www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Catholic theology and doctrine

Those interested in reading the Synodikon in its entirety can access the complete text on my website at the link below:

Synodikon of Orthodoxy [geocities.com]

Todd,

Do you accept the complete synodicon? If so, then how can you be in communion with Rome and believe everything contained in the synodicon?

Joe

I ponder the same question. For Todd it appears the Synodikon is incomplete without the condemnation of those with whom he professes to be in full communion.

As with the original version of the Creed of Nicea and Constantinople sans filioque, I prefer the earlier Synodikon prior to any additions in the 16th century.

In ICXC,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Hardly central in comparison to the Creed. As the links to the different versions show, it has grown over time to be a depository for polemics, the SYNODIKON OF THE HOLY AND ECUMENICAL SEVENTH COUNCIL (9th c.) that includes THE CHAPTER AGAINST BARLAAM AND AKINDYNOS (14th c.), and as the link [web.ukonline.co.uk] to the primitive text notes: So, no, thank you.

Yes, it is a polemical text, like the decrees (horoi) of all the councils, including Nicaea I. The Synodikon has a status similar to that of the Western Church's Enchiridion Symbolorum. Thus, it has dogmatic status and the things condemned in it are considered to be heresies against the Orthodox faith.

Yes, I accept the complete Synodikon. I also accept the Seven Ecumenical Councils, while rejecting the ecumenicity of the particular synods convened by the Latin Church.

As far as the filioque is concerned, I have no problem with it (although it does not belong in the creed) if it is meant simply to convey the doctrine of energetic manifestation, but if – on the other hand – it is intended to convey the idea that the Son causes (aitian) the Spirit's person, then I reject it as heretical. The clarification issued by the Vatican back in the 1990s, which was referenced by another poster in this thread, although sometimes a bit unclear, seems to promote the idea that Rome now distinguishes between ekporeusis and proienai, with the former coming only from the Father, while the latter comes from the Father through the Son.

That would only follow if the Roman Church really believes that the Son causes the Spirit's person. The Vatican's clarification from the 1990s seems to indicate that that proposition (i.e., that the ekporeusis of the Spirit is from the Father and the Son) is false.

But perhaps the Vatican needs to issue another clarification of the clarification.

Todd, do you agree with this part of the synodikon?

From old Rome have come certain persons who learned there to wear Latin habits. The worst of it is how, from being Romans of Rumelia bred and born, they not only have changed their faith, but they even wage war upon the Orthodox dogmas and truths of the Eastern Church which have been delivered to us by Christ and the divine Apostles and the Holy Councils (or Synods) of the Holy Fathers. Therefore, cutting off these persons as rotten members, we command:



That whoever does not confess with heart and mouth that he is a child of the Eastern Church baptized in Orthodox style, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds out of only the Father, essentially and hypostatically, as Christ says in the Gospel, shall be outside of our Church and shall be anathematized. That whoever does not confess that at the Mystery of Holy Communion the laity must also partake of both kinds, of the Precious Body and Blood, but instead says that he will partake only of the body, and that that is sufficient because therein is both flesh and blood, when as a matter of fact Christ said and administered each separately, and they who fail to keep such customs, let all such persons be anathematized.



That whoever says that our Lord Jesus Christ at the Mystic Supper had unleavened bread (made without yeast), like that of the Jews, and not leavened bread, that is to say, bread raised with yeast, let him depart far away from us and let him be anathema as one having Jewish views and those of Apolinarios and bringing dogmas of the Armenians into our Church, on which account let him be doubly anathema.



Whoever says that our Christ and God, when He comes to judge us, does not come to judge souls together with bodies, or embodied souls, but instead comes to sentence only bodies, let him be anathema.



Whoever says that the souls of Christians who repented while in the world but failed to perform their penance go to a purgatory of fire when they die, where there is flame and punishment, and are purified, which is simply an ancient Greek myth, and those who, like Origen, think that hell is not everlasting, and thereby afford or offer the liberty or incentive to sin, let him and all such persons be anathema.



That whoever says that the Pope is the head of the Church, and not Christ, and that he has authority to admit persons to Paradise with his letters of indulgence or other passports, and can forgive sins as many as a person may commit if such person pay money to receive from him indulgences, i.e., licenses to sin, let every such person be anathema.



That whoever does not follow the customs of the Church as the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils decreed, and Holy Pascha, and the Menologion with which they did well in making it a law that we should follow it, and wishes to follow the newly-invented Paschalion and the New Menologion of the atheist astronomers of the Pope, and opposes all those things and wishes to overthrow and destroy the dogmas and customs of the Church which have been handed down by our fathers, let him suffer anathema and be put out of the Church of Christ and out of the Congregation of the Faithful.


If you do then how can you be in communion with Rome?

Joe

...now where did I put my Papal passport to heaven...

Ah yes - next to my secret infallibility decoder ring sent to me by his atheistic astronomers in Latin habits who receive Holy Communion only under one species!

Fr. Deacon Daniel

I have to confess that this last part of the Synodikon is a bit over the top.

Not that I don't agree with the criticisms of purgatory, indulgences, and the Pope as the head of the Church, but the way it is expressed here is not very helpful (how's that for an understatement?)

Joe

I whole heatedly agree with the criticisms of indulgences they make no sense when brought into the light of Scripture and Holy Tradition

well the greek church also sold indulgences correct?


if so... ANATHEMA!

(not really)

I have always equated indulgences with the Old Testament Jubilee...the forgiveness of debts, the freeing of the slaves and the restoration of the land.

But I have never done much of a study on indulgences. I would be curious about the history of their development.

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Image:Orthodox_Indulgence.jpg [en.wikipedia.org]
[Linked Image]
CAPTION: LINK [en.wikipedia.org]

Also, does anyone have a reference (especially from Catholic, especially from official, sources) making the claim that the Pope is the head of the Church?

WOW...fascinating.

Thanks for posting that image. I was never aware that any Orthodox engaged in selling indulgences for the "forgiveness of sins".

Fr. Deacon Daniel