I am considering the Orthodox Church

[Gabriel_of_12]

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

 

[Hesychios]

This new Orthodox teaching to reject communion with a successor to Peter and his apostles (Catholic Bishops) is a sin in my eyes, because it rejects Jesus work of salvation to bring all members in the Kingdom of God to himself.

You have got that all mixed up.

What is rejected is the errors your church teaches. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Communion is always possible if your church will make the necessary corrections.We’ll leave the light on for you.

I find your new rejection of communion to a successor of Peter and the apostles coming from pride of men who have no right whatsoever to refuse the divine food from God to his Children.

Are you going to tell me that you are not proud of your association with the Pope? We are not under the Pope because we have never been under the Pope, from the beginning. You want us to change that now?

Our bishops are real bishops, our sacraments are real sacraments, and our Truth is real Truth.

The children of God receive the fullness of Faith in Holy Orthodoxy. The children are fed, from infancy, as in the early church.

http://ocaphoto.oca.org/filetmp/2004/August/102/Detail/DSC_0048.jpg

Pride is the deadliest sin. It seems to me that of all Christians, the RC apologists as a general rule (not all mind you) are the quickest to accuse others of pride, it is very ironic. In fact I do not recall ever reading this criticism from anyone else in any context.

The Chalcedonian Orthodox do not accuse the non-Chalcedonians of pride, neither do the non-Chalcedonians accuse the Chalcedonian Orthodox of pride. I do not recall ever reading Orthodox accuse Latin Catholics or Protestants of pride. That is an extremely judgmental stance for a Christian rooted in traditional Faith to take against another human being. We are all sinners.

He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else. "Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.

The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity–greedy, dishonest, adulterous–or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’

Great Lent, Holy Week, and Pascha in the Orthodox Church - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America - Orthodox Church

Great Lent is a period of time when the people are more conscious of their spiritual character. The passages of the Gospels and the Epistles, the hymnology and prayers, the spirit of the Church - all endeavor to help the Christian cleanse himself spiritually through repentance.

www.goarch.org

But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’ I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them, and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, "Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it."
Luke 18:9-17 NAB

It seems we are to abandon our “pride” to embrace errors. This old canard does not work. Holy Orthodoxy is admittedly not a big tent, it is not for anyone who can rationalize away differences in belief or become indifferent, it is for those who desire God’s received Apostolic Truth above all things. Those who can accept it like children in good faith are all welcome.

We for our part will simply strive to maintain the ancient church teachings, neither adding to nor removing anything we have been given by Christ through the Apostles.

 

[Hesychios]

Hey come on, let’s not start pooping on the poor Anglicans, now!

Ooops! Sorry.

Perhaps I should have specifically mentioned TEC. Anglicans in general get accused of being liberal quite often (usually without justification), but the evangelical Anglicans more than any other are really serious about sticking with Biblical precepts, and I do respect that. They try very hard.

In the context of pride I would have to say that if one thoroughly believes everything the Roman Catholic church teaches, I don’t see a reason not to join it. If I believed it I myself would join, and I urge anyone who believes in everything the Latin Catholic church teaches to get off the fence and join them.

But I don’t believe some of it and other things they teach do not make sense in an Orthodox context, so I would be a hypocrite if I did such a thing, and the anathemas of Vatican I would certainly apply to me, so I should not take communion even if I visited.

For that reason I do not even consider taking communion at the local CCPA parish in this region. They teach standard Latin Catholic theology, it would be wrong for me to approach their altar.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

We for our part will simply strive to maintain the ancient church teachings, neither adding to nor removing anything we have been given by Christ through the Apostles.

 

[jam070406]

The Council of Orange is not an EcumenicaL Council, and happens to be rooted in Augustinian theory of Original Sin, which does not work with eastern Christianity.

It is not relevant to nor binding upon Orthodox, and I reject it.

However it does demonstrate how very clearly your church and the Calvinist Protestants are very much alike, as two sides of the same coin. You should work hard at reconciling your church with it’s children, the Protestants, it’s what you will know best.

For the Church’s teaching on OS refer to the Cathecism.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

I see you don’t reject Pelagianism though.

 

[jam070406]

What is rejected is the errors your church teaches.

Please provide a reference from an ecumenical council, binding authoritative doctrine or proclamation, etc. with dates, names etc. that declare that what the Catholic Church teaches is error.

 

[jam070406]

However it does demonstrate how very clearly your church and the Calvinist Protestants are very much alike, as two sides of the same coin. You should work hard at reconciling your church with it’s children, the Protestants, it’s what you will know best.

Actually, Your church and the Protestants are more akin to each other. You are united in how far or how close you are in relationship to the Catholic Church.

 

[Hesychios]

I see you don’t reject Pelagianism though.

What I reject is the authority of your church’s Council of Orange. The western heresy of Pelagianism has nothing to do with it.

This isn’t an either/or kind of thing, or a zero-sum argument as if one must be the one or the other. What people need to grasp is that both Pelagius’ followers and Augustine’s followers can be wrong if they depart from the Apostolic understanding.

To accuse one of Pelagianism is to make the accusation that someone believes that one can save oneself with or without the agreement of God, it’s sort of a canned accusation, a ‘package deal’ so to say.

You might say “You then must believe this …” when it’s not what we believe. But that’s all you are capable of mentally processing, so you are in effect stuck.

 

[jam070406]

To accuse one of Pelagianism is to make the accusation that someone believes that one can save oneself with or without the agreement of God, it’s sort of a canned accusation, a ‘package deal’ so to say.

Then explain what you believe.

 

[Hesychios]

I know of no teaching of an apostolic Father refusing communion to another apostolic Father.

It was and is the common discipline of the church to break communion with those who teach error or flagrantly violate the ancient canons of the church.

Restoration of communion is possible after the corrections are made.

What you claim to be error comes from your Western Protestant mindset that creates a greater false divide that does not exist among the Pope and his Eastern Orthodox brethren not in communion with him. Your Western (Protestant) Orthodoxy tries to create a divide in the Orthodox communities that does not exist.

Protestants are not welcome to commune in Holy Orthodoxy, because they do not agree with the teachings of the holy church.

This is also why the Pope (as nice as he happens to really be ) is not welcome to commune in an Orthodox church. His beliefs and teachings are not in agreement.

This is also why you are not welcome to commune in an Orthodox church, you must be in agreement, which can be determined if you make a profession of faith and renounce any errors you are asked to renounce. This is the ancient discipline of the church.

In this all are equally regarded. Pope Benedict, Archbishop Rowan and Joel Osteen would all be expected to formally renounce errors before being received at the table.

Sadly, the differences between our churches have only grown over time, not lessened. So today we may be able to be more civil toward one another but the theological hurdles are just that much more profound.

 

[John_Larocque]

I hung about with those Catholic Traditionalists for a few years but then my domestic life took a turn for the worse and I dropped all interest in religion. I got interested in it again in 2000 when I decided to convert from my deism/agnosticism to American Evangelicalism, having moved to the United States in 1990.

What I remember about those Traditionalists is how unhappy they were. I’ve perused the posts in the Traditional Catholicism forum on this site and my impression is that there are a fair number of unhappy Catholics still around who deplore the decline of the sacred inside the Catholic Church. And it seems to me that an infallible and supreme pontiff has to be held responsible for this situation.

I’ve seen none of this sort of division in Orthodoxy. They lumber along in their conservative way, it’s true, but the Divine Liturgy is ethereal. The idea that the Orthodox would give it up in favor of some worship–arts, pop–culture, Protestant–influenced, gender–friendly concoction is unthinkable. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

How dare you remind the armchair apologist of the liturgical devastation of the last 40 years! (Now we return to the regularly scheduled discussion of filioque and papal supremacy… )

On a more serious note, thank you for your anecdote about Michael Davies and your insight into the traditionalist movement.

 

[jam070406]

You might say “You then must believe this …” when it’s not what we believe. But that’s all you are capable of mentally processing, so you are in effect stuck.

I’ve shown what the Church teaches on OS and you insist to try and claim Catholics can and do only believe one way, the strict Augustian/Calvanist view. Then you turn around and say I’m not mentally capable, at the same time doing exactly what you accuse me of!?

I tried to get an Orthodox poster to explain why the IC is not necessary when I showed that his view of OS mirrors the Catholic understanding of OS. His explanation seemed to show that he believed Mary’s sinlessness was her own doing. Other Orthodox posters (not on this thread but in the past) believed Mary sinned. Many Fathers refute this notion.
A Catholic poster asked that you explain your belief of OS. Now can you please explain your belief?

 

[jam070406]

It was and is the common discipline of the church to break communion with those who teach error or flagrantly violate the ancient canons of the church.

But again, based on what authority do you claim the Catholic Church teaches error? Please cite this authoritative source.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

As to the problems we are now experiencing that has more to do with the liberal theology that set itself up within the Church during the 60’s (secular ideals influencing the culture and society at large), thus allowing candidates of the priesthood who were unorthodox in faith and morals to enter the Church. It is sad that such people became priests but yet there is still hope if we as a Church fight the Judases from ever doing this again, i.e., we need to be vigilant and work now more than ever to fight the liberals/secularists within and without the Church who wish to destroy the credibility of the CC (we are the only institution able to stand in their way of fulfilling their secularist agenda).

This was talked about in Michael Rose’s “Good -bye good-men”. A very good read and eye opening. Every time I explain this same reason to my liberal friends or anyone who blames the vatican for the gay priests, they do not want to hear it. Like always, the truth hurts.

 

[Hesychios]

Then explain what you believe.

Original sin is Adam’s sin, it would specifically bar him from heaven. He would need to be forgiven to realize his entry into heaven. The sin of Adam is not attributable to you or me. We will not burn in hell because of Adam’s sin, but for our own.

Orthodox always call it the First Sin, and it’s effects were devastating. To us Original Sin (First Sin) is our wounded nature, actually the effects of the sin, not the sin itself. We need to overcome these effects and defeat them in all occasions of our life experience, there is no wiping these effects away, we will struggle against them.

This makes it hard for us, we are weak and could potentially damn ourselves through our own actions or thoughts, which means we need all the help we can get. The Body of Christ, the church with her teachings and sacraments, is that help for us.

Following the Holy Fathers, the Orthodox Church holds 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.

… In any case, Orthodoxy has always put great stress on “mastery of the passions” through prayer (public worship and private devotions), fasting (self-denial) and voluntary obedience and regular participation in the Eucharist (sometimes called “the Mysteries”). Thus, the highest form of Christian living (“the supreme philosophy”) is monasticism. Here all human energy is devoted to struggle for perfection.
Father M Azkoul

It is because of our perspective on First Sin that we have not found it necessary to formally speculate on the damnation of infants, or the special conception of Saint Mary, or dung heaps covered in snow.

 

[jam070406]

Original sin is Adam’s sin, it would specifically bar him from heaven. He would need to be forgiven to realize his entry into heaven. The sin of Adam is not attributable to you or me. We will not burn in hell because of Adam’s sin, but for our own.

Orthodox always call it the First Sin, and it’s effects were devastating. To us Original Sin (First Sin) is our wounded nature, actually the effects of the sin, not the sin itself. We need to overcome these effects and defeat them in all occasions of our life experience, there is no wiping these effects away, we will struggle against them.

This makes it hard for us, we are weak and could potentially damn ourselves through our own actions or thoughts, which means we need all the help we can get. The Body of Christ, the church with her teachings and sacraments, is that help for us.

Following the Holy Fathers, the Orthodox Church holds 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.

… In any case, Orthodoxy has always put great stress on “mastery of the passions” through prayer (public worship and private devotions), fasting (self-denial) and voluntary obedience and regular participation in the Eucharist (sometimes called “the Mysteries”). Thus, the highest form of Christian living (“the supreme philosophy”) is monasticism. Here all human energy is devoted to struggle for perfection.
Father M Azkoul

It is because of our perspective on First Sin that we have not found it necessary to formally speculate on the damnation of infants, or the special conception of Saint Mary, or dung heaps covered in snow.

And what of the inherited spiritual death and necessity of Baptism?

 

[Mickey]

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.

Please do not distort. Holy Orthodoxy will allow condom use on a case by case basis as per the direction of an experienced spiritual father. And as a matter of fact, I have recently read that Rome has commissioned a study on whether or not to allow condom use for married couples when one spouse has AIDS.

 

[jam070406]

Please do not distort. Holy Orthodoxy will allow condom use on a case by case basis as per the direction of an experienced spiritual father. And as a matter of fact, I have recently read that Rome has commission a study on whether or not to allow condom use for married couples when one spouse has AIDS.

I’m not distorting anything, you just admitted it’s allowed! And don’t try and steer the topic in another direction by directing it to the Catholic Church. We’re talking about your church’s belief.

 

[Mickey]

The Council of Orange is not an EcumenicaL Council, and happens to be rooted in Augustinian theory of Original Sin, which does not work with eastern Christianity.

It is not relevant to nor binding upon Orthodox, and I reject it.

However it does demonstrate how very clearly your church and the Calvinist Protestants are very much alike, as two sides of the same coin. You should work hard at reconciling your church with it’s children, the Protestants, it’s what you will know best.

 

[Mickey]

I’m not distorting anything, you just admitted it’s allowed! And don’t try and steer the topic in another direction by directing it to the Catholic Church. We’re talking about your church’s belief.

Great. A non-answer.

You have been pointing a finger for a very long time. When you point a finger–three more are pointing back at yourself. We are talking about both Churches here.

We have given you an answer: Sometimes (condom use) it is allowable for extra-ordinary circumstances as per a spiritual father.

And now Rome is considering the same thing.