CGW wrote:Daniel wrote:That is only true if you have the same parentage. Christ is the head of the Orthodox Church. The Latins have the Pope as theirs. We are not sisters!
Right, just as the pharisees had Abraham for their father. Isn't it obvious what is wrong with talking like this?
Ahhhh..I see what you are saying. If you phrase it that way -- then I must agree with you 
----------------------------------------------------
They say that I am bad news. They say "Stay Away."
CGW wrote:Daniel wrote:That is only true if you have the same parentage. Christ is the head of the Orthodox Church. The Latins have the Pope as theirs. We are not sisters!
Right, just as the pharisees had Abraham for their father. Isn't it obvious what is wrong with talking like this?
Except the pharisees only claimed to have Abraham as their father, but they did not have the same faith as Abraham.
Should I say the Latins have Christ as the head of their church? Despite their numerous false teachings? When we they do not even worship the same God as the Orthodox (this is a reference to the filioque)?
Daniel wrote:CGW wrote:Daniel wrote:Should I say the Latins have Christ as the head of their church? Despite their numerous false teachings? When we they do not even worship the same God as the Orthodox (this is a reference to the filioque)?
Don't forget the Immaculate Conception.
Joseph
Daniel wrote:CGW wrote:Daniel wrote:That is only true if you have the same parentage. Christ is the head of the Orthodox Church. The Latins have the Pope as theirs. We are not sisters!
Right, just as the pharisees had Abraham for their father. Isn't it obvious what is wrong with talking like this?
Except the pharisees only claimed to have Abraham as their father, but they did not have the same faith as Abraham.
Should I say the Latins have Christ as the head of their church? Despite their numerous false teachings? When we they do not even worship the same God as the Orthodox (this is a reference to the filioque)?
If there is only one God and one Jesus, how can you and I worship different gods? You speak in error; if you prefer accuracy over anathema you could say what is true: that the two churches say different things about the same One God. Then we could resume beating each other up over the differences.
What you should stop doing, obviously, is quit contrasting the claimed headship of your church with the accused headship of everyone else's. Everyone else with a taste for church politics says the same thing, and not a one of them gains any credibility thereby. But they do have ample opportunity to gain sin thereby, claiming the Jesus and the apostles for theri fathers while all about them the rest of us wonder where the gospel is in all this.
Everytime I hear this "Sister Churches" junk I have a violently negative knee-jerk reaction. My deacon, my priest, my metropolitan know my denial of such utterances' validity. My patriach will also soon know my unimportant , but adament opposing opinion. Obediance only goes so far. The only sisters we have are in the Orthodox communion.
At best, the Roman Church is a now distant, apostate cousin. But, no matter...I tend to view statements such as that reputed to be from the MP as hyperbole in the virtual war with the papalists. In using such a term as "sister churches" the MP is using the Romans' own weapon against them. "WHY are you in my See- sister?"
Of course, calling them a sister doesn't make it so. The popists seem to like the term. Denying its use merely exposes what is reality - hostile relations. Papal domination is so obviously their continuing goal that this terminology is laughable. Do you really think the MP BELIEVES that junk? I don't.
Demetri
But all of this talk is sheer politics. Whatever word you wish to use for it, the kinship of common historical origin is there.
And for all the talk of malicious intent, behind it is the reality of humans bumbling and sinning, whatever their benign intent may be. If setting up new dioceses in the territory of one's "sister" is wrong, it may yet be done for reasons that seem prudent. Or it may be simple folly. One's own hierarchs ought to be pure and wise, but they are, in truth, not always so.
