What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

[ByzCathCantor]

Noted; Despite the sight or its clamour, isn’t this the point of contention? Exactly why are the OO and EO not in communion? Since we are discussing “Orthodoxy” I think we should dive right into this issue also.

Certainly fair to discuss. However, we could probably do better than starting out with an article that suggested that EO vs OO is nothing more than a Western construct (of course, with the collaboration of those evil Eastern Rite Papists ).

I just finished reading Aidan Nichols’ book, Rome and the Eastern Churches. This subject was covered at some length. There might be a good quote or two to prompt discussion.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Certainly fair to discuss. However, we could probably do better than starting out with an article that suggested that EO vs OO is nothing more than a Western construct (of course, with the collaboration of those evil Eastern Rite Papists ).

I just finished reading Aidan Nichols’ book, Rome and the Eastern Churches. This subject was covered at some length. There might be a good quote or two to prompt discussion.

Noted; however isn’t this the point; “To bear the name Orthodox, one must confess—without equivocation—the Ecumenical Christology of the Catholic and Apostolic Tradition: Jesus Christ united without confusion within His Own Hypostasis His Divine Nature and His Human Nature, His Divine will and His Human will, and His Divine energy and His Human energy. There is no room here for semantic sidestepping.”

This differs in Cyril of Alexandria and St Athanasius…no? So then they accept 3-councils instead of 7 and somehow thats Traditional?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Noted; however isn’t this the point; “To bear the name Orthodox, one must confess—without equivocation—the Ecumenical Christology of the Catholic and Apostolic Tradition: Jesus Christ united without confusion within His Own Hypostasis His Divine Nature and His Human Nature, His Divine will and His Human will, and His Divine energy and His Human energy. There is no room here for semantic sidestepping.”

So the charge is that the Oriental Orthodox are not really Orthodox. Perhaps some of the Oriental Orthodox contributors might weigh in. In the context of this thread, however, I take it you are pointing out that Orthodoxy itself may exhibit a range of conflicting beliefs.

The article seems to refute that by declaring that the Oriental Orthodox and not really Orthodox (with further polemic regarding the role of other parties in perpetuating that myth). Would you agree?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I take it you are pointing out that Orthodoxy itself may exhibit a range of conflicting beliefs.

BINGO…Hows this coincide with “Tradition”?

The claim is “Traditional” that seems to be all the concern here, no? How does one claim this with a falling away at the 4th Council? There are mainline Protestants who hold to the 7th,

Lets Define this “Tradition” that everyone “claims:” to have?

 

[Madaglan]

BINGO…Hows this coincide with “Tradition”?

The claim is “Traditional” that seems to be all the concern here, no? How does one claim this with a falling away at the 4th Council? There are mainline Protestants who hold to the 7th,

Lets Define this “Tradition” that everyone “claims:” to have?

I do not know of many Protestants who hold to the 7th Ecumenical Council. The educated Protestants I know generally judge the merits of any council or tradition by Scripture. Some Protestants accept the teachings if not openly prohibited by Scripture; others reject the teachings if not openly advocated by Scripture.

The falling away came subsequent to Chalcedon. The non -Chalcedonians felt Chalcedon and Leo’s Tome veered too much towards Nestorianism. Both sides felt they were following the Apostolic teaching passed down and upheld by St Athanasius, St Cyril, and other Fathers.

Although the non -Chalcedonians long were and sometimes still are called monophysite, I have read selections from their Fathers after Chalcedon and find the full divinity and full humanity proclaimed, unconfused and unmixed. Yet, on the other hand, I do not see the teaching of Chalcedon as Nestorian–dyophysite Christology is fine so long as each physis is not hypostasized. Some Eastern Orthodox recognize the orthodoxy of Oriental Christology; other Eastern Orthodox still maintain that Christology is monophysite. It’s a difficult subject, for all the Apostolic Churches involved.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Exactly…which is why we have the Schism. Whether it happened slowly or not, this was the result of disobedience. It happened then and continues to happen now. Sometimes it is other Christians in another denomination; sometimes its some of our own.

Er, no. The problem is we’re looking at the past and we’re expecting everything to be the same as they are today. The problem is we’re looking at Eastern bishops back then and expect them to submit to the Pope. That is now how the Church is back then. They were free to agree and disagree. Those times when we think they are in humble compliance to the one who is “above” them is actually just them agreeing with someone they see as an equal. And those times we interpret as disobedience is actually them exercising their very right to a differing opinion as equals.

 

[LionHeart777]

Noted; Despite the sight or its clamour, isn’t this the point of contention? Exactly why are the OO and EO not in communion? Since we are discussing “Orthodoxy” I think we should dive right into this issue also.

I also have interest in this question.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I also have interest in this question.

It is nothing but a red herring based on titles. The schism between the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonians happened between the fifth and seventh centuries. The schism between the Eaten Orthodox and the Roman Catholics (both of which are Chalcedonian groups) happened between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries. The question is framed incorrectly based on a misunderstanding of the two titles. People seem to think that some group called ‘Orthodox’ broke away from the West and then later split into Oriental and Eastern, when chronologically, the first schism was between the Chalcedonians (the group that would later split between East and West) and the non-Chalcedonians (the group which would come to be called the Oriental Orthodox), and the second schism was within the Chalcedonian ranks between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics.

 

[dzheremi]

At any rate the Mass/DL early on was changed from Greek to Latin by Justin Martyr

This is not possible. Your own historians, such as Catholic priest and author Hans Kung, record the first Latin liturgies as being held under Pope Victor I, though Latin liturgies were not universal in the western Church until the later half of the 4th century. (See Kung’s “History of the Catholic Church”, or the wikipedia article on Pope Victor I that quotes it on this point.) Justin Martyr died in 165, about twenty years before Victor I even became the Bishop of Rome.

the Maronites DL is said to also possibly be one of the oldest from that pre-400 period. They have always been in… “Communion with Rome”.

Who says this? I don’t know the exact form of the liturgy used by the Maronites (I am away from my copy of Attwater’s “Eastern Catholic Liturgies”, or else I’d look it up), but seeing as how St. Maron died in 410 AD, and the community that formed around his teachings didn’t really solidify until after his death (initially around the monastery that his followers built in his name), this is pretty much impossible, too. Granted, there would have most likely been in use among his followers some form of West Syrian liturgy, but that doesn’t make it “Maronite”, as the Maronites did not exist as a distinct liturgical community until after St. Maron’s death, that is to say, after 410 AD.

Also, it makes no sense to talk about them being “in communion with Rome” at such an early date. Both before and after 400, everyone was in communion with Rome, except the Nestorians. That doesn’t mean what you think it means, as there were no “uniates” back then (both the major schisms that would divide the Church hadn’t happened yet).

 

[GaryTaylor]

I do not know of many Protestants who hold to the 7th Ecumenical Council.

"Its a difficult subject " Thats why I bought it up. And I have enough questions to reach 1000-Posts.

But the two churchs use the DL:shrug:, you know the previous few page “Chant” of St James, St Basil, etc etc. How does this work out with the ONE AND ONLY APOSTOLIC CHURCH ? Who have two different Theologys, not in Communion, certainly not in Communion with Rome. Ah, but the 400-AD DL is Beautiful. And also a "modified non original Mass, which was my other point a page or so back. But its beautiful, makes one feel good. Some would this same claim about many pleasures in this world.

Perhaps its a difficult subject.

 

[Lucky7]

I would still like to know why the Orthodox Bible doesn’t include “keys” in Isaiah 22:22 as does the Jewish Bible (and the Catholic Bible).

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is not possible. Your own historians, such as Catholic priest and author Hans Kung, record the first Latin liturgies as being held under Pope Victor I, though Latin liturgies were not universal in the western Church until the later half of the 4th century. (See Kung’s “History of the Catholic Church”, or the wikipedia article on Pope Victor I that quotes it on this point.) Justin Martyr died in 165, about twenty years before Victor I even became the Bishop of Rome.).

Historians disagree, the “point” is 400-AD is 367 years after Christ and the Mass. You have a “modified” mass.

Rght many scholars state many things. Adrian Fortescue pointed out that the earliest form of the Roman Mass, as witnessed in Justin Martyr’s 2nd-century account, is of Eastern type, while the Leonine and Gelasian Sacramentaries, of about the 6th century, show us what is practically our present Roman Mass."

Perhaps everyones mistaken and you are correct.

 

[dzheremi]

"Its a difficult subject " Thats why I bought it up. And I have enough questions to reach 1000-Posts.

With due respect, Gary, you might have less questions if you pick one thing at a time to ask about, rather than going in many different directions (talking about differences in Christology, then differences in the number of councils accepted, now apparent similarities in liturgical form, etc). You’re kinda all over the place, my friend. It makes it difficult to respond to or make sense of your posts.

But the two churchs use the DL:shrug:

I can’t speak for the other OO churches, but it is actually not traditional among the Copts to refer to their liturgies as “Divine Liturgy”. This is something I believe we have borrowed from the Byzantines, and I only ever see it in English anyway. In Coptic, it is just “Ti-Anaphora ente pi-Agios… (Basilios, Kyrillos, Gregorios)”, which literally means “The Anaphora of Saint _____” (Basil, Cyril, Gregory, depending on which is being celebrated). In Arabic, it is usually just “al-Quddas” (liturgy), again followed by the saint’s name (usually Basil).

Also, as you can tell from the above explanation, the liturgy (no matter what we call it) is not just one thing. Both the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox do not limit themselves to one form of liturgy, although they both have one form that is used more often than the others during the liturgical year (for the EO, it’s the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom; for the Copts, it is the Liturgy of St. Basil; for the Syrians, it is the Liturgy of St. James, etc). So there is no single DL. Divine Liturgy is just the Eastern term for what those of the Latin tradition call “Mass”, and just like you have many different kinds of Mass (Latin, Byzantine, Chaldean, etc.), there are many different liturgies used in the East, irrespective of whether we’re looking at Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian churches.

How does this work out with the ONE AND ONLY APOSTOLIC CHURCH ?

Exactly as I have just described it: The churches use the liturgies that are traditional to them. This is no different than in the Roman communion, wherein a Latin Catholic in Italy may use the Ambrosian rite, while a Latin Catholic in Spain may use the Mozarabic. We don’t ask how this “works”, or pretend that this is some kind of problem for the unity of the Roman communion, because it is not. Please extend the same courtesy to the East and the Orient. We are divided over questions of Christology, not liturgical use (after all, the EO do also occasionally use the Liturgy of St. Basil, if I’m not mistaken). This is a non-issue for the people who are actually Orthodox.

Who have two different Theologys, not in Communion, certainly not in Communion with Rome.

This has nothing to do with anything that you wrote before it, though. Even if, hypothetically, communion were restored between the non-Chalcedonian and the Chalcedonian Orthodox, it would mean nothing for the prospects of union between Orthodoxy and Rome, as the issues that separate Rome from both the OO and the EO are not at all the analogous or comparable to those that separate the OO and the EO from one another (as Cavaradossi has already explained).

 

[Cavaradossi]

Bumping this ? Re: LXX version not mentioning “keys” in Isaiah

*Quote:
Originally Posted by 10_26
This seems like a good place to ask this question. I have been studying the differences between the Orthodox and Catholic view of Peter’s declaration in Mathew 16. It also happened that looking for a good study Bible I recently purchased The Orthodox Study Bible and reading Isa 22:22-23 in that Bible it says: “I will give him the glory of David, and he shall rule, and no one will oppose him. 23 I will establish him as a ruler in a trustworthy place, and he will become a glorious throne to his father’s house.” Notice how there is no mention of the keys or the authority to open and close. So, my question is, does anyone know anything about the lxx which the Orthodox bible uses? All other versions of the lxx I know of in English include the keys and the authority to open and close. For clarity here is the same passages taken from the Brenton lxx version: " 22:22 And I will give him the glory of David; and he shall rule, and there shall be none to speak against him: and I will give him the key of the house of David [upon] his shoulder; and he shall open, and there shall be none to shut; and he shall shut, and there shall be none to open. 23 And I will make him a ruler in a sure place, and he shall be for a glorious throne of his father’s house." *

Wait, so the Orthodox Bible doesn’t include the part about the keys? Huh. Now that doesn’t sound suspicious at.all. Maybe we need to go back to the OT in a Jewish Bible to see if the Jews of the time referred to keys (which would then provide more…context…to what Jesus said (a Jew):

And it does:

I will place the key of David’s house
on his shoulder;
no one will shut what he opens;
no one will open what he shuts

Edited to include the right quote.

A quick search online shows that there seem to be textual variants built into the Greek text. See for example:
sepd.biblos.com/isaiah/22.htm
bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/23_022.htm
septuagint.org/LXX/Isaiah/22

All three of which show the text as being: καὶ δώσω τὴν δόξαν δαυιδ αὐτῷ καὶ ἄρξει καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἀντιλέγων, which would be translated exactly as “I will give him the glory of David, and he shall rule, and no one will oppose him.”

Yet other sources have the verse as involving the keys:

ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=43&page=22

καὶ δώσω τὴν δόξαν Δαυὶδ αὐτῷ, καὶ ἄρξει, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἀντιλέγων. καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ τὴν κλεῖδα οἴκου Δαυὶδ ἐπὶ τῷ ὤμῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνοίξει, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἀποκλείων, καὶ κλείσει καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἀνοίγων. Perhaps one variant is older than the other. Perhaps one variant is more widespread than the other. Do you really want to know why some versions of the Greek text have the segment on the keys and others don’t? Contact a scholar who is familiar with textual variants of the Septuagint. Why you could even ask the translators of the Orthodox Study Bible. But this question is beyond the scope of this forum. Now the real question is, why would you make insinuations like that without even going to check if there are textual variants of the verse in Greek first? Is anybody served by you jumping the gun like that? Is it really honest of you to insinuate that malicious intent was involved rather than textual variations, just because you regard what this verse says as being a critical matter (because you’ve turned it into a prooftext for the papacy), while we do not (because regardless of whether it speaks of the keys, we have no real tradition surrounding that verse)?

 

[GaryTaylor]

With due respect, Gary, you might have less questions if you pick one thing at a time to ask about, rather than going in many different directions (talking about differences in Christology, then differences in the number of councils accepted, now apparent similarities in liturgical form, etc). You’re kinda all over the place, my friend. It makes it difficult to respond to or make sense of your posts.

I can’t speak for the other OO churches, but it is actually not traditional among the Copts to refer to their liturgies as “Divine Liturgy”. This is something I believe we have borrowed from the Byzantines, and I only ever see it in English anyway. In Coptic, it is just “Ti-Anaphora ente pi-Agios… (Basilios, Kyrillos, Gregorios)”, which literally means “The Anaphora of Saint _____” (Basil, Cyril, Gregory, depending on which is being celebrated). In Arabic, it is usually just “al-Quddas” (liturgy), again followed by the saint’s name (usually Basil).

Also, as you can tell from the above explanation, the liturgy (no matter what we call it) is not just one thing. Both the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox do not limit themselves to one form of liturgy, although they both have one form that is used more often than the others during the liturgical year (for the EO, it’s the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom; for the Copts, it is the Liturgy of St. Basil; for the Syrians, it is the Liturgy of St. James, etc). So there is no single DL. Divine Liturgy is just the Eastern term for what those of the Latin tradition call “Mass”, and just like you have many different kinds of Mass (Latin, Byzantine, Chaldean, etc.), there are many different liturgies used in the East, irrespective of whether we’re looking at Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian churches.

Exactly as I have just described it: The churches use the liturgies that are traditional to them. This is no different than in the Roman communion, wherein a Latin Catholic in Italy may use the Ambrosian rite, while a Latin Catholic in Spain may use the Mozarabic. We don’t ask how this “works”, or pretend that this is some kind of problem for the unity of the Roman communion, because it is not. Please extend the same courtesy to the East and the Orient. We are divided over questions of Christology, not liturgical use (after all, the EO do also occasionally use the Liturgy of St. Basil, if I’m not mistaken). This is a non-issue for the people who are actually Orthodox.

This has nothing to do with anything that you wrote before it, though. Even if, hypothetically, communion were restored between the non-Chalcedonian and the Chalcedonian Orthodox, it would mean nothing for the prospects of union between Orthodoxy and Rome, as the issues that separate Rome from both the OO and the EO are not at all the analogous or comparable to those that separate the OO and the EO from one another (as Cavaradossi has already explained).

My apology, Right the Anaphora’s is really where the early dating arrives. I pretty much see the Mass situation clearer.

How much of an issue is the difference between St Cyril and St Athanasius with the Hypostatic union?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Bumping this ? Re: LXX version not mentioning “keys” in Isaiah

*Quote:
Originally Posted by 10_26
This seems like a good place to ask this question. I have been studying the differences between the Orthodox and Catholic view of Peter’s declaration in Mathew 16. It also happened that looking for a good study Bible I recently purchased The Orthodox Study Bible and reading Isa 22:22-23 in that Bible it says: “I will give him the glory of David, and he shall rule, and no one will oppose him. 23 I will establish him as a ruler in a trustworthy place, and he will become a glorious throne to his father’s house.” Notice how there is no mention of the keys or the authority to open and close. So, my question is, does anyone know anything about the lxx which the Orthodox bible uses? All other versions of the lxx I know of in English include the keys and the authority to open and close. For clarity here is the same passages taken from the Brenton lxx version: " 22:22 And I will give him the glory of David; and he shall rule, and there shall be none to speak against him: and I will give him the key of the house of David [upon] his shoulder; and he shall open, and there shall be none to shut; and he shall shut, and there shall be none to open. 23 And I will make him a ruler in a sure place, and he shall be for a glorious throne of his father’s house." *

Wait, so the Orthodox Bible doesn’t include the part about the keys? Huh. Now that doesn’t sound suspicious at.all. Maybe we need to go back to the OT in a Jewish Bible to see if the Jews of the time referred to keys (which would then provide more…context…to what Jesus said (a Jew):

And it does:

I will place the key of David’s house
on his shoulder;
no one will shut what he opens;
no one will open what he shuts

Edited to include the right quote.

I have a copy of the aforementioned and quoted Orthodox Study Bible. As publicized, the “Old Testament newly translated from the Greek text of the Septuagint, including the Deuterocanon”. There are no explanatory notes on these specific verses.

I leave it to the experts to comment on the veracity / appropriateness of the translation.

[BIBLEDRB]isaiah 22:22[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t understand your question, Gary. Can you rephrase it, please?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Where resides the difference in theology of Christs Human and Divine Nature? Where is the Coptic disagreement in this area?

 

[Lucky7]

A quick search online shows that there seem to be textual variants built into the Greek text. See for example:
sepd.biblos.com/isaiah/22.htm
bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/23_022.htm
septuagint.org/LXX/Isaiah/22

All three of which show the text as being: καὶ δώσω τὴν δόξαν δαυιδ αὐτῷ καὶ ἄρξει καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἀντιλέγων, which would be translated exactly as “I will give him the glory of David, and he shall rule, and no one will oppose him.”

Yet other sources have the verse as involving the keys:

ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=43&page=22

καὶ δώσω τὴν δόξαν Δαυὶδ αὐτῷ, καὶ ἄρξει, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἀντιλέγων. καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ τὴν κλεῖδα οἴκου Δαυὶδ ἐπὶ τῷ ὤμῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνοίξει, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἀποκλείων, καὶ κλείσει καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἀνοίγων. Perhaps one variant is older than the other. Perhaps one variant is more widespread than the other. Do you really want to know why some versions of the Greek text have the segment on the keys and others don’t? Contact a scholar who is familiar with textual variants of the Septuagint. Why you could even ask the translators of the Orthodox Study Bible. But this question is beyond the scope of this forum. Now the real question is, why would you make insinuations like that without even going to check if there are textual variants of the verse in Greek first? Is anybody served by you jumping the gun like that?

No, this question is not beyond the scope of this forum. Do you always call things that you don’t want to deal with as red herrings or beyond the scope of this forum? I guess that’s one way to try to shut the other person down.

I think it is highly relevant that most Orthodox bibles do not use the translation that the Jewish Bibles use. The latter would be the translation that Christ would have known and therefore lends credence that He gave Peter special authority when He said Peter had the keys (and never gave them to any of the other apostles). It lends credence that “keys” denote something more than “professed faith” or some such other interpretation. Couple that with the fact that the Orthodox refuse to believe that there was a special authority given to Peter, one does have the right to go

 

[dzheremi]

Where resides the difference in theology of Christs Human and Divine Nature? Where is the Coptic disagreement in this area?

Orthodox Copts do not disagree with one another on the natures of Christ. Remember, the confession or formulation of our father St. Cyril, whose Christology is our watchword, is “one nature of the incarnate Word”, meaning that in the incarnate Christ, we do not separate the natures, as we do not believe that they are able to be separated. Our priests pray every liturgy “Truly I believe that His divinity parted not from His humanity for a moment, nor the twinkling of an eye”. This is what we believe – Christ is fully God and fully man, but the natures are inseparably united in the incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ.

Does this answer your question?