points above I feel no need to go further into what believe is rooted in the basis of assumption with cross referencing Augustine above with “the nature of man is so corrupt as to render man incapable of exercising free will in the work of salvation” leads to other assumptions and false conclusions.

What a mess, I’ll leave you all to teach the correct orthodox teaching. The Church can be read in the CCC.

 

[GaryTaylor]

And spreading false information about another church does?

Oh its being spread, and by many, me no, as I said early I find it disturbing.

 

[RyanBlack]

Oh its being spread, and by many, me no, as I said early I find it disturbing.

Oh, yes, misinformation about the Orthodox was being spread by you–in every post where you claimed that the Orthodox do not teach that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. Do the Orthodox have a different take on the meaning of original/ancestral sin? Yes, and people on both sides are guilty of overstating the differences. However, it is not the case that the Orthodox teach that baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Oh, yes, misinformation about the Orthodox was being spread by you–in every post where you claimed that the Orthodox do not teach that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. Do the Orthodox have a different take on the meaning of original/ancestral sin? Yes, and people on both sides are guilty of overstating the differences. However, it is not the case that the Orthodox teach that baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins.

This is circular and uncalled for. What I said is related to the said individual, whom is Orthodox, and then his theology appeared here and I commented on it and reluctantly, its all in the thread.

Do the Orthodox have a different take on the meaning of original/ancestral sin? Yes, and people on both sides are guilty of overstating the differences…

Where is the different official take? Surely we haven’t approached it yet?

 

[Peter_J]

and do let us know when you find through your “art” that illusive post you speak of.

To quote the gas attendant in Tommy Boy “I’m picking up on your sarcasm”.

 

[MichaelinMD]

I finally managed to get through this whole thread. Phew!!!

Gary Taylor had mentioned several times the idea that Orthodox baptism is NOT for the remission of sin and quoted Fr. Romanides via Vladimir Moss.

Perhaps a far more authoritative source for this would be from the Orthodox Service Of Holy Baptism itself, wherein this phrase is found quote close to the beginning: “That this water may be for him (her) a laver of Regeneration unto the remission of sins, and a garment of incorruption; let us pray to the Lord.” goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/baptism

Hope that helps clear that issue up a little bit.

Another issue raised much earlier on was that there is no “official” Orthodox catechism. Well, there are several that are used depending on the jurisdiction and the priest or bishop supervising the catechesis. I’ll try to find some links for some. Perhaps the greatest “catechism” of all, though, it has been said by many, is the Divine Liturgy itself, along with all the other services and prayers prayed in the Orthodox Church.

EDIT:
Orthodox “catechisms”:
pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/orthodox_catechism_of_philaret.htm
orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx
oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith

There are others, I just can’t find them at the moment .
Okay…here’s another one I was thinking of:
Living God: A Catechism for the Christian Faith - Volumes 1 & 2 amazon.com/Living-God-Catechism-Christian-Volumes/dp/0881410403/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391027283&sr=1-3&keywords=orthodox+catechism
I used this during my own catechumenate.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I finally managed to get through this whole thread. Phew!!!

Gary Taylor had mentioned several times the idea that Orthodox baptism is NOT for the remission of sin and quoted Fr. Romanides via Vladimir Moss.

Perhaps a far more authoritative source for this would be from the Orthodox Service Of Holy Baptism itself, wherein this phrase is found quote close to the beginning: “That this water may be for him (her) a laver of Regeneration unto the remission of sins, and a garment of incorruption; let us pray to the Lord.” goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/baptism

Hope that helps clear that issue up a little bit.

Another issue raised much earlier on was that there is no “official” Orthodox catechism. Well, there are several that are used depending on the jurisdiction and the priest or bishop supervising the catechesis. I’ll try to find some links for some. Perhaps the greatest “catechism” of all, though, it has been said by many, is the Divine Liturgy itself, along with all the other services and prayers prayed in the Orthodox Church.

EDIT:
Orthodox “catechisms”:
pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/orthodox_catechism_of_philaret.htm
orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx
oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith

There are others, I just can’t find them at the moment .
Okay…here’s another one I was thinking of:
Living God: A Catechism for the Christian Faith - Volumes 1 & 2 amazon.com/Living-God-Catechism-Christian-Volumes/dp/0881410403/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391027283&sr=1-3&keywords=orthodox+catechism
I used this during my own catechumenate.

Thank You, and welcome to the forum, one post I’m fascinated. I only read one link, this one is very good though.

orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx

 

[chimo]

I know Chimo your a good man. But the head in the sand approach doesn’t help. Does it matter? You tell me after you google Ancestral and Original sin? Watch the wealth of misinformation come up and by the Orthodox.

Did it matter to other posters claiming boldly Romandes and I should return to the real church? Did it matter that a heterodox is promoted while its insinuated I’m heterodox and should return to the Church?

Yes it matters. What doesn’t the East accept aside form the dogmas? That which they think Catholics believe along with false accusations… The EAST don’t believe in guilt.

You are confusing Gary how the East actually incorporates theology to its own people. The East has no formal Catechism at all. The Church of Rome however has this formal Catechism. This is actually a great blessing. Catholics tend to learn their catechism from a very structured and orderly catechism. This is not the case with Eastern Orthodox. You must understand that the Orthodox go about learning their “catechism” from a different route. It is not the same as what a Catholic would go by. It is a matter of fact very different. I am very impress with the amount of detailed “catechism” which the Church of Rome possess. It is a strength to her own ability to define the faith especially in a common setting for all to take in. However this is for the Catholic it is not so for the Orthodox. We go about learning “catechism” differently. Since there is no set standards to go by there can be anyone writing within the Orthodox Church but it is not necessarily bound towards any set “catechism” for instance which Catholic writers are bound to. Since this set standard is not found in the Orthodox Church the Orthodox must learn their “catechism” as they go along within their spiritual journey. It tends if I can say to be found when the Orthodox would read more of their own Church Fathers.

This is their basic guide because that is what you see in many of their books is this quoting from their Church Fathers. But unless one reads the Fathers which is their biggest source the Orthodox need to know their teachings from other sources. Yet these other sources are not what you would call “official catechisms” but they can help serve the purpose in educating the Laity for instance. In most cases the Orthodox learn their catechism in what I would call “on the job” training. The experiences they can receive from their worship services and especially from their Divine Liturgy becomes their greatest teacher and mentor. There is quite a lot that the Divine Liturgy can give and in my humble opinion it is far greater in teaching you about Jesus and even Mary than what would a Catholic Mass would give. That is why I believe the Catholic Church moved more towards a formal catechism than the Eastern Church. Yet in these present days I sense the Orthodox needs to exemplify what Rome has done so that the Orthodox will also have a “formal catechism” to rely on.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It tends if I can say to be found when the Orthodox would read more of their own Church Fathers.

This is their basic guide because that is what you see in many of their books is this quoting from their Church Fathers. But unless one reads the Fathers which is their biggest source the Orthodox need to know their teachings from other sources. Yet these other sources are not what you would call “official catechisms” but they can help serve the purpose in educating the Laity for instance. In most cases the Orthodox learn their catechism in what I would call “on the job” training. The experiences they can receive from their worship services and especially from their Divine Liturgy becomes their greatest teacher and mentor. There is quite a lot that the Divine Liturgy can give and in my humble opinion it is far greater in teaching you about Jesus and even Mary than what would a Catholic Mass would give. That is why I believe the Catholic Church moved more towards a formal catechism than the Eastern Church. Yet in these present days I sense the Orthodox needs to exemplify what Rome has done so that the Orthodox will also have a “formal catechism” to rely on.

Thanks, I see it better from the above links, your right on both accounts. The Eastern Church is inherently beautiful on its own, just as the West, its doesn’t need to compare itself to Western theology to validate itself in its position, it needs consensus of its own. Its difficult as the need for a catechism is real, not for dogmatic declaration but for continuity in like thinking. This is where I see the variance in comprehension as with Augustine for example. It relies on the certainty of a single understanding.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I have to tell you, you guys have made me a reluctant student of Augustine. I enjoy his dark sarcasm though.

This isn’t to slight the Bishop above, I do think the link is well put together. I’ll show you what I noticed right away though …

“What constituted the sin of the first people? St Augustine believes it to be disobedience. On the other hand, the majority of early church writers say that Adam fell as a result of pride. Pride is the wall that separates humans from God.” by Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev

He’s correct in his final analysis of pride/disobedience. Yet wrong about Augustine who doesn’t differ from the majority of early church writers and its apparent in the very work quoted by the Bishop on Augustine…

"Augustine, Chapter 14 City of God.

Of the Pride in the sin, Which was worse than the sin itself.

But it is worse and more damnable pride which casts about for the shelter of an excuse even in manifest sins, as these our first parents did."

For Augustine …The Pride preceded the disobedience. Augustine elaborates on this in the following Chapter -15 City of God.

Or here…".why does God allow evil and the devil to exist? Why does He permit evil? St Augustine confessed that he could not answer this question: ‘I am unable to penetrate the depths of this ordinance and I confess that it is beyond my powers’,"

On the depth of evil… I remember the context of Augustine, Augustine couldn’t look into the darkness and identify it, the deeper he looked the more he saw nothing but darkness. Also City of God. Can’t find the chapter but I remember it well.

No footnotes. but its City of God as I remember my own contemplation on the above. Not altogether accurate either. Nevertheless this is where I see the issues. While for example I feel the article I linked is good, I’m familiar with Augustine and caught the other view immediately. When this occurs then automatically the other quotes then come into question. This is what I am saying above about consensus instead of, as opposed to one individual in understanding which as we see can vary in degree.

As to the last paragraph here, if someone knows exactly where its located in City of God I’ll give you the exact content.

 

[Orthodox_Man]

Hey Orthodox brothers and sisters,

I have been discussing with an Orthodox Christian in the comments on another site, and she said some things that surprised me. I’d love to get more opinions on these:

Do Orthodox believe Catholics have lost Apostolic Succession?

From my Orthodox friend;

"Orthodox define apostolic succession a little differently than either RC or Anglican (and obviously from other Protestants). It must include not only ordination by Orthodox bishops (bestowed through laying on of hands) traceable through the “diptychs” (lists of bishops in their succession, as with RC) back to the apostolic era, but also depends upon a bishop maintaining the dogmatic faith as once delivered intact and maintaining Eucharistic communion within the community that ordained him. Dogma intact means for the Orthodox, among other things, accepting the decrees and definitions, etc., of the first seven “Ecumenical Councils” of the first-millennium undivided apostolic and orthodox Church (including the tenets of the original version of the Nicene-Constantinoplian Creed, i.e., without the “filioque” clause, as originally defined in their own context).

By this definition, I believe Orthodox consider only the canonical Eastern Orthodox Churches remain in the apostolic succession today (sorry Jon!). As the Scriptures teach, there is “one Church, one faith, one baptism,” just as the is only “one God and Father of us all” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” “Can Christ be divided?,” the Apostle Paul asks in 1 Corinthians–implying, no, but those who are members and even hierarchs within that Body can, through the sins of schism and disobedience to the fullness of the faith (heresy) be severed from that one Body."

So, I know Catholics believe orthodox have valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments. We can even utilize them in a pinch.

But does the same hold true for Orthodox? Is reunification further away from an Eastern point of view?

Majority of Orthodox Christians that don’t live in the west, like to compare pope with devil, and are filled with conspiracy theories about Vatican is ruled by masons, illuminati, devils and others. Most popular bishops in Orthodox world are those who don’t want to communicate with western heretics until those heretics repent and return to Orthodoxy.