Thanks for reminding me of this.
Beslan mourning pics.
Posted on 09/17/2004 2:47:25 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
So, the Icon of Kazan — or one of many copies of it — has been returned to Moscow as an "ecumenical" gesture, and the results for Christian unity, quite predictably, are these: nothing and none.
As CWNews reported on August 30, 2004: "As a Vatican delegation restored a precious icon to the Russian Orthodox Church, in a heavily anticipated August 28 ceremony, the Holy See emphasized the importance of the gesture, while the Russian Patriarchate downplayed it." Did this surprise anyone?
In his message accompanying the Icon, the Pope insisted that "this sacred icon appears as a symbol of the unity" of Christ’s followers. With all due respect, the symbol of what unity? The Russian Orthodox are as far from Rome today — farther, in fact — than they were in 1054, when the Orthodox schism began.
Russian Patriarch Alexei sniffed that return of the icon was "the first step toward restoring brotherly relations." The first step — after 25 years of "ecumenical dialogue" with the Pope? At this rate of ecumenical "progress," the world will end before the Orthodox return to Rome.
CWN further reported that "in comments to the press after the ceremony, he (Alexei) underlined his insistence that the Vatican must make more concessions to the Orthodox position before further ecumenical progress is possible." There we have it, yet again: for the Orthodox "ecumenical progress" means only one thing — Vatican concessions.
And what concessions does Alexei demand? The same as always: "Alexei II has frequently repeated that the Catholic Church must renounce ‘proselytism’ in Eastern Europe, and accept the Orthodox premise that the countries of that region are the ‘canonical territory’ of the Orthodox churches." That is, Alexei demands that the Catholic Church renounce Her divine commission in Russia, and leave Russia to the Orthodox schismatics. In short, the Catholic Church, says Alexei, must formally approve the schism of 1054. Simply outrageous — but only typical of the way our "partners" in "ecumenical dialogue" behave, ever since the Vatican made the mistake of empowering them by treating them as if they were on equal footing with the one true Church.
CWN notes that (according to AsiaNews service), "while a Lutheran group led by the Bishop of Oslo was given an official role in the ceremony at Moscow’s Orthodox cathedral, the city’s Catholics were not." That says it all. And what it says is this: ecumenism is a joke, an insult to the Catholic Church, and an offense to God Almighty.
Ping
Once again, the shepherd is out schmoozing with the neighbors while the sheep are starving.
St. Andrew Bobola, Pray For Us.
>"And what concessions does Alexei demand? The same as always: "Alexei II has frequently repeated that the Catholic Church must renounce ‘proselytism’ in Eastern Europe, and accept the Orthodox premise that the countries of that region are the ‘canonical territory’ of the Orthodox churches." That is, Alexei demands that the Catholic Church renounce Her divine commission in Russia, and leave Russia to the Orthodox schismatics. In short, the Catholic Church, says Alexei, must formally approve the schism of 1054. Simply outrageous — but only typical of the way our "partners" in "ecumenical dialogue" behave, ever since the Vatican made the mistake of empowering them by treating them as if they were on equal footing with the one true Church."
You cut loose with rhetoric like this, and you wonder why the Orthodox have little interest in reunification with the Roman Church? Maybe the Partriarch of Moscow should have received the icon more graciously, but maybe he did what he did in order not to give the impression that this one gesture was going to make everything alright.
I was listening to the local Relevant Radio station just prior to the return of the icon and, of course, in the happy talk of radioland, the radio host and his interviewee gushed about what might result from the return of this icon. But one statement made by the host really hit me like a hammer. He said, "Is there really a possibility that the Patriarch might GIVE UP HIS PRESTIGE AND SUBMIT TO THE HOLY FATHER?"
I can tell you one thing --if the Patriarch of Moscow, or any other Orthodox Patriarch, is worth his salt, he will not "submit to the Holy Father," and it won't be because he can't "give up his prestige." It will be because he stands by the conciliar and collegial integrity of the Church, the true ecumenicity that is exemplified by the Ecumenical Councils, that existed before the papacy began to exaggerate claims about the jurisdiction, authority, and mandate of the Bishop of Rome.
One thing I agree with about this article -- the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Orthodox Church in general, is farther from the Roman Church now than it was in 1054. That's partly because, after that point, Orthodoxy and Catholicism began to have different histories. For example, the Reformation never happened in the Orthodox world, so Orthodoxy was never shaped by that challenge. But there are also serious theological issues that have to be resolved -- the filioque, of course, but also some of the stark differences in Mariology, the understanding of the Eucharist, the nature of salvation and the life of the world to come and, last but not least, the authority and jurisdiction of patriarchates, including that of the Bishop of Rome.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Catholicism and Catholics per se. I think that Pope John Paul II is one of the great popes and one of the great figures in history. I watch EWTN often, and especially enjoy Fr. John Corapi. But I am a realist, and I know that the issues that continue to divide Rome and the East are not insubstantial ones, nor are they easily resolved. None of them can be resolved by symbolic gestures. Catholicism and Orthodoxy should continue to dialogue and, God willing, come up with a plan for true reunification that is in line with with the unity that existed in the Church of the Apostles, the Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils.
One thing I didn't see in this article, but I've seen in some other ones, is the hope for "the conversion of Russia." Please. Russia was converted in 988. Russia's land was sanctified by the blood of multitudes of martyrs in the twentieth century. That the Church exists in Russia at all after 70 years of communism is a miracle from God. Christ truly did "overcome the world" there. Respect that, and you've made the first step toward the goal of true reunification -- which will not include any kind of submission--except to the will of God.
Actually, there will be plenty of effect.
Patriarch Alexei will fire off another round of invective about "Roman proselytizing", the Russian government will carry out some more petty harassment of Catholic churches, and Walter Kasper will issue a tepid statement expressing "concern and hope for the continuing process of dialogue."
Business as usual, in other words.
The Orthodox will never be able to return to the unity of the Church of Christ unless they reject their errors and submit to the Successor of St. Peter. Bl. John XXIII explains this well in his encyclical Aeterna Dei Sapientia on Pope St. Leo I:
40. But mark this well: unless the faithful remain bound together by the same ties of virtue, worship and sacrament, and all hold fast to the same belief, they cannot be perfectly united with the Divine Redeemer, the universal Head, so as to form with Him one visible and living body. "A whole faith," says St. Leo, "a true faith, is a mighty bulwark. No one can add anything to it, no one can take anything away from it; for unless it is one, it is no faith at all." (35)41. To preserve this unity of faith, all teachers of divine truths—all bishops, that is—must necessarily speak with one mind and one voice, in communion with the Roman Pontiff. "It is the union of members in the body as a whole which makes all alike healthy, all alike beautiful, and this union of the whole body requires unanimity. It calls especially for harmony among the priests. They have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank, for there was a distinction of power even among the blessed apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honorable state, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead over the rest." (36)
42. St. Leo, therefore, maintained that the Bishop of Rome, as Peter's successor and Christ's Vicar on earth, is the focal center of the entire visible unity of the Catholic Church. And St. Leo's opinion is clearly supported by the evidence of the Gospels and by ancient Catholic tradition, as these words show: "Out of the whole world one man is chosen, Peter. He is set before all the elect of every nation, before all the apostles and all the Fathers of the Church; so that although there are among God's people many priests and many pastors, Peter governs by personal commission all whom Christ rules by His supreme authority. Great and wonderful, beloved, is the share in its own power which the Divine Condescension assigned to this man. And if it desired other princes to share anything in common with him, never except through him did it accord what it did not deny to others." (37)
(35) Serm. 24. 6 on the Feast of the Nativity, PL 54.207.
(36) Ep. 14. 11 to Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica, PL 54. 676.
(37) Serm. 4. 2 on the Anniversary of his Elevation, PL 54. 149-150.
When did the papacy begin to exaggerate its claims? It seems that St. Leo was well aware of them.
Don't bother dialoging with the Fatimists, friend. Your post is on the money. Bottom line is, the Roman Church is not the Church it was during the 7 Councils, its not going back to that Church anytime soon and frankly, if union with Rome means putting up with their Fatimists and others of that ilk, we really, truly are better off without them. "Ecumenism" with Rome is a trap for the Orthodox world if its purpose is "submission" to the Pope of Rome.
There, now I'll be reminded that there is no salvation outside the Church of Rome and that I've committed a terrible sin. Perhaps someone has some indulgences to sell?
Here are the supremely salient points, well worth repeating:
I can tell you one thing --if the Patriarch of Moscow, or any other Orthodox Patriarch, is worth his salt, he will not "submit to the Holy Father," and it won't be because he can't "give up his prestige." It will be because he stands by the conciliar and collegial integrity of the Church, the true ecumenicity that is exemplified by the Ecumenical Councils, that existed before the papacy began to exaggerate claims about the jurisdiction, authority, and mandate of the Bishop of Rome.
One thing I didn't see in this article, but I've seen in some other ones, is the hope for "the conversion of Russia." Please. Russia was converted in 988. Russia's land was sanctified by the blood of multitudes of martyrs in the twentieth century. That the Church exists in Russia at all after 70 years of communism is a miracle from God. Christ truly did "overcome the world" there. Respect that, and you've made the first step toward the goal of true reunification -- which will not include any kind of submission--except to the will of God.
ping
Thank you for your excellent post and wonderful, right-on-target points.
Kind of says it all. Sad. Pride is a grave sin, as we all know from our own personal experiences.
And I smell Alexy's hand in this as well.
Brilliant! Hey, it's not without a precedent, and -- you know -- the Church is never wrong.
But if that is true, then there is no reason why the Roman Catholic Church could not return to the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
And if we were true Church then, then we are true Church today. There were instances of non-communication (by papal decrees, the popes were often frustrated because patriarchs and bishops of the east did not "submit" to their wishes and because the popes did not rule the Church) that lasted for decades ("mini schisms") and the Church survived. The Church broke up over papal ambition to be a de facto ruler of the Church instead of its spiritual sheppard. There is a reason why the NT teaches that the master is the servant, and the first is the last. Apprently, not in Rome.
The Orthodox Church celebrates and honors Leo I, the pope who was appointed as the first among equals in the Church by Emperor Justinian, and not by the Synod. Papacy was established by an imperial decree and not by willful submission of the bishops.
ping
The Church never sold indulgences.
The Orthodox Church celebrates and honors Leo I, the pope who was appointed as the first among equals in the Church by Emperor Justinian,
Odd, isn't it, that St. Leo I was appointed head of the Church posthumorously by Justinian? And since when did the Byzantine Emperor have power over the Church? But Leo had no knowledge of the idea that the Supreme Pontiff was merely "first among equals":
And though they have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank; inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honourable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest. From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also ... the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter's one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head. Let not him then who knows he has been set over certain others take it ill that some one has been set over him, but let him himself render the obedience which he demands of them: (Leo I, Epistles, 14:12)
Out of the whole world one man is chosen, Peter. He is set before all the elect of every nation, before all the apostles and all the Fathers of the Church; so that although there are among God's people many priests and many pastors, Peter governs by personal commission all whom Christ rules by His supreme authority. (Leo I, Sermons, 4:2)
By the way, where exactly does this "first among equals" come from? Chalcedon states that Leo "ruled as a head over the members [of the Council]". But you say that the Pope did not rule the Church.
Indulgences were never sold. If an indulgence was granted for an act of charity such as almsgiving, it is not being sold.
The whole concept, of course, is absurd and was unknown, at least to any extent, to the Roman Church while it was still part of The One Church.
Now this can all be done, if you will regulate those things that are asked of you with a careful consideration of religion, perceiving and restraining those who, by accepting persons, either make favours in distributing your benefits, or seek to make a profit of an unlawful trade. Concerning this I have written both to the clergy and to the people, both of which letters I have directed to be read to you. But you ought also to bring back and amend that matter according to your diligence, in such a way as to designate those by name to whom you desire that peace should be granted ... I beg you that you will designate by name in the certificate those whom you yourselves see, whom you have known, whose penitence you see to be very near to full satisfaction, and so direct to us letters in conformity with faith and discipline. (St. Cyprian, to the Martyrs, Ep. 10)
Wasn't it around 1095 when one of the Popes, Urban III, first declared an indulgence to convince people to go on a Crusade?
Whoever, out of pure devotion and not for the purpose of gaining honor or money, shall go to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, let that journey be counted in lieu of all penance. (Council of Clermont, 1095 AD, canon 2)
I see, and the RCC gained all the wealth from charity (and kept it for the same readon, I suppose). If someone tells you to give (and you know what the NT says about giving alms -- it's not how much but whether you give all,/i. you have is what matters) for the relief of suffering of your loved ones bing flamed in the purgatory "to God's satisfaction," and then tells you that one must give all for it to be worthy of something -- you are right: it's not a sale. It's an extortion. Next thing you will quote (a Roman source always, for sure), is that Luther made up his grievences. You ought to know better. After all Luther was only there. What did he know?
Cyprian? The same Cyprian who was snubbed in Rome as a heretic, whom the pope refused to see, and to whom no accommodations were to be granted in Rome? The same Cyrpian who was teaching that people should depose bishops they don't like? Yeah, he is the same on-again-off-again guy who was a big propoment of imperial papacy one year, only to change his mind the next. Very good source, indeed, sort of like Sen. Kerry -- one never really knows what he really means.
Bad choice of words on my part. Thank you. It was Justinian who recognized the primacy of Rome. He made de jure what Pope Leo I established as fact -- Rome's primacy in the Church -- and thus legitimized Pope Leo I as the "first pope."
Unfortunately your quote from Leo I is his Western view that the east never accepted and does not accept until this day -- which is that Jesus made Peter more than the other apostles. Peter did not act like a pope towards other Apostles, nor was the Church organized around Rome alone -- after all the Church of Antioch was founded by Peter as well, and all her bishops are Peter's successors too.
And since when did the Byzantine Emperor have power over the Church?
Since he could call ecumenical councils, and sign them and make them official despite papal opposition. The emperor also spared no time disciplining all bishops.
By the way, where exactly does this "first among equals" come from?
Where did this "Supreme Pontiff" come from? Not the New Testament for sure!
The whole eastern Church accepted the formula of Hormisdas, and the Sixth General Council accepted the letter of St. Agatho:
Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord ... the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced ...
Since he could call ecumenical councils, and sign them and make them official despite papal opposition. The emperor also spared no time disciplining all bishops.
So you believe in the infallibility and supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Emperor instead of the Roman Pope. But where is the support for this in the New Testament?
There are two powers, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power. Of these that of the priests is the more weighty, since they have to render an account for even the kings of men in the divine judgment. You are also aware, dear son, that while you are permitted honorably to rule over human kind, yet in things divine you bow your head humbly before the leaders of the clergy and await from their hands the means of your salvation. In the reception and proper disposition of the heavenly mysteries you recognize that you should be subordinate rather than superior to the religious order, and that in these matters you depend on their judgment rather than wish to force them to follow your will. (Pope St. Gelasius I, to the Emperor Anastasius)
Where did this "Supreme Pontiff" come from? Not the New Testament for sure!
But what Fathers consider St. Peter only "first among equals"?
Not really. The Orthodox Church, just as the Church before the Great Schism, considered the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils and not of popes to be infallible. The church is where the bishop is, not where the pope is. Each Church is a complete Body of Christ, not parts that make up a composite whole.
The Roman Emperor convened the Councils and signed the decisions of the Council to make it legal -- even if a pope objected. That made him the first and the last word in the Church government. The Emperor, not the Pope.
Antioch was founded by Peter. The bishops of Antioch are Peter's successors too. Can they make the same claim as the Roman bishops? Of course not! The only claim to fame and prominence of Rome was its imperial halo. Bing in Rome was a prestigious place, and the Bishop of Rome was a prestigious position -- socially and politically, but not biblically.
? The popes therefore represent primacy of honor and not of divinely ordained power.
That shows that the pope was indeed a spiritual leader of the Curch but not its governer.
Giving away bits and pieces of the Catholic Church to foster modern day 'ecumenism' seems to be the master plan, whether it's icons, altar rails, theology or tradition. They've given it all away to please 'man'; that's why the former dignity, splendor and uniqueness of our beloved Church no longer exists outside of the Latin Tridentine Mass.
So decisions of a Council were illegal without the Emperor's assent? You are granting infallibility to the Emperor and making him the head of the Church.
Antioch was founded by Peter. The bishops of Antioch are Peter's successors too.
Rome's claim to Peter's authority rests on the fact that St. Peter died there after having transferred his See. At the death of St. Peter, Evodius was already holding the Antiochene see. On the other hand, St. Linus directly succeeded St. Peter as bishop of Rome.
I'm sure this comes as a shock to the Poles and Lithuanians.
That's funny. I didn't realize that there was a statute of limitations on the time allowed for Divine grace as a result of the Pope's gesture. Did anyone hear the full time siren? I sure didn't.
It's possible, Mr. Ferrara, just possible that the good Lord is not working off the same time clock that you are.
The Orthodox and Catholic Churches have been separated for a millenia. Reconciliation, when (not if) it comes, may not coincide with the hour of your expectation.
Sorry, nothing personal but I have a feeling that you're probably not....how shall I say....."in the loop" on this one.
I don't follow what you are saying. What are you saying?
In which post? Quote me so I know. Thanks!
Re: "In which post? Quote me so I know. Thanks!"
Post 13.
Please notice where the "post reply" is located, I am sure you use this to click but I could be wrong. Right next to it is "private reply" then "to ___". In the message I sent it says "to 13" it will take you to your post that I was asking about. Notice the number changes for each post. If many people are responding to the same post you will see the same number, for different post different numbers. It makes it easy to find a message, cool?
Additionally Putin is a member of the Russian church and I believe Alexy has been assisting him both personally and politically. The battle to take Kavkaz.org off the internet was finally framed as being about their "religious hatred", and rightfully so.
Thanks for reminding me of this.
Beslan mourning pics.
Ditto, I had no idea it was required to happen in a few short days. My goodness.
Additionally if the pope was in such a hurry, he has had something like 12 years to return the icon now. You would think he would have done it sooner, knowing the siren was waiting on him.
There is a link or two on my FR site which explains some.
We see Mary more as an example of what we can become than the RC church does, and don't accept all of the same doctrine about her. No immaculate conception.
We don't accept the RC doctrine of transubstantiation.
We don't make any claims about salvation, but instead focus on worship. We are a doctrine-poor church, as we would prefer to not have much doctrine, but instead to allow each person to personally meet and come to know God.
See the link on my FR page about the Eastern Christian mind.
Infallibility and legality are not mutually exclusive. The secular authority also comes from God. A priest is ordained to administer Sacraments. That is his "authority." Consider this:
The bishops in attendance at the Second Council of Constantinople in 536 recognized that nothing could be done in the Church contrary to the emperor's will and command (Mansi, Concilia, viii. 970B)
While many (i.e. Athanasius) questioned the Emperor's "right" to authority in (actually over) the Church, the fact is that Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed was made the Symbol of the faith by a decree. Christianity became legal by Emperor's decision, and even the papal primacy in the Church was decreed by the the Roman Emperor (Justinian), although it was accepted by the church prior to that -- it became obligatory when the Emperor endorsed it.
Emperor Justinian accorded legal force to the canons of the four ecumenical councils (Novellae, cxxxi.)
True to the ideal of Constantinople, the emperor conceived himself as "priest and king", supreme head on earth in matters ecclesiastical as well as in the State (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Roman clergy agreed to [the Imperial] Decree empowering the pope to determine the succession to the Papal See 531 (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Silverius had been made pope through the influence of the King of the Goths (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Owing to the pressure exerted by the Byzantine commander, Vigilius was elected pope in place of Silverius and consecrated and enthroned on 29 March, 537 (Catholic Encyclopedia)
There are plenty -- multitude -- of examples that show that the Church had to submit to the rule of the secular authority or closely collaborate with it. The emperors convened ecumenical councils and their signature made them legal, not infallible. They are infallible with or without anyone's approval.
Rome's claim to Peter's authority rests on the fact that St. Peter died there after having transferred his See
So, then it's the location and not anything biblical that the popes used to claim their primacy!? IMHO, I find it rather absurd to claim spiritual "supremacy" based on geographic location! In the apostolic succession, any bishop who can trace his lineage back to St. Peter is Peter's successor, indeed spiritual Peter.
The Church is where the bishop is, not where the building is situated. Each and every church under a bishop is the full and complete Body of Christ, not "parts" of a larger whole. What makes a church One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic is its orthodoxy. Everything else is human invention.
And I confess, I have a deep love for all things Orthodox in nature - including the look of our buildings - that would be tough to dismiss. And it probably falls into the legalism category.
Did you by any chance go to the Dan Rather School of Journalism?
Indulgences were granted for all sorts of things, including almsgiving. That projects of the Church like St. Peter's were sometimes the recipient of the alms does not mean the indulgence was bought. Admittedly, the concept is rather open to corruption and thus St. Pius V was right to suppress indulgences for almsgiving.
A decree of the Council. It was already the Symbol before it was accepted by any emperor.
They are infallible with or without anyone's approval.
So why wasn't the Robber Synod of Ephesus infallible? Perhaps because the Pope didn't accept it?
So, then it's the location and not anything biblical that the popes used to claim their primacy!?
Peter was the bishop of Rome. While he was bishop of Rome, he was leader of the Church. When he died, who became the new leader of the Church? Obviously his successor in the bishopric Linus. It's biblical and historical - the ancient Church recognized Rome as the "Apostolic See" and the "Chair of Peter", and the Popes claimed even before the Nicene Synod to be Peter's successor in a unique fashion:
Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, 'feed My sheep'. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church? (St. Cyprian, On the Unity of the Catholic Church (To the Roman Confessors))
STEPHAN, who brags so about the place of his bishopric, and asserts that he holds the succession of PETER on which the foundations of the Church have been laid ... is not fired with any zeal against the heretics ... (Firmilian, Epistles of Cyprian, 75)
Even the imperial decree did not stop some in the West to change it and eventually split the Church.
So why wasn't the Robber Synod of Ephesus infallible? Perhaps because the Pope didn't accept it?
No, because the Emperor agreed with the Pope. But why didn't you use the example of the (first part) of the VIII Ecumenical Council? Because the Church reversed its stance ten years later?
You keep citing Cyprian. He may be a saint (he died martyr's death for faith, after all), but that doesn't change the fact that he was charged with heresy and that histeachings were all but acceptable to the church at various times in his ministry. Why should I give credence to a heretic?
The Eastern Orthodox reject Good Works as a means of Salvation.
Common Statements:
{snip}
C: SALVATION: GRACE, JUSTIFICATION AND SYNERGY
5. Both Lutherans and Orthodox teach that divine grace operates universally and that God freely grants grace to all human beings. God's saving grace does not operate by necessity or in an irresistible manner, since human beings can reject it. Regarding the way in which salvation is appropriated by the believers, Lutherans, by teaching that justification and salvation are by grace alone through faith (sola gratia, sola fide), stress the absolute priority of divine grace in salvation. When they speak about saving faith they do not think of the dead faith which even the demons have (cf. James 2:19), but the faith which Abraham showed and which was reckoned to him as righteousness (cf. Gen. 15:6, Rom. 4:3,9). The Orthodox also affirm the absolute priority of divine grace. They underline that it is God's grace which enables our human will to conform to the divine will (cf. Phil 2:13) in the steps of Jesus praying, "not as I will but as You will" (Matt. 26:39), so that we may work out our salvation in fear and trembling (cf. Phil. 2:12). This is what the Orthodox mean by "synergy" (working together) of divine grace and the human will of the believer in the appropriation of the divine life in Christ. The understanding of synergy in salvation is helped by the fact that the human will in the one person of Christ was not abolished when the human nature was united in Him with the divine nature, according to the Christological decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. While Lutherans do not use the concept of synergy, they recognize the personal responsibility of the human being in the acceptance or refusal of divine grace through faith, and in the growth of faith and obedience to God. Lutherans and Orthodox both understand good works as the fruits and manifestations of the believer's faith and not as a means of salvation. {emphasis mine}
Note that the Eastern Orthodox do not teach that Good Works are in any way unnecessary for Salvation, but rather that Good Works are not a means of Salvation (in the sense that Fruit is a necessary evidence of a tree's Fruitfulness, for a tree which bears no Fruit is by definition Not Fruitful; but Fruit is not the means by which a tree becomes Fruitful, but is rather the product of a tree which is Fruitful).
However, that being said, the Language chosen by the Eastern Orthodox to express their belief, is almost exactly the very language anathematized by the Roman Catholics in their Council of Trent:
So, since her separation from Eastern Orthodoxy in 1054, Rome has gone and "infallibly" anathematized the very language used by Eastern Orthodoxy to express the relationship between Faith and Works.
Either Trent will have to be rescinded, or the Eastern Orthodox will have to bow to the Canons of Trent. The latter possibility does not seem particularly likely, IMHO.
"At this rate of ecumenical 'progress', the world will end before the Orthodox return to Rome." -- Christopher Ferrarra
Personally -- I suspect that God is less dismayed by that prospect, than is Mr. Ferrarra.
As always, JMHO.
Why did the Coucil choose to go with this phrase ...let him be anathema? It seems so odd to justify the Faith with a purge. Was the purpose of the Councils to lay down rules? If that's the case I guess I understand it a little better, but it still seems so essentially tyrannical.
What examples exist of Christ issuing truths with similar calls to purge?
The purpose is to identify preachers of heresy as being, in fact, heretics.
The trouble here, as far as Roman-Catholic/Eastern-Orthodox "ecumenicism", is that Rome has anathematized some of the very language which the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission (and by implication, the authorizing Pan-Orthodox Conference) employs to describe their agreements in understandings.
It seems so odd to justify the Faith with a purge. Was the purpose of the Councils to lay down rules?
Yes. I understand the Church's need to lay down Rules; I'm simply stating my personal belief that, at Trent, the Roman Catholics "infallibly" decreed the wrong Rules.
If that's the case I guess I understand it a little better, but it still seems so essentially tyrannical. What examples exist of Christ issuing truths with similar calls to purge?
Well, not Jesus specifically, but as all Scripture is Divinely inspired, there is one example in Scripture:
However, that's the only example of which I know.
Best, OP
Sure it did. Its perverse teachings can be found in the heresy of the Old Believers, and in the Profession of Faith of Patriarch Dositheos at the Council of Jersualem in 1672. It claimed the adherance of at least one Patraich of Constantinople, else Dositheos would not have felt any call to issue his profession against him.
Southside_Chicago: "For example, the Reformation never happened in the Orthodox world, so Orthodoxy was never shaped by that challenge."
Hermann: "Sure it did. Its perverse teachings can be found in the heresy of the Old Believers, and in the Profession of Faith of Patriarch Dositheos at the Council of Jersualem in 1672. It claimed the adherance of at least one Patraich of Constantinople, else Dositheos would not have felt any call to issue his profession against him."
Yes, I am aware of the "Calvinist Patriarch" Cyril Lucar and the subsequent condemnation of this innovations by the Orthodox Church. I am also aware of some activity in Eastern Europe and Russia in the wake of the Reformation --most of it not in the principled tradition of Luther and Calvin, but the kind of oddball, cultish stuff that people come up with when they are cut loose from their moorings. My point was that while the Reformation in the West was successful, in the East it was not. Look around you -- there are all kinds of children of the Reformation out there, and for some of them, it is still 1517. Where are the Protestant sects that emerged from Orthodoxy? (Before someone for the sake of argument points out that there are Protestants in Orthodox lands -- yes,I KNOW that, but none of these sects trace back to a schism in the Orthodox Church.)
The Old Believers trace their lineage back to a group within the Russian Orthodox Church who refused to accept reforms initiated by Patriarch Nikodim and enforced by Tsar Peter the Great. While some of the Old Believer groups have elements that appear "Protestant" (some have no clergy; some reject all sacraments but baptism; some have an almost Anabaptist anti-worldiness) my understanding is that their essential doctrines are nearly identical to those of the Orthodox Chuch, and the main difference is in ritual and ritual acts. I seriously doubt that you are going to find an Old Believer who is going to admit to their having any connection whatsoever to the Reformation or Reformed doctrine.
Lutherans and Orthodox both understand good works as the fruits and manifestations of the believer's faith and not as a means of salvation.
Absolutely! There is a clear distinction between the works of law and the works of faith. Jews believe that as long as one is "righteous" (decent) person, who gives to the needy and so on, he or she will be acceptable to God. The Jews associate "good works" with God's favor. You "earn" your approval of God by works of charity and kindness. The Jews don't even see a need for 'salvation' as an act of mercy.
Christianity separated from Judaism when it reinterepted the Old testament in the Light of Jesus' teachings. True orthodox Christians do not do good works to "earn" their favor with God, or to "assure" their salvation, but to show their faith: it's a manifestation of our belief in a merciful God, an act of charity and love without expecting anything in return.
You are absolutely correct in pointing to the wording of the Council of Trent, words that suggest that our works, in a way contrary to the New Testament and Orthodox faith, increase our "favor" with God, thereby proclaiming something as "infallible" that is clearly false! Really good catch on your part OP.
I live in Florida. Seen the weather reports? (grin)
You are absolutely correct in pointing to the wording of the Council of Trent, words that suggest that our works, in a way contrary to the New Testament and Orthodox faith, increase our "favor" with God, thereby proclaiming something as "infallible" that is clearly false! Really good catch on your part OP.
In fairness to the Eastern Orthodox perspective, it should be noted that the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission (which I think to be a fairly accurate statement of belief, being commissioned by the Pan-Orthodox Conference) reserves that there is a difference between the Lutheran and the Orthodox beliefs based upon the Orthodox emphasis on "synergy", which is of course a belief which is less emphasized in more-monergistic Lutheran theology.
I think that this difference ascends from the fact that Lutherans (sorta like Calvinists but not exactly) tend to see Salvation as being a punctiliar event, whereas the Orthodox tend to see Salvation more as a process (as always, I take full responsibility for my own fast-and-loose summations). Where the Lutherans and Orthodox agree, in my reading of the Commission's declarations, is that Good Works are the "fruits and manifestations" of Salvation, and "not a means" thereof. Thus, to the Lutherans, Good Works are the Fruit growing out of the event-point at which one is Saved; whereas, to the Orthodox, Good Works are the Fruit growing out the process of being Saved.
However, by defining Good Works as the "Fruits and Manifestations" of Salvation (whether punctiliar or processional) and "not a means" thereof, the Eastern Orthodox language falls under the anathema which has been "infallibly" decreed by the Council of Trent in their Canon XXIV.
Which, I'm sure, leaves the Greeks quaking tremulously in their boots.
Wow, thanks. What I did not know about my own status.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.