OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 11:06:35 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Convert from Catholic to Othodox--Anathema  (Read 1443 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
loser
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ?
Posts: 109


« on: February 25, 2013, 09:19:22 AM »

Suppose someone converts from catholic to orthodox (or vice versa). And suppose it is decided that this person is not going to be baptized or christened again: he will join via profession of faith (followed obviously by confession and communion).

1. How is the anathema removed?

2. When he confesses, does he need to confess all sins committed during his lifetime, or just those he has not yet confessed in his former church?
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,973


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2013, 12:02:38 PM »

What anathema?
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.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2013, 12:53:52 PM »

The mutual anathemas between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople were lifted by Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI in 1964. There remain no particular anathemas between the EOC and the RCC, though the schism has certainly not been healed. Though, I see that you're OO. I can't really speak for your church's position, or the RC position on your church. I don't belong to either.

I also don't know about whether or not a life confession is required by the EOC for those who convert by confession. Though, I've never heard of RCs being received by the EO by confession in recent times. Only chrismation. Sometimes, though not very commonly, baptism. The only group I believe we regularly receive by confession is those from the OO.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2013, 01:39:38 PM »

Suppose someone converts from catholic to orthodox (or vice versa). And suppose it is decided that this person is not going to be baptized or christened again: he will join via profession of faith (followed obviously by confession and communion).

1. How is the anathema removed?

What anathema?  Do you mean the excommunication because of apostasy and schism?  The Roman Catholic Church does not anathemize anymore.

2. When he confesses, does he need to confess all sins committed during his lifetime, or just those he has not yet confessed in his former church?

There is nothing wrong with confessing as much as you can.  If you think whatever sin you have is still an issue today, then you need to confess it so you can be helped to get better.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2013, 08:38:29 AM »

Though, I've never heard of RCs being received by the EO by confession in recent times.

I've never heard of not receiving RCs via confession apart from the Internetz.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
erimos
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28



« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2013, 09:36:11 AM »

An Orthodox Christian who converts to the Latin faith denies their Orthodox faith and are no longer in Communion with the Church. They are normally received back in the Orthodox Church with Confession or as directed by their Confessor.
Logged
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,934


« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2013, 10:23:51 AM »

The mutual anathemas between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople were lifted by Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI in 1964. There remain no particular anathemas between the EOC and the RCC, though the schism has certainly not been healed.

This is incorrect.  Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI met together to supposedly lift the anathemas and excommunications which were declared by the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054.  It is claimed that Patriarch Athenagoras had the authority to do this from the Orthodox side since the anathemas and excommunications of that time were between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople.  However, later councils of Pan-Orthodox authority anathematized many of the later heresies adopted by the Roman Catholics.  For instance, the 1583 Council declared anathema on all who teach:

-   The filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son)
-   That the laity should receive only the Body of Christ in communion and not the Blood also
-   The use of unleavened bread in communion
-   The existence of Purgatory
-   That the Pope of Rome is the head of the Church
-   The adoption of the Gregorian Paschalian

These anathemas were declared by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem in the presence of many hierarchs and have been affirmed by subsequent Pan-Orthodox Councils.  The Patriarch of Constantinople alone does not have the authority to remove these anathemas, since they were pronounced by more than one Patriarch and accepted by all, so these anathemas against Roman Catholic heresies remain in force.     
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2013, 10:52:31 AM »

The mutual anathemas between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople were lifted by Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI in 1964. There remain no particular anathemas between the EOC and the RCC, though the schism has certainly not been healed.

This is incorrect.  Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI met together to supposedly lift the anathemas and excommunications which were declared by the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054.  It is claimed that Patriarch Athenagoras had the authority to do this from the Orthodox side since the anathemas and excommunications of that time were between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople.  However, later councils of Pan-Orthodox authority anathematized many of the later heresies adopted by the Roman Catholics.  For instance, the 1583 Council declared anathema on all who teach:

-   The filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son)
-   That the laity should receive only the Body of Christ in communion and not the Blood also
-   The use of unleavened bread in communion
-   The existence of Purgatory
-   That the Pope of Rome is the head of the Church
-   The adoption of the Gregorian Paschalian

These anathemas were declared by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem in the presence of many hierarchs and have been affirmed by subsequent Pan-Orthodox Councils.  The Patriarch of Constantinople alone does not have the authority to remove these anathemas, since they were pronounced by more than one Patriarch and accepted by all, so these anathemas against Roman Catholic heresies remain in force.     


Later adoptions by the western church:  Papal infallibility, and the Immaculate Conception most likely would have been added to this list had the council been held in the 20th century..... (the list got longer not shorter)
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,091


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2013, 01:34:16 PM »

The mutual anathemas between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople were lifted by Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI in 1964. There remain no particular anathemas between the EOC and the RCC, though the schism has certainly not been healed.

This is incorrect.  Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI met together to supposedly lift the anathemas and excommunications which were declared by the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054.  It is claimed that Patriarch Athenagoras had the authority to do this from the Orthodox side since the anathemas and excommunications of that time were between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople.  However, later councils of Pan-Orthodox authority anathematized many of the later heresies adopted by the Roman Catholics.  For instance, the 1583 Council declared anathema on all who teach:

-   The filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son)
-   That the laity should receive only the Body of Christ in communion and not the Blood also
-   The use of unleavened bread in communion
-   The existence of Purgatory
-   That the Pope of Rome is the head of the Church
-   The adoption of the Gregorian Paschalian

These anathemas were declared by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem in the presence of many hierarchs and have been affirmed by subsequent Pan-Orthodox Councils.  The Patriarch of Constantinople alone does not have the authority to remove these anathemas, since they were pronounced by more than one Patriarch and accepted by all, so these anathemas against Roman Catholic heresies remain in force.     


They really did lift the excommunications. Some people will never accept that.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,934


« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2013, 02:02:52 PM »

The mutual anathemas between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople were lifted by Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI in 1964. There remain no particular anathemas between the EOC and the RCC, though the schism has certainly not been healed.

This is incorrect.  Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI met together to supposedly lift the anathemas and excommunications which were declared by the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054.  It is claimed that Patriarch Athenagoras had the authority to do this from the Orthodox side since the anathemas and excommunications of that time were between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople.  However, later councils of Pan-Orthodox authority anathematized many of the later heresies adopted by the Roman Catholics.  For instance, the 1583 Council declared anathema on all who teach:

-   The filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son)
-   That the laity should receive only the Body of Christ in communion and not the Blood also
-   The use of unleavened bread in communion
-   The existence of Purgatory
-   That the Pope of Rome is the head of the Church
-   The adoption of the Gregorian Paschalian

These anathemas were declared by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem in the presence of many hierarchs and have been affirmed by subsequent Pan-Orthodox Councils.  The Patriarch of Constantinople alone does not have the authority to remove these anathemas, since they were pronounced by more than one Patriarch and accepted by all, so these anathemas against Roman Catholic heresies remain in force.     


They really did lift the excommunications. Some people will never accept that.

No they didn't.  The act concerned the excommunications and anathemas of 1054 which were more the result of personal dispute than of dogma.  Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI claimed to lift these anathemas of 1054.  Patriarch Athenagoras did not claim to, nor would he have the authority to, "lift" the anathemas declared by later Pan-Orthodox Councils against Roman Catholic heresies.  These anathemas apply as long as the Roman Catholic Church continues to teach the heresies that were anathematized by these councils.  No Orthodox bishop has the authority to proclaim that falsehood is now truth. 
Logged
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2013, 05:14:15 PM »

The mutual anathemas between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople were lifted by Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI in 1964. There remain no particular anathemas between the EOC and the RCC, though the schism has certainly not been healed.

This is incorrect.  Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI met together to supposedly lift the anathemas and excommunications which were declared by the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054.  It is claimed that Patriarch Athenagoras had the authority to do this from the Orthodox side since the anathemas and excommunications of that time were between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople.  However, later councils of Pan-Orthodox authority anathematized many of the later heresies adopted by the Roman Catholics.  For instance, the 1583 Council declared anathema on all who teach:

-   The filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son)
-   That the laity should receive only the Body of Christ in communion and not the Blood also
-   The use of unleavened bread in communion
-   The existence of Purgatory
-   That the Pope of Rome is the head of the Church
-   The adoption of the Gregorian Paschalian

These anathemas were declared by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem in the presence of many hierarchs and have been affirmed by subsequent Pan-Orthodox Councils.  The Patriarch of Constantinople alone does not have the authority to remove these anathemas, since they were pronounced by more than one Patriarch and accepted by all, so these anathemas against Roman Catholic heresies remain in force.     


No, it isn't incorrect. Perhaps you should try reading a post before you improperly respond to it.

The beginning of my post specifically reads:

The mutual anathemas between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople

I said nothing about anathemas made by any Pan-Orthodox Councils. Didn't mention them at all. The original anathema between Rome and Constantinople has, as I said, been lifted, which is perfectly within the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2013, 05:18:36 PM »

Though, I've never heard of RCs being received by the EO by confession in recent times.

I've never heard of not receiving RCs via confession apart from the Internetz.

Interesting, though not surprising. You all have a pretty good-sized Catholic population don't you? It makes sense that the Polish Church would receive RCs by confession.

But, just to provide a document about the normative reception of RCs by chrismation, here's a letter from Metropolitan Theodosius of Washington which details a good number of pastoral norms, including reception of converts.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
loser
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ?
Posts: 109


« Reply #12 on: March 04, 2013, 03:11:35 PM »

I am a little confused by the responses. I know that a lot of times chrismation is needed for converts but I've heard that at least sometimes its not. When an Orthodox joins the Catholic church, he is almost always received on confession of faith alone. Now when I say 'anathema,' I am using the term loosely (as you may know Oriental Orthodox are not very good at terminology): I don't mean to distinguish between anathema and excommunication. Certainly, there is something (anathema/excommunication) that needs to be removed when a Catholic or Coptic become Eastern Orthodox. So is confession the method of removal? I have read in some writings of the early church fathers that a heretic should receiving laying on of hands when reconciling with the true church. Is confession the same thing as laying on of hands?
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,535


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #13 on: March 04, 2013, 03:14:13 PM »

I am a little confused by the responses. I know that a lot of times chrismation is needed for converts but I've heard that at least sometimes its not. When an Orthodox joins the Catholic church, he is almost always received on confession of faith alone. Now when I say 'anathema,' I am using the term loosely (as you may know Oriental Orthodox are not very good at terminology): I don't mean to distinguish between anathema and excommunication. Certainly, there is something (anathema/excommunication) that needs to be removed when a Catholic or Coptic become Eastern Orthodox. So is confession the method of removal? I have read in some writings of the early church fathers that a heretic should receiving laying on of hands when reconciling with the true church. Is confession the same thing as laying on of hands?

Laying on of hands? No, because that would be ordination.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2013, 03:17:02 PM »

I am a little confused by the responses. I know that a lot of times chrismation is needed for converts but I've heard that at least sometimes its not. When an Orthodox joins the Catholic church, he is almost always received on confession of faith alone. Now when I say 'anathema,' I am using the term loosely (as you may know Oriental Orthodox are not very good at terminology): I don't mean to distinguish between anathema and excommunication. Certainly, there is something (anathema/excommunication) that needs to be removed when a Catholic or Coptic become Eastern Orthodox. So is confession the method of removal? I have read in some writings of the early church fathers that a heretic should receiving laying on of hands when reconciling with the true church. Is confession the same thing as laying on of hands?

Laying on of hands? No, because that would be ordination.

Chrismation is also a laying on of hands.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,535


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2013, 03:19:01 PM »

In that case, yes. But since most Fathers were Greek and cheirotonia - laying on of hands - is the Greek word for ordination I thought converts wouldn't get a laying on of hands.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,934


« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2013, 03:41:30 PM »

The mutual anathemas between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople were lifted by Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI in 1964. There remain no particular anathemas between the EOC and the RCC, though the schism has certainly not been healed.

This is incorrect.  Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI met together to supposedly lift the anathemas and excommunications which were declared by the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054.  It is claimed that Patriarch Athenagoras had the authority to do this from the Orthodox side since the anathemas and excommunications of that time were between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople.  However, later councils of Pan-Orthodox authority anathematized many of the later heresies adopted by the Roman Catholics.  For instance, the 1583 Council declared anathema on all who teach:

-   The filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son)
-   That the laity should receive only the Body of Christ in communion and not the Blood also
-   The use of unleavened bread in communion
-   The existence of Purgatory
-   That the Pope of Rome is the head of the Church
-   The adoption of the Gregorian Paschalian

These anathemas were declared by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem in the presence of many hierarchs and have been affirmed by subsequent Pan-Orthodox Councils.  The Patriarch of Constantinople alone does not have the authority to remove these anathemas, since they were pronounced by more than one Patriarch and accepted by all, so these anathemas against Roman Catholic heresies remain in force.     


No, it isn't incorrect. Perhaps you should try reading a post before you improperly respond to it.

The beginning of my post specifically reads:

The mutual anathemas between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople

I said nothing about anathemas made by any Pan-Orthodox Councils. Didn't mention them at all. The original anathema between Rome and Constantinople has, as I said, been lifted, which is perfectly within the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Perhaps you should try reading your own words before claiming that I misinterpreted them  Wink Grin

You had said:

Quote
The mutual anathemas between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople were lifted by Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI in 1964. There remain no particular anathemas between the EOC and the RCC, though the schism has certainly not been healed.

You seemed to claim here that the only anathemas between the EOC and RCC were those of 1054, and since these were supposedly "lifted", there remain no anathemas between the EOC and RCC.  However, the RCC is still under anathema on account of the Pan-Orthodox Councils which have clearly declared "anathema" against their various heresies. The 1965 supposed "lifting" of anathemas does not at all change the fact that the RCC is still under anathema. 
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 03:41:57 PM by jah777 » Logged
loser
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ?
Posts: 109


« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2013, 03:55:24 PM »

Lets put it another way: Suppose an eastern orthodox christian leaves the EOC and becomes a full member of the Catholic or OOC. Then suppose he wants to come back to the EOC. What is the procedure? Can he just go to confession? Does he need to make a profession of faith? Certainly he is considered seperated from the Orthodox church, but we wouldn't dare christen him again, would we?
Logged
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2013, 04:00:11 PM »

In that case, yes. But since most Fathers were Greek and cheirotonia - laying on of hands - is the Greek word for ordination I thought converts wouldn't get a laying on of hands.

Almost all the canons that mention reception of converts speak of laying on of hands, corresponding to chrismation.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,535


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2013, 04:03:29 PM »

In that case, yes. But since most Fathers were Greek and cheirotonia - laying on of hands - is the Greek word for ordination I thought converts wouldn't get a laying on of hands.

Almost all the canons that mention reception of converts speak of laying on of hands, corresponding to chrismation.

Ah, okay. Sorry. Nvm then.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,621



« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2013, 04:18:11 PM »

Lets put it another way: Suppose an eastern orthodox christian leaves the EOC and becomes a full member of the Catholic or OOC. Then suppose he wants to come back to the EOC. What is the procedure? Can he just go to confession? Does he need to make a profession of faith? Certainly he is considered seperated from the Orthodox church, but we wouldn't dare christen him again, would we?

That seems to be the historical method of receiving apostates again, with another anointing with Chrism.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 04:18:44 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #21 on: March 04, 2013, 08:08:09 PM »

If any Fathers mention the reception of lay converts by "laying on of hands", this probably--as has been said--refers to chrismation, which was originally performed by the laying on of hands by an Apostle. Though Holy Chrism came into use during the time and with the blessing of the Holy Apostles to be used by the bishops (and, later in the East, the priests) in lieu of the laying on of hands.

Though, some clergy are also received by "vesting", meaning that they are received by confession and then enter into the altar to vest as Orthodox clergy. They process out at the Great Entrance of the Divine Liturgy and from thenceforth are considered clergy of the Orthodox Church, without re-ordination.

In my experience, Roman Catholics are generally received by chrismation and Oriental Orthodox by confession of faith. Apparently some national churches (like Poland) receive Roman Catholics also by confession.

The mutual anathemas between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople were lifted by Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI in 1964. There remain no particular anathemas between the EOC and the RCC, though the schism has certainly not been healed.

This is incorrect.  Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI met together to supposedly lift the anathemas and excommunications which were declared by the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054.  It is claimed that Patriarch Athenagoras had the authority to do this from the Orthodox side since the anathemas and excommunications of that time were between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople.  However, later councils of Pan-Orthodox authority anathematized many of the later heresies adopted by the Roman Catholics.  For instance, the 1583 Council declared anathema on all who teach:

-   The filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son)
-   That the laity should receive only the Body of Christ in communion and not the Blood also
-   The use of unleavened bread in communion
-   The existence of Purgatory
-   That the Pope of Rome is the head of the Church
-   The adoption of the Gregorian Paschalian

These anathemas were declared by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem in the presence of many hierarchs and have been affirmed by subsequent Pan-Orthodox Councils.  The Patriarch of Constantinople alone does not have the authority to remove these anathemas, since they were pronounced by more than one Patriarch and accepted by all, so these anathemas against Roman Catholic heresies remain in force.     


No, it isn't incorrect. Perhaps you should try reading a post before you improperly respond to it.

The beginning of my post specifically reads:

The mutual anathemas between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople

I said nothing about anathemas made by any Pan-Orthodox Councils. Didn't mention them at all. The original anathema between Rome and Constantinople has, as I said, been lifted, which is perfectly within the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Perhaps you should try reading your own words before claiming that I misinterpreted them  Wink Grin

You had said:

Quote
The mutual anathemas between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople were lifted by Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI in 1964. There remain no particular anathemas between the EOC and the RCC, though the schism has certainly not been healed.

You seemed to claim here that the only anathemas between the EOC and RCC were those of 1054, and since these were supposedly "lifted", there remain no anathemas between the EOC and RCC.  However, the RCC is still under anathema on account of the Pan-Orthodox Councils which have clearly declared "anathema" against their various heresies. The 1965 supposed "lifting" of anathemas does not at all change the fact that the RCC is still under anathema. 

I know what I said. Though the teachings of such "Pan-Orthodox Councils" are generally accepted, they are not held in the same esteem as the Ecumenical Councils and are often debated to vary degrees. I think whether or not their anathemas are binding on the whole of the Church remains a matter of debate.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
loser
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ?
Posts: 109


« Reply #22 on: March 04, 2013, 08:21:31 PM »

Thank you all for the excellent responses.

So it seems we can conclude that anathema/excommunication is removed sometimes through chrismation, other times through confession.


So now, 2 more questions:

1. If its the sacrament (confession or chrismation) that removes the anathema/excommunication, how important is profession of faith? Is it merely a ritual? Is it necessary? Does it have sacramental value? Suppose I confess in the EOC without first making a profession of faith? Am I now an EO?


2. Does the term "laying on of hands" ever refer to confession? We've established that it is used in ordination and in chrismation. But is it incorrect to say that confession is a kind of laying of hands?
Logged
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #23 on: March 04, 2013, 08:35:08 PM »

My two cents...

1. If its the sacrament (confession or chrismation) that removes the anathema/excommunication, how important is profession of faith? Is it merely a ritual? Is it necessary? Does it have sacramental value? Suppose I confess in the EOC without first making a profession of faith? Am I now an EO?

Profession of faith is absolutely necessary. I know at baptism and chrismation, the convert must recite for themselves (with the whole Church listening) the Nicene Creed to witness the Orthodoxy of their faith. That they accept the faith of the EOC is vital and implied in the act of converting. The same is true of "confession of faith"...as it is in the name, confessing the Orthodox faith.

Anyone can make a confession to an Orthodox priest, it is the absolution that it sacramental. Only Orthodox Christians may receive a sacrament, and so while you could confess, you could not receive absolution until making a profession of faith.

In my experience, when converts are received either by baptism or chrismation first make a "life confession", recalling their long-term battles with the passions to the best of their ability. At the time of that confession, they do not receive absolution, as they haven't been received into the Church yet. For those being baptized, the baptism (since it is for the remission of sins) is itself the absolution. For those received by chrismation, they receive their absolution after they're chrismated, publicly in the middle of the church.

2. Does the term "laying on of hands" ever refer to confession? We've established that it is used in ordination and in chrismation. But is it incorrect to say that confession is a kind of laying of hands?

Not that I know of. I've never heard confession referred to as the laying on of hands, but rather only the two previously mentioned mysteries.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 08:35:53 PM by Benjamin the Red » Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #24 on: March 05, 2013, 03:27:09 AM »

The mutual anathemas between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople were lifted by Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI in 1964.

Illegally, according to Metr. Philaret of NY.
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
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,626



« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2013, 09:30:26 PM »

The mutual anathemas between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople were lifted by Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI in 1964.

Illegally, according to Metr. Philaret of NY.

I don't know the procedures for this sort of thing, so how was it done illegally?
Logged
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,934


« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2013, 09:46:00 PM »

The mutual anathemas between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch ofof Constantinople were lifted by Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI in 1964.

Illegally, according to Metr. Philaret of NY.

I don't know the procedures for this sort of thing, so how was it done illegally?

You may want to read Metropolitan Philaret's own words about this action here:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/philaret_lifting.aspx
Logged
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,626



« Reply #27 on: March 14, 2013, 10:00:25 PM »

You may want to read Metropolitan Philaret's own words about this action here:

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

Thank you.

It seems the most important part is the lifting of the anathemas cannot be valid and legal without the unanimous consent of the entire Church (primates and laity), and the universal lifting of the anathemas as compared to a single Church lifting them on their own. Very interesting and convincing point.

His other argument that the anathemas shouldn't be lifted at all seemed much weaker, in my opinion.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.122 seconds with 54 queries.