It's hard to say what any of us would do if our lives were in jeopardy. It's easy to criticize and such, but until one is living under a ruthless empire or dictatorship, one shouldn't presume anything.
His All-Holiness Patriarch Jeremias II should be lauded for upholding the Orthodox faith, even with the inducement of worldly gain to be had in forsaking it.
It's hard to say what any of us would do if our lives were in jeopardy. It's easy to criticize and such, but until one is living under a ruthless empire or dictatorship, one shouldn't presume anything.
I am well aware of this fact; however, given the events of 1204, and what was happening during the Tourkokratia with the Jesuits and the Ottomans, like I said, it still remains puzzling.
__________________
"Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty,
indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth;
Yours is the dominion, O Lord, and You exalt Yourself as head over all."
His All-Holiness Patriarch Jeremias II should be lauded for upholding the Orthodox faith, even with the inducement of worldly gain to be had in forsaking it.
Yes, but is that the only thing he did? Given your political persuasion, and the the projection you enjoy giving of a critical mind, one would think that you would sense something gone awry at this juncture of faith and politics.
__________________
"Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty,
indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth;
Yours is the dominion, O Lord, and You exalt Yourself as head over all."
But why? Why is it acceptable for you to restrict the episcopacy to unmarried/widowed men but not to do the same for simple priests? We have no general rule against married men becoming ordained, nor do we claim it makes the ordination invalid, it is simply part of the Latin Rite. In the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church, just as with the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Churches, we have married priests. And even within the Latin Rite, there are exceptions made (most notably for married Anglican priests who convert). We have found it practical to restrict even the simple priesthood to unmarried men because they can focus on God more and their duties to the parish without having to worry about their wife and children. In the US, at least, the Orthodox parishes that I have known have been quite small while our Catholic priests are stretched thin, sometimes one priest must contend with two or three parishes. Also, it's much cheaper because we don't have to house and pay a whole family -- e.g. Church of England priests make much more than what English Catholic priests do for that very reason.
There is no reason not to have a general prohibition of married men from the simple priesthood, that is something for each Rite to consider on their own.
I think the issue here was not so much priestly celibacy itself but rather the idea that married men should be refused entry into the priesthood at all. While we agree that once ordained priests should not marry (they are meant to be focusing on their duties not trying to find a wife) however denying a married man the opportunity to become a priest when it was permitted in ancient times is what we disagree with. Of course a Bishop is entirely a differant issue; his responsibilities go far beyond that of an ordinary priest and therefore he cannot have a wife.
To be perfectly honest with you I do not think that in this modern age this is a real issue. While in the past various misconceptions about how important celibacy was meant that this was a true differance but as it stands I do not see it being a serious impediment to future union if other issues are addressed.
Originally Posted by PilgrimToChrist
Which Orthodox patriarchate has jurisdiction in the United States?
That is why you need a head.
I agree that there are issues with Church authority in America however that is not about the absense of a head but rather the manner of whihc Orthdooxy came to America. The problem is that as it came as a faith of immigrants these immigrants wished to continue having services in their native tongue rather then have them translated into english. The downside to this is that even once language began to change there were so many patriarchates already in America there was much confusion.
In this case a comprimise brought about by mutual agreement is definitly the way forward (although it may take time). The idea that one patriarch should enforce a decision makes no sense as each patriarch understands his situation better than the others (.e.g. some churches may still have foreighn immigrants coming in).
Originally Posted by PilgrimToChrist
But we are human and the Church is organized to facilitate our needs (for the glory of God). This is why the Protestant conception of an "invisible Church" with invisible Sacraments doesn't work. It is at least as likely that the Holy Ghost would work through a Body with an earthly head as a body without one (though, as I mentioned before, it is perhaps more miraculous that the Orthodox have maintained the faith without a head than the Catholics with a head).
Yes we are human however we can clearly see that the Apostolic Church had no "earthly head" with the same kind of authority that the Pope now weilds so if they are willing to rely on the Holy Spirit then so are we.
Originally Posted by PilgrimToChrist
Except that Pope Leo I rejected the so-called "28th canon" of Chalcedon, ratifying only the first 27 canons. The argument in the 28th canon is also very weak, relying on Constantinople's importance as a secular power for arguing why it should be an ecclesial power.
Whether or not the Pope recognised the 28th Canon is moot; Alexandria didn't recognise the whole Council and that still did not change anything.
The argument of Canon 28 shows us that a large part of Rome's power came from its secular status and that as such such power should be shared with Constantinople.
Originally Posted by PilgrimToChrist
God does not preserve the pope from every personal error, including teaching error. Peter was judaising, he wasn't proclaiming dogmatically that Christians must be circumcised and follow Kosher laws. He repented, showing that he in no way was proclaiming a dogmatic truth.
The problem is how are we meant to tell when it is teaching error or dogmatically proclaiming error. Now there is ex-cathedra but in the past no such thing was mentioned and yet the Pope's proclimations were still held practically infallible.
Originally Posted by PilgrimToChrist
A Council which is universal in nature (not local) and is called and ratified by the pope (not a robber council) is an Ecumenical Council. We are bound by its canons. Since the Church is indefectable, she cannot bind us by any canon which is sinful or dogma which is false.
Since when did the approval of Rome become the validation for an Ecumenical Council? Pope Vigilius initially refused to recognise Constantinople II yet the other Churches did not hesitate to do so despite their knowledge of his refusal.
Originally Posted by PilgrimToChrist
I was going to mention something about purgatorial fire, re-reading my post, I guess I did not but now I will make a more extensive note of it. Even if those at the Council of Florence mentioned the purgatorial fire, fire is not part of the dogmatic definition of Purgatory made at Trent a century later. Indeed, it even says that any additional speculation above that brief description which I quoted is dangerous.
Those in Purgatory suffer yes, but it is not a physical pain, such as hellfire, which satisfies the debt but the spiritual torment of imperfection leads to contrition. The whole chapter speaks more on it and the book is a truly beautiful and classic piece of mystical theology.
If we do refer to purgatorial fire, this is a explanation -- it is not a fire of punishment like hell but rather a fire of Divine Love:
This is certainly not the teaching presented at Florence but if it is true that this teaching has been modified then perhaps we are closer now than we were then. However I do not known enough about this new perception of purgatory to make a judgement.
Originally Posted by PilgrimToChrist
Purgatory is outside of time and so these times could not refer to it. Rather, these times do not refer to time in Purgatory but rather the times of penances in the early Church, which were much harsher than in our present day. Thus it can be seen what is a greater devotion and what is a lesser devotion. Recently, since so much confusion has been caused regarding the meaning of this reference to time over the past millennium, they are no longer designated but are simply noted as either partial or plenary indulgenes.
What is the differance between partial and plenary indulgences?
Originally Posted by PilgrimToChrist
Why risk the profanation? Formerly, if the Precious Blood were spilled on carpet, the carpet would be cut away and burnt. What if it is spilled on the communicants clothing? This certainly does happen. In the New Roman Rite (post-Vatican II), Communion is given under both species and sometimes by lay people, patens are rarely used to avoid dropping the Host and there is great laxity regarding the whole Communion of the Faithful. Accidents have become much more common and, with Communion now usually given in the hand (though it is actually an indult), it is not uncommon to find Hosts in the pew or being desecrated on YouTube.
There is nothing in Christ's words which say that Communion must be always and everywhere given under both kinds.
The fact that Christ himself instituted the Communion to be given under both kinds is enough for us to strive to do so whenever possible.
Yes accidents happen but in Orthodoxy maintaining the eternal traditions of the Church in as full a way as possible is considered more important than an over-zealous caution about accidents.
Anyhow it is the eastern tradition that the bread and wine should be mixed and administered together rather than seperatly; emphasising the union of Christ's natures.
Yes, even though the Tubingen theologians approached Jeremias II in a spirit of respect and rapprochmant, he dismissed them rather tersely as nothing more than upstarts and heretics.
As a result, he chose to side with the Roman Catholic Jesuits who were systematically preying upon the Orthodox populace in the former Byzantine lands and consequently colluding with the political terror of the Ottomans. Very puzzling indeed.
With or without Jesuits, Jeremias could not have done anything else and maintained his Orthodoxy.
He addressed each point of the Confession and informed them of their errors. When they continued to send letters hopeing for some comprimise he dismissed them and rightly so; if they were unwilling to leave their errors behind them they had no place in Orthodoxy.
Perhaps he could have done as our Bishops today do and continued with a "dialogue of love" while maintaining Orthodox truth however considering the amount of effot involved in sending messages across long distances back then it's hardly suprising he broke off contact after it became clear that it would lead nowhere theologically speaking.
Last edited by Nick T; 14th October 2010 at 07:26 PM.
Haven't read the whole thread, forgive me if someone has said this, but I posted this Martin Luther quote about EO in a thread once before:
"Moreover, he [the Pope] has against him the long continued practice of the whole church in all the world, the practice [the reception of both elements by the laity] that still continues among the Greeks, whom even Rome itself dare not call heretics or schismatics because of it... I now say that on this point the Greeks and Bohemians are not heretics and schismatics but the most Christian people and the best followers of the Gospel on earth."
Haven't read the whole thread, forgive me if someone has said this, but I posted this Martin Luther quote about EO in a thread once before:
"Moreover, he [the Pope] has against him the long continued practice of the whole church in all the world, the practice [the reception of both elements by the laity] that still continues among the Greeks, whom even Rome itself dare not call heretics or schismatics because of it... I now say that on this point the Greeks and Bohemians are not heretics and schismatics but the most Christian people and the best followers of the Gospel on earth."
"Then , according to Orthodoxy , Catholics are indeed heretics "
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Rich Man of Luke 16 symbolizes House of Judah, the Jews? To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Why Jerusalem is Mystically Called Sodom and Egypt
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ....... To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ..... To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
No, technically Catholics are schismatics, not heretics. More importantly to your own soul is, what are you?
How does me and my soul appear to thee?
Matt 23:27 "Woe to ye scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! That ye are liken to tombs having been whitewashed who any outside indeed are appearing beautiful, inside yet are being crammed of bones of dead-ones and of every uncleaness. 28 Thus also yeoutside indeed are appearing to the men righteous, inside yet, ye are distended of hypocisy and of lawlessness [Reve 18:13?]
Reve 18:13 and cinnamon and incenses and attars and frankincense and wine and oil and flour and grain and beasts and flocks and of horses and of chariots and of bodies/swmatwn <4983> and souls/yucaV <5590> of men.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Rich Man of Luke 16 symbolizes House of Judah, the Jews? To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Why Jerusalem is Mystically Called Sodom and Egypt
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ....... To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ..... To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
