O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
I was asking the same question…Are you feeling okay?
- Status
N
NEWCATHOLICJEFF
Guest
What is meant in Luke 24:49? Is this not the same as is mentioned in John 14: 26? It seem to me, althoug I could be wrong, that they can both do it or we must say that what is written in Luke 24:49 is wrong. If we say that Luke is in error then why believe any of it?
In another passage Matt 28:18 Christ says that all power in heaven and on earth has been given to him. Was he wrong, lying, the Bible wrong, or is he telling the truth and has the power of sending the Holy Spirit, which is a power in heaven?
I am pretty new to this, so if my logic is all muddled please help me out, but I have been taught, and under the understanding, that the Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son. That it is so strong and so powerful that it takes on a person by itself. That the Father and the Son have existed in all time and as a result so has the Holy Spirit, from the moment time began. That being said if the Holy Spirit is the manifestation of the love emanating between both the Father and the Son then in fact would it not be coming from both the Father and the Son?, or do you believe it is only the love of the Father that makes up the Holy Spirit? Even if we say it is only the Fathers love we still have the problem of Luke and Matt?
Hopefully you can help me out on this.
God Bless
D
Diak
Guest
I would love to be fully reconciled with my brother Ukrainian Orthodox. Except much of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, even if we were to be fully reconciled, is not considered “canonical” by most of “canonical” Orthodoxy…
S
sidbrown
Guest
Why is that?
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
But in the article it says that this church had broken away from the Catholic Church. So I am very confused here. It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
S
sidbrown
Guest
Right. This was an example of a problem which came up with Baptism by immersion. The Church in question where this had taken place had broken away from the RCC.But in the article it says that this church had broken away from the Catholic Church. So I am very confused here. It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
But in post #254 you stated the following:
You stated it was an RCC priest, when it wasn’t. If it was a church that had broken away from the RCC how could they have an RCC priest? As I said, this has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. But you indicated it did.
That is misleading. It makes the Church look bad when the Church had nothing to do with the unfortunate death of the infant.
S
sidbrown
Guest
Yes. You are right, In this case, was it a former RCC priest? I seem to recall reading about a case where it happened in an RC Church, but I cannot find the reference for it, so I might have been wrong on this point.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I’m sorry but you are definitely wrong, as a “former” RCC priest is not an RCC priest. You’ve provided your source and it is clear that the church where the crime was committed had broken away from the Catholic Church.
The Church has a lot of problems right now with scandals. Do we need to add more fuel to the fire by making assertions that are not true? It saddens me very much to see the Church accused of such an atrocious crime as homicide when it doesn’t even involve the Church at all.
S
sidbrown
Guest
Yes. you are right about this, and I was wrong. Except that the source that i provided, was not the one that I thought that I had read a while back. I may not have expressed it correctly, but please be advised that the point that I was trying to make, was not about the RCC, but about the dangers of baptism by immersion.I’m sorry but you are definitely wrong, as a “former” RCC priest is not an RCC priest. You’ve provided your source and it is clear that the church where the crime was committed had broken away from the Catholic Church.
The Church has a lot of problems right now with scandals. Do we need to add more fuel to the fire by making assertions that are not true? It saddens me very much to see the Church accused of such an atrocious crime as homicide when it doesn’t even involve the Church at all.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Thank you for the clarification. Without knowing all the facts we can’t really know if baptism by immersion is dangerous. If a person holds a premature infant underwater for a significant period of time, the infant will die. Did the “priest” do this? Did he hold the infant’s nostrils shut and cover her mouth? He has been charged with homicide - I may be wrong (and often am) but that seems to me to indicate something more went on than just immersion.
I’m not arguing for or against baptism by immersion. I really don’t think it matters and is more of a tradition than anything else. There may be dangers but I’m not aware of them. The source you cited does throw up a red flag, but the story is incomplete.
D
Diak
Guest
To oversimplify, the Church of Moscow does not want to acknowledge other Orthodox churches in Ukraine that would not be directly subject to Moscow. Even those who belong to “canonical” Orthodox churches in such places as Estonia and other former “Iron Curtain” countries have seen great difficulties as non-Muscovite Orthodox in obtaining their own native hierarchies.
S
sidbrown
Guest
There were some reports of tension and displeasure from the Russian Orthodox Church when the Romanian Orthodox Church opened up new Churches in the former Soviet Republic of Moldova.
BTW, is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, KP, recognised by any other Orthodox Church?
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
As far as I know, No, but I don’t know if I’m right on that one, Sid.
I would like to know, too.
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
No, mostly due to the “influence” of the Russian Orthodox Moscow Patriarchate. You have a body of 14 million Ukrainian Orthodox believers in this Church KP (Kyivan Patriarchate) in Ukraine (which outnumbers the 9 million or so in the Russian Orthodox Church’s branch in Ukraine called "Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate - which church is quite anti-Ukrainian sadly in the country of Ukraine). The UOC- MP is not autocephalous and I doubt really autonomous, hence why so many millions of Ukrainians flock to the KP. The KP faithful believe by and large the MP Church to be a tool of the Kremlin and Russian imperialism, hence their reluctance to join the MP Church in Ukraine which church views its goal in Ukraine as political just as much as it is religious (i.e. Ukraine - you belong to the Russian world, don’t ever think of NATO, etc).
Any schism in Orthodoxy in Ukraine could have been avoided long ago had the MP in Moscow took a deep breath, realized the days of Russian imperialism were over after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and agreed to a truly Autocepholous Orthodox Church in Ukraine. There were even reports of the KP and the UAOC holding discussions with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople to have him take them under him, but the MP came flying in.
You therefore have one of the largest, most religious body of Orthodox believers in the world in the Ukrainian Orthodox KP who cannot even get autocephaly never mind a Patriarchate, never mind that nations many times smaller have same in the Orthodox world. It is a political, not spiritual question now, as to how powerfully the Russian state and Orthodox Church want to interfere in what is now the free and independent country of Ukraine, though even this is in question what with an authoritarian pro-MP oligarch Yanukovych being President of Ukraine who is pro-Kremlin, and is copying Putin’s authoritarian regime from Russia.
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (canonical under EP) in Canada uses Ukrainian Orthodox KP materials in its services and I believe does not recognize the 1686 transfer of jurisdiction of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from Constantinople to Moscow which was done by simony, in the opinion of many.
There is absolutely no redeeming spiritual imperative for why 14 million Ukrainian Orthodox kids, grandparents, men, women cannot be recognized as canonical, other than the politics of Moscow for the most part.
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Yep. The Patriarch of Moscow Kirill, on his recent trip to Ukraine, proclaimed that Russia, Belarus, Ukraine AND Moldova! BELONG to the Russian World Russkyi Myr’, and hence the Orthodox Churches in all 4 independent states should take their orders from Moscow. You don’t like it? Tough luck. The (Russian Orthodox Church) ROC in this decision has the political weight of the Kremlin behind them which makes these things so incredibly difficult. It is neither right nor truly Christian, in my humble Ukie opinion.
S
sidbrown
Guest
Can a member of the UOCKP, receive the Sacraments with no problem from the UOC in Canada? Would these two Churches be considered to be in communion or not?
Also, there have been a whole lot of rumors and stories going around concerning the head of the UOCKP
i read though that the relations between the .Ukrainian Greek Catholics and the UOCKP were pretty good, to the extent that there was discussion of building a Church together?
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Well, when any bishops of the UOCKP or priests visit Canada, they are welcomed by the UOC here, though they do not concelebrate liturgy together. I think some priests in the UOC in Canada may have come from the UOCKP originally.
As for faithful and the Sacraments, I do not believe the laity have any problem.
No. Thought the stress is already starting to show in that in the U.S. many Ukrainian Orthodox parishes have gone under the KP.
I think the current Kyivan Patriarch, Filaret, will probably have to go should the KP be recognized canonical in the future.
Yes. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=482362
J
John_oxios
Guest
On icons and statues, there is an agreement already between the E.O and the RCC on this subject… it goes back to a council I think in the 6th or 7th centuries, al agreed Icons for the east and statues for the west were okay, the Byzantine Orthodox church in my area, which is now under the spiritual guidance of the RCC, keeps its icons, and does not have to place statues of any kind in their Church.
Bringing churches back in union with Rome is not about forcing issues but understanding of what broke us apart in the first place:
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html
- Icons
Icons are more than sacred pictures. Everything about them is theological. For example, they are always flat, flat so that we who inhabit the physical world will understand that the world of the spirit where Christ, His Mother, the angels, the saints, and the departed dwell, is a world of mystery which cannot be penetrated by our five senses.
Customarily, Roman Catholicism has historically employed statues in its worship. The statues are life-like and three-dimensional. They seem to imitate the art of ancient Greece. Both arts are naturalistic. The Latins portray Christ, the Mother of God, the saints, even the angels, as if they were in a state of nature. This “naturalism” stems from the medieval idea that “grace perfects nature.”
The person or persons are represented on the icon as deified. He or she is not a perfect human being, but much more: They are transfigured and glorified. They have a new and grace-filled humanity.
Important to remember is the Latin theory of grace: It is created by God for man. Orthodoxy teaches, as we recall, that grace is uncreated, and impacts all creation. It is a mysterious extension of the Divine Nature. Orthodox iconography reflects this truth, even as Roman Catholic statues reflect its idea of grace.
Again, icons are a necessary part of Orthodox piety. The Orthodox honor and kiss icons, a devotion which passes from the icon to the person or persons represented in them. Icons are not idols and the Orthodox do not worship them. Worship is reserved for God alone. The statues set up in Roman Catholic temples are not commonly venerated; they are visual aids and decorations.
God bless,
John
- Status