C
Credo_ergo_sum
Guest
Is that a rhetorical question?
- Status
D
dzheremi
Guest
Yeah…you can’t really make this point to any OO Christian. And if you want to try, maybe you shouldn’t pick a figure we specifically rebuked both before and after Chalcedon. When Leo sent an incredibly condescending letter to Pope St. Dioscoros prior to the latter’s deposition by the Chalcedonians, trying to tell him how he should run our Church in accordance with what Rome would have the Church of Alexandria be, we refused to be pushed around and went about our business without a second thought as to what some Roman bishop had to say about it (your bishops didn’t call themselves “Pope” yet). When St. Dioscoros was deposed and replaced by a Chalcedonian, we refused to recognize anyone but St. Dioscoros as our leader. When the imperial forces brought a copy of the Tome of Leo to the monks in the Egyptian desert, they tore it up and told the emperor’s minions that we would never, ever believe in it. And we still don’t, even though obviously the dialogue surrounding the Council and what it did and did not say has cooled somewhat in the ensuing 1500+ years.And then we Catholics experience puzzlement in light of figures like St. Leo the Great, concerning whose actions you guys - well, perhaps not the OO, but certainly the EO - let slide the very straws that apparently broke the camel’s back in the eleventh century.
And we ask why it was okay for us to get away with certain things then, but not now…
The point is: To us, you guys never “got away” with anything, either before or after Chalcedon. And certainly not Leo, and his “Tome full of heresies”, to quote my priest. To us, he is neither Orthodox nor ‘Great’. The Byzantines may believe as they wish, but in this particular case, it has nothing to do with what we believe.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Pretty straightfoward I thought.Is that a rhetorical question?
So exactly how does Confession/Communion work, how often, and whats the view on Adoration?
T
TrueLight
Guest
Yeah…you can’t really make this point to any OO Christian. And if you want to try, maybe you shouldn’t pick a figure we specifically rebuked both before and after Chalcedon. When Leo sent an incredibly condescending letter to Pope St. Dioscoros prior to the latter’s deposition by the Chalcedonians, trying to tell him how he should run our Church in accordance with what Rome would have the Church of Alexandria be, we refused to be pushed around and went about our business without a second thought as to what some Roman bishop had to say about it (your bishops didn’t call themselves “Pope” yet). When St. Dioscoros was deposed and replaced by a Chalcedonian, we refused to recognize anyone but St. Dioscoros as our leader. When the imperial forces brought a copy of the Tome of Leo to the monks in the Egyptian desert, they tore it up and told the emperor’s minions that we would never, ever believe in it. And we still don’t, even though obviously the dialogue surrounding the Council and what it did and did not say has cooled somewhat in the ensuing 1500+ years.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Little extreme for CAF in regards to a Saint.Yeah…you can’t really make this point to any OO Christian. And if you want to try, maybe you shouldn’t pick a figure we specifically rebuked both before and after Chalcedon. When Leo sent an incredibly condescending letter to Pope St. Dioscoros prior to the latter’s deposition by the Chalcedonians, trying to tell him how he should run our Church in accordance with what Rome would have the Church of Alexandria be, we refused to be pushed around and went about our business without a second thought as to what some Roman bishop had to say about it (your bishops didn’t call themselves “Pope” yet). When St. Dioscoros was deposed and replaced by a Chalcedonian, we refused to recognize anyone but St. Dioscoros as our leader. When the imperial forces brought a copy of the Tome of Leo to the monks in the Egyptian desert, they tore it up and told the emperor’s minions that we would never, ever believe in it. And we still don’t, even though obviously the dialogue surrounding the Council and what it did and did not say has cooled somewhat in the ensuing 1500+ years.
D
dzheremi
Guest
A little honest, maybe, but I fail to see how it is extreme. I described three things that are uncontroversially and dispassionately asserted by and widely known about the OO communion: (1) We didn’t accept the Bishop of Rome’s directives either before or after Chalcedon; (2) We didn’t accept the deposition of St. Dioscoros; (3) We didn’t accept the Tome of Leo, which we find un-Orthodox. On account of this, it would be a lie if I said anything other than “We don’t find Leo great, even if others do”, which is essentially what I said. I’m sorry if it saddens people here, but I’m not going to knowingly misrepresent my own church. I personally don’t really care about Leo, but my feelings go no deeper than that. I imagine that probably Catholics would say the same about various Protestant saints (among the Protestants who have saints), or Orthodox about various Catholic saints from after the schism. I’m not saying you can’t call Leo whatever you want, but again, that has nothing to do with me or my church, which is actually what FoneBone already alluded to (maybe not you guys, but definitely the EO).
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
No biggie with me Jer, just a heads up.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
The Orthodox object to development in one sense, but not in another. The idea that the way we describe God develops and becomes more precise is acceptable. Other ideas on dogmatic development are not quite so acceptable.
The Eastern bishops were willing to put up with the demands of the bishop of Rome for quite some time, until the Gregorian reforms came around, radically changing the nature of the papacy, which upset not only the Eastern bishops, but the very emperors who formerly twisted the arms of the Eastern bishops towards peaceable relations with Rome, in order to protect their own interests on the Italian peninsula against invasions from the North. Early affirmations of the primacy were not seen as unreasonable, as they did not give Rome much power to force changes upon the Eastern Church as much as it gave Rome a good amount of leverage in the decision-making process. When the bishops of Rome began making novel claims in the eleventh century that emperors should kiss their feet, that they had the authority to relieve emperors of their right to rule and to relieve subjects of their obligations to their ruler, and that they had the power to depose any bishop, what was the East to do but break communion with Rome?And then we Catholics experience puzzlement in light of figures like St. Leo the Great, concerning whose actions you guys - well, perhaps not the OO, but certainly the EO - let slide the very straws that apparently broke the camel’s back in the eleventh century.
And we ask why it was okay for us to get away with certain things then, but not now…
D
dzheremi
Guest
Thanks, Gary. I stand by what I wrote, but I appreciate your heads up.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Oh, is the DL daily? I use to reside inbetween a Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox Church, same block. I never seen anything during the week going on? Could be I was busy and not overly aware also.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Speaking of that, I was looking at the website of St Mark’s Coptic Orthodox Church in Manhattan and noticed that the DL was offered only on Saturday. Do all Coptic Orthodox Churches have their DL’s on a Saturday?
stmarksmanhattan.com/
N
Nine_Two
Guest
That’s what I meant to write. It was early, I was still half asleep.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
It is done daily at monasteries perhaps, except during Great Lent when the liturgy is not permitted to be celebrated on weekdays. In normal parish practice, there are several considerations which make a daily divine liturgy impractical. The first is that a liturgy needs people to respond. If the priest gets up and intones “blessed be the kingdom…” without receiving an amen in response, it’s time for him to pack up and go home, as the liturgy cannot be done without the people responding. Secondly, even with the people responding, a chanter with good knowledge of how liturgical services are constructed is needed to do the moveable parts of the liturgy, especially the singing of the apolytikia and kontakia during the third antiphon, not to mention to manage the various substitutions that happen in the liturgy during the season after Easter (at least having a dedicated chanter for the day solves the first problem). Chanters are also a requirement to do whatever morning service precedes the liturgy, especially orthros (matins), which is an incredibly intricate service. Yet another problem is that the liturgy under normal circumstances should begin by the third hour (approximately 9 am). There is no luxury of holding a 12:00 pm liturgy like many Roman Catholic Churches do. Most parishes probably can’t even afford to do a daily liturgy.
T
Trebor135
Guest
Where is it that you “clearly stated” you were talking about baptism?
T
Trebor135
Guest
Orthodox seem more strict about Church affiliation than Catholics. The former would be more likely to say, “I hope Evangelical Protestants searching for historical Christianity become Orthodox over Catholic” while the latter would be more wont to comment, “I hope Evangelical Protestants searching for historical Christianity become Catholic or Orthodox”.
As a prospective Orthodox, I don’t take the position that all miracles outside the Church can only be fraudulent or demonic–I have no interest in blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
T
TrueLight
Guest
I doubt very much traditional Catholics would say “I hope Evangelical Protestants searching for historical Christianity become Catholic or Orthodox”.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Few Catholics would take the either-or position you mention there, and the vast majority of the ones who would are on the cusp of converting anyway.
The storms that rise any time a Catholic mentions that they are contemplating Orthodoxy give lie to that portrayal of complacency - and to be honest I see that as a good thing. If Catholics actually did take a “whatever, they’re both good” approach it would say horrible things about the Catholic Church.
When I hear of someone contemplating Orthodoxy and Catholicism I of course hope Orthodoxy will win out in the end, but I am still rather pleased if they do decide to become Catholic, as are most Orthodox living in the West. It is an improvement either way.
T
Trebor135
Guest
Medjugorje seems very sketchy to me prima facie. A girl I know has given me a rosary she got on pilgrimage there: I plan to have this item in particular (not the other rosary on my desk) blessed by an Orthodox priest, specifically because of where it came from.
Probably influenced by the Cyprianic view of ecclesiology prevailing in their communion, by which God’s grace is not found outside the visible boundaries of the Church.
Do you have any links on this?
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Yeah, I know. That’s why I admitted that it doesn’t apply to the Oriental Orthodox. (Perhaps I should have left the “perhaps” out.)
He doesn’t consider Pope Leo I to be a saint, though. He is, after all, a member of the non-Chalcedonian Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, and St. Leo the Great confirmed Chalcedon himself.
Perhaps you can formulate the argument better than other Orthodox I’ve seen, but I’ve generally seen it expressed as an objection that the RCC, by dogmatizing certain beliefs, believes the Magisterium to have added to the faith.
And that, as I’m sure you know, is not the Catholic position. We do indeed believe that revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, at which point the Church had been given the faith in its entirety.
That’s why I think you guys are far more compelling and consistent when you keep it specific: for instance, claiming that Vatican I added truly novel concepts as if they were a core part of the faith.
Too often, though, what I hear is vague suspicion-mongering about the process of dogmatization itself, which - while we do have some different principles concerning how this works - is really no different than what Ephesus did, or Chalcedon, or Constantinople III, etc.
Well, it’s a good thing those claims about the pope’s political power were never dogmatized, right? In fact, I’d say the political/secular variety of neo-Ultramontanism is pretty thoroughly dead.
So it can’t really be that kind of thing to which your church objects today, right?
Exactly. Well said.
Indeed. The Catholic Church officially rejects branch theory just as much as the Orthodox do. It would be strangely incongruous if Catholics believed and acted in a way that’s inconsistent with this fact.
I feel the same way, except the other way around: I fully admit I’d hope they’d become Catholic, but it’s a victory either way.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
It’s the reality of the diaspora. In our Eparchy we have priests who serve three parishes of considerable distance to one another (2 hours or more driving with no traffic). There is no other way than to do Divine Liturgy in one of the parishes exclusively on a Saturday. I’m guessing this is their dilema as well if they need to send the priest to another location on Sunday, or that the priest they have is coming from a different location.
- Status