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

[Isa_Almisry]

And thus you prove my very point. Wouldn’t a Christian attempt to understand what the other side is saying before rashly saying they are heretics? As I said Greek scholors (and some early Fathers) agreed with Filioque. It is an accurate representation of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Actually the theologians from the Vatican expressed there frustration at Florence, in that they stated that St. Mark was the only scholar among the Greeks, and he was dead set against the union.

The way I see it, all Orthodox claims to Rome’s “heresy” are mere theological opinion. By Orthodox’s own definition of what constitues infallible doctrine of the Church, Rome has not contradicted any doctrine.

Filioque.

And in fact, they cannot; since the councils need Rome’s stamp to be necessarily true and binding on the whole Church.

Both the Second and Fifth Councils did quite well without Rome’s blessing: those Fathers at the Second were not in communion with Rome, and the Fifth was held over Rome’s objection.

Constantinople’s teaching that Rome is heretical is as binding to the Church as when that same see taught Arianism.

How about when that see taught Monotheletism? Pope Honorius of Rome liked that.

To remain in schism because of opinion is disgusting; it shows arrogance, ignorance, and lack of charity.

And if it were matter of opinion, rather than the dogmas set by the Fathers, you might have a point.

I hate and detest schism. You apparently love it. You don’t love your Roman brethren. You love “St.” Mark of Ephesus. I’m sure your next love is “Saint” Photius. I am not fooled. I am well aware of the cost for those who obstinantly seperate Christ’s Church. You want to stay in schism? That’s your perogative.

Would you feel better if Constantinople got an annullment?

I posted this before. I’ll post it again.

St. Symeon of Thessalonica (15th cent., after the sack of Constantinople) writes:

One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff … Let the Bishop of Rome be succesor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and first among other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself

books.google.com/books?hl=en&…esult#PPA86,M1
p. 86

When the pope of Rome 4 centuries latter wrote a letter addressed to the Orthodox Faithful in an attempt to go over the Patriarchs heads, the Patriarchs responded:

In a measure the aggressions of the later Popes in their own persons had ceased, and were carried on only by means of missionaries. But lately, Pius IX., becoming Bishop of Rome and proclaimed Pope in 1847, published on the sixth of January, in this present year, an Encyclical Letter addressed to the Easterns, consisting of twelve pages in the Greek version, which his emissary has disseminated, like a plague coming from without, within our Orthodox Fold…Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy, choosing for the basis of all theological instruction these paradoxical words (p. 10, 1.29): “nor is there any reason why ye refuse a return to the true Church and Communion with this my holy Throne”…As to the supremacy, since we are not setting forth a treatise, let the same great Basil present the matter in a f’ew words, “I preferred to address myself to Him who is Head over them.”…For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way…But, finally, his Holiness says (p. ix. l.12) that the fourth Ecumenical Council (which by mistake he quite transfers from Chalcedon to Carthage), when it read the epistle of Pope Leo I, cried out, “Peter has thus spoken by Leo.” It was so indeed. But his Holiness ought not to overlook how, and after what examination, our fathers cried out, as they did, in praise of Leo…Of more than six hundred fathers assembled in the Counci1 of Chalcedon, about two hundred of the wisest were appointed by the Council to examine both as to language and sense the said epistle of Leo; nor only so, but to give in writing and with their signatures their own judgment upon it, whether it were orthodox or not…And thus all in succession: “The epistle corresponds,” "the epistle is consonant,“the epistle agrees in sense,” and the like. After such great and very severe scrutiny in comparing it with former holy Councils, and a full conviction of the correctness of the meaning, and not merely because it was the epistle of the Pope, they cried aloud, ungrudgingly, the exclamation on which his Holiness now vaunts himself: But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers. Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that if, even now, he will write us such things as two hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find consonant and agreeing with the said former Councils, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, “Peter has so spoken,” or anything of like honor, but this also, “Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped away the tears of the Catholic Church.”

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

And yes, I love St. Photius, and St. Mark, and St. Gregory Palamas. And St. Peter.

 

[Mickey]

Why did Jesus tell saint Peter (and only him) that he would give him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16)

This thread is now thoroughly hi-jacked. You are now going to the Matthew 16 debate. It has been debated infinitely here. If you would like to debate this again, I would suggest a separate thread. I will try to participate if time permits.

 

[Lapell]

And thus you prove my very point. Wouldn’t a Christian attempt to understand what the other side is saying before rashly saying they are heretics? As I said Greek scholors (and some early Fathers) agreed with Filioque. It is an accurate representation of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

The way I see it, all Orthodox claims to Rome’s “heresy” are mere theological opinion. By Orthodox’s own definition of what constitues infallible doctrine of the Church, Rome has not contradicted any doctrine. And in fact, they cannot; since the councils need Rome’s stamp to be necessarily true and binding on the whole Church. Constantinople’s teaching that Rome is heretical is as binding to the Church as when that same see taught Arianism. To remain in schism because of opinion is disgusting; it shows arrogance, ignorance, and lack of charity.

Actually it’s more like… pride. Same when we reply without charity…

 

[Hesychios]

Where does the “error” lie there? How do you KNOW there is an error there?
As for the Holy Spirit being not present in the Orthodox Church at all, I do agree it’s a dangerous thing to say.
But as for doctrinal matters in the Orthodox Church since the schism, they are not decided along with the successor of saint Peter, that’s a fact!

These discussions have gone on for several years here. Always covering the same ground.

I am sorry that it is not easy to dig them out of the archives but I think it is worth opening a separate thread, if you are interested.

ByzCath.org is a good place to ask or check archives, OrthodoxChristianity.net is another, or start that thread here in the non-Catholic section. I would recommend that you at least check out the other two.

I think that this thread has just about run it’s course and should be closed.

 

[Lapell]

This thread is now thoroughly hi-jacked. You are now going to the Matthew 16 debate. It has been debated infinitely here. If you would like to debate this again, I would suggest a separate thread. I will try to participate if time permits.

Well, the topic was that Christy74 was leaving the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church, and she used the argument of heretical doctrine in the Catholic Church… that is why we have talked on all this, O.K.? I suspect misconceptions here…
But as for her true reason to leave the Catholic Church, I don’t think it has to do with matters of… doctrine.

 

[Mickey]

How do you KNOW there is an error there?

Well you may want to ask Rome why the Creed is written minus Filoque in St Peter’s Square.

John 15:26
But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

 

[Mickey]

But as for her true reason to leave the Catholic Church, I don’t think it has to do with matters of… doctrine.

I think that it is for doctrinal (amongst other )reasons. But neither of us can read her heart. Perhaps she will clarify.

 

[buffgbob]

Filioque.

Oh really? One of those councils said something to the extent:
“If anyone says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, let them be anathema”?
Or are you merely talking about the protection of the Nicea Creed, in which the Nicea-Constantinople Creed would fall under that same jurisdiction.

And yes I have read those quotes you mentioned before. As far as not “needing” any more councils, that’s apparent from Orthodox’s allowing of divorce and birth control. As far as Rome having more doctrinally binding councils is concerned, did we need the Oriental Churchs’ consent to have councils? No, they were schismatic.

 

[buffgbob]

Well you may want to ask Rome why the Creed is written minus Filoque in St Peter’s Square.

John 15:26
But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

It’s still fallible opinion. You have yet to show any documents that assert binding (infallible) Church authority on the subject.

 

[Hesychios]

…if you will notice the prepositional phrase, “to make sure whatever the pronounce is not pronounced in error,” which, by the way, “the,” should be, “they,” you will see that I am saying the East cannot dogmatically proclaim anything since it does not have the authority, or the visible headship, to do so. Clearly She has the Holy Spirit in her Sacraments and Her Saints to this day…

I would respond that, just as the age of revelation has passed, the age of dogmatically proclaiming new things to believe has long passed.

If any clarification on current teaching is required, the Orthodox church has handled that quite well for all these nearly two thousand years. And Holy Orthodoxy has never ever had a “Pope” in the sense you understand it.

No one will dispute the fact that the Orthodox churches are conservative by nature, the theology is extremely stable and the Liturgy is very old, solid and heavenly. We don’t need a new mechanism to pronounce dogma and we do not look forward to new dogmas. So right there your presumed worries about “pronouncing in error” have no basis.

And you might have noticed that we don’t need a new authority to regulate our liturgical practices, we have been doing just fine. Our liturgy reflects our beliefs and serves as a living catechism…any Christian following the cycle of liturgical practice over the course of a few years will get exposed to just about everything we believe through prayer. Even a prayerful illiterate has the potential to be a theologian and can defend this Faith.

We don’t need a new central office to select and appoint our bishop candidates, we have very good bishops, and very good synods (our bishops conferences). And we have mechanisms in place to deal with any problems, the same mechanisms that have been in place since the early church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I am very sorry to hear that you are divorced and that it was not an amicable divorce.

God bless you for not inflicting your children with the consequences.

Thanks. I try not to. Mom’s not so careful. One time my son (at the time 8 I think) asked “Does God know everything?” “Yes,” I said. “Does He want good things for you?” “Of course.” “If God wants only good things for you, and He knows everything, why did He make you marry mama?” he asked. “If I didn’t marry your mother would there be a Mikhail and Stephan?” (their names). “No,” he said. “Then you have your answer,” I answered.

Divorce is unnatural, solves nothing. No fault is even more worthless.

Why is that a canonical no no? I don’t understand, I don’t think. Did she church shop while she should have been in pennance, basically, telling God & Church she didn’t have to listen?

yes. When you transfer to another parish, you are supposed to have some contact pastor to pastor, even in the best of circumstances. She of course, didn’t. In fact, at the time I wans’t a parishoner and not even in the same jurisdiction as her and the children. The priest, seeing things coming, asked me to have my father confessor/pastor to contact him so I could be transferred to the same parish, so that he, her pastor, and a free hand to deal with the situation.

Not to go into more grisely detail, we’ve had a similar problem in the civil sphere: our divorce has been down town, all our criminal court (she’s been arrested for child endangerment, the guy she’s with for domestic battery, deadly force, etc.) in the suburbs, and they don’t talk to each other. She’s made the most to wiggle through that crack.

…I take it the weeping icon was a miracle; is it still ongoing? …Which icon?

Yes. Not like at first. It’s Our Lady of Cicero, at St. Geroge Arab Orthodox. It stands out since it is blackened: when the Church burned down a few years ago, it was the only icon to survive (sort of like the Black Madonna, which I’ve had to privilege to venerate). The person who first noticed it was the first priest of my parish (I wasn’t a member yet): they had just converted from Protestantism, and he thought maybe anointing the icon was a custom he hadn’t heard about. When he asked, the parish priest immediately called the bishop who came to investigate. Many of these former Protestants, who of course weren’t used to all this (and admitted, they had begun to wonder what they had gotten themselves into (all of them, btw, 20 years later, are still with us)), told me what impressed them was that the bishop first immediately conducted an exorcism, to make sure the source of the miracle. She streamed tears and myrh for months, now it is only a trickle.

We have another one in Chicago, at St. Nicholas Albanian Orthodox Church, which was located at the busiest mall at the time. She began to weep on St. Nicholas day (I was supposed to go for the feast day, but at the last moment had to report to work). For the whole Christmas season people were parking in the mall parking lot and coming across the street and lining up for BLOCKS to see her. Not only Orthodox, not only Catholics (a Polish woman I know, when she saw the news, mocked it “probably a leak in the wall.” But when the Church let the TV cameras go behind the iconostasis and examine it, she became curious, came, saw and was conquored: she insisted everyone see it), not only Christians, but JW, Muslims, etc. For me it was personally a problem. When I was chrismated (3 years before) I had specifically prayed that I not witness a miracle until my Faith was strong enough that it didn’t need a sign, and I was ready for it. So I stood before her weeping, asking “OK Lord, now what?”

Is the Megachurch Protestant or Orthodox? I am getting confused about that. It’s Prot, right?

Just so you know I think there’s a problem with the rules here saying Prot. But yes. Orthodox don’t like big Churches, even in Orthodox countries (the Cathedral of the Patriarchate of Romania, the 2nd largest in EO, 3rd if the OO are included, is smaller than your average parish Latin rite parish). Does something to the sense of community. At my parish there are the beginning of whispers of splitting, since we are getting up there. In fact if it were not for so many going on to other parishes (we have a steady stream from the Protestant colleges who come, convert, and then go on to other parishes, where they become deacons, parish presidents, etc. ), it would have happened already.

Thank you for your answers and your charity. Libertyville – “It’s a beautiful place in the country,”…but, I don’t think I’m anywhere near there. Church sounds nice, though.

It’s gorgeous. Btw, another claim to fame is the other Serbian monastery 15 minutes away (the two date from the split from the imposition of communism, since healed both are under Patriarch Pavle, a living saint. ). The last king of Yugoslavia is buried there.

Oh. That would explain it. I guess it would be an unnatural way to go…

That is in part what I said, but, sir, if you will notice the prepositional phrase, “to make sure whatever the pronounce is not pronounced in error,” which, by the way, “the,” should be, “they,” you will see that I am saying the East cannot dogmatically proclaim anything since it does not have the authority, or the visible headship, to do so. Clearly She has the Holy Spirit in her Sacraments and Her Saints to this day.

I thank you for your prayers. I hope you pray in charity and with right intent. Please be patient with those of us who have not been indoctrinated in the ways of the East, ESPECIALLY those of you who have come from the West.

Ut Unum Sint.

 

[Mickey]

I would respond that, just as the age of revelation has passed, the age of dogmatically proclaiming new things to believe has long passed.

Amen.

If any clarification on current teaching is required, the Orthodox church has handled that quite well for all these nearly two thousand years. And Holy Orthodoxy has never ever had a “Pope” in the sense you understand it.

Amen.

No one will dispute the fact that the Orthodox churches are conservative by nature, the theology is extremely stable and the Liturgy is very old, solid and heavenly. We don’t need a new mechanism to pronounce dogma and we do not look forward to new dogmas. So right there your presumed worries about “pronouncing in error” have no basis.

Amen.

And you might have noticed that we don’t need a new authority to regulate our liturgical practices, we have been doing just fine. Our liturgy reflects our beliefs and serves as a living catechism…any Christian following the cycle of liturgical practice over the course of a few years will get exposed to just about everything we believe through prayer. Even a prayerful illiterate has the potential to be a theologian and can defend this Faith.

Amen.

We don’t need a new central office to select and appoint our bishop candidates, we have very good bishops, and very good synods (our bishops conferences). And we have mechanisms in place to deal with any problems, the same mechanisms that have been in place since the early church.

And Amen!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Greetings Lapell!

Slava Isusu Christu!
Slava NaViki!

My conversion to Holy Orthodoxy was a life long journey.
I was born and raised Roman (Latin) Catholic. I canonically changed “rites” to Byzantine “Ruthenian” Catholic. Finally, in September 2007 I was accepted into the Holy Orthodox Church.

My reasons were were mostly doctrinal. After many years of prayer, study and discernment, I could no longer accept the doctrinal additions of post schism Rome. I was also disillusioned by the vast and growing new age movement within Catholicism. I wrote letters reporting these activities (mostly among the Roman Catholic nuns’ retreat centers). The bishops would do nothing. I was simply told to steer clear of these places and tell others not to go.

Finally, the Byzantine Catholic Church revised Her Liturgy using gender nuetral language and rewrote the rubrics. That was enough for me.

Oh yeah—I am also not a fan of the Novus Ordo.

I understand that no Church is perfect and that the people in the pews and the clergy are sinners–but I must reiterate that my main reasons were doctrinal.

That is the short version.

Although my posts sometimes come off as harsh against the Roman Catholic Church and those in communion with Her, I will always love the Church I was born into. I still have family and friends in the RCC and Eastern Catholic Church. It is the Church that nourished and fed my soul. It is the Church that led me to Holy Orthodoxy.

Peace and blessings to you,
Mickey

Just a quick note: personally my only big problem with the NO is the rejection of facing East Ad Orientum. I don’t get it.

I also want to say, as I did when it was posted, that I was pleased beyond measure that on a Traditionalist Thread asking they would, if confined to two choices-TLM in English or NO in Latin-which would they choose, the unamous answer was the former.

 

[Mickey]

I also want to say, as I did when it was posted, that I was pleased beyond measure that on a Traditionalist Thread asking they would, if confined to two choices-TLM in English or NO in Latin-which would they choose, the unamous answer was the former.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Where does the “error” lie there? How do you KNOW there is an error there?

This I know 'cause the Bible tells me so.

As for the Holy Spirit being not present in the Orthodox Church at all, I do agree it’s a dangerous thing to say.
But as for doctrinal matters in the Orthodox Church since the schism, they are not decided along with the successor of saint Peter, that’s a fact!

The Patriarch of Antioch is involved with all decisions of the Orthodox Church.

 

[RobHom]

Has anybody noticed how badly this thread has been “hijacked”?

 

[Mickey]

It’s still fallible opinion.

John 14:26
But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

 

[Frank_J]

Hi Mickey and Lapell,

I would like to address one at a time. First I would like to say hello Mickey glade to see you are one of us.

My mother started me down this road when I was a small child. She was Sicilian back ground and would teach me thing about my faith I didn’t know where it came from. When I converted I found out more about Orthodoxy influence in Italy when it comes to the southern part of that country.

It appears that at one time my family on my mother side was Orthodox at one time. That would explain why my mother instructed in her views of her religion. Remember she was raised Roman Catholic as a child but yet the Byzantine culture was passed from one generation to the next.

Now I would like to address some of what you have asked for Lapell. Your chat said as follows:

“Your sentiment is certainly genuine, Frank… and yet, one can ask you: was it because of one specific doctrine or because you found Catholics to not be good examples of how a Christian should live or because of a controversy (that involves bad examples too)?”

My reason for the change was not of any specific doctrine it was who presented itself when it came to the Novus Ordo Mass , that would cover Jazz Mass and other abuse that are going on in the Roman Catholic, Altar girls, communion in the hand the rejection of the Latin Tridentine Mass.

Homosexual Priest that were appointed by the bishops to over look there sheep. Cardinal Bernard Law give a Vatican office were as to work out of. Cardinal Bernard Law move around Priest like Fr Potter and Fr Gaggen. In case you don’t understand who I will tell you they were among the priest that sexual assault of young Altar boys.

I have lived long enough to see every thing the Roman Church has done since John the XXIII up in until now with this new pope of yours. Just look at what the Rome Church has since Pope Paul VI to John Paul II and see what was allow to fester in your Church.

I was mistreat by a Latin Nun at a Church one day when I was introduce by a priest as a member of the Latin Mass group at Holy Trinity German Catholic in Boston. When the Nun spoke up she said OH! One of THEM! She had no love for me or the Christians that attend The Latin Tridentine Mass.

This was the last straw when it came to getting me to leave.

If you want me to say more I can tell you everything.

Have a great day.

 

[RobHom]

Frank J, I am sorry that you were insulted by someone…I truly am. I find that many people are unable to hold their tongue when they should. I always found the Latin Mass to be wonderful… I actually knew as a child the entire mass by heart…I also knew the English translation of it… I was going to be an Altar Boy… I have often felt that the Mass should have not been changed in many ways. Which has upset some of my fellow Catholics…but then we are all entitled to our opinions, right? Back when I was a child…it was the Latin Tridentine Mass…and we learned the Latin…

I guess my point is this: Don’t allow one person’s inappropriate comment alienate you…its not fair to yourself to let that happen.

We as Catholics have to find common ground…and unify, otherwise…how can we expect our separated brethren of the non-Catholic denominations to come into union with us, when our own house is not in union?

Peace!

 

[buffgbob]

John 14:26
But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

And we all know the scripture is its own interpreter. I am going to make no attempt to pretend I’m going to labor the scriptures of the message. Perhaps I will, in personal study later, but not expediently. I’ll just refer to this article:
newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

The only Scriptural difficulty deserving our attention is based on the words of Christ as recorded in John 15:26, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mention being made of the Son. But in the first place, it can not be shown that this omission amounts to a denial; in the second place, the omission is only apparent, as in the earlier part of the verse the Son promises to “send” the Spirit. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is not mentioned in the Creed of Constantinople, because this Creed was directed against the Macedonian error against which it sufficed to declare the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father.

The article goes on to site many Bible verses, but as we are well aware: you don’t agree to their interpretation. I don’t agree to yours. Your interpretation is fallible (as is my personal interpretation.) Dogma is fact.

Do you have any dogma to support your claim?