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:
It's the official stance of the Orthodox Church that we are the Church while Latins are heretics!
you asserted that:
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 from: welkodox on Yesterday at 12:30:42 pm » The stakes at issue are:
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.
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
all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.
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:
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
to the list of sources of the Orthodox faith of Greek Orthodox Church Diocese of America. They list
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.