Author Topic: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church  (Read 14966 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline orthodoxlurker

  • Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,372
  • al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah
Interview of Bishop Artemije of Raska and Prizren to daily Danas

(related part translated from serbianpolicy site)

http://srpskapolitika.com/Tekstovi/Analize/2008/003.html

Q: It is well-known you aren't an ecumenist. What is your opinion about the Ravenna statement adopted by members of joint theological commission of Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Church.

A: Why wouldn't we say the other way – I'm against ecumenism because I think such a fashion of ecumenism is damaging the purity of Orthodox Faith and will not lead to the healthy union of Christians, than to dilution of the Orthodox Faith and weakening the piousness of the Orthodox Christians. Though Ravenna Document is available, the hierarchy of the Serbian Orthodox Church have not been officially informed by those present in Ravenna what happened there, what was signed, what the paper actually means and what competencies and to whom it offers. In any case, I think that the fashion that some representatives of Serbian Orthodox Church, regardless empowered or not, signed on our behalf something without the authorization of the Council or Synod, is not binding to anyone in Serbian Orthodox Church, as long as it didn't pass through the meeting of the Holy Council.

Q: Generally speaking, what's the attitude of SOC about the primacy of Bishop of Rome, although the Ravenna Statement isn't explicit if it was primacy of honor only, or of authority, too.

A: It is absolutely unacceptable to any Orthodox soul, not only for the entire SOC, since when we speak about Papal primacy we know it is only one of the reasons causing Roman Catholic Church to apostate from the Church of Christ in 1054.  Among the other, never have the Bishop of Rome had the primacy in the Orthodox Church in the sense that's been applied by Roman Catholics today and tried to be imposed  on everybody else. As the Bishop of Rome, he had the primacy of honor for the significance of the city where he resided, which was the capital of the Empire in Christ's time, the entire known world of that time. We cannot even speak about the issue of honor today, because he is not a bishop of the Church until the unity in Faith is achieved. The unity in faith between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox is still very distant.

Q: One could conclude there are various theological views within Orthodoxy about co-operation with RCC, since Orthodox theologians participated in the works of Joint-Commission while the document has been harshly criticized by their brothers.

A: There exist only those persistent in their exposition of Faith and those ready for various kinds of compromise and economia. Many Orthodox participants at those ecumenical gatherings are not confessors of their faith, accordingly, they can't represent the teaching of the Orthodox Church. If they were really representatives of the Orthodox Church and Orthodox Faith, they would, above all, listen to the Apostle Paul whom says: “stay away from a heretic upon first and second approach”. How long are we going to attend those dialogues, commissions – until eternity?  Are we counseling there those in heresy, in error? No, we are seeking the compromise with them. True love of a Christian is to provide eternal life to a neighbor, meaning one needs to say straightforwardly and frankly that another one is in error and try to get him back to the truth and direct him to the path towards salvation. Approving someone to remain in his error is not love, it is hatred of a man, according to St. Maximos the Confessor.

Q:If you say that the unity can be reached only if another party repents, Roman Catholics say that “nobody is sinless” - how could that be solved?

A: Nobody is sinless in the sense of personal sins, but in the sense of confession of the Faith, the Orthodox Church have erred nothing. That's the Church of Apostles, Church of the Fathers, Church of Ecumenical Councils, holding the truth once delivered by Lord Christ, through the Apostles which was delivered to us unhampered, while there is no doubt that Roman Catholic Church in many segments of Faith and particular dogmas is away from the right path. Without the unity in Truth, in true Faith, is not possible to speak about the Bishop of Rome at all, even less about his primacy – either of honor or of authority.

Q: How could Orthodox know they erred nothing?

A:From the history of Church, from the teaching of the Holy Fathers, Holy Canons, Ecumenical Councils. It isn't an arbitrary allegation, than the continuity through two thousand years, proving this is the Faith preached by Lord Christ and Holy Apostles.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2008, 02:08:44 PM by orthodoxlurker »
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

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2008, 01:47:50 PM »
You've neglected to tell us who don't read Serbian who it is that is speaking.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline AMM

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,076
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2008, 02:10:56 PM »
George, I believe it's Bishop Artemije.

Offline orthodoxlurker

  • Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,372
  • al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2008, 02:16:17 PM »
George, I believe it's Bishop Artemije.

Yes, it is. I edited the initial post. Thanks for reminding me.
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

Offline serb1389

  • Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,123
  • Save Oh Lord your People! And Bless us all!
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2008, 09:57:25 AM »
Very interesting interview.  Especially that last question and answer.  Smells like infallability of the Orthodox Church to me...exactly the thing he clamors against with the RC's. 

I love Bishop Artemije, and he is a holy and learned man.  But even in the Serbian he seems to contradict himself.  Being a hard-liner can many times make problems analytically. 



Offline orthodoxlurker

  • Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,372
  • al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2008, 10:08:01 AM »
Very interesting interview.  Especially that last question and answer.  Smells like infallability of the Orthodox Church to me...exactly the thing he clamors against with the RC's. 
...

I believe that the infaillability of the Orthodox Church is not only my personal belief, but also the Faith of the Orthodox Church.

Do you think I'm wrong in believing that?

I love Bishop Artemije, and he is a holy and learned man.  But even in the Serbian he seems to contradict himself.  Being a hard-liner can many times make problems analytically. 

I fail to see any contradiction in the interview, including the last answer.

Would you emphasize your observations to me?
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

Offline serb1389

  • Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,123
  • Save Oh Lord your People! And Bless us all!
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2008, 10:20:57 AM »
Sure.  In the Serbian, or english translation?  I will begin with the english, as this is a public forum.  If you would like to hash out the serbian, I will be more than happy to indulge in the Private Message realm. 

From the text you provided above: 
Quote
A: Nobody is sinless in the sense of personal sins, but in the sense of confession of the Faith, the Orthodox Church have erred nothing.

Nobody is sinless...but the orthodox church has erred nothing = contradiction

Quote
That's the Church of Apostles, Church of the Fathers, Church of Ecumenical Councils, holding the truth once delivered by Lord Christ, through the Apostles which was delivered to us unhampered, while there is no doubt that Roman Catholic Church in many segments of Faith and particular dogmas is away from the right path.

Really?  We have never EVER made a mistake?  How about the 4 different Iconoclastic/iconophilic councils?  What about certain Byzantine Emperors and Patriarchs who agreed with Protestantism and signed off on their definitions of faith?

Quote
A:From the history of Church, from the teaching of the Holy Fathers, Holy Canons, Ecumenical Councils. It isn't an arbitrary allegation, than the continuity through two thousand years, proving this is the Faith preached by Lord Christ and Holy Apostles.

Sure, there is continuality throughout the 2000 years of Orthodox Christianity.  Sure we have kept the faith "without blemish" but there was some smearing along the way.  To deny this is...difficult. 

I would say his overall premise is correct.  the changes that have been made in the RC have never been made in the EOC.  HOWEVER, this is not to say that we have been perfect along the way.  That is naive. 

Sorry that I did not explain myself more, but I am in a supreme hurry right now.  I will try to do a better job later if I can.  I will do my best to answer all your questions. 

As for the infallibility of the church...that is something I will address later.  Only God is infallible.  The church...is a divino-human organization.  therefore it is prone to fall.  It is not prone to be broken because even the gates of Hell will not prevail against the church.  However, that doesn't mean that it is infallible.  Just some initial thoughts...



Offline orthodoxlurker

  • Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,372
  • al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2008, 10:35:37 AM »
...
From the text you provided above: 
Nobody is sinless...but the orthodox church has erred nothing = contradiction

As for the infallibility of the church...that is something I will address later.  Only God is infallible.  The church...is a divino-human organization.  therefore it is prone to fall.  It is not prone to be broken because even the gates of Hell will not prevail against the church.  However, that doesn't mean that it is infallible.  Just some initial thoughts...

I see no contradiction, except in your reasoning.

Divino-human organization will fail, but the gates of Hall shall not prevail against it? It sounds contradictory to the bones.

Iconoclasts and various other heretics do not speak on behalf of the Church. HG Artemije did not claim each and every one of us is infaillable, only that the Church, as the body of Christ, as the community with Christ as his Head, as the End and Beginning, is infaillable. As far as I know, that's the Orthodox Faith.

I challenge you find some base for your reasoning, a decision of a council, a thought of a Father, a verse in the Bible. No offense, bro, but you just offered some baseless thoughts in reasoning your criticism against the sound and clear Orthodox message of His Grace.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2008, 10:35:57 AM by orthodoxlurker »
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

Offline Heracleides

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 390
  • Kona-Kai
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2008, 12:49:35 PM »
Many years to Bishop Artemije of Raska and Prizren for his courageous stand against the forces of ecumenism.
"And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God..."  ~Acts of Barnabas

Offline serb1389

  • Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,123
  • Save Oh Lord your People! And Bless us all!
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2008, 09:55:21 AM »
I see no contradiction, except in your reasoning.

That's fair.  I'd love to know where my reasoning went wrong.  Otherwise...i'm just going to keep reasoning the same way.  Hence why there is dialogue.  So we can help each other out.  Maybe see something we havn't seen before, discuss, explain, etc. 



Divino-human organization will fail, but the gates of Hall shall not prevail against it? It sounds contradictory to the bones.


If you look back at what I said, I said it very carefully in order to make a clear distinction.  Divino-human organization will fail, but the church will not be BROKEN.  those are two very different states of being.  A car can fail, a bat can fail, but once its broken...that's it...

Any further thoughts on this? 

Quote
Iconoclasts and various other heretics do not speak on behalf of the Church. HG Artemije did not claim each and every one of us is infaillable, only that the Church, as the body of Christ, as the community with Christ as his Head, as the End and Beginning, is infaillable. As far as I know, that's the Orthodox Faith.

What I was trying to insinuate is that if you look at the period of Iconoclasm you will see 4 "ecumenical" councils.  One being iconoclastic, the next iconophilic.  Then the next being iconoclastic, and finally the last one being iconophilic.  Each one was proclaimed as "ecumenical" and each one proclaimed the "true faith"  so there is an obvious contradiction and shaky history in that era of the church. 

So, the church, and the patriarchs, and the emperor were NOT infallible in their decisions, because the church is made up of people, who are not infallible.  Only Christ is sinless.  Only through grace can we be like Christ.  So if he was referring to christ and grace, then yes they are infallible.  If he is referring to the church which is the people (ekklesia) then that is definitely not infallible. 

Just some further thoughts...

Quote
I challenge you find some base for your reasoning, a decision of a council, a thought of a Father, a verse in the Bible. No offense, bro, but you just offered some baseless thoughts in reasoning your criticism against the sound and clear Orthodox message of His Grace.

His Grace's message may have been sound and clear, but does not mean that it was right in every point.  I would love to see further clarification from him on the points that I have taken issue with.  I am not saying that his message was worthless and throw the whole thing out.  Just that certain points he made didn't make sense to me in light of orthodox church history. 

As for a basis for my reasonings...how many church history classes have you taken?  I have taken 8-9.  if you would like I could scan all the syllubi and e-mail them to you and you can see which texts I have read.  As for going through them and quoting to back up all my points...maybe we can figure out exactly the questions you want answered because that would be much easier for me than just randomly looking up stuff. 

In general all I was trying to say was that certain points he makes do not necessarily make sense to me.  They "usually" come out of a "traditional" mindset that may every once in a while (GASP!) be wrong. 

I have based my statements on facts of church history.  I believe that where you and I have diverged is in the concept of the church.  what is the church?  Is it christ, or is it people.  Or is it both, a divino-human organization, as I mentioned.  If you would like my dogmatics notes on the church (ekklesia) please let me know via PM and I will be more than happy to send them to you. 

Forgive if any of this came across strong...it was not intended to be so...


Offline orthodoxlurker

  • Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,372
  • al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2008, 06:42:06 PM »
Brate 1389,

This part of your message is essential, so though I'm again short of time, let me try to briefly offer my humble answer

What I was trying to insinuate is that if you look at the period of Iconoclasm you will see 4 "ecumenical" councils.  One being iconoclastic, the next iconophilic.  Then the next being iconoclastic, and finally the last one being iconophilic.  Each one was proclaimed as "ecumenical" and each one proclaimed the "true faith"  so there is an obvious contradiction and shaky history in that era of the church. 

So, the church, and the patriarchs, and the emperor were NOT infallible in their decisions, because the church is made up of people, who are not infallible.  Only Christ is sinless.  Only through grace can we be like Christ.  So if he was referring to christ and grace, then yes they are infallible.  If he is referring to the church which is the people (ekklesia) then that is definitely not infallible. 

Exactly, but Ortho-Doxy/Right-Belief/Pravo-Slavlje is what St. Vincent of Lerins precisely said, what's been believed everywhere, in all times, by all.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/St._Vincent_of_L%C3%A9rins
Quote
"Magnopere curandum est ut id teneatur quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est".

Patriarchs, emperors, many people in power, any man, can fail. But the Church as such, never fails.

In the times you were referring, there was always someone who maintained Pravo-Slavlje. In the times of persecutions of Iconoclasts, it was a modest and humble monk Maximos, who had to pay for his faith by having his arm and tongue cut off - we venerate him today as St. Maximos the Confessor. At that times, also, there were some pillars of Orthodoxy in the West.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximus_the_Confessor

It's the Holy Spirit with the Church, and Christ as her Head, that won't allow in any time that each and every one of the clergy (and us in the flock) fail and confess heterodoxy. There will be at least some who will express Right-Belief about a disputed question.

It shouldn't be confused with personal sinfulness of each and every one of us. We Orthodox are nothing else but sinners, and Vladika never said anything else. I'm absolutely sure about that, having the opportunity of real visit to a monastery in his diocese, to see what humility is.

Brate, we have nothing else but Faith, and nothing better but to do our best to keep it the same as we have received it from the Fathers.

Regarding the history of errors (and herecies), never they prevailed in the Church. Never the robber councils were accepted everywhere and by all - and of course they were short lived, so they can't be in all times. Now, hit me with some examples (there are better than me around, so they might jump in, too) so let us see if Vladika was right in that.
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

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,488
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2008, 10:05:25 PM »
What I was trying to insinuate is that if you look at the period of Iconoclasm you will see 4 "ecumenical" councils.  One being iconoclastic, the next iconophilic.  Then the next being iconoclastic, and finally the last one being iconophilic.  Each one was proclaimed as "ecumenical" and each one proclaimed the "true faith"  so there is an obvious contradiction and shaky history in that era of the church. 

I don't think that means the Church is fallible. It rather demonstrates that there's no mechanical process for determining whether a particular council is ecumenical or not (e.g. saying "a council with X% of bishops and Y number of patriarchs supporting is in ecumenical", etc.)

God bless,
Peter.
- Peter Jericho

Offline serb1389

  • Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,123
  • Save Oh Lord your People! And Bless us all!
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2008, 11:08:03 PM »
Brate 1389,

This part of your message is essential, so though I'm again short of time, let me try to briefly offer my humble answer

Exactly, but Ortho-Doxy/Right-Belief/Pravo-Slavlje is what St. Vincent of Lerins precisely said, what's been believed everywhere, in all times, by all.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/St._Vincent_of_L%C3%A9rins
Patriarchs, emperors, many people in power, any man, can fail. But the Church as such, never fails.

In the times you were referring, there was always someone who maintained Pravo-Slavlje. In the times of persecutions of Iconoclasts, it was a modest and humble monk Maximos, who had to pay for his faith by having his arm and tongue cut off - we venerate him today as St. Maximos the Confessor. At that times, also, there were some pillars of Orthodoxy in the West.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximus_the_Confessor

It's the Holy Spirit with the Church, and Christ as her Head, that won't allow in any time that each and every one of the clergy (and us in the flock) fail and confess heterodoxy. There will be at least some who will express Right-Belief about a disputed question.

It shouldn't be confused with personal sinfulness of each and every one of us. We Orthodox are nothing else but sinners, and Vladika never said anything else. I'm absolutely sure about that, having the opportunity of real visit to a monastery in his diocese, to see what humility is.

Brate, we have nothing else but Faith, and nothing better but to do our best to keep it the same as we have received it from the Fathers.

Regarding the history of errors (and herecies), never they prevailed in the Church. Never the robber councils were accepted everywhere and by all - and of course they were short lived, so they can't be in all times. Now, hit me with some examples (there are better than me around, so they might jump in, too) so let us see if Vladika was right in that.

I completely agree with everything above.  Great way of articulating your points.  I really appreciated your succinctness.  Also I appreciated your kindness too, which came across in your post.  things have been crazy for me so sometimes I come across weird.

I agree with the church and faith that you defined above.  i also see better now what Vladika said.  it makes sense in light of how YOU explained it. 

I still think that sometimes our bishops (serbian) come at things from a not-so-great angle, which can really tick me off sometimes.  that's why I bit on that bullet.  Anyway, i'm interested in talking about it further only if you are. 

Peter, (pj) -
I don't think that means the Church is fallible. It rather demonstrates that there's no mechanical process for determining whether a particular council is ecumenical or not (e.g. saying "a council with X% of bishops and Y number of patriarchs supporting is in ecumenical", etc.)

God bless,
Peter.


This is a separate topic, which has actually been debated here before. 

I will only say that historical realities of what you are talking about, are true.  What I don't understand is how it correlates to what I was saying...were you saying that my take on the Iconoclastic period was "wrong" due to the statement above...?  Sorry I was just confused what you were trying to insinuate. 

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,488
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #13 on: February 25, 2008, 12:23:04 AM »
Sorry I was just confused what you were trying to insinuate. 

I wasn't trying to insinuate. 
-Peter.
- Peter Jericho

Offline buzuxi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 265
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #14 on: February 25, 2008, 01:57:58 AM »
AXIOS! AXIOS! Many years to Bishop Artemije !!

Offline serb1389

  • Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,123
  • Save Oh Lord your People! And Bless us all!
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #15 on: February 25, 2008, 04:48:15 PM »
I wasn't trying to insinuate. 
-Peter.

ooops...sorry, I used the wrong word there, I was in a hurry. 

I was just trying to understand what YOU were trying to say...I just honestly didn't understand.  Sorry for the polemical language, totally unintended. 

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,488
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2008, 12:09:30 AM »
ooops...sorry, I used the wrong word there, I was in a hurry. 

I was just trying to understand what YOU were trying to say...I just honestly didn't understand.  Sorry for the polemical language, totally unintended. 

Oh that's all right. But I still don't really know what you're asking about. My statement was very straightforward.

God bless,
Peter.
- Peter Jericho

Offline serb1389

  • Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,123
  • Save Oh Lord your People! And Bless us all!
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2008, 09:33:46 AM »
I don't think that means the Church is fallible. It rather demonstrates that there's no mechanical process for determining whether a particular council is ecumenical or not (e.g. saying "a council with X% of bishops and Y number of patriarchs supporting is in ecumenical", etc.)

God bless,
Peter.

If you were to say this to me in a conversation.  My immediate response would be "so....so what"  or "so...what's your poin?" 

Even if I agree with you that there is a mechanical process for determining which council is ecumenical, what is the point of what you are trying to say.  Are you saying it to prove me wrong, to prove me right, to explain to me what you think the process is, etc.? 

I would also add this, after some further thought, I objectively agree with you, but if you look at the Iconoclastic councils, that model you provided doesn't really work.  There is something else in the equation.  An "untouchable" type of factor. 

Just some more thoughts...

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,488
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2008, 09:36:24 AM »
Even if I agree with you that there is a mechanical process for determining which council is ecumenical,

Looks like you need to reread what I wrote.
-Peter.
- Peter Jericho

Offline serb1389

  • Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,123
  • Save Oh Lord your People! And Bless us all!
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2008, 09:40:31 AM »
LMAO!!!!  Right again my friend.  You said "NO" mechanical process.  I TOTALLY missed that.  My fault, disregard what I wrote.  thanks! 

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,488
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2008, 10:29:11 AM »
 :D
- Peter Jericho

Offline earlychurch

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2008, 09:29:16 AM »
Quote
Q: How could Orthodox know they erred nothing?

A:From the history of Church, from the teaching of the Holy Fathers, Holy Canons, Ecumenical Councils. It isn't an arbitrary allegation, than the continuity through two thousand years, proving this is the Faith preached by Lord Christ and Holy Apostles.

There is a lot of this post I want to respond to, but there is something that sticks out like a sore thumb to me. How can you say that the Orthodox Church has erred nothing when the list of Eastern heresies is so long? I dont believe anyone here actually believes that the Eastern Sees have erred nothing.


THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.

Offline ytterbiumanalyst

  • Professor Emeritus, CSA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,785
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2008, 09:42:19 AM »
From your perspective, it is we who erred, not you. From our perspective, it is you who erred, not we. But really, what we are both saying is that right belief matters and that the Church cannot err.

From your perspective, the Church is guided by the Pope, and must be in communion with him. From our perspective, the church is guided by a group of patriarchs, and must be in communion with them. But really, what we are both saying is that the Church must be guided by an episcopacy.

The gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church. This we both know. But how you understand this depends on how you define the Church.

Every once in a while I come across a self-help book that actually has something good to say. One of Stephen Covey's "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" is to "seek to understand before being understood." To say "I do not understand how anyone could disagree with me" usually does not lead to fruitful discussion. It is much better to ask "Why do you believe the way you do?" We may still disagree, but at least when you understand our position, and we understand yours, we can disagree civilly.
"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Offline earlychurch

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2008, 10:05:53 AM »
I see no contradiction, except in your reasoning.

Divino-human organization will fail, but the gates of Hall shall not prevail against it? It sounds contradictory to the bones.

Iconoclasts and various other heretics do not speak on behalf of the Church. HG Artemije did not claim each and every one of us is infaillable, only that the Church, as the body of Christ, as the community with Christ as his Head, as the End and Beginning, is infaillable. As far as I know, that's the Orthodox Faith.

I challenge you find some base for your reasoning, a decision of a council, a thought of a Father, a verse in the Bible. No offense, bro, but you just offered some baseless thoughts in reasoning your criticism against the sound and clear Orthodox message of His Grace.

Okay. I'll take up that challenge.

The ecumenical council 869 was accepted as ecumenical for 10 years. The council of 879 is believed to have reversed the proceedings of the council of 869. Those who believe that the council of 879 is valid are indirectly undermining the claim that the church is infallible.

You cant have it both ways. If Photius never believed that the council of 869 was valid, he, as well as all of the patriarchs, would not have had the council of 879.

The entire point of the council of 879 is to prove that church is not infallible.
THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.

Offline earlychurch

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2008, 10:05:54 AM »
Quote
Exactly, but Ortho-Doxy/Right-Belief/Pravo-Slavlje is what St. Vincent of Lerins precisely said, what's been believed everywhere, in all times, by all.

How could this statement ever be verified? How could you ever say with certainty what everyone at all times know? This statement could be used to prove anything. You could explain away any council by saying that at least one person did not believe in it, thereby nullifying the force behind councils.  ???

Quote
Patriarchs, emperors, many people in power, any man, can fail. But the Church as such, never fails.


Councils (869), according to the EOC, can fall, as well as Eastern Sees. They admit this. If you are calling individual believers churches, which is what I think you are doing, you are emptying out words of meaning. Why should I believe in any council or church father if there is no way to be certain of anything? What kind of rock is that?

Quote
It's the Holy Spirit with the Church, and Christ as her Head, that won't allow in any time that each and every one of the clergy (and us in the flock) fail and confess heterodoxy. There will be at least some who will express Right-Belief about a disputed question.

This seems to render the church meaningless, since it is not protected, or can avoid heresy. (hot potato comes to mind)

Quote
Brate, we have nothing else but Faith, and nothing better but to do our best to keep it the same as we have received it from the Fathers.

But what if the Fathers were wrong? You say that this is a possibility above. I have even heard here from many posters that Fathers are not infallible, and can be wrong. Now you are telling me that councils can be wrong too? This is some kind of rock you speak of.

Quote
Regarding the history of errors (and herecies), never they prevailed in the Church. Never the robber councils were accepted everywhere and by all - and of course they were short lived, so they can't be in all times. Now, hit me with some examples (there are better than me around, so they might jump in, too) so let us see if Vladika was right in that.

How can you ever prove what everyone in the world thinks?

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.

Offline earlychurch

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2008, 10:22:08 PM »
From your perspective, it is we who erred, not you. From our perspective, it is you who erred, not we.


Actually, by rejecting an ecumenical council (869) which your church honored as such for ten years, you are in fact implying that the enitire church had erred. That includes mine as well as yours. That is what the council of 879 did, from your perspective. Obviously, the Roman Catholic Church is in a different category with regards to the said councils, and so dont have to suffer this glarring difficulty.

Quote
But really, what we are both saying is that right belief matters and that the Church cannot err.

Since you believe that the council of 869 was a fallacy, you in fact believe that the church can err.

Quote
From your perspective, the Church is guided by the Pope, and must be in communion with him.


For over a 1000 years, your church thought Rome its head. The East, and not the West, had changed from this hierarchy.

Quote
From our perspective, the church is guided by a group of patriarchs, and must be in communion with them. But really, what we are both saying is that the Church must be guided by an episcopacy.

This is a new invention unrecognized in the early church.

Quote
The gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church. This we both know. But how you understand this depends on how you define the Church.

I define the church the same way as the church fathers did.

Every once in a while I come across a self-help book that actually has something good to say. One of Stephen Covey's "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" is to "seek to understand before being understood." To say "I do not understand how anyone could disagree with me" usually does not lead to fruitful discussion. It is much better to ask "Why do you believe the way you do?" We may still disagree, but at least when you understand our position, and we understand yours, we can disagree civilly.
[/quote]

I believe the way I do because of the evidence. I dont have to call hundreds of quotes forgeries, or twist their words.

I only fixed the quote, nothing else--YtterbiumAnalyst
« Last Edit: March 03, 2008, 04:04:10 PM by ytterbiumanalyst »
THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.

Offline orthodoxlurker

  • Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,372
  • al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #26 on: March 02, 2008, 07:34:27 PM »
Okay. I'll take up that challenge.

The ecumenical council 869 was accepted as ecumenical for 10 years.

First, kindly note the different approaches to time between you and me that might cause misunderstanding. BTW, we Orthodox have seven ecumenical councils, while the council of 879 is valid, but not an ecumenical one...yet.

http://www.orthodoxworld.ru/english/icona/3/index.htm
Quote
Different attitudes towards time caused different attitudes towards the world; to the events in it, and to the role of men in these events.
...
All this led to a retrospective review of history and historical time.
Time was now related to change, to cause-and-effect relations of events in their historical sequence. The conception of historical succession emerged and, therefore so did the understanding of the depth of time and the awareness of perspective. Discovery of perspective and historical time coincided, in fact, with the emergence of the theories on aerial and linear perspective.
Awareness of events, taking place in space and time, resulted in the fact that European artists stopped depicting events that took place at different times simultaneously in their pictures.
...
In the East of Europe, in Byzantium and Ancient Rus, a previous concept of time and history, dating back to the Fathers of the Church (St Augustine etc.) was preserved. Life of a man is a period of time, having the beginning and the end - from the moment of creation of a man by God to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The event that divided history into two parts - the old and the new - was the birth of Jesus Christ, God's Incarnation.
Before the Creation of the World there was no time either. The concept of time can not be related to God. It is impossible to say that God "was" or "is" or "will be". In Russian it is translated as "existing", the One who "always was", "always is" and "will always be" which is derived from the Hebrew name of God - Jahweh - existing (He Brings Into Existence Whatever Exists).
God created the world and time "began". It began and will end with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, when "there will be no more time". Thus, time itself turns out to be "temporal", transient.

Second, Orthodox approach to councils is that they are not authorities to constitute Faith by proclamation, they are occasions where what's already been believed has been proclaimed to be the orthodox/rightbelief/pravoslavno, to solve some disputed doctrinal/dogmatic issue that arised. See http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7101.asp

Quote
The Stand of the Orthodox Church on Controversial Issues
Rev. Stanley Harakas, Th.D.

The Formulation of the Church's Stand
Throughout its history, the Orthodox Church has dealt with controversial issues by a process which addresses the "mind of the Church." When an issue arises for which there is no clear-cut, widely and readily acknowledged tradition, and about which there is honest divergence of opinion as to what view genuinely expresses the teaching of the Church, a process begins which may eventually lead to the formulation of an official Church teaching. A classical example from the early period of the Church is the formulation of the Church doctrines about the person of Jesus Christ, which began with the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (325) and concluded with the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787).

Over this four hundred and sixty-three year period, the Church clarified its understanding and teaching of the revelation regarding Jesus Christ. At the center of this process stood the Ecumenical Councils, which constituted the final and most authoritative agent for the formulation of doctrine, pending the acceptance of their decrees by the entire Church.

For ten years, the conclusions of the 869 council could not have been even communicated to the entire Church, not to mention accepting their doctrinal/dogmatic cannons, if there were such, by the entire Church.

http://www.sfaturiortodoxe.ro/orthodox/orthodox_advices_cleopa_holy_tradition.htm
Quote
Inq.: Some people don’t acknowledge the Tradition because they say that with the passing of time it yielded to many illegitimate elements, so that, especially today, we are no longer able to discern the true apostolic Tradition from the false.

EC: The Church of Christ determined the truths of the faith, according to the long course of Tradition, through the teachings and canons of the holy Oecumenical Councils, decrees and the Symbol of Faith [The Creed], and with confessions [of Faith] by holy and wonderworking hierarchs such as were made at the many local synods which have been held continuously since the days of old. At these synods the authenticity and genuineness of the holy Orthodox Faith was firmly established, primarily therein where it was attacked by the existing heresies of the time. From the totality of such synods appears the irrevocable and inalterable content of Holy Tradition. This is understood when you examine closely the essence of the following conditions:

    - Do not sanction conceptions that contain inconsistencies amongst themselves or contradictions with the apostolic Tradition and Holy Scripture. (A teaching is to be considered worthy of “Tradition” when it stems from the Saviour or the Holy Apostles and is directly under the influence of the Holy Spirit.)

    - The Tradition is that which has been safeguarded from the Apostolic Church and has an uninterrupted continuity until today.

    - The Tradition is that which is confessed and practiced by the entire universal Orthodox Church.

    - The Tradition is that which is in harmony with the greatest portion of the fathers and ecclesiastical writers.

When a tradition does not fulfil these stipulations, it cannot be considered true and holy, and consequently cannot be considered admissible or fit to be observed.

Besides, I couldn't have found any dogmatic/doctrinal proclamations of 869 council, see http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum08.htm

Like St. Vincent taught us:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/vincent.aspx
Quote
Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

Finally, the council of 879 revoked the robber 869 council and has been applied by Roman See until somewhere in 12th century, according to Roman Catholic scholars Meier and Dvornik. See http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html
Quote
Following Papadopoulos Kerameus, Johan Meijer — author of a most thorough study of the Constantinopolitan Council of 879/880 — has pointed out that Roman Catholic canonists first referred to their Eighth Ecumenical Council (the Ignatian one) in the beginning of the twelfth century. In line with Dvornic and others, Meijer also explained that this was done deliberately because these canonists needed at that time canon 22 of that Council. In point of fact, however, they overlooked the fact that "this Council had been cancelled by another, the Photian Synod of 879-880 — the acts of which were also kept in the pontifical archives."8
...
8. A Successful Council of Union: a theological analysis of the Photian Synod of 879-880, Thessalonica 1975, p.71.

But you are right about one issue - nobody knows what one believes. So we examine what's been expressed as one's belief.

I do hope I addressed the main objections of yours and clarified my stance, that I believe is the stance of Orthodox Church, while managing to do that without causing disturbance or offense to you. Forgive me if I failed to do that.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2008, 07:54:28 PM by orthodoxlurker »
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

Offline earlychurch

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #27 on: March 02, 2008, 11:28:27 PM »
First, kindly note the different approaches to time between you and me that might cause misunderstanding. BTW, we Orthodox have seven ecumenical councils, while the council of 879 is valid, but not an ecumenical one...yet.

http://www.orthodoxworld.ru/english/icona/3/index.htm
Second, Orthodox approach to councils is that they are not authorities to constitute Faith by proclamation, they are occasions where what's already been believed has been proclaimed to be the orthodox/rightbelief/pravoslavno, to solve some disputed doctrinal/dogmatic issue that arised. See http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7101.asp

For ten years, the conclusions of the 869 council could not have been even communicated to the entire Church, not to mention accepting their doctrinal/dogmatic cannons, if there were such, by the entire Church.

http://www.sfaturiortodoxe.ro/orthodox/orthodox_advices_cleopa_holy_tradition.htm
Besides, I couldn't have found any dogmatic/doctrinal proclamations of 869 council, see http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum08.htm

Like St. Vincent taught us:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/vincent.aspx
Finally, the council of 879 revoked the robber 869 council and has been applied by Roman See until somewhere in 12th century, according to Roman Catholic scholars Meier and Dvornik. See http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html
But you are right about one issue - nobody knows what one believes. So we examine what's been expressed as one's belief.

I do hope I addressed the main objections of yours and clarified my stance, that I believe is the stance of Orthodox Church, while managing to do that without causing disturbance or offense to you. Forgive me if I failed to do that.

Thank you for a thoughtful post. It will take me some time to study it and respond.

Praise his Holy Name on his day of the week.
THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.

Offline earlychurch

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #28 on: March 03, 2008, 02:16:03 AM »
Quote
For ten years, the conclusions of the 869 council could not have been even communicated to the entire Church, not to mention accepting their doctrinal/dogmatic cannons, if there were such, by the entire Church.

Why not?
THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.

Offline earlychurch

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #29 on: March 03, 2008, 02:16:05 AM »
Quote
Second, Orthodox approach to councils is that they are not authorities to constitute Faith by proclamation, they are occasions where what's already been believed has been proclaimed to be the orthodox/rightbelief/pravoslavno, to solve some disputed doctrinal/dogmatic issue that arised.

This is confusing for me. The filioque was taught early in the See of Rome, as a reading of St Augustine testifies. Yet, many Orthodox pretend that it was introduced for the first time in the Third Council of Toeldo in 539? 
THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.

Offline orthodoxlurker

  • Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,372
  • al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #30 on: March 03, 2008, 06:43:00 AM »
Why not?
Why not?

Two issues:

First, what were the doctrinal/dogmatic stances proclaimed by 869 council that needed to be accepted by the Church?

I claim none. It was purely administration of the Church and anathema against St. Photius the Great. But anathema is annulled in 879, and St. Photius the Great reposed in communion with the Roman See, though he was meanwhile discharged from the position of Patriarch for the second time.

Second, even today, with efficient means of communication, it takes some time to make known a stance to the entire Church. Not to mention 9th century.

Quote from: earlychurch
This is confusing for me. The filioque  was taught early in the See of Rome, as a reading of St Augustine testifies. Yet, many Orthodox pretend that it was introduced for the first time in the Third Council of Toeldo in 539?

It was taught by St. Augustine, but not by the See of Rome until 1014. St. Augustine wrote and asked to be corrected for any error in his writings. It wasn't believed by all and everywhere.

If we follow your reasoning, one can pick Origen's teaching on apokatastasis and teach it now, saying it's been believed everywhere, in all times and by all. But it isn't.
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

Offline earlychurch

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #31 on: March 03, 2008, 12:00:57 PM »
Quote
First, what were the doctrinal/dogmatic stances proclaimed by 869 council that needed to be accepted by the Church?

I dont want to focus on what doctrines were proclaimed, just the fact that according to you guys, councils can be voided.

Do you believe that the church had erred in the council of 869?

If you say that councils can be voided, why cant other councils be voided?


THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.

Offline earlychurch

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #32 on: March 03, 2008, 12:13:54 PM »
Quote
It was taught by St. Augustine, but not by the See of Rome until 1014. St. Augustine wrote and asked to be corrected for any error in his writings. It wasn't believed by all and everywhere.

I have to see if the following post will make it to the board to see if the moderators will permit the words of St Maximus:

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136.

"Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit -- they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession -- but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism].
THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.

Offline earlychurch

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #33 on: March 03, 2008, 02:44:32 PM »
Quote
It was taught by St. Augustine, but not by the See of Rome until 1014. St. Augustine wrote and asked to be corrected for any error in his writings. It wasn't believed by all and everywhere.

As you can see in my last post, St Maximus showed that all of the See of Rome believed in the filioque:

"...they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria..."

This has been my main point of contention. Why were the Eastern See in communion with the See of Rome who obviously taught the filioque, which you guys claim the filioque is the main reason for the schism in 1054?

It makes no sense. You guys had the See of Rome as your head while it taught the filioque, which you guys consider heresy?


THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.

Offline earlychurch

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #34 on: March 03, 2008, 02:44:32 PM »
As you can see above, all of the See of Rome, including Cyril of Alexandria, believed in the filioque according to St Maximus. It is not the case that just Augustine did only, as you imply.
THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.

Offline ytterbiumanalyst

  • Professor Emeritus, CSA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,785
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #35 on: March 03, 2008, 04:16:10 PM »
Actually, by rejecting an ecumenical council (869) which your church honored as such for ten years, you are in fact implying that the enitire church had erred. That includes mine as well as yours. That is what the council of 879 did, from your perspective. Obviously, the Roman Catholic Church is in a different category with regards to the said councils, and so dont have to suffer this glarring difficulty.

Since you believe that the council of 869 was a fallacy, you in fact believe that the church can err.
I find it incredible that you feel you can tell me what I believe about a subject I've never talked about. This is why I said what I said about "seeking to understand before being understood." You are not attempting to understand my position, you are dictating to me what my position is. I have a lot of opinions about things, but this one I don't. Mayhap you confuse me with someone else....

Quote
For over a 1000 years, your church thought Rome its head. The East, and not the West, had changed from this hierarchy.
Prove it. If this is so, you should be able to find some pre-schism writers who said so.

Quote
This is a new invention unrecognized in the early church.
Not at all. Both East and West believe in an episcopacy; the difference is that we believe all bishops are equal, whereas you believe that some bishops are more equal than others. ;)

Quote
I define the church the same way as the church fathers did.
No, you define the Church the way you think the Fathers did. You project onto them a belief that the majority of them did not hold, then you use it to back up what you were saying. Circular reasoning--it just doesn't hold up around here, mate.

Quote
I believe the way I do because of the evidence. I dont have to call hundreds of quotes forgeries, or twist their words.
Understanding someone else's opinion does not mean you have to give up your own. Quite the contrary. Understanding someone else's opinion many times helps you to understand better why you hold your opinion. If you have the truth, you needn't be afraid of falsehood. OTOH, one who believes a lie is quite afraid of the truth.

Furthermore, I'd like you to find anywhere on this site where I called your "hundreds of quotes" forgeries. Mayhap you confuse me with someone else....or perhaps we Orthodox all look alike to you.
"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Offline earlychurch

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #36 on: March 03, 2008, 05:48:40 PM »
Well, quotes like the ones I have produced from St Maximus clearly demostrate the supremacy of the See of Rome. The church fathers did not set the bishops equal to each other as you pretend. The pope is primal. Just read the the St Maximus quote I posted elsewhere.

Now the quotes that I have already listed showed this, to which you guys say they are forgeries. I have no doubt that some of them may be forgeries, but not all of them.

Here are three such quotes that proves my position and destroys yours:

Pope St. Gelasius (d. 496):

"Yet we do not hesitate to mention that which is known to the Universal Church, namely, that as the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to loose what has been bound by the judgments of any bishops, whatsoever, and since it has jurisdiction over every church, so that no one may pass judgment on its verdict, the canons providing that an appeal should be to it from any part of the world, no one is permitted to appeal against its judgment." (Thiel, Ep. 26)

Irenaeus

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)
A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople, ...

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

When are these quote going to be addresses? You either discard them because they dont fit your Eastern ideals, or not address them entirely and say: there are no such quotes from the church fathers that supports the See of Rome being supreme. How do you do that?


THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.

Offline ytterbiumanalyst

  • Professor Emeritus, CSA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,785
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #37 on: March 03, 2008, 06:17:49 PM »
Well, quotes like the ones I have produced from St Maximus clearly demostrate the supremacy of the See of Rome. The church fathers did not set the bishops equal to each other as you pretend.
No, they didn't. Jesus Christ did. Consider this from St. Luke:

"And there entered a thought into them, which of them should be greater. But Jesus seeing the thoughts of their heart, took a child and set him by him, And said to them: Whosoever shall receive this child in my name, receiveth me; and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth him that sent me. For he that is the lesser among you all, he is the greater. And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you" (Luke 9:46-50).

And this:

"And there was also a strife amongst them [the Apostles], which of them should seem to be the greater. And he said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them, are called beneficent. But you not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth. For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? Is it not he that sitteth at table? But I am in the midst of you, as he that serveth: And you are they who have continued with me in my temptations: And I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom; That you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom: and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Luke 22:24-30).

Every time the Apostles disputed among themselves as to which of them was the greatest, our Lord rebuked them softly, always exhorting them to serve each other instead. Now we, as the descendants of these same Apostles, argue as to which of the Apostles was the greatest. Would not our Lord say the same to us?

Quote
The pope is primal. Just read the the St Maximus quote I posted elsewhere.
I think that one has been pretty well debunked.

Quote
Now the quotes that I have already listed showed this, to which you guys say they are forgeries. I have no doubt that some of them may be forgeries, but not all of them.

Here are three such quotes that proves my position and destroys yours:
We object to that which is false; we cling to that which is true. If we reject your quotes because they are forgeries, it is because we seek what is true. If we accept what you say, it is because we recognize it as true. There is much in Catholicism which is true; and this truth I must accept, because truth does not and cannot change. Truth in the mouth of one is the same as truth in the mouth of another. If they differ, at least one must either be lying or in error. I am convinced that Orthodoxy holds the complete truth; this belief does not require me to deny you or anyone else truth. You hold truth as well, albeit incomplete. But of course you will disagree with me, and rightly so: one cannot hold firmly a belief which they believe to be false. So you believe your church holds the complete truth: good. I believe mine holds the complete truth: also good. We are then in a place where we each can seek the truth. God will sort it out in the end who actually had right belief.
"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Offline earlychurch

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #38 on: March 03, 2008, 06:32:13 PM »
Are you saying that all three of my quotes just listed are all forgeries?
THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.

Offline ytterbiumanalyst

  • Professor Emeritus, CSA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,785
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #39 on: March 03, 2008, 06:40:25 PM »
Not at all. Although I do not consider myself an expert on this sort of thing, many here are and have already debunked your quotes from St. Maximos as being forgeries. As to the other two, I couldn't say for sure at this point. I would definitely need some proof before I started saying that you were making this up.

No, all I have said is that you are convinced that your church is right, and that I am convinced that mine is. I don't pretend that we will convince each other, but if you want to have dialogue you're going to have to do it in a better way than "this proves my position and destroys yours." I enjoy talking with people of other faiths, but debate and argument are not the same thing. I have only objected to your attitude here, at least as it comes across to us. The know-it-all "I'm right and all of you are wrong" is a quite tired cliché. Rather, let us each present their position and leave it at that. Seek to understand, and then you can seek to be understood. When anyone is too defensive, no one will profit from what is said.
"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Offline earlychurch

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #40 on: March 03, 2008, 07:12:52 PM »
Fair enough. I'll try to act more gentle.

You say that two out of the three quotes I have listed may not be forgeries. In the mean time, how can you say that all of the church fathers support your position if quotes like the ones I bring up exist?

It seems that your default for handling such quotes is just to discard them if they dont support your claims. Is this true?

How was the quote from Maximus debunked?
THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.

Offline orthodoxlurker

  • Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,372
  • al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #41 on: March 03, 2008, 07:24:41 PM »
I dont want to focus on what doctrines were proclaimed, just the fact that according to you guys, councils can be voided.

Do you believe that the church had erred in the council of 869?

If you say that councils can be voided, why cant other councils be voided?

Huh?

You obviously read neither my explanation, nor the text at the links I submitted.

Council of 869 is robber council. There are more robber councils in 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th century.

Why did Rome considered 869 council as a robber one (pseudo) and applied 879 one until middle 12the century?
 
Quote
The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136.

"Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit -- they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession -- but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism].

From the text it's obvious somebody made St. Maximos to think that Latins don't believe filioque as they teach it now.

It's about ekporeusis (originates, proceeds) and proienai (manifests). Are we debating filioque now? Shouldn't you open a separate thread for that?

And how come we switched from validity of the councils to the opinions of Fathers?

BTW, I'm still eager to see the text of St. Cyril of Alexandria when he confessed filioque. Though I'm not St. Maximos, I hope it should be easy for you to present it to me.

Yet, I believe the topic is the point about validity of the counsils, and why Bishop Artemije's statement about non-existence of Ravenna Statement is valid.
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

Offline earlychurch

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #42 on: March 03, 2008, 08:40:43 PM »
First of all, it is Roman Catholic teaching that the first principle of the Holy Spirit is the Father, and not the Son. I believe St Maximus' quote here is Roman Catholic teaching. I also believe the representation of the filioque by the Eastern church of the RC position is a straw man.

But the question is, how do you respond wih the quote from Maximus saying that all of the Latin fathers believed in the filioque?
THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.

Offline earlychurch

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #43 on: March 03, 2008, 08:40:43 PM »
Quote
Why did Rome considered 869 council as a robber one (pseudo) and applied 879 one until middle 12the century?

This is something that I have been trying to research. I believe a lot of the problems that I am running into is that the current See of Rome is trying to be ecumenical, and as such, is not big on putting Photius in a bad light, whereas before it did. There are scholars on both sides of this debate, that is, if Photius was excommunicated a second time.

But since you agree that both councils are not ecumenical, what are they?
THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.

Offline earlychurch

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Ravenna document is non-existing for the Serbian Orthodox Church
« Reply #44 on: March 03, 2008, 08:40:44 PM »
Quote
BTW, I'm still eager to see the text of St. Cyril of Alexandria when he confessed filioque. Though I'm not St. Maximos, I hope it should be easy for you to present it to me.

Why isnt St Maximos' words good enough for you?

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.