Topic: Discussion on Ecumenism

[PeterTheAleut]

I came across this interesting bit in Bishop Eucharist Church. They were discussing the significance of Novatianist baptism. I've bolded an interesting sentence.

http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/episkopos1/kef2_2.htm

Fortunately, however, there is preserved a contemporary work by an anonymous African Bishop entitled De Rebaptismate, written probably around 256,305 which sets out in detail the arguments against Cyprian's views on baptism. This text expounds not so much the teaching on the Church as that on the sacraments, but it reveals the writer's ecclesiological principles. The writer accepts that there is only one Church outside which the Holy Spirit is not. But he maintains that baptism is performed by Christ at the invocation of His name. Starting from this premise, this writer holds that when the name of the Lord is invoked, even by those who are outside the Catholic Church, in the course of a baptism, the invocation operates in such a way that the baptism which thus takes place is authentic. Exactly what value such a baptism has is not defined by this author. It seems, however, that he too retains many doubts as to its efficacity, since he says that if someone thus baptized outside the Catholic Church dies a schismatic, in other words before he repents and returns to the Catholic Church, his baptism is of no significance for his salvation.306

These views can be taken as those of the Church of Rome and her Bishop Stephen because they come to the conclusion that the rebaptism of those returning to the Catholic Church is not required which is exactly as Stephen of Rome maintained.

Apparently this was the Latin Church view in the Cyprian era. Schismatic baptism is efficacious, but only if you return to the Catholic Church. If you update this by about 1700 years it translates to, "of course, we may recognize your non-Orthodox baptism... if you become Orthodox."

That's an interesting piece of evidence for what SOME Latin bishops taught at the time of Cyprian. Obviously, Cyprian represented another position, a position, moreover, that is actually in accord with the teaching of the universal Church.

But how do you know that it's Bishop St. Cyprian's position that's in accord with the teaching of the universal Church?  At the time of his argument with Pope St. Stephen, Rome was still very much orthodox and claimed as her authority the tradition handed them by the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

This discussion by Met Hierotheos ought to clarify the Church's teaching:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/methierotheos_baptism.aspx

You miss my point, though.  How did our current teaching on baptism and the sacraments become Church teaching, especially considering that it was not universal to the Church of St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. Stephen of Rome?  At that time, it appears that St. Cyprian and a Firmilian of Asia Minor preached an Eastern view of baptism that is now our [Eastern] Church teaching (a teaching later supported by the Apostolic Constitutions and Canons, a 4th century Eastern document we believe to represent the traditions of the Apostles).  Yet St. Stephen taught a different idea that he claimed was passed on to the Church of Rome by the Apostles Peter and Paul themselves.  Which side has faithfully preserved the traditions of the Apostles?  What evidence can you provide to support your argument?

Well if I believed the West had faithfully preserved the right teaching on baptism, with their doctrine of ex opere operato, then I would be a Catholic. As it is, I am Eastern Orthodox. I don't feel it's appropriate to debate the teaching on baptism with other Orthodox, since we should all be agreed on what the Orthodox teaching is. If you don't agree with the Orthodox teaching, then you should change churches.

That being said, here is another patristic witness for the Orthodox doctrine of baptism:

"There are many other heresies, too, which use the names only [of the Trinity], but not in the right sense, as I have said, nor with sound faith, and in consequence the water which they administer is unprofitable, as deficient in piety, so that he who is sprinkled by them is rather polluted by irreligion than redeemed." St Athanasius, Second Discourse against the Arians

St Paul also says there is 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' in the epistle to the Ephesians. I understand this to mean that faith and the mystery of baptism are inseparable, and that by faith is meant Orthodox faith.

By continuing to argue from Fathers subsequent to the first three centuries of the Church's history, you  show that you still miss my point.  How did St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. Stephen of Rome derive opposite conclusions on baptism from what each claimed was the Tradition of the Apostles?

PtA, I don't know what St Stephen was thinking. I am prepared to believe he genuinely thought it was the apostolic tradition, while St Cyprian recognized it to be a misinterpretation of the custom of granting economy in certain situations. Aren't you Orthodox? Don't you believe in what your Church teaches about the unity between faith and baptism? You can often find errors here or there even in the writings of Saints: St Augustine is of course a textbook example. It doesn't mean you can pick and choose which writings suit your personal theological fancy; you have to accept what the Church as a whole has taught.

You still miss my point.  I'm not voicing any disbelief in the Church's teaching on the unity between the Church and baptism, so please stop trying to play that card.  My question is focused on how our teaching won out within the Orthodox Church from all the competing understandings of St. Cyprian's and St. Stephen's day.  What evidence can you offer to prove that the Orthodox doctrine on baptism is THE definitive teaching of the Apostles and that the Western understanding argued by Pope St. Stephen is not?  How do you know for certain that they're not both apostolic in their origins (even though their contradictory nature seems to indicate that they cannot both be)?  So far, all you've offered us is a statement of what you are "prepared to believe", which appears to be nothing more than conjecture on your part (not to mention that it also strikes me as little more than an attempt to revise history to make it fit our current beliefs).

[SolEX01]

Oh and the question I want you to answer is: how do you resolve the contradictions in your own church?

To help you answer this question, you might consider the following: Does Patriarch Bartholomew believe that the Orthodox Church is the Body of Christ in and of itself? If so, why does he speak of restoring the unity of the Church, if it was never lost? Why does he say theology does not divide us from the non-Chalcedonians, when they still teach that Christ has one nature, whereas the truth according to the Council of Chalcedon is that He has two natures? Why has the Ecumenical Patriarch lifted the anathemas against the Pope, when the Pope has not renounced the heresies for which he was anathematized? You don't need to answer all of them, but I do want to hear how your conscience allows you to remain in communion with such people.

If you are not in Communion with "such people" does that mean that you wish for everyone else to be in Communion with you instead of "such people?"

I suppose the EP receiving an honorary degree from a Jesuit University (e.g. Fordham), further bolsters your arguments that the EP is a heretic since your Clergy and Hierarchy do not accept honorary degrees from any higher insitution of learning.     If your Hierarchs received an honorary degree from Oxford, the Sorbonne or any other prestigious University, then I'll shut up.   

[PeterTheAleut]

The topics of Chalcedon and Ephesus have been beaten to death on those relevant Oriental Orthodox fora.

Why Jonathan chooses to resurrect the cheval morte (dead horse) is beyond my comprehension.      

He brought it up because the subject of "mainstream" EO hierarchs praying with OO's came up.  This is, after all, a thread on the evils of ecumenism.  I think in that context it's perfectly fair for him to point out that his Church, as well as a number of EO Church Fathers, have considered the people of my Church to be heretics.  However, a discussion on whether the OO's really are heretics, schismatics, or whatever, belongs in the private forum.

Dovetailing with what Salpy said, a discussion of the fact that many EO Fathers have condemned the OO is perfectly appropriate when used to support discussion of the evils of ecumenism.  If anyone wishes, however, to make condemnation of OOs his goal and to cite EO Fathers as objective proofs of his case that the OO are heretics, then that polemic belongs only on the Eastern-Oriental Private board.  Jonathan, seeing how some of your most recent posts have crossed this line, I need to instruct you to refocus your rhetoric on how the traditional EO condemnation of the OO fits your general complaints against ecumenism and warn you that any more discussion focused specifically on why OO are heretics will be moved to the Private Forum.

[PeterTheAleut]

Jonathan, what are you trying to accomplish?

What do you think? I'm trying to persuade you that the official churches are infected with heresy and to save yourself you should sever communion with them and join the bishops who reject ecumenism completely.

Jonathan,

This statement of purpose approaches dangerously close to proselytization if it doesn't cross the line entirely.  Please note in the following policy statement from Fr. Anastasios that this is not permitted on OC.net except via private messages.  Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.


Proselytism and Forum Plugging hereby banned (created "NC" Nov 24, 2003)

Friends,

From now on, banners in signatures to other forums are not allowed although you may link to another forum or website in your signature, without comment.

From now on, you may not advertise your other web forum on our forum.  Links to threads on other forums are allowed, however, if they are pertinent to discussions here.

Proselytizing people to your jurisdiction is no longer allowed.  I don't care if it is the GOA or the ROAC, we don't exist to give spiritual advice, but rather to discuss spiritual matters. There is a healthy distinction.  If you feel the need to plug your group then do it by private message.

You may not private message others to solicit them to join your forum, however.  We have the ability to read other people's private messages (this is disclosed in the member agreement you sign when joining the forum) and we don't do that usually, but we can, and we will, if we think you are trying to lure people away from our site.

Thank you for your understanding in this matter.  From a human standpoint I would be lying if I said that some people in particular did not precipitate this action BUT at the same time there have been others over the past 1.5 years who have done this as well, so it is not just based on a knee-jerk reaction.

Stay tuned for an even more indepth statement on proselytism to be issued soon by all of us Admins.

anastasios
ADMIN

[witega]

The following is from St John of Damascus 'Concerning heresies'

83. The Egyptians, who are also called Schematics and Monophysites:
separated from the Orthodox Church on the pretext of the document approved at
Chalcedon and known as the Tome. They have been called Egyptians, because it was
the Egyptians who first started this form of heresy during the reigns of the Emperors
Marcian and Valentinian; in every other way they are Orthodox. Because they were attached to Dioscoros of Alexandria, who was deposed by the Synod in Chalcedon for
advocating the teachings of Eutyches, they opposed the Synod and fabricated countless
charges against it to the best of their ability. We have taken up these charges in this
book and sufficiently refuted them, showing them to be clumsy and stupid. Their
leaders were Theodosios of Alexandria, from whom derive the Theodosians, and James
[Baradaios] of Syria, from whom the Jacobites derive. Privy to them, and supporters and
champions, were Severos, the corrupter from Antioch, and John [Philoponos] the
Tritheite, who toiled on vain things; they denied the mystery of our common salvation.
They wrote many things against the God-inspired teaching of the 630 Fathers of
Chalcedon, and laid many snares, so to speak, and “stumbling blocks by the path”
(Psalm 139:6) for those who were perishing by their pernicious heresy. Nevertheless,
even though they teach that there are particular substances, they confound the mystery
of the Incarnation. We considered it necessary to discuss their impiety in brief, adding
short notes in refutation of their godless and abominable heresy. I shall set forth the
teachings, or rather, ravings, of their champion John, in which they take so much
pride.

Clearly St John does not agree with you or Patriarch Bartholomew on the Orthodoxy of the Copts and Armenians.

Given the moderator cautions, I am not sure it is possible to productively continue this discussion within the boundaries established for this board. I will only say that St. John of Damascus wrote that 1000 years ago. I certainly assume that he was correct about the Monophysites of his day. But I, and I don't think Patriarch Bartholomew, am not talking about Non-Chalcedonians that lived 1000 years ago. I'm talking about the non-Chalcedonians who are alive today and whom I have spoken to. The Latins of today do not believe the same things they believed 500 years ago much less 1000 years ago. Why presume the non-Chalcedonians do? The only way to demonstrate that the Patriarch is wrong is to find evidence that the theological position of the current non-Chalcedonian Churches are in fact heretical by the standards of all 7 Ecumenical Councils.

[Irish Hermit]

Anyway, are you going to answer my question or pretend you didn't see it?

I ran back through your messages and these were the first questions I found:

JG:  Are you saying you would believe I am Orthodox if I believed you were Orthodox?

No.

JG: If a Catholic ecumenist claimed you as a brother, following his legalistic understanding of sacraments performed outside the Church, would you then be compelled to claim him as a brother in return?

No.

JG: My response of course is that my church is the true Eastern Orthodox church and it is your jurisdiction that has turned its back. So where does that leave us?

It leaves us with your belief that your Church is the true Eastern Orthodox Church and that my Church has "turned its back" as you phrase it.

Would you substantiate your statement about the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad which is my "jurisdiction" with an official statement of your Synod of bishops?

I forgot what statement you're referring to.

Your statement above that my "jurisdiction" has "turned its back"  which presumably means that you accuse my Church of having apostasized from Orthodoxy.  As I understand Forum rules, you are required to provide some official substantiating reference when you engage in such accusations and labelling.

[Irish Hermit]

Oh and the question I want you to answer is: how do you resolve the contradictions in your own church?

To help you answer this question, you might consider the following: Does Patriarch Bartholomew believe that the Orthodox Church is the Body of Christ in and of itself? If so, why does he speak of restoring the unity of the Church, if it was never lost?

I think that he really means the restoration of unity to a divided Christendom.

Why does he say theology does not divide us from the non-Chalcedonians, when they still teach that Christ has one nature, whereas the truth according to the Council of Chalcedon is that He has two natures?

The non-Chalcedonians have made strenuous efforts, in particular in dialogue with the Church of Rome, to show that their Christology is not what Rome and the Orthodox have always thought it was.    It is obviously important to them to demonstrate that their Christology conforms to ours.   Not being a theologian my head starts to spin when I consider these matters (the madness which Saint Gregory warns awaits those who try to delve into the Trinity?)  I await to hear word from my Church (and also from the Holy Mountain.)   

Why has the Ecumenical Patriarch lifted the anathemas against the Pope, when the Pope has not renounced the heresies for which he was anathematized?

The Pope was not anathematized back in 1054.   The Patriarch Michael Cerularius excommunicated merely Cardinal Humbert and the other two Roman legates.  It is a piece of mythology that the Pope was anathematized.  It is an even worse piece of nonsense to pretend to "lift" a non-existent anathema.  I take it as a mere PR exercise and a sign of goodwill, a sign that Rome and Constantinople were hoping to establish better future relationships.

[minasoliman]

Just a word in the middle here....non-Chalcedonians never liked John Philoponus either.

The non-Chalcedonians have made strenuous efforts, in particular in dialogue with the Church of Rome, to show that their Christology is not what Rome and the Orthodox have always thought it was.    It is obviously important to them to demonstrate that their Christology conforms to ours.   Not being a theologian my head starts to spin when I consider these matters (the madness which Saint Gregory warns awaits those who try to delve into the Trinity?)  I await to hear word from my Church (and also from the Holy Mountain.)   

Also, another correction here.  It's not "obviously" important to us to demonstrate that our Christology conforms to yours, but rather it's important to us to clear the air of what we perceive to be misunderstandings of our Christology.  You make it seem as if non-Chalcedonians are desperate for something, Father.

God bless.

[Irish Hermit]

The non-Chalcedonians have made strenuous efforts, in particular in dialogue with the Church of Rome, to show that their Christology is not what Rome and the Orthodox have always thought it was.    It is obviously important to them to demonstrate that their Christology conforms to ours.   Not being a theologian my head starts to spin when I consider these matters (the madness which Saint Gregory warns awaits those who try to delve into the Trinity?)  I await to hear word from my Church (and also from the Holy Mountain.)   

Also, another correction here.  It's not "obviously" important to us to demonstrate that our Christology conforms to yours, but rather it's important to us to clear the air of what we perceive to be misunderstandings of our Christology.  You make it seem as if non-Chalcedonians are desperate for something, Father.

God bless.

Apologies.  My prime concern was to "justify" to Jonathan the cordial attitude of the Patriarch of Constantinople towards Oriental Christology and to attempt to show to him that he should not be calling the Patriarch a heretic for "publicly preaching heresy" (message #131.)    This would play into Jonathan's desire to persuade us to abandon the EP and move to a "True Orthodox" Church since the public preaching of heresy permits us to renounce a hierarch, according to the canons.  It was really to cut off that argument that I wrote as I did.

[ialmisry]

You can only argue that if you deny that the Chalcedonian definition has any dogmatic import. The Council said that if you believe the truth about Christ, you must confess Him to have two natures. You can't confess him to have one nature and then turn around and say 'well, by one nature I mean two natures'. I doesn't wash.

Was St. Cyril a heretic?
If not, then anyone who believes exactly as St. Cyril did cannot be a heretic. And if Chalcedon contradicted Ephesus, then the non-Chalcedonians would be correct to reject it. We do not believe in development of dogma; the Holy Fathers of Chalcedon did not introduce any element of Faith which was not already present in the teaching of Ephesus. Chalcedon was correct to the extent and *only* to the extent that it was a clarification of the doctrine already held by St. Cyril and Fathers of Ephesus--who in turn were only correct to the extent and only to the extent that their doctrine was only a clarification of what was held by the Apostles.

If the non-Chalcedonians reject Chalcedon because they do not understand that it teaches the same faith as Ephesus, then they are incorrect--but they are incorrect because *they* believe there is a theological difference when there is in fact no such difference. If the non-Chalcedonians reject Chalcedon for non-doctrinal reasons, then they are schismatics but not heretics. And if they reject Chalcedon because they misunderstand Ephesus (as Eutyches certainly did), then they are heretics. But I don't read minds. I can only go by what people say, and so far every Non-Chalcedonian I have spoken too has fallen into the first or second groups.

Your reasoning is very subtle but still doesn't wash. Think about it: if the council of Chalcedon, whose authority you can hardly dispute, had to clarify St Cyril's teaching, then any other interpretation of Cyril not based on Chalcedon is a false interpretation. You can't say 'I believe in St Cyril's teaching' while rejecting the Chalcedonian definition, because the Chalcedonian definition is the only correct way to express St Cyril's teaching.

The following is from St John of Damascus 'Concerning heresies'

83. The Egyptians, who are also called Schematics and Monophysites:
separated from the Orthodox Church on the pretext of the document approved at
Chalcedon and known as the Tome. They have been called Egyptians, because it was
the Egyptians who first started this form of heresy during the reigns of the Emperors
Marcian and Valentinian; in every other way they are Orthodox. Because they were attached to Dioscoros of Alexandria, who was deposed by the Synod in Chalcedon for
advocating the teachings of Eutyches, they opposed the Synod and fabricated countless
charges against it to the best of their ability. We have taken up these charges in this
book and sufficiently refuted them, showing them to be clumsy and stupid. Their
leaders were Theodosios of Alexandria, from whom derive the Theodosians, and James
[Baradaios] of Syria, from whom the Jacobites derive. Privy to them, and supporters and
champions, were Severos, the corrupter from Antioch, and John [Philoponos] the
Tritheite, who toiled on vain things; they denied the mystery of our common salvation.
They wrote many things against the God-inspired teaching of the 630 Fathers of
Chalcedon, and laid many snares, so to speak, and “stumbling blocks by the path”
(Psalm 139:6) for those who were perishing by their pernicious heresy. Nevertheless,
even though they teach that there are particular substances, they confound the mystery
of the Incarnation. We considered it necessary to discuss their impiety in brief, adding
short notes in refutation of their godless and abominable heresy. I shall set forth the
teachings, or rather, ravings, of their champion John, in which they take so much
pride.

Clearly St John does not agree with you or Patriarch Bartholomew on the Orthodoxy of the Copts and Armenians.

To get back to your comment on Pope St. Cyril: St. Cyril also called St. John Chrysostom a Judas, and he had taken part in the synod of the Oaks. Obviously, the Church took a different position on St. John, different from that of St. Cyril and his uncle Pope Theophilos.  Yet the Church canonized both Cyril and John.

[minasoliman]

You can only argue that if you deny that the Chalcedonian definition has any dogmatic import. The Council said that if you believe the truth about Christ, you must confess Him to have two natures. You can't confess him to have one nature and then turn around and say 'well, by one nature I mean two natures'. I doesn't wash.

Was St. Cyril a heretic?
If not, then anyone who believes exactly as St. Cyril did cannot be a heretic. And if Chalcedon contradicted Ephesus, then the non-Chalcedonians would be correct to reject it. We do not believe in development of dogma; the Holy Fathers of Chalcedon did not introduce any element of Faith which was not already present in the teaching of Ephesus. Chalcedon was correct to the extent and *only* to the extent that it was a clarification of the doctrine already held by St. Cyril and Fathers of Ephesus--who in turn were only correct to the extent and only to the extent that their doctrine was only a clarification of what was held by the Apostles.

If the non-Chalcedonians reject Chalcedon because they do not understand that it teaches the same faith as Ephesus, then they are incorrect--but they are incorrect because *they* believe there is a theological difference when there is in fact no such difference. If the non-Chalcedonians reject Chalcedon for non-doctrinal reasons, then they are schismatics but not heretics. And if they reject Chalcedon because they misunderstand Ephesus (as Eutyches certainly did), then they are heretics. But I don't read minds. I can only go by what people say, and so far every Non-Chalcedonian I have spoken too has fallen into the first or second groups.

Your reasoning is very subtle but still doesn't wash. Think about it: if the council of Chalcedon, whose authority you can hardly dispute, had to clarify St Cyril's teaching, then any other interpretation of Cyril not based on Chalcedon is a false interpretation. You can't say 'I believe in St Cyril's teaching' while rejecting the Chalcedonian definition, because the Chalcedonian definition is the only correct way to express St Cyril's teaching.

The following is from St John of Damascus 'Concerning heresies'

83. The Egyptians, who are also called Schematics and Monophysites:
separated from the Orthodox Church on the pretext of the document approved at
Chalcedon and known as the Tome. They have been called Egyptians, because it was
the Egyptians who first started this form of heresy during the reigns of the Emperors
Marcian and Valentinian; in every other way they are Orthodox. Because they were attached to Dioscoros of Alexandria, who was deposed by the Synod in Chalcedon for
advocating the teachings of Eutyches, they opposed the Synod and fabricated countless
charges against it to the best of their ability. We have taken up these charges in this
book and sufficiently refuted them, showing them to be clumsy and stupid. Their
leaders were Theodosios of Alexandria, from whom derive the Theodosians, and James
[Baradaios] of Syria, from whom the Jacobites derive. Privy to them, and supporters and
champions, were Severos, the corrupter from Antioch, and John [Philoponos] the
Tritheite, who toiled on vain things; they denied the mystery of our common salvation.
They wrote many things against the God-inspired teaching of the 630 Fathers of
Chalcedon, and laid many snares, so to speak, and “stumbling blocks by the path”
(Psalm 139:6) for those who were perishing by their pernicious heresy. Nevertheless,
even though they teach that there are particular substances, they confound the mystery
of the Incarnation. We considered it necessary to discuss their impiety in brief, adding
short notes in refutation of their godless and abominable heresy. I shall set forth the
teachings, or rather, ravings, of their champion John, in which they take so much
pride.

Clearly St John does not agree with you or Patriarch Bartholomew on the Orthodoxy of the Copts and Armenians.

To get back to your comment on Pope St. Cyril: St. Cyril also called St. John Chrysostom a Judas, and he had taken part in the synod of the Oaks. Obviously, the Church took a different position on St. John, different from that of St. Cyril and his uncle Pope Theophilos.  Yet the Church canonized both Cyril and John.

I've always thought of the same argument, but from what I understand from the Coptic Church, many Coptic heirarchs have taught that St. Cyril eventually did venerate the memory of St. John Chrysostom.  I don't know how verifiable this claim is though.

[PeterTheAleut]

Anyway, are you going to answer my question or pretend you didn't see it?

I ran back through your messages and these were the first questions I found:

JG:  Are you saying you would believe I am Orthodox if I believed you were Orthodox?

No.

JG: If a Catholic ecumenist claimed you as a brother, following his legalistic understanding of sacraments performed outside the Church, would you then be compelled to claim him as a brother in return?

No.

JG: My response of course is that my church is the true Eastern Orthodox church and it is your jurisdiction that has turned its back. So where does that leave us?

It leaves us with your belief that your Church is the true Eastern Orthodox Church and that my Church has "turned its back" as you phrase it.

Would you substantiate your statement about the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad which is my "jurisdiction" with an official statement of your Synod of bishops?

I forgot what statement you're referring to.

Your statement above that my "jurisdiction" has "turned its back"  which presumably means that you accuse my Church of having apostasized from Orthodoxy.  As I understand Forum rules, you are required to provide some official substantiating reference when you engage in such accusations and labelling.

Irish Hermit, please let me handle this situation as I see fit.  I don't want you acting in any way to moderate other participants in this discussion.

[ialmisry]

You can only argue that if you deny that the Chalcedonian definition has any dogmatic import. The Council said that if you believe the truth about Christ, you must confess Him to have two natures. You can't confess him to have one nature and then turn around and say 'well, by one nature I mean two natures'. I doesn't wash.

Was St. Cyril a heretic?
If not, then anyone who believes exactly as St. Cyril did cannot be a heretic. And if Chalcedon contradicted Ephesus, then the non-Chalcedonians would be correct to reject it. We do not believe in development of dogma; the Holy Fathers of Chalcedon did not introduce any element of Faith which was not already present in the teaching of Ephesus. Chalcedon was correct to the extent and *only* to the extent that it was a clarification of the doctrine already held by St. Cyril and Fathers of Ephesus--who in turn were only correct to the extent and only to the extent that their doctrine was only a clarification of what was held by the Apostles.

If the non-Chalcedonians reject Chalcedon because they do not understand that it teaches the same faith as Ephesus, then they are incorrect--but they are incorrect because *they* believe there is a theological difference when there is in fact no such difference. If the non-Chalcedonians reject Chalcedon for non-doctrinal reasons, then they are schismatics but not heretics. And if they reject Chalcedon because they misunderstand Ephesus (as Eutyches certainly did), then they are heretics. But I don't read minds. I can only go by what people say, and so far every Non-Chalcedonian I have spoken too has fallen into the first or second groups.

Your reasoning is very subtle but still doesn't wash. Think about it: if the council of Chalcedon, whose authority you can hardly dispute, had to clarify St Cyril's teaching, then any other interpretation of Cyril not based on Chalcedon is a false interpretation. You can't say 'I believe in St Cyril's teaching' while rejecting the Chalcedonian definition, because the Chalcedonian definition is the only correct way to express St Cyril's teaching.

The following is from St John of Damascus 'Concerning heresies'

83. The Egyptians, who are also called Schematics and Monophysites:
separated from the Orthodox Church on the pretext of the document approved at
Chalcedon and known as the Tome. They have been called Egyptians, because it was
the Egyptians who first started this form of heresy during the reigns of the Emperors
Marcian and Valentinian; in every other way they are Orthodox. Because they were attached to Dioscoros of Alexandria, who was deposed by the Synod in Chalcedon for
advocating the teachings of Eutyches, they opposed the Synod and fabricated countless
charges against it to the best of their ability. We have taken up these charges in this
book and sufficiently refuted them, showing them to be clumsy and stupid. Their
leaders were Theodosios of Alexandria, from whom derive the Theodosians, and James
[Baradaios] of Syria, from whom the Jacobites derive. Privy to them, and supporters and
champions, were Severos, the corrupter from Antioch, and John [Philoponos] the
Tritheite, who toiled on vain things; they denied the mystery of our common salvation.
They wrote many things against the God-inspired teaching of the 630 Fathers of
Chalcedon, and laid many snares, so to speak, and “stumbling blocks by the path”
(Psalm 139:6) for those who were perishing by their pernicious heresy. Nevertheless,
even though they teach that there are particular substances, they confound the mystery
of the Incarnation. We considered it necessary to discuss their impiety in brief, adding
short notes in refutation of their godless and abominable heresy. I shall set forth the
teachings, or rather, ravings, of their champion John, in which they take so much
pride.

Clearly St John does not agree with you or Patriarch Bartholomew on the Orthodoxy of the Copts and Armenians.

To get back to your comment on Pope St. Cyril: St. Cyril also called St. John Chrysostom a Judas, and he had taken part in the synod of the Oaks. Obviously, the Church took a different position on St. John, different from that of St. Cyril and his uncle Pope Theophilos.  Yet the Church canonized both Cyril and John.

I've always thought of the same argument, but from what I understand from the Coptic Church, many Coptic heirarchs have taught that St. Cyril eventually did venerate the memory of St. John Chrysostom.  I don't know how verifiable this claim is though.

Mr. Gress doesn't have the Coptic hierarchs to rely upon (heresy and all that), so I want to know how he gets out of this cult-de-sac.

[ialmisry]

I just got a copy of St. Cyril's "On the Unity of Christ."  We of course believe it (us world Orthodox that is).  The Copts believe it.  Care to explain the difference, Mr. Gress?

[PeterTheAleut]

I just got a copy of St. Cyril's "On the Unity of Christ."  We of course believe it (us world Orthodox that is).  The Copts believe it.  Care to explain the difference, Mr. Gress?

Do you wish to discuss Chalcedon, or do you wish to discuss how Chalcedon should shape our understanding of ecumenism?  This is a significant distinction.

[Irish Hermit]

Here is an excellent article from the Holy Mountain, from the sacred monastery of Gregoriou,  dealing with Ecumenism.  It refutes the argumentation sometimes presented on this Forum that because of the calendar issue and ecumenism -two issues which usually overlap in people's minds - one is justified in leaving the Eastern Orthodox Church.  The article upholds the position of those who do not separate from the canonical Churches.  It is worth serious consideration by those on both sides of the question.

"Schismatic Old-Calendarism is an anti-Patristic stance"
http://www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/sxismata/antipater1.htm#_Toc135058238

Introduction:
An article by fr. Nicholas Demaras was published in the periodical "Aghioi Kollyvades" (The Kollyvades Saints")[1], in which the Sacred Monastery of Saint Gregory was criticized for its stance against Ecumenism and Zealotry.

The reason for my action was the entirely inappropriate ecclesiological stance that the schismatic Zealots and other, so-called "Genuine Orthodox Christian" Old Calendarists had adopted...

I had first-hand experience near the otherwise sympathetic and virtuous zealot fathers, and I have every respect for their piety, their love for monastic living and their fighting spirit. However, I discerned that they are upholding an anti-canonical schism, and they are also misinterpreting the teaching of the holy Fathers and ecclesiastic history...

Chapter Headings:

A. PATRISTIC TEACHING
·         1. On condemned heretics
·         2. On those who unite themselves to condemned heretics
·         3. On those who preach heresy
·         4. On those who violate the sacred Canons
B. ECUMENISM AND ZEALOTRY
·         1. The Zealots’ misconstrued evaluation of Ecumenism
·         2. Similar phenomena of the past
·         3. Encouraging moves
·         4. Contemporary Zealotry
C. THE CASE OF SAINT SOPHRONIUS

[minasoliman]

The non-Chalcedonians have made strenuous efforts, in particular in dialogue with the Church of Rome, to show that their Christology is not what Rome and the Orthodox have always thought it was.    It is obviously important to them to demonstrate that their Christology conforms to ours.   Not being a theologian my head starts to spin when I consider these matters (the madness which Saint Gregory warns awaits those who try to delve into the Trinity?)  I await to hear word from my Church (and also from the Holy Mountain.)   

Also, another correction here.  It's not "obviously" important to us to demonstrate that our Christology conforms to yours, but rather it's important to us to clear the air of what we perceive to be misunderstandings of our Christology.  You make it seem as if non-Chalcedonians are desperate for something, Father.

God bless.

Apologies.  My prime concern was to "justify" to Jonathan the cordial attitude of the Patriarch of Constantinople towards Oriental Christology and to attempt to show to him that he should not be calling the Patriarch a heretic for "publicly preaching heresy" (message #131.)    This would play into Jonathan's desire to persuade us to abandon the EP and move to a "True Orthodox" Church since the public preaching of heresy permits us to renounce a hierarch, according to the canons.  It was really to cut off that argument that I wrote as I did.

Understandable.  Indeed, all we ever began to ask for was simply cordiality in at least discussing these.  One of our Coptic metropolitans offered to have a discussion with the monks of Mt. Athos, and according to this Metropolitan, he received nothing but insults, to him and to the Church.  I always got the impression before that story that they were against making certain decisions.  Now, it seems to me they're against discussions at all.

[Irish Hermit]

I do not think that in this thread anyone has attempted to define ecumenism.  A definition is needed since ecumenism comes in multiple varieties and ranges from the good to the bad.

We would do well to look to Saint Mark of Ephesus as our holy model of good ecumenism in our dialogue with non-Orthodox Churches.

Was he against isolationism -  Yes!     Saint Mark made the difficult journey of thousands of miles to attend a great  "ecumenical" council of Roman Catholics, Byzantine Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox which had been convened in Italy by the Pope of Rome.  He did not isolate himself and refuse to go into the lion's den and discuss disputed theology.  He was actually chosen by the Pope to deliver the keynote lecture when the Council opened in Florence.  These days he would be anathematized for his attendance at Florence by many of the GOC and TOC Churches.

Was he against confessional mix and confusion:  Yes!     Saint Mark of Ephesus refused to accept that the Church could exist as a confessional mix of all the Churches present at the Council he attended in Florence Italy.  The Church could not be a mix of Catholics under the Pope, the Byzantine Orthodox in communion with Constantinople, the Coptic Orthodox, the Ethiopian Orthodox and the other Churches at Florence.


Let us look to Saint Mark as an example and model of how we ourselves should act in a modern "ecumenical" situation - on the one hand, willing to talk so that the desire of Christ to have those who love Him in old sheepfold is alive and able to be realised, and on the other hand not willing to compromise our faith and create theological or confessional mix.

When one looks at the involvement of the Russian Orthodox Church we see that the principles of engagement evidenced by Saint Mark are adhered to by the Russian Church.  The Russian Church has not wavered on one iota of the Orthodox Faith.  And when one looks at the Athonite article I have linked in the previous message above, it is clear that Saint Mark's position is still operative on the Holy Mountain.

See:
"St. Mark of Ephesus: A True Ecumenist"
by Fr. Alexey Young

http://www.roca.org/OA/26/26f.htm

Fr Ambrose

[simplygermain]

^Man! That was a great article.
Holy St. Mark of E. Pray to God for Us.
Holy St. Justin P. Pray to God for Us.

May we come to a knowledge of the faith, as these men know. +

[Jonathan Gress]

I absolutely agree that St Mark is a model for us.

There's nothing wrong with dialog. If you think I am against dialog, then I am sorry for the misunderstanding. What I am against is joining organizations whose founding principles contravene the Orthodox faith (i.e. the WCC); lifting the anathemas against the Pope, when the Pope hasn't abandoned the teachings for which he was anathematized, as the Ecumenical Patriarch did in December, 1965; declaring that the Orthodox and the non-Chalcedonians share the same faith, and that consequently communion between the two is permitted, when the latter have not accepted the Orthodox faith as defined by the Fourth and subsequent Ecumenical Councils (as the Synod of Antioch did in June, 1991).

[minasoliman]

I absolutely agree that St Mark is a model for us.

There's nothing wrong with dialog. If you think I am against dialog, then I am sorry for the misunderstanding. What I am against is joining organizations whose founding principles contravene the Orthodox faith (i.e. the WCC); lifting the anathemas against the Pope, when the Pope hasn't abandoned the teachings for which he was anathematized, as the Ecumenical Patriarch did in December, 1965; declaring that the Orthodox and the non-Chalcedonians share the same faith, and that consequently communion between the two is permitted, when the latter have not accepted the Orthodox faith as defined by the Fourth and subsequent Ecumenical Councils (as the Synod of Antioch did in June, 1991).

To my knowledge the Pro Oriente has nothing to do with the WCC.  This is a specifically unique dialogue in which we don't rush for unity, but we assess the situations carefully.  I think the problem is two things:  1.  No one on the "ultra-traditionalist" side has done honest research to assess the dialogues that occurred between the EO's and OO's, and I stress the word "honest," since some of the articles I read really was filled with dishonesty.  2.  The EO's and OO's seem to be sluggish to trying to address those issues, in my opinion, and find themselves sidetracking into other issues, as well as causing disunity within themselves for various reasons.

I used to be quite active in trying to dispel some of the stuff spewed against us.  Now, I'm just sick and tired of trying because although I am trying to follow in on the recommendations of the results of the meetings, the heirarchs don't seem to do that much.  So forgive me if you perceived from me as some immature jokester earlier in my posts against you.  I do so only because you are not the first in this website to address these issues.  I suggest you read the private thread concerning the EO/OO debates in hopes that it may open your mind a bit to the one-sided vile and deceptions you receive from your own group.  Then maybe, you will be able to humble yourself, and find yourself guilty for bearing false witness against the perceived "ecumenists" in your eyes.  You can't lump sum every single cleric involved in dialogues as an ecumenist.  Do the research, and don't jump to conclusions, or you'll end up embarrassing yourself.

God bless.

[Jonathan Gress]

minasoliman, I am sorry if I have offended you personally. I respect your decision to maintain your own beliefs. I don't believe in lying for the sake of Orthodoxy, and I am not opposed, as I have said, to dialog. I don't believe participation in dialog constitutes ecumenism.

However, one thing I cannot swerve from, and that is my firm belief that the true and saving dogmas of the Orthodox faith have been bequeathed to us by the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and that any deviation from the dogmas defined by those Councils only results in separation from the Church.

[simplygermain]

To my knowledge the Pro Oriente has nothing to do with the WCC.  This is a specifically unique dialogue in which we don't rush for unity, but we assess the situations carefully.  I think the problem is two things:  1.  No one on the "ultra-traditionalist" side has done honest research to assess the dialogues that occurred between the EO's and OO's, and I stress the word "honest," since some of the articles I read really was filled with dishonesty.  2.  The EO's and OO's seem to be sluggish to trying to address those issues, in my opinion, and find themselves sidetracking into other issues, as well as causing disunity within themselves for various reasons.

I used to be quite active in trying to dispel some of the stuff spewed against us.  Now, I'm just sick and tired of trying because although I am trying to follow in on the recommendations of the results of the meetings, the heirarchs don't seem to do that much.  So forgive me if you perceived from me as some immature jokester earlier in my posts against you.  I do so only because you are not the first in this website to address these issues.  I suggest you read the private thread concerning the EO/OO debates in hopes that it may open your mind a bit to the one-sided vile and deceptions you receive from your own group.  Then maybe, you will be able to humble yourself, and find yourself guilty for bearing false witness against the perceived "ecumenists" in your eyes.  You can't lump sum every single cleric involved in dialogues as an ecumenist.  Do the research, and don't jump to conclusions, or you'll end up embarrassing yourself.

God bless.

We share the same frustrations Minasoliman. Sometimes I wish I could find a good Ethiopian Tewahedo Church in my area to go to. It seems they have a balanced model.

[minasoliman]

minasoliman, I am sorry if I have offended you personally. I respect your decision to maintain your own beliefs. I don't believe in lying for the sake of Orthodoxy, and I am not opposed, as I have said, to dialog. I don't believe participation in dialog constitutes ecumenism.

However, one thing I cannot swerve from, and that is my firm belief that the true and saving dogmas of the Orthodox faith have been bequeathed to us by the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and that any deviation from the dogmas defined by those Councils only results in separation from the Church.

That's fair enough.  I am not telling you to leave your faith, nor do I want to convince you to agree with the so-called "Ecumenists."  I just don't want you to blindly follow a bunch of articles without you doing the heavy duty research yourself.  And even if you still maintain your loyalty to your faction, at least I want you to have a sense of a rewarding feeling and a better appreciation of why you believe the things you believe.

God bless you.

[Jonathan Gress]

minasoliman, I am sorry if I have offended you personally. I respect your decision to maintain your own beliefs. I don't believe in lying for the sake of Orthodoxy, and I am not opposed, as I have said, to dialog. I don't believe participation in dialog constitutes ecumenism.

However, one thing I cannot swerve from, and that is my firm belief that the true and saving dogmas of the Orthodox faith have been bequeathed to us by the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and that any deviation from the dogmas defined by those Councils only results in separation from the Church.

That's fair enough.  I am not telling you to leave your faith, nor do I want to convince you to agree with the so-called "Ecumenists."  I just don't want you to blindly follow a bunch of articles without you doing the heavy duty research yourself.  And even if you still maintain your loyalty to your faction, at least I want you to have a sense of a rewarding feeling and a better appreciation of why you believe the things you believe.

God bless you.

One thing I object to in this is that the implication that to uphold the dogmas of Chalcedon and subsequent Councils is the merely the predilection of some 'faction'. It is in fact the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church. Other than that, I absolutely agree that research is important. The problem comes when certain theologians come to the conclusion that the dogmatic definitions of the Church are mere words and not necessary for salvation.

[minasoliman]

minasoliman, I am sorry if I have offended you personally. I respect your decision to maintain your own beliefs. I don't believe in lying for the sake of Orthodoxy, and I am not opposed, as I have said, to dialog. I don't believe participation in dialog constitutes ecumenism.

However, one thing I cannot swerve from, and that is my firm belief that the true and saving dogmas of the Orthodox faith have been bequeathed to us by the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and that any deviation from the dogmas defined by those Councils only results in separation from the Church.

That's fair enough.  I am not telling you to leave your faith, nor do I want to convince you to agree with the so-called "Ecumenists."  I just don't want you to blindly follow a bunch of articles without you doing the heavy duty research yourself.  And even if you still maintain your loyalty to your faction, at least I want you to have a sense of a rewarding feeling and a better appreciation of why you believe the things you believe.

God bless you.

One thing I object to in this is that the implication that to uphold the dogmas of Chalcedon and subsequent Councils is the merely the predilection of some 'faction'. It is in fact the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church. Other than that, I absolutely agree that research is important. The problem comes when certain theologians come to the conclusion that the dogmatic definitions of the Church are mere words and not necessary for salvation.

I don't understand.  Is the word "faction" offending?  I only meant it as the group you are part of.  Call your group "the Orthodox Church", fine.  The important thing is I'm not debating Chalcedon with you.  That was not my intention.  And you still don't seem to get it.  You agree research is important, but you make an blanket assumption right after that.  There's a whole slew of issues you have to research, such as "Can I verify that 'certain theologians' don't take dogmatic definitions seriously?"  "Can I verify that the concensus of the Orthodox church fathers really wanted people to follow in an inerrant fashion every iota of an ecumenical council?"  "Do I even know what happened in these councils?"  "What does the other side believe in rebuttal to the claims made by their opposing division?"  In other words, don't make blanket claims unless you can back them up yourself.

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, those "certain theologians" treat the dogmatic definitions of the Church very seriously, instead of stereotypically lump summing everyone again?

God bless.

[Salpy]

Give it a rest, Mina.     Our EO friends view the 7 Councils the way the Evangelicals view the Bible.  Thus our favorite poster down in the private forum can venerate Nestorius and still be Orthodox, since he has seven councils, whereas you and I are heretics, even if we believe exactly as St. Cyril did.  It's a matter of allegiance to a set number of councils, over what is actually believed.  It's their way, and we're not going to change it.  We just have a different way of viewing councils.

I think what we see among some of our EO friends is an unquestioning allegiance to some of their earlier Church Fathers.  They don't want to question them, or admit the possibility that they may have made some mistakes, along with all the good that they undoubtedly did.  I can kind of respect that, although it is somehow different from how we deal with things.  I think that is what prevents the monks of Mt. Athos from even engaging in dialogue, and why you and I really can't get beyond a certain point in our discussions with some persons here on this forum.

Personally, I think if it is God's will that we are one day reunited, it will happen.  Until then we can try our best to dialogue with those who are willing.

[minasoliman]

Ya, but what I don't understand is that there should always be an instinct to be AT LEAST moved with some zeal to defend their Church fathers from being accused of making alleged mistakes with some sound research.  Instead, they just put their fingers in their ears and say "bla bla bla bla" not wanting to know how we justify such claims.  I was always brought up with a curiosity to understand what they said about us, and how I can try to study to defend us and understand why they say that about us.  I was hoping at least our friend Jonathan can get that, rather than make assumptions as if he knows something already.

[Jonathan Gress]

My point about 'certain theologians' needs no other substantiation than the existence of the decision of the Antiochian Synod in 1991 to recognize the mysteries of the non-Chalcedonian church. This was only possible since they had already determined that there was no difference in faith between the Orthodox and the non-Chalcedonians, and that determination depends upon the disregard of the Chalcedonian dogma of Christ's two natures as necessary for salvation. If the hierarchs at Antioch had upheld the dogma of Chalcedon, they would not have been able to recognize the mysteries of the non-Chalcedonians, because the non-Chalcedonians, as the label indicates, have not accepted the dogma of Chalcedon.

Regarding your question about iotas:

“…Be it known unto thee that even the slightest rejection of things
which have been transmitted will bring contempt upon the entire
doctrine.” “…Even if one alter the least part of it (religion and the
Faith), one does a great act of unseemliness and immediately receives
censure…” (4th and 6th Epistles of Photius the Great).

“All these things are truly common unto all and it is necessary before
all else to guard those things which pertain to the Faith, from which, if
one turns aside but a little, one sins a sin that is unto death” (Letter of
St. Photius the Great to Pope Nicholas).

“We would prefer to shed our blood rather than add one iota” (St.
Sabbas the Sanctified to the Emperor Anastasius).

“Do not speak to me of James and John, for even if one of the first
angels of heaven corrupts the doctrine, let him be anathema. Now he
(Paul) did not say: ‘if they proclaim things which are contrary’ or ‘if
they preach any other gospel than that which we have preached unto
you’ (Gal. 1:8), -- even if they altered anything whatever, ‘let them be
anathema’” (St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on Galatians).

“We shall in no wise permit either ourselves or any one else to change
those things set down here or to change even one word or one
syllable” (Fourth Ecumenical Council).

“He is a heretic and is subject to the laws concerning heretics who
deviates in the slightest degree from the right Faith” (George
Scholarius, later Patriarch Gennadius of Constantinople).

“It is necessary to drive from the communion of the Church, not only
those who think erroneously concerning primary matters and the essentials concerning the Mysteries, but also those who sin against
secondary things; we reject these likewise as being teachers of ‘evil
doctrines’” (Athanasius of Paros, Epitomy, Ch 7).

[simplygermain]

Give it a rest, Mina.     Our EO friends view the 7 Councils the way the Evangelicals view the Bible.  Thus our favorite poster down in the private forum can venerate Nestorius and still be Orthodox, since he has seven councils, whereas you and I are heretics, even if we believe exactly as St. Cyril did.  It's a matter of allegiance to a set number of councils, over what is actually believed.  It's their way, and we're not going to change it.  We just have a different way of viewing councils.

I think what we see among some of our EO friends is an unquestioning allegiance to some of their earlier Church Fathers.  They don't want to question them, or admit the possibility that they may have made some mistakes, along with all the good that they undoubtedly did.  I can kind of respect that, although it is somehow different from how we deal with things.  I think that is what prevents the monks of Mt. Athos from even engaging in dialogue, and why you and I really can't get beyond a certain point in our discussions with some persons here on this forum.

Personally, I think if it is God's will that we are one day reunited, it will happen.  Until then we can try our best to dialogue with those who are willing.

I know quite a bit of Eo converts on the west coast that view the councils as (although they are tied to them through their particular churches) historical points of reference which even some of the Ec. Councils were predominantly Councils of value to the west and Byzantium...These friends I speak of would also, I'm sure, back me up in saying that the Saints of the church who Anathematized this or that, were still just men. Granted they lived saintly lives but that does not mean that the proclamations made at these Councils were some how Infallible. This is not to say that they somehow got the pronouncement of the faith wrong, but to say that they were hasty in throwing the word heretic aroung without knowing what the other churches were saying.
I have studied much on the OO side of things and can find no fault in the way they speak. But it takes a listening ear, one without preconcieved notions.

[Salpy]

I know quite a bit of Eo converts on the west coast that view the councils as (although they are tied to them through their particular churches) historical points of reference which even some of the Ec. Councils were predominantly Councils of value to the west and Byzantium...These friends I speak of would also, I'm sure, back me up in saying that the Saints of the church who Anathematized this or that, were still just men. Granted they lived saintly lives but that does not mean that the proclamations made at these Councils were some how Infallible.

Forgive me for over-generalizing.   

I do think, however, that the EO's view the concept of an Ecumenical Council and what it is in the life of the Church a little differently than the OO's view it.  I think that may why the OO's tend to be a little more positive toward the idea of ecumenical dialogue.  The difference in how we view ecumenical councils was touched on in a thread in the OO section, but I can't recall where it is.

[minasoliman]

Jonathan,

Another question.  Have you considered that maybe these Antiochian theologians feel that they are not contradicting those quotes you are giving?  Have you considered that maybe the "iota" you're quoting from is not the "iota" I was thinking?

No, of course not.  Obviously, once again, you make assumptions.  Do you notice how many EO's here in this thread could use these quotes against you (in fact, have implied that you are outside the true faith), one of them being Fr. Ambrose?

But you still don't get it.  You don't delve much deeper into the issue because either you're afraid or you like to remain ignorant.

If you still don't get it, Jonathan, Salpy is right.  There's no point in trying to make you understand.

[simplygermain]

I know quite a bit of Eo converts on the west coast that view the councils as (although they are tied to them through their particular churches) historical points of reference which even some of the Ec. Councils were predominantly Councils of value to the west and Byzantium...These friends I speak of would also, I'm sure, back me up in saying that the Saints of the church who Anathematized this or that, were still just men. Granted they lived saintly lives but that does not mean that the proclamations made at these Councils were some how Infallible.

Forgive me for over-generalizing.   

I do think, however, that the EO's view the concept of an Ecumenical Council and what it is in the life of the Church a little differently than the OO's view it.  I think that may why the OO's tend to be a little more positive toward the idea of ecumenical dialogue.  The difference in how we view ecumenical councils was touched on in a thread in the OO section, but I can't recall where it is.

Salpy - would you give a brief explanation?

[Jonathan Gress]

Jonathan,

Another question.  Have you considered that maybe these Antiochian theologians feel that they are not contradicting those quotes you are giving?  Have you considered that maybe the "iota" you're quoting from is not the "iota" I was thinking?

No, of course not.  Obviously, once again, you make assumptions.  Do you notice how many EO's here in this thread could use these quotes against you (in fact, have implied that you are outside the true faith), one of them being Fr. Ambrose?

But you still don't get it.  You don't delve much deeper into the issue because either you're afraid or you like to remain ignorant.

If you still don't get it, Jonathan, Salpy is right.  There's no point in trying to make you understand.

Whether or not they 'feel' they are upholding the dogmas of the Seven Councils, I am demonstrating as an objective fact that they are not upholding them.

I'd be interested to see just how Fr Ambrose uses these quotes against me, considering that I am not in the World Council of Churches, consider the anathemas against the Latin church still to be in force so long as they continue to teach their non-Orthodox doctrines, and that I continue to believe in all the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils and hence do not recognize the Orthodoxy of non-Chalcedonians.

[minasoliman]

Jonathan,

Another question.  Have you considered that maybe these Antiochian theologians feel that they are not contradicting those quotes you are giving?  Have you considered that maybe the "iota" you're quoting from is not the "iota" I was thinking?

No, of course not.  Obviously, once again, you make assumptions.  Do you notice how many EO's here in this thread could use these quotes against you (in fact, have implied that you are outside the true faith), one of them being Fr. Ambrose?

But you still don't get it.  You don't delve much deeper into the issue because either you're afraid or you like to remain ignorant.

If you still don't get it, Jonathan, Salpy is right.  There's no point in trying to make you understand.

Whether or not they 'feel' they are upholding the dogmas of the Seven Councils, I am demonstrating as an objective fact that they are not upholding them.

I'd be interested to see just how Fr Ambrose uses these quotes against me, considering that I am not in the World Council of Churches, consider the anathemas against the Latin church still to be in force so long as they continue to teach their non-Orthodox doctrines, and that I continue to believe in all the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils and hence do not recognize the Orthodoxy of non-Chalcedonians.

Objective?  Hardly!  Objective is trying to understand and address WHY....WHY....again...WHY they believe the way they do, and then make your argument.  Otherwise, you enter into the ranks of trolling.

Fr. Ambrose already explained it to you.  He felt his church does it no differently than St. Mark.

[Jonathan Gress]

Jonathan,

Another question.  Have you considered that maybe these Antiochian theologians feel that they are not contradicting those quotes you are giving?  Have you considered that maybe the "iota" you're quoting from is not the "iota" I was thinking?

No, of course not.  Obviously, once again, you make assumptions.  Do you notice how many EO's here in this thread could use these quotes against you (in fact, have implied that you are outside the true faith), one of them being Fr. Ambrose?

But you still don't get it.  You don't delve much deeper into the issue because either you're afraid or you like to remain ignorant.

If you still don't get it, Jonathan, Salpy is right.  There's no point in trying to make you understand.

Whether or not they 'feel' they are upholding the dogmas of the Seven Councils, I am demonstrating as an objective fact that they are not upholding them.

I'd be interested to see just how Fr Ambrose uses these quotes against me, considering that I am not in the World Council of Churches, consider the anathemas against the Latin church still to be in force so long as they continue to teach their non-Orthodox doctrines, and that I continue to believe in all the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils and hence do not recognize the Orthodoxy of non-Chalcedonians.

Objective?  Hardly!  Objective is trying to understand and address WHY....WHY....again...WHY they believe the way they do, and then make your argument.

Fr. Ambrose already explained it to you.  He felt his church does it no differently than St. Mark.

Well 'why' the Synod of Antioch did what it did is another matter. For that, you can read their statement, and the theological justifications in earlier documents like the statement of the Chambesy conference. But for my purposes I only need to demonstrate that the Synod made the decision it did, since that is all I need to know that they have trampled on the conciliar dogmas.

I don't know how you feel about the Ecumenical Councils, but among the Orthodox the dogmas of the Seven Councils are considered immutable, since they represent the voice of the Holy Spirit.

[minasoliman]

Jonathan,

Another question.  Have you considered that maybe these Antiochian theologians feel that they are not contradicting those quotes you are giving?  Have you considered that maybe the "iota" you're quoting from is not the "iota" I was thinking?

No, of course not.  Obviously, once again, you make assumptions.  Do you notice how many EO's here in this thread could use these quotes against you (in fact, have implied that you are outside the true faith), one of them being Fr. Ambrose?

But you still don't get it.  You don't delve much deeper into the issue because either you're afraid or you like to remain ignorant.

If you still don't get it, Jonathan, Salpy is right.  There's no point in trying to make you understand.

Whether or not they 'feel' they are upholding the dogmas of the Seven Councils, I am demonstrating as an objective fact that they are not upholding them.

I'd be interested to see just how Fr Ambrose uses these quotes against me, considering that I am not in the World Council of Churches, consider the anathemas against the Latin church still to be in force so long as they continue to teach their non-Orthodox doctrines, and that I continue to believe in all the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils and hence do not recognize the Orthodoxy of non-Chalcedonians.

Objective?  Hardly!  Objective is trying to understand and address WHY....WHY....again...WHY they believe the way they do, and then make your argument.

Fr. Ambrose already explained it to you.  He felt his church does it no differently than St. Mark.

Well 'why' the Synod of Antioch did what it did is another matter. For that, you can read their statement, and the theological justifications in earlier documents like the statement of the Chambesy conference. But for my purposes I only need to demonstrate that the Synod made the decision it did, since that is all I need to know that they have trampled on the conciliar dogmas.

I don't know how you feel about the Ecumenical Councils, but among the Orthodox the dogmas of the Seven Councils are considered immutable, since they represent the voice of the Holy Spirit.

If you don't know how we feel about the Ecumenical Councils, you have no right to lay judgment on what the Synod of Antioch did in the first place.  Hence, you are proving yourself to be willfully ignorant, and thus being a troll.  Since you're ignorant, you SHOULD HAVE extended your "I don't know" to your "why" on the Synod of Antioch, because the mere reading of the statements is not a clear answer to "why."  They feel they haven't trampled on the conciliar dogmas, and they continue to teach and proclaim those same dogmas (in fact, it even says so in those statements that you allegedly read).

Hmmmm......If I say I profess conciliar dogmas and they say they profess conciliar dogmas, then....

Oh gosh...how am I going to prove to them that they're really not?

[Jonathan Gress]

I came across this interesting bit in Bishop Eucharist Church. They were discussing the significance of Novatianist baptism. I've bolded an interesting sentence.

http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/episkopos1/kef2_2.htm

Fortunately, however, there is preserved a contemporary work by an anonymous African Bishop entitled De Rebaptismate, written probably around 256,305 which sets out in detail the arguments against Cyprian's views on baptism. This text expounds not so much the teaching on the Church as that on the sacraments, but it reveals the writer's ecclesiological principles. The writer accepts that there is only one Church outside which the Holy Spirit is not. But he maintains that baptism is performed by Christ at the invocation of His name. Starting from this premise, this writer holds that when the name of the Lord is invoked, even by those who are outside the Catholic Church, in the course of a baptism, the invocation operates in such a way that the baptism which thus takes place is authentic. Exactly what value such a baptism has is not defined by this author. It seems, however, that he too retains many doubts as to its efficacity, since he says that if someone thus baptized outside the Catholic Church dies a schismatic, in other words before he repents and returns to the Catholic Church, his baptism is of no significance for his salvation.306

These views can be taken as those of the Church of Rome and her Bishop Stephen because they come to the conclusion that the rebaptism of those returning to the Catholic Church is not required which is exactly as Stephen of Rome maintained.

Apparently this was the Latin Church view in the Cyprian era. Schismatic baptism is efficacious, but only if you return to the Catholic Church. If you update this by about 1700 years it translates to, "of course, we may recognize your non-Orthodox baptism... if you become Orthodox."

That's an interesting piece of evidence for what SOME Latin bishops taught at the time of Cyprian. Obviously, Cyprian represented another position, a position, moreover, that is actually in accord with the teaching of the universal Church.

But how do you know that it's Bishop St. Cyprian's position that's in accord with the teaching of the universal Church?  At the time of his argument with Pope St. Stephen, Rome was still very much orthodox and claimed as her authority the tradition handed them by the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

This discussion by Met Hierotheos ought to clarify the Church's teaching:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/methierotheos_baptism.aspx

You miss my point, though.  How did our current teaching on baptism and the sacraments become Church teaching, especially considering that it was not universal to the Church of St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. Stephen of Rome?  At that time, it appears that St. Cyprian and a Firmilian of Asia Minor preached an Eastern view of baptism that is now our [Eastern] Church teaching (a teaching later supported by the Apostolic Constitutions and Canons, a 4th century Eastern document we believe to represent the traditions of the Apostles).  Yet St. Stephen taught a different idea that he claimed was passed on to the Church of Rome by the Apostles Peter and Paul themselves.  Which side has faithfully preserved the traditions of the Apostles?  What evidence can you provide to support your argument?

Well if I believed the West had faithfully preserved the right teaching on baptism, with their doctrine of ex opere operato, then I would be a Catholic. As it is, I am Eastern Orthodox. I don't feel it's appropriate to debate the teaching on baptism with other Orthodox, since we should all be agreed on what the Orthodox teaching is. If you don't agree with the Orthodox teaching, then you should change churches.

That being said, here is another patristic witness for the Orthodox doctrine of baptism:

"There are many other heresies, too, which use the names only [of the Trinity], but not in the right sense, as I have said, nor with sound faith, and in consequence the water which they administer is unprofitable, as deficient in piety, so that he who is sprinkled by them is rather polluted by irreligion than redeemed." St Athanasius, Second Discourse against the Arians

St Paul also says there is 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' in the epistle to the Ephesians. I understand this to mean that faith and the mystery of baptism are inseparable, and that by faith is meant Orthodox faith.

By continuing to argue from Fathers subsequent to the first three centuries of the Church's history, you  show that you still miss my point.  How did St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. Stephen of Rome derive opposite conclusions on baptism from what each claimed was the Tradition of the Apostles?

PtA, I don't know what St Stephen was thinking. I am prepared to believe he genuinely thought it was the apostolic tradition, while St Cyprian recognized it to be a misinterpretation of the custom of granting economy in certain situations. Aren't you Orthodox? Don't you believe in what your Church teaches about the unity between faith and baptism? You can often find errors here or there even in the writings of Saints: St Augustine is of course a textbook example. It doesn't mean you can pick and choose which writings suit your personal theological fancy; you have to accept what the Church as a whole has taught.

You still miss my point.  I'm not voicing any disbelief in the Church's teaching on the unity between the Church and baptism, so please stop trying to play that card.  My question is focused on how our teaching won out within the Orthodox Church from all the competing understandings of St. Cyprian's and St. Stephen's day.  What evidence can you offer to prove that the Orthodox doctrine on baptism is THE definitive teaching of the Apostles and that the Western understanding argued by Pope St. Stephen is not?  How do you know for certain that they're not both apostolic in their origins (even though their contradictory nature seems to indicate that they cannot both be)?  So far, all you've offered us is a statement of what you are "prepared to believe", which appears to be nothing more than conjecture on your part (not to mention that it also strikes me as little more than an attempt to revise history to make it fit our current beliefs).

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier on this. I confess I don't know that well the history of the teaching that heretical baptism is valid, other than that the words of St Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians prove that the Church at his time believed faith to be inseparable from baptism, which is hardly compatible with the notion that baptism outside the Church can be salvific. It is a matter of considerable interest I admit. That being said, as an Orthodox Christian I believe the doctrine of the Church doesn't change, and therefore the teaching of the Church now is the teaching of the Apostles.

[Jonathan Gress]

Jonathan,

Another question.  Have you considered that maybe these Antiochian theologians feel that they are not contradicting those quotes you are giving?  Have you considered that maybe the "iota" you're quoting from is not the "iota" I was thinking?

No, of course not.  Obviously, once again, you make assumptions.  Do you notice how many EO's here in this thread could use these quotes against you (in fact, have implied that you are outside the true faith), one of them being Fr. Ambrose?

But you still don't get it.  You don't delve much deeper into the issue because either you're afraid or you like to remain ignorant.

If you still don't get it, Jonathan, Salpy is right.  There's no point in trying to make you understand.

Whether or not they 'feel' they are upholding the dogmas of the Seven Councils, I am demonstrating as an objective fact that they are not upholding them.

I'd be interested to see just how Fr Ambrose uses these quotes against me, considering that I am not in the World Council of Churches, consider the anathemas against the Latin church still to be in force so long as they continue to teach their non-Orthodox doctrines, and that I continue to believe in all the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils and hence do not recognize the Orthodoxy of non-Chalcedonians.

Objective?  Hardly!  Objective is trying to understand and address WHY....WHY....again...WHY they believe the way they do, and then make your argument.

Fr. Ambrose already explained it to you.  He felt his church does it no differently than St. Mark.

Well 'why' the Synod of Antioch did what it did is another matter. For that, you can read their statement, and the theological justifications in earlier documents like the statement of the Chambesy conference. But for my purposes I only need to demonstrate that the Synod made the decision it did, since that is all I need to know that they have trampled on the conciliar dogmas.

I don't know how you feel about the Ecumenical Councils, but among the Orthodox the dogmas of the Seven Councils are considered immutable, since they represent the voice of the Holy Spirit.

If you don't know how we feel about the Ecumenical Councils, you have no right to lay judgment on what the Synod of Antioch did in the first place.  Hence, you are proving yourself to be willfully ignorant, and thus being a troll.  Since you're ignorant, you SHOULD HAVE extended your "I don't know" to your "why" on the Synod of Antioch, because the mere reading of the statements is not a clear answer to "why."  They feel they haven't trampled on the conciliar dogmas, and they continue to teach and proclaim those same dogmas (in fact, it even says so in those statements that you allegedly read).

Hmmmm......If I say I profess conciliar dogmas and they say they profess conciliar dogmas, then....

Oh gosh...how am I going to prove to them that they're really not?

I believe Christ has two natures in one hypostasis, as the Council of Chalcedon said. Do you believe this?

[minasoliman]

Completely sidestepped the focus here, dude.  If you want to know what we believe, read the EO/OO private forum like I told you.  Here's a post that might answer your question.

[Jonathan Gress]

Oh and the question I want you to answer is: how do you resolve the contradictions in your own church?

To help you answer this question, you might consider the following: Does Patriarch Bartholomew believe that the Orthodox Church is the Body of Christ in and of itself? If so, why does he speak of restoring the unity of the Church, if it was never lost?

I think that he really means the restoration of unity to a divided Christendom.

Why does he say theology does not divide us from the non-Chalcedonians, when they still teach that Christ has one nature, whereas the truth according to the Council of Chalcedon is that He has two natures?

The non-Chalcedonians have made strenuous efforts, in particular in dialogue with the Church of Rome, to show that their Christology is not what Rome and the Orthodox have always thought it was.    It is obviously important to them to demonstrate that their Christology conforms to ours.   Not being a theologian my head starts to spin when I consider these matters (the madness which Saint Gregory warns awaits those who try to delve into the Trinity?)  I await to hear word from my Church (and also from the Holy Mountain.)   

Why has the Ecumenical Patriarch lifted the anathemas against the Pope, when the Pope has not renounced the heresies for which he was anathematized?

The Pope was not anathematized back in 1054.   The Patriarch Michael Cerularius excommunicated merely Cardinal Humbert and the other two Roman legates.  It is a piece of mythology that the Pope was anathematized.  It is an even worse piece of nonsense to pretend to "lift" a non-existent anathema.  I take it as a mere PR exercise and a sign of goodwill, a sign that Rome and Constantinople were hoping to establish better future relationships.

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier on this. Yes, I think at times the Ecumenical Patriarch may simply mean restoration of unity to divided Christendom, a term that I agree does not necessarily have ecclesiological implications. But at other times he definitely talks of a divided Church, which is, of course, an impossibility given Christ's promise that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church:

"As you know, these unique encounters are more than merely historical; they are sacred, inasmuch as they restore healing to a broken Church and trust to the people of God. Moreover, they enable us to affirm our shared roots and vision for unity, as well as to deliver common declarations on critical issues of our world and our time, such as the statement in Venice signed by our Modesty with Pope John Paul II on environmental ethics (being the first ever by our two Churches on the burning problem of climate change and ecological degradation) and the statement in Istanbul signed by Pope Benedict and ourselves on our solidarity in the effort for peace and mutual understanding."

These words are from his speech to the Roman Catholic Bishops' Conference of Southeastern Europe, held this year in March.

It is interesting to see the lengths to which the non-Chalcedonians go to convince us they believe the same faith as that taught by Chalcedon, without ever, of course, accepting the Christological definition of Chalcedon. As for waiting to hear the voice from the Holy Mountain, they have already spoken:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.aspx

As for the lifting of the anathemas, whether or not we have written evidence of the excommunication itself, it is a fact that the Patriarch ceased to commemorate the Pope after 1054. You may want to consider the words of Metropolitan Philaret of New York (in his protest to Patriarch Athenagoras):

We heard many expressions of perplexity when Your Holiness in the face of the whole world performed something quite new and uncommon to your predecessors as well as inconsistent with the 10th Canon of the Holy Apostles at your meeting with the Pope of Rome, Paul VI, in Jerusalem. We have heard that after that, many monasteries on the Holy Mount of Athos have refused to mention your name at religious services. Let us say frankly, the confusion was great. But now Your Holiness is going even further when, only by your own decision with the bishops of your Synod, you cancel the decision of Patriarch Michael Cerularius accepted by the whole Orthodox East. In that way Your Holiness is acting contrary to the attitude accepted by the whole of our Church in regard to Roman Catholicism. It is not a question of this or that evaluation of the behaviour of Cardinal Humbert. It is not a matter of a personal controversy between the Pope and the Patriarch which could be easily remedied by their mutual Christian forgiveness; no, the essence of the problem is in the deviation from Orthodoxy which took root in the Roman Church during the centuries, beginning with the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope which was definitively formulated at the First Vatican Council. The declaration of Your Holiness and the Pope with good reason recognises your gesture of "mutual pardon" as insufficient to end both old and more recent differences. But more than that, your gesture puts a sign of equality between error and truth. For centuries all the Orthodox Church believed with good reason that it has violated no doctrine of the Holy Ecumenical Councils; whereas the Church of Rome has introduced a number of innovations in its dogmatic teaching. The more such innovations were introduced, the deeper was to become the separation between the East and the West. The doctrinal deviations of Rome in the eleventh century did not yet contain the errors that were added later. Therefore, the cancellation of the mutual excommunication of 1054 could have been of meaning at that time; but now it is only an evidence of indifference in regard to the most important errors, namely new doctrines foreign to the ancient Church, of which some, having been exposed by St. Mark of Ephesus, were the reason why the Church rejected the Union of Florence.

[Jonathan Gress]

Completely sidestepped the focus here, dude.  If you want to know what we believe, read the EO/OO private forum like I told you.  Here's a post that might answer your question.

I don't have permission to read posts on that forum, 'dude'. Do you not know how to answer the question yourself? Yes or no will do.

[minasoliman]

Completely sidestepped the focus here, dude.  If you want to know what we believe, read the EO/OO private forum like I told you.  Here's a post that might answer your question.

I don't have permission to read posts on that forum, 'dude'. Do you not know how to answer the question yourself? Yes or no will do.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9368.0.html

If I answer the question here, I'd probably turn it into an EO/OO discussion, which doesn't belong here according to forum rules.  So, no, I am unable to answer the question due to forum restrictions smart guy.

[Fr. George]

Completely sidestepped the focus here, dude.  If you want to know what we believe, read the EO/OO private forum like I told you.  Here's a post that might answer your question.

I don't have permission to read posts on that forum, 'dude'. Do you not know how to answer the question yourself? Yes or no will do.

Ask Fr. Chris for permission.

[Jonathan Gress]

It's all right Fr George. I already have the answer I wanted.

The point I'm trying to make here is this: you, a non-Chalcedonian, obviously have your beliefs about Christ, and I have my beliefs. My beliefs follow the dogma of Chalcedon, which I consider to be an Ecumenical Council and to express the voice of the whole Church, the voice of the Holy Spirit in other words. It's clear you do not accept it as the voice of the Holy Spirit, and I respect your decision. Faith is an act of free will. However, what I cannot accept is the argument that you and I have the same faith, when you can't even answer a simple question like I just gave you. Since we manifestly do not have the same faith, the decision of the Synod of Antioch cannot possibly be correct insofar as it is based on the assumption of shared faith.

Below is an extract from the definition of faith of the Council of Chalcedon:

Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood.  This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us.

These things, therefore, having been expressed by us with the greatest accuracy and attention, the holy Ecumenical Synod defines that no one shall be suffered to bring forward a different faith (ἑτέραν πίστιν), nor to write, nor to put together, nor to excogitate, nor to teach it to others.  But such as dare either to put together another faith, or to bring forward or to teach or to deliver a different Creed (ἕτερον σύμβολον) to as wish to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles, or Jews or any heresy whatever, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, and the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laics:  let them be anathematized.