The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Leeno, San Nicolas, Skanderbeg, ClearwaterByz, Nate
5,843 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 110 guests, and 26 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,166
Posts414,952
Members5,843
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 10
M
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
M
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 10
I would like to know if any of the Orthodox think Sergius Bulgakov is correct. And how can that assertion be maintained in clear contradiction to what the Catholic Church actually says, does and preaches. It is the entire reason the Pipe no longer wears a tiara.

Here is my problem: I am not a Latinophile: I am just Catholic. I know what the dogmas are, and I know what the fathers teach about it east and west. Especially St Cyril of Alexandria on the Filioque. And yes, I do challenge my Orthodox brothers to dogmatically defend the innovation of Monopatrism in regard to Filioque. I understand the aggravation felt when challenged by a Catholic, I have felt it myself, like "Oh my gosh there is an entire historical context you don't understand, the Pope is no longer orthodox so THAT is why we don't consider him an authority, he has given up the patristic faith in favor of his own proto-Protestantism."

I used it too. Here is the thing: it. Is. Not. True.

Read St. Leo. Read St. Hormisdas. Read St. sophronius, St. Maximos the Confessor, the entire Patristic tradition grants more to the Pope than the Orthodox are willing to admit, and that's a fact.

So the point is that they grudgingly concede historical points but then reinterpret those points in favor of the same resistance they have only shown since the time of St. Photius onward. As if their resistance is not in itself problematic but can somehow legitimately qualify the kind of communion they think should be had with the Pope.

That is also NOT the patristic tradition. The patristic tradition witnesses to the CATHOLIC and ORTHODOX faith ONLY in its ENTIRETY and unanimity.

I maintain the reason the Orthodox are not the true Church of Christ is because they have ceased to be truly CATHOLIC in the understanding, the application, and their identification of the Fathers. They have confined themselves to a LOCAL interpretation of a LOCAL set of fathers given AFTER a certain period in time without respect for the authentic diversity of the fathers actual teaching.

Look, here is a case in point example. St Maximos the Confessor is looked upon as THE proto Byzantine Theologian. And Augustine is looked on as everything that went wrong in the west, because of his teaching on original sin, etc. from this stems the horrible dogmatic "error" on the part of the Latins of the immaculate conception.

And YET it's as if they don't READ st. Maximos! This father of fathers, confessor of orthodoxy, lamp stand of virtue plainly teaches in his Opuscula that the act of sexual intercourse carries with it the stain and taint of sin. And that relations cannot be had without involving the offspring in this sin.

"The punishment [for Adam’s sin] was death, which means that the capacity to render to God what is due to God alone, to love him with all of our mind, was destroyed” and again that “there is no human being who is sinless, since everyone is naturally subject to the law of sexual procreation that was introduced [...] in consequence of his sin."

This is another example of Orthodox emphasizing an anti-Augustine consensus that isn't there. St Maximus and St Augustine agree very much in the way they view the fall. Read this work:

https://jacobarchambault.files.word...-augustine-and-maximus-the-confessor.pdf

So from the poin of view of St Maximos the immaculate conception is very easily conceived (no pun intended).

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 10
M
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
M
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 10
That was probably a bit polemical. Forgive me for that. I do want to discuss the issues and as I said, I love the Orthodox and feel that I can truly call myself such by accepting the fullness of patristic tradition in communion with that see which St Maximos testifies will never err or defect from the faith.

So is any Orthodox willing to discuss?

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,207
Likes: 11
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,207
Likes: 11
Originally Posted by Mar_Babai
That was probably a bit polemical. Forgive me for that. I do want to discuss the issues and as I said, I love the Orthodox and feel that I can truly call myself such by accepting the fullness of patristic tradition in communion with that see which St Maximos testifies will never err or defect from the faith.

So is any Orthodox willing to discuss?
You are getting there now with the polemics. It's not just a we-they Catholic-Orthodox thing, shouldn't be, not here on this forum.

Originally Posted by Mar_Babai
This father of fathers, confessor of orthodoxy, lamp stand of virtue plainly teaches in his Opuscula that the act of sexual intercourse carries with it the stain and taint of sin. And that relations cannot be had without involving the offspring in this sin.

"The punishment [for Adam’s sin] was death, which means that the capacity to render to God what is due to God alone, to love him with all of our mind, was destroyed” and again that “there is no human being who is sinless, since everyone is naturally subject to the law of sexual procreation that was introduced [...] in consequence of his sin."
A Patristic view? What is the Church's view, Catholic, Orthodox, as currently articulated?

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 10
M
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
M
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 10
Forgive me. I am new here. Perhaps I will back off and get a better feel of things before I go too far into the foot-in-mouth realm.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Athanasius The L
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Athanasius The L
Yes, that was quite a rant, and of the sort that we don't care to have here.
Who's this "we," you and your flora and fauna? It was an appropriate post.
It was a rather one-sided, triumphalistic post.

As to your question, here are my responses:
1) the "we" to whom I referred is the Forum membership in general, 2) your use of sarcasm is neither helpful nor worthy of a deacon, and 3) perhaps you should take seriously Alex's criticism of your pastoral sensitivity, or lack thereof.

I would add that it might be appropriate for those who wish to turn this into a Catholic apologetics thread to read the linked post.

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/341916/Who_we_are#Post341916
I wouldn't think you speak for "Forum membership in general," even though you may speak here for the majority view. If so, I find it unfortunate. Very often there is nothing worse than a dismissive response, as I found yours, to a legitimate minority view. There is a diversity of "one-sided, triumphalistic" posts, at least perceived so by opposing views, Orthodox and Catholic. If Latins, or for that matter anyone, presents views and opinions that you disagree with, offer the better argument. Reconsider your own words to a fellow Forum member; you don't like it when you get far less criticism. What's wrong with "Catholic apologetics" or Orthodox apologetics for that matter? I'd like to see more of it on this forum.

Quote
apologetics
reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.


We're already adrift from the substance of this thread so you and Alex, it seems, may want to open a thread on my "pastoral sensitivity, or lack thereof." No malice was intended by my comment (which I did soften from its original form, as I recall it, as used by another) but that I though had to be a little more hard-hitting to best counter your own dismissive post; my sympathies were with a new member, just beginning to post on the forum and, I would think, expecting a fair and engaging reception and response.

Peace to you and Alex.

Deacon Anthony

I'm actually no one to criticize anyone's pastoral sensitivity, especially since I've never been trained in anything like it and hold no pastoral office!

Perhaps we can ALL (including me) tone down the, shall we say, confrontational, polemical style and simply state what we believe without having to completely denigrate others' views.

Is that OK?

Alex

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 264
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 264
Originally Posted by Mar_Babai
Before I type what seems to be a rant, ... TO say nothing of all the closet Greek Uniate Bishops of Greece in the 17th century...

This is a tight and logical, if necessarily succinct, overview of so many good points about a complicated topic. Nice work.

Regarding many of the other posts by various persons about polemics: Since I first found this forum, I've found the extreme delicacy with which everyone, especially Catholics, are expected to act here a bit peculiar.

I understand that head-clubbing each other with the same nonsense gets tiresome after a while, but shouting down everyone who does not perfectly salute "Balamand Correctness" is similarly boring.

The other day I was sitting in a local mall food court, and was approached by a couple of missionaries for "Mother God." Praise God for that, I was able to charitably correct them on 90% of their arguments. Now, however preposterous their views might be to me, on some level, these two young ladies actually care about my soul. Even if their primary motivation is filling pews, they couldn't do what they do if they just totally saw me as a nothing but a "mark."

So also I posit that those whose ideas you find unpalatable actually have some concern for you, and even if you find their manners or erudition or precision beneath you, then you should still at least appreciate the love that they have for you.

I indeed find it contemptible to have believing friends who do not try to convert me occasionally, because if they don't, it means that they are indifferent to my eternal salvation. I would rather associate with a Pentecostal who works me over once in a while, versus one who never gives me a hard time about icons or beer, in the name of getting along.

Last edited by Booth; 02/07/16 08:46 AM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5