OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 22, 2014, 12:19:36 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The EP and ROCOR  (Read 9073 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« on: May 20, 2007, 07:00:04 PM »

Now that ROCOR is in communion with the MP can anybody speak about ROCOR's status with the EP?
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2007, 09:15:55 PM »

Now that ROCOR is in communion with the MP can anybody speak about ROCOR's status with the EP?

They're in communion now. This was made clear in a news article about the union--ROCOR is now in communion with all local Orthodox Churches.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2007, 09:32:25 PM »

It has long been the position of the Oecumenical Throne that the dispute between ROCOR and Moscow was an internal issue and that communion would be restored when and only when their was reconciliation between the two parties.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2007, 09:48:41 PM »

It has long been the position of the Oecumenical Throne that the dispute between ROCOR and Moscow was an internal issue and that communion would be restored when and only when their was reconciliation between the two parties.
I'm not sure there was ever any official break in Communion between ROCOR and Constantinople. Constantinople has always been in Communion with Jerusalem and Serbia, and both these were always in Communion with ROCOR. Wouldn't Constantinople have just viewed ROCOR as part of Moscow (the way it does with the OCA?). I doubt that the name of the First Heirarch of ROCOR will be now entered into Constantinople's Diptych. I think it will remain as it is with the name of the Patriarch of Moscow.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2007, 10:05:38 PM »

I'm not sure there was ever any official break in Communion between ROCOR and Constantinople. Constantinople has always been in Communion with Jerusalem and Serbia, and both these were always in Communion with ROCOR. Wouldn't Constantinople have just viewed ROCOR as part of Moscow (the way it does with the OCA?). I doubt that the name of the First Heirarch of ROCOR will be now entered into Constantinople's Diptych. I think it will remain as it is with the name of the Patriarch of Moscow.

Until 1965, ROCOR was in communion with the EP. When the EP lifted the anathemas against the pope, Met Philaret wrote his sorrowful epistles, and concelebration with the EP stopped from ROCOR's point of view. Not sure if the EP ever had a response or just figured, "ok whatever."
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2007, 03:18:42 PM »

So then ROCOR's attitude about the RCC - that they are heritics and "outside of the Church" - must now be dropped?  If there is only One Catholic and Apostolic Church - and that Church has endorsed such positions as the Balamand Agreement - does it not follow that ROCOR has also now joined itself to such positions?  In a word, it seems ROCOR has done a 180 on many of its hard line positions across the board.

Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2007, 03:39:54 PM »

Welcome to the mainstream.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2007, 04:13:26 PM »

So then ROCOR's attitude about the RCC - that they are heritics and "outside of the Church" - must now be dropped?  If there is only One Catholic and Apostolic Church - and that Church has endorsed such positions as the Balamand Agreement - does it not follow that ROCOR has also now joined itself to such positions?  In a word, it seems ROCOR has done a 180 on many of its hard line positions across the board.



While I am opposed to the ROCOR-MP union, it does not follow that they had to lose these hardline (and in my opinion true) opinions, because there are traditional Orthodox in the Church of Greece and elsewhere.  I disagree with the propriety of "resisting from within" but people do this sort of thing all the time.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2007, 04:13:53 PM »

Welcome to the mainstream.

How can you welcome him to the mainstream when you are far from "the mainstream" yourself?  Grin

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2007, 04:52:44 PM »

How can you welcome him to the mainstream when you are far from "the mainstream" yourself?  Grin

Anastasios

I may be a bit on the liberal side, but only slightly. I'm pretty much in line with what one can typically expect in a Greek Orthodox parish. At least I've never accused a priest of discrimination for not giving the Eucharist to non-Orthodox, but I can think of more than one parish council member from more than one parish who's made such an accusation. The norm in the Church, at least in America, may be a bit more liberal than the impression you are under. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2007, 05:23:19 PM »

While I am opposed to the ROCOR-MP union, it does not follow that they had to lose these hardline (and in my opinion true) opinions, because there are traditional Orthodox in the Church of Greece and elsewhere. 


Here is what I don't quite understand about there being One Church.  As per the RCC, the Balamand Agreement states that Rome is our sister Church, anathemas abolished, etc.  The EP and other 'parts of the body' - through that agreement - also connects us to this doctrine, no?  If I have this right then ROCOR contradicts itself by claiming the RCC are heretics, etc.  If we still carry these positions after the unia then we had no business joining in communion in the first place.   Am I over simplifying this or is it that cut and dry?

Quote
I disagree with the propriety of "resisting from within" but people do this sort of thing all the time.

Indeed. I had a long conversation with a Hieromonk from one of Elder Epraim's monasteries and this was his exact position "resisting from within".  He said that the Greek Old Calandar people would have been a great help for the Traditional voice within the jurisdiction.  Now - without their voice - more modern ideas prevail.   His take on the RCC and EP situation is until we see an RCC step behind the alter or take Orthodox communion then the line has not been officially crossed.  Unless of course RCC repents, then no problem.

In my mind though - and I admit that I am no authority - is that if we are in communion with those who view the RCC as our sister Church then we share in this position as well. 

Do I have this right?

Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2007, 06:32:11 PM »



Here is what I don't quite understand about there being One Church.  As per the RCC, the Balamand Agreement states that Rome is our sister Church, anathemas abolished, etc.  The EP and other 'parts of the body' - through that agreement - also connects us to this doctrine, no?  If I have this right then ROCOR contradicts itself by claiming the RCC are heretics, etc.  If we still carry these positions after the unia then we had no business joining in communion in the first place.   Am I over simplifying this or is it that cut and dry?

Indeed. I had a long conversation with a Hieromonk from one of Elder Epraim's monasteries and this was his exact position "resisting from within".  He said that the Greek Old Calandar people would have been a great help for the Traditional voice within the jurisdiction.  Now - without their voice - more modern ideas prevail.   His take on the RCC and EP situation is until we see an RCC step behind the alter or take Orthodox communion then the line has not been officially crossed.  Unless of course RCC repents, then no problem.

In my mind though - and I admit that I am no authority - is that if we are in communion with those who view the RCC as our sister Church then we share in this position as well. 

Do I have this right?

Personally, I don't know why you are so concerned with Balamand.  There was quite an outcry after this agreement came to light.  It's a matter of quite some debate; many have rejected it outright.  I don't know offhand which signatories retracted their opinions, but many prominent hierarchs have never accepted it; it really doesn't carry any weight as far as I can see.  It's a little bit like the situation where all the Greek bishops went to the (false) council of Florence, and only Mark of Ephesus opposed the agreement with the Latin Church.  When the bishops came home, all of the faithful rejected their acqueisence to the Latin conditions for reunion, and it all came to nought.   I grant you that the reacton to Balamand does not appear to be as cut and dry as that to Florence, it has not been received with great aplomb; far from it.  IMHO someone has been trying to alarm you.  Of course, there are "traditionalists" who would disagree with me.   Having said all this, the actions of the EP with regard to Rome make me quite nervous too.  I would side with your hieromonk friend with regards to lines being crossed.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2007, 06:43:38 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #12 on: May 21, 2007, 06:35:51 PM »

I may be a bit on the liberal side, but only slightly. I'm pretty much in line with what one can typically expect in a Greek Orthodox parish. At least I've never accused a priest of discrimination for not giving the Eucharist to non-Orthodox, but I can think of more than one parish council member from more than one parish who's made such an accusation. The norm in the Church, at least in America, may be a bit more liberal than the impression you are under. Wink

It's tragic that so many Orthodox laypeople, in no matter which jurisdiction, are so completely ignorant of the Faith, yet believe that they know of what they speak.  Clergy and laypeople are together responsible for this unacceptable state of affairs.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2007, 06:37:11 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #13 on: May 21, 2007, 07:12:13 PM »

Personally, I don't know why you are so concerned with Balamand.  There was quite an outcry after this agreement came to light.  It's a matter of quite some debate; many have rejected it outright.  I don't know offhand which signatories retracted their opinions, but many prominent hierarchs have never accepted it; it really doesn't carry any weight as far as I can see.  It's a little bit like the situation where all the Greek bishops went to the (false) council of Florence, and only Mark of Ephesus opposed the agreement with the Latin Church.  When the bishops came home, all of the faithful rejected their acqueisence to the Latin conditions for reunion, and it all came to nought.   I grant you that the reacton to Balamand does not appear to be as cut and dry as that to Florence, it has not been received with great aplomb; far from it.  IMHO someone has been trying to alarm you.  Of course, there are "traditionalists" who would disagree with me.   Having said all this, the actions of the EP with regard to Rome make me quite nervous too.  I would side with your hieromonk friend with regards to lines being crossed.

Well the alarming thing - if the RCC really are the heretics who are outside the Church - is that I recently watched the Pope on EWTN attend a patriarchal liturgy with the EP and I am told he sat - vested - in the place of a visting Bishop.  I see a picture on the EP website of Pope Benedict XVI and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew offering a joint blessing to the Christians below. Etc, etc, etc.  Obviously the EP sees the RCC as our brothers and part of the Church.  I was thinking that the Balamand agreement brought us to this moment but if it did not we are still at the moment regardless.  I was also thinking that by ROCOR now being in full communion we - like it or not - are also "on the boat" so to speak.  If there is only One Church then that was our Church there with the Pope.   Again, I am quite open to the probability that I don't have this understanding correct!  I am also quite open to the possibility that union with Rome could be a good thing.   ROCOR all of the sudden asserting this would not surprize me in the least given what I have learned in the past year about what our position used to be on the MP.    As long as the Mysteries have Grace and I can still have the opprotunity to work out my salvation I am all for whatever kind of union Christ brings together  Wink
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,835


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #14 on: May 21, 2007, 11:51:23 PM »

In my mind though - and I admit that I am no authority - is that if we are in communion with those who view the RCC as our sister Church then we share in this position as well. 

Do I have this right?

I have come across those who believe that communion with heretics makes us just as guilty of their heresy; in fact, I believe we even have precedent in our canons for this assertion.  However, I'm not so sure that this means that we share the same beliefs as those with whom we are in communion--the sin of heresy is not so much what we believe as it is our willful separation from the Church by believing the condemned doctrine or associating with those who do.  On matters where there is no clear consensus, we do have freedom to hold different beliefs while still being in communion with one another.

On another note, the statement you present above does reflect the language of a disturbing alarmism I have seen among our more rigorist "traditionalists".  I'd be careful to not totally dismiss their alarmism as extremist, but I would also be careful to take their "chicken little" spin with a large helping of salt.  There is certainly something to be feared in the ecumenist activities of the EP, but it doesn't appear anywhere near as threatening as our rigorists make it out to be.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2007, 11:56:53 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2007, 08:57:12 AM »

So then ROCOR's attitude about the RCC - that they are heritics and "outside of the Church" - must now be dropped?

It is out of the question to be dropped! It's the official stance of the Orthodox Church that we are the Church while Latins are heretics!

How could you even have such a thought!

It's the ROCOR's anathema of ecumenism that is in force in MP now! Just look what will be happening in future.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2007, 10:59:47 AM »

It is out of the question to be dropped! It's the official stance of the Orthodox Church that we are the Church while Latins are heretics!

How could you even have such a thought!

It's the ROCOR's anathema of ecumenism that is in force in MP now! Just look what will be happening in future.

It was a question that came to mind seeing as the EP does not consider the Latins to be heretics or outside the Church.  How could the EP consider the Latins heretics when we see the EP Patriarch and the Pope side by side, hand in hand, giving a joint blessing to the people?  On the EP website they don't call the Latins heretics but rather brothers moving towards "FULL" communion.   The EP Patriarch addresses the Pople as "Your Holiness, beloved Brother in the Lord". 

I could be completely wrong but if we are now in communion with the EP and the rest of the canonical Orthdox
- and because there is only One Church - how can the actions of the EP not effect us?  We made no stipulations that the MP disconnect from the EP over their actions with the Latins.  In fact, in the act of canonical communion with the MP it clearly states that all past anathemas that would hinder us from uniting with the MP
are now null and void. 

Again, I could have an improper understanding of the above so please forgive me if that is the case.

GiC, could you weigh in on this a bit more?
« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 11:12:37 AM by ROCORthodox » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2007, 11:33:25 AM »

Indeed, I also saw that visit to the Phanar. The Holy Mountain reacted with predictable disgust. One of their complaints was this, just as you've mentioned:

First of all, the Pope was received as though he were a canonical (proper) bishop of Rome. During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron; he was addressed by the Ecumenical Patriarch with the greeting "blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord" as though it were Christ the Lord; he blessed the congregation and he was commemorated as "most holy" and "His Beatitude the Bishop of Rome". Furthermore, all of the Pope's officiating clergy wore an omophoron during the Orthodox Divine Liturgy; also, [Benedict's liturgical] reciting of the Lord's Prayer, his liturgical embrace with the Patriarch, were displays of something more than common prayer.

Benedict also gave a homily during the Divine Liturgy. I also remember the Greek participation in the Catholic mass the next day.

Of course there was no shared communion either time, but my guess, judging from his words and actions, is that Patriarch Bartholomew sees the Catholic Church much as the Catholic Church sees the EO and OO Churches---as true particular Churches of apostolic pedigree with (through the mercy of God) true sacraments, though not with the complete fullness of faith that would allow intercommunion. I'm sure he sees one of his chief roles as working for reconcilation between East and West, and I bet he considers our long separation to be 90% for political/cultural reasons rather than theological.

Now the question would be is, how much can he speak for Orthodoxy? It seems few Orthodox agree on the answer.
Logged
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2007, 11:40:58 AM »


Of course there was no shared communion either time, but my guess, judging from his words and actions, is that Patriarch Bartholomew sees the Catholic Church much as the Catholic Church sees the EO and OO Churches---as true particular Churches of apostolic pedigree with (through the mercy of God) true sacraments, though not with the complete fullness of faith that would allow intercommunion. I'm sure he sees one of his chief roles as working for reconcilation between East and West, and I bet he considers our long separation to be 90% for political/cultural reasons rather than theological.



I bolded your text to emphasize to anyone reading this that the paragraph is entirely your guess.

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2007, 11:44:08 AM »

Quote
It's the official stance of the Orthodox Church that we are the Church while Latins are heretics!

There is no official stance, because there is no official mouthpiece of the church as people usually like to point out.  The most official and recent action one could point to is the lifting of mutual excommunications between Rome and Constintanople.  One could point to many actions of the various Orthodox churches (including Moscow) however to show that they regard the Roman Catholic Church as just that - a church, and not some helter, skelter body of heretics.  Ditto for the stance vis-a-vis the Oriental Orthodox for that matter.

There's the Internet world of hyper-Orthodoxy, and there's reality.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 11:45:22 AM by welkodox » Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2007, 11:46:26 AM »

It was a question that came to mind seeing as the EP does not consider the Latins to be heretics or outside the Church.

Why than do EP baptize Catholic converts to Orthodoxy? Would they do that if they considered baptism of RCC valid? Wouldn't they consider baptisms of RCC valid if they had considered them the Church?

Quote
How could the EP consider the Latins heretics when we see the EP Patriarch and the Pope side by side, hand in hand, giving a joint blessing to the people?

This was an embarrassing incident after which Mount Athos, a Bishop Nikolai of Plovdiv, Bulgaria and Bishop Diomed of Chukotka, Russia, raised their voices. So we now see Bosphoriacs silent as mice.

Quote
The EP Patriarch addresses the Pople as "Your Holiness, beloved Brother in the Lord".

This is just politeness and nothing else. I don't think he should address the Pope with "you bloody heretic". It is sufficient we know that, we don't have to say that face to face.

Quote
I could be completely wrong but if we are now in communion with the EP and the rest of the canonical Orthdox - and because there is only One Church - how can the actions of the EP not effect us?

You were already in communion with Jerusalem and Serbia, whom were in communion with EP. Did the actions of EP effected you?

Quote
In fact, in the act of canonical communion with the MP it clearly states that all past anathemas that would hinder us from uniting with the MP
are now null and void.

Could you provide the link and quotation of that particular paragraph, annulling anathemas, since I couldn't have found it?
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2007, 11:46:37 AM »

Well, I am flattered that anyone here could possibly see me as an authority on the Ecumenical Patriarchate and on the private opinions of HAH Bartholomew! Yes, it is only my guess.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2007, 11:54:31 AM »

Why than do EP baptize Catholic converts to Orthodoxy? Would they do that if they considered baptism of RCC valid? Wouldn't they consider baptisms of RCC valid if they had considered them the Church?

Hasn't this previous practice been long since repudiated?
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2007, 12:06:33 PM »

Hasn't this previous practice been long since repudiated?

Yes, and the practice of receiving converts has never historically been consistent across the various Orthodox churches.  It's a by-product of fuzzy ecclesiology.  Currently there are majority and minority opinions.

In fairness in Catholicism there have historically been irregularities as well.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2007, 12:10:59 PM »

This is just politeness and nothing else. I don't think he should address the Pope with "you bloody heretic". It is sufficient we know that, we don't have to say that face to face.

So are you suggesting that the EP was committing blasphemy by calling an unbaptized "bloody heretic" like the pope "your Holiness, beloved brother in the Lord"? For if he was using the Lord's name insincerely, in a gesture of politeness, that is what he did.
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2007, 12:14:48 PM »

There is no official stance, because there is no official mouthpiece of the church as people usually like to point out.

Really?

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

Quote
4. Of these heresies diffused, with what sufferings the LORD hath known, over a great part of the world, was formerly Arianism, and at present is the Papacy. This, too, as the former has become extinct, although now flourishing, shall not endure, but pass away and be cast down, and a great voice from heaven shall cry: It is cast down (Rev. xii. 10).

5. The new doctrine, that "the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son," is contrary to the memorable declaration of our LORD, emphatically made respecting it: which proceedeth from the Father (John xv. 26), and contrary to the universal Confession of the Catholic Church as witnessed by the seven Ecumenical Councils, uttering "which proceedeth from the Father." (Symbol of Faith).
...
6. This heresy, ...
...
8. Yet the Papacy has not on this account ceased to annoy the peaceful Church of God, but sending out everywhere so-called missionaries, men of reprobate minds, it compasses land and sea to make one proselyte, to deceive one of the Orthodox, to corrupt the doctrine of our LORD, to adulterate, by addition, the divine Creed of our holy Faith, to prove the Baptism which God gave us superfluous, the communion of the Cup void of sacred efficacy, and a thousand other things which the demon of novelty dictated to the all-daring Schoolmen of the Middle Ages and to the Bishops of the elder Rome, venturing all things through lust of power.
...
9. In a measure the aggressions of the later Popes in their own persons had ceased, and were carried on only by means of missionaries. But lately, Pius IX., becoming Bishop of Rome and proclaimed Pope in 1847, published on the sixth of January, in this present year, an Encyclical Letter addressed to the Easterns, consisting of twelve pages in the Greek version, which his emissary has disseminated, like a plague coming from without, within our Orthodox Fold.
...

May, 1848, Indiction 6.
+ ANTHIMOS, by the Mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, new Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.
+ HIEROTHEUS, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of Alexandria and of all Egypt, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.
+ METHODIOS, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of the great City of God, Antioch, and of all Anatolia, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.
+ CYRIL, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of Jerusalem and of all Palestine, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.
 
The Holy Synod in Constantinople:
+ PAISIUS OF CAESAREA
+ ANTHIMUS OF EPHESUS
+ DIONYSIUS OF HERACLEA
+ JOACHIM OF CYZICUS
+ DIONYSIUS OF NICODEMIA
+ HIEROTHEUS OF CHALCEDON
+ NEOPHYTUS OF DERCI
+ GERASIMUS OF ADRIANOPLE
+ CYRIL OF NEOCAESAREA
+ THEOCLETUS OF BEREA
+ MELETIUS OF PISIDIA
+ ATHANASIUS OF SMYRNA
+ DIONYSIUS OF MELENICUS
+ PAISIUS OF SOPHIA
+ DANIEL OF LEMNOS
+ PANTELEIMON OF DEYINOPOLIS
+ JOSEPH OF ERSECIUM
+ ANTHIMUS OF BODENI
 
The Holy Synod in Antioch:
+ ZACHARIAS OF ARCADIA
+ METHODIOS OF EMESA
+ JOANNICIUS OF TRIPOLIS
+ ARTEMIUS OF LAODICEA
 
The Holy Synod in Jerusalem:
+ MELETIUS OF PETRA
+ DIONYSIUS OF BETHLEHEM
+ PHILEMON OF GAZA
+ SAMUEL OF NEAPOLIS
+ THADDEUS OF SEBASTE
+ JOANNICIUS OF PHILADELPHIA
+ HIEROTHEUS OF TABOR

Of present Patriarchates, only Russia (and now Georgia) were not participated in the Council, since this is the decision of the Councils of three Patriarchates. Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania, as well as present Church of Greece, were part of Constantinopolis that time. Other autocephalies (Cyprus, Sinai) accepted this decision.

Thus, this is valid and binding stance, one the most recent official ones, of my Church. See also even the more recent one: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

Quote
The most official and recent action one could point to is the lifting of mutual excommunications between Rome and Constintanople.

Read the anathema of 1054. These were Michael Cerularius and Leo of Ochrid that were anathemized, not the Sees. Athenagoras couldn't have invalidated the decisions of the councils quoted above. Besides, it doesn't have any effect outside present day Constantinopolis. Besides, it hasn't touched the See of Ochrid.

Quote
There's the Internet world of hyper-Orthodoxy, and there's reality.
You and I are obviously living different realties.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2007, 12:15:23 PM »

In fairness in Catholicism there have historically been irregularities as well.

That is true. Practices have varied in the past, especially on the Eastern Front where tensions and emotions ran highest. I am glad that Rome has now clamped down on that. No Orthodox crossing the Tiber should ever be made to undergo a new "baptism" or "chrismation."
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2007, 12:30:42 PM »

The whole topic of post schism councils and encyclicals is quite interesting.  You will get various answers as to which are "authoritative", and which are not.  The Synod of Jerusalem is a good case in point.  Orthodox people will now do almost anything to distance themselves from it, but by what authority?

In the case of the 19th century encyclicals, they certainly have an authority behind them, but what kind?  They certainly can't be considered dogmatically binding.  Whatever their authority, it is certainly no greater than the Balamand Statement.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 12:31:49 PM by welkodox » Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2007, 12:52:57 PM »

...
In the case of the 19th century encyclicals, they certainly have an authority behind them, but what kind?  They certainly can't be considered dogmatically binding.  Whatever their authority, it is certainly no greater than the Balamand Statement.
Listen, pall.

The encyclical of 1848 was actually the decision of three councils. To my Church, which was part of Constantinopolis that time, but wasn't part of Constantinopolis when anathemas were lifted, is as much valid and binding as the decision on Creed of Nicea-Constantinopolis. I don't question the authority behind them and I do consider them theologically binding, along with hundreds of millions of other Orthodox Christians.

Decisions of a Council are certainly more binding than decisions of a “meeting” which was that in Balamand, where my Church, btw, didn't participate.

So cease spreading disinformation about us Orthodox, please. Speak for your religion only.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2007, 12:59:38 PM »

Hasn't this previous practice been long since repudiated?

No it hasn't.

Among various jurisdictions, where conversion of Catholics is performed either by baptism, or by crissmation, or even by confession, EP is among the most rigid ones. They always rebaptize.

An EP Bishop from Germany signed the statement about validity of baptism of some German protestants some three months ago, and was immediatelly castigated by EP, which stressed it wasn't the stance of EP.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 02, 2007, 01:26:08 PM »

They always rebaptize.
Actually, this isn't correct.
My Archdiocese is directly under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and receives Roman Catholics by Chrisimation (see under "Baptisms" in the Archdiocese Handbook).
Nor is it the case in other parts of Europe: http://www.goarch.org/en/news/NewsDetail.asp?id=1213
I know that in some parts of the New Territories, the Churches under the Ecumenical Patriarchate receive Roman Catholics by baptism, but it is not correct to say the EP "always" receives Roman Catholics by Baptism.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #31 on: June 02, 2007, 01:52:19 PM »

Actually, this isn't correct.
My Archdiocese is directly under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and receives Roman Catholics by Chrisimation (see under "Baptisms" in the Archdiocese Handbook).
Nor is it the case in other parts of Europe: http://www.goarch.org/en/news/NewsDetail.asp?id=1213
I know that in some parts of the New Territories, the Churches under the Ecumenical Patriarchate receive Roman Catholics by baptism, but it is not correct to say the EP "always" receives Roman Catholics by Baptism.

If some of the Churches in the New Territories are receiving Latins by Baptism then they are acting contrary to the wishes of both the Synod of Constantinople and the Synod of Greece, both of which have affirmed that the Latins and Anglicans are to be received by Chrismation. The only place that is an exception to this is Athos, and their practice of rebaptizing Christians is not looked upon favourably by either the Synod of Greece or Constantinople but is tolerated out of economia.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #32 on: June 02, 2007, 01:52:58 PM »

Well, I am flattered that anyone here could possibly see me as an authority on the Ecumenical Patriarchate and on the private opinions of HAH Bartholomew! Yes, it is only my guess.

But I would submit that it is a rather good and educated 'guess'.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #33 on: June 02, 2007, 02:00:00 PM »

It was a question that came to mind seeing as the EP does not consider the Latins to be heretics or outside the Church.  How could the EP consider the Latins heretics when we see the EP Patriarch and the Pope side by side, hand in hand, giving a joint blessing to the people?  On the EP website they don't call the Latins heretics but rather brothers moving towards "FULL" communion.   The EP Patriarch addresses the Pople as "Your Holiness, beloved Brother in the Lord". 

I could be completely wrong but if we are now in communion with the EP and the rest of the canonical Orthdox
- and because there is only One Church - how can the actions of the EP not effect us?  We made no stipulations that the MP disconnect from the EP over their actions with the Latins.  In fact, in the act of canonical communion with the MP it clearly states that all past anathemas that would hinder us from uniting with the MP
are now null and void. 

Again, I could have an improper understanding of the above so please forgive me if that is the case.

GiC, could you weigh in on this a bit more?

I believe this to be a good assessment of the situation; however, my 'guess' is that the Bishops of ROCOR, regardless of their personal opinions, simply found this issue to not be of sufficient significance as to justify continued schism within the Church. It really isn't that big of a deal since, while Anathemas were lifted, communion has not been restored. The situation, from a canonical perspective, has not really changed all that's really occuring is rhetoric and I really dont se why anyone, regardless of their personal opinions, would be too worried about being indirectly associated with the rhetoric coming out of Constantinople which carries no significant canonical implications. To the ROCOR Bishops, this is probably a non-issue.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #34 on: June 02, 2007, 02:03:11 PM »

You and I are obviously living different realties.

That we most certainly are, but I have a feeling that both 'realities' are figments of our respective imaginations. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 02, 2007, 02:03:33 PM »

If some of the Churches in the New Territories are receiving Latins by Baptism then they are acting contrary to the wishes of both the Synod of Constantinople and the Synod of Greece, both of which have affirmed that the Latins and Anglicans are to be received by Chrismation. The only place that is an exception to this is Athos, and their practice of rebaptizing Christians is not looked upon favourably by either the Synod of Greece or Constantinople but is tolerated out of economia.
Actually, this isn't correct either.
There are also some Churches under Constantinople such as on the Island of Kalymnos which are permitted to use the Old Calendar and baptise converts from Roman Catholicism and Protestant Churches.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2007, 02:08:21 PM »

Actually, this isn't correct either.
There are also some Churches under Constantinople such as on the Island of Kalymnos which are permitted to use the Old Calendar and baptise converts from Roman Catholicism and Protestant Churches.

And how many converts do these Churches actually see? Wink

I know that there a small handful of exceptions to the norm, but these exceptions are only allowed for two reasons, out of economy to the local parish, and because it is understood that the practice will have nominal impact on ecclesiastical relations at large.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #37 on: June 02, 2007, 03:28:09 PM »

Why than do EP baptize Catholic converts to Orthodoxy? Would they do that if they considered baptism of RCC valid? Wouldn't they consider baptisms of RCC valid if they had considered them the Church?

Others have already addressed this but I might add that I know personally of an RCC who was recieved by ROCOR I believe by confession.  Certainly was not baptism though.

Quote
Could you provide the link and quotation of that particular paragraph, annulling anathemas, since I couldn't have found it?

I specifically said anathemas against the MP.  I can't find the link but Fr. John Shaw has confirmed that all anathemas which would have obstructed union with the MP.  I believe the document is in Russian and it has been quoted as saying:

"The present Act restores the Canonical communion inside the Local Russian Orthodox Church. The previously issued Acts obstructing the fullness of the Canonical communion are declared void or invalid."

As for the RCC I believe that the EP website has stated that the anathemas against Rome have been lifted but that "FULL" communion has not yet be completed.   I had a long discussion on the EP and Rome with a priestmonk at one of Elder Ephriam's monastery and he said that we are in the 11th and a half hour before full on eucharistic communion with RCC.   His position is that if that happens without all of the established issues being settled, then that is a clear sign that the EP has "jumped off of the boat".
Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #38 on: June 02, 2007, 03:34:27 PM »

I believe this to be a good assessment of the situation; however, my 'guess' is that the Bishops of ROCOR, regardless of their personal opinions, simply found this issue to not be of sufficient significance as to justify continued schism within the Church. It really isn't that big of a deal since, while Anathemas were lifted, communion has not been restored. The situation, from a canonical perspective, has not really changed all that's really occuring is rhetoric and I really dont se why anyone, regardless of their personal opinions, would be too worried about being indirectly associated with the rhetoric coming out of Constantinople which carries no significant canonical implications. To the ROCOR Bishops, this is probably a non-issue.

So then the lifting of Anathemas against Rome - while certainly not eucharistic communion - makes the statement that the EP no longer considers the RCC to be heretics, correct?  That's what I get from reading a joint statement with Pope Paul VI, where they declared that they "regret the offensive words, the reproaches without foundation, and the reprehensible gestures which on both sides have marked or accompanied the sad events of this period."
They likewise "regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion."  "Through the action of the Holy Spirit those differences will be overcome through regret for historical wrongs and through an efficacious determination to arrive at a common understanding and expression of the faith of the Apostles and its demands."
 
So this leads me to believe (as an Old Calendar monk puts it) that the Orthodox condemnation of Latin heresies is "without foundation" and must be "obliterated from memory" and we do not yet understand the faith of the Apostles seeing as we have to arrive at a common understanding of the faith of the apostles.

« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 04:06:16 PM by ROCORthodox » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #39 on: June 02, 2007, 04:02:24 PM »

So then the lifting of Anathemas against Rome - while certainly not eucharistic communion - makes the statement that the EP no longer considers the RCC to be heretics, correct?

It may indeed be a statement that they are not to be regarded as heretics; but communion has not been restored, Rome is not commemorated in the dyptics of the Great Church of Christ. From a technical perspective it could be said that they went from being classified as mere heretics to schismatics. Regardless of the pragmatic implications, canonically speaking this is a step backwards for our relations with Rome as schism is worse than heresy.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #40 on: June 02, 2007, 04:20:09 PM »

...but it is not correct to say the EP "always" receives Roman Catholics by Baptism.

Thanks for correcting me.

Quote from: ROCORtodox
...I specifically said anathemas against the MP.
Which ones? Could you name them? Their dates? Where they've been published?

Quote from: ROCORtodox
I had a long discussion on the EP and Rome with a priestmonk at one of Elder Ephriam's monastery and he said that we are in the 11th and a half hour before full on eucharistic communion with RCC.   His position is that if that happens without all of the established issues being settled, then that is a clear sign that the EP has "jumped off of the boat".

I can't see any error in the chieromonk's attitude. That's what all Orthodox Christians believe. But Bartholomites are silent after having been publicly castigated by Mount Athos, Church of Greece, Russians, Bulgarians, etc.

Silent as mice.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #41 on: June 02, 2007, 04:22:07 PM »

It may indeed be a statement that they are not to be regarded as heretics; but communion has not been restored, Rome is not commemorated in the dyptics of the Great Church of Christ. From a technical perspective it could be said that they went from being classified as mere heretics to schismatics. Regardless of the pragmatic implications, canonically speaking this is a step backwards for our relations with Rome as schism is worse than heresy.

What kind of schism though.  I recently read an essay written within our church concerning the schism between the MP and ROCOR  which speaks of two types of schism, one of which - if it is merely administrative - then neither side is graceless or outside the Church.  Check this out:  

(snip) St Basil the Great has to say.

 Heresies is the name applied to those who have broken entirely and have
become alienated from the faith itself. Schisms is the name applied to those
who on account of ecclesiastical causes and remediable questions have
developed a quarrel amongst themselves . [Concerning heresies] the question
is one involving a difference of faith in God itself. It therefore seemed
best to those who dealt with the subject in the beginning to rule that the
attitude of heretics should be set aside entirely; but as for those who have
merely split apart as a schism, they were to be considered as still
belonging to the Church. "

From The Canonical Epistles, Or, More Expressly, The Ninety-Two Canons, Of Our Father Among The Saints, Basil The Great Interpreted, The Rudder, (1957), p 773


" . . . Schism comes in two versions, as explained previously; it can  be due to heresy (the worst kind, that results in departure of the Holy Spirit), or it can be due to disputes of an administrative nature (where
both groups remain within the Church).  . . .Because the separation (between ROCOR and the MP)
is not on heretical grounds, then, as  explained by St Basil the Great, MP remains within the Church."

It seems to me - from the language in the joint statements by Rome and the EP - that the EP does not believe
the schism to be based on heresy because they have said the Orthodox condemnation of Latin heresies is "without foundation" and must be "obliterated from memory".

Then again, I might have it all wrong  Wink


Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #42 on: June 02, 2007, 04:37:17 PM »


 Which ones? Could you name them? Their dates? Where they've been published?

Granting the bit I posted from the Act is correct - and trusting the priests who were active in the unia process who confirmed that the anathemas against the MP have been lifted - the way the wording of the language of that statement would mean ANY anathema which would prohibit unia with the MP.  It is quite a broad statement and the pro-unia priests have been using it in debates on the net to rebut a wide variety of past ROCOR statements which are being thrown at them.  If you are interested in looking into this yourself you can check out the various yahoo lists. Particularly the Synod and Paradosis list. 

Quote
I can't see any error in the chieromonk's attitude. That's what all Orthodox Christians believe. But Bartholomites are silent after having been publicly castigated by Mount Athos, Church of Greece, Russians, Bulgarians, etc.

Silent as mice.

Well the point I was making is that the EP has stated that the Orthodox condemnation of Latin heresies is "without foundation".  To me, this goes against all that I have been taught in ROCOR.  Many people are leaving our jurisdiction to the Old Calendar jurisdiction because of being in communion with so-called "world Orthodoxy".

I happen to agree with the priestmonk as well but can see the OC folks side as well.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 04:38:52 PM by ROCORthodox » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #43 on: June 02, 2007, 07:46:20 PM »

I was personally thinking of Chrysostom when I wrote what I did about the variation between schism and heresy...

'Therefore I assert and protest, that to make a schism in the Church is no less an evil than to fall into heresy. Tell me, suppose a subject of some king, though he did not join himself to another king, nor give himself to any other, yet should take and keep hold of his king's royal purple, and should tear it all from its clasp, and rend it into many shreds; would he suffer less punishment than those who join themselves to the service of another? And what, if withal he were to seize the king himself by the throat and slay him, and tear his body limb from limb, what punishment could he undergo, that should be equal to his deserts? Now if in doing this toward a king, his fellow-servant, he would be committing an act too great for any punishment to reach; of what hell shall not he be worthy who slays Christ, and plucks Him limb from limb? of that one which is threatened? No, I think not, but of another far more dreadful.'

It is better to remain loyal to the Church and enter knowingly into Heresy than to break off and risk Schism.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,835


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #44 on: June 02, 2007, 09:01:48 PM »

It is better to remain loyal to the Church and enter knowingly into Heresy than to break off and risk Schism.

But by her very own definition, the Church cannot enter into heresy, so those who do fall into heresy are no longer of the Church, even should the heretics be the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #45 on: June 02, 2007, 09:24:42 PM »

But by her very own definition, the Church cannot enter into heresy, so those who do fall into heresy are no longer of the Church, even should the heretics be the Ecumenical Patriarch.

The Church can and has entered into heresy and has returned from it, to claim otherwise is simply semantic nonsense. The institution is of greater importance than the dogma, so if we must choose between the two let us choose the former.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #46 on: June 02, 2007, 10:43:21 PM »

The encyclical of 1848 was actually the decision of three councils. To my Church, which was part of Constantinopolis that time, but wasn't part of Constantinopolis when anathemas were lifted, is as much valid and binding as the decision on Creed of Nicea-Constantinopolis. I don't question the authority behind them and I do consider them theologically binding, along with hundreds of millions of other Orthodox Christians.

The encyclical is just that, an encyclical.  A signed letter.  The 1848 encyclical might be the product of a local council (I'm not sure if it actually was), but the decisions of local councils are not binding as people will readily point out with the Synod of Jerusalem.  It is certainly not on the same level of an ecumenical synod.

Quote
Decisions of a Council are certainly more binding than decisions of a “meeting” which was that in Balamand, where my Church, btw, didn't participate.

We're not talking about an ecumenical synod.  Balamand actually carries more weight than the 19th century encyclicals for everybody because it's more recent and reverses the stance of the church as stated in the earlier encyclicals.  Neither are binding however, the earlier encyclicals or the Balamand Agreement, and in both cases some churches did not sign on to the documents.  The Russians for instance were not signatories to the 1848 letter, but were to Balamand.

Quote
So cease spreading disinformation about us Orthodox, please. Speak for your religion only.

Great attitude.  Very Christian.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #47 on: June 02, 2007, 10:47:50 PM »

I was personally thinking of Chrysostom when I wrote what I did about the variation between schism and heresy...

It is better to remain loyal to the Church and enter knowingly into Heresy than to break off and risk Schism.

It's easy to be selective, but, the canons and teachings of the Orthodox Church make it quite clear that we must not commemorate heretical bishops.

Quote
The Church can and has entered into heresy and has returned from it, to claim otherwise is simply semantic nonsense. The institution is of greater importance than the dogma, so if we must choose between the two let us choose the former.

You remind me of the type of author who holds a minority opinion but insists it is the majority opinion, and flouts his education, and whenever others disagree with him, keeps on chugging along, insisting he is right, waging battle, admitting of no compromise, and suggesting despite the ton of evidence to the contrary, that he is right and all others are stupid.

I have a responsibility before God to make sure I do not allow people to be led astray while I perform my duties on this website, which I consider a ministry. You abuse our relative lack of censorship, openmindedness, and sense of fairness by consistently claiming your opinions are Orthodox teaching and not readily admitting that they are your take on things. At least people like TomS make it clear they are acting on their own, but I am quite concerned that those not in the know are reading your material and assuming it is the true teaching of the Orthodox, which you know in some cases full well it is not.  You have no right to quote the Fathers when by your own admission you hardly have read them.

That I may be abetting someone who possibly is leading people away from the truth is troubling my soul. If we were running a simple forum with no purpose other than discussion, I would care less what you wrote, but that is not the primary reason we have this forum.  I mean what kind of nonsense is this to claim the Church has fallen into heresy? This is absurd. I would request therefore that you tone down your rhetoric or at least start being very clear where your opinions deviate from Orthodox consensus. As I have stated before, I try to be very clear about my Old Calendarist leanings, so you should be more clear about your GisCist leanings (sorry, I don't really know the right adjective to describe your system).

Thank you for your consideration.

Anastasios
« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 10:48:33 PM by Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,835


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #48 on: June 02, 2007, 11:05:04 PM »

The Church can and has entered into heresy and has returned from it, to claim otherwise is simply semantic nonsense. The institution is of greater importance than the dogma, so if we must choose between the two let us choose the former.

On the contrary, it is the dogma that makes the Church the Church.  How can a religious assembly not cease to be Christian if it preaches a Gospel contrary to that which Christ and His Apostles taught?

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed (anathema).  As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed (anathema).  - Galatians 1:8-9

Byzantine imperialism is NOT the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and St. Paul.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 11:07:36 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #49 on: June 03, 2007, 01:08:01 AM »

It's easy to be selective, but, the canons and teachings of the Orthodox Church make it quite clear that we must not commemorate heretical bishops.

As I read them they only forbid commeration after they have been formally condemned by the synod and have been properly deposed according to proper ecclesiastical procedure (the first-second synod places great emphasis on the formalities as the only sure means to distinguish between those who are actually heretics and those who have simply been falsely accused)

Quote
You remind me of the type of author who holds a minority opinion but insists it is the majority opinion, and flouts his education, and whenever others disagree with him, keeps on chugging along, insisting he is right, waging battle, admitting of no compromise, and suggesting despite the ton of evidence to the contrary, that he is right and all others are stupid.

Well, I cannot say that I am entirely certain as to what you mean. I rarely 'flout [my] education', infact the only time I'll really even mention it is when someone launches an ad hominem attack against me...defusing one fallacy with another. I encourage people to take my arguments on the basis of their internal logic...if they are reasonable, well one would do well to consdier them, if one does not regard them as reasonable then they are free to reject them as such. I am not the Pope, I do not speak infallibly, nor do I claim that I do. But I do believe that, at least once in a great while, I am capable of formulating a half-way reasonable argument.

Quote
I have a responsibility before God to make sure I do not allow people to be led astray while I perform my duties on this website, which I consider a ministry. You abuse our relative lack of censorship, openmindedness, and sense of fairness by consistently claiming your opinions are Orthodox teaching and not readily admitting that they are your take on things.

If I did not believe my opinions to be Orthodox, do you believe that I would hold them? Now, I will readily admit, as I have several times even over the past week or so, that my opinions lie towards the left of modern Orthodox Academia (though if one looks around in the parish, they will find those who are far more ecumenist and liberal than myself). I do not believe that were I to attend the theological school in say Thessaloniki or Athens I would be substantially out of step with the typical instructors and having read some of the articles that have come out of those faculties I am certain that there would even be some professors substantially to the left of myself.

In fact, some of my opinions that might come under the strongest fire in these institutions would be positions that allign with say the Old Calendarists though for different reasons; I have heard the action of Constantinople in regard to Esphigmenou condemned several times, not because of some notion of monastic rights or 'orthodoxy or death' but rather because these people believe that we need more religious freedom within the Church and should foster different and diverse opinions, even when they lead to something as serious as non-commemoration.

So yes, I often use my own reasoning in regard to my positions and my arguments, but I cannot see how this is contrary to Orthodoxy. With Galileo I must suggest that 'I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use.' If my rhetoric causes people to critically consider an issue, to doubt, and to reason then is this not a good thing? Surely you would agree with me that a well thought out and well reasoned faith is preferable to blind faith?

Quote
At least people like TomS make it clear they are acting on their own, but I am quite concerned that those not in the know are reading your material and assuming it is the true teaching of the Orthodox, which you know in some cases full well it is not.  You have no right to quote the Fathers when by your own admission you hardly have read them.

Well, it is rare that I do act on my own, and I do try to make that clear. For example, on apokatastasis I may be in the minority but I am by no means alone; or on the issue of the primacy of Constantinople I am perhaps more moderate than some who I often cite on the subject, Zonaras and Aristenos, as an example, even argued that the Synod of Constantinople had jurisdiction even over the Bishop of Rome; throughout the History of the Church we see several Patriarch of Constantinople actually taking direct jurisdiction over the other ancient Patriarchates, I generally only argue that Constantinople has jurisdiction over all save the other four ancient patriarchates and cyprus, if you read Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis' history of the Oecumenical Patriarchates (yes, it is available in English) you will find that the positions I argue are actually quite moderate, they are only considered extreme in the context of the 20th century. As to other moral issues I speak about, well I dont believe what I advocate is generally any more liberal than that which my Metropolitan has been known to advocate. Or as another issue, when I state that Orthodoxy and Catholicism or Anglicanism are compatable, I'm not comming up with this stuff on my own, I'm getting it from Patriarchal Encyclicals and Endimousa Synods...though it would seem that these arn't sufficiently 'mainstream'.

Ulimately I am a moderate amongst the Orthodox...it is only in this world of 'internet orthodoxy' that I am an extremist.

Quote
That I may be abetting someone who possibly is leading people away from the truth is troubling my soul. If we were running a simple forum with no purpose other than discussion, I would care less what you wrote, but that is not the primary reason we have this forum.  I mean what kind of nonsense is this to claim the Church has fallen into heresy? This is absurd. I would request therefore that you tone down your rhetoric or at least start being very clear where your opinions deviate from Orthodox consensus.

So you request that I put a dislcaimer everytime my positions deviate from what? From the position of my Bishop? Those are relatively few and far between, perhaps there would be some disagreement on apokastasis though I dont know for certain, I haven't heard his Eminence speak on the subject nor have I read anything that his Eminence wrote. Or perhaps how I deviate from the opinions held in Constantinople? I fear they are too quite on many of these issues to say anything with any degree of certainty. Or are you refering to some mythical 'patristic consensus' which I have long ago stated that I believe to be utter non-sense (and no, I'm not alone on this I had several professors who would have agreed with me whole hartedly and I have read as much from several other Orthodox Academics, infact those who have said the opposite seem to be in the minority from my experience)

As for what I say about heresy and schism, I simply insist that it is not for the laity to condemn Bishops. How arrogant to think that a layman can break off from his Bishop and remain in the Church. When reading the First-Second Synod one will notice that the monastic or layman is not even given the option of separating from his Bishop or Metropolitan unless he has been FORMALLY condemned by his Synod. The only option of separating from a Patriarch in heresy is given to Clergy, not laity, and even then it is only in case an ancient heresy that had already been condemned is being taught, and it is clearly being taught in the Church without any possibility of mistaking it for what it is. I simply argue that the laity remain loyal to the Episcopacy and do not take it upon them to be the judges of Patriarchs and Synods.

You want good ecclesiology on this matter? Consider Ignatios of Antioch, 'For there is no one superior to God, or even like to Him, among all the beings that exist. Nor is there any one in the Church greater than the bishop, who ministers as a priest to God for the salvation of the whole world. Nor, again, is there any one among rulers to be compared with the king, who secures peace and good order to those over whom he rules. He who honours the bishop shall be honoured by God, even as he that dishonours him shall be punished by God. For if he that rises up against kings is justly held worthy of punishment, inasmuch as he dissolves public order, of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who presumes to do anything without the bishop, thus both destroying the [Church's] unity, and throwing its order into confusion?'

I may not be the world's foremost patristic scholar, but I am not as entirely ignorant in canonical matters as you would seem to suggest. I have had the opportunity to spend at least some time with canonical and ecclesiastical law.

Quote
As I have stated before, I try to be very clear about my Old Calendarist leanings, so you should be more clear about your GisCist leanings (sorry, I don't really know the right adjective to describe your system).

Thank you for your consideration.

Perhas Modernist Ecumenist Relativist leanings? Don't worry, I won't be offended...my Metropolitan has also been accused of being all these things Wink
« Last Edit: June 03, 2007, 01:08:24 AM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #50 on: June 03, 2007, 01:28:33 AM »

I must retire for the night but I would like to selectively address a few points, that in all of my experiences in Orthodox parishes, which include ethnic and convert OCA, Antiochian, GOA, and others, I have never met even a semi-educated layman who holds views on final restoration and sexual mores like you do, or that the "Church can fall into heresy" (The primacy of Constantinople issue is irrelevant for me to this discussion because I do know many people that argue your way and that is not a point of contention for me as I accept your interpretations as a standard Greek interpretation).

I have met people who believe many strange things, but they are the people who do not attend even a cursory religious education program, or who are talking during sermons.  To claim that it is only on the internet that you would be considered liberal is inaccurate in my experience.

I also wonder why other people who graduated from your seminary that post here do not seem to hold or at least push actively the ideas you push. If they are indeed average, moderate positions, then why are you the only one from your school representing them here?

As for the heresy and schism issue, I do not object to your pointing out that it is a grave error to become a schismatic (I disagree with your take on the 15th canon of the 1st-2nd but that is a debate for another day).  But you clearly stated that it is better to follow a bishop into heresy, and that the Church has fallen into heresy, as if St John Chrysostom would have supported being with heretics. This is not an Orthodox position. And it is not arrogant to suggest that a layman could break off from his bishop and still remain Orthodox, for if the bishop has left the Church, there is no reason for the layman to leave with him.  Thankfully, I am not a clericalist that believes that only clergy have a mind of the Church.  Of course there are arrogant people that leave for the wrong reasons; my position is that we must follow our conscience and stand judgment for our actions on the day of Judgment, and perhaps only retrospectively will one who has left known whether he did so for just cause. Yet to sit on the fence in the face of a dispute in the Church is not really an option either since God gave all men consciences.

To be clear, I do not think you are ignorant of the canonical tradition--it's obvious to me you have read up on this stuff--but I strongly disagree with your interpretation of this canonical tradition and the way you use it.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,411


« Reply #51 on: June 03, 2007, 01:30:50 AM »

[insert yawning emoticon, as the admins have still NOT made anymore available]
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #52 on: June 03, 2007, 01:36:23 AM »

[insert yawning emoticon, as the admins have still NOT made anymore available]
 

I don't think we are going to add in extra emoticons again.  Our whole view has changed; we used to add a bunch of extras--as much as possible--, then we would upgrade, they would all break, and then we would not continue to offer the same packages.  Now it seems best to keep things simple and manageable, and consistent. I mean heck, people are still having trouble with the search feature, and we are supposed to be thinking of adding in emoticons? Cool

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Linichka
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


« Reply #53 on: June 03, 2007, 01:51:07 AM »

GreekisChristian, how is it that you display the flag of my country?  (Israeli here)
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,411


« Reply #54 on: June 03, 2007, 02:34:27 AM »

GreekisChristian, how is it that you display the flag of my country?  (Israeli here)

Probably because he sympathizes with the cause of the Jews in Israel.
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #55 on: June 03, 2007, 03:11:14 AM »

The encyclical is just that, an encyclical.  A signed letter.  The 1848 encyclical might be the product of a local council (I'm not sure if it actually was), but the decisions of local councils are not binding as people will readily point out with the Synod of Jerusalem.
...We're not talking about an ecumenical synod.

The encyclical was signed by four Patriarchs, while three Sees adopted it subsequently at their Councils. Alexandria didn't bother to do that, it is just the Patriarch of Alexandria that signed it.

If the decisions of local councils are not binding, than it would be perfectly acceptable to reject the canon of New Testament and introduce the books at one's wish, since it were two local councils that produced the list of New Testament books.

You forget that the canonical sources in Orthodoxy are not so legalistic. We do have Tradition as the source, so we might not bother ourselves to distinct whether some tenet of our faith was part of Tradition, or it was the decision of a local council that became part of the Tradition.

Balamand actually carries more weight than the 19th century encyclicals for everybody because it's more recent and reverses the stance of the church as stated in the earlier encyclicals. 

Balamand has not been signed by Jerusalem Patriarchate, Serbian Church, Bulgarian Patriarchate, Georgian Patriarchate, ROCOR and Macedonian Church. Those Churches that did sign it through its representatives subsequently either rejected it silently, or just refused to ratify it since the signatures were valid only under the condition of subsequent ratification of the Synods. I wouldn't know exact stance of each of the Churches, except that they all did reject it.

The logic you are employing would lead to the conclusion that the Orthodox are bound by Florence-Ferrara Council, or some other robber councils during first millennium, which is not the case, as we all know.

No decision of neither the Balamand agreement, nor Chambessy agreement has been implemented anywhere. At least I'm not aware of that, so please point if you can prove the opposite. Otherwise, either cease spreading disinformation or just accept what I said – that you were doing just that.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2007, 03:15:18 AM by orthodoxlurker » Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #56 on: June 03, 2007, 11:53:05 AM »

Probably because he sympathizes with the cause of the Jews in Israel.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #57 on: June 03, 2007, 12:11:41 PM »

Quote
The encyclical was signed by four Patriarchs, while three Sees adopted it subsequently at their Councils. Alexandria didn't bother to do that, it is just the Patriarch of Alexandria that signed it.

In other words, these can't be considered binding statements accepted by the whole Orthodox church, but are encyclicals endorsed by some of the various local synods at one point in time.

Quote
If the decisions of local councils are not binding, than it would be perfectly acceptable to reject the canon of New Testament and introduce the books at one's wish, since it were two local councils that produced the list of New Testament books.

In theory, I think this is actually true, and even though the canon of the NT is basically accepted as it is, the dispute over Revelation led it to be not included in liturgical texts.  There is however also confusion and disput surrounding the Old Testament - http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/old_testament.html  The author states basically that the OT canon cannot be seen as "closed" per se.  Neither has ever been ratified by an ecumenical synod.

If local councils are binding, then Jerusalem and Jassy are completely valid and binding.  The same would be true of the synod that adopted the New Calendar (the Old Calendar resistance movements would be completely illegitimate in other words) or the ones that stated that Anglican orders are valid, etc.

Quote
You forget that the canonical sources in Orthodoxy are not so legalistic. We do have Tradition as the source, so we might not bother ourselves to distinct whether some tenet of our faith was part of Tradition, or it was the decision of a local council that became part of the Tradition.

What this means is the tradition is provisional, and the "we're not legalistic" argument is a way of saying we don't actually have a mechanism for declaring what is dogma and what is not.

Quote
The logic you are employing would lead to the conclusion that the Orthodox are bound by Florence-Ferrara Council, or some other robber councils during first millennium, which is not the case, as we all know.

No, the logic I'm employing is that none of it is binding.  Some synods do this, and some do that.  Some sign on to things, some don't.  Some local synods are rejected, some are not.  Some agreements are signed on to, but apparently later silently ignored.  I agree that one can hold the position that Catholics are heretics, but one is certainly free not to accept that position.  The reality, which I am certainly not misrepresenting, is the Orthodox Churches treat and relate to the Catholic Church like it's a valid church with valid bishops.  Different churches carry this on in different ways.  The Antiochian Patriarchate has a joint use church with the Melkite Catholics.  IIRC, the MP will allow dispensation of the sacraments to Catholics in extreme circumstances.  The OCA (the daughter of the MP which the ROCOR is now in full communion with) has the Monastery of New Skete which has icons depicting Mother  (and now saint) Theresa, Dorothy Day and Pope Paul VI - http://holytrinityorthodox.org/photos/new_skete.htm  Intermarriage between Catholics and Orthodox is extremely commonplace, and in every parish I've ever been in there are multiple couples where one of the spouses has not converted.  That is the reality, which I am by no means misrepresenting.  The other reality is the people who fulminate on the Internet don't represent what is happening in the real world.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2007, 12:17:49 PM by welkodox » Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #58 on: June 03, 2007, 03:47:48 PM »

Ah, since I must grant you benefit of the doubt, and assume you are just erring I need to start ab ovo

Now, concerning my claim that:
Quote
It's the official stance of the Orthodox Church that we are the Church while Latins are heretics!
you asserted that:
Quote
Quote from: welkodox on Yesterday at 11:44:08 am
There is no official stance, because there is no official mouthpiece of the church as people usually like to point out
and subsequently that:
Quote
Quote from: welkodox on Yesterday at 12:30:42 pm »
In the case of the 19th century encyclicals, they certainly have an authority behind them, but what kind?  They certainly can't be considered dogmatically binding.  Whatever their authority, it is certainly no greater than the Balamand Statement.

The stakes at issue are:
1)is there is “the official stance” of the Orthodox Church about Latins;
2)are the encyclicals of 1848 and 1895 “dogmatically binding”; and
3)is their authority greater than the Balamand Statement.


As an introductory remark, I'll remind you about the “formula” of St. Vincent of Lerins
Quote
all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.

The sources of our Faith (the link to the same site you linked) are:

A) The Bible itself, both Old and New Testament (but is actually part of the Tradition in broad sense, the written one); It's nice to see you are accustomed with certain second thoughts about the Canon of Old Testament, but let us disregard that for a moment – it would be a long debate off topic.

B) In “legalistic” fashion, the Seven Councils are the source of our Faith (but are actually part of the Tradition in broad sense, the written one)

C) In “legalistic” fashion, decisions of local councils are binding to the local Church; they are basically supposed to be aimed at local administration. But sometimes they do proclaim stances on Faith.

Etc. (other sources)

See what's the stance of the site you quoted:

Quote
http://home.it.com.au/~jgrapsas/pages/2doctrine.htm
The Councils
Throughout its history, the Church was faced with many difficult decisions. To preserve the full holiness of the Christian Church, condemning earthly reflections and decisions of various heretical personalities was found essential. For this task, among others, the Church through its bishops formed Ecumenical or universal Councils. The bishops with the guidance of the Holy Spirit condemned wrong teachings entering the Church. There were seven such Councils and their decisions were called 'dogmas' or undisputable, unchangeable truths. In fact, dogma means official teaching. Besides the general Ecumenical Councils there were local councils whose decisions were approved by the Church.

Wikipedia does hold slightly different stance between the decisions of councils and Tradition, involvinig patristic consensus .

But, in any case, either we approach “legalistic” or “the Traditional” emphasize, it's actually the same. The question is whether it's the Faith that's been believed everywhere, always, by all, as St. Vincent teaches us.

So the decisions on Faith of some local council, such as those of Gangra (sp?) and Laodicea, as well as of those two councils that determined the Canon of New Testament are believed “everywhere, always, by all”.

Latins profess various heresies, filioque being the first one. It's the herecy anathemized by the definition of Second Ecumenical Council (prohibition of any alternation of the Creed), than again anathemized by the seventh canon of the Third Ecumenical Council, than again denounced by the letter of the Pope of Rome John VII to the Council of 879-880, and by Mistagogia of Holy Spirit of St. Photius the Great (addendums to the decisioins of the Council 879-880), than implicitly denounced by the Pope of Rome Leo (III) by engravement of the Creed without filioque on the silver plates on the graves of Sts. apostoles Peter and Paul in Rome, than by encyclical of St. Mark of Ephesus, than by the confession of Gennadios Scholarios, than by the mentioned encyclicals of 1848 and1895
 

Link to the list of sources of the Orthodox faith of Greek Orthodox Church Diocese of America. They list
Quote
Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs of the East to Pope Pius IX in 1848.
Answer of Synod of Constantinople in 1895 to Pope Leo XIII.
as the sources of the Faith.

That Latins can't be the Church and are heretics, what we also proclaim at every liturgy when we recite the Creed and “...believe in one Church and one baptism for reminiscence of sins...”

So:

1) Concerning the “official” stance of the Orthodox Church, I've proved it by the above statements and links. No individuals speak for the Orthodox Church. Only Councils and Tradition (and patristic consensus either as part of the Tradition or as a separate source).

2) Concerning the decision of three councils of 1848 (by which they adopted the encyclical previously signed by four Patriarchs), I also proved it's “doctrinally” binding, since it's what's been believed everywhere, always, by all, just as in the case of the Canon of the books of New Testament, while it's still being in force as decision of a local council in Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch and Konstantinopolis (that signed it and adopted as decision of the council) Alexandria and in Patriarchates of Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania, as well as the Church of Greece, that emerged again from Konstantinopolis after 1848, as well as in Church of Czech and Slovak Lands that emerged from Serbia (as well as Macedonian Church, regardless we hold them in schism or as an autonomous part of Serbian Patriarchate).

In case you deny this, give us the reasoning why we can't add Gospels of Judas , or Thomas to the New Testment. You failed to do that in your previous post.

Argument concerning differences in practice concerning baptism are no issue, since we have only the decisions of the First Ecumenical council (and some early local councils) concerning how heretics should be accepted back to the Church – some by chrismation, some by confession, some by repentance, while some by rebaptism.

3) Concerning the "authority",Balamand agreement wasn't adopted by any council. Even no representatives of all Orthodox Churches signed it. It has neither been accepted nor implemented anywhere. It has been believed by no one, nowhere and never.

If the agrument is that Balamand is “more recent” from “some 19 century councils” (which statement speaks for itself about your apprehension of the Orthodox Faith) I am offering  the most recent stance on the Pope being heretic. It's pronounced by an Orthodox Bishop some three and a half months ago. Bishop Nikolay of Plovdiv of Bulgarian Patriarchate. AXIOS!!!

Now, either cease spreading disinformation about the Orthodox Faith; or offer some real arguments and stop being evasive in polemic; or simply stop addressing me with bu||$#it arguments. I avoid heretics after second rapprochement in the attempt of being good Christian. I avoid conversations in vain in another attempt of being good Christian. But, as a sinner, I can't stand would be polemists.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2007, 04:03:36 PM by orthodoxlurker » Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,835


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #59 on: June 03, 2007, 04:02:46 PM »

Ah, since I must grant you benefit of the doubt, and assume you are just erring I need to start ab ovo

Now, concerning my claim that:you asserted that:and subsequently that:
The stakes at issue are:
1)is there is “the official stance” of the Orthodox Church about Latins;
2)are the encyclicals of 1848 and 1895 “dogmatically binding”; and
3)is their authority greater than the Balamand Statement.


As an introductory remark, I'll remind you about the “formula” of St. Vincent of Lerins

Orthodoxlurker,

Is Welkodox intentionally misrepresenting the Orthodox faith when he voices his skepticism of what many call "dogmatic authority"?  He may not agree with your opinion that the Church does have an authoritative dogmatic voice based on the premises you set forth in your argument, but that doesn't mean he's guilty of perverting the truth.  I see some truth in your arguments, but I also see some truth in Welkodox's arguments.  I think the issue of Church authority is much more nuanced than you think and that you're grossly over-simplifying the problem, so please don't be so hard on Welkodox.
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #60 on: June 03, 2007, 04:15:19 PM »

I think the issue of Church authority is much more nuanced than you think and that you're grossly over-simplifying the problem,

So you are welcome to offer some more sophisticated emphasize and correct me.

so please don't be so hard on Welkodox.

Perhaps I am harsh. Perhaps I am too harsh and bitter. Perhaps I was angry. Perhaps I was sinning.

But I'm deadly serious about my Faith.

It was better if I was sinning in being too harsh to Welkodox, than if I was sinning in not caring about his errors posted here.

It was already outrageous for me to see the easyness of his "creative" equalizer between counciliar decisions in force in my Church with some "agreement" from a "meeting" that my Church hasn't even sent representatives to.

If there is the chance for Welkodox to reconsider his thoughts, and if I contributed to that just a little bit, I'd be delighted. But at this moment, I can't apologize to anyone, since I can't find anything offensive in my postings. Just bitternes. Honest bitternes to the bones.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #61 on: June 03, 2007, 05:40:17 PM »

Quote
As an introductory remark, I'll remind you about the “formula” of St. Vincent of Lerins

St. Vincent's axiom is a neat and I think rather compelling notion, yet in the end falls short in actually addressing how the church can form and state dogma.  It is obvious many things the church teaches were not always present, not accepted by all, and underwent a great deal of formation.  It certainly can cause as many problems as it solves as well, as any Roman Catholic apologist worth his salt would point out when talking about the Papacy (which they could produce a long list of florid patristic quotes on) and what current Orthodoxy states about it.  The Filioque is no different as this link would show - http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a52.htm  It is actually the idea of the Vincentian Canon that they appeal to in order to show the validity of the Filioque.
Quote
So the decisions on Faith of some local council, such as those of Gangra (sp?) and Laodicea, as well as of those two councils that determined the Canon of New Testament are believed “everywhere, always, by all”.
The New Testament fails the rule of the Vincentian Canon actually.

Quote
Latins profess various heresies, filioque being the first one.

The Filioque I believe is the one and only area where there is support for the idea of Roman Catholicism being heretical, because it is addressed in the ecumenical synods.  Even a cursory reading of current dialog between the churches would show the Orthodox hierarchs are backing away from that position.  So for instance in the recommendations issued by the North American bishops regarding discussion of the Filioque it says

Quote
that in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit

http://www.scoba.us/resources/filioque-p04.asp
Quote
That Latins can't be the Church and are heretics, what we also proclaim at every liturgy when we recite the Creed and “...believe in one Church and one baptism for reminiscence of sins...”
Totally begs the question of what the "one church is".  Are the Old Calendarists heretics?  The Russian Old Rite?  They certainly aren't in the church.  The fact that Catholics are not baptized simply muddies that water further.

Quote
In case you deny this, give us the reasoning why we can't add Gospels of Judas , or Thomas to the New Testment. You failed to do that in your previous post.

Because there is no will to do it.  Plain and simple.
Quote
link to the list of sources of the Orthodox faith of Greek Orthodox Church Diocese of America. They list
Thank you for posting this!!!!!  I hope people notice these on the list:
Quote
Encyclicals of the Patriarchate of Constantinople referring to the Ecumenical Movement of the Churches in 1920 and 1952.
as authoritative parts of our tradition.  Most importantly of all your link says this
Quote
The Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinopolitan (Nicene Creed) and the dogmatical utterances of the Ecumenical Synods are the primary and distinctive sources of the faith of the Orthodox Church. They have been ratified by the Synods and are unchangeable in form and substance. The other sources, which are the decisions of synods which took place after the eighth century, are of secondary significance, but very important for the historical evolution of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, especially the teaching against the innovations of the Catholic Church, which was separated in 1054 from the Orthodox Church, and with reference to Protestant Churches dating from the 16th century. These are secondary sources, pending ratification by an Ecumenical Synod, and may be accepted, corrected or not accepted. The utterances (primary sources) of the Orthodox Church are mainly part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which is of the same validity as Scripture.
Which is what I've been saying all along.

Quote
Concerning the "authority",Balamand agreement wasn't adopted by any council. Even no representatives of all Orthodox Churches signed it. It has neither been accepted nor implemented anywhere. It has been believed by no one, nowhere and never.

I've said people are free to reject it.  It does however indicate how the hierarchs regard the Catholics now, which is why it is significant and probably more "authorative".  It reflects the present reality.

Quote
If the agrument is that Balamand is “more recent” from “some 19 century councils” (which statement speaks for itself about your apprehension of the Orthodox Faith) I am offering the most recent stance <http://www.kirildouhalov.net/the_pope_is_a_heretic> on the Pope being heretic. It's pronounced by an Orthodox Bishop some three and a half months ago. Bishop Nikolay of Plovdiv of Bulgarian Patriarchate.

Yes, and as it states, his brother bishops rebuked him.  They obviously do not share his sentiments.  Nor do I think does Bishop Grigoriy of Sofia and Plovdiv who recently visited the Pope.  http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=81078
------------------------------------------------------------------

PeterTheAleut, I'm a big boy and I don't take any of this personally.  I'm hoping the good news of the Gospel is something that never embitters me, because what is there more sad than that - a Christian driven to anger and hate for their faith.
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #62 on: June 03, 2007, 06:37:28 PM »

St. Vincent's axiom is a neat and I think rather compelling notion, yet in the end falls short in actually addressing how the church can form and state dogma. 

Ephasize.

Quote
It is obvious many things the church teaches were not always present, not accepted by all, and underwent a great deal of formation.
 

Emphasize.

Quote
It certainly can cause as many problems as it solves as well
,

I'm surprised you know better from St. Vincent. Are there some more like you out there? Emphasize.

Quote
as any Roman Catholic apologist worth his salt would point out when talking about the Papacy (which they could produce a long list of florid patristic quotes on) and what current Orthodoxy states about it.

Produce one single valid proof of theirs.

Quote
  The Filioque is no different as this link would show - http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a52.htm  It is actually the idea of the Vincentian Canon that they appeal to in order to show the validity of the Filioque.

Bull$#| proof. Pathetic.

Quote
The New Testament fails the rule of the Vincentian Canon actually.

Emphasize.

Quote
The Filioque I believe is the one and only area where there is support for the idea of Roman Catholicism being heretical, because it is addressed in the ecumenical synods. 

The key words here: You believe.

Quote
Even a cursory reading of current dialog between the churches would show the Orthodox hierarchs are backing away from that position.


Only those hierarchs present at the “meetings”, actually representing a handfull.

Quote
So for instance in the recommendations issued by the North American bishops regarding discussion of the Filioque


Whom they represented there, who appointed them, and who gives a darn about what they said there?

Besides, read the first “recommendation” first, that one of ceasing “pyring into the mistery of God by reason” (not in these words of St. Gregory the Theologian, but the similar sense is there). Having that “recommendation” first, one may wonder if they were not just a bunch of ...hm...

Quote
Totally begs the question of what the "one church is".  Are the Old Calendarists heretics?  The Russian Old Rite? 

Have they been proclaimed heretics by any council not to mention the Ecumenical one? Which heresy do they profess?

Quote
They certainly aren't in the church.

You forget to say again “I believe”. What is certain in such a pathetic and unsubstantiated claim?

Quote
Because there is no will to do it.  Plain and simple.

Are you kidding me? Do you “believe” there are someone outside kids in elementary school who can believe these are “the agruments”?

Quote
Thank you for posting this!!!!!

You are welcome.

Quote
and may be accepted, corrected or not accepted.


This is an unorthodox theologumen binding no one. Such an attituce could one day be proclaimed heretical. I hope it'll happen soon. I know many Orthodox Christian believing this, just not being aware on the amount of apostasy in some overseas Churches.

Quote
I've said people are free to reject it.  It does however indicate ...

It does indicate only that you failed to respond to my explicit claim for the second time.

Quote
Yes, and as it states, his brother bishops rebuked him.  They obviously do not share his sentiments.  Nor do I think does Bishop Grigoriy of Sofia and Plovdiv who recently visited the Pope.  http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=81078

You failed to prove they “rebuked” him. The link doesn't say about that.

Quote
I'm a big boy


But your reasoning is poor.


You failed to refute my reasoning that:
1) There is the "official" stance of the Orthodox Church on Latin heretics
2) The decision of three local councils from 1848 is "doctrinally" binding
3) That Balamand "statement" is more worth than a (toilet?) paper it's been writen down on, not to mention it can be compared with the decision of any council. There might be people who believe in it, but they are either just ignoramus, or heterodox.

Actually, not only you've failed to refute my reasoning. You even didn't bother yourself to address it. What a pity.


Quote
a Christian driven to anger and hate for their faith
.

Where did you see that? Did you mean that commandement from the Epistole of St. Jude, where he commanded us to hate even the garment defiled in sin? Watch out, empty cloud.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2007, 06:43:26 PM by orthodoxlurker » Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #63 on: June 03, 2007, 07:22:27 PM »

This isn't a discussion anymore and the profanity, vulgarisms and personal remarks speak for themselves.  The most curious thing is you posted a link to prove your point, I quoted from it, and you refute what's in the link itself.  Please read what you posted, because it undercuts your whole argument.

Poor show orthodoxlurker.  Poor show indeed.
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #64 on: June 04, 2007, 08:28:56 AM »

Not too many cradle Orthodox are aware of the scope of apostacy that has been mounting among some high clerics of some autocephalies for about some eight decades. In fact, some of us became aware about that only recently and still can't believe what we hear.

It should be noted that relativizers of our faith do raise their youth in some semminaries and theological shools. The results of such a training are that recently skilled relativizers relativize anathemas against Latin herecies, questioning the "validity" of anathemas on the grounds - for instance on "conclusion" of some "commission" where the only Orthodox were one bishop, two priest and several laymen, in the country where approximately 2,5% of all Orthodox souls live. Even these "conclusions", that actually represent nothing and bind no one, are read selectively. Teachings about mortality of souls by nature, amendments of liturgies, attempts to water down our stance towards homosexualism, all in line with that infamous "bishop" Spong's "recommandations", are yet to be noticed fully. They've just been seen recently.

The fact is that canonical violations of high clerics do occur, but not so frequently as those violators try to present. We do remember the outrage that Albanian Bishop Athanasios caused, having offerred eucharist to the Catholics in Rome - yet he was cunning in claiming he was not aware that they were hetherodox. We do know Bartholomew placed himself under anathemas by concelebrating with Pope Ratzinger in Istambul recently, but portaying a visit to the Pope of Rome by Bishop Grigoriy of Sofia, when no concelebration occurred, as a sign that Bishop Gregoriy "rebuked" the stance of Bishop Nikolay that the Pope of Rome is heretic is beyond imagination.

Such theology of relativization usually tend to conclude that our brothers and sisters that walled themselves off in "True" Churches i.e. "Old Calendar movements" are "outside the Church", while Latin heretics "are still not condemned by an Ecumenical Council"! They do forget no Council ever condemned our brothers and sisters that walled themselves off from heresies, while Latins placed themselves under anathemas of two Ecumenical Councils and a number of subsequent local councils and confessions of Faith.

The root of many problems is the position of our Most Holy See of Constantinopolis in the last eight decades. Being held captive in the hostile country, having lost every of his flock in this country except some 3.000 faithfull, which is less than the number of parishioners in the parish I attend, Constantinopolian Patriarchate strive for survival and depends on mercy of the Church of Greece, that allowed Greek islands to remain under Constantinopolis, as well as on the mercy of "the powers that be" from "the West", the very same ones that actually had carefuly enforced their plans and put Constantinopolis in such position.

We do simphatize with Constantinopolis and avoid to make her position more difficult. Yet, the Bosphoriacs are trying to usurp the power over the other autocephalies that they never had and are dangerously approaching the point of no return. Thank God Mount Athos is still within to fight herecies. It is only for wiseness of Moscow that destructive and uncanonical meddling in Ukraine, Finland and Estonia did not turn much worse. Papal tendencies towards other Churches, our Most Holy Jerusalem Patriachate sufferred most, are neither forgoten.

ROCOR should not bother herself with the failures of Constantinopolis. We should be all focused to defend our Holy Faith and get Constantinopolis in line with that. Constantinopolis might be forced to migrate out of the captivity in future, so she then might outloud proclaim the Orthodox Faith wholehartedly again.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #65 on: June 04, 2007, 05:27:50 PM »

The fact is that canonical violations of high clerics do occur, but not so frequently as those violators try to present. We do remember the outrage that Albanian Bishop Athanasios caused, having offerred eucharist to the Catholics in Rome - yet he was cunning in claiming he was not aware that they were hetherodox. We do know Bartholomew placed himself under anathemas by concelebrating with Pope Ratzinger in Istambul recently, but portaying a visit to the Pope of Rome by Bishop Grigoriy of Sofia, when no concelebration occurred, as a sign that Bishop Gregoriy "rebuked" the stance of Bishop Nikolay that the Pope of Rome is heretic is beyond imagination.

That is a very popish understanding of ecclesiology you have, we Orthodox do not have latae sententiae excommunications. If you believe the actions of His All-Holiness to be in error, take it up with his Synod. Otherwise, His All-Holiness is not subject to any canonical repercussions. As much as you may want to be Pope, you dont get to sit in judgement of His All-Holiness.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,835


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #66 on: June 04, 2007, 10:12:07 PM »


I see far too often among the Orthodox--by no means is this confined to traditionalists, for I see this all too commonly among "modernists", as well--the tendency to draw a circle around a rather strict definition of what is Orthodox and to write off as heretics and/or schismatics those whose beliefs stand them outside the circle.  The Church has been required to do this in the past, but then we acted only with great spiritual discernment; I don't see any signs of this discernment today.  I see only anger and Pharisaical judgment such as I see in the profanities and personal attacks you just launched in your recent posts.  By what authority do you define Orthodoxy as you do, and by what authority do you accuse of apostasy those with whom you publicly disagree?

This is what I see Welkodox doing: pointing out to you how Orthodoxy is much bigger and much more complex than fits your narrow, simplistic definition.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,835


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #67 on: June 04, 2007, 10:14:16 PM »

That is a very popish understanding of ecclesiology you have, we Orthodox do not have latae sententiae excommunications. If you believe the actions of His All-Holiness to be in error, take it up with his Synod. Otherwise, His All-Holiness is not subject to any canonical repercussions. As much as you may want to be Pope, you dont get to sit in judgement of His All-Holiness.

No less [Constantino]popish than your ecclesiology, GiC.  Wink
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #68 on: June 04, 2007, 10:44:22 PM »

No less [Constantino]popish than your ecclesiology, GiC.  Wink

Ah, but even a closet papist like me wouldn't deny the absolute authority of the Synod in ecclesiastical matters (I may insist that the Synod of significance is the Synod of Constantinople, but I still argue that authority rests in the Synod, not the Patriarch)
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.248 seconds with 96 queries.