Orthodox Eucharist valid but illicit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter user1234
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Expatreprocedit said:
All this assumes that a Church can only be unified by a single office held by one individual. The Orthodox view is that Jesus Christ is head of the Church, and that unity is maintained (imperfectly, due to human weakness) by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
I have not heard of this idea from a Christian before (that unity maintained by the Holy Spirit is imperfect). Sorry, that’s because of my little knowledge of Orthodox teaching. Would you like to elaborate on it?🙂
 
Expatreprocedit said:
The Orthodox view is that Jesus Christ is head of the Church, and that unity is maintained (imperfectly, due to human weakness) by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there’s a single part of that sentence which I as a Catholic can’t not disagree with.
 
Reuben_J said:
I have not heard of this idea from a Christian before (that unity maintained by the Holy Spirit is imperfect). Sorry, that’s because of my little knowledge of Orthodox teaching. Would you like to elaborate on it?🙂
Click to expand...
Humans often do not follow the Holy Spirit.
 
Peter_J said:
You forgot to say “Details at eleven.”
Click to expand...
Yeah, newsflash, right?

To expand a little on my earlier response to Steve, while Orthodoxy is riddled with messy ugly jurisdictional squabbles, there is a remarkable unity of faith. You will not find any crucial discrepancies in the Faith between, say, the Greek church and the Russian church.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
All this assumes that a Church can only be unified by a single office held by one individual. The Orthodox view is that Jesus Christ is head of the Church, and that unity is maintained (imperfectly, due to human weakness) by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
No one argues that Jesus is head of His Church.

This argument is over who Jesus made prime minister over His Church. This argument has already played itself out. Jesus ended the apostles argument they were having among themselves over who is the greatest among THEM. #153

If you can rebut the point that Jesus set Peter over the others as greatest among THEM, and Peter’s office was not to be a successive office, then please do.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
Yeah, newsflash, right?

To expand a little on my earlier response to Steve, while Orthodoxy is riddled with messy ugly jurisdictional squabbles, there is a remarkable unity of faith.
Click to expand...
jurisdictional squabbles over what?
E:
You will not find any crucial discrepancies in the Faith between, say, the Greek church and the Russian church.
Click to expand...
Does the ROC teach toll house theology…Y/N?
 
steve_b said:
No one argues that Jesus is head of His Church.

This argument is over who Jesus made prime minister over His Church. This argument has already played itself out. Jesus ended the apostles argument they were having among themselves over who is the greatest among THEM. #153

If you can rebut the point that Jesus set Peter over the others as greatest among THEM, and Peter’s office was not to be a successive office, then please do.
Click to expand...
First of all, under RC theology after Vatican I, the pope is more than a “prime minister”. A prime minister is only one part of a government, and does not have full, immediate jurisdiction by himself over the entire country. According to VI, the Pope has just such jurisdiction over the Church. A Prime Minister cannot unilaterally bind his country to treaties, etc. A pope can unilaterally bind the Church tro dogmatic declarations.
Second, more fundamentally, you’re assuming that Jesus appointed a “prime minister”. Jesus did not appoint an “Apostle of the apostles” and did not intend a “Bishop of bishops”, and the early Church did not recognize Peter as such. Acts 15 is enough proof of that.
 
steve_b said:
jurisdictional squabbles over what?

Does the ROC teach toll house theology…Y/N?
Click to expand...
“Toll house theology”? LOL. There is no “toll house theology” so, no, the ROC doesn’t teach it. A marginal theologoumenon is a not a “theology”. The most that can be said is that there are more believers in “tollhouses” in Russia than in other Orthodox countries. There are probably more believers in the Medjugorje apparitions in Croatia than in other Roman Catholic regions; so what? I challenge you to quote an Orthodox catechism, Russian or otherwise, that presents belief in “tollhouses” as essential to the Orthodox faith.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
First of all, under RC theology after Vatican I, the pope is more than a “prime minister”. A prime minister is only one part of a government, and does not have full, immediate jurisdiction by himself over the entire country. According to VI, the Pope has just such jurisdiction over the Church. A Prime Minister cannot unilaterally bind his country to treaties, etc. A pope can unilaterally bind the Church tro dogmatic declarations.
Click to expand...
The reference I’m using was to Isaiah 22 and the king giving his prime minister the keys to the kingdom, as in Jesus giving Peter the keys to the kingdom. What part of
“what ever you bind on earth and what ever you loose on earth, is bound and loosed in heaven, …” sounds to you like restrictions on Peter’s jurisdiction? Jesus gave the keys to only Peter.

And what part of this post was unclear about Jesus validating that Peter is the greatest among the others? #153

Can you refute that ?
E:
Second, more fundamentally, you’re assuming that Jesus appointed a “prime minister”. Jesus did not appoint an “Apostle of the apostles” and did not intend a “Bishop of bishops”, and the early Church did not recognize Peter as such. Acts 15 is enough proof of that.
Click to expand...
I asked you to refute what I posted #153.

Re: Acts 15? Make your case.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
“Toll house theology”? LOL. There is no “toll house theology” so, no, the ROC doesn’t teach it. A marginal theologoumenon is a not a “theology”. The most that can be said is that there are more believers in “tollhouses” in Russia than in other Orthodox countries.
Click to expand...
But as I understand the numbers, the ROC dwarfs in size all the other Orthodox Churches combined. So how does that make your point?

Fr Hopko, dean emeritus of St Vladimir Orthodox seminary, Crestwood, NY,

delivers a speech to the following monastery on toll houses
oca.org/news/archived/fr.-hopko-to-present-lecture-at-monastery

Here is his views on toll houses

ancientfaith.com/podcasts/illuminedheart/toll_houses_after_death_reality_or_heresy
E:
I challenge you to quote an Orthodox catechism, Russian or otherwise, that presents belief in “tollhouses” as essential to the Orthodox faith.
Click to expand...
My question is, when there are disagreements on theology, who in Orthodoxy refutes Fr Hopko authoritatively within Orthodoxy?
 
Fr Hopko, dean emeritus of St Vladimir Orthodox Seminary Crestwood, NY,
delivers a speech to the following monastery on toll houses
oca.org/news/archived/fr.-ho…e-at-monastery

Which means if the dean of the seminary teaches toll house theology, then it is taught in St Vladimir Orthodox seminaryas well … would you agree?

Here is his views on toll houses
ancientfaith.com/podcasts…lity_or_heresy

If this teaching is error, then for sure it shouldn’t be taught in seminary …would you agree? And certainly not in a monastery as well… agreed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top