OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 08:29:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Will the OO and EO Reunite?  (Read 25366 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Xaira
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


I'm tickled pink too.


« Reply #90 on: August 25, 2005, 07:25:07 AM »

ozgeorge,

Please read this: http://www.coptichymns.net/module-pagesetter-viewpub-tid-1-pid-135.html

Please know what you are talking about before you accuse Orthodox churches of theological confusion.

Please understand that the current EO use and practice and understanding of the Trisagion hymn does not preclude there being various forms of the Trisagion in the early Church, that there grew various traditions of these various forms in various places, in these various places not bound to Constantinople after the the 5th century the various traditions based on the earlier various forms were kept, while in the places bound to Constantinople one form was standerized.

I fail to see the value of reverse applying theology into the past, and then judging it inferior according to present understanding.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #91 on: August 25, 2005, 07:55:52 AM »

I will if you can explain to me how a Coptic link presents the Eastern Orthodox position on anything.

Please know what you are talking about before you accuse Orthodox churches of theological confusion.
I do.
I am presenting the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trisagion and quoted our greatest hymnographer to show that this has been our understanding since the sixth century at least. Any hint of the Eastern Orthodox position on anything does seem to meet with hostility in this and other threads. I'll read your links if you read mine.

http://www.liturgica.com/html/litEOLitEarly.jsp?hostname=null#Trisagion

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:ngZcxacrBlgJ:www.anastasis.org.uk/THE%2520TRISAGION02.pdf+trisagion+trinitarian&hl=en

http://www.smithcreekmusic.com/Hymnology/Greek.Hymnody/Trisagion.html


Please understand that the current EO use and practice and understanding of the Trisagion hymn does not preclude there being various forms of the Trisagion in the early Church, that there grew various traditions of these various forms in various places, in these various places not bound to Constantinople after the the 5th century the various traditions based on the earlier various forms were kept, while in the places bound to Constantinople one form was standerized.
Now before you go off half-cocked again, read what I said.....
The Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trisagion does not permit it to be understood in any other way than a Trinitarian Hymn.....therefore, the only conclusion that the Eastern Orthodox could possibly make from addressing the Trisagion only to the Second Hypostasis is that it is Patripassianism leading to Sabellianism and Monophysiism. Again, I am merely presenting the Eastern Orthodox perspective (shoud we not be permitted to have a perspective?)
And what does the fact that there were different understandings of the Trisagion prior to the fifth century prove? Arianism also predates the fifth century, Gnostiscism also predates the fifth century.....so what is your point?

I fail to see the value of reverse applying theology into the past, and then judging it inferior according to present understanding.
The Eastern Orthodox Church does not accept the "development of doctrine". Therefore, there can be no retrograde application of doctrine in the Church. A doctrine either is or isn't Orthodox as far as the Church is concerned.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2005, 08:11:00 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
S_N_Bulgakov
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 89



« Reply #92 on: August 25, 2005, 08:34:10 AM »

OzGeorge,

Quote
The Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trisagion does not permit it to be understood in any other way than a Trinitarian Hymn.....therefore, the only conclusion that the Eastern Orthodox could possibly make from addressing the Trisagion only to the Second Hypostasis is that it is Patripassianism leading to Sabellianism and Monophysiism. Again, I am merely presenting the Eastern Orthodox perspective (shoud we not be permitted to have a perspective?)

That is not the whole truth of the matter. There are Eastern Orthodox, among whom Fr.John Meyendorff, that have stated that the OO use of the Trisagion (=Thrice Holy, Tri indicating the number of repetitions and not a necessary trinitarian interpretation is perfectly Orthodox if[/b] the Person adressed as Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal is Jesus Christ and not the Trinity. Fr. Meyendorff, though I do not always agree with him (we butt heads on Evagrios) represents an EO position different from yours. So that I would like to qualify your statement somewhat by saying that the EO understanding is rooted in the trinitarian interpretation, but not to the exclusion of a christological interpretation.

There is nothing un-Orthodox in the OO interpretation of this Hymn. EO should have no problem understanding this. At least I don't have that problem at all. It is obvious and easily seen that the OO interpretation is wholly Orthodox as much as is the EO interpretation. To misunderstand is possibly only by misrepresenting, and that is precisely the main ailment that this thread is suffering from, as al others that I've seen on this topic, EO's and OO's who are too busy proving themselves right, they have no room to even listen to the other. Such self-affirmation is the very same one, that has brought about the fall in the first place. It is a luciferian trap that we, EO's and OO's allow ourselves to be trapped in continually.

If any fruit is to be gained from "discussions" like this, we must learn to be humble, to be Christ-like. Though I addressed this message to you, in response to some of your words, this message extends to all (myself included). You are not singled out here, I speak to all of us, sinners.

Quote
The Eastern Orthodox Church does not accept the "development of doctrine". Therefore, there can be no retrograde application of doctrine in the Church. A doctrine either is or isn't Orthodox as far as the Church is concerned.

That is, it rejects the idea that the Once-given-revelation is being added onto. There is a form of dogmatic development that Orthodoxy does accept, in so far as it confesses to have a Living Tradition. This is easily traced in trinitarian theology from NT times, until the theology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamum. In between these two, a whole range of dogmatic development is simply undeniable. The same is true of the doctrine of Energies and Essence, it has gone a long way from the Cappadocians to St. Gregory Palamas, or the doctrine of the Church, which today stands in the light of the idea of sobornost, a development of the NT theme of catholicity into a mature form, etc.

S_N_B
Logged

For scripture says, God is seated where He is known  (Pr 11 :16) ; and thus the pure nous is said to be a throne of God.

[Evagrios the Solitary, Peri Logismoi 41
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,415


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #93 on: August 25, 2005, 08:39:49 AM »

This latest tangent is pretty sad.  "Tri" necessarily means "Trinity"?  How about "three", as in "thrice repeated"? 

It seems pretty obvious to me that context determines whether or not the Trisagion is being used in a heretical fashion.  EO view it as a Trinitarian hymn, and so view the OO use as erroneous; very well.  But if the OO view it as Christological, then the EO have to come out and say if its Christological use is erroneous; depending only on your own interpretation of the hymn in this regard as THE standard of judgement is not going to work.  If the OO understood it as a Trinitarian hymn, but still used the theopaschite clause, then we'd be heretics.  But if we don't have the former presupposition, then you can't make the latter claim.  If you don't believe that God the Word (i.e., Jesus Christ) was crucified for us, then, to quote one of your own, "no reunion".  It'd be like uniting with Jehovah's Witnesses.   
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
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #94 on: August 25, 2005, 09:04:55 AM »

There is nothing un-Orthodox in the OO interpretation of this Hymn.
I'm afraid the Fathers of the Quintisext Council disagree with you.

Canon 81 of the Council states:
"Whereas we have heard that in some places in the hymn Trisagion there is added after "Holy and Immortal," "Who was crucified for us, have mercy upon us," and since this as being alien to piety was by the ancient and holy Fathers cast out of the hymn, as also the violent heretics who inserted these new words were cast out of the Church; we also, confirming the things which were formerly piously established by our holy Fathers, anathematize those who after this present decree allow in church this or any other addition to the most sacred hymn; but if indeed he who has transgressed is of the sacerdotal order, we command that he be deprived of his priestly dignity, but if he be a layman or monk let him be cut off."

So your beef is with the Fathers of the Eastern Orthodox Church, not with me. It is the Eastern Orthodox Church's understanding I am presenting, not my personal one alone.

And yes, I think we have to face facts that the only way the EO and OO could ever unite is if either the EO rejects the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils or the OO accepts them, and I don't see either one happening.

And in the words of "The Cranberries": "And the daffodils look lovely today...."
« Last Edit: August 25, 2005, 09:16:54 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
S_N_Bulgakov
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 89



« Reply #95 on: August 25, 2005, 09:46:05 AM »

Mo Ephrem,

Quite correct,.. Tri does not necessarily imply Trinity. In the Christological version of the Hymn it simply refers to being repeated thrice. We could easily attach the word Tri to the times the Kyrie Eleison is repeated in the EO Prayer of Hours (where the repeption is, 3, 12, or 40).

The Trisagion interpreted as trinitarian, is also quite fine. Tri may be interpreted as Trinity in an EO context, but to do so in an OO one is heretical. The problem is in applying EO standards to an OO tradition and vice versa.

S_N_B
Logged

For scripture says, God is seated where He is known  (Pr 11 :16) ; and thus the pure nous is said to be a throne of God.

[Evagrios the Solitary, Peri Logismoi 41
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #96 on: August 25, 2005, 10:52:15 AM »

I'm afraid the Fathers of the Quintisext Council disagree with you.

Canon 81 of the Council states:
"Whereas we have heard that in some places in the hymn Trisagion there is added after "Holy and Immortal," "Who was crucified for us, have mercy upon us," and since this as being alien to piety was by the ancient and holy Fathers cast out of the hymn, as also the violent heretics who inserted these new words were cast out of the Church; we also, confirming the things which were formerly piously established by our holy Fathers, anathematize those who after this present decree allow in church this or any other addition to the most sacred hymn; but if indeed he who has transgressed is of the sacerdotal order, we command that he be deprived of his priestly dignity, but if he be a layman or monk let him be cut off."

Unfortunately the Council at Trullo cannot be considered an ecumenical council. And the form of this statement rather begs the question. It appears simply to take this alteration as a sign of association with the OO churches.

The final test of whether the Trisagion is a trinitarian hymn is whether the avowedly non-Trinitarian bodies can say it without alteration. I believe the answer to that question would be, Yes, they could. The mere mention of the number "three" isn't sufficient, for the Mormons can sing the first part of the hymn "Holy, Holy Holy Lord God Almighty" as it stands, but they alter the final lines which say "God in Three persons, Blessed trinity."

A portion of the Trisagion has always appeared as the refrain in the medieval western hymn "Media Vita in Morte Sumus" (which was retained by the Anglicans and has ever since appeared in the funeral liturgy). It is, however, altered so that "holy immortal, have mercy on us" is replaced by (very rough translation) "holy and merciful savior, deliver us not into bitter death", and the Anglicans have further replaced the original verses with different (but still orthodox) words. In addition, recent Anglican liturgies have restored the Trisagion in its original form.

Now, the angel-given thrice-holy hymn is not this text at all. It is the Sanctus, which we have revealed in scripture to the prophet Isaiah.

I'm not a fan, so to speak, of the OO expansion of Trisagion, but more for its poetic failings than its theological difficulties. It is clearly anti-Nestorian, but it seems to me it can be spun with a Chalcedonian interpretation (or non-, for that matter). I really just don't see how this hymn gets to the heart of the issue.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,678


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #97 on: August 25, 2005, 12:22:09 PM »

Even if the Quintisext canon provided here is "canonical" and binding in the EO Church, perhaps we have to understand the context in which this canon is given.

Ozgeorge,

I remember one time you posted that a canon that does not deal with dogma need not be considered binding or infallible.  While this only protects the hymn against a certain heretical interpretation, this canon does not seem dogmatic, and therefore by your definition, is not binding to EO's.

A Christological interpretation of the Trisagion is possible even before Nicean times.  As Sarah provided for you a website, the hymn "Omonogenis" may be influenced, if not written, by St. Athanasius whose Alexandrian tradition perhaps have always interpreted the Trisagion in a Christological sense, not in a Trinitarian sense.  That canon, if indeed binding, would excommunicate the fathers of the Alexandrian tradition in pre-Chalcedonian times, which may show why there are many EO opinions concerning the Council of Trullo.

Therefore, suppose there's a canon that in its context assumed that something or someone is heretical if used in that sense.  But suppose that when interpreted properly it is not heretical after all.  Then that canon can stand against only those who use it in a heretical sense.

The OO Trisagion does NOT say the Trinity was born, crucified, and rose from the dead.  This is the same accusation Nestorius brought against St. Cyril when using the term "Theotokos" for the Virgin St. Mary.  However, we understand "Theotokos" to have an proper and beautiful Orthodox interpretation.  The OO Trisagion is not a hymn for the Trinity.  It is a hymn for Christ.

God bless you.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #98 on: August 25, 2005, 01:42:29 PM »

As Eastern Orthodox theologian John Meyendroff himself states in his book Eastern Christian Thought, (SVS: 1975): “Some theologians, while remaining faithful to the council, were beginning to notice the weakness of Chalcedonian apologetics, manifested especially in the radical opposition in some circles to the interpolated Trisagion. The text of this hymn in the form …: "Holy God, holy Mighty, Holy immortal, crucified for us, have mercy on us," was not…heretical, since it was addressed to Christ, not to the Trinity.”

Any Chalcedonian arguing against the Orthodoxy of the Trsiagion as it is employed in the OO Tradition, is doing nothing more than following the pathway of apologetic impotence that their own fathers had paved.

Peace.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
S_N_Bulgakov
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 89



« Reply #99 on: August 25, 2005, 03:51:09 PM »

OzGeorge,

The Council of Trullo is not ecumenical. It does not have absolute authority.

Besides that, canons regulate Church life, but as the Church evolves in time, canons become obsolete and new ones are needed. This has certainly happened in this regard, since the coming out of the Common Declarations[/b] where we have mutually acknowledge each others true, and full, Orthodoxy.

As Fr. Afanasief (a canonist) has said:

Quote
,.... canons can not always be the final criteria and they themselves demand a more higher criterion.

However, Church structure is influenced not only by different forms of historical conditions -- ecclesial, political, social, cultural, but even something more, which does not depend on these temporary, changeable influences. Canonical structure is only the external expression of the dogmatic teaching about the Church. This teaching is that changeless, timeless nucleus which lies, or must lie, as the foundation of all Church structure. Out of the same kernel, depending on different conditions, on differences in culture, grows the plant with different external variations. But no matter how far these variations go, a particular seed can only result in a particular growth. The canonical structure of the Church can be different, and this difference is legitimate and even necessary, as long as it does not impinge upon the changeless substance of the Church. In different historical epochs the substance of the Church could have various expressions inasmuch as it demands and looks for a more complete realization under given historical circumstances. This is an essential condition for every correct form of Church life -- to realize more fully the substance of the Church itself within historical circumstances -- but at the same time this is the boundary beyond which these changes can not go.

Every form of Church life is legitimate and acceptable as long as it is based on correct dogmatical teaching.

The dogmatic teaching about the Church, as all dogmas, is not only a theoretical truth: it must find its reflection and realization in life. This realization of dogmatical teaching about the Church is the canonical structure, but this realization of course, can never be complete. No form of Church life adequately expresses the fullness of the dogmatical teaching, and is only a relative approach to it under a given historical situation. Thus there can be no talk about any absolutization of whatever form of Church life, since such an absolutization would express the introduction of relative empirical forms to the level of absolute truth. However, on the other hand, historical forms are not completely incidental: they are always a valid attempt to express more completely the nature of the Church, or in any case, some of its aspects. Various historical forms, internally, in their depth, are linked with each other in the foundations of its dogmatic teaching. That is why any change must be in response not only to the changing historical conditions and the need to adapt to them, but at the same time, to the striving for a more complete, more adequate expression of the nature of the Church under the new historical circumstances. All this means that any such change becomes legitimate and justified when the new form of Church life will give a more fuller expression of the eternal dogmatic truth about the Church than did the older form. We are free to change and to create historical forms of Church life but we are not always correct in doing so. In this problem, as well as in Orthodoxy in general, we have a combination of conservatism and loyalty to tradition with the greatest freedom and boldness.

Fr. Afanasief Canons and Canonical Consciousness.

S_N_B
« Last Edit: August 25, 2005, 03:51:58 PM by S_N_Bulgakov » Logged

For scripture says, God is seated where He is known  (Pr 11 :16) ; and thus the pure nous is said to be a throne of God.

[Evagrios the Solitary, Peri Logismoi 41
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #100 on: August 25, 2005, 05:02:38 PM »

The Council of Trullo is not ecumenical. It does not have absolute authority.

Why not? Is it because because yourself and a Protestant above say it isn't an Ecumenical Council? Well here is what the Orthodox Church says:

"The Orthodox Church also assigns ecumenical status to The Council in Trullo in 692, which took place in Constantinople. Eastern bishops took part in it, and they passed disciplinary canons to complete the work of the Fifth and the Sixth Ecumenical Councils and, thus, it is known as the Fifth-Sixth (Quinisext or Penthekti)."
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7116.asp

Can you present me with a single Eastern Orthodox Source which supports your claim that the Council of Trullo was not an Ecumenical Council?

Please don't make false claims about the teachings of the Orthodox Church- that is called "heresy".

This is just priceless! I present the Eastern Orthodox position, and I'm told that it is simply my personal one; so I present facts stating that this is what the Orthodox Church teaches, and I'm told that the source of my information is not authoratitaive enough, then I present a statement from an official source which say that it is authoritative.......This is ecactly what Fr. Alexios meant when he said that Ecumenism listens to nothing other than itself!
Any fact is welcome here as long as it is not an 'uncomfortable' fact.....ostriches with their heads in the sand?
« Last Edit: August 25, 2005, 05:23:25 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
S_N_Bulgakov
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 89



« Reply #101 on: August 25, 2005, 06:04:13 PM »

OzGeorge,

Quote
Why not?

Because it has not been ecumenically received. And isn't that a principle to recognize an EC Council? But perhaps I overstated my point. I am sorry about that. The Council holds full authority and its canons cannot and should not be ignored.

I do not deny the validity and authority of the Council for the EOC, but that's as far as it goes. Its authority does not extend to the Oriental Orthodox[/b] Church. Perhaps that's what I should have said the first time around.

Taking the Common Declarations between the EO and the OO seriously implies accepting the fact that the Councils since Chalcedon are dogmatically unnecessary for the Orthodox Church as a whole (includng the OO). I mean they can't simply be forced upon the OOC, nor is that at all necessary. Likewise OO tradition is not binding to EOy either. These are matters we must face up to and deal with.

S_N_B
« Last Edit: August 25, 2005, 06:49:37 PM by S_N_Bulgakov » Logged

For scripture says, God is seated where He is known  (Pr 11 :16) ; and thus the pure nous is said to be a throne of God.

[Evagrios the Solitary, Peri Logismoi 41
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #102 on: August 25, 2005, 10:52:53 PM »

ozgeorge,

Quote
.....ostriches with their heads in the sand?

Any Chalcedonian who has to appeal to a canon from a Chalcedonian council in order to argue that the Trisagion’s employment by the Oriental Orthodox Church is fallacious or even heresy, obviously has their head stuck in the sand. As your own theologian quoted above admits, such polemics as grounded in that particular canon are nothing but the result of weak apologetics, and as minasoliman himself quite correctly pointed out, any resistance to the use of the Trisagion as a Christological hymn is no different to the Nestorian’s resistance to the ‘Theotokos’ title. Furthermore, the very employment of the Trsiagion as a Christological hymn, stresses a particular Christological understanding deemed Orthodox not only by the standard of St Cyril’s 12th anathema, but also the 10th anathema of your own Constantinople 533. Furthermore, as OO theologian Fr. V.C. Samuel points out in his book Chalcedon Re-Examined: "Since in the Syrian Church where [the Trsiagion] originated the hymn is addressed to The Son (as a polemic against Arianism), [Chalcedonians] objection to the addition loses its force."

The only thing you prove by adamantly trying to establish a negative Eastern Orthodox perspective towards the use of the Trsiagion as a Christological hymn, is the inconsistency within, and the errors of your own church by virtue of its being tainted by impotent apologetics.

This is further reason why practically speaking, from the perspective of my own finite human mind, I do not see any re-union occurring; the Eastern Church is steeped in historical errors and inconsistencies, all the result of political intrigues and inept polemics/apologetics. The humility required to submit to the virtues of objectivity and reasonableness is far beyond what I can conceive the Eastern Church adopting. However, as the Apostle says, "with God all things are possible", so it is only by faith alone that I acknowledge the possibility of a re-union.

Peace.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2005, 11:06:33 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #103 on: August 26, 2005, 12:44:20 AM »

Why not? Is it because because yourself and a Protestant above say it isn't an Ecumenical Council? Well here is what the Orthodox Church says:

The problem is that it isn't enough for the Eastern Orthodox churches to declare it ecumenical. The ecumen of that era-- even ignoring the OO churches, and I have to say that it is only reasonable to have them speak their own objections to such rulings, rather than have the EO churches speak them for the OO-- included all the West, and the West has never accepted Trullo. The East is quite welcome to take it as a local council, but by objective standards it is not ecumenical.

Quote
This is just priceless! I present the Eastern Orthodox position, and I'm told that it is simply my personal one; so I present facts stating that this is what the Orthodox Church teaches, and I'm told that the source of my information is not authoratitaive enough, then I present a statement from an official source which say that it is authoritative.......

I didn't say anything about it being your personal opinion. It remains true that it is an Eastern opinion. It's extremely ironic when you essentially call me an ecumenist when you are trying to pass off the Eastern churches as the whole-- as they most certainly were not at the time of the council.

Quote
This is ecactly what Fr. Alexios meant when he said that Ecumenism listens to nothing other than itself!

The problem here isn't listening at all. The problem is whose authorities are to accepted. It is a basic principle that arguments from authority must proceed from agreement that those authorities are acceptable. In this case the authorities are not universally-- dare I say ecumenically-- accepted, and therefore the outcome of listening is to say, "I hear you, but I do not accept your argument because I do not accept the authority upon which it relies."
 
Quote
Any fact is welcome here as long as it is not an 'uncomfortable' fact.....ostriches with their heads in the sand?

Actually, I'd agree with that-- but the uncomfortable fact is the lack of consensus about the authority of Trullo. This is not the first time someone, arguing for the East, has had to be informed that Trullo is not an acceptable authority for anyone else. And the final irony is that I have ended up invoking Trullo as an authority on Eastern positions. For that, I not only accept its authority, I'm quite willing to iuse it in arguments against what appear to me to be mistakes about Eastern teaching. But it has no intrinsic authority in ecumenical issues.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,678


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #104 on: August 26, 2005, 01:17:46 AM »

Quote
Is it because because yourself and a Protestant above say it isn't an Ecumenical Council?

Well, gee.  That's really kind of you to pass judgments.

I guess then all of us non-Chalcedonians are wasting our times here since we are not Orthodox or don't agree with the Orthodox church.  Thus, by your condescending tone, whatever we say is vanity to your minds.

I wander then who in the end is really listening to others and who is really listening to himself.

Lord have mercy.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #105 on: August 26, 2005, 07:26:26 AM »

Because it has not been ecumenically received.
Can you tell me which EO Church does not accept the Council of Trullo as having Ecumenical status? The Ecumenical Patriarchate certainly does, as you can see from my quote above.

And isn't that a principle to recognize an EC Council?
Not really. If a Council anathemizes an heretical group (eg the Arians), is the Council not Ecumenical simply because the anathemized group does not accept it? No Ecumenical Council has ever been fully "recieved"- they were convened presicely to determine what is and isn't dogma, and there were many (in some cases majorities) which were found to be outside the Church's teaching.

I do not deny the validity and authority of the Council for the EOC, but that's as far as it goes. Its authority does not extend to the Oriental Orthodox[/b] Church.
Absolutely. And I, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian is bound by their teaching unless a Council of at least equal status changes them. Canons that touch on mere praxis are one thing, even local Synods are able in many cases to practice economia regarding them. However, canons that touch on doctrine are a completely different order. No mere local synod or even a Patriarchate has the authority to change them. The 81st Canon on Trullo touches both praxis (the particular wording of the Trisagion) and dogma (the heretics who employed it).

Taking the Common Declarations between the EO and the OO seriously implies accepting the fact that the Councils since Chalcedon are dogmatically unnecessary for the Orthodox Church as a whole (includng the OO).
"The Common Declarations" do not have the authority od the Council of Trullo, and to use you own benchmark, they most certainly have not been "ecumenicall received". I for one reject them as heresy.

I mean they can't simply be forced upon the OOC,
Who is forcing it on them? No one is forced to believe anything which the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches.

nor is that at all necessary.
Necessary for what? Unity? Common faith is not necessary for unity? "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" has now been dispensed with? The Eastern Orthodox can continue to believe the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, and the Oriental Orthodox don't have to, and we can all play happy families? It ain't gonna happen.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #106 on: August 26, 2005, 07:43:03 AM »

The problem is that it isn't enough for the Eastern Orthodox churches to declare it ecumenical.
So SNB says that not all Eastern Orthodox Churches accepted it as being Ecumenical, and now you say they all do, but that isn't sufficient........

The ecumen of that era-- even ignoring the OO churches, and I have to say that it is only reasonable to have them speak their own objections to such rulings, rather than have the EO churches speak them for the OO-- included all the West, and the West has never accepted Trullo.
And now there is a schism between East and West, therefore the only Churches which Eastern Orthodoxy accepts as authoritative all ascribe Ecumenical status to Trullo.

It remains true that it is an Eastern opinion. It's extremely ironic when you essentially call me an ecumenist when you are trying to pass off the Eastern churches as the whole-- as they most certainly were not at the time of the council.
Of course there was discord! The very reason an Ecumenical Council is called is because of discord. A bit like seperating the wheat from the chaff.

. This is not the first time someone, arguing for the East, has had to be informed that Trullo is not an acceptable authority for anyone else.
Keble, listen to me. I am Eastern Orthodox, and I accept the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the Council of Trullo has Ecumenical status. NOWHERE have I said that this is binding on ANYONE outside the Church. No Council is binding on anyone outside the Church.But what you are asking me to do in order for unity to be acheived is to reject the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
S_N_Bulgakov
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 89



« Reply #107 on: August 26, 2005, 07:56:52 AM »

OzGeorge,

Quote
So SNB says that not all Eastern Orthodox Churches accepted it as being Ecumenical, and now you say they all do, but that isn't sufficient........

The Orthodox Church consists of both[/b] the Oriental and the Eastern communions. In that perspective, the councils held by either can have local authority but not ecumenical.

Besides, the council of Trullo sought to affirm previous councils and to provide canons where ones were lacking. As you may be aware, canons are not unchangeable. In the given canon you quoted, the new situation we have today (the one where our hierarchs have acknowledge OO and EO share the one true Orthodox Faith) demands new canons. The old ones, are not formally (yet) cancelled and replaced by new ones, but the ongoing proces of the healing of the rupture in the Church (for which we pray daily) has seen Church-life cancel them. We are in a stage of transition. But to the Easterns it is (yet) forbidden to use the Trisagion as it is chanted in the OO communions. This because at the time the EO knew itself to combat the heresy of monophysitism. But now that we know the enemy of monophysitism is not present in the OO Church, the defence-wall looses its purpose. Church-life, under continued guidance of the Holy Spirit has cancelled it. As Fr. Afanasief said, canons are derivative and relative that must be grounded in dogmatic truth which is stable and unchangeable.

The stable, unchanging truth this canon is derivative of is the dogma concerning the double consubstantiality and the oneness of hypostasis of Jesus Christ - One of the Trinity incarnate. The recognition that this truth lives in bot OO and EO communions practically annuls this canon, and it awaits formal cancellation and replacement with a canon that covers the present situation and once again serves Church-life.

S_N_B
« Last Edit: August 26, 2005, 08:01:05 AM by S_N_Bulgakov » Logged

For scripture says, God is seated where He is known  (Pr 11 :16) ; and thus the pure nous is said to be a throne of God.

[Evagrios the Solitary, Peri Logismoi 41
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #108 on: August 26, 2005, 07:59:53 AM »

Well, gee.ÂÂ  That's really kind of you to pass judgments.
I fail to see how I was passing judgement. The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the Council of Trullo has Ecumenical status and Keble (a Protestant) and SNB disagreed and I point out that they do not have the authority to change the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church.....if that is "passing judgemnent" then it seems any statement of facts is not welcome in this thread.

I guess then all of us non-Chalcedonians are wasting our times here since we are not Orthodox or don't agree with the Orthodox church.ÂÂ  Thus, by your condescending tone, whatever we say is vanity to your minds.
I can speak only for myself. Others on this board beleive that unity between EO and OO is a matter of mere formality since (they hold) that EO and OO believe the same doctine and have the same faith. I disagree that it is that simple and that they hold the same doctrine and I presented the reasons why I believe this. I am not "anti-dialogue" with anyone, I am however opposed to avoiding realities simply because they are uncomfortable.


I wander then who in the end is really listening to others and who is really listening to himself.
Well, I would say, anyone who insists that the only way for me to be in communion with them is to reject the teachings of my Church.
Quote
Quote
« Last Edit: August 26, 2005, 08:00:28 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #109 on: August 26, 2005, 08:08:10 AM »

The Orthodox Church consists of both[/b] the Oriental and the Eastern communions.
According to whom?  I happen to disagree.

In that perspective, the councils held by either can have local authority but not ecumenical.
If you hold that perspective...... I do not...nor does my Church.

Besides, the council of Trullo sought to affirm previous councils and to provide canons where ones were lacking. As you may be aware, canons are not unchangeable. In the given canon you quoted, the new situation we have today (the one where our hierarchs have acknowledge OO and EO share the one true Orthodox Faith) demands new canons. The old ones, are not formally (yet) cancelled and replaced by new ones, but the ongoing proces of the healing of the rupture in the Church (for which we pray daily) has seen Church-life cancel them. We are in a stage of transition. But to the Easterns it is (yet) forbidden to use the Trisagion as it is chanted in the OO communions. This because at the time the EO knew itself to combat the heresy of monophysitism. But now that we know the enemy of monophysitism is not present in the OO Church, the defence-wall looses its purpose. Church-life, under continued guidance of the Holy Spirit has cancelled it. As Fr. Afanasief said, canons are derivative and relative that must be grounded in dogmatic truth which is stable and unchangeable.
Ii the 81st Canon of Trullo merely dealing with praxis and not dogma? Why does it mention heretics then?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
S_N_Bulgakov
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 89



« Reply #110 on: August 26, 2005, 08:17:34 AM »

Quote
I fail to see how I was passing judgement. The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the Council of Trullo has Ecumenical status and Keble (a Protestant) and SNB disagreed and I point out that they do not have the authority to change the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church.....if that is "passing judgemnent" then it seems any statement of facts is not welcome in this thread.

Correct. I do not have such authority, and I should have taken care not to sound as if I did. My sin and arrogance is apparent.

However, in this situation, which is entirely new it is necessary to reflect upon the achievements between both communions since our communications have started and have found that we share the same, Orthodox, faith. This brings up new questions, and opens up new possibilities. It is these I seek to explore. The other option is to pretend nothing happened since the 50-ies and our several communications and declarations, to live in the past, where the letter of our past becomes the letter that kills us.

S_N_B
Logged

For scripture says, God is seated where He is known  (Pr 11 :16) ; and thus the pure nous is said to be a throne of God.

[Evagrios the Solitary, Peri Logismoi 41
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #111 on: August 26, 2005, 08:33:46 AM »

However, in this situation, which is entirely new it is necessary to reflect upon the achievements between both communions since our communications have started and have found that we share the same, Orthodox, faith.

Again, I have to ask:
who has found that EO and OO share the same Orthodox faith? Which Synod of the EO Church (local or panorthodox) has declared that EO and OO share the same faith?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
S_N_Bulgakov
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 89



« Reply #112 on: August 26, 2005, 08:34:53 AM »

OzGeorge,

I have referred to the Common Declarations again and again. They have been produced by the hierarchy of both EO and OO communions. The mainline EO were (mostly) presented, and particular interrest has been shown by the Russian Orthodox Church. It is in the light of these things that I speak, tentatively, yes, without absolute authority, yes, perhaps mistakenly at times. But unless we dare to look further in the direction that the Declarations are taking us, we will not achieve the will of the Lord as He expressed it in His prayer (John 17). It is this that I try to do, whereas others seem to try just as hard to undo what has already been achived.

S_N_B

Logged

For scripture says, God is seated where He is known  (Pr 11 :16) ; and thus the pure nous is said to be a throne of God.

[Evagrios the Solitary, Peri Logismoi 41
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #113 on: August 26, 2005, 08:52:30 AM »

But unless we dare to look further in the direction that the Declarations are taking us, we will not achieve the will of the Lord as He expressed it in His prayer (John 17). It is this that I try to do, whereas others seem to try just as hard to undo what has already been achived.

And this is a very basic difference between Orthodox doctrine and heterodox doctrine. The Church has always been and will always be One according to Orthodoxy. The Church is a Unity relecting the Unity of the Indivisible Trinity (as per Christ's prayer in John 17). The idea that Christ's prayer is yet to be answered is not Orthodox ecclessiology. The Church is, and will always be, the Icon of the Holy Trinity. The moment the Church is "disunited", it ceases to be that Icon of the Trinity, and therefore ceases to be the Church. Individuals and groups can fall away from the Church, but the Church will remain the Church. To say that the Church exists in two or more seperated groups in schism is clearly heresy condemned by the Nicene-Constantinoplian Council. We can pray that people return to the Church, we can pray that the Local Churches remain united (as we EO do in every Great Litany), but it is contradictory to pray for the "reunion of the Church", since, by definition, the Church can never be "disunited".
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #114 on: August 26, 2005, 09:22:57 AM »

OzGeorge,

I have referred to the Common Declarations again and again. They have been produced by the hierarchy of both EO and OO communions. The mainline EO were (mostly) presented, and particular interrest has been shown by the Russian Orthodox Church. It is in the light of these things that I speak, tentatively, yes, without absolute authority, yes, perhaps mistakenly at times.

Which "Common Declarations" specifically are you referring to?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #115 on: August 26, 2005, 10:23:29 AM »

Which "Common Declarations" specifically are you referring to?

Probably these as shown on Peter Farrington's website:
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/statements.html

Agreed statements are not official actions, no matter how worthy their intent. The initial question of this topic was "Will the OO and EO Reunite?" Twice heretofore I opined "no", apparently to the dismay of my friend, Mor Ephrem. He perhaps is misunderstanding me.
 
Fact: The EP has stated (video still available on goarch website) that ALL 7 councils must be accepted.
Fact: Pope Shenouda has rejected acceptance of the Council of 451.

What more need be said? I don't doubt that there may be teams of clerics still sounding out each side and all churches, but this recurrent internet forum topic seems to exist only in cyberspace.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
S_N_Bulgakov
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 89



« Reply #116 on: August 26, 2005, 10:42:59 AM »

Indeed, I am referring to those Declarations. They have no absolute authority, correct. But they do indicate that the life of the Church, the Orthodox Church exists beyond the acts of schims we managed to create so long ago.

Quote
Fact: The EP has stated (video still available on goarch website) that ALL 7 councils must be accepted.

Id did not know that. It saddens me indeed. Is the video in English? And where can I find the link? Thx.

It is ridiculous to demand that the OO bow down to councils that excluded them in principle, and of which they never were any part, due to the lack of theological knowledge in times past. The ecumenicity of a council is shown by its ecumenical reception in the Church as has happened with those who are undisputedly ecumenical. An ecumenicity that is enforced by strong-arming is an act of unbelief in the Holy Spirit and an introduction of wordly power into the Church.

Quote
Fact: Pope Shenouda has rejected acceptance of the Council of 451.

That may be so, and this should not tell us the Pope is un-Orthodox, but that the Council of Chalcedon is not inclusive enough to cover the whole range of Orthodox Church-life. Besides that, Pope Shenouda is not[/b] the EP of the OOC, they have no such position. They are quite autonomous and have their own Patriarchs. What Pope Shenouda says, is limited to the COC, he has no authority over the other Patriarchates.

As long as the EO keeps pushing the local Councils of the Eastern Church as obligatory for the OO, no re-union will result. We must stand upon our local traditions, and without abolishing them, move beyond them. That is a pan-Orthodox Council should deal with the issues at hand to lift anathemas and to formulate a reunion that covers the whole range of Orthodoxy so that there no longer be two families in Orthodoxy, but one.

S_N_B
Logged

For scripture says, God is seated where He is known  (Pr 11 :16) ; and thus the pure nous is said to be a throne of God.

[Evagrios the Solitary, Peri Logismoi 41
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,678


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #117 on: August 26, 2005, 11:09:40 AM »

Dear ozgeorge,

The way you addressed that a Protestant and another have mentioned these things are as if their studies don't seem to mean anything, and thus easily discounted.ÂÂ  Rather than defending your case, as you did, you first had to address them as "Protestant and you" as if their present status states the weakness of their argument.

It is because of this tone that makes me think whether I should continue or not.ÂÂ  To show, for example, that St. Dioscorus was not a heretic and was deposed wrongly is easily dismissed because I'm not "of the Church."ÂÂ  What seems to me here is that just because I'm non-Chalcedonian, I'm not right, for the "real" Church taught that Dioscorus "ignorantly" refused to appear after three "just" summons.

It's ridiculous to continue if you and others continue to discount our defenses.ÂÂ  We can easily conclude that just because you're Chalcedonian, your facts are faulty and I have no ear to hear your arguments.  In the end, it is not the Ecumenists that listen to themselves only, but all other parties just love to listen to themselves.

God bless you.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2005, 11:11:07 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #118 on: August 26, 2005, 11:16:08 AM »

Sure, S_N_B. The interview is available in RealMedia format at:

http://www.goarch.org/en/multimedia/video/

As to your defintion of "local council", well, that is your opinion as well. A quick read of the last 'canon' from 451 (which I will allow is nettlesome) shows me that the door was open and one side rejected the other. Likewise, such a defintion as yours invites the Assyrian Chruch of the East to insist the the Third Council was local only...  Wink

I would hold that the Coptic Pope is as influencial in their communion as the EP in the EO. Neiher are Roman popes.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #119 on: August 26, 2005, 11:25:38 AM »

And now there is a schism between East and West, therefore the only Churches which Eastern Orthodoxy accepts as authoritative all ascribe Ecumenical status to Trullo.

So they say, and the problem extends-- because, having been beaten back from using one authority which isn't accepted, they are now retreating to an even less reputable authority: their own self-elevation.

Quote
Of course there was discord! The very reason an Ecumenical Council is called is because of discord. A bit like seperating the wheat from the chaff.

No. That is the reason a council is called. What makes it ecumenical is its recognition as having such authority by the ecumen as a whole. Many early councils fail the latter test and are now disregarded.

The claim you are making on the behalf of Orthodoxy is that they can ex post facto declare Trullo to be ecumenical by excluding the western churches then on the basis of having excluded the current western churches now. Or, to use your terminology of the moment: they don't have to listen to the western objections raised back then because they are not listening to the western churches now.

That's what it comes down to, this "not listening". The argument seems to run thus: "Trullo says...." "Trullo was never accepted as a universal authority-- you know that." "Well, we don't care about that, because those objections don't count."

Quote
Keble, listen to me. I am Eastern Orthodox, and I accept the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the Council of Trullo has Ecumenical status. NOWHERE have I said that this is binding on ANYONE outside the Church. No Council is binding on anyone outside the Church.But what you are asking me to do in order for unity to be acheived is to reject the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

OzGeorge, I cannot say it is fine with me that you, out of loyalty, repeat the intellectual errors of the Eastern hierarchy. But surely it must be obvious that the discussion, because of this intransigence, is being pushed into the corner of having no better justification for Eastern church teachings than their own teaching that they cannot be disputed. Nobody ever listens when I say this, but I do think it has to be said: the use of infallibility in argument is evidence of error, because true arguments do not need that sort of defense. If you can argue the Orthodox position without resorting to the infalliblity defense, then you can convince outsiders. The strength on Nicaea is founded in 1500 years of reassessment and reratification by generations of theologians. That is the ultimate, Catholic, in all times and places ecumenical agreement.

When the Orthodox churches teach that they alone teach the truth, then they DO teach that their positions are binding on everyone. The truth is intrinsically binding on any who claim to seek it. Legalistic talk of who is bound by which council is, at best, a concession that their claim to authority is hollow. At worst, it is a raging inconsistency which pollutes any discourse with the other churches, as we are seeing in this very thread.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2005, 11:26:22 AM by Keble » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,678


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #120 on: August 26, 2005, 12:08:17 PM »

The Oneness of the Orthodox Church

It is of the greatest mystery to find out what it means for the one Orthodox Church to exist.  For once, we echo St. Paul's words "One Lord, One faith, One Baptism."  But on the other side, we see a schism that is very apparent.

There are many opinions.  Either one of the families are outside the church, or both families constitute one church regardless of the schism.  To believe the first opinion, there had to be particular reason that at the source of schism, heresy was professed.

Was Nestorianism taught at Chalcedon?  In the context of Leo's other letters, the many Eastern bishops, and perhaps even the condemnation (hesitated) of Nestorius by Theodoret, as well as the clear definition with those four adverbs, despite the use of the word "in," as well as the fruits and legacy Chalcedon brought with theologians like St. Maximus the Confessor and St. John Damascene, it's practically reasonable to lift our anathemas from Chalcedon as Nestorian in belief, despite the nasty politics and some other ambiguities Chalcedon may have brought.

Were Dioscorus, Severus, Timothy, Theodosius, Philoxenus, Peter Mongus, etc. etc. etc. Monophysites?  Were they all confusers of the two ousia of Christ?  Was St. Dioscorus rightly deposed?  Were all these Oriental saints rightly anathematized as Eutychians?  The answer is a very easy "No."  We have letters from each of these theologians showing that their thought has not deviated from St. Cyril's thought, and at the same time, not hesitant to condemn Eutychians and Monophysites.  In light of Dioscorus' CLEAR defense at Chalcedon, Timothy's "Ecumenical" convening at Ephesus, and St. Severus' plethora of writing left for the world to read, and upon which the present OO Church uses as an authoritative theology along with St. Cyril and St. Athanasius, and in which in essence is the theology of St. John of Damascus, who did not read an iota of St. Severus' writings, shows not only that the OO is truly Orthodox and was never, not in a single day heretical or guiltly schismatic, but that the harmony of both St. Severus and St. John Damascene, who both would have loathed each other, spoke the same truth by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

In light of this evidence, it is impossible to say that "one left the church."  When I say there was a misunderstanding, I say this not as some cheap ecumenical politician, but after much reading on the situation at hand, I find no other way to conclude it as such.  Either one family knew the other professed Orthodoxy and ignorantly anathematized them, or both truly did not know how to interpret one another rightly, and thus were misunderstanding one another.  The opinion that one or the other had to be heretical must be disposed of, for there is no reasonable proof to say such a thing considering the plethora of proof that both churches have professed Orthodoxy elsewhere.  Thus, IN CONTEXT, both OO and EO are rightly "O" and never were not "O."

So can we truly divide the church?  It has happened before.  I name two examples:

One was the excommunication of St. John Chrysostom.  While there was no heresy professed, he was still deposed, excommunicated, and sent to exile, unjustly.  This confessor suffered as outside the church and yet innocent of the charges brought against him.  He DIED deposed.  Is he truly condemned since a council followed good procedure, and under the powers of the priesthood, rightly deposed by other "priests"?  If so, then how can we call him saint?  What is the belief behind unjust excommunications?  It seems here that that Church logically found that an unjust excommunication is not accepted by Christ.  Therefore, Church history seems to teach us that despite "correct procedure," St. John Chrysostom remained a Patriarch even unto his death, and the Church, although split between the world and St. John Chrysostom, was still one.

The second example was St. Cyril and John of Antioch.  For two years both of these men split on grounds that each of them have taught heresy.  St. Cyril was a Monophysite, i.e. a confuser of ousia, while John of Antioch was a Nestorian.  After two years, however, when a deacon named Paul appeared to Cyril, St. Cyril did not hesitate to echo the words of St. Paul, "One Lord, One faith, One baptism," showing that the two year schism was merely a misunderstanding and that therefore the anathema does not hold valid.  I ask simply, does it make a difference to our God, who is above time, that there be a 2-year or a 1500-year schism?  To believe that it does make a difference would be heretical, ascribing to God as a deity not above time.  But the fact remains that since John of Antioch was never outside the Church as result of the one faith professed according to the tone of the Formula of Reunion, therefore, a schism is "unnecessary and inopportune," and we are a time of peace to unite what is already united.

Therefore, SNB is right when he says that the Orthodox Church consists of the Oriental and Eastern Traditions.  It is wrong to say there are two churches split from one another.  The body of Christ is never split.  Only men split, but we still remain to have "One Lord, One faith" and thus, as is agreed by the heirarchs, "One Baptism."

This is how I interpret the division between us.  Many may disagree and many people will say I'm nothing but a cheap ecumenical politician, but the evidence shown in history cannot be interpreted in any other way.

I accept any criticism.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,678


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #121 on: August 26, 2005, 12:21:04 PM »

Quote
The claim you are making on the behalf of Orthodoxy is that they can ex post facto declare Trullo to be ecumenical by excluding the western churches then on the basis of having excluded the current western churches now. Or, to use your terminology of the moment: they don't have to listen to the western objections raised back then because they are not listening to the western churches now.

Interesting.  Is it true that Rome did not accept the Council in Trullo?  If so, then it can't be considered "ecumenical."  Perhaps, the Byzantines give it "ecumenical status" since only the Byzantines are bound by it, but in reality, it is not ecumenical if Rome does not accept it, which was one with the Church at the time.  Proof shows that the sixth council (after Trullo) was influenced by St. Maximus and St. Pope Martin as "confessors" of the true "diathelete" faith.  To exclude Rome from this "ecumenical" council is to exclude St. Martin from your synexarium, logically.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #122 on: August 26, 2005, 01:28:42 PM »

Quote
Interesting. Is it true that Rome did not accept the Council in Trullo? If so, then it can't be considered "ecumenical." Perhaps, the Byzantines give it "ecumenical status" since only the Byzantines are bound by it, but in reality, it is not ecumenical if Rome does not accept it, which was one with the Church at the time. Proof shows that the sixth council (after Trullo) was influenced by St. Maximus and St. Pope Martin as "confessors" of the true "diathelete" faith. To exclude Rome from this "ecumenical" council is to exclude St. Martin from your synexarium, logically.

God bless.

The answer to whether or not Rome accepted these canons is 'yes, but in a hidden manner'. I quote the summation paragraph of the introduction from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series, Volume XIV:

Pope Sergius refused to sign the decrees when they were sent to him, rejected them as “lacking authority” (invalidi) and described them as containing “novel errors.”  With the efforts to extort his signature we have no concern further than to state that they signally failed.  Later on, in the time of Pope Constantine, a middle course seems to have been adopted, a course subsequently in the ninth century thus expressed by Pope John VIII., “he accepted all those canons which did not contradict the true faith, good morals, and the decrees of Rome,” a truly notable statement!  Nearly a century later Pope Hadrian I. distinctly recognizes all the Trullan decrees in his letter to Tenasius of Constantinople and attributes them to the Sixth Synod.  “All the holy six synods I receive with all their canons, which rightly and divinely were promulgated by them, among which is contained that in which reference is made to a Lamb being pointed to by the Precursor as being found in certain of the venerable images.”  Here the reference is unmistakably to the Trullan Canon LXXXII (bolded text is mine)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.ii.html

The problem is that while the West, and Rome in particular, did eventually accept the Trullan Council as an extension of the Sixth Council, this is frequently ignored in today's world. Many websites will show that Rome accepted the 6th and 7th Council but not Trullo, all the while not stating that Rome considered Trullo to be the closing act of the 6th and therefore actually Ecumenical (although they did not assign the same weight to the canons as do the Orthodox).

It also needs to be pointed out that Canon II of Trullo also accepted as being of Ecumenical nature the following:

the 85 Apostolic Canons, plus the canons from Dionysius of Alexandria,Peter of Alexandria,Gregory Thaumaturgus, Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil of Cæsarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory the Theologian, Amphilochius of Iconium, Timothy of Alexandria, Theophilus of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, and Gennadius of Constantinople.

My research has not yet shown if the above Apostolic Canons were accepted in the West solely due to Canon II of Trullo, or if there are other canons that had adopted these Canons and as such were part of the West's Canonical heritage. If the only canon accepting these Canons are from Trullo, then the West is in the difficult position of having to defend (again) why they are arbitrarily accepting canons made canonical by a Council that they allegedly do not entirely accept, even though they have accepted Trullo almost 100 years after being concluded.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #123 on: August 26, 2005, 08:04:42 PM »

This is how I interpret the division between us.  Many may disagree and many people will say I'm nothing but a cheap ecumenical politician, but the evidence shown in history cannot be interpreted in any other way.

I accept any criticism.

Yes it can be interpreted in other ways.

Who deposed St. Chrysostom? Was it an Ecumenical Council? If not, what authority deposed him?
Is deposing a bishop the same as schism?

Your examples do not compare to a schism from the Church. An individual being excommunicated by a local Synod is not the same as an entire local church refusing to accept the teachings of an Ecumenical Council. This is proven by the fact that these internet discussions all insist on one thing as a basis for EO and OO unity: Namely that the Ecumenical Councils should be considered Ecumenical only for the EO and not the OO- obviously an impossibility and a fallacy.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2005, 08:05:41 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #124 on: August 26, 2005, 09:05:00 PM »

Quote
Namely that the Ecumenical Councils should be considered Ecumenical only for the EO and not the OO- obviously an impossibility and a fallacy.

Them's the breaks.  I honestly don't think it should be that difficult.  Look, the OOs split saying that the EOs believed something that, at the time they were being accused of a heresy, they categorically rejected.  They went on with other councils that solidified this understanding and proved exactly what they were saying.  Now the argument is whether so and so really meant that he rejected the heresy when he said it because so and so's words could be misconstrued to mean something the authors and the authors' successors later clarified.  The OOs, imho, have left other issues concerning the person of Christ far too ambiguous.  This is simply my opinion and other reasonable people disagree. 

The OOs could say, "gee, okay, Chalcedon really wasn't saying that.  We agree now.  Since Chalcedon was okay, let's move on."  Since there were so many personalities involved with bad feelings and bridges burned, I don't think the human psyche (or whatever power is involved) will allow that to happen.

The EOs will never say Chalcedon is optional because it will lead to a Christological controversy that was already solved.  That's only one of many reasons.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2005, 09:08:13 PM by cizinec » Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #125 on: August 26, 2005, 10:36:30 PM »

Quote
Namely that the Ecumenical Councils should be considered Ecumenical only for the EO and not the OO- obviously an impossibility and a fallacy.

Indeed, which is why the EOC should humbly submit to the fact that Councils 4-7 were not Ecumenical. I have been on this board for how long now, waiting for someone to objectively prove the Oecumenicity of Chalcedon (upon which the Oecumenicity of the subsequent councils depend)? And what is the latest desperate argument that I get? “Because a majority of the patriarchates agreed with it” or, (and I love this one) “because the imperial authorities affirmed it.”

Quote
The OOs, imho, have left other issues concerning the person of Christ far too ambiguous.  This is simply my opinion and other reasonable people disagree.


I would like to know what of OO Christology you have read. Be honest with me now; prior to this very instance at which you are reading this post, what Christological works of St Severus of Antioch, the greatest Christologian (even greater than St Cyril himself), for example, have you engaged with?

Quote
The OOs could say, "gee, okay, Chalcedon really wasn't saying that.  We agree now.  Since Chalcedon was okay, let's move on."


The most liberal position any honest OO could ever take on this matter, is to give Chalcedon the benefit of any miniscule doubt it leaves us with regarding its being heretical, and to acknowledge it as a local Orthodox council constituting the Christological tradition for the Eastern Church that has, (in spite of Chalcedon, and not because of it) ultimately resulted in an Orthodox Christology. However, this acknowledgement must be mutual. With respect to its ecumenicity there is no benefit of the doubt here, for its non-ecumenicity is self-evident in the very fact our Church’s are divided over an alleged “misunderstanding”; an assembly of schism it was, and an assembly of schism it shall always be remembered and considered.

Peace.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #126 on: August 26, 2005, 11:12:16 PM »

However, this acknowledgement must be mutual.

Which is exactly what I said on this thread 2 days ago:
I think we have to face facts that the only way the EO and OO could ever unite is if either the EO rejects the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils or the OO accepts them, and I don't see either one happening.
The EO says the Fourth to Seventh Councils were Ecumenical, the OO says they weren't, and never the twain shall meet. It is that simple.
So perhaps we could just move on from this now and find common ground in things other than the Church......
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,678


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #127 on: August 26, 2005, 11:57:16 PM »

Dear ozgeorge,

This is the problem with the definition of "ecumenicity."  The Synod of the Oak seemed to have followed correct procedure and was supported by the Emperor and Empress.  A good number of bishops were there.  It brought a schism to the church for a while, but by definition, this is considered, according to someone here, ecumenical.

The second example however shows a much more consistent example, for Ephesus, as all agree here, is ecumenical.  Perhaps, it may seem that by the virtue of this example that we should accept Chalcedon.  However, the difference is that John of Antioch anathematized Nestorius, who saw the reasonability of the anathema and the heresy professed.

Which leads me to the next point:

Dear Cizenec (and others),

There is this problem that makes all think why can't we just accept the last four councils and be one big happy family.  Well, if it was truly that easy, my dear friend, I wouldn't be an OO.  Your councils unjustly anathematized Sts. Dioscorus, Severus, Philoxenus, etc. etc. etc.  We not only say that modern OO's are not heretics, but the people you anathematized at your so-called "ecumenical" councils were not heretical either, nor was Dioscorus deposed justly, as I have previously proven.

Chalcedon is no different than the Synod of the Oak.  Politics have entered and defiled what seemed to be good procedure in deposing someone.  But in the end, you will realize that although both of these councils were not heretical, they weren't good procedurally.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,678


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #128 on: August 26, 2005, 11:59:58 PM »

To answer further the OP, despite the unrealistic cyber division we have here, here is a website that further shows my optimism:

http://www.christhewhois.com/

Enjoy.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #129 on: August 27, 2005, 12:03:23 AM »

This is the problem with the definition of "ecumenicity."ÂÂ  

Dear mina,
We've been here before. I agree that this is precisely the point, and it is clear that neither the EO nor the OO are going to budge on this issue. I repeat:
Which is exactly what I said on this thread 2 days ago:The EO says the Fourth to Seventh Councils were Ecumenical, the OO says they weren't, and never the twain shall meet. It is that simple.

« Last Edit: August 27, 2005, 12:04:05 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,678


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #130 on: August 27, 2005, 12:26:15 AM »

Dear ozgeorge,

I respect that you just want to end it at that.  But what bothers me is that regardless of the councils accepted, both have always thought alike, in one faith.  To ignore this is to continue causing the sin of confirming an unwanted schism.

This is why I am annoying, yes, I admit, I am annoying, all of you to death on the similarity of thought between one another.  Unless I'm wrong when I say that Dioscorus was not a Monophysite and was deposed unjustly, I'm not going to stop being annoying.

God bless you my friend.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
S_N_Bulgakov
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 89



« Reply #131 on: August 27, 2005, 01:22:59 AM »

OzGeorge wrote:

Quote
,...that the Ecumenical Councils should be considered Ecumenical only for the EO and not the OO- obviously an impossibility and a fallacy.

Given the factual union due to a common Orthodoxy and Apostolicity, I'de say it is not a fallacy, but equally a given. It merely awaits recognition and action.

However, it seems we will noy get beyond this point for a while, and the sin of separation in which we live will continue.

Lord have mercy!

S_N_B
Logged

For scripture says, God is seated where He is known  (Pr 11 :16) ; and thus the pure nous is said to be a throne of God.

[Evagrios the Solitary, Peri Logismoi 41
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #132 on: August 27, 2005, 04:37:21 AM »

both have always thought alike, in one faith.
Huh
The Eastern Orthodox Christian Faith has been defined in Seven Ecumenical Councils which it recognises. The Oriental Orthodox Christian Faith neither accepts nor recognises four of these Seven Ecumenical Councils..........how then can you say that we "always thought alike, in one faith"?

To ignore this is to continue causing the sin of confirming an unwanted schism.
So who is ignoring the fact that the Oriental Orthodox Church does not accept four Ecumenical Councils? And if it does accept their teachings, why does it refuse to recognise them?

The reality is that one of us is wrong because the EO and OO positions on the Ecumenical Councils are mutually exclusive. Sweeping this fact under the carpet is no basis for "unity". Given the fallen nature of us all, I think we will never find out for sure who is right and who is wrong until the Day of Judgement.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #133 on: August 27, 2005, 08:01:07 AM »

Quote
So who is ignoring the fact that the Oriental Orthodox Church does not accept four Ecumenical Councils?

We accept all the Ecumenical Councils ozgeorge; the fact is, there are only three of them. The Oriental Orthodox Church does not accept 4 local Eastern councils (1 possibly heretical, though certainly schismatic) as Ecumenical, and no one is ignoring this, on the contrary, we are defending this stance.

Quote
And if it does accept their teachings, why does it refuse to recognise them?

First of all, you have to understand that what Chalcedon actually taught is quite ambiguous when it is interpreted in its immediate historical context. To the far majority of EO’s who have never really studied Chalcedon from other perspectives or in any depth, Chalcedon is the council that defended the real and continuing reality of Christ’s human and divine natures against those who believed the divine was confused with the human into one divine or super-human essence. Had this fundamentally flawed and historically inaccurate depiction of Chalcedon been the actual case, there would have been no schism. However, Learned Orthodox Fathers such as St Dioscorus of Alexandria, St Timothy of Alexandria and St Severus of Antioch, rightfully interpreted Nestorianism at Chalcedon, and it was upon this basis and this basis alone, that Chalcedon was then rejected. The testimony of my Fathers stands reasonably supported by hardcore evidence, as has been proven repeatedly, whether you like to see it or not. Therefore, even granting your council the benefit of any miniscule doubt regarding its being heretical (purely for the sake of kind yet legitimate compromise), it stands a schismatic council by virtue of its Christological ambiguity, its political stains, and its false ex-communications and anathemas of Orthodox Saints; we do not submit to schismatic councils as Ecumenical, for they are by definition anti-Ecumenical.

Our Church has developed a Christological tradition that is both Orthodox and Apostolic without the interference of, or need for Chalcedon or the subsequent councils, and which is developed by - who is probably the most profound Christologian that Orthodox Christianity has ever produced — St Severus of Antioch. Why don’t you submit to our tradition ozgeorge? What makes yours any more valid than ours? Objective answers please.

Peace.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #134 on: August 27, 2005, 08:42:23 AM »

We accept all the Ecumenical Councils ozgeorge; the fact is, there are only three of them.
Oh please! Can you tell us something new? You say three, we say seven. The point is that the EO and OO don't agree on this issue and never will in this world.
And I repeat for the third time (because no one seems to be listening):
Which is exactly what I said on this thread 2 days ago:The EO says the Fourth to Seventh Councils were Ecumenical, the OO says they weren't, and never the twain shall meet.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2005, 08:43:23 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tags: trisagion Chalcedon Chalcedon polemics ecumenical councils cheval mort Church of the East Assyrian OO Canon of Scripture 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  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 0.183 seconds with 72 queries.