T
tizzidale
Guest
I can only relate “Why Not Orthodoxy.” <------------ my story
- Status
T
trustinyou
Guest
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…
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hello RAR,
For Orthodox it means:
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.
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:
Yes, it might seem so, but why?
Great! What does that mean to you, exactly?
For Orthodox it means:
- 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:
- 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.
R
RAR
Guest
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?
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.
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
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
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)
“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)
“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)
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
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.
Our Lord left 12 Apostles, 70 disciples, and His brothers, the Desposyni, the chief of whom, St. James, presided in Jerusalem: St. Clement tells us that after the ascension not even Peter nor John the Theologian dared claim the glory, but yielded to St. James as primate of the Church of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 15, and Galatians, where St. Paul says he saw St. Peter AND St. James).
I know that much is made now of supposed parrallels of the papacy in the OT, but that seems for the most part recent. The Eliakim type, for example: the notes of the Douay-Rheims (aimed to bolster the papacy in Reformation England) specify his as a type of Christ and doesn’t mention the pope or Peter at all.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
This is your first problem. This isn’t the Nicene Creed. It’s the Toledo Creed.
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.
These deal with the relationship of the Spirit with His creation (Economic Trinity), not the eternal hypostatic procession that the Creed is talking about.
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.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
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
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Indeed. In fact it was his death that started me on the road to Orthodoxy (see post belowNo, he’s not. Nor his predecessor.
).
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
I’m not sure what you are talking about this is in the Nicene 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?
I see, so you really have no formal doctrine about it?
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
No it’s not. The text handed to us by the council says “proceeds from the Father.”
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’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.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Oh yes I forgot, you have a different Nicene Creed.
Then I don’t really see any difference in doctrine?
So basically Indulgences are the difference in doctrine.
T
trustinyou
Guest
and doesn’t mention the pope or Peter at all.
your not dealing with a book worm here,but it seems to me some of the early church fathers,not using the word pope,talked about the chair of peter…explain to me how the catholic church has a record of all the popes from the beginning? are they lying?
your not dealing with a book worm here,but it seems to me some of the early church fathers,not using the word pope,talked about the chair of peter…explain to me how the catholic church has a record of all the popes from the beginning? are they lying?
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Well I would say we have the 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.
I’m not sure that I fully understand indulgences.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
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).
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?.
With the Armenians there is technically a doctrinal difference, but not really. They have joined with is working towards full communion. They mistook us for Nestorians, but now admit we are not, and we mistook them for Monophysites (Christ has only a divine nature) but they are not.
As for the rest of us, there is no diffrence between us, just language, cutsoms, etc. The nationality is mentioned because of the canons on the episcopacy: one city, one bishop (this is violated a lot in the New World especially). The priest is only the delegate of the bishop, the parish exists on the “antimens” (“instead of the table,” ie. the bishop’s altar) the cloth with relics with has written on it the permission of the bishop to gather as a parish, and the priest to stand in for the bishop (in Orthodoxy, the priest is not so much a alter Chrisi, but the extension of the bishop, who is the extension of the Apostles (only a arm’s length away from an Apostle, as my priest says).
At the Divine Liturgy, the priest (in my case, Fr. Pat) with us commemorates our bishop in the diptychs, the list of bishops we recognize as in communion with us. All parishes in the diocese commemorate him from the antimens (it is laid on the altar), so we acknowledge that we are in communion with whom he is in communion.
Now at the table, i.e. the Cathedral or wherever the bishop (in my case, Bishop Mark) is celebrating DL, he commemorates his brother bishops of the local synod and the metropolitan (who functions like a chairman of the board of the synod), as a sign that he is in communion with those bishops (and the parishes who commemorate them) and those who are in communion with the metropolitan.
The metropolitan (in my case, Metr. Philip) at his DL commemorates the other metropolitans of the patriarchate of Antioch and the patriarch himself, as a sign that he is communion with those metropolitans (and the bishops who commemorate them, and the parishes…) and those who are in communion with the patriarch.
The patriarch (in my case, Patriarch Ignatius IV, 154th successor of St. Peter at Antioch), when he celebrates DL, commemorates the other patriarchs and heads of the independent Orthodox Catholic Churches, as sign that he, and all those under him, and in communion with those hierarchs and all within the communion of said Churches.
So every Sunday, through the commemoration of the diptychs the unity of the Orthodox Catholic Communion is reaffirmed from parish to the EP, the first among equals of the Orthodox Catholic Patriarchs (and upon whose altar my cross was blessed).
The reference to the nationality and Sees is because as stated in the canons of the Ecumenical councils, the organization of the Sees is done in coordination with the secular orgainzation of the societies (like why Rome has a bishops conference for the US, one for Canada, one for Mexico,etc.). Hence the point of reference. It is also thus usually connected with liturgical language, customs, etc. like Polish Catholic, Italian Catholic and Irish Catholic are different though in communion.
The diptychs can become a big issue. When the patriarch of Moscow dropped the EP from the diptych, it was not a big deal in Russia, where there are few Greek Orthodox, and none (except a few below) under the EP. But all the Russian parishes abroad had to also break communion, which in, for instance Oxford, where the Russians and Greeks shared a church and facilities, this was a major problem. The other patriarchs, however, continued to commorate both, thereby estopping a schism, and full communion was restored. Things, however, have remained tense.
Then there are the metochia, the “embassy churches.” In Moscow, for instance, there is a parish which belongs not to the PoM, but the EP, one that belongs to the OCA, one to Alexandria, etc. In those parishes the diptychs commemorate not the PoM Alexei, but the EP, the OCA metropolitan, the Pope of Alexandria (he was the first to have that title, btw), as a sort of piece of the other Churches in the body of the Moscow Patriarch. A vestige of this remains in Rome, with the titular chruches given cardinals, and the “patriarchal” churches, where St. John Lateran is Rome’s church (why the pope’s seat is there) whereas St. Peter’s is the church of Constantinople!
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
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)
Other than God accepts such prayers, no, not much.
We pray, and let God sort them out.
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.
God doesn’t tell us who is in Hell.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
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.
“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)
It is basically the belief that someone who has been saved, however still remains in Purgatory can have their time there lessened by the good works and piety of those on Earth. It can do nothing to save someone who has already been sent to Hell. It really goes along with the idea that we on Earth can have some effect in prayer and good works for those who remain in Purgatory. I agree it’s a confusing doctrine. But that’s what it is.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
That’s exactly the same as the Catholic doctrine.
Yes obviously that would be pointless.
H
Hesychios
Guest
We have your Creed, the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed.
This was the Creed of your church and ours originally, and your church unilaterally changed it later. This change was a specific violation of the ancient canons.
So please do not refer to it as our “different” Creed, it is everyone’s Creed.
H
Hesychios
Guest
The point is, by that same logic the Son always proceeds through the Spirit by perichoresis.
Yet this is never mentioned, why?
Probably because it is unnecessary and confusing. Mentioning the Son proceeding through the Spirit while the Sprit proceeds through the Son is somehow redundant. It should be assumed.
The fact that the solitary filioque phrase was not inserted by the Original Fathers was quite wise, because it avoids the possible mis-interpretation of the theology as double-procession, a serious error. Using primarily apophatic means of describing theology, the Fathers were loathe to expand upon any idea which might be carried into error.
The Roman Catholic church no longer actively insists on double procession, as it had in the past (so you are right to say that the Orthodox position appears to be like the Catholic position, IMO). Although one will still occasionally encounter traditionalist Roman Catholics who insist upon it. The official Roman Catholic position has appeared to change in recent decades, possibly during the long reign of Pope John Paul II.
What is remarkable to me is the fact that Roman Catholics stubbornly refuse to rephrase the term to state THROUGH the Son, which would more precisely reflect current Roman Catholic teaching.
Michael
- Status