Posted on 06/30/2003 2:53:51 PM PDT by NYer
VATICAN CITY Pope John Paul II again reached out to the Orthodox Church on Sunday, saying his efforts at reconciliation weren't just "ecclesiastic courtesy" but a sign of his profound desire to unite the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.
John Paul made the comments during his regular appearance to pilgrims and tourists in St. Peter's Square. Later Sunday, he welcomed a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople at a traditional Mass marking the feast day of St. Peter and St. Paul.
"The exchange of delegations between Rome and Constantinople, for the respective patron feasts, goes beyond just an act of ecclesiastic courtesy," the pontiff said. "It reflects the profound and rooted intention to re-establish the full communion between East and West."
John Paul has made improving relations with the Orthodox Church a hallmark of his nearly 25-year papacy, visiting several mostly Orthodox countries and expressing regret for the wrongs committed by the Catholic Church against Orthodox Christians.
Despite his efforts at healing the 1,000-year-old schism, he hasn't yet visited Russia because of objections from the Russian Orthodox Church.
During the Mass on Sunday, 42 new archbishops received the pallium, a band of white wool decorated with black crosses that symbolizes their bond with the Vatican. Two of the archbishops received the pallium in their home parishes; the rest took part in the Mass in St. Peter's Basilica.
I skimmed what you posted, but I'm probably in agreement with you about the power of "binding and loosing" being given to all of the Apostles. Certainly, the Catholic Church recognizes the Sacraments and Apostolic succession within the Orthodox Churches.
What your post doesn't address, however, is the position of the "vice-regent" in the Davidic kingdom and the key which represented the office, the office which is fully realized and fructified when Jesus gives the keys to Peter.
If you feel you require a church to tell you about personal choices such as this one, then you should probably go to the Roman church.
Because as I keep saying, we are not legalistic.
We do not make laws for our followers to obey. We teach love and community and especially worship, and we know that the Holy Spirit will guide individuals within the church.
My spiritual father, with whom I spoke yesterday about a personal matter ( my youngest daughter's behavior during the liturgy) refuses to judge me or my husband about our decisions. He refused to tell me, even when I directly asked him, if we were expecting too much from her.
He said, instead, that he thought all parents might expect too much from children at times, without even coming close to implying that in this case I was doing so.
It is invaluable, I might add, to discuss things like this with him, since he has two grown children of his own.
The miracle of Orthodoxy is that even in simple situations like this one, I came away from the conversation feeling healed and much better, and with some new ideas for dealing with our problem.
Christianity is relational, it is not about rules or obedience, but about love and relationships. And this is where the Orthodox church excels. Each parishioner is responsible for love and guidance to each other and we don't take this lightly. Each Orthodox Christian is a light to the next. We are saved as a community of believers and we worship as one. Our work as a community in the liturgy is sealed by our communion together as a community. This is what Christ intended for us. This is what unity means, rather than some man having official power to tell others what they should think and do in church, how they should worship and when they should kneel or stand.
Say, wasn't Wyclif yet another Christian martyred at the hands of a RC Pope orders.... like John Hus ???
Just south of St. Augustine, Fl. at a place called Mantanas( means:'slaughter' in Spanish) inlet, there is a site where RC leader of Spanish Menendez ordered the deaths of over 400 French Protestants in 1565. He had captured them after they fled an area near present day Jacksonville, then called Fort Caroline... a French Protestant(Huguenot)settlement started in 1564.
At Fort Caroline hundreds of men, women and children were butchered by Spanish troops, but some had been able to flee by ship. Unfortunately, their ships went aground in a storm and the Spanish caught them.
4 persons converted to avoid at death at Mantantas and 5 or 6 musicians were spared.... but all the rest were murdered. There were RC clergy on hand to do any converting. But, alas... there were not too many takers.
Jean Ribault was the leader of the slaughtered folks at the inlet.... according to Mendendez' diary, Jean prayed.... Psalm 132.... but he said, " LORD, remember JEAN,{substituting his own name for David} and all his afflictions...."
Please read this Psalm everybody... it cries out for a land where believers can worship the LORD GOD in Peace without worry of being murdered for it.
Homoousion cannot be found in Sacred Scripture. It is a man-made addition.
Do you deny it because a sacred writer did not write it down under divine inspiration, or do you accept Orthodox Catholic Tradition on this point?
Again, are you saying the whole Church of the west was full of heretics from the beginning?
Absence of filioque in the east made the Holy Spirit into another Son and distorted the teaching of the Church in the East. Yaaaawwwwnnnn.
We can trade these barbs back all day. Lets get down to real business.
Are you saying the whole western Church has always been a coven of heretics from the beginning? That is the stated implication of the controversy. We've always used the filioque to express our belief in the relation of persons Trinity. All our Doctors used that phrase, as did many Eastern doctors, like Blessed St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria.
Please remember, we speak Latin, not Greek, so we use Latin words, which perhaps, just perhaps, you should admit you Greeks have not rightly understood what we mean.
I didn't start up filioque - that was Destro.
OK...look on the doors of St. Peter's in Rome, and read the Creed.....you will notice that the filioque is NOT there...inscribed by one of YOUR POPES...again, Gregory the Great....because of the arguments...LONG BEFORE Photius was around. You seriously need to look for other sources for your Theological history, other than Vatican archives....
Yaaaaawwwnnnn. And your point is what???? That the Constantinopolitan Creed is inscribed on the wall of St. Peter's? No one will deny it.
What we ant to know, do you deny the filioque and call it heresy? Do you cast out of the Church as heretic innovators Sts. Hilary, Athanasius, Augustine, Ambrose, Pope Leo the Great, Pope Damasus I, Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius of Salamis, Pope Martin I and the Fathers assembled with him at the Lateran Council in 649, St. Mamximus the Confessor, all the Spanish Bishops assembled 16 times at Toledo, etc., etc.? They all taught the Filioque.
What nonsense are you talking about now? I'm sure this has to do with the Epiklesis (which is not necessary for consecration, as St. John Chrysostom can teach you if you ever want to read his Homilies, but that's another subject). Are you going to start in now telling me I didn't hear an Epiklesis all those times I've been to Byzantine or Ukranian Catholic Liturgies? So I'm to believe you, and not my own two eyes and ears? Come on!
None. The church is the people, not a ruler. This is where we part ways significantly. To take a dispute to the church could mean to discuss it with fellow church members, a deacon or a priest. Or even a bishop.
I wonder what is not understood about "we are not legalistic".
There are differences among us, even small ones in the liturgy ( royal doors). Because our unity is spiritual, we do not consider these significant.
LOL. The original is still sung in the Orthodox church today. In our parish we ring our Russian bells when we sing it.
The Epiklesis is indeed the holiest time of the liturgy.
You need to read more western Fathers, and less Photius. Before St. Augustine, as I pointed out in my #294 the Filioque was explicitly taught by St. Hilary of Poitiers and St. Ambrose. Let me also add that it was explicitly taught by Pope St. Damasus at the Council of Rome in AD 382, the "Athanasian" Creed, and by Tertullian.
Concerning the Holy Spirit, I ought not to remain silent, nor yet is it necessary to speak. Still, on account of those who do not know Him, it is not possible for me to be silent. However it is necessary to speak of Him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, His Sources.
-St. Hilary of Poitiers, The Trintiy, 2, 29 (AD 356 to 359)For the present I forbear to expose their licence of speculation, some of them holding that the Paraclete Spirit comes from the Father or from the Son. For our Lord has not left this in uncertainty, for after these same words He spoke thus,-- "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He shall guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak from Himself: but what things soever He shall hear, these shall He speak; and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of Mine and stroll declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you" (John 16:12-15). Accordingly He receives from the Son, Who is both sent by Him, and proceeds from the Father. Now I ask whether to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father. But if one believes that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, surely to receive from the Son and to receive from the Father will be regarded as one and the same thing.
-St. Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 8, 20 (AD 357)Know, then, that just as the Father is the Fount of Life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the Fount of Life. It is said, for example, that with You, Almighty God, Your Son is the Fount of Life, that is, the Fount of the Holy Spirit.
-St. Ambrose of Milan, The Holy Spirit, 1, 15, 152 (AD 381)The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son. For how could He be separated from the Father Who is the Spirit of His mouth? Which is certainly both a proof of His eternity, and expresses the Unity of this Godhead.
-St. Ambrose, The Holy Spirit, 1, 11, 120 (AD 381)The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
-Athanasian Creed, (AD 400)The Holy Spirit is not of the Father only, or the Spirit of the Son only, but He is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. For it is written, "In anyone loves the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him (1 John 2:15)"; and again it is written: "If anyone, however, does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His (Romans 8:9)". When the Father and the Son are named in this way, the Holy Spirit is understood, of whom the Son Himself says in the Gospel, that the Holy Spirit "proceed from the Father (John 15:26)," and that "He shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you (John 16:14)."
-Tome of Damasus, Council of Rome, AD 382Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun.
-Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 8,1 (AD 216)
On and on it goes. All before St. Augustine. After him, we can list Pope St. Gregory the Great, Pope St. Leo the Great, Pope St. Hormisdas, St. Fulgence of Ruspe, St. Isidore of Seville, Avitus of Vienne, Gennadius of Marseilles, Cassiodorius, Paschasius a Deacon of Rome, Eucherius of Lyons, the 16 Councils of Toledo, etc., etc., etc.
So we are back where we started. Has the western Church been a coven of heretics from the beginning for believing and using the Filioque? Are you going to cross that bridge? If YES, why then do you claim to be united to it for 1000 years, and honor these men as saints and great doctors? This was and is our faith.
This does not mean, however, that the rebaptism of Orthodox has never occurred in the Catholic Church; it appears, in fact, to have occurred rather frequently in the Middle Ages. Pope Alexander VI affirmed the validity of Orthodox baptism just after the turn of the sixteenth century, and Rome has periodically confirmed this ruling since then. Nevertheless, rebaptism continued to be practiced on the eastern frontiers of Catholic Europe in Poland and the Balkans - contrary to Roman policy - well into the seventeenth century.
Or This?
In addition, the practice of "conditional baptism," a pastoral option officially intended for cases of genuine doubt about the validity of a person's earlier baptism, was also widely - and erroneously - used in the reception of "dissident" Eastern Christians up to the era of Vatican II itself, and afterwards was practiced occasionally in parts of Eastern Europe.
But let see what your site really says...we shall:
In the Orthodox Church, a consistent position on the reception of those baptized in other communions is much more difficult, though not impossible, to discern. On the one hand, since the Council in Trullo (692), the canonical collections authoritative in Orthodoxy have included the enactments of third-century North African councils presided over by Cyprian of Carthage, as well as the important late-fourth-century Eastern collection, The Apostolic Canons. Cyprian's position, supported by his contemporary bishop Firmilian of Caesaraea in Cappadocia, was that salvation and grace are not mediated by schismatic communities, so that baptism administered outside the universal apostolic communion is simply invalid as an act of Christian initiation, deprived of the life-giving Spirit (see Cyprian, Epp. 69.7; 71.1; 73.2; 75.17, 22-25). Influential as it was to be, Cyprian and Firmilian both acknowledge that their position on baptism is a relatively new one, forged probably in the 230s to deal with the extraordinary new challenges presented by Christian sectarianism in an age of persecution, but following logically from a clear sense of the Church's boundaries. The Apostolic Canons, included in the larger Apostolic Constitutions and probably representative of Church discipline in Syria during the 380s, identifies sacraments celebrated by "heretics" as illegitimate (can. 45 [46]), although it is not clear in what sense the word "heretic" is being used; the following canon brands it as equally sacrilegious for a bishop or presbyter to rebaptize someone who is already truly baptized, and to recognize the baptism of "someone who has been polluted by the ungodly." Both Cyprian and the Apostolic Canons, in any case, draw a sharp line between the authentic visible Church and every other group which exists outside its boundaries, and accords no value whatever to the rites of those "outside." On the other hand, continuing Eastern practice from at least the fourth century has followed a more nuanced position. This position is reflected in Basil of Caesarea's First Canonical Epistle (Ep. 188, dated 374), addressed to Amphilochius of Iconium, which–claiming to follow the practice of "the ancients"--distinguishes among three types of groups "outside" the Church: heretics, "who differ with regard to faith in God;" schismatics, who are separated from the body of the Church "for some ecclesiastical reasons and differ from other [Christians] on questions that can be resolved;" and "parasynagogues," or dissidents who have formed rival communities simply in opposition to legitimate authority (Ep. 188.1). Only in the case of heretics in the strict sense—those with a different understanding of God, among whom Basil includes Manichaeans, Gnostics, and Marcionites--is baptism required for entry into communion with the Church. Concerning the second and third groups, Basil declares that they are still "of the Church," and as such are to be admitted into full communion without baptism. This policy is also reflected in Canon 95 of the Council in Trullo, which distinguishes between "Severians" (i.e., non-Chalcedonians) and Nestorians, who are to be received by confession of faith; schismatics, who are to be received by chrismation; and heretics, who alone require baptism. Thus, in spite of the solemn rulings of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils against their christological positions, "Severians" and Nestorians are clearly reckoned as still "of the Church," and seem to be understood in Basil's category of "parasynagogues;" their baptisms are thus understood--to use scholastic language--as valid, if perhaps illicit.
The schism between Catholics and Orthodox, unlike the schisms of the Non-Chalcedonian and East Syrian Churches, came into being much later, and only very slowly. Relations between Catholics and Orthodox through the centuries have been, in consequence, highly varied, ranging from full communion, on occasion, well into the late Middle Ages (and, in certain areas, until later still), to a rejection so absolute that it seemed to demand the rebaptism of new communicants. There are, however, in the Orthodox tradition two important synodical rulings which represent the continuation of the policy articulated by Basil, and affirmed by the Synod in Trullo and later Byzantine canonists, rulings which we believe are to be accorded primary importance: those of the Synod of Constantinople in 1484, and of Moscow in 1667. The first ruling, part of a document marking the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate's formal repudiation of the Union of Ferrara-Florence (1439) with the Catholic Church, prescribed that Catholics be received into Orthodox communion by the use of chrism. In the service for the reception of Catholic converts which the Synod published, this anointing is not accompanied by the prayers which characterize the rite of initiation; we find instead formulas of a penitential character. The rite therefore appears to have been understood as part of a process of reconciliation, rather than as a reiteration of post-baptismal chrismation. It is this provision of Constantinople in 1484, together with Canon 95 of the Synod in Trullo, which the Council of Moscow in 1667 invokes in its decree forbidding the rebaptism of Catholics, a decree that has remained authoritative in the East Slavic Orthodox churches to the present day.
Guess you answer own question...try reading.
Constantinople 1755: In an atmosphere of heightened tension between Orthodoxy and Catholicism following the Melkite Union of 1724, and of intensified proselytism pursued by Catholic missionaries in the Near East and in Hapsburg-ruled Transylvania, the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril V issued a decree in 1755 requiring the baptism of Roman Catholics, Armenians, and all others presently outside the visible bounds of the Orthodox Church, when they seek full communion with it. This decree has never been formally rescinded, but subsequent rulings by the Patriarchate of Constantinople (e.g., in 1875, 1880, and 1888) did allow for the reception of new communicants by chrismation rather than baptism. Nevertheless, these rulings left rebaptism as an option subject to "pastoral discretion." In any case, by the late nineteenth century a comprehensive new sacramental theology had appeared in Greek-speaking Orthodoxy which provided a precise rationale for such pastoral discretion; for the source of this new rationale, we must examine the influential figure of St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (1748-1809).
If you refers to this, it only show how little you know about Orthodox. He but a Patriarch not able to make dogmatic decisions all by lonesome...only in full council would this go.
Conclusions
The "inconsistencies" to which we referred at the beginning of our second section turn out, on closer inspection, to be less significant than they might appear to be. Granted, a vocal minority in the Orthodox Church refuses to accord any validity to Catholic baptism, and thus continues to justify in theory (if less frequently in fact) the (re)baptism of converts from Catholicism. Against this one fact, however, we present the following considerations:
The influential theory of "sacramental economy" propounded in the Pedalion commentaries does not represent the tradition and perennial teaching of the Orthodox Church; it is rather an eighteenth-century innovation motivated by the particular historical circumstances operative in those times. It is not the teaching of scripture, of most of the Fathers, or of later Byzantine canonists, nor is it the majority position of the Orthodox churches today.
Oh and this one very important to you so pay very close attention.
Because this was one heresy that was the rage of the time - the error of Macedonius and his followers the Pneumatomachi. These heretics taught that the Holy Spirit was from the Son alone, and that He was created. How to counter it? Quote the Holy Scriptures as to his Procession from the Father of course! The 150 Fathers at Constantinople wanted to confound them with the truth they denied, not to teach us all truth about the Holy Spirit.
Secondly, as regards what Ephesus forbid. Ephesus forbid the manufacture of a Creed different from that made at the Council of Nicea, NOT THE CREED OF THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE. So if you want to hold to your strange interpretation of Ephesus, you need to refer to the Nicene Creed, and not the Constantinopolitan Creed. The Acts of the Council of Ephesus are perfectly clear on this point. Read on from definition of the faith at Nicaea made in the 6th Session of the Council of Ephesus, 22 July 431:
The synod of Nicaea produced this creed:We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down, and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.
It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way.
When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.
It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.
Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.
So that we are perfectly clear on what is being said here, lets look carefully at the ruling of the Council again:
It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way.
In other words, the Council explicitly approved: "add[ing] testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words" of the original Nicene Creed, as was done at Constantinople in 381 by the Eastern Bishops, where numerous phrases were added to the Creed, and as was done in Toledo by the Spanish fathers in inserting the Filioque. They forbid the creation of a new creed which taught a different faith, not the fuller explication of the Creed of Nicea.
Ahhh but kissing Korans and recieving blessing from pagan priests is OK? You are funny Christian. The photos prove it.
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.