|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 3, 2009 14:49:40 GMT -5
And I also have a question. As a catholic what is your final authority? The answer to this may give a lot of insight into the topics on this thread! I am going to move on from the topic of drinking wine, since no one have given any Scripture that forbid Christians from drinking wine, and we are going to resurrect a dead old topic. I have dealt with all the Scriptures Em posted. Actually, the KJV Study Bible disagree with Em interpretation of Proverbs 21. I have also checked the Greek word "oinos" and Em statement is inaccurate (it can mean either "fermented" or "unfermented"). Also your statements does not makes sense, as it would mean I can't drink a non-alcoholic grape juice! LOL! No more Tropicana for me then! ;D Anyway, I am going to answer your question, even though I am not a [Roman] Catholic. For a Eastern Orthodox Christian, the authority that exist is Holy Tradition (one can say that our final authority is the Holy Spirit, ;D), which includes 1) Holy Scriptures- We used the LXX rendering of the Old Testament, and the so called "Deutro books" (i..e., Wisdom, Sirach, Epistle of Jeremiah, etc) are part of our Canonical Old Testament. 2) The writings of the Holy Fathers and Mothers for the past 2,000 years. 3) The Holy Seven Ecumenical Councils: The Council of Nicea, 325, The Council of Constantinople, 381, The Council of Ephesus, 431, The Council of Chalcedon, 451, The Council of Constantinople II, 553, The Council of Constantinople III, 680, The Council of Nicea II, 787. These are the Seven Pillars of Orthodoxy. These Holy Councils have establish Holy Truth, and we refuse to differ from them in any respect. 4) Later Local Orthodox Councils and Confession of Faith. Although not Ecumenical in status, they still are part of Orthodoxy. There are others way to reaffirm the Truth of Orthodoxy. Some of the main ones are: the letter of Mark of Ephesus (1440-1441) to all Orthodox Christians; the correspondence of Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople with the German Reformers (1573-1581); the council of Jerusalem (1672) and the Confession of Faith by Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (1672), The Answers of the Orthodox Patriarchs to the Non-Jurors (1718, 1723), The Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius the Ninth (1848), The Reply of the Synod of Constantinople to Pope Leo the Thirteenth (1895), The Encyclical Letters by the Patriarchate of Constantinople on Christian unity and on the ‘Ecumenical Movement’ (1920, 1952), and the writings of St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain, who published the Rudder , a book of great canonical and theological importance (1800). 5) The Divine Liturgies and other liturgical texts. 6) Holy Icons. "The Tradition of the Church is expressed not only through words, not only through the actions and gestures used in worship, but also through art — through the line and colour of the Holy Icons. An icon is not simply a religious picture designed to arouse appropriate emotions in the beholder; it is one of the ways whereby God is revealed to man. Through icons the Orthodox Christian receives a vision of the spiritual world" ( Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, The Orthodox Church, page 206). However, not everything received from the past is of equal value. The Holy Scriptures, the Creed and the dogmatic and doctrinal definitions of the Ecumenical Councils hold the primary place in Holy Tradition and cannot be discarded or revised. The other parts of Holy Tradition are not placed on an equal level, nor do they possess the same authority. If you want to know more about our Ancient Faith, please visit the following sites: 1) www.goarch.org/2) www.oca.org/- This is the canonical Orthodox Jurisdiction that I am part of. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 3, 2009 21:13:50 GMT -5
Ramon, this is a random question but why hasn't you church had any church councils in over 1000 years?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 3, 2009 22:18:51 GMT -5
Ramon, this is a random question but why hasn't you church had any church councils in over 1000 years? Heather, don't worry. If you have any question about Orthodoxy, don't hesitate to ask.
There have many local Orthodox councils (see my above posts) that although not Ecumenical in status, has expressed the mind of the Church,
"The formulation of Orthodox doctrine, as we have seen, did not cease with the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Since 787 there have been two chief ways whereby the Church has expressed its mind: a) definitions by Local Councils (that is, councils attended by members of one or more national Churches, but not claiming to represent the Orthodox Catholic Church as a whole) and b) letters or statements of faith put out by individual bishops. While the doctrinal decisions of General Councils are infallible, those of a Local Council or an individual bishop are always liable to error; but if such decisions are accepted by the rest of the Church, then they come to acquire Ecumenical authority (i.e. a universal authority similar to that possessed by the doctrinal statements of an Ecumenical Council). The doctrinal decisions of an Ecumenical Council cannot be revised or corrected, but must be accepted in toto; but the Church has often been selective in its treatment of the acts of Local Councils: in the case of the seventeenth century Councils, for example, their statements of faith have in part been received by the whole Orthodox Church, but in part set aside or corrected" (Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, The Orthodox Church, page 205)
We have not had a Great and Holy Ecumenical Council for 1,000 years, although I have heard that we are expecting one soon, because there have been no need to. Heather, as you know, the first Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils was called because there was a specific heresy that needed a refutation from the Church (because it was threatening the Apostolic Faith); to establish the true Apostolic Faith versus what a heretics, let say Arius, believed and proclaimed. There have been no such case in the Holy Orthodox Church for 1,000 years, although we had certain clergy passing heresies. For example, a Synod of Eastern Orthodox Churches was called in Jerusalem in 1672 to refute the position of Cyril Lucaris, Patriarch of Constantinople, who had published a Confession in which he attempted to express Orthodox beliefs in terms of the predestination beliefs of Calvinism. The Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 soundly rejected any further attempts at reformulation of Orthodox teachings and strengthened Orthodox beliefs against both the Protestant Reformation and Catholicism. On a side note, many Orthodox leaders proclaimed that the Confession of Cyril was a forgery perpetrated by Calvinists to spread their influence among Eastern churches. They offered quotation known writings of Cyril to show that he had not held the positions expressed in the Confession. I believe that he was not Calvinist in doctrine.
If you want to read the Council statements, please go here-->catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html
However, there have been no council in the Orthodox Church that have consider themselves as representing the entire Church, thus Ecumenical in character.
The West, the Roman Church, needed more "Ecumenical" (according to Rome) Councils because there been more "heretics" in the West that attack the Roman Church, for instance the Council of Trent refuted the Protestant Reformation.
In IC.XC,
Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 3, 2009 23:23:18 GMT -5
I don't get it. There have been plenty of heresies in the past 1000 years. In fact, it seems like there have been more heresies in the 2nd Millenium than in the first. If there was going to be another council, who would call it? Where would they hold it because it defitely couldn't be in Turkey. Would they do it in Greece?
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 3, 2009 23:30:06 GMT -5
Also I don't understand the orthdox view of what makes a council "ecumenical". Usually the answer I get is that it has to be received by the whole church. That makes sense except for the council of chalcedon. That council is among the many reasons that I became catholic instead of orthodox.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 3, 2009 23:56:17 GMT -5
I don't get it. There have been plenty of heresies in the past 1000 years. In fact, it seems like there have been more heresies in the 2nd Millenium than in the first. If there was going to be another council, who would call it? Where would they hold it because it defitely couldn't be in Turkey. Would they do it in Greece? Look at this way Heather. What makes a council "Ecumenical"? A Ecumenical council is a conference of the bishops of the whole Christian Church convened to discuss and settle matters of Church doctrine and practice. But that is not all. The mind of the Church decide which council is Ecumenical and which are not, according to one school of thought in Orthodoxy. It is determined by the reception of the whole body of the Church. However, a council may properly teach the truth but not be of universal significance for the Church. Such councils are usually termed "local". "Ecumenical", in one school of thought, means that they are accepted by and are referred to for truth as expressed by the Holy Spirit by the entire Church. As of now, the Entire Church officially looks to 7 (or 8, there was another council after the 7th consider by many Orthodox to be Ecumenical, it was held in Constantinople and it restored St. Photios the Great to his see and condemned additions to the Creed) Holy Councils for inerrant guidance, more if you count the one in Holy Scriptures. You see, in the Eastern mindset, the Holy Spirit leads and corrects us over time. There is nothing magic about all bishops coming together and making decisions. Over time we will see the fruits of the spirit and we will correct accordingly. If they going to be another council, the Holy Spirit will call it. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has the right to preside in any Council. All of the Patriarchates would have to attend, and as far as where, I do not know. Wherever the Holy Spirit wants it to be held. And Heather, there really aren't any serious heresies within the Orthodox church today. I really don't see any issues which would require the whole church to have a council (maybe an agreement on the issue of jurisdiction in North America?). In IC.XC, Ramon P.S, A regional council can be held, and that same council may eventually become ecumenical over time. It doesn't necessary depend on "time". |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 4, 2009 0:01:16 GMT -5
Also I don't understand the orthdox view of what makes a council "ecumenical". Usually the answer I get is that it has to be received by the whole church. That makes sense except for the council of chalcedon. That council is among the many reasons that I became catholic instead of orthodox. Why? I do not see any reason why the Council of Chalcedon would make you Catholic instead of Orthodox. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 4, 2009 0:06:56 GMT -5
I believe the following with be helpful:
"What, then, is the criterion for determining whether a council is ecumenical?
This is a more difficult question to answer than might at first appear, and though it has been much discussed by Orthodox during the past hundred years, it cannot be said that the solutions suggested are entirely satisfactory. All Orthodox know which are the seven Councils that their Church accepts as ecumenical, but precisely what it is that makes a council ecumenical is not so clear. There are, so it must be admitted, certain points in the Orthodox theology of Councils which remain obscure and which call for further thinking on the part of theologians. With this caution in mind, let us briefly consider the present trend of Orthodox thought on this subject.
To the question how one can know whether a council is ecumenical, Khomiakov and his school gave an answer which at first sight appears clear and straightforward: a council cannot be considered ecumenical unless its decrees are accepted by the whole Church. Florence, Hieria, and the rest, while ecumenical in outward appearance, are not truly so, precisely because they failed to secure this acceptance by the Church at large. (One might object: What about Chalcedon? It was rejected by Syria and Egypt — can we say, then, that it was ‘accepted by the Church at large’?) The bishops, so Khomiakov argued, because they are the teachers of the faith, define and proclaim the truth in council; but these definitions must then be acclaimed by the whole people of God, including the laity, because it is the whole people of God that constitutes the guardian of Tradition. This emphasis on the need for councils to be received by the Church at large has been viewed with suspicion by some Orthodox theologians, both Greek and Russian, who fear that Khomiakov and his followers have endangered the prerogatives of the episcopate and ‘democratized’ the idea of the Church. But in a qualified and carefully guarded form, Khomiakov’s view is now fairly widely accepted in contemporary Orthodox thought.
This act of acceptance, this reception of councils by the Church as a whole, must not be understood in a juridical sense: ‘It does not mean that the decisions of the councils should be confirmed by a general plebiscite and that without such a plebiscite they have no force. There is no such plebiscite. But from historical experience it clearly appears that the voice of a given council has truly been the voice of the Church or that it has not: that is all’ (S. Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, p. 89).
At a true Ecumenical Council the bishops recognize what the truth is and proclaim it; this proclamation is then verified by the assent of the whole Christian people, an assent which is not, a rule, expressed formally and explicitly, but lived.
It is not merely the numbers or the distribution of its members which determines the ecumenicity of a council: ‘An ‘Ecumenical’ Council is such, not because accredited representatives of all the Autocephalous Churches have taken part in it, but because it has borne witness to the faith of the Ecumenical Church’ (Metropolitan Seraphim, L’Église orthodoxe, p. 51).
The ecumenicity of a council cannot be decided by outward criteria alone: ‘Truth can have no external criterion, for it is manifest of itself and made inwardly plain’ (V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 188). The infallibility of the Church must not be ‘exteriorized,’ nor understood in too ‘material’ a sense: ‘It is not the ‘ecumenicity’ but the truth of the councils which makes their decisions obligatory for us. We touch here upon the fundamental mystery of the Orthodox doctrine of the Church: the Church is the miracle of the presence of God among men, beyond all formal ‘criteria,’ all formal ‘infallibility.’ It is not enough to summon an ‘Ecumenical Council’ ... it is also necessary that in the midst of those so assembled there should be present He who said: "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life." Without this presence, however numerous and representative the assembly may be, it will not be in the truth. Protestants and Catholics usually fail to understand this fundamental truth of Orthodoxy: both materialize the presence of God in the Church — the one party in the letter of Scripture, the other in the person of the Pope — though they do not thereby avoid the miracle, but clothe it in a concrete form. For Orthodoxy, the sole ‘criterion of truth’ remains God Himself, living mysteriously in the "Church, leading it in the way of the Truth’ (J. Meyendorff, quoted by M. J. le Guillou, Missio et Unité, Paris, 1960, vol. 2, p. 313).
Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, The Orthodox Church
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 4, 2009 0:26:34 GMT -5
It wasn't the ONLY reason, it was one of many reasons. I still don't buy the orthodox explanation though. It sounds more like a democracy (sorry!). I also thoght you all believed in an infallible church. At the council of chalcedon all the Bishops(except the monophosytes of corse) exclaimed 'St Peter has spoken!' And it was a done deal. I don't remember them waiting around to see how it would play out before it was official. Sorry, you know I'm brash but you are tough, you can take it. ; )
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 4, 2009 18:09:32 GMT -5
It wasn't the ONLY reason, it was one of many reasons. I still don't buy the orthodox explanation though. It sounds more like a democracy (sorry!). You see, in the Eastern mindset, the Holy Spirit leads and corrects us over time. There is nothing magic about all bishops coming together and making decisions. Over time we will see the fruits of the spirit and we will correct accordingly. What about the RCC? What makes a council "Ecumenical"? Simple. If the Roman Pope is present in a council, it is Ecumenical. The actions of the Pope determines if a council is Ecumenical or not. The Roman Bishop is the voice of the Roman Church. A council orthodoxy center around the Chair of Peter (the Roman Bishop). Am I correct? So what is that Heather? A monarchy? The Holy Orthodox Church has retain the ancient and biblical concept of conciliar authority. In Orthodoxy, each Bishops are equal in authority, having the same sacramental office. The Church is not monarchical in structure, centered round a single hierarch; it is collegial, formed by the communion of many hierarchs with one another, and of each hierarch with the members of his flock. Like I said before Heather, there really aren't any serious heresies within the Orthodox church today. I really don't see any issues which would require the whole church to have a council (maybe an agreement on the issue of jurisdiction in North America?). There hasn't been any Christological controversy or whatever for 1,000 years. Why is it that many Catholics attack (I am not saying you are one of them) the Orthodox Church solely on the ground that we have not had or recognized another council as "Ecumenical"? Makes no sense! It proves nothing. I also thoght you all believed in an infallible church. We do. What make you believe otherwise? The Church is infallible when the Holy Spirit speak to the entire Church, not solely on one Bishop, in a Council. In Orthodoxy, one Bishop can not speak for the entire Church, all the Bishops must be in a agreement. At the council of chalcedon all the Bishops(except the monophosytes of corse) exclaimed 'St Peter has spoken!' And it was a done deal. I don't remember them waiting around to see how it would play out before it was official. Sorry, you know I'm brash but you are tough, you can take it. ; ) What are you trying to prove Heather? Are you trying to say that the Council of Chalcedon defended Roman Papacy? If you are, it won't work! You are forgetting crucial facts! First, Several of the Illyraian and Palestinian Bishops expressed there grave disquiet about the apparent dualism of St. Leo's Tome, and blocked its immediate acceptance by the Council. They are primary concern with: "For each form does what is proper to it with the co-operation of the other ; that is the Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh. One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries." After Dioscorus' trail and deposition in the third session of the council, the leadership of the Cyrillines passed to the Illyrian and Palestinian Bishops, whose objections to the Tome still continue. They were unable to understand how several places in the Tome can reconciled with Saint Cyril beliefs. The council had to discuss the Orthodoxy of Saint Leo's Tome for over a week. It's Orthodoxy was affirmed in the Fourth Session of the Council, but only after five days had been devoted to a close scruity of the Tome's text in comparison with Saint Cyril's writings, so that the consonance of the one with other could be confirmed Yes, the Council said "'St Peter has spoken through Leo", but you seem to forget they all said: "Cyril so taught. Eternal be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing. This is the true Faith.....This is the Faith of the fathers". Yes, the council spoke out and say that the Bishop of Rome was living up to the reputation of Orthodoxy of his See's Founder, but the Bishops accepted and praised Leo because he taught the same thing as Saint Cyril. Saint Cyril was the test for Christological Orthodoxy, and him alone. I am not surprise that the West has continue to view Chalcedon as belonging to Saint Leo, and always reading the intent of the Council almost exclusively through the Tome. But in the East, from the time of Ephesus 431 onwards, Saint Cyril was, and remained, the chief Christological canon, not Pope Saint Leo the Great. Finally, the Council of Chalecdon did not receive immediate acceptance by the East. They was still debates over the Christological of Chalecdon, and even a major Schism occurred, which today the group is called "Oriental Orthodox". It was not until Council of Constantinople in 553AD (fifth Ecumenical Council) that the "Christological settlement of Chalcedon" was truly "settle". The Council witness that the Council of Chalecdon Orthodoxy and accepted the council along with the three earlier Holy Councils as "Ecumenical". It does not matter if a Council proclaim to teach the truth, or say "Peter spoken through X". If you look at the Early Church, there was many councils claiming to teach the true Orthodox faith, but they all was later entitled "Robber Councils" by the Church! Of course they [council of Chalcedon] did not wait and see how everything will be played out, but the council "Orthodoxy" has be recognize by the entire Church, which obviously did not happen until much latter. Those who recognize the Ecumenicity of the Council was part of the Church. The Roman Papacy Heather was one of the reasons why I converted to Orthodoxy and not Catholicism. How the Vatican picture the Roman Pope is not how the Early Fathers pictured him. I respect and love the Roman Bishop, even though I and other Orthodox believe that he is a Schismatic and heretical Bishop. I believe he can rightly claim to be, in a special sense, the successor of Saint Peter, but his other claims of his office are all false. Of course, you and other Catholics will disagree, but this one of several things that separate the Orthodox Church with the Roman Church. I heard all the arguments by Catholics from the Roman Church. At the end, I decided to side with the East.....  My conversion to Orthodoxy involved a extensive study on both sides. I have many Catholic books defending the Catholic faith in my procession. It wasn't just a one night decision, but a deep studying and praying. I still do not know why one of your reasons of becoming Catholic instead of Orthodox is due to the Council of Chalcedon.  In IC.XC, Ramon By the way, happy 4th of July! ;D Have a safe and fun day! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 6, 2009 12:54:06 GMT -5
Whoa! A lot went on here! I really had to catch up! LOL So a few things... as far as the drinking thing goes... yes it is against God to get drunk as shown by the verses. Has it occured to anyone that wine is made from grapes? God says it is foolish and goes against Him to drink and get drunk, so by comparing scripture with scripture when God says wine it is clear to see that he means a drink made from grapes! Simple! All you have to do is look! And I also have a question. As a catholic what is your final authority? The answer to this may give a lot of insight into the topics on this thread! God is The Final Authority.  |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 6, 2009 14:50:18 GMT -5
Ramon, why do you keep talking about the "eastern" mindset? If you guys want to just be the "eastern" church that's fine. We all know who the universal...ahem...catholic church is. We are eastern and western.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 8, 2009 1:58:37 GMT -5
Ramon, why do you keep talking about the "eastern" mindset? If you guys want to just be the "eastern" church that's fine. We all know who the universal...ahem...catholic church is. We are eastern and western. Heather, Western Christianity (Rome and Protestants) is very different from Eastern Christianity (Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, excluding the Eastern Catholic churches etc). West and East do not see eye to eye on everything. For example, the Eastern Orthodox Church and other Eastern Churches do not accept the concept of Original Sin as proposed by the Roman Church. When I say "Eastern mindset" I mean the Eastern "thinking" (mindset) that differs from the West (in this case Rome). You are a Western Christian. I am a Eastern Christian. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
My conversion to Orthodoxy involved a extensive study on both sides. I have many Catholic books defending the Catholic faith in my procession. It wasn't just a one night decision, but a deep studying and praying.
