The Great Schism of 1054

Holy Trinity Website ^ | Unknown | Bishop Kallistos Ware

[MarMema]

Some links from the Orthodox Church in America site.

dormition

Nativity

annunciation

entrance

Sorry, but I think we need to be careful about making a 4th member of the Holy Trinity as well.

[FormerLib]

Gee, that Catechism that you refer to was written in a Greek church so that they could use it in their Sunday school.

I hope you don't mind if I don't consider it to be an official representation of Orthodox theology?

But I see you didn't quote this part:

Q. Has anyone been exempted from the original sin?

A. Only Jesus Christ, because He was incarnate of the Holy Spirit, which, being God, is without sin, and of the Virgin Mary after her cleansing of original sin by the Holy Spirit when the Angel announced to her the conception and birth of Christ.

A mere omission on your part, I'm quite sure...

...as was neglecting the fact that it is posted on a Roman Catholic site.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Your credibility has been questionable in the past. This is simply a very bad translation or an outright lie from one of your catholic sites. St. Gregory Palamas never said this. What is more, I have his Homily/Dormition and I am pretty certain this is from it and the words have been quite twisted.

The original source of the quote is this article:

Mary, Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate: Instrument of Catholic-Orthodox Unity by Rev. Michael O’Carroll, C.S.Sp.

The reference is to the location of the words in St. Gregory Palamas' writings in Patrologia Graeca. This is a widely available work which contains all his works. Why not look it up? I'll certainly do the same at our local Seminary library or maybe the Univ. of Penn. library if you really can show me these aren't his words.

While you are at it, St. Gregory is quoted again saying "Being mediatrix between God and mankind, she made God the Son of man, but she made every human creature a child of God" in this article:

Mary in the Mystery of the Church: The Orthodox Search for Unity by Prof. Vladimir Zelinsky

[MarMema]

For the Russian church it depends as well. The local Russian (rocor) parish here has gone really Russian with a new priest but in the past had services in both Slavonic and English.

I don't know which churches you visited but I admit that some of the more ethnic parishes can be unwelcoming. It is something we are working on. We began at a Serb parish once where most of the parish spoke Serbian only and felt very unwelcome for many months. We stuck it out and came to love the church, attended there for 5 years. But the best bet for Americans is really the Orthodox Church in America. Which is where we have landed and been most happy in the end.

There are ethnic issues within our church that need to be corrected. Too much emphasis on nationality is a problem, with many of the ethnic parishes in our area. Though I must admit the Romanians don't seem to convey this, I have seen it at Serbian, Russian, and Greek churches.

And while it has been a joy to learn a great deal of church Slavonic over the years, it breaks the liturgy ( for me) rythym to have something first said in one language, then in another.

Anyway a good site to visit for more info is www.oca.org and they have parish listings for each state. In case you ever want to visit us again. Many people do! Quite a few of my protestant friends have asked to come and visit, just to see and hear the liturgy.

[FormerLib]

Of course, I grew up in a town where there were two Roman Catholic churches (population, 35,000). One had Polish priests and parishoners and the other had Italian priests and parishoners. Poles who showed up at the Italian church were given directions to 'their' church and vice-versa.

[MarMema]

Forgive me Hermann, but I do not believe the information on your Catholic sites.

One of the great problems facing the Church is the growth of doctrine which was not part of the revealed faith of the Church.

It is indeed only speculation to delve too much into some of these issues, but the Orthodox church teaches that we pray to Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit, and we honor/venerate the Saints, with Mary being the most Holy and honored of the Saints.

In the long run, as an Orthodox priest told me recently, it is best to stay with Holy Scripture. The church canons and Holy Fathers are part of our Tradition in the church, but they are not laws. It is the spirit which is the most essential part of our theology, not the legalistic issues.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Of course, there was no "Slavic" people either - Slav is simply a Latinism for Slaves - Sclave.

The latin for slave is servus. "Slav" comes from the slavic word slava, meaning "glory". For example, the Russian word for "slav" is slavyanskii. Ever notice that slav is a part of common slavic names like Boleslav, Swiatoslav, Tomislav, Wladislav, Wratislav, Wyatcheslav, Yaroslav etc. Tell me, do you think Swiatoslav means "glorious light" or "luminous slave"?

[MarMema]

Being mediatrix between God and mankind, she made God the Son of man, but she made every human creature a child of God"

Yes, in *this* sense she was a mediator, because she brought Christ into the world. But that is different from saying that she mediates now between us and God.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

It was the Armenian Orthodox Church at least once, and I cannot remember if I visited that one a second time or it was the Greek Orthodox. I may not have been in the second one for the entire service. I just remember the interior of the Church.

I am fairly confident I will not be attending a Serbian Orthodox Church anytime soon.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Gee, that Catechism that you refer to was written in a Greek church so that they could use it in their Sunday school.

I hope you don't mind if I don't consider it to be an official representation of Orthodox theology?

So the Catechism your Church uses for teaching your children does not reflect the official theology of your Church and contains outright errors? What kind of bizzaro sect do you belong to? This sounds like Gnosticism. Is the true doctrine of life after death kept away from your children?

But of course, if there is no Purgatory, why do you pray for the dead? What could this prayer, fasting, and almsgiving for the faithful departed possibly do for them if they are either in heaven or hell (or a foretaste of heaven or hell if you prefer)?

But I see you didn't quote this part:

Q. Has anyone been exempted from the original sin?
A. Only Jesus Christ, because He was incarnate of the Holy Spirit, which, being God, is without sin, and of the Virgin Mary after her cleansing of original sin by the Holy Spirit when the Angel announced to her the conception and birth of Christ.

A mere omission on your part, I'm quite sure...

Umm, Lib, ... I never said that was not the current teaching among Greek Orthodox. I also said it will not find corroboration in any Greek or Latin theologian prior to say, the Council of Florence and the Fall of Constantinople - i.e. it is anti-traditional teaching, not found among the Fathers.

...as was neglecting the fact that it is posted on a Roman Catholic site.

Which means what? The evil forces of the Vatican fabricated this Catechism to discredit the Orthodox Church and then through our nefarious world-wide conspiracy had an independently run Catholic site format it into hypertext? Do you need some tinfoil? I can call up the Alcoa-Reynolds factory near me if you've run out.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I think it's safe to say cultural issues fuel differences between people whether it is within one religion or between two. The Churches are just one vehicle for those differences.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Mary became sinless when she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, and conceived the Savior. NOT AT BIRTH....that is where we disagree....

Do you sing "Dostojno est"...?

dostojno est jakw voistinnu blazhiti tja bogorodicu prisnoblazhennuju i preneporochnuju i mater boga nashegw chestnejejshuju xeruvim i slavnjejshuju bez sravenija serafim bez istjenija boga slova rozhdshuju sushchuju bogorodicu tja velchaem.

It is truly meet to call thee blessed, who art the Theotokos ever-blessed and most blameless and mother of our God, more honorable than the cherubim and more glorious without comparison than the seraphim, who without corruption gave birth to God the Word, who art the Theotokos, we magnify thee.

[DManA]

It is not unknown for people to take a term of derision and turn it into a source of pride. e.g. - That's why MN. is the Gopher state.

Tell me, do you think Swiatoslav means "glorious light" or "luminous slave"?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Early contraception was nothing but an abortion. As usual, the quotes you have posted are meaningless.

No, there was coitus interruptus, prophylactics, drugs, sterilizations, etc. Just like we have today, and the Church condemned them all, because Marriage is for the begetting of children, not satiating lust.

"They exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption." (St. Epiphanios, Panarion 26.5.2)

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted." (St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children, 2.10.91.2)

"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility, where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. ... Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his laws? ... Yet such turpitude ... the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks." (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 24, AD 391)

The Orthodox permit contraception that prevents fertilization in certain circumstances, precisely the same way that the Latin approved Natural Family Planning or Rythym Method does. No logical or theological difference.

Patriarch Athenogoras did not support artifical contraception. I guess your Church had to change its teaching during the past 35 years since he telegramed the Pope his support.

The use of contraceptive devices artificially frustrates the natural act and is an evil act of the will. Using NFP and Rhythm is a limitation of the natural act to certain periods of time, when it is unlikely, though not impossible, that preganancy will occur. I know many families that can attest to that "not impossible"! My youngest daughter was conceived on a day when my wife and I had no expectation of a conception occurring, though we certainly weren't trying to hinder it either. God works in mysterious ways.

The Latins had to come up with something to free Mary from the nonsense of 'original sin', as if we could be guilty for a sin we did not commit. So you had to make up the Immaculate Conception and compounded error with more error.

Aha! Another teaching of your Church and mine that you deny.

The Old Testament writers had a vivid sense of their inherited sinfulness: ‘Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me’ (Ps.51:7). They believed that God ‘visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation’ (Ex.20:5). In the latter words reference is not made to innocent children but to those whose own sinfulness is rooted in the sins of their forefathers.

From a rational point of view, to punish the entire human race for Adam’s sin is an injustice. But not a single Christian dogma has ever been fully comprehended by reason. Religion within the bounds of reason is not religion but naked rationalism, for religion is supra-rational, supra-logical. The doctrine of original sin is disclosed in the light of divine revelation and acquires meaning with reference to the dogma of the atonement of humanity through the New Adam, Christ: ‘...As one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous... so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Rom.5:18-21). (Russian Orthodox Catechism Online)

That is original sin. And its consequences? A.) Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness. B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth. C.) The shattering and distortion of the "image." That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then "the imagination of man's heart is evil "(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil. D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God. E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam. This creates a problem for many people. They ask, Why should we be responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve? Why should we have to pay for the sins of our parents? they say. Unfortunately, this is so, because the consequence of original sin is the distortion of the nature of man. Of course, this is unexplainable and belongs to the realm of mystery, but we can give one example to make it somewhat better understood. Let us say that you have a wild orange tree, from which you make a graft. You will get domesticated oranges, but the root will still be that of the wild orange tree. To have wild oranges again, you must regraft the tree. This is what Christ came for and achieved for fallen man, as we shall see in the following sections. (Greek Orthodox Catechism Online)

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".[293] By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.[294] It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,[295] original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Where is the difference in belief here? I think you take Catholic doctrine on Original Sin to be some sort of caricature of our actual teaching.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

In the long run, as an Orthodox priest told me recently, it is best to stay with Holy Scripture. The church canons and Holy Fathers are part of our Tradition in the church, but they are not laws.

This seems to me an abandonment of Holy Tradition, of which Scripture is a part. What all the Fathers taught in their works on a given subject and in the Ecumenical and Local Councils is what our received Holy Orthodox Catholic Faith is.

Homoousion, as a famous example, is not in the Scriptures, and some objected to it on that account. The Church decided otherwise.

One of the great problems facing the Church is the growth of doctrine which was not part of the revealed faith of the Church.

What is the "revealed faith of the Church", and who determines it in Eastern Orthodoxy? Roman Catholicism would say the Bible and Holy Tradition, and it is determined by unaninmous support among the Fathers, and the teaching of the Church.

[MarMema]

You second link is in error. It is a parish link. Here is the official site for the Greek Orthodox church.

original sin

What you seem to do is find an archaic site with something you like and use it to make an argument. What you might want to do in order to not waste our time or yours, is just visit the official church sites for actual teachings of the Orthodox church.

Greek church

American church

Btw, the other link you posted is not related to us, I don't think. There are churches which like to use the word Orthodox in their names and are not part of our family. There is some Roman Orthodox church on the web, for instance, that we are not connected to at all.

[MarMema]

canons

"Taken by themselves, the canon laws of the Church can be misleading and frustrating, and therefore superficial people will say "either enforce them all or discard them completely." But taken as a whole within the wholeness of Orthodox life -- theological, historical, canonical, and spiritual --- these canons do assume their proper place and purpose and show themselves to be a rich source for discovering the living Truth of God in the Church. In viewing the canons of the Church, the key factors are Christian knowledge and wisdom which are borne from technical study and spiritual depth. There is no other "key" to their usage; and any other way would be according to the Orthodox faith both unorthodox and unchristian."

[FormerLib]

From the OCA Questions and Answer page:

I would like to know what is the orthodox canon regarding the "original sin." The following confuse me:

Father Michael Azkoul states that God punished man only once for the original sin by introducing death, and the original sin wasn't transferred to the next generations. He says (on the OCF website): "The Church does not accept the idea that the Mother of God was born with the (inherited) guilt of Adam; no one is ..."

On the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto's page there is a totally different statement: "Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's."

Note: Gee, that's the SAME PAGE that YOU QUOTED FROM! Imagine that! Isn't it amazing that you just happened to quote from the very same page???

Concerning the original -- or "first" -- sin, that commited by Adam and Eve, Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is death, only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin. Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin. In the article by Fr. Azkoul, he deals with this quite clearly in the sections above the quote which you sent in your email. There is nothing wrong with his statement.

Concerning the second passage -- from the Toronto Metropolis' web site -- it would probably have been clearer to the reader had the sentence read as follows: "Worst of all, the consequences of the original sin are hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's." I am not sure that there is any conflict whatsoever; rather, the second passage needs to be clarified.

Finally, the "Orthodox canons" are not statements of doctrine; rather, they are the "canon laws" drafted by the early Church councils. Canons deal with Church discipline and order, not with doctrine. They are found in the proceedings of the seven ecumenical councils and the local councils of the early Church. If by asking "if the Orthodox canons are published and available for purchase" you refer to Canon Law, please let me know, and I will direct you to places where you can purchase them. If you are interested in doctrinal material, however, collections of canons would not contain the fundamental teachings of the faith.

From the same page:

The control of the conception of a child by any means is also condemned by the Church if it means the lack of fulfillment in the family, the hatred of children, the fear of responsibility, the desire for sexual pleasure as purely fleshly, lustful satisfaction, etc.

Again, however, married people practicing birth control are not necessarily deprived of Holy Communion, if in conscience before God and with the blessing of their spiritual father, they are convinced that their motives are not entirely unworthy. Here again, however, such a couple cannot pretend to justify themselves in the light of the absolute perfection of the Kingdom of God.

You see, we Orthodox would not insist that a married couple risk conceiving a child in the face of evidence that the child would inherit a dangerous genetic defect or if the health of the mother could be endangered.

Somewhere along the way, Roman Catholics have gotten it into there head that Orthodox can use contraception for any reason whatsoever. Perhaps it is because such propaganda servers their earthly purposes, but, quite clearly, it is a falsehood.

Now that you know the diference, repeating such a falsehood would constitute "false witness."

[MarMema]

"A theology that is based on intellectual constructs and not on direct experience of God is philosophy and not theology. It is a human creation that offers neither real knowledge of God nor peace to the heart."
Saint Gregory Palamas

"The really important implication of this attitude concerns the very important notion of Truth, which is conceived, by the Byzantines, not as a concept which can be expressed adequately in words or developed rationally, but as God Himself--personally present and met in the Church in His very personal identity. Not Scripture, not conciliar definition, not theology can express Him fully; each can only point to some aspects of His existence, or exclude wrong interpretations of His beings or acts. No human language, however, is fully adequate to Truth itself, nor can it exhaust it ... This is the authentic message maintained most explicitly by the Byzantine "mystical" tradition of Maximus the Confessor, Symeon the New Theologian, and Gregory Palamas."
John Meyendorff

"Doctrine is not grasped by the mind alone, but a mind and a heart in communion with God. In this union, one is changed not primarily by what one knows, but by Who one knows. Theology was never intended to answer the unbeliever's questions. It was meant to lead the one with an open spirit into a meeting with God."

"The Orthodox understanding of authority through freedom and love takes shape in the concept of reception. A council is not authoritative in and of itself, but only as it is received. A council is the supreme authority in faith, not because it has juridical power, but because it has charismatic authority which has withstood the test of reception over time. Councils do not have automatic infallibility. It is the church which affirms the council. “Truth in the church does not depend upon any infallible institution but is an experience always available in the communion of the Church..."

All of these quotes are from my fr webpage/links found there, on which you can find more reading material. We are not western Christians, we are eastern.

You can learn much during the liturgy that cannot be expressed in words, but it is a type of knowledge that is far more important than the types you are discussing here. Eastern Christianity is experiential.

[FormerLib]

So the Catechism your Church uses for teaching your children does not reflect the official theology of your Church and contains outright errors?

You see, my church doesn't believe in the nonsense of an infallible human.

I see you are all too willing to attempt to blur the publication of a single parish with the "official theology of" the Orthodox Church.

This makes you a liar, sir. My time with your lies is at an end.