www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Hi, I'm Orthodox, and I believe in the IC.

There are what could be called the Greater Canon of Symbolical Books and the Lesser Canon.

Do not believe the clever clogs who endlessly tamper with the Wikis so as to promote their agenda.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware gives us a much more balanced account than the Wiki entry.

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_P10.HTM#13T

"These documents — particularly items 5-9 — are sometimes called the ‘Symbolical Books’ of
the Orthodox Church, but many Orthodox scholars today regard this title as misleading and do
not use it."

The following are the chief Orthodox doctrinal statements since 787:

1 The Encyclical Letter of Saint Photius (867)
2 The First Letter of Michael Cerularius to Peter of Antioch (1054)
3 The decisions of ‘the Councils of Constantinople in 1341 and 1351 on the Hesychast Controversy
4 The Encyclical Letter of Saint Mark of Ephesus (1440-1441).
5 The Confession of Faith by Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople (1455-1456)
6 The Replies of Jeremias the Second to the Lutherans (1573-1581)
7 The Confession of Faith by Metrophanes Kritopoulos (1625)
8 The Orthodox Confession by Peter of Moghila, in its revised form (ratified by the Council of Jassy, 1642)
9 The Confession of Dositheus (ratified by the Council of Jerusalem, 1672)
10 The Answers of the Orthodox Patriarchs to the Non-Jurors (1718, 1723)
11 The Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius the Ninth (1848)
12 The Reply of the Synod of Constantinople to Pope Leo the Thirteenth (1895)
13 The Encyclical Letters by the Patriarchate of Constantinople on Christian unity and on the ‘Ecumenical Movement’ (1920, 1952)

Did it not occur to you, Father Ambrose, that the Pope believes exactly the same thing about the Latin Church?

Game, set, match. I'll buy you a drink to show I'm a good winner.

Not quite the same thing. He did make the exception in saying that the Orthodox were 100% OK theologically apart from our rejection of the papacy.

So, then, you concede that the basic question is how each side interprets the unchanging Apostolic deposit of faith? That is, everybody agrees that the Church of the first millennium should be the model, but nobody agrees on what the Church of the first millennium actually believed.

It is interesting, Father Ambrose, how Orthodox Wiki has very little tampering, darned near requires a letter from your priest to let you edit, and consistently matches up with OCA, GOA, and ACROD sources....

That said, I'm still curious as to which of the autocephalous churches ratified said 1895 document, and which did not... and how it was received. And the nature of the synod's assembly.

You put it forward as an example of the Orthodox view, but from the dozen signatures cited on the text representation, it looks like a local council alone, representing only the patriarchal church of Constantinople.

I - as an Eastern Catholic - having just read the synodal letter of Constantinople (1895) find nothing wrong with it; and moreover, if the Western Church were to apply the principles set forth in that letter ecumenism would - in my opinion - take a great step forward.

If, as an Eastern Catholic, you find nothing wrong in this synodal letter of Constantinople (1895) why, pray tell, are you in union with this Roman Church of "heretical innovations"? In my opinion, your great ecumenical step forward would be a big step backward, and would trample truth, not to mention, scores of unleavened hosts. Watch out for those sneaky Jesuits dressed like Orthodox priests.

Apotheoun,

Is there a copy located online? I would very much like to read it.

Thanks

To which encyclical of the Pope were the Orthodox bishops relying in 1895? I think it was "Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae."

This contains the famous phrase of Pope Leo XIII:

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty"

That must have been quite startling for the Orthodox to read!!

Not that anybody, even Leo XIII, actually believed it.

I am delighted if there was a disclaimer.

Herein we see the nature of your invidious comparisons: you choose to look at what the Latin Church says, and not what it does, but on the other hand, look at what the Orthodox Church does, but not what it says--unless, of course, it furthers your argument to do precisely the opposite.

From my perspective, what any Church says is meaningless unless interpreted in light of what that Church does, for it is how the Church lives that gives meaning to its doctrinal statements.