the same thing

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

I am personaly aware of a number of Catholic both Roman &

Greek Catholics who were given communion by St. John of Shanghai & San Francisco. When one man was offereda communion by St. John
he replied…but Vladyka I’m a catholic…St. John replied we’re all the same.

So much for the Glorified theory!

I certainly don’t believe that story because it flies in the face of everything St. John ever wrote. He was very critical of Rome, especially when discussing the Marian dogmas. ortodoks.dk/ortodoks-tro-og-praksis/de-hellige/the-orthodox-veneration-of-mary-the-birthgiver-of-god#Anchor-Zea-51977

What I have said about glorification is entirely patristic. There is no “theory” involved. St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Gregory Palamas discuss it in more detail.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Theosis does not make one infallible for several reasons. The knowledge bestowed by the Divine Light is beyond human words. It is inexpressible, so the saint must try his best to explain it within the limits of our language. This can be very difficult, but nonetheless, the fathers of the Church decided on terminology that best (but imperfectly) reflects God (natures, persons, processions, etc.). An individual may fail at describing a doctrine so that we may interpret it accurately. Secondly, there are various degrees of theosis. The fullness revealed to the Apostles at Pentecost is not given to everyone. Some receive shorter and less revealing experiences. Thirdly, not everything the fathers wrote was written from theosis. Many times, people do not receive theosis until late in life, so everything written before cannot entirely be described as “inspired” Finally, not all saints were Glorified (some received only Illumination).

Yes, look to the bishop for guidance, but only if he is teaching correctly. If not, he is, as the eight Ecumenical Council says, a “pseudo-bishop” and a “false teacher”. To supply the Church with holy and grace-filled bishops, it was later decided to take them entirely from the ranks of the monastics. This worked wonderfully for a time, but alas, even our monasteries have begun to neglect the importance of noetic prayer and theoria.

The end result is that monks can “condemn” the Ecumenical Patriarch because he taught something that didn’t go along with their pre-conceived notions. Non-canonical Orthodox Churches, headed by other bishops, pop up here and there, and no one really knows where to turn. I know plenty of Orthodox bishops who believe that fundamentally Catholics and Orthodox teach the same thing, with the exception of the Papacy. I know plenty of Orthodox bishops who hold the Catholic Church, and the Pope of Rome, in highest esteem and firmly believe that we ought to be working towards reunion. And then there are plenty of Orthodox bishops who teach otherwise. Who is to decide which bishops are right and which are wrong?

The thing is, I’ve never seen anyone, Orthodox or otherwise, condemn the Catholic Church for what it actually teaches. I’ve seen Orthodox elders condemn Rome for its supposed plans to overthrow Orthodoxy in Romanian. I’ve heard Orthodox folks condemn the notion that Catholics are supposed to follow every word the Pope says like mindless zombies or that Catholics believe the Pope is infallible every time he opens his gold-filled mouth (something which the Catholic Church certainly does not teach). But I’ve never actually heard an Orthodox theologian, elder, monk, or bishop condemn Catholicism for what it actually teaches.

The more I study and pray, the more I realize that at heart Catholicism and Orthodoxy are, indeed, the one and the same. We are one Church, but we are like siblings fighting with one another over who gets to use daddy’s Porche on prom night. The end result has been bitterness, anger, and resentment that has lead to mistrust and estrangement. It is only within the past Century that we have begun the process of reconciliation; a process that may take as many centuries as the process of estrangement took.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

So, I see you’ve basically admitted that the elders you’ve referenced could very well have been wrong in their attitudes towards Rome.

The problem with your view of the bishops is that it elevates each individual as judge over his bishop. It is up to each individual to decide whether or not the bishop(s) is teaching truth or error. The end result is that monks can “condemn” the Ecumenical Patriarch because he taught something that didn’t go along with their pre-conceived notions.

Like him?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/31/Maximus_Confessor.jpgg

Non-canonical Orthodox Churches, headed by other bishops, pop up here and there, and no one really knows where to turn.

This is where noetic prayer comes in. Illumination gives one much wisdom in determining a bishop’s Orthodoxy. If people do not know who to follow, it is only because they have not applied themselves to learning the prayer of the heart (which would take no more than a few years to learn with a elder to provide instruction). The most confusing times in the Church (and consequently the times in which the greatest heresies arose) were those times where hesychasm was neglected.

The thing is, I’ve never seen anyone, Orthodox or otherwise, condemn the Catholic Church for what it actually teaches. I’ve seen Orthodox elders condemn Rome for its supposed plans to overthrow Orthodoxy in Romanian. I’ve heard Orthodox folks condemn the notion that Catholics are supposed to follow every word the Pope says like mindless zombies or that Catholics believe the Pope is infallible every time he opens his gold-filled mouth (something which the Catholic Church certainly does not teach). But I’ve never actually heard an Orthodox theologian, elder, monk, or bishop condemn Catholicism for what it actually teaches.

What do you think of my namesake, St. Mark of Ephesus? He heard Catholic teachings directly from the mouth of the magisterium, yet rejected them.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Like him?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/31/Maximus_Confessor.jpgg

This is where noetic prayer comes in. Illumination gives one much wisdom in determining a bishop’s Orthodoxy. If people do not know who to follow, it is only because they have not applied themselves to learning the prayer of the heart (which would take no more than a few years to learn with a elder to provide instruction). The most confusing times in the Church (and consequently the times in which the greatest heresies arose) were those times where hesychasm was neglected.

What do you think of my namesake, St. Mark of Ephesus? He heard Catholic teachings directly from the mouth of the magisterium, yet rejected them.

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make by bringing St. Maximos the Confessor into this. In his day he was a great bridge builder between East and West, and demonstrated a thorough knowledge of each “lung.”

As to St. Mark of Ephesus, I do not question his sanctity. But I do find it kind of telling that he was the only bishop at Ferrara-Florence that rejected the Council. The rest of the bishops rescinded their signatures after they got home and experienced the popular uproar against the Council. I find it hard to believe that the masses of Orthodoxy at that time knew more about what took place at the Council than did the bishops who were there. So the point is, none of the other bishops had any real qualms with the Council, only St. Mark. That itself would make me question how well he understood what came from the horses mouth.

The greatest saints lived in those times. Sts. John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Athanasius, etc., etc., etc. all lived in times that were very confusing for the Church and when the major heresies arose.

With those who have experience the divine Light being set up as judges over their bishops, fine, I’ll accept that as a premise. But there are post-Schism saints in the West who have experience the divine Light. Sts. Francis and Claire of Assisi are the first that come to mind. Would you deny that the experienced the divine Light, or is it possible that they experienced it and yet were somehow wrong in fully embracing Catholicism? This is what I meant when I said that ultimately this whole thing will boil down to “my saint/elder can beat up your saint/elder.”

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make by bringing St. Maximos the Confessor into this. In his day he was a great bridge builder between East and West, and demonstrated a thorough knowledge of each “lung.”

It was a reference to your statement : “The end result is that monks can “condemn” the Ecumenical Patriarch because he taught something that didn’t go along with their pre-conceived notions.” That was exactly what St. Maximos did.

As to St. Mark of Ephesus, I do not question his sanctity. But I do find it kind of telling that he was the only bishop at Ferrara-Florence that rejected the Council. The rest of the bishops rescinded their signatures after they got home and experienced the popular uproar against the Council. I find it hard to believe that the masses of Orthodoxy at that time knew more about what took place at the Council than did the bishops who were there. So the point is, none of the other bishops had any real qualms with the Council, only St. Mark. That itself would make me question how well he understood what came from the horses mouth.

He has several eloquent responses to Rome’s position at the council. Here is an excerpt in relation to purgatory :

“*But if souls have departed this life in faith and love, while nevertheless carrying away with themselves certain faults, whether small ones over which they have not repented at all, or great ones for which – even thought they have repented over them – they did not undertake to show fruits of repentance: such souls, we believe, must be cleansed from this kind of sin, but not by means of some purgatorial fire or a definite punishment in some place (for this, as we have said, has not been handed down to us). But some must be cleansed in they very departure from the body, thanks only to fear, as St. Gregory the Dialogist literally shows; while others must be cleansed after the departure from the body, either while remaining in the same earthly place, before they come to worship God and are honored with the lot of the blessed, or – if their sins were more serious and bind them, for a longer duration – they are kept in hell , but not in order to remain forever in fire and torment, but as it were in prison and confinement under guard.”

I would say he understood Catholic doctrine and fully rejected it.

As to the rest of your post… Your assertion that the times in the Church when the most heresies arose were the times when hesychasm was neglected is simply false. The greatest saints lived in those times. Sts. John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Athanasius, etc., etc., etc. all lived in times that were very confusing for the Church and when the major heresies arose.

No, saints come to prominence mostly because they do battle with heresy. I would not assert that saints represent the time they live in. Very often, their fame arises because they challenge the “norm”. In fact, many of these saints suffered at the hands of the hesychast-neglecting Church. St. John Chrysostom was exiled (and perhaps martyred by the Emperor) and St. Athanasius was was driven out numerous times (Athanasius contra mundum).

With those who have experience the divine Light being set up as judges over their bishops, fine, I’ll accept that as a premise. But there are post-Schism saints in the West who have experience the divine Light. Sts. Francis and Claire of Assisi are the first that come to mind. Would you deny that the experienced the divine Light, or is it possible that they experienced it and yet were somehow wrong in fully embracing Catholicism? This is what I meant when I said that ultimately this whole thing will boil down to “my saint/elder can beat up your saint/elder.”

Well, I am not here to “bash” anyone’s saints. As an Orthodox Christian, however, I would not believe the validity of an experience that does not confirm what the fathers have written and/or does not lead people into the Church (St. Paul being an example of someone outside of communion who saw the uncreated Light). Nonetheless, I would be interested in reading about any post-schism experiences in the west that you believe to be such a vision.*

 

[steve_b]

Peter was Orthodox.
Peter was praised for his faith.
To be Orthodox is to have the faith of Peter.
Old Rome has changed, it is not in line with Holy Orthodoxy.
Orthodox bishops are Peter.
God bless you too!

“Old” Rome? As opposed to “new” Rome perhaps?
Constantinople once was refered to as “new Rome” only because the emperor moved from Rome to Byzantium. But even with the move, here’s the historical ranking of Sees even after Byzantium became Constantinople the new seat of the emperor

1. Rome (chair of Peter)
2. -]Byzantium,/-] -]Constantinople,/-] -]“new Rome,”/-] -]chair of the emperor,/-] Istanbul
3. Alexandria
4. Antioch
5. Jerusalem

Constantinople usurping for itself 2nd place in the 4th century ahead of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem was purely political. And as one can see, it ultimately couldn’t retain any of it’s names, or titles.

Rome is still #1 not because it WAS the seat of the emperors, but because it’s the chair of Peter.

Re: your point about [O]rthodox, I have the following point.
From their writings, the name of the Church these Fathers belonged to was

• Ignatius of Antioch Catholic Church “letter to Smyrna”]
• Polycarp Catholic Church “Martyrdom of Polycarp”]
• Irenaeus Catholic Church “Against heresies” Bk 1 ch 10,]
• Clement of Alexandria Catholic Church “Stromata Bk 7 ch 17]
• Cyprian Catholic Church epistle’s 72, & 75 also Unity of the Catholic Church]
• Cyril of Jerusalem Catholic Church “catechetical letters”]

The Catholic Church is an article of faith in the creed at Nicea. That covers the 1st 300 years of the Church.

For my education, could you point out from Church writings, the 1st time “Orthodox Church” was used as a name?

Thanks in advance

 

[dzheremi]

From their writings, the name of the Church these Fathers belonged to was

For my education, could you point out from Church writings, the 1st time “Orthodox Church” was used as a name?

Thanks in advance

Hi Steve. Just FYI, this is probably not a good argument to make. A rose by any other name…, you know? If things really were this simple, then I’m afraid you would have to abandon your Pope and follow the Pope of Alexandria, as it was an honor bestowed upon the bishop of the See of St. Mark in Alexandria who first received that title, actually from the Bishop of Rome (not to him, as you might expect if you’re RC), as its first recorded use was from him, in a letter from Dionysus of Rome in reference to St. Pope Heraclas of Alexandria (232-248), the 13th bishop to preside as bishop of Alexandria. You can read it yourself in Eusebius’ church history, wherein the relevant line in the original is: τοῦτον ἐγὼ τὸν κανόνα καὶ τὸν τύπον παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου πάπα ἡμῶν Ἡρακλᾶ παρέλαβον. This was the first time in recorded history that this term was used to refer to a bishop. Rome would not take up the term for its own bishops until several centuries later.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hi Steve. Just FYI, this is probably not a good argument to make. A rose by any other name…, you know?

And of course, the argument he makes is also fallacious, because neither the Eastern Orthodox nor the Oriental Orthodox have stopped claiming to be the Catholic Church, just as the Catholics have never stopped claiming that their faith is the orthodox faith. One could easily turn Steve’s fallacious question around and say, “when did the Catholics cease believing that their faith is orthodox?” A rose by another name indeed.

 

[andrewstx]

I should point out there are very few Orthodox jurisdictions that completely oppose ecumenism, and they are considered by the rest of us to be outside canonical Orthodoxy.

They are the ROCOR, the Russian Orthodox church abroad, and various old calendar Greek jurisdictions.

They not only oppose Rome, but canonical Orthodox churches as well.

Many consider them to be on the outskirts of Orthodoxy.

 

[dzheremi]

Well, yeah, Cavaradossi, but I think the “Pope” fact is a better way to go, because the other point seems debatable (though none involved in the debate would say that is). St. Pope Heraclas being first called Pope can’t really be made into a matter of opinion or worldview.

 

[dzheremi]

Well, yeah, Cavaradossi, but I think the “Pope” fact is a better way to go, because the other point seems debatable (though none involved in the debate would say that is). St. Pope Heraclas being first called Pope can’t really be made into a matter of opinion or worldview.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I should point out there are very few Orthodox jurisdictions that completely oppose ecumenism, and the are considered by the rest of us to be outside canonical Orthodoxy.

They are the ROCOR, the Russian Orthodox church abroad, and various old calendar Greek jurisdictions.

They not only Rome, but canonical Orthodox churches as well.

Many consider them to be on the outskirts of Orthodoxy.

ROCOR is most certainly not on the outskirts of Orthodoxy. ROCOR/ROCA, under Metropolitan Hilarion, is a canonical autonomous church within the Russian Orthodox Church. There may be other bodies which call themselves ROCOR/ROCA, but if they are not under Metropolitan Hilarion, they are not related to the canonical body known as ROCOR, according to canonical Orthodoxy. Let us not sow any confusion on this matter, please.

 

[Hesychios]

They are the ROCOR, the Russian Orthodox church abroad, and various old calendar Greek jurisdictions.
.

ROCOR was an unfortunate result of the Bolshevik revolution, when Russian exiles feared to associate with the Moscow patriarchate.

The schism has been healed since 2005, the two parties have completely reconciled.

 

[DadDave]

ROCOR was an unfortunate result of the Bolshevik revolution, when Russian exiles feared to associate with the Moscow patriarchate.

The schism has been healed since 2005, the two parties have completely reconciled.

So the ROCOR parish in my town is under the leadership of Moscow?

 

[andrewstx]

ROCOR is most certainly not on the outskirts of Orthodoxy. ROCOR/ROCA, under Metropolitan Hilarion, is a canonical autonomous church within the Russian Orthodox Church. There may be other bodies which call themselves ROCOR/ROCA, but if they are not under Metropolitan Hilarion, they are not related to the canonical body known as ROCOR, according to canonical Orthodoxy. Let us not sow any confusion on this matter, please.

I’m sorry for confusion I have caused. While ROCOR follows the canons strictly they are not members of SCOBA.

I belonged to a ROCOR parish for a time until the priest died and was not replaced. It was 300 miles one way, due to the scarcity of Orthodox churches here in Baptist land. There are no Eastern Catholic parishes at all.

But this church was unusaul, they were connected to the former Blanco monastery which was booted from ROCOR. When Father died there were Blanco monks at the funeral, and I was told to keep it hush hushed.

I just found Father and his parish to be odd. Even though I had been chrismated in an also now closed OCA mission, they insisted that I be re-baptised halloween eve, outdoors in the cold. But it was the only Orthodox church for 100s of miles.

Now there is an Anticochian chruch only 35 miles from me, that is building it’s own temple. That will be the first Orthodox temple in this part of the state, and I am glad for it.

 

[andrewstx]

ROCOR was an unfortunate result of the Bolshevik revolution, when Russian exiles feared to associate with the Moscow patriarchate.

The schism has been healed since 2005, the two parties have completely reconciled.

Do you know then why ROCOR and the OCA have not also reunited?

 

[Sepp]

I should point out there are very few Orthodox jurisdictions that completely oppose ecumenism, and they are considered by the rest of us to be outside canonical Orthodoxy.

They are the ROCOR, the Russian Orthodox church abroad, and various old calendar Greek jurisdictions.

They not only oppose Rome, but canonical Orthodox churches as well.

Many consider them to be on the outskirts of Orthodoxy.

As Cavaradossi and Hesychios have explained, this is not the case, at least since 2007. However, it is interesting to note that ROCOR was in communion with Old Calendarists, in one form or another, for most of the past 40 years. I believe they were in communion with the main group of Greek Old Calendarists in the 1970s and 80s, and then with a different group up until the 2007 reunification with Moscow. There are pictures of St John Maximovitch with the Old Calendarist bishop of NY in the 1960s, and I believe Old Calendarist bishops were present at his glorification as a saint in 1994.

These Old Calendarist groups certainly consider ecumenism to be heretical. But then, earlier in this very thread, it is claimed that St John offered communion to Catholics. Certainly the first I’ve heard of that!

 

[Hesychios]

So the ROCOR parish in my town is under the leadership of Moscow?

If it is ROCOR, it is under the MP.

They have a special arrangement, something like Opus Dei has with Rome
[poor analogy]

 

[Hesychios]

Do you know then why ROCOR and the OCA have not also reunited?

The OCA has a tomos of autocephaly, it is self governing and has a home region of north America.

ROCOR has always considered itself Russian Orthodox and is in a sense worldwide, it has a presence in Europe and Asia as well as North America. It’s original problem was with Moscow. The OCA is not controlled by Moscow and the ROCOR reconciled with it’s mother church. They are sister churches, but the OCA does not belong to the MP synod. They could possibly merge at some future time, but it is not necessary for the time being

ROCOR is more like an international missionary body, they have a history as a unit. Breaking it up probably was not considered advisable at the time, the reconciliation is entirely voluntary and had to be built on trust. It has been something like six years so the arrangement is looking pretty stable. I would think they will participate in the coming reorganization of the north American church.

I believe that recently a ROCOR bishop did an ordination for the OCA somewhere, and this past year ROCOR hierarchs concelebrated with OCA hierarchs at their cathedral in NYC.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

If it is ROCOR, it is under the MP.

]

unless its Bishop Agathangels ROCOR