Question about the Great Schism

[Gabriel_of_12]

Devotion,admiration, and respect for the heart of the Mother of God who is properly called ‘Theotokos’ ? . . .

Great to see you back Wesley, missed you I love and agree with your devotion to our blessed Holy Virgin Mother of God. One can respect the heart of Mary or have a devotion to the LOVE from Mary’s heart, neither is wrong and neither is binding on all the faithful.

Does your comment support the below quoted comment from Michael or contradict it?

see post 336 Gary Taylor "To me its seems in contrast to what Michael explained on the other thread of reverence to Mary in the EO? I believe that thread is “The Big Lie”.

Here’s the comment…

“We praise Saint Mary because she was the Mother of Jesus Christ our Lord, and we ask for her prayers just like we ask for anyone’s prayers. But there can be a point where this singular devotion can become excessive, even scandalous and thereby divisive.”

Be as it may, I don’t know, but praise St.Mary who was the Mother of Jesus Christ our Lord? What happened to your “Theokos”? God bearer, or Mother of God?

I have problems with Michaels statement because Mary is never placed in the past tense of being the Mother of God or Mother of the Word incarnate.

I will definitely hold to my Catholic Sacred Traditions of holding Mary “AS” Theotokos, Mother of God, never “was” Theotokos.

Which view is Orthodox and which view is not, or is there something I am missing here?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It is not for nothing that the great St. Athanasius whose paragraph has stirred the current discussion is considered among them (as among the EO, I gather) a pillar of Orthodoxy. **If he says something is wrong, I do believe it is wrong. **And if today’s Coptic clergy, following in his footsteps, likewise say that a given practice has no place in Orthodox worship, I believe them and seek to follow their guidance as best I can.

Please don’t put all your eggs in one basket of what one Saint comments. But your Orthodox teachers will instruct you on this in more detail. After all, “Church councils, Church councils” say’s the Orthodox is what Orthodoxy makes binding on the faithful, not necessarily a single Saints commentary.

From a Catholic perspective, we take all of the substance in that makes for balance from the Apostolic teachings handed down. They must never contradict with sacred scripture and sacred Tradition. Catholic faith must not conflict with any valid Church council findngs and declarations, beginning from the first council from Jersualem recorded in the book of Acts to Vatican II. All though we have many great Saints since apostolic times, their writings and commenataries are never binding on all believers.

Your view of St.Anthanasius does not fit into Catholic theology. Thus it makes sense why we have different views of the faith. I reason my faith with 2000 years of Catholic Christianity unchanged, while you gage your faith from commentary from Saints holding to both of our Apostolic Traditions.

Schism is starting to make sense to me now, from your perspective, why it still exists. But Love conquers all.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I hope so… The question here, if Orthodoxy is claiming to Orthodoxy, why different views? When Catholics share their faith here, normally we are all responding from the Rock = same faith without contradictions, especially on the subject of the blessed Mother. I just found this difference from Orthodox posters to be puzzling to me.

But Iam hopeful it is nothing. It funny how one can misinterpret ones meaning just by reading words, as you did mine.

Peace be with you

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

One thing I have always liked and continue to love about Catholicism is how holistic it is. All the Fathers have something important to say on different theological issues but none of them is, in himself, perfect or universally “right.” Yet the popes have taken the wisdom of many Fathers and saints and have put that wisdom that is carefully weighed and prayed-on into the theological treasures of the Church. Not everything Augustine said was wise, but his views on predestination, salvation, faith, free will, holy orders, ecclesiology, etc. are valuable. Not everything Aquinas said was flawless but many ideas he developed were brilliant. Not everything Tertullian said was valuable as he later became a Montanist yet he spoke some beautiful truths. The Popes have been able to glean the crucial, the poignant, the significant treasures from the Fathers and saints and keep our eye on what matters. You’re right, Gabe, that putting all our eggs into one basket saints-wise is not a good idea. For me, I know that many of the early Fathers if not most looked at the Atonement through a ransom or Christus Victor-only approach. But at times even John Chrysostom and Augustine sounded very substitutionary atonement in many things they said. When Anselm comes later, I think his view of the Atonement is truest to Scripture and the Popes have tended to favor his view. I know I do. And it is this holistic approach in Catholicism that I appreciate deeply.

Please don’t put all your eggs in one basket of what one Saint comments. But your Orthodox teachers will instruct you on this in more detail. After all, “Church councils, Church councils” say’s the Orthodox is what Orthodoxy makes binding on the faithful, not necessarily a single Saints commentary.

From a Catholic perspective, we take all of the substance in that makes for balance from the Apostolic teachings handed down. They must never contradict with sacred scripture and sacred Tradition. Catholic faith must not conflict with any valid Church council findngs and declarations, beginning from the first council from Jersualem recorded in the book of Acts to Vatican II. All though we have many great Saints since apostolic times, their writings and commenataries are never binding on all believers.

Your view of St.Anthanasius does not fit into Catholic theology. Thus it makes sense why we have different views of the faith. I reason my faith with 2000 years of Catholic Christianity unchanged, while you gage your faith from commentary from Saints holding to both of our Apostolic Traditions.

Schism is starting to make sense to me now, from your perspective, why it still exists. But Love conquers all.

Peace be with you

 

[dzheremi]

Please don’t put all your eggs in one basket of what one Saint comments. But your Orthodox teachers will instruct you on this in more detail. After all, “Church councils, Church councils” say’s the Orthodox is what Orthodoxy makes binding on the faithful, not necessarily a single Saints commentary.

Councils, as the Orthodox here on CAF will attest, are not to be called over every little thing. It makes absolutely no sense for a council to be called to pass judgment on a particular practice or idea that is not even found in the church communion which would call such a council in the first place, so you’re off-base here. It is precisely because the saint’s commentary is decisively given against the erroneous ideas of others that there is no need for such a council (because there is no one in Orthodox who dissents from the opinion of St. Athanasius). If, on the other hand, there were this or that group of Orthodox Christians in union with Alexandria or Constantinople who sought to introduce such practices in flagrant violation of the Patristic witness against them,then there might be a case to be made that it is such a threat to the faith that some sort of blanket statement ought to be agreed upon to help put a stop to the spread of dangerous heterodox ideas.

Your view of St.Anthanasius does not fit into Catholic theology. Thus it makes sense why we have different views of the faith.

Indeed. Why would my view on any particular person or thing necessarily match whatever Roman Catholic theology has to say?

I reason my faith with 2000 years of Catholic Christianity unchanged, while you gage your faith from commentary from Saints holding to both of our Apostolic Traditions.

In deference to your sincerely held belief that this is the reality of the situation, I will say nothing beyond “I disagree”.

Schism is starting to make sense to me now, from your perspective, why it still exists. But Love conquers all.

Yes, love, and humility. According to Abba John the Dwarf, humility and fear of God are above all virtues. If we could love each other into communion, we’d have done just that. I do indeed love Catholics. That said, without humility, repentance, hard work, and discernment of the Holy Spirit, we risk making love into a kind of cheap farce. Let’s do the hard work in love rather than confusing the means for the ends.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I found it interesting in chapter 12, the latter part of it, of “The Orthodox Church” by Timothy Ware, how he talks about the pitfalls of the conciliar viewpoints of Orthodoxy. He talks about how there haven’t been any summoned, how it would tough to even know how to do so with things as they currently are, and that the Orthodox don’t even have a model in place to know what is ecumenical and what is not. What constitutes an ecumenical council in the mind of modern Orthodox? He isn’t sure. I’m not either. The conciliar model is touted in the East but hasn’t been used in centuries.

Councils, as the Orthodox here on CAF will attest, are not to be called over every little thing. It makes absolutely no sense for a council to be called to pass judgment on a particular practice or idea that is not even found in the church communion which would call such a council in the first place, so you’re off-base here. It is precisely because the saint’s commentary is decisively given against the erroneous ideas of others that there is no need for such a council (because there is no one in Orthodox who dissents from the opinion of St. Athanasius). If, on the other hand, there were this or that group of Orthodox Christians in union with Alexandria or Constantinople who sought to introduce such practices in flagrant violation of the Patristic witness against them,then there might be a case to be made that it is such a threat to the faith that some sort of blanket statement ought to be agreed upon to help put a stop to the spread of dangerous heterodox ideas.

Indeed. Why would my view on any particular person or thing necessarily match whatever Roman Catholic theology has to say?

In deference to your sincerely held belief that this is the reality of the situation, I will say nothing beyond “I disagree”.

Yes, love, and humility. According to Abba John the Dwarf, humility and fear of God are above all virtues. If we could love each other into communion, we’d have done just that. I do indeed love Catholics. That said, without humility, repentance, hard work, and discernment of the Holy Spirit, we risk making love into a kind of cheap farce. Let’s do the hard work in love rather than confusing the means for the ends.

 

[dzheremi]

Don’t the EO have some sort of council coming up in 2013 or thereabouts? Anyway, I guess it’s up to them to work out whatever they are working out there.

 

[Harpazo]

Don’t the EO have some sort of council coming up in 2013 or thereabouts? Anyway, I guess it’s up to them to work out whatever they are working out there.

There have been councils since the schism, but none of them garnered the status of Ecumenical. There are several theories as to why, but it personally doesn’t matter to me if a council is “ecumenical” or not as long as Orthodoxy triumphs. This one slated for 2013 or there abouts is to do with various issues, but the main one is to straighten out the calendar and deal with various jurisdictions in one country (which is already coming along organically ) so that there will be one Orthodox Church in each country. A council is not declared Ecumenical until another council afterwards declares it to be. This one is marked as “Pan-Orthodox” just as ones before it were.

For example, Italy has an Episcopal Assembly made up of bishops of the Russian Church, the EP, Ukrainian Church, Romanian Church and Serbian to eventually form one synod of bishops for the whole country. Because of wacky immigration and 2 World Wars, the setting up of one Church in Italy did not come about. The situation is similar in America (Canada and the US would form one synod, while Mexico, Guademala, etc. would form a Central American one). But these things are being ironed out. I’m hoping they will invite the Copts, Armenians, Syrians, Ethiopians and Indians so that we can officially resume Communion.

In Christ,
Andrew