Eastern Orthodox Teachings

[josephdaniel29]

Give the guy a brake, I will admit that he used the word “heresy” way too much and maybe he might have a little bit of an ax to grind, but he’s really a nice guy once you get to know him!

He can use the word heresy all he likes, that is not the issue. On this very thread he made the statement that the Orthodox approve of birth control pills. There are other things he has said on this forum that I will not repeat as they have been removed by the moderators. Suffice it to say they were about the Orthodox and that they were removed for very good reason.

BTY, with regard to the prayers for non-Orthodox within the Orthodox liturgies, would you care to share with us all, if you know, what kind of prayers are offered for the non-Orthodox on the Sunday of Orthodoxy of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, especially when done by a hierarchical service in the Russian Orthodox Church! If you don’t know, or you will not say, and I tell what that is like, then you may say the same “don’t believe a word that he types” about me.

If you start talking the way Joseph Vargas does I will say that. Either way Byzantine Catholics celebrate the same feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy and most if not all of the anathemas pronounced during the service were made while East and West were still one.

In Christ
Joe

 

[dvdjs]

Are the ruling bishops in question aware of what happened? Perhaps Mick could call the local bishop, inform him that one of his priest has offered him Holy Communion, ask the bishop’s permission and see what the answer is.

We already know the answer to that. Read all the complaints over at ocanews about communion of middle easterners - EO or not (and that includes Muslims) - in the diocese of Toledo. Now tell me what the Metropolitan did about it. What you have written is about the penalties applied for communing non-EO’s is misinformation. Why pick on Mr. Varga?

And I mean the question sincerely about the different standards you seem to have for EO’s communing OO’s or Catholics. I can’t make any sense out of it.

 

[josephdaniel29]

And I mean the question sincerely about the different standards you seem to have for EO’s communing OO’s or Catholics. I can’t make any sense out of it.

It’s because many EO see the OO as truly sharing the same faith. No so with Roman Catholics.

In Christ
Joe

 

[dvdjs]

It’s because many EO see the OO as truly sharing the same faith. No so with Roman Catholics.

That’s interesting. How can they think that? That thinking is at odds with the fathers and the findings of ecumenical council in the case of the OO’s. Yet there is no analogous finding for the Catholics.

 

[JohnVIII]

He can use the word heresy all he likes, that is not the issue. On this very thread he made the statement that the Orthodox approve of birth control pills. There are other things he has said on this forum that I will not repeat as they have been removed by the moderators. Suffice it to say they were about the Orthodox and that they were removed for very good reason.

If you start talking the way Joseph Vargas does I will say that. Either way Byzantine Catholics celebrate the same feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy and most if not all of the anathemas pronounced during the service were made while East and West were still one.

In Christ
Joe

OK, I’m backing off!

This whole biz about Orthodox and birth control erks me too, but there are maybe 12 people out there saying this. I think they are just trying to convince Orthodox of the need for one universal authority because they think that there are issues that need to be universally agreed upon. As for my opinion on this, even though I do except the authority of the successor of St Peter, I do not think it is proper for this universal authority to be used to “settle” matters such as this, as it would end up bringing more harm than good. Rome does not seem to have much of a place for such a thing as economia, but nobodies perfect.

Peace! -JohnVIII

 

[josephdaniel29]

That’s interesting. How can they think that? That thinking is at odds with the fathers and the findings of ecumenical council in the case of the OO’s. Yet there is no analogous finding for the Catholics.

The fathers may have been proceeding from an erroneous view of what the Orientals actually believe. Either way the Catholic Church seems to have no problem with it as it has admitted Orientals to its communion.

 

[Madaglan]

I tend to think that the Pope would not feel himself bound by a conciliar prohibition against adding to the filioque. I base this on two things. 1. Historically, the Popes believed they had the right to veto the resolutions of Ecumenical Councils, which means that they regarded themselves, rather than the Councils, as the ultimate authority. 2. The EC of Nicea (321) prohibited anyone from coming up with a different Creed, but then a bit later, the council of Constantinople (381) added some stuff to the Creed of Nicea. Based on this precedent of adding stuff to the Nicean Creed, it seems appropriate that the Council of Toledo would add yet more stuff to the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed, believing that what they added did not amount to a different Creed, it just amounted to a further addition and clarification in order to combat a specific heresy in their territory.

As to the history of the Roman bishop vetoing resolutions, I know Pope Leo rejected the admittance of Canon 28 of Chalcedon. But then he was closely associated with the Council itself. I would think this as different from the vetoing of an uncontested resolution passed by an Ecumenical Council held centuries previous.

Unlike the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, the Council of Toledo never gained the status of an Ecumenical Council. I understand the reasoning for adding the filioque at Toledo, but I’m willing to believe that a local council did not have the authority to change what was the common Creed of the Church. I think one problem with the filioque addition is that it cannot be translated back into the Greek version of the Creed without resulting in heresy (“procession” ekporousis from the Father and Son) or necessitating a change in the Greek wording to maintain an orthodox statement.

 

[dvdjs]

The fathers may have been proceeding from an erroneous view of what the Orientals actually believe. Either way the Catholic Church seems to have no problem with it as it has admitted Orientals to its communion.

Yes of course, we are far more open with communion; surely that hasn’t been in question in this thread. The issue - apart from the misinformation on penalties for communing Catholics - was the strictness of the EOs. In any case, your thinking on the OOs is very interesting, thanks for the reply.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Charity in posting please.