I'm Orthodox, ask me anything

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rose you must be joking. A) I did flag it and B) a usurper is one who usurps. What are we arguing semantics now? Please huh.
 
Read, please, what was said

Well we can’t now, it’s been removed.

I read it one way , you another. I read it as She or he did not say the Pope was an usurper, but was being usurped upon.

Perhaps we can ask
 
Last edited:
The Filioque was first integrated by the Roman Church at the Spanish synod of Orange in the 6th century. This synod was rejected by the holy Orthodox Church. The Church Fathers speak of the Holy Spirit going through the Son in an economic sense. St. Basil the Great writers this,
Thus the way of the knowledge of God lies from One Spirit through the One Son to the One Father, and conversely the natural Goodness and the inherent Holiness and the royal Dignity extend from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit. Thus there is both acknowledgment of the hypostases and the true dogma of the Monarchy is not lost.
The Holy Spirit 18:47, Basil the Great, 375 A.D.
Click to expand...
thus effectively refuting the heretical Roman conception of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
 
Disgust? I have no disgusts, as an Orthodox Christian I view your church as heterodox and not guided by the Holy Spirit. Unlike you, we do not believe in the branch theory. We believe the Orthodox Catholic Church is the one true Church that Jesus established in 33 A.D. We view the Roman Church as a heterodox institution that schismed off from the Orthodox Catholic Church. Because you are not in unity with Christ’s one Church, in view of the Orthodox Church, you do not have the same grace of the Holy Spirit.
 
If you do not want to hear what the Orthodox Church believes then please, exit the thread. It was not meant to be an attack, it’s simply our perspective.
 
Do you mind if I answer you a little bit later? I have to go back to work. I’ll be back in a little while everybody.
 
I ask again then: how can you claim the oneness of the Orthodox Church when all of its members aren’t even in communion with one another?
 
But the very decision to be baptized again is a rejection of the first.
 
You haven’t seen it because the post was deleted or possibly removed by moderators. The person (who obviously came here not for dialogue, but rather to provoke) called the Pope a “usurper”, implied that the Holy Spirit does not guide the Catholic Church, and has used the word “heresy” about a half dozen times. Other than that, no attacks.
 
Op, I have a sincere question.

In your jurisdiction, what is the stance regarding Anglican holy orders? AND, when you become Orthodox, will you please say a round of the chotki for me?
 
I have another question: how can you claim to be catholic (as in universal) when in practice the Orthodox Church has (virtually) no presence in South America, Africa, or Asia, and only a small presence in North America. That, by any reasonable definition, is not universal.
 
We don’t believe in the branch theory either. The Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ. The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, however, are both in an imperfect communion with the Catholic Church, by virtue of apostolic succession.
 
kainosktisis said:
  • How do you understand Original Sin?
Click to expand...
Orthodox Christians believe in ancestral sin instead of Augustinian original sin. Ancestral sin differs from original sin in that we believe that we sin because of death, so death leads to sin not sin unto death i.e. as a punishment. St. John of Damascus (676 A.D. - 749 A.D.) lays this out in his “An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith”. As Orthodox, we believe Adam was created neither in a state of mortality nor immortality, rather we believe that God granted him two decisions, and out of his own free will he chose death. Many Orthodox Christians believe that, even if Adam hadn’t sinned, the Son would’ve still incarnated as Christ to complete man’s road to salvation.

Orthodox also translate Romans 5:12 a little bit differently than Roman Catholics and Protestants in that we translate the last line of the verse as, “because of which all have sinned”, instead as “in whom all have sinned” like the western churches do. This also lends to our understanding of ancestral sin. Father John Romanides puts it like this:
 
Last edited:
From what has been observed, the famous expression, eph’ho pantes hemarton [(ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον)], can be safely interpreted as modifying the word, thanatos [(θάνατος)], which precedes it, and which grammatically is the only word which fits the context. Eph’ho [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] as a reference to Adam is both grammatically and exegetically impossible. Such an interpretation was first introduced by Origen, who obviously used it with a purpose in mind, because he believed in the pre-existence of all souls whereby he could easily say that all sinned in Adam. The interpretation of eph’ho [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] as “because” was first introduced into the East by Photius,2 who claims that there are two interpretations prevalent—Adam and thanatos [(θάνατος)]—but he would interpret it dioti ([διότι,] because). He bases his argument on a false interpretation of II Corinthians 5:4 by interpreting eph’ho [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)], here again, as dioti [(διότι)]. But here it is quite clear that eph’ho [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] refers to skenei [σκήνει] ([ἐφ’ ᾧ (σκήνει) οὐ θέλομεν ἐκδύσασθαι], eph’ho (skenei) ou thelomen ekdysasthai). Photius is interpreting Paul within the framework of natural moral law and is seeking to justify the death of all men by personal guilt. He claims that all men die because they sin by following in the footsteps of Adam.3 However, neither he nor any of the Eastern Fathers accepts the teaching that all men are made guilty for the sin of Adam.

From purely grammatical considerations it is impossible to interpret eph’ho [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] as a reference to any word other than thanatos [(θάνατος)]. Each time the grammatical construction of the preposition epi [(ἐπί)] with the dative is used by Paul, it is always used as a relative pronoun which modifies a preceding noun4 or phrase.5 To make an exception in Romans 5:12 by making St. Paul use the wrong Greek expression to express the idea, “because,” is to beg the issue. The correct interpretation of this passage, both grammatically and exegetically, can be supplied only when eph’ho [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] is understood to modify thanatos [(θάνατος)]—kai houtos eis pantas anthropous ho thanatos dielthen eph’ho (thanato) pantes hemarton [(καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν, ἐφ’ ᾧ (θάνατο) πάντες ἥμαρτον)]—“because of which” (death), or “on the basis of which” (death), or “for which (death) all have sinned.” Satan, being himself the principle of sin, through death and corruption involves all of humanity and creation in sin and death. Thus, to be under the power of death according to Paul is to be a slave to the devil and a sinner, because of the inability of the flesh to live according to the law of God, which is selfless love.1
Click to expand...
 
kainosktisis said:
  1. What is your understanding of the Immaculate Conception?
Click to expand...
Since we do not see ancestral sin as entailing guilt or punishment, we do not believe the the Roman dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Orthodox do generally believe that the Theotokos, being the tabernacle, was free from all personal sin, though we don’t dogmatize this doctrine, at least not in the same way the Roman Catholic Church has, but it’s not an optional doctrine either as all Orthodox should believe in it since it is an integral part of holy Tradition.
 
KJW5551 said:
I ask again then: how can you claim the oneness of the Orthodox Church when all of its members aren’t even in communion with one another?
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Are you confusing autocephaly with full communion? Just because one Church doesn’t view another as fully autocephalous doesn’t mean they’re not in communion, those are two completely different things. For example, the Russian Orthodox Church affirms the OCA as fully autocephalous, whereas the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople would not. But we’re all still in full communion with each other. When I become Orthodox I will be able to receive the Eucharist in both of these Churches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top