K
Kosta
Guest
Or it’s because we see how misrepresented Orthodoxy is around here & we want to change it.
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
That’s fair. However, IMO, it’s an even greater problem when Orthodox misrepresent Orthodoxy…as the direct continuation of the one, true Church founded by Jesus.
P
prodromos
Guest
You are entitled to your opinion, however wrong it may beThat’s fair. However, IMO, it’s an even greater problem when Orthodox misrepresent Orthodoxy…as the direct continuation of the one, true Church founded by Jesus.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”You are entitled to your opinion, however wrong it may be
― Søren Kierkegaard
You’re two for two.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
We can believe what we choose. [But] we are answerable for what we choose to believe. (John Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), Letter to Mrs Froude, 1848)You are entitled to your opinion, however wrong it may be
K
Kosta
Guest
And we believe strongly & firmly that we chose correctly. What, do you think that deepdown we’re all crypo-Catholics too stubborn to change? If that’s a case, I laugh at said theory.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I do not think that at all.
However, I do think that you are accountable for what you choose to believe
P
prodromos
Guest
As it turns out it appears he is one of a number of members who were stealth banned. They can’t post but their existing posts do not show **Banned ** under their name.
K
Kosta
Guest
We’re *all *accountable for what we believe, and that’s not limited to what Church we believe is the One.
I’m just glad I figured that question out early on in life instead of having to go through painful a conversion process like many seem to unfortunately experience. I’m thankful I had (have) such a loving family.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
That Christ will judge you should be enough to make you paralyzed with fear. Worry after what Christ will hold you accountable for, rather than fixating on the judgment of others.
G
GKC
Guest
Gurney had been RC, Anglican, and Orthodox, studying and discerning all the way. He settled, last I heard, in Orthodoxy.
GKC
E
Efnouti_Nai_Nan
Guest
I’m not sure if I understand this thread (too much red font in the first post hurts my eyes a little bit), but I think the Orthodox webpage is saying that when a council is called they won’t know if it’s ecumenical at the time, but only later if other councils say it is. Like how the councils after Nicaea confirmed Nicaea, and after Constantinople confirmed Constantinople, and so on. Am I understanding?
I think it’s like how a person can’t know what will be important in the future. There were some councils back then that some say were supposed to ecumenical, but they were never accepted like that by the church, maybe only for one location or two That’s why some Eastern Orthodox say there are even more than 7, because it’s not agreed among all of them if another counts as 8 or 9 or however many. And Catholics have even more. But it’s okay because they still agree (Catholics with Catholics and Orthodox with Orthodox) on what is important in the content of the meetings, whether they are counted as ecumenical or not. So the Catholic is okay with his 26 or whatever, and the others with 7, and my church with 3.
In my church we have only 3 councils because after that we don’t need anymore. The others that came up for the Romans (Rome and Constantinople) are only for them because we didn’t have the iconoclasm like they did, or the controversy about the will of Jesus. 3 is good for us. We can function perfectly with 3 for 1600 years now, but if other churches have other challenges then maybe they’ll have more. I don’t think it needs to be one way for everybody, if we can agree with each other on what is important dogma. Others in our church like the Armenians have more councils that are just for them, and that’s okay. It doesn’t hurt their faith, so it’s not a problem. Maybe the Orthodox and the Catholics can come to that kind of understanding, if they can meet like we have met with them for a long time now. But it will take a long time. You do not abolish 1000 years of separation in a few dacades unless you are willing to compromise, and I don’t think anybody will.
I think it’s like how a person can’t know what will be important in the future. There were some councils back then that some say were supposed to ecumenical, but they were never accepted like that by the church, maybe only for one location or two That’s why some Eastern Orthodox say there are even more than 7, because it’s not agreed among all of them if another counts as 8 or 9 or however many. And Catholics have even more. But it’s okay because they still agree (Catholics with Catholics and Orthodox with Orthodox) on what is important in the content of the meetings, whether they are counted as ecumenical or not. So the Catholic is okay with his 26 or whatever, and the others with 7, and my church with 3.
In my church we have only 3 councils because after that we don’t need anymore. The others that came up for the Romans (Rome and Constantinople) are only for them because we didn’t have the iconoclasm like they did, or the controversy about the will of Jesus. 3 is good for us. We can function perfectly with 3 for 1600 years now, but if other churches have other challenges then maybe they’ll have more. I don’t think it needs to be one way for everybody, if we can agree with each other on what is important dogma. Others in our church like the Armenians have more councils that are just for them, and that’s okay. It doesn’t hurt their faith, so it’s not a problem. Maybe the Orthodox and the Catholics can come to that kind of understanding, if they can meet like we have met with them for a long time now. But it will take a long time. You do not abolish 1000 years of separation in a few dacades unless you are willing to compromise, and I don’t think anybody will.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Speaking of fixating…
You know what’s kinda weird? On a hunch, I decided to take a look at all of your posts over the past week or two…here’s the result:
forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=22460011
Did you realize that 75-80% of your posts at CAF are in direct response to me?
I’m not saying you’re stalking me, of course, but you clearly need a new hobby.
P
prodromos
Guest
Well duh (where’s the slap forehead smilie when you need it) since 90% of posts made on this forum about the Orthodox Church are made by you, what do you expect?Speaking of fixating…
You know what’s kinda weird? On a hunch, I decided to take a look at all of your posts over the past week or two…here’s the result:
forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=22460011
Did you realize that 75-80% of your posts at CAF are in direct response to me?
I’m not saying you’re stalking me, of course, but you clearly need a new hobby.
That’s got to be one of the dumbest posts I’ve seen for quite some time on any forum
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
There are lots of subforums, lots of threads and lots of posters. I’ve been trying to prove that Jesus really did claim to be God to a bunch of Baha’i for days. Wanna help me?Well duh :doh: since 90% of posts made on this forum about the Orthodox Church are made by you, what do you expect?
That’s got to be one of the dumbest posts I’ve seen for quite some time on any forum
Face it. I’m CavNip.
http://decorativesoul.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/catnip1.jpg
Oh, look…I’m getting a hug.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Do not worry, I fully understand why you seem so drawn to attacking my person. I too would be ashamed of my words if I had written that post.Speaking of fixating…
You know what’s kinda weird? On a hunch, I decided to take a look at all of your posts over the past week or two…here’s the result:
forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=22460011
Did you realize that 75-80% of your posts at CAF are in direct response to me?
I’m not saying you’re stalking me, of course, but you clearly need a new hobby.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I’m not the only one who has noticed.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12485699&highlight=Randy#post12485699
But hey…it keeps me sharp, so thanks.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
PeterJ is an interesting guy. It’s hard sometimes to tell when he’s posting tongue-in-cheek though—his humor can be quite subtle.
K
Kosta
Guest
I think makes a lot of sense. These are some very good points. Well done!
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Perhaps you missed this?
Theologians such as Fr. John S. Romanides have argued, however, that the councils universally regarded as ecumenical within the Orthodox Church seemed of themselves to have no sense of requiring a reception by the Church before they went into effect. Their texts do indeed include self-declarations of their ecumenicity, and in most cases, their decrees immediately were written into Roman imperial law. No condition of later reception is reflected in the councils’ texts.
Further, the question of when exactly one may say that the Church has received or rejected a council is not answerable by receptionist theory. Another ecclesiological problem is also created by receptionism: Why is it, for instance, that the Fourth Ecumenical Council may be said to have been “received by the whole Church” while significant numbers of Christians apparently within the Church rejected it, leading to the schism which even now persists? Such reasoning is circular, because whoever accepts a council is therefore inside the Church, but any who reject it are outside. In other words, such councils are ecumenical essentially because those who hold to their decrees declare themselves exclusively to be the Church.
The practical needs of the historical circumstances of the councils also bear out Romanides’ analysis. Dogmatic decisions were needed right away when the councils met. The idea that one could wait for decades or even centuries to know whether a council was truly ecumenical would have radically changed the character of such a council. The councils’ fathers regarded their decisions as immediately binding.
- Status