No, I think I understand it quite well. There’s no salvation outside the Church. No pertinacious heretic or schismatic can be saved.
This is the “non-Catholic” forum, so what’s with the “orthodox in communion with Rome” nonsense?031064, depending on where you are in Ontario I know of two places which may pleasently suprise you. They are both Ukrainian Catholic, being Orthodox in communion with Rome.
First off the top of my list is St. Cyril and Methodius’ Greek Catholic Church in St. Catharine’s, the liturgy and the church is so amazing, that I experienced my reversion here. It’s easily accessible too, being right off the QEW. If you ever see a 6’7 lug with a 4’10 babushka, that would be me and my Baba
http://members.becon.org/~choly/pano.jpg
members.becon.org/~choly/index.html
There is also St. Elias Ukrainain Catholic Church in Brampton, which is of the wooden architecture common to Southern Poland and Western Ukraine.
http://www.saintelias.com/foto/big/eliakk_willow.jpg
saintelias.com/ca/index.php
If I didn’t know better, i’d say I was looking at scene from the “old country.”
Otherwise if you want to taste a bit of heaven within the Latin rite, I’d suggest the FSSP in Ottawa or St. Cathrines, or the Oratorians in Toronto. They may not have the best Churches, but their liturgy is truly heaven on Earth - and that’s saying something given my 20 years of experience with the Church in Ontario, which isn’t exactly a bastion of liturgical beauty or orthodoxy.
Schism from what? Those who saw fit to rewrite the Creed?
Which of course, at present, would be a rejection of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.
So you’ll submit to him once he returns to the Orthodox faith? But he’s not your patriarch! Why on earth would you do that?
Oh brother.
I’m not so sure that which forum we’re on should make a difference in the way you’re suggesting; but for what it’s worth, I think this thread started out on the Eastern Catholicism forum.
The essence of Christ, to me, is not elaborate ritualism. In fact, I believe it misleads people, and causes them to misplace their focus on external legalisms. Jesus did not evangelize among the rich and powerful, those who could afford to adorn their synagogues with gold and silver icons and other instruments of ritualism. He didn’t wear expensive, tailor-made clothing, and He didn’t spend long hours in ritualistic worship, isolated in a elaborately adorned buildings. No…He went amongst the poor, and ministered to them where they lived. He went to the down-trodden, to relieve their suffering, and to teach the world that God is love in action.
Because he would be back in the diptychs. That wouldn’t affect my relationship with the original Pope, that of Alexandria, except that Rome would be rejoining the family, and we would welcome back the prodical father.So you’ll submit to him once he returns to the Orthodox faith? But he’s not your patriarch! Why on earth would you do that?
Which is easier, to say “Your sins are forgiven you,” or “take up your pallet and walk,” but so you may know that the Son of Man…The essence of Christ, to me, is not elaborate ritualism. In fact, I believe it misleads people, and causes them to misplace their focus on external legalisms. Jesus did not evangelize among the rich and powerful, those who could afford to adorn their synagogues with gold and silver icons and other instruments of ritualism. He didn’t wear expensive, tailor-made clothing, and He didn’t spend long hours in ritualistic worship, isolated in a elaborately adorned buildings. No…He went amongst the poor, and ministered to them where they lived. He went to the down-trodden, to relieve their suffering, and to teach the world that God is love in action.
I know that but my original question still remains. Why must the two, the physical and the spiritual be set in opposition to each other?The essence of Christ, to me, is not elaborate ritualism. In fact, I believe it misleads people, and causes them to misplace their focus on external legalisms. Jesus did not evangelize among the rich and powerful, those who could afford to adorn their synagogues with gold and silver icons and other instruments of ritualism. He didn’t wear expensive, tailor-made clothing, and He didn’t spend long hours in ritualistic worship, isolated in a elaborately adorned buildings. No…He went amongst the poor, and ministered to them where they lived. He went to the down-trodden, to relieve their suffering, and to teach the world that God is love in action.
Read up some more on what constitutes the Church and how some might be either visibly or invisibly incorporated into it. There are complexities and shades of grey. Remeber, God is just, but also merciful. We always have reason to hope for others’ salvation.
I was trying to defend the integrity of the orthodox faith, and you attack ME? I am surprised by your lack of charity. That is the last time i ever try to help you, i guess
Actually, no. Arab.
So do I.
Not being a Copt, I can’t answer, but will ask “what would be the problem?”
Hardly. I used to burn them, so I take them real serious now.
My former bishop used to always say he would never teach iconography to someone not in the Church.
That’s love in action.
The spirit presides over the flesh. The spirit is perfect, while the flesh is flawed. The flesh struggles to become spirit.
Your signature says “orthodox in union with the pope of alexandria” which i took to mean you were a member of the Coptic Orthodox Church, or one of the other autocephalous churches of the rite. I did not mean ethnically coptic.
Iconography has always existed in the Latin church, and has simply developed different rules. I dont think that makes them any less “worthy” of being good icons. And i really don’t think that different rules concerning iconography led to additional dogmas. You might want to rephrase that.
I view myself as following Jesus’ command to comemorate His self-sacrifice for the sake of The Truth in this manner.
