The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Augoustinos, Poliscifi, The Cub, P H, Hardrada
5604 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 345 guests, and 541 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
OL EuroEast II (2007) Group
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,744
Posts411,999
Members5,604
Most Online2,716
Jun 7th, 2012
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Re: Q? #85168 06/05/02 09:14 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 291
O
OrthodoxyOrDeath Offline
Member
Offline
Member
O
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 291
My jurisdiction is the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece. Since that can be extremely confusing, I am what is referred to as a "Florenite".

To put that into perspective, there was a time "Christians" were simply members of "The Way". They were first called Christians in Antioch. They were later derisivly called "Nazarenes". They then had to later distinguish themselves from all of teh many other heresies by calling themselves Catholic, and still later Orthodox Catholic and now True Orthodox Catholic.

"True Orthodox Catholic" - that's like saying "True, True, True". What a slander when now the only people "officially" and simply called "Christians" should be the so-called "non-denominationals".

Re: Q? #85169 06/05/02 09:19 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 231
S
Scandinavian Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 231
[QUOTE]Originally posted by OrthodoxyOrDeath:

"My jurisdiction is the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece. Since that can be extremely confusing, I am what is referred to as a "Florenite"."

But there are several Synods who refer to themselves as "Florinite", which one are yours?

Christian

Re: Q? #85170 06/05/02 09:55 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 291
O
OrthodoxyOrDeath Offline
Member
Offline
Member
O
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 291
Even though you'll see my name in lights, I have nothing to do with this website and only recently found it...so please, read all about it yourself.

The GOC of Greece

and for some otyher great articles...

Articles

Alithos Anesti O Keedios!

[Linked Image]

[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Re: Q? #85171 06/05/02 11:19 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,658
Mexican Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,658
It's agreat site. It ilustrates the history of the disident churches in Greece and the world.

In spite of their deffense of the faith, I see a lot of intolerance and personal differences among these groups and some of them are reactionary in their feelings and their ideas.

Re: Q? #85172 06/06/02 02:11 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 291
O
OrthodoxyOrDeath Offline
Member
Offline
Member
O
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 291
Remie,

"Disident"? To whom?

I realize the web page was done very cheaply and our churches are usually just little half-wrecked former protestant churches, and in many cases our Iconostas's are homemade as well as teh icon stands and bishop's thrones. But all of these things are done with what little we have so that we can pray with a clear conscience that we are not disindent to God.

[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Re: Q? #85173 06/06/02 02:26 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
OrthoMan Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
Alex my friend:

You say you are offended at my statement that you stretch the truth to back your beliefs. Let me give you an example -

You state:

[St John of Damascus teaches in his Orthodox Faith that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
The RC Church accepts this, as did St Thomas Aquinas, and so we need not change or
add anything to Eastern Triadology here.]

Whats your point here? Are you trying to say the Fillioque is now a non issue between us? Last time a I checked the dictionary the words 'AND' and 'THROUGH' had completely different meanings. To say the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father AND the Son is not the same as saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son. In one instanace the Holy Spirit is coming from two identified sources. In the other it is originating from ONE SOURCE by way of another source.
Examples: (1) Bob AND Joe give Alex a gift. Therefore, the gift comes from both Bob AND Joe. (2) Bob asks Joe to give this gift to Alex. The gift is given by Bob but is presented to Alex THROUGH Joe.
Point I'm trying to make is there is a big difference between the words AND & THROUGH.
I've heard the RC word game stating even though we say AND we really mean THROUGH but we are not deleting it or changing it even though it is a non issue with us. If it's a non issue drop it and go back to the original. Anything else is pure RC BS!
So, I still don't know your point for bringing it up.

[But the new Roman Catechism and theologians say that this view of Original Sin isn't necessary for Catholics to hold and never was since it was never declared official doctrine.]

But out of it new RC doctrine was declared such as the Immaculate Conception. So again whats your point?

[And John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) wrote that even these papal doctrines, infallibity and jurisdiction, could foreseeably be accepted by Orthodoxy through a
're-presentation' before a union Ecumenical Council in future.]

I would very much appreciate it if you could give me the exact quote from Fr Meyendorff and reference the book and chapter it is from since I'd love to read it and the context it was written in.

OrthoMan

Re: Q? #85174 06/06/02 01:26 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,172
Orthodox Catholic Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,172
Dear Orthoman,

My Meyendorff books are packed up as we've recently moved, but I will find that quote for you in good time!

The Filioque, and we've certainly had a few posts about it here, is about two issues. One is the theology behind it, the other the fact of its inclusion by the West in the universal creed.

"And" and "Through" are truly different words. But we need to go into some of the Roman Catholic theological background on this issue to understand usage as it applies here.

Roman Catholic Trinitarian theology has ALWAYS taught that the Father is the Fountainhead of the Holy Trinity.

In this it is in total agreement, of course, with Orthodoxy.

Where the problem lies is in the view that the Spirit proceeds also "from" the Son.

Roman Catholic theology, however, also has always taught that the Father "actively spirates" the Holy Spirit (in agreement with Orthodoxy) and that the Spirit is also "passively spirated" by the Son.

In other words, the Spirit proceeds from the Father as His Eternal Origin, but only proceeds "from the Son" passively, since the Son has His Eternal Origin in the Father as well.

Roman Catholicism has also always condemned the notion that there could be two Origins in the Trinity - everyone is agreed that would be intolerable heresy.

If Roman Catholicism taught that the Spirit is actively spirated by both the Father and the Son, then, by its own theological standards, it would be in heresy.

St Thomas Aquinas, the RC theologian and teacher (whom many Orthodox admired and who drew on his writings with respect to moral theology), taught that this was no different from the Orthodox position that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

"And" understood not as "proceeding equally from both," but with the qualification of "Actively" and "Passively" is truly the same as St John Damascene's and St Maximos's "From the Father through the Son."

There is no theological difference here, except in terms of wording. The understanding is the same. The Son, both sides agree, is not the Eternal Origin of the Spirit. ONLY the Father is.

I'm not stretching anything here. I'm just observing two theological traditions comment on the Mystery of the Holy Trinity.

Meyendorff in his "Byzantine Theology" indeed states emphatically that, at the Council of Florence, both sides could have reached full agreement on the Trinity if they accepted the term "Through the Son" as normative. Both sides, he correctly notes, had always accepted that explanation for the Spirit's procession and agreed with it.

The issue of the inclusion of the Filioque into the Creed is a problem involving church authority more than theology itself.

The West affirmed that the Pope had the right to unilaterally make this change to the Creed, the East denied that he could, since the Creed was established by Ecumenical Council, the highest authority in the One, Holy, Orthodox-Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ.

So this issue has to do with the whole Papacy/Collegiality issue. Ultimately, Roman Catholic theologians, as Fr. Prof. Bilaniuk discussed, agree that the Filioque was not in the original universal Creed and should be removed. The Pope already recites it without the Filioque whenever he celebrates the Latin Rite Mass in the Greek language.

The Pope has also issued a publication (and more?) where he ordered the removal of the Filioque. The Roman Catholic Church of Greece has Rome's blessing to recite the Nicene Creed without the Filioque. I see it as a "religious cultural symbol" of Roman Catholicism that they will eventually and slowly be weaned off of. They have already lost so many such symbols, the hierarchy needs to tread lightly.

But theologically, Orthodoxy admits that the Filioque is a legitimate theological opinion. Blessed Seraphim Rose, in his studies of Western Orthodoxy, showed how the "Filioque" was a popular term among Western Orthodox Saints and showed how they understood this to mean the economic sending of the Spirit into the world by both the Father AND the Son - a legitimate Orthodox theological expression.

It was the Orthodox theology of the Economic Trinity that first introduced the "Filioque" understood IN THIS WAY - the sending of the Spirit into the world by both the Father and the Son.

Frankish theologians later applied this to the Eternal relations of the Trinity, as the West, as Meyendorff also notes, understood the Trinity in terms of its internal relations only.

As Orthodox theologians affirm, there is an Orthodox Filioque then that is entirely legitimate to hold from the point of view of the Economic Trinity.

So there really is no theological difference between East and West on this important matter, only different theological nuances.

Original Sin as understood in the West takes its teaching from the writings of St Augustine.

Orthodoxy accepts St Augustine since this saint admitted that he might not know all the subtleties of the Eastern Fathers and accepted the correction of their teaching wherever necessary.

But the idea of inheriting the sin of Adam, rather than the human nature of Adam weakened by Original Sin, was NEVER a declared doctrine of the RC Church.

Thomas Aquinas himself understood Original Sin in the Orthodox sense, in terms of a weakened nature subject to death, concupiscence and temptation.

There is also the matter of Grace at birth, but we don't need to get into that now.

As Met. Kallistos Ware wrote in the "Orthodox Way," the Immaculate Conception doctrine was established to affirm the total and continual holiness and purity of the Mother of the Word Incarnate.

Ware himself said that if he accepted the West's view of Original Sin, he himself would want to believe in the Immaculate Conception.

As Meyendorff states again in his "Byzantine Theology," there were Orthodox theologians in history that understood the western Original Sin view and the Immaculate Conception, centuries before it was a declared doctrine by Rome, and accepted both.

Ware, in his "Orthodox Church" also said that the Immaculate Conception would be a valid theologoumena or theological opinion for any Orthodox Christian to accept - and he or she could not be branded a "heretic" for so believing.

There were Orthodox brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception in Eastern Europe and their prayer was: "All Immaculate Mother of God, save us!"

They also made the "bloody vow," popular in the West, where someone swore to uphold to the death the belief in the Immaculate Conception.

And if you will go to the wonderful OCA Saints site on their general site, go to the "Feast of the Conception of St Ann."

In that remarkable and comprehensive article, the author actually describes Orthodox icons of the "Conception of St Ann" (known by RC's as the "Immaculate Conception") that are EXACT REPLICAS OF THE RC IMAGE OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.

Several of these icons have been declared miraculous by the Orthodox Church and are listed in Professor Poselianin's "Bogomater" that is published by Jordanville.

Roman Catholic theology today is moving away from Augustinian views on human nature etc. as being rather negative.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official catechism today, affirms the Orthodox theology of Original Sin as normative for RC's (of whatever Rite smile ).

Meyendorff was against the Augustinian version of the Immaculate Conception.

That the Mother of God was conceived in holiness and granted every gift of Grace from the Holy Spirit is celebrated by the Orthodox Church and Byzantine Catholics who use the same liturgical services on the Feast of Her Nativity and on the Feast of Her Conception, the Conception of St Ann.

It is impossible to celebrate the feast of someone who is not a saint i.e. who has not been sanctified by the Spirit.

Both the Mother of God and St John the Baptist have their Conceptions celebrated in Orthodoxy. This is because both were conceived in holiness.

So when we Byzantine Catholics or whatever you like to call us smile , say what the Western Immaculate Conception doctrine is about has always been held by the East, that is not a stretch, but a fact.

As for the papal doctrines, Meyendorff makes the statement I mention in a book of short articles by him.

Again, I'll have to find the reference for you.

But it is relatively well known, and when I've mentioned it to two OCA priests I know, they knew exactly the source and admitted that Meyendorff has a point from the Orthodox theological position.

The number one issue concerning the papal doctrines is not whether they agree with Orthodox theology or ecclesiology, but that they were not put through process of doctrinal validation of a significant point that is reserved to an Ecumenical Council.

The Pope of Alexandria of the Copts, for example, had long ago declared his jurisdictional primacy and control of every church and priest throughout Africa. The "New Pharaohs" did this at a time when Rome didn't even have full jurisdiction throughout Italy itself and the Bishop of Rome was addressed as "His Beatitude."

Again, I am not stretching anything, but basing myself on the facts, if theology can be said to deal in "facts."

If anything I have written here, from both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic standpoints is wrong objectively or mistaken, and I can be shown how it is, I will withdraw it and apologise for the error.

And if, after having read this, Orthoman, you come to realize that what I have said here is not my own personal views, but actual positions and statements of representatives of the two Churches, I would ask you to withdraw your statement that I somehow "stretched" anything.

The only thing I stretch is people's patience with my sense of humour, Big Guy. Just ask Brendan and Reader Sergius.

Alex

[ 06-06-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Re: Q? #85175 06/06/02 02:51 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,172
Orthodox Catholic Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,172
Dear OOD,

Interesting site that.

But could you explain to me why the OCA is "heretical?"

What specifically did they say or do to earn your church's excommunication or condemnation?

Is Met. Theodosius' shaven face considered a grave act of schism?

I can understand your condemnation of the Pope smile .

But the OCA?

Also, one of the pages condemns the Marian apparitions in Cairo, Our Lady of Zeitoun, as "demonic."

How in Heaven's Name do your people know that?

How have they determined that?

Or do they have a direct pipeline to the demons themselves?

Alex

[ 06-06-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[ 06-06-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Re: Q? #85176 06/06/02 03:00 PM
Joined: Oct 1998
Posts: 324
M
Moose Offline
Administrator
Offline
Administrator
M
Joined: Oct 1998
Posts: 324
Alex's understanding of Meyendorff is correct.

The filioque issue is dealt with quite comprehensively in Fr. Myendorff's book, "Byzantine Theology". It is also at least touched upon in most of his other books.

The original sin / Immaculate Conception issue is also addressed in the book and Fr. Meyendorff clearly states that the Western understanding of the IC is logical if one accepts the Augustinian view of original sin. He then does a marvelous job of developing our common Byzantine theology of original sin based upon mortality. Look in the middle of the book in the chapter on mankind.

Re: Q? #85177 06/06/02 03:02 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,172
Orthodox Catholic Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,172
Dear Moose,

It is always an honour to have you in my corner!

If we were tag-team wrestlers, we'd be TV champions in no time!!

Alex

Re: Q? #85178 06/06/02 04:10 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
OrthoMan Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
Alex my friend:

You write -

[So there really is no theological difference between East and West on this important matter, only different theological nuances. ]

Instead of the big discourse regarding the Fillioque, I have just one very simple question...

If it its such a non issue, just a matter of semantics & concept, and not obligatory for Eastern Catholics, then why doesn't the RCC just take it out? Or would that be against RC rules since it would indicate a mistake to begin with and thus question the 'infallibility' claim. Instead of trying to convince us 'and' and through' mean the same thing. And now you come up with a whole new word in your reply which is 'from'.
Make everyone happy and take a big step towards unity and take the damn thing out permanently. Since it is the cause of so much disunity. Contrary to the canons .. the RCC put it in, so take it out. All this double talk about what it really means only convinces us that the RCC isn't sincere about unity unless it is on own thei own terms. And the RCC will never admit past errors or sins. Even for the sake of unity. Once again, we didn't make the addition in the first place.

[Ware himself said that if he accepted the West's view of Original Sin, he himself would want to believe in the Immaculate Conception.]

Buzz word here is the word 'IF'. Small word with a big meaning. By using the terminology 'if' Ware inplies that he himself doesn't accept the wests concept of original sin and therefore, he doesn't accept the belief in the Immaculate Conception. All he is saying here is that he can understand HOW THE DOCTRINE CAME INTO BEING. Nothing more. This is an example of what I meant when I said you stretch things.

[Ware, in his "Orthodox Church" also said that the Immaculate Conception would be a
valid theologoumena or theological opinion for any Orthodox Christian to accept - and he
or she could not be branded a "heretic" for so believing.]

And there isn't one Orthodox priest or Bishop that agrees with this. Except maybe for Bishop Vsevolod who I'd rather not discuss.

[There were Orthodox brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception in Eastern Europe and
their prayer was: "All Immaculate Mother of God, save us!"]

DUH! Isn't there a word missing here Alex? Where is the word CONCEPTION? Calling the Theotokos 'Immaculate and most pure' refers to the life she led. Not to her conception.
Another example of a stretched point my friend.

[And if you will go to the wonderful OCA Saints site on their general site, go to the "Feast
of the Conception of St Ann."
In that remarkable and comprehensive article, the author actually describes Orthodox icons of the "Conception of St Ann" (known by RC's as the "Immaculate Conception") that
are EXACT REPLICAS OF THE RC IMAGE OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.]

And where is the above giving any agreement with the RC doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? Where does the word 'Immaculate' appear in the feast day title.
The feast is celebrating the conception of saint Ann. As human beings we were all conceived. In a way, when I celebrate my birthday I am recognizing my own conception nine months prior to the day I was born. For that is when life began for me and I received my soul.

[That the Mother of God was conceived in holiness and granted every gift of Grace from
the Holy Spirit is celebrated by the Orthodox Church and Byzantine Catholics who use the
same liturgical services on the Feast of Her Nativity and on the Feast of Her Conception,
the Conception of St Ann.]

The Orthodox Church teaches that Mary was chosen to be the Mother of God because of her holiness, purity, and goodness and the life she led. But she was born just as all human beings were, in need of redemption and salvation, that is, in the condition of original sin. The Orthodox point out that if it were true that the Virgin Mary were born without sin it would not be true that all persons have need for salvation. In addition, if it be held that the Immaculate Conception were needed so that Jesus was born without original sin, then this would also require that her parents Joachim and Anna were without original sin. This could logically be traced back to Adam and Eve, with the obvious result of negating the whole teaching regarding original sin.

But we seem to be getting off the original subject which just how close the Orthodox Catholic and Greek Catholic Churches really are. Where, you and I have to agree to disagree. It ain't just all ritual!

Now! stop sitting in front of your PC and get that leg checked!

OrthoMan

Re: Q? #85179 06/06/02 04:19 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 268
Gideon Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 268
My wife is having a hard time accepting the truth that lays in Orthodoxy. Her strong black baptist heritage is blinding her. Her faith is strong, often I feel stronger then mine but she uses what Scott Hahn calls the “protestant filter”. She only sees what she was taught as a protestant youth in bible study/camp. I come from an Anglican background and we were married in an Anglican Church with all the ceremony of a high church wedding. (She was baptised Anglican so she could partake of the Eucharist) She really didn’t feel comfortable, but trusted God and trusted me as well. I was wondering if there is any suggestion you could make, so I could help explain the true “c”atholic Orthodox faith?
to her.
I’m convinced that the Orthodox faith is the right path for me, just last night before I left work (I work at a library which has 95% protestant books in it’s religious section) I happened to find a book written by of St. Maximus the Confessor. When I open the book I found a section bookmarked describing the Church and how it represent two “worlds”. The visible and invisible. To make a long story short, I’m certain the Holy Spirit lead me to believe that the Orthodox Church was this Church. I spent some time after kneeling in front of a copy of an Icon of Christ, praying over and over again. In both thanksgiving and fear. I have nothing against Byzantine Catholics I just feel Orthodoxy is the path.

[ 06-06-2002: Message edited by: Odo ]


Abba Isidore the Priest:
When I was younger and remained in my cell I set no limit to prayer; the night was for me as much the time of prayer as the day.
(p. 97, Isidore 4)
Re: Q? #85180 06/06/02 04:22 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
OrthoMan Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
[The original sin / Immaculate Conception issue is also addressed in the book and Fr. Meyendorff clearly states that the Western understanding of the IC is logical IF one accepts the Augustinian view of original sin.]

There's that "IF" word again.

"IF" i had a million dollars I'd donate it all to charity. But since I don't have a million dollars charity better erly on someone else for the lump sum million.

OrthoMan
"IF wishes were horses, beggars would ride!"
(From my deceased mothers mouth to your ears.)

Re: Q? #85181 06/06/02 04:27 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,571
O
Our Lady's slave Offline
Member
Offline
Member
O
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,571
Odo,

Puzzled Scot asks - could you please give me a definition of a Baptist Anglican ?

According to my understanding - one church is Episcopal the other is not and when did they unite ?
confused confused

Re: Q? #85182 06/06/02 04:40 PM
Joined: Oct 1998
Posts: 324
M
Moose Offline
Administrator
Offline
Administrator
M
Joined: Oct 1998
Posts: 324
I believe that Pope John Paul II started laying the foundation for the removal of the filioque from the Creed on the Feast of Pentecost in 1985 when he himself began reciting the original creed (without the filioque). I would not be at all surprised if he did ask the Latin Church to remove it from the Creed permanently as a gesture of healing the painful separation. I agree with OrthoMan that it is time that the Latin Church returned to the original Symbol of Faith. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain.

I strongly disagree with OrthoMan's statement that the "the RCC will never admit past errors or sins". This is clearly untrue, as the Holy Father has spent the last 10 years of his ministry apologizing for the sins of those in the Church.

Regarding the Immaculate Conception, Fr. John Meyendorff is just one of many who also discuss the fact that there were several good Orthodox theologians who accepted the theology of the Immaculate Conception but attempted to build it upon a framework of the Eastern understanding of original sin. See the section in his book I referenced above for the references to other Orthodox theologians.

How close the Orthodox and Greek Catholic Churches are depends on your perspective. If one identifies what one believes from what one prays then there is no doubt that we are virtually identical in faith because we both inherit the liturgy of the Great Church of Constantinople. In order to claim that we have little in common one must first deny that the liturgy is our primary source of theology.

I do agree that we need a very good and well documented comparison of the theologies of the East and West on this issue. I think that this should include a clear presentation of what the Western doctrinal understanding of original sin is and what it is not. I seem to remember that David Brown posted an article on this several years ago. Maybe someone knows where we can get a copy?

Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  Alice, Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2019 (Forum 1998-2019). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3