Question If ROCOR joins MP will all ROCOR threads go here?

Feel free to tell our little section of the Internet why you're right. Forum rules apply.


User avatar
joasia
Protoposter
Posts: 1858
Joined: Tue 29 June 2004 7:19 pm
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Montreal

Post by joasia »

Paul,

I strongly object to your interpretation of ROCOR. I find your words insulting. Are you saying that I belong to a church that is whoring Herself?? And I am a member of a whore?

We've all disagreed with each other here, but I have never heard someone express themselves with these kind of words.

There are many people here who are with ecumenical groups. And it is understood that God's economia works amongst everyone. There are many people trying to uphold true Orthodoxy with all the groups. I am not happy about the state of the different synods, but there are many good people within those structures that continue to fight the spiritual battle.

I ask the moderators to instruct paul about his choice of words.

User avatar
George Australia
Sr Member
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat 17 January 2004 9:26 am
Location: Down Under (Australia, not Hades)

Post by George Australia »

paul wrote:

You mean to tell me that you think because ROCOR has not yet joined with Moscow that they are not already apart of "World Orthodoxy"?

No.
Father Deacon Nicholas said that, and I am questioning him why. If you read the thread, you will see that the whole "Question" is why the administrators of the board do not already consider ROCOR (and the Cyprianites) "World Orthodox" since, the forum definition would seem to indicate that they are. I'm glad you agree with me paul.

paul wrote:

"I say unto you, That whosever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart".
The Church is a woman. We refer to it as "She". A church who looks upon ecuminism with lust in its heart is already gone awhoring with ecuminism. Like Hosea's wife with strange Gods.

This would have to take the award for the most obsciferous and oblique use of scripture I have ever heard, and I've argued with Jehovah's Witnesses. And what an excellent example of mixed metaphors, insisting that the ROCOR is a woman who lusts after women. Your post is obviously simply designed to cause rancor and insult. Congratulations- mission accomplished.

joasia wrote:

I ask the moderators to instruct paul about his choice of words.

Are you seriously expecting intervention from the moderators, joasia? Take your pick, would you rather ROCOR be called "a whore" by paul, or "predators" and "liars" by the moderators?

George

"As long as it depends on Monothelitism, then Miaphysitism is nothing but a variant of Monophysitism."

Ekaterina
Protoposter
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue 1 February 2005 8:48 am
Location: New York

Post by Ekaterina »

Paul.....

I too object to your words.....Your rancor is unbelievable and EXTREMELY unOrthodox! You need to perhaps check the rule book on hatred, anger and rancor.... they're all sins you know...

Katya

User avatar
paul
Newbie
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed 20 October 2004 5:03 pm
Contact:

Post by paul »

It is interesting that when one feels to be in the right they may make "judgments" , and these "judgments are considered for righteousness sake, and good, but, when the opposition disagrees, and make their own judgments they are considered to be sinning and are called unorthodox.
Ekaterina, you should read the scriptures on how God speaks of His hatred of heresy and sin, as well as what the Holy Fathers, and the Canons, the Ecumenical councils say. The sin is not just condmned but so is he who remains in his sin unrepentent. But heresy is not the same kind of sin as stealing, or murder, or adultery, it is worse. Although Heresy is a sin as well, but some sins are personal, but heresy is a rejection of Gods revealed word. His command that we believe certain things in order to be saved.
Heresy in not simply a mistake, 2+2= 5, this is a mistake. Heresy is an anathama. If one accepts heresy, such as ecumenism, which has been anathamatized, then they are accursed, hence the meaning of the word. Do you recall the anathamas that are repeated to the faithful in the church on Orthodoxy Sunday?
By the way, I do not hate anyone, nor do I feel anger towards anyone. I repeat to you what the fathers say concerning those in heresy.

Saint Athanatius states that heresy is "the mire of irreligion" and "impious" and "who's opinions we hold in execration" [i.e. to declare accursed, to call all evil upon it, to curse, to detest utterly]

The Scriptures- Saint Paul's letter to the Galatians:
"But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached let him be accursed"

George,
No, I did not say that ROCOR is a woman lusting after a woman because ecumenism is not a Church and therefore not a "she", but one lusting after alien gods, as ancient Israel often did.
And, no, what I have written was not to cause "rancor and insult", but taking biblical language to discribe the modern situation. Would you then say that the Scriptures and Fathers of the Church that use words such as Anathama, impiety, contaminated, execration, heresy being demonic, loathsome, evil, towards heresy and those who follow it are full of "rancor and insult".

To repeat the words of Saint Ignatius of Antioch a disciple of Saint John the Theologian:
"If, then, those are dead whho do these things according to the passions, how much worse if, with bad doctrine, one should corrupt the faith of God for which Jesus Christ was crucified. Such a man, for becoming contaminated will depart into unquenchable fire; and so will any one who listens to him."

These things I say are not said because of the lack of love but because of love.

paul

User avatar
Liudmilla
Sr Member
Posts: 743
Joined: Thu 31 October 2002 1:56 pm

Post by Liudmilla »

Paul wrote:

These things I say are not said because of the lack of love but because of love.

I'm sorry Paul but I do not feel your love.... what I feel is no where close. Not because I agree or disagree with you, but because of the result your words create. If they were truly said with love they would not be described with such words as "rancor", "hate" or "anger", if your words were truly tendered in love they would have garnered a totally different reaction and a different discription.

There is judgement and then there is judgement. The sense I get is that you have not discerned the correct way, but you are interpreting to justify YOUR way and not the way of GOD.

Forgive me, but that is what I reap from your words.

Milla

User avatar
George Australia
Sr Member
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat 17 January 2004 9:26 am
Location: Down Under (Australia, not Hades)

Post by George Australia »

? :?

Last edited by George Australia on Wed 2 March 2005 5:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

"As long as it depends on Monothelitism, then Miaphysitism is nothing but a variant of Monophysitism."

User avatar
George Australia
Sr Member
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat 17 January 2004 9:26 am
Location: Down Under (Australia, not Hades)

Post by George Australia »

paul wrote:

His command that we believe certain things in order to be saved.Source

Yes, this is the Dogmas, which we are bound by. But you are sadly mistaken if you consider word's on paper to be the Dogmas. And you are sadly mistaken if you consider 'infallability' an attribute of the Orthodox Church. No ecumenical Council or Father ever claimed the 'infallability' of the Church. The Church is a Theanthropic institution, The Body of Christ with Christ at it's Head, guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church is a living, divine/human organism. As a living organism, the Church has experienced similar situations to the one she faces now, and she reached her resolutions in the Spirit of Peace and in a Concilliar way.

paul wrote:

Heresy in not simply a mistake, 2+2= 5, this is a mistake. Heresy is an anathama. If one accepts heresy, such as ecumenism, which has been anathamatized, then they are accursed, hence the meaning of the word.Source

Firstly, the word is "anathema", not "anathama", and secondly, it does not mean "accursed", it means "offered up", in the sense of "handed over to God", and thirdly, a Synod of a local Church cannot proclaim an anathema binding on all the Church. How many fingers do you use to cross yourself paul? Three? If you do, do you realise that you are under the anathema of the 1552 Moscow Synod of the One Hundred Chapters which anathemised three fingered crossing? Why is ROCOR's anathema binding and the 1552 anathema not binding? The difference is the Concilliar opinion of the whole Church- which you insist on pre-empting.
The ROCOR anathema was legislative, not judicial. Furthermore, no one can be condemned in the Orthodox Church without due process- that is why we have ecclesiatical courts.

paul wrote:

And, no, what I have written was not to cause "rancor and insult", but taking biblical language to discribe the modern situation. Source

REST OF POST REMOVED BY MODERATOR FOR PERSONAL ATTACKS AND/OR INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOUR OR LANGUAGE

"As long as it depends on Monothelitism, then Miaphysitism is nothing but a variant of Monophysitism."

Post Reply