But he did say Invincible, meaning Jeremy is now a superhero and can fly. “I’ll use my INVINCIBLE Ignorance ray to put a stop to this madness!”Correction. He said “invincibly ignorant”. This means that you are not really aware of your ignorance and therefore not responsible.
…But he did say Invincible, meaning Jeremy is now a superhero and can fly. “I’ll use my INVINCIBLE Ignorance ray to put a stop to this madness!”
In Christ,
Andrew
Well, okay…when you put it that way, I guess it’s not all bad…But he did say Invincible, meaning Jeremy is now a superhero and can fly. “I’ll use my INVINCIBLE Ignorance ray to put a stop to this madness!”
In Christ,
Andrew
Bulgarian, but we are all converts except for our priest’s son (who was baptized at 40 days). No ethnic Bulgarians though. When I went to Ave Maria, I attended an Antiochian and OCA parish for a while. We also have a great relationship with the ROCOR parish nearby (our priest introduced their priest to Orthodoxy about 20 years ago when he was a Methodist minister at the time
Refresh my memory, Andrew, what Orthodox church do you attend? OCA? ROCOR? Antiochene? Greek?
The parish I visited was Serbian…
).
Same here! I also want to visit The Holy Virgin Cathedral which house the relics of St John Maximovitch.
The Russians had build an outpost in Northern California in 1812, and the first Orthodox church in the continental United States was build at Fort Ross.Everybody should come to Fort Ross! It’s lonely up here…
We have an OCA parish close by that I am considering visiting this Sunday. I guess that helps me that it does not have X ethnicity tied to it at all. I am expecting it to be stranger than any service I have been too, but if I survived by first Pentecostal service as a teen, I can do this. I am an open book at this point. I just want to “come and see” and nothing more.Bulgarian, but we are all converts except for our priest’s son (who was baptized at 40 days). No ethnic Bulgarians though. When I went to Ave Maria, I attended an Antiochian and OCA parish for a while. We also have a great relationship with the ROCOR parish nearby (our priest introduced their priest to Orthodoxy about 20 years ago when he was a Methodist minister at the time
I have limited experience with the extreme ethnicism, but I can understand the reservations people have about looking into Orthodoxy especially when the church sign in America has X ethnicity Orthodox Church.
How was your experience with the Serbian church? I know the Blessed Seraphim of Platina’s monastery is in the Serbian diocese. I want to get out there one day and see it. California is home to at least 4 Orthodox Saints.
In Christ,
Andrew
Yes, and we are all very proud of it up here, too! Come visit! The Serbians can wait, or better yet, get in line…!The Russians had build an outpost in Northern California in 1812, and the first Orthodox church in the continental United States was build at Fort Ross.
Can you please quote exactly where I said “a country is secular if its leader is?”
We’re talking about the ecclesiastical structure. Now, you’re talking about the form of Christianity? It seems you’re making another arbitrary addition to our conversation. As far as ecclesiastical structure, I seriously doubt the Low Petrine view espoused by many EO today would be sufficient to preserve its unity. The Anglican Church has basically had the same ecclesiology as the EO. The difference between the two is that the Anglican Church has been situated in a more liberal, free-thinking society than the EO Churches for hundreds of years. And look where the Anglicans are now - many of them are longing for the papacy, or are realizing the need for a more centralized form of governance. The EO, on the other hand, have existed within absolute monarchies. From there, it passed into a totalitarian communist regime. It has only been very, very recently been situated in a more liberal society. There is nothing inherently special about EO ecclesiology that could preserve its Traditions, as evidenced by the Anglican dilemma. In Russia, for example, it depends more on government suppression of non-Orthodox religions than the innate power of its ecclesiological principles, to preserve its Traditions.
I’m not sure what you mean. What is it about the Catholic “model of Christianity” is not conducive to maintaining the Apostolic Faith?
I’m not interested in unity with the Eastern Orthodox as they are today so much as how they were when the Church was still united in the First millenium. There are many things the EO need to recover from the early Church that I feel they have lost before unity can come about. I feel the same way with the Latins, of course. I feel the OO also need to recover a some things.
That’s a good attitude.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I said that the High Petrine view does not dictate acceptance of the papacy, I simply meant that the principle is not always about the papacy. As stated, it is just a principle about the relationship between a head bishop and his brother bishops. It can be used to describe the Metropolical and Patriarchal levels of headship, not just the universal level. That’s all I meant.
There is only one way to be in communion with Rome. It’s reflected in the High Petrine view. I reject the Absolutist Petrine view.
I’ve never heard that phrase, “bowing to someone” used in a friendly way. It normally denotes base subservience with no freedom. I’m inclined to think you used it that way, so I don’t believe you when you say it just means mere “assent.” I’m pretty sure you know that it normally has an insulting connotation. Sorry. No, I do not bow to the Pope.
That you think it means something insulting demonstrates just mere ignorance.Oh. Hmm. Nevermind. I’m “ignorant” I guess. Nice.
Invincible ignorance is just Catholic jargon for saying you are sincere in your beliefs without pretense or malice.Is that a reference to Iron Man?But he did say Invincible, meaning Jeremy is now a superhero and can fly. “I’ll use my INVINCIBLE Ignorance ray to put a stop to this madness!”
:tiphat:Yes, and we are all very proud of it up here, too! Come visit! The Serbians can wait, or better yet, get in line…!
I don’t know why anyone would deny it. It was a horrendous mistake. Every Church has experienced it, even the Eastern Orthodox Church. There is even a website dedicated, IIRC, to survivors of child abuse in the EOC. I recall reading an article about an attorney who represented 5 victims of child abuse 30 years ago in the EOC. It’s just coming out now. I guess the EOC was not free of this modernity. It is such a horrible, horrible shameful crime, and it shouldn’t be used to further someone’s agenda against any Church.Thanks for your admission, then, that the CC succumbed to modernity and liberal, lax attitudes about such things, precisely my point.
I didn’t present my understanding of what you said as a quote, because it’s not one. What I am referring to is this: "In the sense that none of the political rulers of Ethiopia were priests of the Orthodox Catholic Church " This was in reply to my question about how exactly the royal court of Ethiopia was secular. Again, this is just how I understand you, and I’m more than willing to be corrected, but it seems to me like you’re saying if the political ruler(s) of the country aren’t also religious leaders, then the country is secular. I presented in reply the case of Sudan, wherein the political leader is not a religious leader, yet the country is far from secular.Can you please quote exactly where I said “a country is secular if its leader is?”
I brought up the form of Christianity because that’s what I believe plays a larger role in the preservation/conservatism of the Orthodox church, rather than any favorable or unfavorable form of government might. I’m not trying to make another “arbitrary addition” to our conversation. I’m trying to present my alternate view, as is proper if I’m going to say that I don’t think you’re correct.
I don’t think it is, either. I don’t believe any non-Catholic Church (Orthodox or otherwise) is united solely by its rejection of Rome. Believe it or not, Rome is not the center of the universe, particularly if your church’s own leadership is in Alexandria, or Aleppo, or Moscow, or wherever. You are the one who is using these labels like “Low Petrine” and others. I frankly don’t find them very helpful.
Yes, this is all true, but I would think this hurts your argument more than it helps. If two churches have developed basically the same ecclesiology in vastly (socially) different societies, then how can it be the case that the political/social climate of the nation makes as much of an impact as you seem to say it does? (or will, rather)
Why wouldn’t they? Their entire church is the daughter of Rome, not of Alexandria or Constantinople. It’s not as though the Anglicans are some sort of “Western Orthodox” just because they have historically rejected the Roman Papacy. They still grew out of (and remain in) the Western/Scholastic (or whatever you’d call it) cultural sphere, which was and I suppose still is dominated by Rome.
If this is your argument, couldn’t the same be said of Rome? After all, during the period in which it separated itself from the rest of Apostolic Christianity, it was in a…let’s say, “pre-democratic society”. It hasn’t been until relatively recently (in the context of a 2,000 year old institution) that this has changed. Not as recently as the case of the EO, but still…the same essential observation applies to Rome.
And, I would argue, there is nothing inherently special about the RC ecclesiology that could preserve its traditions, either, as the various RC divisions (schismatic groups; trad./NO acrimony, etc.) show, and the various problems of the ECCs and OCCs show (I know you know what I’m talking about, as this is a constant conversation on the EC sub-forum!).
I have no idea how to gauge this, as I do not live in Russia. I would only remind you that people who live in glass dachas should not throw kamni.
Basically everything about it. I don’t have time to go through it all, and don’t really want to anyway, but some of the things I personally find alienating that are not present in other churches include: the ecclesiology, the over-reliance on scholastic modes of thinking and philosophical sophistry to defend its positions (and the various developments of doctrine that have come out of this), the lack of aestheticism, etc.
Okay.
This is interesting. Having once been OO yourself, can you elaborate on what some of those things might be?
Oh, okay. Thank you for explaining.
And it doesn’t bother you that Rome itself holds (if I’m understanding these distinctions correctly) the Absolutist view? (Or you don’t see that from Rome, or what?)
It is not meant in a friendly or unfriendly way. By “assenting” to the Pope, you bow to Rome’s decisions should they be over or against your own sui juris church’s own recommendations or what have you. This does happen, as was recently the case in denying married priests among the some Byzantine Catholics in Italy (? I believe it was…there was a thread about this on the EC sub-forum, but I cannot locate it). In light of the very real control that Rome exercises, benevolently or not, I am afraid I do have to say that I see the relationship in the negative terms through which you have re-framed my original statement: You are subservient, and you do not have true freedom. This, in and of itself, is not negative but that you’ve thought of it that way. Should it be God’s will that I join the Coptic Orthodox Church, I would be subservient to the leadership of that church, even in the cases (should they arise) that I disagree with any given decision. The difference, of course, is that no one is infallible in that particular scenario…
Indeed. And yet, to be called any kind of “ignorant”, especially in light of my past in which I would not have been called such, is a trifle insulting, don’t you think? It really does seem more like Rome is providing itself with a sort of philosophical salve by brushing off any and all criticism of it with such patronizing terminology. I, for one, do not appreciate it at all.That you think it means something insulting demonstrates just mere ignorance.
Is that St. Cyprian’s in Midlothian? They seem like a very inspiring Orthodox community from what I have seen. Their services will more than likely be in English. By and large, most Orthodox churches in the US these days will have their services all in English. Of course there are exceptions. I’m on the other side of the commonwealth, near Roanoke. If you’re ever in the area, don’t be a stranger!
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”
.Yes it is. I live in Midlothian, in Chesterfield County. The parish is technically across the county line in Powhatan…none the less, small world isn’t it?Is that St. Cyprian’s in Midlothian? They seem like a very inspiring Orthodox community from what I have seen. Their services will more than likely be in English. By and large, most Orthodox churches in the US these days will have their services all in English. Of course there are exceptions. I’m on the other side of the commonwealth, near Roanoke. If you’re ever in the area, don’t be a stranger!
In Christ,
Andrew
I think they just built their building recently out there.