OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 30, 2014, 07:21:04 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: So what was the concelebration?  (Read 8728 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« on: January 29, 2003, 08:58:06 PM »

Hey I've been reading some traditionalist articles, most of them very critical of Patriarch Bartholomew, but also against other Patriarchs and leaders of World Orthodoxy.

I am also astonished to see the stricking similarities between the vocabulary and criticisms of Orthodox traditionalists and Latin traditionalists Roll Eyes

What I don't understand is that those articles claim that Patriarch Bartholomew concelebrated the Liturgy with Latin Pope John Paul II in 1987 and 1995, that Patriarch Ilia from Georgia concelebrated with "monophysite" Patriarch Karekin II of Armenia, that Patriarch Teoctist concelebrated with JPII in Bucharest and Rome, that the Macedonian Orthodox Church clergy concelebrate the liturgy with "uniate" and latin clergy, etc.

Isn't this an exageration? What do they call "concelebration"? To what ceremony do they refer when they say that HH Bartholomew concelebrated with JPII?Huh??

Logged
Neo Tobiah
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 39



« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2003, 09:20:14 PM »

Constantinople, Antioch, etc. openly commune monophysites on the grass roots level (I've witnessed this at both Antiochian parishes I've been to, and have read the texts online that authorize this practice).  The canons forbid "Prayer Services" with heretics, which most Orthodox hierarchs now do. While the traditionalists can sometimes get way too polemical, their point is valid: things have gone too far in seeking some kind of false communion. The OCA (via encyclical) reevaluated it's participation in the Ecumenical movement a couple decades ago; it's time for all Orthodox Churches to do so again (except groups like ROCA, of course, who have already taken a firm stance against ecumenism)

As to the concelebration charge, I'd suggest looking around Orthodoxinfo.com for something about it.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2003, 09:21:38 PM by Neo Tobiah » Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,732


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2003, 09:20:30 PM »

The pope and the patriarch of Constantinople took the first part of a Mass (readings, intercessions) together in St Peter’s Basilica in 1995 but did not concelebrate the Eucharist.
Logged

TonyS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 705


« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2003, 10:15:46 PM »

The canons forbid "Prayer Services" with heretics, which most Orthodox hierarchs now do.

Dear Neo Tobiah,

What are you saying "most Orthodox hierarchs now do"?

Tony
Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender
and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner
...
I'll see you when yo
jude
Guest
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2003, 10:32:37 PM »

Exaggerations...exaggerations....It would be logistically impossible for the vast majority of Orthodox hierarchs of Albania, Alexandria, Antioch, Belorussia, Bulgaria, Constantinople, Czechoslovakia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Greece,  Jerusalem, Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Sinai, Ukraine, etc.,  to concelebrate or hold ecumenical prayer services with schismatics or heretics; virtually impossible.

Jude
« Last Edit: January 29, 2003, 10:52:06 PM by jude the obscure » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,379


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2003, 10:44:56 PM »

Constantinople, Antioch, etc. openly commune monophysites on the grass roots level (I've witnessed this at both Antiochian parishes I've been to, and have read the texts online that authorize this practice).  

I didn't know they communed monophysites, which is certainly wrong.  I do know of their communing Oriental Orthodox under certain circumstances, though.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,456


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2003, 11:30:59 PM »

Constantinople, Antioch, etc. openly commune monophysites on the grass roots level (I've witnessed this at both Antiochian parishes I've been to, and have read the texts online that authorize this practice).  The canons forbid "Prayer Services" with heretics, which most Orthodox hierarchs now do. While the traditionalists can sometimes get way too polemical, their point is valid: things have gone too far in seeking some kind of false communion. The OCA (via encyclical) reevaluated it's participation in the Ecumenical movement a couple decades ago; it's time for all Orthodox Churches to do so again (except groups like ROCA, of course, who have already taken a firm stance against ecumenism)

As to the concelebration charge, I'd suggest looking around Orthodoxinfo.com for something about it.

Dear Neo Tobiah,

I think that you are overgeneralizing and you are not being specific with your terms.

First of all, what canons are you referring to when you say that "the canons" forbid prayer services with heretics?

Second of all, what is a heretic?  Are Roman Catholics heretics? They wouldn't be according to St. Basil the Great because they don't deny the Trinity--St. Basil says a heretic is one who denies the Trinity, a schismatic is one who has separated from the Church and may be teaching a slight error, and an unlawful assembly is one that is operating without a Bishop or against its bishop.  

I think nowadays the meaning of heretic has changed, yet people do not note that when they go back and read canons that were written in the 3rd 4th and 5th centuries.  Heretic is a technical term, not simply anyone holding a different belief from the Orthodox.  When the canons were written heretic meant a Trinity-denier, not someone holding some other, lesser false belief.

IN Christ,

anastasios

Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2003, 11:56:18 PM »

[First of all, what canons are you referring to when you say that "the canons" forbid prayer services with heretics]

Probably -

III Council of Constantinople: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”

Council of Carthage: “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman, let him be excommunicated.” Council of Laodicea: “No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics.”   

Orthodoc

   




Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Neo Tobiah
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 39



« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2003, 12:46:19 AM »

TonyS

Quote
What are you saying "most Orthodox hierarchs now do"?

Pray with heretics. Sometimes the circumstances are unfortunate, making such prayers a "lesser evil" but necessary (e.g., joint prayer services after 9/11), but then sometimes Orthodox hierarchs go way farther than could possibly be reasonable, such as allowing visiting heterodox use Orthodox altars, praying with heterodox hierarchs when they travel around the world, etc. I know of few Patriarchs that don't do this kind of stuff. Even Churches that use to be conservative like Serbia have done this in past decades. I'm not saying that these hierarchs are non-Orthodox, but most have certainly gone too far. I don't even want to think about some of the practices I've heard about in American Churches.

 
jude the obscure

Quote
Exaggerations...exaggerations....It would be logistically impossible for the vast majority of Orthodox hierarchs of Albania, Alexandria, Antioch, Belorussia, Bulgaria, Constantinople, Czechoslovakia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Greece,  Jerusalem, Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Sinai, Ukraine, etc.,  to concelebrate or hold ecumenical prayer services with schismatics or heretics; virtually impossible.

Why? Did the heterodox stop skipping round the globe in planes? If they're still doing so, then it's theorhetically possible on any given day that something it could be happening. I'm not saying that it is likely to happen (there probably aren't more than a few dozen examples from the past decades of it happening), but it would certainly be a far greater exaggeration to say that it couldn't happen. They already meet in prayers (sometimes with buddhists, et al. present), what would prevent them, from a technical perspective, from having communion together?


Mor Ephrem

Quote
I didn't know they communed monophysites, which is certainly wrong.  I do know of their communing Oriental Orthodox under certain circumstances, though.

I'm unsure what distinction you are making between "Oriental Orthodox" and monophysites? WHO exactly do you consider to be the monophysites? Regarding circumstances, I'm unsure how it is elsewhere, but I know that in the area I'm at, the Antiochian Priests will commune them if the people are properly prepared like any Orthodox Christian. (this isn't based on rumors, I've discussed this with the Priests who do this as I've struggled with this issue)


anastasios

Quote
I think that you are overgeneralizing and you are not being specific with your terms.

True enough. I apologize.

Quote
First of all, what canons are you referring to when you say that "the canons" forbid prayer services with heretics?

The 45th and 65th Canons of the Apostles, the 33rd Canon of the Council of Laodicea (Also see post above)

Quote
Second of all, what is a heretic?  Are Roman Catholics heretics?

Obviously they are.

Quote
They wouldn't be according to St. Basil the Great because they don't deny the Trinity --St. Basil says a heretic is one who denies the Trinity, a schismatic is one who has separated from the Church and may be teaching a slight error, and an unlawful assembly is one that is operating without a Bishop or against its bishop.  

1. It's your position that the only "heretics" that have ever been were the ones that denied or distorted the Trinity in some fashion?

2. You think the RCC is only "slightly in error"? Shocked

Quote
I think nowadays the meaning of heretic has changed, yet people do not note that when they go back and read canons that were written in the 3rd 4th and 5th centuries.  Heretic is a technical term, not simply anyone holding a different belief from the Orthodox.  When the canons were written heretic meant a Trinity-denier, not someone holding some other, lesser false belief.

Heretics were mentioned three centuries before by Paul, and it continued to be mentioned in every century after. The idea that "heresy" only talks about the Trinity is, IMO, a truly mind-boggling innovation. Is this what they teach you at seminary these days? Or did you come up with this all on your own?
« Last Edit: January 30, 2003, 12:48:38 AM by Neo Tobiah » Logged
Economan
Guest
« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2003, 01:08:46 AM »

Jude,
What authoritative, conciliar decision accepted by all Orthodox Churches regards the Catholic Church as heretical? The Pope (or any Catholic bishop) isn't commemorated by World Orthodoxy, but how do you assume that anyone that isn't is a heretic?

Economan
Logged
sinjinsmythe
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 737



« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2003, 03:53:00 AM »

Neo Tobiah, do you have any evidence that can such as reports or photographs that support what you say?  I hear this from some Orthodox sometimes but all the evidence seems to be heresay or from indirect sources.
Logged

Life is just one disappointment after another.
jude
Guest
« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2003, 10:06:29 AM »

Neo Tobiah:

You need to travel, my friend.

The key phrase is, "..the vast majority."

Economan:

Many Orthodox hierarchs would warn their spiritual children that any teaching--like my goofy proposition on the ordination of women to the priesthood--which is in opposition to the dogma, doctrine, or polity of the Orthodox Faith is, in and of itself and  by consensus,
 heretical, such as papal infallibility or the universal sovereignity of the Pope of Rome.

Some hierarchs would believe that those who adhere to a heretical teaching are heretics, while others, while recognizing a belief to be heretical, would not automatically decree that those who adhered to it were heretics.

In reality, that is the Orthodox way.

Jude
« Last Edit: January 30, 2003, 10:15:22 AM by jude the obscure » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,456


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2003, 11:00:51 AM »

First of all, thank you to Orthodoc and Jude for actually posting the canons.  I appreciate it when we have the text before us.

I will make a distinction so that everyone knows where I'm coming from.

*My* position is that heretics are people who deny the tenents of Christianity: the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc.  *My* position is that Roman Catholics are not heretics (but many modern Episcopalians are.)

At St. Vladimir's, we are most definitively taught that Roman Catholics are *not* heretics.  Their beliefs do not fit into the category of Trinity or Incarnation denying.  They are in error on several issues but NOT at the level of say the Arians.  We are taught that there are degrees of separation from the Church, and a Roman Catholic is definitely closer to Orthodoxy than a Voodooist!  However, we *are* taught that Roman Catholics are in error to the extent that there can be no eucharistic concelebration or sharing of mysteries.

Back to *my* position: I think it's great when at events such as the Orientale Lumen conference, Archbishop Vsevolod and Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Catholic bishops celebrated a Moleben to the Holy Spirit.  How can that be wrong??  I mean what was the intent of the canons mentioned above: I'd say to keep people from rushing into error.  When the Orthodox Church will join in prayer with Roman Catholics to the Holy Spirit, but will not concelebrate Eucharist with them, I think it sets a clear message: we welcome you as brothers but we welcome you to join us in the next step: Orthodoxy.  It is a good witness, in my opinion.

As far as accusing my ideas or what I was taught at St. Vladimir's as being an "innovation" I suggest you actually read St. Basil's distinction for yourself:

"As to the question concerning the Puritans the custom of every country is to be observed, since they who have discussed this point are of various sentiments. The [baptism] of the Pepuzenes I make no account of, and I wonder that Dionysius the canonist was of another mind. The ancients speak of heresies, which entirely break men off, and make them aliens from the faith. Such are the Manichaeans, Valentinians, Marcionites and Pepuzenes, who sin against the Holy Ghost, who baptize into the Father, Son and Montanus, or Priscilla. Schisms are caused by ecclesiastical disputes, and for causes that are not incurable, and for differences concerning penance. The Puritans are such schismatics. The ancients, viz. Cyprian and Fermilian, put these, and the Encratites, and Hydroparastatae, and Apotactites, under the same condemnation; because they have no longer the communication of the Holy Ghost, who have broken the succession. They who first made the departure had the spiritual gift; but by being schismatics, they became laymen; and therefore they ordered those that were baptized by them, and came over to the Church, to be purged by the true baptism, as those that are baptized by laymen. Because some in Asia have otherwise determined, let [their baptism] be allowed: but not that of the Encratites; for they have altered their baptism, to make themselves incapable of being received by the Church. Yet custom and the Fathers, that is bishops, who have the administration, must be followed; for I am afraid of putting an impediment to the saved; while I would raise fears in them concerning their baptism. We are not to allow their baptism, because they allow ours, but strictly to observe the canons. But let none be received without unction. When we received Zois and Saturninus to the Episcopal chair, we made, as it were, a canon to receive those in communion with them."

--First Canonical Epistle of St. Basil

I posted the whole thing to show that when he says heretics, who does he include? The Marcionites who believed in two Gods, the Manicheans who were not even Christians but did believe that Jesus was part of their pantheon of deities, the Encratites, etc.  

I noted upon doing more research that St. Mark of Ephesus called Roman Catholics not only schismatics but heretics, so I can see by his time he was thinking more in line with your thoughts.  I still maintain that it would be better to return to the apostolic use of the terms "heretic" "scismatic" and "unlawful assembly".

 Here's another article from the OCA on ecumenism that I liked.

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Publications/TOC/1998/Good-and-Wrong-Ecumenism.html

In Christ,

anastasios

Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,379


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 30, 2003, 11:25:20 AM »

I'm unsure what distinction you are making between "Oriental Orthodox" and monophysites? WHO exactly do you consider to be the monophysites?

The distinction I'm making is that the Oriental Orthodox are not, and were never, monophysites.  The monophysite heresy basically says that the human nature of Christ was overshadowed, swallowed up, etc. by the divine nature of Christ.  This is clearly wrong, and the Oriental Orthodox Churches never taught this.  

As for whom I would consider to be monophysites, I am not sure.  I am not sure if there are any genuine monophysites around today.  But I do know one thing: we were never it.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2003, 12:11:47 PM »

The pope and the patriarch of Constantinople took the first part of a Mass (readings, intercessions) together in St Peter’s Basilica in 1995 but did not concelebrate the Eucharist.

Serge, with all due respect for your "patriarchal" status here, I think this is hair-splitting.  The first part of the Mass, i.e., the Mass of the Catechumens or the "Liturgy of the Word," is, none the less, an indispensable part of the Eucharistic service of the Roman Catholic Church.  And Patriarch Bartholomew *did* concelebrate this part of the Mass with John Paul II.  While he did *not* participate actively in the second part of the Mass, i.e., the Mass of the Faithful or the "Liturgy of the Eucharist," he did actively prepare for it with the Pope by his concelebration of the Mass of the Catechumens.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Loukas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2003, 12:27:29 PM »


The distinction I'm making is that the Oriental Orthodox are not, and were never, monophysites.  The monophysite heresy basically says that the human nature of Christ was overshadowed, swallowed up, etc. by the divine nature of Christ.  This is clearly wrong, and the Oriental Orthodox Churches never taught this.  

Why then can't we, in your opinion, get together? It would be truly sad if Rome reconciled with Oriental Orthodox, and "Greek" Orthodox did not. That's not a good scenario at all. If the EP really wants to do something special he should be visiting and talking to the Orientals instead of Rome.

loukas
Logged
gbmtmas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



« Reply #16 on: January 30, 2003, 01:41:12 PM »

Loukas wrote:

Quote
Why then can't we, in your opinion, get together? It would be truly sad if Rome reconciled with Oriental Orthodox, and "Greek" Orthodox did not. That's not a good scenario at all. If the EP really wants to do something special he should be visiting and talking to the Orientals instead of Rome.

There has been a lot more favorable ecumenical relations between the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonian Orthodox.  See: http://www.uk-christian.net/boc/dialogue.shtml

Hypo-Orthodox wrote:

Quote
Serge, with all due respect for your "patriarchal" status here, I think this is hair-splitting.  The first part of the Mass, i.e., the Mass of the Catechumens or the "Liturgy of the Word," is, none the less, an indispensable part of the Eucharistic service of the Roman Catholic Church.  And Patriarch Bartholomew *did* concelebrate this part of the Mass with John Paul II.  While he did *not* participate actively in the second part of the Mass, i.e., the Mass of the Faithful or the "Liturgy of the Eucharist," he did actively prepare for it with the Pope by his concelebration of the Mass of the Catechumens.

I find myself in agreement with Hypo-Orthodox here (with no disrespect intended towards Patriarch Serge  Wink.  Where we pray together is where we agree together.  Do we agree with the Roman Catholics right on up to and through the Creed?  Not only has Patriarch Bartholomew concelebrated the Mass of the Catechumens with Pope John Paul II, but hasn't the Romanian Patriarch also recently done the same in his last visit to Rome?

Neo-Tobias wrote:

Quote
I'm unsure what distinction you are making between "Oriental Orthodox" and monophysites? WHO exactly do you consider to be the monophysites?

I think the distinction being made here is on whether the Oriental Orthodox are actually monophysites.  Father John Romanides wrote some articles on this topic, which were very interesting.  Regardless of how one views the Oriental Orthodox, the Chalcedonian Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox have FAR more in common and have higher prospects of working out their differences than between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics IMO.

Economan wrote:

Quote
What authoritative, conciliar decision accepted by all Orthodox Churches regards the Catholic Church as heretical? The Pope (or any Catholic bishop) isn't commemorated by World Orthodoxy, but how do you assume that anyone that isn't is a heretic?

IIRC, there are some conciliar rulings to that effect.  
1) The 8th Ecumenical Council (879 AD) anathematized adding to the N-C Creed.
2) A Council held under the presidency of Patriarch Gregory of Cyprus anathematized certain nuances of the filioque that were more compatible with Roman Catholic teaching rather than Orthodoxy.  Remember this occurred around the time of Lyons.
3) During the St. Gregory Palamas versus Barlaam the Calabrian controversy, a series of Synods were held that definitively sided with Palamite theology and rejected Barlaamite teaching (which has been viewed as more akin to the-then contemporary Western teaching)
4) The Sigililion of 1586 AD, signed by 3 Patriarchs which anathematized the teachings about:
      a) Indulgences
      b) Purgatory
      c) Papal Supremacy
      d) Sprinkling instead of the 3 immersions in Baptism
      e) The newly-promulgated Papal paschalion
      f) The filioque doctrine
5) Saints in the Church have defined Roman Catholicism as heresy -- Saints such as Mark of Ephesus and Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain
6) The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1848 also placed certain Roman Catholic teachings in the category of heretical

Anastasios wrote:

Quote
Second of all, what is a heretic?  Are Roman Catholics heretics? They wouldn't be according to St. Basil the Great because they don't deny the Trinity--St. Basil says a heretic is one who denies the Trinity, a schismatic is one who has separated from the Church and may be teaching a slight error, and an unlawful assembly is one that is operating without a Bishop or against its bishop.

I'm not sure what historical precedent that this has... Shocked
For example, Seventh-Day Adventists have a perfectly "orthodox" view of the Trinity in terms of its Western expression.  Ditto for the Incarnation.  Yet, their ecclesiology and sacramentology is riddled with false teaching.  With your definition above, how would you deem Seventh-Day Adventists?  Baptists?  Presbyterians?  All of these groups hold conventional Western views of the Trinity/Incarnation (as Roman Catholicism).  Would these groups then not be considered "heretical" by these standards?

My Own Comments on Ecumenism:

IMO, it's not just concelebration of the Liturgy of the Catechumens with Pope John Paul II, or the flirtatious use of "sister churches" that concerns me (which is of concern).  We can Pope John Paul II for the 2 Assisi World Religions "pow-wow."  But weren't Orthodox hierarchs of just about every jurisdiction (with the exception of a few) represented at these events--joining in the ecumenical campfire?  We can criticize Pope John Paul II for kissing the Muslim Qu'ran a few years ago--but what about the predecessor of the current Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria stating that Mohammed was an "apostle" and "prophet"?  Is that any better?  It seems like this type of feel-good/unite-all-religions-into-one-soup is a fervour that is spreading throughout the whole religious sphere--including Orthodox Sad

In Christ,
Stephen
Logged

+God Be Merciful To Me A Sinner (GBMTMAS)+
sinjinsmythe
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 737



« Reply #17 on: January 30, 2003, 02:14:51 PM »

It seems like this type of feel-good/unite-all-religions-into-one-soup is a fervour that is spreading throughout the whole religious sphere--including Orthodox Sad

In Christ,
Stephen


Good point Stephen.  There is too much of this feel-good/unite-all gumbya garbage going on these days.  When will we realize that not all religions are equal, that some are just plain false?  The disease of our time is wanting to get along with everyone.
Logged

Life is just one disappointment after another.
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #18 on: January 30, 2003, 02:43:25 PM »

gbmtmas<<5) Saints in the Church have defined Roman Catholicism as heresy -- Saints such as Mark of Ephesus and Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain>>

And let's not forget that great luminary of the modern Serbian Church, St. Justin Popovich, who was very explicit on the matter.  And the late Metropolitan Philaret, of blessed memory, of the ROCOR, as well.  Did St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, the Wonderworker and Fool-for-Christ, have words to offer on this subject?  

I wonder what St. Alexis [Toth] of Wilkes-Barre and Minneapolis, Confessor and Defender of Orthodoxy in America, glorified in our own time by the Orthodox Church in America, would say concerning Roman Catholicism today.  And have we forgotten the Roman errors that had to be specifically recanted by converts to Holy Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism in the Hapgood formulary before the new, watered-down "Rite of Reception of Converts" was officially adopted by the OCA?

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,732


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2003, 03:27:16 PM »

Quote
The 8th Ecumenical Council (879 AD) anathematized adding to the N-C Creed.

Doesn’t Eastern Orthodoxy count only seven?

Quote
There has been a lot more favorable ecumenical relations between the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonian Orthodox.

Locally the Russian Church (Moscow Patriarchate) communes Copts.

Quote
Regardless of how one views the Oriental Orthodox, the Chalcedonian Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox have FAR more in common and have higher prospects of working out their differences than between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics IMO.

Probably true.

Quote
There is too much of this feel-good/unite-all gumbya garbage going on these days.  When will we realize that not all religions are equal, that some are just plain false?  The disease of our time is wanting to get along with everyone.

Well, there’s condescending, watered-down liberal ecumenism — like the merging we see of the mainline Prots, the Luthepiscomethoreformunitebyterians — but there’s also the ecumenism of the saints (see quotation from Fr Lev Gillet on my Faith page) and of people of goodwill today. Witness prolife.

Getting along at the expense of truth is the weakness of our Anglo-American culture, particularly the middle class — it’s how many of us were socialized. Charity derailed.

Quote
For example, Seventh-Day Adventists have a perfectly "orthodox" view of the Trinity in terms of its Western expression.  Ditto for the Incarnation.  Yet, their ecclesiology and sacramentology is riddled with false teaching.  With your definition above, how would you deem Seventh-Day Adventists?  Baptists?  Presbyterians?  All of these groups hold conventional Western views of the Trinity/Incarnation (as Roman Catholicism).  Would these groups then not be considered "heretical" by these standards?

Sounds like they’re Protestants — not apostolic but Christian.

Quote
Saints in the Church have defined Roman Catholicism as heresy

Saints individually don’t define dogma.

Quote
I wonder what St. Alexis [Toth] of Wilkes-Barre and Minneapolis, Confessor and Defender of Orthodoxy in America, glorified in our own time by the Orthodox Church in America, would say concerning Roman Catholicism today.

The Toth story wasn’t so much about dogma as persecution by another ethnic group in America. (He was a Catholic seminary professor in the old country — he obviously didn’t have a problem with the Pope then.) He took his marbles and went somewhere else — understandably. As for RCism today, I dare say both sides would be sickened by the Novus Ordo.

Quote
the Roman errors that had to be specifically recanted by converts to Holy Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism

I can agree in as much as the system criticized therein historically has been consistently unfair to the Christian East.
Logged

Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,379


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 30, 2003, 04:26:29 PM »

What I am about to respond to would probably make a bunch of good threads, but I'll try to address them briefly here, and if anyone's interested enough, perhaps we can start separate conversations about some of these topics.  

Why then can't we, in your opinion, get together? It would be truly sad if Rome reconciled with Oriental Orthodox, and "Greek" Orthodox did not. That's not a good scenario at all. If the EP really wants to do something special he should be visiting and talking to the Orientals instead of Rome.

In my opinion, the theological differences are pretty much clarified.  The Oriental Orthodox Churches and their people are pretty clear now that the teachings of the Byzantine Orthodox on the natures of Christ are basically what they themselves have believed, but expressed differently.  To a slightly lesser extent, this is true of the Eastern Orthodox Churches and their people (I have a feeling that the common man probably feels this way, and so do a good part of the clergy, although there are those in the canonical, "semi-canonical", or non-canonical groups who would beg to differ, and it is often these that I've seen represented on the 'net).  Other than the Christology, there really isn't any difference in our theology and yours (which cannot really be said about post-schism Rome).  

At any rate, at this point in time, there are agreements between the Patriarchate of Alexandria and the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria, and the Patriarchate of Antioch and the Greek Patriarchate of Antioch for intercommunion under particular conditions.  In addition, there are other Churches which do similar things informally (Serge's example of the MP communing Coptic Orthodox, for example).  There are other grassroots-level initiatives that are taking place as well.  

I think that the main issue now is the enumeration of the Ecumenical Councils.  We say there were three; you say there were seven.  I personally don't understand why, from the EO point of view, councils four through seven have to be accepted by the OO when it could just as easily be arranged so that those councils are recognised as orthodox but local, and perhaps have a fourth Ecumenical Council as a reunion council.  But I'm a dreamer, I guess.  I suppose the OO Churches might have no problem signing on to the other councils of the Eastern Orthodox, and accepting them as ecumenical after the fact, but in my opinion, Chalcedon's pronouncements would have to be amended so that Cyrillian Christology is also affirmed in the definition of the natures of Christ in order for this to happen.  Chalcedon would be preserved (for the EO), and "corrected" (for the OO), without any change in the faith.

But I am just a layman.  

I think the distinction being made here is on whether the Oriental Orthodox are actually monophysites.  Father John Romanides wrote some articles on this topic, which were very interesting.  Regardless of how one views the Oriental Orthodox, the Chalcedonian Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox have FAR more in common and have higher prospects of working out their differences than between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics IMO.

You are right.  As I said above, I think it's basically the Christology issue and the enumeration of the councils that keeps us apart.  Other than that, there has been no "deviation" (for lack of a better word) on either of our parts from the Orthodox faith.  With regard to Rome, it is harder to say that, especially when taking into account post-schism developments.    

Edit: are those articles by Father John Romanides online somewhere?  I'd like to read them if they are.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2003, 04:28:36 PM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2003, 05:10:58 PM »

[Quote:The 8th Ecumenical Council (879 AD) anathematized adding to the N-C Creed. ]

So does the first Canon if I Constantinople A.D. 381 -

"Let the Nicene faith stand firm, Anathema to heresy."

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,379


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 30, 2003, 06:43:33 PM »

Orthodoc's latest post brings up a question I've had for a while.  We say that no one should add to the Creed, but is there a qualification to this?  I mean, the Second Ecumenical Council, if I'm not mistaken, added some stuff to the Creed (an extension of the clause on the Holy Spirit).  Are there ever any circumstances in which the Creed can be altered, provided that the proper doctrines are upheld?  We protest the Roman Church's Filioque clause, but what if a Church in its Liturgies added something rather unobjectionable to the Creed (for example, adding the title Theotokos to the part in the Creed referring to the Virgin Mary)?  What are the qualifications, if any, to the question of adding to the Creed?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #23 on: January 30, 2003, 07:33:00 PM »

Thanks for your answers.

Yeah I also think it is an exageration.

About the heresies, It was my understanding that the Roman Church is not heretical in itself, but schismatic because of the reasons you listed and because it corrupted the Orthodox faith with innovations.

Priests tell me that the most dangerous things, even graver than the ones which existed previously (Papal supremacy, filioque, etc) in the RC, are those which appeared in modern times and which created an abyss between Orthodoxy and the Latin Church, and that the RC is now closer to Protestantism. I don0t know how acurate is this.

About Protestantism, I have seen that many orthodox in the USA are quite benevolent with Protestantism, for getting that they hold graver errors than the RC.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,456


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 31, 2003, 01:42:10 AM »

The First Assisi prayer meeting was a wonderful event.  Many religions gathered together, and in the midst of that, the Pope told them that peace could only come through Christ.  A great witnessing opportunity.

The second Assisi meeting seemed to be much more political and less substantial things were said.  Of course the poor Pope was shaking from his Parkinson's so bad that it was hard to understand him.

The Pope kissing the Koran was just plain wrong, but when I was in India once I had a Koran literally shoved in my face by a pious old Muslim woman who said "Christianity and Islam are just so close."  I can see how a Koran could get shoved in someone's face and their natural reaction (after kissing Gospel books so long) would be to just kiss it.  Of course, I don't recall if in the photo JP II is holding it himself.   If he was, then that is just plain stupid.

As far as "half celebrating" a Mass: I say what happened in 1995 was GREAT!  They did not celebrate Eucharist together out of respect for the division between the two Churches, BUT they read the scriptures together, etc.--Orthodox and Catholics are not divided on the truth of scripture, so I am all for praying that together.

In Christ,

anastasios
(Die Hard Ecumenist between Catholics and Orthodox. Not between anyone else, though.)
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #25 on: January 31, 2003, 04:52:10 AM »

Quote
In my opinion, the theological differences are pretty much clarified. The Oriental Orthodox Churches and their people are pretty clear now that the teachings of the Byzantine Orthodox on the natures of Christ are basically what they themselves have believed, but expressed differently.
I'm not sure that Saint Euphemia (July 11) would agree with you on this Wink. Perhaps the terms used by the OOC were not specific enough to exclude misuse by heretics as this was certainly an issue in determining the language of the Nicene Creed and later in condemning the addition of the "Filioque".

Regarding "additions" to the creed, remember the circumstances under which the creed was produced. Initially it was the person of Christ who was under attack by the various heresies and the initial part of the creed was the result. At that stage the person of the Holy Spirit was not in question. However when later heresies arose attacking the third person of the trinity, it became necessary to add the latter part of the creed defending the orthodox belief regarding the Holy Spirit.

There has been a recent addition to the creed (not in the Orthodox Church AFAIK) where the word "death" is added. That is, instead of the words "He suffered and was buried", many have "He suffered death and was buried to counter claims that Jesus merely fainted on the cross (something that was never disputed when the creed was formulated). Now we understand that Jesus would not have been buried were he not dead, but in this age of medical "miracles" and people regaining conciousness after weeks of coma etc. there might be an argument for such an addition. However, any church that teaches that Christ did not die on the cross (are there any besides Moslems?) would probably reject many more parts of the creed, so I don't personally see the need for an addition to cover that particular base.

BTW, do the Oriental Orthodox Churches still venerate Saint Euphemia?

John.
Logged
gbmtmas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



« Reply #26 on: January 31, 2003, 02:21:41 PM »

Mor Ephraim wrote:

Quote
: are those articles by Father John Romanides online somewhere?  I'd like to read them if they are.

You may want to check out the following URLs:

http://www.romanity.org/htm/ro4enfm.htm

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.08.en.st._cyrils_one_physis_or_hypostasis_of_god_the_log.htm

In fact, the whole website makes for some interesting reading:

http://www.romanity.org/cont.htm

In Christ,
Stephen
Logged

+God Be Merciful To Me A Sinner (GBMTMAS)+
gbmtmas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



« Reply #27 on: January 31, 2003, 02:57:49 PM »

Serge wrote:

Quote
Quote:The 8th Ecumenical Council (879 AD) anathematized adding to the N-C Creed.
Doesn’t Eastern Orthodoxy count only seven?

Well...Not necessarily.  It depends on the author.  The Roman Catholic Francis Dvornik, in his "Photian Schism" has an entire chapter that discusses the status of the Council (879 AD) wherein Pope St. John VIII and Patriarch St. Photios the Great were reconciled.  It seems that there were many in the Church who recognized this as the Eighth Council.  In fact, the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (signed by Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) 1848 AD enumerates this Council as the "Eighth."

Quote
xi. It [SG -- the filioque] was subjected to anathema, as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed, by the eighth Ecumenical Council, congregated at Constantinople for the pacification of the Eastern and Western Churches.

and:

Quote
Some of the Bishops of that City, styled Popes, for example Leo III and John VIII, did indeed, as has been said, denounce the innovation, and published the denunciation to the world, the former by those silver plates, the latter by his letter to the holy Photius at the eighth Ecumenical Council, and another to Sphendopulcrus, by the hands of Methodius, Bishop of Moravia."

Reference: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.htm

If you want me to post the writings of post-schism Orthodox theologians and saints on this topic, I shall do so upon your request.

PS: It is also worthy of note the very strong terminology this Encyclical (signed by all 4 Patriarchs) uses in its references towards the institution to whom they were addressing this Encyclical.  They are quite unambiguous at deeming the filioque a heresy.  In my post yesterday, I also forgot to mention the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895 (responding to Pope Leo XIII), which seems to reveal Traditional Orthodoxy's opinion about Roman Catholicism in the same vein as the 1848 Encyclical:

Quote
Such are, briefly, the serious and arbitrary innovations concerning the faith and the administrative constitution of the Church, which the Papal Church has introduced and which, it is evident, the Papal Encyclical purposely passes over in silence. These innovations, which have reference to essential points of the faith and of the administrative system of the Church, and which are manifestly opposed to the ecclesiastical condition of the first nine centuries, make the longed-for union of the Churches impossible: and every pious and orthodox heart is filled with inexpressible sorrow on seeing the Papal Church disdainfully persisting in them, and not in the least contributing to the sacred purpose of union by rejecting those heretical innovations and coming back to the ancient condition of the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ, of which she also at that time formed a part.


These Patriarchal pronouncements do not seem to be out of sync with the Sigillion, the Palamite Council (sometimes referred to as the 9th Ecumenical Council), and the Synods held under Patriarch Gregory of Cyprus.  If there have been changes within Orthodoxy regarding its evaluation of Catholicism in the last 80 years, then I would think that these traditional stances and positions would need to be taken into account?

Serge wrote:

Quote
Quote:There is too much of this feel-good/unite-all gumbya garbage going on these days.  When will we realize that not all religions are equal, that some are just plain false?  The disease of our time is wanting to get along with everyone.  

Well, there’s condescending, watered-down liberal ecumenism — like the merging we see of the mainline Prots, the Luthepiscomethoreformunitebyterians — but there’s also the ecumenism of the saints (see quotation from Fr Lev Gillet on my Faith page) and of people of goodwill today. Witness prolife.

Getting along at the expense of truth is the weakness of our Anglo-American culture, particularly the middle class — it’s how many of us were socialized. Charity derailed.

I agree.  I firmly believe that we CAN get along and should get along without compromising Truth.  Jesus's Parable of the Good Samaritan and His encounter with the Samaritan Woman are good examples of how we should treat anybody--including those whom we deem as heretics/heretical.  Loving our neighbor is not an option, it's a mandate.  A distinction IMO can/should be drawn between being charitable, kind and amiable with heretics/schismatics versus agreeing with their errors.  The same applies in "moral" issues---does it not?  The woman caught in adultery -- Jesus forgave and prevented her execution.  He did not in any way approve of the sin of adultery.  For after that he said "go and sin no more."  There's "getting along" and loving our neighbor, and then there's compromise of the Faith and buying into apostasy.  The twain should never be mixed.
 Smiley

In Christ,
Stephen
Logged

+God Be Merciful To Me A Sinner (GBMTMAS)+
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,379


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 31, 2003, 03:25:51 PM »

I'm not sure that Saint Euphemia (July 11) would agree with you on this Wink. Perhaps the terms used by the OOC were not specific enough to exclude misuse by heretics as this was certainly an issue in determining the language of the Nicene Creed and later in condemning the addition of the "Filioque".

Dear John,

I read the account of Saint Euphemia here:

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Feasts-and-Saints/July/Jul-11.html

In one paragraph, it was written:

The Monophysites falsely affirmed that within Christ was only one nature -- the Divine [i.e. that Jesus is God but not man, by nature], causing discord and unrest within the Church. At the Council were present 630 representatives from all the Local Christian Churches. On the side of the Orthodox in the conciliar deliberations there participated Sainted Anatolios, Patriarch of Constantinople (Comm. 3 July), Sainted Juvenalios, Patriarch of Jerusalem (Comm. 2 July), and representatives of Sainted Leo, Pope of Rome (Comm. 18 February). The Monophysites were present in large numbers, headed by Dioscoros, the Alexandrian patriarch, and the Constantinople archimandrite Eutykhios.

After prolonged discussions the two sides could not come to a decisive agreement.


Firstly, I think that the article is correct in its definition of Monophysitism.  But I think it is entirely inaccurate and unfair to call Saint Dioscoros and any other holy fathers of our Orthodox Churches monophysites with the definition of that term already given, and to link Saint Dioscoros with Eutyches.  It is clear that the holy fathers of the Oriental Orthodox Churches never believed in monophysitism.  

Secondly, I was always under the impression (perhaps wrongly) that Chalcedon was a pretty open and shut council that affirmed that Christ was a divine person in two natures (something which we, while acknowledging its correctness now, think is expressed better using the theology of Saint Cyril).  That there was no solution after much debate (as this article seems to say), and that they needed a miracle to affirm one or the other causes me to wonder, since even the devil* can appear as an angel of light and can conceivably animate a dead body, at least temporarily), and a dependence on miracles as proof of something or the other doesn't hold as much weight with me as actually delving into theology and making one's case.  The fact that, without the miracle, opinions were divided makes me wonder if both sides really were saying the same thing, but didn't know it.    

Thirdly, I don't see what the miracle proves, since we don't affirm the doctrine of Eutyches (which is patently wrong), but of Saint Cyril, which is Orthodox doctrine.  

Finally, I am not sure if we venerate Saint Euphemia.  It's entirely possible, and I have no reason to think we don't, but it is probably better if one of the Copts on this site weighs in, since I'm not terribly knowledgeable on the saints of our Churches.  



*Mind you, I am not saying that the devil caused this; rather, I am saying that it is as possible that a "miraculous" occurence is the work of the devil as it is possible that it is the work of God, and so depending on miracles is not good enough, in my opinion.  

P.S.  Thanks, Stephen, for the article links.  I hope to read them soon.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2003, 03:26:56 PM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Frobie
Quasi Vero Monaco
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 633


Rublev's Trinity


WWW
« Reply #29 on: January 31, 2003, 03:48:48 PM »

anastasios, your worst fears are confirmed:

« Last Edit: January 31, 2003, 03:49:23 PM by Frobisher » Logged
Thomas
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,796



« Reply #30 on: January 31, 2003, 04:27:12 PM »

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I remember vaguely that in the mentioned  "concelebrations " the  Creed recited was said in Greek and in the  Orthodox Fomulation of the Creed not the expanded Latin version of the Creed.  In this being done, they were united in expression of belief to that point.

The Roman Catholic Church continues to state that there is really no conflict that theirs is the interpolation of the creed and that the official creed for the Roman Catholic Church remains the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed as written in Greek.

The problem is that the latin Church in Rome insists on utilizing their  Local" interpolation and interpretation of the the original Greek when they celebrate the Eucharist without the presence of an Orthodox Hierarch.  The first step they could make in the direction for unification would be the sole use of the Nicean-Constantinopolitian Creed used throughout Orthodoxy.  If they need an accurate translation, I am sure that there are enough Orthdox Churches around the world to provide them with an approved translation into the language of the people. Wink
Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #31 on: February 03, 2003, 05:32:52 AM »

Mor Ephrem,

Thanks for your comments. I have to confess that I am largely ignorant on these issues so I appreciate you providing some commentary on the article you linked to. I confess also that I am a little distressed at how many different versions of the life, and particularly, the death of Saint Euphemia there are. One says she was burnt at stake, another thrown to wild animals, dying after a single bite from a bear, and I think I have read at least one other different account. I have a hard time reconciling these differences. I have seen icons depicting the miracle at Chalcedon though so I don't doubt that it occured.

Do you have any references to the theology of Saint Cyril by any chance? Preferably somewhere on the Internet as I doubt I will be able to find too many books where I live.
<edit> Don't worry about that, I'll get off my lazy backside and search myself </edit>

One thing still bothers me though. You give the impression that there is no real difference between what the EOC believe and what the OOC believe, so what exactly was the schism over? A schism definitely did occur and I think it is clear from scripture that such a thing is abhorent to God. If the schism occured over pride (which is how I'm beginning to see things), it is no less a schism and no less abhorent.

John.

<edit> I'm a bit torn on this issue since as a part of the EOC I want my church to be "orthodox" in every way. It tends towards a "we're right so you must be wrong" attitude when in actual fact the blame for this schism appears to lie equally on the shoulders of the EOC and the OOC. I hope to see reconciliation and healing of the church in my lifetime (EO and OO that is. I can't see the RC's shedding their innovations any time soon). </edit>
« Last Edit: February 03, 2003, 09:18:36 AM by prodromos » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,379


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 03, 2003, 05:00:22 PM »

One thing still bothers me though. You give the impression that there is no real difference between what the EOC believe and what the OOC believe, so what exactly was the schism over? A schism definitely did occur and I think it is clear from scripture that such a thing is abhorent to God. If the schism occured over pride (which is how I'm beginning to see things), it is no less a schism and no less abhorent.

John.

<edit> I'm a bit torn on this issue since as a part of the EOC I want my church to be "orthodox" in every way. It tends towards a "we're right so you must be wrong" attitude when in actual fact the blame for this schism appears to lie equally on the shoulders of the EOC and the OOC. I hope to see reconciliation and healing of the church in my lifetime (EO and OO that is. I can't see the RC's shedding their innovations any time soon). </edit>

Dear John,

Thank you for your reply.  

Is there a difference between what the EOC and the OOC believe?  Yes and no.  You teach two natures, we teach one incarnate nature, so there is a difference.  Is the difference substantial?  Do we teach two essentially different things?  Is the Christ you preach different from the Christ we preach?  No!  It is the same teaching, using different expressions, but affirming the same faith.  

After taking a church history class here at the university, and reading the books that were assigned and what not, I've come to think that the schism after Chalcedon was based on politics and pride, disguised in theological diversity.  Of course, this is an extremely stupid reason for a schism, but it happened.  It is not for us to concern ourselves with who was more at fault, who was more right (we are both Orthodox), etc.  We are brothers and sisters, and it is our job to become one family again.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 03, 2003, 05:09:21 PM »

Is there a difference between what the EOC and the OOC believe?  Yes and no.  You teach two natures, we teach one incarnate nature, so there is a difference.

Can you please explain further how this is the same and the theology of St. Cyril for us who are ignorant of it please Philip? Thanks in advance.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,379


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 03, 2003, 05:21:11 PM »

I'll give it my best shot, Nicholas.

Basically, if I'm not mistaken, you teach that Christ is a divine Person "in" two natures, but that these natures are full, distinct, unconfused, etc., but they are united in one Person.  

What we say is that in Christ, there is one nature, but that one nature is an "incarnate" nature.  By qualifying it that way, we necessarily state that there are divine and human natures at work here, each is full, distinct, etc., and in being united in one incarnate nature, there is no confusion or alteration, but there is one incarnate nature, not simply two natures, and not simply one nature.  

I probably botched that up, but if you go to http://www.orthodoxunity.org/ you will find a bunch of articles and what not that will explain these things better.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,960


black metal cat


« Reply #35 on: February 19, 2003, 10:07:16 PM »

A nice little passage from someone who could hardly be called a "traditionalist"...

Quote
Virtually all Orthodox Churches permit what is termed 'economic' intercommunion, whereby non-Orthodox Christians, when cut off from the ministrations of their own Church, may be allowed--with special permission--to receive communion from an Orthodox priest. But does the reverse hold true? Can isolated Orthodox, with no parish of their own near at hand--and this is frequently the situation in the west--approach non-Orthodox for communion? Most Orthodox authorities answer: no, this is not possible. But in fact it happens, in some instances with the tacit or even explicit blessing of an Orthodox bishop."- Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, (Penguin books, 1993), p. 311

This is very interesting indeed. As Hieromonk Patapios says in his Traditionalist Critique of The Orthodox Church:

Quote
Astonishingly enough, His Grace admits that almost all Orthodox Churches allow for "economic" intercommunion; that is, that they occasionally permit non-Orthodox—for example, a Methodist in Bulgaria—, who have no access to clergy of their own church, to receive communion from an Orthodox Priest. We say "astonishingly," because when we anti-ecumenist Old Calendarists point out such abuses, we are denounced as liars and slanderers, whereas ecumenists, like Bishop Kallistos, are praised for their candor and courage when they make such remarks. This demonstrates the utter hypocrisy of Orthodox ecumenism.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2003, 10:08:44 PM by Paradosis » Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 20, 2003, 01:26:16 AM »

anastasios

Quote
At St. Vladimir's, we are most definitively taught that Roman Catholics are *not* heretics.  Their beliefs do not fit into the category of Trinity or Incarnation denying.  They are in error on several issues but NOT at the level of say the Arians.  We are taught that there are degrees of separation from the Church, and a Roman Catholic is definitely closer to Orthodoxy than a Voodooist!  However, we *are* taught that Roman Catholics are in error to the extent that there can be no eucharistic concelebration or sharing of mysteries.

The word "heresy" refers to a "difference of opinion"; in the Christian context, this would mean over some doctrinal matter (namely, a "heretical teaching" would be a teaching opposed to, or a perversion of, the Christian faith.)  While one can appraise some heresies as being less drastic than others, one does not need to be an Arian or a Nestorian to be a "heretic."

If what you say is in fact what you're being taught at St.Vladimirs, it's both surprising and troubling.

Quote
I noted upon doing more research that St. Mark of Ephesus called Roman Catholics not only schismatics but heretics, so I can see by his time he was thinking more in line with your thoughts.  I still maintain that it would be better to return to the apostolic use of the terms "heretic" "scismatic" and "unlawful assembly".

So the key "papal" dogmas of the First Vatican Council are not "heretical"?  What exactly are they?

Serge

Quote
The pope and the patriarch of Constantinople took the first part of a Mass (readings, intercessions) together in St Peter’s Basilica in 1995 but did not concelebrate the Eucharist.

The "first part of the Mass" is part of the Latin liturgy of the Eucharist - if that doesn't qualify as co-liturgizing, what does?  If "liturgizing" is not included in proscriptions in the canons against praying with heretics, what is?

Seraphim
Logged

Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #37 on: February 20, 2003, 08:54:14 AM »

Serge<<The pope and the patriarch of Constantinople took the first part of a Mass (readings, intercessions) together in St Peter’s Basilica in 1995 but did not concelebrate the Eucharist.>>


Seraphim Reeves<<The "first part of the Mass" is part of the Latin liturgy of the Eucharist - if that doesn't qualify as co-liturgizing, what does?  If "liturgizing" is not included in proscriptions in the canons against praying with heretics, what is?>>

Seraphim, I follow your logic here more than I do Serge's.  Serge seems to be nitpicking to offer a disclaimer that there was no co-liturgizing or concelebration.  If one concelebrates part of the Mass, which is the official Eucharistic service of the Roman Catholic Church, one may as well follow through and concelebrate the whole thing because it looks as if, at least to me, that that is what the Ecumenical Patriarch intends to do eventually anyway.

Yesterday on the Julian Calendar:

Troparion of St Photios the Great Tone 5

As a radiant beacon of wisdom hidden in God,/ and a defender of Orthodoxy revealed from on high,/ O great Photios, adornment of Patriarchs,/ thou dost refute the innovations of boastful heresy,/ O light of the holy Church,/ preserve her from all error,/ O luminary of the East.

Kontakion of St Photios the Great Tone 8

With garlands of chant let us crown the Church's far-shining star,/ the God-inspired guide of the Orthodox, the divinely sounded harp of the Spirit and steadfast adversary of heresy/ and let us cry to him: Rejoice, O most venerable Photios.

Hypo-Ortho
« Last Edit: February 20, 2003, 09:16:10 AM by Hypo-Ortho » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,456


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 23, 2003, 10:27:30 PM »

Seraphim:

<<<The word "heresy" refers to a "difference of opinion"; in the Christian context, this would mean over some doctrinal matter (namely, a "heretical teaching" would be a teaching opposed to, or a perversion of, the Christian faith.)  While one can appraise some heresies as being less drastic than others, one does not need to be an Arian or a Nestorian to be a "heretic."

If what you say is in fact what you're being taught at St.Vladimirs, it's both surprising and troubling.>>>

The fact that a recent convert like you presumes to tell the dedicated, prayerfull, active, and practicing lifelong Orthodox Christians at St. Vladimir's that they are wrong without considering the full context and historical precedent for what they are teaching is what is troubling.  What's your basis for facts? The internet?  Works of Frank Shaeffer, Clark Carlton, and Michael Whelton?

Certainly the Orthodox would hold that the Vatican I doctrines are errors or even heresy but would not then conclude that individual Roman Catholics are heretics.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #39 on: February 24, 2003, 04:25:35 AM »

A thought just occured to me. Did they concelebrate the mass up until the catechumens are told to depart, assuming they still have that in the Latin Mass?

 Wink Grin :-
John.
Logged
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #40 on: February 24, 2003, 08:57:56 AM »

Seraphim,

I could have sworn I read something that indicated you were still Roman Catholic. Was this a misconception of mine?

Thanks
Bobby

Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #41 on: February 27, 2003, 12:07:28 AM »

Quote
The fact that a recent convert like you presumes to tell the dedicated, prayerfull, active, and practicing lifelong Orthodox Christians at St. Vladimir's that they are wrong without considering the full context and historical precedent for what they are teaching is what is troubling.  

That could easily be turned right around to say how toubling it is to disregard the teachings of the saints (especially Saint Mark of Ephesos) concerning the current status of Old Rome.  To NOT find both Vatican I and Vatican II heretical is indeed very troubling.  Yes, new converts like myself are obnoxious, judgemental, etc. but those of us who were RCC and have come to love Orthodoxy never want to see her infected with the ills of Old Rome.
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #42 on: February 27, 2003, 12:22:29 AM »

anastasios Quote:The fact that a recent convert like you presumes to tell the dedicated, prayerfull, active, and practicing lifelong Orthodox Christians at St. Vladimir's that they are wrong without considering the full context and historical precedent for what they are teaching is what is troubling.>>

anastasios, my friend, what goes on in academia at the hypothetical level is not always what is lived or believed at the parish level or even ever filtered down "to the laos."  Even seminary professors can be wrong--they're certainly not infallible.  In Holy Orthodoxy, we're all equal: whether "cradle" Orthodox or newly-Chrismated adult convert, the same Holy Spirit is received in Chrismation.

Hypo-Ortho  
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,456


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #43 on: February 27, 2003, 12:27:44 AM »

Quote
The fact that a recent convert like you presumes to tell the dedicated, prayerfull, active, and practicing lifelong Orthodox Christians at St. Vladimir's that they are wrong without considering the full context and historical precedent for what they are teaching is what is troubling.  

That could easily be turned right around to say how toubling it is to disregard the teachings of the saints (especially Saint Mark of Ephesos) concerning the current status of Old Rome.  To NOT find both Vatican I and Vatican II heretical is indeed very troubling.  Yes, new converts like myself are obnoxious, judgemental, etc. but those of us who were RCC and have come to love Orthodoxy never want to see her infected with the ills of Old Rome.  

First off, as I said, certainly the folks at St. Vladimir's find Vatican I's teachings on the pope to be wrong, and the word "heretical" might be employed.  But like I said before, that doesn't mean they consider Roman Catholics as individuals to be heretics.

As far as "disregarding the teachings of the saints."  First of all, my whole argument is that Orthodoxy is organic and passed down in an ecclesial community (ie The Church).  Those who pray, fast, and witness Christianity are the ones who best understand the truths of Orthodoxy, not those who read about it and theorize about it.  Since I know for a fact that the professors at St. Vladimir's are dedicated Orthodox Christians who worship regularly, pray, and fast, and are humble in their approach to dogmatic questions, I trust their understanding of the Fathers *taken as a whole*.  Now when you say it's wrong to disregard the teachings of the saints, I would agree, but let's not turn this into "Saint quotation infallibility."  Saints can be wrong on individual matters, or they can be speaking from a particular historical experience thus speaking an opinion, not handing down the tradition of the Church.  On some occasions, the saints didn't even understand what the Latins taught in the first place, but spoke from second-hand information.

We need to let the Fathers inform our cosciences but since we are the People of God, in communion with him and living in the Holy Spirit, we have liberties in our particular age to respond to the situation that we find--which is radically different than the situation St. Mark of Ephesus experienced, for example.

What I'm NOT saying is that the quotes of the Fathers are irrelavent; what I AM saying is that we need to take the Fathers in context, let them inform our beliefs, yet allow the Holy Spirit to move us where He wants.

In Christ,

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,456


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #44 on: February 27, 2003, 12:39:56 AM »

<<<anastasios, my friend, what goes on in academia at the hypothetical level is not always what is lived or believed at the parish level or even ever filtered down "to the laos."  Even seminary professors can be wrong--they're certainly not infallible.  In Holy Orthodoxy, we're all equal: whether "cradle" Orthodox or newly-Chrismated adult convert, the same Holy Spirit is received in Chrismation.>>>

You are so right that what goes on in ACADEMIA "at the hypothetical level" is not what's always believed, etc.

That's why I'm glad that an Orthodox Seminary is neither a) purely ACADEMIA (it is a following of academic pursuits within the context of the received Tradition of the Church) and b) why I added that the professors at St. Vladimir's pray, fast, attend liturgy, and humbly reflect on God.  My emphasis is that St. Vladimir's is not a bunch of people sitting around thinking up hypothetical situations and being pompous with human knowledge as some would like to make it out.

As far as being different from the parish level, yes, that is true, and yes, we are all equally the People of God.  Yet I have two things to add to that: first, there is a constant sharing between the actual priests and laypeople of the Church with the St. Vladimir's community (frequent visits, lectures by laypeople, events, conferences, and guest courses sponsored by "outsiders" which helps keep the seminary fresh) and secondly, many times there is a difference between what the people think in the parish is Orthodoxy and what Orthodoxy actually is.  For instance, people have the notion that Orthodoxy teaches you can't have more than one liturgy on one altar on one day.  That is just simply false.  For instance, on Pascha there are two liturgies--the Vesperal Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.  The Orthodox teaching is that there cannot be two Eucharists splitting up one community, because the Eucharist makes the Church.  But if the community is fully assembled (and undivided) then two liturgies can be celebrated (such as on Pascha) because it is the same Eucharist for the same community.  That's just one small example.

Of course I am not saying that a) when there is a dispute between Seminary and "actual practice" that I always side with the Seminary position (I don't always, although usually I do) and that b) laypeople are a bunch of undeducated people that need to be told what to do.  Certainly the laity plays a major role in the Church.  And yes, there are some who it seems look down at the "average Joe" and I would call this a false academic (a snob, for example).  Yet what I am saying is that the people at St. Vlad's are not academic snobs sitting around theorizing, but rather active, loyal, faithful, practicing Orthodox Christians who have participated in the "real world" and who reflect on the Church and issues facing it in a real way.

I am sorry for my superlongwindedness, and I might have confused some more than offering answers.  If that's so, I apologize and please feel free to follow up or challenge my line of thinking.  I'll probably reread this post tomorrow and want to rewrite some passages.

In Christ,

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Tags: Patriarch Bartholomew I ecumenism traditionalist prayer with heterodox 
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.172 seconds with 72 queries.