Author Topic: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches  (Read 19392 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline WetCatechumen

  • Roman Catholic
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 297
On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« on: June 15, 2010, 03:36:21 PM »
CONTEXT NOTE:  The following thread split off from here:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11764.0.html  -PtA



I would like to see the conditions occur for shared communion, not only with Roman Catholics, but also non-Calcedonian Orthodox. My opinion is that there are three Apostolic Churches - the three just mentioned.

If you set doctrinal issues aside like that, there are at least 4 basic Apostolic faith traditions: the Roman (the "Catholic Church"), the Byzantine (the "Orthodox Church"), the Oriental (the "Oriental Orthodox Church"), and the East Assyrian (the "Assyrian Church of the East"). The "Old Catholic Church" (primarily within the Union of Utrecht) and the Anglican Communion would both be additional possibilities, however.
I got in trouble on Sunday at a wedding when I was discussing the four ancient churches with an Orthodox catechumen. I told him I would be ecstatic if he joined any apostolic church, but that the Anglicans did not count. I offended two nearby Anglicans inadvertently. There are various splinter sects, like the Old Catholics, the Polish National Church, and other ones that have received ordinations from vagante bishops, but typically, they die out rather quickly and begin to behave in a very unapostolic fashion.

The four churches you listed all share a belief in the seven sacraments, and they have a clear line of descent to the apostles. Now, while there are doctrinal differences between them, they have all retained a belief in a real priesthood, a real Eucharist, and a real, continuing, visible church. The Anglicans forsook the idea of a sacrificial priesthood, and that really separates them from apostolic Christianity. I personally consider Anglican ministers to have Holy Orders with a defect, because in some places the intent has been retained, and the line of succession is unbroken, although the intent of ordination was radically altered.

However, the four you listed are what I would consider the four churches most consistent with apostolic Christianity.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2010, 04:42:00 PM by PeterTheAleut »
"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2010, 03:59:40 PM »
I told him I would be ecstatic if he joined any apostolic church, but that the Anglicans did not count.

Why is that?

There are various splinter sects, like the Old Catholics, the Polish National Church, and other ones that have received ordinations from vagante bishops, but typically, they die out rather quickly and begin to behave in a very unapostolic fashion.

I do not think it fair to distinguish the Polish National Catholic Church from the Old Catholics if you wouldn't the two Ukrainian autocephalous churches from the Eastern Orthodox. The PNCC is fundamentally Old Catholic in its faith, it is merely schismatic from the Union of Utrecht.

Another thing is that I think you may be over generalizing the Old Catholics on the basis of their presence in the US. The Union of Utrecht, which is solidly one communion and comprised of a Dutch church, German, Polish, French, Croatian, etc. has existed since 1870 and is in no way vagante. This is very different from the US Old Catholics who are generally independent of any broad communion and are generally vagante. So I think it would be most appropriate to view the Union of Utrecht as the legitimate root of the Old Catholic tradition while the others are schismatics, just as it is with the EO, OO, and East Assyrians.

The four churches you listed all share a belief in the seven sacraments

Be careful with that. While some Eastern Christian churches profess seven sacraments, many more profess more than seven sacraments.

The Anglicans forsook the idea of a sacrificial priesthood, and that really separates them from apostolic Christianity. I personally consider Anglican ministers to have Holy Orders with a defect, because in some places the intent has been retained, and the line of succession is unbroken, although the intent of ordination was radically altered.

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about here?

However, the four you listed are what I would consider the four churches most consistent with apostolic Christianity.

You would not place your church above the other three in that? Shouldn't union with Rome in your understanding of the papacy give an inherently greater apostolic nature to a church?

Offline WetCatechumen

  • Roman Catholic
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 297
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2010, 04:37:06 PM »

Why is that?

Because Anglicans, centuries ago, rejected belief in the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, which means that their Holy Mysteries cease to have the same intent as the Holy Mysteries in ancient Christianity.

I do not think it fair to distinguish the Polish National Catholic Church from the Old Catholics if you wouldn't the two Ukrainian autocephalous churches from the Eastern Orthodox. The PNCC is fundamentally Old Catholic in its faith, it is merely schismatic from the Union of Utrecht.

Another thing is that I think you may be over generalizing the Old Catholics on the basis of their presence in the US. The Union of Utrecht, which is solidly one communion and comprised of a Dutch church, German, Polish, French, Croatian, etc. has existed since 1870 and is in no way vagante. This is very different from the US Old Catholics who are generally independent of any broad communion and are generally vagante. So I think it would be most appropriate to view the Union of Utrecht as the legitimate root of the Old Catholic tradition while the others are schismatics, just as it is with the EO, OO, and East Assyrians.

My apologies for the confusion over the vagante bishop remark. There is a parish in Santa Fe, an hour north of where I live, that calls itself the "Catholic Apostolic Church of Antioch". They trace their line of succession to the Old Catholics, and have various Liberal Catholic bishops in their line of succession (http://www.churchofantioch.org/coa/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=41. Churches like these retain a belief in the sacramental character of the priesthood, but this specific church ordains all of the laity who wish it, regardless of sexual orientation. I am only trying to say that they have a tenable claim to having retained the intention to have the Holy Mysteries throughout their existence. There are many of these various splinter groups, but they are so disorganized and small that they are difficult to account and categorize.

The Union of Utrecht, though, I would agree has more claim than these various small churches. I apologize for my ignorance; I do not know too much about the Old Catholics, except the nature of their founding and that fact that their lines of succession have worked their ways into many splinter sects.


Be careful with that. While some Eastern Christian churches profess seven sacraments, many more profess more than seven sacraments.


Really? I didn't know that. Anything I can read about that?

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about here?

Articles 28 and 31 of the Anglican's Thirty-Nine articles explicitly deny the sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist and they deny that Christ is to be adored in it. This indicates that the Anglicans, in ordaining priests, did not intend to ordain priests, but only clergy. Hence, if their bishops, who received the authority of the apostles, did not intend truly to give the same authority which they received (a sacrificial one), they would not give it. That is why the Catholic Church considers the Holy Orders of the Anglican Church to be invalid.

You would not place your church above the other three in that? Shouldn't union with Rome in your understanding of the papacy give an inherently greater apostolic nature to a church?

Yes, but those four churches are all united by a common Eucharist. I know that the more typical position among Orthodox is that whether or not I truly received the Body of Christ at my parish on Sunday is unknown, but if I am correct, then all who receive from the altar at an Orthodox Church, whether miaphysite or dyophysite, or from the Church of the East, are part of the Body of the one and the same Christ.
"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2010, 02:09:18 PM »
but if I am correct, then all who receive from the altar at an Orthodox Church, whether miaphysite or dyophysite, or from the Church of the East, are part of the Body of the one and the same Christ.

Careful my friend. The Catholic Church does recoginze that those in other Apostolic bodies have partial communion with the Church, which is identified as the Body of Christ, but those not within the visible Catholic Church do not have full communion with the Church.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline WetCatechumen

  • Roman Catholic
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 297
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2010, 05:39:38 PM »
but if I am correct, then all who receive from the altar at an Orthodox Church, whether miaphysite or dyophysite, or from the Church of the East, are part of the Body of the one and the same Christ.

Careful my friend. The Catholic Church does recoginze that those in other Apostolic bodies have partial communion with the Church, which is identified as the Body of Christ, but those not within the visible Catholic Church do not have full communion with the Church.

Regardless of the lack of full communion between the churches, because of the validity of the sacraments of all these churches, we are unwittingly united because of the Body and Blood, despite our human divisions. Our communion is more full with them than with the Protestants, some of whom we are united with by common baptism, although because of the lack of all other sacraments the union is much less complete than with the churches that retain valid sacraments.

However, I do not think that His Eminence Cardinal Humbert excommunicating His All-Holiness Michael Cærularius and the reciprocation can cause a humble parish priest in Bulgaria to cease to be part of the same Catholic Church that a humble parish priest in Spain is a part of. Hence, the issue of how deep our communion is gets much more complicated than, "They're in schism! Anathema!"
"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2010, 05:46:39 PM »

However, I do not think that His Eminence Cardinal Humbert excommunicating His All-Holiness Michael Cærularius and the reciprocation can cause a humble parish priest in Bulgaria to cease to be part of the same Catholic Church

The excommunication was against the Patriarch and all those who agreed with him - which ultimately turned out to be the majority of the Church (in those days the Eastern part of the Church was larger than the Western part!)

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2010, 05:49:41 PM »

However, I do not think that His Eminence Cardinal Humbert excommunicating His All-Holiness Michael Cærularius and the reciprocation can cause a humble parish priest in Bulgaria to cease to be part of the same Catholic Church

The excommunication was against the Patriarch and all those who agreed with him - which ultimately turned out to be the majority of the Church (in those days the Eastern part of the Church was larger than the Western part!)

Are you talking about Eastern Christendom in general or just the Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox?

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2010, 06:04:47 PM »

However, I do not think that His Eminence Cardinal Humbert excommunicating His All-Holiness Michael Cærularius and the reciprocation can cause a humble parish priest in Bulgaria to cease to be part of the same Catholic Church

The excommunication was against the Patriarch and all those who agreed with him - which ultimately turned out to be the majority of the Church (in those days the Eastern part of the Church was larger than the Western part!)

Are you talking about Eastern Christendom in general or just the Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox?

At that time the Oriental Churches had already been in schism from Rome for the 600 years.

So, I am talking about Chalcedonian Orthodoxy as the Church.  I see from Fr Peter's post in another thread that Oriental Orthodox hold the reverse position, namely that they are *the* Orthodox and the Church and we are not.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2010, 06:17:14 PM »

However, I do not think that His Eminence Cardinal Humbert excommunicating His All-Holiness Michael Cærularius and the reciprocation can cause a humble parish priest in Bulgaria to cease to be part of the same Catholic Church

The excommunication was against the Patriarch and all those who agreed with him - which ultimately turned out to be the majority of the Church (in those days the Eastern part of the Church was larger than the Western part!)

Are you talking about Eastern Christendom in general or just the Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox?

At that time the Oriental Churches had already been in schism from Rome for the 600 years.

So, I am talking about Chalcedonian Orthodoxy as the Church.  I see from Fr Peter's post in another thread that Oriental Orthodox hold the reverse position, namely that they are *the* Orthodox and the Church and we are not.

So you're saying that the Eastern Chalcedonians alone were more populous than the West?

Offline 88Devin12

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,182
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Denver
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2010, 06:23:16 PM »
but if I am correct, then all who receive from the altar at an Orthodox Church, whether miaphysite or dyophysite, or from the Church of the East, are part of the Body of the one and the same Christ.

Careful my friend. The Catholic Church does recoginze that those in other Apostolic bodies have partial communion with the Church, which is identified as the Body of Christ, but those not within the visible Catholic Church do not have full communion with the Church.

Regardless of the lack of full communion between the churches, because of the validity of the sacraments of all these churches, we are unwittingly united because of the Body and Blood, despite our human divisions. Our communion is more full with them than with the Protestants, some of whom we are united with by common baptism, although because of the lack of all other sacraments the union is much less complete than with the churches that retain valid sacraments.

However, I do not think that His Eminence Cardinal Humbert excommunicating His All-Holiness Michael Cærularius and the reciprocation can cause a humble parish priest in Bulgaria to cease to be part of the same Catholic Church that a humble parish priest in Spain is a part of. Hence, the issue of how deep our communion is gets much more complicated than, "They're in schism! Anathema!"

I'm sorry, but our two Churches are in no way shape or form, in communion. The Catholic sacraments are not valid, neither is your apostolic succession. It doesn't matter if the Catholic Church sees things differently. The only way reunion will happen is if Rome completely returns to Orthodoxy. Unless they do that, they have no apostolic succession, no valid sacraments etc...

(now keep in mind, I'm in full support of union if properly pursued, but I have to stand up for Orthodoxy when someone tries to claim our two Churches are the same &/or united...)

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2010, 08:10:33 PM »

However, I do not think that His Eminence Cardinal Humbert excommunicating His All-Holiness Michael Cærularius and the reciprocation can cause a humble parish priest in Bulgaria to cease to be part of the same Catholic Church

The excommunication was against the Patriarch and all those who agreed with him - which ultimately turned out to be the majority of the Church (in those days the Eastern part of the Church was larger than the Western part!)

Are you talking about Eastern Christendom in general or just the Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox?

At that time the Oriental Churches had already been in schism from Rome for the 600 years.

So, I am talking about Chalcedonian Orthodoxy as the Church.  I see from Fr Peter's post in another thread that Oriental Orthodox hold the reverse position, namely that they are *the* Orthodox and the Church and we are not.

So you're saying that the Eastern Chalcedonians alone were more populous than the West?

I have not seen statistics for Eastern Chalcedonians, but an educated guess would say they were more numerous than Western Chalcedonians in the mid-fifth century.  If I remember rightly, about 7 out of 10 citizens of the Eastern Empire were Christian at that period while it was the opposite for the West, about 3 out of 10.

Offline WetCatechumen

  • Roman Catholic
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 297
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2010, 09:43:55 PM »
but if I am correct, then all who receive from the altar at an Orthodox Church, whether miaphysite or dyophysite, or from the Church of the East, are part of the Body of the one and the same Christ.

Careful my friend. The Catholic Church does recoginze that those in other Apostolic bodies have partial communion with the Church, which is identified as the Body of Christ, but those not within the visible Catholic Church do not have full communion with the Church.

Regardless of the lack of full communion between the churches, because of the validity of the sacraments of all these churches, we are unwittingly united because of the Body and Blood, despite our human divisions. Our communion is more full with them than with the Protestants, some of whom we are united with by common baptism, although because of the lack of all other sacraments the union is much less complete than with the churches that retain valid sacraments.

However, I do not think that His Eminence Cardinal Humbert excommunicating His All-Holiness Michael Cærularius and the reciprocation can cause a humble parish priest in Bulgaria to cease to be part of the same Catholic Church that a humble parish priest in Spain is a part of. Hence, the issue of how deep our communion is gets much more complicated than, "They're in schism! Anathema!"

I'm sorry, but our two Churches are in no way shape or form, in communion. The Catholic sacraments are not valid, neither is your apostolic succession. It doesn't matter if the Catholic Church sees things differently. The only way reunion will happen is if Rome completely returns to Orthodoxy. Unless they do that, they have no apostolic succession, no valid sacraments etc...

(now keep in mind, I'm in full support of union if properly pursued, but I have to stand up for Orthodoxy when someone tries to claim our two Churches are the same &/or united...)
You are entitled to your opinion. In my post I was specifically engaging in dialogue with a fellow Latin Catholic regarding the Catholic Church's position concerning the Eastern Churches with whom she is not in communion. I spoke using our terms and our presuppositions. I understand that some Orthodox Christians believe Catholic sacraments to be invalid. Some are agnostic concerning the validity of Catholic sacraments. Others, still, accept them as valid. I have been unable to determine which of these is a consensus opinion. I do know, however, that the Orthodox Church in America receives Catholic clergy by vesting ( http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=200&SID=3 ). This would indicate the the validity is accepted. Of course, this does not speak to validity of our Eucharist, because even if the priest has been ordained, he does not have the explicit permission and calling of the Orthodox Church to perform the sacrament, and I don't know enough about Eastern theology to determine if that would render the Holy Mystery non-existent.

However, you are correct that there is no legal communion between our two churches. I never meant to imply that.
"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

Offline WetCatechumen

  • Roman Catholic
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 297
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2010, 09:48:13 PM »

However, I do not think that His Eminence Cardinal Humbert excommunicating His All-Holiness Michael Cærularius and the reciprocation can cause a humble parish priest in Bulgaria to cease to be part of the same Catholic Church

The excommunication was against the Patriarch and all those who agreed with him - which ultimately turned out to be the majority of the Church (in those days the Eastern part of the Church was larger than the Western part!)

That is very true. However, a humble parish priest in Bulgaria is going to follow his bishop, as he should. Likewise, the humble parish priest in Spain is going to follow his bishop, as he should. How was the priest in Spain supposed to know that his bishop was a heretic, when the Church Fathers he was educated in supported the Petrine primacy of the Bishop of Rome? And supported the procession of the Spirit from the Son? I posit likewise for the Bulgarian priest.

I do not see why the Holy Spirit would fail to answer their call in the Holy Eucharist, because both are faithful, both have been ordained by the successors to the apostles, and both desire to offer the Holy Eucharist each Sunday. Why should the dispute among bishops render either sides Holy Mysteries "invalid"?
"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,312
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2010, 09:49:35 PM »
I do know, however, that the Orthodox Church in America receives Catholic clergy by vesting ( http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=200&SID=3 ). This would indicate the the validity is accepted.

Not per se, only because of his entry into the Orthodox Church - at that point we can say, "the ordination done by others needs not be replicated."  Without it (entry into Orthodoxy), he's just another guy outside of Christ's Church from our POV.

Of course, this does not speak to validity of our Eucharist, because even if the priest has been ordained, he does not have the explicit permission and calling of the Orthodox Church to perform the sacrament, and I don't know enough about Eastern theology to determine if that would render the Holy Mystery non-existent.  

The sign that your Eucharist is valid is if we tell our people that they can freely attend and receive the Eucharist from your Churches.  Anything less is no communion.
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,312
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2010, 09:52:35 PM »
The excommunication was against the Patriarch and all those who agreed with him - which ultimately turned out to be the majority of the Church (in those days the Eastern part of the Church was larger than the Western part!)
That is very true. However, a humble parish priest in Bulgaria is going to follow his bishop, as he should. Likewise, the humble parish priest in Spain is going to follow his bishop, as he should. How was the priest in Spain supposed to know that his bishop was a heretic, when the Church Fathers he was educated in supported the Petrine primacy of the Bishop of Rome? And supported the procession of the Spirit from the Son? I posit likewise for the Bulgarian priest.

I do not see why the Holy Spirit would fail to answer their call in the Holy Eucharist, because both are faithful, both have been ordained by the successors to the apostles, and both desire to offer the Holy Eucharist each Sunday. Why should the dispute among bishops render either sides Holy Mysteries "invalid"?

This is reducing the Eucharist to a product of intent with some dressing.  There is an underlying principle: the Eucharist is only of and within the Church, and it does not occur outside the Church.  At the schism, part remained the Church, and part did not; we believe that we are the former and you the latter, and you believe the contrary.  We are not positing that the Spirit does not or cannot work within the RC communion, but we do know that the sacraments are the work of the Church, and thus (with the exception of Baptism, which brings people into the Church) cannot be found outside of the Church.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2010, 09:52:49 PM by Fr. George »
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2010, 10:16:52 PM »
I agree with Fr George that one cannot find the Holy Mysteries (including Baptism) outside the Orthodox Church.

I do not accept that there can be a parallel and competing episcopate outside the Church which has valid Sacraments.  This is part of what I learnt form the Church of Serbia and from such as Fr Justin Popovic, an outstanding modern theologian.

However, it has to be said openly that the Orthodox do not agree on this.  

For the last 400 years the Russian Orthodox Church has accepted the validity of Roman Catholic Sacraments, not simply by an act of leniency at the time of entry into Orthodoxy, but in and of themselves.  So this means that the ordinations of a Catholic bishop create valid priests and that the Mass produces the Body and Blood of Christ and the Pope truly is a bishop and not just a layman

For a little more on this see message 210 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27981.msg443750.html#msg443750
« Last Edit: June 16, 2010, 10:24:09 PM by Irish Hermit »

Offline David Carroll

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
  • Holy Ephraim, pray for us!
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2010, 11:16:54 PM »
But wouldn't you agree that it is quite easy to write off the Sacraments of other churches as invalid when you live in a place like Russia or Serbia, where hardly any other kind of churches exist?  If one lived in Mexico or Nashville, TN, I imagine it would be a little harder.
Pray that God would deliver me from hatred and pride.

Offline WetCatechumen

  • Roman Catholic
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 297
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2010, 11:43:02 PM »
I do know, however, that the Orthodox Church in America receives Catholic clergy by vesting ( http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=200&SID=3 ). This would indicate the the validity is accepted.

Not per se, only because of his entry into the Orthodox Church - at that point we can say, "the ordination done by others needs not be replicated."  Without it (entry into Orthodoxy), he's just another guy outside of Christ's Church from our POV.

Of course, this does not speak to validity of our Eucharist, because even if the priest has been ordained, he does not have the explicit permission and calling of the Orthodox Church to perform the sacrament, and I don't know enough about Eastern theology to determine if that would render the Holy Mystery non-existent.  

The sign that your Eucharist is valid is if we tell our people that they can freely attend and receive the Eucharist from your Churches.  Anything less is no communion.

Father George, I am honored that you have responded to my post. :)

Why is it not necessary to repeat the ordination? It would seem to me that he is either a priest or not. Perhaps this is because of the juridical Latin in me who cannot deal with the organic and must see things as black and white.

Likewise, if he is not a priest, then I understand why the Holy Spirit would refuse to answer his call or consecrate the Holy Gifts. However, if he is a priest, then does the Holy Spirit refuse his call and bread and wine remain bread and wine because of his separation from the Orthodox Church?
"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2010, 11:45:36 PM »
But wouldn't you agree that it is quite easy to write off the Sacraments of other churches as invalid when you live in a place like Russia or Serbia, where hardly any other kind of churches exist?  If one lived in Mexico or Nashville, TN, I imagine it would be a little harder.

No harder than it is for an RC to deny the Eucharist and Priestood of the Episcopalians in Mexico or Nashville!    :)

But the point is that Russia does NOT write off RC Sacraments.

See message 63
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11764.msg446298.html#msg446298

-oOo-

On the other hand Serbia, generally speaking, does write them off.

I believe the tradition which I received from my spiritual father in Serbia,
may his memory be eternal.

Once when the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Zagreb was visiting the holy
monastery of Zica, Serbia, together with a small party of bishops and
priests he shared lunch with us in the monastery's guest refectory.

I suppose it would help put you in the picture if I relate something of Fr
Dositej's place in the Serbian Church.

My spiritual father (and the person who tonsured me) was
Fr Archimandrite Dositej of the holy monastery of Zica.
He was tonsured and ordained by Saint Nikolai Velimirovic of Zica
and was his disciple. He was a spiritual friend of Saint Justin Popovic
and in the esteem of the Serbian faithful second only to him
as one of Serbia's spiritual fathers. In a country which has dozens
of excellent monasteries and many many excellent spiritual fathers,
this means quite a lot. He was the spiritual father of Zica monastery
with 27 monastics and he was the confessor of many other monks
and nuns from other monasteries and he had numerous spiritual children
throughout Serbia. This helps to make it clear why I trust and hold
to the tradition which I received from him.



Back to the anecdote....... At the meal Archbishop Kuharic asked
Fr Dositej what he saw as the difference between Catholic and
Orthodox sacraments.

Fr Dositej took two identical glasses and he filled one with water. He
pointed to that one and said: "This glass is the sacraments (tainstva) of
the Orthodox."  'Nuff said.


Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2010, 11:52:11 PM »
The question boils down to - do bishops exist outside the Church and out of communion with the Church?.  I believe that the episcopate -the College of the Apostles- cannot exist outside the Church.  Without the episcopate there can be no Sacraments. 

Now, I know that this is a harsh saying for a Roman Catholic to hear (about as harsh as when the Anglicans are told much the same about the invalidity of their Orders by Catholics.) 

BUT, on the other hand, we have to be honest and tell you that you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it.   Saint Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion.  Here are his words http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13419.msg185558.html#msg185558

In fact for the last 400 years the Church of Russia has accepted the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments. 

BUT... ... on the other hand we find that in the 1980s at one of the Meetings of the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se.   A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a radical rejection of all Catholic Sacraments.

How do we deal with this dichotomy? - some say Catholics have sacraments, some say they do not.   I suppose the best we can say it that the Orthodox do not know if Catholics have sacraments.  We could look at this little anecdote about Anglican baptism to get a handle on this Orthodox agnosticism......

There is an incident in the UK recorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself
(Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly."

At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans
asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have
the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So,
what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."

Fr Ambrose
Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad)

Offline WetCatechumen

  • Roman Catholic
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 297
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #20 on: June 16, 2010, 11:52:25 PM »
The excommunication was against the Patriarch and all those who agreed with him - which ultimately turned out to be the majority of the Church (in those days the Eastern part of the Church was larger than the Western part!)
That is very true. However, a humble parish priest in Bulgaria is going to follow his bishop, as he should. Likewise, the humble parish priest in Spain is going to follow his bishop, as he should. How was the priest in Spain supposed to know that his bishop was a heretic, when the Church Fathers he was educated in supported the Petrine primacy of the Bishop of Rome? And supported the procession of the Spirit from the Son? I posit likewise for the Bulgarian priest.

I do not see why the Holy Spirit would fail to answer their call in the Holy Eucharist, because both are faithful, both have been ordained by the successors to the apostles, and both desire to offer the Holy Eucharist each Sunday. Why should the dispute among bishops render either sides Holy Mysteries "invalid"?

This is reducing the Eucharist to a product of intent with some dressing.  There is an underlying principle: the Eucharist is only of and within the Church, and it does not occur outside the Church.  At the schism, part remained the Church, and part did not; we believe that we are the former and you the latter, and you believe the contrary.  We are not positing that the Spirit does not or cannot work within the RC communion, but we do know that the sacraments are the work of the Church, and thus (with the exception of Baptism, which brings people into the Church) cannot be found outside of the Church.

This means to say, specifically, that when my priest calls down the Holy Spirit to consecrate the bread and wine, that instead of becoming the Holy Gifts, they remain bread and wine? I only wish to understand your meaning fully.

Now, another item which confuses me, and what I was trying to get at in the post which you have quoted, at which moment did the priests on either side of the Mediterranean cease being part of the Church? Was it when the bishops in Spain added the Filioque to the creed? At that point, did bread and wine in Spain remain bread and wine, but in Italy they transformed into the Body and Blood of the Savior? Or, was it at the point of the excommunications? Did the actions of His Eminence Cardinal Humbert result in the Holy Spirit refusing the call of a parish priest unrelated to the international politics?

The question of who is inside the church and who is outside seems to be very grey, especially from the 9th Century to the 15th Century.
"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,901
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #21 on: June 16, 2010, 11:57:37 PM »
This is reducing the Eucharist to a product of intent with some dressing.  There is an underlying principle: the Eucharist is only of and within the Church, and it does not occur outside the Church.  At the schism, part remained the Church, and part did not; we believe that we are the former and you the latter, and you believe the contrary.  We are not positing that the Spirit does not or cannot work within the RC communion, but we do know that the sacraments are the work of the Church, and thus (with the exception of Baptism, which brings people into the Church) cannot be found outside of the Church.

If Ethiopian Orthodox are going to communion in the Pittsburgh metropolis as you said elsewhere- and perhaps Greeks are communing in Ethiopian Orthodox churches when away from home- doesn't this suggest their sacraments are valid?
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline David Carroll

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
  • Holy Ephraim, pray for us!
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #22 on: June 17, 2010, 12:02:30 AM »
The thing is: I thought that the reason why the RC Church does not recognize validity in the Anglican Sacraments was for the very legitimate and non-Donatist reason that the ecclesiastically-accepted method of Apostolic Succession was not followed.  I.e. that at some point in the Anglicans' history, bishops started popping up who were not properly ordained as such by the laying on of hands, etc.  And that is precisely why the Anglicans do not have valid Sacraments.  Nothing more.

But the RC Church has stuck to the methods of Apostolic Succession.  So to deny validity to RC Sacraments is a much bolder sentiment.
Pray that God would deliver me from hatred and pride.

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,312
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #23 on: June 17, 2010, 12:06:48 AM »
This is reducing the Eucharist to a product of intent with some dressing.  There is an underlying principle: the Eucharist is only of and within the Church, and it does not occur outside the Church.  At the schism, part remained the Church, and part did not; we believe that we are the former and you the latter, and you believe the contrary.  We are not positing that the Spirit does not or cannot work within the RC communion, but we do know that the sacraments are the work of the Church, and thus (with the exception of Baptism, which brings people into the Church) cannot be found outside of the Church.

If Ethiopian Orthodox are going to communion in the Pittsburgh metropolis as you said elsewhere- (snip)- doesn't this suggest their sacraments are valid?

The line between EO and OO is much finer than that between EO and anyone else; I'll let OO members provide their opinion on the matter (whether EO-OO is close than OO-anyone else), but I believe it is the same.  

That said, it is a classic case of economy - a deviation from the standard (either toward laxity or greater strictness) for the benefit of the person.  To wit: the Ethiopian Orthodox families go to an EO church for communion without the EO actually re-entering communion with the OO; the OO are allowed to commune because, from a pastoral POV, we understand that they would go without any communion for considerable stretches of time if they didn't come to our churches, so we relax our standard (no communing OOs) for them.  This does not constitute a change in the standard.  The same could likely be said from the OO POV (that is, that an EO without a Church communing in an OO community does not constitute a change in the OO's standard that they are not in communion with the EO).
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,312
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #24 on: June 17, 2010, 12:17:24 AM »
But the RC Church has stuck to the methods of Apostolic Succession.  So to deny validity to RC Sacraments is a much bolder sentiment.

That's a difference in our POV on Apostolic Succession, which we don't see present outside the boundaries of the Church.
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #25 on: June 17, 2010, 12:41:03 AM »
The Orthodox are not terribly fussed about what is seen as a mechanical hands-on-head succession or a pipeline succession.   But it can come into play as a positive factor when receiving a priest into the Church by economy.  I am not aware if such economy has ever been applied to a non-Orthodox bishop.  Father George, do you have any idea if we have received bishops in their rank as bishops?


Here is a patristic viewpoint -from Saint Basil the Great.

Notice the typical balance of the Church Fathers - while the principle
of no Sacraments and no Apostolic Succession outside the Church is
clearly enunciated, Saint Basil also states very clearly that for the sake
of the good of the Church "economy" may be used if it is thought necessary
in the case of Baptism.



Epistle to Amphilochius (of which the "First Canon" of Saint Basil is a
shorter version)

 
 
---- "It seemed best to the ancients-I refer to Cyprian and our own
Firmilian-to subject all of these-Cathari, and Encratites, and
Hydroparastatae-to one vote of condemnation, because the beginning of this
separation arose through schism, and those who had broken away from the
Church no longer had in them the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the imparting
of it failed because of the severance of continuity.

"For those who separated first had ordination from the Fathers, and
through the imposition of their hands possessed the spiritual gift; but
those who had been cut off, becoming laymen, possessed the power neither of
baptizing nor of ordaining, being able no longer to impart to others the
grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves had fallen away.
Therefore they commanded those who had been baptized by them, as baptized by
laymen, to come to the Church and be purified by the true baptism of the
Church.

"But since on the whole it has seemed best to some of those in Asia that,
by economy for the sake of the many, their baptism be accepted, let it be
accepted."



-oOo-

Note the word "economy" used here by Saint Basil with reference to
situations when baptism is not insisted upon. Saint Athanasius also uses the
word economy with reference to the reception of ther heterodox. I wanted to
point this out since there are modern theologians who mistakenly say that
the concept of "economy" was something created by Saint Nicodemus of the
Holy Mountain in the 19th century. Not so!

Now I think that all the Orthodox are doing is preserving the principles
which were enunciated by the Church Fathers and which were operative in the
early Church, principles which have faded from the mind of most Western
Churches. However, the East has had no Reformation or Counter-Reformation.
It has not had any codification of canon law such as the Roman Catholic Church
had after Trent; so all the Orthodox can turn to is the teaching and canons
of the first millennium to provide guidelines and insights with regard to
modern questions which crop up today, including the matter of Baptism
and other Sacraments outside the Church.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,901
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #26 on: June 17, 2010, 12:50:15 PM »
This is reducing the Eucharist to a product of intent with some dressing.  There is an underlying principle: the Eucharist is only of and within the Church, and it does not occur outside the Church.  At the schism, part remained the Church, and part did not; we believe that we are the former and you the latter, and you believe the contrary.  We are not positing that the Spirit does not or cannot work within the RC communion, but we do know that the sacraments are the work of the Church, and thus (with the exception of Baptism, which brings people into the Church) cannot be found outside of the Church.

If Ethiopian Orthodox are going to communion in the Pittsburgh metropolis as you said elsewhere- (snip)- doesn't this suggest their sacraments are valid?

The line between EO and OO is much finer than that between EO and anyone else; I'll let OO members provide their opinion on the matter (whether EO-OO is close than OO-anyone else), but I believe it is the same.  

That said, it is a classic case of economy - a deviation from the standard (either toward laxity or greater strictness) for the benefit of the person.  To wit: the Ethiopian Orthodox families go to an EO church for communion without the EO actually re-entering communion with the OO; the OO are allowed to commune because, from a pastoral POV, we understand that they would go without any communion for considerable stretches of time if they didn't come to our churches, so we relax our standard (no communing OOs) for them.  This does not constitute a change in the standard.  The same could likely be said from the OO POV (that is, that an EO without a Church communing in an OO community does not constitute a change in the OO's standard that they are not in communion with the EO).


I am confused. Look at the Thread all the reasons for denying and personally avoiding regular communion at http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=12024.0 at Catholic, Oriental, and Old Calendarist churches when an Orthodox church is nearby. However "close" you draw the line between Orthodox and Orientals, these arguments all go against allowing Orientals to communion even when far away.

One of the biggest reasons is that you cannot give Eucharist to those outside the single, visible, administratively united institutionalized church- The Orthodox Church.

I ask: "Still, why not give it to them?"
The answer is "because they are outside the Church."
"OK, why not give to those outside the church?"
"Because the eucharist is the body, and the body is the church."
"OK, why can you not give them the body and unite them with the church?"
No one gave me an answer to this. Is it because "Yes you would unite them to the church, but being united to the church while being in faith a schismatic is worse than being a schismatic outside the church?"
If that is the reason, then we are putting those outside the church- therefore "schismatics"- in greater danger, and you wouldn't want to endanger them even if they are away from their home.

Maybe you can think of a good answer for this. But let's flip the problem around.

"Why can't I receive regularly at an Oriental parish when there's an Orthodox Church nearby?"
"Because the church is a united, visible institution and the Eucharist is the body and the church is the body. So the Eucharist doesn't exist outside this visible institution."
"OK, why can I receive the Eucharist outside this institution when away from home?"
"Ekonomia."
"So ekonomia allows the eucharist to be valid outside the church?"

"Well, we don't REALLY know if the Eucharist is valid outside the church or not."

That's the best explanation yet! But let's be clear in the future that we CANNOT say there is no valid Eucharist outside the visibly-administratively-united church.

Now what if it turns out that there is no valid communion outside the church, and you have taken an invalid communion? Is it unto condemnation? What good are all the invocations about Ekonomia then? Would it be better to take communion with a big risk of such or avoid it altogether?
« Last Edit: June 17, 2010, 12:53:19 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #27 on: June 17, 2010, 01:23:19 PM »
FR. AMBROSE and FR. GEORGE?

Can you enumerate the things that would be required of Catholics before we would be allowed into communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church? What would the Catholic Church have to change? What would we be allowed to maintain?
 
Thanks
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline David Carroll

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
  • Holy Ephraim, pray for us!
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #28 on: June 17, 2010, 02:58:16 PM »
The main two stumbling blocks for me would be Purgatory and Papal Infallibility.  I really have no problem with the Immaculate Conception or the Filioque or even with Papal Supremacy.  But the idea of Purgatory and the sort of legalistic debit/credit system inherent therein is completely unacceptable to me.

I once read a book of Roman Catholic apologetics that tried to explain and justify Papal Infallibility.  The basic idea is that the Pope is infallible only when making statements ex cathedra AND when such statements do not contradict Patristic teaching.  If the Pope lays down a Bull that endorses a doctrine that clearly contradicts centuries of Church testimony, then the Pope, BY DEFINITION was not speaking ex cathedra.  But this is not really a satisfactory solution, because now the function of Papal Bulls are, at best, redundant.  And, at worst, wrong.
Pray that God would deliver me from hatred and pride.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #29 on: July 02, 2010, 07:34:59 PM »
But wouldn't you agree that it is quite easy to write off the Sacraments of other churches as invalid when you live in a place like Russia or Serbia, where hardly any other kind of churches exist?  If one lived in Mexico or Nashville, TN, I imagine it would be a little harder.

I don't feel that it is hard for me to recognize that likely all non-OO churches do not have sanctifying grace even though in this area they are an extreme minority compared to other religious groups.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #30 on: July 02, 2010, 07:43:08 PM »
But the RC Church has stuck to the methods of Apostolic Succession.  So to deny validity to RC Sacraments is a much bolder sentiment.

One does not need to deny the valid form of the Roman ordinances to deny their efficacy.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2010, 07:47:10 PM »
The line between EO and OO is much finer than that between EO and anyone else; I'll let OO members provide their opinion on the matter (whether EO-OO is close than OO-anyone else), but I believe it is the same.

Yes, the connection between OOy and EOy is extremely close. Their connection with the ACE is moderately close, as ACE's only error is Christological (and perhaps an over-emphasis on ecclesiastical independence [a la synod of seleucia 424). All other "Christian" communities have multitudes of errors and are highly removed from orthodoxy.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #32 on: July 02, 2010, 07:50:05 PM »
FR. AMBROSE and FR. GEORGE?

Can you enumerate the things that would be required of Catholics before we would be allowed into communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church? What would the Catholic Church have to change? What would we be allowed to maintain?
 
Thanks

Are those the only 2 individuals you would like an answer from?

Offline GregoryLA

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 377
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #33 on: July 02, 2010, 08:41:53 PM »
The line between EO and OO is much finer than that between EO and anyone else; I'll let OO members provide their opinion on the matter (whether EO-OO is close than OO-anyone else), but I believe it is the same.

Yes, the connection between OOy and EOy is extremely close. Their connection with the ACE is moderately close, as ACE's only error is Christological (and perhaps an over-emphasis on ecclesiastical independence [a la synod of seleucia 424). All other "Christian" communities have multitudes of errors and are highly removed from orthodoxy.

The ACE also rejects icons which would be problematic, no?

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #34 on: July 03, 2010, 12:41:53 AM »
The line between EO and OO is much finer than that between EO and anyone else; I'll let OO members provide their opinion on the matter (whether EO-OO is close than OO-anyone else), but I believe it is the same.

Yes, the connection between OOy and EOy is extremely close. Their connection with the ACE is moderately close, as ACE's only error is Christological (and perhaps an over-emphasis on ecclesiastical independence [a la synod of seleucia 424). All other "Christian" communities have multitudes of errors and are highly removed from orthodoxy.

The ACE also rejects icons which would be problematic, no?

That is what Rafa said and seemingly he quoted one of his patriarchs supporting this. I don't know that that necessarily means that that is a lasting and authoritative doctrine of theirs. If it is true that they explicitly reject the use of icons as a form of idolatry, then I suppose it would be somewhat problematic in an attempt at reunion.

And, as much as I accept the use of icons and their veneration, I don't know that I view the issue as fundamental to the nature of the Church in the same way that it seems the EO tradition does.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2010, 12:42:51 AM by deusveritasest »

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,594
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #35 on: July 03, 2010, 05:13:05 AM »
Quote
And, as much as I accept the use of icons and their veneration, I don't know that I view the issue as fundamental to the nature of the Church in the same way that it seems the EO tradition does.

To deny the veneration of icons as proper is tantamount to denying the Incarnation of Christ.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #36 on: July 03, 2010, 06:53:05 PM »
Quote
And, as much as I accept the use of icons and their veneration, I don't know that I view the issue as fundamental to the nature of the Church in the same way that it seems the EO tradition does.

To deny the veneration of icons as proper is tantamount to denying the Incarnation of Christ.

So I've been told. I haven't really seen that proven to be the case. And I don't really believe it. I could imagine fairly easily how one could truly believe in the Incarnation and not the veneration of icons.

Offline Rafa999

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,591
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #37 on: July 03, 2010, 07:22:23 PM »
I can't talk too much (very busy) but I wanted to stop by the forum and clear this up:

The ACOE does -not- ban icon veneration. It does not allow iconography in the sanctuary, at the area of consecration. Otherwise icons are perfectly allowed veneration and many faithful have them.

Will try to stop by more but very busy. Bye.
I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts

Offline Salpy

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,461
  • Holy Martyrs of the Armenian Genocide pray for us!
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #38 on: July 03, 2010, 07:55:35 PM »
That's what I understood:  that the ACE doesn't use icons in church, but it also doesn't ban them.

Good to see you posting again Rafa!  I hope you are feeling well!

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,269
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #39 on: July 03, 2010, 08:05:31 PM »
Quote
And, as much as I accept the use of icons and their veneration, I don't know that I view the issue as fundamental to the nature of the Church in the same way that it seems the EO tradition does.

To deny the veneration of icons as proper is tantamount to denying the Incarnation of Christ.

So I've been told. I haven't really seen that proven to be the case. And I don't really believe it. I could imagine fairly easily how one could truly believe in the Incarnation and not the veneration of icons.

Well, the question is, why would you reject the veneration of icons if you truly believe in the Incarnation? The arguments that were made by the iconoclasts (e.g., icons evince a confusion of Christ's two natures) revealed a faulty Christology.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,269
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #40 on: July 03, 2010, 08:10:20 PM »
I can't talk too much (very busy) but I wanted to stop by the forum and clear this up:

The ACOE does -not- ban icon veneration. It does not allow iconography in the sanctuary, at the area of consecration. Otherwise icons are perfectly allowed veneration and many faithful have them.

Why are icons forbidden in the sanctuary?
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,901
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #41 on: July 03, 2010, 11:02:56 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #42 on: July 03, 2010, 11:04:47 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?
Ancient Church of the East, i.e. the Assyrians/Nestorians.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,901
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #43 on: July 03, 2010, 11:54:27 PM »
If Nestorianism is such a fundamental heresy, then in what sense are they apostolic? I mean, was it because there were Nestorian bishops who split off? That would make Anglicanism no less apsotolic.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Rafa999

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,591
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #44 on: July 04, 2010, 01:32:18 AM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?
Ancient Church of the East, i.e. the Assyrians/Nestorians.

Good to see you Isa! Please enlighten ravovsky on who founded the ACOE and its Apostolic character, history, etc. (and how we look towards Edessa for our history too of course)

Herein lies the Christology of the ACOE as stated by Mar Babai the Great:

   One is Christ the Son of God,
    Worshiped by all in two natures;
    In His Godhead begotten of the Father,
    Without beginning before all time;
    In His humanity born of Mary,
    In the fullness of time, in a body united;
    Neither His Godhead is of the nature of the mother,
    Nor His humanity of the nature of the Father;
    The natures are preserved in their Qnumas (substance),
    In one person of one Sonship.
    And as the Godhead is three substances in one nature,
    Likewise the Sonship of the Son is in two natures, one person.
    So the Holy Church has taught.


Hymn of Praise, Mar Babai



Good to see you Salpy! I really must go. No time for talking, just clarifying something quickly.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2010, 01:37:49 AM by Rafa999 »
I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,594
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #45 on: July 04, 2010, 07:55:12 AM »
Quote
And, as much as I accept the use of icons and their veneration, I don't know that I view the issue as fundamental to the nature of the Church in the same way that it seems the EO tradition does.

To deny the veneration of icons as proper is tantamount to denying the Incarnation of Christ.

So I've been told. I haven't really seen that proven to be the case. And I don't really believe it. I could imagine fairly easily how one could truly believe in the Incarnation and not the veneration of icons.

For starters, read St John of Damascus' treatise In Defense of the Holy Images, perhaps the most authoritative exposition of the propriety and necessity of icons in Orthodox worship, with particular emphasis on the relationship between icons and Christology. Here's a link:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/johndamascus-images.html#PART%20I
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #46 on: July 06, 2010, 10:43:47 AM »
but if I am correct, then all who receive from the altar at an Orthodox Church, whether miaphysite or dyophysite, or from the Church of the East, are part of the Body of the one and the same Christ.

Careful my friend. The Catholic Church does recoginze that those in other Apostolic bodies have partial communion with the Church, which is identified as the Body of Christ, but those not within the visible Catholic Church do not have full communion with the Church.

Regardless of the lack of full communion between the churches, because of the validity of the sacraments of all these churches, we are unwittingly united because of the Body and Blood, despite our human divisions. Our communion is more full with them than with the Protestants, some of whom we are united with by common baptism, although because of the lack of all other sacraments the union is much less complete than with the churches that retain valid sacraments.

However, I do not think that His Eminence Cardinal Humbert excommunicating His All-Holiness Michael Cærularius and the reciprocation can cause a humble parish priest in Bulgaria to cease to be part of the same Catholic Church that a humble parish priest in Spain is a part of. Hence, the issue of how deep our communion is gets much more complicated than, "They're in schism! Anathema!"
Well, His the excommunication of Patriarch Caeulius by Cardinal Humbert was invalid anyway because the Pope that the Cardinal represented had already passed away. Real schism didn't occur until the Patriarch "excommunicateed" the Pope.  That being said, I understand where you are coming from and sympathize with your view. But please do be careful and keep in mind the teachings of the Popes on this matter. Read the Encyclical "The Mystical Body of Christ". This document makes it quite clear that the Catholic Church is the Church and those outside of her bounds are not members of the Church, even though they possess partial communion.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #47 on: July 06, 2010, 10:46:05 AM »
If Nestorianism is such a fundamental heresy, then in what sense are they apostolic? I mean, was it because there were Nestorian bishops who split off? That would make Anglicanism no less apsotolic.
They are not really Nestorians.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline GregoryLA

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 377
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #48 on: July 06, 2010, 06:14:53 PM »
Well, His the excommunication of Patriarch Caeulius by Cardinal Humbert was invalid anyway because the Pope that the Cardinal represented had already passed away. Real schism didn't occur until the Patriarch "excommunicateed" the Pope. 

May I ask you where you got this from?  Or is this something original from you?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #49 on: July 06, 2010, 07:46:51 PM »
but if I am correct, then all who receive from the altar at an Orthodox Church, whether miaphysite or dyophysite, or from the Church of the East, are part of the Body of the one and the same Christ.

Careful my friend. The Catholic Church does recoginze that those in other Apostolic bodies have partial communion with the Church, which is identified as the Body of Christ, but those not within the visible Catholic Church do not have full communion with the Church.

Regardless of the lack of full communion between the churches, because of the validity of the sacraments of all these churches, we are unwittingly united because of the Body and Blood, despite our human divisions. Our communion is more full with them than with the Protestants, some of whom we are united with by common baptism, although because of the lack of all other sacraments the union is much less complete than with the churches that retain valid sacraments.

However, I do not think that His Eminence Cardinal Humbert excommunicating His All-Holiness Michael Cærularius and the reciprocation can cause a humble parish priest in Bulgaria to cease to be part of the same Catholic Church that a humble parish priest in Spain is a part of. Hence, the issue of how deep our communion is gets much more complicated than, "They're in schism! Anathema!"
Well, His the excommunication of Patriarch Caeulius by Cardinal Humbert was invalid anyway because the Pope that the Cardinal represented had already passed away. Real schism didn't occur until the Patriarch "excommunicateed" the Pope.  That being said, I understand where you are coming from and sympathize with your view. But please do be careful and keep in mind the teachings of the Popes on this matter. Read the Encyclical "The Mystical Body of Christ". This document makes it quite clear that the Catholic Church is the Church and those outside of her bounds are not members of the Church, even though they possess partial communion.
No, schism occured when the pope of Rome obeyed the ruler of the Franks and inserted the filioque, and was per Constantinople IV stricken from the diptychs.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #50 on: July 06, 2010, 08:40:44 PM »
Quote
And, as much as I accept the use of icons and their veneration, I don't know that I view the issue as fundamental to the nature of the Church in the same way that it seems the EO tradition does.

To deny the veneration of icons as proper is tantamount to denying the Incarnation of Christ.

So I've been told. I haven't really seen that proven to be the case. And I don't really believe it. I could imagine fairly easily how one could truly believe in the Incarnation and not the veneration of icons.

Well, the question is, why would you reject the veneration of icons if you truly believe in the Incarnation? The arguments that were made by the iconoclasts (e.g., icons evince a confusion of Christ's two natures) revealed a faulty Christology.

I could have sworn that the Byzantine Iconoclasts criticized icons as being Nestorian, because of only depicting Christ's human nature, rather than Synousiast.

At that time their motivation may or may not have been an indication of a faulty Christology. But that doesn't mean that that would be the reason for any school of iconoclasm.

I think I remember hearing the criticism that it is improper to depict a person whom we don't know what they look like. I think this is a reasonable criticism, and obviously not one that expresses a deficient Christology, though I obviously don't agree with it.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #51 on: July 06, 2010, 08:42:13 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?

Assyrian Church of the East.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #52 on: July 06, 2010, 08:45:11 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?
Ancient Church of the East, i.e. the Assyrians/Nestorians.

Be careful that you not confuse the Assyrian Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Dinkha IV, and the Ancient Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Addai II.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #53 on: July 06, 2010, 08:48:45 PM »
If Nestorianism is such a fundamental heresy, then in what sense are they apostolic? I mean, was it because there were Nestorian bishops who split off? That would make Anglicanism no less apsotolic.

The "four Apostolic churches" is simply the POV of WetCatechumen.

He and his church are at an understanding of the ACE not really teaching a heterodox Christology.

They are also at an understanding that the ACE has maintained the proper form of Apostolic Succession, and that the Anglican Communion has not.

I'm sure that not many people here would not agree with his theory and only espouse two (EO & OO) or one (their own).

On the other hand, I did point out that technically the Old Catholics should make the cut of his theory as well and their thus being technically 5 Apostolic churches.


Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #54 on: July 06, 2010, 08:51:56 PM »
Quote
And, as much as I accept the use of icons and their veneration, I don't know that I view the issue as fundamental to the nature of the Church in the same way that it seems the EO tradition does.

To deny the veneration of icons as proper is tantamount to denying the Incarnation of Christ.

So I've been told. I haven't really seen that proven to be the case. And I don't really believe it. I could imagine fairly easily how one could truly believe in the Incarnation and not the veneration of icons.

For starters, read St John of Damascus' treatise In Defense of the Holy Images, perhaps the most authoritative exposition of the propriety and necessity of icons in Orthodox worship, with particular emphasis on the relationship between icons and Christology. Here's a link:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/johndamascus-images.html#PART%20I

Although John of Damascus is a Chalcedonian and thus, in my mind, not a member of the Orthodox Church, he may very well have sufficient reasoning in his explanation of icons, and as such I will try to get to reading this sometime soon.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #55 on: July 06, 2010, 08:53:42 PM »
If Nestorianism is such a fundamental heresy, then in what sense are they apostolic? I mean, was it because there were Nestorian bishops who split off? That would make Anglicanism no less apsotolic.
They are not really Nestorians.

So you and your religious community say. I hope you realize that a great number of posters on here do not agree with you.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #56 on: July 06, 2010, 08:54:38 PM »
Well, His the excommunication of Patriarch Caeulius by Cardinal Humbert was invalid anyway because the Pope that the Cardinal represented had already passed away. Real schism didn't occur until the Patriarch "excommunicateed" the Pope. 

May I ask you where you got this from?  Or is this something original from you?

It's not a novelty of his own. It seems quite a common claim, actually; I have seen it on the internet numerous times.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #57 on: July 06, 2010, 09:16:43 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?
Ancient Church of the East, i.e. the Assyrians/Nestorians.

Be careful that you not confuse the Assyrian Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Dinkha IV, and the Ancient Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Addai II.

The distinction important for us is what?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #58 on: July 06, 2010, 09:36:26 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?
Ancient Church of the East, i.e. the Assyrians/Nestorians.

Be careful that you not confuse the Assyrian Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Dinkha IV, and the Ancient Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Addai II.

The distinction important for us is what?

They are distinct jurisdictions with two different Patriarchs and not in communion with each other.

You said that we were talking about the Ancient Church of the East, the name implying that church under Mar Addai II, though you yourself were probably thinking of the Assyrian Church of the East under Mar Dinkha IV.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,594
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #59 on: July 07, 2010, 03:40:09 AM »
I could have sworn that the Byzantine Iconoclasts criticized icons as being Nestorian, because of only depicting Christ's human nature, rather than Synousiast.

At that time their motivation may or may not have been an indication of a faulty Christology. But that doesn't mean that that would be the reason for any school of iconoclasm.

I think I remember hearing the criticism that it is improper to depict a person whom we don't know what they look like. I think this is a reasonable criticism, and obviously not one that expresses a deficient Christology, though I obviously don't agree with it.

My dear deusveritasest:

1. You wrote: it is improper to depict a person whom we don't know what they look like.

Have you not heard of the Mandylion, or, as it is also called, Acheiropoeitos, or, as translated from the Greek, the Image Not Made By Hands? The Orthodox Church indeed liturgically commemorates this holy image, which many, including St John of Damascus, have regarded as the prototype and justification of all icons. This image has been part of Orthodox tradition since long before the fifth century. Forgive me for my bluntness here, but I have observed your posts at length here and elsewhere, over several years. I am led to conclude that when you are faced with contradictions to your view of how things should be in Orthodoxy, you seek solace elsewhere. However, because of this behavior, you have, unfortunately, painted yourself into an ever-shrinking corner.

2. You wrote: I think this is a reasonable criticism, and obviously not one that expresses a deficient Christology, though I obviously don't agree with it.

See my comments above.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 03:44:58 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #60 on: July 07, 2010, 10:10:41 AM »
but if I am correct, then all who receive from the altar at an Orthodox Church, whether miaphysite or dyophysite, or from the Church of the East, are part of the Body of the one and the same Christ.

Careful my friend. The Catholic Church does recoginze that those in other Apostolic bodies have partial communion with the Church, which is identified as the Body of Christ, but those not within the visible Catholic Church do not have full communion with the Church.

Regardless of the lack of full communion between the churches, because of the validity of the sacraments of all these churches, we are unwittingly united because of the Body and Blood, despite our human divisions. Our communion is more full with them than with the Protestants, some of whom we are united with by common baptism, although because of the lack of all other sacraments the union is much less complete than with the churches that retain valid sacraments.

However, I do not think that His Eminence Cardinal Humbert excommunicating His All-Holiness Michael Cærularius and the reciprocation can cause a humble parish priest in Bulgaria to cease to be part of the same Catholic Church that a humble parish priest in Spain is a part of. Hence, the issue of how deep our communion is gets much more complicated than, "They're in schism! Anathema!"
Well, His the excommunication of Patriarch Caeulius by Cardinal Humbert was invalid anyway because the Pope that the Cardinal represented had already passed away. Real schism didn't occur until the Patriarch "excommunicateed" the Pope.  That being said, I understand where you are coming from and sympathize with your view. But please do be careful and keep in mind the teachings of the Popes on this matter. Read the Encyclical "The Mystical Body of Christ". This document makes it quite clear that the Catholic Church is the Church and those outside of her bounds are not members of the Church, even though they possess partial communion.
No, schism occured when the pope of Rome obeyed the ruler of the Franks and inserted the filioque, and was per Constantinople IV stricken from the diptychs.
LOL
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #61 on: July 07, 2010, 10:11:50 AM »
If Nestorianism is such a fundamental heresy, then in what sense are they apostolic? I mean, was it because there were Nestorian bishops who split off? That would make Anglicanism no less apsotolic.
They are not really Nestorians.

So you and your religious community say. I hope you realize that a great number of posters on here do not agree with you.
I am well aware of that.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,269
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #62 on: July 07, 2010, 02:06:51 PM »
If Nestorianism is such a fundamental heresy, then in what sense are they apostolic? I mean, was it because there were Nestorian bishops who split off? That would make Anglicanism no less apsotolic.
They are not really Nestorians.

No, they're not Nestorians, they just have the same theology as Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, both of whom they venerate. I guess there is no such thing as a Nestorian.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #63 on: July 07, 2010, 03:20:40 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?
Ancient Church of the East, i.e. the Assyrians/Nestorians.

Be careful that you not confuse the Assyrian Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Dinkha IV, and the Ancient Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Addai II.

The distinction important for us is what?

They are distinct jurisdictions with two different Patriarchs and not in communion with each other.

A schism between Nestorians. What difference is that to us?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,732
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #64 on: July 07, 2010, 04:13:14 PM »
If Nestorianism is such a fundamental heresy, then in what sense are they apostolic? I mean, was it because there were Nestorian bishops who split off? That would make Anglicanism no less apsotolic.
They are not really Nestorians.

No, they're not Nestorians, they just have the same theology as Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, both of whom they venerate. I guess there is no such thing as a Nestorian.
As most people here are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the Armenian, Syriac, Indian and Coptic churches and not label them as 'monophysites" as they have traditionally been, in our Church, I guess, you could extend the same charity to the Assyrian Church, for God's sake. The canons do not make any difference between a "Nestorian" and a "Monophysite" as if the former were somehow more Orthodox than the latter, from a Chalcedonian perspective.
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #65 on: July 07, 2010, 06:49:20 PM »
My dear deusveritasest:

You are free to call me Christopher, the name I was given when I was born, or Cyril, the name I was given when I was baptized.

1. You wrote: it is improper to depict a person whom we don't know what they look like.

Have you not heard of the Mandylion, or, as it is also called, Acheiropoeitos, or, as translated from the Greek, the Image Not Made By Hands? The Orthodox Church indeed liturgically commemorates this holy image, which many, including St John of Damascus, have regarded as the prototype and justification of all icons. This image has been part of Orthodox tradition since long before the fifth century. Forgive me for my bluntness here, but I have observed your posts at length here and elsewhere, over several years. I am led to conclude that when you are faced with contradictions to your view of how things should be in Orthodoxy, you seek solace elsewhere. However, because of this behavior, you have, unfortunately, painted yourself into an ever-shrinking corner.

2. You wrote: I think this is a reasonable criticism, and obviously not one that expresses a deficient Christology, though I obviously don't agree with it.

See my comments above.

Yes, I have heard of the Mandylion. The person I heard the criticism from (Rafa), from what I remember actually accepts the veneration of the Mandylion, but from what I can tell does not promote the veneration of any other icon (or at least at the time did not).

Again, I don't see how this opinion necessarily indicates a deficient Christology (though I would certainly recognize his church as having one). It doesn't seem like you even touched on the point in your last post.

Finally, I don't see how your personal comment is relevant to this thread. I don't see how my acceptance of icons as appropriate but not necessary would really result in my being excluded from any of the major episcopal traditions.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #66 on: July 07, 2010, 06:50:21 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?
Ancient Church of the East, i.e. the Assyrians/Nestorians.

Be careful that you not confuse the Assyrian Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Dinkha IV, and the Ancient Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Addai II.

The distinction important for us is what?

They are distinct jurisdictions with two different Patriarchs and not in communion with each other.

A schism between Nestorians. What difference is that to us?

It means that they're distinct religious communities. Confusing the two is obviously unhelpful.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #67 on: July 07, 2010, 06:51:43 PM »
If Nestorianism is such a fundamental heresy, then in what sense are they apostolic? I mean, was it because there were Nestorian bishops who split off? That would make Anglicanism no less apsotolic.
They are not really Nestorians.

No, they're not Nestorians, they just have the same theology as Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, both of whom they venerate. I guess there is no such thing as a Nestorian.
As most people here are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the Armenian, Syriac, Indian and Coptic churches and not label them as 'monophysites" as they have traditionally been, in our Church, I guess, you could extend the same charity to the Assyrian Church, for God's sake. The canons do not make any difference between a "Nestorian" and a "Monophysite" as if the former were somehow more Orthodox than the latter, from a Chalcedonian perspective.

It's not a matter of "benefit of the doubt".

It's a matter of a number of people having done significant enough studies of the two traditions that they are lead to believe that the Orientals were not really heterodox but the East Assyrians were.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,901
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #68 on: July 07, 2010, 07:16:19 PM »
Finally, I don't see how your personal comment is relevant to this thread. I don't see how my acceptance of icons as appropriate but not necessary would really result in my being excluded from any of the major episcopal traditions.

You can read Kallistos Ware's "On the Orthodox Church," where he describes Icons as one of 7 sources of Church tradition. Denial of Icons (ancient paintings portraying the church's understanding of its religion) as a source of church tradition, appears to contradicts a basic teachings of the Orthodox Church.

I am not sure that you are doing this though.

« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 07:17:45 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #69 on: July 07, 2010, 07:26:37 PM »
Finally, I don't see how your personal comment is relevant to this thread. I don't see how my acceptance of icons as appropriate but not necessary would really result in my being excluded from any of the major episcopal traditions.

You can read Kallistos Ware's "On the Orthodox Church," where he describes Icons as one of 7 sources of Church tradition. Denial of Icons (ancient paintings portraying the church's understanding of its religion) as a source of church tradition, appears to contradicts a basic teachings of the Orthodox Church.

I am not sure that you are doing this though.



I think the Church can and does convey its faith through icons, but I also think that it could still sufficiently convey its faith without them.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,901
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #70 on: July 07, 2010, 07:29:23 PM »
Finally, I don't see how your personal comment is relevant to this thread. I don't see how my acceptance of icons as appropriate but not necessary would really result in my being excluded from any of the major episcopal traditions.

You can read Kallistos Ware's "On the Orthodox Church," where he describes Icons as one of 7 sources of Church tradition. Denial of Icons (ancient paintings portraying the church's understanding of its religion) as a source of church tradition, appears to contradicts a basic teachings of the Orthodox Church.

I am not sure that you are doing this though.



I think the Church can and does convey its faith through icons, but I also think that it could still sufficiently convey its faith without them.

OK, the church could convey its faith without them, but it has chosen to convey its faith using them.

What is your point?
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #71 on: July 07, 2010, 07:31:02 PM »
Finally, I don't see how your personal comment is relevant to this thread. I don't see how my acceptance of icons as appropriate but not necessary would really result in my being excluded from any of the major episcopal traditions.

You can read Kallistos Ware's "On the Orthodox Church," where he describes Icons as one of 7 sources of Church tradition. Denial of Icons (ancient paintings portraying the church's understanding of its religion) as a source of church tradition, appears to contradicts a basic teachings of the Orthodox Church.

I am not sure that you are doing this though.



I think the Church can and does convey its faith through icons, but I also think that it could still sufficiently convey its faith without them.

OK, the church could convey its faith without them, but it has chosen to convey its faith using them.

What is your point?

That as such they are not fundamental to the nature of the Church.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,901
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #72 on: July 07, 2010, 07:39:48 PM »
What is your point?

That they are not fundamental to the nature of the Church.

Kallistos Ware says they are one of the seven fundamental sources of the church's teaching.

Holy Scripture, Holy Councils, Holy Ikons. Read Ware's chapter on Ikons, online, and get back to me.

The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #73 on: July 07, 2010, 07:41:51 PM »
What is your point?

That they are not fundamental to the nature of the Church.

Kallistos Ware says they are one of the seven fundamental sources of the church's teaching.

Holy Scripture, Holy Councils, Holy Ikons. Read Ware's chapter on Ikons, online, and get back to me.



That's not logical. You just admitted that the Church could have conveyed its faith sufficiently without them. Anything that the Church could have conveyed the faith sufficiently without cannot be regarded as fundamental to its nature.

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,732
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #74 on: July 07, 2010, 07:47:49 PM »
If Nestorianism is such a fundamental heresy, then in what sense are they apostolic? I mean, was it because there were Nestorian bishops who split off? That would make Anglicanism no less apsotolic.
They are not really Nestorians.

No, they're not Nestorians, they just have the same theology as Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, both of whom they venerate. I guess there is no such thing as a Nestorian.
As most people here are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the Armenian, Syriac, Indian and Coptic churches and not label them as 'monophysites" as they have traditionally been, in our Church, I guess, you could extend the same charity to the Assyrian Church, for God's sake. The canons do not make any difference between a "Nestorian" and a "Monophysite" as if the former were somehow more Orthodox than the latter, from a Chalcedonian perspective.

It's not a matter of "benefit of the doubt".

It's a matter of a number of people having done significant enough studies of the two traditions that they are lead to believe that the Orientals were not really heterodox but the East Assyrians were.
In our canonical tradition at least, Nestorians and Monophysites were regarded  as the two faces of the same coin. They are received in the same way into the OC.
Plus, we have one or two saints that belonged to the Church of the East.
I do not know if we  have any that belonged to the Orientals.
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #75 on: July 07, 2010, 07:52:25 PM »
In our canonical tradition at least, Nestorians and Monophysites were regarded  as the two faces of the same coin. They are received in the same way into the OC.

Many now believe that the Orientals never believed in the Monophysitism that was condemned by the Byzantine church.

Anyway, the point it appears you are trying to make is that both are officially condemned by the canons.

OK, but that's not exactly what we're addressing. We're discussing whether both actually had a deficient Christology or not. And after a certain amount of study, a number of those of the Byzantine tradition are now concluding that the East Assyrians did have a deficient Christology, but that the Orientals did not. Through study, not through "the benefit of the doubt".

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,901
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #76 on: July 07, 2010, 08:02:11 PM »
What is your point?

That they are not fundamental to the nature of the Church.

Kallistos Ware says they are one of the seven fundamental sources of the church's teaching.

Holy Scripture, Holy Councils, Holy Ikons. Read Ware's chapter on Ikons, online, and get back to me.



That's not logical. You just admitted that the Church could have conveyed its faith sufficiently without them. Anything that the Church could have conveyed the faith sufficiently without cannot be regarded as fundamental to its nature.

Yes, I admit the church could technically have conveyed its faith sufficiently without icons. The church could have conveyed its faith sufficiently without letters, writings of church fathers, and only used one source, the Bible, which it could have modified year by year.

The church did not do this.

The Church fathers wrote letters, pamplets, ikons, declarations of synods. They hold the basic teachings of our faith and are the sources we use.

You should read some of Kallistos Ware. It will be more helpful to understand why we consider ikons to be one of 7 basic sources of church teachings.

The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,901
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #77 on: July 07, 2010, 08:03:46 PM »

Plus, we have one or two saints that belonged to the Church of the East.


How did this happen?

The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,901
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #78 on: July 07, 2010, 08:06:27 PM »
In our canonical tradition at least, Nestorians and Monophysites were regarded  as the two faces of the same coin. They are received in the same way into the OC.

Many now believe that the Orientals never believed in the Monophysitism that was condemned by the Byzantine church.

Anyway, the point it appears you are trying to make is that both are officially condemned by the canons.

OK, but that's not exactly what we're addressing. We're discussing whether both actually had a deficient Christology or not. And after a certain amount of study, a number of those of the Byzantine tradition are now concluding that the East Assyrians did have a deficient Christology, but that the Orientals did not. Through study, not through "the benefit of the doubt".

Deus,

With due respect, I would highly like it if you would explain the basics of Oriental Miaphysist Christology and show how it compares to that allowed by Byzantium. I invite you to do this on my post about Occam's razor.

Regards.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #79 on: July 07, 2010, 08:11:07 PM »
What is your point?

That they are not fundamental to the nature of the Church.

Kallistos Ware says they are one of the seven fundamental sources of the church's teaching.

Holy Scripture, Holy Councils, Holy Ikons. Read Ware's chapter on Ikons, online, and get back to me.



That's not logical. You just admitted that the Church could have conveyed its faith sufficiently without them. Anything that the Church could have conveyed the faith sufficiently without cannot be regarded as fundamental to its nature.

Yes, I admit the church could technically have conveyed its faith sufficiently without icons. The church could have conveyed its faith sufficiently without letters, writings of church fathers, and only used one source, the Bible, which it could have modified year by year.

The church did not do this.

The Church fathers wrote letters, pamplets, ikons, declarations of synods. They hold the basic teachings of our faith and are the sources we use.

Then they are not fundamental or necessary.

Could the Church have conveyed its faith without confessing that Jesus Christ is the Only-Begotten Son of God?

No, it couldn't have.

So that is fundamental and necessary.

See the distinction?

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,269
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #80 on: July 07, 2010, 08:56:07 PM »
If Nestorianism is such a fundamental heresy, then in what sense are they apostolic? I mean, was it because there were Nestorian bishops who split off? That would make Anglicanism no less apsotolic.
They are not really Nestorians.

No, they're not Nestorians, they just have the same theology as Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, both of whom they venerate. I guess there is no such thing as a Nestorian.
As most people here are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the Armenian, Syriac, Indian and Coptic churches and not label them as 'monophysites"...

Nothing wrong with that label. As for "Nestorian," what else do you call someone who follows the teaching of "Mar Nestorius" and venerates him as a saint?

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,901
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #81 on: July 07, 2010, 09:13:55 PM »
What is your point?

That they are not fundamental to the nature of the Church.

Kallistos Ware says they are one of the seven fundamental sources of the church's teaching.

Holy Scripture, Holy Councils, Holy Ikons. Read Ware's chapter on Ikons, online, and get back to me.



That's not logical. You just admitted that the Church could have conveyed its faith sufficiently without them. Anything that the Church could have conveyed the faith sufficiently without cannot be regarded as fundamental to its nature.

Yes, I admit the church could technically have conveyed its faith sufficiently without icons. The church could have conveyed its faith sufficiently without letters, writings of church fathers, and only used one source, the Bible, which it could have modified year by year.

The church did not do this.

The Church fathers wrote letters, pamplets, ikons, declarations of synods. They hold the basic teachings of our faith and are the sources we use.

Then they are not fundamental or necessary.

Could the Church have conveyed its faith without confessing that Jesus Christ is the Only-Begotten Son of God?

No, it couldn't have.

So that is fundamental and necessary.

See the distinction?

Wrong, Deus. The Church made the Bible so it could technically have included in the Bible some writings "confessing that Jesus Christ is the Only-Begotten Son of God". It could technically put every teaching of the faith in long-winded Synod-ratified sessions.

The Church fathers wrote letters, pamplets, ikons, declarations of synods. They state the fundamental teachings of our faith and are the sources we use. Such letters and synods, and ikons of the incarnation show "confess that Jesus Christ is the Only-Begotten Son of God"

ICONOGRAPHY is an important tool that our church uses to express certain basic truths. If you want to actively ignore them based on an Oriental church's view that icons are somehow unimportant, go ahead, but it severely contradicts our Orthodox Church's teaching that icons are one of seven basic sources that contain the teachings of our Church.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 09:16:09 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #82 on: July 07, 2010, 09:16:14 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?
Ancient Church of the East, i.e. the Assyrians/Nestorians.

Be careful that you not confuse the Assyrian Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Dinkha IV, and the Ancient Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Addai II.

The distinction important for us is what?

They are distinct jurisdictions with two different Patriarchs and not in communion with each other.

A schism between Nestorians. What difference is that to us?

It means that they're distinct religious communities. Confusing the two is obviously unhelpful.
Distinct religious communities: two communities claiming to be the true branch of a heretical Church.  Their schism from each other doesn't effect the heresy that seperates them from Orthodoxy.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,594
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #83 on: July 07, 2010, 09:58:40 PM »
Quote
I don't see how my acceptance of icons as appropriate but not necessary would really result in my being excluded from any of the major episcopal traditions.

The first Sunday of Great Lent is known as the Triumph of Orthodoxy, and it commemorates the final defeat of the iconoclasts. The Orthodox Church has seen it fit to commemorate this event liturgically, in perpetuity. The defeat of the iconoclasts wasn't merely a victory over the right to use a visual medium in worship and prayer, but a victory over yet another form of Christological heresy, no less destructive than Arianism, or the denial that the Virgin Mary was indeed the Mother of God (Theotokos), not simply the Mother of Christ (Christotokos). Some selections from the Vigil of the Sunday of Orthodoxy:

Uncircumscribed, Master, in Your divine nature, and incarnate in the last times, You were pleased to be circumscribed; for in assuming flesh, You also took on all its properties. Therefore, depicting the form of Your likeness, we give it veneration, and are exalted to love of You, and following the godly traditions of the apostles, we draw from it the grace of healings.

The Church of Christ has received a precious adornment: the radiant restoration of the venerable and holy ikons of Christ the Saviour, of God’s Mother and of all the saints. Through this she is made bright and resplendent with grace and rejects the throng of heretics as she drives them out and joyfully gives glory to God who loves mankind, and who for her sake endured His voluntary sufferings.

The kontakion of the feast is, in effect, a summary of the economy of our salvation, of the invisible, unknowable God becoming incarnate for our salvation:

No one could describe the Word of the Father; but when He took flesh from you, O Mother of God, He consented to be described, and restored the fallen image to its former state by uniting it to divine beauty. We confess and proclaim our salvation in word and images.

And, if there was any doubt as to whether icons are an "optional extra" in Orthodox worship and devotion, here is an extract from the Synodikon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy:

On those who accept with their reason the incarnate economy of God the Word, but will not allow that this can be beheld through images, and therefore affect to receive our salvation in words, but deny it in reality:

Anathema!

On those who wickedly make play with the word ‘uncircumscribed’ and therefore refuse to depict in images Christ, our true God, who likewise shared our flesh and blood, and therefore show themselves to be fantasiasts:

Anathema!

On those who admit, even against their will, the prophetic visions, but will not accept the making of images of what they saw—O wonder!—even before the Incarnation of the Word, but emptily say that the incomprehensible and unseen essence itself was seen by those who beheld it, or conclude that these things make manifest images, figures and forms of the truth to those who see them, but will not accept that the Word become man, and his sufferings for our sake, may be depicted in icons:

Anathema!

On those who hear and understand the Lord saying, If you believed Moses, you would have believed Me, and the rest, and Moses saying, The Lord our God will raise up for you from your brothers a prophet like me, and then say that the prophet is received, but that they will not represent the grace of the prophet and the salvation he brought for the whole world through images, even though He was seen and lived among men and women, and cured sufferings and sickness with mighty acts of healing, and was crucified, and buried, and rose again, and did and suffered all this for our sake; on those who will not accept that these works of salvation, accomplished for the whole world, may be seen in icons, nor honoured and venerated in them:

Anathema!

On those who remain in the icon-fighting heresy, or rather the Christ-fighting apostasy, and neither wish to be led to their salvation through the Mosaic legislation, nor choose to live piously in accordance with apostolic teaching, nor are persuaded to turn from their error by the advice and exhortations of the Fathers, nor are abashed by the harmony of every part of the ecumenical Church of God, but once and for all have subjected themselves to the lot of the Jews and the pagans; for immediately they have uttered blasphemies against the Archetype, and have not blushed to dare to make the image of the archetype identical with the archetype Himself.  On those, therefore, who have heedlessly accepted this error, and have stuffed their ears against very divine word and spiritual teaching, as they are already putrefied, and cut themselves off from the common body of the Church:

Anathema!


No wiggle-room here, my friend.

In an earlier post, you remarked that St John of Damascus was a Chalcedonian, therefore implying that you might not be receptive to what he was written. Yet St John, in his treatise, draws extensively from Fathers who greatly predate the council of Chalcedon, such as Sts Basil the Great, Epiphanius of Cyprus, John Chrysostom, Ambrose of Milan, Gregory the Theologian, and Dionysius the Areopagite. Even your own patron saint, Cyril of Alexandria, is quoted.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 10:30:57 PM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,732
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #84 on: July 07, 2010, 10:03:05 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?
Ancient Church of the East, i.e. the Assyrians/Nestorians.

Be careful that you not confuse the Assyrian Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Dinkha IV, and the Ancient Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Addai II.

The distinction important for us is what?

They are distinct jurisdictions with two different Patriarchs and not in communion with each other.

A schism between Nestorians. What difference is that to us?

It means that they're distinct religious communities. Confusing the two is obviously unhelpful.
Distinct religious communities: two communities claiming to be the true branch of a heretical Church.  Their schism from each other doesn't effect the heresy that seperates them from Orthodoxy.
In your opinion, is there a heresy that severs the orientals from Orthodoxy?
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 10:09:05 PM by augustin717 »
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,901
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #85 on: July 07, 2010, 10:21:20 PM »
Some selections from the Vigil of the Sunday of Orthodoxy:

Very powerful
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #86 on: July 07, 2010, 10:49:04 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?
Ancient Church of the East, i.e. the Assyrians/Nestorians.

Be careful that you not confuse the Assyrian Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Dinkha IV, and the Ancient Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Addai II.

The distinction important for us is what?

They are distinct jurisdictions with two different Patriarchs and not in communion with each other.

A schism between Nestorians. What difference is that to us?

It means that they're distinct religious communities. Confusing the two is obviously unhelpful.
Distinct religious communities: two communities claiming to be the true branch of a heretical Church.  Their schism from each other doesn't effect the heresy that seperates them from Orthodoxy.
In your opinion, is there a heresy that severs the orientals from Orthodoxy?
No.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,732
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #87 on: July 07, 2010, 10:50:45 PM »
Well, then you differ from the common opinion in our Church.
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline Shlomlokh

  • 主哀れめよ!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,356
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Bulgarian/GOA
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #88 on: July 07, 2010, 10:53:14 PM »
Some selections from the Vigil of the Sunday of Orthodoxy:

Very powerful
Amen! I teared up during the Sunday of Orthodoxy Divine Liturgy this past year. It is amazing to see that we are blessed with such continuity in the Apostolic Faith. :)

In Christ,
Andrew
"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #89 on: July 08, 2010, 12:02:12 AM »
Well, then you differ from the common opinion in our Church.
Not even from the common opinion of the Phanariots.  The ones at Chambesy-EP are on board.  The ones in Palestine arent', but then they don't recognize the local EO either. Alexandria and Antioch, where we have actual OO (and not theological constructs which have no existence outside of polemic) are fully behind it, particularly the later, i.e. the jurisdiction where I now found myself.

Quote
Second Agreed Statement (1990)

The first Agreed Statement on Christology adopted by the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, at our historic meeting at the Anba Bishoy Monastery, Egypt, from 20th to 24th June 1989 forms the basis of this Second Agreed Statement on the following affirmations of our common faith and understanding, and recommendations on steps to be taken for the communion of our two families of Churches in Jesus Christ our Lord, Who prayed "that they all may be one".

1. Both families agree in condemning the Eutychian heresy. Both families confess that the Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, only begotten of the Father before the ages and consubstantial with Him, was incarnate and was born from the Virgin Mary Theotokos; fully consubstantial with us, perfect man with soul, body and mind (nouj); He was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day, ascended to the Heavenly Father, where He sits on the right hand of the Father as Lord of all Creation. At Pentecost, by the coming of the Holy Spirit He manifested the Church as His Body. We look forward to His coming again in the fullness of His glory, according to the Scriptures.

2. Both families condemn the Nestorian heresy and the crypto-Nestorianism of Theodoret of Cyrus. They agree that it is not sufficient merely to say that Christ is consubstantial both with His Father and with us, by nature God and by nature man; it is necessary to affirm also that the Logos, Who is by nature God, became by nature Man, by His Incarnation in the fullness of time.

3. Both families agree that the Hypostasis of the Logos became composite (sunqetoj) by uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy, which He has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, created human nature, which He assumed at the Incarnation and made His own, with its natural will and energy.

4. Both families agree that the natures with their proper energies and wills are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without change, without division and without separation, and that they are distinguished in thought alone (th qewria monh). 20

5. Both families agree that He Who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis of the Logos incarnate.

6. Both families agree in rejecting interpretations of Councils which do not fully agree with the Horos of the Third Ecumenical Council and the letter (433) of Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch.

7. The Orthodox agree that the Oriental Orthodox will continue to maintain their traditional Cyrillian terminology of "one nature of the incarnate Logos" ("mia fusij tou qeou Logou sesarkwmenh"), since they acknowledge the double consubstantiality of the Logos which Eutyches denied. The Orthodox also use this terminology. The Oriental Orthodox agree that the Orthodox are justified in their use of the two-natures formula, since they acknowledge that the distinction is "in thought alone" (th qewria monh). Cyril interpreted correctly this use in his letter to John of Antioch and his letters to Acacius of Melitene (PG 77, 184-201), to Eulogius (PG 77, 224-228) and to Succensus (PG 77, 228-245).

8. Both families accept the first three Ecumenical Councils, which form our common heritage. In relation to the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox state that for them the above points 1-7 are the teachings also of the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, while the Oriental Orthodox consider this statement of the Orthodox as their interpretation. With this understanding, the Oriental Orthodox respond to it positively.

In relation to the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox agree that the theology and practice of the veneration of icons taught by that Council are in basic agreement with the teaching and practice of the Oriental Orthodox from ancient times, long before the convening of the Council, and that we have no disagreement in this regard.

9. In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology as well as of the above common affirmations, we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion.

10. Both families agree that all the anathemas and condemnations of the past which now divide us should be lifted by the Churches in order that the last obstacle to the full unity and communion of our two families can be removed by the grace and power of God. Both families agree that the lifting of anathemas and condemnations will be consummated on the basis that the Councils and Fathers previously anathematized or condemned are not heretical.

We therefore recommend to our Churches the following practical steps :

A. The Orthodox should lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Oriental Orthodox Councils and Fathers whom they have anathematised or condemned in the past.

B. The Oriental Orthodox should at the same time lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Orthodox Councils and fathers, whom they have anathematised or condemned in the past.

C. The manner in which the anathemas are to be lifted should be decided by the Churches individually.

Trusting in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, Unity and Love, we submit this Agreed Statement and Recommendations to our venerable Churches for their consideration and action, praying that the same Spirit will lead us to that unity for which our Lord prayed and prays.
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state02.php

As for your neck of the woods:
Quote
Statement of the Romanian Orthodox Church on the Theological Dialogue
Decisions of the Holy Synod, Bucharest, Romania, 8-9 December 1994

Following the meeting in Bucharest on the 25th October 1994 of the two co-Presidents of the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches with the members of the Commission of the Romanian Orthodox Church for the theological dialogue between the two families of Churches, the Holy Synod of our Church, in its session of 8-9 December 1994, analyzing the conclusions of that meeting, and based on the documents elaborated during the official meetings of the Joint Commission for the dialogue, has decided:

1. To take note of and to approve the conclusions of the dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, as the result of the talks held at the Patriarchal Residence in Bucharest by the members of the Commission of the Romanian Orthodox Church for the theological dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the two co-Presidents of the Joint Commission of the dialogue;

2. To take into consideration, on the one hand, the special context in which the anathemas were pronounced, a context which was characterised by division, by the absence of a consensus in the formulation of the confession of the faith, as well as by the absence of fraternal charity, and on the other hand, the current context in which the lifting of anathemas is discussed, and which is characterised by a spirit of reconciliation, of mutual forgiveness and of the common confession of the same content of the common faith;

3. To consider that the equivalent of the canonical authority of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon can today be represented by the consenus of the Churches organised in Holy Local Councils (national, autocephalous and autonomous), belonging to the Byzantine Orthodox family as well as to the Oriental Orthodox family. Consequently, the possibility of the real lifting of the anathemas is to be studied, through the consensus of the Holy Local Councils expressed by the signatures placed on common agreed texts, and then, by a ceremonial concelebration and Eucharistic communion of the Primates of these Churches, gathered together in a joint Orthodox conference;

4. To give the professors of Universal Church History and Patristics of the Faculties of Theology of the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate the task of studying the results of the theological dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches with a view to revising the chapters concerning the family of the Oriental Orthodox Churches;

5. To present the results of the dialogue between the two families of Orthodox Churches to gatherings of clergy in order to inform the priests and to contribute to the creation of a favourable opinion of these results within our Church.

6. To communicate all these decisions to the Secretariat of the Joint Commission for the International Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, in Geneva.

It is our hope that the decisions taken by the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church will help to advance us on the way which is opening before us and which leads ot the fulfillment of complete communion between the two families of Orthodox Churches.
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state10.php

Such posits the problem of a false seperation:In the rite of reception converts, the particular heresy is supposed to be renounced.  In the case of the Vatican and the Protestants, what is renounced is things that they actually teach and believe.  In the case of the Non-Chalcedonians they are told to renounce something that they do not believe, have never believed, and have never taught:
Quote
Do you renounce the erroneous belief that in Our Lord Jesus Christ there are not two natures, Divine and human, but one ony; the human nature being swallowed up by the Divine?
http://books.google.com/books?id=fBk9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA456&dq=Service+Book+Orthodox+Reception+Converts+Armenian+Confession+swallowed&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Since they the converts are being told to renounce their error which seperates them from Orthodoxy, the fact that the Miaphysites are told to renounce an error they do not hold is problematic
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,901
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #90 on: July 08, 2010, 12:10:07 AM »
Well, then you differ from the common opinion in our Church.
Not even from the common opinion of the Phanariots.  The ones at Chambesy-EP are on board.  The ones in Palestine arent', but then they don't recognize the local EO either. Alexandria and Antioch, where we have actual OO (and not theological constructs which have no existence outside of polemic) are fully behind it, particularly the later, i.e. the jurisdiction where I now found myself.

Quote
Second Agreed Statement (1990)

The first Agreed Statement on Christology adopted by the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, at our historic meeting at the Anba Bishoy Monastery, Egypt, from 20th to 24th June 1989 forms the basis of this Second Agreed Statement on the following affirmations of our common faith and understanding, and recommendations on steps to be taken for the communion of our two families of Churches in Jesus Christ our Lord, Who prayed "that they all may be one".

1. Both families agree in condemning the Eutychian heresy. Both families confess that the Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, only begotten of the Father before the ages and consubstantial with Him, was incarnate and was born from the Virgin Mary Theotokos; fully consubstantial with us, perfect man with soul, body and mind (nouj); He was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day, ascended to the Heavenly Father, where He sits on the right hand of the Father as Lord of all Creation. At Pentecost, by the coming of the Holy Spirit He manifested the Church as His Body. We look forward to His coming again in the fullness of His glory, according to the Scriptures.

2. Both families condemn the Nestorian heresy and the crypto-Nestorianism of Theodoret of Cyrus. They agree that it is not sufficient merely to say that Christ is consubstantial both with His Father and with us, by nature God and by nature man; it is necessary to affirm also that the Logos, Who is by nature God, became by nature Man, by His Incarnation in the fullness of time.

3. Both families agree that the Hypostasis of the Logos became composite (sunqetoj) by uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy, which He has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, created human nature, which He assumed at the Incarnation and made His own, with its natural will and energy.

4. Both families agree that the natures with their proper energies and wills are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without change, without division and without separation, and that they are distinguished in thought alone (th qewria monh). 20

5. Both families agree that He Who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis of the Logos incarnate.

6. Both families agree in rejecting interpretations of Councils which do not fully agree with the Horos of the Third Ecumenical Council and the letter (433) of Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch.

7. The Orthodox agree that the Oriental Orthodox will continue to maintain their traditional Cyrillian terminology of "one nature of the incarnate Logos" ("mia fusij tou qeou Logou sesarkwmenh"), since they acknowledge the double consubstantiality of the Logos which Eutyches denied. The Orthodox also use this terminology. The Oriental Orthodox agree that the Orthodox are justified in their use of the two-natures formula, since they acknowledge that the distinction is "in thought alone" (th qewria monh). Cyril interpreted correctly this use in his letter to John of Antioch and his letters to Acacius of Melitene (PG 77, 184-201), to Eulogius (PG 77, 224-228) and to Succensus (PG 77, 228-245).

8. Both families accept the first three Ecumenical Councils, which form our common heritage. In relation to the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox state that for them the above points 1-7 are the teachings also of the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, while the Oriental Orthodox consider this statement of the Orthodox as their interpretation. With this understanding, the Oriental Orthodox respond to it positively.

In relation to the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox agree that the theology and practice of the veneration of icons taught by that Council are in basic agreement with the teaching and practice of the Oriental Orthodox from ancient times, long before the convening of the Council, and that we have no disagreement in this regard.

9. In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology as well as of the above common affirmations, we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion.

10. Both families agree that all the anathemas and condemnations of the past which now divide us should be lifted by the Churches in order that the last obstacle to the full unity and communion of our two families can be removed by the grace and power of God. Both families agree that the lifting of anathemas and condemnations will be consummated on the basis that the Councils and Fathers previously anathematized or condemned are not heretical.

We therefore recommend to our Churches the following practical steps :

A. The Orthodox should lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Oriental Orthodox Councils and Fathers whom they have anathematised or condemned in the past.

B. The Oriental Orthodox should at the same time lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Orthodox Councils and fathers, whom they have anathematised or condemned in the past.

C. The manner in which the anathemas are to be lifted should be decided by the Churches individually.

Trusting in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, Unity and Love, we submit this Agreed Statement and Recommendations to our venerable Churches for their consideration and action, praying that the same Spirit will lead us to that unity for which our Lord prayed and prays.
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state02.php

As for your neck of the woods:
Quote
Statement of the Romanian Orthodox Church on the Theological Dialogue
Decisions of the Holy Synod, Bucharest, Romania, 8-9 December 1994

Following the meeting in Bucharest on the 25th October 1994 of the two co-Presidents of the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches with the members of the Commission of the Romanian Orthodox Church for the theological dialogue between the two families of Churches, the Holy Synod of our Church, in its session of 8-9 December 1994, analyzing the conclusions of that meeting, and based on the documents elaborated during the official meetings of the Joint Commission for the dialogue, has decided:

1. To take note of and to approve the conclusions of the dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, as the result of the talks held at the Patriarchal Residence in Bucharest by the members of the Commission of the Romanian Orthodox Church for the theological dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the two co-Presidents of the Joint Commission of the dialogue;

2. To take into consideration, on the one hand, the special context in which the anathemas were pronounced, a context which was characterised by division, by the absence of a consensus in the formulation of the confession of the faith, as well as by the absence of fraternal charity, and on the other hand, the current context in which the lifting of anathemas is discussed, and which is characterised by a spirit of reconciliation, of mutual forgiveness and of the common confession of the same content of the common faith;

3. To consider that the equivalent of the canonical authority of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon can today be represented by the consenus of the Churches organised in Holy Local Councils (national, autocephalous and autonomous), belonging to the Byzantine Orthodox family as well as to the Oriental Orthodox family. Consequently, the possibility of the real lifting of the anathemas is to be studied, through the consensus of the Holy Local Councils expressed by the signatures placed on common agreed texts, and then, by a ceremonial concelebration and Eucharistic communion of the Primates of these Churches, gathered together in a joint Orthodox conference;

4. To give the professors of Universal Church History and Patristics of the Faculties of Theology of the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate the task of studying the results of the theological dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches with a view to revising the chapters concerning the family of the Oriental Orthodox Churches;

5. To present the results of the dialogue between the two families of Orthodox Churches to gatherings of clergy in order to inform the priests and to contribute to the creation of a favourable opinion of these results within our Church.

6. To communicate all these decisions to the Secretariat of the Joint Commission for the International Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, in Geneva.

It is our hope that the decisions taken by the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church will help to advance us on the way which is opening before us and which leads ot the fulfillment of complete communion between the two families of Orthodox Churches.
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state10.php

Such posits the problem of a false seperation:In the rite of reception converts, the particular heresy is supposed to be renounced.  In the case of the Vatican and the Protestants, what is renounced is things that they actually teach and believe.  In the case of the Non-Chalcedonians they are told to renounce something that they do not believe, have never believed, and have never taught:
Quote
Do you renounce the erroneous belief that in Our Lord Jesus Christ there are not two natures, Divine and human, but one ony; the human nature being swallowed up by the Divine?
http://books.google.com/books?id=fBk9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA456&dq=Service+Book+Orthodox+Reception+Converts+Armenian+Confession+swallowed&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Since they the converts are being told to renounce their error which seperates them from Orthodoxy, the fact that the Miaphysites are told to renounce an error they do not hold is problematic

The converts could instead be asked to "reject" the belief, rather than renounce it.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #91 on: July 08, 2010, 04:04:09 AM »
Well, then you differ from the common opinion in our Church.
Not even from the common opinion of the Phanariots.  The ones at Chambesy-EP are on board.  The ones in Palestine arent', but then they don't recognize the local EO either. Alexandria and Antioch, where we have actual OO (and not theological constructs which have no existence outside of polemic) are fully behind it, particularly the later, i.e. the jurisdiction where I now found myself.

Quote
Second Agreed Statement (1990)

The first Agreed Statement on Christology adopted by the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, at our historic meeting at the Anba Bishoy Monastery, Egypt, from 20th to 24th June 1989 forms the basis of this Second Agreed Statement on the following affirmations of our common faith and understanding, and recommendations on steps to be taken for the communion of our two families of Churches in Jesus Christ our Lord, Who prayed "that they all may be one".

1. Both families agree in condemning the Eutychian heresy. Both families confess that the Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, only begotten of the Father before the ages and consubstantial with Him, was incarnate and was born from the Virgin Mary Theotokos; fully consubstantial with us, perfect man with soul, body and mind (nouj); He was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day, ascended to the Heavenly Father, where He sits on the right hand of the Father as Lord of all Creation. At Pentecost, by the coming of the Holy Spirit He manifested the Church as His Body. We look forward to His coming again in the fullness of His glory, according to the Scriptures.

2. Both families condemn the Nestorian heresy and the crypto-Nestorianism of Theodoret of Cyrus. They agree that it is not sufficient merely to say that Christ is consubstantial both with His Father and with us, by nature God and by nature man; it is necessary to affirm also that the Logos, Who is by nature God, became by nature Man, by His Incarnation in the fullness of time.

3. Both families agree that the Hypostasis of the Logos became composite (sunqetoj) by uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy, which He has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, created human nature, which He assumed at the Incarnation and made His own, with its natural will and energy.

4. Both families agree that the natures with their proper energies and wills are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without change, without division and without separation, and that they are distinguished in thought alone (th qewria monh). 20

5. Both families agree that He Who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis of the Logos incarnate.

6. Both families agree in rejecting interpretations of Councils which do not fully agree with the Horos of the Third Ecumenical Council and the letter (433) of Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch.

7. The Orthodox agree that the Oriental Orthodox will continue to maintain their traditional Cyrillian terminology of "one nature of the incarnate Logos" ("mia fusij tou qeou Logou sesarkwmenh"), since they acknowledge the double consubstantiality of the Logos which Eutyches denied. The Orthodox also use this terminology. The Oriental Orthodox agree that the Orthodox are justified in their use of the two-natures formula, since they acknowledge that the distinction is "in thought alone" (th qewria monh). Cyril interpreted correctly this use in his letter to John of Antioch and his letters to Acacius of Melitene (PG 77, 184-201), to Eulogius (PG 77, 224-228) and to Succensus (PG 77, 228-245).

8. Both families accept the first three Ecumenical Councils, which form our common heritage. In relation to the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox state that for them the above points 1-7 are the teachings also of the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, while the Oriental Orthodox consider this statement of the Orthodox as their interpretation. With this understanding, the Oriental Orthodox respond to it positively.

In relation to the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox agree that the theology and practice of the veneration of icons taught by that Council are in basic agreement with the teaching and practice of the Oriental Orthodox from ancient times, long before the convening of the Council, and that we have no disagreement in this regard.

9. In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology as well as of the above common affirmations, we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion.

10. Both families agree that all the anathemas and condemnations of the past which now divide us should be lifted by the Churches in order that the last obstacle to the full unity and communion of our two families can be removed by the grace and power of God. Both families agree that the lifting of anathemas and condemnations will be consummated on the basis that the Councils and Fathers previously anathematized or condemned are not heretical.

We therefore recommend to our Churches the following practical steps :

A. The Orthodox should lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Oriental Orthodox Councils and Fathers whom they have anathematised or condemned in the past.

B. The Oriental Orthodox should at the same time lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Orthodox Councils and fathers, whom they have anathematised or condemned in the past.

C. The manner in which the anathemas are to be lifted should be decided by the Churches individually.

Trusting in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, Unity and Love, we submit this Agreed Statement and Recommendations to our venerable Churches for their consideration and action, praying that the same Spirit will lead us to that unity for which our Lord prayed and prays.
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state02.php

As for your neck of the woods:
Quote
Statement of the Romanian Orthodox Church on the Theological Dialogue
Decisions of the Holy Synod, Bucharest, Romania, 8-9 December 1994

Following the meeting in Bucharest on the 25th October 1994 of the two co-Presidents of the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches with the members of the Commission of the Romanian Orthodox Church for the theological dialogue between the two families of Churches, the Holy Synod of our Church, in its session of 8-9 December 1994, analyzing the conclusions of that meeting, and based on the documents elaborated during the official meetings of the Joint Commission for the dialogue, has decided:

1. To take note of and to approve the conclusions of the dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, as the result of the talks held at the Patriarchal Residence in Bucharest by the members of the Commission of the Romanian Orthodox Church for the theological dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the two co-Presidents of the Joint Commission of the dialogue;

2. To take into consideration, on the one hand, the special context in which the anathemas were pronounced, a context which was characterised by division, by the absence of a consensus in the formulation of the confession of the faith, as well as by the absence of fraternal charity, and on the other hand, the current context in which the lifting of anathemas is discussed, and which is characterised by a spirit of reconciliation, of mutual forgiveness and of the common confession of the same content of the common faith;

3. To consider that the equivalent of the canonical authority of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon can today be represented by the consenus of the Churches organised in Holy Local Councils (national, autocephalous and autonomous), belonging to the Byzantine Orthodox family as well as to the Oriental Orthodox family. Consequently, the possibility of the real lifting of the anathemas is to be studied, through the consensus of the Holy Local Councils expressed by the signatures placed on common agreed texts, and then, by a ceremonial concelebration and Eucharistic communion of the Primates of these Churches, gathered together in a joint Orthodox conference;

4. To give the professors of Universal Church History and Patristics of the Faculties of Theology of the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate the task of studying the results of the theological dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches with a view to revising the chapters concerning the family of the Oriental Orthodox Churches;

5. To present the results of the dialogue between the two families of Orthodox Churches to gatherings of clergy in order to inform the priests and to contribute to the creation of a favourable opinion of these results within our Church.

6. To communicate all these decisions to the Secretariat of the Joint Commission for the International Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, in Geneva.

It is our hope that the decisions taken by the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church will help to advance us on the way which is opening before us and which leads ot the fulfillment of complete communion between the two families of Orthodox Churches.
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state10.php

Such posits the problem of a false seperation:In the rite of reception converts, the particular heresy is supposed to be renounced.  In the case of the Vatican and the Protestants, what is renounced is things that they actually teach and believe.  In the case of the Non-Chalcedonians they are told to renounce something that they do not believe, have never believed, and have never taught:
Quote
Do you renounce the erroneous belief that in Our Lord Jesus Christ there are not two natures, Divine and human, but one ony; the human nature being swallowed up by the Divine?
http://books.google.com/books?id=fBk9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA456&dq=Service+Book+Orthodox+Reception+Converts+Armenian+Confession+swallowed&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Since they the converts are being told to renounce their error which seperates them from Orthodoxy, the fact that the Miaphysites are told to renounce an error they do not hold is problematic

The converts could instead be asked to "reject" the belief, rather than renounce it.

Since they don't believe it, that should not be a problem.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline GregoryLA

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 377
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #92 on: July 08, 2010, 04:56:10 AM »
Not even from the common opinion of the Phanariots.  The ones at Chambesy-EP are on board.  The ones in Palestine arent', but then they don't recognize the local EO either.

Two serious questions...

1) Who are "the Phanariots"?

2) Who are "the ones in Palestine" and what do you mean "they don't recognize the local EO either"?

Thanks!

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #93 on: July 08, 2010, 06:24:10 AM »

Since they the converts are being told to renounce their error which seperates them from Orthodoxy, the fact that the Miaphysites are told to renounce an error they do not hold is problematic

It would be interesting to know what, if anything, converts from Eastern Orthodoxy to Oriental Orthodoxy are asked to renounce at the time of their recpetion.   Chris is in this process right now and would be well aware of what he is asked to renounce.  Chris, could you say something about this?  Are there aspects of Eastern Orthodox Christology which you must reject in order to make the transition into Oriental Orthodoxy?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #94 on: July 08, 2010, 08:18:20 AM »
Not even from the common opinion of the Phanariots.  The ones at Chambesy-EP are on board.  The ones in Palestine arent', but then they don't recognize the local EO either.

Two serious questions...

1) Who are "the Phanariots"?

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

They basically centralized reduced all the Orthodox Churches within the Sultan's reach to a dependent bureaucracy to the Phanar, the Greek ethnarch's headquarters.  In the case of the Serbian Patriarchate, for instance, it was abolished by the Sultan and given Greek administration.  The Diocese of Montenegro, and Karlovitz, where the Serbian Patriarchate had found refuge, both survived and became autocephalous Churches, being out of the reach of the Ottomans.  They reunited with the Serbian Metropolitan of Belgrade after WWI to restore the Serbian Patriarchate.

In Antioch, the Phanariots declared the whole Patriarchate schismatic when it took the audacious step of electing its own, local (and hence non-Greek), Patriarch in 1899.

Quote
2) Who are "the ones in Palestine" and what do you mean "they don't recognize the local EO either"?

The Jerusalem holdover from the Ottoman Rum Millet-i: 500 or so foreign Greeks run the Patriarchate, through the tomb worshippers, otherwise know as the "Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher"
http://www.stnicholasla.com/frmichel/brotherenglish.pdf
the existence of the actual local members of the Patriarch, now dwindled by neglect to a hundred thousand, is ignored. The Melkite, Episcopalian and even the Latin Patriarchate of the Vatican has a local hierarchy.  The Arab Orthodox of Palestine end up exporting bishops, or rather candidates to the episcopacy have to go elsewhere to be consecrated.  The exile of the other Palestinian Orthodox contribute to the fact that the majority of Arabs in the Amercas are Christians.

IIRC, you are in Japan: I've recently come across a lot of contemporary material on St. Nicholas' mission there, in the Greek organ of the Patriarchate of Alexandria.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #95 on: July 11, 2010, 11:48:23 PM »

Since they the converts are being told to renounce their error which seperates them from Orthodoxy, the fact that the Miaphysites are told to renounce an error they do not hold is problematic

It would be interesting to know what, if anything, converts from Eastern Orthodoxy to Oriental Orthodoxy are asked to renounce at the time of their recpetion.   Chris is in this process right now and would be well aware of what he is asked to renounce.  Chris, could you say something about this?  Are there aspects of Eastern Orthodox Christology which you must reject in order to make the transition into Oriental Orthodoxy?

I am not yet a catechumen or even focusing my service attendance on one particular congregation yet (though I have been primarily going to either the local Armenian or local Ethiopian congregation) because I fear the possibility (and I think even probability) that the Agreed Statements of the Byzantine-Oriental Joint Commission compromise the historic Oriental Orthodox rejection of the doctrinal definition of Chalcedon, and thus that communion with those who accept it must be rejected.

So I couldn't really answer your question.

Given that the Orientals, even more commonly proportionally, are now coming to believe that the Chalcedonian tradition, even including Chalcedon, has been orthodox but misunderstood all along, I wouldn't be surprised if renunciation of error is becoming less and less applied at all.

Offline GregoryLA

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 377
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #96 on: July 12, 2010, 07:33:14 AM »

Since they the converts are being told to renounce their error which seperates them from Orthodoxy, the fact that the Miaphysites are told to renounce an error they do not hold is problematic

It would be interesting to know what, if anything, converts from Eastern Orthodoxy to Oriental Orthodoxy are asked to renounce at the time of their recpetion.   Chris is in this process right now and would be well aware of what he is asked to renounce.  Chris, could you say something about this?  Are there aspects of Eastern Orthodox Christology which you must reject in order to make the transition into Oriental Orthodoxy?

I am not yet a catechumen or even focusing my service attendance on one particular congregation yet (though I have been primarily going to either the local Armenian or local Ethiopian congregation) because I fear the possibility (and I think even probability) that the Agreed Statements of the Byzantine-Oriental Joint Commission compromise the historic Oriental Orthodox rejection of the doctrinal definition of Chalcedon, and thus that communion with those who accept it must be rejected.

So I couldn't really answer your question.

Do you not find it unlikely that both parties involved would be wrong and essentially only you would be right?  I mean that honestly cause it does seem to be an interesting yet precarious position you find yourself in.  Assuming that you conclude that both the Orientals and Byzantines are wrong about Chalcedon, where do you go?

Quote
Given that the Orientals, even more commonly proportionally, are now coming to believe that the Chalcedonian tradition, even including Chalcedon, has been orthodox but misunderstood all along, I wouldn't be surprised if renunciation of error is becoming less and less applied at all.

Are you sure there ever was a ritual of renunciation?

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #97 on: July 12, 2010, 06:30:15 PM »
Do you not find it unlikely that both parties involved would be wrong and essentially only you would be right?

Yes, but that's not what I'm suggesting. I think the Orientals who accept Chalcedon as orthodox are in error, but I do not believe that that party represents all of the Orientals.

Assuming that you conclude that both the Orientals and Byzantines are wrong about Chalcedon, where do you go?

I don't. For one thing, this is a rather modern phenomenon. The vast majority of Orientals recognized Chalcedon to have been heterodox before the last 50 years of dialogue. Also, I wasn't suggesting that all of the Orientals are wrong about Chalcedon: I know for a fact that there are many who still recognize it as having been heterodox. I identify them as being the Church to the exclusion of those who recognize Chalcedon as having been orthodox.

Are you sure there ever was a ritual of renunciation?

Yes. There has even been texts posted of the rite of conversion of a Chalcedonian in other threads.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #98 on: July 12, 2010, 06:45:35 PM »
Do you not find it unlikely that both parties involved would be wrong and essentially only you would be right?

Yes, but that's not what I'm suggesting. I think the Orientals who accept Chalcedon as orthodox are in error, but I do not believe that that party represents all of the Orientals.

Assuming that you conclude that both the Orientals and Byzantines are wrong about Chalcedon, where do you go?

I don't. For one thing, this is a rather modern phenomenon. The vast majority of Orientals recognized Chalcedon to have been heterodox before the last 50 years of dialogue. Also, I wasn't suggesting that all of the Orientals are wrong about Chalcedon: I know for a fact that there are many who still recognize it as having been heterodox. I identify them as being the Church to the exclusion of those who recognize Chalcedon as having been orthodox.

Are you sure there ever was a ritual of renunciation?

Yes. There has even been texts posted of the rite of conversion of a Chalcedonian in other threads.
Has there? Where?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #99 on: July 12, 2010, 06:48:07 PM »
Do you not find it unlikely that both parties involved would be wrong and essentially only you would be right?

Yes, but that's not what I'm suggesting. I think the Orientals who accept Chalcedon as orthodox are in error, but I do not believe that that party represents all of the Orientals.

Assuming that you conclude that both the Orientals and Byzantines are wrong about Chalcedon, where do you go?

I don't. For one thing, this is a rather modern phenomenon. The vast majority of Orientals recognized Chalcedon to have been heterodox before the last 50 years of dialogue. Also, I wasn't suggesting that all of the Orientals are wrong about Chalcedon: I know for a fact that there are many who still recognize it as having been heterodox. I identify them as being the Church to the exclusion of those who recognize Chalcedon as having been orthodox.

Are you sure there ever was a ritual of renunciation?

Yes. There has even been texts posted of the rite of conversion of a Chalcedonian in other threads.
Has there? Where?

I am not sure exactly where it was. It might have been in my "sacramental irregularities" thread.