Eastern Orthodox Council of Jerusalem 1672

[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.

“Latin/protestant speak”. Just amazing!

If the EO don’t want reunion just because they don’t want it, they should simply say so in words, as they do in actions and by indirection. It astounds me that you would not think the EO position that Catholic sacraments are invalid would not trouble Catholics just because the EO doesn’t want to think about it, or want to think about Catholics in any way differently from the way it thinks about Protestants. The EO should have simply sent an email saying “You’re just a bunch of Prods to us. Your sacraments are nothing. That’s not negotiable.”, and the whole meeting could have been avoided. Would have saved, who knows how much gasoline, not to mention how many uneaten doughnuts?

But, then, I think the Patriarchate of Moscow is in a bit of a disagreement with other Orthodox churches about the validity of each others’ sacraments, aren’t they? Maybe the difference is that the PoM does care about, e.g., the ROCOR or ROA because they’re mostly Russians and doesn’t care what happens to Catholics, because most Catholics aren’t. But as one who only understands “Latin/protestant speak”, it seems to me there isn’t a lot of consistency in all of this except the implacable hostility of the PoM to anything Catholic. Well, and he doesn’t much like the Patriarch of Constantinople, or Greek bishops footprints in what he thinks of as the Russian Empire I guess. All the rest is just window dressing. And when, by the way, is the PoM going to insist that they stop worshipping Lenin right under his canonical jurisdiction nose and bury the monster?

Printing the whole long thing about the “Western Captivity” doesn’t change the mean-spirited words or the doubtful objectivity of one who uses them. Nor does it change the fact that this whole deal was a “tempest in an Orthodox teapot”. This was just an Orthodox-on-Orthodox fight over language to be taught in Orthodox schools in the 17th century. Calling it “The Western Captivity” is just too Drama Queen for words.

 

[Alexius]

“Latin/protestant speak”. Just amazing!

If the EO don’t want reunion just because they don’t want it, they should simply say so in words, as they do in actions and by indirection. It astounds me that you would not think the EO position that Catholic sacraments are invalid would not trouble Catholics just because the EO doesn’t want to think about it, or want to think about Catholics in any way differently from the way it thinks about Protestants. The EO should have simply sent an email saying “You’re just a bunch of Prods to us. Your sacraments are nothing. That’s not negotiable.”, and the whole meeting could have been avoided. Would have saved, who knows how much gasoline, not to mention how many uneaten doughnuts?

But, then, I think the Patriarchate of Moscow is in a bit of a disagreement with other Orthodox churches about the validity of each others’ sacraments, aren’t they? Maybe the difference is that the PoM does care about, e.g., the ROCOR or ROA because they’re mostly Russians and doesn’t care what happens to Catholics, because most Catholics aren’t. But as one who only understands “Latin/protestant speak”, it seems to me there isn’t a lot of consistency in all of this except the implacable hostility of the PoM to anything Catholic. Well, and he doesn’t much like the Patriarch of Constantinople, or Greek bishops footprints in what he thinks of as the Russian Empire I guess. All the rest is just window dressing. And when, by the way, is the PoM going to insist that they stop worshipping Lenin right under his canonical jurisdiction nose and bury the monster?

Printing the whole long thing about the “Western Captivity” doesn’t change the mean-spirited words or the doubtful objectivity of one who uses them. Nor does it change the fact that this whole deal was a “tempest in an Orthodox teapot”. This was just an Orthodox-on-Orthodox fight over language to be taught in Orthodox schools in the 17th century. Calling it “The Western Captivity” is just too Drama Queen for words.

You do realize that ROCOR is part of the MP, don’t you?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

The Calvinist confession it was reputiating was adapting Calvinism’s reaction to the Latin church. The whole argument of tradition versus scripture (and the false diconomy) would not have been dealt with unless the Calvinist had been locked in struggle with the Latins on this. We not share the particulars of the Latins on this, but enought to be against the Calvinists on it.

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

Oops! the original should say side with the Latins.

The argument that Calvin was advancing were against the Latin church, who respoded appropriately in your interwestern debate. For instance, for us the issue of Real Presence has never come up. It seems to reoccur in the west a lot (I have no idea why, except maybe the insistence on explaining it).

Unlike the filioque (in which you and the Calvinists are in agreement), we didn’t have an issue in these arguments which we found, due to the Lucaris confession, we had to refute.

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.

And?

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

Because it was addressing the argument of the Calvinists against the five besides baptism and eucharist. Had the Calvinists gone into sacramentals (a distinction we don’t make), or if the Confession of Dositheus was just an Orthodox confession, there would have been others, e.g. veneration and blessing of icons.

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.

No, we don’t partake of the forensics of Transubstantiation, nor the divorce of Adoration from partaking the Eucharist. But this pales agains the idea of Calvin that it’s just bread, and again, we were addressing that.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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).

This is what it was addressing:

We believe that the souls of the dead are either in blessedness or in damnation, according as every one has done, for as soon as they move out of the body they pass either to Christ or into hell; for as a man is found at his death, so he is judged, and after this life there is neither power nor opportunity to repent; in this life there is a time of grace, they therefore who be justified here shall suffer no punishment hereafter; but they who die, being not justified, are appointed for everlasting punishment. By which it is evident that the fiction of Purgatory is not to be admitted but in the truth it is determined that every one ought to repent in this life and to obtain remission of his sins by our Lord Jesus Christ, if he will be saved. And, let this be the end.
crivoice.org/creedcyril.html

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.

The Calvinists would seem to have been unaware that we pray the Prayer of Manessah, which Calvin and the Latins agree in rejecting. Had it been just an Orthodox confession, the PoM would have been mentioned.

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.

Latins: +X
Prosts: -X

X is still the same.

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.

It was widely approved, and still of some value to distinguishing Orthodoxy from Protestantism, and some from the Latins. But as a self-definition of Orthodoxy, its value is much less, especially since the end of the Western Captivity.

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

If there was no Calvin and Trent, there would have been no Jerusalem. Versus Constantinople V (on Hesychasm).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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

Excellent final suggestion, St. Symeon’s writings clearing up a lot of these issues.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

“Latin/protestant speak”. Just amazing!

If the EO don’t want reunion just because they don’t want it, they should simply say so in words, as they do in actions and by indirection.

Your read on it. Not the reality.

It astounds me that you would not think the EO position that Catholic sacraments are invalid would not trouble Catholics just because the EO doesn’t want to think about it, or want to think about Catholics in any way differently from the way it thinks about Protestants

.

In many ways (in particular the Anglican and vagrantes obsession on validity of orders seperate from all else), it is the same.

The EO should have simply sent an email saying “You’re just a bunch of Prods to us. Your sacraments are nothing. That’s not negotiable.”, and the whole meeting could have been avoided. Would have saved, who knows how much gasoline, not to mention how many uneaten doughnuts?

We disagree that the point has come: if it had, there would be some degree of intercommunion etc., as exists with the OO. We won’t be rushed on it.

But, then, I think the Patriarchate of Moscow is in a bit of a disagreement with other Orthodox churches about the validity of each others’ sacraments, aren’t they?

j

No.

Maybe the difference is that the PoM does care about, e.g., the ROCOR or ROA because they’re mostly Russians and doesn’t care what happens to Catholics, because most Catholics aren’t.

Russia is heavily involved all over the world, for instance, Syria. And they’re not Russian there either. But we do have a lot of Latins/uniates.

But as one who only understands “Latin/protestant speak”, it seems to me there isn’t a lot of consistency in all of this except the implacable hostility of the PoM to anything Catholic.

Example?

Well, and he doesn’t much like the Patriarch of Constantinople, or Greek bishops footprints in what he thinks of as the Russian Empire I guess.

The Patriarchate of Moscow, ie. his Patriarchate.

All the rest is just window dressing. And when, by the way, is the PoM going to insist that they stop worshipping Lenin right under his canonical jurisdiction nose and bury the monster?

Not his problem. The carcass is the Bolsheviks’, they can do whatever they want with it (except bury it in hallowed ground, as Lenin had requested, next to his mother). The ROC officially supported Yeltsin’s attempts to bury Lenin (literally).

Printing the whole long thing about the “Western Captivity” doesn’t change the mean-spirited words or the doubtful objectivity of one who uses them. Nor does it change the fact that this whole deal was a “tempest in an Orthodox teapot”. This was just an Orthodox-on-Orthodox fight over language to be taught in Orthodox schools in the 17th century. Calling it “The Western Captivity” is just too Drama Queen for words.

And you would call it what?

I ommitted a lot, including the references to the Jesuits, who regrouped in Russia while Rome suppressed them.

 

[Alexius]

Excellent final suggestion, St. Symeon’s writings clearing up a lot of these issues.

St. Symeon is also very unusual in that he sees the Fall in a similar way as Augustine, though I believe he was unaware of Augustine and his writings as were most Easterners until the 17th century. He does not go as far as Augustine, but further than most Easterners. He also had very little to use as a source for his writings, but he stays within the Orthodox teachings, in my opinion, albeit he sees the Fall and human nature as more perverted than most Easterners…He seems to be a good bridge between Eastern and Western thought.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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.

I am saying essentially two things:

1. I get conflicting information regarding whether sanctifying grace is lost or not. Some EO say yes, other EO say no (or dont mention it which take as a ‘no’). For example in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology I see the “loss of grace” as described as a Catholic idea with no mention of this loss for the EO view in that same book.
2. There appears to be confusion over the term “guilt” when the issue is whether sanctifying grace is lost or not. To Catholics it is “guilt” so far as you cant enter Heaven without that grace, which if EO accept the loss of sanctifying grace would have to agree with, though I often see EO downplay or even reject the fact unBaptized infants cannot go to Heaven.

Do you remember that in the book “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology,” the writer quotes the Council of Carthage and its declaration of infant baptism.

But admitting infant baptism is not the issue. The issue is that some EO reject (or at least appear to) the idea that Original Sin entails the loss of sanctifying grace, if that is true then I would ask them why Baptize infants if sanctifying grace does not need to be restored.

I would add, however, that many Orthodox are not too fond of Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky’s book for various reasons.

This kind of stuff leaves my head spinning because it means there is no “official” Catechism to consult and rather everyone ultimately decides whether this or that catechism is orthodox.
On one hand I see Orthodox Dogmatic Theology praise and now I hear many Orthodox are not fond of him. Ironically I was pointed to ODT from an EO poster on these forums who said the quotes I was getting from Meyendorf were essentially equivalent to a Catholic liberal theologian.

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

Did you post this somewhere?

 

[Ridgerunner]

You do realize that ROCOR is part of the MP, don’t you?

Since May, 2007. You’re absolutely right! A curious business, given some of their previous writings. I was looking at some of the older ones.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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
**

First of all is that quote saying that sanctifying grace was lost and now restored through Baptism? I assume yes.
What is confusing is that some times I see the loss of sanctifying grace taught and other times I dont. In this same catechism under the sections regarding the fall I saw no reference to loss of sanctifying grace. In Q23 I only see the weakening of intellect and will but no mention of loss of grace, Q24 makes no mention of loss of grace and seems to indicate original sin is being born in a mortal body that must physically die.

Because it was addressing the argument of the Calvinists against the five besides baptism and eucharist. Had the Calvinists gone into sacramentals (a distinction we don’t make), or if the Confession of Dositheus was just an Orthodox confession, there would have been others, e.g. veneration and blessing of icons.

That catechism you posted also explicitly says “seven sacraments”.

No, we don’t partake of the forensics of Transubstantiation, nor the divorce of Adoration from partaking the Eucharist. But this pales against the idea of Calvin that it’s just bread, and again, we were addressing that.

My only point in mentioning this is that Jerusalem explicitly affirms “transubstantiation” along with the “accidence/substance” distinction. This stands out to me because now I see no excuse for EO around here to go after Transubstantiation as a unacceptable Latin invention because Jerusalem affirms it.

This is what it was addressing:

What it was addressing is not the issue, the issue is that Jerusalem affirms purgatory, contrary to the fact many EO around here say the concept it is a Latin corruption/invention. I just looked up purgatory in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology and it says the concept of purgatory is not something which Orthodoxy accepts.

The Calvinists would seem to have been unaware that we pray the Prayer of Manessah, which Calvin and the Latins agree in rejecting. Had it been just an Orthodox confession, the PoM would have been mentioned.

I doubt they would have been unaware of that prayer considering even Latin Bibles back then had them in the appendix. I dont remember seeing any reference to the DeuteroCanon in Cyrils 18 points, so it is interesting that this was mentioned in Jerusalem.

What is really an issue though is that Jerusalem says it is basing its canon off of Laodicia’s list in canon 60. And Jerusalem indicates the only thing lacking is the Latin Deuterocanon.

Latins: +X
Prosts: -X

X is still the same.

That is quite an oversimplification, but none the less you would then have to affirm:
Orthodoxy = +X

It was widely approved, and still of some value to distinguishing Orthodoxy from Protestantism, and some from the Latins. But as a self-definition of Orthodoxy, its value is much less, especially since the end of the Western Captivity.

From the perspective of Catholics if it was taught to be true at a high level like this then it is still true today.

If there was no Calvin and Trent, there would have been no Jerusalem. Versus Constantinople V (on Hesychasm).

The point though is that when it came time to define, Jerusalem sided with the Catholics.

 

[Alexius]

I am saying essentially two things:

1. I get conflicting information regarding whether sanctifying grace is lost or not. Some EO say yes, other EO say no (or dont mention it which take as a ‘no’). For example in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology I see the “loss of grace” as described as a Catholic idea with no mention of this loss for the EO view in that same book.
2. There appears to be confusion over the term “guilt” when the issue is whether sanctifying grace is lost or not. To Catholics it is “guilt” so far as you cant enter Heaven without that grace, which if EO accept the loss of sanctifying grace would have to agree with, though I often see EO downplay or even reject the fact unBaptized infants cannot go to Heaven.

But admitting infant baptism is not the issue. The issue is that some EO reject (or at least appear to) the idea that Original Sin entails the loss of sanctifying grace, if that is true then I would ask them why Baptize infants if sanctifying grace does not need to be restored.

This kind of stuff leaves my head spinning because it means there is no “official” Catechism to consult and rather everyone ultimately decides whether this or that catechism is orthodox.
On one hand I see Orthodox Dogmatic Theology praise and now I hear many Orthodox are not fond of him. Ironically I was pointed to ODT from an EO poster on these forums who said the quotes I was getting from Meyendorf were essentially equivalent to a Catholic liberal theologian.

Did you post this somewhere?

OK, first things first. Perhaps you should re-read the section on Original Sin in the book. I will do the same. I am very sure Protopresbyter Pomazansky talks about a loss of grace. As for an official Catechism, no you will not find one. Orthodox are unlike the Catholic Church insofar as they do not like to elaborate and prefer to live their faith in the Liturgy. The Philaret Catechism is authoritative and used by all Orthodox, but especially by those in Russia. The problem is that the Orthodox view Original Sin from a more holistic perspective than a forensic one. If you want a more familiar explanation, then read St. Symeon. As far as “guilt,” that is totally foreign to Eastern thought, whether or not the Latin concept is similar to the Orthodox one. St. Symeon seems to diverge with most Orthodox thinkers in that he sees even infants destined for hell. This is not usual though. Most (including myself) prefer to leave it to God’s Mercy to allow infants into heaven. On top of that, there is no “guilt” on the part of personal sin in an infant, so they have not personally chosen to depart from God’s Grace. Meyendorff is considered liberal by most Orthodox. That is correct. He tends to be unusual in his thinking…

 

[marlo]

some EO posters interpret the Council information different from the authors themselves, where as the council was definite in its definition.

First of all is that quote saying that sanctifying grace was lost and now restored through Baptism? I assume yes.
What is confusing is that some times I see the loss of sanctifying grace taught and other times I dont. In this same catechism under the sections regarding the fall I saw no reference to loss of sanctifying grace. In Q23 I only see the weakening of intellect and will but no mention of loss of grace, Q24 makes no mention of loss of grace and seems to indicate original sin is being born in a mortal body that must physically die.

That catechism you posted also explicitly says “seven sacraments”.

My only point in mentioning this is that Jerusalem explicitly affirms “transubstantiation” along with the “accidence/substance” distinction. This stands out to me because now I see no excuse for EO around here to go after Transubstantiation as a unacceptable Latin invention because Jerusalem affirms it.

What it was addressing is not the issue, the issue is that Jerusalem affirms purgatory, contrary to the fact many EO around here say the concept it is a Latin corruption/invention. I just looked up purgatory in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology and it says the concept of purgatory is not something which Orthodoxy accepts.

I doubt they would have been unaware of that prayer considering even Latin Bibles back then had them in the appendix. I dont remember seeing any reference to the DeuteroCanon in Cyrils 18 points, so it is interesting that this was mentioned in Jerusalem.

What is really an issue though is that Jerusalem says it is basing its canon off of Laodicia’s list in canon 60. And Jerusalem indicates the only thing lacking is the Latin Deuterocanon.

That is quite an oversimplification, but none the less you would then have to affirm:
Orthodoxy = +X

From the perspective of Catholics if it was taught to be true at a high level like this then it is still true today.

The point though is that when it came time to define, Jerusalem sided with the Catholics.

 

[Alexius]

That is quite an oversimplification, but none the less you would then have to affirm:
Orthodoxy = +X

Not exactly. Remember I said that the Confession of Dositheus is an answer to the West? Well, Orthodox are generally different than Rome and Protestant thought in many ways. While the conclusions may seem similar, how they are reached is different. For instance, Catholics and Protestants ask the same questions. For instance: How is a man justified? How is he sanctified? These are the same questions. The answers are different, however. For Orthodox, the questions are different. That is why it was necessary for Orthodox to consult the creeds and proclaimations of both Rome and the Reformers. Many conclusions seem the same, but it is important to understand the questions aswell. Some things are more about emphasis than all out denial. For instance, I would argue that the Orthodox concept of Ancestral Sin is much closer to the Catholic view than many think. It seems it is not because the emphasis is often on physical death and corruption, rather than a specific lose of grace.

 

[Ridgerunner]

In many ways (in particular the Anglican and vagrantes obsession on validity of orders seperate from all else), it is the same.
Then you, who deny the validity of Catholic ordinations and consecrations, share it.

No. **According to some of them, the answer is “yes”. **

Russia is heavily involved all over the world, for instance, Syria. And they’re not Russian there either. But we do have a lot of Latins/uniates.**But isn’t that part of the canonical jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch? Why is the Russian Orthodox Church involved there? And what was he doing in Palestine negotiating with Arafat to kick ROCA out of its monastery? Why does Patriarch Alexy resist the appointment of Catholic bishops in Russia (and all former Soviet satellites) yet feels free to have bishops worldwide? And yes, Russia (the state) is heavily involved all over the world, and it’s beginning to look like the Cold War all over again. It just delivered long-range interceptor missiles to Iran. **

The Patriarchate of Moscow, ie. his Patriarchate.** He was almost single-handedly instrumental in getting the religious laws passed in Russia, under which some religions are banned outright; some are limited in where they can be and what they can do, and some are prevented from acting even if they are in compliance with the law. Is his Patriarchate his kingdom?**

Not his problem. The carcass is the Bolsheviks’, they can do whatever they want with it (except bury it in hallowed ground, as Lenin had requested, next to his mother). The ROC officially supported Yeltsin’s attempts to bury Lenin (literally).** It’s not the Bolsheviks’ at all. It’s the property of Holy Russia. And the Patriarch is not insisting, notwithstanding the influence he has with Putin’s government and the “state church” status of the ROC in Russia. Why does he not insist? Why does he not lead pickets and protests? He wouldn’t allow Pope JPII to enter Holy Russia, and persuaded the Russian state not to give him a visa. But a shrine to Lenin he tolerates.**

And you would call it what? I would call it what it was; an internecine squabble within the Russian Orthodox Church over whether to teach Latin as a language in Orthodox Church schools. The whole thing was neither “western” nor a “captivity”.

I ommitted a lot, including the references to the Jesuits, who regrouped in Russia And not only in Russia.while Rome suppressed them. In some places, under pressure from some anti-religious European leaders. Of course, they can’t function in Russia now because of the Patriarch’s religious laws.

 

[Alexius]

Alright, now I have re-read the section and see where the confusion is. If you go back to pages 166-169 and re-read them yourself, you will see halfway down page 167 that Protopresbyter Pomazansky affirms a separation of the soul from God’s Grace. On the bottom of these four pages, Fr. Seraphim Rose affirms a lose of grace. He also points out that among individual Orthodox, there is a range of thoughts on Ancestral Sin, as you and I both know. Some defend Augustine and affirm original “guilt,” which is not Orthodox. Others deny Ancestral Sin altogether which is also unacceptable. I believe if you would read the writings of the Orthodox Fathers, you will find that they do not go into details about Ancestral Sin, so it was up to councils and other Fathers to expand as necessary. Despite what some Orthodox may think, the soul at birth is indeed separated from God’s Grace and needs the regeneration of Baptism. That is the Orthodox teaching as the Orthodox Church herself affirms through the Fathers and through her councils.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Originally Posted by Isa Almisry
In many ways (in particular the Anglican and vagrantes obsession on validity of orders seperate from all else), it is the same.

Then you, who deny the validity of Catholic ordinations and consecrations, share it.

You mean me personally? Personally I accept the “validity” of Latin ordinations and consecrations, but that’s just my personal opinion.

No.

According to some of them, the answer is “yes”.

Who?

Russia is heavily involved all over the world, for instance, Syria. And they’re not Russian there either. But we do have a lot of Latins/uniates.

But isn’t that part of the canonical jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch? Why is the Russian Orthodox Church involved there?

Yes, the relations between the Patriarchs of Moscow and Antioch are excellent. And they have been since the Russians helped to lift the phanariot yoke from Antioch, and tried to do the same with Jerusalem.

Before that, Russia had run a host of schools and other charitable institutions for the Faithful in the Near East. After the Bolshevik revolution, the government wouldn’t let the ROC do charitable work in Russia, but could abroad, and a lot of it went into Syria.

And what was he doing in Palestine negotiating with Arafat to kick ROCA out of its monastery?

The property of the ROC, of which he is head.

Why does Patriarch Alexy resist the appointment of Catholic bishops in Russia (and all former Soviet satellites) yet feels free to have bishops worldwide?

Has PoM said a thing about the hiearchy in Lithuania? Poland? Czech Republic? Slovakia? East Germany? Hungary? Cuba?

Russian bishops don’t have a history as a vanguard. When Russia pulled out of North America, the bishops stayed. The first one they ordained in North America was an Arab, St. Rafail Hawaweeny. When Ukraine was annexed, Ukrainians served as bishops throughout the empire. During the Russo-Japanese war, the Orthodox mission under St. Nicholas, who told the Japanese to pray for THEIR emperor, but excused himself from that part of the service, because he could not pray against HIS emperor.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

And yes, Russia (the state) is heavily involved all over the world, and it’s beginning to look like the Cold War all over again. It just delivered long-range interceptor missiles to Iran.

The Patriarchate of Moscow, ie. his Patriarchate.

He was almost single-handedly instrumental in getting the religious laws passed in Russia, under which some religions are banned outright; some are limited in where they can be and what they can do, and some are prevented from acting even if they are in compliance with the law. Is his Patriarchate his kingdom?

Apostolic Canons:
35. The bishops of every country ought to know who is the chief among them, and to esteem him as their head, and not to do any great thing without his consent; but every one to manage only the affairs that belong to his own parish, and the places subject to it. But let him not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

Not his problem. The carcass is the Bolsheviks’, they can do whatever they want with it (except bury it in hallowed ground, as Lenin had requested, next to his mother). The ROC officially supported Yeltsin’s attempts to bury Lenin (literally).

It’s not the Bolsheviks’ at all. It’s the property of Holy Russia.

What did you do with Mussolini?

Better to let the thing rot from neglect.

And the Patriarch is not insisting, notwithstanding the influence he has with Putin’s government and the “state church” status of the ROC in Russia. Why does he not insist?

Better things to do.

Why does he not lead pickets and protests?

Better things to do.

He wouldn’t allow Pope JPII to enter Holy Russia, and persuaded the Russian state not to give him a visa. But a shrine to Lenin he tolerates.

Making a big fuss over it could cause trouble (not all are FORMER communists), just like have JPII visit, particularly in Ukraine. Which is independent, and the only place Rome has any followers in great numbers. Why don’t they issue a visa?

And you would call it what? I would call it what it was; an internecine squabble within the Russian Orthodox Church over whether to teach Latin as a language in Orthodox Church schools. The whole thing was neither “western” nor a “captivity”.

Sooo, theologians not being able to relate to the Faithful because they can’t think a thought without Latin and then translating it to Russia, disconnencted from Church life, doesn’t pose a problem for you. It’s like a lot of the third world: a lot of modern professional literature can’t be had except in English, Frence, etc. i.e. not the local language. It causes huge development problems. And it did in Russia.

I ommitted a lot, including the references to the Jesuits, who regrouped in Russia And not only in Russia.while Rome suppressed them. In some places, under pressure from some anti-religious European leaders. Of course, they can’t function in Russia now because of the Patriarch’s religious laws.

Given their idea of gratitude:
"The Jesuits retained a lively gratitude for the hospitality that they had received in Russia, and worked with zeal to convert it to Catholicism. "
newadvent.org/cathen/13253a.htmf

I see his point. And I’ve heard enough Jesuits here to know that it’s not a thing of the past.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

some EO posters interpret the Council information different from the authors themselves, where as the council was definite in its definition.

And you’re certain in your certainty.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That catechism you posted also explicitly says “seven sacraments”.

Given the context,the important thing was it didn’t say “only two.”

My only point in mentioning this is that Jerusalem explicitly affirms “transubstantiation” along with the “accidence/substance” distinction. This stands out to me because now I see no excuse for EO around here to go after Transubstantiation as a unacceptable Latin invention because Jerusalem affirms it.

It is a Latin invention.

And with your argument with the Calvinists, we sided with you.

What it was addressing is not the issue, the issue is that Jerusalem affirms purgatory, contrary to the fact many EO around here say the concept it is a Latin corruption/invention. I just looked up purgatory in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology and it says the concept of purgatory is not something which Orthodoxy accepts.

Yes, the idea that context doesn’t count causes a lot of problems, e.g. quoting the Fathers.

Protestants: proof-texts.
Latins: proof-texts.

Just different proof-texts.

I doubt they would have been unaware of that prayer considering even Latin Bibles back then had them in the appendix. I dont remember seeing any reference to the DeuteroCanon in Cyrils 18 points, so it is interesting that this was mentioned in Jerusalem.

Again, they wouldn’t be arguing with the Latins over it, and it is with the Latins, not the Orthodox, is the point of reference for the Calvinists, even in the East. (the same, I can personally attest, is the case with Romanian Protestants today).

What is really an issue though is that Jerusalem says it is basing its canon off of Laodicia’s list in canon 60. And Jerusalem indicates the only thing lacking is the Latin Deuterocanon.

I have to admit, I don’t know why Jerusalem omits the Letter of Jeremiah and Baruch, since Laodicia mentions them, we have them, and the Vulgate contains them. Did the Calvinists for some reason ignore them?

That is quite an oversimplification, but none the less you would then have to affirm:
Orthodoxy = +X

Orthodoxy>X

From the perspective of Catholics if it was taught to be true at a high level like this then it is still true today.

When St. Paul writes “Honor the Emperor” does that mean that if we live in a Republic, it’s no longer true for us.

Yes, given the choice today between Latins and Calvinists (say, evangelicals), the answers would be the same. But now we just don’t get cornered into that choice.

The point though is that when it came time to define, Jerusalem sided with the Catholics.

a

This is the same problem at Florence: just get 'em to sign. We a bit more wholistic. And the time has come that we don’t have to define concepts that aren’t Orthodox.

 

[bpbasilphx]

The Orthodox have always been selective about local councils.

It’s significant that both the Confession of St. Peter Moghila and the Council of Jerusalem were accepted in a modified form by a later council.

Fr. George Florovsky and others have discussed the “pseudomorphosis” Orthodoxy underwent in the 17-18 centuries.