OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 27, 2014, 11:08:22 PM *
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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Would this make sense ecclesiologically?  (Read 4491 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« on: December 21, 2011, 06:15:29 PM »

Is it feasible or possible that Eastern Catholics have sacramental grace and Latin Catholics do not?

I'm wondering how this relates to the Orthodox view of schism affecting grace only gradually. Would all Orthodox churches under the Union of Brest, for example, have instantly lost sacramental grace because they were forced to convert by secular authorities?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,835


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2011, 06:48:10 PM »

Do you really think the Holy Spirit operates in this way? None of our business.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 06:48:37 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2011, 06:51:50 PM »

Do you really think the Holy Spirit operates in this way?
In what way?

Quote
None of our business.
Maybe not. I'm just trying to get a better sense of Orthodox sacramentology and ecclesiology.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,555



« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2011, 08:27:12 PM »

Is it feasible or possible that Eastern Catholics have sacramental grace and Latin Catholics do not?

I'm wondering how this relates to the Orthodox view of schism affecting grace only gradually. Would all Orthodox churches under the Union of Brest, for example, have instantly lost sacramental grace because they were forced to convert by secular authorities?

I don't think we can so neatly fit the Holy Spirit into a box like that. I always see this weird conception that grace somehow acts like magic, where meeting a list of conditions grants grace. I think the most we can say safely is that we do not know.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2011, 09:16:07 PM »

The Orthodox Church has the grace of the Holy Spirit.

That's all that needs to be said, and all that can be said with any certainty. Legalistic speculation about when a schism truly becomes a schism and when grace departs from a schismatic group, although interesting, is mere speculation.

It certainly would make sense to say that if an Orthodox bishop leaves the Church and joins himself to a schismatic or heretical body, all those under his jurisdiction would not immediately find themselves in the same situation. However, to construct an ecclesiology on assumptions about when and how a particular body loses sacramental grace (and thereby membership in the Body of Christ) is like building a house on sand. It might work on paper, but won't have any basis in reality.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 09:16:35 PM by Orthodox11 » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2011, 09:33:01 PM »

Is it feasible or possible that Eastern Catholics have sacramental grace and Latin Catholics do not?

They are the same body united in communion. The Holy Spirit doesn't play favorites with liturgical rites, He either acts sacramentally in the whole body as a communion of churches or He doesn't. There is no united Orthodox consensus on whether or not this is the case with Rome (and those united to Rome as their center of unity), but from a practical perspective, it doesn't matter because we're not in communion with them.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2011, 09:49:46 PM »

i agree with Melodist. Thats why I think its silly that Eastern Catholics are often received by confession but Latin Catholics by Chrismation -- its the same Church no matter what rite they use!
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2011, 10:13:06 PM »

The Orthodox Church has the grace of the Holy Spirit.

That's all that needs to be said, and all that can be said with any certainty. Legalistic speculation about when a schism truly becomes a schism and when grace departs from a schismatic group, although interesting, is mere speculation.

It certainly would make sense to say that if an Orthodox bishop leaves the Church and joins himself to a schismatic or heretical body, all those under his jurisdiction would not immediately find themselves in the same situation. However, to construct an ecclesiology on assumptions about when and how a particular body loses sacramental grace (and thereby membership in the Body of Christ) is like building a house on sand. It might work on paper, but won't have any basis in reality.

The determination as to whether a group which has gone into schism has apostolic succession and mysteriological grace belongs in the first instance to the bishops of the canonical Church from which it departed into schism or, if it is a schism of a schism, to the originating canonical Church.  

It is the bishops of that Church who exercise the powers of binding and loosing.    

In many instances Churches will act very leniently with breakaway groups, praying that charity and leniency will bring them back to the Church.  

Sometimes the bishops are quite quick in rendering a judgement of deprivation of sacramental grace.  The Church of Serbia, for example, declared officially that the sacraments, including Baptism and the Priesthood, of the Free Serbian Orthodox Church were invalid.  We therefore had to baptize and chrismate and marry any people coming to us from the Free Serbian Church.

If we read Jonathan Gress' messages on the Forum I think he says that some of the Greek schismatic groups were deprived of sacramental grace very early by a decision of the bishops of the Church of Greece.

There can be only one Church of Christ.   As Archpriest Michael Protopopov notes in his small monograph on +Tikhon Pasechnik and the RTOC:

"If one’s actions take a person outside the Church then that person is outside the Church. There is no alternative. There is no shopping list of churches. There is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."

http://pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/RTOC.htm
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 10:15:11 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2011, 10:28:21 PM »

The Orthodox Church has the grace of the Holy Spirit.

That's all that needs to be said, and all that can be said with any certainty. Legalistic speculation about when a schism truly becomes a schism and when grace departs from a schismatic group, although interesting, is mere speculation.

It certainly would make sense to say that if an Orthodox bishop leaves the Church and joins himself to a schismatic or heretical body, all those under his jurisdiction would not immediately find themselves in the same situation. However, to construct an ecclesiology on assumptions about when and how a particular body loses sacramental grace (and thereby membership in the Body of Christ) is like building a house on sand. It might work on paper, but won't have any basis in reality.

The determination as to whether a group which has gone into schism has apostolic succession and mysteriological grace belongs in the first instance to the bishops of the canonical Church from which it departed into schism or, if it is a schism of a schism, to the originating canonical Church.  

It is the bishops of that Church who exercise the powers of binding and loosing.    

In many instances Churches will act very leniently with breakaway groups, praying that charity and leniency will bring them back to the Church.  

Sometimes the bishops are quite quick in rendering a judgement of deprivation of sacramental grace.  The Church of Serbia, for example, declared officially that the sacraments, including Baptism and the Priesthood, of the Free Serbian Orthodox Church were invalid.  We therefore had to baptize and chrismate and marry any people coming to us from the Free Serbian Church.

If we read Jonathan Gress' messages on the Forum I think he says that some of the Greek schismatic groups were deprived of sacramental grace very early by a decision of the bishops of the Church of Greece.

There can be only one Church of Christ.   As Archpriest Michael Protopopov notes in his small monograph on +Tikhon Pasechnik and the RTOC:

"If one’s actions take a person outside the Church then that person is outside the Church. There is no alternative. There is no shopping list of churches. There is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."

http://pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/RTOC.htm


And how can we determine which group broke off from another? Orthodox say that Rome left the Church and Catholics say that the Orthodox left the Church. I am sure the arguments with our Oriental brethren are similar?
Logged
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,505


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2011, 10:31:51 PM »

http://pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/RTOC.htm

Umm, this link doesn't seem to work.  Sad
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,535



« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2011, 10:43:07 PM »

Was this the content that was supposed to be linked to...?
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 10:43:52 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #11 on: December 21, 2011, 10:46:45 PM »

And how can we determine which group broke off from another? Orthodox say that Rome left the Church and Catholics say that the Orthodox left the Church. I am sure the arguments with our Oriental brethren are similar?

The answer, I suppose, depends on one's beliefs aboutt the composition of the Church.  For me it comprises the Local Churches which are in communion with one another,
Logged
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,505


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2011, 10:46:51 PM »

Was this the content that was supposed to be linked to...?
Looks like it is. Thanks!
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 10:47:12 PM by LBK » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2011, 10:50:17 PM »

Was this the content that was supposed to be linked to...?

Thanks, Asteriktos.  I guess Fr John has procured his own domain name since I last looked at his prodigy.net pages.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #14 on: December 22, 2011, 12:30:02 PM »

Is it feasible or possible that Eastern Catholics have sacramental grace and Latin Catholics do not?

I'm wondering how this relates to the Orthodox view of schism affecting grace only gradually. Would all Orthodox churches under the Union of Brest, for example, have instantly lost sacramental grace because they were forced to convert by secular authorities?

The Eastern Catholics who were Orthodox in history have the form, but not the grace.

If someone forces you to deny Christ, and you do it, do you still have the grace of the Holy Spirit? You don't have to repent of your apostasy?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,219


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2011, 12:48:06 PM »

It is interesting to note that in the liturgical commemorations of the Ruthenian Eastern Catholics following the Unions, at least in liturgical books published prior to 1991, that the Slavonic:  ' Vsich vas Pravoslavyj Christian...' ( 'and all Orthodox Christians...') was retained in the litanies and in the Velikyj Vchod.(Great Entrance)  One can argue that on the local level to the understanding of the average communicant, local clergy, or even the diocesan one, that any 'change' was gradual and issues regarding 'grace' were not 'resolved' as if by 'magic'.
Logged
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,839


« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2011, 01:52:04 PM »

Is it feasible or possible that Eastern Catholics have sacramental grace and Latin Catholics do not?

No.  Eastern and Latin Catholics are in communion with each other under the Pope of Rome.  Either they all have sacramental grace or none of them do.  The grace of the Holy Spirit operates through the sacraments of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and is not attached to specific liturgical rites. 

I'm wondering how this relates to the Orthodox view of schism affecting grace only gradually. Would all Orthodox churches under the Union of Brest, for example, have instantly lost sacramental grace because they were forced to convert by secular authorities?

As others have said, we cannot speculate on “when” certain schismatic and heretical groups lost sacramental grace.  As Irish Hermit indicated, if a synod of bishops declares that one of the bishops who were part of their synod is deposed and deprived of sacramental grace, then the matter is clear and is not one for speculation.  If no such synodal declaration exists, then the “when” remains a matter of (unprofitable) speculation.  Met Agathangel of ROCOR, who rejected the reunion between ROCOR and the MP in 2007 and departed into schism, was declared by ROCOR to be deposed and deprived of sacramental grace along with the clergy that departed with him.  Met Agathangel was a member of the ROCOR Synod so they had the authority to make such a declaration.  We do not have such a Pan-Orthodox declaration concerning the Pope and his followers, and only a Pan-Orthodox Council could make such a declaration.

The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 22, 2011, 01:58:19 PM »



The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.
Logged

jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,839


« Reply #18 on: December 22, 2011, 02:06:38 PM »

The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.

Not all "Orthodox believers" agree with St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Basil the Great, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and others.  That is unfortunate, but not significant.   
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 22, 2011, 02:14:26 PM »

The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.

Not all "Orthodox believers" agree with St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Basil the Great, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and others.  That is unfortunate, but not significant.   

That the Catholic Church falls under the wisdom of the fathers listed above has not been fully explored by universal Orthodoxy and decided without question or further issue...and to the extent it has been done locally, the results have been much less than consistent and no final answer has been rendered to date.

That is significant.
Logged

Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #20 on: December 22, 2011, 03:09:57 PM »



The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.

Then they contradict the Church. If we allowed such ecclesiastical agnosticism, we'd be Anglicans.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #21 on: December 22, 2011, 03:11:07 PM »

The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.

Not all "Orthodox believers" agree with St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Basil the Great, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and others.  That is unfortunate, but not significant.   

That the Catholic Church falls under the wisdom of the fathers listed above has not been fully explored by universal Orthodoxy and decided without question or further issue...and to the extent it has been done locally, the results have been much less than consistent and no final answer has been rendered to date.

That is significant.

See St. Mark of Ephesus and his disciples, the encyclicals of the Eastern Patriarchs, etc. It's very clear the Roman Catholics are under anathema and not a part of the Church, from the Orthodox POV.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,555



« Reply #22 on: December 22, 2011, 03:18:56 PM »

The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.

Not all "Orthodox believers" agree with St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Basil the Great, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and others.  That is unfortunate, but not significant.   

That the Catholic Church falls under the wisdom of the fathers listed above has not been fully explored by universal Orthodoxy and decided without question or further issue...and to the extent it has been done locally, the results have been much less than consistent and no final answer has been rendered to date.

That is significant.

See St. Mark of Ephesus and his disciples, the encyclicals of the Eastern Patriarchs, etc. It's very clear the Roman Catholics are under anathema and not a part of the Church, from the Orthodox POV.

Ah yes, the infallible St. Mark of Ephesus, and the infallible Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs. I'm glad that we have set up our own system of infallible popes in Orthodoxy. That's precisely what we needed. Roll Eyes
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,219


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 22, 2011, 03:21:36 PM »

The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.

Not all "Orthodox believers" agree with St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Basil the Great, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and others.  That is unfortunate, but not significant.   

That the Catholic Church falls under the wisdom of the fathers listed above has not been fully explored by universal Orthodoxy and decided without question or further issue...and to the extent it has been done locally, the results have been much less than consistent and no final answer has been rendered to date.

That is significant.

See St. Mark of Ephesus and his disciples, the encyclicals of the Eastern Patriarchs, etc. It's very clear the Roman Catholics are under anathema and not a part of the Church, from the Orthodox POV.

It is clear that we Orthodox are not in communion with the Church of Rome. But your statement begs the question and states the obvious. Within the Orthodox world there is not one point of view regarding ongoing relations with the Church of Rome and how to deal with her and the 'status' of her sacraments as applied to her faithful. The only unanimous understanding held by all of us is that communion is the final end representing unity and that given our differences and the 'anathemas' which remain with Rome that it is not possible for us to share communion at the present time. (Within Orthodoxy herself, we have groups out of communion with each other over their understandings of these differing points of view.)
Logged
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,839


« Reply #24 on: December 22, 2011, 03:24:04 PM »

The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.

Not all "Orthodox believers" agree with St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Basil the Great, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and others.  That is unfortunate, but not significant.  

That the Catholic Church falls under the wisdom of the fathers listed above has not been fully explored by universal Orthodoxy and decided without question or further issue...and to the extent it has been done locally, the results have been much less than consistent and no final answer has been rendered to date.

That is significant.

I’m not sure how significant.  Is such a Pan-Orthodox declaration that the Pope and his followers are without grace really necessary at this point?  I’m not sure if you are familiar with what exactly the saints and Pan-Orthodox synods have said specifically concerning the Pope and his followers but, for instance, the New Martyr St. Hilarion (Troitsky) said:

Quote
The truth of the Church was greatly distorted in the West after Rome had fallen away from the Church. In the West, God's kingdom began to be viewed more as an earthly kingdom. Latinism obscured the Christian concept of the Church in the consciousness of its members with its legalistic account of good deeds, its mercenary relationship to God and its falsification of salvation.
---
Truth and salvation are bestowed upon love, i.e., the Church - such is Church consciousness. Latinism, having fallen away from the Church, changed this consciousness and proclaimed: truth is given to the separate person of the Pope, and the Pope manages the salvation of all.
---
Schismatics are deprived of the hope of salvation not only because their baptism is invalid, but also because they are outside the Church and in enmity with it. The Grace of the Holy Spirit can be received and preserved only by one who is united in love with the Church. He who has separated from the Church does not have love. He who does not love the unity of the Church does not have God's love, it is in vain that he declares that he has the love of Christ. Love can be preserved only in the presence of unity with the Church, because the Holy Spirit revives only the body of the Church. There can be no lawful and sufficient reason to separate from the Church; he who separates from the Church does not possess the Holy Spirit, just as a severed member of the body does not possess the spirit of life, even though it preserves its former identity for some time. Thus, while all those who have separated from the Church oppose it, they cannot be good; although their behavior might appear to be praiseworthy - the very fact of their separation from the Church makes them evil.

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/christchurchilarion.htm

Is not St. Hilarion very clear that the Pope and his followers are outside of the Church, and that those who are outside of the Church do not have the Holy Spirit or the hope of salvation?

St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain stated:
Quote
So the Latins cannot even perform a baptism because they are heretics and have lost the grace required to celebrate [Christian] rites

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

St. Paisius Velichkovsky, in a letter to a Eastern Rite Catholic priest told him not to delay his conversion and entrance into the Orthodox Church lest death overtake him before his conversion and he be numbered among the heretics.  He said:
Quote
. . .All the holy ecumenical teachers who have interpreted the Scriptures as if with one mouth say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and nowhere have they written that He proceeds from the Son also. Thus, if the Uniates think exactly like the Romans in such a serious heresy, what hope do they have for salvation, unless they openly renounce this Spirit-fighting heresy and become united again with the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church?

Spare neither property nor relatives if they do not wish to listen to you, but by all means save your own soul from perdition; because there is nothing more needful for you than the soul for which Christ died…. Depart and flee from the Unia as speedily as possible lest death overtake you in it and you be numbered among the heretics and not among the Christians. And not only go away yourself, but advise others to go away also, if in your conscience you know that they will hear you. And if they will not hear you, then at least depart yourself from the nets of the enemy and be united in soul and heart with the Holy Orthodox Church, and thus, together with all [the faithful] holding the inviolate faith and fulfilling the commandments of Christ, you will be able to be saved.


In 1848, a Pan-Orthodox Council made up of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem (along with many other bishops) quite clearly declared that the Pope and his followers are under anathema and are in heresy.  Read the full text here:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

These are just a few quotes from more recent Fathers on the subject, but they are representative of the position of the Orthodox Church.  

Yet, with all of this, you still have reason to be optimistic?
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2011, 03:27:25 PM »

The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.

Not all "Orthodox believers" agree with St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Basil the Great, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and others.  That is unfortunate, but not significant.   

That the Catholic Church falls under the wisdom of the fathers listed above has not been fully explored by universal Orthodoxy and decided without question or further issue...and to the extent it has been done locally, the results have been much less than consistent and no final answer has been rendered to date.

That is significant.

See St. Mark of Ephesus and his disciples, the encyclicals of the Eastern Patriarchs, etc. It's very clear the Roman Catholics are under anathema and not a part of the Church, from the Orthodox POV.

And here I thought it was Cardinal Humbertus who was anathematized and excommunicated, said anathema and excommunication having since been lifted. 
Is this incorrect?

Just out of curiosity since you opened the door, is there any document or series of documents, accepted by *at least* a majority of Orthodox bishops that declares the Catholic Church to be in formal heresy and anathematized?  If so, can you produce them in an English translation or link them, etc.?  If there is no such formal heresy and anathema, how can you make the statement you have made?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,555



« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2011, 03:29:55 PM »

The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.

Not all "Orthodox believers" agree with St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Basil the Great, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and others.  That is unfortunate, but not significant.  

That the Catholic Church falls under the wisdom of the fathers listed above has not been fully explored by universal Orthodoxy and decided without question or further issue...and to the extent it has been done locally, the results have been much less than consistent and no final answer has been rendered to date.

That is significant.

I’m not sure how significant.  Is such a Pan-Orthodox declaration that the Pope and his followers are without grace really necessary at this point?  I’m not sure if you are familiar with what exactly the saints and Pan-Orthodox synods have said specifically concerning the Pope and his followers but, for instance, the New Martyr St. Hilarion (Troitsky) said:

Quote
The truth of the Church was greatly distorted in the West after Rome had fallen away from the Church. In the West, God's kingdom began to be viewed more as an earthly kingdom. Latinism obscured the Christian concept of the Church in the consciousness of its members with its legalistic account of good deeds, its mercenary relationship to God and its falsification of salvation.
---
Truth and salvation are bestowed upon love, i.e., the Church - such is Church consciousness. Latinism, having fallen away from the Church, changed this consciousness and proclaimed: truth is given to the separate person of the Pope, and the Pope manages the salvation of all.
---
Schismatics are deprived of the hope of salvation not only because their baptism is invalid, but also because they are outside the Church and in enmity with it. The Grace of the Holy Spirit can be received and preserved only by one who is united in love with the Church. He who has separated from the Church does not have love. He who does not love the unity of the Church does not have God's love, it is in vain that he declares that he has the love of Christ. Love can be preserved only in the presence of unity with the Church, because the Holy Spirit revives only the body of the Church. There can be no lawful and sufficient reason to separate from the Church; he who separates from the Church does not possess the Holy Spirit, just as a severed member of the body does not possess the spirit of life, even though it preserves its former identity for some time. Thus, while all those who have separated from the Church oppose it, they cannot be good; although their behavior might appear to be praiseworthy - the very fact of their separation from the Church makes them evil.

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/christchurchilarion.htm

Is not St. Hilarion very clear that the Pope and his followers are outside of the Church, and that those who are outside of the Church do not have the Holy Spirit or the hope of salvation?

St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain stated:
Quote
So the Latins cannot even perform a baptism because they are heretics and have lost the grace required to celebrate [Christian] rites

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

St. Paisius Velichkovsky, in a letter to a Eastern Rite Catholic priest told him not to delay his conversion and entrance into the Orthodox Church lest death overtake him before his conversion and he be numbered among the heretics.  He said:
Quote
. . .All the holy ecumenical teachers who have interpreted the Scriptures as if with one mouth say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and nowhere have they written that He proceeds from the Son also. Thus, if the Uniates think exactly like the Romans in such a serious heresy, what hope do they have for salvation, unless they openly renounce this Spirit-fighting heresy and become united again with the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church?

Spare neither property nor relatives if they do not wish to listen to you, but by all means save your own soul from perdition; because there is nothing more needful for you than the soul for which Christ died…. Depart and flee from the Unia as speedily as possible lest death overtake you in it and you be numbered among the heretics and not among the Christians. And not only go away yourself, but advise others to go away also, if in your conscience you know that they will hear you. And if they will not hear you, then at least depart yourself from the nets of the enemy and be united in soul and heart with the Holy Orthodox Church, and thus, together with all [the faithful] holding the inviolate faith and fulfilling the commandments of Christ, you will be able to be saved.


In 1848, a Pan-Orthodox Council made up of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem (along with many other bishops) quite clearly declared that the Pope and his followers are under anathema and are in heresy.  Read the full text here:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

These are just a few quotes from more recent Fathers on the subject, but they are representative of the position of the Orthodox Church.  

Yet, with all of this, you still have reason to be optimistic?


And yet Metropolitan Hilarion makes the point that we receive Catholic priests by vesting, not reordination. Perhaps he is just an apostate heretic along with the rest of our 'ecumenist' hierarchs, or maybe the people you have quoted above were simply wrong.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,219


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2011, 03:30:20 PM »

Our Church is Catholic, our Faith is Orthodox. The Gates of Hades shall not prevail against her. Why are some of us so afraid to even speak with the Church of Rome? I know, history, history history. Yet we both preach repentance, forgiveness and redemption. If God wills us to be one someday, it shall happen - notwithstanding the fears and prejudices that we all will bring to the table. Pride can be as big of an obstacle to Theosis as any sin.

Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2011, 03:42:51 PM »

The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.

Not all "Orthodox believers" agree with St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Basil the Great, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and others.  That is unfortunate, but not significant.  

That the Catholic Church falls under the wisdom of the fathers listed above has not been fully explored by universal Orthodoxy and decided without question or further issue...and to the extent it has been done locally, the results have been much less than consistent and no final answer has been rendered to date.

That is significant.

I’m not sure how significant.  Is such a Pan-Orthodox declaration that the Pope and his followers are without grace really necessary at this point?  I’m not sure if you are familiar with what exactly the saints and Pan-Orthodox synods have said specifically concerning the Pope and his followers but, for instance, the New Martyr St. Hilarion (Troitsky) said:

Quote
The truth of the Church was greatly distorted in the West after Rome had fallen away from the Church. In the West, God's kingdom began to be viewed more as an earthly kingdom. Latinism obscured the Christian concept of the Church in the consciousness of its members with its legalistic account of good deeds, its mercenary relationship to God and its falsification of salvation.
---
Truth and salvation are bestowed upon love, i.e., the Church - such is Church consciousness. Latinism, having fallen away from the Church, changed this consciousness and proclaimed: truth is given to the separate person of the Pope, and the Pope manages the salvation of all.
---
Schismatics are deprived of the hope of salvation not only because their baptism is invalid, but also because they are outside the Church and in enmity with it. The Grace of the Holy Spirit can be received and preserved only by one who is united in love with the Church. He who has separated from the Church does not have love. He who does not love the unity of the Church does not have God's love, it is in vain that he declares that he has the love of Christ. Love can be preserved only in the presence of unity with the Church, because the Holy Spirit revives only the body of the Church. There can be no lawful and sufficient reason to separate from the Church; he who separates from the Church does not possess the Holy Spirit, just as a severed member of the body does not possess the spirit of life, even though it preserves its former identity for some time. Thus, while all those who have separated from the Church oppose it, they cannot be good; although their behavior might appear to be praiseworthy - the very fact of their separation from the Church makes them evil.

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/christchurchilarion.htm

Is not St. Hilarion very clear that the Pope and his followers are outside of the Church, and that those who are outside of the Church do not have the Holy Spirit or the hope of salvation?

St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain stated:
Quote
So the Latins cannot even perform a baptism because they are heretics and have lost the grace required to celebrate [Christian] rites

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

St. Paisius Velichkovsky, in a letter to a Eastern Rite Catholic priest told him not to delay his conversion and entrance into the Orthodox Church lest death overtake him before his conversion and he be numbered among the heretics.  He said:
Quote
. . .All the holy ecumenical teachers who have interpreted the Scriptures as if with one mouth say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and nowhere have they written that He proceeds from the Son also. Thus, if the Uniates think exactly like the Romans in such a serious heresy, what hope do they have for salvation, unless they openly renounce this Spirit-fighting heresy and become united again with the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church?

Spare neither property nor relatives if they do not wish to listen to you, but by all means save your own soul from perdition; because there is nothing more needful for you than the soul for which Christ died…. Depart and flee from the Unia as speedily as possible lest death overtake you in it and you be numbered among the heretics and not among the Christians. And not only go away yourself, but advise others to go away also, if in your conscience you know that they will hear you. And if they will not hear you, then at least depart yourself from the nets of the enemy and be united in soul and heart with the Holy Orthodox Church, and thus, together with all [the faithful] holding the inviolate faith and fulfilling the commandments of Christ, you will be able to be saved.


In 1848, a Pan-Orthodox Council made up of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem (along with many other bishops) quite clearly declared that the Pope and his followers are under anathema and are in heresy.  Read the full text here:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

These are just a few quotes from more recent Fathers on the subject, but they are representative of the position of the Orthodox Church.  

Yet, with all of this, you still have reason to be optimistic?


And yet Metropolitan Hilarion makes the point that we receive Catholic priests by vesting, not reordination. Perhaps he is just an apostate heretic along with the rest of our 'ecumenist' hierarchs, or maybe the people you have quoted above were simply wrong.

Or maybe he's just following a peculiar Russian practice extant since the time of the Holy Synod, but not accepted widely by the rest of the Orthodox world.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2011, 03:45:00 PM »


Yet, with all of this, you still have reason to be optimistic?


More than optimistic.

Anticipating resumption of communion with my fellow Catholics in Orthodoxy with the certitude of faith, hope and charity.

Logged

Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #30 on: December 22, 2011, 03:46:48 PM »

The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.

Not all "Orthodox believers" agree with St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Basil the Great, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and others.  That is unfortunate, but not significant.   

That the Catholic Church falls under the wisdom of the fathers listed above has not been fully explored by universal Orthodoxy and decided without question or further issue...and to the extent it has been done locally, the results have been much less than consistent and no final answer has been rendered to date.

That is significant.

See St. Mark of Ephesus and his disciples, the encyclicals of the Eastern Patriarchs, etc. It's very clear the Roman Catholics are under anathema and not a part of the Church, from the Orthodox POV.

And here I thought it was Cardinal Humbertus who was anathematized and excommunicated, said anathema and excommunication having since been lifted. 
Is this incorrect?

Just out of curiosity since you opened the door, is there any document or series of documents, accepted by *at least* a majority of Orthodox bishops that declares the Catholic Church to be in formal heresy and anathematized?  If so, can you produce them in an English translation or link them, etc.?  If there is no such formal heresy and anathema, how can you make the statement you have made?

The texts of the councils, the writings of St. Mark, the encylicals of the partriarchs are all translated and available online. As for the so-called "lifting of anathemas," 1. Humbert's initial anathema was invalid as the pope was dead and everyone knew the pope was dead and 2. Cerluarius' anathema was against Humbert and his cronies. The "lifting" was an empty gesture whose meaning had nothing to do with the anathema itself. Indeed, in the east, no one much remembered 1054. At a reunion council in 1098, there is not even a mention of it.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #31 on: December 22, 2011, 03:49:08 PM »

The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.

Not all "Orthodox believers" agree with St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Basil the Great, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and others.  That is unfortunate, but not significant.   

That the Catholic Church falls under the wisdom of the fathers listed above has not been fully explored by universal Orthodoxy and decided without question or further issue...and to the extent it has been done locally, the results have been much less than consistent and no final answer has been rendered to date.

That is significant.

See St. Mark of Ephesus and his disciples, the encyclicals of the Eastern Patriarchs, etc. It's very clear the Roman Catholics are under anathema and not a part of the Church, from the Orthodox POV.

It is clear that we Orthodox are not in communion with the Church of Rome. But your statement begs the question and states the obvious. Within the Orthodox world there is not one point of view regarding ongoing relations with the Church of Rome and how to deal with her and the 'status' of her sacraments as applied to her faithful. The only unanimous understanding held by all of us is that communion is the final end representing unity and that given our differences and the 'anathemas' which remain with Rome that it is not possible for us to share communion at the present time. (Within Orthodoxy herself, we have groups out of communion with each other over their understandings of these differing points of view.)

Not sure what, precisely, you disagree with.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,839


« Reply #32 on: December 22, 2011, 03:49:54 PM »

And yet Metropolitan Hilarion makes the point that we receive Catholic priests by vesting, not reordination. Perhaps he is just an apostate heretic along with the rest of our 'ecumenist' hierarchs, or maybe the people you have quoted above were simply wrong.

So, *if* Metropolitan Hilarion says something that contradicts what the saints, Fathers, and Pan-Orthodox councils of the past have declared, we should think that Metropolitan Hilarion is correct and the saints, Fathers, and councils are in error?  

Reception of clergy from Roman Catholicism and other faiths without re-ordination is not a declaration that they were *true* priests before their reception into the Orthodox Church, or that they had sacramental grace outside of the Church, but rather it is an acceptance of the empty sacramental *forms* administered outside of the Church.  The rites of ordination which were previously empty of grace are fulfilled and completed by the act of being received into the Church regardless of the manner of reception.  Of course, the whole manner of economia and sacramental “validity” outside of the Church seems to confuse everyone, which is why it would be better to receive all converts by baptism as was decided at the Council of 1755 by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.  Obviously, the fact that the 1755 Council decided to receive all Protestants and Roman Catholics by baptism is a clear indication of what these churches thought of “sacramental grace” outside of the Orthodox Church.

Now, if you think so highly of Metropolitan Hilarion that you would prefer to believe him rather than the saints, Fathers, and councils of the past several centuries, perhaps you will find these words of his to have some significance:
Quote
The Church does not recognize and cannot recognize as grace-giving and salvific any ‘sacraments’ including Baptism administered in a schism. This is a common point of view confirmed by many testimonies of the church Tradition. ‘Recognition of schismatics’ sacraments’ is an altogether improper expression which can be only misleading. The point here is not a diplomatic manifestation of politeness but attempts to impose on the Orthodox the recognition of a real presence of saving grace outside the Church. For the Church, the authenticity of Sacraments is a matter of salvation. It is impossible and senseless to speak of ‘recognition of sacraments’ administered by schismatics who stay outside the Church and have no communion with her.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2010/10/06/news27421/
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #33 on: December 22, 2011, 03:49:59 PM »

The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.

Not all "Orthodox believers" agree with St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Basil the Great, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and others.  That is unfortunate, but not significant.   

That the Catholic Church falls under the wisdom of the fathers listed above has not been fully explored by universal Orthodoxy and decided without question or further issue...and to the extent it has been done locally, the results have been much less than consistent and no final answer has been rendered to date.

That is significant.

See St. Mark of Ephesus and his disciples, the encyclicals of the Eastern Patriarchs, etc. It's very clear the Roman Catholics are under anathema and not a part of the Church, from the Orthodox POV.

Ah yes, the infallible St. Mark of Ephesus, and the infallible Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs. I'm glad that we have set up our own system of infallible popes in Orthodoxy. That's precisely what we needed. Roll Eyes

Excuse me. The Church is infallible since it has the mind of Christ. These holy fathers speak for the Church. I'm sorry you don't agree.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,555



« Reply #34 on: December 22, 2011, 03:51:37 PM »

The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.

Not all "Orthodox believers" agree with St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Basil the Great, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and others.  That is unfortunate, but not significant.   

That the Catholic Church falls under the wisdom of the fathers listed above has not been fully explored by universal Orthodoxy and decided without question or further issue...and to the extent it has been done locally, the results have been much less than consistent and no final answer has been rendered to date.

That is significant.

See St. Mark of Ephesus and his disciples, the encyclicals of the Eastern Patriarchs, etc. It's very clear the Roman Catholics are under anathema and not a part of the Church, from the Orthodox POV.

Ah yes, the infallible St. Mark of Ephesus, and the infallible Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs. I'm glad that we have set up our own system of infallible popes in Orthodoxy. That's precisely what we needed. Roll Eyes

Excuse me. The Church is infallible since it has the mind of Christ. These holy fathers speak for the Church. I'm sorry you don't agree.

Ok, then. What is the magic formula, that makes them infallible?
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,555



« Reply #35 on: December 22, 2011, 03:52:58 PM »

And yet Metropolitan Hilarion makes the point that we receive Catholic priests by vesting, not reordination. Perhaps he is just an apostate heretic along with the rest of our 'ecumenist' hierarchs, or maybe the people you have quoted above were simply wrong.

So, *if* Metropolitan Hilarion says something that contradicts what the saints, Fathers, and Pan-Orthodox councils of the past have declared, we should think that Metropolitan Hilarion is correct and the saints, Fathers, and councils are in error? 

Reception of clergy from Roman Catholicism and other faiths without re-ordination is not a declaration that they were *true* priests before their reception into the Orthodox Church, or that they had sacramental grace outside of the Church, but rather it is an acceptance of the empty sacramental *forms* administered outside of the Church.  The rites of ordination which were previously empty of grace are fulfilled and completed by the act of being received into the Church regardless of the manner of reception.  Of course, the whole manner of economia and sacramental “validity” outside of the Church seems to confuse everyone, which is why it would be better to receive all converts by baptism as was decided at the Council of 1755 by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.  Obviously, the fact that the 1755 Council decided to receive all Protestants and Roman Catholics by baptism is a clear indication of what these churches thought of “sacramental grace” outside of the Orthodox Church.

Now, if you think so highly of Metropolitan Hilarion that you would prefer to believe him rather than the saints, Fathers, and councils of the past several centuries, perhaps you will find these words of his to have some significance:
Quote
The Church does not recognize and cannot recognize as grace-giving and salvific any ‘sacraments’ including Baptism administered in a schism. This is a common point of view confirmed by many testimonies of the church Tradition. ‘Recognition of schismatics’ sacraments’ is an altogether improper expression which can be only misleading. The point here is not a diplomatic manifestation of politeness but attempts to impose on the Orthodox the recognition of a real presence of saving grace outside the Church. For the Church, the authenticity of Sacraments is a matter of salvation. It is impossible and senseless to speak of ‘recognition of sacraments’ administered by schismatics who stay outside the Church and have no communion with her.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2010/10/06/news27421/


If you think so highly of the fathers that you are not willing to concede that they could have been wrong on certain points, then you are in the wrong Church. You should join the Catholic Church, where they are of similar mind when it comes to 'infallibility.' They even have a magic formula for making infallible statements, unlike the Orthodox.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 03:54:36 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #36 on: December 22, 2011, 03:55:06 PM »

The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.

Not all "Orthodox believers" agree with St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Basil the Great, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and others.  That is unfortunate, but not significant.   

That the Catholic Church falls under the wisdom of the fathers listed above has not been fully explored by universal Orthodoxy and decided without question or further issue...and to the extent it has been done locally, the results have been much less than consistent and no final answer has been rendered to date.

That is significant.

See St. Mark of Ephesus and his disciples, the encyclicals of the Eastern Patriarchs, etc. It's very clear the Roman Catholics are under anathema and not a part of the Church, from the Orthodox POV.

And here I thought it was Cardinal Humbertus who was anathematized and excommunicated, said anathema and excommunication having since been lifted. 
Is this incorrect?

Just out of curiosity since you opened the door, is there any document or series of documents, accepted by *at least* a majority of Orthodox bishops that declares the Catholic Church to be in formal heresy and anathematized?  If so, can you produce them in an English translation or link them, etc.?  If there is no such formal heresy and anathema, how can you make the statement you have made?

The texts of the councils, the writings of St. Mark, the encylicals of the partriarchs are all translated and available online. As for the so-called "lifting of anathemas," 1. Humbert's initial anathema was invalid as the pope was dead and everyone knew the pope was dead and 2. Cerluarius' anathema was against Humbert and his cronies. The "lifting" was an empty gesture whose meaning had nothing to do with the anathema itself. Indeed, in the east, no one much remembered 1054. At a reunion council in 1098, there is not even a mention of it.

So...the (Roman) Catholic Church is *not* in formal heresy and therefore anathematized according to documents signed off by *at least* a majority of Orthodox bishops?  Or is it?  Please clarify.  I understand "yes" and "no" far better than long, complicated, convoluted, highly technical, theological treatises which I, in all honesty, have little time to read--unfortunately.  Wink
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #37 on: December 22, 2011, 03:55:41 PM »

And yet Metropolitan Hilarion makes the point that we receive Catholic priests by vesting, not reordination. Perhaps he is just an apostate heretic along with the rest of our 'ecumenist' hierarchs, or maybe the people you have quoted above were simply wrong.

So, *if* Metropolitan Hilarion says something that contradicts what the saints, Fathers, and Pan-Orthodox councils of the past have declared, we should think that Metropolitan Hilarion is correct and the saints, Fathers, and councils are in error? 

Reception of clergy from Roman Catholicism and other faiths without re-ordination is not a declaration that they were *true* priests before their reception into the Orthodox Church, or that they had sacramental grace outside of the Church, but rather it is an acceptance of the empty sacramental *forms* administered outside of the Church.  The rites of ordination which were previously empty of grace are fulfilled and completed by the act of being received into the Church regardless of the manner of reception.  Of course, the whole manner of economia and sacramental “validity” outside of the Church seems to confuse everyone, which is why it would be better to receive all converts by baptism as was decided at the Council of 1755 by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.  Obviously, the fact that the 1755 Council decided to receive all Protestants and Roman Catholics by baptism is a clear indication of what these churches thought of “sacramental grace” outside of the Orthodox Church.

Now, if you think so highly of Metropolitan Hilarion that you would prefer to believe him rather than the saints, Fathers, and councils of the past several centuries, perhaps you will find these words of his to have some significance:
Quote
The Church does not recognize and cannot recognize as grace-giving and salvific any ‘sacraments’ including Baptism administered in a schism. This is a common point of view confirmed by many testimonies of the church Tradition. ‘Recognition of schismatics’ sacraments’ is an altogether improper expression which can be only misleading. The point here is not a diplomatic manifestation of politeness but attempts to impose on the Orthodox the recognition of a real presence of saving grace outside the Church. For the Church, the authenticity of Sacraments is a matter of salvation. It is impossible and senseless to speak of ‘recognition of sacraments’ administered by schismatics who stay outside the Church and have no communion with her.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2010/10/06/news27421/


If you think so highly of the fathers that you are not willing to concede that they could have been wrong on certain points, then you are in the wrong Church. You should join the Catholic Church, where they are of similar mind when it comes to 'infallibility.' They even have a magic formula for making infallible statements, unlike the Orthodox.

LOL. Physician, heal thyself.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #38 on: December 22, 2011, 03:56:42 PM »

The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.

Not all "Orthodox believers" agree with St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Basil the Great, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and others.  That is unfortunate, but not significant.   

That the Catholic Church falls under the wisdom of the fathers listed above has not been fully explored by universal Orthodoxy and decided without question or further issue...and to the extent it has been done locally, the results have been much less than consistent and no final answer has been rendered to date.

That is significant.

See St. Mark of Ephesus and his disciples, the encyclicals of the Eastern Patriarchs, etc. It's very clear the Roman Catholics are under anathema and not a part of the Church, from the Orthodox POV.

And here I thought it was Cardinal Humbertus who was anathematized and excommunicated, said anathema and excommunication having since been lifted. 
Is this incorrect?

Just out of curiosity since you opened the door, is there any document or series of documents, accepted by *at least* a majority of Orthodox bishops that declares the Catholic Church to be in formal heresy and anathematized?  If so, can you produce them in an English translation or link them, etc.?  If there is no such formal heresy and anathema, how can you make the statement you have made?

The texts of the councils, the writings of St. Mark, the encylicals of the partriarchs are all translated and available online. As for the so-called "lifting of anathemas," 1. Humbert's initial anathema was invalid as the pope was dead and everyone knew the pope was dead and 2. Cerluarius' anathema was against Humbert and his cronies. The "lifting" was an empty gesture whose meaning had nothing to do with the anathema itself. Indeed, in the east, no one much remembered 1054. At a reunion council in 1098, there is not even a mention of it.

So...the (Roman) Catholic Church is *not* in formal heresy and therefore anathematized according to documents signed off by *at least* a majority of Orthodox bishops?  Or is it?  Please clarify.  I understand "yes" and "no" far better than long, complicated, convoluted, highly technical, theological treatises which I, in all honesty, have little time to read--unfortunately.  Wink

And yet you asked for texts because my "no" was insufficient for you.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,555



« Reply #39 on: December 22, 2011, 04:02:20 PM »

And yet Metropolitan Hilarion makes the point that we receive Catholic priests by vesting, not reordination. Perhaps he is just an apostate heretic along with the rest of our 'ecumenist' hierarchs, or maybe the people you have quoted above were simply wrong.

So, *if* Metropolitan Hilarion says something that contradicts what the saints, Fathers, and Pan-Orthodox councils of the past have declared, we should think that Metropolitan Hilarion is correct and the saints, Fathers, and councils are in error? 

Reception of clergy from Roman Catholicism and other faiths without re-ordination is not a declaration that they were *true* priests before their reception into the Orthodox Church, or that they had sacramental grace outside of the Church, but rather it is an acceptance of the empty sacramental *forms* administered outside of the Church.  The rites of ordination which were previously empty of grace are fulfilled and completed by the act of being received into the Church regardless of the manner of reception.  Of course, the whole manner of economia and sacramental “validity” outside of the Church seems to confuse everyone, which is why it would be better to receive all converts by baptism as was decided at the Council of 1755 by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.  Obviously, the fact that the 1755 Council decided to receive all Protestants and Roman Catholics by baptism is a clear indication of what these churches thought of “sacramental grace” outside of the Orthodox Church.

Now, if you think so highly of Metropolitan Hilarion that you would prefer to believe him rather than the saints, Fathers, and councils of the past several centuries, perhaps you will find these words of his to have some significance:
Quote
The Church does not recognize and cannot recognize as grace-giving and salvific any ‘sacraments’ including Baptism administered in a schism. This is a common point of view confirmed by many testimonies of the church Tradition. ‘Recognition of schismatics’ sacraments’ is an altogether improper expression which can be only misleading. The point here is not a diplomatic manifestation of politeness but attempts to impose on the Orthodox the recognition of a real presence of saving grace outside the Church. For the Church, the authenticity of Sacraments is a matter of salvation. It is impossible and senseless to speak of ‘recognition of sacraments’ administered by schismatics who stay outside the Church and have no communion with her.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2010/10/06/news27421/


If you think so highly of the fathers that you are not willing to concede that they could have been wrong on certain points, then you are in the wrong Church. You should join the Catholic Church, where they are of similar mind when it comes to 'infallibility.' They even have a magic formula for making infallible statements, unlike the Orthodox.

LOL. Physician, heal thyself.

Nice thought-terminating cliché. You have yet to supply what magic charism it is that makes certain statements infallible.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #40 on: December 22, 2011, 04:04:07 PM »

The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.

Not all "Orthodox believers" agree with St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Basil the Great, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and others.  That is unfortunate, but not significant.  

That the Catholic Church falls under the wisdom of the fathers listed above has not been fully explored by universal Orthodoxy and decided without question or further issue...and to the extent it has been done locally, the results have been much less than consistent and no final answer has been rendered to date.

That is significant.

See St. Mark of Ephesus and his disciples, the encyclicals of the Eastern Patriarchs, etc. It's very clear the Roman Catholics are under anathema and not a part of the Church, from the Orthodox POV.

And here I thought it was Cardinal Humbertus who was anathematized and excommunicated, said anathema and excommunication having since been lifted.  
Is this incorrect?

Just out of curiosity since you opened the door, is there any document or series of documents, accepted by *at least* a majority of Orthodox bishops that declares the Catholic Church to be in formal heresy and anathematized?  If so, can you produce them in an English translation or link them, etc.?  If there is no such formal heresy and anathema, how can you make the statement you have made?

The texts of the councils, the writings of St. Mark, the encylicals of the partriarchs are all translated and available online. As for the so-called "lifting of anathemas," 1. Humbert's initial anathema was invalid as the pope was dead and everyone knew the pope was dead and 2. Cerluarius' anathema was against Humbert and his cronies. The "lifting" was an empty gesture whose meaning had nothing to do with the anathema itself. Indeed, in the east, no one much remembered 1054. At a reunion council in 1098, there is not even a mention of it.

So...the (Roman) Catholic Church is *not* in formal heresy and therefore anathematized according to documents signed off by *at least* a majority of Orthodox bishops?  Or is it?  Please clarify.  I understand "yes" and "no" far better than long, complicated, convoluted, highly technical, theological treatises which I, in all honesty, have little time to read--unfortunately.  Wink

And yet you asked for texts because my "no" was insufficient for you.

Most humble apologies.  In my denseness, I didn't see a "no, the (Roman) Catholic Church is *not* in formal heresy and therefore anathematized" in what you wrote.  Sad

And I thought you might be able to point to something that made the position clear, one way or the other, without us having to wade through all the jargon.  Guess I was wrong.  Oops, not again  Grin??
« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 04:14:16 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,839


« Reply #41 on: December 22, 2011, 04:11:23 PM »

If you think so highly of the fathers that you are not willing to concede that they could have been wrong on certain points, then you are in the wrong Church. You should join the Catholic Church, where they are of similar mind when it comes to 'infallibility.' They even have a magic formula for making infallible statements, unlike the Orthodox.

This doesn’t make any sense.  I believe in the infallibility of the Church (“the pillar and ground of the truth” – 1 Tim 3:15), and believe that this infallibility is manifested in the consensus of the saints, Fathers, and councils.  Roman Catholicism has a completely different idea regarding infallibility.  They have attributed to the Pope “infallibility” by divine right, as if by virtue of his position as pope he is unable to fall into doctrinal error.  The Papacy cares not for the Fathers or “patristic consensus”.  In the Orthodox Church there is no such belief in the infallibility of one bishop (or even synod) by divine right, but there is belief in the infallibility of the Church which is manifested and expressed in the consensus of the Fathers.

If the saints, fathers, and councils of the Orthodox Church state that there is no sacramental grace outside of the Orthodox Church, and that Roman Catholicism is in heresy and under anathema, why would you as a self-identified Orthodox Christian dare to disagree with them?  

When individual saints and fathers have been in error in the past, this error is clearly seen when their teachings are evaluated in the context of the teachings of rest of the saints and Fathers.  If you believe that St. Nikodemos, St. Hilarion (Troitsky), St. Paisius (Velichkovsky), St. Mark of Ephesus, and the Orthodox patriarchs and bishops who participated in the Pan-Orthodox Councils of 1583, 1755, and 1848 are all in error; what Orthodox saints, Fathers, and councils can you use to support your position?
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #42 on: December 22, 2011, 04:13:39 PM »

The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.

Not all "Orthodox believers" agree with St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Basil the Great, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and others.  That is unfortunate, but not significant.   

That the Catholic Church falls under the wisdom of the fathers listed above has not been fully explored by universal Orthodoxy and decided without question or further issue...and to the extent it has been done locally, the results have been much less than consistent and no final answer has been rendered to date.

That is significant.

See St. Mark of Ephesus and his disciples, the encyclicals of the Eastern Patriarchs, etc. It's very clear the Roman Catholics are under anathema and not a part of the Church, from the Orthodox POV.

And here I thought it was Cardinal Humbertus who was anathematized and excommunicated, said anathema and excommunication having since been lifted. 
Is this incorrect?

Just out of curiosity since you opened the door, is there any document or series of documents, accepted by *at least* a majority of Orthodox bishops that declares the Catholic Church to be in formal heresy and anathematized?  If so, can you produce them in an English translation or link them, etc.?  If there is no such formal heresy and anathema, how can you make the statement you have made?

The texts of the councils, the writings of St. Mark, the encylicals of the partriarchs are all translated and available online. As for the so-called "lifting of anathemas," 1. Humbert's initial anathema was invalid as the pope was dead and everyone knew the pope was dead and 2. Cerluarius' anathema was against Humbert and his cronies. The "lifting" was an empty gesture whose meaning had nothing to do with the anathema itself. Indeed, in the east, no one much remembered 1054. At a reunion council in 1098, there is not even a mention of it.

So...the (Roman) Catholic Church is *not* in formal heresy and therefore anathematized according to documents signed off by *at least* a majority of Orthodox bishops?  Or is it?  Please clarify.  I understand "yes" and "no" far better than long, complicated, convoluted, highly technical, theological treatises which I, in all honesty, have little time to read--unfortunately.  Wink

And yet you asked for texts because my "no" was insufficient for you.

Most humble apologies.  In my denseness, I didn't see a "no, the (Roman) Catholic Church is *not* in formal heresy and therefore anathematized" in what you wrote.  Sad

What sort of evidence would you like that the Roman Church IS in formal heresy and therefore anathematized? There are anathemas against filioque, created grace, material purgatorial fire, papal infallibility, etc. All these things have been and/or still are professed by the Roman Church, to which more innovations and departures from truth could be added. Generally, anathemas can take two forms, either the belief is anathematized or the group is anathematized--but because they ascribe to a belief.

I assume that by "formal heresy" you mean something more than just a mistake. You would be right in this case because the heresies of the Roman Catholics have been institutionalized.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,555



« Reply #43 on: December 22, 2011, 04:22:33 PM »

If you think so highly of the fathers that you are not willing to concede that they could have been wrong on certain points, then you are in the wrong Church. You should join the Catholic Church, where they are of similar mind when it comes to 'infallibility.' They even have a magic formula for making infallible statements, unlike the Orthodox.

This doesn’t make any sense.  I believe in the infallibility of the Church (“the pillar and ground of the truth” – 1 Tim 3:15), and believe that this infallibility is manifested in the consensus of the saints, Fathers, and councils.  Roman Catholicism has a completely different idea regarding infallibility.  They have attributed to the Pope “infallibility” by divine right, as if by virtue of his position as pope he is unable to fall into doctrinal error.  The Papacy cares not for the Fathers or “patristic consensus”.  In the Orthodox Church there is no such belief in the infallibility of one bishop (or even synod) by divine right, but there is belief in the infallibility of the Church which is manifested and expressed in the consensus of the Fathers.

If the saints, fathers, and councils of the Orthodox Church state that there is no sacramental grace outside of the Orthodox Church, and that Roman Catholicism is in heresy and under anathema, why would you as a self-identified Orthodox Christian dare to disagree with them? 

When individual saints and fathers have been in error in the past, this error is clearly seen when their teachings are evaluated in the context of the teachings of rest of the saints and Fathers.  If you believe that St. Nikodemos, St. Hilarion (Troitsky), St. Paisius (Velichkovsky), St. Mark of Ephesus, and the Orthodox patriarchs and bishops who participated in the Pan-Orthodox Councils of 1583, 1755, and 1848 are all in error; what Orthodox saints, Fathers, and councils can you use to support your position?

Show me where we are taught that we can determine where the grace of God does and does not go. If you cannot demonstrate that, then this is nothing more than speculation on your part and on the part of the fathers. St. Cyril's warning that we should check all he has to say against scripture comes to mind here.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 04:23:19 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #44 on: December 22, 2011, 04:25:02 PM »

The important issue is not when certain groups lost sacramental grace, but where is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Outside of the one Church there are no sacraments, only sacramental forms.


As it has been noted:  Not all Orthodox believers agree with you.

Not all "Orthodox believers" agree with St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Basil the Great, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and others.  That is unfortunate, but not significant.   

That the Catholic Church falls under the wisdom of the fathers listed above has not been fully explored by universal Orthodoxy and decided without question or further issue...and to the extent it has been done locally, the results have been much less than consistent and no final answer has been rendered to date.

That is significant.

See St. Mark of Ephesus and his disciples, the encyclicals of the Eastern Patriarchs, etc. It's very clear the Roman Catholics are under anathema and not a part of the Church, from the Orthodox POV.

And here I thought it was Cardinal Humbertus who was anathematized and excommunicated, said anathema and excommunication having since been lifted. 
Is this incorrect?

Just out of curiosity since you opened the door, is there any document or series of documents, accepted by *at least* a majority of Orthodox bishops that declares the Catholic Church to be in formal heresy and anathematized?  If so, can you produce them in an English translation or link them, etc.?  If there is no such formal heresy and anathema, how can you make the statement you have made?

The texts of the councils, the writings of St. Mark, the encylicals of the partriarchs are all translated and available online. As for the so-called "lifting of anathemas," 1. Humbert's initial anathema was invalid as the pope was dead and everyone knew the pope was dead and 2. Cerluarius' anathema was against Humbert and his cronies. The "lifting" was an empty gesture whose meaning had nothing to do with the anathema itself. Indeed, in the east, no one much remembered 1054. At a reunion council in 1098, there is not even a mention of it.

So...the (Roman) Catholic Church is *not* in formal heresy and therefore anathematized according to documents signed off by *at least* a majority of Orthodox bishops?  Or is it?  Please clarify.  I understand "yes" and "no" far better than long, complicated, convoluted, highly technical, theological treatises which I, in all honesty, have little time to read--unfortunately.  Wink

And yet you asked for texts because my "no" was insufficient for you.

Most humble apologies.  In my denseness, I didn't see a "no, the (Roman) Catholic Church is *not* in formal heresy and therefore anathematized" in what you wrote.  Sad

What sort of evidence would you like that the Roman Church IS in formal heresy and therefore anathematized? There are anathemas against filioque, created grace, material purgatorial fire, papal infallibility, etc. All these things have been and/or still are professed by the Roman Church, to which more innovations and departures from truth could be added. Generally, anathemas can take two forms, either the belief is anathematized or the group is anathematized--but because they ascribe to a belief.

I assume that by "formal heresy" you mean something more than just a mistake. You would be right in this case because the heresies of the Roman Catholics have been institutionalized.

Ohhhhhhhhhh my.....Look, I'm a simple, relatively undereducated soul.  I just happen to like simple, too, where simple is at least obtainable.  Let me ask you this way----according to the Orthodox Church as a whole, as an institution, is the Catholic Church, as a whole, as an institution (a group) in heresy and therefore anathematized from the whole of the Orthodox Church?  I'm *not* looking for "evidence", just a simple yes or no.  If I'm asking the question incorrectly, please let me know how I should be asking it.

I'm well aware of all the stuff about the filioque, papal infallibility, etc., etc..  Been there, done that.  I was, after all, in the Orthodox Church for some time, but *not* because I had issues about any of those things.  But that's a whole other discussion...
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  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 0.226 seconds with 72 queries.