Trinitarian Theologies of East and West -- reconciled at long last

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

The Pope has, in the name of Western Catholicism, apologized for the wrong and deplorable actions of those SINFUL WRETCHES who sacked Constantinople and has asked for forgiveness from the East. Fr., how does God the Father treat the sins of a penitent after he’s asked for forgiveness and you’ve pronounced absolution?

That’s how the Eastern Church has to treat this, at least if this prayer is to be realized, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive our trespasses.”

I do remember one notable apology when the Pope visited Athens. The Pope has been very assiduous in apologizing for past sins and has walked a tightrope over it all between different sections of his Church.
See
beliefnet.com/story/14/story_1458_1.html

Because the “Formula Hormisdae” is proof positive that the Eastern Church once recognized the Primacy of the See of Peter and saw the Servant who occupied the position as the “Preserver of the Catholic Faith”.

Times change! As an Anglican you will remember that the Pope Leo once gave Henry VIII the title of “DEFENDER OF THE FAITH.” That was for Henry’s defence of the Catholic faith against the Lutherans. How much times changed for him!

The title is still used today by English sovereigns.

May the Mother of God save you.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Subaho Labo Lebaro Vala Rooho † Kadisso. Ameen.
[Glory be to the Father, Son, and † Holy Spirit. Amen.]

Wonderful article by Father Chrysostom on Orthodox-Catholic Relations, from an Orthodox perspective here, just thought both of you would be interested.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Subaho Labo Lebaro Vala Rooho * Kadisso. Ameen.
[Glory be to the Father, Son, and * Holy Spirit. Amen.]

Wonderful article by Father Chrysostom on Orthodox-Catholic Relations, from an Orthodox perspective here, just thought both of you would be interested.

Thank you, Michael.

It’s a very good article, and I hope it changes the dialectic and the basis of this discussion and others like it.

I’m sick and tired of dealing with Charlemagne, the Sack of Constantinople and only God knows how many things Orthodox apologists have used to beat Catholics senseless.

One Orthodox mentioned it would be the end of the Ecumenical Patriarch if he received the Eucharist from the hands of the Pope or gave the Eucharist to the Pope. Fr. Chrysostom Frank pointed out that wouldn’t have been so until the “hardliners” got hold of things in the 17th Century.

I think Fr. Chrysostom’s way is more consistant with what Our Lord prayed for in the Garden of Gethsemene and what we pray for during Mass.

praiseofglory.com/frchrysostom.htm

Good find. I’ll keep it bookmarked.

God bless you.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr Ambrose:

I do remember one notable apology when the Pope visited Athens. The Pope has been very assiduous in apologizing for past sins and has walked a tightrope over it all between different sections of his Church.
See
beliefnet.com/story/14/story_1458_1.html

Fr. Ambrose:

The question is - Have you accepted the apologies and FORGIVEN as the Pope begged? Or, have you and other Orthodox decided NOT to FORGIVE so you could keep on bringing those old hurts and resentments up whenever it seemed convenient to make a point?

IMO, so long as Catholics have to listen to tales of Charlemagne’s rantings, and the alledged deeds of the “Soul-Stealer”, it’s the later, and the apologies have fallen on deaf ears, the article written by Fr. Chrysostom is for nought, and the cause of Christian Unity is a LOST ONE.

praiseofglory.com/frchrysostom.htm

That can only grieve Our Lord.
Fr Ambrose:

Times change! As an Anglican you will remember that the Pope Leo once gave Henry VIII the title of “DEFENDER OF THE FAITH.” That was for Henry’s defence of the Catholic faith against the Lutherans. How much times changed for him!

The title is still used today by English sovereigns.

May the Mother of God save you.

Fr., I know well about the history of King Henry VIII, and how he had his friend and teacher, St. Thomas More, murdered, because Thomas refused to publicly accept Henry as the “Head of the Church of England”. And this had been after St. Thomas More had risked life and prestige to travel to Rome in order to plead Henry’s case for an annulment.

But, you have to give me something better than, “Time’s change!” That’s what the Liberals in PECUSA said when they started ordaining women “Priests” and “Bishops”, and that’s what they said in the C of E whan they did the same thing! That reason also worked for consecrating a man as Bishop who left his wife and young children to move in with his gay lover.

BTW, you’ll see the “Formula Hormisdae” cited by Fr. Chrysostom as a proper orthodox interpretation of the role of the Papacy:

*One need only recall the acclamation by eastern bishops, “St. Peter has spoken through Leo”, after the reading of Leo’s famous tome. (46) The eastern bishops who signed the Libellus Hormisdae of 519, which ended the Schism of Acacius, moreover, clearly acknowledged the Pope’s Petrine ministry of ensuring doctrinal orthodoxy and unity:

We cannot pass over in silence the affirmation of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who said: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. . . .” These words are borne out by the facts: it is in the Apostolic See that the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain. . . it is for this reason that I hope to achieve communion with the Apostolic See in which is found the entire, true, and perfect stability of the Christian religion. (47)

One finds, then, eastern bishops relating to the Roman See in terms of both the principle of accomodation and the principle of apostolicity. Depending on their current needs and situation, they emphasized one or the other. This produced an ambiguity which has tended to characterize eastern Christian thought with regard to the Roman presidency. The most balanced position, it seems to me, is that of the eastern Father, St. Maximus the Confessor, who in 643/644 acknowledged both the synodically-determined and divinely-given origin of Roman See:

. . . the very holy Church of Rome, the apostolic see, which God the Word Himself and likewise all the holy Synods, according to the holy canons and the sacred definitions, have received, and which owns the power in all things and for all, over all the saints who are there for the whole inhabited earth, and likewise the power to unite and to dissolve… (48)*

praiseofglory.com/frchrysostom.htm

Blessings upon you and your congregation.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

The most balanced position, it seems to me, is that of the eastern Father, St. Maximus the Confessor, who in 643/644 acknowledged both the synodically-determined and divinely-given origin of Roman See:

. . . the very holy Church of Rome, the apostolic see, which God the Word Himself and likewise all the holy Synods, according to the holy canons and the sacred definitions, have received, and which owns the power in all things and for all, over all the saints who are there for the whole inhabited earth, and likewise the power to unite and to dissolve… (48)

In Christ, Michael

Indeed, Saint Maximus offers a balance but let us look at it. Even after his fulsome praise of Rome, he does not attribute any special infallibility to it. In fact he acknowledges that Rome can fall into error and he will refuse to receive communion with the Pope’s legates. It was a questuion of the Patriarch espousing the Monothelite heresy and the Pope was acquiescing in it.

So -for balance- let us look at this incident from the life of Venerable Maximus the Confessor. He shows how an Orthodox Christian ought to behave in the face of apostasy - mass desertion from Christ’s truth.

“Wilt thou not enter into communion with the Throne of Constantinople?” the patricians Troilus and Sergius Euphrastes, the chief of the imperial table, asked Venerable Maximus the Confessor.

“No,” replied the saint.

“But why?” they asked.

“Because,” replied the saint, “the leaders of this church have rejected the enactments of the four Councils…they themselves have excommunicated themselves from the Church many times over and have convicted themselves of incorrect thinking.”

“Then thou alone wilt be saved,” they retorted to him, “while all others will perish?”

The Saint replied to this:

“When all men were worshipping the golden idol in Babylon, the three holy youths did not condemn anyone to perdition. They were not concerned about what others did, but only about them-selves, lest they fall away from true piety. And Daniel, when cast into the den, in precisely the same way did not condemn any of those who, in fulfilling the law of Darius, did not want to pray to God, but he kept his duty in mind and desired rather to die than to sin and be punished by his conscience for transgressing the Law of God. And may God forbid that I should condemn anyone or say that I alone shall be saved. However, I shall sooner agree to die than, having apostatized in some way from the right faith, endure torments of conscience.”

“But what wilt thou do,” the emissaries said to him, “when the Romans unite with the Byzantines? After all, two apocrisiaries arrived yesterday from Rome, and tomorrow, on the Lord’s day, they will commune of the Immaculate Mysteries with the patriarch.”

The Venerable one replied:

“If even the whole universe will begin to commune with the patriarch, I will not commune with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul that the Holy Spirit gives even the angels over to anathema, if they begin to preach a different Gospel, introducing something new.”

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose in your #65, you’ve quoted St. Maximus the Confessor as saying something completely different from that which Fr. Chrysostom Franks (a Greek Orthodox) has quoted in the site I linked. His citation is here:

48 - PG 91: 144 C.; translation from Lars Thunberg, Man and the Cosmos. The Vision of St. Maximus the Confessor (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), pp. 25-26.

Could you provide yours, please?

Meanwhile:

Pope Theodore I

Pope from 642 to 649; the date of his birth is unknown. He was a Greek of Jerusalem and the son of a bishop, Theodore. His election as pope was promptly confirmed by the Exarch of Ravenna, perhaps because he was a Greek, and he was consecrated 24 Nov., 642. Engaged throughout all his pontificate in the struggle against Monothelitism, he at once wrote to the Byzantine Emperor Constans II to inform him that he could not recognize Paul as Patriarch of Constantinople, because the deposition of his predecessor (Pyrrhus) had not been canonical. He then urged Constans to withdraw the Ecthesis. He also wrote to Paul and to the bishops who had consecrated him, to impress upon them the importance of securing the legal deposition of Pyrrhus, if the accession of Paul was to be recognized. If Theodore’s vigorous action produced no result at Constantinople, it elsewhere excited strong opposition to Monothelitism. The Bishops of Cyprus, Palestine, and Africa expressed their loyal submission to his teaching in very striking language. Even the deposed patriarch Pyrrhus recanted his heresy before Theodore (645), but soon relapsed into his old errors, and was excommunicated by the pope (648). Meanwhile, urged by the bishops of Africa, Theodore made another effort to reclaim Paul, but only succeeded in drawing from him an express declaration of his belief in the doctrine of one Will in our Lord. This brought upon him sentence of excommunication and deposition from Rome (649). To this Paul replied by barbarously ill-treating the papal apocrisiarii (or nuncios) at Constantinople. He also prevailed upon Constans to issue a new decree known as the Type (Typus). This document ordered the Ecthesis to be taken down, and enjoined that in future there was to be no more discussion on the doctrine of one or two Wills or Operations. The Type was promptly condemned “by the whole West” in general, and specifically by Theodore’s successor (St. Martin I), but it is not certain whether Theodore lived long enough to anathematize it. This energetic pontiff, who was good to the poor of Rome, and a benefactor of its churches, was buried in St. Peter’s, 14 May, 649.

newadvent.org/cathen/14570a.htm

And I have this account of the life of St. Maximus the Confessor:

Saint Maximus the Confessor
580-662 A.D. Commemorated Jan. 21 / Feb. 3

Venerable Maximus’ arguments in behalf of Orthodoxy were so powerful that after a public debate on the faith with Pyrrhus, the Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople, the latter renounced the heresy in 645. Venerable Maximus was sent into exile several times and each time would again be called back to Constantinople. The heretics often passed from admonitions and promises to threats, abuse and the beating of Venerable Maximus. On one occasion, Saint Maximus was called back to Constantinople, where the imperial grandees, Troilus and Sergius, again subjected him to interrogation. They began to accuse Saint Maximus of pride for esteeming himself as the only Orthodox who is being saved and for considering all others to be heretics who are perishing.

wirnowski.com/Orthodoxy/B_ChFathers.html#St%20Maximus

The imperial grandees either lied, or this was after the Patriarch had recanted his heresy. The story doesn’t tell you when the incident happened. As you can see from the life of Pope Theodore that I posted above, that’s crucial in this instance if one wants to know what actually happened and if the grandees were even telling St. Maximus the truth.

Remember they tortured, beat, exiled and otherwise mistreated a holy man. Lying to him would have been par for the course.

Peace be with you.

Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

The question is - Have you accepted the apologies and FORGIVEN as the Pope begged?

I don’t think that he has offered an apology for what Pope Adrian (the Englishman) encouraged Henry II and the Anglo-Normans to do to my country and its own unique and vibrant form of Christianity.

I refer of course to the papal “Donation of Ireland to England” and the subsequent destruction of the unique style of church life and monasticism and piety which had flourished in Ireland for 6 centuries. All destroyed and swept away and replaced with the dull uniformity of the continental style of Christianity.

O, if only we were to hear the sweet whisper of an apology from the lips of the Pope!.. even the barest intimation that he regrets his predecessor’s demolition of one of the most beautiful Christian cultures in the world…

Irish Catholic Spirituality-Celtic and Roman
John J O Ríordáin CSsR

John J O Ríordáin traces the fortunes of Irish Catholic Spirituality from its Celtic origins, through the reforms of the late medieval period, the influences of the Reformation, and the dramatic and traumatic nineteenth-century changes which revolutionised and, in many ways, vandalised the traditional Irish approach to God.

He highlights some of the early Celtic influences in contemporary Irish spirituality and considers the future of the church. ‘When the church is seen as institution only, it is difficult for people on the margins who are more attuned to traditional faith-ways to maintain comfortable links with it. Too often church membership and practice is reduced to being ‘all in’ or ‘all out’. At her wise and generous best, the church has always been relaxed about her boundaries.’

Available from CATHEDRAL BOOKS
4 Sackville Place, Dublin 1, Ireland
Tel: +353 1 874 5284 Fax: +353 1 878 7704.
cathedralbooks.ie

email: cathedra@indigo.ie cathedral @ indigo.ie

And another book which may be of interest:

**“Irish Jesus,Roman Jesus: The Formation of Early Irish Christianity” **
Graydon F. Snyder
amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1563383853/104-1601845-2867915

---

The Jesus Prayer in Irish:
A Thiarna Iosa Chriost, Mac De, dean trocaire orm-se peacach

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

**Fr that’s crucial in this instance if one wants to know what actually happened and if the grandees were even telling St. Maximus the truth.

Remember they tortured, beat, exiled and otherwise mistreated a holy man. Lying to him would have been par for the course.
**

But the point is that the Saint obviously did not see the Pope as protected from falling into heresy, and he was adamant that he would not commune if that were the case. Saint Maximus projects the attitude of the early Church which venerated Rome highly but did not see its bishop as infallible and divinely safeguarded from teaching heresy.

Do you know that the Irish held in high esteem both Rome and Jerusalem, and they placed Jerusalem above Rome as being the most ancient See and the place of the Lord’s resurrection from the dead.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr Ambrose:

I don’t think that he has offered an apology for what Pope Adrian (the Englishman) encouraged Henry II and the Anglo-Normans to do to my country and its own unique and vibrant form of Christianity.

I refer of course to the papal “Donation of Ireland to England” and the subsequent destruction of the unique style of church life and monasticism and piety which had flourished in Ireland for 6 centuries. All destroyed and swept away and replaced with the dull uniformity of the continental style of Christianity.

O, if only we were to hear the sweet whisper of an apology from the lips of the Pope!.. even the barest intimation that he regrets his predecessor’s demolition of one of the most beautiful Christian cultures in the world…

Irish Catholic Spirituality-Celtic and Roman
John J O R’ord‡in CSsR

John J O R’ord‡in traces the fortunes of Irish Catholic Spirituality from its Celtic origins, through the reforms of the late medieval period, the influences of the Reformation, and the dramatic and traumatic nineteenth-century changes which revolutionised and, in many ways, vandalised the traditional Irish approach to God.

He highlights some of the early Celtic influences in contemporary Irish spirituality and considers the future of the church. ‘When the church is seen as institution only, it is difficult for people on the margins who are more attuned to traditional faith-ways to maintain comfortable links with it. Too often church membership and practice is reduced to being ‘all in’ or ‘all out’. At her wise and generous best, the church has always been relaxed about her boundaries.’

Available from CATHEDRAL BOOKS
4 Sackville Place, Dublin 1, Ireland
Tel: +353 1 874 5284 Fax: +353 1 878 7704.
cathedralbooks.ie

email: cathedra@indigo.ie cathedral @ indigo.ie

And another book which may be of interest:

**“Irish Jesus,Roman Jesus: The Formation of Early Irish Christianity” **
Graydon F. Snyder
amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1563383853/104-1601845-2867915

---

The Jesus Prayer in Irish:
A Thiarna Iosa Chriost, Mac De, dean trocaire orm-se peacach

Father,

The only reason I don’t speak Irish is because my father forbade it in the home-America was and is our Country, and that’s what several generations of my family have fought for.

This may very well be just one more in a LONG line of things that we Irish we have to FORGIVE if we wish to see God’s Face and enjoy the “beautific Vision”.

Next time you say the Jesus Prayer, include Pope Adrian IV and Henry II in it with yourself. It sounds like they both need it.

I had occasion to say the Litany of the Dead for someone who’s responsible for the deaths of some acquiantances of mine. He’s also responsible for the deaths of several other people.

As I said the Litany, I became aware that those victims of his were also praying for him, too, because they had been given the grace, after they died, to see the soul or the Icon of God he had been born with.

Our Lord said to pray for Our enemies. I don’t think that stops when they die.

Try it. It will do you more good than any apology from any Pope.

Bless you and good night.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional:

Our Lord said to pray for Our enemies. I don’t think that stops when they die.

Try it. It will do you more good than any apology from any Pope.

I do, of course. Do you know about the life and teaching of Saint Silouan the Athonite? I spent a few months in Essex in the monastery of Fr Sophrony who was a disciple of Saint Silouan. A man of deep spirituality. He saw forgiveness and love for enemies as the distinguishing mark of a Christian. He taught that the soul cannot know peace until it prays for its enemies. He said that the soul which does not love its enemies will not be pleasing to God. I’ve always believed since childhood that we should pray for our enemies and for their salvation.

Photo of St Silouan
http://www.balamandmonastery.org.lb/fathers/fatherssilouanpic2.jpg

His icon
http://www.sspeterpaul.org/StSilouan.jpg

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Father Ambrose.

Peace in hell? “Keep thy mind in hell and despair not.”

“For lo, should I descend to the depths of hell, still Thou art with me…’”

Dear Michael,

Don’t be so hard on us, some of the things that we read and hear from Latin sources can be more offensive to the Christians in the Orthodox Catholic Church then you may be aware of, it seems. Perhaps Father Ambrose over the course of many years is a aware of some things when he prays many more Litanies during the Liturgy.

Many Orthodox Saints including Saint Silouan had been acquainted with hesychia. If you reference the Catholic Encyclopedia on hesychasm you may see how terribly incorrect and unfamiliar with Orthodox spirituality such judgments are. You may see and come to the conclusion that incorrect perceptions can produce incorrect words that instruct or convey ignorance to others. In the struggle for the “beatific Vision” that you mentioned, the Orthodox Catholic Saints seem to indicate that discernment is critical. They have written much on confusing discernment with judgment.

Here is short link.

philthompson.net/pages/about/silouan/

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

The Orthodox have a very keen sense of living inside the history of the Church. What happened in the 6th century has as much reality for them as what happened in the 16th. I suppose that this Borg-like kind of intergenerational memory is both a good thing and a bad thing.

All it will do, scripturally paraphrased, is convict the arrogance of one who insists on living and reliving these memories forever without forgiving. God has an infinitely better memory than you do. As a result He will remember EVERYTHING you did and will not forget or forgive one iota of what YOU’VE done. Because you forgive NOTHING, remember EVERYTHING, and when asked to forgive, you with hold forgiveness. Therefore, you will not be forgiven yourself.
Fr Ambrose:

That is, pretty much, the Orthodox view of what has happened. There is not one ounce of anti-Catholic feeling in what I have just written, but only an honest synopsis of the way the Church sees matters.

The same Orthodox today as the same Orthodox in the past, who cut out the tongue of 80 year old Maximus the Confessor because they wanted to silence him from speaking the truth

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

But the point is that the Saint obviously did not see the Pope as protected from falling into heresy, and he was adamant that he would not commune if that were the case.

It’s not necessary for every writer to defend this position of protection, in order for it to be true.
Fr Ambrose:

Saint Maximus projects the attitude of the early Church which venerated Rome highly but did not see its bishop as infallible and divinely safeguarded from teaching heresy.

And what about Cyprian of Carthage: “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?”

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Steve,

I don’t know the extent of your education, but be advised that the Orthodox did not cut out the tongue of Saint Maximus the confessor as he was a firm defender of the Orthodox Church.

As far as your reference to Cyprian of Carthage here is a quote from someone who has been studying and teaching such matters for a while. It should be noted that no full council has accepted the papacy or the teachings of the Latins after they departed from the teachings of the Orthodox Catholic Church.

“We cannot read the speculations of early Fathers on matters to which the Church later spoke universally (i.e. ecumenically, by full council), without taking into account the Church’s fuller statements on these matters. Else we might also claim Christ to be 55 years old at His crucifixion (which Irenaeus firmly believed); the Word to be an Angel (as proclaimed by Justin); the octopus to be unholy and scripturally proscribed (as taught by Barnabas, though Scripture nowhere mentions it); etc.”

By the way here is a bit of accurate infromation on Saint Maximus the Confessor.

Saint Maximus the Confessor was born in Constantinople around 580 and raised in a pious Christian family. He received an excellent education, studying philosophy, grammar, and rhetoric. He was well-read in the authors of antiquity and he also mastered philosophy and theology. When St. Maximus entered into government service, he became first secretary (asekretis) and chief counselor to the emperor Heraklios (611-641), who was impressed by his knowledge and virtuous life.
St. Maximus soon realized that the emperor and many others had been corrupted by the Monothelite heresy, which was spreading rapidly through the East. He resigned from his duties at court, and went to the Chrysopolis monastery (at Skutari on the opposite shore of the Bosphorus), where he received monastic tonsure. Because of his humility and wisdom, he soon won the love of the brethren and was chosen igumen of the monastery after a few years. Even in this position, he remained a simple monk.

In 638, the emperor Heraklios and Patriarch Sergius tried to minimize the importance of differences in belief, and they issued an edict, the “Ekthesis” (“Ekthesis tes pisteos” or "Exposition of Faith), which decreed that everyone must accept the teaching of one will in the two natures of the Savior. In defending Orthodoxy against the “Ekthesis,” St. Maximus spoke to people in various occupations and positions, and these conversations were successful. Not only the clergy and the bishops, but also the people and the secular officials felt some sort of invisible attraction to him, as we read in his Life.

When St. Maximus saw what turmoil this heresy caused in Constantinople and in the East, he decided to leave his monstery and seek refuge in the West, where Monothelitism had been completely rejected. On the way, he visited the bishops of Africa, strengthening them in Orthodoxy, and encouraging them not to be deceived by the cunning arguments of the heretics.

The Fourth Ecumenical Council had condemned the Monophysite heresy, which falsely taught that in the Lord Jesus Christ there was only one nature (the divine). Influenced by this erroneous opinion, the Monothelite heretics said that in Christ there was only one divine will (“thelema”) and only one divine energy (“energia”). Adherents of Monothelitism sought to return by another path to the repudiated Monophysite heresy. Monothelitism found numerous adherents in Armenia, Syria, Egypt. The heresy, fanned also by nationalistic animosities, became a serious threat to Church unity in the East. The struggle of Orthodoxy with heresy was particularly difficult because in the year 630, three of the patriarchal thrones in the Orthodox East were occupied by Monothelites: Constantinople by Sergios, Antioch by Athanasios, and Alexandria by Cyrus.

 

[Matthew_P]

St. Maximus traveled from Alexandria to Crete, where he began his preaching activity. He clashed there with a bishop, who adhered to the heretical opinions of Severus and Nestorius. The saint spent six years in Alexandria and the surrounding area.

Patriarch Sergios died at the end of 638, and the emperor Heraklios also died in 641. The imperial throne was eventually occupied by his grandson Constans II (642-668), an open adherentof the Monothelite heresy.The assaults of the heretics against Orthodoxy intensified. St. Maximus went to Carthage and he preached there for about five years. When the Monothelite Pyrrhus, the successor of Patriarch Sergius, arrived there after fleeing from Constantinople because of court intrigues, he and St. Maximus spent many hours in debate. As a result, Pyrrhus publicly acknowledged his error, and was permitted to retain the title of “Patriarch.” He even wrote a book confessing the Orthodox Faith. St. Maximus and Pyrrhus traveled to Rome to visit Pope Theodore, who received Pyrrhus as the Patriarch of Constantinople.

In the year 647 St. Maximus returned to Africa. There, at a council of bishops Monotheletism was condemned as a heresy. In 648, a new edict was issued, commissioned by Constans and compiled by Patriarch Paul of Constantinople: the “Typos” (“Typos tes pisteos” or “Pattern of the Faith”), which forbade any further disputes about one will or two wills in the Lord Jesus Christ. St. Maximus then asked St. Martin the Confessor (April 14), the successor of Pope Theodore, to examine the question of Monothelitism at a Church Council. The Lateran Council was convened in October of 649. One hundred and fifty Western bishops and thirty-seven representatives from the Orthodox East were present, among them St. Maximus the Confessor. The Council condemned Monothelitism, and the Typos. The false teachings of Patriarchs Sergius, Paul and Pyrrhus of Constantinople, were also anathematized.

When Constans II received the decisions of the Council, he gave orders to arrest both Pope Martin and St. Maximus. The emperor’s order was fulfilled only in the year 654.St. Maximus was accused of treason and locked up in prison. In 656 he was sent to Thrace, and was later brought back to a Constantinople prison.

The saint and two of his disciples were subjected to the cruelest torments. Each one’s tongue was cut out, and his right hand was cut off.Then they were exiled to Skemarum in Scythia, enduring many sufferings and difficulties on the journey.

 

[Matthew_P]

After three years, the Lord revaled to St. Maximus the time of his death (August 13, 662). Three candles appeared over the grave of St. Maximus and burned miraculously. This was a sign that St. Maximus was a beacon of Orthodoxy during his lifetime, and continues to shine forth as an example of virtue for all. Many healings occurred at his tomb.

In the Greek Prologue, August 13 commemorates the Transfer of the Relics of St. Maximus to Constantinople, but it could also be the date of the saint’s death. It may be that his memory is celebrated on January 21 because August 13 is the Leavetaking of the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord.

St. Maximus has left to the Church a great theological legacy. His exegetical works contain explanations of difficult passages of Holy Scripture, and include a Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer and on Psalm 59, various “scholia” or “marginalia” (commentaries written in the margin of manuscripts), on treatises of the Hieromartyr Dionysios the Areopagite (October 3) and St. Gregory the Theologian (January 25). Among the exegetical works of St. Maximus are his explanation of divine services, entitled “Mystagogia” (“Introduction Concerning the Mystery”).

The dogmatic works of St. Maximus include the* Exposition* of his dispute with Pyrrhus, and several tracts and letters to various people. In them are contained explanations of the Orthodox teaching on the Divine Essence and the Persons of the Holy Trinity, on the Incarnation of the Word of God, and on “theosis” (“deification”) of human nature.

“Nothing in theosis is the product of human nature,” St. Maximus writes in a letter to his friend Thalassios, “for nature cannot comprehend God. It is only the mercy of God that has the capacity to endow theosis unto the existing… In theosis man (the image of God) becomes likened to God, he rejoices in all the plenitude that does not belong to him by nature, because the grace of the Spirit triumphs within him, and because God acts in him” (Letter 22).

St. Maximus also wrote anthropological works (i.e. concerning man). He deliberates on the nature of the soul and its conscious existence after death. Among his moral compositions, especially important is his “Chapters on Love.” St. Maximus the Confessor also wrote three hymns in the finest traditions of church hymnography, following the example of St. Gregory the Theologian.

The theology of St. Maximus the Confessor, based on the spiritual experience of the knowledge of the great Desert Fathers, and utilizing the skilled art of dialectics worked out by pre-Christian philosophy, was continued and developed in the works of St. Symeon the New Theologian (March 12), and St. Gregory Palamas (November 14).

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

The same Orthodox today as the same Orthodox in the past, who cut out the tongue of 80 year old Maximus the Confessor because they wanted to silence him from speaking the truth

Dear Steve b,

Why, you are almost on the verge of accepting the Orthodox version!! Acting as if the Orthodox Church existed in Saint Maximus’ time

The official Roman Catholic version of history is that there was NO Orthodox Church at the time of Saint Maximus. There was only ONE Catholic Church in obedience to the Pope of Rome.

Therefore, it cannot have been Orthodox (they didn’t exist) but Catholics who cut out Saint Maximus’ tongue.

Actually it was in fact *heretical * Catholics (monothelites) who cut out his tongue.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

All it will do, scripturally paraphrased, is convict the arrogance of one who insists on living and reliving these memories forever without forgiving. God has an infinitely better memory than you do. As a result He will remember EVERYTHING you did and will not forget or forgive one iota of what YOU’VE done. Because you forgive NOTHING, remember EVERYTHING, and when asked to forgive, you with hold forgiveness. Therefore, you will not be forgiven yourself.

I believe that you have overstepped the bounds of civility and descended into an ad hominem.

Show me where I have ever said that I do not forgive. We are commanded by the Lord to forgive seven times seventy.

How many times have I quoted on this Forum the words of Patriarch Paul when he dedicated the Memorial at Jasenovac concentration camp:

Forgive we must, forget we dare not.

How ghastly of you to actually bring down a spiritual judgement and say that there will be no forgiveness.

I can only presume that when you wrote this it was some late night hour where you live and your mind was not clear.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Subaho Labo Lebaro Vala Rooho † Kadisso. Ameen.
[Glory be to the Father, Son, and † Holy Spirit. Amen.]

Father, I humbly request your Blessing.

The official Roman Catholic version of history is that there was NO Orthodox Church at the time of Saint Maximus. There was only ONE Catholic Church in obedience to the Pope of Rome.

I wouldn’t call this the OFFICIAL view of the Catholic Church, it has been the popular view. Officially the Catholic Church believes that up until Ephesus the Church was united, then the Church of the East separated, at Chalcedon the “Oriental Orthodox” separated from the united Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church, then again the Church ran into separation instigated by politics between the 800s and 1054 which we call the date of the [Great] “break”, although this break wasn’t official. The Western wing of the Church adopted the name “Catholic” and the Byzantine Branch adopted “Orthodox”. The terms are ecclesiastically interchangeable, although popular usage has rendered them separate. This “obedience” to the Pope was not one of submission, but one of mutual love with the Pope as ‘primus inter pares’ and primacy of honor.

The Latin Church needs to realize that primacy is just that, not superiority. The Byzantines need to understand that with ‘primacy of honor’ comes authority, for primacy without some authority is fallacy (play-acting).

Fr. about what you said, that Ireland was forced into uniformity. This phenomenon wasn’t limited to the Latins, although Latins need to learn that all Churches are equal in dignity, there is no Latin supremacy. The same is true of Eastern Orthodox Hellenism. When [Eastern] Orthodoxy replaced native Patriarchs in Alexandria (Copt) and Antioch (Syriac) and replaced them with Greeks, they replaced the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark (Copt) and the Qurbono Qaddisha of St. James (Antioch) for the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. They also replaced authentic Traditions and feasts for Hellenic ones.
The authentic Tradition of the local Church must be preserved no matter if the Pope or Patriarch is Greek, Latin, Syriac, or Copt. We must learn to respect our Universal Traditions. “In essentials Uniformity, in non-essentials Diversity; In all things Charity [Agape].”

Blessings of the Most Holy Trinity to all of You, and the Intercession of Our Mother and all His Holy Saints.

Father, Pray for me your son in Christ.

 

[prodromos]

Michael_Thoma:

Fr. about what you said, that Ireland was forced into uniformity. This phenomenon wasn’t limited to the Latins, although Latins need to learn that all Churches are equal in dignity, there is no Latin supremacy. The same is true of Eastern Orthodox Hellenism. When [Eastern] Orthodoxy replaced native Patriarchs in Alexandria (Copt) and Antioch (Syriac) and replaced them with Greeks, they replaced the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark (Copt) and the Qurbono Qaddisha of St. James (Antioch) for the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. They also replaced authentic Traditions and feasts for Hellenic ones.

The difference here is that in Alexandria and Antioch, the native Patriarchs had left the church, so their seats were filled with right believing candidates. Unfortunately when the native Patriarchs left the church they took most of the native Christian population with them into their error. Those who remained in the Church in those patriarchates were largely of Greek descent anyway so they used the Divine Liturgy already in use among Greek speakers.

John.