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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Christy74
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Isa_Almisry said:
Yes. I remember wondering why we were skipping the section on “the Office of the Keys” in our cathechism when I was preparing for confirmation.

At the time I thought that surely, Confession had no sacramental sign (like water, bread, wine). Only after I embraced Orthodoxy that I realized that “that divine word spoken to the Apostles” (John 20:23), as it is called in the office of confession, was as much part of the created universe as water, bread and wine.
Click to expand...
That is certainly true. We define a sacrament as that which was instituted by Christ (through His Word), with a visible element that gives forgiveness of sins.

We do see Holy Absolution as a means of grace, that is, that it gives the forgiveness of sins and it was most certainly instituted by Christ.
 
Writer said:
I don’t understand how “hurt feelings” prompt a rational person to change from Catholic to Orthodox. As a Protestant child, I was teased mercilessly by Catholic kids and sometimes treated poorly by staff of the Catholic shool I attended, as well, but that’s not an excuse to throw away one’s reasoning. When I realized the catholic Church was the one true Church as an adult, I did not let the troubles of childhood interfere with my pursuit of Christ (or, more acccurately, His pursuit of me). Wherever you look, people can and will continue to fail. We offer our struggles and pains up to Christ and continue to follow what’s right and true. Don’t dwell on the wrongs done to you, but dwell on the rights you can do for others.
Click to expand...
amen, I went to Catholic school in fifth grade, and it was unsettling. All the seventh graders [presumably] were sleeping with one another. They would defiantly play raunchy AC/DC music on the bus.

There are weeds in the wheat. The true Church does not consist only with the elect. It also includes serious sinners. Don’t leave Peter because of Judas.
 
RobHom said:
Can someone provide a valid link to the “Orthodox” view or take on marriages and the sanctity of marriage vows, etc?
Click to expand...
First off, we didn’t have “wedding vows” until Jesuit influence (you know, they took refuge in Russia when suppressed in the West). The couple do not marry themselves, Christ marries them through the Church.

antiochian.org/rentel2006
antiochian.org/1123706833
antiochian.org/node/16915
antiochian.org/node/17964
antiochian.org/moral_issues_family
[btw, this is the Synod Decision of the Orthodox Church of America, but on the Antiochian website.
http://www.oca.org/QAindex-sacramentmarriage.asp?SID=3
oca.org/DOCencyclical.asp?SID=12&ID=4
oca.org/QA.asp?ID=169&SID=3
oca.org/DOCstatute.asp?SID=12&ID=11
goarch.org/en/resources/pastoral/instructions.asp
goarch.org/en/Chapel/liturgical_texts/wedding.asp
goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7101.asp

One thing that might help: we put the issue of remarriage under the Office of the Keys.

Btw, I just read “War and Peace.” In it Countess Buzukhov converts to get an annullment. The account basically sums up the Orthodox ideas of “annullments.” (Btw, Tolskoy died excommunicate).
 
dessert said:
This is sad isn’t it?😦 especially the group hug at the end which I couldn’t put on.
Click to expand...
There was what seemed like a boastful overtone in this thread that did not sit well with me, an unconvincing showcase perhaps. I pray the OP was sincere.
 
Mickey said:
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.
Click to expand...
What was then your answer to the Mt 16 debate? I was not here then, sorry! Any still existing previous thread where you could refer me to maybe? Saint Peter would not have minded repeating “the same things again and again” for the faithful’s sake (and God’s, of course!), why should we mind so much then?
 
Mickey said:
St Peter has successors in Antioch also. 😉
Click to expand...
As bishop maybe, but Rome is where he died, and Ignatius for one didn’t preach revolt against the pope then, even though there was already one, and in Rome!
 
And ever since there has been a succession of popes… why wasn’t there a schism before the 15th Century? Rather mysterious, if you ask me!
 
Excuse me for all this, but the question of so-called heresies by the Catholic Church raised by the thread starter herself does raise the question of legitimacy of the authority in the Church as Jesus the Christ Himself had chosen it to be.
Sounds like the problem of legitimacy of religious authority in Israel! Was it in Jerusalem or in Samaria (since Jeroboam)? not so different…
 
Lapell said:
As bishop maybe, but Rome is where he died, and Ignatius for one didn’t preach revolt against the pope then, even though there was already one, and in Rome!
Click to expand...
Then why didn’t he metion him in his letter to the Romans, the only one where he doesn’t mention the bishop?

And when he says, “where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church,” he doesn’t say “where the bishop sent by Rome…”
 
Isa_Almisry said:
First off, we didn’t have “wedding vows” until Jesuit influence (you know, they took refuge in Russia when suppressed in the West). The couple do not marry themselves, Christ marries them through the Church.

antiochian.org/rentel2006
antiochian.org/1123706833
antiochian.org/node/16915
antiochian.org/node/17964
antiochian.org/moral_issues_family
[btw, this is the Synod Decision of the Orthodox Church of America, but on the Antiochian website.
http://www.oca.org/QAindex-sacramentmarriage.asp?SID=3
Click to expand...
oca.org/DOCencyclical.asp?SID=12&ID=4
oca.org/QA.asp?ID=169&SID=3
oca.org/DOCstatute.asp?SID=12&ID=11
goarch.org/en/resources/pastoral/instructions.asp
goarch.org/en/Chapel/liturgical_texts/wedding.asp
goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7101.asp

One thing that might help: we put the issue of remarriage under the Office of the Keys.

Btw, I just read “War and Peace.” In it Countess Buzukhov converts to get an annullment. The account basically sums up the Orthodox ideas of “annullments.” (Btw, Tolskoy died excommunicate).

Thank You!! I’ll check them out!! 😃 I will learn something today, and that will make it a good day… 👍
 
Lapell said:
Excuse me for all this, but the question of so-called heresies by the Catholic Church raised by the thread starter herself does raise the question of legitimacy of the authority in the Church as Jesus the Christ Himself had chosen it to be.
Sounds like the problem of legitimacy of religious authority in Israel! Was it in Jerusalem or in Samaria (since Jeroboam)? not so different…
Click to expand...
Micah in Samaria, before Jeroboam, sets up an idol, made from silver dedicated to YHWH (17:3), for which he hires a Levite, the grandson of Moses (Judges 18:30), who comes from Bethlehem of Judea (17:7), and whose descendents serve as priests (btw, a particular title in Hebrew) to the idol until the Exile, the Danites hiring him and translating his see with the argument of numbers (18:19).

So they made claims on YHWH, dedication (corban), Moses, the Kohenim, the Levites, Bethlehem, Judah,…by a superficial conection, mostly in name.

Maybe you are on to something.
 
RobHom said:
Thank You!! I’ll check them out!! 😃 I will learn something today, and that will make it a good day… 👍
Click to expand...
Again, THANKS!! I read a few, but it looks like its going to take a little while to read it all…but very interesting, and I see many parallels. 😃
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Then why didn’t he metion him in his letter to the Romans, the only one where he doesn’t mention the bishop?

And when he says, “where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church,” he doesn’t say “where the bishop sent by Rome…”
Click to expand...
So? It went without saying… there was no need then to say it!
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Micah in Samaria, before Jeroboam, sets up an idol, made from silver dedicated to YHWH (17:3), for which he hires a Levite, the grandson of Moses (Judges 18:30), who comes from Bethlehem of Judea (17:7), and whose descendents serve as priests (btw, a particular title in Hebrew) to the idol until the Exile, the Danites hiring him and translating his see with the argument of numbers (18:19).

So they made claims on YHWH, dedication (corban), Moses, the Kohenim, the Levites, Bethlehem, Judah,…by a superficial conection, mostly in name.

Maybe you are on to something.
Click to expand...
Except that you and I might disagree as to who represents Jerusalem and who represents Jeroboam and his successors…
There had been a pope legitimately recognized in Rome (except for a brief episode in Avignon and another place, but then he returned to Rome) all those centuries before that schism, hadn,t there?
 
Isa_Almisry said:
That would be odd, since the Fathers at Constantinople stated that the Creed of Nicea would stand firm and not be set aside. We they anathematizing themselves?
Click to expand...
No, precisely my point. The charge is to preserve the Creed. Your interpretation of what they said would mean they excommunicate themselves.
If I were you, I’d explain what council created the “Petrine and Pauline privileges,” which, even by the Vatican rules, dissolves a valid marriage, before opening the can of corban.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to get into the details of divorce etc. I honestly havn’t done enough research on it. That wasn’t my point anyway. Orthodox seem to think there was an “age” where it was appropriate to have infallible council and that age is past. My point is that issues will always pop up, new heresies will always arise, and we need a Church which can dogmatically defend the faith (aka have councils that hold real binding authority.)
Being in scism from the Church, you are free to do whatever you like.
Click to expand...
Say what you will, but do not twist my words around. I constantly see this from you and atleast one other Orthodox poster. The schismatic ones… you mean Rome? teehee. Yes we get it; very clever.

My point remains valid. Rome has never had to get permission from schismatic Churches to keep having councils. I’m sure you are capable of understanding this from the Roman perspective; although, you have shown no signs of comprehending it. You call those councils invalid, but you “prove” it assuming they are invalid, it’s faulty logic. I believe B is wrong, therefore B is wrong.

The only real case you have to same Rome are heretics is Filioque. Even there you have a terribly weak case. It’s your own fallible theological opinion, but clearly to you theological opinion is a good enough reason to split the Body of Christ. And to be clear, it is theological opinion. Considering, even some Greek theologians don’t think it is inherently wrong (just a bad translation of “Filioque” from Latin to Greek.) Last time I checked, there have been no doctrine set the anathemize those theologians. Oh wait, the Orthodox are incapable of clarifying the Deposit of Faith via doctrine anymore.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Ever heard of the Great Western Schism?(…)
No mystery at all, if you ask me.
Click to expand...
NO mystery at all? What makes you say that? Even when the presence of evil is not necessarily surprising, evil IS a mystery, you know!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top