|
3 members (Fr. Deacon Lance, 2 invisible),
311
guests, and
28
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,295
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 351
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 351 |
Dear friends, On Tuesday, June 13, at 7 P.M. the Youngstown-Warren Ohio Chapter (the largest and most active in the world)of the Society of Saint John Chrysostom, will have its regular meeting at St. John the Baptist Orthodox Church, 301 Struthers-Liberty Rd in Campbell, Ohio. The speaker for the evening will be Protopresbyter Thomas J. Hopko on the topic: WHAT THE ORTHODOX WOULD HAVE TO DO TO BE IN SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION WITH THE LATIN CHURCH AND THE POPE OF ROME. This is the second time that Fr. Hopko is addressing our chapter, and we invite all those interested in northeast Ohio and western Pennsylvania to attend. For those unfamiliar with our group please visit our website: www.byzantines.net/stjohnchrysostom/ [ byzantines.net]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Vito,
Will a recording of the event be made available?
If so, I would buy a copy.
Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 351
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 351 |
Dear Gordo, At this point I don't know, but if one becomes available I'll let you know. Vito
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
I had the honor of meeting Fr. Hopko while I was working on my Masters degree in Theology at Franciscan University in Ohio, and was blessed to have had a wonderful discussion with him about the real distinction between essence and energy in God. Now as far as his June 13th talk is concerned, if it is not going to be available either as an audio file or in text format, perhaps someone who attends the presentation would be kind enough to post some of the more important points made in his speech. Hopefully he will expand further upon his comments during the lecture he delivered at the Woodstock Forum last September. That being said, I thought I would post some of the more important points he made in that address in this thread: First of all, the Orthodox would insist that the bishop of Rome hold the orthodox faith of the catholic church, and teach and defend true Christian doctrine. This means that the pope would have to do several specific things, chief among which, I would think, are the following. - He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit �proceeds from the Son� only in relation to God�s saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not �from both as from one" (ab utroque sicut ab uno).
The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not imply �subsistent relations� within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable �modalism.� He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus� Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him.
The pope would also insist that human beings can have real communion with God through God�s uncreated divine energies and actions toward creatures, from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.
He would also officially say that the immaculate conception of Christ�s mother Mary from her parents, and Mary�s total glorification in the risen Christ �at the right hand of the Father,� are not properly explained in the papal bulls that originally accompanied the Roman church�s �ex cathedra� dogmas on these two articles of faith. The pope would explain that Mary�s conception by her parents was pure and holy without a need for God extraordinarily to apply �the merits of Christ� to Joachim and Anna�s sexual act of conceiving her in order to free her from �the stain of original sin.� And the pope would also have to make it clear that Mary really died, and was not assumed bodily into heaven before vanquishing death by faith in her Son Jesus.
The pope would also clearly state that though there may be a purification and cleansing from sin in the process of human dying, there is no state or condition of purgatory where sinners pay off the temporal punishment that they allegedly owe to God for their sins. The pope would also stop the practice of indulgences whereby, through certain pious activities, Christians can allegedly reduce the �days� of purgatorial suffering for themselves and others.
The pope would also make it clear that Christ�s crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ�s self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation.
The pope would also assure all Christians that the bishop of Rome will never do or teach anything on his own authority, �from himself and not from the consensus of the church" (ex sese et non ex consensu ecclesiae). He would promise to serve in his presidency solely as the spokesperson for all the bishops in apostolic succession who govern communities of believers who have chosen them to serve, and whose validity and legitimacy as bishops depend solely on their fidelity to the Gospel in communion with their predecessors in the episcopal office, and with each other.
On undecided doctrinal and moral issues the Pope of Rome would use his presidential authority to insure that everyone � clergyman or layperson � would be encouraged to freely present his or her arguments concerning Christian teaching and practice as witnessed in the Church�s formal testimonies to Christian faith and life, i.e. the canonized scriptures, the traditional liturgies, the councils and canons, and the witness and writings of the canonized saints for the reasons that they are glorified.
The pope would also use his presidential authority to guarantee a spirit of freedom, openness, respect and love in and among all churches and Christians, and indeed all human beings, so that the Holy Spirit, Christ�s sole �vicar on earth,� may bring to remembrance what Christ has said, and guide people into all the truth. (Jn 14.25, 16.13) The pope would, in this way, truly be the Great Bridgebuilder (Pontifex Maximus).
In order for the Pope of Rome to exercise presidency among the churches and Christian leadership in the world, his church would also have to exemplify proper Christian worship. This, too, for Orthodox Christians, would mean some specific things. - The pope would have to insist that, except for extraordinary pastoral reasons, baptisms would be done by immersion in water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. He would also insist that the newly-baptized be immediately chrismated with �the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit� and brought into communion with Christ by participation in the Holy Eucharist. This includes infants who enter the Church�s sacramental life by virtue of the faith of the adults who care for them. The practice of a later episcopal laying-on-of hands confirming the faith of the baptized may be permitted in churches desiring to continue this practice.
Concerning participation in the Holy Eucharist, the pope would also insist that the faithful receive Holy Communion from the gifts, i.e. the bread and wine, actually offered at the eucharistic liturgy which they are celebrating. The faithful would not be given communion from �reserved gifts� which are kept exclusively for those unable to be attend liturgy for good reasons, usually sickness or infirmity.
The pope would also insure that the faithful always participate in the consecrated wine, the blood of Christ, at Holy Communion. How this is practically done may differ in different churches, but it must be done, without exception. As for the bread, unleavened wafers may be used for pastoral reasons in the churches with this practice, but the pope would affirm leavened bread as normative for the Christian Eucharist.
The pope would insist on the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, with psalmody, scripture readings and exegetical sermons according to local ecclesial practices, as normative corporate worship for Christians on the Lord�s Day and on the Church�s liturgical feasts. He would forbid private eucharistic celebrations for particular intentions, and for particular pietistic, political or ideological purposes. He would support the celebration of Vespers, Compline, Matins and the Hours in the churches. He would restore the practice of having the priestly celebrant in the Latin liturgy face the altar with the faithful during the prayers and eucharistic offerings. He would also consider enforcing the ancient ascetical and penitential practice of forbidding the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in Christian churches on weekdays of Great Lent.
Full text at: Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time [ woodstock.georgetown.edu]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517 |
It's been a demanding Sunday (Pentecost, don'cha know), and I lack the patience to read the whole thing, let alone comment upon it. But one struck me particularly:
"the pope would also have to make it clear that Mary really died" Well, Roman Catholicism has never doubted that Mary did indeed die. But I could find Orthodox theologians who do doubt it. I wonder if Father Thomas has ever read the "Burial Service of the Theotokos".
Incognitus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,173
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,173 |
I wish someone would take the time to record Rev. Father Thomas' talk.
A good digital tape recorder such as http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0008ESGAY/sr=8-1/qid=1150058195/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2606558-6851949?%5Fencoding=UTF8 would make sharing our limited resources much easier. It's good for recording plainchant too!
In Christ,
John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 937
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 937 |
Dear Esteemed Incognitus, Bless! Roman Catholicism has never doubted that Mary did indeed die. Alas, even though I also would like to affirm the correctness of this statement, that is not the case. If Roman Catholicism means the heirarchy, then yes, but if Roman Catholicism means the faithful also, then no. There is a lot of confusion regarding the Dormition of the Theotokos. I have encountered individuals that will tell you point blank the Theotokos never died, but was assumed directly to Heaven via Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. [A very dear and life long church member recently told me that the Theotokos was fathered by the Holy Spirit and that is why she is Immaculate.] Below is an excerpt from Wikipedia [ en.wikipedia.org] : The significance of the Assumption in Roman Catholic teaching
In Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma he states that "the fact of her death is almost generally accepted by the Fathers and Theologians, and is expressly affirmed in the Liturgy of the Church," to which he adduces a number of helpful citations, and concludes that "for Mary, death, in consequence of her freedom from original sin and from personal sin, was not a consequence of punishment of sin. However, it seems fitting that Mary's body, which was by nature mortal, should be, in conformity with that of her Divine Son, subject to the general law of death" (Bk. III, Pt. 3, Ch. 2, �6). The point of her bodily death has not been infallibly defined, and many believe that she did not die at all, but was assumed directly into Heaven. However, the same Apostolic Constitution which infallibly proclaims the doctrine of the Assumption, also non-infallibly teaches that Mary first died and was resurrected, prior to being assumed into Heaven. However, New Advent [ newadvent.org] states correctly: The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:
St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.
Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous. Is a teacher not measured on how well versed the student is? As long as there is misinformation being quoted today [especially by unreliable sources that some take as legitimate], I feel Father Hopko is correct in his assessment that the Assumption of the Theotokos needs to be more fully defined for the faithful of the Roman Catholic Church. In Christ, Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517 |
Dear Michael,
The teaching of the Church and the consensus of theologians is clear: Mary did indeed die. This is also affirmed by the normal service for the Dormition, and the traditional account of that sacred event.
The Church is not responsible, nor am I responsible, for the aberrations of individuals, or even fanatical groups. There are loonies around who will tell you that INRI on the Crucifix means "I'm Nailed Right In". I hope I needn't bother to explain that one!
Incognitus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010 |
Originally posted by Apotheoun:
[The Pope of Rome] would also consider enforcing the ancient ascetical and penitential practice of forbidding the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in Christian churches on weekdays of Great Lent. Fr. Tom better tell this to that other Pope, Pope Shenouda of the Coptic Orthodox Church, since those Copts have the tradition of celebrating the Liturgy every day during Lent. It just goes to show how decadent the Coptic Church is these days--obviously not ancient, ascetical or penitential in the least! :p  Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Originally posted by incognitus:
There are loonies around who will tell you that INRI on the Crucifix means "I'm Nailed Right In". I hope I needn't bother to explain that one!
Incognitus ROFL!!! That's a first for me!  :p
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 937
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 937 |
Dear Incognitus, Thank you very much for your reply. I understand completely. This then does appear to slighly invalidate the perceived issues that appear on the list for the lecture. In Christ, Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
|
|
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 |
In other words, on dogmatic matters, to comply with the wishes of Fr. Hopko, the Pope will have to become a heretic!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
Whether or not the Blessed Virgin Mary died is an open question in Western theology, and that is why Pius XII avoided saying that the Theotokos died in his decree, because as he put it:
". . . the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."
The phrase used by Pius XII, "having completed the course of her earthly life," is worded specifically in order to avoid defining whether or not Mary suffered physical death, and this fact was confirmed by Pope John Paul II in one of his Wednesday audiences, when he said that: "On 1 November 1950, in defining the dogma of the Assumption, Pius XII avoided using the term 'resurrection' and did not take a position on the question of the Blessed Virgin's death as a truth of faith. The Bull Munificentissimus Deus limits itself to affirming the elevation of Mary's body to heavenly glory, declaring this truth a 'divinely revealed dogma.'"
Thus, although it is the "common opinion" (sententia communis) among Western theologians that the Holy Theotokos died, it remains a theological opinion that one need not accept. In other words, a Western Catholic is free to hold that Mary died, or he may hold that she did not die but was immediately translated into heaven, body and soul.
That being said, Fr. Hopko's point is a valid one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
Originally posted by Jessup B.C. Deacon:
In other words, on dogmatic matters, to comply with the wishes of Fr. Hopko, the Pope will have to become a heretic! This does not follow, unless of course you hold that the Eastern doctrinal tradition (e.g., in Triadology, Christology, etc.) is heretical.
|
|
|
|
|
