The point is that there were Greek Fathers who taught as did Jerome and the later Protestants regarding the Apocrypha.
Moreover, that Catechism is a major one, not a minor one.
Also, it was also Athanasis, the great defender of the Trinity, who stated the same view on the Apocrypha books, rejecting them as being Canonical for not being Hebrew.
You are reading these aberrations out of context and with a mindset that is alien to Orthodoxy, the way a Russian may form opinions about America without ever having been in America or knowing the American mindset.
I have read nothing out of context, and you are just trying to throw up smoke to deny what a major Catechism of the Orthodox faith taught in the 19th century.
The Longer Catechism Of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church....Schaff states that 'The large Russian Catechism of Philaret, approved by the holy Synod (although omitted by Kimmel in his collection and barely mentioned by Gass in his Greek Symbolics),is now the most authoritative doctrinal statement of the orthodox Graeco-Russian Church and has practically superseded the older authority translated into several languages (Schaff, History of the Creeds, vol.2, pg.445)
Since the last of the seven Councils, the doctrinal system of the Greek Church has undergone no essential change, and become almost petrified. But the Reformation, especially the Jesuitical intrigues and the crypto-Calvinistic movement of Cyril Lucar in the seventeenth century, called forth a number of doctrinal manifestoes against Romanism, and still more against Protestantism. We may divide them into three classes:
I. Primary Confessions of public authority:[emphasis added]
(a) The 'Orthodox Confession,' or Catechism of Peter Mogilas, 1643, indorsed by the Eastern Patriarchs and the Synod of Jerusalem.
(b) The Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, or the Confession of Dositheus, 1672.
To the latter may be added the similar but less important decisions of the Synods of Constantinople, 1672 (Responsio Dionysii), and 1691 (on the Eucharist).
(c) The Russian Catechisms which have the sanction of the Holy Synod, especially the Longer Catechism of Philaret (Metropolitan of Moscow), published by the synodical press, and generally used in Russia since 1839.
(d) The Answers of Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, to certain Lutheran divines, in condemnation of the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession, 1576 (published at Wittenberg, 1584), were sanctioned by the Synod of Jerusalem, but are devoid of clearness and point, and therefore of little use. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.v.i.html
I also know that you have copied Philaret's staments in your previous posts as your arguments without referencing them (regarding OT and NT). In another one of his works, he states "The only pure and all-sufficient source of the doctrines of the faith is the revealed word of God" [(Ware), Praying With the Orthodox Tradition. SVS Press, 1996, xi.] which is in stark contrast to the fundamental Orthodox/Catholic unbroken teaching on the Holy Tradition (Bible, Liturgy, Ecumenical Councils) as being the source. Your claims, out of context, are as if someone were to try to 'prove' that Armenianism is the only true form of Reformed theology.
There is nothing out of context.
Nor, did I ever cite any work without giving a link to it.
If you have any proof show it.
I cited the Catechism.
Moreover, I stated very clearly that I knew that those views were not those of the Orthodox faith today.
The point that I was making is that the Orthodox had their disagreements among their own theologians, so the 'Protestant' views were not limited to the West and high orthodox theologians can be cited in defense of those same doctrines.
And since you mentioned Cyril Lucar.
Cyril Lucar was born in 1568 or 1572 in Candia (Crete), then under the sovereignty of Venice, and the only remaining seat of Greek learning. He studied and traveled extensively in Europe, and was for a while rector and Greek teacher in the Russian Seminary at Ostrog, in Volhynia. In French Switzerland he became acquainted with the Reformed Church, and embraced its faith. Subsequently he openly professed it in a letter to the Professors of Geneva (1636), through Leger, 55a minister from Geneva, who had been sent to Constantinople. He conceived the bold plan of ingrafting Protestant doctrines on the old œcumenical creeds of the Eastern Church, and thereby reforming the same. He was unanimously elected Patriarch of Alexandria in 1602 (?), and of Constantinople in 1621. While occupying these high positions he carried on an extensive correspondence with Protestant divines in Switzerland, Holland, and England, sent promising youths to Protestant universities, and imported a press from England (1629) to print his Confession and several Catechisms. But he stood on dangerous ground, between vacillating or ill-informed friends and determined foes. The Jesuits, with the aid of the French embassador at the Sublime Porte, spared no intrigues to counteract and checkmate his Protestant schemes, and to bring about instead a union of the Greek hierarchy with Rome.
The remaining ten chapters breathe the Reformed spirit. Chapter II. asserts that 'the authority of the Scriptures is superior to the authority of the Church,' since the Scriptures alone, being divinely inspired, can not err.122122' .... ' In the appendix to the second (the Greek) edition, Cyril commends the general circulation of the Scriptures, and maintains their perspicuity in matters of faith, but excludes the Apocrypha, and rejects the worship of images. He believes 'that the Church is sanctified and taught by the Holy Spirit in the way of life,' but denies its infallibility, saying: 'The Church is liable to sin..., and to choose the error instead of the truth.... from such error we can only be delivered by the teaching and the light of the Holy Spirit, and not of any mortal man' (Ch. XII.). The doctrine of justification (Chapter XIII.) is stated as follows:
'We believe that man is justified by faith, not by works. But when we say "by faith," we understand the correlative of faith, viz., the Righteousness of Christ, which faith, fulfilling the office of the hand, apprehends and applies to us for salvation. And this we understand to be fully consistent with, and in no wise to the prejudice of, works; for the truth itself teaches us that works also are not to be neglected, and that they are necessary means and testimonies of our faith, and a confirmation of our calling. But, as human frailty bears witness, they are of themselves by no means sufficient to save man, and able to appear at the judgment-seat of Christ, so as to merit the reward of salvation. The righteousness of Christ, applied to the penitent, alone justifies and saves the believer.' The freedom of will before regeneration is denied (Ch. XIV.) This is in direct opposition to the traditional doctrine of the Greek Church, which emphasizes the liberum arbitrium even more than the Roman, and was never affected by the Augustinian anthropology. In the doctrine of decrees, Cyril agrees with the Calvinistic system (Ch. III.), and thereby offended Grotius and the Arminians. He accepts, with the Protestants, only two sacraments as being instituted by Christ, instead of seven, and requires faith as a condition of their application (Ch. XV.). He rejects the dogma of transubstantiation and oral manducation, and teaches the Calvinistic theory of a real but spiritual presence and fruition of the body and blood of Christ by believers only (Ch. XVII.). In the last chapter he rejects the doctrine of purgatory and of the possibility of repentance after death.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.v.v.html
My Reformed friends (and by the way, I am not Reformed), should get a kick out of seeing this!
If you can find a major Calvinistic Catechism that teaches conditional election, let me know it and I will gladly post it.
Cyril Lucar was a brave and righteous Christian. Think how all Christianity would have been glorified if he had not been destroyed by the same powers that seek to nullify the Scriptures and slay the faithful.
Other fathers, John of Damasdcus, Cyril etc. are just that, individual fathers. We do not consider them infallible. You are confusing Rome with Constantinople. Orthodox Doctrine is what the Church as a whole agrees on Synodically, that is all the patriarchs of all Orthodox Churches.
Philaret's canonical crap, excuse the expression, was never accepted by the (pan-Orthodox) Synod of the Orthodox Church!!! Philaret's canonical opinion remains a short-lived aberration that never became orthodox doctrine except for the poor Russioan orthodox who were forcefed his fallacy.
Russian Church also believes in "Toll Houses." They write about them as if they are dogma. Since Russian is a "major" Church (in fact 80% of Orthodox Chirstians are Russian Orthodox), it must be true. No it isn't. That's not how the concilliar Orthodox Church Community works; all the patriarches must be of the same mind to balidate a doctrine or a dogma.
The Orthodox Church recognizes St. Auhgustine as a Saint, but you will not find any of his "original sin," "total depravity" or proto-Protestant redemption doctrine taught in any Orethodox church, even though Cyril Lucas would have loved to do. The Church is coonciliar. The whole Church must consent or else it is not official doctrine. What Philaret claimed is not, never was, never will be Orthodox canon.
the Church of Constantinople didn't include Revelation into the canon until after the 9th century. You are looking at this from a legalistic mindset which is alien to eastern orthodoxy. We establish dioctrine by consent of all patriarchs, not one.
The Answers of Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, to certain Lutheran divines, in condemnation of the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession, 1576 (published at Wittenberg, 1584), were sanctioned by the Synod of Jerusalem, but are devoid of clearness and point, and therefore of little use
I have read his brilliant work many times and it is as clear as a bell. But, then again, one's mind must not be Deformed to see it that way.
Lucas was a heretic and was booted out of the Church. His satanic craftiness got him where he was and, like the satan in the desert, he hoped to fool God and destroy His Church. He failed. There is no winning with satan and his angles.