Question for former Orthodox

[L_piperatus]

That is not the official position of the Russian Orthodox Church. Like I said, ROCOR had an old calendarist bent to it at one point. This is likely just a remnant of that.

I was hoping the OP would come back and tell us about her Russian EO acquaintance’s position on the issue. So, I didn’t want to expand on this before hearing more from the OP, but since the OP is not posting, please allow me to take this up again and continue on the Calendar issue.

First of all, ROCOR never made any promise whatsoever to alter any of their positions during their reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate. That means, they hold exactly the same positions in the reunited ROCOR-MP as they did before 2006. And that means, as I said, that ROCOR priests tell the faithful not to attend and not to commune in New Calendar churches, except maybe for reason of economy when they have no access to Old Calendar churches.

This was the official position of ROCOR before they re-established communion with the MP in 2006, and this remains the official position of ROCOR.

As far as ROCOR is concerned, they believe that the MP has fallen into apostasy and heresy (Sergianism) with Patriarch Sergius’s embracing of the bolshevik revolution in 1927. Thus, ROCOR never did anything wrong, but the MP needed to repent of its apostasy and heresy, before being readmitted to communion with ROCOR. ROCOR believes the MP had finally repented and thus it could be readmitted to communion, but once again, ROCOR did not change an iota of its positions and it has no plan to change anything whatsoever.

As far as ROCOR is concerned, they have always been safely rooted in Orthodoxy, and they simply re-allowed a repentant apostate/heretic Church (the MP) to communion, but that doesn’t mean they are going to change or abandon any of their doctrines and resolutions.

The Holy Synod of ROCOR, under Metropolitan St. Philaret, pronounced anathema on ecumenism in the 1980s. That anathema is still in force, as far as they are concerned. Since the New Calendar, pews in churches, musical instruments in churches, etc are manifestations of the ecumenist heresy, per the ROCOR’s beliefs, ROCOR will not commune with these churches that use the New Calendar, have pews, musical instruments, etc. Metropolitan Philaret also wrote some open letters, titled Sorrowful Epistles, to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras after the EP and Pope Paul VI lifted the old (from 1054 A.D.) mutual anathemas in 1965. ROCOR regarded the lifting of the anathemas as yet another manifestation of the ecumenist heresy.

Interestingly, ROCOR stopped short of labeling the EP himself as a heretic, seeing how the New Calendar was initiated by the EP of Constantinople in 1922, and how those anathemas were also lifted due to the EP’s willingness in 1965. But, even though ROCOR did not anathemize the person of the EP by name, ROCOR did adopt the policy of ROCOR priests not concelebrating the Divine Liturgy with New Calendar priests, and ROCOR priests forbidding their faithful from attending DL and taking Holy Communion in New Calendar churches.

As for today, Metropolitan Philaret’s Sorrowful Epistles and the ROCOR’s Holy Synod’s anathema on ecumenism remain in place, with the consequence that ROCOR’s ban on communing with New Calendar Churches also remains in place. The fact that they readmitted a repentant apostate/heretic Church (the MP) to communion with them (at least this is how ROCOR sees it), is simply irrelevant to this issue, as far as ROCOR is concerned. It may be that ROCOR only has 2 million faithful scattered in the Americas, Europe, and elsewhere, while the MP claims 90 million or more faithful, but ROCOR believes that the MP had to come back to Orthodoxy by repenting of its apostate/heretic ways, while ROCOR has been and continues to be on the correct path of Orthodoxy.

So, ROCOR is not going to change any of their beliefs or policies, just because they re-accepted the repentant MP into full communion.

Also regarding the WCC (World Council of Churches) which ROCOR regards as yet another manifestation of the ecumenist heresy, ROCOR was not a part of that and will continue to stay away from the WCC. However ROCOR understands that the MP decided to be a member of the WCC, in order to give continued testimony of true Orthodoxy, and in order to frustrate the EP of Constantinople’s efforts to present himself within the WCC as the spiritual leader of world Orthodoxy. For these reasons, ROCOR will allow the MP to stay a member of the WCC, while ROCOR itself will continue to stay away from the WCC.

 

[L_piperatus]

Beyond the positions of the ROCOR and MP’s Holy Synods and clergy, outlined above, we simply cannot forget about the laity, because in EO ecclesiology, the laity can veto and reject the decisions of their bishops.

The laity rejected their own Bishops and Patriarchs after the Council of Florence, after the Council of Brest, and Russian laity may very well choose again, in our days, to reject any sort of communion with New Calendarist Churches and those that have pews to sit in, musical instruments, priests with trimmed hair and shaved beards, priests without cassocks, and so on. This is exactly why I asked the OP, what’s her experience with the Russian lady she knows.

The Russian laypeople I met, tended to be very adamant in their rejection of all of those “ecumenist” things mentioned. So, even if some EO priest would tell them to attend New Calendar churches with pews and musical instruments, I can easily see the laity rejecting their own priests, just like EO laity rejected and deposed their Patriarchs, Metropolitans, and Bishops after Florence and Brest.

After all, Metropolitan Isidore of Moscow did accept the Union of Florence, but that didn’t stop the Czar from deposing and jailing the Metropolitan. Metropolitan Isidore never rejected the Union of Florence, and he died as a Catholic in exile.

Meanwhile, as far as the Russian laity was concerned, the Tsar ruled that Metropolitan Isidore is a deposed heretic, the Patriarch of Constantinople is yet another heretic who accepted the Union at Florence, and thus it was time for the Russian laity, represented by the Tsar, to throw out their heretic leaders and elect a new “Patriarch” from among those who reject Rome. This is how the MP came to be, elected by the laity, and the EP of Constantinople did not recognize this new institution of Russian autocephaly for some 100 years afterwards.

The EP believed that Moscow was not autocephalous, Moscow only had a Metropolitan but no Patriarch, and as far as the EP was concerned, the Tsar had no authority to grant autocephaly to Moscow without Constantinople’s approval. Yet, the Russians held their ground, and a century later Constantinople grudgingly recognized Moscow’s autocephaly, an autocephaly that was invented and granted by a layperson - by the Russian Tsar.

With this historical background, I don’t see how could any clergy force the Russian people to accept that which they reject - and those Russian folks I know, do reject the New Calendar as a heresy. But I also don’t see the Russian clergy trying to pick a fight with the laity. Quite to the contrary, the Russian clergy and laity I know, are on the same page: they both whole-heartedly and enthusiastically reject the New Calendar, pews, musical instruments, and so on, as manifestations of the ecumenist heresy, and as symptoms of falling away from true Orthodoxy.

 

[Mickey]

The laity rejected their own Bishops and Patriarchs after the Council of Florence,

They supported St Mark of Ephesus…thank be to God.

they both whole-heartedly and enthusiastically reject the New Calendar, pews, musical instruments,

The Gregorian Calendar, pews, and musical instruments are recent innovations to Holy Orthodoxy. Most Churches in the “Old Country” do not have pews or musical instruments and are on the Julian Calendar. In the U.S., most Churches are on the Revised Julian Calendar. Many Churches are beginning to eliminate pews (even Eastern Catholic). I think there was a period when the Greeks began to introduce an organ, (I have never experienced that), but this trend is being reversed.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hi 9-2 thank you for your response. I have been reading on awful lot about the Orthodox Church as of late. Before I came back to Catholicism, I did consider the Orthodox Church. Please understand that I am just trying to learn and am in no way challenging the correctness of Palamas’s doctrine. With that said I do have to take issue with the comment that the Catholics added to the faith. My positition is that these so called additions was merely doctrinal development which was arrived at in the same manner that the EO Church’s doctrinal development.

The Energies/essences distinction was defined and it became dogmatic in the 14th century. What Palamas preached was not the same thing that Basil wrote in his epistle 234. Read Basil’s epistle 234 if you have not (I am sure you have). The energies that he is referring to is not what Palamas taught.

I am assuming that when you said that you pointed out that the Essence/Energies doctrinal distinction was made in the 5th century you were referring to the Cappadocian fathers. I read Basil’s letters but I did not see anything that was written about that was what Palamas taught. Sure they used similar terms but not in the same manner that you are proposing here (at least in Basil’s letters.)

Why is saying that doctrinal development occurred in the EO Church so bad? The EO Church with such great thinkers could possibly not remained static in thought.

From my reading of St. Basil, there is not a linear connection between Basil’s energies and Palamas’s distinction theology.

but on the other hand, I am not calling Palamas’s teaching as an innovation by no means. If I made that impression I apologize.The EO Church deemed Palamas’s teachings as genuine development and consistent with tradition and that must be respected.

( and by the way I am loving the Philokalia! I am reading this and the Dark Night of The Soul, and Upon this Rock…I cannot make up my mind which to stick to. I love them all.

But you know what my real point is? As an observer, an outsider looking in, I think that when it comes to doctrinal development, there appears to be a double standard. Palamas’s doctrine was made into dogma in the 14th century and the way that it was declared, to me, seems identical to CC doctrinal development. Not sure where else to go with this because it appears that we are going to disagree.

However, can you clarify one final point? So are you saying, (because my thick skull is hard to penetrate), based on your comments, must a doctrine/tradition be challenged before it is declared dogmatic?

---

St. Basil is basically teaching the same thing in his epistle 234. He says that we don’t know the essence of God, but we know His operations (in Greek energeia, or energies), which is exactly what Palamas was teaching.

Thanks Cavaradossi, great insight on Barlaam’s challenge. No wonder Palamas fought so hard. IF we are to believe Barlaam then that would mean that God would only be reachable or known to an elite few.

Yes, you are right I did mix both terms (hesychasm, essence/energies) when I wrote. Thanks for clearing that up. I will try to get a hold of the triads. I want to read though the philokalia first before I tackle another book.

It’s worse than that, if God were really as Barlaam believed, no human being would have ever known God, and the incarnation would have been a mere illusion.

 

[DadDave]

St. Basil is basically teaching the same thing in his epistle 234. He says that we don’t know the essence of God, but we know His operations (in Greek energeia, or energies), which is exactly what Palamas was teaching.

I’m glad I just happened upon this post.
Both Catholic & Orthodox claim to teach nothing new, that all teachings can be traced back to apostles, correct?
If for instance we look at issue above, is the 4th century “early enough” or do we have to find something earlier? In the case of filioque how early would we have to go back to say that it’s a legitimate apostolic expression?

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m glad I just happened upon this post.
Both Catholic & Orthodox claim to teach nothing new, that all teachings can be traced back to apostles, correct?
If for instance we look at issue above, is the 4th century “early enough” or do we have to find something earlier? In the case of filioque how early would we have to go back to say that it’s a legitimate apostolic expression?

You might want to read the thread.

Neither Catholics or Orthodox claim to never teach anything “new” (in the sense that you’re using it).

 

[lyrikal]

In arguing against a tendency toward inventive Christianity in the early 5nd century, Saint Vincent of Lerins gave us this rule of thumb and advice as a guideline for orthodox and catholic Christians …

Now in the catholic church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘catholic’ καθολικός ], as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

The reaction of Saint Thomas in the 13th century is clear evidence that even 1,300 years after Christ this was not a universal idea, even in the western church. It was a minority opinion everywhere at that time and contested vigorously by reknowned Roman Catholics.

That together with the fact that across the entire east the idea was totally unknown is clear evidence that the notion is not in any way Apostolic. As late as the 13th century then, most Catholics and Orthodox either did not believe the idea, or had never heard of it.

And would you say that the NT and OT Canon as the Orthodox Church has it today was universally believed by every Father in the Early Church? Surely there were different opinions by the Fathers on that.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’m glad I just happened upon this post.
Both Catholic & Orthodox claim to teach nothing new, that all teachings can be traced back to apostles, correct?
If for instance we look at issue above, is the 4th century “early enough” or do we have to find something earlier? In the case of filioque how early would we have to go back to say that it’s a legitimate apostolic expression?

Antiquity does not guarantee orthodoxy. Adoptionism is older than the practice of calling the Son and Holy Spirit, God. It is not, however, more orthodox than the latter. Showing continuity with the writings of the fathers is important however, because we believe that their witness provides a good testimony of the true faith.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

And would you say that the NT and OT Canon as the Orthodox Church has it today was universally believed by every Father in the Early Church? Surely there were different opinions by the Fathers on that.

Different Churches have had different Canons of Scripture - so what of it? It simply shows that the Canon of Scripture is established by the Church and that the Bible didn’t just drop out of heaven. Local Churches likes the Assyrians have 22 books of the NT; The Ethiopians have 35 books of the NT - they include the eight books of the Apostolic Constitutions and add two books - the book of Enoch and that of Jubilees - to the OT.

The Celtic Christians included the Shepherd of Hermas and one other book I forget to their Scriptures. And Martin Luther himself pruned the NT of five of the 27 books, especially the Letter of James.

First Clement was widely read as scripture in both East and West. Other deuterocanonical books, like the Gospel of Nicodemus, were rejected but that didn’t stop Christians from reading them or the Church from including the details they contained in her liturgical celebrations of the lives of Christ, the Mother of God and the Saints.

Alex

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

And Martin Luther himself pruned the NT of five of the 27 books, especially the Letter of James.

Just so we are clear here, my good sir:

Luther did was indeed suspicious of some of the NT canon, especially James and Revelation. James he considered to be “an epistle of straw”- that while it was useful for instructing morally, it did not clearly preach the Gospel. And since it focused more on working out salvation vs. the message of Christ saving sinners, he was suspicious of it. And as for Revelation, he did not see how in the world it preached the Gospel at any point

When he translated the Bible into German, however, he did not remove them. And later, when the Book of Concord (the confessional documents of Lutheranism) were collected and made final, the NT canon stayed the same.

Heck, even the OT Apocrypha (Tobit, etc.) was kept in the bound Bibles, although their canonical was (and still is) debated within Lutheranism. It wasn’t until Lutherans started publishing English Bibles that they removed the Apocrypha from what was printed.

I say all this just to clear up some things.

 

[lyrikal]

Different Churches have had different Canons of Scripture - so what of it? It simply shows that the Canon of Scripture is established by the Church and that the Bible didn’t just drop out of heaven. Local Churches likes the Assyrians have 22 books of the NT; The Ethiopians have 35 books of the NT - they include the eight books of the Apostolic Constitutions and add two books - the book of Enoch and that of Jubilees - to the OT.

The Celtic Christians included the Shepherd of Hermas and one other book I forget to their Scriptures. And Martin Luther himself pruned the NT of five of the 27 books, especially the Letter of James.

First Clement was widely read as scripture in both East and West. Other deuterocanonical books, like the Gospel of Nicodemus, were rejected but that didn’t stop Christians from reading them or the Church from including the details they contained in her liturgical celebrations of the lives of Christ, the Mother of God and the Saints.

Alex

Hello Alex,

Your post further emphasizes the point I was trying to make. Hesychios had this to say about the Immaculate Conception:

The reaction of Saint Thomas in the 13th century is clear evidence that even 1,300 years after Christ this was not a universal idea, even in the western church. It was a minority opinion everywhere at that time and contested vigorously by reknowned Roman Catholics.

That together with the fact that across the entire east the idea was totally unknown is clear evidence that the notion is not in any way Apostolic. As late as the 13th century then, most Catholics and Orthodox either did not believe the idea, or had never heard of it.

And I replied that the canon of Scripture was not something universally agreed upon by the Fathers so does that mean that the canon as the Orthodox Church has it today (or any Church for that matter) is not an Apostolic teaching? When it comes to the Immaculate Conception then Hesychios sets a high standard that it must be universally accepted by both East and West. I was just trying to show him that it is a double standard on his part to expect such a thing since his Church’s canon of scripture was highly debated in the Early Church by the Fathers and there were many canons by different churches (which is the point you were making to me as well).

Grace and peace.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hello Alex,

Your post further emphasizes the point I was trying to make. Hesychios had this to say about the Immaculate Conception:

And I replied that the canon of Scripture was not something universally agreed upon by the Fathers so does that mean that the canon as the Orthodox Church has it today (or any Church for that matter) is not an Apostolic teaching? When it comes to the Immaculate Conception then Hesychios sets a high standard that it must be universally accepted by both East and West. I was just trying to show him that it is a double standard on his part to expect such a thing since his Church’s canon of scripture was highly debated in the Early Church by the Fathers and there were many canons by different churches (which is the point you were making to me as well).

Grace and peace.

I don’t think it’s a double standard, because Hesychios would probably not demand that the Ethiopians or Syriac Christians give up their unique canons of Scripture if they happened to come into union with Eastern Orthodoxy. The fact that the Ethiopians, Syriacs, and Copts can coexist with three radically different canons suggests that such an arrangement would work out. Even within Eastern Orthodoxy, the Georgians have a slightly extended canon of Scripture, with two more books than the Greeks.

 

[TrueLight]

I would not ask you to convert, brother. You are blooming right there, in the rich soil you were planted in.

I only hope, sincerely, that we can stand beside one another in worship one day, some how … some way …

Pax et Bonum

Beautiful.

 

[Marybeloved]

I don’t think it’s a double standard, because Hesychios would probably not demand that the Ethiopians or Syriac Christians give up their unique canons of Scripture if they happened to come into union with Eastern Orthodoxy. The fact that the Ethiopians, Syriacs, and Copts can coexist with three radically different canons suggests that such an arrangement would work out. Even within Eastern Orthodoxy, the Georgians have a slightly extended canon of Scripture, with two more books than the Greeks.

That’s the double standard she appears to be referring to. The different Canons do not mean that scripture is not authoritative, so disagreements between st.Thomas and others alone proves nothing with regard to the truth of the question, except that St. Thomas and others had those differences.

 

[Peter_J]

And Martin Luther himself pruned the NT of five of the 27 books, especially the Letter of James.

That’s a myth.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I once thought so too until I did some research and saw that it was only in the 1700’s that Lutheranism returned to the original 27 books of the NT.

Luther also got rid of the Book of Revelation among the five that he expunged. In this he found a witness in ancient Christianity - the Assyrian Canon of the NT.

So, sir, it was NOT a myth.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Just so we are clear here, my good sir:

Luther did was indeed suspicious of some of the NT canon, especially James and Revelation. James he considered to be “an epistle of straw”- that while it was useful for instructing morally, it did not clearly preach the Gospel. And since it focused more on working out salvation vs. the message of Christ saving sinners, he was suspicious of it. And as for Revelation, he did not see how in the world it preached the Gospel at any point

When he translated the Bible into German, however, he did not remove them. And later, when the Book of Concord (the confessional documents of Lutheranism) were collected and made final, the NT canon stayed the same.

Heck, even the OT Apocrypha (Tobit, etc.) was kept in the bound Bibles, although their canonical was (and still is) debated within Lutheranism. It wasn’t until Lutherans started publishing English Bibles that they removed the Apocrypha from what was printed.

I say all this just to clear up some things.

You are correct sir. But even the Roman Catholic Bible contained 1 and 2 Clement and the Prayer of Manasses in an appendix to the NT - at the same time denying their validity.

Luther followed the Assyrian canon of the NT in expunging/withdrawing acknowledgement as canonical scripture from the “deuterocanonical NT books.”

However, I have seen a very old Lutheran bible that indeed had those NT books removed.

And it is clear that the Lutheran tradition clearly rejected Luther’s understanding of the New Testament by listing all 27 books.

And I don’t know if the OT books would have been called “Apocrypha” in those times. They would have been grouped separately, to be sure as deuterocanonical scripture. But they were read for edification, as you note, and as the Lutheran confessional documents recommend. Or it could be that “apocrypha” has a much more sinister meaning today than would have obtained then. Don’t know.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Hello Alex,

Your post further emphasizes the point I was trying to make. Hesychios had this to say about the Immaculate Conception:

And I replied that the canon of Scripture was not something universally agreed upon by the Fathers so does that mean that the canon as the Orthodox Church has it today (or any Church for that matter) is not an Apostolic teaching? When it comes to the Immaculate Conception then Hesychios sets a high standard that it must be universally accepted by both East and West. I was just trying to show him that it is a double standard on his part to expect such a thing since his Church’s canon of scripture was highly debated in the Early Church by the Fathers and there were many canons by different churches (which is the point you were making to me as well).

Grace and peace.

You are more than correct sir! But if I ever have an opportunity to go off topic, you know I will!

I would respond by simply saying that the witness of the early Church is that the Most Holy Mother of God never had any sin at any time. It was in the East that the feast of the Conception of the Mother of God (“of St Anne”) was established already in the sixth century. Since only the feasts of saints can be celebrated, to mark the Conception of the Mother of God, liturgically, means that she was a Saint at her Conception.

The Immaculate Conception, however, is an entirely Western dogma that was, in the view of the East, entirely unnecessary. It was necessary due to the issues created by the Augustinian views on Original Sin. The East acknowledges Augustine as a saint, of course, but follows the Cappadocian and Alexandrian Fathers (who had a much “healthier” view of human nature and the impact of Original sin on it than did Blessed Augustine).

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I don’t think it’s a double standard, because Hesychios would probably not demand that the Ethiopians or Syriac Christians give up their unique canons of Scripture if they happened to come into union with Eastern Orthodoxy. The fact that the Ethiopians, Syriacs, and Copts can coexist with three radically different canons suggests that such an arrangement would work out. Even within Eastern Orthodoxy, the Georgians have a slightly extended canon of Scripture, with two more books than the Greeks.

In the Ukrainian Catholic Church until recently, we had the Roman canon of the Old Testament, but now a Bible has been printed in Ukraine with the Orthodox OT canon that has the approval of the UGCC. This makes me very happy!

And also, withint the Oriental Orthodox family of Churches, the Armenians honour the “Correspondence between Christ and St Abgar of Edessa” as scripture.

In fact, during the 19th century, many Anglicans would frame copies of that Correspondence (known as the only letter ever written by Christ) and would display them in their homes together with a framed picture of the Face of Christ on the cloth - the cloth that was sent by Christ to Abgar after His Ascension to heal him of blindness via St Thaddeus.

Anglicans at that time also petitioned Canterbury to INCLUDE that letter into the King James Bible as the 28th book of the New Testament! (Also not a myth for Peter J.'s benefit ).

Alex

 

[Peter_J]

I once thought so too until I did some research and saw that it was only in the 1700’s that Lutheranism returned to the original 27 books of the NT.

Luther also got rid of the Book of Revelation among the five that he expunged. In this he found a witness in ancient Christianity - the Assyrian Canon of the NT.

So, sir, it was NOT a myth.

Alex

Well, I’m certainly aware that I can and do make mistakes. If your statement (“And Martin Luther himself pruned the NT of five of the 27 books, especially the Letter of James.”) is true, then I have been greatly mistaken in my past research.

However, I think I would be in pretty good company, since much better researchers than I came to the same conclusion, e.g.

Lutheran theologians like to make a distinction between the books of the New Testament which were unanimously received as canonical in the early church (the so-called Homologoumena or undisputed books) and the books which were disputed by some (the Antilegomena). In this class of ‘disputed books’ are the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation of John. These books are considered to be canonical in modern Lutheran churches, with the caveat that they are not quite on the same level as the other books as complete expressions of evangelical truth, and should be used with care.
Luther himself took the liberty of criticizing some of these books in a polemical manner which few Lutherans today would find completely acceptable. He had a low view of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, and so when he published his New Testament in 1522 he placed these books apart at the end. In his Preface to Hebrews, which comes first in the series, he says, “Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation.”

• Luther’s Treatment of the ‘Disputed Books’ of the New Testament