Why EO cannot attend heterodox church services?

[The Liturgist]

sorry, but what? both are venerated in the Orthodox Church. the 6th Council names him as a holy father of the Church.

I have come across some polemical texts by, for example, Fr. John C. Romanides, which I disagree with, and also if I recall he is unpopular among, for example, some Greek Old Calendarists. Is Saint Augustine of Hippo A Father of the Church?

To be clear, I disagree with this view personally, but it does exist. I suppose ironically it would be something I would be prepared to agree to disagree on, since I do enjoy the writings of St. Augustine but have always been taught since I joined the OCA in 2014 that the EO doctrine on the issue of original sin is defined by St. John Cassian.

I also have to confess that I do not personally enjoy most of the writings of Fr. John C. Romanides although I do enjoy Fr. Seraphim Rose, and I have met people who dislike Fr. Seraphim for various reasons, specifically his work that I particularly love, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future. That work, and his translation of Fr. Pomazansky, and his critique of Nihilist philosophy are three of the most important books in my theological library in terms of the impact they had on what I suppose would be called my phronema.

*not literally, however, although I would reccommend caution when placing a physical hardbound edition of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology on an upper bookshelf for if dropped that volume might shape your Orthodox phronema in a manner other than that which you might desire). For that matter I would worry about acquiring a heterodox phronema in the form of a great many papercuts when passing too near to a bookshelf containing even paperback volumes of Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics on its upper shelf.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I have come across some polemical texts by, for example, Fr. John C. Romanides, which I disagree with, and also if I recall he is unpopular among, for example, some Greek Old Calendarists. Is Saint Augustine of Hippo A Father of the Church?

the Old Calendarists aren’t Orthodox, and the 6th Council trumps any modern Orthodox academic.

 

[Not David]

the Old Calendarists aren’t Orthodox, and the 6th Council trumps any modern Orthodox academic.

Funny how Old Calendarists say Orthodox go against the Councils citing Ecumenism, yet they reject the 6th Council by denying sainthood to St. Augustine.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Funny how Old Calendarists say Orthodox go against the Councils citing Ecumenism, yet they reject the 6th Council by denying sainthood to St. Augustine.

funny how that works. it’s almost like the Church is secondary to their agenda.

 

[Dewi Sant]

there is already a multi-page thread on 'How do the Orthodox view Augustine' in St. Basil the Great's Hall subforum: How do the Orthodox view Augustine?

 

[Light of the East]

The first sign of a CULT is when you profess things like we don't believe in the same God. Do you know what keeps me from E.O.? The absolutely NON SENSE about an ever-virgin Mary along with praying to Mary! OUR INTERCESSOR IN HEAVEN is YESHUA! Romans 8:34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, but rather, was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

Well, I am torn between being rather harsh with you regarding your senseless and brutal post and feeling sorry for you, since you remind me so much of myself when I was an ignorant, Fundamentalist lout of the worst sort who used to say the same things about Our Lady. My problem was, and I think is yours, is that you have A.) no historic knowledge of the Christian faith B.) you think that Protestantism (I assume that is what you are, as I was) is correct, and C.) you don't understand Scripture at all.

The view on Mary is massively problematic as unless there is sexual intercourse the Marriage is not consummated. It shows a GROTESQUE perversion of the Jewish culture of that time! The marriage contract stipulates the MINIMUM amount of physical intimacy between husband and wife. Secondly, GOD TELLS Joseph; 19 And her husband Joseph, since he was a righteous man and did not want to disgrace her, planned to [c]send her away secretly. 20 But when he had thought this over, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for [d]the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a Son; and you shall name Him Jesus, for [e]He will save His people from their sins.” 22 Now all this [f]took place so that what was spoken by the Lord through [g]the prophet would be fulfilled:

Yeah, well, there's your first mistake. Marriage is not a contract. It is a covenant between two people. There are marriages which are made for reasons that are other than sexual intercourse, which seems to be the driving force in modern thinking in these days. If you knew Christian and Jewish history, you would know that Joseph's marriage to Mary was that of being her guardian as a Temple Virgin. And if you knew marriage and understood it properly, you would realize that when the Holy Spirit interacted with Mary, overshadowing Her so that the Son of God was placed in Her womb, HE became Her spouse. Why? Because He placed the seed of life in Her womb, which is the work of a husband. Therefore, for Mary to be touched in a carnal way would mean that Mary was committing adultery against Her divine Spouse.

THIS.
IS.
UNTHINKABLE!!!

Finally, extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence. You can not cite 2 scriptural verses (On the testimony of TWO or more witnesses a matter is established.) that even provide the CLOUDEST view that Mary was anything other than a devout, Jewish woman who walked with God and was OBEDIENT to the scriptural decrees of a Jewish wife. She herself RECOGNIZED the need for a Savior. declaring the fruit of here womb HER SAVIOR.

And this is where I state that you, like so many Fundamentalist Protestants, (I speak now as a former one and know of what I am speaking) are completely out of touch with what the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Early Fathers of the Church said regarding Mary. Fundamentalists pound the Bible and yell "If it isn't in the Bible, I don't believe it!" in regard to many of the dogmas of Orthodoxy, yet they fail to realize that the writings of the Early Fathers show us what the first Christians were taught by the Apostles and transmitted to their flocks.

I agree with the VAST majority of the teachings and views of Eastern Orthodox but I part ways on the entire view of Mary as an intercessor and her being sinless. As 1 John declares, If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Mary was sinless. Period. The reason She needed a Savior is because Christ saves us from the curse brought upon the world by Adam -- DEATH! Mary was subject to death just as we all are because of Adam's sin. Thus, She could be (and is ever) sinless, yet could express Her need for the Savior because of being under the curse of death. Your thinking in this matter is profoundly Western and needs to be retooled to be in line with Orthodox thought. That will help you understand this issue a lot better.

 

[prodromos]

Well, I am torn between being rather harsh with you regarding your senseless and brutal post and feeling sorry for you, since you remind me so much of myself when I was an ignorant, Fundamentalist lout of the worst sort who used to say the same things about Our Lady. My problem was, and I think is yours, is that you have A.) no historic knowledge of the Christian faith B.) you think that Protestantism (I assume that is what you are, as I was) is correct, and C.) you don't understand Scripture at all.


Yeah, well, there's your first mistake. Marriage is not a contract. It is a covenant between two people. There are marriages which are made for reasons that are other than sexual intercourse, which seems to be the driving force in modern thinking in these days. If you knew Christian and Jewish history, you would know that Joseph's marriage to Mary was that of being her guardian as a Temple Virgin. And if you knew marriage and understood it properly, you would realize that when the Holy Spirit interacted with Mary, overshadowing Her so that the Son of God was placed in Her womb, HE became Her spouse. Why? Because He placed the seed of life in Her womb, which is the work of a husband. Therefore, for Mary to be touched in a carnal way would mean that Mary was committing adultery against Her divine Spouse.

THIS.
IS.
UNTHINKABLE!!!

Finally, extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence. You can not cite 2 scriptural verses (On the testimony of TWO or more witnesses a matter is established.) that even provide the CLOUDEST view that Mary was anything other than a devout, Jewish woman who walked with God and was OBEDIENT to the scriptural decrees of a Jewish wife. She herself RECOGNIZED the need for a Savior. declaring the fruit of here womb HER SAVIOR.

And this is where I state that you, like so many Fundamentalist Protestants, (I speak now as a former one and know of what I am speaking) are completely out of touch with what the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Early Fathers of the Church said regarding Mary. Fundamentalists pound the Bible and yell "If it isn't in the Bible, I don't believe it!" in regard to many of the dogmas of Orthodoxy, yet they fail to realize that the writings of the Early Fathers show us what the first Christians were taught by the Apostles and transmitted to their flocks.


Mary was sinless. Period. The reason She needed a Savior is because Christ saves us from the curse brought upon the world by Adam -- DEATH! Mary was subject to death just as we all are because of Adam's sin. Thus, She could be (and is ever) sinless, yet could express Her need for the Savior because of being under the curse of death. Your thinking in this matter is profoundly Western and needs to be retooled to be in line with Orthodox thought. That will help you understand this issue a lot better.

In fairness, it would have been better if his post was split off into a new thread in St Justim Martyrs, since he cannot respond in this thread without falling foul of the congregational subforum rules.

 

[rusmeister]

I would encourage our guest to take his challenges and complaints there.