Author Topic: discussion about orthodox religion #1  (Read 72172 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Georgiy

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2022
  • Slava v vyshnikh Bogu
    • View Profile
Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« Reply #60 on: January 24, 2005, 08:41:40 PM »
Ah, but the creed was altered in the West. What Catholics believe about the Holy Spirit is not the same as what Orthodox or Oriental (non-Chalcedonian) Orthodox believe. Also Mary and who/what she is.

While a lot of the basics of our Faith are the same, some of the most basics are quite different. (Also these basics are actually quite complex).
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Georgiy »

Offline cjred685

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« Reply #61 on: January 24, 2005, 08:42:43 PM »
But aren't the basic principles/beliefs still the same?
Souls entwine one more time....

Offline Georgiy

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2022
  • Slava v vyshnikh Bogu
    • View Profile
Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« Reply #62 on: January 24, 2005, 08:49:11 PM »
Basics maybe, but the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father as opposed to from the Father and the Son is an important difference, as it majorly subordinates and alters the Holy Spirit and its role.

Also we don't have the same concept of 'original' sin - in that we are not being punished for the sins of Adam. We are guilty of our own sins but not of others. (And our sins can also include when we have been a cause of sin for others). We have inherited Adam's mortality though, as mortality became a part of Adam's nature after the fall. Sin is in the world, and as we are living in this world it 'infects' us as well - like if you were in a room infected with some disease you would come down with it.

Offline Dennis

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 180
  • Royal Student
    • View Profile
Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« Reply #63 on: January 24, 2005, 08:58:17 PM »
Yes, but all of the differences you mention have been the subject of much ecumenical dialogue over the years. Even if we don't agree on everything, we are coming to greater understanding of each other's faith traditions.

I have been priviledged to attend the U.S. National Workshop on Christian Unity for several years.  Participants include RC, Orthodox, Lutheran, Episcopal, Baptist, Moravian, etc.

Even the procession of the Holy Spirit has been discussed and Lutherans and Anglicans have agreed that in ecumenical services with the Orthdox the original version of the Nicene Creed should be used without the filioque.

Dennis

Offline Georgiy

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2022
  • Slava v vyshnikh Bogu
    • View Profile
Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« Reply #64 on: January 24, 2005, 09:03:37 PM »
Ah but what one believes is very important. The Filioque is no trivial thing. There's still a big difference between the non-chalcedonians and the Orthodox which while it would be nice if it could be reconciled, is in reality a long way away. Not all Orthodox Churches are happy with the Ecumenical movement.

Offline cjred685

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« Reply #65 on: January 24, 2005, 09:26:18 PM »
Quote
We are guilty of our own sins but not of others. (And our sins can also include when we have been a cause of sin for others).

Interesting statement....aren't we all responsible for our own actions/sins even when we sin willingly? If a one willingly sins because of anothers actions then how can the actor be responsible for your own actions?  I mean if a woman enters into an adulterous relationship with a man willingly then how can he be the cause of her sins?  
Souls entwine one more time....

Offline cjred685

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« Reply #66 on: January 24, 2005, 09:31:21 PM »
and yes one's own beliefs are very important, which is why a total unification of faith is next to impossible.  Dennis put it best "Even if we don't agree on everything, we are coming to greater understanding of each other's faith traditions"  Open mindness is the key
Souls entwine one more time....

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6648
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« Reply #67 on: January 24, 2005, 09:40:57 PM »
cjred685, your questions are not stupid. Married Catholic priests are not common, most likely most Roman Catholics do not even know about them, they are not "advertised".
The Filioque, how many HOURS did I spend on that one !
{I went to both Eastern Rite & Orthodox schools}
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Offline cjred685

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« Reply #68 on: January 24, 2005, 09:52:02 PM »
Thank you Robert :)  As I had said I find the discussions very interesting and thought provoking.  
Souls entwine one more time....

Offline Georgiy

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2022
  • Slava v vyshnikh Bogu
    • View Profile
Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« Reply #69 on: January 24, 2005, 09:58:09 PM »
Quote
if a woman enters into an adulterous relationship with a man willingly then how can he be the cause of her sins?

He was a cause of temptation for her. And he is also having an aduterous relationship with her. He could have tried discouraging her.

Offline cjred685

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« Reply #70 on: January 24, 2005, 10:07:20 PM »
But if she went into the relationship willingly he is not to blame for her sins.  Had he tried and failed to discourage the relationship why then would he still be responsible for her sinning?
Souls entwine one more time....

Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« Reply #71 on: January 24, 2005, 11:51:35 PM »
Oh come on, all adults should be held responsible for their own decisions and actions. I just don't buy that someone else causes you to do anything, it's just an excuse. Unless of course you are getting blackmailed, or have a gun to your head, or were drugged, or something to that effect. I just don't like the idea that adults are being looked upon as some sort incompetents who don't have a mind of their own and can be so easily "lead astray". We all have the capacity to make decisions and judge the consequences, and we can't be blaming anyone else for it. This type of a view can be applied to minor chilren who don't yet have the full ability to understand actions and consequences, but adults- I don't think so! With this type of mentality, we can excuse all kinds of behavior and not hold people responsible for their own actions.  Lawyers can have a ball with this one!

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« Reply #72 on: January 25, 2005, 05:29:58 AM »
Quote
btw- "celebate' does not neccessarily rule out being married. It does rule out the sexual contact of marriage.


If a married Anglican vicar converts to Catholicism & wishes to become a priest, he is allowed to remain married & is under no obligation to be celibate. In this way we have had several married priests - with families - in the diocese.

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« Reply #73 on: January 25, 2005, 05:56:00 AM »
Quote
Original sin vs ancesteral sin
The use of statues vs images (Icons)
The use of unleavened vs leavened bread
Immaculate Conception of Mary vs her being born with normal human nature and ability to sin (but she never acted on this inclination)


Use of musical instruments vs accapello(sp?!)


All this makes me terribly sad - the more so that you say that Orthodoxy does not really hold to Ecumenism.
With regard to Original Sin - Catholics do NOT hold that we are bearing the guilt of Adam's sin. (Though we may say Adam's sin - 'Adam' does not mean the Biblical & probably mythical figure - it is figurative, meaning Mankind's sin) Original sin is rather that we are a born with a tendency to sin & in Baptism this is 'washed away' - meaning that we are empowered to overcome sin. (And yes, we also believe we can be the occasion of other people's sins...and confess it in confession!)
Are statues & icons really so different? We do not worship statues anymore than Orthodox people worship icons - both are used to raise our minds & hearts to God, are they not?
The use of unleavened bread (rather than leavened) was only introduced into Catholicism for convenience. I have been to many many Masses where leavened bread is use. Also following the consecration & Transubstantiation (does the Orthodox Chruch accept Transubstantiation?) - the form becomes almost irrelevant as it is Christ, body, blood, soul & divinity.
Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary - which means she was conceived & born without sin - but it does NOT mean we do not think she was a perfectly normal woman who could have sinner but chose not to. We don't think she was incapable of sinning.
Is the use or lack of use of musical instruments really important?
(Truly, I say all this with deep respect for Orthodoxy & only because I wish to learn & to see WHY we need to be apart. It is so sad that there should be these divisions - the more so because of Jesus' prayer the night before he died; I imagine the prayers of people who are about to die must be their most heartfelt prayers...Clearly it meant so much to Him. :()

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by bluetoria »

Offline Georgiy

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2022
  • Slava v vyshnikh Bogu
    • View Profile
Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« Reply #74 on: January 25, 2005, 02:40:08 PM »
Admitedly most of the differences I wrote are surface level differences, but as I only know the Orthodox Church, and really know very little about the Catholic Church I can only comment on some of the more visible differences.

Yes, it is a great sin that there is not One Church, but like I have said, what we believe is very important - while RC beliefs and Orthodox have a lot in common, a lot of protestant belief is very far from what we have believed for 2000 years. The question to ask is has X been believed by all Christians always, and if the answer is no, then it can not be Orthodox or Catholic (in the sence that we call our Church the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church - I don't mean the Roman Catholic Church here). So have Christians believed in the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin since the beginning? The answer is no, (forgive me if I am wrong) but this only came into RC doctrine in the 1800s - it is certainly not from Apostolic times. Likewise Papal infallibility and superiority - there have been Popes who were declared heretics, and towards the end of the first millenium, the Patriarch of Rome wrote to the Patriarch of Constantinople saying he shouldn't use the title Ecumenical Patriarch as no one of the Patriarchs is superior to any of the others. So likewise, those aspects of RC have not been univerally believed by Christians from the beginning.

Someone else may be able to tell you about icons vs statues - I know you don't worship them - but I think it is something to do with their 3 dimensionality and realism, whereas icons are 2 dimensional and stylised, but I don't know the theology behind it.

Please forgive me, I am sure I have made many mistakes and assumptions, and in no way wish to denigrate another's beliefs or Faith. May God's rich and abundant mercy be on us all, may He forgive all of our transgressions and falls and guide us to True Faith and love for one another, that one day, the Eternal Day we may all rejoice together in the light of His eternal Kingdom.+