Toll-House Doctrine?

[Ghosty]

ol. Theory of Forms, right? I knew what he said sounded familiar! And here I was thinking he knew something I was missing…

I should be more fair to ChrisB and say that he may not be conciously attempting to utilize Platonism, and what he’s saying isn’t identical to Platonism (as you point out), but it’s close enough to make me a bit uncomfortable.

My main problem is where does this ‘human nature’ reside apart from human persons? The only reasonable answer I can think of is in the “mind of God”, but that raises other problems.

Would that really be true Platonism, though? I read about it a long time ago, but, as I remember it, his Ideals were perfect, while the actuals material manifestation of the forms was imperfect. Wouldn’t ChrisB’s assertion that the form was made imperfect violate Plato’s system?

You’re right, and this actually makes ChrisB’s assertion more problematic in my mind. If the seperate form is not corrupted, but the human participation in the form is corrupted, then we can easily say that humans are the same species before and after the Fall, but if the form itself is corrupted, then the “before” and “after” are two totally different species, and we’re not immortal, but only have the appearance of immortality (since Adam did not have the same nature before and after, he was not the same person or hypostasis, since he is now the personal expression of a new nature). Troubling implications, because it also means that we’ll be destroyed at the Resurrection when our “nature is fully renewed”.

Thi is again off-topic, though.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Thi is again off-topic, though.

Considering that the thread was meant to be about Toll-Houses, I think we’ve all been off-topic for a few pages of this thread now.

 

[chrisb]

ChrisB:

There is no expression of human nature aside from the personal, or hypostatic. There is no “human nature” that exists apart from from the individual instances of it we call persons. What you’re describing is Platonism (the seperate existence of “ideals” or natures), not Christian doctrine.

There is ‘something’ which is ‘common’ between ‘me’ and ‘you’… a shared ‘human-ness’. In the Incarnation, Christ shared this ‘something’ with you and I thus restoring union between man and God. To deny this common Human Nature flies in the face of the sacred teachings of the Fathers, especially St. Athanasius’ On The Incarnation.

Do me the favor of rereading On The Incarnation by St. Athanasius. It is a short work and you should be able to understand where you are demonstrating an impious criticism in your dismissal of Neo-Platonism as a ‘key’ to understanding our faith. True, it must be cleansed, but it was a necessary means of understanding Christianity.

You’re working with a totally different meaning of guilt, I’m afraid. The Latin tradition has consistantly said that the guilt of Original Sin doesn’t have the character of personal fault. You’re relying on Reformation theology and your understanding of the English translations, not the actual words used.

To deny a common Human Nature makes any inheritable attribute from of father Adam ‘personal’. If you study St. Athanasius’ On The Incarnation you will find this is not patristic teaching. The was ‘more’ than personal fault, it was a wounding of human capacity to have Union with God. This capacity was restored in Christ. Amen.

So you can continue on about this mistaken view of the Latin teaching on Original Sin, but it stands as utterly refuted a century ago, and has no basis in reality, making for a very poor polemic against the Latin traditon.

I’m far more interested in sharing what I have learned than refuting Latin Tradition. The Western Church has moved so far from what one finds presented by St. Athanasius in On The Incarnation but one can simply let the patristic teaching speak for itself. You’ll not find the extreme juridical expression which permeates Western Theology in the Consensual Teaching of the Fathers.

 

[chrisb]

You’re right, and this actually makes ChrisB’s assertion more problematic in my mind. If the seperate form is not corrupted, but the human participation in the form is corrupted, then we can easily say that humans are the same species before and after the Fall, but if the form itself is corrupted, then the “before” and “after” are two totally different species, and we’re not immortal, but only have the appearance of immortality (since Adam did not have the same nature before and after, he was not the same person or hypostasis, since he is now the personal expression of a new nature). Troubling implications, because it also means that we’ll be destroyed at the Resurrection when our “nature is fully renewed”.

Actually, your closer than you might think. St. Athanasius ‘is’ saying that man was the same, in nature, before as he was after the Fall. We didn’t lose anything that was ‘ours’ in the Fall… we lost our participation in the divine nature. This wasn’t ours inherently through our nature but always an extension of God’s nature with our own. Adam was ‘immortal’ not by any attribute of his own nature but because of his participation in God’s attributes. The point that must be made is that Adam was ‘meant’ to have participation in the divine nature just as all mankind. It was our desire to have this state ‘apart’ from God which caused our Fall from this state of grace. This is nothing ‘new’, it’s all present in On The Incarnation.

 

[Ghosty]

ChrisB: Actually, I’m the one who’s cited “On the Incarnation” on this thread. I’ve very familiar with the work, and have read it many times.

I’m not speaking against a common human nature at all; I’m speaking against the idea that common human nature exists outside of the hypostasis. No tradition says that “being guilty of a crime” can inhere in the nature, and the Latin tradition doesn’t say that we are guilty of Adam’s crime. We carry the burden, which is sometimes translated into English as “guilt”, but doesn’t have the same meaning as what you are using it for here.

I’m far more interested in sharing what I have learned than refuting Latin Tradition. The Western Church has moved so far from what one finds presented by St. Athanasius in On The Incarnation but one can simply let the patristic teaching speak for itself. You’ll not find the extreme juridical expression which permeates Western Theology in the Consensual Teaching of the Fathers.

Perhaps you should become more familiar with the Latin tradition before saying such things. I’ve already used a century old Latin Encyclopedia entry to refute what you said earlier about the Latin concept of guilt. Sentences like “the extreme juridical expression which permeates Western Theology in the Consensual Teaching of the Fathers” sound great, but mean very little, especially when they don’t accurately reflect reality.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Thanks for this response. The first paragraph, I would say, is more a matter of different terms (eg “hades” vs “purgatory”) than different concept.

While this might be true, and fair, it is also the duty of the Church to point out and even condemn heresy. Truth is truth, error is error. If the Confession of Dositheos contains heresy then it should be condemned, if it is orthodox then (as far as I’m concerned) there should be no EO objections (which I often do encounter) to concepts like purgatory, transubstantiation, original sin, etc.

We’ve dealt with this (and the toll stuff) several times here. In short, the Confession of Dositheos is explicitly dealing with Rome’s Protestant spawn, and throws our dog into that fight only because both packs were on the prowl in the East. Given its LIMITED purposes, it’s fine. But that is also why the Synod of Jerusalem (which adopted it) is not Ecumenical, though Pan-Orthodox.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I disagree with this, especially considering the Confession of Dositheos lifted much of its definitions directly from the documents of Trent.

I personally don’t recall ever reading anything dogmatic as far as a “rigid distinction” between cleansing and punitive. Terms like venial sin, mortal sin, satisfaction, etc are necessary concepts, for if there is no distinction you would have to say venial sin alone damns (and at that point the concept of purgatory doesn’t exist).

The concept of purgatory is a dogma of the Catholic Church, how rigidly it is defined in all its aspects is not dogmatized (as far as I am aware).

The Church holds the power to articulate almost anything dogmatic, even if Tradition does not give details the Church can further define things. The Church can more fully define things without in any way undermining the Mystery. The Ecumenical Councils dealing with Christological issues are a perfect example of this. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that the EO should stay consistent and call a spade a spade. If teachings/concepts like purgatory, transubstantiaion, etc are errors or “Latin inventions,” then the EO need to likewise lable documents like the Confession of Dositheos.

Why? To please the Latins?

It would be appropriate if Dositheos did lift language from Trent, as it was a squabble which we had no part in (ditto the issue of Real Presence) etc. It would have been far better to be silent on the issue, but since the West was knocking down our doors, that wasn’t an option.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

But thats just it…The Confession actually employs the very term “Transubstantiation” and uses terminology like “accidents” and “substance”. To use a term like transubstantiation (a very “Latin” term) WITHOUT a theological definition behind it is irresponsible theology.

Yes, but the Confession gives a very Catholic view of Original Sin, so the popular “original guilt” objection is a non-issue, unless of course you want to say the Confession is in error. (I have actually been told that Russian Metropolitan Philaret actually had the audacity to go through that Confession and “edit out” teachings that he thought were “too latin.”)

What audacity? Dositheus wrote in the midst of the Western Captivity of the Church, St. Philaret while we were climbing out of it (and St. Philaret gave a good push out).

 

[Ghosty]

Actually, your closer than you might think. St. Athanasius ‘is’ saying that man was the same, in nature, before as he was after the Fall. We didn’t lose anything that was ‘ours’ in the Fall… we lost our participation in the divine nature. This wasn’t ours inherently through our nature but always an extension of God’s nature with our own. Adam was ‘immortal’ not by any attribute of his own nature but because of his participation in God’s attributes. The point that must be made is that Adam was ‘meant’ to have participation in the divine nature just as all mankind. It was our desire to have this state ‘apart’ from God which caused our Fall from this state of grace. This is nothing ‘new’, it’s all present in On The Incarnation.

All of this is exactly what I said in my post where I cited “On the Incarnation”, and it is the Latin teaching on the matter.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

What audacity? Dositheus wrote in the midst of the Western Captivity of the Church, St. Philaret while we were climbing out of it (and St. Philaret gave a good push out).

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is the Western Captivity of the Church?

Grace, Mercy and Peace to you.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is the Western Captivity of the Church?

Grace, Mercy and Peace to you.

The period roughly from the last days of the Roman Empire (Fall of Constantinople) until the 19th/20th century when Orthodox education was on Western models, whether Papal or Protestant, instead of the Orthodox Phronema. One can look at an Orthodox work of the period and tell whether the writer went to the Jesuit or Calvinist college (terminology, presentation, etc.).

 

[Fuerza]

We’ve dealt with this (and the toll stuff) several times here. In short, the Confession of Dositheos is explicitly dealing with Rome’s Protestant spawn, and throws our dog into that fight only because both packs were on the prowl in the East. Given its LIMITED purposes, it’s fine. But that is also why the Synod of Jerusalem (which adopted it) is not Ecumenical, though Pan-Orthodox.

Not to start an argument, but why is teaching heresy fine as long as it’s purpose is limited? Shouldn’t heresy be condemned no matter what it’s purpose? If teachings such as purgatory and original sin are seen as errors by the East, why should they be tolerated for any reason when spoken by a Patriarch?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Not to start an argument, but why is teaching heresy fine as long as it’s purpose is limited?

When pointing out the lesser of two evils that are already outside the Church. Ordinarily you say “a pox on both your houses,” but when the two houses have occupied your house, that not a luxury you have.

Shouldn’t heresy be condemned no matter what it’s purpose?

Inside the Church, yes. Outside, well, they’re outside the Church.

If teachings such as purgatory and original sin are seen as errors by the East, why should they be tolerated for any reason when spoken by a Patriarch?

When another Patriarch has denied prayers for the dead and promoted Presdestination and Total Depravity. Dositheos was specifically dealing with the Calvinist educated EP Cyril Lukaris.

some here, given what has happened to Limbo, might look into that log.

 

[chrisb]

All of this is exactly what I said in my post where I cited “On the Incarnation”, and it is the Latin teaching on the matter.

Peace and God bless!

I’m sure an astute individual can rationalize Western Doctrine to fit with the Patristic Teaching but one has to do a great deal of gymnastics to achieve it. It’s far simpler to ‘sit at the feet of the Fathers’. Western Dogmatics has legalized Salvation and in doing so has fenced out the mysteries in the West’s mechanization of the Faith. It has fenced out the illumination of the Great God-Seers in it’s attempts to ‘systematize’ Theology.

St. John of the Ladder wrote, “The lover of silence draws close to God. He talks to Him in secret and God enlightens him. Jesus, by His silence, shamed Pilate; and a man, by his stillness, conquers vainglory.”

I have no doubt that since Vatican II, the West has taken strides to reverse this ‘legalization’ of Salvation but in doing so I fear they have erred in the other extreme. Lord have Mercy.

In turning the faith into a ‘system’ silence is no longer of value to the theologian. The faith is now no longer the work of ‘ascesis’ but ‘scholasticism’. It has lost it roots in the Spirit and now dwells in the minds of men. This is lamentable. Apologia is now no longer a sincere expression of truth but an activity of the ego, debate is now fencing for the ego. Vainglory.

Ghosty, you are a reasonable apologist, and you move very close to the truth. Once you have put aside rationalizing the intellectual activities of the West ‘as truth’ you will find that ‘truth’ is greater than ‘scholasticism’ it is walking in wonder and leaving ‘room’ for theological opinion. The West’s rigid doctrine has fenced out the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Maximos the Confessor. This is again, lamentable because, within the Church, there is ‘room’ for them.

 

[Ghosty]

I’m sure an astute individual can rationalize Western Doctrine to fit with the Patristic Teaching but one has to do a great deal of gymnastics to achieve it. It’s far simpler to ‘sit at the feet of the Fathers’. Western Dogmatics has legalized Salvation and in doing so has fenced out the mysteries in the West’s mechanization of the Faith. It has fenced out the illumination of the Great God-Seers in it’s attempts to ‘systematize’ Theology.

This sounds like intellectualized polemics, not a careful study of the Latin tradition. There are always certain buzz-words which are obvious, especially in combination. I’m afraid I it is unconvincing and a bit vacuous, in my opinion.

St. John of the Ladder wrote, “The lover of silence draws close to God. He talks to Him in secret and God enlightens him. Jesus, by His silence, shamed Pilate; and a man, by his stillness, conquers vainglory.”

St. John of the Cross, and St. Theresa of Avila, two Dominican-trained Carmelites and Doctors of the Church, nicely represent, and promote, this teaching in the post-Trent Church, all while using Latin theological terminology. Having read their works, and other Saint’s like them, you’ll simply not convince me that they didn’t exist or shape the Latin Church in the time between Trent and Vatican II. What you’re speaking is stereotypes, not reality.

Ghosty, you are a reasonable apologist, and you move very close to the truth. Once you have put aside rationalizing the intellectual activities of the West ‘as truth’ you will find that ‘truth’ is greater than ‘scholasticism’ it is walking in wonder and leaving ‘room’ for theological opinion. The West’s rigid doctrine has fenced out the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Maximos the Confessor. This is again, lamentable because, within the Church, there is ‘room’ for them.

I’ve never said that the Truth was matched with scholasticism, and neither did the scholastics. Whatsmore, I’m not a Latin, and I’m quite happy with the Melkite tradition I live and breathe. I just also take the time to defend the tradition of the Latin Church, which I’ve studied deeply and found to not be anything like certain polemics would have me believe.

I do appreciate the compliments, but I assure you that I’ve done my research, and will continue to do so.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

As I understand, Catholics believe in Original Guilt and and believe held in some way culpable for the Fall. They therefore tend to see the deprivation of Grace caused by the Fall as a result of God withdrawing the gift of Grace as punishment.

It was a “guilt” only in the sense of children suffering the consequences of a poor decision on the part of the parents. In the case of the fall, Adam and all men lost the gift of being born/created in a state of grace, they are born lacking something that prevents them from salvation, this is Original Sin 101. If they are born lacking nothing, then Jesus is not their savior by definition.

As I understand, the Orthodox view is that when Adam sinned, the distrust of God that was introduced into Man’s character created a gulf in the relationship with God. Also, this distrust naturally produces lust and pride, which in turn generates further acts of sin. Thus, it is as if this this distrust were a contagion which naturally spreads and infects us with sin. Even if we choose to try to do good and restore our relationship with God, the mere fact that the distrust existed in the first place bars us from achieving the closeness which was possible before the distrust was introduced. (This is also true of, and easily seen in, relationships between individuals.) The deprivation of Grace then is a result of this contagion and not God. God never ceased to offer us Grace, and indeed never would, being All-Loving and Ever-Benevolent.

What you describe as “created a gulf in the relationship with God” is equivalent to the Catholic usage of the term guilt of Original Sin. Man is born outside of a relationship with God, they did not put themself there.

Whether the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox views is significant or minor could be debated. However, it definitely has different implications about the benevolence of God and the reason for which we needed the supernatural events performed in the Incarnation.

I saw no significant differences in what you explained and what Catholicism teaches.

My point is that truth is truth, and error is error, as well. I just have an additional point that man is not omniscient, and therefore cannot know every truth. Sometimes you have to admit that we don’t know something for sure, and just leave it as a matter of opinion. You seem to expect us to give a definite statement of validity or falsehood for everything. Sorry for our Church not being omniscient. I wasn’t aware that the Orthodox Church was supposed to assume the role of God.

That is not the issue, the issue is EO around here (and in books and such) calling certain things Latin inventions with no foundation in Scripture or Tradition. This has nothing to do with omniscience. If any given EO want to call XYZ a Latin invention, and yet XYZ is taught in say Dositheos then that needs to be condemned as being infected with Latin invention as well. It’s about the speck in the brother’s eye, not omniscience.

They don’t condemn Dositheos as error because it is not right to condemn based on opinion alone. It’d be like a Catholic who believes the Theotokos never died condemning all Catholics who believe she did. As a Catholic, you can certainly believe that it is an error to state that she died, but you wouldn’t be justified in condemning that statement because the dogma of the the Catholic Church does not address that issue. Rather, it only states that she was assumed into heaven, body and soul. As long as one believes in the assumption, it doesn’t matter whether you believe she died or not. Likewise, the Orthodox dogmata only address the Real Presence, not metousiosis.

I hope you understood that. I mean, the difference between opinion and dogma isn’t exactly a complex concept.

If they dont condemn Dositheos for XYZ, then they have NO GROUND to go around saying XYZ are “Latin inventions”, that is my point. Nothing to do with dogma vs. opinion.

As for Dositheos, it doesn’t delve into specifics, so the differences aren’t mentioned in its proclamation. It may be worth remembering that the purpose of that the decree on Original Sin was to reject Calvinism. Therefore, it was only expedient to mention those aspects of the Orthodox view that directly conflict with Calvinism’s assertion that fallen persons are completely deprived of the capability to do good.

(I forgot to put to write this in my reply two posts ago. My bad! Hopefully you’ll read this before you reply to that one. )

It gives enough detail that it can be seen that the issue is the fall, in essence, was a matter of losing sanctifying grace leaving only the natural state of man. This is perfectly and directly inline with Catholic thought.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Try this site from ORTHODOX DOGMATIC THEOLOGY

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P2I.HTM

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Here, I’ll help you edit your statement:

“The Confession of Dositheos says clearly that souls only go to Heaven after the Second Coming. Also, the word Hell is never mentioned in the document. Hence, it in no way says that all souls go either to Heaven, Hell, or Hades immediately after death.”

You should have read it more closely.

You misread that quote you gave about “All that after the coming of Christ the Saviour would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be regenerated.”, it is actually lifted directly out of the documents of Trent. This quote is saying the manner of forgiveness of sins through Baptismal Regeneration is now required ever since Christ came and instituted it, where as before Christ came sacramental Baptism was not required.

You forgot about post 18, in which you quote me, quoting decree 18?
We believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each has done; — for when they are separated from their bodies, they depart immediately either to joy, or to sorrow and lamentation; though confessedly neither their enjoyment nor condemnation are complete. For after the common resurrection, when the soul shall be united with the body, with which it had behaved itself well or ill, each shall receive the completion of either enjoyment or of condemnation.
This quote is easily seen as taken from Florence and Trent. The “rest/joy” is Heaven, and the “torment/sorrow” is Hell, even if the terms are not used. It says nothing about this being a probationary period in Hades until the common resurrection. The Catholic Church fully agrees that the joy/condemnation don’t receive their full measure until the bodies are reunited, but that is not the same as not being in heaven or hell IMMEDIATELY upon death.
THEN, the VERY next paragraph says this:
And the souls of those involved in mortal sins [Latin terminology/concept], who have not departed in despair but while still living in the body, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented — by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly called satisfaction [Latin terminology] — **[their souls] depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice [Latin terminology] benefiting the most; **which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not.
This is likewise lifted directly from the documents of Trent. The only difference is Catholics don’t formally use the tern “Hades,” the concept is identical however, and that is because it comes from a Catholic document. These are the only group said to be sent to Hades. So my point stands.

Also, in the quote you gave, it clearly and explicitly says infants require baptism to obtain remission of original sin, thus they are born “un-saved”, lacking something, and this is precisely what the term “guilt” in Original Sin signifies. (and this concept is one in which many EO I have consulted would be repulsed by as a Latin invention, foreign to Orthodoxy)

 

[chrisb]

Try this site from ORTHODOX DOGMATIC THEOLOGY

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P2I.HTM

Recommended reading…

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The Western Church has moved so far from what one finds presented by St. Athanasius in On The Incarnation but one can simply let the patristic teaching speak for itself.

You’ll not find the extreme juridical expression which permeates Western Theology in the Consensual Teaching of the Fathers.

I’m sure an astute individual can rationalize Western Doctrine to fit with the Patristic Teaching but one has to do a great deal of gymnastics to achieve it. It’s far simpler to ‘sit at the feet of the Fathers’. Western Dogmatics has legalized Salvation and in doing so has fenced out the mysteries in the West’s mechanization of the Faith. It has fenced out the illumination of the Great God-Seers in it’s attempts to ‘systematize’ Theology.

St. John of the Ladder wrote, *"The lover of silence draws close to God. He talks to Him in secret and God enlightens him.

*I have no doubt that since Vatican II, the West has taken strides to reverse this ‘legalization’ of Salvation but in doing so I fear they have erred in the other extreme. Lord have Mercy.

In turning the faith into a ‘system’ silence is no longer of value to the theologian. The faith is now no longer the work of ‘ascesis’ but ‘scholasticism’. It has lost it roots in the Spirit and now dwells in the minds of men. This is lamentable.

Chris, no offense, but much of what you have said is the epitome of anti-Catholicism. The Truth is not what is in view, but rather who is speaking. If it is Catholic, it MUST be bad, must be corrupt, confused, anti-patristic, etc. Your quotes are the epitomy of someone with blinders on so tight that it affects rational and fair and genuine Christian quest for truth. Your list is a bunch of lies, false dichotomies, misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and ignorance of the facts.

And the anti-Catholic tool belt always holds certain buzz words designed to “clearly” distinguish pure Orthodoxy with Latin filth. Fortunately, these buzz phrases not only do not work on any semi-informed Catholic, but they are a bad reflection on those issuing such statements, indicating they don’t know what Catholicism really teaches, only the God given “intuition” that whatever Catholicism teaches must be wrong.

When all else fails just toss out, “scholasticism”, “legalism”, “systematic”, etc and dont forget to “contrast” this with “feet of the fathers,” “lovers of silence,” “ascetisim” etc and you “win”! :dancing:

We didn’t lose anything that was ‘ours’ in the Fall… we lost our participation in the divine nature. This wasn’t ours inherently through our nature but always an extension of God’s nature with our own.

Welcome to Catholicism, specifically the doctrine of Original Sin.

We’ve dealt with this (and the toll stuff) several times here. In short, the Confession of Dositheos is explicitly dealing with Rome’s Protestant spawn, and throws our dog into that fight only because both packs were on the prowl in the East. Given its LIMITED purposes, it’s fine. But that is also why the Synod of Jerusalem (which adopted it) is not Ecumenical, though Pan-Orthodox.

In other words, Truth is not absolute but relative. If it is an EO speaking naturally they should be at least given the benefit of the doubt, if it is Catholic speaking the same things that just wont fly.

Why? To please the Latins?

It would be appropriate if Dositheos did lift language from Trent, as it was a squabble which we had no part in (ditto the issue of Real Presence) etc. It would have been far better to be silent on the issue, but since the West was knocking down our doors, that wasn’t an option.

So lets lift language from the Koran and Book of Mormon and insert it into our Confession of faith…that’s OK?..that’s the “Orthodox Way” of doing business???

A spade is a spade.

What audacity? Dositheus wrote in the midst of the Western Captivity of the Church, St. Philaret while we were climbing out of it (and St. Philaret gave a good push out).

So heresy is tolerable as long as it is used in certain circumstances? The unbroken Apostolic testimony to the world is sometimes has to stoop down to embracing heresy to survive?

Not to start an argument, but why is teaching heresy fine as long as it’s purpose is limited? Shouldn’t heresy be condemned no matter what it’s purpose? If teachings such as purgatory and original sin are seen as errors by the East, why should they be tolerated for any reason when spoken by a Patriarch?

Fuerza, you nailed it. The answer here is in one word: anti-Catholicism. It is the irrational belief, founded upon a long tradition of animocity, that teaches the adherent that when it comes to Catholicism fairness, logic, etc can be tossed out the window when it comes time for “evaluation.” Anti-Catholicism is one of the hardest obstacles us Catholics face, it puts blinders on people that, at times, seems only the Holy Ghost can lift.

When pointing out the lesser of two evils that are already outside the Church. Ordinarily you say “a pox on both your houses,” but when the two houses have occupied your house, that not a luxury you have.

Inside the Church, yes. Outside, well, they’re outside the Church.

When another Patriarch has denied prayers for the dead and promoted Presdestination and Total Depravity. Dositheos was specifically dealing with the Calvinist educated EP Cyril Lukaris.

some here, given what has happened to Limbo, might look into that log.

So as long as one heresy is not as bad as another it can be employed as a “solution”…as long as it isnt permanent?