This Wednesday, 8/6/2008, I will be leaving communion with the Roman Catholic Church

[Isa_Almisry]

]We are saved by grace and not of our own will, efforts, or desires.

And what have you done with your talent? What will happen if you bury it?

Philippians 2:12: And so, my dear friends, just as you have always obeyed, not only when I was with you but even more now that I am absent, continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

It is a gift from God and no man can boast. We are all sinners, spiritually discerned, and without grace we retain no power over sin. We do not save ourselves, God saves us. We do not acquire faith, God is the giver of faith. We will not seek unless we were first regenerated by God.

Amen.

But your point?

God is sovereign, there is no other. His will shall be done. There’s no His will and our will, or only His will if we agree, the very idea is heretical.

I think you are talking as a Monothelite here.

Is God our God or our co-equal partner?

Not equal, but “since, then, we are working with God, we plead with you not to accept God’s grace in vain” II Cor. 6:1

Do you really think we choose God?

He says “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” Rev. 3:20.

He doesn’t say He knocks the door down. He asks for an invitation: “Who do you say I am?” That’s the most important question, not “Are you saved?”

Do you really think your works can win favor with God outside of faith?

Christ’s own brother, designted by Him to sit on Davids’ throne in Jerusalem, warns: James 2:18But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead

The Pharisees thought the same thing …

I tell you, unless your righteousness greatly exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven! Matthew 5:20.

 

[theistgal]

I think it’s great that you want to become Orthodox if you want to do so because you sincerely believe that your path to Christ is leading you Eastwards.

But you seem to be walking the Eastward path backwards so you can continuously thumb your nose at Rome. If nothing else, won’t that prevent you from enjoying the sunrise?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

still hope…that one day they will declare this truth:

but they haven’t formally denied the IC either.

We can find hints of it in Scripture/Tradition/ECFs nevertheless.

Anyways, Sola, you are not one to talk, you don’t have Tradtion or a teaching authroity, or even a Bishop for that mattter!

II Corinthians 5:21 renders the apologetics of the IC as gibberish.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf

So no need to excempt her from Original Sin, the misunderstanding of which necessitated the IC.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

What makes you say from THAT event that it was Rome that left the communion? I am willing to learn history, but maybe we all should learn how to properly read it… on both sides of the fence!

St. Cyprian’s translation into Latin of Firmilian of Caesarea (i.e. where the Patriarchy of Constaninople is now):

You [the Pope of Rome] have cut yourself off;do not mistake;since he is the true schismatic who makes himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For in thinking that all can be excommunicated by you, you have cut off yourself alone from the communion of all" (c. xxiv).

newadvent.org/cathen/06080b.htm

 

[Isa_Almisry]

What is wrong in that doctrine? Mary, according to that doctrine, was saved just as the rest of us. Only, she was saved in advance, right at conception. Don’t the Eastern Churches believe the same thing?

No. Just as we don’t believe an annullment can post marriage declare it invalid.

The Holy Theotokos had to wait like the rest of us. She is the bridge from the OT to the NT, not a catapult into the NT.

And, as we are now honoring her Dormition, I’ll add:she suffered the consquences of Original Sin, and died. But she is the first fruit of her Son, the First Born from the Dead.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

There are three types of Christians:

the Faithful
those ticked off at Peter
those ticked off at all Bishops

The first must be the Orthodox

because we don’t fit the last 2.

 

[Wyatt]

The first must be the Orthodox

because we don’t fit the last 2.

Look at the second one.

 

[Christy74]

there is an immeasurable difference. In the one case, what is being a said is, a sacramental marriage, that is supposed to image the indissoluble union between Christ and the Church, predestined by God, was nevertheless severed and the parties go on to remarry.

In the other case, it is found that from the beginning, there were impediments to a sacramental marriage, and hence the marriage never existed.

for once a marriage is truly contracted in the sacramental sense, the bond can never be dissolved by the Church or anyone, saving death of one of the spouses.

Big difference.

BTW, please comment about the ABC.

thanks.

Since based on what is considered valid reason for an Annulment (declaring a marriage never existed in the first place) included such extended family that, per a Roman Catholic on Catholic Radio, it would have pretty much been that every marriage in Europe in the Middle Ages was invalid.

Let me ask you, because I am curious:
How does God look on the situation where someone had alcohol the night before their wedding, let’s say at their batchelor party, and came to Church the next morning to get married almost sober, but not quite. The couple marries. Based on the husband’s actions the night before, the couple could receive an annulment in the Catholic Church as it is one of the multitude of valid reasons - the couple actually does not have a valid marriage. Okay, but what happens when they don’t pursue the annulment? They continue in the marriage until one dies. How do they answer to God for continuing to live in sin and continuing to receive the Sacraments while living in a sinful relationship since they were not really married to begin with?

This is something the Orthodox Church doesn’t have to deal with. Either they have a valid reason for an Eccesistical Divorce or they don’t. The whole time they are married, they ARE married.

In a Catholic Church, you’d never know if you were “really” married or not because the reasons for valid annulments changes.

As far as ABC -already answered. The Orthodox Church is against it and abortion. If you have found a person in the Orthodox Church, a priest or layperson, who thinks it is okay, I can find 100 more people in the Catholic Church, priests or laity, who thinks ABC is okay. Just because some in the Church think it is okay, doesn’t mean that the Church itself teaches it. You should know that.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

What exactly about Vatican I?

Infallibility. The Anglo-Irish Catechism of 1870, with Nihil obstat, called it a “Protestant lie.” How things change.

As for the Filioque, read my previous post.

Read mine.

 

[spauline]

Look at the second one.

thank you, Wyatt!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So what? There was no need to, there was no schism between East and West then! “It went without saying”, like we say sometimes…

Because he hammers on about the necessity of the bishops in all the other letters.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

the falseness of Orthodoxy is shown in her treatment of human sexuality, that is, their allowance of artificial birth control and divorce and remarriage.

Corban.

Can you cite all the patristics in Humanae Vitae?

In time, the Minor Chastisement shall show the errors of Orthodox, and their need of the Rock, which is Peter.

I know I’m going to regret asking this, but what is the “Minor Chastisement?”

 

[spauline]

Since based on what is considered valid reason for an Annulment (declaring a marriage never existed in the first place) included such extended family that, per a Roman Catholic on Catholic Radio, it would have pretty much been that every marriage in Europe in the Middle Ages was invalid.

Let me ask you, because I am curious:
How does God look on the situation where someone had alcohol the night before their wedding, let’s say at their batchelor party, and came to Church the next morning to get married almost sober, but not quite. The couple marries. Based on the husband’s actions the night before, the couple could receive an annulment in the Catholic Church as it is one of the multitude of valid reasons - the couple actually does not have a valid marriage. Okay, but what happens when they don’t pursue the annulment? They continue in the marriage until one dies. How do they answer to God for continuing to live in sin and continuing to receive the Sacraments while living in a sinful relationship since they were not really married to begin with?

This is something the Orthodox Church doesn’t have to deal with. Either they have a valid reason for an Eccesistical Divorce or they don’t. The whole time they are married, they ARE married.

In a Catholic Church, you’d never know if you were “really” married or not because the reasons for valid annulments changes.

As far as ABC -already answered. The Orthodox Church is against it and abortion. If you have found a person in the Orthodox Church, a priest or layperson, who thinks it is okay, I can find 100 more people in the Catholic Church, priests or laity, who thinks ABC is okay. Just because some in the Church think it is okay, doesn’t mean that the Church itself teaches it. You should know that.

to presume that a marriage is valid is not a sin, as far as i can tell. the same argument could be used for communion: no one can know for certain if they are in the state of grace. Humble trust is what is needed.

I stand corrected on ABC. But this puzzles me. there are persons who are Orthodox on Theology web that believe in Contraception, but i cannot fathom they would go against their Churches teaching. Why? Because if someone disagrees with their church, they would not likely be on forums trying to convert people. Why? Because most dissenters are not fired up about their faith, and are more interested in worldly pursuits than practicing their faith.

Are you sure there are no Orthodox Churches that ALLOW ABC?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Like the doctrine of the Assomption of Mary (which is called the Dormition in Eastern Churches) promulgated in 1950… Does it mean that no Catholic nor Orthodox had ever believed that Mary, at the end of her terrestrial existence ,

the difference. We admit she died.

was “assumed into Heaven” in her body as well as in her soul? Come on!
It simply had to be put into writing when it was!

And why did it have to be put into writing 17+centuries after it happened and 14+ centuries after it was revealed?

 

[spauline]

Corban.

Can you cite all the patristics in Humanae Vitae?

I know I’m going to regret asking this, but what is the “Minor Chastisement?”

what does Corban mean?

The Fathers are not the only source of truth, and neither is Scripture. Doctrine develops. the RCC’s position on ABC is based upon not only Scripture and Tradition but the reasoning that follows the implications of what is already known.

I would say the Orthodox are beginning to accept ABC is because of their deficient understanding of the Trinity. For the Trinity is the base of human sexuality.

Hence, since the Orthodox contracept against Peter and the Filioque, why would they not place barriers between themselves in the marriage bed?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

divorce is a symbol of schism. so why is it the Catholic Church, who is presumably in schism, cannot accept divorce in any sacramental marriage, just as there can never be separation between Christ the Bridegroom and the Bride, whereas those who presumably have the true unity allow divorce?

corban.

It is because the spiritual problems eventually manifest in the physical.

For your information, SOME Orthodox approve of ABC.

And the majority of the Vatican’s flock practice it. Your point?

 

[whatevergirl]

to presume that a marriage is valid is not a sin, as far as i can tell. the same argument could be used for communion: no one can know for certain if they are in the state of grace. Humble trust is what is needed.

I stand corrected on ABC. But this puzzles me. there are persons who are Orthodox on Theology web that believe in Contraception, but i cannot fathom they would go against their Churches teaching. Why? Because if someone disagrees with their church, they would not likely be on forums trying to convert people. Why? Because most dissenters are not fired up about their faith, and are more interested in worldly pursuits than practicing their faith.

Are you sure there are no Orthodox Churches that ALLOW ABC?

I’m glad you posted this question–I’m curious myself.

 

[spauline]

corban.

And the majority of the Vatican’s flock practice it. Your point?

the majority of the Global North Western flock practice it, yes. But it is because they are dissenters.

Maybe you can clarify: do ANY Orthodox Sees permit ABC? I want to get this straight.

again, what does corban mean?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

We are current in the Dormition Fast and will be celebrating the Dormition of the Theotokos on 8/15/2008. I would encourage you to visit an Orthodox Church and join in the celebration.

The Dormition and Assumption are slightly different but can refer to the same thing. Assumption according to Rome means that Mary was taken into Heaven, Body and Soul prior to her physical death. This is not what it means in Orthodoxy.

Orthodox have a strong Tradition of what happened to Mary both before she ever conceived Christ and after Christ’s Death, Ressurrection and Ascension.

To keep it short and sweet. At the end of her life all of the Apostles, except St. Thomas were miraculous taken to her bedside. They were all able to say their goodbyes, etc. Then she died peacefully. They buried her. After her burial, St. Thomas was miraculously brought to the same place. He was informed of her death. He was overwhelmed with grief and insisted on having the grave opened so he could see her one last time. They opened the grave and discovered that she had been taken into Heaven with her body.

This is what is believed in Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches.

Btw, the Jerusalem Church kept this secret to herself, until the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

 

[ChristianKnight]

I wish you luck.

I pray that you find whatever church you believe is true.

I also pray that you or I, learn the truth about prayer to the dead.