Posted on 07/22/2010 11:01:11 AM PDT by the_conscience
Edited on 07/23/2010 8:45:24 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
[snip]
The Confession
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople, publishes this brief Confession for the benefit of those who inquire about the faith and the religion of the Greeks, that is of the Eastern Church, in witness to God and to men and with a sincere conscience without any dissimulation.
Chapter 1.
We believe in one God, true, Almighty, and in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the Father unbegotten, the Son begotten of the Father before the world, consubstantial with the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father by the Son, having the same essence with the Father and the son. We call these three persons in one essence the Holy Trinity, ever to be blessed, glorified, and worshipped by every creature.
Chapter 2.
We believe the Holy Scripture to be given by God, to have no other author but the Holy Spirit. This we ought undoubtedly to believe, for it is written. We have a more sure word of prophecy, to which you do well to take heed, as to light shining in a dark place. We believe the authority of the Holy Scripture to be above the authority of the Church. To be taught by the Holy Spirit is a far different thing from being taught by a man; for man may through ignorance err, deceive and be deceived, but the word of God neither deceives nor is deceived, nor can err, and is infallible and has eternal authority.
Chapter 3.
We believe that the most merciful God has predestined His elect unto glory before the beginning of the world, without any respect of their works and that there was no other impulsive cause to this election, but only the good will and mercy of God. In like manner before the world was made, He rejected whom He would, of which act of reprobation, if you consider the absolute dealing of God, His will is the cause; but if you look upon the laws and principles of good order, which God’s providence is making use of in the government of the world, His justice is the cause, for God is merciful and just.
Chapter 4.
We believe that one God in Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be the Creator of all things visible and invisible. Invisible things we call the angels, visible things we call the heavens and all things under them. And because the Creator is good by nature, He has created all things good, and He cannot do any evil; and if there is any evil, it proceeds either from the Devil or from man. For it ought to be a certain rule to us, that God is not the Author of evil, neither can sin by any just reason be imputed to Him.
Chapter 5.
We believe that all things are governed by God’s providence, which we ought rather to adore than to search into. Since it is beyond our capacity, neither can we truly understand the reason of it from the things themselves, in which matter we suppose it better to embrace silence in humility than to speak many things which do not edify.
Chapter 6.
We believe that the first man created by God fell in Paradise, because he neglected the commandment of God and yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. From thence sprung up original sin to his posterity, so that no man is born according to the flesh who does not bear this burden and feel the fruits of it in his life.
Chapter 7.
We believe that Jesus Christ our Lord emptied Himself, that is He assumed man’s nature into His own substance. That He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the ever virgin Mary, was born, suffered death, was buried, and risen in glory, that He might bring salvation and glory to all believers, Whom we look for to come to judge both quick and dead.
Chapter 8.
We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ sits on the right hand of His Father and there He makes intercession for us, executing alone the office of a true and lawful high priest and mediator, and from there He cares for His people and governs His Church adorning and enriching her with many blessings.
Chapter 9.
We believe that without faith no man can be saved. And we call faith that which justifies in Christ Jesus, which the life and death of our Lord Jesus Christ procured, the Gospel published, and without which no man can please God.
Chapter 10.
We believe that the Church, which is called catholic, contains all true believers in Christ, those who having departed their country are in heaven and those who live on earth are yet on the way. The Head of that Church (because a mortal man by no means can be) is Jesus Christ alone, and He holds the rudder of the government of the Church in His own hand. Because, however, there are on earth particular visible Churches, every one of them has one chief, who is not properly to be called [head] of that particular Church, but improperly, because he is the principal member of it.
Chapter 11.
We believe that the members of the Catholic Church are saints, chosen unto eternal life, from the number and fellowship of which hypocrites are excluded, though in particular visible churches tares may be found among the wheat.
Chapter 12.
We believe that the Church on earth is sanctified and instructed by the Holy Spirit, for He is the true comforter, whom Christ sends from the Father to teach the truth and to expel darkness form the understanding of the faithful. For it is true and certain that the Church on earth may err, choosing falsehood instead of truth, from which error the light and doctrine of the Holy Spirit alone frees us, not of mortal man, although by mediation of the labors of the faithful ministers of the Church this may be done.
Chapter 13.
We believe that man is justified by faith and not by works. But when we say by faith, we understand the correlative or object of faith, which is the righteousness of Christ, which, as if by hand, faith apprehends and applies unto us for our salvation. This we say without any prejudice to good works, for truth itself teaches us that works must not be neglected, that they are necessary means to testify to our faith and confirm our calling. But that works are sufficient for our salvation, that they can enable one to appear before the tribunal of Christ and that of their own merit they can confer salvation, human frailty witnesses to be false; but the righteousness of Christ being applied to the penitent, alone justifies and saves the faithful.
Chapter 14.
We believe that free will is dead in the unregenerate, because they can do no good thing, and whatsoever they do is sin; but in the regenerate by the grace of the Holy Spirit the will is excited and in deed works but not without the assistance of grace. In order, therefore, that man should be born again and do good, it is necessary that grace should go before; otherwise man is wounded having received as many wounds as that man received who going from Jerusalem down to Jericho fell into the hands of thieves, so that of himself he cannot do anything.
Chapter 15.
We believe that the Evangelical Sacraments in the Church are those that the Lord instituted in the Gospel, and they are two; these only have been delivered unto us and He who instituted them delivered unto us no more. Furthermore, we believe that they consist of the Word and the Element, that they are the seals of the promises of God, and they do confer grace. But that the Sacrament be entire and whole, it is requisite that an earthly substance and an external action concur with the use of that element ordained by Christ our Lord and joined with a true faith, because the defect of faith prejudices the integrity of the Sacrament.
Chapter 16.
We believe that Baptism is a Sacrament instituted by the Lord, and unless a man has received it, he has no communion with Christ, from whose death, burial, and glorious resurrection the whole virtue and efficacy of Baptism proceeds; therefore, we are certain that to those who are baptized in the same form which our Lord commanded in the Gospel, both original and actual sins are pardoned, so that whosoever has been washed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are regenerate, cleansed, and justified. But concerning the repetition of it, we have no command to be rebaptized, therefore we must abstain from this indecent thing.
Chapter 17.
We believe that the other Sacrament which was ordained by the Lord is that which we call Eucharist. For in the night in which the Lord offered up Himself, He took bread and blessed it and He said to the Apostles, "Take ye, eat, this is my body," and when He had taken the cup, He gave thanks and said, "Drink all of this, this is my blood which was shed for many; this do in remembrance of me." And Paul adds, "For as often as ye shall eat of this bread and drink of this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death." This is the pure and lawful institution of this wonderful Sacrament, in the administration of which we profess the true and certain presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; that presence, however, which faith offers to us, not that which the devised doctrine of transubstantiation teaches. For we believe that the faithful eat the body of Christ in the Supper of the Lord, not by breaking it with the teeth of the body, but by perceiving it with the sense and feeling of the soul, since the body of Christ is not that which is visible in the Sacrament, but that which faith spiritually apprehends and offers to us; from whence it is true that, if we believe, we do eat and partake, if we do not believe, we are destitute of all the fruit of it. We believe, consequently, that to drink the cup in the Sacrament is to be partaker of the true blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the same manner as we affirmed of the body; for as the Author of it commanded concerning His body, so He did concerning His blood; which commandment ought neither to be disremembered nor maimed, according to the fancy of man’s arbitrament; yea rather the institution ought to be kept as it was delivered to us. When therefore we have been partakers of the body and blood of Christ worthily and have communicated entirely, we acknowledge ourselves to be reconciled, united to our Head of the same body, with certain hope to be co-heirs in the Kingdom to come.
Chapter 18.
We believe that the souls of the dead are either in blessedness or in damnation, according as every one has done, for as soon as they move out of the body they pass either to Christ or into hell; for as a man is found at his death, so he is judged, and after this life there is neither power nor opportunity to repent; in this life there is a time of grace, they therefore who be justified here shall suffer no punishment hereafter; but they who die, being not justified, are appointed for everlasting punishment. By which it is evident that the fiction of Purgatory is not to be admitted but in the truth it is determined that every one ought to repent in this life and to obtain remission of his sins by our Lord Jesus Christ, if he will be saved. And, let this be the end.
This brief Confession of ours we conjecture will be a sign spoken against them who are pleased to slander and persecute us. But we trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and hope that He will not relinquish the cause of His faithful ones, nor let the rod of wickedness lie upon the lost of the righteous.
Dated in Constantinople in the month of March, 1629. Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople
[snip]
I think the_conscience has said that the intention of the OP was to start a thread which would demonstrate to his satisfaction that the poor maligned non-Catholics are so brutally treated by the ho' of babylon that they can't have a caucus thread -- or something like that.
t-c, would you tell us again why you started the thread?
I think the original body of the main thread was posted in such a way that the uninformed would believe that this “confession” is consistent with Orthodox beliefs.
The FACT is that this “confession” was completely rejected by the Orthodox on more than one occasion, the Patriarch Lucaris verbally denied writing it (though he never denied it in writing), the style is totally inconsistent with known writings of his. All of this was CLEARLY ACKNOWLEDGED at the the website where the thread was taken from, but was OMITTED when posted here.
It should be pointed out that, the request of the OP for Roman Catholics to honor the caucus status notwithstanding, it was the Roman Catholics who made Roman Catholicism the issue, explicitly so with wagglebee's first post. There was precisely zero mention of the cited portion of the OP (or of even of the doctrine to which it speaks) to that point, and of course we'll never know if that point ever even would have been discussed because it was forcibly made an issue by the Roman Catholics as an excuse for injecting themselves into a caucus thread.
The fact of the matter is the portion cited does not explicitly pertain to the Roman Catholic Church, nor does it by necessary inference pertain exclusively to the Roman Catholic Church. It simply spoke to the topic of primacy in "ChurchES." Unless the Roman Catholic Church is willing to make the (ridiculously unsupportable) claim that it is the only institution throughout history up until that point to have had any doctrine of primacy with respect to the institutional head of its church, then any claim of direct targeting likewise is unsupportable.
As such, there was no real grounds for removal of the caucus designation other than the incessant self-justifying whining of the Catholics which continues still 200 posts later.
LOL
You can strain all the gnats you want but the camel is still in the middle of the room.
What would the prefatory remarks of a Wesley-Arminian have to do with a Sola/Orthodox caucus? I was only interested in Lucaris’ words and the Orthodox response. If I had included the Arminian’s commentary then some gnat-straining Romanist would have broken the caucus claiming we were excluding Arminians. There’s an infinite amount of gnats to strain for Romanists, it seems.
For the record, I would no more agree to another group barging in on one of your caucus threads. You see, just because I believe something to be true doesn't mean I think its truth value is somehow endangered by others believing and *gasp* even openly claiming that it's not.
No, I simply pointed out that Chapter 10 made a not-so-thinly-veiled reference to the papacy and that made the caucus invalid.
Unless the Roman Catholic Church is willing to make the (ridiculously unsupportable) claim that it is the only institution throughout history up until that point to have had any doctrine of primacy with respect to the institutional head of its church, then any claim of direct targeting likewise is unsupportable.
Perhaps not, but as of the mid-17th Century I don't know of any other Church that the Orthodox would have ever recognized as a valid Church. The Orthodox of that time considered Protestantism to be completely heretical.
Oh! Were back on motives again? And the relevance?
I liked the “ho’ of babylon” part.
Even I am not naive enough to believe that.
The original poster (OP) deliberately omitted the portions of the original source which made it clear that this "confession" was emphatically rejected by the Holy Orthodox. One can't even excuse it as ignorance (by which I mean nothing more that "lack of knowledge"). Independent of any theological issues, such action is a gross violation of ordinary standards of integrity, to say nothing of the moral precepts to which all Christians are expected to adhere. It's an entirely reprehensible act.
The OP himself admits that this thread was nothing more than an "exercise" intended to undermine the caucus system, which is the only corner of this cesspool of a forum in which rational discussion is even possible.
This is the OP's third attempt to game the caucus system. The upshot of the first was "Yes, Catholics can have their caucuses, but it must be labeled with my favorite slur, so that every time it's used, Catholic are automatically insulted." The net result of that conniption was the entirely unnecessary departure of good-willed, well-behaved Orthodox over a controversy that needn't have been stirred up. The religion forum is poorer for their absence.
The second attempt was to allow former Catholics with a grudge to infiltrate Catholic caucus threads, so that they could turn them into the same food-fights which prevail on the open threads.
The third attempt we have before us. Trying as objectively as possible to discern the pattern of behavior here, I must conclude that the modus operandi of the OP is "let's you and him fight, while I sit back and enjoy the chaos I've created." This is a direct attack on the cohesion of the forum itself, and leads me to wonder if there's any degree of destructive behavior which the mods will at long last find intolerable.
Since there's no reason whatsoever to believe that the OP's attempts to undermine the system which is in place - no matter how flawed it may be - are likely to cease, I have to wonder why he or she has yet to be shown the door.
Then why did you OMIT the portion where it was acknowledged that Lucaris DENIED writing them? Where the Orthodox Church CONDEMNED this confession? And where theologians have always suspected that it might be a FRAUD?
Why was that left out?
There’s an infinite amount of gnats to strain for Romanists, it seems.
Oh the "Romanists" are the problem? You have yet to find a single Orthodox FReeper who would support your agenda.
The "Orthodox" have already officially spoken. Unfavorably.
You think that's of less importance to your readers than the fact that the gentleman pointing out this critical pice of information just happens to be a "Wesley-Arminian"?
Seriously?
Being "Arminian" disqualifies one as a source of credible commentary?
If I had included the Arminian’s commentary then some gnat-straining Romanist would have broken the caucus claiming we were excluding Arminians. There’s an infinite amount of gnats to strain for Romanists, it seems.
Gotcha.
If you had included "the Arminian's" remarks some Catholics might have objected.
Not a single person on this site believes that. Not even you.
Excellent analysis.
This is the OP's third attempt to game the caucus system. The upshot of the first was "Yes, Catholics can have their caucuses, but it must be labeled with my favorite slur, so that every time it's used, Catholic are automatically insulted."
Odd that you should mention that.
There was an anti-Catholic troll who had a short stay here about three years ago who had an obsession with changing and redefining the caucus system. I wonder where it comes from.
“You have yet to find a single Orthodox FReeper who would support your agenda. “
You might be surprised.
Oh where are they? Why won't they come forward? Were they also pleased that this document that is likely a fraud was posted WITHOUT disclosing that fact? Were they also pleased with that the fact that the Orthodox Church has specifically rejected this document was not disclosed?
Bookmark for later.
It actually isn't even commentary. The Arminian in question pointed out historical and verifiable FACTS.
The spin being created to give the impression that this "confession" is somehow valid Orthodox dogma reminds me a lot of when CBS and Dan Rather went into their "fake, but accurate" mode.
There was an anti-Catholic troll who had a short stay here about three years ago who had an obsession with changing and redefining the caucus system. I wonder where it comes from.
Odd you should mention that.
I seem to recall reading this very recently:
To: don-o
We could set up a Protestant/Orthodox caucus where we can engage in polite dialogue away from the slings and arrows of the Romanists. We could model it based on this.
1,512 posted on Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:05:13 AM by the_conscience (We ought to obey God, rather than men. (Acts 5:29b))
Followed up by this:
The Confession of Cyril Lucaris
The Voice ^ | 1692 | Cyril Lucaris
Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2010 2:01:11 PM by the_conscience
Of course that could be strictly coincidental.
I’m dying to know, does don-o call his wife a “Romanist” when she brings out the “slings and arrows”?
Quite so.
I was just a little curious as to why being a "Wesley-Arminian" made the gentleman's comments worthy of the editing scissors.
If he'd been Catholic........excuse me.......Romanist.....I could understand it. But "Wesley-Arminian"?
Slings and arrows?
Oh, my...are you sure that kind of talk is appropriate?
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.