Is the E. Orthodox Church the original Church?

[MrS]

Perhaps once the latin church comes home to Rome the Orthodox Church will also Come home.

The environment of the last 40 years that produces carefree annulments, general absolutions, folk guitar masses, clown masses, fr feurio 15 minute low masses, giant mega parishes…is not conductive for Orthodox to come home.

If there is an implication that the Catholic Church is under constant attack (and I would agree with that position), then perhaps you might consider why (because it is the Church Satan wishes to destroy).

I don’t see that in the Eastern.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

With the latest historical exposition, it seems that the Eastern Orthodox has changed its position on the sign of the Cross also, the Novelty that the EO did not change any practices is clearly false, especially in the case of the sign of the cross, in which the sign of the cross with two fingers is older than the sign of the cross with 3 fingers, a move rejected by the russian old believers. Please see this link…
orthodoxwiki.org/Sign_of_the_Cross

with canonical images as proof,
mymartyrdom.com/examples.htm

Also, the method of signing of the cross, is not an issue with the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, and Roman Catholics.

MARLO, I recognized the name but couldn’t place you until I saw the deacon in the sig.

from that viciious Orthodox work, “the Catholic Encyclopedia:”

On the whole it seems probable that the ultimate prevalence of the larger cross is due to an instruction of Leo IV in the middle of the ninth century. “Sign the chalice and the host”, he wrote, “with a right cross and not with circles or with a varying of the fingers, but with two fingers stretched out and the thumb hidden within them, by which the Trinity is symbolized. Take heed to make this sign rightly, for otherwise you can bless nothing” (see Georgi, “Liturg. Rom. Pont.”, III, 37). Although this, of course, primarily applies to the position of the hand in blessing with the sign of the cross; it seems to have been adapted popularly to the making of the sign of the cross upon oneself. Aelfric (about 1000) probably had it in mind when he tells his hearers in one of his sermons: “A man may wave about wonderfully with his hands without creating any blessing unless he make the sign of the cross. But if he do the fiend will soon be frightened on account of the victorious token. With three fingers one must bless himself for the Holy Trinity” (Thorpe, “The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church” I, 462).
At this period the manner of making it in the West seems to have been identical with that followed at present in the East, i.e. only three fingers were used, and the hand traveled from the right shoulder to the left. The point, it must be confessed, is not entirely clear and Thalhofer (Liturgik, I, 633) inclines to the opinion that in the passages of Belethus (xxxix), Sicardus (III, iv), Innocent III (De myst. Alt., II, xlvi), and Durandus (V, ii, 13), which are usually appealed to in proof of this, these authors have in mind the small cross made upon the forehead or external objects, in which the hand moves naturally from right to left, and not the big cross made from shoulder to shoulder. Still, a rubric in a manuscript copy of the York Missal clearly requires the priest when signing himself with the paten to touch the left shoulder after the right. Moreover it is at least clear from many pictures and sculptures that in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Greek practice of extending only three fingers was adhered to by many Latin Christians. Thus the compiler of the Ancren Riwle (about 1200) directs his nuns at “Deus in adjutorium” to make a little cross from above the forehead down to the breast with three fingers". However there can be little doubt that long before the close of the Middle Ages *which words, as is well known, have been retained in their Greek form by the Western Church *in the Office for Good Friday.
newadvent.org/cathen/13785a.htm
Contradicitur. Wrong again.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Not absolutely! The Pope has the power to put down a decree of a Council.

Citing an innovation to prove you’re the original Church? That’;s original.

Pope Vigilius learned otherwise.

Or perhaps you are thinking of Pope Leo III, who put down the Council of Aachen’s insertion of the filioque, and put the original Creed in Greek and Latin on St. Peter’s, with the inscription HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith)(VITA LEONIS, LIBER PONTIFICALIS (Ed.Duchene, TII, p.26)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Papal Infallibility

I think you mean papal supremacy. Papal Infallibility was even newer.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Christ said either of the two could be received. Paul concurred.

They both said receive both, unless you can provide any words of theirs otherwise

 

[Isa_Almisry]

If there is an implication that the Catholic Church is under constant attack (and I would agree with that position), then perhaps you might consider why (because it is the Church Satan wishes to destroy).

I don’t see that in the Eastern.

Heard of Lenin? Stalin?

The Fourth Crusade?

You’re not looking.

Why the small print?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Did you miss this post?

We still say the same things. We don’t mean what you claim by them.

I think you are misunderstanding me. We may say the same thing, sometimes, but the Church actually puts a real and full meaning to those words spoke in my previous post.

Anyhow, you said that you could produce theologians condeming it:

                 Originally Posted by **Isa Almisry**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4029526#post4029526)                 
             *The IC is particularly bad, as many of the theologians at its first appearance condemned it as an innovation (11th century). Btw, one of its biggest fans, Anselm, was also a defended filioque.*

Your theologians are still not yet quoted, and are probably already split in 1054 when the Orthodox church was created. But still, I would be interested in hearing what they had to say, and see if what they “condemn” as you put it, really was the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, or a figment of their imagination.

In light of the words spoken by the saints in the post I gave above, it makes your faulty history evident and it “first appearance” was much earlier than that; going all the way back to Genesis 3:15, finding its fulfillment in the new Eve, Our Lady, Mother of Life. And also verified by the Angelic Salutation, the connection between the Our Lady and the Ark, the various Liturgies, and the teachings of the Saints, and now the teaching authority of the Church.

 

[yeshua]

Doctrines that are novel in the Eastern ORTHODOX Churches:

-Denial that the Son has ANY role in the Procession
-Denial of the Toll-house doctrine (which according to Father Rose is a matter of doctrinal Faith to be believed by all)
-Denial of the doctrine of Atonement
-Denial of the necessity of the head bishop, or even the existence of the head bishop.
-Utilization of the doctrine of Essence/Energies to make a heterodox distinction WITHIN the Godhead
-Nationalism in ecclesiology.
-Denial that St. Peter is the Rock, or falsely dichotomizing Jesus and Peter’s confession from Peter himself.
-Demeaning the use of holy images in Latin Christendom (i.e., the use of statues or realism in art)
-Denying that Christ is fully present EITHER in the transformed bread OR wine.
-granting permission for divorce and remarriage in circumstances unheard of in the early Fathers
-the idea that artificial contraception is not a sin.

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

You know, I have had to take a very stark break from these boards due to the sheer **embarrassment **I get from reading posts of this like from people who belong to my own Church.

From someone who has had to live with persecution within his own church for simply being “not Catholic enough” that we Catholics too–Brother Marduk–have our own polemicists, false dichotomies, and imaginary problems. If not, there would be no need for this board to educate members of our own church about itself, or the vast differences in opinion on what really constitutes an “Eastern or Oriental Catholic”. The same issues separating Catholicism and Orthodoxy exist in our own communion. If you doubt that travel from Melkite to Melkite church, nay, even Latin to Latin church, and I have no doubt that you will hear very different interpretations that on paper, or screen, can seem romantically imaginary. However, for every one EO polemic I can give you an RC or EC polemic, showering down the same divisive material with no end in sight. They too can cite the same scripture and the same Fathers, though NOTHING is going to come from writing off enough an entire Apostolic belief system by simply calling it polemical. Your list of the “EO polemical beliefs,” Brother Marduk, is offensive; you know as well as I do how inconsequential many of those examples are, especially when one considers their potential offense to Byzantine Catholics. Some are valid points of dicussion, but don’t marry them with issues that make you one of the very things you despise “the other guy” of being.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

And filioque solves that?

Whoever said filioque was promoted to battle that heresy? St. John Damascene, in his compilation of orthodox Catholic teaching, actually alludes to the reason that filioque was assumed in the West - there were certain Arians who denied the consubstantiality of the Son and the Spirit. If you’re interested, let me know and I’ll find you the exact quote.

John is also emphatic, explicitly, that the Spirit does NOT proceed from the Son.

To be more accurate, he did not say that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son. He stated that the Spirit is not from the Son. If you check the context of the statement, you will find that not two sentences before that, he states that the Son is not Cause or Father. Obviously, he only meant to say that the Son is not Cause of the Spirit in the same way that the Father is Cause of the Spirit, which is why he immediately adds afterwards that the Spirit is the Spirit OF the Son. A few sentences later, he states that the Spirit is manifested and imparted THROUGH the Son. And before you start to repeat the novel argument that applies the distinction of Essence and Energies into discussions on Filioque, St. John Damascene asserts in the very same chapter, “For one cannot say of God that He has being in the first place and goodness in the second.”

But the capstone of St. John’s argument against the Eastern Orthodox novelty that the Son has absolutely no part in the Procession of the Spirit is contained in the SAME chapter as your much-vaunted quote:
“And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the Hidden Mysteries of the His Divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known only to Himself, but different from that of generation.”

And later on, once again, IN THE SAME CHAPTER – “And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as though proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father**. For the Father alone is cause.”

You can’t fall back on the usual EO rhetoric that assigns “through the Son” only in the manner of economic procession (or whatever your apologists call it), because St. John is indubitably speaking here about the origin of the Spirit, even making the proper allusion to the Begetting (generation). I wish you had room in your signature line to include these other important quotes from the Damascene, so others will see what he ACTUALLY taught. As it is, your signature line only supports the EO novelty that the Son has no role in the Procession, not the actual patristic teaching on the matter.

And yes, I understand that many EO have already come around to understand and accept that the Catholic Church never taught heresy on the matter (Father Romanides – as well as Bishop Timothy Ware - explicitly admits it is not a heresy, but at best a historical mistake in translation). But there are still those who deny the Son ANY role in the Procession, or those who claim that the procession is only one that is temporal or economic (or however else EO apologists describe it).

We don’t say we don’t have them. They just don’t stick.

I brought up these points precisely because they exist or still exist.

I’ve talked to several ORIENTAL Orthodox on this, and they don’t know what you are talking about.

I’ve also met Oriental Orthodox who claim this – 99% (well – you know what I mean, a great many) of them are converts from Eastern Orthodoxy. The rest have just read too much EO literature for their own good (since the majority of Orthodox material comes from Eastern Orthodox, which often style themselves simply “Orthodox,” many OO don’t know the difference).
Here is some online material for your reading from the OO sources (do a word search on “atonement”):
stmarkdc.org/en/content/thursday-april-24-2008
stdemiana.org.au/orthodox/coptic_orthodoxy_massexplained.html
syrianorthodoxchurch.org/library/sermons.html
geocities.com/dershnork/divine_lit.html
saintsjoachimandanne.net/worship.htm
stsarkischurch.net/Badarak.htm

Next time you hear OO deny the doctrine of the Atonement – the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ - tell them in good conscience that their views are opposed to the teachings of their Churches.

Actually, as I remember it, the question was the existence of a fourth (fifth) order above bishop. And since no Church (even the Vatican) recognzis a 4th order, the point you we were making was denied.

It may have been before your time here. There were definitely some who flat-out denied that there is such a thing as a head bishop (claiming in opposition that Christ is the only head of the Church). I’ll grant that I recall succinctly that these were EO converts. Perhaps they are not getting correct catechesis on the matter? If you guys aren’t careful, that heterodoxy may spread.

I don’t recall the distinction coming into the debate on filioque, except Latin apologists claiming the distinction was an innovation, thus justifing filioque.

Latins have never used the simplicity of God to justify filioque, they are two separate issues. It is the EO, on the other hand, who have used the distinction to reject filioque. I believe it was done during the 14th century, at the same synod which dogmatized Palamas’ position over his adversary’s. It has been repeated here by some EO, and I think something from orthodoxinfo website was alluded to at some point (I might be wrong on that, though). To insert a distinction WITHIN the Godhead other than the distinction of Persons is a novelty within Eastern Orthodoxy. It might be open to interpretation, but at best it is a serious error, and at worst it is full blown heterodoxy.

No, what was denied was the EXCLUSIVE interpretation that St. Peter was the Rock, especially that most interpretations of the Fathers outnumbered it. And I have read Vatican I, and no, it sees all through the primacy keyhole.

I doubt that. Otherwise, EO would say “not just that.” But they never make that qualification. If they think the Catholic Church teaches an exclusive interpretation of the Rock of Matthew’s Gospel as Peter, well, then, that is just another example of the ignorance of non-Catholics on the actual Catholic teaching on the matter.
He made Peter a perpetual principle of …unity and a visible foundation that …on the firmness of his faith a Church might arise whose pinnacle was to reach into heaven.
First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Preamble.

And speaking of keys, I’m still waiting for my explanation from ANYONE on when Eliakim in Isaiah became a figure of Peter, rather than Christ (which is how the Douay Rheims saw it).

Why does it matter? Catholics are free to interpret Scripture in whatever way as long as it does not violate Church teaching. Don’t you have any freedom of interpretation in the EOC?

Statues were not common at the time of the 7th Council, so there was no need for making it. But yes, I think this is overblown at times, on both sides.

Agreed, but I’ve never heard or read of a Latin demean the use of icons, but there are certainly EO polemicists out there who demean the use of statues or three-dimensional images.

No, they don’t.

What are you referring to?

Blessings,
Marduk**

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

mardukm:

            *Doctrines that are novel in the Eastern ORTHODOX Churches:

-Denial that the Son has ANY role in the Procession
-Denial of the Toll-house doctrine (which according to Father Rose is a matter of doctrinal Faith to be believed by all)
-Denial of the doctrine of Atonement
-Denial of the necessity of the head bishop, or even the existence of the head bishop.
-Utilization of the doctrine of Essence/Energies to make a heterodox distinction WITHIN the Godhead
-Nationalism in ecclesiology.
-Denial that St. Peter is the Rock, or falsely dichotomizing Jesus and Peter’s confession from Peter himself.
-Demeaning the use of holy images in Latin Christendom (i.e., the use of statues or realism in art)
-Denying that Christ is fully present EITHER in the transformed bread OR wine.
-granting permission for divorce and remarriage in circumstances unheard of in the early Fathers
-the idea that artificial contraception is not a sin.

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*

[sign]Amen[/sign]
I think brother Marduk nailed a bunch of really big issues and spoke clear enough for anyone to understand.

good job.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Yeshua,

You know, I have had to take a very stark break from these boards due to the sheer **embarrassment **I get from reading posts of this like from people who belong to my own Church.

From someone who has had to live with persecution within his own church for simply being “not Catholic enough” that we Catholics too–Brother Marduk–have our own polemicists, false dichotomies, and imaginary problems. If not, there would be no need for this board to educate members of our own church about itself, or the vast differences in opinion on what really constitutes an “Eastern or Oriental Catholic”. The same issues separating Catholicism and Orthodoxy exist in our own communion. If you doubt that travel from Melkite to Melkite church, nay, even Latin to Latin church, and I have no doubt that you will hear very different interpretations that on paper, or screen, can seem romantically imaginary. However, for every one EO polemic I can give you an RC or EC polemic, showering down the same divisive material with no end in sight. They too can cite the same scripture and the same Fathers, though NOTHING is going to come from writing off enough an entire Apostolic belief system by simply calling it polemical. Your list of the “EO polemical beliefs,” Brother Marduk, is offensive; you know as well as I do how inconsequential many of those examples are, especially when one considers their potential offense to Byzantine Catholics. Some are valid points of dicussion, but don’t marry them with issues that make you one of the very things you despise “the other guy” of being.

I can understand your anger. I agree with you that many of these examples are inconsequential. But you have to admit it is not the Catholics that are making these inconsequential matters consequential. For that reason, they need to be stated, to expose the wrongness of these EO polemical views.

Don;t you agree we need to discuss them? Shouldn’t Catholics be made aware of the inconsequential things that EO polemics are blowing out of proportion, so Catholics can correct such views when they hear them or are attacked on such matters?

As I’ve often stated, I don’t believe EO polemics are truly reprepresentative of Eastern Orthodoxy. Perhaps you misunderstood my intention for bringing these up. Unlike the EO polemicists who bring up inconsequential things for the sake of division, I am bringing them up so they may be refuted for the sake of understanding and unity.

But aside from that, you bring up another point that “issues separating Catholicism and Orthodoxy exist in our own communion.” What issues may those be that cannot be cleared up with a heart towards understanding?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I think you are misunderstanding me. We may say the same thing, sometimes, but the Church actually puts a real and full meaning to those words spoke in my previous post.

Whether the meaning fits it or not.

The JW put a real and full meaning to their interpretation of the 144,000 of Revelation. No, I don’t buy that either.

Anyhow, you said that you could produce theologians condeming it:

I did. From the West. As soon as it reared its head there.

Your theologians are still not yet quoted, and are probably already split in 1054 when the Orthodox church was created

.

Yes, the Vatican had already gone her own way when the “foreign teaching” appeared way off in merry ol’ England.

We Orthodox we too busy defending the Church of our Fathers against Anselm’s other innovation (or defense of it), the filioque.

But still, I would be interested in hearing what they had to say, and see if what they “condemn” as you put it, really was the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, or a figment of their imagination.

Bernard of Clarivaux (12th cent.):

The Mother of the Lord, you say, ought greatly to be honoured. You say well, but the honour of a queen loves justice. The royal Virgin does not need false honour, since she is amply supplied with true titles to honour and badges of her dignity. Honour indeed the purity of her flesh, the sanctity of her life, wonder at her motherhood as a virgin, adore her Divine offspring. Extol the prodigy by which she brought into the world without pain the Son, whom she had conceived without concupiscence. Proclaim her to be reverenced by the angels, to have been desired by the nations, to have been known beforehand by Patriarchs and Prophets, chosen by God out of all women and raised above them all. Magnify her as the medium by whom grace was displayed, the instrument of salvation, the restorer of the ages; and finally extol her as having been exalted above the choirs of angels to the celestial realms. These things the Church sings concerning her, and has taught me to repeat the same things in her praise, and what I have learnt from the Church I both hold securely myself and teach to others; what I have not received from the Church I confess I should with great difficulty admit. I have received then from the Church that day to be reverenced with the highest veneration, when being taken up from this sinful earth, she made entry into the heavens; a festival of most honoured joy. With no less clearness have I learned in the Church to celebrate the birth of the Virgin, and from the Church undoubtedly to hold it to have been holy and joyful; holding most firmly with the Church, that she received in the womb that she should come into the world holy. And indeed I read concerning Jeremiah, that before he came forth from the womb he was sanctified, and I think no otherwise of John the Baptist, who, himself in the womb of his mother, felt the presence of his Lord in the womb (S. Luke i. 41). It is matter for consideration whether the same opinion may not be held of holy David, on account of what he said in addressing God: In Thee I have been strengthened from the womb: Thou art He who took me out of my mother’s bowels (Ps. lxxi. 6); and again: I was cast upon Thee from the womb: Thou art my God from my mother’s belly (Ps. xxii. 10). And Jeremiah is thus addressed: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest out of the womb I sanctified thee (Jer. i. 5). How beautifully the Divine oracle has distinguished between conception in the womb and birth from the womb! and showed that if the one was foreseen only, the other was blessed beforehand with the gift of holiness: that no one might think that the glory of Jeremiah consisted only in being the object of the foreknowledge of God, but also of His predestination.

1. Let us, however, grant this in the case of Jeremiah. What shall be said of John the Baptist, of whom an angel announced beforehand that he should be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb? I cannot suppose that this is to be referred to predestination or to foreknowledge. For the words of the angel were without doubt fulfilled in their time, as he foretold; and the man (as cannot be doubted) filled with the Holy Ghost at the time and place appointed, as he predicted. But most certainly the Holy Ghost sanctified the man whom He filled. But how far this sanctification availed against original sin, whether for him, or for that prophet, or for any other who was thus prevented by grace, I would not rashly determine. But of these holy persons whom God has sanctified, and brought forth from the womb with the same sanctification which they have received in the womb, I do not hesitate to say that the taint of original sin which they contracted in conception, could not in any manner take away or fetter by the mere act of birth, the benediction already bestowed. Would any one dare to say that a child filled with the Holy Ghost, would remain notwithstanding a child of wrath; and if he had died in his mother’s womb, where he had received this fulness of the Spirit, would endure the pains of damnation? That opinion is very severe; I, however, do not dare to decide anything respecting the question by my own judgment. However that may be, the Church, which regards and declares, not the nativity, but only the death of other saints as precious, makes a singular exception for him of whom an angel singularly said, and many shall rejoice in his birth (Luke i. 14., 15), and with rejoicing honours his nativity. For why should not the birth be holy, and even glad and joyful, of one who leaped with joy even in the womb of his mother?
2. The gift, therefore, which has certainly been conferred upon some, though few, mortals, cannot for a moment be supposed to have been denied to that so highly favoured Virgin, through whom the whole human race came forth into life. Beyond doubt the mother of the Lord also was holy before birth; nor is holy Church at all in error in accounting the day of her nativity holy, and celebrating it each year with solemn and thankful joy. I consider that the blessing of a fuller sanctification descended upon her, so as not only to sanctify her birth, but also to keep her life pure from all sin; which gift is believed to have been bestowed upon none other born of women. This singular privilege of sanctity, to lead her life without any sin, entirely befitted the queen of virgins, who should bear the Destroyer of sin and death, who should obtain the gift of life and righteousness for all. Therefore, her birth was holy, since the abundant sanctity bestowed upon it made it holy even from the womb.
3. What addition can possibly be made to these honours? That her conception, also, they say, which preceded her honourable birth, should be honoured, since if the one had not first taken place, neither would the other, which is honoured. But what if some one else, following a similar train of reasoning, should assert that the honours of a festival ought to be given to each of her parents, then to her grand-parents, and then to their parents, and so on ad infinitum? Thus we should have festivals without number. Such a frequency of joys befits Heaven, not this state of exile. It is the happy lot of those who dwell there, not of strangers and pilgrims. But a writing is brought forward, given, as they say, by revelation from on high, [A writing of this kind is attributed to an English abbot named Elsin in the works of Anselm. Watch out for those angels of light] as if any one would not be able to bring forward another writing in which the Virgin should seem to demand the same honours to her parents also, saying, according to the commandment of the Lord, Honour thy father and thy mother (Exod. xx. 12). I easily persuade myself not to be influenced by such writings, which are supported neither by reason nor by any certain authority. For how does the consequence follow that since the conception has preceded the birth, and the birth is holy, the conception should be considered holy also? Did it make the birth holy because it preceded it? Although the one came first that the other might be, yet not that it might be holy. From whence came that holiness to the conception which was to be transmitted to the birth which followed? Was it not rather because the conception preceded without holiness that it was needful for the being conceived to be sanctified, that a holy birth might then follow? Or shall we say that the birth which was later than the conception shared with it its holiness? It might be, indeed, that the sanctification which was worked in her when conceived passed over to the birth which followed; but it could not be possible that it should have a retrospective effect upon the conception which had preceded it.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

1. Whence, then, was the holiness of that conception? Shall it be said that Mary was so prevented by grace that, being holy before being conceived, she was therefore conceived without sin; or that, being holy before being born, she has therefore communicated holiness to her birth? But in order to be holy it is necessary to exist, and a person does not exist before being conceived. Or perhaps, when her parents were united, holiness was mingled with the conception itself, so that she was at once conceived and sanctified. But this is not tenable in reason. For how can there be sanctity without the sanctifying Spirit, or the co-operation of the Holy Spirit with sin? Or how could there not be sin where concupiscence was not wanting? Unless, perhaps, some one will say that she was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by man, which would be a thing hitherto unheard of. I say, then, that the Holy Spirit came upon her, not within her, as the Angel declared: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee (S. Luke i. 35). And if it is permitted to say what the Church thinks, and the Church thinks that which is true, I say that she conceived by the Holy Spirit, but not that she was conceived by Him; that she was at once Mother and Virgin, but not that she was born of a virgin. Otherwise, where will be the prerogative of the Mother of the Lord, to have united in her person the glory of maternity and that of virginity, if you give the same glory to her mother also? This is not to honour the Virgin, but to detract from her honour. If, therefore, before her conception she could not possibly be sanctified, since she did not exist, nor in the conception itself, because of the sin which inhered in it, it remains to be believed that she received sanctification when existing in the womb after conception, which, by excluding sin, made her birth holy, but not her conception.
2. Wherefore, although it has been given to some, though few, of the sons of men to be born with the gift of sanctity, yet to none has it been given to be conceived with it. So that to One alone should be reserved this privilege, to Him who should make all holy, and coming into the world, He alone, without sin should make an atonement for sinners. The Lord Jesus, then, alone was conceived by the Holy Ghost, because He alone was holy before He was conceived. He being excepted, all the children of Adam are in the same case as he who confessed of himself with great humility and truth, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother conceived me (Ps. li. 6).
3. And as this is so, what ground can there be for a Festival of the Conception of the Virgin? On what principle, I say, is either a conception asserted to be holy which is not by the Holy Ghost, not to say that it is by sin, or a festival be established which is in no wise holy? Willingly the glorious Virgin will be without this honour, by which either a sin seems to be honoured or a sanctity supposed which is not a fact. And, besides, she will by no means be pleased by a presumptuous novelty against the custom of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of rashness, the sister of superstition, the daughter of levity. For if such a festival seemed advisable, the authority of the Apostolic See ought first to have been consulted, and he simplicity of inexperienced persons ought not to have been followed so thoughtlessly and precipitately. And, indeed, I had before noted that error in some persons; **but I appeared not to take notice of it, dealing gently with a devotion which sprang from simplicity of heart and love of the Virgin. But now that the superstition has taken hold upon wise men, and upon a famous and noble Church, of which I am specially the son, I know not whether I could longer pass it over without gravely offending you all. ** But what I have said is in submission to the judgment of whosoever is wiser than myself; and especially I refer the whole of it, as of all matters of a similar kind, to the authority and decision of the See of Rome, and I am prepared to modify my opinion if in anything I think otherwise than that See.
   ccel.org/ccel/bernard/letters.lxviii.html

Bernard is also an opponent of the absolute papal power in the Church. As certainly as he recognizes the papal authority as the highest in the Church, so decidedly does he reprove the effort to make it the only one. Even the middle and lower ranks of the Church have their right before God. To withdraw the bishops from the authority of the archbishops, the abbots from the authority of the bishops, that all may become dependent on the curia, means to make the Church a monster (De consideratione., iii, 8).

Btw, he’s no friend of ours:
I, for one, shall speak about those obstinate Greeks *, who are with us and against us, united in faith and divided in peace, though in truth their faith may stray from the straight path.
De Consideratione, iii, 1. (btw, he refers to Ephraim as “diligent doctor,” so he likes him).

In light of the words spoken by the saints in the post I gave above, it makes your faulty history evident and it “first appearance” was much earlier than that; going all the way back to Genesis 3:15,

Do you mean the faulty translation thereof (the Masoret says “they”: does that indicate that infinite regression that you quote from St. Gregory?

finding its fulfillment in the new Eve, Our Lady, Mother of Life. And also verified by the Angelic Salutation, the connection between the Our Lady and the Ark, the various Liturgies, and the teachings of the Saints, and now the teaching authority of the Church

.

potuit, sed non decuit ergo non fecit*

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Yeshua,

I can understand your anger. I agree with you that many of these examples are inconsequential. But you have to admit it is not the Catholics that are making these inconsequential matters consequential. For that reason, they need to be stated, to expose the wrongness of these EO polemical views.

Don;t you agree we need to discuss them? Shouldn’t Catholics be made aware of the inconsequential things that EO polemics are blowing out of proportion, so Catholics can correct such views when they hear them or are attacked on such matters?

As I’ve often stated, I don’t believe EO polemics are truly reprepresentative of Eastern Orthodoxy. Perhaps you misunderstood my intention for bringing these up. Unlike the EO polemicists who bring up inconsequential things for the sake of division, I am bringing them up so they may be refuted for the sake of understanding and unity.

But aside from that, you bring up another point that “issues separating Catholicism and Orthodoxy exist in our own communion.” What issues may those be that cannot be cleared up with a heart towards understanding?

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes, we sit on the boundaries that our Fathers set up just to be onoary (spllng?) because we have nothing better to do than to vent our envy against God’s vicar, whose recognition we crave to give us legitimacy, without out whom we can’t get along, just repeating empty phrases our Fathers gave us (except of course when we are inventing innovations like Hesychasm). Does that sum it up.

Try some :coffeeread:

 

[theistgal]

Anyone read this defense of the IC?

google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loupizzuti.com%2Fbartonic.htm&ei=Ad2bSNYZmc61A9vi4ekH&usg=AFQjCNGwpPcIwmB2MOxftf9U-w404qrnOQ&sig2=B6PciYtAUv776SCi9OyBUQ

WARNING! Use caution when opening that file - it crashed my computer and took me 10 minutes to get back to this point!

 

[anon52328184]

thanks for the warning theistgal. i almost opened that link.
i think i should be careful about links put here by posters. we don’t really know what is behind them.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

thanks for the warning theistgal. i almost opened that link.
i think i should be careful about links put here by posters. we don’t really know what is behind them.

Or your guys’ computers/internet connection just suck.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Whoever said filioque was promoted to battle that heresy?

The apologists of the Vatican: they say the Catholics in Visigoth Spain needed it, when said Arians were prostrate before the Catholic Church.

St. John Damascene, in his compilation of orthodox Catholic teaching, actually alludes to the reason that filioque was assumed in the West - there were certain Arians who denied the consubstantiality of the Son and the Spirit. If you’re interested, let me know and I’ll find you the exact quote.

This one?
Rather He [the Father] is Himself the beginning and cause of the existence of all things in a definite and natural manner. But the Son is derived from the Father after the manner of generation, and the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the Father, yet not after the manner of generation, but after that of procession. And we have learned that there is a difference [See Greg. Naz., Orat. 29, 35] between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand. Further, the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit are simultaneous.

All then that the Son and the Spirit have is from the Father, even their very being [Greg. Naz., Orat. 25.] and unless the Father is, neither the Son nor the Spirit is. And unless the Father possesses a certain attribute, neither the Son nor the Spirit possesses it: and through the Father [Athan., Contra Arian., Orat. 3; Greg. Naz., Orat. 35. So Augustine (Contr. Max. iii. 14, De Trin. xv.). Epiphanius (Anchor.), and Gregory of Nyssa (Epist. ad Ablab.)] that is, because of the Father’s existence [Cyril De Trinitate., the Son and the Spirit exist [Greg. Naz., Orat. 23], and through the Father, that is, because of the Father having the qualities, the Son and the Spirit have all their qualities, those of being unbegotten, and of birth and of procession being excepted Ibid., Orat., 25]. For in these hypobstatic or personal properties alone do the three holy subsistences/hypostases. differ from each other, being indivisibly divided not by essence but by the distinguishing mark of their proper and peculiar subsistence.

To be more accurate, he did not say that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son. He stated that the Spirit is not from the Son. If you check the context of the statement, you will find that not two sentences before that, he states that the Son is not Cause or Father. Obviously, he only meant to say that the Son is not Cause of the Spirit in the same way that the Father is Cause of the Spirit, which is why he immediately adds afterwards that the Spirit is the Spirit OF the Son. A few sentences later, he states that the Spirit is manifested and imparted THROUGH the Son.

Is this what you are talking about?
The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit: Father of the Son alone and producer of the Holy Spirit. The Son is Son, Word, Wisdom, Power, Image, Effulgence, Impress of the Father and derived from the Father. But the Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father but the Spirit of the Father as proceeding from the Father. For there is no impulse without Spirit. **And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him , but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.i.xii.html

And before you start to repeat the novel argument that applies the distinction of Essence and Energies into discussions on Filioque,

The relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the theological (not economic) Trinity, which the distinctions of Essence and Energies down apply, as Each knows the Other as He knows Himself.

St. John himself (actually, the Fathers he cites) introduces it:

“…Each then of the affirmations about God should be thought of as signifying not what He is in essence, but either something that it is impossible to make plain, or some relation to some of those things which are contrasts or some of those things that follow the nature, or an energy” ἢ σχέσιν τινὰ πρὸς τὶ των ἀντιδιαστελλομένων, ἢ τὶ τῶν παρεπομένων τῃ φύσει, ἢ ἐνέργειαν. And then picking up again in the secdtion you quote:]
The Deity being incomprehensible is also assuredly nameless. Therefore since we know not His essence, let us not seek for a name for His essence. For names are explanations of actual things [Greg. Naz., Orat. 36]. But God, Who is good and brought us out of nothing into being that we might share in His goodness, and Who gave us the faculty of knowledge, not only did not impart to us His essence, but did not even grant us the knowledge of His essence. For it is impossible for nature to understand fully the supernatural [Dioyns., De div. nom., c. 1.]

St. John Damascene asserts in the very same chapter, “For one cannot say of God that He has being in the first place and goodness in the second.”

What He says is: It appears then that the most proper of all the names given to God is “He that is,” [LXX ὁ ὤν, what is written in EO icons in the Cross in Christ’s halo] as He Himself said in answer to Moses on the mountain, Say to the sons of Israel, He that is hath sent Me [Exod. iii. 14]. For He keeps all being in His own embrace [Greg. Naz., Orat. 36], like a sea of essence infinite and unseen. Or as the holy Dionysius says, “He that is good [Dionys., De div. nom. c. 2, 3 and 4]” For one cannot say of God that He has being in the first place and goodness in the second [This sentence and the preceding are absent in some mss., and are rather more obscurely stated than is usual with John of Damascus].

But the capstone of St. John’s argument against the Eastern Orthodox novelty that the Son has absolutely no part in the Procession of the Spirit is contained in the SAME chapter as your much-vaunted quote:
“And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the Hidden Mysteries of the His Divinity, proceeding from the Father through

the Son in a manner known only to Himself, but different from that of generation.**”

And later on, once again, IN THE SAME CHAPTER – “And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as though proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father**. For the Father alone is cause.”

I think you got lost somewhere here.
We’ve never had a problem with “who proceeds from the Father through the Son,” the use of the word ekporeusis making it clear that we are speaking of the theological Trinity. Also making clear that filioque is a heresy.

What was it you were saying about strawmen and misrepresentation again?
Put those matches down! (I Corin. 3:13-5).

You can’t fall back on the usual EO rhetoric that assigns “through the Son” only in the manner of economic procession (or whatever your apologists call it),

we call it what the Fathers call it. That’s what makes us CATHOLIC and ORTHODOX.

because St. John is indubitably speaking here about the origin

of the Spirit, even making the proper allusion to the Begetting (generation).
and as we speak here ad nauseum, the proper quote (not allusion) to ekporeusis.

I wish you had room in your signature

My signature?
I think you are talking of your coreligionist Apotheum (is he still with us?).
Or are you talking about www.orthodoxchristianity.net ?

line to include these other important quotes from the Damascene, so others will see what he ACTUALLY taught.

like above?

As it is, your signature line only supports the EO novelty that the Son has no role in the Procession, not the actual patristic teaching on the matter.

Look again.

And yes, I understand that many EO have already come around to understand and accept that the Catholic Church never taught heresy on the matter (Father Romanides – as well as Bishop Timothy Ware - explicitly admits it is not a heresy, but at best a historical mistake in translation). But there are still those who deny the Son ANY role in the Procession, or those who claim that the procession is only one that is temporal or economic (or however else EO apologists describe it).

As the FATHERS describe it, dia THROUGH.

I brought up these points precisely because they exist or still exist.

Only in Vatican apologies.**

 

[Wesley7]

The wikipedia article claims that they dated back to Jesus. I had been taught that the Orthodox Church formed in 1054. Before that, they were part of the Catholic Church, and the early Christians were all Catholic. So are they claiming to be the original Church just because they were once part of the Catholic Church?

I believe its the Church that can authenticate and substantiate its claims. It would be the Church of the Ecumenical Councils, the Nicene Creed, and holding fast to the ancient Faith.

. . .

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’ve also met Oriental Orthodox who claim this – 99% (well – you know what I mean, a great many) of them are converts from Eastern Orthodoxy. The rest have just read too much EO literature for their own good (since the majority of Orthodox material comes from Eastern Orthodox, which often style themselves simply “Orthodox,” many OO don’t know the difference).

Given the terms of “union,” as to wording, I’d be careful here.
I threw out a line:
orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,16999.0.html
I’ll see if we get a nibble.

Here is some online material for your reading from the OO sources (do a word search on “atonement”):
stmarkdc.org/en/content/thursday-april-24-2008
stdemiana.org.au/orthodox/coptic_orthodoxy_massexplained.html
syrianorthodoxchurch.org/library/sermons.html
geocities.com/dershnork/divine_lit.html
saintsjoachimandanne.net/worship.htm
stsarkischurch.net/Badarak.htm

Actually, besides the word atonement (a Serbian has already posted on the above link stating the word doesn’t exist in Serbian), they share nothing else with Anselm (and the sites desplay a struggle with expressing this in English)

It can be best described by;
geocities.com/dershnork/divine_lit.html
Anselm wouldn’t approve (btw, atonement gogoled comes up because of the phrase "Incense is an “offering’ for atonement of sins”). Please, any EO, any objections to the below?
INTRODUCTION

The Divine Liturgy is the English word for Soorp Badarak. Soorp Badarak however literally means Holy Sacrifice. It is the name given to the Service that is performed at the Altar, by the priest solemnly vested, assisted by the deacon or deacons and with the choir and the people. It can be celebrated on any day of the year, except Holy Friday.

Why is the Liturgy a Sacrifice?

Whenever we want to acquire something useful we have to give some other thing for it. Adam, our first father, had disobeyed God and he had lost his filial ties with God. Thereafter mankind was yearning to become again the sons and daughters of God. Yet, because we had offended the infinite goodness of God, this was not possible because there was not a sacrifice great enough that we could make to repair the displeasure that we had caused to God through our disobedience.

[Anselm would approve]

**But Jesus Christ the Perfect Man who lived with us and like us for 33 years was also God. His life was, therefore, infinitely precious. Dying on the Cross He sacrificed it to God. Thus a divine life was given up to gain divine forgiveness. It is THIS sacrifice that the church - which IS the visible Body of Christ - continues every time the priest or bishop, who represents the church, celebrates the Liturgy. **That is why the Liturgy is a Sacrifice and we call it Badarak. This Sacrifice or Badarak is an Unbloody Sacrifice. It is so called to indicate the fact that while the blood of our Lord flowed on the Cross, it does not so flow while the Liturgy is being celebrated, and that is the only difference between the actual Crucifixion of our Lord on the Cross and the Liturgy. Namely, the Liturgy is not the actual Crucifixion, but the continuation of it throughout history.

ON THE NATURE OF THE HOLY SACRIFICE
The Eucharist of “The Holy Sacrifice” is the “showing of the Lord’s death.” It is communion with Jesus as a friend, and with Christ the Son as with God. It is an act of the Church whereby Christians dedicate themselves to the Lord and become aware of His special presence in their midst, in accordance with His word: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

The offering of the Church in the Eucharist is an act closely bound with that of Christ in heaven. The Church "always bears in the body the death of the Lord Jesus, so that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in one body."

The words of institution are recited in the Liturgy after recalling Christ’s passion. this means that the mere saying of the words does not by itself constitute the “doing” bidden by Christ to His disciples at the Last Supper. The saying of the words gives the reason why and the authority by which the Priest does what Christ did on Calvary. The Church identifies the bread and the cup with the Body and Blood of Christ because Christ Himself identified them by saying what He said at the Last Supper and by thus establishing the “symbolism.”

The Holy Sacrifice is the development of the four elements in the action of Christ in instituting the mystery as recorded in the Gospels. Thus Christ (a) “took bread”, (b) “gave thanks,” (c) “brake,” and (d) “gave to His disciples.” The Offertory (a), the Eucharistia (b), the Intinction and Fraction (c), and the Communion (d), correspond to these four acts of Christ.

1. THE OFFERTORY.

The Offertory is when the “Gifts” are brought to the Altar as the offerings of the church.

An individual layman, in making an offering of bread and wine for the eucharist, offers himself as a priest for himself. When these individual offerings (or their substitutes in any form of donation) are gathered together, the Priest offers them corporately, because in the person of the Priest the Church acts as a priest to herself, offering herself to God the Father as a body.

Then God accepts this offering “in the beloved,” i.e., in Christ the Son, and makes it the body of His Son. At the culmination of this acceptance the congregation cries "Abba, Father’ by singing the Lord’s Prayer at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer.

Thus the Eucharistic action requires three agents. The believer makes his own offering, his gifts, for himself. The Deacon brings these individual offerings together and makes them into a corporate offering of the Church. then the Bishop or Priest makes the corporate offering inside the sanctuary to God the Father, on behalf of the congregation.

cont…