D
dzheremi
Guest
How does that answer Mick’s question? It’s one I would like to read an answer to, too.
- Status
J
jam070406
Guest
The Catholic Church views the Papacy as a Divinely revealed Truth. So, it would seem to me, based on Catholic Teaching, that a rejection of the Papacy would be a denial of what God has revealed, which is a sin against Faith.
Also, there are some error’s in Orthodoxy such as divorce and artificial contraception that the CC views as grave matter.
So, I cannot lie and say no, it wouldn’t affect your salvation at all if you reject the Papacy.
P
PeaceSerenity
Guest
Well, actually I don’t think Orthodoxy has put out a formal statement on these subjects. While certain church fathers have written about them (and are mostly in agreement with the Catholic stance) the Orthodox church has left the decisions to be made on a personal basis by the spiritual father and the bishop
Also the Orthodox do not reject the papacy, merely the idea of papal supremacy and infallibility. The Orthodox would be inclined to view the Pope as any other Patriarch in the Orthodox church, which means that while he would be greatly respected, he would not be seen as infallible. Not even the apostles were infallible, it is ridiculous to assume a Pope must be, after all, he is only human.
Honestly, I don’t think we can make that call. It’s up to God to say who will be saved and who won’t be.
I
Ignatios
Guest
- Existed or not this not what you contended to, in you earlier post, here is what you wrote:
- my reply was very direct to your suggestion
- Also it was from a very Valid sources “Washington Post” and the “Catholic News Agency” :
- Now, whether the papacy existed befre or after, today the Vatican, on an official goverment levels, is recognized as “STATE” with Ambassadors and etc…
1)
, We are not discussing whether its creation is/was necessary or not, Please stay in the subject at hand2)The above is a shy submission from you that the Vatican is a “State”, In which you refuted yourself
Again you are going off topic, However, the link above does not help your argument, but on the contrary, it refutes what you have stated in your previous post when you, again, said the following—> " Yes, it is in fact incorrect because you view the papacy as a political institution …" - Well I see that your favorite source that you draw things from, didn’t serve you well, why? because it agrees with what I and the one you were replying to ( Hesychios ) and not with you, here is what it says:
And the rest of the article is irrelevant to our discussion
And I stated that the Pope can exercise any decision as he sees it fit unhindered, including the decisions of confirming dicisions.
Now please if you think that I am wrong, present us with a valid evidence and refute us.
Again and again and… the subject at hand is not “IF some popes did …” But it is about what the Pope is capable of doing according to the Canon Law and doctrine of your church, SO, again this Irrelevant.
Again you are trying desperately to brake loose from the contending point, Please stay in the subject at hand.
However, to reply to your comment above, the answer is yes, all ORTHODOX Bishops throught out history were loyal to the (T)radition and the decrees of the Holy Church of GOD, and when they did not, they ceased to be ORTHODOX, such was the case with Nastorius( Patriarch of Constan.) or Honorius( Pope of Rome) or when the Papacy split from the Unity of the Holy Orthodox Faith of the Holy and true “catholic” Church of GOD.
GOD forbid that we may argue against the DIVINE INSTITUTION of GOD, NOR do we argue against the Papacy (sort of speak) But we are standing as a witenesses to the truth that it was passed down to us ONCE and FOR ALL from the beginning.
uummm, read Saint Ignatios of Antioch or Saint Clement of Rome for your answer above they are the earliest fathers. and tell me if there was changes in the dogmatical Issues from those later Fathers of Church such as 1st E.C. dogmas moving all the way down to the seventh E.C., and then tell me if you find the “THEORY” of the I.C. anywhere there.
loool,hold on, is this “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” suggesting that the Orthodox and the Catholics teaching the I.C.??? and that the Orthodox are teaching the I.C. implicitly??? looool…sorry…but the absurdity of this is unrealistic.
Allow me to express it for you the " IMMACULATE CONCEPTION" this guy seems to be speaking about the sinlessness of the Mother of GOD, those are two diffrent points.
When the Orthodox speaks about the Sinlessness of the Lady THEOTOKOS, this does not mean that She was IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED.
And when the RCC speaks about the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, they are speaking about that GOD at the very moment of her conception in her Mother womb by Her father, GOD infused a soul that was preserved for her before she had another regular human or unpreserved soul gets in her conception instead… AY YAY YAY … and you people say that THIS IS IN THE BIBLE !!! In a way, I feel sorry for the Protestants that they had to put up with all this…
Can’t wait :extrahappy:
J
jam070406
Guest
Of course. I never said anyone could make that call.
J
jam070406
Guest
Exactly my point. Some are led into mortal sin by those that claim it is acceptable.
This is not in line with Catholic Teaching. In fact I believe your Church believed the same as the CC before 1930, until they changed their teaching and began to allow it.
And yet, after all you’ve just said you don’t respect or give honor to the Pope, a Divinely appointed office, or the Holy See, whom the Fathers said all must be in agreement with.
And… I would suggest you study what infallibilty is, how it pertains to Faith and morals, the universal Church, Peter etc. There are many resources on this subject.
I
Ignatios
Guest
Instead of offering, you should have done it.
It seems like you lost track of what you were saying before. where does any of the above point to the I.C. as being a Christocentric, which was the subject or better of, where do you see anything about the I.C. in the above, Immaculate is one thing and Immaculate “CONCEPTION” is another.
††† I was chanting this all day today, In Arabic,
NOT with the RC teaching, but yes with the Historical catholic Teaching.
this not an inexpectable answer from a RC view.
This was not an attack, and no offence intented to your person, it was only a point of view based on facts.
Same to youYou too!
Forgive me if I sounded hostile somewhere.
GOD bless you †††
P
PeaceSerenity
Guest
Those who believe artificial contraception is acceptable, would continue to believe so regardless of whether or not the Orthodox church put out a formal statement, the same thing is happening in the Catholic church. The only think the RCs have gained by putting out the statement is a bunch of people arguing which types of contraception are allowed. The purpose of leaving it up to the spiritual father is so that it can be permitted in extreme cases, broad statements do not encompass the needs of all people. For example, many people need to take birth control pills for hormone purposes outside of actual contraceptive reasons (my mother had too), but on the other hand it would have a contraceptive effect.
And, I guess this is kind of awkward because there are two overlapping discussions on thsi forum, oops, my bad
Just because the Orthodox do not accept all the teachings of Catholicism, that doesn’t mean we don’t respect the pope. At the point where both Catholics and Orthodox claim apostolic succession (and I don’t really want to get into that debate) and lets say both are equally right, then respect shown for Orthodox Patriarchs would be equivalent to that shown to the Pope. And as to the “Fathers” you speak of, well, I suppose Catholic Church fathers would be in agreement with Catholic teachings, while Orthodox church fathers would not…I don’t think that can form a legitimate claim.
And, I guess this is kind of awkward because there are two overlapping discussions on thsi forum, oops, my bad
J
jam070406
Guest
Actually I was trying to address the issue in which you said the idea of the IC was some foreign concept, which was suddenly made up by the Pope (as some EO claim). A private revelation was the claim. And then you backpeddled and tried to pin it on St. Alphonsus when I showed that he believed and taught it many years before the dogma was even declared.
I don’t understand the EO’s idea of Immaculate. Is there a teaching by the Fathers, or in Orthodoxy, in which Mary was subject to the devil? There have been Orthodox that have come on these boards and claimed that Mary (the ark of the new covenant) was a sinner and in fact sinned. But the Fathers and, your Liturgy even, call her spotless and immaculate. I really can’t understand the objection to the IC other then…uuuuugh…it’s CATHOLIC, so it MUST be bad and wrong.
So explain to me the Orthodox understanding.
p.s. You didn’t offend me. I find your posts charitable, knowledgeable and thought provoking.
J
jam070406
Guest
The point being, the official stance by the Church is there and to be known by the clergy. A Priest cannot advise against Church Teaching. And if the Faithful know of such a Priest they know his advice is bad and potentially dangerous because the Church has ruled on this issue. IMHO, by the Orthodox church not having a stance on this, Priests are free to believe error and teach it to the laity, while at the same time putting their souls in danger.
P
PeaceSerenity
Guest
Sorry to butt into this discussion, I hope you don’t mind. The dogma of IC was based on the Western view on the original sin (which was based on St. Augustine’s teachings which states that each human being at the moment of conception shares in the guilt of Adam’s sin of disobedience). This conclusion was based on St Augustine’s incorrect Latin translation of Romans 5:12 (he didnt read greek too well). He read the passage as “so death spread to all men in whom (Adam) all men sinned”, rather than “so death spread to all men because all men sinned”, which is how the original Greek reads. This means that if the Virgin Mary did not sin during her life, then the original sin is not a part of her, so there is no need for IC.I don’t understand the EO’s idea of Immaculate. Is there a teaching by the Fathers, or in Orthodoxy, in which Mary was subject to the devil? There have been Orthodox that have come on these boards and claimed that Mary (the ark of the new covenant) was a sinner and in fact sinned. But the Fathers and, your Liturgy even, call her spotless and immaculate. I really can’t understand the objection to the IC other then…uuuuugh…it’s CATHOLIC, so it MUST be bad and wrong. provoking.
P
PeaceSerenity
Guest
It is impossible to provide a 100% comprehensive teaching on every type of contraceptive, when it is allowed, etc. A formal statement is just as open to distortion as no teaching. And plus, you know the Orthodox, they only formalize things when necessary to weed out heresy
Any Orthodox priest has read the church fathers and thus understands the Orthodox view on contraception, a formal declaration is not necessary.
J
jam070406
Guest
From the Catechism:
402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290
403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
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 and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
J
jam070406
Guest
Perhaps. But I suspect the faithful don’t. Most, if not all, Orthodox on these boards view it as perfectly acceptable if a spiritual director says it’s ok to contracept.
P
PeaceSerenity
Guest
I guess that’s my point, spiritual fathers have read those writings so they will not direct people to do so, except in extreme circumstances.
I already answered this above. In the original Greek it says that “so death spread to all men because all men sinned”. Most of the other points are extrapolations from this quote, so it just depends on the way you read this quote,
J
jam070406
Guest
So you reject Original Sin? What is your understanding?
J
jam070406
Guest
P
PeaceSerenity
Guest
No, I did not say that “each human being at the moment of conception shares in the guilt of Adam’s sin of disobedience”, that was the conclusion reached by St. Augustine because of the weird wording of the Latin translation of the bible.
Catholics teach that Adam and Eve sinned against God and so the guilt of their sin has been inherited by every man, woman and child after them, also known as the “original sin”.
The Orthodox Church, following the church fathers, believes that when Adam sinned against God, he introduced death to the world. Since all men are born of the same human stock as Adam, all men inherit death. Death means that the life of every human being comes to an end (mortality); but also that death generates in us the passions (anger, hate, lust, greed, etc.), disease and aging. That is why orthodoxy has always put great stress on “mastery of the passions” through prayer, fasting (self-denial) and voluntary obedience and regular participation in the Eucharist (sometimes called “the Mysteries”).
Note: most ideas in this post are borrowed from an article in The Orthodox Christian Witness and are not my own.
Catholics teach that Adam and Eve sinned against God and so the guilt of their sin has been inherited by every man, woman and child after them, also known as the “original sin”.
The Orthodox Church, following the church fathers, believes that when Adam sinned against God, he introduced death to the world. Since all men are born of the same human stock as Adam, all men inherit death. Death means that the life of every human being comes to an end (mortality); but also that death generates in us the passions (anger, hate, lust, greed, etc.), disease and aging. That is why orthodoxy has always put great stress on “mastery of the passions” through prayer, fasting (self-denial) and voluntary obedience and regular participation in the Eucharist (sometimes called “the Mysteries”).
Note: most ideas in this post are borrowed from an article in The Orthodox Christian Witness and are not my own.
J
jam070406
Guest
I just showed you from official Catholic Teaching that the Church does not teach we inherit “guilt”
I just showed you from official Catholic Teaching what the Church teaches about OS and it mirrors what you just stated. Sanctifying grace in our soul helps to combat the affects as well. And the Church teaches that by the grace of Almighty God, Mary was freed from the affects you mentioned. Why is this a problem? And why is it beyond Almighty God to bestow such an honor on the woman He picked from all of eternity to be the Ark of the new covenant?
H
Hesychios
Guest
No, that is not what ‘most Orthodox’ think.
Orthodox do keep the spiritual director (usually the pastor) fully engaged. This has the added benefit of keeping the family plugged in to the church throughout all life decisions, and not so alienated.
Holy Orthodoxy has a reputation for staunch conservatism in all things relating to religious belief and behavior, yet on this topic it seems people want to paint the church as raving liberals. Thgat works on Anglicans much of the time, but it will not fly with the Orthodox.
- Status