As an Orthodox Christian myself, I am not pleased that someone would look truth in the face and then spit in it. James Likoudis is spitting at Christ's Church!! The envy of the devil is present in those who slander Christ's Holy Church.
The visible head of the Church was always the Bishop. Wherever the a bishop is, there is the Church. Each Church under a bishop is fully "catholic." There was NEVER a belief that you were only a diocese was only "part" of the Church. There was NEVER a belief that you are fully "catholic" if you are in union with Rome. "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church." -St. Ignatius of Antioch.
I think we can both agree that, its not *merely* the individual bishop himself who forms the entire Catholic Church. Rather, its the bishop and those bishops that he is in communion with. In order for there to be true catholicity, there must but intercommunion and interdependence among the bishops. As regards to the visible head of this catholic body of bishops and faithful, the early church referred to the Pope as the Head.
Actually, mkvine, that is incorrect. The local Church, headed by the bishop, is the complete manifestation, or hologram, of the Heavenly Temple, whose head is Christ. The bishop, therefore, is the Vicar of Christ.
Yes the local bishop does represent the entire Church, but I said that's not *merely* the case. My point was he doesn't exist in a vacuum, he must also be in communion with the entire body of Christ on earth in order for there to be true catholicity. The Church exists as an organic whole, not in isolated islands, so to speak. d\
What needs to be acknowledged is that the local Church is not just a "part" of the Catholic Church. Rather, it IS the Catholic Church, manifested in a particular locale. Yes, the Churches should hold Eucharistic communion with each other for the sake of Christian unity, and this is normatively the case, but even when Eucharistic communion is temporarily broken (and the break doesn't become systemic), both local Churches can still manifest the Catholic Church of Christ.
What I would say, Kabane, is that we must approach this from a "both/and" perspective. Yes the local church is the full manifestation of the Catholic Church, but it also exist within the entire Catholic Church in heaven and on earth. The Church is the mystical body of Christ, we cannot divide it into parts. As an analogy, just think of the Trinity. All persons are fully God, and belong to the One Godhead, but we would never think of saying the Son is "part" of the Godhead.
But you do divide it when you talk of the Pope being the head of the Church militant but not of the Church triumphant. The bishop of every Orthodox Christian, those reposed and those still with us, is Christ. On Earth, that High Priesthood of Christ is manifested through a local bishop. Rome says that bishops are governors of "parts of the Universal Church." Actually, the bishop is the head of the Catholic Church as it is manifested in a particular locality.
And this headship is established through his presiding at the Eucharistic Table. The bishop is the vicar of Christ because he sacramentally acts in the person of Christ. Even according to Rome, you can have a valid bishop apart from communion with the Pope. But if this is true, how is the Pope's universal headship established? The bishop serves as head because he presides at the Eucharistic Table for the local Church. This is why the Archbishop has a fundamentally different type...
...of jurisdiction than the bishop of the local Church. Unless the Pope presides at the Eucharistic Table for all the Churches, and the bishops serve only as vicars of the Pope (something Rome adamantly denies), then the Pope's immediate jurisdiction over all local Churches makes no sense. Roman Catholic apologists try to depict it as if the Pope, for them, sits at the top of the jurisdictional pyramid for the Church. This is just false. For Roman Catholics...
...the Pope has a fundamentally different kind of jurisdiction over local Churches outside his own than Archbishops do for local Churches outside their own. And this is our issue. It is the result of an improper, non-Eucharistic ecclesiology that does not take into account the full catholicity of the local Church, even if Rome says that they do.
However, for the sake of good order within the communion of Churches, a sort of pyramidal structure was established. The Archbishop would hold mediate jurisdiction over all the Churches under him, but only the Bishop held immediate jurisdiction over his own local Church. The Pope was at the top of the pyramid, relating to the entire episcopate as an Archbishop relates to the Holy Synod. This is why the Council of Chalcedon refers to St. Leo as "Archbishop of all the Churches."
This is an interesting comment. If the archbishop holds "mediate" jurisdiction of the churches under him, and if the Pope is likened to the "Archbishop of all Churches," then wouldn't that mean he exercises "mediate" jurisdiction over "all the churches?" If that's the case, then wouldn't that undermine the notion that the Pope has jurisdiction only under his own local diocese?
Yes, the Pope did hold mediate jurisdiction over all the Churches, in accordance with what is written in Apostolic Canon 34, where the head MUST act with the bishops under him and not without their consent. The Orthodox claim is not that the Pope holds no type of jurisdiction over other Churches whatsoever, but that he only holds immediate jurisdiction over the Church of Rome.
Kabane, given that you believe the Pope does have jurisdiction over all the churches, would you then be fine with saying that the primacy that the Pope holds its not just a primacy of honor but also a primacy of jurisdiction, such that the jurisdiction is understood to be mediately? In regards to the question of authority, yes this is the dispute, but like I said, I really don't feel like getting into a never ending discussion on this at the moment.
Actually, this is just what "primacy of honor" means. An Archbishop has a primacy of honor on the Holy Synod. Likoudis just doesn't understand what the term means according to historic Orthodoxy.
So, yes, the Pope was the head of the entire communion, but only in the sense that the Archbishop of Athens is the head of the entire communion of Greek Churches. The Papal error is suggesting that the Pope holds ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over every local Church, and that this kind of absolute headship is essential to the nature of the Church itself. That is a total innovation.
Thank you for being honest in admitting that the Pope was the Head of the Church. Most Orthodox whom I speak to deny that for some reason. I wasn't even getting into jurisdictional power, I was replying to the commentator who seemed to deny that he was the Head. But there are plenty of examples in early history where the pope exercised authority over different churches. I feel like this will lead to a never-ending discussion that I really don't feel like delving into though
I think it's denied because of the specific connotations that "Head of the Church" implies in Roman Catholic circles, namely, ordinary, immediate, and universal jurisdiction over every local Church. If we understand "Head of the Church" in the sense of AC 34 and in the sense that the Synods of the Church used it, there is no problem whatsoever.
And you're right that the Pope exercised authority, but what KIND of authority? That's the real dispute between Rome and Orthodoxy.
@KabaneTheChristian Adamantis4657 belongs to ROCA. I thought they are in communion with us. I know they used to be separate, but I thought they reunited with the Russian Orthodox Church.
@KabaneTheChristian I've talked to him a lot. He said he belongs to ROCA and told me I should join ROCA because the Orthodox Church I go to has pews. Maybe he once belonged to the "True" Orthodox Church of Romania but changed. He is against ecumenism and the use of pews and the New Calendar though.
That's still a bit on the edge, though. ROCA is in full communion with the canonical Orthodox Church and out of communion with radical Old Calendarists. One of my most influential Orthodox friends is a Reader in ROCA, and the positions Adamantis holds are simply radical. Is it possible he is part of schismatic ROCA? They were the part of ROCA that refused to re-establish sacramental communion with the MP.
@KabaneTheChristian I didn't know there was a schismatic ROCA, so it is possible he belongs to that. And yes, Adamantis is a bit radical maybe he does belong to a schismatic ROCA. Have the Old Calendarists changed any Orthodox doctrine?
Well, they seem to think that sacramental grace is lost if you change the Calendar of the Church, which is asinine. They are mostly Orthodox, but they are undoubtedly schismatic. ROCOR before its union with the MP was not schismatic, they held communion with some canonical Orthodox Churches but not with the MP, because it was under Soviet domination.
@adamantis4657 Great work! I just get so fed up with the rhetoric of these Catholic apologists. Mr. Likoudis was a cradle Orthodox who was all to gullible to the papists propaganda.
@adamantis4657 Jesus said the gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church--> Orthodox Church allows contraception to married couples---> gates of Hades have prevailed over every Christian denomination but the Catholic Church--> the Catholic Church is the one true Church.
@Jy3pr6: ALWAYS THE SAME SILLY STUFF! Why u catholics do not study the Holy FAthers?
The RCC is heretic and schismatic. That Church is full of modernism and liberalism. The RCC has broken many Canons and set aside many things of Holy Tradition. LIkoudis is a silly man - he did not even understand the teaching of the "toll-houses". A really silly man. Thanks to God that he left the true Church.
Contraception? Hm - who has told u that the Orthodox Church allows contraception?
@adamantis4657 Adamantis. The Byzantine tradition evolved and continues to evolve. So the fact that people sit during a mass in no way invalidates it. You're likening yourself to ultrafundamentalists who care more about petty things as opposed to those which have real impacts. I agree that when we start making too many concessions it becomes a problem. However in no way can it be logically conceived that such seemingly ambiguous dogmatic issues supersede moral issues....
@adamantis4657 Furthermore Adamantis, any hypocrisy in the Catholic Church is just that!!! A hypocrisy!!! Where as, in many of the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome, acting immorally ie. getting a divorce or using contraception is not a hypocrisy but morally acceptable!! Do you not see the problem with this? You can point to the hypocrisy of most Catholics but that doesn't debase the validity of the Catholic Church since those people go directly against Church teaching...
@Jy3pr6: And also: is contraception a Dogmatic issue? Or is it a pastoral thing? What have the church Fathers said?
The RCC is a very hypocritcal church: priests are celibaths but secretly are full of passions and deeds of forncation. Again the sexual moral is the same: in reality most catholics use contraception - even the most pious catholics. But officially u deny them? This is HYPOCRISY. LOL
Hell has long ago prevailed the RCC. When she changed and innovated the Holy Faith of Christ.
Of course there is hypocrisy, that's a given. it happens in every church. But how does that address the fact that contraception is morally wrong? You go into a flurry of red herring saying celibate priest have desires and catholics practice contraceptions. Let's turn the tables around, I can say celibate monks in the EOC have desires and many Orthodox practice adultery even though it is wrong. How does that prove anything? It doesn't.
Why I was talking about Hypocrisy in the discussion of contraception? Because in the RCC it belongs together. It is hypocrisy to say: Oh contraception is wrong but most of all catholics use them? This is hypocrisy. Also the celibathy of priests - everyone has to be a celibath but inofficially most of them have women and even children - here in Austria many priests have secretly/openly women with children. It is an open secret.
Apparently you did not understand what I said the first time. Hypocrisy is when the Church teaches one thing but the followers do not practice what they preach. Hypocrisy exist in all churches, and yes, even in yours too. This is a problem for all churches, no exception. But that has no bearing on whether the teaching is true or not. I even gave the example of adultery, where this is a teaching that is not practiced by many, even in the orthodox church.You completely ignored it.
The RCC is a church of Hypocrisy! Because of their unhealthy view of Sexuality. Orthodox Christians do not have to be hypocrites because WE KNOW THAT WE ARE HORRIBLE SINNERS. Unworthy to be called christians, beast in the eyes of God. Damnworthy - worthy of HELL.
I am worthy of HELL because I am a sinner!
But catholics say: Oh no divorce, no contraception.....so fine, so good - BUT NO ONE KEEPS IT.
Basically, your saying that orthodox are not guilty of hypocrisy because they know they are sinners. First, the Catholic Church teaches that all men are sinners, see paragraph 1847 of the Catechism. Second, in order to know that all orthodox know they are sinners, you would need to be Omniscient. Clearly that is not something you would commit yourself to, right? Third, even if there were hypocrites or not, that does absolutely nothing to determine the validity of a doctrine.
NO - it is different. We are all SINNERS - ALL - I am too - I am a great and horrible sinner. Even our Saints were great sinners: St. Mary of Egypt was the greatest prostitute of Alexandria, St. Pelage too. ..etc u will find hundrets of such Saints.
We do not "play" good when we are not! That is the difference. Yes - our priests marry. They have women - and? We also have celibaths but they chose it - that is the difference! Marriage is a blessed thing
You are using double standards. On the one hand you say, we are all sinners so many of us do not practice what we preach. You use that to justify that sin does not affect the truth of the orthodox church. Then you make a 360 degree turn and say, look catholics are sinners, that means their teachings are false. If anyone is being hypocritical here, it is you by your inconsistency. Yes, marriage is a great thing, that's another red herring on your part.
Do I justify sin? NO - does the Holy Orthodox Church justify sin? NO - be we are REALISTS. Like the Holy FAthers. We know and preach the IDEAL but we also know that NOT ALL CAN KEEP IT.
But we do not DAMN those who can not keep ONLY ONE MARRIAGE! We tell them to fast, to repent, to make prostrations, to show repetance etc. BUT WE DO NOT THROW THEM OUT from the body of Christ.
No one said that those who divorce are damned from the Church. Ultimate judgment resides solely in God and we leave that between the individual and God. However, divorce is a grave sin and a person who commits this needs to go to the Sacrament of Holy Repentance and receive the Mercy and Grace of God. This is no different from a person who commits adultery or fornication. These are all grave sins that need forgiveness from God.
@adamantis4657 And the Roman Catholic priests did not choose celibacy?? Come on. You seem to care more about the speck in the RCC's eye while the Orthodox Church by even allowing ONE use of contraception or divorce has a forest of redwoods in it's own!!
1.) It is not a Dogmatic issue - but the Filioque is one for example
2.) I am a member of the ROCA (Russian Orthodox Church Abroad) and contraception is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN - in every case. Other Local Churches may allow it in some special cases - even when it is wrong. Often an error can protect for a greater error. So they IN SOME SPECIAL CASES THEY ALLOW IT.
Not generally! There is a difference
3.) The Catholic view on Sexuality is very unhealthy!
Contraception is not a dogmatic issue, says who? Contraception falls under the area of morality, which is one of the areas that the Church is authoritative in. This is a matter of importance because we need to know whether or not someone commits a grave sin by doing this. Contraception is forbidden by both scripture and Tradition. Since apparently you agree with that, would you admonish some of the orthodox churches that teach it is ok?
NO - that is even disgusting! Christianity is not a religion of MORAL with a special moral Code. It is the Religion of LOVE and UNION WITH GOD. Sin is not to break a moral code but NOT TO BE ON THE WAY for UNION WITH GOD.
AMARTIA means: Not being on the way!
It does not mean, to brake a tabu or a moral code!
So NO CONTRACEPTION IS NOT A DOGMATIC ISSUE. It belongs to pastoral care and is a topic between the confessor and the Priest
Yes. Christianity is a religion of Love. Our glorious Lord said that if we love God, we will keep the commandments. We achieve union with God by partaking in the sacraments, living a holy life, keeping the commandments, prayer, charity, fasting, etc. How you concluded that contraception is not a dogmatic issue is beyond me. You never said according to whom. If contraception causes DIS-union with God, then obviously its a problem.
So in order to have a meaningful dialogue, let's not get bogged down on side issues that have no bearing on the subject. The point is contraception is wrong. In keeping with the Tradition of the Holy Fathers of the Church, the Catholic Church has always held that contraception is wrong. I can give you quotes from Fathers that attest to this. Do you believe in contraception?
1.) Also not a Dogmatic thing - also a PASTORAL THING!
2.) Often Catholics state: Oh - the Orthodox Church allows divorce.
That is not really true. The teaching is that we should marry only ONCE. Marriage is a Holy Mystery. Man and Women become one flesh. That is the Ideal and we should try to reach that state. BUT and now come the BUT:
Often life is difficoult. And often we weak humans can not follow the high ideals of the Church.
Sometimes it is REALLY BETTER when a couple seperates from each other. It is not good and it is very sad - but that's life. And so the Holy FAthers have allowed to be blessed a second time. It is only a blessing not really a marriage and only after a time of repetance and fasting, prostration etc..
The Holy Fathers said: It is a shame for the church (a second Marriage) but it is better when such couples are blessed and not live completly outside the church in fornication
I didn't bring up the issue of divorce, so I don't know why you did. I was focusing on contraception and double standards. Be that as it may, the Holy Fathers of the Church strictly forbade marriage. You say its not a dogmatic issue. Again, says who? Holy Scripture records our Blessed Lord saying that He who divorces and marries another commits adultery. Yet you say, divorce is allowed? What God has joined, let no man rent asunder!
@Mkvine: CATHOLIC VIEW OF SEXUALITY is VERY UNHEALTHY!
The whole understanding of sexuality in the RCC is very unhealty and that is the reason why so many Sex Scandals appeared there.
As I have told u - THE HOLY FATHERS WERE VERY VERY STRICT but they also had the wisdom of GOD and the Holy Spirit and they were very BALANCED
The problem of the RCC is that her teaching is not balanced: on the one side sex scandals over and over and on the other side sex is almost forbidden or dirty. U see
If any view of sexuality is unhealthy, it is the one that allows divorce and contraception. I'm a bit perplexed at your statements. On the one hand you seen to defend these sins, on the other hand you seem to reject them. So which is it? Do you believe contraception is sinful or not?
I'm certainly glad that you and your Church are against contraception. Will you admonish your brother churches that DO allow contraception? This is not a dogmatic issue according to whom? Even if you say its a pastoral issue, these pastoral decisions have to be grounded in the teachings of the Church, and the Church has always condemned contraception. I agree Christianity is not all about sex, but it does have sexual rulings - no adultery, fornication, rape, homosexuality, etc.
As for those Fathers that I promised, here are a few: "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted (St. Clement of Alexandria, Instruction of Children 2:10:91:2).
Here's another "Women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs to produce sterility, and to gird themselves round, so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by committing adultery and murder at the same time" (St. Hyppolytus of Rome, Refutation of All Heresies 9:7).
@Mkvine: SORRY - BUT WHERE ARE THE QUOTES FROM THE HOLY FATHERS?
U said u will post some! And now - where are they? The ONLY 2 quotes are NOT AGAINST CONTRACEPTION. It is against adultery or perhaps masturbation but not exactly against contraception.
Because not everyone who uses contraception is a fornicator or adulterer or one who is pro abortion.
Do u see that u are wrong? Like I HAVE SAID; I KNOW THE HOLY FATHERS - they have not spoken against contraception.
I showed you two quotes from brevity's sake and they do teach against contraception. Contraception literally means "against life or conception." There are multiple ways to practice it. One quote teaches that women were trying to take drugs to become fertile - where they would not be able to bear children. This is a form of contraception. Some were trying to expel the child by girding themselves - another form of contraception. Another said the seed is not to be vainly wasted.
@Mkvine: NO - those quotes are not against Contraception. READ YOUR QUOTES - they are against using drugs to become fertile. This is not what we are talking about - what is called contraception.
This can not be compared - that is ridiculous. Not everyone who uses contraception is a fornicator or a prostitute that is nonsense.
The quote speaks of two things, those who practice adultery or fornication, and those who practice contraception. In that case, the women were doing both. Taking drugs to get sterile is a form of contraception. Why else would they take it, other than the fact they don't want children. That's straightforward. The other quote said that the seed should be for procreation and should not be ejaculated vainly. Clearly speaking of contraception.
Ok you're being ridiculous. I never implied that everyone who uses contraception is a fornicator. I said that the quote was dealing with two distinct issues, fornication and contraception, and was admonishing women who were using both. One can perform one without the other. The point of the passage was that these women were wrong for using contraception. And nowhere did I said that sex is apart from love. I correct you already on this.
You need to learn how to read. The contraception literally means "against life or conception." What these women were doing were finding ways to avoid pregnancy by means of drugs that produce sterility. That is literally contraception but you are being too asinine to realize it. You also completely ignored the quote about the seed being ejaculated vainly.
All these quotes teach that people should not practice ways that deliberately hinder the procreation of life, this is literally contraception. That's very clear to me.
I think u have not understood! We orthodox are not HYPOCRITES in the same way RCC are. Because WE KNOW THAT WE ARE SINNNERS.
And yes I KNOW THAT EVERY ORTHDOOX CHRISTIAN IS A SINNER even the greatest Saints! Because every man is a sinnner. Even every child is a sinner!
The RCC is too extrem (not balanced) - they opress people to be celibaths - or to live a life that is beyond their strengh. Not everyone can be a Martyr, a Saint, .....
I understand your position on hypocrisy. I already addressed this, see my response below. You said that the RCC is too extreme and not balanced. I don't think that's the case. Celibacy is a blessing from God and it is a gift to those whom God has called. St. Paul was celibate throughout all his life. However, the Church does make exceptions. If a married man feels the call to the priesthood, like an ex pastor, the Church may allow him. The Church looks at this individually.
@Mkvine: THE RCC is not balanced because it is a human institiution!
The Holy Fathers were VERY STRICT as I told u but they WERE WISE (not like catholics) - they hav known the human soul and human nature FROM EXPERIENCE. They were not interested in MORAL CODES - NO ONE IS.
The Celibacy of the RCC is the source of many Scandals. Because it is not practiced correctly. NOT BALANCED.
The RCC is very balanced. You have not given one example in how its not. The only example you gave was celibacy. But surely you know that St. Paul was celibate. Celibacy was something that was taught in the Early Fathers, and they said it was a good and holy thing. By your own logic, monks should not be celibate. Ridiculous.
@Mkvine: EVERYONE KNOW THAT THE RCC is not balanced!
So what are u talking about? Everyone knows that the RCC is the Church with the most sexual scandals on earth. Not even the satanic protestants have so much sex scandals.
With pedophilia, rape, and so on.....Why do think? Because the RCC has a balanced conception of sexuality? LOL Come on....u are ridiculous...
CELIBACY was not tought by the Holy Fathers as the RCC practice it today. MONKS AND NONS ARE ASCETICS: the PRAY UNCEASINGLY, THE FAST UNCEASINGLY, THE PROSTRATE UNCEASINGLY, they do not sleep, the sleep on stones....etc.
They ARE ASCETICS. But RCC Priests are not ASCETICS - they only do not marry - that is foreign to the church and unhealthy. That is why they are gulity of so much sins
You are confusing the issues now. Ascetics is not the same as celibacy. The issue was whether celibacy is detrimental to someone. Clearly it is not since St. Paul practiced it and monks practice it. If you are going to condemn priest from doing this, then your going to condemn the former from doing it.
Again u DAMN everyone to HELL who may is divorced. Here is the difference: I am orthodox and I know that we ARE SINNERS and that WE FALL UNCEASINGLY. Divorce is BAD and A SIN but that is how it is. People are divorced - WE DO NOT DAMN THEM TO HELL.
St. Basil the great (and others) HAVE SET UP THE CANON FOR THE DIVORCED. Do u see that they have not allowed it but they ACCEPTED that FACT that christians are sometimes divorced.
The Church has never damned anyone to hell. Even the worst sinners and apostates, the Church has never said they are in hell. We strictly forbid announcing an eternal judgment of hell on anyone. That issue is between the person and God, not us. This includes divorce. I will say that if a person is married civilly by the government, then can get a civil divorce. But as far as the Church is concerned, they are still married. However, they can physically separate without divorcing.
LOL - really? When people are EXCLUDED FROM THE CHURCH and from the HOLY MYSTERIES they are without CHRIST. And u say u do not damn anyone? I think u don't know what it means to be outside the church?
Contraception is not a DOGMATIC ISSUE FOR THE HOLY CHURCH or the Holy Fathers. Do u say:
I BELIEVE IN ONE GOD - Father Allmighty......and I BELIEVE THAT CONTRACETPION IS FORBIDDEN...
Is it a part of your creed? Wow never heard such creed
Nope. The Catholic Church has never damned anyone to hell. It strictly teaches against this. You're confusing ex communication with damnation, two very different things. Ex communication is a visible separation from the Church whereby the person is warned that they need to repent and realize their error. Damnation is eternal punishment. It is still possible for a person to be saved while excommunicated, depending on how God judges the heart of the individual.
I already addressed this. Those who are excommunicated are certainly in danger of hell for their errors and heresy by virtue of being outside the Church. However, it is not impossible for them to be saved depending on how God views the heart of the individual - something we cannot do. Simple as that.
However, we do allow persons to get an annulment. This is different from a divorce. An annulment is when the Church examines the case and finds that something was lacking in the marriage exchange, whereby the marriage was invalid to begin with. In other words, the persons - for some reason- were not validly married, and hence the marriage never existed. In this case, the persons are allowed to separate (by annulment) and are free to marry anyone.
The Holy Fathers have ACCEPTED Divorce, they also made NO DOGMAS of Sexuality. When u want to created Dogmas of Sex - please feel free to do. U can believe what u want.
But u also have to accept that all such believs are FOREIGN TO THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. This silly MORAL teaching is the outcome of the wordly character of the RCC. They are only concerned on Moral. The Holy Fathers did not even know such thing as "Moral".
The Creed doesn't mention a lot of things, that doesn't mean its not certain things are not believed. The Creed doesn't mention adultery, or fornication, homosexuality, etc. By your logic, these are not to believed as sins. That is very ridiculous. You said we shouldn't accept a moral code, yet St. Paul list moral codes to instruct us in his epistles, he said avoid adultery, fornication, homosexuality, etc. You seem to go against St. Paul's own teachings.
Before being concerned on Sex so much it would be better to RETURN TO THE FAITH OF THE APOSTLES AND HOLY FATHERS.
Teach the people to make prostrations, to fast, how to kiss and venerated icons, how to chant, how to pray....
Because this is more important! Did u know that ALL WHO DO NOT KEEP THE FASTS on Wednesday and Friday are OUTSIDE THE CHURCH and condemned by the Apostles?
Wow - so all catholics are condemned because no one is fasting!
Did u know that it is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN to kneel on Sunday? The Ecumenical Synods set all under ANATHEMA who dared to kneel on Sundays! Did u know that the Holy Apostles ordered that women have to cover their hair? That it is forbidden for men to shave their beards?
Have u known that the Holy Fathers ordered that women and men are seperated in Church? Do u know the Canon how to calculate the Pascha Date? LOL
I also have read an article of Likoudis! It is full of ERROR and nonsense. He was talking about the Toll houses which is a traditional patritic teaching. ALL HOLY FATHERS talked about the Toll houses.
@Mkvine: So u see - the Holy Fathers were VERY STRICT but they also were VERY WISE. They have seen that sometimes it is better to allow an error - so that people are protected from greater error.
Well - give me quotes from the Holy Fathers on contraception because I can not believe that they talk about contraception.
They generally talk about the passions and that we should live a life of ascesis and repetance. But contraception was not even know at their times (as we know it today).
There are good books on that topic. A study about St. John Chrystostom about Marriage. The Orthodox Church does not follow the view of St. Augustine.
Marriage and Sex is not ONLY for procreation but is an expression of LOVE. When a man and woman love each other, sex is an expression of that love. It is not ONLY for creating kids - even when this is the most important thing and God said: mulitply.....
We do not base our theology on Sex on the testimony of only one Father, but we take the whole consensus of the Holy Fathers. I agree that Love is an aspect of sex. We do not create false either/or dichotomies. Rather, we emphasis, the both/and. Sex is for both procreation and love. Another thing, you said separation is better. I agree sometimes it is. However, we make a distinction with physical separation and divorce. A person can separate without being divorced.
LOL - I tell u; I KNOW THE HOLY FATHERS VERY VERY WELL. For whole years I permanently study their wrtings and their teaching. They are not interested in such sexual topics as u are.
THE HOLY FATHERS HAVE ALLOWED IN SOME SPECIAL CASES that a couple is DIVORCED. Read St. Basil the GREAT. There are even Canons for those who are divorced.
These Canons are followed UNTIL THIS VERY DAY in the HOLY ORTHODOX CHURCH.
I have a book that lists all the Fathers who comment on this issue. I'll get you those quotes on divorce and contraception from the Holy Fathers later tonight. I am in school right now, so you will have to wait. Thank you for your patience.
“It is in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic!…That, however, the sixth Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the sentences of the Synod against him....
We find that these documents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics…there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome ...
Pope Honorius I (625-38) was condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople (680-1). He promoted the heresy of the Monothelites, who taught that there is only one will in Christ; the orthodox doctrine is that Christ has separate wills in his human and divine natures.Honorius actively maintained the heresy in official papal letters written to Sergius I, patriarch of Constantinople in reply to a formal consultation and to other individuals
This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion.
how many catholic priests have " housewifes" at their homes!
The First Ecumenical Synod (325) declared: Canon 20
Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost, this holy synod decrees that, so that the same observances may be maintained in every diocese, one should offer one's prayers to the Lord standing.
It is forbidden to kneel on sunday - the catholics do every sunday!
Canon 69 of the Holy Apostles designates that any hierarch or priest or deacon or subdeacon or reader or chanter who does not fast during Great Lent and Wednesday and Friday is to be deposed. If a layperson does not fast during these times (unless he cannot fast on account of bodily illness), he is to be excommunicated. Do you see how the Apostles numbered the Wednesday and Friday fast together with the fast of Great Lent?
"Moved by fatherly love, I have advised those who have an affliction of the legs, or are burdened by other sickness, that they should sit quietly and listen attentively during lengthy readings. But now even some of our healthy daughters think that they should do this all the time.Thus, I ask you noble daughters, and implore you with fatherly concern, that none of you should sit during readings or homilies
It is forbidden to sit in church - UARE UNCANONICAL
7th Holy Ecumenical Synod, states: "If someone sets aside any tradition [of the Church], written or unwritten, let him be anathema."
U ARE UNDER ANATHEMA!
St. Augustine, says: "Let there be no innovations, because innovations defile antiquity. For the Bridegroom and His Bride, the Church, are without blemish."
St. Augustine is not with your church - because she innovates one new thing after the other'!
"So then brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther !!!!!!!!!!
"Let no one be permitted to bring forward, or write or compose a different faith besides that defined by the holy Fathers who assembled with the Holy Spirit in the city of Nicaea.
...And whoever dares to compose a different faith, or present, or offer [one] to those wishing to turn to the knowledge of the truth..let such, if they be bishops or belong to the clergy, be alien-bishops from the episcopate, and clerics from the clergy—and if they be laymen, let them be given over to anathema.
"musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp here associate so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus, it is easy to understand the prejudices against their use in the worship." (Augustine 354 A.D., describing the singing at Alexandria under Athanasius)
BUT U USE INSTRUMENTS IN CHURCH - U ARE UNCANONICAL
Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and intent on their idol worshipping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wingless feasts, for they arc more suited for beasts and for the class of men that is least capable of reason than for men.
INSTRUMENTS ARE FORBIDDEN IN CHURCH - U ARE UNCANONICAL
"Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize." (Thomas Aquinas, Bingham's Antiquities, Vol. 3, page 137)
INSTRUMENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN CHURCH- U ARE UNCANONICAL
"Of old at the time those of the circumcision were worshipping with symbols and types it was not inappropriate to send up hymns to God with the psalterion and cithara and to do this on Sabbath days... We render our hymn with a living psalterion and a living cithara with spiritual songs. The unison voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument.
If any bishop or presbyter does not perform the one initiation with three immersions, but with giving one immersion only, into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed.
Canon LXIV.
If any clergyman or layman shall enter into a synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and let the latter be excommunicated
If any one shall pray, even in a private house, with an excommunicated person, let him also be excommunicated.
Canon XI
If any clergyman shall join in prayer with a deposed clergyman, as if he were a clergyman let him also be deposed.
Canon XLV
Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who has only prayed with heretics, be excommunicated: but if he has permitted them to perform any clerical office, let him be deposed
If your interested in spamming, then I warn you that is not allowed on my page. So please don't spam. Secondly, I showed you from St. Cyprian that to hold the orthodox faith is to be in union with the Chair of Peter. You did not address that.
@Mkvine: I don't want to spam ....are u a lair? U said u want evidence and I told u I will bring evidence---thousends of posts - now u get what u want.
I adressed that. St. Cyprian was speaking about the ORTHODOX Popes of Rome not the heretic - your popes are heretic - so no one should follow him because it leads to heresy.
"I don't want to spam ....are u a lair? U said u want evidence and I told u I will bring evidence---thousends of posts - now u get what u want."
You don't want to spam, and yet you want to post "thousands" of posts. Yeah, thats what I call spamming. I'm all for reasonable amounts of posts to discuss certain issues. But you have been warned.
Canons of the Holy Apostles - approved by the Ecumenical Synods:
Canon L
If any bishop or presbyter does not perform the one initiation with three immersions, but with giving one immersion only, into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed.
Canon LXIV.
If any clergyman or layman shall enter into a synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and let the latter be excommunicated
So the verse u have quotet ONLY would be true if the Roman Patriarch = POPE would be orthodox and canonical since he isn't that verse does not fit.
Think about all innovations: Icons - where is your iconography? Where are the icons of the Theotokos? U changed Holy Iconography what for? Do u honor and venerate the icons of the Mother of God? Do u kiss it? Do u make prostrations and honor the Theotokos as it is proper to the Queen of heaven?
"So the verse u have quotet ONLY would be true if the Roman Patriarch = POPE would be orthodox and canonical since he isn't that verse does not fit."
This is such a Protestant argument. The word "pope" is a word meaning "father." The Roman Patriarch's authority is derived from its office, not from the word "pope."
Regarding the Blessed Theotokos, we certainly do have icons of her and we certainly venerate them.
@Mkvine: POPE is the title for the Patrirch of Alexandria - but Rome also has called its Patriarch POPE.
No you don't have icons of the Most Pure Theotokos - u have blasphemous and uncanonical images - where the MostHoly Theotokos is depicted as an ordinary women.
The only icons the RCC still have - are from the time when it was orthodox - some are in Italy. The icon Advocata, etc...
"POPE is the title for the Patrirch of Alexandria - but Rome also has called its Patriarch POPE."
Are you really going to argue semantics? As I stated earlier, "pope" is a word which means "father." The authority of the Roman Patriarch is derived from its office, not its name.
@Mkvine: You have no icons - u mean the paintings of Raphael or Michelangelo? Those are not icons - they are secualr paintings.
Icons are painted according to strict rules and Canons! Come on do not spread lies here - everyone knows that the RCC does not have icons anymore! Please stop to ly!
@Mkvine: Hm - u are wrong my friend - because as I told u many Popes have become CURSED heretics: go and google Honorius, Formosius, Vigilius - he was condemned by the 5th Ecumenical Synod.
And even some catholics Saints wrote about that Popes can become heretics. St. Kathrine, St. Thomes from Aquinus
"Hm - u are wrong my friend - because as I told u many Popes have become CURSED heretics: go and google Honorius, Formosius, Vigilius - he was condemned by the 5th Ecumenical Synod."
You obviously did not read what I stated earlier. I said that the Popes cannot proclaim any heretical dogma which is binding on the entire Church. I never said they cannot err in their own private opinions.
Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and intent on their idol worshipping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wingless feasts, for they arc more suited for beasts and for the class of men that is least capable of reason than for men.
INSTRUMENTS ARE FORBIDDEN IN CHURCH - U ARE UNCANONICAL
Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and intent on their idol worshipping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wingless feasts, for they arc more suited for beasts and for the class of men that is least capable of reason than for men.
INSTRUMENTS ARE FORBIDDEN IN CHURCH - U ARE UNCANONICAL
One must be crazy to leave Christ and follow human teaching! Because the Orthodox church is the true Church = CHRIST.
It can be proven that the RCC is in heresy and full of innovation; NEW CALENDAR; PEWS; ORGANS; STATUES, BLASPHEMOUS MASSES; PRAYERS WERE CHANGED; HYMNS CHANGED; - ARCHITECTURE CHANGED; CHANT CHANGED; FASTING CHANGED; ICONOGRAPHY CHANGED .....
If your really going to dispute with Catholicism, I would expect you to dispute *doctrine* - not church discipline....Most of what you pointed out is Church discipline. At least in Catholicism, we live up to our name - we allow different liturgical rites to express the faith in their own tradition.
@Mkvine: To dispute "Doctrine"...the first error....we can not divide Doctrine from "Discipline" as u call it. I would call it prayer. You believe in what u pray and u pray what u believe. Lex orandit - Lex credendi.
When u study the Holy Scripture, the apostolic writings, the church Fathers etc...u will see that we have to keep Holy Tradition withou innovation and corruption. Holy Tradition includes everything; Dogma, the services, Scripture. etc.
"we can not divide Doctrine from "Discipline" as u call it. I would call it prayer."
First of all, discipline is not confined to just prayer, as you have it - it's more encompassing than that. Secondly, we certainly can seperate Doctrine from discipline. Doctrine is what has been divinely revealed and cannot change. Discipline is how we express or manifest that doctrine, which can change. For example, Marian prayers have changed all throughout the centuries.
As an Orthodox Christian myself, I am not pleased that someone would look truth in the face and then spit in it. James Likoudis is spitting at Christ's Church!! The envy of the devil is present in those who slander Christ's Holy Church.
magnus56j 1 week ago
The visible head of the Church was always the Bishop. Wherever the a bishop is, there is the Church. Each Church under a bishop is fully "catholic." There was NEVER a belief that you were only a diocese was only "part" of the Church. There was NEVER a belief that you are fully "catholic" if you are in union with Rome. "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church." -St. Ignatius of Antioch.
magnus56j 1 week ago
@magnus56j
I think we can both agree that, its not *merely* the individual bishop himself who forms the entire Catholic Church. Rather, its the bishop and those bishops that he is in communion with. In order for there to be true catholicity, there must but intercommunion and interdependence among the bishops. As regards to the visible head of this catholic body of bishops and faithful, the early church referred to the Pope as the Head.
Mkvine 1 week ago
@Mkvine
Actually, mkvine, that is incorrect. The local Church, headed by the bishop, is the complete manifestation, or hologram, of the Heavenly Temple, whose head is Christ. The bishop, therefore, is the Vicar of Christ.
KabaneTheChristian 1 week ago
@KabaneTheChristian
Yes the local bishop does represent the entire Church, but I said that's not *merely* the case. My point was he doesn't exist in a vacuum, he must also be in communion with the entire body of Christ on earth in order for there to be true catholicity. The Church exists as an organic whole, not in isolated islands, so to speak. d\
Mkvine 1 week ago
@Mkvine
What needs to be acknowledged is that the local Church is not just a "part" of the Catholic Church. Rather, it IS the Catholic Church, manifested in a particular locale. Yes, the Churches should hold Eucharistic communion with each other for the sake of Christian unity, and this is normatively the case, but even when Eucharistic communion is temporarily broken (and the break doesn't become systemic), both local Churches can still manifest the Catholic Church of Christ.
KabaneTheChristian 1 week ago
@KabaneTheChristian
What I would say, Kabane, is that we must approach this from a "both/and" perspective. Yes the local church is the full manifestation of the Catholic Church, but it also exist within the entire Catholic Church in heaven and on earth. The Church is the mystical body of Christ, we cannot divide it into parts. As an analogy, just think of the Trinity. All persons are fully God, and belong to the One Godhead, but we would never think of saying the Son is "part" of the Godhead.
Mkvine 1 week ago
@Mkvine
In the same way, we would also never say the Son is fully God apart from the the two other Divine Persons.
Mkvine 1 week ago
@Mkvine
But you do divide it when you talk of the Pope being the head of the Church militant but not of the Church triumphant. The bishop of every Orthodox Christian, those reposed and those still with us, is Christ. On Earth, that High Priesthood of Christ is manifested through a local bishop. Rome says that bishops are governors of "parts of the Universal Church." Actually, the bishop is the head of the Catholic Church as it is manifested in a particular locality.
KabaneTheChristian 1 week ago
@Mkvine
And this headship is established through his presiding at the Eucharistic Table. The bishop is the vicar of Christ because he sacramentally acts in the person of Christ. Even according to Rome, you can have a valid bishop apart from communion with the Pope. But if this is true, how is the Pope's universal headship established? The bishop serves as head because he presides at the Eucharistic Table for the local Church. This is why the Archbishop has a fundamentally different type...
KabaneTheChristian 1 week ago
@Mkvine
...of jurisdiction than the bishop of the local Church. Unless the Pope presides at the Eucharistic Table for all the Churches, and the bishops serve only as vicars of the Pope (something Rome adamantly denies), then the Pope's immediate jurisdiction over all local Churches makes no sense. Roman Catholic apologists try to depict it as if the Pope, for them, sits at the top of the jurisdictional pyramid for the Church. This is just false. For Roman Catholics...
KabaneTheChristian 1 week ago
@Mkvine
...the Pope has a fundamentally different kind of jurisdiction over local Churches outside his own than Archbishops do for local Churches outside their own. And this is our issue. It is the result of an improper, non-Eucharistic ecclesiology that does not take into account the full catholicity of the local Church, even if Rome says that they do.
KabaneTheChristian 1 week ago
@Mkvine
However, for the sake of good order within the communion of Churches, a sort of pyramidal structure was established. The Archbishop would hold mediate jurisdiction over all the Churches under him, but only the Bishop held immediate jurisdiction over his own local Church. The Pope was at the top of the pyramid, relating to the entire episcopate as an Archbishop relates to the Holy Synod. This is why the Council of Chalcedon refers to St. Leo as "Archbishop of all the Churches."
KabaneTheChristian 1 week ago
@KabaneTheChristian
This is an interesting comment. If the archbishop holds "mediate" jurisdiction of the churches under him, and if the Pope is likened to the "Archbishop of all Churches," then wouldn't that mean he exercises "mediate" jurisdiction over "all the churches?" If that's the case, then wouldn't that undermine the notion that the Pope has jurisdiction only under his own local diocese?
Mkvine 1 week ago
@Mkvine
Yes, the Pope did hold mediate jurisdiction over all the Churches, in accordance with what is written in Apostolic Canon 34, where the head MUST act with the bishops under him and not without their consent. The Orthodox claim is not that the Pope holds no type of jurisdiction over other Churches whatsoever, but that he only holds immediate jurisdiction over the Church of Rome.
KabaneTheChristian 1 week ago
@KabaneTheChristian
Kabane, given that you believe the Pope does have jurisdiction over all the churches, would you then be fine with saying that the primacy that the Pope holds its not just a primacy of honor but also a primacy of jurisdiction, such that the jurisdiction is understood to be mediately? In regards to the question of authority, yes this is the dispute, but like I said, I really don't feel like getting into a never ending discussion on this at the moment.
Mkvine 1 week ago
@Mkvine
Actually, this is just what "primacy of honor" means. An Archbishop has a primacy of honor on the Holy Synod. Likoudis just doesn't understand what the term means according to historic Orthodoxy.
KabaneTheChristian 1 week ago
@Mkvine
So, yes, the Pope was the head of the entire communion, but only in the sense that the Archbishop of Athens is the head of the entire communion of Greek Churches. The Papal error is suggesting that the Pope holds ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over every local Church, and that this kind of absolute headship is essential to the nature of the Church itself. That is a total innovation.
KabaneTheChristian 1 week ago
@KabaneTheChristian
Thank you for being honest in admitting that the Pope was the Head of the Church. Most Orthodox whom I speak to deny that for some reason. I wasn't even getting into jurisdictional power, I was replying to the commentator who seemed to deny that he was the Head. But there are plenty of examples in early history where the pope exercised authority over different churches. I feel like this will lead to a never-ending discussion that I really don't feel like delving into though
Mkvine 1 week ago
@Mkvine
I think it's denied because of the specific connotations that "Head of the Church" implies in Roman Catholic circles, namely, ordinary, immediate, and universal jurisdiction over every local Church. If we understand "Head of the Church" in the sense of AC 34 and in the sense that the Synods of the Church used it, there is no problem whatsoever.
And you're right that the Pope exercised authority, but what KIND of authority? That's the real dispute between Rome and Orthodoxy.
KabaneTheChristian 1 week ago
(By the way guys, Adamantis is a schismatic. He is not in communion with the canonical Orthodox Church)
KabaneTheChristian 1 month ago
@KabaneTheChristian Adamantis4657 belongs to ROCA. I thought they are in communion with us. I know they used to be separate, but I thought they reunited with the Russian Orthodox Church.
magnus56j 1 week ago
@magnus56j
Is he? I thought he was part of the "True Orthodox Church of Romania."
KabaneTheChristian 1 week ago
@KabaneTheChristian I've talked to him a lot. He said he belongs to ROCA and told me I should join ROCA because the Orthodox Church I go to has pews. Maybe he once belonged to the "True" Orthodox Church of Romania but changed. He is against ecumenism and the use of pews and the New Calendar though.
magnus56j 1 week ago
@magnus56j
That's still a bit on the edge, though. ROCA is in full communion with the canonical Orthodox Church and out of communion with radical Old Calendarists. One of my most influential Orthodox friends is a Reader in ROCA, and the positions Adamantis holds are simply radical. Is it possible he is part of schismatic ROCA? They were the part of ROCA that refused to re-establish sacramental communion with the MP.
KabaneTheChristian 1 week ago
@KabaneTheChristian I didn't know there was a schismatic ROCA, so it is possible he belongs to that. And yes, Adamantis is a bit radical maybe he does belong to a schismatic ROCA. Have the Old Calendarists changed any Orthodox doctrine?
magnus56j 1 week ago
@magnus56j
Well, they seem to think that sacramental grace is lost if you change the Calendar of the Church, which is asinine. They are mostly Orthodox, but they are undoubtedly schismatic. ROCOR before its union with the MP was not schismatic, they held communion with some canonical Orthodox Churches but not with the MP, because it was under Soviet domination.
KabaneTheChristian 1 week ago
@KabaneTheChristian
I have read from him that he is part of the ROCA in communion with the MP, but has nostalgy from his communion with old calendarists.
Kekaumenos1078 1 week ago
You want more? Now read them and REALLY think abou them.
adamantis4657 11 months ago
@adamantis4657 Great work! I just get so fed up with the rhetoric of these Catholic apologists. Mr. Likoudis was a cradle Orthodox who was all to gullible to the papists propaganda.
trueorthodoxfaith 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith: Likoudis is a silly man. I recently read an articel on the Toll houses and his caricature on that.
This silly guy does not know that the HOLY FATHERS - OF WEST AND EAST have TOUGHT THE TOLL HOUSES.
Also in the lifes of the SAINTS - of east and west - the Toll houses can be found BUT NOT PURGATORY
adamantis4657 4 months ago
@adamantis4657 Jesus said the gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church--> Orthodox Church allows contraception to married couples---> gates of Hades have prevailed over every Christian denomination but the Catholic Church--> the Catholic Church is the one true Church.
Jy3pr6 3 months ago
@Jy3pr6: ALWAYS THE SAME SILLY STUFF! Why u catholics do not study the Holy FAthers?
The RCC is heretic and schismatic. That Church is full of modernism and liberalism. The RCC has broken many Canons and set aside many things of Holy Tradition. LIkoudis is a silly man - he did not even understand the teaching of the "toll-houses". A really silly man. Thanks to God that he left the true Church.
Contraception? Hm - who has told u that the Orthodox Church allows contraception?
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657 Adamantis. The Byzantine tradition evolved and continues to evolve. So the fact that people sit during a mass in no way invalidates it. You're likening yourself to ultrafundamentalists who care more about petty things as opposed to those which have real impacts. I agree that when we start making too many concessions it becomes a problem. However in no way can it be logically conceived that such seemingly ambiguous dogmatic issues supersede moral issues....
Jy3pr6 3 months ago
@adamantis4657 Furthermore Adamantis, any hypocrisy in the Catholic Church is just that!!! A hypocrisy!!! Where as, in many of the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome, acting immorally ie. getting a divorce or using contraception is not a hypocrisy but morally acceptable!! Do you not see the problem with this? You can point to the hypocrisy of most Catholics but that doesn't debase the validity of the Catholic Church since those people go directly against Church teaching...
Jy3pr6 3 months ago
@Jy3pr6
Exactly bro, you are spot on.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Jy3pr6: And also: is contraception a Dogmatic issue? Or is it a pastoral thing? What have the church Fathers said?
The RCC is a very hypocritcal church: priests are celibaths but secretly are full of passions and deeds of forncation. Again the sexual moral is the same: in reality most catholics use contraception - even the most pious catholics. But officially u deny them? This is HYPOCRISY. LOL
Hell has long ago prevailed the RCC. When she changed and innovated the Holy Faith of Christ.
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
Of course there is hypocrisy, that's a given. it happens in every church. But how does that address the fact that contraception is morally wrong? You go into a flurry of red herring saying celibate priest have desires and catholics practice contraceptions. Let's turn the tables around, I can say celibate monks in the EOC have desires and many Orthodox practice adultery even though it is wrong. How does that prove anything? It doesn't.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: Hypocrisy!
Why I was talking about Hypocrisy in the discussion of contraception? Because in the RCC it belongs together. It is hypocrisy to say: Oh contraception is wrong but most of all catholics use them? This is hypocrisy. Also the celibathy of priests - everyone has to be a celibath but inofficially most of them have women and even children - here in Austria many priests have secretly/openly women with children. It is an open secret.
This is pure hypocrisy!
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
Apparently you did not understand what I said the first time. Hypocrisy is when the Church teaches one thing but the followers do not practice what they preach. Hypocrisy exist in all churches, and yes, even in yours too. This is a problem for all churches, no exception. But that has no bearing on whether the teaching is true or not. I even gave the example of adultery, where this is a teaching that is not practiced by many, even in the orthodox church.You completely ignored it.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: NO - u did not understand me!
The RCC is a church of Hypocrisy! Because of their unhealthy view of Sexuality. Orthodox Christians do not have to be hypocrites because WE KNOW THAT WE ARE HORRIBLE SINNERS. Unworthy to be called christians, beast in the eyes of God. Damnworthy - worthy of HELL.
I am worthy of HELL because I am a sinner!
But catholics say: Oh no divorce, no contraception.....so fine, so good - BUT NO ONE KEEPS IT.
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
Basically, your saying that orthodox are not guilty of hypocrisy because they know they are sinners. First, the Catholic Church teaches that all men are sinners, see paragraph 1847 of the Catechism. Second, in order to know that all orthodox know they are sinners, you would need to be Omniscient. Clearly that is not something you would commit yourself to, right? Third, even if there were hypocrites or not, that does absolutely nothing to determine the validity of a doctrine.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: Hyprocrisy and Orthodoxy!
NO - it is different. We are all SINNERS - ALL - I am too - I am a great and horrible sinner. Even our Saints were great sinners: St. Mary of Egypt was the greatest prostitute of Alexandria, St. Pelage too. ..etc u will find hundrets of such Saints.
We do not "play" good when we are not! That is the difference. Yes - our priests marry. They have women - and? We also have celibaths but they chose it - that is the difference! Marriage is a blessed thing
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
You are using double standards. On the one hand you say, we are all sinners so many of us do not practice what we preach. You use that to justify that sin does not affect the truth of the orthodox church. Then you make a 360 degree turn and say, look catholics are sinners, that means their teachings are false. If anyone is being hypocritical here, it is you by your inconsistency. Yes, marriage is a great thing, that's another red herring on your part.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: TO JUSTIFY SIN!
Do I justify sin? NO - does the Holy Orthodox Church justify sin? NO - be we are REALISTS. Like the Holy FAthers. We know and preach the IDEAL but we also know that NOT ALL CAN KEEP IT.
But we do not DAMN those who can not keep ONLY ONE MARRIAGE! We tell them to fast, to repent, to make prostrations, to show repetance etc. BUT WE DO NOT THROW THEM OUT from the body of Christ.
There is a difference!
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
No one said that those who divorce are damned from the Church. Ultimate judgment resides solely in God and we leave that between the individual and God. However, divorce is a grave sin and a person who commits this needs to go to the Sacrament of Holy Repentance and receive the Mercy and Grace of God. This is no different from a person who commits adultery or fornication. These are all grave sins that need forgiveness from God.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@adamantis4657 And the Roman Catholic priests did not choose celibacy?? Come on. You seem to care more about the speck in the RCC's eye while the Orthodox Church by even allowing ONE use of contraception or divorce has a forest of redwoods in it's own!!
Jy3pr6 3 months ago
@Mkvine: CONTRACEPTION
1.) It is not a Dogmatic issue - but the Filioque is one for example
2.) I am a member of the ROCA (Russian Orthodox Church Abroad) and contraception is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN - in every case. Other Local Churches may allow it in some special cases - even when it is wrong. Often an error can protect for a greater error. So they IN SOME SPECIAL CASES THEY ALLOW IT.
Not generally! There is a difference
3.) The Catholic view on Sexuality is very unhealthy!
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
Contraception is not a dogmatic issue, says who? Contraception falls under the area of morality, which is one of the areas that the Church is authoritative in. This is a matter of importance because we need to know whether or not someone commits a grave sin by doing this. Contraception is forbidden by both scripture and Tradition. Since apparently you agree with that, would you admonish some of the orthodox churches that teach it is ok?
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: CHRISTIANITY a RELIGION OF MORAL CODE?
NO - that is even disgusting! Christianity is not a religion of MORAL with a special moral Code. It is the Religion of LOVE and UNION WITH GOD. Sin is not to break a moral code but NOT TO BE ON THE WAY for UNION WITH GOD.
AMARTIA means: Not being on the way!
It does not mean, to brake a tabu or a moral code!
So NO CONTRACEPTION IS NOT A DOGMATIC ISSUE. It belongs to pastoral care and is a topic between the confessor and the Priest
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
Yes. Christianity is a religion of Love. Our glorious Lord said that if we love God, we will keep the commandments. We achieve union with God by partaking in the sacraments, living a holy life, keeping the commandments, prayer, charity, fasting, etc. How you concluded that contraception is not a dogmatic issue is beyond me. You never said according to whom. If contraception causes DIS-union with God, then obviously its a problem.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
So in order to have a meaningful dialogue, let's not get bogged down on side issues that have no bearing on the subject. The point is contraception is wrong. In keeping with the Tradition of the Holy Fathers of the Church, the Catholic Church has always held that contraception is wrong. I can give you quotes from Fathers that attest to this. Do you believe in contraception?
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: THE SAME WITH DIVORCE
1.) Also not a Dogmatic thing - also a PASTORAL THING!
2.) Often Catholics state: Oh - the Orthodox Church allows divorce.
That is not really true. The teaching is that we should marry only ONCE. Marriage is a Holy Mystery. Man and Women become one flesh. That is the Ideal and we should try to reach that state. BUT and now come the BUT:
Often life is difficoult. And often we weak humans can not follow the high ideals of the Church.
continued
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@Mkvine: Divorce:
Sometimes it is REALLY BETTER when a couple seperates from each other. It is not good and it is very sad - but that's life. And so the Holy FAthers have allowed to be blessed a second time. It is only a blessing not really a marriage and only after a time of repetance and fasting, prostration etc..
The Holy Fathers said: It is a shame for the church (a second Marriage) but it is better when such couples are blessed and not live completly outside the church in fornication
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
I didn't bring up the issue of divorce, so I don't know why you did. I was focusing on contraception and double standards. Be that as it may, the Holy Fathers of the Church strictly forbade marriage. You say its not a dogmatic issue. Again, says who? Holy Scripture records our Blessed Lord saying that He who divorces and marries another commits adultery. Yet you say, divorce is allowed? What God has joined, let no man rent asunder!
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine
Correction - I meant to say the Holy Fathers strictly forbade *divorce.* Ignore where it says marriage.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: CATHOLIC VIEW OF SEXUALITY is VERY UNHEALTHY!
The whole understanding of sexuality in the RCC is very unhealty and that is the reason why so many Sex Scandals appeared there.
As I have told u - THE HOLY FATHERS WERE VERY VERY STRICT but they also had the wisdom of GOD and the Holy Spirit and they were very BALANCED
The problem of the RCC is that her teaching is not balanced: on the one side sex scandals over and over and on the other side sex is almost forbidden or dirty. U see
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
If any view of sexuality is unhealthy, it is the one that allows divorce and contraception. I'm a bit perplexed at your statements. On the one hand you seen to defend these sins, on the other hand you seem to reject them. So which is it? Do you believe contraception is sinful or not?
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: DO I DEFEND SINS?
U permanently put my words upside down or u are no able to understand:
1.) I AM AGAINST CONTRACEPTION (personally) - and ALSO MY CHURCH THE ROCA IS STRICT AGAINST CONTRACEPTION (what I know)
2.) But it is a PASTORAL THING and not a Dogmatic ISSUE - christianity is not a religion of SEXUAL DOGMAS.
3.) I tried to explain that THERE IS AN IDEAL and there is REALITY. The Ideal would be only to marry ONCE but WE ARE SINNERS and WE SIN.
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
I'm certainly glad that you and your Church are against contraception. Will you admonish your brother churches that DO allow contraception? This is not a dogmatic issue according to whom? Even if you say its a pastoral issue, these pastoral decisions have to be grounded in the teachings of the Church, and the Church has always condemned contraception. I agree Christianity is not all about sex, but it does have sexual rulings - no adultery, fornication, rape, homosexuality, etc.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
As for those Fathers that I promised, here are a few: "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted (St. Clement of Alexandria, Instruction of Children 2:10:91:2).
Mkvine 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
Here's another "Women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs to produce sterility, and to gird themselves round, so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by committing adultery and murder at the same time" (St. Hyppolytus of Rome, Refutation of All Heresies 9:7).
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: SORRY - BUT WHERE ARE THE QUOTES FROM THE HOLY FATHERS?
U said u will post some! And now - where are they? The ONLY 2 quotes are NOT AGAINST CONTRACEPTION. It is against adultery or perhaps masturbation but not exactly against contraception.
Because not everyone who uses contraception is a fornicator or adulterer or one who is pro abortion.
Do u see that u are wrong? Like I HAVE SAID; I KNOW THE HOLY FATHERS - they have not spoken against contraception.
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
I showed you two quotes from brevity's sake and they do teach against contraception. Contraception literally means "against life or conception." There are multiple ways to practice it. One quote teaches that women were trying to take drugs to become fertile - where they would not be able to bear children. This is a form of contraception. Some were trying to expel the child by girding themselves - another form of contraception. Another said the seed is not to be vainly wasted.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: NO - those quotes are not against Contraception. READ YOUR QUOTES - they are against using drugs to become fertile. This is not what we are talking about - what is called contraception.
This can not be compared - that is ridiculous. Not everyone who uses contraception is a fornicator or a prostitute that is nonsense.
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
The quote speaks of two things, those who practice adultery or fornication, and those who practice contraception. In that case, the women were doing both. Taking drugs to get sterile is a form of contraception. Why else would they take it, other than the fact they don't want children. That's straightforward. The other quote said that the seed should be for procreation and should not be ejaculated vainly. Clearly speaking of contraception.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: NO - and I tried to explaint o u THAT U ARE WRONG!
1.) Not everyone who uses contraception is a fornicator or an adulterer - that IS NONSENSE
2.) Sex is not ONLY to produce Children - SEX is when two person "know" each other with love
3.) NO CONTRACETPION is mentioned - as I have known LOL. U are wrong.
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
Ok you're being ridiculous. I never implied that everyone who uses contraception is a fornicator. I said that the quote was dealing with two distinct issues, fornication and contraception, and was admonishing women who were using both. One can perform one without the other. The point of the passage was that these women were wrong for using contraception. And nowhere did I said that sex is apart from love. I correct you already on this.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
You need to learn how to read. The contraception literally means "against life or conception." What these women were doing were finding ways to avoid pregnancy by means of drugs that produce sterility. That is literally contraception but you are being too asinine to realize it. You also completely ignored the quote about the seed being ejaculated vainly.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
All these quotes teach that people should not practice ways that deliberately hinder the procreation of life, this is literally contraception. That's very clear to me.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: AGAIN - HYPOCRISY the second time:
I think u have not understood! We orthodox are not HYPOCRITES in the same way RCC are. Because WE KNOW THAT WE ARE SINNNERS.
And yes I KNOW THAT EVERY ORTHDOOX CHRISTIAN IS A SINNER even the greatest Saints! Because every man is a sinnner. Even every child is a sinner!
The RCC is too extrem (not balanced) - they opress people to be celibaths - or to live a life that is beyond their strengh. Not everyone can be a Martyr, a Saint, .....
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
I understand your position on hypocrisy. I already addressed this, see my response below. You said that the RCC is too extreme and not balanced. I don't think that's the case. Celibacy is a blessing from God and it is a gift to those whom God has called. St. Paul was celibate throughout all his life. However, the Church does make exceptions. If a married man feels the call to the priesthood, like an ex pastor, the Church may allow him. The Church looks at this individually.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: THE RCC is not balanced because it is a human institiution!
The Holy Fathers were VERY STRICT as I told u but they WERE WISE (not like catholics) - they hav known the human soul and human nature FROM EXPERIENCE. They were not interested in MORAL CODES - NO ONE IS.
The Celibacy of the RCC is the source of many Scandals. Because it is not practiced correctly. NOT BALANCED.
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
The RCC is very balanced. You have not given one example in how its not. The only example you gave was celibacy. But surely you know that St. Paul was celibate. Celibacy was something that was taught in the Early Fathers, and they said it was a good and holy thing. By your own logic, monks should not be celibate. Ridiculous.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: EVERYONE KNOW THAT THE RCC is not balanced!
So what are u talking about? Everyone knows that the RCC is the Church with the most sexual scandals on earth. Not even the satanic protestants have so much sex scandals.
With pedophilia, rape, and so on.....Why do think? Because the RCC has a balanced conception of sexuality? LOL Come on....u are ridiculous...
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@Mkvine: CELIBACY
CELIBACY was not tought by the Holy Fathers as the RCC practice it today. MONKS AND NONS ARE ASCETICS: the PRAY UNCEASINGLY, THE FAST UNCEASINGLY, THE PROSTRATE UNCEASINGLY, they do not sleep, the sleep on stones....etc.
They ARE ASCETICS. But RCC Priests are not ASCETICS - they only do not marry - that is foreign to the church and unhealthy. That is why they are gulity of so much sins
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
You are confusing the issues now. Ascetics is not the same as celibacy. The issue was whether celibacy is detrimental to someone. Clearly it is not since St. Paul practiced it and monks practice it. If you are going to condemn priest from doing this, then your going to condemn the former from doing it.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: DIVORCE
Again u DAMN everyone to HELL who may is divorced. Here is the difference: I am orthodox and I know that we ARE SINNERS and that WE FALL UNCEASINGLY. Divorce is BAD and A SIN but that is how it is. People are divorced - WE DO NOT DAMN THEM TO HELL.
St. Basil the great (and others) HAVE SET UP THE CANON FOR THE DIVORCED. Do u see that they have not allowed it but they ACCEPTED that FACT that christians are sometimes divorced.
Do u want to be stricter than St. Basil?
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
The Church has never damned anyone to hell. Even the worst sinners and apostates, the Church has never said they are in hell. We strictly forbid announcing an eternal judgment of hell on anyone. That issue is between the person and God, not us. This includes divorce. I will say that if a person is married civilly by the government, then can get a civil divorce. But as far as the Church is concerned, they are still married. However, they can physically separate without divorcing.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: THE RCC HAS NEVER DAMNED ANYONE TO HELL!
LOL - really? When people are EXCLUDED FROM THE CHURCH and from the HOLY MYSTERIES they are without CHRIST. And u say u do not damn anyone? I think u don't know what it means to be outside the church?
Contraception is not a DOGMATIC ISSUE FOR THE HOLY CHURCH or the Holy Fathers. Do u say:
I BELIEVE IN ONE GOD - Father Allmighty......and I BELIEVE THAT CONTRACETPION IS FORBIDDEN...
Is it a part of your creed? Wow never heard such creed
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
Nope. The Catholic Church has never damned anyone to hell. It strictly teaches against this. You're confusing ex communication with damnation, two very different things. Ex communication is a visible separation from the Church whereby the person is warned that they need to repent and realize their error. Damnation is eternal punishment. It is still possible for a person to be saved while excommunicated, depending on how God judges the heart of the individual.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: I THINK U DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO BE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH!
To be outside the church = EXCOMMUNICATION. Everyone who is OUTSIDE THE CHURCH CAN NOT BE SAVED!
He who has not the Church as his MOther - GOD IS NOT HIS FATHER.
So what nonsense are u talking about? U should go and take some lessions in Ecclesiology!
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
I already addressed this. Those who are excommunicated are certainly in danger of hell for their errors and heresy by virtue of being outside the Church. However, it is not impossible for them to be saved depending on how God views the heart of the individual - something we cannot do. Simple as that.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
However, we do allow persons to get an annulment. This is different from a divorce. An annulment is when the Church examines the case and finds that something was lacking in the marriage exchange, whereby the marriage was invalid to begin with. In other words, the persons - for some reason- were not validly married, and hence the marriage never existed. In this case, the persons are allowed to separate (by annulment) and are free to marry anyone.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: THE RCC and her unbalanced teaching!
The Holy Fathers have ACCEPTED Divorce, they also made NO DOGMAS of Sexuality. When u want to created Dogmas of Sex - please feel free to do. U can believe what u want.
But u also have to accept that all such believs are FOREIGN TO THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. This silly MORAL teaching is the outcome of the wordly character of the RCC. They are only concerned on Moral. The Holy Fathers did not even know such thing as "Moral".
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
The Creed doesn't mention a lot of things, that doesn't mean its not certain things are not believed. The Creed doesn't mention adultery, or fornication, homosexuality, etc. By your logic, these are not to believed as sins. That is very ridiculous. You said we shouldn't accept a moral code, yet St. Paul list moral codes to instruct us in his epistles, he said avoid adultery, fornication, homosexuality, etc. You seem to go against St. Paul's own teachings.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: DIVORCE and HOLY TRADITION
Before being concerned on Sex so much it would be better to RETURN TO THE FAITH OF THE APOSTLES AND HOLY FATHERS.
Teach the people to make prostrations, to fast, how to kiss and venerated icons, how to chant, how to pray....
Because this is more important! Did u know that ALL WHO DO NOT KEEP THE FASTS on Wednesday and Friday are OUTSIDE THE CHURCH and condemned by the Apostles?
Wow - so all catholics are condemned because no one is fasting!
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@Mkvine:
Did u know that it is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN to kneel on Sunday? The Ecumenical Synods set all under ANATHEMA who dared to kneel on Sundays! Did u know that the Holy Apostles ordered that women have to cover their hair? That it is forbidden for men to shave their beards?
Have u known that the Holy Fathers ordered that women and men are seperated in Church? Do u know the Canon how to calculate the Pascha Date? LOL
All this things would be more important!
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@Mkvine: LIKOUDIS
I also have read an article of Likoudis! It is full of ERROR and nonsense. He was talking about the Toll houses which is a traditional patritic teaching. ALL HOLY FATHERS talked about the Toll houses.
This silly guy Likoudis denied that teaching!
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@Mkvine: So u see - the Holy Fathers were VERY STRICT but they also were VERY WISE. They have seen that sometimes it is better to allow an error - so that people are protected from greater error.
Well - give me quotes from the Holy Fathers on contraception because I can not believe that they talk about contraception.
They generally talk about the passions and that we should live a life of ascesis and repetance. But contraception was not even know at their times (as we know it today).
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@Mkvine: MARRIAGE, SEX and ORTHODOXY
There are good books on that topic. A study about St. John Chrystostom about Marriage. The Orthodox Church does not follow the view of St. Augustine.
Marriage and Sex is not ONLY for procreation but is an expression of LOVE. When a man and woman love each other, sex is an expression of that love. It is not ONLY for creating kids - even when this is the most important thing and God said: mulitply.....
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
We do not base our theology on Sex on the testimony of only one Father, but we take the whole consensus of the Holy Fathers. I agree that Love is an aspect of sex. We do not create false either/or dichotomies. Rather, we emphasis, the both/and. Sex is for both procreation and love. Another thing, you said separation is better. I agree sometimes it is. However, we make a distinction with physical separation and divorce. A person can separate without being divorced.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@Mkvine: DIVORCE!
LOL - I tell u; I KNOW THE HOLY FATHERS VERY VERY WELL. For whole years I permanently study their wrtings and their teaching. They are not interested in such sexual topics as u are.
THE HOLY FATHERS HAVE ALLOWED IN SOME SPECIAL CASES that a couple is DIVORCED. Read St. Basil the GREAT. There are even Canons for those who are divorced.
These Canons are followed UNTIL THIS VERY DAY in the HOLY ORTHODOX CHURCH.
adamantis4657 3 months ago
@adamantis4657
I have a book that lists all the Fathers who comment on this issue. I'll get you those quotes on divorce and contraception from the Holy Fathers later tonight. I am in school right now, so you will have to wait. Thank you for your patience.
Mkvine 3 months ago
“It is in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic!…That, however, the sixth Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the sentences of the Synod against him....
adamantis4657 11 months ago
The Synod stated:
We find that these documents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics…there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome ...
He was conedmned as POPE of ROME
adamantis4657 11 months ago
Pope Honorius I (625-38) was condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople (680-1). He promoted the heresy of the Monothelites, who taught that there is only one will in Christ; the orthodox doctrine is that Christ has separate wills in his human and divine natures.Honorius actively maintained the heresy in official papal letters written to Sergius I, patriarch of Constantinople in reply to a formal consultation and to other individuals
adamantis4657 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It also declared:( Canon 3)
This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion.
how many catholic priests have " housewifes" at their homes!
U ARE UNCANONICAL
adamantis4657 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The First Ecumenical Synod (325) declared: Canon 20
Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost, this holy synod decrees that, so that the same observances may be maintained in every diocese, one should offer one's prayers to the Lord standing.
It is forbidden to kneel on sunday - the catholics do every sunday!
U ARE UNCANONICAL
adamantis4657 11 months ago
Canon 69 of the Holy Apostles designates that any hierarch or priest or deacon or subdeacon or reader or chanter who does not fast during Great Lent and Wednesday and Friday is to be deposed. If a layperson does not fast during these times (unless he cannot fast on account of bodily illness), he is to be excommunicated. Do you see how the Apostles numbered the Wednesday and Friday fast together with the fast of Great Lent?
adamantis4657 11 months ago
St. Augustin:
"Moved by fatherly love, I have advised those who have an affliction of the legs, or are burdened by other sickness, that they should sit quietly and listen attentively during lengthy readings. But now even some of our healthy daughters think that they should do this all the time.Thus, I ask you noble daughters, and implore you with fatherly concern, that none of you should sit during readings or homilies
It is forbidden to sit in church - UARE UNCANONICAL
adamantis4657 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
7th Holy Ecumenical Synod, states: "If someone sets aside any tradition [of the Church], written or unwritten, let him be anathema."
U ARE UNDER ANATHEMA!
St. Augustine, says: "Let there be no innovations, because innovations defile antiquity. For the Bridegroom and His Bride, the Church, are without blemish."
St. Augustine is not with your church - because she innovates one new thing after the other'!
U ARE UNCANONICAL!
adamantis4657 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
St. John of Damascus:
We do not change the everlasting boundaries which our fathers have set," John wrote, "but we keep the Tradition, just as we received it.
U have changed Tradition - the Holy Fathers are not with u!
Why do not face east while praying as St. John writes in the exact exposition of the the orthodox faith?
BECAUSE U ARE UNCANONICAL!
adamantis4657 11 months ago
John Chrysostom
"So then brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther !!!!!!!!!!
But u change tradition from day to day!
adamantis4657 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Canon LXV of the Holy Apostles:
"If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated."
Pope John joined Jews in prayer!
OF COURSE BECAUSE U ARE UNCANONICAL
adamantis4657 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Canon I of the Second Ecumenical Synod
"Let not the Symbol of Faith be set aside…but let it remain unchanged: and let every heresy be given over to anathema…"
U DARED TO CHANGE THE CREED OF THE HOLY FATHERS!
adamantis4657 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3. Ecumenical Synod (Canon 7):
"Let no one be permitted to bring forward, or write or compose a different faith besides that defined by the holy Fathers who assembled with the Holy Spirit in the city of Nicaea.
adamantis4657 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...And whoever dares to compose a different faith, or present, or offer [one] to those wishing to turn to the knowledge of the truth..let such, if they be bishops or belong to the clergy, be alien-bishops from the episcopate, and clerics from the clergy—and if they be laymen, let them be given over to anathema.
U ARE UNDER ANATHEMA BECAUSE U CHANGED THE CREED!
adamantis4657 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Canon I of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod
"We have acknowledged it as just to keep the canons of the holy Fathers set forth at each synod till now."
U DO NOT KEEP THE CANONS OF THE FATHERS - BECAUSE U ARE UNCANONICAL!
adamantis4657 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Sixth Ecumenical Council.Canon LXXXII.
It is forbidden to paint Christ like a lamb
But catholics do OF COURSE BECAUE U ARE UNDER ANATHEMA!
adamantis4657 11 months ago
ST AUGUSTINE
"musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp here associate so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus, it is easy to understand the prejudices against their use in the worship." (Augustine 354 A.D., describing the singing at Alexandria under Athanasius)
BUT U USE INSTRUMENTS IN CHURCH - U ARE UNCANONICAL
adamantis4657 11 months ago
Comment removed
adamantis4657 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
St. CLEMENT "
Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and intent on their idol worshipping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wingless feasts, for they arc more suited for beasts and for the class of men that is least capable of reason than for men.
INSTRUMENTS ARE FORBIDDEN IN CHURCH - U ARE UNCANONICAL
adamantis4657 11 months ago
Comment removed
adamantis4657 11 months ago
Comment removed
adamantis4657 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AQUINAS
"Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize." (Thomas Aquinas, Bingham's Antiquities, Vol. 3, page 137)
INSTRUMENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN CHURCH- U ARE UNCANONICAL
adamantis4657 11 months ago
Comment removed
adamantis4657 11 months ago
Comment removed
adamantis4657 11 months ago
EUSEBIUS
"Of old at the time those of the circumcision were worshipping with symbols and types it was not inappropriate to send up hymns to God with the psalterion and cithara and to do this on Sabbath days... We render our hymn with a living psalterion and a living cithara with spiritual songs. The unison voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument.
INSTRUMENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED! so u are uncanonical
adamantis4657 11 months ago
Do u see - St. Gregory was in danger of being killed because he DARED to CHANE a few words - that was the faith of old.
NO ONE is allowed to change anything - no POPE - NO PATRIARCH
And do u see - that NO ONE believe in Papism - because would they have believed in Papism - how could they dare to kill him?
adamantis4657 11 months ago
ST. GREGORY:
The Canon remained unchanged from Apostolic times to the present
day, with the exception of one short clause inserted by St. Gregory the
Great.The phrase Pope Gregory added was "diesque nostros in tua pace
disponas" [may you order our days in Thy peace] to the Hanc Igitur of
the Canon. The Romans were outraged at this act and threatened to kill
the pope because he had dared to touch the Sacred Liturgy. The Mass was
affirmed to be complete and unchangeable
adamantis4657 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SECOND COUNCIL OF NICAEA (787) "Those therefore who after the manner of wicked heretics dare to
set aside ecclesiastical traditions, and to invent any kind of novelty,
or to reject any of those things entrusted to the Church, or who
wrongfully and outrageously devise the destruction of any of those
traditions enshrined in the Catholic Church, are to be punished thus:
if they are bishops, we order them to be deposed...."
U SET ASIDE THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH - UNCANONICAL
adamantis4657 11 months ago
SECOND COUNCIL OF NICAEA (787) "Those therefore who after the manner of wicked heretics dare to
set aside ecclesiastical traditions, and to invent any kind of novelty,
or to reject any of those things entrusted to the Church, or who
wrongfully and outrageously devise the destruction of any of those
traditions enshrined in the Catholic Church, are to be punished thus:
if they are bishops, we order them to be deposed...."
U SET ASIDE THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH - UNCANONICAL
adamantis4657 11 months ago
@adamantis4657
"U SET ASIDE THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH - UNCANONICAL"
I never advocated to "set aside" the Tradition of the Church. Another strawman argument.
Mkvine 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FROM THE PAPAL VOW.
"To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were
the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place
I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support,
being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all
that I shall confess;
TO GUARD THE CANONS.......WHAT ARE UD DOING? U ARE UNCANONICAL
adamantis4657 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FROM THE PAPAL VOW.
"To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were
the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place
I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support,
being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all
that I shall confess;
TO GUARD THE CANONS.......WHAT ARE UD DOING? U ARE UNCANONICAL
adamantis4657 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FROM THE PAPAL VOW.
"To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were
the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place
I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support,
being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all
that I shall confess;
TO GUARD THE CANONS.......WHAT ARE UD DOING? U ARE UNCANONICAL!
adamantis4657 11 months ago
Comment removed
adamantis4657 11 months ago
FROM THE PAPAL VOW
Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest
excommunication anyone -- be it ourselves or be it another -- who would dare
to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic
Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or
would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with
those who undertake such a blasphemous venture." (Patrologia Latina)
How can u say u can set aside
adamantis4657 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Canon L
If any bishop or presbyter does not perform the one initiation with three immersions, but with giving one immersion only, into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed.
Canon LXIV.
If any clergyman or layman shall enter into a synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and let the latter be excommunicated
adamantis4657 11 months ago
From the Canons of the Apostles:
Canon X
If any one shall pray, even in a private house, with an excommunicated person, let him also be excommunicated.
Canon XI
If any clergyman shall join in prayer with a deposed clergyman, as if he were a clergyman let him also be deposed.
Canon XLV
Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who has only prayed with heretics, be excommunicated: but if he has permitted them to perform any clerical office, let him be deposed
adamantis4657 11 months ago
@adamantis4657
How are canons X, XI, and XLV relevant to our discussion? By the way, the West only recognized 50 canons.
Mkvine 11 months ago
@Mkvine: Wait - I will post much more.....again u say "the West" - no one is interested wha the "west" recognizes because u are the heretic.
U will see! Wait. I will stopp your lies and your blasphemies against Christ!
adamantis4657 11 months ago
@adamantis4657
If your interested in spamming, then I warn you that is not allowed on my page. So please don't spam. Secondly, I showed you from St. Cyprian that to hold the orthodox faith is to be in union with the Chair of Peter. You did not address that.
Mkvine 11 months ago
@Mkvine: I don't want to spam ....are u a lair? U said u want evidence and I told u I will bring evidence---thousends of posts - now u get what u want.
I adressed that. St. Cyprian was speaking about the ORTHODOX Popes of Rome not the heretic - your popes are heretic - so no one should follow him because it leads to heresy.
adamantis4657 11 months ago
@adamantis4657
"I don't want to spam ....are u a lair? U said u want evidence and I told u I will bring evidence---thousends of posts - now u get what u want."
You don't want to spam, and yet you want to post "thousands" of posts. Yeah, thats what I call spamming. I'm all for reasonable amounts of posts to discuss certain issues. But you have been warned.
Mkvine 11 months ago
@Mkvine: Hey - u said; BRING ME EVIDENCE u get what u want. So stop now - I will bring u the posts u asked for.
Read those posts and repent of your rebellion against Christ and His Holy Truth = ORTHODOXY!
adamantis4657 11 months ago
@adamantis4657
" Hey - u said; BRING ME EVIDENCE u get what u want."
Yeah, and I also said don't spam. Nice false dichotomy.
Mkvine 11 months ago
@Mkvine: They are relevant because the Popes even pray with heretics!
adamantis4657 11 months ago
@adamantis4657
" the Popes even pray with heretics!"
Um...didn't the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew pray with Pope Benedict?
Mkvine 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Canons of the Holy Apostles - approved by the Ecumenical Synods:
Canon L
If any bishop or presbyter does not perform the one initiation with three immersions, but with giving one immersion only, into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed.
Canon LXIV.
If any clergyman or layman shall enter into a synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and let the latter be excommunicated
Catholics do both...
adamantis4657 11 months ago
So the verse u have quotet ONLY would be true if the Roman Patriarch = POPE would be orthodox and canonical since he isn't that verse does not fit.
Think about all innovations: Icons - where is your iconography? Where are the icons of the Theotokos? U changed Holy Iconography what for? Do u honor and venerate the icons of the Mother of God? Do u kiss it? Do u make prostrations and honor the Theotokos as it is proper to the Queen of heaven?
NO NO NO
adamantis4657 11 months ago
@adamantis4657
"So the verse u have quotet ONLY would be true if the Roman Patriarch = POPE would be orthodox and canonical since he isn't that verse does not fit."
This is such a Protestant argument. The word "pope" is a word meaning "father." The Roman Patriarch's authority is derived from its office, not from the word "pope."
Regarding the Blessed Theotokos, we certainly do have icons of her and we certainly venerate them.
Mkvine 11 months ago
@Mkvine: POPE is the title for the Patrirch of Alexandria - but Rome also has called its Patriarch POPE.
No you don't have icons of the Most Pure Theotokos - u have blasphemous and uncanonical images - where the MostHoly Theotokos is depicted as an ordinary women.
The only icons the RCC still have - are from the time when it was orthodox - some are in Italy. The icon Advocata, etc...
adamantis4657 11 months ago
@adamantis4657
"POPE is the title for the Patrirch of Alexandria - but Rome also has called its Patriarch POPE."
Are you really going to argue semantics? As I stated earlier, "pope" is a word which means "father." The authority of the Roman Patriarch is derived from its office, not its name.
"u have blasphemous and uncanonical images"
Huh? Since when are Icons "uncanonical"?
Mkvine 11 months ago
@Mkvine: You have no icons - u mean the paintings of Raphael or Michelangelo? Those are not icons - they are secualr paintings.
Icons are painted according to strict rules and Canons! Come on do not spread lies here - everyone knows that the RCC does not have icons anymore! Please stop to ly!
adamantis4657 11 months ago
@adamantis4657
"I adressed that. St. Cyprian was speaking about the ORTHODOX Popes of Rome not the heretic"
Nice evasion tactic. This assumes that heresy can take hold of the Church of Rome, but St. Cyprian said that "faithlessness" cannot access it.
Mkvine 11 months ago
@Mkvine: Hm - u are wrong my friend - because as I told u many Popes have become CURSED heretics: go and google Honorius, Formosius, Vigilius - he was condemned by the 5th Ecumenical Synod.
And even some catholics Saints wrote about that Popes can become heretics. St. Kathrine, St. Thomes from Aquinus
adamantis4657 11 months ago
@adamantis4657
"Hm - u are wrong my friend - because as I told u many Popes have become CURSED heretics: go and google Honorius, Formosius, Vigilius - he was condemned by the 5th Ecumenical Synod."
You obviously did not read what I stated earlier. I said that the Popes cannot proclaim any heretical dogma which is binding on the entire Church. I never said they cannot err in their own private opinions.
Mkvine 11 months ago
@Mkvine:"I never said they cannot err in their own private opinions."
That's roman trickery - because Pope Vigilus was a heretic and procclaimed heresies and so he was condemned by the EC.
Please be patient - and I will show how many Canons u have broken and how many ANATHEMAS u have to face
adamantis4657 11 months ago
@adamantis4657
"That's roman trickery"
No, its just you not understanding how papal infallibility works.
Mkvine 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mkvine.
St. CLEMENT "
Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and intent on their idol worshipping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wingless feasts, for they arc more suited for beasts and for the class of men that is least capable of reason than for men.
INSTRUMENTS ARE FORBIDDEN IN CHURCH - U ARE UNCANONICAL
adamantis4657 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mkvine
St. CLEMENT "
Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and intent on their idol worshipping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wingless feasts, for they arc more suited for beasts and for the class of men that is least capable of reason than for men.
INSTRUMENTS ARE FORBIDDEN IN CHURCH - U ARE UNCANONICAL
adamantis4657 11 months ago
One must be crazy to leave Christ and follow human teaching! Because the Orthodox church is the true Church = CHRIST.
It can be proven that the RCC is in heresy and full of innovation; NEW CALENDAR; PEWS; ORGANS; STATUES, BLASPHEMOUS MASSES; PRAYERS WERE CHANGED; HYMNS CHANGED; - ARCHITECTURE CHANGED; CHANT CHANGED; FASTING CHANGED; ICONOGRAPHY CHANGED .....
adamantis4657 11 months ago
@adamantis4657
If your really going to dispute with Catholicism, I would expect you to dispute *doctrine* - not church discipline....Most of what you pointed out is Church discipline. At least in Catholicism, we live up to our name - we allow different liturgical rites to express the faith in their own tradition.
Mkvine 11 months ago
@Mkvine: To dispute "Doctrine"...the first error....we can not divide Doctrine from "Discipline" as u call it. I would call it prayer. You believe in what u pray and u pray what u believe. Lex orandit - Lex credendi.
When u study the Holy Scripture, the apostolic writings, the church Fathers etc...u will see that we have to keep Holy Tradition withou innovation and corruption. Holy Tradition includes everything; Dogma, the services, Scripture. etc.
adamantis4657 11 months ago
@adamantis4657
"we can not divide Doctrine from "Discipline" as u call it. I would call it prayer."
First of all, discipline is not confined to just prayer, as you have it - it's more encompassing than that. Secondly, we certainly can seperate Doctrine from discipline. Doctrine is what has been divinely revealed and cannot change. Discipline is how we express or manifest that doctrine, which can change. For example, Marian prayers have changed all throughout the centuries.
Mkvine 11 months ago