OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 01:27:45 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Would a Council Be Necessary?  (Read 24062 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Antonious Nikolas
Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 2,017


Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra


WWW
« on: May 10, 2004, 06:06:49 PM »

I'm not interested in whether you think it should take place, or what conditions would be necessary for one side or the other to meet before it could take place, but if the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox were to work out all of their differences and reunite, would an Ecumenical Council be necessary to make the reunion a reality?
Logged

“Nothing is better than to realize one’s weakness and ignorance and nothing is worse than not to be aware of them.” - St. Peter of Damascus
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,415


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 10, 2004, 06:27:52 PM »

I chose the Ecumenical Council option because it best reflects my opinion that only some sort of general council encompassing both Churches would be necessary in order to bear witness to any reunion.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #2 on: May 10, 2004, 06:29:23 PM »

I chose the Ecumenical Council option because it best reflects my opinion that only some sort of general council encompassing both Churches would be necessary in order to bear witness to any reunion.  

I agree.  With a division having been in place for this long, it's not a union which could have the full support of both Churches without an Ecumenical Council. And even then, many would refuse it.
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #3 on: May 10, 2004, 07:47:55 PM »

I agree.  With a division having been in place for this long, it's not a union which could have the full support of both Churches without an Ecumenical Council. And even then, many would refuse it.

I agree that an ecumenical council would be helpful.

I also agree that many will refuse it unless it is the work of the Holy Spirit. If it is the work of the Holy Spirit, it will not run counter to any of the previous councils.

Of course, an ecumenical council is not absolutely necessary. The Acacian Schism, for example, was ended by a reunion document, The Formula of [Pope] Hormisdas, to which the bishops of the East agreed.

« Last Edit: May 10, 2004, 07:52:34 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #4 on: May 10, 2004, 08:22:57 PM »

Yeah, it's gotta be a Council. Which, unfortunately, guarantees that this issue will never be resolved.  Roll Eyes
Logged
Antonious Nikolas
Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 2,017


Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 10, 2004, 08:29:03 PM »

Yeah, it's gotta be a Council. Which, unfortunately, guarantees that this issue will never be resolved.  Roll Eyes


Why do you think that there will never be another Council, Tom?
Logged

“Nothing is better than to realize one’s weakness and ignorance and nothing is worse than not to be aware of them.” - St. Peter of Damascus
theodore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 194


« Reply #6 on: May 10, 2004, 08:33:50 PM »

I agree that some sort of council, likely ecumenical, will be necessary.  Rather than significant theological substance, the main roadblocks are the anathemas of Chalcedon of men the OO consider saints.
Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #7 on: May 10, 2004, 08:36:13 PM »

Why do you think that there will never be another Council, Tom?

Because the Church is too divided. The only reason it worked in the past was because the Emperor could make it happen. Even if one was to occur -- it would not be accepted by all the Churches.

Anyway -- now that I think more about it, I don't think that an EC does need to be called. The NC's just need to repudiate their earlier non-acceptance of the Council and then I would think that the EP would be happy to restore communion.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2004, 08:45:55 PM by Tom+ú » Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #8 on: May 10, 2004, 08:48:51 PM »

I agree that some sort of council, likely ecumenical, will be necessary.  Rather than significant theological substance, the main roadblocks are the anathemas of Chalcedon of men the OO consider saints.  

I think there is more to it than that, theodore.

For example, the writings of the men to whom you refer do contain real differences of theological substance, which is why they were anathematized in the first place.



Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #9 on: May 10, 2004, 11:06:55 PM »



Quote
The only reason it worked in the past was because the Emperor could make it happen.


Ah, so perhaps you see the logic in having a Pope? Wink

Quote
Even if one was to occur -- it would not be accepted by all the Churches.

For the first time, I actually agree with Tom.

I think it would take a long time for all of the Orthodox Churches or jurisidictions, all Orthodox individuals for the matter, to accept the Council as Ecumenical. Some say there as been an 8th and 9th Ecumenical Council...if so, look how long it's been....and still no answer.....as to whether they are, or they aren't. I agree with Tom, that without an Emperor or some authority figure, it would take a long time for the Council to be considered Ecumenical.

Quote
Anyway -- now that I think more about it, I don't think that an EC does need to be called. The NC's just need to repudiate their earlier non-acceptance of the Council and then I would think that the EP would be happy to restore communion.

Once again I agree with Tom  Shocked this can't be good!
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2004, 08:32:37 AM »

Ah, so perhaps you see the logic in having a Pope? Wink

I have never disputed the idea that a type of Pope in Orthodoxy would be a good idea. The problem is that power corrupts.

For the first time, I actually agree with Tom.

You will find that the older you get, the more wiser you become.
Wink
« Last Edit: May 11, 2004, 08:34:13 AM by Tom+ú » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2004, 09:33:26 AM »


Ah, so perhaps you see the logic in having a Pope? Wink

Indeed we do, Ben.
Which is why ALL Orthodox bishops are, technically, popes.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,651



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2004, 09:37:30 AM »

I agree with Tom, that without an Emperor or some authority figure, it would take a long time for the Council to be considered Ecumenical.


I think Byzantines are completely hung up on 'ecumenicity'. It means 'Imperial Council' or 'Council of the Empire'. I am reading some of the essays by the Assyrian bishop Mar Bawai Soro and I actually agree with many of his conclusions. His community were outside the 'Oecumenos' <sp?> long before the issue of Nestorius. They were unaware of Nicaea for instance until some 80 years after it took place. And when the other councils took place, as far as the Assyrian church was concerned these were local synods of the Western Empire not councils at which they had any representation or participation.

It is a great weakness in the Byzantine position that it is not clear how many ecumenical councils there are. I have already produced historic documents from the Byzantines and pointed to the EP website which all count more than 7 ecumenical councils. What is required is for Byzantines to admit that there is some need for reconsideration of what ecumenicity means rather than for converts to jump up and down demanding that everyone accepts 7 councils. If the EP accepts 8. If the united Patriarchs of the 19th century accept 8 (but a different eighth) then insisting on 7 must surely be flawed.

If the Byzantines work out what they actually mean by ecumenicity then there may be scope for them accepting another.

As for the Oriental Orthodox, I believe their position is much more pragmatic. It is the content of a council which has authority. It is not given authority because it is later called ecumenical. And I do not find the same demands all the time that councils be repudiated or accepted. Rather that the content and substance of councils be understood and accepted. If there were a council then I believe that the issue of 'ecumenicity' wouldn't come up for the OO. They would simply ask was it representative of the mind of the Church - which is the same thing. But I am sure the EO would be hung up on the issue for ever. Something has gone wrong somewhere in EO ecclesiology because the same hangups would not have occurred in the controversial period.

There must be something wrong if, after both sides possibly come to an agreement that they have the same faith, everything falters because the EO cannot decide if a reconciliation council should be their 8th, 9th or 10th ecumenical council, while the OO accept it without such problems.

If we look at Ephesus II 449. It seems to me that the OO are able to accept it as authoritative without demanding its acceptance by the EO. This is partly because the EO eventually came to accept most of its conclusions 100 years later at Constantinople II, and we are dealing with each other 'where we are', not replaying centuries of controversy. At least this seems to me to be the more flexible position that the OO are adopting. I have the Acts of Ephesus II 449 here and I am sure that most of the Byzantines who repudiate that council have no idea at all what the Acts say.

So I think a council will be useful but I am not sure that the EO are able to handle a new one since they have some problems dealing with old ones.

As for accepting Chalcedon, that is a fair demand by the EO, but it requires more effort on their part than I have generally seen. The OO may also fairly demand that the EO explain what they mean by Chalcedon, and may fairly ask that the reasonable objections which we raise to that council be examined and positively dealt with. While the EO may doubt our Orthodoxy if we cannot deal with Chalcedon honestly, we may equally doubt the Orthodoxy of the EO if they are unable to deal honestly with our objections.

Perhaps until that honest and sincere desire to examine, explore and explain the past is more evident then the prospect of some new council remains unlikely.

Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,651



WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2004, 09:38:34 AM »

Which is why ALL Orthodox bishops are, technically, popes.

The head of my church was Pope before that of Rome used the title.

Peter Theodore
devoted son of Pope Shenouda of Alexandria
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2004, 09:52:22 AM »

The head of my church was Pope before that of Rome used the title.

Peter Theodore
devoted son of Pope Shenouda of Alexandria

Historically accurate. But this does not obviate the fact that in English "Pope" is from the Latin "Popa" which is from the Greek "+á+¦-Ç+¦-é" (Papas) and simply means "Father". So to emend my post, technically ALL parish priests are popes as well.

(What's the Coptic word for Pope and Father?)

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,651



WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2004, 10:25:19 AM »

Priests are generally 'Abouna', bishops are 'Anba'.

But in Coptic hymns have, for instance:

'Peniout ethouwab Papa abba Shenouda'

My own bishop is Abba Seraphim.

I have the book about Papa Nicholas Planas so I do agree with you, in that he is also a Papa.

Is that the same word a child would use of his/her father?

Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2004, 10:32:54 AM »


Is that the same word a child would use of his/her father?

Thanks for the info. And that's a good question. I have heard +á+¦-Ç+¦-é used for 'father' in a sense like 'daddy"-  as an endearment. I was taught to use +á+¦-ä+¦-ü+¦-é (Pateras), also 'Father' more formally in my parent's home however.

+ö++++++-ä-ü+¦++-é
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,651



WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2004, 10:36:09 AM »

That's interesting, that it has the endearing sense of 'Daddy'.

So you call your own priest "papas"?

Thanks for that.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2004, 10:37:49 AM »

Quote
peterfarrington:
I think Byzantines are completely hung up on 'ecumenicity'. It means 'Imperial Council' or 'Council of the Empire'.

That's not what it means. It means a council representing the "whole world," i.e., the entire Christian Church.

If we "Byzantines" are "hung up on 'ecumenicity'," then you Non-Chalcedonians are hung up on its rejection.

Quote
peterfarrington: I am reading some of the essays by the Assyrian bishop Mar Bawai Soro and I actually agree with many of his conclusions. His community were outside the 'Oecumenos' <sp?> long before the issue of Nestorius. They were unaware of Nicaea for instance until some 80 years after it took place. And when the other councils took place, as far as the Assyrian church was concerned these were local synods of the Western Empire not councils at which they had any representation or participation.

I'll bet I can find some Pentecostals in some hollow of the Appalachians who have yet to hear of Nicea even now.

Does that render it a "local synod?"

Quote
peterfarrington: It is a great weakness in the Byzantine position that it is not clear how many ecumenical councils there are. I have already produced historic documents from the Byzantines and pointed to the EP website which all count more than 7 ecumenical councils. What is required is for Byzantines to admit that there is some need for reconsideration of what ecumenicity means rather than for converts to jump up and down demanding that everyone accepts 7 councils. If the EP accepts 8. If the united Patriarchs of the 19th century accept 8 (but a different eighth) then insisting on 7 must surely be flawed.

And it is an even greater weakness of the Non-Chalcedonians that their spiritual forefathers took their churches out of the Church after Council #3 by rejecting Council #4. Thus you have really nothing to contribute to the discussion of whether there are 7 or 8 ecumenical councils.

The debate (if there really is one) over whether there are 7 or 8 ecumenical councils pales to insignificance next to the rejection of all of the councils after the third.

Quote
peterfarrington: If the Byzantines work out what they actually mean by ecumenicity then there may be scope for them accepting another.

And if the Non-Chalcedonians repent and accept the ecumenical councils, perhaps they might no longer be called Non-Chalcedonians and could be present at the next council.

Quote
peterfarrington: As for the Oriental Orthodox,

I object to the term "Oriental Orthodox."

In fact, I believe it is a sin for Eastern Orthodox Christians to refer to Non-Chalcedonians as Orthodox.

One CANNOT be Orthodox and reject the Council of Chalcedon.

If we are to refer to Non-Chalcedonians as "Oriental Orthodox," then we should refer to Roman Catholics as Occidental Orthodox, and to Protestants as Protestant Orthodox.

If Non-Chalcedonians are "Orthodox," then Orthodox is a cheap, watered-down word that has little meaning.

Quote
peterfarrington: I believe their position is much more pragmatic. It is the content of a council which has authority.

What is a council but its dogmatic content?

This argument appears to be a subterfuge that allows one to pick and choose what he or she likes or doesn't like about a particular council.

Quote
peterfarrington: It is not given authority because it is later called ecumenical. And I do not find the same demands all the time that councils be repudiated or accepted. Rather that the content and substance of councils be understood and accepted. If there were a council then I believe that the issue of 'ecumenicity' wouldn't come up for the OO. They would simply ask was it representative of the mind of the Church - which is the same thing. But I am sure the EO would be hung up on the issue for ever. Something has gone wrong somewhere in EO ecclesiology because the same hangups would not have occurred in the controversial period.

If we EO have so many problems, why the apparent obsession with being accepted by us?

BTW, ecumenicity and "representative of the mind of the Church" mean pretty much the same thing.

Quote
peterfarrington: There must be something wrong if, after both sides possibly come to an agreement that they have the same faith, everything falters because the EO cannot decide if a reconciliation council should be their 8th, 9th or 10th ecumenical council, while the OO accept it without such problems.

We do NOT have the same faith as the Non-Chalcedonians, Peter!

You wish to be "reconciled" if we agree to allow you to continue to reject Chalcedon (and the subsequent councils) and venerate the same set of heretics who caused the schism in the first place.

That is not the "same faith" nor is it at all acceptable.

Only the ignorant and the sentimental among the Orthodox desire "unity" under such conditions.

Quote
peterfarrington: If we look at Ephesus II 449.

Are sure you want to do that?

Actually examine the infamous Robber Synod, the synod at which the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Flavian, was shamefully beaten to death by order of "the Pharaoh," Dioscorus?

Quote
peterfarrington: It seems to me that the OO are able to accept it as authoritative without demanding its acceptance by the EO. This is partly because the EO eventually came to accept most of its conclusions 100 years later at Constantinople II, and we are dealing with each other 'where we are', not replaying centuries of controversy. At least this seems to me to be the more flexible position that the OO are adopting. I have the Acts of Ephesus II 449 here and I am sure that most of the Byzantines who repudiate that council have no idea at all what the Acts say.

As long as the Non-Chalcedonians accept the Robber Synod as authoritative and do not repudiate it, there can be no reunion with them for Orthodox Christians.

Quote
peterfarrington: So I think a council will be useful but I am not sure that the EO are able to handle a new one since they have some problems dealing with old ones.

Now that's entertainment!

We have trouble "dealing with the old ones?"

Quote
peterfarrington: As for accepting Chalcedon, that is a fair demand by the EO, but it requires more effort on their part than I have generally seen. The OO may also fairly demand that the EO explain what they mean by Chalcedon, and may fairly ask that the reasonable objections which we raise to that council be examined and positively dealt with. While the EO may doubt our Orthodoxy if we cannot deal with Chalcedon honestly, we may equally doubt the Orthodoxy of the EO if they are unable to deal honestly with our objections.

Perhaps until that honest and sincere desire to examine, explore and explain the past is more evident then the prospect of some new council remains unlikely.

Peter Theodore

Your "objections" have been dealt with over and over and over again by the Fathers and Saints of the Orthodox Church.

Your great strength is that so few Orthodox today are aware of what they had to say, or that they seem to think we moderns are so much more "civilized."

There are some of us, however, who don't think we today know better than the Fathers.

We will simply stick with them, regardless of what the rest of you do.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2004, 10:47:43 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #19 on: May 11, 2004, 11:03:44 AM »

Linus, what you have said is what so many Orthodox priests have told me, and what so many Eastern Orthodox Christians seem reluctant or afraid to admit. I'm sure few will agree with you, but I applaud your courage and faithfulness to true Orthodox teaching.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2004, 11:07:22 AM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,651



WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 11, 2004, 11:17:30 AM »

Actually examine the infamous Robber Synod, the synod at which the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Flavian, was shamefully beaten to death by order of "the Pharaoh," Dioscorus?As long as the Non-Chalcedonians accept the Robber Synod as authoritative and do not repudiate it, there can be no reunion with them for Orthodox Christians.Now that's entertainment!

Linus7 I wonder if you have actually seen the Acts of the council?

I wonder if you are aware that Flavian was writing letters 6 months after you have him beaten to death.

I wonder if you are aware that the Imperial commissioners present to witness the proceedings reported to the Emperor that everything had been done in a decent and Christian manner.

I would suggest that your sources are deficient since you do not seem to be aware of any of these things but merely repeat the usual polemical materials.

No-one at Chalcedon mentioned that Flavian had been beaten to death by Dioscorus' orders. How could that have escaped attention?

I can find copies of the letters which Flavian wrote after he had been "beaten to death" if you like?

Are you aware of what that Council discussed? If not then I suggest that you spend some time studying it before you make pronouncements which have no basis in fact.

Are you aware that the Council rejected the Letter of Ibas written to Maris? Are you saying that that judgement should be repudiated? Strange, since the EO came to the same opinion 100 years later and nearly split the Chalcedonian community into two because the West all believed that in fact Chalcedon had declared the letter Orthodox. Do you repudiate the condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia? Strange because the EO came to the same opinion 100 years later after half the Chalcedonians had been teaching that he was Orthodox. Do you repudiate the condemnation of Theodoret? Yet he refused to anathematise Nestorius, and if we repudiate his condemnation for refusing to anathematise Nestorius then we must say that it is not necessary to anathematise him.

So which bits should we repudiate? The condemnation of Ibas' letter? The condemnation of Theodore? The condemnation of Theodoret? I don't see how you can demand that since if I did repudiate these condemnations then I would fall foul of Constantinople II, which you wish me to accept, which says:

"If, then, anyone shall defend this most impious Theodore and his impious writings, in which he vomits the blasphemies mentioned above, and countless others besides against our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and if anyone does not anathematize him or his impious writings, as well as all those who protect or defend him, or who assert that his exegesis is orthodox, or who write in favour of him and of his impious works, or those who share the same opinions, or those who have shared them and still continue unto the end in this heresy: let him be anathema."

Now you are asking me to repudiate his condemnation so that I can be united with you, but I cannot repudiate his condemnation because it would mean that your own council would declare me anathema for failing to confirm his condemnation.

The question must surely be "why will you not accept this part of Ephesus II 449"? Why do you wish me to repudiate something that is manifestly in accord with later EO opinion?

I will not be lectured to about the councils by someone who cannot even tell me how many ecumenical councils there are. Go find the answer to that one - and we already know that your patriarchs offer a different judgement than you - and then I will be more inclined to listen.

You are also mistaken if you think that OO are desperate to be reunited with the EO. On the contrary, since we understand ourselves to be Orthodox and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church there is no need to be united with anyone, save for the fact that we seek to obey the wish of Christ - that they may be one. And as far as is possible we wish to see if we can be reconciled with the Byzantines. We do not NEED to be reconciled except that it would be a sin not to try.

Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,651



WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 11, 2004, 11:22:36 AM »

Your "objections" have been dealt with over and over and over again by the Fathers and Saints of the Orthodox Church.


Linus7, I'd be grateful if you could list what the objections are. Or you Ben. Are you aware of what the objections to Chalcedon and the Tome are?

Have you ever thought them through, the way I try to speak and understand the EO pov? It doesn't come across in any of your posts that you have done. I am well aware of the EO objections to the OO position, but are you aware of the other way round? Or do you think it doesn't matter.

Ben, you congratulate Linus7, but do you know what I believe? How is it different to what you believe about Christ? Since you are glad to keep the wall of separation standing shouldn't you know how my faith in Christ differs from yours?

Please tell me Ben where what I believe about Christ is defective?

Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #22 on: May 11, 2004, 12:00:50 PM »



Quote
Ben, you congratulate Linus7


I congratulated him because he was clear to state that the Oriental Orthodox, are NOT Orthodox. So many Orthodox priests have told me this, yet I find many Orthodox Christians reluctant or scared to say this, or those who just don't believe it, I have noticed this a lot, as has Linus, esp around here.


Quote
but do you know what I believe?

I do not know you, I mean because I know that you are a Christian, I could guess, but I'd rather have you tell me, than me make false assumptions.

Quote
How is it different to what you believe about Christ?


Perhaps it isn't at all, we'll have to see though.

Quote
Please tell me Ben where what I believe about Christ is defective?

Please do no misunderstand me, or take my comments the wrong way. I am not condemning you, or calling you some crazy heretic, nor do I calim your faith in Christ to be defective. However, it is disturbing to see so many Orthodox Christians not willing to admit that the NC's are, in fact, not Orthodox, which is the teaching of the Orthodox Church- that is what Orthodox priests have told me again and again. It is also disturbing to see NC's communed at Orthodox churches, which I have seen done on more than one occasion. There is a schism between the Eastern Orthodox and the NC's, and it seems that so many Orthodox Christians are willing to ignore the differences between the two for the sake of unity. This is why it is refreshing to hear Linus state what orthodox Orthodox priests have told me for years.

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #23 on: May 11, 2004, 12:21:33 PM »

Ben

I think the issue is that we have made tremendous progress in our discussions with the OOs.  In the context of this dialogue, our *own* EO delegates, including some "harder" ones like Fr. John Romanides, have referred to us as the two "families" of the Orthodox Church already!  At the level of the dialogue, a fundamental agreement has been reached that there is no longer a *theological* difference between us, despite what some lesser-informed EOs and OOs alike may think (not everyone is well apprised of the official EO-OO dialogue, after all).

There is certainly much more that needs to be done before we can be fully one, but many of us take great joy from the progress that has been made to date and do not denigrate our Oriental Orthodox brothers and sisters as "non-Orthodox", but embrace them with joy in the confidence that, having reached the understanding that we share the same faith, we will surely overcome the remaining hurdles, if even with some difficulty, and reunite these two families.
Logged

B
Raouf
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 97



« Reply #24 on: May 11, 2004, 12:27:27 PM »

Dear Ben,

If you would be so kind as to show me when the Byzantines started called themselves the "Orthodox Church" and when the NC's stole that title for themselves?  

I really would appreciate it since all my history books I have call the Christians of Egypt "Orthodox" for centuries before and after Chalcedon???

As a matter of fact, the Christians who killed us (under the Emperor) were called many other names but not Orthodox???

I really need help with this!

Also, please explain to me on what basis, authority, principle, etc...can we be denied the term "Orthodox" if it has been standard usage for those Christians in places like Egypt both before and after Chalcedon.

I look forward to your response.

In Christ,
Raouf

Logged

Flog your enemies with the Name of Jesus and let the remembrance of Jesus be present with each breath. - St. John Climacus
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #25 on: May 11, 2004, 12:37:38 PM »



Quote
If you would be so kind as to show me when the Byzantines started called themselves the "Orthodox Church" and when the NC's stole that title for themselves?  

I really would appreciate it since all my history books I have call the Christians of Egypt "Orthodox" for centuries before and after Chalcedon???

As a matter of fact, the Christians who killed us (under the Emperor) were called many other names but not Orthodox???

The NC's are called Orthodox, but I have been told by Orthodox priests and bishops, that they are Orthodox, only in name, not in faith. Perhaps the NC's and the EO's do hold the same faith, but the fact that the NC's reject Councils that the EO's believe to be infallible and guided by the Holy Sprirt, presents a huge problem, in my opinion, and those Orthodox priests that I have spoken with.

There can only be ONE true Church, and it can not be divided up by schisms, with one hald believing this, and the other half believing something different. The Church is ONE, the NC's are in schism from the true Church, therefore they are not Orthodox, for they are in schism from the Orthodox Church. They may call themselves Orthodox, but if they are in schism from the Orthodox Church, then they are not truly Orthodox. This is what I have been told, and it seems to make the most sense!
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,651



WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 11, 2004, 01:39:30 PM »

Dear Ben

I have no ill will towards you at all, but I call you Orthodox only out of economy. I know that I belong to the Orthodox Church and I hope that you do to, but we are separated from each other.

Would it be helpful if I started saying how you should not be called Orthodox because you are not in visible communion with me?

How does it help? The fact is that we both consider ourselves Orthodox. Trying to prevent the other side using the term is pointless and offensive. The fact is that we should address each other as we would wish to be addressed.

Today I sent an email to the Assyrian bishop Mar Bawai Soro. I wrote to him respectfully and addressed him as Your Eminence. I described his Church as Assyrian rather than Nestorian. I told him that rather than merely repeating wornout polemics I actually wanted to be referred to someone in his community who could help me understand their Christology better. In no sense have I committed myself to considering his community as Orthodox but I have not been rude, I have not addressed him in a manner that he would find offensive and I have put myself in a position to seek to learn from him so that he can explain what he believes rather than have me tell him polemically that I already know everything that there is to know.

Why do many EO here not seem able to take that approach?

If you say that the Church cannot be divided then you need to explain what you mean. Even modern history is full of Eastern Orthodox failing to preserve unity. This is again an issue I have with some EO (you see I call you EO, I don't dredge out polemical terms), this rose-tinted approach to history. Since modern EOxy is riven with divisions how do you define the necessary unity? It seems to me that division at the human level is merely a sign of our fallen humanity and does not affect the one-ness of the Church, but some EOx seem to need to ignore real life.

What is the present situation between the Church of Greece and the EP and all those who have signed the excommunication? What is this if not a division? What about ROCOR? What about the Greek Old Calendarists? What about the Bulgarian churches, the Ukrainian Churches, the jurisdiction in Estonia - all of these produced and still produce division in the visible Church. What about the fact that the EP says there are 8 ecumenical councils but I bet you say there are 7? What about Fr John Romanides of blessed memory who says that are 9?

The Church is not so fragile that it cannot subsist in the midst of our humanity.

Are you aware that the reason the Anti-Chalcedonians walled themselves off from the Chalcedonians was because they were being persecuted to extinction? Have you been told that on one day alone 10,000 faithful Orthodox were killed by the Chalcedonians. Did you know that for 100 years after Chalcedon half of the Chalcedonian population believed that the letter of Ibas, which had been condemned in 449, had been declared Orthodox in 451? There were plenty of reasons for walling ourselves off, no less than ROCOR and the Chalcedonian Traditionalists have done.

Would it also surprise you to know that Eutyches has never been a theological figure among the Anti-Chalcedonians. In fact he has constantly been anathematised. Or that those who rejected Chalcedon never failed to confess that Christ is perfect God and perfect man, without confusion, mixture, division or separation? That his humanity was not absorbed by His Divinity and His Divinity was never changed nor subject to suffering?

Are you aware that Chalcedon does not condemn Dioscorus for any heresy?

There can only be one Church, but the one Church is not harmed by merely human divisions, if it were then Eastern Orthodoxy would already have failed the test. But it does subsist in all those who believe rightly - not about how many councils there are, but what the councils teach. And the chanting of 'accept the 7 councils' just won't wash because that just shows an ignorance of what the councils teach. It is almost Pharasaical to be honest.

I am an Oriental Orthodox. I would have thought that if you wanted to know what I believe you should ask me, not an EO priest.

I believe the Creed.

I believe in the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity.

I confess Christ as God the Word incarnate.

I confess Christ as perfect God and perfect man.
God the Word uniting to Himself real and particular humanity
without changing His Divinity from what it was, nor His humanity
from what it is.

I confess that the humanity is perfect and complete, consubstantial
with us in everyway yet without sin, with human will and rational soul.

I venerate icons and the saints represented in them.

I anathematise the Three Chapters, and I have already described how my community did this 100 years before the EO started to.

So in what way is the faith I have received, and I have received it from my bishops and priests and the teachings of Severus, Timothy, Cyril, and others, in what is this faith different to yours?

If your faith is different then that is important to recognise.

Don't say, as Linus7 does, that it doesn't matter even if my faith is exactly the same as his except I do not class the latter councils as ecumenical. Don't say, as he has done, it doesn't matter if I believe what they teach as long as I don't call them Ecumenical then I am further from Orthodoxy than Roman Catholics. Because I will then have to mention again that you cannot tell me how many councils must be called ecumenical. Is it 7 as Linus says or 8 as the Ecumenical Patriarch says. If I must accept 7 then you must accept 8 or you are as far from Orthodoxy as I apparently am.

Don't get sucked in by simplistic arguments that ignore what others actually say they believe themselves. An EO bishop is not an authority on what I and my own Orthodox church believes.  Take time to understand and then disagree by all means, but don't assume you know what I believe - and I am speaking generally of an attitude not criticising you at all - without letting me - and I am speaking generally of my community - speak.

Best wishes

Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Antonious Nikolas
Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 2,017


Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra


WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 11, 2004, 04:48:57 PM »

There can only be ONE true Church, and it can not be divided up by schisms, with one hald believing this, and the other half believing something different. The Church is ONE, the NC's are in schism from the true Church, therefore they are not Orthodox, for they are in schism from the Orthodox Church. They may call themselves Orthodox, but if they are in schism from the Orthodox Church, then they are not truly Orthodox. This is what I have been told, and it seems to make the most sense!


Ben, aren't you Roman Catholic?  If so, then by your own logic you are also outside of the "true church" (i.e. the EO Church).  You say that one half of the Church cannot believe something, and the other side believe different.  You mean like one half believeing in the filioque and the other rejecting it?  Or one side believing that the bishop of Rome is infallible when speaking ex cathedra and the other denying this?  The list goes on...

Your not deluding yourself that the EO and the RC are one Church now that the anathema's of 1054 have been removed, are you?  If that were the case, I'm sure that the big fight wouldn't have occured in the local OCA Church around my way when a Catholic priest wanted to concelebrate at a wedding of an Orthodox guy and a Catholic girl.  There was quite a ruckus, and he was forced to back down by the EO priest, and sit in as an observer.  But you know what, now I'm becoming part of the problem by participating in this off-topic discussion.

BTW folks, way to hi-jack my thread.  I said I wasn't interested in hearing if any of you blowhards thought we were Orthodox or not, just whether or not a Council would be necessary for reunification.  This was clearly stated at the beginning.  Are you unable to carry on a discussion with any of us Oriental Orthodox without making these allegations?  If you want to discuss why we are not part of the "true Church" in your eyes, please start you own thread.  Deacon Peter's defence was most eloquent, but would have been unnecessary if you polemicists would have stuck to the topic and resisted the urge to tell us whether or not you think we're Orthodox.  Again, that wasn't the purpose of this thread.  Please take that diatribe somewhere else.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2004, 04:53:37 PM by Antonious Nikolas » Logged

“Nothing is better than to realize one’s weakness and ignorance and nothing is worse than not to be aware of them.” - St. Peter of Damascus
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,651



WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 11, 2004, 04:55:46 PM »

Lol!! I didn't know Ben was RC. That would have changed my post somewhat.

Ben you should still find out what we believe before condemning us for things we don't. And I mean that generously. Come and learn.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #29 on: May 11, 2004, 05:11:29 PM »

Peter......

I truly corssed the line. And for this, I sincerely apologize. I'm not even Orthodox, so why should I have the right to say who is and isn't Orthodox?! The views I expressed were those expressed by Orthodox priests I have spoken with about the issue, I tried to make that clear.

I am not an expert in this area, I was merely exppressing what has been told to me, and what made sense.

Having said that, I would like to address my idea of the One true Church. I typed out a munch of stuff, trying to explain my thoughts, but I ended up confusing myselg. Perhaps,  I just can't explain myself as well as I thought I could or I could just be brain dead today. So, let me quote St. Philaret the Confessor:

"Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!"

This is exactly how I feel about the Church. And I think this sums up the traditional and correct view of the Orthodox Church, though I could be wrong here.

The true Church is not divded up like branches, there is one true Church and all else is schismatic and heretical. This may seem like a narrow view but if there is really only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, then it can't be divided up into a much of groups or branches.

So, I personally think that , if both the EOC and OOC are the one true Church, then either there really is no schism, or the Church isn't one. There seems to be much that still seperates the two Churches, they are not the same Church, so are we prepared to say they are each one half of the true Church? Or are we bold enough to say one is the true Church, and the other is in schism? These are honest questions.

These days it seems as if so many people are so obssesed with unity that they dangerously forget that there really is only one Church founded by Christ. People seem to be so willing to dismiss schisms, ecumenical councils, confessors of the Church, and just say "we all believe the same thing, who cares about the past, lets fixs things up."

The faith and the rich and complex Hisotry of Christianity must not be ignorned and compromised for the sake of unity.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2004, 05:22:58 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Stavro
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,190



« Reply #30 on: May 11, 2004, 05:23:58 PM »

Antonios,
I think a council nowadays is just the official declaration of the decisions taken in private talks. In old times, the 4th and 5th century, there was a necessity that bishops come together and dicuss the matter, as the communication methods were not developed. Maybe a council now is that to make it authoritive for the next generations, although if a schism (after the proposed union) is to happen it will happen anyways.

Peace,
Stavro
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #31 on: May 11, 2004, 05:41:27 PM »


Quote
Ben, aren't you Roman Catholic?


Yes, I am.

Quote
You say that one half of the Church cannot believe something, and the other side believe different.  You mean like one half believeing in the filioque and the other rejecting it?  Or one side believing that the bishop of Rome is infallible when speaking ex cathedra and the other denying this?
 

I never claimed that the RCC and the EOC were both the same Church. If you look through my posts in the Orthodox and Catholic discussion forum, you will find I frequently argue that there are profound theological and dogmatic differences between East and West, and that one of them, not both, is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Quote
Your not deluding yourself that the EO and the RC are one Church now that the anathema's of 1054 have been removed, are you?
 

I never said that the EO and RC are one Church! Where did you get that?

Quote
I said I wasn't interested in hearing if any of you blowhards thought we were Orthodox or not, just whether or not a Council would be necessary for reunification.


Well this isn't a dictatorship, and you're not the dictator, so the thread got a little off track, what can you do about it? I am sorry if I am responsible for this, but I think whenever you bring up union between the EO and the NC's you are bound to end up debating if both are really Orthodox.

Quote
Are you unable to carry on a discussion with any of us Oriental Orthodox without making these allegations?


You need to relax!

The discussion got a little off track, big deal, I think it was good, I know I learned a bunch!

Quote
If you want to discuss why we are not part of the "true Church" in your eyes, please start you own thread.


I am starting to think you should go form your own forum where you can control everyone's posts, and no one can ever go off topic, where everyone just scratches the surface and that's it.

 
Quote
Deacon Peter's defence was most eloquent

It most certainly was!!

Quote
but would have been unnecessary if you polemicists would have stuck to the topic and resisted the urge to tell us whether or not you think we're Orthodox.
 

I think it was necessary, at least it was for me. I have never seen a defense of the NC's, within the scope of an email or message, that was so eloquent and articulate, I would think going off the topic would be worth it to you,  just for Peter to post that!

I am sorry if I have offended you, but it was never my intention to do so.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #32 on: May 11, 2004, 05:49:53 PM »

Quote
peterfarrington: Don't say, as Linus7 does, that it doesn't matter even if my faith is exactly the same as his except I do not class the latter councils as ecumenical.

Your faith is not exactly the same as ours.

Here is proof in a direct quote from you:

Quote
peterfarrington: So in what way is the faith I have received, and I have received it from my bishops and priests and the teachings of Severus, Timothy, Cyril, and others, in what is this faith different to yours?

"Severus" and "Timothy" were Monophysite heretics, anathematized by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Such men actually did believe that Christ has but one nature, the divine, and that, consequently, He has but one will, energy, and activity. The latter is the heresy called Monothelitism.

St. Maximus the Confessor's Letter 12 is a detailed refutation of the errors of Severus of Antioch.

There are reasons NCs do not accept the councils after #3.

They don't believe in them!

If they had the same faith we have, they would accept those councils.

Quote
peterfarrington: Don't say, as he has done, it doesn't matter if I believe what they teach as long as I don't call them Ecumenical then I am further from Orthodoxy than Roman Catholics. Because I will then have to mention again that you cannot tell me how many councils must be called ecumenical. Is it 7 as Linus says or 8 as the Ecumenical Patriarch says. If I must accept 7 then you must accept 8 or you are as far from Orthodoxy as I apparently am.

That is your favorite chestnut right now, the bit about whether the Orthodox recognize 7 or 8 councils as ecumenical.

Again it pales to insignificance beside the rejection of ALL of the councils after #3!

If you actually believe what the councils teach, as you claim, then you should have no problem repenting of your current rebellion against the Church, accepting them, and becoming Orthodox.

Quote
peterfarrington: Don't get sucked in by simplistic arguments that ignore what others actually say they believe themselves.

Good advice.

I would also caution everyone against getting sucked in by sweet-sounding deception disguised in the language of "unity" and "orthodoxy."

Quote
peterfarrington: An EO bishop is not an authority on what I and my own Orthodox church believes.  Take time to understand and then disagree by all means, but don't assume you know what I believe - and I am speaking generally of an attitude not criticising you at all - without letting me - and I am speaking generally of my community - speak.

I've read plenty of what you have had to say.

I also know what the Orthodox Fathers had to say, and I know the history of the efforts to appease Non-Chalcedonians without insisting that they repent and accept the Council of Chalcedon and the subsequent councils of the Church.

Each time that has been tried, it has resulted in tragedy and schism.

No, we Orthodox must insist that you accept the faith of the Fathers.

Until you do, it is a sin to call you Orthodox.

I can be courteous, but I should not have to lie to you to do it.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #33 on: May 11, 2004, 05:53:22 PM »

Lol!! I didn't know Ben was RC.


The Saint Rafka avatar and the quotes from Saint Therese of Lisieux and Saint John of Cross didn't give it away?
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,651



WWW
« Reply #34 on: May 11, 2004, 06:06:36 PM »

Dear Ben

I do agree with you that the Church is one, but I believe that it is incorrect to require of this unity that it be always manifested as a visible unity. That seems to me to deny the human aspect of the Church.

When the Western part of the Chalcedonian church and the Eastern part often fell into schism with each other did this permanently injure the ontological reality that each was the Church? Or in fact were these schisms more often that not based on politics and misunderstandings?

If there was an ontological failure in one party to remain the Church simply because of political discord and division, or misunderstanding then why was there never any demand by either party that the other party be considered as being reconciled from heresy and requiring at least chrismation.

Nor does it seem to me to deal with the presence of error within a community that exhibits and external unity. The West held to the teachings of Ibas - for example - as being Orthodox for 100 years between 451 and 553. After 553 much of the West went into schism because it had ALWAYS believed that the heretical letter of Ibas had been declared Orthodox at Chalcedon. In fact I have a major theological work in front of me by one of the leading Western Chalcedonians of the day called 'In Defense of the Three Chapters', and I also have the letter of St Columbanus where he rejects the 5th council and puns that "Vigilius should have been more vigilant". And Pelagius, who became Pope after Vigilius died also wrote in support of the Three Chapters as being Orthodox and accepted by Chalcedon. Now this is error according to the 5th council but it was the position of the West for 100 years, and some of the West held onto that position until 700 AD. It was that rooted in the West's understanding of history and Christology.

But the West was in complete unity with the East.

Yet on this important matter the East condemned while the West defended the Three Chapters.

So we have visible disunity which does not seem to have damaged the ontological reality of communities being the Church despite such visible disunity, and we have visible disunity where a major part of that unity actually has a completely different understanding of the faith.

That being so I cannot simply accept that because the EO and OO are not in communion we must either accept the branch theory or decide that the EO are not Orthodox.

I reject the branch theory. But if I find that EO brethren believe as I do then I cannot ignore that. I also reject the idea that a visible unity is necessary to the mystical unity of the Church - and I don't accept the Protestant notion of an invisible union with complete organsational chaos either.

But would ROCOR cease to be part of the Church if everyone else broke communion? Is the Church of Greece now not part of the Orthodox Church because its primate has been excommunicated and thereby all who communicate with him should canonically be excommunicate?

I believe that Christ's Church is more resilient than that and not dependent on mere human relations. What if several patriarchates get involved in the EP/Greece affair and excommuicate one or other party? At what point would a party cease to be The Church even if not one doctrine had changed? Surely even if the Church of Greece were competely isolated for a time, if her bishops and people were faithful there membership of The Church is not dependent on communion with others but with faithfulness?

These are not answers to anything but I do not believe the branch theory, or an invisible unity, but in a visible unity that is constantly challenged and broken and which all faithful Orthodox are called to. I do not believe that membership of the church is determined by communion between bishops - what if every other bishop in the world became convinced that one Church was in error over something - and in fact it was not but had been misunderstood and had misunderstood others - would that Church cease to be ontologically the Body of Christ gathered around right believing bishops just because other bishops THOUGHT that her bishops taught error?

I don't believe so.

But of course this requires effort since we fallen humans must make every effort to bear witness to a real unity of faith and life if it exists, this requires overcoming misunderstandings and church politics. Unfortunately the perpetuation of division comes easier to us all, this sinner included.

Sincere best wishes

Peter Theodore

Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,651



WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 11, 2004, 06:11:30 PM »

Such men actually did believe that Christ has but one nature, the divine, and that, consequently, He has but one will, energy, and activity. The latter is the heresy called Monothelitism.

What a load of cobblers.

I have most of the writings of St Severus here which remain to us and he never teaches that. It's just a lie, a deception of the evil one because it is the opposite of what St Severus teaches.

You have been blinded I'm afraid because once again you are telling ME what I must believe and its a crock of rubbish.

I don't believe Christ hasn't got a human will, nor did St Severus nor does anyone I know. Nor do I believe nor St Severus that Christ was not perfect man.

So you are lying. You may not mean to but you are. It isn't true.

You know EO are the only people who insist that they know what others believe even when others - like me - state repeatedly that what you accuse me of is a heresy I would rather die than blaspheme my Lord by professing.

Yet of course you know that despite me saying that, despite me having studied the writings of St Severus and also finding it vehemently repudiated, YOU must know best what I believe.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #36 on: May 11, 2004, 06:53:12 PM »

So, Peter, if you have the same faith as the Eastern Orthodox, do you have any objections to the tome of St. Leo? If so, you do not share in the same faith as the Eastern Orthodox. Not because Leo was a Pope or a Saint, but because his Tome is a wonderful expression of the Orthodox teaching on Christ, to this day I know several Orthodox priests who give it to catechumens when questions come up regarding Christ's nature. Furthermore do you have ANY objections to any of the declarations of any of the 4 Ecumenical Councils that the EO's accept, and you reject? I'm not trying to be offensive..I just want to learn.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #37 on: May 11, 2004, 07:08:05 PM »

Quote
peterfarrington:
What a load of cobblers.

Merely your opinion.

I will refer others to this article and this one, as well.

They can judge for themselves who is assembling "cobblers."

Quote
peterfarrington: I have most of the writings of St Severus here which remain to us and he never teaches that. It's just a lie, a deception of the evil one because it is the opposite of what St Severus teaches.

Have you read all of those writings, which I assume you have in their French translations?

According to some pretty learned experts (see the two articles from the Catholic Encyclopedia referenced above) Severus did indeed teach that Christ had one will, energy, and activity.

That is also the opinion of the scholar Hans Urs von Balthasar in his book, Cosmic Liturgy: The Universe According to Maximus the Confessor.

St. Maximus seemed to have a problem with Severus, since he took the trouble to refute him in his Letter 12. Von Balthasar says St. Maximus saw the writings of Severus as one of the sources of the Monothelite heresy (Cosmic Liturgy, p. 78) and of the Ekthesis specifically.

If Severus was so Orthodox, why was he anathematized by the Church as a heretic?

All just a mistake?

Quote
peterfarrington: You have been blinded I'm afraid because once again you are telling ME what I must believe and its a crock of rubbish.

I won't be blinded by you anyway.

It took you longer to begin personal attacks last time.

Quote
peterfarrington: I don't believe Christ hasn't got a human will, nor did St Severus nor does anyone I know. Nor do I believe nor St Severus that Christ was not perfect man.

Your reading of Severus must differ from that of some of the NC leadership.

At least one NC Metropolitan I know of has said you all have more of a problem with the 6th Ecumenical Council (the one that condemned Monothelitism) than you do with the 4th. He referred to the Orthodox as "Ditheletes." Odd things to do if he really believes Christ has two wills.

St. Maximus the Confessor, who gave first his tongue and right hand and then his life standing against Monothelitism, evidently thought Severus was a Monothelite.

Quote
peterfarrington: So you are lying. You may not mean to but you are. It isn't true.

You should have waited a bit longer before resorting to personal attacks.

But you didn't.

Quote
peterfarrington: You know EO are the only people who insist that they know what others believe even when others - like me - state repeatedly that what you accuse me of is a heresy I would rather die than blaspheme my Lord by professing.

Yet of course you know that despite me saying that, despite me having studied the writings of St Severus and also finding it vehemently repudiated, YOU must know best what I believe.

No, I don't know squat.

But the Orthodox Fathers knew a lot.

I'll rely on them.

They haven't steered me wrong yet.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Antonious Nikolas
Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 2,017


Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra


WWW
« Reply #38 on: May 11, 2004, 07:28:39 PM »

Ben,

Perhaps we have gotten off on the wrong foot.  As you yourself have said, your earlier  posts were not articulated clearly.  Perhaps because they were so convoluted, I got the wrong idea.  Let me tell you where I was coming from. You said:

I never claimed that the RCC and the EOC were both the same Church. If you look through my posts in the Orthodox and Catholic discussion forum, you will find I frequently argue that there are profound theological and dogmatic differences between East and West, and that one of them, not both, is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  

I never said that the EO and RC are one Church! Where did you get that?

Where I "got that" was from this quote, and others like it:

There can only be ONE true Church, and it can not be divided up by schisms, with one hald believing this, and the other half believing something different. The Church is ONE, the NC's are in schism from the true Church, therefore they are not Orthodox, for they are in schism from the Orthodox Church. They may call themselves Orthodox, but if they are in schism from the Orthodox Church, then they are not truly Orthodox. This is what I have been told, and it seems to make the most sense!

This seems to imply (if not directly state) that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the one true Church, and that the Oriental Orthodox Churches are not Orthodox, and are in fact schismatic.  I was wondering how you, as a Roman Catholic, could believe this.  I would think that as a Catholic you would believe that the Roman Catholic Church was the one true Church, otherwise, you would have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.  Then I figured, maybe he thinks that the EO and the RC are really one Church and there is no longer a separation between them since the anathemas were lifted.  I have heard some Catholics articulate this.  What I was trying to say was that you can't have your cake and eat it too.  The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church can't both be the one true Church despite all of their differences, while the Oriental Orthodox are branded as schismatics.  

Your viewpoint is still somewhat murky to me, perhaps because you are still working things out for yourself.  I'll just ask directly: In your opinion, what is the one true Church, the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox? (I know you don't think it is the Oriental Orthodox.).

I think it was necessary, at least it was for me. I have never seen a defense of the NC's, within the scope of an email or message, that was so eloquent and articulate, I would think going off the topic would be worth it to you,  just for Peter to post that!

I agree with this 100%.  If you have indeed learned something here, then it was worth it.  And it is always worth it to hear what Deacon Peter has to say.

Well this isn't a dictatorship, and you're not the dictator...You need to relax!
I am starting to think you should go form your own forum where you can control everyone's posts, and no one can ever go off topic, where everyone just scratches the surface and that's it.

nyah nyah nyah!  I told you!  Sounds like you could use a time out yourself, Ben!  No big deal though.  You haven't offended me, and I hope I haven't offended you.  If I have please forgive me.  I'm not trying to control everyone's posts.  Its just that I have participated in this forum for a long time, and it seems like whenever there is any discussion between the EO and the OO at all, it turns into a "You're not Orthodox!" pissing contest, and that was not what I wanted from this thread.  Also, I have noticed that when someone starts a thread and it gets hi-jacked and taken off topic, either the person who started the thread or one of the mods will bring it back on track by pointing this out, and the others are usually corteous about it.  Perhaps I took the wrong tact by calling people "blowhards" etc., its just that I found it arrogant that a Roman Catholic would see fit to lecture people on who is Orthodox.  That would be like me telling Benny Hinn who is truly a "Born Again" Evangelical.

No hard feelings!  Hope we can communicate better with one another in the future.

Nick

P.S. - I also believe only in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  I'm not a "branch theorist".  Obviously, we would disagree about what constitutes the one Church.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2004, 07:36:01 PM by Antonious Nikolas » Logged

“Nothing is better than to realize one’s weakness and ignorance and nothing is worse than not to be aware of them.” - St. Peter of Damascus
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #39 on: May 11, 2004, 07:51:34 PM »


Quote
Perhaps we have gotten off on the wrong foot.  


We agree!  Grin


Quote
This seems to imply (if not directly state) that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the one true Church

Ah! I see the source of confusion, let me try to explain.

I wasn't making a case for the Orthodox Church being the true Church. I was trying to get the point acorss that if the Orthodox Church is the true Church, than the NC's aren't, because the NC's are in schism from the Eastern Orthodox Church. And notice at the end I state "This is what I have been told, and it seems to make the most sense!". And that is what some Orthodox priests have told me, and it does make sense.

I admit I could have articulated myself way better, but I typed it up in rush, without checking over it, I apologize about that.

Quote
Then I figured, maybe he thinks that the EO and the RC are really one Church and there is no longer a separation between them

You obviously haven't read any of my other posts in some of the other threads.

Quote
I have heard some Catholics articulate this.
 

I know, and it is quite disturbing!

Quote
The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church can't both be the one true Church despite all of their differences

Amen! And the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Church can't both be the one true Church.

Quote
Your viewpoint is still somewhat murky to me

I am sorry, let me know if there is any way I can make it clearer!

Quote
perhaps because you are still working things out for yourself

That's for sure!

 
Quote
I'll just ask directly: In your opinion, what is the one true Church, the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox?


OH, THATS A TUFF ONE!!! Hehehe, you had to ask didn't you?! Angry Wink

I am stuck between East and West, and even though I'm leaning to the Catholic side, I can not say I am 100% sure which Church is the true Church. As I said, I'm leaning to the Catholic side, but I don't know just quite yet.

Quote
(I know you don't think it is the Oriental Orthodox.)

Ah, but thats not true. I plan on visiting a Coptic parish soon, and speaking with the priest there. Who knows, maybe a year from now I'll be a non-Orthodox Heretic and schismatic like you  Wink Cheesy

Quote
I agree with this 100%.


 Smiley

Quote
Sounds like you could use a time out yourself, Ben!
 

Perhaps, today has been a rough day.

Quote
No big deal though
.

 Grin

 
Quote
You haven't offended me

And you haven't offended me.

Quote
"You're not Orthodox!" pissing contest

But this is my first "You're not Orthodox" pissing contest...can't I have a *little* fun? Wink

Quote
I found it arrogant that a Roman Catholic would see fit to lecture people on who is Orthodox.
 

After I thought about it, I did too! Thats why I stated in an earlier post "I'ver crossed the line".

Quote
No hard feelings!  Hope we can communicate better with one another in the future.

Same here  Smiley
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,462


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 11, 2004, 07:53:34 PM »

I think the only way there can be unity is this:

1) Sign an all-encompasing document at a council called with representatives of both sides, that explains the theology of both sides and their historic interpretations of Chalcedon, etc etc etc.

2) On the basis of this agreement now, the Non-Chalcedonians will retract the anathemas against St Leo and Chalcedon.

3) On the basis of this agreement, the Chalcedonians will retract the anathemas against the persons of Severus and Dioscorus, and explain the anathemas against them at the ecumenical councils to be anathemas against what they perceived to be their teachings (which if they were their teachings would indeed be heretical).

4) The Non-Chalcedonians would accept the councils #4-7 on the basis of the agreed statement of faith, with the understanding that they would not have to commemorate them liturgically.

5) We can live happily ever after.

If there is no acceptance of Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III, and Nicea II, there can be no union; it just wouldn't work in Eastern Orthodox Ecclesiology.  All in all, if we agree that we are saying the same thing with different words, then it should present no problem for these councils to be acknowledged as long as they are acknowledged in the context of the joint agreement signed by all the bishops in the reunion council.

Non-Chalcedonians will not be asked to make much of such councils liturgically, etc.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Antonious Nikolas
Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 2,017


Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra


WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 11, 2004, 08:02:23 PM »

Ben,

I'm really glad we could work that out.  Please pray for me, as I pray for you! Grin
Logged

“Nothing is better than to realize one’s weakness and ignorance and nothing is worse than not to be aware of them.” - St. Peter of Damascus
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #42 on: May 11, 2004, 08:11:01 PM »

Ben,

I'm really glad we could work that out.  Please pray for me, as I pray for you! Grin

I am also glad, and I thank you for your prayers.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #43 on: May 11, 2004, 08:22:54 PM »

I think the only way there can be unity is this:

1) Sign an all-encompasing document at a council called with representatives of both sides, that explains the theology of both sides and their historic interpretations of Chalcedon, etc etc etc.

2) On the basis of this agreement now, the Non-Chalcedonians will retract the anathemas against St Leo and Chalcedon.

3) On the basis of this agreement, the Chalcedonians will retract the anathemas against the persons of Severus and Dioscorus, and explain the anathemas against them at the ecumenical councils to be anathemas against what they perceived to be their teachings (which if they were their teachings would indeed be heretical).

4) The Non-Chalcedonians would accept the councils #4-7 on the basis of the agreed statement of faith, with the understanding that they would not have to commemorate them liturgically.

5) We can live happily ever after.

If there is no acceptance of Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III, and Nicea II, there can be no union; it just wouldn't work in Eastern Orthodox Ecclesiology.  All in all, if we agree that we are saying the same thing with different words, then it should present no problem for these councils to be acknowledged as long as they are acknowledged in the context of the joint agreement signed by all the bishops in the reunion council.

Non-Chalcedonians will not be asked to make much of such councils liturgically, etc.

anastasios

Nice post, anastasios. Very clearly, logically, and succinctly arranged.

It sounds good, too, except for point #3, which, it would seem to me, to amount to a repudiation of the Orthodox Fathers.

They believed that Dioscorus and Severus really were heretics, not that their writings were merely perceived as heretical.

Here is an excerpt from one of the Catholic Encyclopedia articles I referenced above at this link:

Quote
But though Severus went so far as this, it is shown elsewhere (see EUTYCHIANISM, MAXIMUS CONFESSOR, and especially MONOTHELITISM) that he did not avoid the error of giving one activity to our Lord, one will, and one knowledge. It is true enough that he had no intention of admitting any incompleteness in the Humanity of Christ, and that he and all the Monophysites started merely from the proposition that all activity, all will, and intelligence proceed from the person, as ultimate principle, and on this ground alone they asserted the unity of each in Christ. But it was on this ground that Monothelitism was condemned. It was not supposed by the best Catholic theologians who attacked the doctrine that the Monophysites denied Christ to have exercised human activities, human acts of the will, human acts of cognition; the error was clearly recognized as lying in the failure to distinguish between the human or the mixed (theandric) activity of Christ as Man, and the purely Divine activity, will, knowledge, which the Son has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and which are in fact the Divine Nature. In speaking of one activity, one will, one knowledge in Christ, Severus was reducing Monophysitism to pure heresy just as much as did the Niobites or the Tritheists whom he certainly held in horror; for he refused to distinguish between the human faculties of Christ-activity, will, intellect-and the Divine Nature itself. This is no Apollinarianism, but is so like it that the distinction is theoretical rather than real. It is the direct consequence of the use of Apollinarian formulae. St. Cyril did not go so far, and in this Monothelite error we may see the essence of the heresy of the Monophysites; for all fell into this snare, except the Tritheists, since it was the logical result of their mistaken point of view.


How could we say that Severus, for example, was only "perceived" as heretical when we have the writings of saints like Maximus the Confessor that tell us that perception was a reality?

Wouldn't we be implying that St. Maximus was, at best, mistaken, or, at worst, a liar?

And St. Maximus isn't the only one.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2004, 08:27:21 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #44 on: May 11, 2004, 08:28:55 PM »

Nice post, anastasios. Very clearly, logically, and succinctly arranged.

It sounds good, too, except for point #3, which, it would seem to me, would amount to a repudiation of the Orthodox Fathers.

They believed that Dioscorus and Severus really were heretics, not that their writings were merely perceived as heretical.

Here is an excerpt from one of the Catholic Encyclopedia articles I referenced above at this link:

How could we say that Severus, for example, was only "perceived" as heretical when we have the writings of saints like Maximus the Confessor that tell us that perception was a reality?

Wouldn't we be implying that St. Maximus was, at best, mistaken, or, at worst, a liar?

And St. Maximus isn't the only one.

An Orthodox Christian using a Catholic Encyclopedia to defend Orthodoxy?!  Shocked Cheesy Wink
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Tags: Troll ecumenical councils Chalcedon Chalcedon polemics 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.179 seconds with 71 queries.