[the_conscience]

This Caucus is open to all Protestants who confess the 5 Solas which are: Justification by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, to the glory of God alone and Scripture as the rule of faith alone. It is open to all Eastern Orthodox. If you are Protestant and do not subscribe to the five solas please do not participate. Roman Catholics please do not trash our thread. We're trying to have a friendly dialogue here.

[wideawake]

I'm not trashing the thread, but it should be pointed out that the Eastern Orthodox Church formally condemned each Reformed thesis in this Confession point by point at the Synod of Jerusalem.

The fathers of that Synod went so far as to state that the Confession must have been a forgery (pretty much every historian would dispute that and would consider it an authentic work of Lucaris).

Lucaris cannot legitimately be represented as in the mainstream of Orthodox theology, as much as Reformed believers would like for him to be. His position is similar to that of Bessarion, whom Catholics would like to think of as being in the mainstream of Orthodox theology, but who was not either.

[rwfromkansas]

Interesting post.

[lastchance]

I hope this is not trashing. From the article
“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.”

One of the biggest causes of schism remaining between the Eastern Church and the Western Church is the Filoque clause added to the Nicene Creed in the West. I wonder if the Nicene Creed in the Western Church was changed to state “the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father by the Son,” if that would correctly reflect both Eastern and Western universal teachings on the Holy Spirit and end the Filoque controversy?

[xzins]

Interesting indeed. Is this still the faith of the Eastern Orthodox?

I would buy into each of the chapters above with the exception that I had difficulty understanding the last half of chapter 13.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

This Caucus is open to all Protestants who confess the 5 Solas which are: Justification by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, to the glory of God alone and Scripture as the rule of faith alone. It is open to all Eastern Orthodox. If you are Protestant and do not subscribe to the five solas please do not participate. Roman Catholics please do not trash our thread. We're trying to have a friendly dialogue here.

What if you're not a Protestant, a Catholic, or an Eastern Orthodox, but you do hold to the five solas, despite not being a Calvinist?

[wagglebee]

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.

This statement clearly refers to the pope, so the caucus designation needs to come off.

Nevermind the FACT that the Confession of Cyril Lucaris what totally rejected by the Orthodox at the Synod of Jerusalem in the late 17th Century.

[dangus]

It's interesting history.

However his ultimate aim was to reform the Orthodox Church along Calvinistic lines, and to this end he sent many young Greek theologians to the universities of Switzerland, the northern Netherlands and England. In 1629 he published his famous Confessio (Calvinistic doctrine), but as far as possible accommodated to the language and creeds of the Orthodox Church. It appeared the same year in two Latin editions, four French, one German and one English, and in the Eastern Church started a controversy which culminated in 1672 with the convocation by Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, of the Synod of Jerusalem by which the Calvinistic doctrines were condemned.

Cyril was also particularly well disposed towards the Anglican Church, and his correspondence with the Archbishops of Canterbury is extremely interesting. It was in his time that Mitrophanes Kritopoulos - later to become Patriarch of Alexandria (1636–1639) was sent to England to study. Both Lucaris and Kritopoulos were lovers of books and manuscripts, and many of the items in the collections of books and these two Patriarchs acquired manuscripts that today adorn the Patriarchal Library.

Lucaris was several times temporarily deposed and banished at the instigation of both his Orthodox opponents and the Jesuits, who were his bitterest enemies. Finally, when the Ottoman Sultan Murad IV was about to set out for the Persian War, the patriarch was accused of a design to stir up the Cossacks, and to avoid trouble during his absence the Sultan had him killed by the Janissaries on June 27, 1638 aboard a ship in the Bosporus. His body was thrown into the sea, but it was recovered and buried at a distance from the capital by his friends, and only brought back to Constantinople after many years.

No relation.

[dangus]

It's interesting history.

However his ultimate aim was to reform the Orthodox Church along Calvinistic lines, and to this end he sent many young Greek theologians to the universities of Switzerland, the northern Netherlands and England. In 1629 he published his famous Confessio (Calvinistic doctrine), but as far as possible accommodated to the language and creeds of the Orthodox Church. It appeared the same year in two Latin editions, four French, one German and one English, and in the Eastern Church started a controversy which culminated in 1672 with the convocation by Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, of the Synod of Jerusalem by which the Calvinistic doctrines were condemned.

Cyril was also particularly well disposed towards the Anglican Church, and his correspondence with the Archbishops of Canterbury is extremely interesting. It was in his time that Mitrophanes Kritopoulos - later to become Patriarch of Alexandria (1636–1639) was sent to England to study. Both Lucaris and Kritopoulos were lovers of books and manuscripts, and many of the items in the collections of books and these two Patriarchs acquired manuscripts that today adorn the Patriarchal Library.

Lucaris was several times temporarily deposed and banished at the instigation of both his Orthodox opponents and the Jesuits, who were his bitterest enemies. Finally, when the Ottoman Sultan Murad IV was about to set out for the Persian War, the patriarch was accused of a design to stir up the Cossacks, and to avoid trouble during his absence the Sultan had him killed by the Janissaries on June 27, 1638 aboard a ship in the Bosporus. His body was thrown into the sea, but it was recovered and buried at a distance from the capital by his friends, and only brought back to Constantinople after many years.

No relation.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Pass the popcorn.

It looks as though this ... unique ... "Caucus" designation might not hold water.

[vladimir998]

I don’t think this thread worked out as you expected. Back to the drawing board!

[cantabile]

Just looking at the source website, you omitted these introductory paragraphs:

Cyril Lucar or Lucaris was born in what is now Greece in 1572. Although rising to the position of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril was heavily influenced by 16th century Calvinism. As a result, in the spirit of the Protestant Reformation and in strong opposition to Roman Catholicism, he attempted to reform Orthodoxy in the direction of Calvinism.

This confession, an eighteen point summary of Cyril's beliefs originally written in Latin, was published in Geneva in 1629. It immediately aroused fierce opposition among other Orthodox leaders since it challenged some of the basic tenets of Eastern religious practice. A Synod of Eastern Orthodox Churches was called in Jerusalem in 1672 to refute the position of Cyril. Orthodox leaders contended that the Confession of Cyril was a forgery perpetrated by Calvinists to spread their influence among Eastern churches. They presented quotations from known writings of Cyril to show that he had not held the positions expressed in the Confession. In addition, they argued that the Confession was not an official pronouncement by an Orthodox Patriarch.

The Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 soundly rejected any further attempts at reformulation of Orthodox teachings and strengthened Orthodox beliefs against both the Protestant Reformation and Catholicism. The Synod produced its own confession, the Confession of Dositheus (Patriarch of Jerusalem), in which it refuted Cyril's eighteen points, as well as adding four catechetical style questions. Cyril was eventually accused of political intrigue and murdered in 1638 while in Ottoman custody. -Dennis Bratcher, ed.

Emphasis mine.

I'm used to people of your persuasion misrepresenting Catholic beliefs, but this is utterly appalling! Why did you even try to pull off such a blatant scam? It's the very definition of quotation out of context.

You owe the Orthodox members of this forum one enormous apology.

And kindly stop referring to Catholics by your habitual slur.

[Salvation]

At the church that you attend, do you say the Nicene Creed as part of your service?

 

The Catholic Nicene Creed

This is the Catholic Nicene Creed, as used in the Roman Catholic Church's liturgy.

This creed is usually called just the "Nicene Creed." It is also called the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, after its origin in the first two Church ecumenical Councils in 325 and 381.

The Catholic Nicene Creed is one of the creeds that can be found in the Handbook of Prayers edited by James Socias.

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen.

The Catechism has a side-by-side comparison of the Catholic Nicene Creed with the Apostles Creed (the link is to that Catechism page on the Vatican's website).

[Dr. Eckleburg]

How did I miss this terrific thread?

Lucaris was a hero. Just think how the world would have blossomed if his reformed teachings had taken hold among the Orthodox.

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.

AMEN!

[markomalley]

Since it’s been established that only an excerpt of the article was posted at the top of the thread, could you go into the original article and tag the “excerpt” box so that people are steered into reading the full article if they are so inclined?

Thanks.

[marshmallow]

HERE is what the Ecumenical Patriarchate has to say about Cyril Lucaris.

On 4 November 1620, the Holy Synod of Constantinople elected «Cyril Lucaris, renowned for his virtue and wisdom», Ecumenical Patriarch. From 1620 to 1638 Cyril reigned five times (1620-23, 1623-33, 1633-34, 1634-35, 1637-38), and found himself at the centre of the acrimonious dispute between the Papacy and the Reformists, while the Churches of the East, especially that of Constantinople, experienced the stifling and infuriating propaganda of the Jesuits.

State diplomacy took an active part in the conflicting actions and counteractions of the Jesuits and the Reformists. France and Austria offered their services to Rome, where the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide was organizing a scheme against Cyril. Part of the plan was to discredit the Patriarch with the clergy and laity by spreading the rumour that he was a Calvinist. At the same time, the Ambassadors of France and Austria were pressing the Porte to depose Cyril.

Indeed, Cyril was deposed five times and each time he was re-elected to the Patriarchal throne by the clergy, with the support of the Orthodox population. Anglicans and Protestants (the English, Dutch, Germans, Swedes) also supported the return of Cyril to their own advantage. In the swirl of conflicting political and religious rivalries and the resulting dangerous climate, Cyril Lucaris tried to steer a course that, in his opinion, would serve best the interests of the Orthodox Church. He was fully aware of the critical state of affairs and of the pervasive influence of the Jesuits. He wrote: They (the Jesuits) «seek our destruction and the ruin of the Patriarchate and of the entire Church of the Greeks».

The Calvinists, from their side, used political influence, diplomacy, money and every other means to win the Patriarchate and the Orthodox Church over to their views. Cornelius Van Haag, the Dutch Ambassador, made use of all his influence in this unrelenting struggle, assisted by the Calvinist divine Antoine Leger. The latter, through theological discussions, fiery sermons and friendly approaches eventually swayed the Patriarch's entourage, which included Nathaniel Conopios, Metropolitan of Smyrna, Meletios Pontogalos, Metropolitan of Ephesus, Theophilos Corydalleus, Metropolitan of Arta, and John Caryophyllos.

At about that time, the Calvinists of Geneva arranged to print and publish the Holy Bible translated into modern Greek by Maximos Callipolitis. Cyril found himself obligated to sanction Callipolitis's translation, though it contained Calvinist views that could cause confusion to the common people. This confusion became chaotic when, in 1629, the Calvinists of Geneva published the first Latin edition of the so-called «Lucarian Confession», in which the Patriarch appeared to accept the Calvinist doctrines and betray the Orthodox faith. From 1629 to 1633 the «Eastern Confession of Christian Faith» was published under the name of Cyril Lucaris in Latin, Greek, French, German and English. J. Carmiris writes: «This inelegantly worded Confession roused great commotion and indescribable agitation throughout the Church and caused preoccupation not only to the ecclesiastical theologians but also to the politicians and the diplomats. In the beginning almost everyone believed it to be a forgery, not a true work of the Patriarch». More than 350 years have elapsed since the first publication of the so-called «Lucarian Confession». Eminent historians, theologians and researchers have tried to clarify whether Lucaris was the actual author of the «Confession» attributed to him by the Calvinists. The Patriarch himself verbally denied it on several occasions and proclaimed his Orthodox faith with his attitude and in his letters. To the end, however, Cyril did not disavow the «Confession» in writing. Successive Synods of the Orthodox Church have condemned the «Confession» as heretical and alien to the Orthodox faith of the Fathers.

The tragic figure of Cyril Lucaris stood in the midst of opposing religious currents. On the one side the Protestants tried hard to win over the Orthodox in their struggle against the Roman Catholics, going so far as to involve the Patriarch himself with the «Lucarian Confession» in order to promulgate their novel doctrines. On the other side the machinations of the Jesuits reached unheard of extremes. The Ecumenical Patriarch, alone, unprotected and betrayed, was judged and condemned. On 27 June 1638, he was strangled and his body was flung into the Bosporus. Manuel Gedeon writes that after some time «the sea out of compassion for this outstanding champion of Orthodoxy washed ashore his body on the island of Chalki». Cyril's body was buried with all honours by the Patriarch Parthenius I (1639-1644) in the precinct of the historical monastery of Panagia Kamariotissa on Chalki.

In the course of his difficult patriarchy «the much famed and very wise» Cyril Lucaris issued a large number of decrees on many ecclesiastical matters. A few of the synodical resolutions, patriarchal decisions and sigils are noted below:

1. A synodical resolution in July 1622 canonized St. Gerasimos of Cephalonia.
2. A special patriarchal encyclic appealed to all the Orthodox to make donations for the rebuilding of the monastery of Simonopetra, Mount Athos, which had been destroyed by fire.
3. In 1627, Cyril set up a patriarchal printing-press for the publication of Orthodox works that would invigorate the faith of the sorely tried Orthodox world.
4. Cyril appointed as Director of the famous Patriarchal Academy «Theophyllos Corydalleus, celebrated erudite and expounder of Aristotle's writings».
5. In 1628, Cyril instituted the dating of patriarchal documents from the Birth of Christ and not from the Creation of the World, as was the practice until then.

So the Orthodox position is "a pox on the Jesuits and a pox on the Calvinists". As others have pointed out, it would have been nice if you had not excised the preamble to your posted article as it contained important information related to this very controversial document.

[markomalley]

From Schaff (Protestant), The Creeds of Christendom (via Calvin College's CCEL):

§ 15. The Confession of Cyril Lucar, A.D. 1631

…

The Confession of Cyril Lucar was never adopted by any branch or party of the Eastern Church, and even repeatedly condemned as heretical; but as it gave rise to the later authentic definitions of the 'Orthodox Faith,' in opposition to the distinctive doctrines of Romanism and Protestantism, it must be noticed here. Cyrillus Lucaris (Kyrillos Loukaris), a martyr of Protestantism within the orthodox Greek Church, occupies a remarkable position in the conflict of the three great Confessions to which the Reformation gave rise. He is the counterpart of his more learned and successful, but less noble, antagonist, Leo Allatius (1586–1669), who openly apostatized from the Greek Church to the Roman, and became librarian of the Vatican. His work is a mere episode, and passed away apparently without permanent effect, but (like the attempted reformations of Wyclif, Huss, and Savonarola) it may have a prophetic meaning for the future, and be resumed by Providence in a better form.

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. At their instigation his printing-press was destroyed by the Turkish government. He himself—in this respect another Athanasius 'versus mundum,' though not to be compared in intellectual power to the 'father of orthodoxy'—was five times deposed, and five times reinstated. At last, however—unlike Athanasius, who died in peaceful possession of his patriarchal dignity—he was strangled to death in 1638, having been condemned by the Sultan for alleged high-treason, and his body was thrown into the Bosphorus. His friends surrounded the palace of his successor, Cyril of Berœa, crying, 'Pilate, give us the dead, that we may bury him.' The corpse was washed ashore, but it was only obtained by Cyril's adherents after having been once more cast out and returned by the tide. The next Patriarch, Parthenius, granted him finally an honorable burial.

Cyril left no followers able or willing to carry on his work, but the agitation he had produced continued for several years, and called forth defensive measures. His doctrines were anathematized by Patriarch Cyril of Berœa and a Synod of Constantinople (Sept., 1638), then again by the Synods of Jassy, in Moldavia, 1643, and of Jerusalem, 1672; but 56on the last two occasions the honor of his name and the patriarchal dignity were saved by boldly denying the authenticity of his Confession, and contradicting it by written documents from his pen.

This Cyril was the same who seat the famous uncial Codex Alexandrinus of the Bible (A) to King Charles I. of England, and who translated the New Testament into the modern Greek language.

The rest of the article, linked above, provides some useful data (from a respected Protestant perspective).

[markomalley]

…And then from an Orthodox perspective, we have this from Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna:

Just as today one must see the Orthodox world in its greater historical context, so in Patriarch Kyrillos’ day, too, Orthodoxy existed in a world of political reality that must be carefully studied, in order to see what implications rise above his specific witness and faithfully address Orthodoxy at a general level. To this end, let me just say, as a general observation, that with the fall of Constantinople the Orthodox East fell under Latin domination and the Turkish Yoke. Its survival threatened, its spiritual and intellectual primacy relinquished to the West, Orthodoxy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries took on an historical character that cannot be applied universally to the Church’s experience and ethos, and especially, again, without careful examination and precision.

Too much scholarship today comes from secondary and from encyclopedic sources, offered up by inadequate scholars who ignore primary sources and who, in the field of Orthodox studies, fail to capture the thinking of the Fathers. For example, the political intrigue surrounding the reign of Patriarch Kyrillos is very complex. It involves theological and political issues dating back to the time of his mentor and (most probably) relative, Patriarch Meletis (Pegas) of Alexandria, and to Loukaris’ strong opposition to the Latin Church and the Unia, an opposition that brought him into conflict with certain circles (both in Alexandria and in Constantinople) which had primarily political reasons for their sympathy with Rome. To reduce these complicated factors to some supposed opposition within the Orthodox Church to Patriarch Kyrill’s so-called Protestantism is absurd. Such a faulty reduction also creates a myth about the Patriarch that is to a great extent a fabrication of Western scholarship and of those Orthodox captured by the West. It also ignores the standard historiographical assumptions of Orthodox Greek writers, who have a far more expansive knowledge of Orthodoxy in the age in question than their Western counterparts. In this vein, it is rather amazing that one of these articles in Credenda tries to make something of the fact that the Patriarch’s "Confessio fidei..." was published in Geneva. Could we imagine it being published in post-Byzantine Constantinople? Anyone with even an elementary knowledge of intellectual life of the Greeks at this time would readily understand why men of Greek letters published throughout the West, and especially in Italy and France. It is astonishingly naive for anyone to attach to the publication of Loukaris’ confession in Geneva any special significance at all. The notion that these particular writings were "composed" by Loukaris in Latin is another troubling statement. It needs careful scrutiny and actually says nothing to support the thesis that Loukaris had, by implication, a keen appreciation and knowledge of Western (Reformed) theology. It leads us, rather, in another direction, as we shall see.

While he knew Latin, it is clear from his many letters and writings, as well as from biographical data from contemporaries of his, that Patriarch Kyrillos could not have produced a polished text such as that of the original Latin "Confession." Indeed, many Greek scholars even dispute the claim that the Greek text, which appeared together with the Latin text four years later, was the work of Loukaris. Rather, it is argued by most Greek scholars that the text was essentially the work of Calvinist scholars with whom Cyril communicated on a regular basis and who condensed many of his letters and exchanges into a conveniently Calvinistic confession that ignored the Patriarch’s Orthodox understanding and grasp of reformed theology. For a brilliant textual analysis in support of these assumptions, see Professor Ioannis Karmiris, Orthodoxia kai Protestantismos (Athens, 1937). (Cf. Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, Kyrillos Loukaris [Athens, 1938].)

It is only by ignoring his many sober theological works and writings, wholly in concord with traditional Orthodox theological concepts, and his synodal confessions and justifications, that one can argue that Patriarch Kyrillos was a supporter of Calvinism. The whole idea of a "Protestant" Patriarch who was forced to betray his Protestant leanings is a bit of Western fancy that the Reformers used to slap at Rome (beset as it was by the "problem" of the Eastern Church only a few centuries after having, however fruitlessly, "united" with it, a "problem" which the Lutheran Reformers had also exploited at the Diet of Worms). This fanciful idea was also one that the Latins used in their struggles against Loukaris, on account of his many years of opposition to the Unia and the Jesuits in Eastern Europe, characterizing him as a betrayer of his own Faith. (Remember that the Latins had a deep hatred for this Patriarch. Through the machinations of the Jesuits and other anti-Orthodox agents in Constantinople, the Papists were finally able, through the Austrian Embassy, to bribe the Turks to condemn and kill Patriarch Kyrillos in 1638, and thus to silence him. His body was, indeed, unceremoniously thrown into the Bosporos.)

Let us also say that the Orthodox Church, which in Her mind constitutes the successor of the very Church established by Christ, has a theology and spiritual life quite foreign to those of the West, whether Latin or Reformed. Soteriology, the sacraments (or, more properly, the Mysteries), and Christian anthropology and cosmology, however misunderstood and misrepresented by the West (we think, here, of the gross stupidity of Western scholars who imagine our theological traditions to be neo-Platonic—an accusation which shows an ignorance both of Orthodoxy and of Neo-Platonism), are concepts that we discuss in a context and with nomenclature foreign to the Papists and Protestants. When addressing Roman Catholics, our Church has, however, spoken about seven sacraments and about various administrative structures in Western language (though, in fact, our Mysteries are without number and order always yields to prophecy in Orthodoxy); speaking with Protestants, we have spoken of the interaction of Faith and good works and of Divine Providence and Grace in ways that they understand (when, in fact, the first distinction is unknown to us and the apophatic and Hesychastic traditions of Orthodox theology approach the second issue in a way largely mystifying to Western theologians). Admittedly, less-gifted Orthodox thinkers today also seek to form a "systematic theology" in response to the West (notwithstanding the fact that it is in the realm of spiritual practice, not confessional theology, that any notion of the systematic properly applies in Orthodoxy). But all of this does not mean that we are speaking the language of the heterodox in our hearts, let alone that we share their theological precepts.

When we address Westerners on their own terms, we are reaching out to them in the limited language that they grasp. Setting aside the issue of the authenticity of his confession, when Loukaris reached out to the Protestants, then, whatever his motives and whatever his language, his writings, his witness, and his Orthodoxy were in no way compromised by these actions. Nor did he become that which he addressed. I leave it to others to judge the wisdom of his actions. But to characterize them in any way than that which I have is to argue, once more, against all that one can glean from studying his life and reading his writings as a whole. If the modernist Orthodox can make "Popes" of their Patriarchs and create a melange of Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and Papism that they pass off as "official" and "canonical" Orthodoxy, Protestants sectarians can make of Patriarch Cyril a Protestant. But these creations do not change the truth. Both in the case of modern Orthodoxy (which has created its own religion from the language of mission by which Orthodoxy has been preached in the West) and a phantom "Protestant" Patriarch, we are dealing with false creations of theological nomenclature that are separated from true experience.

Despite Western references to Patriarch Kyrillos’ wide contacts with the Reformers, he is in fact most famous in the Orthodox world for his anti-Papist stand against the Uniate menace and for his opposition to Jesuit missions in Eastern Europe. His contacts in Eastern Europe, where he studied, served, and traveled, were extensive. His opposition to Uniate Catholicism after the Brzeesc-Litewski Treaty of 1596 was so strong and widespread, that his so-called "Confession," whatever its true source, is a mere footnote to his struggle against Papism. It was THIS anti-Latin Loukaris who supported Protestant opposition to Papism, who perhaps allowed his views to be restated and published by his Calvinist contacts in Geneva, and who earned the enduring hatred of the Papacy, which has played an essential role—if one reads the intellectual history surrounding this issue—in perpetuating the idea that the "Confessio" was the direct work of Kyrillos and that he was a Protestant in his thinking. If one ignores almost all of his scholarship and accepts the "Confessio," and if one ignores almost all of his activities and accomplishments in Eastern Europe and in resisting Uniatism, then it might be argued that Loukaris was the author of an Orthodox "reform" that almost was. But this fantasy, so favored by Protestants and so boldly bequeathed to them by Latin polemicists, is much like modernist Orthodoxy in America. It has the press. It has attention. It can dismiss arguments against it as those of fringe elements and cultists. But just as a thorough study of those who hold forth as Orthodoxy’s "official" spokesmen today show these people to be something other than what they are, so with a careful study of the facts surrounding the "Confessio fidei" of Kyrillos Loukaris the myth of a "Protestant" Patriarch goes the way of Pope Joan.

So between this and the previous entry, it is obvious that, at best, this is the personal opinion of the author. At worst...a fairly disgusting forgery.

I think you'd (the_conscience) have done yourself a big favor had you posted the whole piece from the website and then asked the EO here if this thought is at all reflected in modern EO thinking...(it likely could have retained its caucus label...had you done so)

[kosta50]

There are not enough Orthodox left on the Free Republic to make an Orthodox caucus workable. They all left when the Roman Catholics insisted the Orthodox were not "catholic" enough to participate on Catholic caucuses. Besides me, don-o, and a couple of others, the Orthodox left since then.

It's a good topic, but not enough people or the will to support the caucus.

Anyway, the Cyril Lukas abomination was removed in due time. It will never return.

[Frumanchu]

So just looking at what was originally posted, my assumption would have been that this thread was intended to open dialog between Reformed Protestants and Eastern Orthodox over the content of a confession which is purported by at least some to be historically Orthodox (at least written by someone within the Eastern Orthodox Church if not at any point an official teaching of it). Note that I'm not defending the document as genuine or not, just observing that it is at least a legitimate topic of discussion between the two groups.

It appears that the Catholic caucus in the FR Religion Forum simply could not resist injecting themselves into any discussion where Protestants might have an ecumenical discussion that the caucus could not spray their graffiti all over, and so they trudged out the usual "THEY'RE BASHING OUR FAITH!!!" charge just because the historical document cited happened to contain "thinly veiled" attacks on the Roman Catholic Church...even though that miniscule bit of content amidst the whole was never highlighted, referenced or presented as the topic of discussion.

Is this the point we're at? On a site that promotes itself as being thoroughly conservative, is FR now so obsessed with political correctness and catering to the whining victimhood of those wanting to shove their opinions into every single discussion that a thread like this that could have simply allowed "friendly dialogue" between these two groups must instead be treated this way?