Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Greek Orthodoxy

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>
Author
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Greek Orthodoxy
    Posted: 05-Jul-2007 at 21:35
Perhaps there is some sort of doppler effect (a mirror image passing through time and space) going on between our countries. The Blue Mountains are very beautiful and  have all sorts of hideaway villages built along the roads that wind through the passes. The mountain range got the name "blue" because the gum and eucalpytus trees leaves give off off a sap which produces a vapor and makes the rugged rocks, ranges and canyons appear all shades of misty blue from a distance.  
elenos
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jul-2007 at 21:48
There are just a few gas station stops in our Blue Mountains but it is also known as big foot country. I have never seen one though. There are small logging towns around the mountains and nearby is a range called the Wallowa Mountains, which is where Chief Joseph and the Nez Perz Indians are from. These mountains are jagged and look like the swiss Alps on a small scale. From the far side of the Wallowa valley you can see the Seven Devil Mountains which are very jagged, the latter two ranges were carved by glaciers. The name seven devils came from a Native American legend that an indian saw seven devils in these mountains. The area is set aside as wilderness and has strange names like goblin knoll etc
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jul-2007 at 23:13

We have big foot stories too. He (or she) is known as the yowie, or the wowie. A bigger mystery is the black cat, a huge panther like creature that roams the Australian bush. There are no big cats indigenous to Australia. Some sightings were reported recently and have been going on for a century. One story is a big cat escaped from a traveling circus, but that would have had to have been a breeding pair to survive for so long. The Blue Mountains are renowned for sightings of black Panthers.

Another claim for the origin of the cats is claimed to be American World WWII airmen who brought cougars with them as mascots and released them in the Australian Bush. No conclusion has been reached, and the photos are blurry for they disappear in a flash. Mysterious mass slaughters of sheep occur to support this big cat theory. The sheep are killed by a clean puncture wound  to the throat. Their guts are then eaten with no mess, in the same way a big cat kills and eats its prey. How is it that after all these years, not one of these beasts has been trapped or shot? Nobody knows.

elenos
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 02:19
I have heard about black panther stories in other parts of the USA. We have plenty of wild cougars around here but I never worry about them. I use to live on Silver Lake near the city and in the winter some neigbors saw a cougar chase a deer over the frozen lake. It was in the winter and the lakes can freeze over here, during normal winters.

I heard the black panther stories on my favorite late night talk radio--


http://www.coasttocoastam.com/
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 08:31
hey guys can you take it to the tavern or PM. This is about Greek orthodoxy not the yowie or the diaspora.

Elenos ive started a new thread were we can debate the afterlife of the ancient world, to save this thread and i will move the relevant posts, if you don't mind.

 (im looking forward to janus and Akolouthos conversations)

Edited by Leonidas - 06-Jul-2007 at 08:39
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 16:55
I was at the church two weeks ago and the Priest had an incense holder. What is the significance of the Priest walking around and rocking it back and fourth allow the incense smoke to spread around the church. I saw them kiss the face of a saint and of course my thoughts yuck germs- reminds me- we use to have to share the chalice during communion at the Lutheran Church I attended as a child. I love the art work in the church and I am sure it all has significance. I thought the mysticism of the church was interesting but I can see where it can be boring for the kids, like it was for me at the Lutheran Church. I think it was the boredom at church that caused me to quit church and turn secular but I can see if you know the meaning it can add to the service. I may go back but really to meet and talk to some of the Greeks who go there, it is the only way I can meet people of Greek heritage since we have so free in this mostly Anglo city.
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 20:12
Eaglecap, the priest spreading the incense is "sending a sweet smell unto God" and to Heaven and to the saints above. The portrait the priest kissed is a way of giving blessing, as well as the grandeur of the church architecture. All are designed to turn your mind to "the city of God" above and during the service your mind can turn to higher things.
elenos
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 02:22

Many Orthodox theologians, in addition to viewing the schism in terms of the separation of the Roman Church from the Church, also view certain Roman theological propositions as heretical.


Is that why Orthodox christians may receive communion in Catholic churches, but Catholic christians may not receive communion in Orthodox churches?


And so, Janus, if you wish to have this conversation again I am game. After all, it might even be profitable; you and I have doubtless picked up a good deal more knowledge in the interim, and the Spirit never ceases to lead. If we do have a discussion, however, I may be a little less punctual than I was in our previous thread, for which I apologize.


No here is not the proper thread for that, also, unfortunately I don't think I'd have much more to add since I haven't looked into the schism since our previous debate. I was just merely replying to xristar's comments since at least to me they seemed a bit condescending.

Anyway since my knowledge of the Orthodox church is second-hand, I'll leave the discussion to those who are actually members (although I like to think of myself as a member too )


Elenos ive started a new thread were we can debate the afterlife of the ancient world, to save this thread and i will move the relevant posts, if you don't mind.

 (im looking forward to janus and Akolouthos conversations)


Wow, I usually totally miss out on these sidetrack threads by like a month, glad to see I'm short only one day, lol.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 22:09
Originally posted by Janus Rook

Originally posted by Akolouthos

Many Orthodox theologians, in addition to viewing the schism in terms of the separation of the Roman Church from the Church, also view certain Roman theological propositions as heretical.
Is that why Orthodox christians may receive communion in Catholic churches, but Catholic christians may not receive communion in Orthodox churches?
 
Precisely so. This was a cause of some controversy, and still is, to a lesser degree. Many of our ecclesiastics resented what they saw as the Roman Church trying to get Orthodox Christians to commit an act that put them out of canonical good order with the Orthodox Church. The Roman Church, sensitive to this, has recently begun advising Eastern Orthodox Christians, as well as Copts, to observe the canonical discipline of their respective churches. In fact, the sentence immediately preceding this one was a paraphrase of something I read in a missal at a Mass I attended.
 
The long and short of it, I guess, is that progress is being made in this area, for which ecclesiastics from both churches are to be commended.
 
Originally posted by Janus Rook

No here is not the proper thread for that, also, unfortunately I don't think I'd have much more to add since I haven't looked into the schism since our previous debate.
 
I think you are right; this thread would be better served by a series of questions and answers than by a polemical discussion. Well stated. Smile
 
Originally posted by Janus Rook

Anyway since my knowledge of the Orthodox church is second-hand, I'll leave the discussion to those who are actually members (although I like to think of myself as a member too )
 
If you did not, I assume you would have converted already. Wink
 
God bless, Janus.
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 08-Jul-2007 at 22:50
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 11:01
Originally posted by Akolouthos

The Orthodox do not pray to icons, but rather, as Athanasios noted above, to the saints whom the icons represent.
 
Although you will occasionally hear Orthodox Christians speaking of praying to icons, that phrasing is technically incorrect (it presumes a familiarity with the orthodox understanding of the icon). We pray before icons, to the saints and to God. When we venerate the icons, we venerate the image of the saint or Christ, and our veneration goes to the prototype. This is in accordance with the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
 
An illustration: 
Surely if I take a picture of my family on a trip and kiss it, thereby venerating it, I am not venerating the picture itself--that is to say, my love is not directed toward the paper and pigments of which the picture is composed. My love is directed to the prototype of the image in the photograph. I am kissing the picture as an expression of love for my family itself. So it is with the holy icons.
 
I have always understood the explanation given by the Orthodox for their use of icons.  What you have said above is pretty much what I have heard.  However, it seems that many of the Orthodox faithful take the veneration of icons way too far.  It seems especially so with the older generation.  The acts of "veneration" that are directed towards an icon in the mass, front and center, can be quit unnerving, even if one is aware of the aforementioned explanation. 
 
Why can't veneration and prayers to a saint be accomplished through just that - prayer?  To me it appears that the many Orthodox reveal a burdensome reliance and focus on various saints rather than the author of their salvation Jesus Christ.  Why is his intercession and grace not wholly sufficient?  The rending of the temple veil at the time of the crucifixion symbolically gave believers direct access to God through the medium of prayer without the necessity of an intercessor.
 
Originally posted by Akolouthos

This is not my special area of expertise. Nonetheless, I will strive to answer your question to the best of my ability.
 
Generally the Orthodox Church does not hold to the overly juridical theology that gradually developed in the West. No doubt there will be a judgment, and no doubt our actions affect that judgment. Still, we think of God in terms of mercy, and of sin in terms of separation (hamartia) from Him. Thus, Hell may be conceived of as God's love experienced as pain. The infinite love of God is experienced as an infinite torment by those who have rejected it.
 
As I understand it, in Orthodox theology, Christ came to save man not from sin itself but from the spiritual death that results from sin.  Is Hell not a real place to which those who have rejected Christ enter and experience eternal separation from God and the savior?
 
Now, onto a different subject, if anyone wants to discuss it.  Akolouthos and others, what do the present-day Orthodox think of the so-called "Protestant Patriarch" Kyril Loukaris, who was a 16th-17th century ecumenical patriarch?
 
Speaking of discussions between Orthodox and Protestants, there has been some scholarship devoted to the subject.  George Mastrantonis wrote a book, complete with translations of the correspondence, about the theological discussions between the Lutheran Tubingen theologians and the patriarch Jeremiah II called Augsburg and Constantinople (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982).  There are also volumes in an edited series on Orthodox-Protestant ecumenism, the title of which escapes me at the moment.  I believe Sir Steven Runciman contributed to it.


Edited by Byzantine Emperor - 09-Jul-2007 at 11:03
Back to Top
Eondt View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 23-Aug-2006
Location: South Africa
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 279
  Quote Eondt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 05:13
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

Why is his intercession and grace not wholly sufficient?  The rending of the temple veil at the time of the crucifixion symbolically gave believers direct access to God through the medium of prayer without the necessity of an intercessor.
 
 
Thanks Byzantine Emporer, just what I wanted to ask, but put much more eloquently than I ever could. I am genuinely interested to understand the orthodox (and catholic) viewpoint of praying to saints? Praying to anybody but God seems heretical to me as a protestant.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 10:25
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

There are also volumes in an edited series on Orthodox-Protestant ecumenism, the title of which escapes me at the moment.  I believe Sir Steven Runciman contributed to it.
 
Are you sure that wasn't Orthodox-Anglican ecumenism?
 
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 16:58

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor


I have always understood the explanation given by the Orthodox for their use of icons.  What you have said above is pretty much what I have heard.  However, it seems that many of the Orthodox faithful take the veneration of icons way too far.  It seems especially so with the older generation.  The acts of "veneration" that are directed towards an icon in the mass, front and center, can be quit unnerving, even if one is aware of the aforementioned explanation. 

I agree with you, but I would phrase it a bit more precisely. I do not think that the problem is with the acts of veneration, themselves. Rather, I believe, the problem is a general lack of understanding--especially, as you noted, among the older generation--as to why we venerate, what we venerate, and how we venerate.

During the liturgical services of the Church veneration of the icons does indeed take place during prayers. The icons are material used to lead us into a deeper experience of worship. I will agree that it is a bit unsettling for one not acquainted with Orthodoxy, but I think that the unsettling feeling is as much a result of our culture as it is of our individual religious persuasions.

The practice of venerating icons, as well as the theology behind it, goes back to the earliest days of the Church. As you say, some take the veneration of icons too far, but I believe the transgression is generally an inadvertent ideological one.

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor


Why can't veneration and prayers to a saint be accomplished through just that - prayer? 

An act of veneration--such as kissing an icon--is an act of prayer. So is lighting a candle, making the sign of the cross, etc. Though these physical acts are occasionally accompanied by verbal--or mental--prayer, they are forms of prayer in their own right.

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

To me it appears that the many Orthodox reveal a burdensome reliance and focus on various saints rather than the author of their salvation Jesus Christ.

The Orthodox Church understands that the saints lead us to Christ; by reflecting on the lives of these holy men and women we reflect on the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, which leads us to a more perfect understanding of Christ in whom we see the Father.

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

Why is his [Christ's] intercession and grace not wholly sufficient?

Christ's mediation and grace are, indeed, wholly sufficient. Does this mean, however, that we should not ask for the prayers of our fellow Christians, here on earth? Of course not. Why then, would we refuse to ask those who have fallen asleep in Christ to pray for us?

The saints act as intercessors before God. They pray for us, just as our Christian brethren on earth pray for us. They can do nothing by their own power, separated from Christ. Unlike our living brothers and sisters, however, the saints prayers are not interrupted by any of the mundane concerns that occupy our lives; they can, as the Apostle commands, "pray without ceasing."

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

The rending of the temple veil at the time of the crucifixion symbolically gave believers direct access to God through the medium of prayer without the necessity of an intercessor.

Aye, that is the way the passage has been most commonly intepreted. Still, we continue to pray for each other--indeed we are commanded to do so. Why then, would we not want those who have "finished the race" to pray for us?

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

As I understand it, in Orthodox theology, Christ came to save man not from sin itself but from the spiritual death that results from sin.

I believe that you understand correctly. Smile

Christ came to divinize human nature. He came to restore the image of God in Man, which was damaged but not destroyed by the Fall. Through our participation in Him, we become "partakers of the divine nature." Incidentally, this is the basis for our understanding of sacramental theology, as well.

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

Is Hell not a real place to which those who have rejected Christ enter and experience eternal separation from God and the savior?

Hell is absolutely not an experiential separation from God; it is, rather, a volitional separation from Him. By refusing to accept His love, which is never forced on us, we refuse to accept our own redemption. As Bishop Kallistos (Timothy Ware) puts it:

Hell is not so much a place where God imprisons humans, as a place where humans, by misusing their free will, choose to imprison themselves. And even in hell the wicked are not deprived of the love of God, but by their own choice they experience as suffering what the saints experience as joy.
[Ware, The Orthodox Church]

Thus, while Hell is a result of the rejection of God, by an individual, it is not a separation from God who never rejects us.

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

Now, onto a different subject, if anyone wants to discuss it.  Akolouthos and others, what do the present-day Orthodox think of the so-called "Protestant Patriarch" Kyril Loukaris, who was a 16th-17th century ecumenical patriarch?

Ah, now there's an interesting topic! Wink

 The modern Orthodox don't generally think much of his doctrinal statements. His Confession was declared anathema three times, once by his successor and a Constantinopolitan synod and twice by other synods, one of which has a strong claim to ecumenicity. His martyrdom by the Turks was certainly a tragedy. In summary, despite his doctrinal errors, he seems to have had the best intentions.
 
I think your suggestion of starting a thread dealing with Cyril Loucaris is a wonderful idea, and so will not post more here. Please send me a PM when it is up; I have been accused of being scatterbrained a time or two before, and might not notice it if left to my own devices. LOL
 
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

Speaking of discussions between Orthodox and Protestants, there has been some scholarship devoted to the subject.  George Mastrantonis wrote a book, complete with translations of the correspondence, about the theological discussions between the Lutheran Tubingen theologians and the patriarch Jeremiah II called Augsburg and Constantinople (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982). 
 
I would definitely be interested in reading this. I have read excerpts from some of Jeremiah's letters, but have never had the opportunity to study the matter in depth. Does the book contain the original documents with commentary, or is it strictly a secondary source?
 
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

There are also volumes in an edited series on Orthodox-Protestant ecumenism, the title of which escapes me at the moment.  I believe Sir Steven Runciman contributed to it.
 
Hm. I generally love Runciman, so I might have to check this out. Was the link gcle2003 provided what you were thinking of, or was it something else?
 
Anyway, thank you for your patience and the book tips. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. God bless, Byzantine Emperor. 
 
Smile
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 13-Jul-2007 at 00:18
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 20:59

Cool thread!

I have a couple of questions about the Orthodox Church.
I know the Orthodox dont accept the idea of the Pope but do they acknowledge Peters primacy?
 
Does the Orthodox view their Church as the first? Or in other words doest it view itself older than the Catholic Church? I ask this question because Ive heard this arguement before and its seems somewhat silly because arent both Churches rooted in the original Apostolic Church established by Christ? Of course they both argue over which Church still holds true to the original Apostolic Church Smile
 
Thanks in advance
 
 
 
 
 
 
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 05:54
Originally posted by arch.buff

Cool thread!

I have a couple of questions about the Orthodox Church.
I know the Orthodox dont accept the idea of the Pope but do they acknowledge Peters primacy?
Akolouthos is the best man to explain this.

also this thread may be of interest, its one of my favorites of 2007
 
Originally posted by arch.buff

Does the Orthodox view their Church as the first? Or in other words doest it view itself older than the Catholic Church? I ask this question because Ive heard this arguement before and its seems somewhat silly because arent both Churches rooted in the original Apostolic Church established by Christ? Of course they both argue over which Church still holds true to the original Apostolic Church Smile
AFIAK, we are the same age, but the latins have splintered from the Apostolic church from our point of view.

From what i can gather in recent lessons with the local priest, the orthodox church takes allot of pride in keeping its beliefs, rituals and the Apostolic lineage preserved and unchanged over the ages. Its legitimacy is in its keeping the faith as true to the original doctrines that were agreed to, and by the Apostolic heritage of its bishops. The bishop in Rome went to seek greater power than what was understood or agreed to by the other bishops, hence breaking himslef from church and the faith. His Apostolic heritage counts for little if he deviated from it.

The holy and catholic church of the orthodox faith (and worship), are very conservative in their views of what is and isn't Christian. Any change is simply a deviation of the true nature of the worship and faith established by the Apostles. This is also a non negotiable point of view, there can only be one Church for the One trinitarian God.

Arch, again, I ask you to wait for Akolouthos response, as i know very little on actual details - councils, dogma and the like. This is more of an attempt to articulate the orthodox POV.

Smile


Edited by Leonidas - 13-Jul-2007 at 05:56
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2007 at 23:19
Originally posted by arch.buff

Cool thread!

I have a couple of questions about the Orthodox Church.
I know the Orthodox dont accept the idea of the Pope but do they acknowledge Peters primacy?
 
Does the Orthodox view their Church as the first? Or in other words doest it view itself older than the Catholic Church? I ask this question because Ive heard this arguement before and its seems somewhat silly because arent both Churches rooted in the original Apostolic Church established by Christ? Of course they both argue over which Church still holds true to the original Apostolic Church Smile
 
Thanks in advance 
 
 


Actually, the Orthodox Church does accept "the idea of the Pope"--in fact, we actually have two Wink (the Patriarch of Alexandria is also referred to as a "Pope"). What the Orthodox Church does not accept is the Roman interpretation of the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome. In accordance with the canonical tradition of the ancient Church, Orthodox Christians hold that the Bishops of Rome, so long as they are canonical, are to enjoy a primacy of honor. While there are certain canonical prerogatives enjoyed by each of the ancient Patriarchates, the Roman Church has sought to interpret her prerogatives in a matter that is inconsistent with the ancient canons and the Apostolic understanding of ecclesiastical governance.

Thus, while the prerogatives of the Roman Bishop are connected to his office, the office itself is connected to the Church; hence the prerogatives of the office cannot be exercised, or for that matter properly interpreted, outside of the ecclesial context in which they were meant to be exercised and interpreted. A canonical Bishop of Rome would hold the primacy of honor within the Church; an uncanonical Bishop of Rome, by virtue of his separation from the Church, is entitled to neither primacy, nor even to the episcopal office itself.

As for the question regarding whether or not the Orthodox Church views itself as "the first" or "older than the Catholic Church," the answer is a carefully qualified yes; that answer, however, must be understood in the proper context (which, for the record, provides the qualification). Wink

While the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church historically share the common Apostolic Tradition, it is the deviation of the Roman Church from that very Tradition that separates her from us. Thus, though she is historically grounded in the same faith, she has left that faith by a series of innovations. As Leonidas said:

Originally posted by Leonidas

AFIAK, we are the same age, but the latins have splintered from the Apostolic church from our point of view... The bishop in Rome went to seek greater power than what was understood or agreed to by the other bishops, hence breaking himslef from church and the faith. His Apostolic heritage counts for little if he deviated from it.


The term "Apostolic Succession" requires more than a legalistic understanding; while it does refer to an unbroken line of episcopal consecrations that can be traced back to the Apostles, it implicity refers to a preservation of the Tradition delivered by Christ, to the Apostles, and through them to the Church. The Apostolic Succession can never be understood properly if it is separated from the Apostlic Tradition of the ancient Church.

Thus, the question of the uniqueness of the Orthodox faith is properly one of both validity and chronology. The Orthodox Church, possessing the fullness of the Apostolic faith, and tracing her episcopacy back to the Apostles themselves, is the one catholic and apostolic Church founded by Christ.

The thread Leonidas cited was a discussion of the various theological, ecclesiological, and canonical issues surrounding the question of the Roman primacy. I have included the link below.

Possible Union of Churches

If you have any specific questions regarding the nature of the Orthodox ecclesiology, I will do my best to answer them.

Originally posted by Leonidas

Arch, again, I ask you to wait for Akolouthos response, as i know very little on actual details - councils, dogma and the like.


Thank you, once again, for the confidence. Smile

-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 15-Jul-2007 at 23:28
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 18:39
Maybe this question has already been answered but why does the Orthodox Church reject a primary figure-head here on earth(Pope) when we see in scripture Peters primacy. Why would something Christ has established on earth be broken with no succesion??
 
Thanks in advanceSmile
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 02:47
All questions surrounding the papacy should be redirected to this new, cool thread:

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21045

Thank you very much. And a special thanks to The Jackal God for transferring his last post. Smile

God bless and keep you all.

-Akolouthos


Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 02:15
Originally posted by Akolouthos

Christ's mediation and grace are, indeed, wholly sufficient. Does this mean, however, that we should not ask for the prayers of our fellow Christians, here on earth? Of course not. Why then, would we refuse to ask those who have fallen asleep in Christ to pray for us?
Originally posted by Akolouthos

Why then, would we not want those who have "finished the race" to pray for us?
 
Does the tradition of praying for the intercession of saints asleep in Christ come from the Fathers?  Isn't the saints' pritority praising God in the literal presence of the Father and the Son for all eternity?  Excuse my ignorance of Patristics if I am way off here.  Predictably Protestant I suppose, my ultimate reference is the Scriptures.
 
Romans 8:27 (Holman Christian Standard)
 
And He who searches the hearts knows the Spirit's mind-set, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
 
-That the saints' lives on earth should be examples for the faithful:
 
Matthew 5:16 (HCS)
 
In the same way, let your light shine before men, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.
 
I Peter 2:12 (HCS)
 
Conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles, so that in a case where they speak against you as those who do evil, they may, by observing your good works, glorify God in a day of visitation.
 
-Especially, through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Timothy's earnest recommendations on prayer:
 
I Timothy 2 (HCS)
 
First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all those who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

For there is one God

and one mediator between God and man,

a man, Christ Jesus,

who gave Himselfa ransom for all,

a testimony at the proper time.

 For this I was appointed a herald, an apostle (I am telling the truth; I am not lying), and a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Romans 8:26 (HCS)
 
And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.
 
Originally posted by Akolouthos

The Orthodox Church understands that the saints lead us to Christ; by reflecting on the lives of these holy men and women we reflect on the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, which leads us to a more perfect understanding of Christ in whom we see the Father.
 
I understand this as being the proper method of veneration as sanctioned by the Orthodox Church.  However, in practice, it appears to me that many Orthodox faithful develop a fixation on saints and their percieved intercessory powers and leave Christ as almost an afterthought.  If the focus is totally on God through Jesus Christ, whose grace alone is sufficient for salvation and the answering of prayers, there would not be such a misguided fixation.
 
Originally posted by Akolouthos

Christ came to divinize human nature. He came to restore the image of God in Man, which was damaged but not destroyed by the Fall. Through our participation in Him, we become "partakers of the divine nature." Incidentally, this is the basis for our understanding of sacramental theology, as well.
 
Is this the notion of theosis?
 
Originally posted by Akolouthos

Hell is absolutely not an experiential separation from God; it is, rather, a volitional separation from Him. By refusing to accept His love, which is never forced on us, we refuse to accept our own redemption.
 
Yes, I agree that it is totally volitional.  But in Revelation, God eventually does cast the damned, along with Death and Satan, into the Lake of Fire as the prescribed Second Death.
 
Revelation 20:14 (HCS)
 
Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
 
Revelation 21:8 (HCS)
 
But the cowards, unbelievers, vile, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liarstheir share will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.
 
Originally posted by Akolouthos

I think your suggestion of starting a thread dealing with Cyril Loucaris is a wonderful idea, and so will not post more here
 
This thread is still in the works.  Once I get the time to sit down and review the secondary material again (there isn't much but it is intensive), it will appear.  Should it go in the Early Modern or Theology subforum?  I am thinking it should go into Early Modern since it involves the Ottomans and the Reformation.
 
Originally posted by Akolouthos

I would definitely be interested in reading this. I have read excerpts from some of Jeremiah's letters, but have never had the opportunity to study the matter in depth. Does the book contain the original documents with commentary, or is it strictly a secondary source?
 
It has a historical introduction, the translated text of the letters, and a commentary.  There is an inexpensive paperback reprint of the book available from HCOP.  I had to call them and order it by phone since curiously the book is absent from the online store.
 
Originally posted by Akolouthos

Hm. I generally love Runciman, so I might have to check this out. Was the link gcle2003 provided what you were thinking of, or was it something else?
 
Yes, actually, this is part of it.  There was a series of statements that were issued from the ecumenical talks.  I think there were some Lutheran-Orthodox ecumenical dialogues in a different series.
 
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 02:15
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

Does the tradition of praying for the intercession of saints asleep in Christ come from the Fathers?  Isn't the saints' pritority praising God in the literal presence of the Father and the Son for all eternity?  Excuse my ignorance of Patristics if I am way off here.  Predictably Protestant I suppose, my ultimate reference is the Scriptures.


Aye, it would appear that it does go back to the Fathers. Both Chrysostom and Augustine mention it (Chrysostom in his Homily on II Corinthians, Augustine in The City of God and his First Homily on I John). That said, I think the important thing is understanding that as human nature has been radically altered by the Incarnation, so the position of the soul after death has been radically altered by the Resurrection. If we are to ask our fellow Christians for intercession (I Tim 2), and if the righteous who have reposed in Christ are fellow Christians (Rev 16: 6 and, more clearly, Rev 20: 9), then it would seem that the practice of praying for the intercession of the saints is entirely valid. It is interesting to note that I Tim 2, the passage which states that Christ is the "one Mediator," also contains a clear exhortation to pray for one another. It isn't the term "Mediator" itself that is important, but rather the understanding of the term. Christ's mediation is unique, but saintly intercession is also a valid form of "mediation"--although this mediation is of a completely different character and, for lack of a better word, "quality."

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

Originally posted by Akolouthos



The Orthodox Church understands that the saints lead us to Christ; by reflecting on the lives of these holy men and women we reflect on the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, which leads us to a more perfect understanding of Christ in whom we see the Father.
I understand this as being the proper method of veneration as sanctioned by the Orthodox Church.  However, in practice, it appears to me that many Orthodox faithful develop a fixation on saints and their percieved intercessory powers and leave Christ as almost an afterthought.  If the focus is totally on God through Jesus Christ, whose grace alone is sufficient for salvation and the answering of prayers, there would not be such a misguided fixation.


Undoubtedly many Orthodox do possess a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of praying to the saints for intercession. Still, we should not discard a valid--and I would argue necessary--practice because of misunderstandings; rather we must educate those who misunderstand. We must explain to them that the saints have no power to save us in and of themselves--indeed it is only by the grace of God that they can even hear our prayers. Their ability to intercede for us is always united to their close union with Christ.

As for the practice being necessary, allow me to illustrate by means of establishing a simple dichotomy of errors.

1) An individual venerates and prays to the saints in a manner which is outwardly consistent with orthodox practice, while inwardly holding the misconception that the saints, in and of themselves, are able to effect the individual's salvation. This damages the individual's understanding of and relation to Christ by focusing an undue level of attention on those who, while they do possess a special degree of union with God, are still very much human.

2) An individual, out of a fear of the type of misunderstanding evident in [1], refuses to venerate or pray to the saints for intercession, thereby refusing to acknowledge the prayers of the Church triumphant. This damages the individual's understanding of and relationship to Christ by distorting the concept of the Body of Christ; in essence, it prevents the individual from taking advantage of the full range of the grace of God.


We must seek to properly participate in the life of the Church, which includes asking all of her members to intercede on our behalf. I hope that the illustration above both demonstrates that this is the case, and explains why we do not discard an essential piece of orthopraxy because of a lack of understanding. The whole discourse is rather like the great debate that raged over the holy icons; while there are abuses, the proper course is in seeking right practice for its own sake and not for its lack of relation to a present misunderstanding. The latter course will lead to overcorrection and error. If "the focus is totally on God through Jesus Christ, whose grace alone is sufficient for salvation and the answering of prayers," then we will take advantage of all the wonderful boons that His grace entails, one of which is the ability to ask fellow members of His body--including those who sleep in Him--to intercede for us. We actually damage our understanding of Christ by refusing to unite with our departed brothers and sisters in prayer. In essence, when our attempt to focus on Christ is misfocused, we are focusing on a different "Christ."

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

Originally posted by Akolouthos

Christ came to divinize human nature. He came to restore the image of God in Man, which was damaged but not destroyed by the Fall. Through our participation in Him, we become "partakers of the divine nature." Incidentally, this is the basis for our understanding of sacramental theology, as well.
Is this the notion of theosis?


Indeed it is. Smile

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor


Yes, I agree that it is totally volitional.  But in Revelation, God eventually does cast the damned, along with Death and Satan, into the Lake of Fire as the prescribed Second Death.
 
Revelation 20:14 (HCS)
 
Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
 
Revelation 21:8 (HCS)
 
But the cowards, unbelievers, vile, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liarstheir share will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.


Aye, well stated. Smile

I was just trying to make it clear that God does not separate Himself from us; rather we fail to understand and utilize His union with us--a union which comes about both through His infinite love and through the hypostatic union of the theanthropos.

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

This thread [re. Cyril Loukaris] is still in the works.  Once I get the time to sit down and review the secondary material again (there isn't much but it is intensive), it will appear.  Should it go in the Early Modern or Theology subforum?  I am thinking it should go into Early Modern since it involves the Ottomans and the Reformation.


I definitely think it should go in the Philosophy and Theology forum; after all, it would constitute an investigation and comparison of two theological perspectives which, while they differ greatly, possess some interesting similarities. That said, it's your baby, so you may choose to post it wherever you wish. It does, indeed, relate to the Turkokratia, and could thus be construed as an Early Modern issue. It's not my preference, but then it's not my decision either. Wink

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

It [the dialogue between Jeremiah and the Tubingen theologians] has a historical introduction, the translated text of the letters, and a commentary.  There is an inexpensive paperback reprint of the book available from HCOP.  I had to call them and order it by phone since curiously the book is absent from the online store.


Could I have the phone number or a website? That would definitely be an interesting read. I don't have a great sense of how much either side was interested in actual dialogue; so many theological discussions, especially during contentious periods, consist mainly of posturing. Thanks for the tip; I always love a good book.

God bless and keep you and yours Byzantine. Smile

-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 30-Aug-2007 at 02:39
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.