Author Topic: During the Monothelete heresy, all the Patriarchates ended up in heresy for a time.  (Read 3334 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
The following discussion started inside this thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,56545.0.html

-PtA



You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.



But within the Church we agree that there are two valid calendars to choose from.  

But you're now begging the question of who is the Church?

There are several "genuine" and "canonical" Orthodox groups that consider themselves the Church.

No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate.  

Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

During the Monothelete heresy, all the Patriarchates ended up in heresy for a time.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 02:05:50 PM by PeterTheAleut »

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.



But within the Church we agree that there are two valid calendars to choose from. 

But you're now begging the question of who is the Church?

There are several "genuine" and "canonical" Orthodox groups that consider themselves the Church.

No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate. 

Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

During the Monothelete heresy, all the Patriarchates ended up in heresy for a time.

All of them at once?  Looks like either Jerusalem or Rome provided continuity. 

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.



But within the Church we agree that there are two valid calendars to choose from. 

But you're now begging the question of who is the Church?

There are several "genuine" and "canonical" Orthodox groups that consider themselves the Church.

No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate. 

Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

During the Monothelete heresy, all the Patriarchates ended up in heresy for a time.

All of them at once?  Looks like either Jerusalem or Rome provided continuity. 

I believe that when Rome finally fell to the heresy Jerusalem had also already fallen. In any case, you're looking at a time when most of the "official" church was in heresy. This is not an unprecedented situation.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.



But within the Church we agree that there are two valid calendars to choose from. 

But you're now begging the question of who is the Church?

There are several "genuine" and "canonical" Orthodox groups that consider themselves the Church.

No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate. 

Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

During the Monothelete heresy, all the Patriarchates ended up in heresy for a time.

All of them at once?  Looks like either Jerusalem or Rome provided continuity. 

I believe that when Rome finally fell to the heresy Jerusalem had also already fallen. In any case, you're looking at a time when most of the "official" church was in heresy. This is not an unprecedented situation.

Sophronious and Honorius were contemporaries. 

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.



But within the Church we agree that there are two valid calendars to choose from. 

But you're now begging the question of who is the Church?

There are several "genuine" and "canonical" Orthodox groups that consider themselves the Church.

No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate. 

Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

During the Monothelete heresy, all the Patriarchates ended up in heresy for a time.

All of them at once?  Looks like either Jerusalem or Rome provided continuity. 

I believe that when Rome finally fell to the heresy Jerusalem had also already fallen. In any case, you're looking at a time when most of the "official" church was in heresy. This is not an unprecedented situation.

Sophronious and Honorius were contemporaries. 

But after Pope Martin was deposed and exiled, I don't think any of the patriarchates remained Orthodox.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.



But within the Church we agree that there are two valid calendars to choose from. 

But you're now begging the question of who is the Church?

There are several "genuine" and "canonical" Orthodox groups that consider themselves the Church.

No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate. 

Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

During the Monothelete heresy, all the Patriarchates ended up in heresy for a time.

All of them at once?  Looks like either Jerusalem or Rome provided continuity. 

I believe that when Rome finally fell to the heresy Jerusalem had also already fallen. In any case, you're looking at a time when most of the "official" church was in heresy. This is not an unprecedented situation.

Sophronious and Honorius were contemporaries. 

But after Pope Martin was deposed and exiled, I don't think any of the patriarchates remained Orthodox.

Pope Eugene didn't accept it although he didn't really criticize it.
Pope Vitalian was noncommittal at first but stood against it.
Pope Adeodatus apparently didn't accept it.
I don't think Pope Donus accepted it.
Pope Agatho obviously didn't. 

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.



But within the Church we agree that there are two valid calendars to choose from. 

But you're now begging the question of who is the Church?

There are several "genuine" and "canonical" Orthodox groups that consider themselves the Church.

No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate. 

Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

During the Monothelete heresy, all the Patriarchates ended up in heresy for a time.

All of them at once?  Looks like either Jerusalem or Rome provided continuity. 

I believe that when Rome finally fell to the heresy Jerusalem had also already fallen. In any case, you're looking at a time when most of the "official" church was in heresy. This is not an unprecedented situation.

So you are left with Honorius being the only clear and consistent embracer of it.  He was pope 635 to 638.  This coincides exactly with Patriarch Sophronious in Jerusalem.  So you can't say every national church was simultaneously in heresy.

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.



But within the Church we agree that there are two valid calendars to choose from. 

But you're now begging the question of who is the Church?

There are several "genuine" and "canonical" Orthodox groups that consider themselves the Church.

No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate. 

Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

During the Monothelete heresy, all the Patriarchates ended up in heresy for a time.

All of them at once?  Looks like either Jerusalem or Rome provided continuity. 

I believe that when Rome finally fell to the heresy Jerusalem had also already fallen. In any case, you're looking at a time when most of the "official" church was in heresy. This is not an unprecedented situation.

So you are left with Honorius being the only clear and consistent embracer of it.  He was pope 635 to 638.  This coincides exactly with Patriarch Sophronious in Jerusalem.  So you can't say every national church was simultaneously in heresy.

St Sophronius died in March 638 and was succeeded by a Monothelete. Pope Honorius died in October that year.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.



But within the Church we agree that there are two valid calendars to choose from. 

But you're now begging the question of who is the Church?

There are several "genuine" and "canonical" Orthodox groups that consider themselves the Church.

No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate. 

Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

During the Monothelete heresy, all the Patriarchates ended up in heresy for a time.

All of them at once?  Looks like either Jerusalem or Rome provided continuity. 

I believe that when Rome finally fell to the heresy Jerusalem had also already fallen. In any case, you're looking at a time when most of the "official" church was in heresy. This is not an unprecedented situation.

So you are left with Honorius being the only clear and consistent embracer of it.  He was pope 635 to 638.  This coincides exactly with Patriarch Sophronious in Jerusalem.  So you can't say every national church was simultaneously in heresy.

St Sophronius died in March 638 and was succeeded by a Monothelete. Pope Honorius died in October that year.

His successor was not installed right away.  There was a long vacancy until Anastasius II was installed, well after Honorius died.  The Muslims had tried to seat Sergius of Jaffa but the Patriarchal Vicar, Stephen of Dora, didn't accept him. 

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.



But within the Church we agree that there are two valid calendars to choose from. 

But you're now begging the question of who is the Church?

There are several "genuine" and "canonical" Orthodox groups that consider themselves the Church.

No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate. 

Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

During the Monothelete heresy, all the Patriarchates ended up in heresy for a time.

All of them at once?  Looks like either Jerusalem or Rome provided continuity. 

I believe that when Rome finally fell to the heresy Jerusalem had also already fallen. In any case, you're looking at a time when most of the "official" church was in heresy. This is not an unprecedented situation.

So you are left with Honorius being the only clear and consistent embracer of it.  He was pope 635 to 638.  This coincides exactly with Patriarch Sophronious in Jerusalem.  So you can't say every national church was simultaneously in heresy.

St Sophronius died in March 638 and was succeeded by a Monothelete. Pope Honorius died in October that year.

His successor was not installed right away.  There was a long vacancy until Anastasius II was installed, well after Honorius died.  The Muslims had tried to seat Sergius of Jaffa but the Patriarchal Vicar, Stephen of Dora, didn't accept him. 

If there was a vacancy, then Jerusalem doesn't count. There were then four reigning Patriarchs, all of whom were heretics.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.



But within the Church we agree that there are two valid calendars to choose from. 

But you're now begging the question of who is the Church?

There are several "genuine" and "canonical" Orthodox groups that consider themselves the Church.

No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate. 

Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

During the Monothelete heresy, all the Patriarchates ended up in heresy for a time.

All of them at once?  Looks like either Jerusalem or Rome provided continuity. 

I believe that when Rome finally fell to the heresy Jerusalem had also already fallen. In any case, you're looking at a time when most of the "official" church was in heresy. This is not an unprecedented situation.

So you are left with Honorius being the only clear and consistent embracer of it.  He was pope 635 to 638.  This coincides exactly with Patriarch Sophronious in Jerusalem.  So you can't say every national church was simultaneously in heresy.

St Sophronius died in March 638 and was succeeded by a Monothelete. Pope Honorius died in October that year.

His successor was not installed right away.  There was a long vacancy until Anastasius II was installed, well after Honorius died.  The Muslims had tried to seat Sergius of Jaffa but the Patriarchal Vicar, Stephen of Dora, didn't accept him. 

If there was a vacancy, then Jerusalem doesn't count. There were then four reigning Patriarchs, all of whom were heretics.

It doesn't work that way. There was a fifth autocephalous church whose leader didn't embrace the heresy. 

Or wouldnt you count the Russian church between 1721 and 1917?


Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.



But within the Church we agree that there are two valid calendars to choose from. 

But you're now begging the question of who is the Church?

There are several "genuine" and "canonical" Orthodox groups that consider themselves the Church.

No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate. 

Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

During the Monothelete heresy, all the Patriarchates ended up in heresy for a time.

All of them at once?  Looks like either Jerusalem or Rome provided continuity. 

I believe that when Rome finally fell to the heresy Jerusalem had also already fallen. In any case, you're looking at a time when most of the "official" church was in heresy. This is not an unprecedented situation.

So you are left with Honorius being the only clear and consistent embracer of it.  He was pope 635 to 638.  This coincides exactly with Patriarch Sophronious in Jerusalem.  So you can't say every national church was simultaneously in heresy.

St Sophronius died in March 638 and was succeeded by a Monothelete. Pope Honorius died in October that year.

His successor was not installed right away.  There was a long vacancy until Anastasius II was installed, well after Honorius died.  The Muslims had tried to seat Sergius of Jaffa but the Patriarchal Vicar, Stephen of Dora, didn't accept him. 

If there was a vacancy, then Jerusalem doesn't count. There were then four reigning Patriarchs, all of whom were heretics.

It doesn't work that way. There was a fifth autocephalous church whose leader didn't embrace the heresy. 

Or wouldnt you count the Russian church between 1721 and 1917?



Presupposition failure! The fifth autocephalous church had no leader, so the question of its leader embracing or rejecting a heresy is moot.

The example of the Russian church is irrelevant. The Russian church never adopted any heresies.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.



But within the Church we agree that there are two valid calendars to choose from. 

But you're now begging the question of who is the Church?

There are several "genuine" and "canonical" Orthodox groups that consider themselves the Church.

No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate. 

Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

During the Monothelete heresy, all the Patriarchates ended up in heresy for a time.

All of them at once?  Looks like either Jerusalem or Rome provided continuity. 

I believe that when Rome finally fell to the heresy Jerusalem had also already fallen. In any case, you're looking at a time when most of the "official" church was in heresy. This is not an unprecedented situation.

So you are left with Honorius being the only clear and consistent embracer of it.  He was pope 635 to 638.  This coincides exactly with Patriarch Sophronious in Jerusalem.  So you can't say every national church was simultaneously in heresy.

St Sophronius died in March 638 and was succeeded by a Monothelete. Pope Honorius died in October that year.

His successor was not installed right away.  There was a long vacancy until Anastasius II was installed, well after Honorius died.  The Muslims had tried to seat Sergius of Jaffa but the Patriarchal Vicar, Stephen of Dora, didn't accept him. 

If there was a vacancy, then Jerusalem doesn't count. There were then four reigning Patriarchs, all of whom were heretics.

It doesn't work that way. There was a fifth autocephalous church whose leader didn't embrace the heresy. 

Or wouldnt you count the Russian church between 1721 and 1917?



So you're saying that a locum tenens isn't a leader?


You're getting father and farther afield. 

I don't have to prove that they didn't embrace the heresy.  You have to prove that they did.

In Jerusalems case you can't during the critical era in 638 before Rome came back. 

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.



But within the Church we agree that there are two valid calendars to choose from. 

But you're now begging the question of who is the Church?

There are several "genuine" and "canonical" Orthodox groups that consider themselves the Church.

No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate. 

Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

During the Monothelete heresy, all the Patriarchates ended up in heresy for a time.

All of them at once?  Looks like either Jerusalem or Rome provided continuity. 

I believe that when Rome finally fell to the heresy Jerusalem had also already fallen. In any case, you're looking at a time when most of the "official" church was in heresy. This is not an unprecedented situation.

So you are left with Honorius being the only clear and consistent embracer of it.  He was pope 635 to 638.  This coincides exactly with Patriarch Sophronious in Jerusalem.  So you can't say every national church was simultaneously in heresy.

St Sophronius died in March 638 and was succeeded by a Monothelete. Pope Honorius died in October that year.

His successor was not installed right away.  There was a long vacancy until Anastasius II was installed, well after Honorius died.  The Muslims had tried to seat Sergius of Jaffa but the Patriarchal Vicar, Stephen of Dora, didn't accept him. 

If there was a vacancy, then Jerusalem doesn't count. There were then four reigning Patriarchs, all of whom were heretics.

It doesn't work that way. There was a fifth autocephalous church whose leader didn't embrace the heresy. 

Or wouldnt you count the Russian church between 1721 and 1917?



So you're saying that a locum tenens isn't a leader?


You're getting father and farther afield. 

I don't have to prove that they didn't embrace the heresy.  You have to prove that they did.

In Jerusalems case you can't during the critical era in 638 before Rome came back. 

As per the topic, this seems to be something we cannot agree on.  :D
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
I have in the life of St Maximus the following:

Quote
The elder was returned to his dungeon, but not so long afterwards, visitors arrived, hoping to intimidate him or at least sap his patience. They announced that the Patriarch had sent them, then asked the saint, "To which Church do you belong: to that of Byzantium, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? All these churches and the provinces under them are in concord. If you belong to the Catholic Church, you must enter into communion with us at once, lest you forge a new and strange pathway and fall into unexpected disaster."

The mane of God wisely replied, "Christ the Lord acknowledges as Catholic that Church which maintains the true and saving confession of Him, upon which He built His Church. [...]"

So in his Life at least it appears that for a time all the patriarchates had fallen. And note that St Maximus doesn't respond by questioning whether all of the patriarchates had indeed fallen, but rather questions the very premise of their argument, namely that one must be in communion with a Patriarch or, by extension, the leader of an autocephalous Church. It is quite possible for all the leaders of the autocephalous Churches to fall into heresy and yet for the Catholic Church to remain in existence by virtue of those faithful in the various Churches who remain Orthodox and in communion with one another and not with the heretics. It is these faithful who constitute the Ecumenical Church in their entirety, and the individual Local Churches in their particular territories. So the Church of Rome remained as long as there were Orthodox remaining in the territory of Rome, that of Constantinople remained as long as there were Orthodox remaining there, and so on.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 12:43:59 PM by Jonathan Gress »

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
I have in the life of St Maximus the following:

Quote
The elder was returned to his dungeon, but not so long afterwards, visitors arrived, hoping to intimidate him or at least sap his patience. They announced that the Patriarch had sent them, then asked the saint, "To which Church do you belong: to that of Byzantium, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? All these churches and the provinces under them are in concord. If you belong to the Catholic Church, you must enter into communion with us at once, lest you forge a new and strange pathway and fall into unexpected disaster."

The mane of God wisely replied, "Christ the Lord acknowledges as Catholic that Church which maintains the true and saving confession of Him, upon which He built His Church. [...]"

So in his Life at least it appears that for a time all the patriarchates had fallen. And note that St Maximus doesn't respond by questioning whether all of the patriarchates had indeed fallen, but rather questions the very premise of their argument, namely that one must be in communion with a Patriarch or, by extension, the leader of an autocephalous Church. It is quite possible for all the leaders of the autocephalous Churches to fall into heresy and yet for the Catholic Church to remain in existence by virtue of those faithful in the various Churches who remain Orthodox and in communion with one another and not with the heretics. It is these faithful who constitute the Ecumenical Church in their entirety, and the individual Local Churches in their particular territories. So the Church of Rome remained as long as there were Orthodox remaining in the territory of Rome, that of Constantinople remained as long as there were Orthodox remaining there, and so on.

People were trying to goad him.  He was from Constantinople.  In prison, which I gather was in 662 but am not sure, he probably didn't know which churches held what so he gave this correct answer.  He didn't say that none of the churches are right so I separate from all.  He held with the church which was yet Catholic, whichever and wherever it may be. 

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
I have in the life of St Maximus the following:

Quote
The elder was returned to his dungeon, but not so long afterwards, visitors arrived, hoping to intimidate him or at least sap his patience. They announced that the Patriarch had sent them, then asked the saint, "To which Church do you belong: to that of Byzantium, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? All these churches and the provinces under them are in concord. If you belong to the Catholic Church, you must enter into communion with us at once, lest you forge a new and strange pathway and fall into unexpected disaster."

The mane of God wisely replied, "Christ the Lord acknowledges as Catholic that Church which maintains the true and saving confession of Him, upon which He built His Church. [...]"

So in his Life at least it appears that for a time all the patriarchates had fallen. And note that St Maximus doesn't respond by questioning whether all of the patriarchates had indeed fallen, but rather questions the very premise of their argument, namely that one must be in communion with a Patriarch or, by extension, the leader of an autocephalous Church. It is quite possible for all the leaders of the autocephalous Churches to fall into heresy and yet for the Catholic Church to remain in existence by virtue of those faithful in the various Churches who remain Orthodox and in communion with one another and not with the heretics. It is these faithful who constitute the Ecumenical Church in their entirety, and the individual Local Churches in their particular territories. So the Church of Rome remained as long as there were Orthodox remaining in the territory of Rome, that of Constantinople remained as long as there were Orthodox remaining there, and so on.

People were trying to goad him.  He was from Constantinople.  In prison, which I gather was in 662 but am not sure, he probably didn't know which churches held what so he gave this correct answer.  He didn't say that none of the churches are right so I separate from all.  He held with the church which was yet Catholic, whichever and wherever it may be. 

OK, but he doesn't object to the claim that all the patriarchates have accepted Monotheletism, which he would have done if he believed, as you seem to do, that at least one patriarchate must at all times be led by someone Orthodox. He simply asserts that he will join in communion with anyone who professed the Orthodox faith, which in that context meant explicitly condemning the Monothelete formula of one will of Christ. He obviously is not concerned with the possibility that all the leaders of the autocephalous Churches may have fallen, since that for him is not the definition of where the Church lies.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
I have in the life of St Maximus the following:

Quote
The elder was returned to his dungeon, but not so long afterwards, visitors arrived, hoping to intimidate him or at least sap his patience. They announced that the Patriarch had sent them, then asked the saint, "To which Church do you belong: to that of Byzantium, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? All these churches and the provinces under them are in concord. If you belong to the Catholic Church, you must enter into communion with us at once, lest you forge a new and strange pathway and fall into unexpected disaster."

The mane of God wisely replied, "Christ the Lord acknowledges as Catholic that Church which maintains the true and saving confession of Him, upon which He built His Church. [...]"

So in his Life at least it appears that for a time all the patriarchates had fallen. And note that St Maximus doesn't respond by questioning whether all of the patriarchates had indeed fallen, but rather questions the very premise of their argument, namely that one must be in communion with a Patriarch or, by extension, the leader of an autocephalous Church. It is quite possible for all the leaders of the autocephalous Churches to fall into heresy and yet for the Catholic Church to remain in existence by virtue of those faithful in the various Churches who remain Orthodox and in communion with one another and not with the heretics. It is these faithful who constitute the Ecumenical Church in their entirety, and the individual Local Churches in their particular territories. So the Church of Rome remained as long as there were Orthodox remaining in the territory of Rome, that of Constantinople remained as long as there were Orthodox remaining there, and so on.

People were trying to goad him.  He was from Constantinople.  In prison, which I gather was in 662 but am not sure, he probably didn't know which churches held what so he gave this correct answer.  He didn't say that none of the churches are right so I separate from all.  He held with the church which was yet Catholic, whichever and wherever it may be. 

OK, but he doesn't object to the claim that all the patriarchates have accepted Monotheletism, which he would have done if he believed, as you seem to do, that at least one patriarchate must at all times be led by someone Orthodox. He simply asserts that he will join in communion with anyone who professed the Orthodox faith, which in that context meant explicitly condemning the Monothelete formula of one will of Christ. He obviously is not concerned with the possibility that all the leaders of the autocephalous Churches may have fallen, since that for him is not the definition of where the Church lies.

He may not have needed to say as much but you can draw that out from his words.  Jerusalem and Rome wee most likely both Orthodox at the time he made it. The point is, despite the ambiguity of his prison statement, there is no demonstrable time in which all of the churches have simultaneously abandoned the faith.  To contend that such happened in the 1920s and thereafter is, to me, an innovation not unlike that of the Old Believers. 

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
I have in the life of St Maximus the following:

Quote
The elder was returned to his dungeon, but not so long afterwards, visitors arrived, hoping to intimidate him or at least sap his patience. They announced that the Patriarch had sent them, then asked the saint, "To which Church do you belong: to that of Byzantium, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? All these churches and the provinces under them are in concord. If you belong to the Catholic Church, you must enter into communion with us at once, lest you forge a new and strange pathway and fall into unexpected disaster."

The mane of God wisely replied, "Christ the Lord acknowledges as Catholic that Church which maintains the true and saving confession of Him, upon which He built His Church. [...]"

So in his Life at least it appears that for a time all the patriarchates had fallen. And note that St Maximus doesn't respond by questioning whether all of the patriarchates had indeed fallen, but rather questions the very premise of their argument, namely that one must be in communion with a Patriarch or, by extension, the leader of an autocephalous Church. It is quite possible for all the leaders of the autocephalous Churches to fall into heresy and yet for the Catholic Church to remain in existence by virtue of those faithful in the various Churches who remain Orthodox and in communion with one another and not with the heretics. It is these faithful who constitute the Ecumenical Church in their entirety, and the individual Local Churches in their particular territories. So the Church of Rome remained as long as there were Orthodox remaining in the territory of Rome, that of Constantinople remained as long as there were Orthodox remaining there, and so on.

People were trying to goad him.  He was from Constantinople.  In prison, which I gather was in 662 but am not sure, he probably didn't know which churches held what so he gave this correct answer.  He didn't say that none of the churches are right so I separate from all.  He held with the church which was yet Catholic, whichever and wherever it may be. 

OK, but he doesn't object to the claim that all the patriarchates have accepted Monotheletism, which he would have done if he believed, as you seem to do, that at least one patriarchate must at all times be led by someone Orthodox. He simply asserts that he will join in communion with anyone who professed the Orthodox faith, which in that context meant explicitly condemning the Monothelete formula of one will of Christ. He obviously is not concerned with the possibility that all the leaders of the autocephalous Churches may have fallen, since that for him is not the definition of where the Church lies.

He may not have needed to say as much but you can draw that out from his words.  Jerusalem and Rome wee most likely both Orthodox at the time he made it. The point is, despite the ambiguity of his prison statement, there is no demonstrable time in which all of the churches have simultaneously abandoned the faith.  To contend that such happened in the 1920s and thereafter is, to me, an innovation not unlike that of the Old Believers. 

Let me ask you a different question. Do you believe that the Old Believers (popovtsy) constitute the Church?   If not, why not?

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
I have in the life of St Maximus the following:

Quote
The elder was returned to his dungeon, but not so long afterwards, visitors arrived, hoping to intimidate him or at least sap his patience. They announced that the Patriarch had sent them, then asked the saint, "To which Church do you belong: to that of Byzantium, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? All these churches and the provinces under them are in concord. If you belong to the Catholic Church, you must enter into communion with us at once, lest you forge a new and strange pathway and fall into unexpected disaster."

The mane of God wisely replied, "Christ the Lord acknowledges as Catholic that Church which maintains the true and saving confession of Him, upon which He built His Church. [...]"

So in his Life at least it appears that for a time all the patriarchates had fallen. And note that St Maximus doesn't respond by questioning whether all of the patriarchates had indeed fallen, but rather questions the very premise of their argument, namely that one must be in communion with a Patriarch or, by extension, the leader of an autocephalous Church. It is quite possible for all the leaders of the autocephalous Churches to fall into heresy and yet for the Catholic Church to remain in existence by virtue of those faithful in the various Churches who remain Orthodox and in communion with one another and not with the heretics. It is these faithful who constitute the Ecumenical Church in their entirety, and the individual Local Churches in their particular territories. So the Church of Rome remained as long as there were Orthodox remaining in the territory of Rome, that of Constantinople remained as long as there were Orthodox remaining there, and so on.

People were trying to goad him.  He was from Constantinople.  In prison, which I gather was in 662 but am not sure, he probably didn't know which churches held what so he gave this correct answer.  He didn't say that none of the churches are right so I separate from all.  He held with the church which was yet Catholic, whichever and wherever it may be. 

OK, but he doesn't object to the claim that all the patriarchates have accepted Monotheletism, which he would have done if he believed, as you seem to do, that at least one patriarchate must at all times be led by someone Orthodox. He simply asserts that he will join in communion with anyone who professed the Orthodox faith, which in that context meant explicitly condemning the Monothelete formula of one will of Christ. He obviously is not concerned with the possibility that all the leaders of the autocephalous Churches may have fallen, since that for him is not the definition of where the Church lies.

He may not have needed to say as much but you can draw that out from his words.  Jerusalem and Rome wee most likely both Orthodox at the time he made it. The point is, despite the ambiguity of his prison statement, there is no demonstrable time in which all of the churches have simultaneously abandoned the faith.  To contend that such happened in the 1920s and thereafter is, to me, an innovation not unlike that of the Old Believers. 

First off, you are confusing the leader of a Local Church with the entire Local Church. If the Ecumenical Patriarch becomes a heretic, that does not mean everyone in his territory becomes a heretic (although it does oblige the Orthodox in his territory to cease commemorating him). We can take the various "Churches" mentioned by St Maximus' persecutors to refer to the leaders specifically. I certainly don't think St Maximus believed that the entire Church had fallen, but only that the leaders of the respective Local Churches had done so and that he was therefore obliged to sever communion with them.

Secondly, and following from the first, I don't believe that all the Local Churches have fallen in their entirety, either in the 1920s or today. In each territory of each Local Church, the Church remains in the form of those faithful who have remained true to Orthodoxy and do not have communion with the ecumenists, i.e. the True Orthodox.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
I have in the life of St Maximus the following:

Quote
The elder was returned to his dungeon, but not so long afterwards, visitors arrived, hoping to intimidate him or at least sap his patience. They announced that the Patriarch had sent them, then asked the saint, "To which Church do you belong: to that of Byzantium, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? All these churches and the provinces under them are in concord. If you belong to the Catholic Church, you must enter into communion with us at once, lest you forge a new and strange pathway and fall into unexpected disaster."

The mane of God wisely replied, "Christ the Lord acknowledges as Catholic that Church which maintains the true and saving confession of Him, upon which He built His Church. [...]"

So in his Life at least it appears that for a time all the patriarchates had fallen. And note that St Maximus doesn't respond by questioning whether all of the patriarchates had indeed fallen, but rather questions the very premise of their argument, namely that one must be in communion with a Patriarch or, by extension, the leader of an autocephalous Church. It is quite possible for all the leaders of the autocephalous Churches to fall into heresy and yet for the Catholic Church to remain in existence by virtue of those faithful in the various Churches who remain Orthodox and in communion with one another and not with the heretics. It is these faithful who constitute the Ecumenical Church in their entirety, and the individual Local Churches in their particular territories. So the Church of Rome remained as long as there were Orthodox remaining in the territory of Rome, that of Constantinople remained as long as there were Orthodox remaining there, and so on.

People were trying to goad him.  He was from Constantinople.  In prison, which I gather was in 662 but am not sure, he probably didn't know which churches held what so he gave this correct answer.  He didn't say that none of the churches are right so I separate from all.  He held with the church which was yet Catholic, whichever and wherever it may be. 

OK, but he doesn't object to the claim that all the patriarchates have accepted Monotheletism, which he would have done if he believed, as you seem to do, that at least one patriarchate must at all times be led by someone Orthodox. He simply asserts that he will join in communion with anyone who professed the Orthodox faith, which in that context meant explicitly condemning the Monothelete formula of one will of Christ. He obviously is not concerned with the possibility that all the leaders of the autocephalous Churches may have fallen, since that for him is not the definition of where the Church lies.

He may not have needed to say as much but you can draw that out from his words.  Jerusalem and Rome wee most likely both Orthodox at the time he made it. The point is, despite the ambiguity of his prison statement, there is no demonstrable time in which all of the churches have simultaneously abandoned the faith.  To contend that such happened in the 1920s and thereafter is, to me, an innovation not unlike that of the Old Believers. 

First off, you are confusing the leader of a Local Church with the entire Local Church. If the Ecumenical Patriarch becomes a heretic, that does not mean everyone in his territory becomes a heretic (although it does oblige the Orthodox in his territory to cease commemorating him). We can take the various "Churches" mentioned by St Maximus' persecutors to refer to the leaders specifically. I certainly don't think St Maximus believed that the entire Church had fallen, but only that the leaders of the respective Local Churches had done so and that he was therefore obliged to sever communion with them.

Secondly, and following from the first, I don't believe that all the Local Churches have fallen in their entirety, either in the 1920s or today. In each territory of each Local Church, the Church remains in the form of those faithful who have remained true to Orthodoxy and do not have communion with the ecumenists, i.e. the True Orthodox.

It is far more likely that St Maximus, being in prison and under exile, didn't know which patriarch was doing what.  He didn't discount the possibility of a faithful church.  He just couldn't know in his position where it was. He gave a wise non answer to that point.

But the point is that there was always an organic autocephalous Orthodox Church.  There was never a need to schism from all of it and set up a parallel church.  The Romans have done this too in their SSPX type groups but they only have one patriarchate to declare vacant so they can get to that point easier. 

I think we each understand one another but we don't agree.  Id like to know your views on the Old Believers however. 

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
I have in the life of St Maximus the following:

Quote
The elder was returned to his dungeon, but not so long afterwards, visitors arrived, hoping to intimidate him or at least sap his patience. They announced that the Patriarch had sent them, then asked the saint, "To which Church do you belong: to that of Byzantium, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? All these churches and the provinces under them are in concord. If you belong to the Catholic Church, you must enter into communion with us at once, lest you forge a new and strange pathway and fall into unexpected disaster."

The mane of God wisely replied, "Christ the Lord acknowledges as Catholic that Church which maintains the true and saving confession of Him, upon which He built His Church. [...]"

So in his Life at least it appears that for a time all the patriarchates had fallen. And note that St Maximus doesn't respond by questioning whether all of the patriarchates had indeed fallen, but rather questions the very premise of their argument, namely that one must be in communion with a Patriarch or, by extension, the leader of an autocephalous Church. It is quite possible for all the leaders of the autocephalous Churches to fall into heresy and yet for the Catholic Church to remain in existence by virtue of those faithful in the various Churches who remain Orthodox and in communion with one another and not with the heretics. It is these faithful who constitute the Ecumenical Church in their entirety, and the individual Local Churches in their particular territories. So the Church of Rome remained as long as there were Orthodox remaining in the territory of Rome, that of Constantinople remained as long as there were Orthodox remaining there, and so on.

People were trying to goad him.  He was from Constantinople.  In prison, which I gather was in 662 but am not sure, he probably didn't know which churches held what so he gave this correct answer.  He didn't say that none of the churches are right so I separate from all.  He held with the church which was yet Catholic, whichever and wherever it may be. 

OK, but he doesn't object to the claim that all the patriarchates have accepted Monotheletism, which he would have done if he believed, as you seem to do, that at least one patriarchate must at all times be led by someone Orthodox. He simply asserts that he will join in communion with anyone who professed the Orthodox faith, which in that context meant explicitly condemning the Monothelete formula of one will of Christ. He obviously is not concerned with the possibility that all the leaders of the autocephalous Churches may have fallen, since that for him is not the definition of where the Church lies.

He may not have needed to say as much but you can draw that out from his words.  Jerusalem and Rome wee most likely both Orthodox at the time he made it. The point is, despite the ambiguity of his prison statement, there is no demonstrable time in which all of the churches have simultaneously abandoned the faith.  To contend that such happened in the 1920s and thereafter is, to me, an innovation not unlike that of the Old Believers. 

First off, you are confusing the leader of a Local Church with the entire Local Church. If the Ecumenical Patriarch becomes a heretic, that does not mean everyone in his territory becomes a heretic (although it does oblige the Orthodox in his territory to cease commemorating him). We can take the various "Churches" mentioned by St Maximus' persecutors to refer to the leaders specifically. I certainly don't think St Maximus believed that the entire Church had fallen, but only that the leaders of the respective Local Churches had done so and that he was therefore obliged to sever communion with them.

Secondly, and following from the first, I don't believe that all the Local Churches have fallen in their entirety, either in the 1920s or today. In each territory of each Local Church, the Church remains in the form of those faithful who have remained true to Orthodoxy and do not have communion with the ecumenists, i.e. the True Orthodox.

It is far more likely that St Maximus, being in prison and under exile, didn't know which patriarch was doing what.  He didn't discount the possibility of a faithful church.  He just couldn't know in his position where it was. He gave a wise non answer to that point.

But the point is that there was always an organic autocephalous Orthodox Church.  There was never a need to schism from all of it and set up a parallel church.  The Romans have done this too in their SSPX type groups but they only have one patriarchate to declare vacant so they can get to that point easier. 

I think we each understand one another but we don't agree.  Id like to know your views on the Old Believers however. 

Well I believe we still have organic autocephalous Churches; it's just they don't consist of the same hierarchs as your Churches! But I suppose you're right that we can agree to disagree at this point.

I don't know much about the Old Believers, or Old Ritualists as I would call them (not sure if that's allowed). From what I know of that issue, the OB position is that the Russian Church under Patriarch Nikon promulgated rites that had been previously anathematized by the Local Council of a Hundred Chapters. The Nikonian (and in my view, Orthodox) position is that this Local Council didn't have authority to condemn rites that had been in use in the other Local Churches and that Patriarch Nikon was correct in bringing the Russian use in line with the rest of the Church. At no point were matters of faith involved. I do believe this was a different case from, say, the issue of adopting the new calendar in 1924, which did involve matters of faith (I'm assuming it is this parallel you are trying to draw here).

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
I have in the life of St Maximus the following:

Quote
The elder was returned to his dungeon, but not so long afterwards, visitors arrived, hoping to intimidate him or at least sap his patience. They announced that the Patriarch had sent them, then asked the saint, "To which Church do you belong: to that of Byzantium, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? All these churches and the provinces under them are in concord. If you belong to the Catholic Church, you must enter into communion with us at once, lest you forge a new and strange pathway and fall into unexpected disaster."

The mane of God wisely replied, "Christ the Lord acknowledges as Catholic that Church which maintains the true and saving confession of Him, upon which He built His Church. [...]"

So in his Life at least it appears that for a time all the patriarchates had fallen. And note that St Maximus doesn't respond by questioning whether all of the patriarchates had indeed fallen, but rather questions the very premise of their argument, namely that one must be in communion with a Patriarch or, by extension, the leader of an autocephalous Church. It is quite possible for all the leaders of the autocephalous Churches to fall into heresy and yet for the Catholic Church to remain in existence by virtue of those faithful in the various Churches who remain Orthodox and in communion with one another and not with the heretics. It is these faithful who constitute the Ecumenical Church in their entirety, and the individual Local Churches in their particular territories. So the Church of Rome remained as long as there were Orthodox remaining in the territory of Rome, that of Constantinople remained as long as there were Orthodox remaining there, and so on.

People were trying to goad him.  He was from Constantinople.  In prison, which I gather was in 662 but am not sure, he probably didn't know which churches held what so he gave this correct answer.  He didn't say that none of the churches are right so I separate from all.  He held with the church which was yet Catholic, whichever and wherever it may be. 

OK, but he doesn't object to the claim that all the patriarchates have accepted Monotheletism, which he would have done if he believed, as you seem to do, that at least one patriarchate must at all times be led by someone Orthodox. He simply asserts that he will join in communion with anyone who professed the Orthodox faith, which in that context meant explicitly condemning the Monothelete formula of one will of Christ. He obviously is not concerned with the possibility that all the leaders of the autocephalous Churches may have fallen, since that for him is not the definition of where the Church lies.

He may not have needed to say as much but you can draw that out from his words.  Jerusalem and Rome wee most likely both Orthodox at the time he made it. The point is, despite the ambiguity of his prison statement, there is no demonstrable time in which all of the churches have simultaneously abandoned the faith.  To contend that such happened in the 1920s and thereafter is, to me, an innovation not unlike that of the Old Believers. 

First off, you are confusing the leader of a Local Church with the entire Local Church. If the Ecumenical Patriarch becomes a heretic, that does not mean everyone in his territory becomes a heretic (although it does oblige the Orthodox in his territory to cease commemorating him). We can take the various "Churches" mentioned by St Maximus' persecutors to refer to the leaders specifically. I certainly don't think St Maximus believed that the entire Church had fallen, but only that the leaders of the respective Local Churches had done so and that he was therefore obliged to sever communion with them.

Secondly, and following from the first, I don't believe that all the Local Churches have fallen in their entirety, either in the 1920s or today. In each territory of each Local Church, the Church remains in the form of those faithful who have remained true to Orthodoxy and do not have communion with the ecumenists, i.e. the True Orthodox.

It is far more likely that St Maximus, being in prison and under exile, didn't know which patriarch was doing what.  He didn't discount the possibility of a faithful church.  He just couldn't know in his position where it was. He gave a wise non answer to that point.

But the point is that there was always an organic autocephalous Orthodox Church.  There was never a need to schism from all of it and set up a parallel church.  The Romans have done this too in their SSPX type groups but they only have one patriarchate to declare vacant so they can get to that point easier. 

I think we each understand one another but we don't agree.  Id like to know your views on the Old Believers however. 

Well I believe we still have organic autocephalous Churches; it's just they don't consist of the same hierarchs as your Churches! But I suppose you're right that we can agree to disagree at this point.

I don't know much about the Old Believers, or Old Ritualists as I would call them (not sure if that's allowed). From what I know of that issue, the OB position is that the Russian Church under Patriarch Nikon promulgated rites that had been previously anathematized by the Local Council of a Hundred Chapters. The Nikonian (and in my view, Orthodox) position is that this Local Council didn't have authority to condemn rites that had been in use in the other Local Churches and that Patriarch Nikon was correct in bringing the Russian use in line with the rest of the Church. At no point were matters of faith involved. I do believe this was a different case from, say, the issue of adopting the new calendar in 1924, which did involve matters of faith (I'm assuming it is this parallel you are trying to draw here).

Your understanding is right although Old Ritualists is often used for the Old Believers who have reconciled with Moscow but keep the old rites. 

I'm frankly puzzled at why the calendar for you is a matter of faith while the Liturgy is not.  It seems to be inconsistent.  I hold that both rites and both calendars are valid.   On what basis don't you?

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
The reason is that, with respect to the calendar issue, the Gregorian calendar was first promoted to the Orthodox in the context of getting them to submit to the Pope and accept Papal authority. When the new calendar was promulgated in 1924, it was also being promoted in a heretical context, namely of accepting that the Western heterodox were in some sense part of the Church of Christ (as per the 1920 encyclical "To the Churches of Christ Everywhere" addressed to Orthodox and heterodox alike).

The Nikonian reforms, on the contrary, were being promoted in precisely the opposite kind of context, namely the desire to unify the rites of the various Local Churches which had diverged. Nothing about these reforms involved heresy.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
The reason is that, with respect to the calendar issue, the Gregorian calendar was first promoted to the Orthodox in the context of getting them to submit to the Pope and accept Papal authority. When the new calendar was promulgated in 1924, it was also being promoted in a heretical context, namely of accepting that the Western heterodox were in some sense part of the Church of Christ (as per the 1920 encyclical "To the Churches of Christ Everywhere" addressed to Orthodox and heterodox alike).

The Nikonian reforms, on the contrary, were being promoted in precisely the opposite kind of context, namely the desire to unify the rites of the various Local Churches which had diverged. Nothing about these reforms involved heresy.

Thanks for the clarification of your position.   I disagree with its implications but appreciate it.  The fact that the revised calendar retains the old paschalion is enough for me to see that, while it is not ideal in my view, it was not a compromise of the faith.  I am aware that Finland uses the new paschalion which surprises me but which I gather is some form of economia given its status. 

You have to realize that the early twenties were an era of mass upheaval everywhere.  When some of our patriarchs began engaging with the west, they may have been a bit starry eyed.  But this phase didn't last long and I believe our positions vis a vis the western churches are soundly Orthodox.  I also as stated don't believe that every national hierarchy will ever fall into heresy. 

Here is what I think is my final question to you on these points.  How do you, or other True Orthodox, defend against charges of Donatism?   

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
The reason is that, with respect to the calendar issue, the Gregorian calendar was first promoted to the Orthodox in the context of getting them to submit to the Pope and accept Papal authority. When the new calendar was promulgated in 1924, it was also being promoted in a heretical context, namely of accepting that the Western heterodox were in some sense part of the Church of Christ (as per the 1920 encyclical "To the Churches of Christ Everywhere" addressed to Orthodox and heterodox alike).

The Nikonian reforms, on the contrary, were being promoted in precisely the opposite kind of context, namely the desire to unify the rites of the various Local Churches which had diverged. Nothing about these reforms involved heresy.

Thanks for the clarification of your position.   I disagree with its implications but appreciate it.  The fact that the revised calendar retains the old paschalion is enough for me to see that, while it is not ideal in my view, it was not a compromise of the faith.  I am aware that Finland uses the new paschalion which surprises me but which I gather is some form of economia given its status. 

It is certainly true that the innovation in the Paschalion is the root of the problem with the Gregorian calendar and provides the most serious objection to it. But there is also reason to believe the innovation in the Menologion is covered by the anathema since it was explicitly condemned in the Patriarchal Sigillion of 1583. I know that the authenticity of this sigillion has been disputed by some, but I wouldn't necessarily conclude from this that the Church never had in mind both the Paschalion and the Menologion when She condemned the Papal calendar. Other evidence includes the inseparability of the two parts of the Calendar, as expressed by, for example, the length of the Apostles' Fast depending on the dates of both the Pascalion and Menologion; the references in the hymns for St George to the Paschal season, an absurdity when his day is celebrated during Lent or Holy Week; the special rubrics for celebrating the Annunciation during Holy Week or Bright Week, a great liturgical event which is impossible under the new calendar, etc.

Basically, I'm not convinced by this attitude towards the permissibility of the new Menologion since I don't believe the Church in the 16th century would have envisioned the two parts of the calendar as being separable. If the Church did believe this, we would surely see this view expressed in the lack of integration between the two parts, but, as we just saw, the two parts are very intimately connected with one another and you cannot change one without doing damage to the other.

Quote
You have to realize that the early twenties were an era of mass upheaval everywhere.  When some of our patriarchs began engaging with the west, they may have been a bit starry eyed.  But this phase didn't last long and I believe our positions vis a vis the western churches are soundly Orthodox.  I also as stated don't believe that every national hierarchy will ever fall into heresy. 

I completely disagree with the implication that ecumenism was a short-lived thing. It is still alive and well, seen by the continuing participation of the official Churches in the World Council of Churches, frequent prayer with the heterodox, officially sanctioned intercommunion and concelebration with the non-Chalcedonians, etc etc.

I agree, however, that not all the local hierarchies have fallen.

Quote
Here is what I think is my final question to you on these points.  How do you, or other True Orthodox, defend against charges of Donatism?   

Donatism was the doctrine that apostasy could not be cured by repentance, is that not so? The True Orthodox teach no such thing.

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,981
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Orthodox ecclesiology does not depend on all or even at least one patriarch being Orthodox all the time. Just because the patriarchs happen to accept heresy for a time, doesn't mean every bishop does.
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.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
The reason is that, with respect to the calendar issue, the Gregorian calendar was first promoted to the Orthodox in the context of getting them to submit to the Pope and accept Papal authority. When the new calendar was promulgated in 1924, it was also being promoted in a heretical context, namely of accepting that the Western heterodox were in some sense part of the Church of Christ (as per the 1920 encyclical "To the Churches of Christ Everywhere" addressed to Orthodox and heterodox alike).

The Nikonian reforms, on the contrary, were being promoted in precisely the opposite kind of context, namely the desire to unify the rites of the various Local Churches which had diverged. Nothing about these reforms involved heresy.

Thanks for the clarification of your position.   I disagree with its implications but appreciate it.  The fact that the revised calendar retains the old paschalion is enough for me to see that, while it is not ideal in my view, it was not a compromise of the faith.  I am aware that Finland uses the new paschalion which surprises me but which I gather is some form of economia given its status. 

It is certainly true that the innovation in the Paschalion is the root of the problem with the Gregorian calendar and provides the most serious objection to it. But there is also reason to believe the innovation in the Menologion is covered by the anathema since it was explicitly condemned in the Patriarchal Sigillion of 1583. I know that the authenticity of this sigillion has been disputed by some, but I wouldn't necessarily conclude from this that the Church never had in mind both the Paschalion and the Menologion when She condemned the Papal calendar. Other evidence includes the inseparability of the two parts of the Calendar, as expressed by, for example, the length of the Apostles' Fast depending on the dates of both the Pascalion and Menologion; the references in the hymns for St George to the Paschal season, an absurdity when his day is celebrated during Lent or Holy Week; the special rubrics for celebrating the Annunciation during Holy Week or Bright Week, a great liturgical event which is impossible under the new calendar, etc.

Basically, I'm not convinced by this attitude towards the permissibility of the new Menologion since I don't believe the Church in the 16th century would have envisioned the two parts of the calendar as being separable. If the Church did believe this, we would surely see this view expressed in the lack of integration between the two parts, but, as we just saw, the two parts are very intimately connected with one another and you cannot change one without doing damage to the other.

Quote
You have to realize that the early twenties were an era of mass upheaval everywhere.  When some of our patriarchs began engaging with the west, they may have been a bit starry eyed.  But this phase didn't last long and I believe our positions vis a vis the western churches are soundly Orthodox.  I also as stated don't believe that every national hierarchy will ever fall into heresy. 

I completely disagree with the implication that ecumenism was a short-lived thing. It is still alive and well, seen by the continuing participation of the official Churches in the World Council of Churches, frequent prayer with the heterodox, officially sanctioned intercommunion and concelebration with the non-Chalcedonians, etc etc.

I agree, however, that not all the local hierarchies have fallen.

Quote
Here is what I think is my final question to you on these points.  How do you, or other True Orthodox, defend against charges of Donatism?   

Donatism was the doctrine that apostasy could not be cured by repentance, is that not so? The True Orthodox teach no such thing.

@JonathanGress Hmm... what level of Ecumenism would you accept? Where does it cross the line? I generally agree with your views, I just don't think they entail the conclusion.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 04:18:49 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
The reason is that, with respect to the calendar issue, the Gregorian calendar was first promoted to the Orthodox in the context of getting them to submit to the Pope and accept Papal authority. When the new calendar was promulgated in 1924, it was also being promoted in a heretical context, namely of accepting that the Western heterodox were in some sense part of the Church of Christ (as per the 1920 encyclical "To the Churches of Christ Everywhere" addressed to Orthodox and heterodox alike).

The Nikonian reforms, on the contrary, were being promoted in precisely the opposite kind of context, namely the desire to unify the rites of the various Local Churches which had diverged. Nothing about these reforms involved heresy.

Thanks for the clarification of your position.   I disagree with its implications but appreciate it.  The fact that the revised calendar retains the old paschalion is enough for me to see that, while it is not ideal in my view, it was not a compromise of the faith.  I am aware that Finland uses the new paschalion which surprises me but which I gather is some form of economia given its status. 

It is certainly true that the innovation in the Paschalion is the root of the problem with the Gregorian calendar and provides the most serious objection to it. But there is also reason to believe the innovation in the Menologion is covered by the anathema since it was explicitly condemned in the Patriarchal Sigillion of 1583. I know that the authenticity of this sigillion has been disputed by some, but I wouldn't necessarily conclude from this that the Church never had in mind both the Paschalion and the Menologion when She condemned the Papal calendar. Other evidence includes the inseparability of the two parts of the Calendar, as expressed by, for example, the length of the Apostles' Fast depending on the dates of both the Pascalion and Menologion; the references in the hymns for St George to the Paschal season, an absurdity when his day is celebrated during Lent or Holy Week; the special rubrics for celebrating the Annunciation during Holy Week or Bright Week, a great liturgical event which is impossible under the new calendar, etc.

Basically, I'm not convinced by this attitude towards the permissibility of the new Menologion since I don't believe the Church in the 16th century would have envisioned the two parts of the calendar as being separable. If the Church did believe this, we would surely see this view expressed in the lack of integration between the two parts, but, as we just saw, the two parts are very intimately connected with one another and you cannot change one without doing damage to the other.

Quote
You have to realize that the early twenties were an era of mass upheaval everywhere.  When some of our patriarchs began engaging with the west, they may have been a bit starry eyed.  But this phase didn't last long and I believe our positions vis a vis the western churches are soundly Orthodox.  I also as stated don't believe that every national hierarchy will ever fall into heresy. 

I completely disagree with the implication that ecumenism was a short-lived thing. It is still alive and well, seen by the continuing participation of the official Churches in the World Council of Churches, frequent prayer with the heterodox, officially sanctioned intercommunion and concelebration with the non-Chalcedonians, etc etc.

I agree, however, that not all the local hierarchies have fallen.

Quote
Here is what I think is my final question to you on these points.  How do you, or other True Orthodox, defend against charges of Donatism?   

Donatism was the doctrine that apostasy could not be cured by repentance, is that not so? The True Orthodox teach no such thing.

The conflicts you mentioned that are inherent in the Revised Julian calendar are problematic.  I don't think they are heretical.  I would have no problem if a Great Council adopted the Gregorian Calendar in its entirety. 

I have no problem with proper WCC participation and dialogues with non Orthodox Christians so long as Orthodox belief is made clear.

I also believe that the Oriental Churches are fully Orthodox.  I would not presume to commune there until my bishops reestablished communion with them, however. 

So I guess we really disagree. 

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
The reason is that, with respect to the calendar issue, the Gregorian calendar was first promoted to the Orthodox in the context of getting them to submit to the Pope and accept Papal authority. When the new calendar was promulgated in 1924, it was also being promoted in a heretical context, namely of accepting that the Western heterodox were in some sense part of the Church of Christ (as per the 1920 encyclical "To the Churches of Christ Everywhere" addressed to Orthodox and heterodox alike).

The Nikonian reforms, on the contrary, were being promoted in precisely the opposite kind of context, namely the desire to unify the rites of the various Local Churches which had diverged. Nothing about these reforms involved heresy.

Thanks for the clarification of your position.   I disagree with its implications but appreciate it.  The fact that the revised calendar retains the old paschalion is enough for me to see that, while it is not ideal in my view, it was not a compromise of the faith.  I am aware that Finland uses the new paschalion which surprises me but which I gather is some form of economia given its status. 

It is certainly true that the innovation in the Paschalion is the root of the problem with the Gregorian calendar and provides the most serious objection to it. But there is also reason to believe the innovation in the Menologion is covered by the anathema since it was explicitly condemned in the Patriarchal Sigillion of 1583. I know that the authenticity of this sigillion has been disputed by some, but I wouldn't necessarily conclude from this that the Church never had in mind both the Paschalion and the Menologion when She condemned the Papal calendar. Other evidence includes the inseparability of the two parts of the Calendar, as expressed by, for example, the length of the Apostles' Fast depending on the dates of both the Pascalion and Menologion; the references in the hymns for St George to the Paschal season, an absurdity when his day is celebrated during Lent or Holy Week; the special rubrics for celebrating the Annunciation during Holy Week or Bright Week, a great liturgical event which is impossible under the new calendar, etc.

Basically, I'm not convinced by this attitude towards the permissibility of the new Menologion since I don't believe the Church in the 16th century would have envisioned the two parts of the calendar as being separable. If the Church did believe this, we would surely see this view expressed in the lack of integration between the two parts, but, as we just saw, the two parts are very intimately connected with one another and you cannot change one without doing damage to the other.

Quote
You have to realize that the early twenties were an era of mass upheaval everywhere.  When some of our patriarchs began engaging with the west, they may have been a bit starry eyed.  But this phase didn't last long and I believe our positions vis a vis the western churches are soundly Orthodox.  I also as stated don't believe that every national hierarchy will ever fall into heresy. 

I completely disagree with the implication that ecumenism was a short-lived thing. It is still alive and well, seen by the continuing participation of the official Churches in the World Council of Churches, frequent prayer with the heterodox, officially sanctioned intercommunion and concelebration with the non-Chalcedonians, etc etc.

I agree, however, that not all the local hierarchies have fallen.

Quote
Here is what I think is my final question to you on these points.  How do you, or other True Orthodox, defend against charges of Donatism?   

Donatism was the doctrine that apostasy could not be cured by repentance, is that not so? The True Orthodox teach no such thing.

By Donatism I'm speaking about the denial of ex opere operato.  Do you believe that sacraments administered by a duly consecrated bishop or ordained priest who is impure are invalid?

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
The reason is that, with respect to the calendar issue, the Gregorian calendar was first promoted to the Orthodox in the context of getting them to submit to the Pope and accept Papal authority. When the new calendar was promulgated in 1924, it was also being promoted in a heretical context, namely of accepting that the Western heterodox were in some sense part of the Church of Christ (as per the 1920 encyclical "To the Churches of Christ Everywhere" addressed to Orthodox and heterodox alike).

The Nikonian reforms, on the contrary, were being promoted in precisely the opposite kind of context, namely the desire to unify the rites of the various Local Churches which had diverged. Nothing about these reforms involved heresy.

Thanks for the clarification of your position.   I disagree with its implications but appreciate it.  The fact that the revised calendar retains the old paschalion is enough for me to see that, while it is not ideal in my view, it was not a compromise of the faith.  I am aware that Finland uses the new paschalion which surprises me but which I gather is some form of economia given its status. 

It is certainly true that the innovation in the Paschalion is the root of the problem with the Gregorian calendar and provides the most serious objection to it. But there is also reason to believe the innovation in the Menologion is covered by the anathema since it was explicitly condemned in the Patriarchal Sigillion of 1583. I know that the authenticity of this sigillion has been disputed by some, but I wouldn't necessarily conclude from this that the Church never had in mind both the Paschalion and the Menologion when She condemned the Papal calendar. Other evidence includes the inseparability of the two parts of the Calendar, as expressed by, for example, the length of the Apostles' Fast depending on the dates of both the Pascalion and Menologion; the references in the hymns for St George to the Paschal season, an absurdity when his day is celebrated during Lent or Holy Week; the special rubrics for celebrating the Annunciation during Holy Week or Bright Week, a great liturgical event which is impossible under the new calendar, etc.

Basically, I'm not convinced by this attitude towards the permissibility of the new Menologion since I don't believe the Church in the 16th century would have envisioned the two parts of the calendar as being separable. If the Church did believe this, we would surely see this view expressed in the lack of integration between the two parts, but, as we just saw, the two parts are very intimately connected with one another and you cannot change one without doing damage to the other.

Quote
You have to realize that the early twenties were an era of mass upheaval everywhere.  When some of our patriarchs began engaging with the west, they may have been a bit starry eyed.  But this phase didn't last long and I believe our positions vis a vis the western churches are soundly Orthodox.  I also as stated don't believe that every national hierarchy will ever fall into heresy. 

I completely disagree with the implication that ecumenism was a short-lived thing. It is still alive and well, seen by the continuing participation of the official Churches in the World Council of Churches, frequent prayer with the heterodox, officially sanctioned intercommunion and concelebration with the non-Chalcedonians, etc etc.

I agree, however, that not all the local hierarchies have fallen.

Quote
Here is what I think is my final question to you on these points.  How do you, or other True Orthodox, defend against charges of Donatism?   

Donatism was the doctrine that apostasy could not be cured by repentance, is that not so? The True Orthodox teach no such thing.

By Donatism I'm speaking about the denial of ex opere operato.  Do you believe that sacraments administered by a duly consecrated bishop or ordained priest who is impure are invalid?

Well "ex opere operato" is itself a problematic doctrine, since it leads to the scholastic teaching that the sacraments of even condemned heretics are valid, as long as they are formally correct. What I believe, and what my Church teaches, are that that: 1) one must not have communion with heretics; 2) the sacraments of condemned heretics are invalid. As for the latter, either a Local or an Ecumenical Council has the authority to condemn heresy. Again, if you refer to the Life of St Maximus, he states that the sacraments performed by the Church in Constantinople were invalid since they had been condemned by the Local Council in Rome.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
The reason is that, with respect to the calendar issue, the Gregorian calendar was first promoted to the Orthodox in the context of getting them to submit to the Pope and accept Papal authority. When the new calendar was promulgated in 1924, it was also being promoted in a heretical context, namely of accepting that the Western heterodox were in some sense part of the Church of Christ (as per the 1920 encyclical "To the Churches of Christ Everywhere" addressed to Orthodox and heterodox alike).

The Nikonian reforms, on the contrary, were being promoted in precisely the opposite kind of context, namely the desire to unify the rites of the various Local Churches which had diverged. Nothing about these reforms involved heresy.

Thanks for the clarification of your position.   I disagree with its implications but appreciate it.  The fact that the revised calendar retains the old paschalion is enough for me to see that, while it is not ideal in my view, it was not a compromise of the faith.  I am aware that Finland uses the new paschalion which surprises me but which I gather is some form of economia given its status. 

It is certainly true that the innovation in the Paschalion is the root of the problem with the Gregorian calendar and provides the most serious objection to it. But there is also reason to believe the innovation in the Menologion is covered by the anathema since it was explicitly condemned in the Patriarchal Sigillion of 1583. I know that the authenticity of this sigillion has been disputed by some, but I wouldn't necessarily conclude from this that the Church never had in mind both the Paschalion and the Menologion when She condemned the Papal calendar. Other evidence includes the inseparability of the two parts of the Calendar, as expressed by, for example, the length of the Apostles' Fast depending on the dates of both the Pascalion and Menologion; the references in the hymns for St George to the Paschal season, an absurdity when his day is celebrated during Lent or Holy Week; the special rubrics for celebrating the Annunciation during Holy Week or Bright Week, a great liturgical event which is impossible under the new calendar, etc.

Basically, I'm not convinced by this attitude towards the permissibility of the new Menologion since I don't believe the Church in the 16th century would have envisioned the two parts of the calendar as being separable. If the Church did believe this, we would surely see this view expressed in the lack of integration between the two parts, but, as we just saw, the two parts are very intimately connected with one another and you cannot change one without doing damage to the other.

Quote
You have to realize that the early twenties were an era of mass upheaval everywhere.  When some of our patriarchs began engaging with the west, they may have been a bit starry eyed.  But this phase didn't last long and I believe our positions vis a vis the western churches are soundly Orthodox.  I also as stated don't believe that every national hierarchy will ever fall into heresy. 

I completely disagree with the implication that ecumenism was a short-lived thing. It is still alive and well, seen by the continuing participation of the official Churches in the World Council of Churches, frequent prayer with the heterodox, officially sanctioned intercommunion and concelebration with the non-Chalcedonians, etc etc.

I agree, however, that not all the local hierarchies have fallen.

Quote
Here is what I think is my final question to you on these points.  How do you, or other True Orthodox, defend against charges of Donatism?   

Donatism was the doctrine that apostasy could not be cured by repentance, is that not so? The True Orthodox teach no such thing.

By Donatism I'm speaking about the denial of ex opere operato.  Do you believe that sacraments administered by a duly consecrated bishop or ordained priest who is impure are invalid?

Well "ex opere operato" is itself a problematic doctrine, since it leads to the scholastic teaching that the sacraments of even condemned heretics are valid, as long as they are formally correct. What I believe, and what my Church teaches, are that that: 1) one must not have communion with heretics; 2) the sacraments of condemned heretics are invalid. As for the latter, either a Local or an Ecumenical Council has the authority to condemn heresy. Again, if you refer to the Life of St Maximus, he states that the sacraments performed by the Church in Constantinople were invalid since they had been condemned by the Local Council in Rome.

I refuse to opine on whether sacraments conducted by heretics are valid, although I hate to use the term.  That in my view is the error of scholasticism.  I don't even think that the term heretic encompasses all of the heterodox. 

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
The reason is that, with respect to the calendar issue, the Gregorian calendar was first promoted to the Orthodox in the context of getting them to submit to the Pope and accept Papal authority. When the new calendar was promulgated in 1924, it was also being promoted in a heretical context, namely of accepting that the Western heterodox were in some sense part of the Church of Christ (as per the 1920 encyclical "To the Churches of Christ Everywhere" addressed to Orthodox and heterodox alike).

The Nikonian reforms, on the contrary, were being promoted in precisely the opposite kind of context, namely the desire to unify the rites of the various Local Churches which had diverged. Nothing about these reforms involved heresy.

Thanks for the clarification of your position.   I disagree with its implications but appreciate it.  The fact that the revised calendar retains the old paschalion is enough for me to see that, while it is not ideal in my view, it was not a compromise of the faith.  I am aware that Finland uses the new paschalion which surprises me but which I gather is some form of economia given its status. 

It is certainly true that the innovation in the Paschalion is the root of the problem with the Gregorian calendar and provides the most serious objection to it. But there is also reason to believe the innovation in the Menologion is covered by the anathema since it was explicitly condemned in the Patriarchal Sigillion of 1583. I know that the authenticity of this sigillion has been disputed by some, but I wouldn't necessarily conclude from this that the Church never had in mind both the Paschalion and the Menologion when She condemned the Papal calendar. Other evidence includes the inseparability of the two parts of the Calendar, as expressed by, for example, the length of the Apostles' Fast depending on the dates of both the Pascalion and Menologion; the references in the hymns for St George to the Paschal season, an absurdity when his day is celebrated during Lent or Holy Week; the special rubrics for celebrating the Annunciation during Holy Week or Bright Week, a great liturgical event which is impossible under the new calendar, etc.

Basically, I'm not convinced by this attitude towards the permissibility of the new Menologion since I don't believe the Church in the 16th century would have envisioned the two parts of the calendar as being separable. If the Church did believe this, we would surely see this view expressed in the lack of integration between the two parts, but, as we just saw, the two parts are very intimately connected with one another and you cannot change one without doing damage to the other.

Quote
You have to realize that the early twenties were an era of mass upheaval everywhere.  When some of our patriarchs began engaging with the west, they may have been a bit starry eyed.  But this phase didn't last long and I believe our positions vis a vis the western churches are soundly Orthodox.  I also as stated don't believe that every national hierarchy will ever fall into heresy. 

I completely disagree with the implication that ecumenism was a short-lived thing. It is still alive and well, seen by the continuing participation of the official Churches in the World Council of Churches, frequent prayer with the heterodox, officially sanctioned intercommunion and concelebration with the non-Chalcedonians, etc etc.

I agree, however, that not all the local hierarchies have fallen.

Quote
Here is what I think is my final question to you on these points.  How do you, or other True Orthodox, defend against charges of Donatism?   

Donatism was the doctrine that apostasy could not be cured by repentance, is that not so? The True Orthodox teach no such thing.

By Donatism I'm speaking about the denial of ex opere operato.  Do you believe that sacraments administered by a duly consecrated bishop or ordained priest who is impure are invalid?

Well "ex opere operato" is itself a problematic doctrine, since it leads to the scholastic teaching that the sacraments of even condemned heretics are valid, as long as they are formally correct. What I believe, and what my Church teaches, are that that: 1) one must not have communion with heretics; 2) the sacraments of condemned heretics are invalid. As for the latter, either a Local or an Ecumenical Council has the authority to condemn heresy. Again, if you refer to the Life of St Maximus, he states that the sacraments performed by the Church in Constantinople were invalid since they had been condemned by the Local Council in Rome.

I refuse to opine on whether sacraments conducted by heretics are valid, although I hate to use the term.  That in my view is the error of scholasticism.  I don't even think that the term heretic encompasses all of the heterodox. 


Ecclesiastical practice seems to tell us that there may well be a gradation of effect associated with rites conducted outside the Church, but no one can really tell what it is.  For that reason we need to add what is lacking upon return but we can't really say what that is except that it is a lack of the fullness of the faith. 

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541

Ecclesiastical practice seems to tell us that there may well be a gradation of effect associated with rites conducted outside the Church, but no one can really tell what it is.  For that reason we need to add what is lacking upon return but we can't really say what that is except that it is a lack of the fullness of the faith. 

I'm not aware of any Fathers who talk about partial validity or the idea that sacraments performed outside the Church have any partial salvific value. What you're perhaps thinking of are the different applications of economy towards the reception of heretics: some with baptism, others with chrismation or confession. I don't believe any of that indicates a recognition of sacraments outside the Church.

This idea that there is a more nebulous definition of "Church" that encompasses those outside the Orthodox Church is precisely what the True Orthodox condemn as the heresy of ecumenism.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA

Ecclesiastical practice seems to tell us that there may well be a gradation of effect associated with rites conducted outside the Church, but no one can really tell what it is.  For that reason we need to add what is lacking upon return but we can't really say what that is except that it is a lack of the fullness of the faith. 

I'm not aware of any Fathers who talk about partial validity or the idea that sacraments performed outside the Church have any partial salvific value. What you're perhaps thinking of are the different applications of economy towards the reception of heretics: some with baptism, others with chrismation or confession. I don't believe any of that indicates a recognition of sacraments outside the Church.

This idea that there is a more nebulous definition of "Church" that encompasses those outside the Orthodox Church is precisely what the True Orthodox condemn as the heresy of ecumenism.

And thus we disagree.  I find Fr. George's Florovskys essay The Limits of The Church particularly illuminating on these points.  You'd no doubt disagree with it.  But please read it if you haven't done so.  It is online.

Offline jah777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,136
It is certainly true that the innovation in the Paschalion is the root of the problem with the Gregorian calendar and provides the most serious objection to it. But there is also reason to believe the innovation in the Menologion is covered by the anathema since it was explicitly condemned in the Patriarchal Sigillion of 1583. I know that the authenticity of this sigillion has been disputed by some, but I wouldn't necessarily conclude from this that the Church never had in mind both the Paschalion and the Menologion when She condemned the Papal calendar. Other evidence includes the inseparability of the two parts of the Calendar, as expressed by, for example, the length of the Apostles' Fast depending on the dates of both the Pascalion and Menologion; the references in the hymns for St George to the Paschal season, an absurdity when his day is celebrated during Lent or Holy Week; the special rubrics for celebrating the Annunciation during Holy Week or Bright Week, a great liturgical event which is impossible under the new calendar, etc.

Basically, I'm not convinced by this attitude towards the permissibility of the new Menologion since I don't believe the Church in the 16th century would have envisioned the two parts of the calendar as being separable. If the Church did believe this, we would surely see this view expressed in the lack of integration between the two parts, but, as we just saw, the two parts are very intimately connected with one another and you cannot change one without doing damage to the other.

There was no 1583 "Sigillion" and the Gregorian Menologion was never anathematized by a Pan-Orthodox Council.  Here is the summary of the issue which shows that the 1583 Pan-Orthodox Council and later councils only rejected the Gregorian Paschalian and they did so not only because they rejected they refused to subject themselves to the demands of the Pope, but also because the Gregorian Paschalian violated the decrees of the First Ecumenical Council regarding the dating and common celebration of Pascha:

http://www.synodinresistance.org/pdfs/2011/07/04/20110704aSigillion/20110704aSigillion.pdf

The attempt of the Old Calendarists to justify their schism based on claims of "ecumenism" and reference to the 1920 Encyclical did not appear until many decades after their schism.  The adoption of the New Calendar by the Church of Greece in 1925, however misguided, was primarily the result of pressure from the State to conform the Church calendar to the civil calendar in Greece, which by that time adopted the Gregorian calendar as its civil calendar.  When the 1923 "Pan-Orthodox" Congress met to discuss changing the calendar, they were very explicit in saying that they would adjust the Julian but would not adopt the Gregorian because doing so would be exploited by Rome in an attempt to get Orthodox to come under the Pope.  This is made quite clear in the Acts and Decrees of this council which can be found entirely translated and published in English in book form.  If the purpose of changing the calendar was to unite all Christians, or to bring Orthodoxy into communion with the Pope, the participants in this council would not have objected so strongly to adopting the Gregorian calendar.  Furthermore, if the adoption of the New Calendar by the Church of Greece was in order to reunite with Rome, we would have seen some significant movement in that direction immediately following.  Now we are quickly approaching the 100 yr anniversary of the Old Calendar schism, and while it has been nearly a century since they have been cut off from the Church, the Orthodox Church is hardly any closer to reuniting with the Pope or any other Christian body.

Like the Old Believers, the Old Calendarists broke communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church over a non-dogmatic issue.  This was done based not on an actual church council, as was the case with the Old Believers, but on a false document called the "1583 Sigillion" which contains anathemas that the actual council never issued.  Old Calendarist sources claim that subsequent councils also anathematized the Gregorian Calendar, but these sources never provide relevant quotations from these councils since these councils only rejected the Gregorian Paschalian. 

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
The reason is that, with respect to the calendar issue, the Gregorian calendar was first promoted to the Orthodox in the context of getting them to submit to the Pope and accept Papal authority. When the new calendar was promulgated in 1924, it was also being promoted in a heretical context, namely of accepting that the Western heterodox were in some sense part of the Church of Christ (as per the 1920 encyclical "To the Churches of Christ Everywhere" addressed to Orthodox and heterodox alike).

The Nikonian reforms, on the contrary, were being promoted in precisely the opposite kind of context, namely the desire to unify the rites of the various Local Churches which had diverged. Nothing about these reforms involved heresy.

Thanks for the clarification of your position.   I disagree with its implications but appreciate it.  The fact that the revised calendar retains the old paschalion is enough for me to see that, while it is not ideal in my view, it was not a compromise of the faith.  I am aware that Finland uses the new paschalion which surprises me but which I gather is some form of economia given its status. 

It is certainly true that the innovation in the Paschalion is the root of the problem with the Gregorian calendar and provides the most serious objection to it. But there is also reason to believe the innovation in the Menologion is covered by the anathema since it was explicitly condemned in the Patriarchal Sigillion of 1583. I know that the authenticity of this sigillion has been disputed by some, but I wouldn't necessarily conclude from this that the Church never had in mind both the Paschalion and the Menologion when She condemned the Papal calendar. Other evidence includes the inseparability of the two parts of the Calendar, as expressed by, for example, the length of the Apostles' Fast depending on the dates of both the Pascalion and Menologion; the references in the hymns for St George to the Paschal season, an absurdity when his day is celebrated during Lent or Holy Week; the special rubrics for celebrating the Annunciation during Holy Week or Bright Week, a great liturgical event which is impossible under the new calendar, etc.

Basically, I'm not convinced by this attitude towards the permissibility of the new Menologion since I don't believe the Church in the 16th century would have envisioned the two parts of the calendar as being separable. If the Church did believe this, we would surely see this view expressed in the lack of integration between the two parts, but, as we just saw, the two parts are very intimately connected with one another and you cannot change one without doing damage to the other.

Quote
You have to realize that the early twenties were an era of mass upheaval everywhere.  When some of our patriarchs began engaging with the west, they may have been a bit starry eyed.  But this phase didn't last long and I believe our positions vis a vis the western churches are soundly Orthodox.  I also as stated don't believe that every national hierarchy will ever fall into heresy. 

I completely disagree with the implication that ecumenism was a short-lived thing. It is still alive and well, seen by the continuing participation of the official Churches in the World Council of Churches, frequent prayer with the heterodox, officially sanctioned intercommunion and concelebration with the non-Chalcedonians, etc etc.

I agree, however, that not all the local hierarchies have fallen.

Quote
Here is what I think is my final question to you on these points.  How do you, or other True Orthodox, defend against charges of Donatism?   

Donatism was the doctrine that apostasy could not be cured by repentance, is that not so? The True Orthodox teach no such thing.
Donatism also taught, IIRC, that the validity of a sacrament was dependent on the personal holiness or sinfulness of the celebrant, that a sacrament celebrated by a priest would still be nullified if that priest was himself a sinner, even if he had not yet been formally excommunicated. I therefore don't think the question of Donatism an appropriate question to ask of your point of view, since your argument is more that the sacraments are invalid when celebrated by clergy formally excommunicated from the Church either by schism or by heresy.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
The reason is that, with respect to the calendar issue, the Gregorian calendar was first promoted to the Orthodox in the context of getting them to submit to the Pope and accept Papal authority. When the new calendar was promulgated in 1924, it was also being promoted in a heretical context, namely of accepting that the Western heterodox were in some sense part of the Church of Christ (as per the 1920 encyclical "To the Churches of Christ Everywhere" addressed to Orthodox and heterodox alike).

The Nikonian reforms, on the contrary, were being promoted in precisely the opposite kind of context, namely the desire to unify the rites of the various Local Churches which had diverged. Nothing about these reforms involved heresy.

Thanks for the clarification of your position.   I disagree with its implications but appreciate it.  The fact that the revised calendar retains the old paschalion is enough for me to see that, while it is not ideal in my view, it was not a compromise of the faith.  I am aware that Finland uses the new paschalion which surprises me but which I gather is some form of economia given its status. 

It is certainly true that the innovation in the Paschalion is the root of the problem with the Gregorian calendar and provides the most serious objection to it. But there is also reason to believe the innovation in the Menologion is covered by the anathema since it was explicitly condemned in the Patriarchal Sigillion of 1583. I know that the authenticity of this sigillion has been disputed by some, but I wouldn't necessarily conclude from this that the Church never had in mind both the Paschalion and the Menologion when She condemned the Papal calendar. Other evidence includes the inseparability of the two parts of the Calendar, as expressed by, for example, the length of the Apostles' Fast depending on the dates of both the Pascalion and Menologion; the references in the hymns for St George to the Paschal season, an absurdity when his day is celebrated during Lent or Holy Week; the special rubrics for celebrating the Annunciation during Holy Week or Bright Week, a great liturgical event which is impossible under the new calendar, etc.

Basically, I'm not convinced by this attitude towards the permissibility of the new Menologion since I don't believe the Church in the 16th century would have envisioned the two parts of the calendar as being separable. If the Church did believe this, we would surely see this view expressed in the lack of integration between the two parts, but, as we just saw, the two parts are very intimately connected with one another and you cannot change one without doing damage to the other.

Quote
You have to realize that the early twenties were an era of mass upheaval everywhere.  When some of our patriarchs began engaging with the west, they may have been a bit starry eyed.  But this phase didn't last long and I believe our positions vis a vis the western churches are soundly Orthodox.  I also as stated don't believe that every national hierarchy will ever fall into heresy. 

I completely disagree with the implication that ecumenism was a short-lived thing. It is still alive and well, seen by the continuing participation of the official Churches in the World Council of Churches, frequent prayer with the heterodox, officially sanctioned intercommunion and concelebration with the non-Chalcedonians, etc etc.

I agree, however, that not all the local hierarchies have fallen.

Quote
Here is what I think is my final question to you on these points.  How do you, or other True Orthodox, defend against charges of Donatism?   

Donatism was the doctrine that apostasy could not be cured by repentance, is that not so? The True Orthodox teach no such thing.

By Donatism I'm speaking about the denial of ex opere operato.  Do you believe that sacraments administered by a duly consecrated bishop or ordained priest who is impure are invalid?
I think that's the wrong question to ask, for it conflates the idea of the personal holiness of the priest/bishop with his canonical standing in the Church. The problem with Donatism is its teaching that the sacraments can be nullified merely by the sinfulness of the celebrant, even if the celebrant is still a canonical priest or bishop. The teaching of the Church, as I understand it, is that the Church, NOT the celebrant, grants grace to the sacraments, such that the sacraments celebrated by clergy of a canonical Orthodox Church are valid regardless of the personal holiness or sinfulness of the celebrating clergy if they have never been deposed or excommunicated for their sins.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
The reason is that, with respect to the calendar issue, the Gregorian calendar was first promoted to the Orthodox in the context of getting them to submit to the Pope and accept Papal authority. When the new calendar was promulgated in 1924, it was also being promoted in a heretical context, namely of accepting that the Western heterodox were in some sense part of the Church of Christ (as per the 1920 encyclical "To the Churches of Christ Everywhere" addressed to Orthodox and heterodox alike).

The Nikonian reforms, on the contrary, were being promoted in precisely the opposite kind of context, namely the desire to unify the rites of the various Local Churches which had diverged. Nothing about these reforms involved heresy.

Thanks for the clarification of your position.   I disagree with its implications but appreciate it.  The fact that the revised calendar retains the old paschalion is enough for me to see that, while it is not ideal in my view, it was not a compromise of the faith.  I am aware that Finland uses the new paschalion which surprises me but which I gather is some form of economia given its status.
I think it important to make a correction here. The Revised Julian Calendar commonly known as the New Calendar does not retain the old Paschalion. Rather, those churches that follow the New Calendar have chosen to continue following the old Julian Paschalion. It is this use of TWO calendars and how they interact with each other that causes many of the problems so many see in the calendar--for instance, the absence of an Apostles Fast in some years, the impossibility of a Kyriopascha (Annunciation and Pascha together on the same day), the commemoration of the 40 martyrs of Sebaste before Lent starts, etc. In reality, it is only the Finnish Church that uses the Revised Julian Calendar for BOTH the Menaion AND the Paschalion.
Not all who wander are lost.

Online rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Oriental Orthodox are Monotheletes, aren't they?

They believe Christ has one nature, so don't they believe Christ has one will, as the will corresponds to the nature?

Can I be both a Duothelete and a Monothelete?

What was the Church Declaration in support of Monotheletism?
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 07:21:51 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Oriental Orthodox are Monotheletes, aren't they?

They believe Christ has one nature, so don't they believe Christ has one will, as the will corresponds to the nature?

Can I be both a Duothelete and a Monothelete?

What was the Church Declaration in support of Monotheletism?

Orientals would take issue with that. Monotheletism was a 'Western' (at least compared to the Orientals) phenomenon that never happened in the Oriental East. Although, historically Orientals were keen to support Monothelete efforts.

But then, Nestorians were keen to support the Chalcedonian position, so...
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Severian

  • My posts on this site don't necessarily reflect my current position on any given subject.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,642
  • Pat. St. Severus, pray for my family & friends
    • St. Severus of Antioch's Writings
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox Christian
Oriental Orthodox are Monotheletes, aren't they?

They believe Christ has one nature, so don't they believe Christ has one will, as the will corresponds to the nature?

Can I be both a Duothelete and a Monothelete?

What was the Church Declaration in support of Monotheletism?
Oh boy, this is going to be great...
"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice.

Online rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Their main document was the Ecthesis, which I can't find online. It said there is one will corresponding to Christ's two natures.

Personally I have a hard time understanding what a "will" is, because Dcn. Kuraev said that in the conversation here it means something different than a common meaning of "will" as the decisionmaking power.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 08:18:30 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,869
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Oriental Orthodox are Monotheletes, aren't they?

They believe Christ has one nature, so don't they believe Christ has one will, as the will corresponds to the nature?

Can I be both a Duothelete and a Monothelete?

What was the Church Declaration in support of Monotheletism?

"A vegetarian diet is prescribed by the Buddha."
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Online rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
"A vegetarian diet is prescribed by the Buddha."
Buddhist writings were put down how many centuries after the Buddha?
200?
Buddhist sects disagree on whether Buddha said you cannot take meat if it is given to you as an alm.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20