Mr.Cat Posted March 16, 2007 Author Share Posted March 16, 2007 With all due respect while Orthodox (among the versions of Orthodoxy) there is nothing similar to the Papacy, unless you are claiming one of your Bishops has the Primacy and Supremacy having such ministry of infallibility chiefly in matters of faith and morality? Also while there is a central leadership it does not hold the same authority as one would find in the Catholic Church. Unless one can prove otherwise… Dogmatic Law proposes that it is required belief by all the faithful and while the Orthodox does have structured belief, it is not required by all the Orthodox faithful such as Dogmatic Law. You claimed even yourself that many doctrines such as the True Presence are not heavily defined as they are in the Catholic Church. Likewise, the issue of the Immaculate Conception and the Sinless state of the Blessed Virgin is not a dogmatic issue even though there is much writing about it (mostly in the affirmative). So it is not the accusation that Orthodox have no dogmatic laws but rather that there are not as many or as defined as they are in the Catholic faith. Unless one can prove otherwise… I have quoted the Eastern Orthodox theology and I have even quoted several places. I have even quoted what you have quoted to show what they have stated, but every time you keep saying we do not understand what the whole of doctrine says because we are “Romans” and we cannot understand. I am not the only one to quote something to show you that the Orthodox does propose the belief in the sinless state of the Blessed Virgin. Unless one can prove otherwise… If you read back I quoted from “Wikipedia” and I even then quoted from the Orthodox “Wikipedia”. I have not seen a single thread of evidence against this proposal except, for what I have mentioned far before you mentioned it, that there is a difference in the theology of original sin. RezaLemmyng the next time you want to give me one of your lectures on arrogance and ignorance, please read your own posts. I think the fact that there are plenty of other Catholics proposing the same arguments as myself and the fact that the quotes already on this topic supporting what I wrote, I think that there is plenty of room to say that I am being very reasonable. You although have quite an aversion to me so anything I say you will take negatively. So I await your next response to my post so this can be proven... Because nothing I have said is very offending and nothing I have said is wrong, because I have researched into this subject this is the reason I started the topic. To understand the orthodox viewpoint, one that you have repeatedly failed to give any evidence or explanation of, who is being unreasonable? The one who asks for clarification giving quotes and explanation? Or the one in that same context who gives no quotes, little explanation, accuses everyone of offending his beliefs, and then claiming that the Romans simply don’t understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 This was to be in bold, but I did not. [quote][b]So, for the East, when the West affirmed that the Mother of God was conceived without Original Sin, this implied that she did not die – something the East had always believed as its liturgical tradition (“lex orandi, lex credendi”) bore out. [u]But today the West understands the “stain of Original Sin” in a way that would be compatible with the view of the East.[/u] Perhaps this was all a misunderstanding that was artificially maintained across centuries by ill-will on both sides – who can know for sure? [u]And the West does not deny that the Mother of God was under the effects of Original Sin, even though her great holiness mitigated greatly her experience of these.[/u][/b][/quote] This is what I meant by saying that it would seem some Orthodox are close to the Catholic Church understanding of the sinlessness of Mary. This Orthodox seems to even hint at that we are in agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1214423' date='Mar 16 2007, 12:03 AM']This was to be in bold, but I did not. This is what I meant by saying that it would seem some Orthodox are close to the Catholic Church understanding of the sinlessness of Mary. This Orthodox seems to even hint at that we are in agreement.[/quote] Alexander Roman is Ukrainian Catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Apotheoun, Slightly off topic, but PhatMass has deemed it fitting to not allow 'Seperated Bretheren' to have Instant Message or e-Mail capablilites. I've read your profile and have a sense of you thought process from your posts. What is your opinion regarding the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome becoming to mean both the Supremacy, Infallible Alone Bishopric? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1214517' date='Mar 16 2007, 10:20 AM']Alexander Roman is Ukrainian Catholic.[/quote] Ah I see that now. Its what I get for assuming... Yet this Ukrainian Orthodox Church must agree with what he has written like wise Roman's work would not be on their website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N/A Gone Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 I am excited to get his answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Reza: I understand that the Orthodox have Patriarchs, and even that the Coptic Pope has gone by that title for longer than the Roman Pope. The difference is that while both Orthodox and Catholics have Patriarchs (we have them too), the Catholic Church has a sort of Patriarch of Patriarchs, who is the definitive word on all questions of faith and practice, and for this reason, there is more agreement on matters of doctrine among Catholics than Orthodox. I say this not to tout superiority. There is something to be said for diversity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 (edited) [quote name='theculturewarrior' post='1214635' date='Mar 16 2007, 02:28 PM']Reza: I understand that the Orthodox have Patriarchs, and even that the Coptic Pope has gone by that title for longer than the Roman Pope. The difference is that while both Orthodox and Catholics have Patriarchs (we have them too), the Catholic Church has a sort of Patriarch of Patriarchs, who is the definitive word on all questions of faith and practice, and for this reason, there is more agreement on matters of doctrine among Catholics than Orthodox. I say this not to tout superiority. There is something to be said for diversity.[/quote] Though I wouldn't agree that the Roman Pope is the "patriarch of patriarchs", I like your genuine post and comment with a more clear understanding the the previous posters that know nothing about the original 4 rites, and their patriarchs. I respect the Roman Pope Greatly, even though I [as the other Copts] disagree with a great amount of the doctrine of the Roman Church. See here's the issue: All 4 of the original rites [Sees] are Catholic, though we greatly disagree. Alot of people use the word "Catholic" as if it only applies to Rome but the truth is that it applies to Antioch, Egypt and Constantinople. There is more agreement between Antioch, Egypt and Constantinople then there is between Rome and Antioch, Egypt and Constantinople. For those that don't agree about the history of the original 4 rites, you should really study your church history more and the Apostles after Jesus left this earth. St. Mark traveled to Egypt and was the Bishop/patriarch of Egypt, which became one of the rites [the southern See], as the other Apostles traveled yonder to establish the other Sees and spread Christ to the 4 corners of the earth. I'm not going to address Cat because she frequently misquotes Orthodox writings that she doesn't get directly from the Diocese, refuses to read them within context [which results in being a waste of my time], interprets them as she sees fit, uses insulting labels and terminology in reference to Orthodox but gets her underwear in a grunge if anyone does this same behavior to Romans, she doesn't attempt to understand Orthodox doctrine but simply is attempting to slander it, as she still states that Orthodox believe something that they don't [as anyone that doesn't believe me, can go and visit any Orthodox Church in this whole world and find the truth that I've stated here to be the truth and her heretical claimis regarding Orthodox to be wrong]. Reza Edited March 16, 2007 by RezaLemmyng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1214598' date='Mar 16 2007, 01:10 PM']Ah I see that now. Its what I get for assuming... Yet this Ukrainian Orthodox Church must agree with what he has written like wise Roman's work would not be on their website.[/quote] Just because something is posted on a particular website it does not follow that the owner of the site agrees with everything that is said in the posts (or articles); take Phatmass for example: Dust clearly agrees with much of what is posted here, but he certainly does not agree with it all. Now, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Churches because they do not conceive the fall of Adam in the same way that St. Augustine did, and the Augustinian viewpoint has dominated Western thought for nearly 1,500 years. That said, as far as Eastern Christians are concerned, there is no "stain" of sin on anyone when they are born; instead, all men are born mortal (i.e., subject to a principle of death), and it is mortality that eventually causes human beings to sin, because they try to maintain their temporal existence and lose sight of the true good in the process. God bless, Todd P.S. - For more information on the Eastern Christian understanding of [i]the original sin[/i], go back to page one of this thread and read the text I posted from Fr. John Meyendorff's book entitled, "Byzantine Theology." Click the link in order to read the text from "[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=65507&view=findpost&p=1212104"]Byzantine Theology[/url]." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Apotheoun, How does an Eastern Catholic view the term "original sin" in the text of magisterial documents? How do you reconcile Eastern theology to these statements to which assent must be given? Not a debate or a disagreement, just trying to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1214732' date='Mar 16 2007, 08:29 PM']Just because something is posted on a particular website it does not follow that the owner of the site agrees with everything that is said in the posts (or articles); take Phatmass for example: Dust clearly agrees with much of what is posted here, but he certainly does not agree with it all. Now, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Churches because they do not conceive the fall of Adam in the same way that St. Augustine did, and the Augustinian viewpoint has dominated Western thought for nearly 1,500 years. That said, as far as Eastern Christians are concerned, there is no "stain" of sin on anyone when they are born; instead, all men are born mortal (i.e., subject to a principle of death), and it is mortality that eventually causes human beings to sin, because they try to maintain their temporal existence and lose sight of the true good in the process. God bless, Todd P.S. - For more information on the Eastern Christian understanding of [i]the original sin[/i], go back to page one of this thread and read the text I posted from Fr. John Meyendorff's book entitled, "Byzantine Theology."[/quote] Yes but unlike Phatmass which is a form were any person can post nearly anything they wish is quite different than the setup over at this Ukrainian Orthodox Church website, Dr. Alexander Roman is part of their "team", he is speaking for the "team" and has "contributed a large number of articles which are on this site." I find it doubtful that he would be allowed to speak for the team if what he says is not what they wish to say. If you notice on the "about us" page Roman is listed second to Archpriest Ihor George Kutash. Roman undoubtedly has a very respected place on this site, he is allowed to teach and speak for this Ukrainian Orthodox Church on the matters of faith. Again I would find it doubtful that his writings are allowed to be place on the site if they are counter to what this church teaches. Yet I have found the rest of your statements informative and I will read your post on page one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted March 17, 2007 Author Share Posted March 17, 2007 (edited) No quotes, no explanation, rude comments, and a belittling of who I am.. When I started this topic to understand (since I was told I misunderstood). Thank you for that proof. Although, I would really like to understand how I am misreading this, but maybe I can speak to other Orthodox believers (which I frequently speak with). Thank you for your time. But I think you seriously need to examine my name “[b]Mr[/b].CatholicCat.” Otherwise you are just being highly RUDE which you have accused me off always... Maybe I should do the same... Edited March 17, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1214747' date='Mar 16 2007, 08:17 PM']No quotes, no explanation, rude comments, and a belittling of who I am.. When I started this topic to understand (since I was told I misunderstood). Thank you for that proof. Although, I would really like to understand how I am misreading this, but maybe I can speak to other Orthodox believers (which I frequently speak with). Thank you for your time. But I think you seriously need to examine my name “[b]Mr[/b].CatholicCat.” Otherwise you are just being highly RUDE which you have accused me off always... Maybe I should do the same...[/quote] You've intentionally misquoted Orthodox sources, so no I don't have respect for you. I could quote Roman Sources and take their words out of context too, I could even find priests that make statements about the Roman Church that the Church as a whole doesn't support, but I chose not to stoop to that level of ignorance. Apotheoun: Good post!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts