Eastern Orthodox Council of Jerusalem 1672

[Catholic_Dude]

I was discussing Orthodoxy on another thread but it went off track and was closed. Anyway an Orthodox poster pointed out to me some Orthodox Bishops met for a Council of Jerusalem in 1672 and the topic was essentially Protestantism.
catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

What shocked me about this council is that it was clear these Bishops had a copy of the decrees of Trent sitting on the table next to them because the meat of this council is clearly taken directly from the decrees of Trent.

What was interesting is that it does mention Original Sin in the way the Catholic Church teaches, here is a short quote,[Baptism] is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. … And forasmuch as infants are men, and as such need salvation; needing salvation, they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved; so that even infants ought, of necessity, to be baptised.While this is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching, I have seen Orthodox teach that this concept of original sin is a “Roman Catholic thing” and not what the Orthodox believe. From a well respected Orthodox book called Orthodox Dogmatic Theology it says this about Original Sin:Roman Catholic theologians consider that the consequence of the fall was the removal from men of a supernatural gift of God’s grace, after which man remained in his “natural” condition, his nature not harmed but only brought into disorder because flesh, the bodily side, has come to dominate over the spiritual side. Original sin, in this view, consists of the fact that the guilt before God of Adam and Eve has passed to all men.

… …

Thus, original sin is understood by Orthodox theology as a sinful inclination which has entered into mankind and become its spiritual disease.
In Orthodox Dogmatic Theology it clearly contrasts the loss of sanctifying grace (Catholic) with the “sinful inclination” (Orthodox) and given information like this I see an inconsistency here between Orthodox teaching. In the first it clearly says infants lack something (grace in their soul) that prevents them from entering Heaven, in the second instance I see it as a “sinful inclination” while the “lacking something” falling into the Catholic definition.

Back to the Council of Jerusalem 1672:

It mentions “seven” Sacraments, though Im not sure if this was ever disputed.

It mentioned “transubstantiation” by name, including “accidents” and “substance” as well as Eucharistic Adoration.

It mentions what is clearly purgatory, though it doesnt use the term.

It mentions ONLY the Deutero-Canonical books which the Catholic Church accepts.

Overall there was not much, if anything, objectionable to Catholic theology, in fact it was clearly drafted with a copy of the decrees of Trent on the table next to them.

Now the question is, do Eastern Orthodox really accept this Council as authoritative and binding? I ask this because each of the issues listed above I have seen disputed/rejected by Orthodox around here calling it Latin teachings and concepts that are foreign to Orthodoxy.

 

[EphelDuath]

That’s interesting, there is no mention of the EO-deuterocanon whatsoever.

 

[Alexius]

Yes, this council is authoritative. Their decrees, however, are subject to a bit of interpretation. For instance, you mention the fact that the council was drafted against Protestants. That is true, however, it was also a response to Rome. There is denial of the Filioque for instance. You mention Original Sin. This is never denied by Orthodox, but again, must be seen from their perspective. Remember that this is written to the West, so they tried to explain the faith in a way that the West would understand. There is no hereditary guilt. There is a lack of santifying grace within the soul at birth (spiritual death), but God’s grace still operates on everyone from the outside. The point on Baptism is that it is necessary for salvation. An infant; however, is pure and without stain of [personal] sin, so he/she may be granted entry into the Kingdom of God. I have also heard that the Jesuits influenced this council, so that would explain certain teachings like transubstantiation w/ the Thomastic accidents and Eucharistic Adoration (which Orthodox do not do anyway). I’m not sure I see anything objectionable in the part you state about infant baptism and remission of sins. Gotta go, but I’ll add more later…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I was discussing Orthodoxy on another thread but it went off track and was closed. Anyway an Orthodox poster pointed out to me some Orthodox Bishops met for a Council of Jerusalem in 1672 and the topic was essentially Protestantism.
catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

It was a specific refutation of the Calvinist teacings of EP Cyril Lucaris
crivoice.org/creedcyril.html

What shocked me about this council is that it was clear these Bishops had a copy of the decrees of Trent sitting on the table next to them because the meat of this council is clearly taken directly from the decrees of Trent.

The Council was called to deal with the Latin-Reformation problems that the Westerns were bringing East. As such, it was appraised of the arguments that the West was having with itself, and, although external to Herself, the Orthodox had to address them lest the Faithful be drawn into them. As such, it should not suprise you that they were aware of Trent, the Augsburg confession (a refutation of that exists too), the Calvinitst,etc.

On the choice of between the Latins and the Calvinist (to us, an artificial choice) the Orthodox had to side with the Calvinists. This, however was a sympton of the Western Captivity of the Church. It was not until the 19th century that the Orthodox Church would begin to express herself again with her own phronema (outlook).

Btw, just like Trent, Jerusalem had its catechism: that of Metropolitan Peter Movila of Kiev (then under Polish-Lithuanian occupation). It went a little too overboard in the Latin ethos, and a correction of it was accepted at the Counil of Jassy/Iasi, and Jerusalem adopted that decision.
esoptron.umd.edu/ugc/ocfi.html

For discussion of the Western Captivity, and its hand in producing the Catechism:
holytrinitymission.org/books/english/ways_russian_theology_florovsky.htm#_Toc103210520

Back to the Council of Jerusalem 1672:

It mentions “seven” Sacraments, though Im not sure if this was ever disputed.

The Protestants did. It was not that the Orthodox defined Seven (we didn’t) but that the other ones that the Latins saw as sacraments/Holy Mysteries (other than Baptism and Eucharist), we also saw, against the Protestants, as sacraments.

It mentioned “transubstantiation” by name, including “accidents” and “substance” as well as Eucharistic Adoration.

Not a problem for us, but the Protestants brought their issues on this East. Again, we were/are against the mere symbol take.

It mentions what is clearly purgatory, though it doesnt use the term.

Not exactly, the issue was Protestant denial of prayers for the departed.

It mentions ONLY the Deutero-Canonical books which the Catholic Church accepts.

As these were the ones the Protestants were rejectin.

Overall there was not much, if anything, objectionable to Catholic theology, in fact it was clearly drafted with a copy of the decrees of Trent on the table next to them.

Naturally, as it was addressing Latin problems.

Now the question is, do Eastern Orthodox really accept this Council as authoritative and binding? I ask this because each of the issues listed above I have seen disputed/rejected by Orthodox around here calling it Latin teachings and concepts that are foreign to Orthodoxy.

It is authoritative, inasmuch as the US cares about the internal politics of Pakistan. It was an external argument that was having reprecusions in the Church, that the Church had to respond. As such, it was not seen as Ecumenical, as it was speaking of those already outside the Church, as a warning to those inside.

Although Orthodox, it is foreign, as these are issues that never came up with us, something the uniates bring up here.

 

[Alexius]

I think Isa covered most of your questions (thanks!), but I’ll add a little more…

You mention the book “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology.” You say that he clearly contrasts the Orthodox and Catholic views on Original or Ancestral Sin. In reality, both believe in the loss of God’s Grace in the soul. What is contrasted are very deep and specific points like Created Grace vs. Uncreated Grace and how man cooperates with that Grace. The important thing to realize is that the Orthodox and Catholic positions are similar, but not the same. I believe that is Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky’s point. I have read over the section you refer to and see nothing to suggest what you say is true other than emphasis (sinful tendency vs. loss of Grace). If you would like a very accurate and concise read of Orthodox Theology (a lot easier to understand than “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology,” albeit not as complete), I suggest reading the Longer Catechism of Philaret here: pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

Finally, I would add that the view expressed that an infant needs baptism to avoid hell is not Orthodox, in my opinion. Don’t get me wrong, Baptism is necessary for salvation, but an infant has not yet committed sin. Therefore, I don’t see a lack of sanctifying grace in the infant’s soul as a sign of condemnation (there is no guilt until [personal] sin), but rather separation (though we are never truly “separated” from God as the common usage of the word is concerned, as He is everywhere). They are similar terms, but theologically very different.

Look under articles 160-167…You will see that for Orthodox, death is the consequence.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I think Isa covered most of your questions (thanks!), but I’ll add a little more…

You mention the book “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology.” You say that he clearly contrasts the Orthodox and Catholic views on Original or Ancestral Sin. In reality, both believe in the loss of God’s Grace in the soul. What is contrasted are very deep and specific points like Created Grace vs. Uncreated Grace and how man cooperates with that Grace. The important thing to realize is that the Orthodox and Catholic positions are similar, but not the same. I believe that is Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky’s point. I have read over the section you refer to and see nothing to suggest what you say is true other than emphasis (sinful tendency vs. loss of Grace). If you would like a very accurate and concise read of Orthodox Theology (a lot easier to understand than “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology,” albeit not as complete), I suggest reading the Longer Catechism of Philaret here: pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

Finally, I would add that the view expressed that an infant needs baptism to avoid hell is not Orthodox, in my opinion. Don’t get me wrong, Baptism is necessary for salvation, but an infant has not yet committed sin. Therefore, I don’t see a lack of sanctifying grace in the infant’s soul as a sign of condemnation (there is no guilt until [personal] sin), but rather separation (though we are never truly “separated” from God as the common usage of the word is concerned, as He is everywhere). They are similar terms, but theologically very different.

Look under articles 160-167…You will see that for Orthodox, death is the consequence.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Thanks, I’ve been looking for a link to St. Philaret’s longer catechism.

 

[Alexius]

Thanks, I’ve been looking for a link to St. Philaret’s longer catechism.

No problem. Have a Blessed Nativity! Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Ridgerunner]

Isa:

Regarding the article on the so-called “Western captivity”, I think the following quote from it pretty well qualifies it as a nice internal propaganda piece for the already persuaded, but hardly as an objective historical account that anyone should credit.

“We have founded by the grace of God this school for Orthodox children, and have provided it at great sacrifice with teachers of the Slavono-Russian and Helleno-Greek languages, as well as of other subjects, in order that they not drink from the alien spring, and, having imbibed the fatal poison of the schism of the West, be inclined to join forces with the dark and dismal Romans.”

Goodness! “The dark and dismal Romans”! The anti-Catholic Orthodox sourcebook some of you guys are using, ought to be updated. Modern readers expect histories to at least pretend to be objective, and tend to dismiss texts that resort to hysterical eructations. “Western captivity” indeed! “Tempest in an Orthodox teapot” perhaps.

 

[Hesychios]

The anti-Catholic Orthodox sourcebook some of you guys are using, ought to be updated. Modern readers expect histories to at least pretend to be objective, and tend to dismiss texts that resort to hysterical eructations. “Western captivity” indeed! “Tempest in an Orthodox teapot” perhaps.

There is no “anti-Catholic sourcebook” for Orthodox.

And the Western Captivity is indeed what that era is called.

 

[Alexius]

Isa:

Regarding the article on the so-called “Western captivity”, I think the following quote from it pretty well qualifies it as a nice internal propaganda piece for the already persuaded, but hardly as an objective historical account that anyone should credit.

“We have founded by the grace of God this school for Orthodox children, and have provided it at great sacrifice with teachers of the Slavono-Russian and Helleno-Greek languages, as well as of other subjects, in order that they not drink from the alien spring, and, having imbibed the fatal poison of the schism of the West, be inclined to join forces with the dark and dismal Romans.”

Goodness! “The dark and dismal Romans”! The anti-Catholic Orthodox sourcebook some of you guys are using, ought to be updated. Modern readers expect histories to at least pretend to be objective, and tend to dismiss texts that resort to hysterical eructations. “Western captivity” indeed! “Tempest in an Orthodox teapot” perhaps.

It is somewhat unfortunate, but I believe you will find similar statements from Latins referring to the “schismatic Greeks” and “heretical Greeks” in some of their writings. These are the signs of the times, but some of these attitudes still exist today unfortunately. There is no sourcebook other than the human mind…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa:

Regarding the article on the so-called “Western captivity”, I think the following quote from it pretty well qualifies it as a nice internal propaganda piece for the already persuaded, but hardly as an objective historical account that anyone should credit.

“We have founded by the grace of God this school for Orthodox children, and have provided it at great sacrifice with teachers of the Slavono-Russian and Helleno-Greek languages, as well as of other subjects, in order that they not drink from the alien spring, and, having imbibed the fatal poison of the schism of the West, be inclined to join forces with the dark and dismal Romans.”

Goodness! “The dark and dismal Romans”! The anti-Catholic Orthodox sourcebook some of you guys are using, ought to be updated. Modern readers expect histories to at least pretend to be objective, and tend to dismiss texts that resort to hysterical eructations. “Western captivity” indeed! “Tempest in an Orthodox teapot” perhaps.

I am sorry that I quote at length below, to give the context to your comments:

"Things reached such a point that students were unable to write easily in Russian, but first had to express their thought in Latin and then translate it. The students even copied in Latin or wrote with a substantial admixture of Latin words the explanations given by the teacher in Russian…“From such (an environment] came priests who knew Latin and pagan writers adequately, but who knew poorly the authors of the Bible or the writers of the church” (Filaret of Moscow). Such a situation was not the worst feature: still worse was the inorganic character of an entire school system in which theology could not be enlivened by the direct assistance and experience of church life.

The scope and significance of the scholarly and even educational achievements of the eighteenth century should not be underestimated. In any case, the cultural-theological experiment was quite important. An elaborate school network spread throughout Russia. But Russian theology . . . all of this “school” theology, in the strict sense, was rootless. It fell and grew in foreign soil . . . A superstructure erected in a desert, . . and in place of roots came stilts. Theology on stilts, such is the legacy of the eighteenth century.

In the next few years, Filaret had one other opportunity to set forth in detail his views on the question of church schools. Once again the opportunity came in connection with those same proposals for reform. He roundly condemned the scholastic schools, and still more emphatically castigated the belated attempts to return to such superannuated models. Before the reform several ecclesiastical schools were distinguished by a knowledge of Latin. . . .As a result, priest knew Latin pagan authors well, but hardly knew religious and Church writers. They could speak and write in Latin better than in Russian. With their exquisite phrases in a dead language, they were more able to shine in a circle of scholars than illuminate the people with the living knowledge of truth. Only dogmatic theology was taught, and then in the school manner. The result was a dry, cold knowledge, a lack of a sufficiently practical capacity to inform, a forced tone, fruitless teaching, and an inability to speak to the people about the truths which seem so familiar in the schools. Since the reforms of the church schools in 1814, instruction in practical theology [deiatel’noe bogoslovie] has been introduced, thereby making the study of theology closer to the demands of life. . . .The Russian language was permitted in teaching theology. Knowledge of Latin became weaker, but at the same time the school terminology began to give way to a purer and cleaner exposition of truth. The extension of true knowledge was strengthened and its communication to the people made easier. . .

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Filaret emphasized that: “Theological understanding, crushed by the great weight of school terminology taught in Latin, did not freely act on the mind during the period of study, and after study only with the greatest difficulty was it transposed into Russian for communication to the people.” He then criticized the latest directives from the Commission on Ecclesiastical Schools. True, he agreed, not all teachers constructed their courses successfully, but should teaching from “one’s own lectures” be totally prohibited for that reason? Must Latin once again become compulsory and Feofilakt’s theology textbook, l42 “copied from Buddeus’s Lutheran theology,” be assigned once again? Filaret once more adduced an argument based on effectiveness. "Return to Latin scholasticism from instruction in a comprehensible native language cannot facilitate the improvement of education. It is surprising that a time which is being praised for its zeal for Orthodoxy should prefer a return to Latin…However, Filaret did achieve one thing: a special point was added to the Synodal resolution; "in order that instruction conducted in the ecclesiastical schools might be more fruitfully directed toward the goal of popular education in faith and morality by means of an educated clergy, to that end capable people should be encouraged to prepare theology textbooks which expound truths in a precise way, unobscured by scholastic subtleties, and which modify [theology] to suit the circumstances of the Eastern Greco-Russian Church…The formalism of the “old Protestant” theological school in which Filaret was raised and educated exercised a strong influence on him, especially in his younger days. He did not at once formally break with the Russian tradition of Prokopovich. A great deal in his definitions and manner of expression was suggested by, or he simply copied from, Protestant books. He refers to such books in his Survey; hence the incompleteness and scholastic imprecision of Filaret’s early formulations. He had the habit of referring to Holy Scriptures as “the sole pure and sufficient source of teaching about faith” and added that "to grant the unwritten Word of God equal weight with the written, not only in the functioning of the Church, but in its dogmas is to subject oneself to the danger of destroying God’s commandment for the sake of human tradition: ’ This was said, of course, in the heat of polemics. But it does seem that if he did not deny it, then Filaret minimized the importance of Tradition in the Church. He shared and reproduced the Protestant idea of the so-called “self-sufficiency” of Holy Scripture. In his early work, An exposition of the differences between the Eastern and Western Churches in the teaching of faith [Izlozhenie raznostei mezhdu Postochnoi i Zapadnoi tserkvi v uchenii very] written in 1811 for the Empress Elizabeth Alekseevna and even in the early editions of the Catechism, Filaret says very little about Tradition or traditions. And in the final redaction of the Catechism during the 1830’s, the questions and answers about Tradition were added at the prompting of others…Authentic and undoubted, Holy Tradition is the indisputable “source” of faith. But the question remains, how does one recognize and discern this “undoubted” tradition? How is the tradition of faith distinguished from the traditions of the schools? It was precisely this question which constantly occupied Filaret’s attention. He was reluctant to discuss appeals to tradition, not what constituted Tradition. He protested against the scholastic custom and habit of establishing or proving doctrinal propositions with a simple selection of texts or authoritative testimony. He emphasized that it was impossible to equate any non-Biblical testimony with that of the Bible, and the realm of direct Divine inspiration is precisely described by the boundary of canon. “Is it possible to define precisely that moment when a church writer becomes a saint and is no longer simply a writer subject to the usual human weaknesses?” Filaret did not place limits on the educational authority of the Church. He only limited the authority of the schools…

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

At that time Pratasov was most concerned with the publication of reference texts which could be consulted as easily and unreservedly as if they were the teaching and injunction of the Church on every dimension of ecclesiastical life. In addition to Peter Mogila’s Confession the Imperial and Patriarchal charters on the establishment of the Holy Synod, with an exposition of the Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church [Tsarskaia i patriarshiia gramaty o uchrezhdenii Sviat. Sinoda, s izlozheniem Pravoslavnago ispovedaniia Postochno-Kafolicheskiia Tserkvi] was issued. 217 The translation and editorial work was undertaken by Filaret of Moscow, who introduced very important corrections in the text in an effort to eliminate Latinisms (e.g., the injunction to laymen against reading the Holy Scriptures and the term “transubstantiation” [presushchestvlenie] were eliminated). 218 Subsequently the Ecclesiastical-Educational Administration prescribed that copies of these “charters” be given to the students at the seminary when they attained the highest form, "so that upon finishing the school and leaving the seminary, they might keep this book for constant reference…In 1844 Pratasov sent Filaret of Moscow the newly composed “surveys” [konspekty] on dogmatics at the St. Petersburg Academy for his examination and opinions. Filaret completely opposed the new arrangement of the various sections. He insisted that the best and most promising arrangement was provided or indicated by the Symbol of Faith. 243 (“The Ecumenical Symbol of Faith is nothing other than a brief system of theology.”) Filaret also emphasized that “it is the system of the ecumenical Fathers” and not a later subtlety of the western school. “This is the system of Apostolic Tradition.” “The arrangement of the Symbol is preserved even in the Orthodox Confession.” It is hardly possible to expound with complete conviction the teaching about Christ’s Church before the doctrine of Christ as God is investigated. If it is either promising or prudent to put forward so willfully the “mind of the Russian Orthodox Church,” then must not some room for the “mind of the Roman Catholic Church” also be admitted? Filaret noted specific Latinizing innovations in the surveys sent to him (for example, the distinction between “form” and “matter” in the sacraments and other similar items).
"

In other words, the Problem is the Church was speaking like someone speaking English with German grammar. To give an idea of this, Movila’s Catechism was written in Latin, and only later translated into Slavonic and Greek.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is somewhat unfortunate, but I believe you will find similar statements from Latins referring to the “schismatic Greeks” and “heretical Greeks” in some of their writings.** Maybe the time has come, then, for people to stop living in the past and citing old grievances as if they should have any bearing on East/West relationships today. ** These are the signs of the times, but some of these attitudes still exist today unfortunately. There is no sourcebook other than the human mind… **Perhaps not for you. But it’s pretty clear to me that some of the posters; some Catholic but mostly Orthodox, have such things. When, in particular, one finds that many of these “sources” don’t line up with secular histories, which they very often do not, and when some argument or other gets abandoned or redirected when the source runs dry. It is impossible to disbelieve at least some posters use “canned” anti-Catholic resources. It’s doubly unfortunate that people do it, because some of the sources use hyperbole in order to perpetuate the divisiveness they seem to think serves their purposes. The “Western Captivity” for example, appears from the cited source, to have been an internecine Orthodox debate. But even in debating with each other, it appears some Orthodox think the best way to condemn another Orthodox is to accuse him of being influenced by Catholicism in some way, as this “Western Captivity” source does. Using Catholicism as an all-purpose bogeyman is an unfortunate practice, akin to the arguments of those who blame Jews for all the world’s troubles. Certainly, it is handy, though. **

Alexius

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Ridgerunner:
That is the point. Since we have began to cease to do Latin speak/Protestant speak, but have gone back to the phronema of the Fathers as it was before, this is condemned as being divisive, an development of dogma, etc. It is nothing of the sort. Case in point, during the Western Captivity there may have been a concern between valid but illicit, but such is not the case now, we have by and large returned to the silence of the Fathers on this. So all the concern over whether Latin baptisms (or Protestant ones) has ceased to be an issue for discussion, much to the horror of some posters here, and to Latin hierarchs (at one of the Latin-Orthodox meetings, the Latins walked out when the Orthodox refused to make a statment of validity as the Latins wanted).

Now I understand the attraction of the theology produced during the Captivity (for one thing, it’s easier to understand for the Latins and Protestants), but we have moved on.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Yes, this council is authoritative. Their decrees, however, are subject to a bit of interpretation. For instance, you mention the fact that the council was drafted against Protestants. That is true, however, it was also a response to Rome. There is denial of the Filioque for instance.

I dont think it is accurate to say that was “against Rome” given that Rome actually agrees with most of what was said, and as I pointed out it was clear they copied/consulted the documents of Trent in much of what the EO AFFIRMED.

You mention Original Sin. This is never denied by Orthodox, but again, must be seen from their perspective. Remember that this is written to the West, so they tried to explain the faith in a way that the West would understand. There is no hereditary guilt. There is a lack of santifying grace within the soul at birth (spiritual death), but God’s grace still operates on everyone from the outside.

I think EO are getting hung up on the term “guilt”. When we say guilt it is in reference to the loss of sanctifying grace, if you affirm the loss of sanctifying grace then you are more or less in line with Catholic theology.
Also the Catholic Church never denied grace still operates “on the outside”, that is the road to getting the sanctifying grace restored.

The point on Baptism is that it is necessary for salvation. An infant; however, is pure and without stain of [personal] sin, so he/she may be granted entry into the Kingdom of God.

This conflicts with the fact you admit the infant is born lacking sanctifying grace, and which Jerusalem appears to clearly affirm that infants must be Baptized to be saved.

I have also heard that the Jesuits influenced this council, so that would explain certain teachings like transubstantiation w/ the Thomastic accidents and Eucharistic Adoration (which Orthodox do not do anyway).

The point Im trying to make is that the EO affirmed such concepts though, and that is ironic to me considering how often I hear how such things are “foreign to Orthodoxy”.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

It was a specific refutation of the Calvinist teacings of EP Cyril Lucaris

The Council was called to deal with the Latin-Reformation problems …

It cant be said to be dealing with Catholicism when it clearly was agreeing with Trent. You cant say post a list of agreements on one hand and say it was a “response against” on the other.

On the choice of between the Latins and the Calvinist (to us, an artificial choice) the Orthodox had to side with the Calvinists. …

An “artificial choice” yet you chose to use Trent as your guideline and approve “Catholic” concepts?

Btw, just like Trent, Jerusalem had its catechism: …
esoptron.umd.edu/ugc/ocfi.html

For discussion of the Western Captivity, and its hand in producing the Catechism:
holytrinitymission.org/books/english/ways_russian_theology_florovsky.htm#_Toc103210520

I quickly looked in that Catechism and on the section of “Original Sin” the only thing it mentioned was the result was that all men were subject to death. (Questions 24, 102) However in Q103 it says:The fruits of this mystery are readily visible to everyone: first, this mystery removes all sins, original in infants, and both original and actual in adults; then, **man is renewed and gains that justification, which he possessed in the state of innocence
**This has got to be an affirmation of restoration of sanctifying grace.

The Protestants did. It was not that the Orthodox defined Seven (we didn’t) …

How can you say the Orthodox did not define seven when “seven” is mentioned along with a description of each?

Not a problem for us…

Transubstantiation and Eucharistic Adoration are “not a problem” for you? That is the first time I have seen an EO affirm that on these forums.

Not exactly, the issue was Protestant denial of prayers for the departed.

Here is what decree 18 says:And such as though envolved in mortal sins have not departed in despair, but have, while still living in the body, repented, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance — by pouring forth tears, forsooth, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and in fine by shewing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbour, and which the Catholic Church hath from the beginning rightly called satisfaction — of these and such like the souls depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from thence, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice availing in the highest degree; which each offereth particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offereth daily for all alikeThat is purgatory and not simply a denial of prayers for the departed. This is what the Catholic Church teaches and sounds very very similar to Trent (which was clearly consulted).

As these were the ones the Protestants were rejecting.

What Books do you call Sacred Scripture?

Following the rule of the Catholic Church, we call Sacred Scripture all those which Cyril collected from the Synod of Laodicea, and enumerated, adding thereto those which he foolishly, and ignorantly, or rather maliciously called Apocrypha; to wit, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” “Judith,” “Tobit,” “The History of the Dragon,” “The History of Susanna,” “The Maccabees,” and “The Wisdom of Sirach.” For we judge these also to be with the other genuine Books of Divine Scripture genuine parts of Scripture.
The council of Laodicea did NOT list the other EO deuterocanonical books, yet here we see the only other books approved are the Catholic Deutero-Canonical ones.

Naturally, as it was addressing Latin problems.

LOL. What you call “Latin Problems” are the very things Jerusalem just affirmed! How you can talk like the Catholics and Protestants are the same and there is “no distinction” is beyond me. Catholicism affirms one thing, and Protestants another.

It is authoritative, inasmuch as the US cares about the internal politics of Pakistan. …

Is it authoritative or not? On one hand you make it sound like it was widely approved of and yet places like here you make it sound as if it was no big deal and nobody really cared to use it as a measuring stick for Orthodoxy.

Although Orthodox, it is foreign…

It blows my mind the way you can say this is “foreign” to Orthodoxy and yet have Jerusalem virtually affirm what Trent teaches.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I think Isa covered most of your questions (thanks!), but I’ll add a little more…

You mention the book “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology.” You say that he clearly contrasts the Orthodox and Catholic views on Original or Ancestral Sin. In reality, both believe in the loss of God’s Grace in the soul. What is contrasted are very deep and specific points like Created Grace vs. Uncreated Grace and how man cooperates with that Grace. The important thing to realize is that the Orthodox and Catholic positions are similar, but not the same. I believe that is Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky’s point.** I have read over the section you refer to and see nothing to suggest what you say is true other than emphasis (sinful tendency vs. loss of Grace)**. If you would like a very accurate and concise read of Orthodox Theology (a lot easier to understand than “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology,” albeit not as complete), I suggest reading the Longer Catechism of Philaret here: pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

I honestly didnt see a difference in “emphasis” considering I couldnt find any affirmation of loss of grace. As for the Catechism you just posted:
166. What is the *death *which came from the sin of Adam?

It is twofold: bodily, when the body loses the soul which quickened it; and spiritual, when the soul loses the grace of God, which quickened it with the higher and spiritual life.
This is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching in regards to the loss of sanctifying grace. However in the Baptism section I saw nothing regarding the restoration of that grace.

Finally,** I would add that the view expressed that an infant needs baptism to avoid hell is not Orthodox, in my opinion**. Don’t get me wrong, Baptism is necessary for salvation, but an infant has not yet committed sin. Therefore, I don’t see a lack of sanctifying grace in the infant’s soul as a sign of condemnation (there is no guilt until [personal] sin), but rather separation (though we are never truly “separated” from God as the common usage of the word is concerned, as He is everywhere). They are similar terms, but theologically very different.

This is the problem I keep running into, and it does seem to come down to personal opinion rather than official Orthodox teaching. Jerusalem taught infants need to be Baptized in order to avoid hell, either it was wrong or you are.

Look under articles 160-167…You will see that for Orthodox, death is the consequence.

But as I pointed out it is a twofold death of physical body and second loss of grace in the soul.

 

[Alexius]

I honestly didnt see a difference in “emphasis” considering I couldnt find any affirmation of loss of grace. As for the Catechism you just posted:
166. What is the *death *which came from the sin of Adam?

It is twofold: bodily, when the body loses the soul which quickened it; and spiritual, when the soul loses the grace of God, which quickened it with the higher and spiritual life.
This is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching in regards to the loss of sanctifying grace. However in the Baptism section I saw nothing regarding the restoration of that grace.

This is the problem I keep running into, and it does seem to come down to personal opinion rather than official Orthodox teaching. Jerusalem taught infants need to be Baptized in order to avoid hell, either it was wrong or you are.

But as I pointed out it is a twofold death of physical body and second loss of grace in the soul.

May I first say that I am not Orthodox, but consider myself at least well enough schooled in her thoughts to teach others. I’m still not sure what it is about the Orthodox concept of Original/Ancestral Sin that you are stuck on…First, you say you don’t see a difference in emphasis because you don’t see a loss of grace in the soul, but in the end, you affirm spiritual death. In Orthodox thought, spiritual death = loss of God’s Grace in the soul as Philaret’s Catechism affirms. I have showed you that PART of the Orthodox understanding of Original/Ancestral Sin is a loss of sanctifying grace in the soul, which separates man from God. That causes a “barrier” that cannot be overcome by man…If what you say of guilt is merely loss of grace, then that is good, but it is still a term absent from Eastern thought (Augustine is the major proponent of this thought). Baptism restores that grace because it is a sacrament, i.e. conveys grace and restores relationship to God. Do you remember that in the book “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology,” the writer quotes the Council of Carthage and its declaration of infant baptism. I would add, however, that many Orthodox are not too fond of Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky’s book for various reasons.

Finally, I would add that you should read St. Symeon the New Theologian’s “The First Created Man.”

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I dont think it is accurate to say that was “against Rome” given that Rome actually agrees with most of what was said, and as I pointed out it was clear they copied/consulted the documents of Trent in much of what the EO AFFIRMED.

Yes, if you look at the full text (the other link doesn’t include the introductory chapters, if you are interested:
books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=G1h5ijh3YcwC&dq=synod+of+jerusalem&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=DeVjqKasZt&sig=zdlqCzInjEwyTvCYpGkq7U2XIGU#PPA3,M1)
The Confession of Dositheos was, point by point, a refutation of the Calvinist confession of the EP Cyril (at least attributed to him). Hence a lot of Trent, which was against Calvin too, is going to be convered in agreement with Jerusalem. Where the EO agree with Calvin, against Trent, there is not much. And where Calvin agrees with Trent (e.g. the filioque) Jerusalem specifically addresses the issue.

The point Im trying to make is that the EO affirmed such concepts though, and that is ironic to me considering how often I hear how such things are “foreign to Orthodoxy”.

Foreign in that if the Calvinists and Jesuits hadn’t come East to duke it out, we wouldn’t have had the need to address the issues at all.