Catholic-Orthodox Timeline: Bonocore Responds

[frjohnmorris]

(Continued from previous)

I would also point you to Is the Pope Infallible?, Part III. A. – Pope Honorius

(all bold emphases added)

It was Pope Honorius who refined the teachings of Monothelitism in a letter to Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople. The 6th Ecumenical Council condemned Pope Honorius for teaching heresy.
The sentence against the Monothelistes sent to the emperor stated, “And with these we
define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” The council further declared, “Therefore we declare that in him there are two natural wills and two natural operations, proceeding commonly and without division: but we cast out of the Church and rightly subject to anathema all superfluous novelties as well as their inventors: to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius and Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter (who were archbishops of Constantinople), moreover Cyrus, who bore the priesthood of Alexandria, and with them Honorius, who was the ruler (πρόεδρον) of Rome, as he followed them in these things.”
I do not know how more specific the council could have been that Honorius was condemned for teaching heresy. Please note that I am not quoting from a pamphlet or book written by an Eastern Orthodox writer, but from the actual acts of the council as found in the vol. of the Nicene Fathers containing the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. In order to justify Vatican I, Roman Catholic writers resort to all sorts of linguistic devices. However, they cannot contest the text of the actual decrees of the council which clearly condemn Pope Honorius for teaching heresy.

Fr. John

 

[dcointin]

I appreciate the thoughts on my posts. I do remain fundamentally committed to my Orthodox faith, but I’m trying to be fair about what I see as the practical weaknesses of our ecclesiology. I think that everyone here understands the problems that have existed in the Catholic Church, so in charity I’m expressing the problems that I believe exist in the Orthodox one. I can’t say that the Catholic alternative is the answer, but am dialoguing with some very educated and faithful Catholics in person to understand the Catholic belief better. It was my willingness to listen to new understandings that led me to Orthodoxy, so it’s something I try in humility to continue. My personal beliefs also have nothing to do with being Western-Rite, I’m the only one in my parish that shares any of these feelings. My perfect solution would to have a head with jurisdiction but also limitations and collegiality, rather than the decentralized system of Eastern Orthodoxy, or the monarchial papal system of Catholicism.

I’d like to comment on a few of the specific points I raised.

• the ability to establish a uniform translation of service texts would be a practical benefit to everyone. I see no reason why we need five or more English translations which exist only because they were undertaken by each jurisdiction individually. A translation body representing all canonical Orthodox Churches could easily meet and fill this need.

• the multiplicity of jurisdictions, whether Catholics would consider it a problem or not, is for us. It is uncanonical, divisive, and an imieidment to potential converts. The reason it has not been solved to date is the unwillingness of each jurisdiction to give up control. There are many Orthodox working to resolve this, but mechanism to do so does not yet exist.

• the issue of communion is significant because we determine Orthodoxy through communion. There are churches that teach some very harmful things that call themselves Orthodox, and inquirers may not realize this when visiting. I personally had a conversation with a priest (I will not name the jurisdiction) who spent considerable time trying to convince me that bearded clergy were a part of Holy Tradition, and unbearded clergy heterodox schismatics.

• our teaching on contemporary issues of course still exists, but would be stronger if we could speak with one voice. When the media, for example, asks the Catholic Church for a reaction to a current event, it can simply ask the Pope. For the Orthodox, you are asking multiple churches that can only speak for themselves, and not Orthodoxy as a whole.

• it is certainly possible that there is room for theological opinion on many issues, as I said, but it is unclear to me on some of these if this is the case or not. Contraception is a serious moral question, and I know of a priest that unequivocally condemns it. In my own catechesis however the issue was never discussed. I would appreciate leadership that can address this if nothing else. This is likewise the case with Aerial Tollhouses.

 

[frjohnmorris]

The lack of central authority in Eastern Orthodoxy has a number of consequences. One, while the ecumenical council is considered its highest form of dogmatic and canonical expression, it has not held one since 787. In the past ecumenical councils were called and presided over by the Roman emperor, a tradition established with the first ecumenical council called by Constantine in 325. Since there is no longer an emperor there is no longer an authority recognized as having that ability, although it has been assumed that in his absence the Patriarch of Constantinople would fill that role in a future council. In contrast, the Catholic Church has held 14 additional ecumenical councils (without the participation of the Eastern Orthodox Churches), the most recent in 1962, called and presided over by the Pope. I have heard the argument that the Eastern Orthodox Church has not had a need for such a council since then as the Seventh Ecumenical Council represented the final defeat of heresy, the “triumph of Orthodoxy”. This strikes me as a later justification however since new forms of heresy are always being invented, despite some similarity to older forms. There are very significant modern heresies such as rationalism and post-modernism which the Eastern Orthodox churches have been unable to address with a unified voice.

I RESPOND: That is not exactly true. It is correct that out of respect we reserve the title “Ecumenical Council” to the 7 Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church. However, we have had many pan-Orthodox councils that fulfill the same function as an Ecumenical Council. For example the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem of 1672 gave an official Orthodox response to Protestantism. There are also councils of the leaders of the autocephalous Churches that make decisions like those of an Ecumenical Council. For example in 2001 the Holy Synod of Jerusalem deposed Patriarch Irenaios for corruption. He contested the deposition and the Ecumenical Patriarch called a meeting of the Primates of the autocephalous Churches or their representatives, which confirmed the decision of the Holy Synod of Jerusalem. A meeting of the representatives of the autocephalous Churches of Eastern Orthodoxy met outside of Geneva to discuss Orthodox unity in places like the United States. The council required the canonical Orthodox Bishops in each region to form an Asssembly of Bishops to work towards Orthodox unity. In North Amierica, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America was formed as a result. Other Bishops Assembies have been formed in Latin America and Europe.

CONTINUED

 

[frjohnmorris]

CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE

Two, it is unable to resolve differences in theological, moral, and canonical interpretation. Despite Orthodoxy’s impressive dogmatic and liturgical unity, there are areas that could benefit from clarification. For example, I have heard Orthodox priests teach that contraception is both permissible, not permissible, or a matter of economia. While this may be an area where there is no acknowledged apostolic tradition, and therefore legitimate diversity of opinion, it is unclear which of these views is correct. Other examples include purification after death, ariel toll houses, and the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

I RESPOND: Until the Church speaks officially on an issue there is room for what we call theologoumena or the opinion of theologians. Despite the Pope the Catholic Church has problems with liberals or ultra conservatives that differ from official Roman Catholic teacing. Is it not true that Rome has had to take action against a large group of nuns who are not teaching correct Catholic doctrine?

Three, there are significant canonical problems which affect all Eastern Orthodox churches but they seem unable to address. One significant example of this problem is the multiplicity of jurisdictions in the New World. Canon law requires that there be one bishop in one city, but in the New World there are many bishops in the same place. This leads to the confusing situation where each church has overlapping jurisdiction, and inquirers into Orthodoxy are faced with parishes representing many national churches, each with differences in culture, language, and variations in liturgy.

I RESPOND: The Catholic Church has the same thing. In the same city there are Latin Rite Churches under the Latin Rite Bishop, but also Ukrainian, Melkite, Byzantine, and other Eastern Catholic Churches all under different Bishops.

CONTINUED

 

[frjohnmorris]

CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE

Four, there is a lack of cooperation on almost every level. Each jurisdiction publishes its own translation of prayers and the liturgy, which make it impossible to pray without a service book when visiting the parishes of other jurisdictions. I have heard reports of bishops of one jurisdiction refusing to allow its member to contribute to charities of another jurisdiction. One jurisdiction (which I will not name) even refuses to recognize the clergy of two others who serve in their western-rite vicariates.

I RESPOND: It is strange that I as an Eastern Orthodox Priest do not know of these situations. I have frequently served with Priests of different jurisdictions. We do require that a Western Rite Priest serving with Byzantine Rite Priests wear Byzantine vestments. There is no con-celebration within the Western Rite of the Antiochian Archdiocese, because apparently that was not the tradition in the West before Vatican II. There may be different translations, but it is not difficult to follow the service, since they are all translations of the same texts. I can easily serve with a Priest using the service book of the Greek Archdiocese while I use the service book of the Antiochian Archdiocese. When I did prison ministery, I served out of the Antiochian service book, while the chanter used Orthodox Church in America service books. We had no problems because despite the translation, the services are all the same in all Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Five, it makes it difficult for outside observers to determine which churches are truly Orthodox, and which are schismatic or heretical. There are many churches which claim the title “Orthodox” but are not in communion with the mainstream Orthodox Churches, including: Old Believers, Greek and Balkan Old Calenderists, Russian “True Orthodox” Churches, various national churches, and others. To complicate the matter further, some are in communion with certain mainstream Orthodox Churches but not others, making communion an uncertain litmus test for inquirers and visitors.

I RESPOND: Rome does not have its own schismatic groups such as the Society of St. Pius X? It is very easy to tell who is really Orthodox. If their Bishop is not in Communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church by being in Communion with Constantinople and the other recognized Orthodox Churches they are not Orthodox. In the United States if a Bishop is a member of the Assembly of Bishops, he and his Priests are Orthodox. If he is not, he is not canonically Orthodox. At this site, you will find a directory of all canonical Eastern Orthodox Bishops and parishes. assemblyofbishops.org/directories/

Six, it prevents the Church from having a larger impact in the world community because it cannot speak with a unified voice. This limits its impact on social issues such as abortion which are tremendously important.

I RESPOND We do speak with a unified voice on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage because we all uphold the same Faith of the ancient undivided Church. There are very few matters that the ancient Church did not cover. On comtemporary issues, the Bishop’s Assembly provided a united Orthodox voice. For example, the Assembly issued an offical statement supporting the Catholic Bishops in their conflict with the Obama administration about the requirement that Church related institutions pay for birth control and abortion causing medications. The Assembly also issued a statement criticizing the decision of the US Supreme Court to declare the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

Seven, it harms ecumenical dialogue since there is not one Orthodox Church to dialogue with but many. While there are joint Orthodox commissions involved in these dialogues, they cannot speak in an official way for any particular Orthodox Church, and therefore any progress they make may be accepted or rejected by those churches.

I RESPOND: That is not true. We coordinate all ecumenical activities to form one Orthodox delegation. All official Ecumenical dialogues are coordinated through the Ecumenical Patriarch on an international level and through the Bishop’s Assembly here. When I was on the North American Orthodox Lutheran Ecumenical Dialogue, I was not just a representative of the Antiochian Archdiocese but represented the Society of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America, the predecessor of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in North and Central America, which now coordinates all official Orthodox ecumenical dialogues in the US. There is only one official dialogue at this time, the North American Orthodox Catholic Dialogue. In the World and National Councils of Churches, the Eastern Orthodox form a united delegation. We also caucus with the representatives of the Oriental Orthodox in ecumenical organizations.

In rejecting the authority of the Pope, and in the absence of an emperor, the Orthodox Churches have left themselves without any leadership capable of enabling them to act in a more unified manner, a situation that I unfortunately do not see improving in the near future. While I disagree with the more extreme claims for authority made by the Pope, I also must recognize that there is a practical benefit to his leadership. The question I have been asking myself is if this state of affairs was God’s intention for his Church, and if not, what the alternatives are.

I RESPOND: The Eastern Orthodox Church is able to present a united voice to those outside of our Church, because we all share the same beliefs, and because through the Ecumenical Patriarch and Bishop’s Assemblies, we organize one united Orthodox delegation to all ecumenical encounters and issue united statements on contemporary matters.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

I believe you have hit the nail on the head as it is a major problem that sure needs solving. I hope that the Orthodox position will at some point understand just what you stated if unity is to be had.

Read my answers to the posting to which you are responding. I have answered all his points. We do have unity within the Orthodox Church on what really matters, because what matters is doctrine, not administrative unity. We do not need an all powerful Pope or centralized bureaucracy to enforce Orthodox doctrinal unity. We are working towards administrative unity. That will take some time, because our system is more democratic on such things than the Roman Catholic Church is. I believe that democratic forms are better than operating the Church according to the principles of a medieval absolute monarchy.

Fr. John

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

But I have shown you there are discrepancies. While you’ve been able to convince yourself the timeline of the passover meal isn’t such an issue, there is the issue of the Angels which I brought up. Beyond that there are hundreds more. God is not the literal author of the bible. He is the author insofar as he is the creator and the Bible is the story of his creation.
Your point is well taken, but even the Synoptics don’t have a great record of the dates - Luke places Harod’s census as taking place during the rule of a governor who came after he had died. It seems the answer is to accept them as two different but valid traditions, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater and only taking one.

You have not shown anything of the sort. These are not contradictions. No Resurrection account says, “there was only ever one angel, not two, at the tomb.” A contradiction exists only when a proposition excludes another. The Evangelists report events differently because they are separate witnesses but that does not mean that are reporting anything false simply because one reports things that another does not report. You could show me a hundred so-called contradictions and they would not amount to a single factual contradiction anymore than a hundred donkeys would make a horse.

Your interpretation of divine authorship is not compatible with orthodoxy, but I think this is because you are proposing it in opposition to a strawman doctrine that God used the sacred authors as mere instruments like we would use a pencil. The actual doctrine of inspiration and divine authorship not a denial of a true human authorship, but it is an affirmation that God moved the authors to write exactly what they wrote and nothing more. If you disagree with this notion of inspiration, can you please support it with patristic or magisterial documents? I already posted quotations from St. John Chrysostom and St. Gregory Nazianzen. Do you disagree with what they said?

As I already said, I doubt the issue of the date was as important to them as to you. Your argument could equally be used to say that John would not have forgotten therefore to say that Gospel is wrong is to deny St. John’s authorship. Additionally the reason the Synoptics agree is the very reason they are called the Synoptics - they used each other as a source.

I want to remind you that I’m not arguing for a certain date for the Last Supper, or what kind of bread should be used. As Fr. John said those who are arguing that are just looking for division.

I have not denied John’s authorship, nor have I ever said that he erred. I affirmed that all the Gospels are without error, and that they agree that the date of the Last Supper was the eve of the Passover, (Nisan 15 by Jewish reckoning).

The bread used in the Eucharist is not the controversy here. The issue is whether it is possible to assert that the Evangelists contradict themselves in basic facts and whether it is possible to deny a historical date given by all of them. Evidently, the date was important to many Christians, otherwise there would not have been controversy in the early Church on these matters. The Ephesians and other Asian Christians in the earliest centuries always celebrated Easter on the Fourteenth of the month (on which night Christ celebrated the Last Supper) on the authority of St. John.

 

[spina1953]

I appreciate the thoughts on my posts. I do remain fundamentally committed to my Orthodox faith, but I’m trying to be fair about what I see as the practical weaknesses of our ecclesiology. I think that everyone here understands the problems that have existed in the Catholic Church, so in charity I’m expressing the problems that I believe exist in the Orthodox one. I can’t say that the Catholic alternative is the answer, but am dialoguing with some very educated and faithful Catholics in person to understand the Catholic belief better. It was my willingness to listen to new understandings that led me to Orthodoxy, so it’s something I try in humility to continue. My personal beliefs also have nothing to do with being Western-Rite, I’m the only one in my parish that shares any of these feelings. My perfect solution would to have a head with jurisdiction but also limitations and collegiality, rather than the decentralized system of Eastern Orthodoxy, or the monarchial papal system of Catholicism.

I’d like to comment on a few of the specific points I raised.

• the ability to establish a uniform translation of service texts would be a practical benefit to everyone. I see no reason why we need five or more English translations which exist only because they were undertaken by each jurisdiction individually. A translation body representing all canonical Orthodox Churches could easily meet and fill this need.

• the multiplicity of jurisdictions, whether Catholics would consider it a problem or not, is for us. It is uncanonical, divisive, and an imieidment to potential converts. The reason it has not been solved to date is the unwillingness of each jurisdiction to give up control. There are many Orthodox working to resolve this, but mechanism to do so does not yet exist.

• the issue of communion is significant because we determine Orthodoxy through communion. There are churches that teach some very harmful things that call themselves Orthodox, and inquirers may not realize this when visiting. I personally had a conversation with a priest (I will not name the jurisdiction) who spent considerable time trying to convince me that bearded clergy were a part of Holy Tradition, and unbearded clergy heterodox schismatics.

• our teaching on contemporary issues of course still exists, but would be stronger if we could speak with one voice. When the media, for example, asks the Catholic Church for a reaction to a current event, it can simply ask the Pope. For the Orthodox, you are asking multiple churches that can only speak for themselves, and not Orthodoxy as a whole.

• it is certainly possible that there is room for theological opinion on many issues, as I said, but it is unclear to me on some of these if this is the case or not. Contraception is a serious moral question, and I know of a priest that unequivocally condemns it. In my own catechesis however the issue was never discussed. I would appreciate leadership that can address this if nothing else. This is likewise the case with Aerial Tollhouses.

This is the first time in a forum that anyone such as you have tried to bring some understanding and honesty concerning some of the problems in the Orthodox Churches. Just we catholic’s sometimes have those problems that plague us honesty is what helps us to understand our differences. thank you for your post.

 

[dcointin]

Fr. John,

Thank you again for your responses! I’ll just address one point since I responded to others raised by another poster previously. I am aware that there is an official commission for ecumenical dialogue. My point is that the churches are not bound to any agreement that they reach. Suppose for example that the commission comes to an agreement concerning the papacy that recognizes some Catholic claims. Because the dialogue was not conducted individually by each church, I strongly suspect that many members of that church would reject the agreement. I think a single church in dialogue would prevent this problem, but I admit that this is just speculation.

 

[spina1953]

Read my answers to the posting to which you are responding. I have answered all his points. We do have unity within the Orthodox Church on what really matters, because what matters is doctrine, not administrative unity. We do not need an all powerful Pope or centralized bureaucracy to enforce Orthodox doctrinal unity. We are working towards administrative unity. That will take some time, because our system is more democratic on such things than the Roman Catholic Church is. I believe that democratic forms are better than operating the Church according to the principles of a medieval absolute monarchy.

Fr. John

Dear Fr. Morris: I do follow all of your posts and have great respect for your opinions concerning the issues being discussed. It is true that I do not always agree with you, but in reading your posts I have learned much and some have been reinforced of what I had learned in my own study of history; which I have spend most of my life enjoying reading and learning. However that being said, I also know and understand that not all historains are faithful to their calling as historains and twist to suit their own thinking. I am not saying that of you, but you know that this is true of those who do as you had told me in one of your posts that all historians are bias which I would say all mean who has ever lived and will live are and wiill be bais in some form or manor. I also have no problem agreeing with you when I think you have are correct.

 

[dcointin]

This is the first time in a forum that anyone such as you have tried to bring some understanding and honesty concerning some of the problems in the Orthodox Churches. Just we catholic’s sometimes have those problems that plague us honesty is what helps us to understand our differences. thank you for your post.

Thank you for the kind words! If our Churches are going to achieve unity again, it must begin with honest dialogue. I really appreciate Fr. John’s presence here and the time he takes to explain our understanding for this reason.

I’m focusing on Orthodox problems (granted perhaps only problems for me!) because it is our responsibility to judge ourselves, not our brothers. In that light, have you heard of the massacre of the Latins in Constantinople? My Catholic friends that I’ve been meeting with never had. Check this out:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

We often hear of the crimes that Catholics committed such as the 4th crusade, inquisition, etc., but we Orthodox have events to repent of as well!

 

[Reuben_J]

In those areas where the Church has not officially spoken like toll houses and non-abortive methods of birth control, there is room for disagreement. Toll houses is a very controversial teaching, that at best is only a theological opinion. Some Orthodox, especially, those under heavy monastic influence agree with the Roman Catholic teaching on birth control. However, others, including an official declaration of the Russian Orthodox Church, leave the matter up to the couple as advised by their spiritual father and would allow the usage of non-abortive methods of birth control by a married couple for legitimate reasons, such as the** spacing of the birth of children**, not having more children than they could care for, or if further pregnancy would endanger the health of the woman.

Fr. John

What would be that non-abortive methods of birth control? Most well-intentioned married couples using birth control are for reasons of wanting to space their children and for not wanting to have more children than they can care for.

The reason artificial birth control is prohibited because it is abortive (when abortifacient is prescribed) and it physically interferes/interrupts life forming process which is God’s prerogative.

 

[Reuben_J]

I’m focusing on Orthodox problems (granted perhaps only problems for me!) because it is our responsibility to judge ourselves, not our brothers. In that light, have you heard of the massacre of the Latins in Constantinople? My Catholic friends that I’ve been meeting with never had. Check this out:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

We often hear of the crimes that Catholics committed such as the 4th crusade, inquisition, etc., but we Orthodox have events to repent of as well!

Thanks for the information, not that now I could say that the Orthodox have a few atrocities in their sleeves too, but being one who has very little knowledge of the Orthodoxy and her history, it is news for me. My personal opinion until now, and it has not changed, that the bigger factor for schism was by much bad blood and hurt being imposed on each other in history which was compounded by political necessity of those in power. Thus for any reconciliation to be possible it is also necessary to heal those wounds so that forgiveness will be more forthcoming to pave the way for hearts to be opened not only to accept the truth but to let go of trivialities.

God bless.

 

[dcointin]

What would be that non-abortive methods of birth control? Most well-intentioned married couples using birth control are for reasons of wanting to space their children and for not wanting to have more children than they can care for.

The reason artificial birth control is prohibited because it is abortive (when abortifacient is prescribed) and it physically interferes/interrupts life forming process which is God’s prerogative.

I was personally not taught that any method of birth control, including the pill, were immoral.

 

[jimmy]

He continues to lose more credibility because he shows that he has never actually read the writings of Severus of Antioch and other early oriental saints. If he did he would realize that they rejected eutyches’s teachings. Instead he calls the miaphysite position historical revisionism. Any basic reading of Cyril and Severus would show otherwise.

 

[spina1953]

Thank you for the kind words! If our Churches are going to achieve unity again, it must begin with honest dialogue. I really appreciate Fr. John’s presence here and the time he takes to explain our understanding for this reason.

I’m focusing on Orthodox problems (granted perhaps only problems for me!) because it is our responsibility to judge ourselves, not our brothers. In that light, have you heard of the massacre of the Latins in Constantinople? My Catholic friends that I’ve been meeting with never had. Check this out:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

We often hear of the crimes that Catholics committed such as the 4th crusade, inquisition, etc., but we Orthodox have events to repent of as well!

I just got done reading the site and if true it seems to me to be a lot of political and well as greed which of course leads to discention. also there seems to be a clash of cultures between Latins and Orthodox. When each side does not recognize and understand the culture as being worthy of respect, trouble is bound to start. its sad as it seems to me that most of what seems to keep us apart is more these type of things then religious issues as they are in the way it is expalined and taught. I am all for unity between Orthodox and Catholic and I personally do not see that the Orthodox have to give up everything and all their independence as there are many Churches in union with Rome that for the most part do their own thing, meaning that they have their own way of worshiping that is since the time of the Apostles. Thanks for the site learned much that I did not know. btw, I do know that there are some religous issues that need to be resolved.

 

[jimmy]

He continues to lose more credibility because he shows that he has never actually read the writings of Severus of Antioch and other early oriental saints. If he did he would realize that they rejected eutyches’s teachings. Instead he calls the miaphysite position historical revisionism. Any basic reading of Cyril and Severus would show otherwise.

The actual phrase used by the Orientals is ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word (Mia physis tou logou theou sesarkomene).’ They don’t say one ‘divine nature of Christ’. This phrase might be acceptable to them, because it is the divine nature which is incarnate and made flesh according to them. But it is ambiguous and doesn’t speak of the actual incarnation as the orientals specifically make a point of.they never speak of the divine nature of Christ apart from the incarnation; it is incarnate. They also speak of one nature ‘out of two (ek duo)’, instead of ‘in two’ as the Greeks and Latins do. After the hypostatic union you can no longer speak of two, except in contemplation or in theory. Two no longer exist, it is now one. (I am tempted to say there never really were two natures except in contemplation. The human nature never existed apart from the divine. The incarnation doesn’t happen subsequently to conception. But I am not sure whether I am conflating something I read from Maximus the confessor with that of Severus of Antioch.) Similarly a man has only one nature, not two (body and soul), although you could say he is one nature ‘out of two’. A soul isn’t a man, nor is the body. But they both belong to a man.

Interestingly I have made the argument in the past that the west is eutychian because of their insistence upon the Immaculate Conception. They compound it by saying that Jesus (amd also Mary) died only because he submitted to death. death wasnt part of his nature. Since Mary was created with an unfallen nature (which seems to indicate that her nature wasn’t recieved directly from the line of Adam, but was rather created separately by an outside divine act.), it also follows that Jesus recieved the idealized, unfallen nature of Mary, rather than the fallen nature of Adam. This is basically one of the aspects of Eutyches’s theology. He insisted that the human nature of Christ wasn’t that of fallen Adam, but was rather an idealized human nature free from the fall.

 

[jimmy]

It would take pages and several hours to correct all the errors in this timeline. It shows a definite Roman Catholic bias, that does not correspond to the historical facts. As the Pastor of an active parish, I do not have the time. All that I can say is that it contains many historical mistakes. I remind you that I am professional historian with a PhD in history and former university history instructor. I have taught Church History on the university level and have written books on Church History including a 600+ page survey of Christian history. I even once taught Church History for the adult education program of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Shreveport. So I am not responding as an Orthodox Priest, but as a professional historian.

Fr. John

I will point out one error I noticed. It implies that Gregory Nazianzen resigned the sea of Constantinople because the emporer tried to declare him pontifex Maximus. This fable does sound like it supports the claims, but the reality is that Gregory resigned the sea of Constantinople because his claim to it was under question (and he probably wasn’t too disappointed to be giving it up, since he didn’t want in in the first place). At the council of Constantinople many bishops questioned the legitimacy of Gregory as bishop of Constantinople based on the canons of Nicaea. Bishops weren’t to be transferred from one place to another. The fact is that Gregory was bishop of Nazianzen before Constantinople. Being bishop of Nazianzen disqualified him from being bishop of Constantinople according to his opponents.

 

[dzheremi]

• the ability to establish a uniform translation of service texts would be a practical benefit to everyone. I see no reason why we need five or more English translations which exist only because they were undertaken by each jurisdiction individually. A translation body representing all canonical Orthodox Churches could easily meet and fill this need.

Hmmm. Perhaps this is one of those things that I do not understand because I am Oriental, not Eastern, Orthodox. I look at similar situations as exist in my communion and say “What’s the harm that there may be different wordings according to jurisdiction if the faith is not compromised in the process?”

• the multiplicity of jurisdictions, whether Catholics would consider it a problem or not, is for us. It is uncanonical, divisive, and an imieidment to potential converts. The reason it has not been solved to date is the unwillingness of each jurisdiction to give up control. There are many Orthodox working to resolve this, but mechanism to do so does not yet exist.

Regarding the statement I have highlighted: How is it an impediment to potential converts? I have heard this many times (and not just from EO), but the people who claim this are generally not specific. Maybe this is another place where OO differ from EO, but I’m not terribly convinced that this situation, undesirable as it is compared to historical norms, is in itself an impediment to inquirers, provided they are educated in what created the current situation in the first place (i.e., why there are even “Greek”, “Russian”, or whatever churches, what effect that has had on subsequent developments of various diasporas, and how and why this does not compromise Orthodoxy).

• the issue of communion is significant because we determine Orthodoxy through communion. There are churches that teach some very harmful things that call themselves Orthodox, and inquirers may not realize this when visiting. I personally had a conversation with a priest (I will not name the jurisdiction) who spent considerable time trying to convince me that bearded clergy were a part of Holy Tradition, and unbearded clergy heterodox schismatics.

I don’t understand what your example of the priest with a prejudice against beards has to do with the rest of this point. Unless the priest insists he won’t commune with those churches who might have beardless priests, what does his opinion have to do with determining Orthodoxy according to who you’re in communion with?

 

[prodromos]

I was personally not taught that any method of birth control, including the pill, were immoral.

Did you ask?