Giannis M
#0
I don\'t enjoy venting, but I must one more time, even at the risk of not being a good \"sheep\". From Florence - 1439 to Constantinople 2007, is there any point in history at which Orthodox leaders will finally take the hint? (No, let\'s \"dialogue\"...no, let\'s not offend anyone by using the word \"heresy\"....no, let\'s bend rules and let the pope participate in our Liturgy by reciting the Pater Ymwn, and let\'s try chanting a \"fimi\" for him because he\'s friendly and open to change, and let\'s have the Patriarch even hug him as an equal during the liturgy, because the pope doesn\'t view himself as being above all....Yeah, Right!! What\'s next, agreeing to kiss the ring?)- Check out today\'s news below...We really need to stop being naive...where there is power and money, there will not likely ever be admission of error or a will to embrace without holding a daggar, so let\'s stop fooling ourselves, and stop playing around with the sacred memory of Church Fathers such as St. Markos Eugenikos of Ephesos.
SOURCE: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/
Pope: Other denominations not true churches
Benedict issues statement asserting that Jesus established ‘only one church’
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 9:52 a.m. ET July 10, 2007
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.
Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.
On Saturday, Benedict revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by reviving the old Latin Mass. Traditional Catholics cheered the move, but more liberal ones called it a step back from Vatican II.
Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.
In the latest document — formulated as five questions and answers — the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II’s ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been “erroneous or ambiguous” and had prompted confusion and doubt.
It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, “Dominus Iesus,” which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the “means of salvation.”
In the new document and an accompanying commentary, which were released as the pope vacations here in Italy’s Dolomite mountains, the Vatican repeated that position.
“Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” the document said. The other communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles.
‘Identity of the Catholic faith’
The Rev. Sara MacVane of the Anglican Centre in Rome, said there was nothing new in the document.
“I don’t know what motivated it at this time,” she said. “But it’s important always to point out that there’s the official position and there’s the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together that goes on at all levels, certainly between Anglican and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics.”
The document said Orthodox churches were indeed “churches” because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed “many elements of sanctification and of truth.” But it said they lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope — a defect, or a “wound” that harmed them, it said.
“This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an ‘internal constitutive principle’ of the very existence of a particular church,” the commentary said.
Despite the harsh tone of the document, it stresses that Benedict remains committed to ecumenical dialogue.
“However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive, it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith,” the commentary said.
‘Not backtracking on ecumenical commitment’
The document, signed by the congregation prefect, U.S. Cardinal William Levada, was approved by Benedict on June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul — a major ecumenical feast day.
There was no indication about why the pope felt it necessary to release the document, particularly since his 2000 document summed up the same principles. Some analysts suggested it could be a question of internal church politics, or that it could simply be an indication of Benedict using his office as pope to again stress key doctrinal issues from his time at the congregation.
Father Augustine Di Noia, undersecretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the document did not alter the commitment for ecumenical dialogue, but aimed to assert Catholic identity in those talks.
“The Church is not backtracking on ecumenical commitment,” Di Noia told Vatican radio.
“But, as you know, it is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity. That is, dialogue cannot be an occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to be.”
Be the first person to like this.
Matthew Brown
#1
I am new to Orthodoxy, so I hesitate to enter into a discussion for which I am not fully equipped, but the Papal pronouncement coming directly on the heels of the Pope\'s \"co-celebration\" of the Eucharist with the Ecumenical Patriarch seemed a generous slap to the face of ecumenism. How could it be interpreted in any other way?
Be the first person to like this.
Matthew Brown
#2
I am new to Orthodoxy, so I hesitate to enter into a discussion for which I am not fully equipped, but the Papal pronouncement coming directly on the heels of the Pope\'s \"co-celebration\" of the Eucharist with the Ecumenical Patriarch seemed a generous slap to the face of ecumenism. How could it be interpreted in any other way?
Be the first person to like this.
Gerakas, the Filioque first started in Spain as a weapon to fight arianism, and eventually it found it\'s way to Rome. However, it was not accepted as Rome\'s offical creed until the beginning of the eleventh century, and did not become dogma until the 13th century.
\"Why don\'t we just call them heretics and be done with it?\" For example, if you had a friend, and you got in an argument, even if you were sure you were right, you wouldn\'t just start calling him names, would you? You\'d probably try to come to some sort of agreement together, and calling him names wouldn\'t help (even if he did deserve them)
As for Aristotle\'s Axiom, if both sides agree on everything, there\'s not going to be much of a dialogue. You have to assume there will be some disagreements, or else there won\'t be a dialogue. There\'s so much that we share in common with the Catholic church, that dialogue can work.
And btw, what is the Pater Ymwn?
Be the first person to like this.
Giannis M
#16
My Friend, there is no significance to ask me if I am willing to call anyone a heretic when Pope Leo III of Rome himself referred to the Filioque as \"heresy\" in 809 A.D...let today\'s Roman Catholics figure out their own historical flip-flopping on this issue. It\'s really not my problem that they flip-flopped, but I have no problem pointing out the flip-flopping to them if they can\'t see it. And if it is the truth, why should we mask it and be \"diplomatic\" about mentioning it? That\'s my entire point above. The filioque clause changes the definition of the Holy Trinity, which in effect really means we are believing in a different God altogether at this point. Who knows if even Christ\'s mention of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit being unforgivable includes the filioque clause? For me to \"overlook\" the filioque clause without severe protest is like silent \"acceptance\" of a heretical idea. No, I will protest again and again, and I will even write it on the wall, like blessed Pope Leo III did in Rome in 809.
As for the term Axiom, it is defined as a concept that is accepted but can not be necessarily proven. If your profile is correct and you are indeed 14 years old, perhaps you have not yet dealt with Geometric proofs in school, so it would be understandable that you are unclear about the meaning of the word \"axiom\". Without accepting the definition of a \"point\", or a \"straight line\", it would not be possible to build upon Geometry as a mathematical discipline. Likewise, if we can not agree on the Creed (i.e. what it is we really believe in), how can we proceed in any further discussions? Here are the historic facts, my friend:
1) Pope Leo III in 809 was totally Orthodox, because he believed in the same Creed we do, and posted it on silver plaques in St. Peter\'s Church. Pope Benedict or any Vatican official can not deny that this happened.
2) Pope Leo III condemned the \"filioque\" clause adopted by the Aix-la-Chapelle council as HERESY in 809. No one can deny this either.
3) If Papal Primacy existed in 809, the Bishops attending the Aix-la-Chapelle conference would have rescinded their \"filioque\" adaptation, because as we know today, all Roman Catholic bishops/cardinals take their orders directly from the Pope. If they disagree, they get axed. Because nobody listened to Pope Leo III, it proves that the Pope of 809 AD, did NOT have enforcing jurisdiction (Primacy) over the bishops of the West, which is exactly the way the Orthodox Church is today (i.e. the Patriarch can not boss other bishops around, but it takes an entire council to dethrone someone)
4) Pope Nicholas I (858-867) eventually came up with the idea of Primacy.
5) Pope Benedict considers himself a \"successor\" of Pope Leo III, but does not openly condemn the filioque as heresy, as his successor did. This means we have inconsistent \"succession\", which is by default a situation that occurs in any heresy.
6) In 1870, the concept of Papal Infallibility was adopted by the Vatican, which was surprising, because already, the dogmatic inconsistency between Pope Leo III and other Popes had to automatically mean that one of them was wrong.
Thus, if we look at the above points, Primacy was NOT consistent throughout the ages in Rome, and NEITHER was the \"filioque\" clause. Neither of these concepts can be proven by the Vatican as being consistently traced through successive Popes back to the Apostles (we just disproved it here). From that point on, if we want any fruitful dialogue, we have to really press hard on the Roman Catholic Church to adequately explain these dogmatic inconsistencies in its theoretical \"apostolic succession\". They changed, plain and simple. Let\'s not be blind or naive, but let\'s slam them and their flip-flopping trail into to the theological wall for once (just like St. Markos Eugenikos and Pope Leo III of Rome did), instead of being the submissive side all the time. The inconsistencies that they need to explain are obvious, and we are sitting around playing submissive in all these \"Dialogues\" and \"Meetings\", and wasting time posing in front of TV cameras talking about Re-Unification without focusing on substance. Christ wants bravery, not cowardice, and Christian bravery includes humility and repentance as part of \"self-denial\", and repentance is all about acknowledging errors of the past.
Giannis
P.S. - the Pater Hmwn is the \"Our Father\"
Be the first person to like this.
Yes, I have done geometric proofs, but that doesn\'t really matter here. My point was that there has to be a topic that both sides disagree with if there is going to be dialogue at all.
I don\'t think being having dialogues is cowardice at all. Look, if we want to be reunited with the Catholics, calling them heretics and stuff will not help at all. They would just call us heretics in return, and we\'d be right back where we started. If you really think that simply asking them to explain everything that\'s happened in the Catholic church in the past will work, then you\'ve never tried debating with a Catholic. They\'d probably just retort by asking you to explain all the scandals that have happened in the Orthodox church, or come up with some other crazy answer, quoting their saints and popes. That won\'t work.
Be the first person to like this.
The filioque: a church-dividing issue?
an agreed statement of the North american orthodox-catholic theological consultation.....
You can read about the dialogue at:
http://www.scoba.us/resources/filioque-p01.asp
The SCOBA site has an entire section dedicated to the Joint Consultation.
Be the first person to like this.
Is the implication here that the Ecumenical Patriarch is naive? Episcopal authority aside, someone simply doesn\'t rise that high in an organization that gave us the word \"Byzantine\" without a healthy bit of savvy.
I agree with Fr Athansios. The canonical boundary of the Church is decided by the Patriarch. Who is in communion with whom depends on who is remembered in the diptychs, hence all the furor in the past with some bishop \"forgetting\" to commemorate some other one.
I also don\'t see the problem with dialogue. Filioque is certainly not a problem any more. Also the primacy is the major issue between us; the common ground is vast. We shouldn\'t throw out the baby with the bath water.
Talking to them doesn\'t mean that we demean our own Church, nor does it mean that we have to start out thinking everyone is right. Nevertheless, we can learn from the Catholics about our own Church, not because they have something that we don\'t, but because as individuals we\'re ignorant and fall short of the truth.
Be the first person to like this.
Giannis M
#20
Father Athanasios,
Evlogeite. I read the link you provided, and now I am even more concerned than before, and I know you must be too.
I will select the following excerpts for our discussion purposes -
\" that our Churches commit themselves to a new and earnest dialogue concerning the origin and person of the Holy Spirit, drawing on the Holy Scriptures and on the full riches of the theological traditions of both our Churches, and to looking for constructive ways of expressing what is central to our faith on this difficult issue;\"
Time out!
Why are we discussing what has already been discussed? The decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are final, correct? At some point in time (i.e. 809 A.D.) the Roman Pope agreed with these Councils, correct? Even the historical outline on the SCOBA site affirms that the 381 A.D. Creed has been consistently re-affirmed by the Orthodox side over the past 1000 years. How many more times do we need to discuss this? What does the phrase \"a new and earnest dialogue concerning the origin and person of the Holy Spirit\" mean?
And what about this comment -
\" that Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution;\"
Huh? \"full and final ecumenical resolution\"? What\'s that supposed to mean?
To me, the Creed of 381 AD is VERY clear on the origin and person of the Holy Spirit, as well as it must have been clear to those who approved it in that Ecumenical Council. Church Fathers like St. Basil the Great wrote volumes on the Hypostasis theme. Did we forget St. Spyridon and the miracle of the brick? Why are we putting things that are clear on the negotiating table? Who on the Orthodox side is now trying to re-negotiate what the Church Fathers have already defined? Who is daring to doubt the final ecumenical resolution of the Creed of 381 A.D.? What\'s going on here?
This is beginning to sound like an Ottoman bazar, where you go to buy something, they take your money without giving you merchandise, then you agree to negotiate the price with collateral what you already own, and in the end of the negotiations you are left with no money and stripped of your belongings, and very fortunate if they don\'t do anything worse to you before you run away.
If a decision of an Ecumenical Council is final, then we can\'t be entering \"new and earnest discussions\" about things that have already been decided. This is dangerous policy and precedent. This type of policy has resulted in parallels such as the ludicrous Kofi Anan plan for Northern Cyprus, the Kosovo Disaster, the closing of the Halki Theological School so it can be used as a negotiating chip by the Turks for concessions such as access to the Greek Aegean Sea, and many other examples like this....yes, we\'ve already seen the results of what eventually happens when you agree to negotiate something that is non-negotiable.
My sense after reading the SCOBA website publication is that the Roman Catholic side has made a smoke-screen comment, saying \"yeah, the original Creed from the council of 381 is acceptable, but so is the other one, if we are to consider blah, blah, blah...\". Pure smoke-screen tactics, downplaying the importance of filioque in their view, by saying \"both are ok\", so that we THINK there is no issue with the filioque clause (just like our friend DREVYEV has already prematurely affirmed in his above comment). A future theoretical acceptance that BOTH the filioque and non-filioque versions are acceptable by the Orthodox side, would only leave the Primacy issue on the table as a major thorn, and that is more of a ecclesiastical than a dogmatic issue, which in turn would lead to natural and immediate pressures for a false Union. Yep, looks like we are entering a carefully orchestrated Ottoman Bazzar scenario.
I sense by the above SCOBA website selections that we may be in quite a bit of trouble, but thank God, I know that eventually another St. Markos Eugenikos will shine and pull us out of this challenge. It\'s no different today than the Florence Bazzar (Council) of 1439.
Giannis
Be the first person to like this.
Laura Sedor
#22
All I know is that dialogue like this that I see on this thread is not conducive to allowing anyone to try to learn / become Orthodox. Yes, I believe that Orthodoxy is right - and I have come to believe that it has the fullness of the truth - but I would have to agree with Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos) when he quotes from Khominakov in his book \"The Orthodox Church\" that \"Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord appointed to appear at the final judgement of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits...She does not judge the rest of humankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of humankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgement of the great day\" Timothy Ware himself states that \"It may seem that this exclusive claim on the Orthodox side precludes any serious \'ecumenical dialogue\' between Orthodox and other Christians, and any constructive work by Orthodox for reunion. And yet it would be wrong to draw such a conclusion: for, paradoxically enough, over the past seventy years there have been a large number of encouraging and fruitful contacts. Although enormous obstacles still remain, there has also been real progress to reconciliation. If Orthodox claim to constitute the one true Church, what then do they consider to be the status of those Christians who do not belong to their comunion? Different Orthodox would answer in different ways, for although nearly all Orthodox are agreed in their fundamental teaching concerning the Church, they do not entirely agree concerning the practical consequences which follow from this teaching. There is first a more moderate group, which includes most of those Orthodox who have had close personal contact with other Christians. This group holds that, while it is true to say that Orthodoxy is the Church, it si false to conclude from this that those who are not Orthodox cannot possibly belong to the Church. Many people may be members of the Church who are not visibly so; invisible bonds may exist despite an outward separation. The Spirit of God blows where it chooses and, as Irenaeus said, where the Spirit is, there is the Church. We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not.\"
Ware also points out that others believe that others, such as Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky believe as follows...\"Heretics and schismatics have from time to time fallen away from the one indivisible Churc, and, by so doing, they ceased to be members of the Church, but the Church itself can never lose its unity according to Christ\'s promise.\" Yet, as Ware points out, this group also says that \"divine grace may well be active among many non-Orthodox - and if they are sincere in their love of God, then we may be sure that God will have mercy upon them ; but they cannot, in their present state, be termed members of the Church\"
So, how does this relate? Well - I guess my point is that it is difficult for me - and I hope for most of you - to say that you fully understand how God works. We know what the fullness of the truth is, and where the true Church lies. But tell me...is it possible that God, in his infinite mercy, will have mercy on those who have searched for him and loved him, yet never realized that the Orthodox church was the one true Church? I agree....there are issues here. But please - for the sake of those of us who are new and still struggling to find our way in Orthodoxy - refrain from throwing insults (whether intended or unintended) to both the places where we converts have come from, and - in the case of other Orthodox Christians - perhaps remove a bit of feeling from it to make it more...effective. Yes, you can\'t water down doctrine to be less offensive - I hate it when people do that - but you CAN be tactful in the way you speak.
Forgive me if I have offended anyone through this post...
Be the first person to like this.
Laura,
Your comments are well placed. This exact topic creates divisions amongg those Orthodox Theologians who, for lack of a better term, are \'professional theologians\' and know much more than those of us on this thread including myself. They are among my professors and teachers here at Holy Cross and I am thankful everydayt for being in constant contact with them. Ulimately it comes down to Faith, in Christ and of Christ that will save us. Faith that the Orthodox Church is the True Church and Faith that Christ and the Holy Spirit will protect the truth from being violated. I for one have faith that the Theologians whom the Church has placed in the trust of these international consultations will not \'sell out the Church\' but I know others who would disagree with me.
Be the first person to like this.
Laura Sedor
#24
Thank you for your reply - comments such as this are the ones that are helpful to draw others to seek the true Church. I have met many who are seem to let the knowledge that they are a part of the true church make themselves feel as if they are better than others (something that probably happens to all of us at one time or another). A deacon of ours who spoke at a Bible study that I attended once said that being a part of the one true, holy apostolic church is a privilege and a responsibility - one not to be taken lightly - because we have the responsibility of KNOWING the truth. Because of this, we need to LIVE OUT the truth. I for one am not perfect with this - I believe it is something that we all struggle with at times - yet I know the other side of the coin as well - the side when I didn\'t yet know the full truth. I am still learning and will continue to learn with anticipation :-) So, I will continue to watch and learn from those who know more than I do. (and I apologize for the side comment... ;-) )
Be the first person to like this.
Giannis M
#25
Hi Laura,
My sincere apologies if my thread caused confusion to you or anyone else. It is certainly not geared to who would \"make it\" and who would not on Judgement Day, and I\'m surprised that this was even inferred. As we know from our own schooling, someone can score a 90%, a 70%, or a 60% and possibly still pass, and on some human-made tests there are some mandatory questions that you have to get right in order to pass, and even if you score a 99%, you might fail if you miss a \"mandatory\" question. I don\'t know what God considered a \"passing grade\", nor will I dare to try to guess, and that has nothing to do with this thread.
My thread has to do with defending the \"answer key\", only. If the Orthodox side has the 100% correct answer key (if we are Orthodox, by default we have to believe and defend this), as handed down by the Church Fathers and the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, then I personally don\'t want to see any modification to it. Certainly, the percentage application of our lives against the answer key is what we will end up accounting for on Judgement Day, even if we claim to be Orthodox.
Therefore, what I am protesting is the idea that we are \"negotiating\" and \"discussing\" things that are already decided and clear in our existing \"answer key\". Historic lessons have proved to me that every time the Orthodox side makes concessions and sits at a \"discussion\" table to discuss issues like the Creed, the results are either not positive (such as in Florence in 1439). What triggered the thread was the recent hostile Papal decree, just a few months after the same Pope played \"friend\" in Constantinople. Now history shows that we made another set of concessions and received nothing but this \"decree\" in return.
At no time did I claim that only the Orthodox would be saved, etc. because that\'s up to God to determine. Hope this clears the confusion, but you are correct, this is definitely not a topic that would help someone who is in the newer stages of the faith, because as father Athanasios points out, Orthodox \"Theologians\" are themselves divided into conservative vs. liberal camps on some of these matters.
Basic Orthodoxy 101 has nothing to do with the internal Theological Debates, but rather it has to do with building a relationship with God through prayer, study, application of the Commandments / Church Apostolic Tradition, control of the senses(askesis), self-reflection, and defeating your passions one by one. I\'m struggling with the basics, too, I admit. By all means, this is what each individual has to be focused on. On the other hand, we are asked by the Lord to be vigilant. I grew up in Greece at a time when it was still a very homogeneous and practicing Orthodox society, and I still carry within me first-hand experiences that make me react strongly to any \"winds of change\" that I detect, especially in this modern environment where there is huge pressure for a premature (and perhaps even sloppy) reunification of churches.
my apologies again for any confusion,
Giannis
Be the first person to like this.
Christ gave the mandatory questions: love God and love neighbor. Actually, I agree with Bratislav. On the one hand, the Patriarch decides who he is in communion with. If that is what the Church is, then, yes, the Patriarch decides.
On the other hand, God alone decides who is Orthodox in the narrow sense on the Last Day. He decides who will enter into the Kingdom. Even those who claim to cast out demons in God\'s name will not necessarily enter the Kingdom. God wants the fruit of obedience to his commandments.
Be the first person to like this.
Laura Sedor
#26
Thanks Gerakas - I appreciate your explanation...that does make sense.
Be the first person to like this.
#27
I am new to Orthodoxy as well, and so will keep my opinions to myself, but I thought this news interesting: http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070714/3/34sk6.html
Be the first person to like this.