T
tizzidale
Guest
I can only relate “Why Not Orthodoxy.” <------------ my story
My question out of all of this mess concerning the pope is,“Why wouldn’t Jesus leave someone in charge to feed his sheep?” Didnt Moses have someone follow him,then another and another…Thur Our Lords life it looks to me like he lived it quite a bit in similarity to the old testament(st.pauls letters,etc,etc refers to this) then He tells Peter,feed my sheep,keys are given to him,power to bind and loose…so why wouldnt he leave someone like… Moses did? then another,and another… p.s. people should go on this website and read exactly what papal infall. is…Thanks everyone for posting remarks about my question. I think at least one Eastern Orthodox person said that the early Church Fathers did not support the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Could you please post some information concerning this.
I also have another question. Why all the names of cities and things? Alexandrian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox? What’s the difference. Is it specifically doctrinally? Liturgy? Leadership?
I thank my Orthodox brethren for answering these questions to me.
Yes, it might seem so, but why?I read on an earlier post (I think yours, Hesychios), that this was not always so and that the “governmental” authority used to be more in the hands of the local bishops. I don’t argue that that would be fine, but it still seems to me that it is necessary to have a “Supreme Court,” if you will.
Great! What does that mean to you, exactly?…I’ve never even consider our differences before. (in fact, I think we should get over ourselves, get it together, and finally get together)
The Papal doctrines originated as theologeumena. They were not imposed upon the church at large until 1870AD.But what do yo mean by “the dominant party now demands that all subscribe to it’s particular theologeumena, which is not acceptable.”???
Wow! Whoa! I’m not ready for this. I’ll be back around, but I might have to look into a few things first. I thought that “theoleugeriasis” word was a typo… we’re dealing on different levels.Hello RAR,
Yes, it might seem so, but why?Great! What does that mean to you, exactly?
For Orthodox it means:
But the Roman Catholic church is looking to be an exception. If it would accept a place as another Orthodox church, we would have no problem.
- We believe the same things.
- We share communion and concelebrate.
That’s it…That is exactly what Orthodox do.
It does not even really have to ask, the church would earn a place among the Orthodox, with shared communion and concelebration, just by wanting it.
The Papal doctrines originated as theologeumena. They were not imposed upon the church at large until 1870AD.
Orthodox really don’t have a problem with the idea of the western Patriachate governing itself. It always was an autocephalic church, like the other Patriarchates, self-governing.
So the concept of concentrating a lot of housekeeping responsibilities, church discipline, in the office of the Patriarch is not out of the question. The synod of the western church could decide to delegate those responsibilities to the bishop of Rome, or even the bishop of Peoria if it so desired. And this is what the western church did over time, how this change was justified is an interesting story in itself.
But some people conceived this new scheme of church governance should be worldwide and all encompassing, not just for the western Patriarchate, and pushed for these new ideas to be enshrined in dogma.
These people were ultramontanists.
Now Pio Nonno was very inclined to want this recognition for himself, especially since he had unilaterally declared a dogma in 1854 on his own volition (in an exclusively Latin context, BTW). This had never been done before…by any prelate anywhere…ever. And he needed some way to retroactively cover his act which had no precedent.
This was an especially critical issue in the 1860’s, when it looked as though the Papal States were going to be annexed by a civil power. No one knew how this would affect the choice of future Popes and the decisions they might make. So they desired to make their housekeeping disciplines irreversible by declaring them as dogmas.
To Orthodox, that is a grave error.
For Orthodox then, there are about five huge problems with Rome, most other complaints being of a relatively minor nature:
Michael
- Unprecedented unilateral declaration of a dogma outside of a council in 1854AD by a single bishop.
- Claiming Universal Jurisdiction by a single bishop over all churches at any level, and
- Claiming the infallibility of the church as an exclusive function of one bishop.
These only compounded difeferences with the Orthodox, which already had issues with:- The docrine of purgatory, and
- The filioque, of dubious value, and it’s illegal insertion into the official Creed of the church.
That’s about it in a nutshell, I think.
The FilioqueThe filioque, of dubious value, and it’s illegal insertion into the official Creed of the church.
Michael
As for Moses, he left Joshua to lead, but his nephews (kohenim) to maintain the priesthood. Johsua had no successor. The Kohenim held the priesthood until our Lord’s coming: St. John (a kohen)'s baptism passing on the Aaronic priesthood to the superior priesthood of Melchizedek, the type of Christ.My question out of all of this mess concerning the pope is,“Why wouldn’t Jesus leave someone in charge to feed his sheep?” Didnt Moses have someone follow him,then another and another…Thur Our Lords life it looks to me like he lived it quite a bit in similarity to the old testament(st.pauls letters,etc,etc refers to this) then He tells Peter,feed my sheep,keys are given to him,power to bind and loose…so why wouldnt he leave someone like… Moses did? then another,and another… p.s. people should go on this website and read exactly what papal infall. is…
This is your first problem. This isn’t the Nicene Creed. It’s the Toledo Creed.The Filioque
“who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” (The Nicene Creed)
“The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name” (John 14:26)
These deal with the relationship of the Spirit with His creation (Economic Trinity), not the eternal hypostatic procession that the Creed is talking about.“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever–” (John 14:15)
Purgatory
“Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.” (2 Maccabees 12:46)
“If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.” (1 Corinthians 3:15)
Unlike the Protestants, we pray for the departed. The geography of the next world that purgatory demands, and other details (indulgences, etc) is what troubles us, not that the power of the keys carries past the grave.“These have come so that your faith–of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire–may be proved genuine and may result in praise” (1 Peter 1:7)
No, he’s not. Nor his predecessor.Wow! Whoa! I’m not ready for this. I’ll be back around, but I might have to look into a few things first. I thought that “theoleugeriasis” word was a typo… we’re dealing on different levels.
I’ll have more questions in the future… but for now, just know that I think we all need to focus more on our shared beliefs and less on our differences…
after all, the Pope isn’t such a bad guy.
RAR
Indeed. In fact it was his death that started me on the road to Orthodoxy (see post belowNo, he’s not. Nor his predecessor.![]()
I’m not sure what you are talking about this is in the Nicene Creed.This is your first problem. This isn’t the Nicene Creed. It’s the Toledo Creed.
I see what you are saying. I had a misconception about the Orthodox Church. So are you saying that Orthodoxy does not believe that the Holy Spirit has always existed?The Nicene-Constant(name removed by moderator)ole Creed follows what Christ Himself said about the hypostatic eternal procession “Who proceeds from the Father.” John 15:26. Note: Christ shall (future) send FROM the Father.
I see, so you really have no formal doctrine about it?Unlike the Protestants, we pray for the departed. The geography of the next world that purgatory demands, and other details (indulgences, etc) is what troubles us, not that the power of the keys carries past the grave.
No it’s not. The text handed to us by the council says “proceeds from the Father.”I’m not sure what you are talking about this is in the Nicene Creed.
Stop being ridiculous of course the Holy Spirit has always existed. The Spirit proceeds from the Father eternally, He is the cause, and the Spirit is sent into His temporal mission by the Son.I see what you are saying. I had a misconception about the Orthodox Church. So are you saying that Orthodoxy does not believe that the Holy Spirit has always existed?
I’m not sure exactly what you mean. The Church teaches that prayers for the dead are effectual but the exact condition of the soul immediately after death is a mystery, God has chosen not to reveal it to us in detail. Of course we reject the idea that a person must provide satisfaction for un-confessed sins in the afterlife, any purification that happens isn’t meant to be a punishment.I see, so you really have no formal doctrine about it?
Oh yes I forgot, you have a different Nicene Creed.No it’s not. The text handed to us by the council says “proceeds from the Father.”
Then I don’t really see any difference in doctrine?Stop being ridiculous of course the Holy Spirit has always existed. The Spirit proceeds from the Father eternally, He is the cause, and the Spirit is sent into His temporal mission by the Son.
So basically Indulgences are the difference in doctrine.I’m not sure exactly what you mean. The Church teaches that prayers for the dead are effectual but the exact condition of the soul immediately after death is a mystery, God has chosen not to reveal it to us in detail. Of course we reject the idea that a person must provide satisfaction for un-confessed sins in the afterlife, any purification that happens isn’t meant to be a punishment.
Well I would say we have the Nicene Creed.Oh yes I forgot, you have a different Nicene Creed.
The way most Catholics have explained it to me there’s not really a difference but my point has always been if we believe the same thing we should say the same thing. The Creed in its original form is simple and easy to understand, you guys have to go on to explain that “proceeds from the Father” and “proceeds from the Son” really mean two different things.Then I don’t really see any difference in doctrine?
I’m not sure that I fully understand indulgences.So basically Indulgences are the difference in doctrine.
One exmple was the Fifth Ecumenical Council: Pope Vigilius was in Constantinople but refused to attend or approve it. The Council repsonded by striking him from the diptychs (if you don’t know what that is, explained below), but were careful not to strike Rome from them. In a sense deposed. He was restored when he joined in the condemnation of the Three Chapters (the subject of the Council).Thanks everyone for posting remarks about my question. I think at least one Eastern Orthodox person said that the early Church Fathers did not support the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Could you please post some information concerning this.
No, He has always existed, and has always proceeded from the Father, but his procession onto the Apostles, and on us in confirmation (the personal Pentacost), etc. is in time. It is obviously not a eternal trait of His Person, as we have not always existed. The orignal Greek uses two different words to maintain the distinction. The Spirit always proceeds from the Father, and always through the Son by perichoresis (the eternal interaction of the Persons, so what One does always involves the other Two).
I see what you are saying. I had a misconception about the Orthodox Church. So are you saying that Orthodoxy does not believe that the Holy Spirit has always existed?
Other than God accepts such prayers, no, not much.I see, so you really have no formal doctrine about it?
I believe that it was originally changed to prevent heresy. That would be the reasoning for it, even though both versions mean the same thing.The way most Catholics have explained it to me there’s not really a difference but my point has always been if we believe the same thing we should say the same thing. The Creed in its original form is simple and easy to understand, you guys have to go on to explain that “proceeds from the Father” and “proceeds from the Son” really mean two different things.
“An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin. The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.” (CCC 1471)I’m not sure that I fully understand indulgences.
That’s exactly the same as the Catholic doctrine.No, He has always existed, and has always proceeded from the Father, but his procession onto the Apostles, and on us in confirmation (the personal Pentacost), etc. is in time. It is obviously not a eternal trait of His Person, as we have not always existed. The orignal Greek uses two different words to maintain the distinction. The Spirit always proceeds from the Father, and always through the Son by perichoresis (the eternal interaction of the Persons, so what One does always involves the other Two)
Yes obviously that would be pointless.We only do not pray for glorified (canonized) saints, as we know they are in heaven. We know, however, that some saints He keeps unknown.
We have your Creed, the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed.Oh yes I forgot, you have a different Nicene Creed.
The point is, by that same logic the Son always proceeds through the Spirit by perichoresis.That’s exactly the same as the Catholic doctrine.