Is the E. Orthodox Church the original Church?

[Isa_Almisry]

cont’d.

It was after the Bull of Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, of 8 December,
1854, that the greater part of the Greek Church seems to have turned against belief in the Immaculate Conception. Yet, in 1855, the Athenian professor, Christopher Damalas, was able to declare:

“We have always held and always taught this doctrine. This point is too sacred to give rise to quarrels and it has no need of a deputation from Rome”. (9)

But it was not until 1896 that we find an official text classing the Immaculate Conception among the differences between Rome and the Orthodox East. This text is the synodal letter written by the Oecumenical Patriarch, Anthimes VII, in reply to the encyclical Piaeclara Gratulationis addressed by Leo XIII to the people of the Eastern Churches. Moreover, from the Orthodox point of view, the Constantinopolitan document has only a very limited doctrinal importance. Although it should be read with respect and attention, yet it possesses none of the marks of infallibility, nor does ecclesiastical discipline impose belief in its teachings as a matter of conscience. and it leaves the ground quite clear for theological and historical discussions on this point.

IV. Let us now consider more closely the attitude of the Russian
Church towards the question of the Immaculate Conception.

Every Russian theological student knows that St Dmitri, metropolitan of Rostov (17th century), supported the Latin “theory of the epiklesis” (10); but young Russians are inclined to consider the case of Dmitri as a regrettable exception, an anomoly. If they knew the history of Russian theology a little better they would know that from the middle ages to the seventeenth century the Russian Church has, as a whole, accepted belief in the Immaculate Conception (11).

The Academy of Kiev, with Peter Moghila, Stephen Gavorsky and many others, taught the Immaculate Conception in terms of Latin theology. A confraternity of the Immaculate Conception was established at Polotsk in 1651. The Orthodox members of the confraternity promised to honour the Immaculate Conception of Mary all the days of their life. The Council of Moscow of 1666 approved Simeon Polotsky’s book called The Rod of Direction, in which he said: “Mary was exempt from original sin from the moment of her conception”. (12)

All this cannot be explained as the work of Polish Latinising
influence. We have seen that much was written on the same lines in the Greek East. When as a result of other Greek influences, attacks were launched in Moscow against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, a protest was made by the Old Believers - a sect separated from the official Church by reason of its faithfulness to certain ancient rites. Again in 1841, the Old Believers said in an official declaration that “Mary has had no share in original sin”. (13) To all those who know how deeply the Old Believers are attached to the most ancient beliefs and traditions, their testimony has a very special significance. In 1848, the “Dogmatic Theology” of the Archimandrite Antony Amphitheatroff, approved by the Holy Synod as a manual for
seminaries, reproduced Palamas’ curious theory of the progressive purification of the Virgin’s ancestors, a theory which has already been mentioned and which proclaims Mary’s exemption from original sin. Finally, we should notice that the Roman definition of 1854 was not attacked by the most representative theologians of the time, Metropolitan Philaretes of Moscow and Macarius Boulgakov.

It was in 1881 that the first important writing appeared in Russian
literature in opposition to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It was written by Professor A. Lebedev of Moscow who held the view that the Virgin was completely purified from original sin at Golgotha. (14) In 1884, the Holy Synod included the question of the Immaculate Conception in the programme of “polemical”, that is to say, anti-Latin theology. Ever since then, official Russian theology has been unanimously opposed to the Immaculate Conception.

This attitude of the Russians has been strengthened by a frequent
confusion of Mary’s immaculate conception with the virgin birth of
Christ. This confusion is to be found not only among ignorant people, but also among many theologians and bishops. In 1898, Bishop Augustine, author of a “Fundamental Theology”, translated “immaculate conception” by “conception sine semine”. More recently still, Metropolitan Anthony then Archbishop of Volkynia, wrote against the “impious heresy of the immaculate and virginal conception of the Most Holy Mother of God by Joachim and Anne.” It was a theologian of the Old Believers, A. Morozov, who had to point out to the archbishop that he did not know what he was talking about. (15)

Footnotes:

1. Photius, homil. I in Annunt., in the collection of St. Aristarchis,
   Photiou logoi kai homiliai, Constantinople 1901, t. II, p. 236.
2. Theognostes, hom. in fest. Dormitionis, Greek Cod. 763 of the
   Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris, fol. 8. v.
3. Euthemius, hom. in concept. S. Annae, Cod. laudianus 69 of the Bodleian Library, fol. 122-126.
4. Photius, In Praesentat. Deiparae, in the collection of Sophoclis
   Grigoriou tou Palama homiliai kb’, Athens 1861.
5. Manuel Paleologus, orat. in Dormit., Vatic. graecus 1619. A Latin translation is to be found in Migne P.G. t. CLVI, 91-108.
6. Scholarios, hom. in Dormit., Greek Cod. 1294 of the Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris, fol. 139 v.
7. Lukaris, hom. in Dormit., Cod. 263 of the Metochion of the Holy
   Sepulchre in Constantinople, fol. 612-613, and hom. in Nativ., Cod. 39 of the Metochion, fol. 93.
8. Hypsilantis, Ta meta ten alosin, Constantinople, 1870, p. 131.
   Coursoulas, Sunopsis ten ieras Theologias, Zante, 1862, vol. I, pp.336-342.
9. Quoted by Frederic George Lee, in The sinless conception of theMother of God, London 1891, p. 58.
10. See Chiliapkin, St Dmitri of Rostov and his times (Russian), in
    the Zapiski of the Faculty of history and philology of the University
    of St. Petersberg, t. XXIV, 1891, especially pp. 190-193.
11. See J. Gagarin, L’Eglise russe et L’immaculee conception, Paris 1876.
12. See Makary Bulgakov, History of the Russian Church (Russian) 1890, t. XII, p. 681. On the Polotsk brotherhood, see the article by Golubiev, in the Trudv of the Academy of Kiev, November 1904, pp.164-167.
13. See N. Subbotin, History of the hierarchy of Bielo-Krinitza
    (Russian), Moscow, 1874, t. I, p. xlii of the Preface.
14. An article by M. Jugie, Le dogme de l’immaculee conception d’apres un theologien russe, in Echos d’Orient, 1920, t. XX, p. 22, gives an analysis of Lebedev’s monography.
15. Letter of Archbishop Anthony of Volhynia to the Old Believers, in the organ of the Russian Holy Synod, The Ecclesiastical News of 10 March 1912, p. 399. Morozov’s reply is contained in the same periodical on 14 July 1912, pp. 1142-1150.

All very nice, but it side steps, as does Pius, the question of her death.

August 15 has always been the DORIMITION, the falling asleep, of the Theotokos. The problem here, of course, is that the Fathers always speak of death as sin embodied, and the most obvious result of original sin. And where are the explanations of how someone conceived free of original sin died?

And while we have always celebrated her birth, her entry into the Temple, her Annunciation and Dormition as major feasts, her conception, though celebrated, has never risen to that level. It would stand to reason if it were that important (and making it dogma would make it that important), its celebration would be of similar status.

St. Gregory shows the problem of the IC’s infinite regression.

And since God (II Cor. 5:21) “made Him, who knew no sin, He hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in Him,” a verse that St.Maximus dwells on ( am told by a professor of patristics), what role would the IC play in this plan of salvation?

 

[dvdjs]

The discusssions of whether or not Mary died strike me as peculiar.

In light of the resurrection of Christ, and given that we agree on the key point that Mary was translated to heaven, what is the meaning of “death”?

Her “death” is not mentioned in the vesperal propers at all. We sing of her translation from “earth to heaven” and from “life to life”. In Matins, “death” is mentioned by way of paradox, negation.
"In you O Vigin without spot the bounds of nature are overcome, for child birth remains virgin, and death is betrothed to life. O Theotokos, virgin after bearing child and alive after death … (1st canon ode 9). Ultimately we sing, in the praises, of her “deathless dormition”.

In any mystical sense of “death”, she did not die. And I don’t understand the why any significance is attached to any other sense of “death”.

 

[dvdjs]

All very nice…

You should not be so dismissive. This article by Fr. Lev sets a good high bar that should be a model for those who like to think, with limited experience, that they speak for the mind of the Orthodox church.

The problem here, of course, is that the Fathers always speak of death as sin embodied…

Always? Even in the case of the death of Christ? What about the prophets who did not die?

…and the most obvious result of original sin.

The “most obvious” result? In Catholic teaching, and in at least some Orthodox teaching of some eras, there are various “results” of Original Sin.

And where are the explanations of how someone conceived free of original sin died?

This remark is careless. Go back to the Old Catholic Encyclopedia - go see what Catholics mean by the “stain of Original Sin”. This will answer you question.

 

[josephdaniel29]

-Denial that the Son has ANY role in the Procession

He has no role in the eternal procession of the Spirit. The Creed and Scriptures make that clear.

-Denial of the Toll-house doctrine (which according to Father Rose is a matter of doctrinal Faith to be believed by all)

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on who you ask ) Fr Seraphim isn’t the final arbiter of truth

-Denial of the doctrine of Atonement

No denial, we just prefer to take a more holistic approach

-Denial of the necessity of the head bishop, or even the existence of the head bishop.

That’s malarkey. No one denies the need for or existence of a head bishop. That not an argument anyone is making. In other words a straw man.

-Utilization of the doctrine of Essence/Energies to make a heterodox distinction WITHIN the Godhead

I didn’t realize this was an issue. Of course I don’t know that anyone has ever said that one must believe this to be Orthodox.

-Nationalism in ecclesiology.

Nothing more than accidents of history. Of course we could have just done as the Catholics did and make our patriarchs heads of states themselves.

-Denial that St. Peter is the Rock, or falsely dichotomizing Jesus and Peter’s confession from Peter himself.

You should know good and well that there were many interpretations of that passage posited by the Fathers. It is the Catholics who isolated one from the rest and turned it into dogma.

-Demeaning the use of holy images in Latin Christendom (i.e., the use of statues or realism in art)

Not familiar enough with the issue to make a comment. I will say this. It’s my understanding that Western Rite Orthodox parishes use statues today and if you look at many 19th century Russian icons they look as realistic as any Western religious art.

-Denying that Christ is fully present EITHER in the transformed bread OR wine.

I don’t know that anyone ever denied that Christ is fully present in both species, the issue is why change the established practice of many centuries and in the process relegate the Precious Blood to secondary status?

-granting permission for divorce and remarriage in circumstances unheard of in the early Fathers

No different than granting annulments for grounds unheard of in the early Fathers. We both make concessions for the sake of economy.

-the idea that artificial contraception is not a sin.

I don’t know that there is any consensus on this matter in Orthodoxy. I will say this, any form of contraception that is an abortifacient is categorically condemned. Somehow I suspect that NFP may have been considered a sin in the Catholic Church at one time.

These are just some that I could think of off-hand. I’m sure these points can be denied or rationalized, but that doesn’t affect the fact that they exist in some form or other within Eastern Orthodoxy. It’s really a matter of perspective - Catholics will claim the dogma of the IC and papal infallibility are fully patristic, just as I’m sure Eastern Orthodox can rationalize away some or all of the points I made above.

Not all of these are points that I agree to myself. But I have heard or read them somewhere from non-Orthodox polemicists.

Blessings,
Marduk

Of course your point still stands. To a certain extent it’s a matter of perspective. There is one thing that is for certain, we can’t both be right.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Doctrines that are novel in the Eastern ORTHODOX Churches:

-Denial that the Son has ANY role in the Procession

Not an Orthodox dogma: from Father, through Son.

-Denial of the Toll-house doctrine (which according to Father Rose is a matter of doctrinal Faith to be believed by all)

Toll houses are the novelty. Father Rose is 20th century. Yes I know Pope Pius XII can get away with that with you all in the 20th cent. That doesn’t fly with us.

-Denial of the doctrine of Atonement

Something invented by Anselm. Transforms John 3:16 into “God was so ticked off at the world that He sent His Son to be tortured so He could vent on Him, and now He feels SOOO much better.”
I’m proud to deny such an abomination.

-Denial of the necessity of the head bishop, or even the existence of the head bishop.

AC canon 34 again. Always missing that “the head bishop should act with the consent of all part.”
Funny, all the patriarchates except Russia manage to continue to have head bishops. And Russia was only because of that lover of all things Western Peter. Even then, Moscow retained his position.

-Utilization of the doctrine of Essence/Energies to make a heterodox distinction WITHIN the Godhead

A distinction, as has been posted before the Cappodocians and others make.

Nationalism in ecclesiology.

Might want to take that up with the Armenians, the first Christian nation.
where did the pope of Rome get that title “supreme pontiff” again?

-Denial that St. Peter is the Rock, or falsely dichotomizing Jesus and Peter’s confession from Peter himself.
As has been posted inumerable times, most of the Fathers so interpret it.

-Demeaning the use of holy images in Latin Christendom (i.e., the use of statues or realism in art)

so-so. yes, there is early use (Eusebius talks of a statue put up by the woman with the issue of blood), but yes, the west doesn’t used them until later, and does go overboard.

Denying that Christ is fully present EITHER in the transformed bread OR wine.

You mean denying this as a valid excuse to withhold the chalice from the laity. Take, drink of this ALL OF YOU.

-granting permission for divorce and remarriage in circumstances unheard of in the early Fathers

you mean the abuse? yes, just like annullments.
Can you give ANY evidence of the annullment scheme from the Fathers?

the idea that artificial contraception is not a sin.

As a poster no longer with us pointed out, those Fathers who condemn contraception condemn ANY, even NFP. Hence the reason Humane Vitae has very little (actully none) in the way of patristics.

These are just some that I could think of off-hand. I’m sure these points can be denied or rationalized, but that doesn’t affect the fact that they exist in some form or other within Eastern Orthodoxy. It’s really a matter of perspective - Catholics will claim the dogma of the IC and papal infallibility are fully patristic, just as I’m sure Eastern Orthodox can rationalize away some or all of the points I made above.

Ha, ha. You worship God in the way you think right and we’ll worship Him in the way He thinks right.

Not all of these are points that I agree to myself. But I have heard or read them somewhere from non-Orthodox polemicists

I seem to recall a few conversations between you and your coreligionists on the immediate jurisdiction of the pope of Rome, etc.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The discusssions of whether or not Mary died strike me as peculiar.

In light of the resurrection of Christ, and given that we agree on the key point that Mary was translated to heaven, what is the meaning of “death”?

Her “death” is not mentioned in the vesperal propers at all. We sing of her translation from “earth to heaven” and from “life to life”. In Matins, “death” is mentioned by way of paradox, negation.
"In you O Vigin without spot the bounds of nature are overcome, for child birth remains virgin, and death is betrothed to life. O Theotokos, virgin after bearing child and alive after death … (1st canon ode 9). Ultimately we sing, in the praises, of her “deathless dormition”.

In any mystical sense of “death”, she did not die. And I don’t understand the why any significance is attached to any other sense of “death”.

Then we’d call it the Assumption, rather than the Dormition.

And the accounts of her tomb, which I’ve venerated, speaks of her death. Look at the icon.

 

[Dauphin]

The Eastern Orthodox Churches have the same origins of the Catholic Church, but are no longer in the true Church because of their loss of communion with the Successor of St. Peter, who is the “source and an intrinsic reason”* for Catholic unity.

*At least, according to St. Cyprian of Carthage

 

[anon52328184]

for me, the Roman Catholic church is the one true church, because when the first churches were formed, they were all in the Roman Empire. they were still part of the roman empire when it divided into west and east. i read the orthodox were first excommunicated because of the difference of opinion on the date of Easter, but were later brought back in. i don’t see how you can avoid what scripture says about Peter and being given the keys to the kingdom and Jesus building his church upon this rock.
this is my opinion and i know there are many on this thread who will disagree, but this is why is feel the RCC has the fullness of truth.

 

[East_and_West]

The Eastern Orthodox Churches have the same origins of the Catholic Church, but are no longer in the true Church because of their loss of communion with the Successor of St. Peter, who is the “source and an intrinsic reason”* for Catholic unity.

*At least, according to St. Cyprian of Carthage

Amen!!!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You should not be so dismissive. This article by Fr. Lev sets a good high bar that should be a model for those who like to think, with limited experience, that they speak for the mind of the Orthodox church.

Sorry, I’ve read plenty of ORTHODOX literature on this subject. And as they have said, it doesn’t add up.

I’ve seen good arguements for sola fide, but in the end, they don’t add up. Calvin wrote a lot, but I have no use for him.

Always? Even in the case of the death of Christ?

II Cor. 5:21, which I think I did quote.

What about the prophets who did not die?

Enoch and Elijah, the Two Witnesses who will come to be martyred in the Last Days?

The “most obvious” result? In Catholic teaching, and in at least some Orthodox teaching of some eras, there are various “results” of Original Sin.

And they all included death.

This remark is careless. Go back to the Old Catholic Encyclopedia - go see what Catholics mean by the “stain of Original Sin”. This will answer you question.

Ah, that font of ultramontanist wisdom.

Your source:
The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam – from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

(btw, I love the reference to Genesis 3:15 in Ineffabilis Deus with it’s mistranlation of “He, His” to “She, Her.”)

Something from the Western Captivity of the Church (Confession of Dositheus, Decree VI) in response:
We believe the first man created by God to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. And hence hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that none is born after the flesh who beareth not this burden, and experienceth not the fruits thereof in this present world. But by these <119> fruits and this burden we do not understand [actual] sin, such as impiety, blasphemy, murder, sodomy, adultery, fornication, enmity, and whatsoever else is by our depraved choice committed contrarily to the Divine Will, not from nature; for many both of the Forefathers and of the Prophets, and vast numbers of others, as well of those under the shadow [of the Law], as under the truth [of the Gospel], such as the divine Precursor, {St. John the Baptist ELC} and especially the Mother of God the Word, the ever-virgin Mary, experienced not these, or such like faults; but only what the Divine Justice inflicted upon man as a punishment for the [original] transgression, such as sweats in labour, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in child-bearing, and, in fine {in summation ELC}, while on our pilgrimage, to live a laborious life, and lastly, bodily death.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Antonius Lupus,

I thank God everyday to have a brother like Marduk. He helped me in my faith immensely. I second this AMEN!

Thank you for your words. I am really humbled.

I hope you don’t mind a little correction with your claim that Eucharistic Ecclesiology is a novel doctrine in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Here is what the Council of Trent taught:

In addition to his other purposes, our Savior left the Eucharist in his Church as a symbol of unity and love which he desired to unify and unite all Christians.

It is the manner of Eastern Orthodox polemics (note I said polemics for this does not fully or completely represent Eastern Orthodoxy) to falsely dichotomize the Faith of the Eastern Orthodox from the Faith of Catholicism. In our zeal to defend the Faith, we should not follow them into that horrible error. We should always look to the sources and be eager to find the similarities and common ground. We need to seek understanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Eastern Orthodox Churches have the same origins of the Catholic Church, but are no longer in the true Church because of their loss of communion with the Successor of St. Peter, who is the “source and an intrinsic reason”* for Catholic unity.

*At least, according to St. Cyprian of Carthage

Ah, yes. His translation into Latin of Firmilian’s letter for Rome shows that:

1. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity…
2. Consider with what want of judgment you dare to blame those who strive for the truth against falsehood. For who ought more justly to be indignant against the other?—whether he who supports God’s enemies, or he who, in opposition to him who supports God’s enemies, unites with us on behalf of the truth of the Church?—except that it is plain that the ignorant are also excited and angry, because by the want of counsel and discourse they are easily turned to wrath; so that of none more than of you does divine Scripture say, “A wrathful man stirreth up strifes, and a furious man heapeth up sins.”For what strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all; and not even the precepts of an apostle have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and peace, although he warned, and said, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”
   ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxiv.html

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Nothing more than accidents of history. Of course we could have just done as the Catholics did and make our patriarchs heads of states themselves.

OUCH!

Papal States.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

for me, the Roman Catholic church is the one true church, because when the first churches were formed, they were all in the Roman Empire. they were still part of the roman empire when it divided into west and east. i read the orthodox were first excommunicated because of the difference of opinion on the date of Easter, but were later brought back in.

I think you are thinking of Pope Victor.

HE was rebuked by the entire Church for his threat, and the Church of Asia’s practice was left alone.

i don’t see how you can avoid what scripture says about Peter and being given the keys to the kingdom and Jesus building his church upon this rock.

Like the Fathers did.

 

[Genesis315]

(btw, I love the reference to Genesis 3:15 in Ineffabilis Deus with it’s mistranlation of “He, His” to “She, Her.”)

The Hebrew word is without a vowel in the original. It is ambiguous. It can be he, she, or they. Jews, for example, translate it as they.

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Genesis3.html

The meaning is the same in all three translations really.

However, it is interesting to note that the two women who receive the same praises as Mary in Scripture, Judith and Jael, both, calling on God, defeated the chief enemy of God’s people during their respective times with blows to the head. Likewise, St. Paul in Romans says the Church (of which Mary is a figure) by the power of God will trample the serpent.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Hebrew word is without a vowel in the original. It is ambiguous. It can be he, she, or they. Jews, for example, translate it as they.

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Genesis3.html

The meaning is the same in all three translations really.

The LXX, the Apostles’ Bible, says He, she.

Using Hebrew was Jerome’s innovation.

However, it is interesting to note that the two women who receive the same praises as Mary in Scripture, Judith and Jael, both, calling on God, defeated the chief enemy of God’s people during their respective times with blows to the head. Likewise, St. Paul in Romans says the Church (of which Mary is a figure) by the power of God will trample the serpent.

As does Her Son, the subject of the Protoevangelium.

 

[Genesis315]

I hope you don’t mind a little correction with your claim that Eucharistic Ecclesiology is a novel doctrine in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Here is what the Council of Trent taught:

In addition to his other purposes, our Savior left the Eucharist in his Church as a symbol of unity and love which he desired to unify and unite all Christians.

It is the manner of Eastern Orthodox polemics (note I said polemics for this does not fully or completely represent Eastern Orthodoxy) to falsely dichotomize the Faith of the Eastern Orthodox from the Faith of Catholicism. In our zeal to defend the Faith, we should not follow them into that horrible error. We should always look to the sources and be eager to find the similarities and common ground. We need to seek understanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

There are some Orthodox writers who do subscribe to an exclusively Eucharistic ecclesiology to the exclusion of universal ecclesiology–but such individuals seem to be in the minority with the rest holding also to a universal ecclesiology or at least an ecclesiology giving significance to the autocephalous (sp?) national Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Josephdaniel29,

First, let me just say that I don’t like threads that are going to go off into hundreds of topics, which I feel this one will do. If you wish to discuss the issues covered below, after this initial response of mine, what do you think about starting new threads on each topic? If you agree, let me know, and I will make the effort myself to start the new threads.

He has no role in the eternal procession of the Spirit. The Creed and Scriptures make that clear.

Though there are explicit denials from the Fathers that the Spirit is FROM the Son, this is obviously in response to the heresy running current at the time that the Spirit is merely a creature of the Son. But many of the orthodox Catholic Eastern/Oriental Fathers taught that the very BEING of the spirit comes from the Father THROUGH the Son (Pope St. Cyril and St. John Damascene that I can think of off hand).

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on who you ask ) Fr Seraphim isn’t the final arbiter of truth.

I’m just pointing out that the Eastern Orthodox is not immune from the charge of “novelty” (whether it is denied or not).

No denial, we just prefer to take a more holistic approach

I am aware that there are different levels of acceptance of the doctrine in your Church. But there have been some EO who have come here in the past that denied it outright. And I personally can’t see the difference between the doctrine of Atonement as taught by the Latins, and the more mitigated form that is believed by some Easterns. So in my view, a denial of the Latin teaching is a denial of the doctrine altogether. (FYI, the doctrine of Atonement is fully upheld by the ORIENTAL Orthodox)

That’s malarkey. No one denies the need for or existence of a head bishop. That not an argument anyone is making. In other words a straw man.

Perhaps you have not been here long enough, but there were several EO who came here and denied that very thing, and other EO did not do a thing to correct them. Perhaps if you were here in those days, you would have corrected them. Nevertheless the belief does exist in your Church.

I didn’t realize this was an issue. Of course I don’t know that anyone has ever said that one must believe this to be Orthodox.

The distinction of Essence/Energies is part and parcel the heritage of Easterns and Orientals. But Orientals don’t apply that distinction as a real distinction WITHIN the Godhead. I’ve read several of your (EO) apologists appeal to this distinction in the debate about filioque. But such an appeal is wholly improper and (I feel) heterodox, because such a distinction, as stated, does not apply WITHIN the Godhead. Appealing to the distinction in the debate on filique is TRULY novel.

Nothing more than accidents of history. Of course we could have just done as the Catholics did and make our patriarchs heads of states themselves.

But it is a problem.

You should know good and well that there were many interpretations of that passage posited by the Fathers. It is the Catholics who isolated one from the rest and turned it into dogma.

If you read Vatican I, the Catholic Church appeals to all interpretations. On the opposite end, EVERY single EO apologist who has come onto this board to debate the issue has denied that Peter is the Rock. Brother Mickey just very recently did in one of the threads.

Not familiar enough with the issue to make a comment. I will say this. It’s my understanding that Western Rite Orthodox parishes use statues today and if you look at many 19th century Russian icons they look as realistic as any Western religious art.
I don’t know that anyone ever denied that Christ is fully present in both species, the issue is why change the established practice of many centuries and in the process relegate the Precious Blood to secondary status?
No different than granting annulments for grounds unheard of in the early Fathers. We both make concessions for the sake of economy.
I don’t know that there is any consensus on this matter in Orthodoxy. I will say this, any form of contraception that is an abortifacient is categorically condemned. Somehow I suspect that NFP may have been considered a sin in the Catholic Church at one time.

Of course your point still stands. To a certain extent it’s a matter of perspective. There is one thing that is for certain, we can’t both be right.

 

[Dauphin]

Ah, yes. His translation into Latin of Firmilian’s letter for Rome shows that:

1. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity…
2. Consider with what want of judgment you dare to blame those who strive for the truth against falsehood. For who ought more justly to be indignant against the other?—whether he who supports God’s enemies, or he who, in opposition to him who supports God’s enemies, unites with us on behalf of the truth of the Church?—except that it is plain that the ignorant are also excited and angry, because by the want of counsel and discourse they are easily turned to wrath; so that of none more than of you does divine Scripture say, “A wrathful man stirreth up strifes, and a furious man heapeth up sins.”For what strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all; and not even the precepts of an apostle have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and peace, although he warned, and said, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”
   ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxiv.html

It’s ironic that you’d use a letter to attack Papal Supremacy which only confirms it existed in the early Church and was claimed by Popes the Eastern Orthodox recognize. It’s also interesting that you’d use a letter that contains manifest errors about the need for rebaptism in support of your position. If a letter contains one errror, why can’t it contain another?

Obviously, Firmilian was incorrect in saying that the Pope commits schism by claiming universal jurisdiction, just as he was incorrect to say that heretics have to be rebaptized. Firmilian was 100% wrong, and Pope Stephen was 100% correct - matter, form, and intent are all that is needed to confer baptism. Likewise, the Pope has a full and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church.

This is a case in which the Pope defended the Holy Orthodox faith against a rebellious eastern Bishop. He asserted the Catholic truth both concerning rebaptism, and concerning the universal authority of the Pope.

What fantastic evidence of the protection given to the Successor of St. Peter and the Vicar of Christ!

 

[dvdjs]

Then we’d call it the Assumption, rather than the Dormition.

Huh? What is the “if” clause that goes with this “then” clause?

Look at the icon.

And…?