...because we believe that the see of Rome embraced many heresies and has developed new dogmas that have no roots in Apostolic Tradition. As such, the See of Rome, together with its clergy such as their Bishop, bishop of Rome, is a heretic as long as he believes in Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, The Purgatory, Doctrinal Development among other heresies and is not worthy of communion with the One Holy Universal Apostolic Orthodox Church of God.
[quote author=Stavro link=board=12;threadid=3198;start=0#msg47539 date=1139516653] One Holy Universal Apostolic Orthodox Church of God.
You used the term "universal". This is not proper, you must use the corrcet term catholic, we are not catholic but it means more than just universal. It is much bigger than that. Notice in The Coptic Orthodox Creed it states "one, holy, CATHOLIC, and apostolic, church of God...
Thanks Andrew for the clarification. I am aware that we are the Catholic Church, but I just wanted to avoid the confusion with the RC church (catholic).
[quote author=Stavro link=board=12;threadid=3198;start=0#msg47553 date=1139521971] Thanks Andrew for the clarification. I am aware that we are the Catholic Church, but I just wanted to avoid the confusion with the RC church (catholic).
i agree. it would be a lot easier for some one who would be catholic and would ask for clarification.
There is also the issue concerning Councils, which probably comes first before any other as the councils in question involve official anathemas on behalf of both sides.
Having discussed the fourth through to the seventh Ecumenical Councils of the Eastern Church with many members of the EOC, it has become clear that their contemporary interpretation of such councils is Orthodox and sound. I am not sure about the RCC; I remember reading a passage from the work of EO priest Fr. John Romanides, who himself suggested that despite the OO non-acceptance of such councils, we have nonetheless, according to his point of view, retained the Orthodox substance and ideaology behind such councils more accurately than the RCC, even though the RCC formally ascribes to such councils.
[quote author=Stavro link=board=12;threadid=3198;start=0#msg47539 date=1139516653] ...because we believe that the see of Rome embraced many heresies and has developed new dogmas that have no roots in Apostolic Tradition. As such, the See of Rome, together with its clergy such as their Bishop, bishop of Rome, is a heretic as long as he believes in Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, The Purgatory, Doctrinal Development among other heresies and is not worthy of communion with the One Holy Universal Apostolic Orthodox Church of God.
What kind of heresies are you speaking of? Could you please be more specific? ::)
As such, the See of Rome, together with its clergy such as their Bishop, bishop of Rome, is a heretic as long as he believes in Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, The Purgatory, and Doctrinal Development.
[quote author=Christ4Life link=board=12;threadid=3198;start=0#msg47673 date=1139630353] These heresies:
As such, the See of Rome, together with its clergy such as their Bishop, bishop of Rome, is a heretic as long as he believes in Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, The Purgatory, and Doctrinal Development.
I should have asked why. Why do you believe that to be true? Why would it make one a heretic for believing in Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, and Doctrinal Development? Could I please have an (a real one please[not a 'because its false' answer]) answer for this? You know what I mean. ;)
Mater Italiae Roma (which I will abbreviate to MIR for convenience henceforth),
I don't understand what it is that you're asking; your original question essentially asked why the Orthodox do not advocate the idea of re-uniting with the Latin Church. Our response to that is quite simple: because Rome has embraced doctrines that are foreign to Orthodox Tradition (those listed by Stavro) and subscribed to councils that we reject - any doctrine opposed to, or outside of Church Tradition is by definition heretical and/or heteredox. The pre-requisite of ecclesiastical unity (i.e. Eucharistic Communion) is unity in faith, dogma and doctrine; as long as the Latin Church subscribes to the councils and doctrines in question which oppose or exist outside the scope of Orthodox Church Tradition, then the Orthodox Church will not accept a re-union. It's really very simple.
[quote author=Mater Italiae Roma link=board=12;threadid=3198;start=0#msg47537 date=1139507724] How come Orthodox don't believe in unity with the pope?
The Pope willingly seperated himself from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church by declaring himself to be the head of the whole universal Church, and not just the Patriarchate of Rome (i.e. Western Europe and North-West Africa) and adding to the Creed the word "filioque", which destroys the unity of the Holy Trinity, making the Holy Spirit subordinate.
After breaking away from the true Church, the Roman Catholic Church has adopted a number of other heresies, such as Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, Indulgences (although this is no longer used) and, worst of all, declaring the Pope to be infallible on matters of faith and dogma (this was done in 1870), something the heresy of Pope Honorious shows to be false.
Finally there was the Second Vatican council, which completely destroyed any remaining connection between Catholics and Orthodox. The Mass was completely changed and is now less liturgical than the Mass of the Anglican and Lutheran churches. The priest now faces the congregation. Fasting has been completely done away with (Catholics now even eat meat on fridays), and Lent is little more than a distant memory where symbolically giving up chocolate has replaced strict fasting.
However, were the Pope of Rome to renounce his heresies, reverse all of the Protestant-style reforms and return to the true Apostolic Faith then we would embrace him and reunite with him.
The Pope willingly seperated himself from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church by declaring himself to be the head of the whole universal Church, and not just the Patriarchate of Rome (i.e. Western Europe and North-West Africa) and adding to the Creed the word "filioque", which destroys the unity of the Holy Trinity, making the Holy Spirit subordinate.
That is a very educated analysis, however the seeds of this heresy (Roman Supremacy and Papal Infallability) can be traced back to the writings and actions of Leo of Rome. He is not called the Father of Papacy in vain, by Papacy meaning the Supremacy. The Chalcedonian accepted such teachings in 451 a.d. when it was in their best interest and then the East got to taste the same poison in the 1054 a.d. The veneration of Leo as a saint, in spite of his heresies and his crimes against the Orthodox in Egypt, Syria and Palestine does not grant much room for Eastern Chalcedonian to complain about the schism being Rome's fault. Rome can indeed refer to the frame work of Chalcedon and the work of Gregory the Great , also revered as a saint by Easter Chalcedonian, to make a strong case about Supremacy over Constantinople. In a common frame work, as corrupt as it is, they have a strong case.
After breaking away from the true Church, the Roman Catholic Church has adopted a number of other heresies, such as Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, Indulgences (although this is no longer used) and, worst of all, declaring the Pope to be infallible on matters of faith and dogma (this was done in 1870), something the heresy of Pope Honorious shows to be false.
Again you are totally correct, but what exactly is the heresy of Honorius ? His letter to Sergius contains nothing, no confirmation or denial of anything. He is condemned by a council that the RC church considers ecumenical, and as such it weakens their Infallability dogma, but looking from another point of view, Rome condemned him because he did not assert his Supremacy and refused to assume the role of PETER or the vicar of Christ. It is indeed strange that Maximos, a Papist and a saint in your own tradition, has defended Honorius and then he is condemned again by a council that hails one of them and tarnishes the legacy of the other. Contradiction.
Finally there was the Second Vatican council, which completely destroyed any remaining connection between Catholics and Orthodox. The Mass was completely changed and is now less liturgical than the Mass of the Anglican and Lutheran churches. The priest now faces the congregation. Fasting has been completely done away with (Catholics now even eat meat on fridays), and Lent is little more than a distant memory where symbolically giving up chocolate has replaced strict fasting
[quote author=God Be With Us link=board=12;threadid=3198;start=0#msg47551 date=1139521536] [quote author=Stavro link=board=12;threadid=3198;start=0#msg47539 date=1139516653] One Holy Universal Apostolic Orthodox Church of God.
You used the term "universal". This is not proper, you must use the corrcet term catholic, we are not catholic but it means more than just universal. It is much bigger than that. Notice in The Coptic Orthodox Creed it states "one, holy, CATHOLIC, and apostolic, church of God...
What more does catholic (with a lowercase c) mean than universal? In the Orthdox Creed, catholic canbe iterchanged with universal . see third edition Agpeya
As such, the See of Rome, together with its clergy such as their Bishop, bishop of Rome, is a heretic as long as he believes in Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, The Purgatory, and Doctrinal Development.[/b]
no offense to any but think of pope dioscoros's story
I'd like to iintroduce meself , my name is Marcin I'm a Catholic and I attend to Ukrainian Greek-catholic church in Poland. I'm intrested in Eastern Christianity. I'm sharing my experience of faith on my blog http://christianos.pl .
Even I'm a Catholic I'm not against Orthodox Christiandom. I see both Catholics and Orthodox teaching are almost the same.
In my opinion if we compare catholicism and orthodoxy but without prejudices then we will see how our churches are simillar.
1. Filioque - it is not problem or heresy! This term has existed since 6cn. and eastern father of church teached that Holy Spirit is from Father and (throught) Son. Is Holy Spirit is personal relation of Love between Father and Son, it sould be obvious that Father is the "arche" (princile) of Holy Spirit but not without the Son. Western church shouldn't have added filioque without acceptation of Eastern Church, but Rome doesn't force Eastern Churches to add filioque. 2. Supremasy of Pope - this teaching should be understood according to Tradion and history of Church. As you prabably know ecumenical patriarch Bartholomew said it is not problem to acknowledge leadership of Rome but to understand it correct! Many Orthodox think Pope is like dictator and all catholics have to listen him without doubts :) It is not truth. Catholicism it is not only Latin Church but 22 Eastern Churches called as sui iuris. Churches which have a patriarchate rank have big autonomy. For Maronite Church, Chaldean Church and others Pope is a sign of unity of Church. 3. Marian dogmas - it is topic without end :) Unfortunately many Orthodox but Catholics too are under protestant's influence. Some Orthodox theologian acknowledge all Marian dogma - Pavel Evdokimov for example. Assumtion of Mary to heaven is dogma in catholicism but I think all Orthodox belive in it.
what else...
why oriental orthodox circumcise? Why baptism of infants... Why Divine liturgy is Sacrifice? We should be more tolerant for different customs...
welcome, marcin. this is a place where we can discuss all the issues. i don't know all the answers to your questions but i can tell u the oriental orthodox (OO) only circumcise for health reasons, it is not necessary to do it to be in the church and not all male OO do it. it is mainly those in the countries where there is a culture of circumcision. may God guide us as we seek his truth and wisdom
Comments
One Holy Universal Apostolic Orthodox Church of God.
You used the term "universal". This is not proper, you must use the corrcet term catholic, we are not catholic but it means more than just universal. It is much bigger than that. Notice in The Coptic Orthodox Creed it states "one, holy, CATHOLIC, and apostolic, church of God...
Thanks Andrew for the clarification. I am aware that we are the Catholic Church, but I just wanted to avoid the confusion with the RC church (catholic).
i agree. it would be a lot easier for some one who would be catholic and would ask for clarification.
Having discussed the fourth through to the seventh Ecumenical Councils of the Eastern Church with many members of the EOC, it has become clear that their contemporary interpretation of such councils is Orthodox and sound. I am not sure about the RCC; I remember reading a passage from the work of EO priest Fr. John Romanides, who himself suggested that despite the OO non-acceptance of such councils, we have nonetheless, according to his point of view, retained the Orthodox substance and ideaology behind such councils more accurately than the RCC, even though the RCC formally ascribes to such councils.
...because we believe that the see of Rome embraced many heresies and has developed new dogmas that have no roots in Apostolic Tradition. As such, the See of Rome, together with its clergy such as their Bishop, bishop of Rome, is a heretic as long as he believes in Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, The Purgatory, Doctrinal Development among other heresies and is not worthy of communion with the One Holy Universal Apostolic Orthodox Church of God.
What kind of heresies are you speaking of? Could you please be more specific? ::)
As such, the See of Rome, together with its clergy such as their Bishop, bishop of Rome, is a heretic as long as he believes in Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, The Purgatory, and Doctrinal Development.
These heresies:
As such, the See of Rome, together with its clergy such as their Bishop, bishop of Rome, is a heretic as long as he believes in Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, The Purgatory, and Doctrinal Development.
I should have asked why. Why do you believe that to be true? Why would it make one a heretic for believing in Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, and Doctrinal Development? Could I please have an (a real one please[not a 'because its false' answer]) answer for this? You know what I mean. ;)
I don't understand what it is that you're asking; your original question essentially asked why the Orthodox do not advocate the idea of re-uniting with the Latin Church. Our response to that is quite simple: because Rome has embraced doctrines that are foreign to Orthodox Tradition (those listed by Stavro) and subscribed to councils that we reject - any doctrine opposed to, or outside of Church Tradition is by definition heretical and/or heteredox. The pre-requisite of ecclesiastical unity (i.e. Eucharistic Communion) is unity in faith, dogma and doctrine; as long as the Latin Church subscribes to the councils and doctrines in question which oppose or exist outside the scope of Orthodox Church Tradition, then the Orthodox Church will not accept a re-union. It's really very simple.
may be these post would help you understand why Orthodox don't belieave in what Christ4Life.
Papal Infallability:
http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?board=12;action=display;threadid=1428
Immaculate Conception:
http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?board=12;action=display;threadid=3054
And may be this one:
http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?board=12;action=display;threadid=3026
How come Orthodox don't believe in unity with the pope?
The Pope willingly seperated himself from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church by declaring himself to be the head of the whole universal Church, and not just the Patriarchate of Rome (i.e. Western Europe and North-West Africa) and adding to the Creed the word "filioque", which destroys the unity of the Holy Trinity, making the Holy Spirit subordinate.
After breaking away from the true Church, the Roman Catholic Church has adopted a number of other heresies, such as Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, Indulgences (although this is no longer used) and, worst of all, declaring the Pope to be infallible on matters of faith and dogma (this was done in 1870), something the heresy of Pope Honorious shows to be false.
Finally there was the Second Vatican council, which completely destroyed any remaining connection between Catholics and Orthodox. The Mass was completely changed and is now less liturgical than the Mass of the Anglican and Lutheran churches. The priest now faces the congregation. Fasting has been completely done away with (Catholics now even eat meat on fridays), and Lent is little more than a distant memory where symbolically giving up chocolate has replaced strict fasting.
However, were the Pope of Rome to renounce his heresies, reverse all of the Protestant-style reforms and return to the true Apostolic Faith then we would embrace him and reunite with him.
http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?board=12;action=display;threadid=3807
[quote author=Stavro link=board=12;threadid=3198;start=0#msg47539 date=1139516653]
One Holy Universal Apostolic Orthodox Church of God.
You used the term "universal". This is not proper, you must use the corrcet term catholic, we are not catholic but it means more than just universal. It is much bigger than that. Notice in The Coptic Orthodox Creed it states "one, holy, CATHOLIC, and apostolic, church of God...
What more does catholic (with a lowercase c) mean than universal?
In the Orthdox Creed, catholic canbe iterchanged with universal . see third edition Agpeya
As such, the See of Rome, together with its clergy such as their Bishop, bishop of Rome, is a heretic as long as he believes in Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, The Purgatory, and Doctrinal Development.[/b] no offense to any but think of pope dioscoros's story
I'd like to iintroduce meself , my name is Marcin I'm a Catholic and I attend to Ukrainian Greek-catholic church in Poland. I'm intrested in Eastern Christianity. I'm sharing my experience of faith on my blog http://christianos.pl .
Even I'm a Catholic I'm not against Orthodox Christiandom. I see both Catholics and Orthodox teaching are almost the same.
In my opinion if we compare catholicism and orthodoxy but without prejudices then we will see how our churches are simillar.
1. Filioque - it is not problem or heresy! This term has existed since 6cn. and eastern father of church teached that Holy Spirit is from Father and (throught) Son. Is Holy Spirit is personal relation of Love between Father and Son, it sould be obvious that Father is the "arche" (princile) of Holy Spirit but not without the Son.
Western church shouldn't have added filioque without acceptation of Eastern Church, but Rome doesn't force Eastern Churches to add filioque.
2. Supremasy of Pope - this teaching should be understood according to Tradion and history of Church. As you prabably know ecumenical patriarch Bartholomew said it is not problem to acknowledge leadership of Rome but to understand it correct! Many Orthodox think Pope is like dictator and all catholics have to listen him without doubts :) It is not truth. Catholicism it is not only Latin Church but 22 Eastern Churches called as sui iuris. Churches which have a patriarchate rank have big autonomy. For Maronite Church, Chaldean Church and others Pope is a sign of unity of Church.
3. Marian dogmas - it is topic without end :) Unfortunately many Orthodox but Catholics too are under protestant's influence. Some Orthodox theologian acknowledge all Marian dogma - Pavel Evdokimov for example.
Assumtion of Mary to heaven is dogma in catholicism but I think all Orthodox belive in it.
what else...
why oriental orthodox circumcise? Why baptism of infants... Why Divine liturgy is Sacrifice? We should be more tolerant for different customs...
your brother in Christ
Marcin
ps sorry for my english, :)
this is a place where we can discuss all the issues.
i don't know all the answers to your questions but i can tell u the oriental orthodox (OO) only circumcise for health reasons, it is not necessary to do it to be in the church and not all male OO do it. it is mainly those in the countries where there is a culture of circumcision.
may God guide us as we seek his truth and wisdom