Recent Posts

I sometimes hear that ecumenical councils are infallible, yet at other times one can hear their canons are outdated/irrelevent to modern society (in essence, not infallible at all)

What is your opinion

Also, please try to discuss any theological opinions on the matter, especially from the fathers if you have such things available. Because I cannot figure out who is correct, but I am curious anyway as to what people think.

It is my understanding that until fairly recent times, there was no concept of infallible in the Orthodox Church.

Legitimate development of doctrine.

You need to find one of the super judgmental, super external, super 'Orthodox' jurisdictions where you and the elders can sit around 'tut tutting' the state of the rest of us.

No thanks, I still have hope that the greek church will see that ecumenism does not work just like they did in the council of Florence. Or until the "VERY SOON" Great and Holy Council (though obviously not more holy than His All-Holiness)

I will give you one example of Bishops and their rules. The late Metropolitan Nicholas refused to grant  ecclesiastical divorces to two couples married in one of his churches. The woman wanted to marry a man from her home parish who was also married in the same church.  The woman refused to accept this and moved into the jurisdiction of then Bishop Tikhon of the OCA who, without consulting the pastor of the parish from which they came in the ACROD, granted the divorces and the parties were married in the OCA church. This caused a scandal within the original parish when they returned from out of state since the other woman could not remarry in the church as her divorce had likewise been rejected. Since they had received a canonical divorce and been married in the Church, the pastor had little choice but to receive them back. This is real world stuff my friend, not the abstractions and distractions people here fixate upon. Frankly, there were canonical justifications for the actions of either Bishop and since there is no administrative unity in America, stuff like this happens.

That is very interesting, but that is just a product of there being multiple bishops for a single city which is against canons anyway. I thought you were talking about a bishop who just gives out divorces to fit modern expectations to do so.

As to traditions - there are, for example valid Greek and valid Russian ones. There are different rubrics as well. The differences are subtle, but real and they are equally valid.
As to one thousand years?  I believe that the Nikonian reforms came within that period, as did the changes to the Greek Euchologian in the 19th century.

A thousand years is just a random number I put out. I simply mean, to be traditional just do not innovate, especially just to accommodate a more secularized people such as today. Is the church supposed to change its mind on things, or the people, brought up with different ideas, supposed to!? I don't see any problem with there being different russian and greek traditions, or even different liturgy rites. Again, it is easy to tell what is innovation and what is traditional in the church today.

I could go on, but facts are boring and never convincing in the face of strongly held opinion.

I wish you did go on

You didn't answer the question about the Jewish doctor.

It is not obvious from what I said?? Yes, I will keep that canon. Even though it meant a kind of doctor which would not be called a "doctor" today.

I didn't say that the lack of emperor was doctrinal only that it was perceived to be an impossibility....but there are plenty of folks like the schismatic, Vladimir Moss, who would argue with you on that point.

I have never read Vladimir Moss and I hope I never do, I really only read church fathers I know they will not be wrong, compared to those today one cannot trust fully because they have not been accepted by councils as having correct teachings.

But I am still confused about this, who ever perceived the emperor as being necessary to the church? I am just talking about the fathers. Were you just talking about those today or the fathers??? But anyway, sounds like an interesting thing to debate for fun, from a secular point of view. How many times did the emperor put heretical patriarchs on the throne, and yet in other instances, putting "Orthodox" patriarchs to replace those patriarchs in other times!

I sometimes hear that ecumenical councils are infallible, yet at other times one can hear their canons are outdated/irrelevent to modern society (in essence, not infallible at all)

What is your opinion

Also, please try to discuss any theological opinions on the matter, especially from the fathers if you have such things available. Because I cannot figure out who is correct, but I am curious anyway as to what people think.

It is my understanding that until fairly recent times, there was no concept of infallible in the Orthodox Church.

More seriously, I'm very glad to read this.  Do the Armenian and Russian Churches enjoy especially good relations? 

I keep forgetting what the Armenian monastic headdress is called, but I love it.  I'd want to wear that everywhere. 

I understand the explanation of protos in AC 34 to be the same as or similar to first among equals (Primus inter pares) that that the bishop of Rome had in the first millennium in relation to his brother bishops. So we seem to disagree on that point.

Yes, I think we do.  At least above, you are clearly referring to the relationship between the Pope and "his brother bishops" (the college of bishops)--to me, that's not Ap. 34.  The "protos" identified by this canon is a particular bishop in a particular region, not a particular bishop among all bishops everywhere.  Admittedly, though, I'm no canonist, so I could be wrong.  But at the moment, I don't think so. 

The linchpin for our disagreement, I think, resides in our respective understandings of Primus inter pares and 'head.' Above, in another post ITT, I posted Fr. Clapsis' remarks on the papacy and duty of the pope and I am in agreement with what he said insofar as I see that as a legitimate exercise of headship and primacy in a united Church.

I'm not so sure that's where our disagreement lies.  I'm fairly comfortable with concepts like "first among equals" and "head", but this most recent tangent of ours has been a consideration of how and to what, if any, extent the Pope's relation to other patriarchs/bishops can be compared to a Metropolitan's relation to his suffragans.  I'm arguing that you can't take a concept rooted in a particular place and extrapolate it to a generic "everywhere".  But if we're going to now consider specifically how the Pope relates to other patriarchs/bishops in terms of the college of bishops and not geography, that's a different issue.  In that case, we ought to try and compose a list of any special privileges or prerogatives of the Popes that were recognized by the Church, enshrined in her canons, etc.  It's all well and good to talk about the right to appeal to Rome, for example, but where is it found, how does it get invoked, etc. 

I don't have any major issue with Fr Clapsis' quote which you posted (didn't read the entire article), but I think it raises a question others have raised here.  Assuming a union between Rome and the Orthodox, why presume that the Pope could just assume the role of "first among equals" immediately?  The two Churches have been estranged from each other for at least a thousand years.  When that union is a done deal, how does a Pope just step up to "protos" as if nothing happened in all that time?  How does a Pope coordinate the life and witness of the Orthodox Catholic Church when he and his flock have been on a different trajectory for over a millennium?  How does he function as a spokesman for something he's just beginning to experience and live out?  I'm not asking these questions out of some sort of triumphalism, mind you, but because in previous posts you seem to argue that in a united Church, the RC position would basically move from what it is now to what the Orthodox believe.  I think that's a thorny question, and should some sort of union occur, I think bishops on both sides will have to think long and hard about that. 

They may even have to consider other forms of restructuring.  For example, our current set-up presumes that which developed in the undivided Church (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, etc.).  The principle behind this structure was accommodation to the existing civil structure and only later became "apostolicity".  The canons which enshrine this order come from a period when the Roman Empire was still strong and those cities still wielded powerful influence.  Now that the empire is gone and those cities are basically shadows of their former glory, what do we do?  In any union, I think we'd stick to the "traditional" structure at first as a practical matter, but we'd probably have to consider what model to follow going forward.  If we mimic civil structures, a number of major world cities would replace older sees like Alexandria and Antioch.  But if we go with apostolicity, we'd have to re-order even the "Pentarchy" itself to reflect the "hierarchy" of the Twelve.  If we kept the "traditional" model, I think we'd need to re-affirm that.           

I don't mean to disrespect her, but all she did was bear a child.

Just a child?



She carried Our Lord incarnate in her womb for nine months. How does that not make her important?

I think what I was driving at is that if we are judging the glory and honor of a saint based solely on what they had to suffer and sacrifice for the Kingdom of God, I don't think it can be said that Mary suffered and sacrificed more than any of them. But I admit what I said was rooted in ignorance that I've since had to really think twice about it. For some reason the essential and obvious point of who Mary is was just completely escaping me. She may not have suffered a horrible martyrdom, but it's not about that. It's about cooperation with the grace of God, and her cooperation was really an essential component in the salvation of Human Kind. I see that now. I think it's just because I'm the product of a Christianity that completely ignores Mary in every way possible just because they're fearful of opening the door to what they feel are idolatrous excesses of Marion devotion. But I see now that that's really a shame. She did much more than bare a child.

Jesus is infinitely more than just a child, and thus Mary is infinitely more than simply a mother.  

[Arachne]

As a parent, I'm quite confident that Arachne could educate her children far better than most of their teachers. Does that translate to the same expertise educating other children? Not quite. I'm not saying she is a poor teacher, I'm saying she can't know these kids the way she does her own.

My record says I was a good teacher to other people's children. But despite my degrees and my experience, educating my son myself would be an utter disaster, for both of us. Take my word on that.

I'm sure some parents can do a better job than some teachers. Most can't. It takes much more than good intentions and a textbook to teach successfully. I distrust DIY education for the same reason I wouldn't have DIY medicine or DIY law.

You're certainly entitled to consider any teacher involvement in a child's upbringing beyond the strictly academical component intrusive. Me, having been a student, a teacher and a parent in systems where home and school collaborate, I wouldn't have it any other way.

But there is 1 thing.  Public school is void of God.  According to the scriptures we are to "train our children up in the Lord".   Also, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge".   Public school is pretty void of the Lord, and certainly can't teach the fear of him.

The purpose of public school is to provide equal educational opportunities to all students, regardless of religious affiliation. Religious instruction belongs to family, community and Church. I would strenuously object to my son being dragged into Protestant ways at school.

I sometimes hear that ecumenical councils are infallible, yet at other times one can hear their canons are outdated/irrelevent to modern society (in essence, not infallible at all)

These two options are no not antithetical. They are indeed infallible but specific canons can still be irrelevant to present society.

Well, I've not been posting for a while, but I wanted to drop back in with some observations and more questions.

I don't think I mentioned it, but I've been reading The Life of the Virgin Mary the Theotokos from Holy Apostles Convent, and I must say it's quite an interesting read. I can honestly say that I've come to agree with, or at least understand, a lot of the things I'm reading from the hymns and writings of the Saints of the Orthodox Church, at least with respect to their understanding of the supreme significance of Mary in the economy of Salvation in facilitating the incarnation. I think, no, I know now that there's a LOT of things that protestants miss in their way of understanding her, and it's had the effect of weakening their overall understanding of the Incarnation and the implications thereof, and that's a shame.

That said, I'm still struggling with certain aspects of it. Mainly two things... The tradition of her Dormition and Assumption seems to lack the super-early written attestation that other traditions of the Virgin Mary seem to have, thus making it harder for me to feel 'safe' trusting in the idea. And also, I still don't care for some of the language used in some Orthodox prayers and services with respect to the Theotokos. It just doesn't make sense to me and feels too sentimental and often misleading from a theological standpoint. Let me give another example, this time from the Akathist service...

Priest: Our most gracious Queen, our hope, O Theotokos, Who receivest the orphaned and art the intercessor for the stranger; the joy of those in sorrow, protectress of the wronged, see our distress, see our affliction! Help us, for we are helpless. Feed us, for we are strangers and pilgrims. Thou knowest our offences; forgive them, and resolve them as Thou dost will. For we know no other help but Thee, no other intercessor, no gracious comforter, only Thee, O Theotokos to guard and protect us for ages of ages. Amen. 

I understand about her allegedly guarding and priotecting us through her intersession, and I can be comfortable with that (though I wouldn't use that wording myself. God protects, the saints only pray for it), but several things about this I just don't understand: Does the Virgin Mary forgive sins? No other Help? No other intercessor? No other Comforter? What about the Holy Trinity? What about the other Saints and Angels of God?

It almost feels to me like there has been a gradual shift in the way that the Orthodox Church has been viewing the Virgin Mary's intercessory role over the course of the last few centuries. It feels like if you look at some of the things that were being said, say, between the 6th and 15th centuries, you get this idea that they were starting to think of the Theotokos as standing directly between us and Christ, the mystical 'neck" of the Body of Christ through whom we must go to get to God, and only if she wills it, thus making her 'our only hope' of salvation, whereas nowadays I don't really get the sense that that's how most Orthodox understand it. They say she aids us through her powerful intersessions, but that's about it. No longer directly in our path the Christ, but at our side helping us a long. And yet the remnants of this more medieval view just seem to be sort of 'stuck' in the liturgical texts. When modern Orthodox teachers and apologists and so forth try to explain what some of these enigmatic statements mean they say "Well, we're not really saying that, we're just asking her to pray for us, and it's more of a sentimental gesture than a theological statement", and so forth. I don't know, but that's just the vague impression that I get sometimes. I would appreciate any clarifying responses I can get.