www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Papacy and the Eastern-rite

Fr. Serge,
I would refer you to the decrees of the Council of Constantinople in 1484. The council repudiated the false union of Florence and established procedures for receiving converts from the Latin Church among other things. It is interesting to note that the council styled itself as "ecumenical." However I am not aware of any who today so regard it. That said it was clearly a general council of The Church at which were present all of the Orthodox patriarchs or their representatives and it has never been repudiated. As such its decrees remain in force and carry enormous weight.

ICXC
John

Matt,
You make some good points about Church Canons. Clearly some of them were of a purely disciplinary nature that have become obsolete for any number of reasons. However the prohibition against Communication in Sacris with heretics and schismatics remains an immemorial and firm canonical discipline of both the Orthodox Church and the Latin Church. Without recourse to all sorts of legalese here is the basic rule of thumb...

Is the church I am contemplating communing in, "in communion" with my bishop? If the answer is "no" than don't do it unless you mean to break communion with your current bishop. And with all possible respect to any priests here, no presbyter has any authority to permit anyone to commune in a parish or church not in communion with his own bishop.

ICXC
John

Matta's assertion about Melkites and Antiochians receiving Holy Communion in each other's Churches is correct; it happens. It still happens in the US. NOt only this, but the Melkite Patriarch and the Antiochian PAtriarch dedicated and blessed a Church for mutual use. This was not done out of necessity, but ecumenically.

Laka Ya Rabb,
I am not arguing that anything has or has not happened. That is immaterial to the point I am making which is that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church are not in communion with one another. Just because someone does something does not make it right or establish a precedent. This sort of argument reminds me of the response I got from several Roman Catholics when I expressed my horror at the use of women altar servers. They said "well a lot of parishes are doing it."

ICXC
John

A Byzantine Defense of the Immaculate Conception
www.loupizzuti.com/bartonic.htm [loupizzuti.com]

Tertullian,

Sorry but I cannot open the link.

Do you have another way to post it?

Gordo

I get a "page not found" error when trying to open it.

Try this

http://www.loupizzuti.com/

james

That's strange, I read the article a week ago.

This is related:

Mary�s Immaculate Conception

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

"Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary." Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother." Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides." Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

"We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin." Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

"As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain." Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

"A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns." Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

"The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made." Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

"[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary." Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

"She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay." Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

"Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God.... The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation." Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733).

"[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever." Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733).

"O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew." John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).
http://scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-II

Oy Gevalt! This took about two hours to get through!

I know the Melkite bishop rejects all development since Nicaea II but still remains in communion with Rome because it is how it was done in the early days of Christianity.

The question is if a bishop proclaims himself to be something he's not, why stay in communion with him and/or his church? I'm not in communion with Mrs. Jefferts-Schori because she's proclaiming herself to be something she's not!

If the doctrine of the development of doctrine is heresy, why stay in communion with the Church who believes in it?

Another by the way...

The GOA website lists the Council of Trullo as the Quinisext and Nicaea as the 7th EC.

Uhhh.... that makes 8.

Is this like the "40" days of Lent?

Ad Orientum,

The Orthodox churches are self-governing. It is up to the Antiochian Orthodox Church to decide how, or whether, to apply church cannons. There is not some universal agreed upon way of applying them. Some "Super Orthodox" still follow the prohibition of praying with schismatics and heretics. Wanna know how closely that is followed by the Orthodox churches and believers? Even at St. Tikon's (the "conservative" Orthodox seminary) I believe it is usually the "spirit" of the cannon that is appealed to rather then the "letter". Moreover, it is quite possible that some Antiochians do not believe the Melkites are heretics and schismatics as you seem to suggest. If such is the case then Antiochian actions seem even more justified.

Also, if the Melkites are not Orthodox because they are not in communion with your bishop then what of the old-calendarists? Are they also out of your Orthodox circle? What about seemingly random folks like "Patriarch Photios" (aka Joseph Farrel)? Heck, some Eastern Orthodox now believe the Copts are Orthodox and you haven't been in communion with them for 1500 years. I just don't think your system works.

In any event, I hope I am not coming off to harshly.

All the best

Sorry Dr. Eric...I don't understand the above quote...from the beginning of the great fast (Pure Monday) until the Friday before Lazurus Saturday is 40 Days...Holy/Passion Week is a seperate fasting period in and of itself...

Chris

Dear Dr. Eric,

If the slightly Procrustean numbering of the seven councils amuses you, try the Double Council, sometimes called the First-and-Second Council. And no, I am not making that up!

Fr. Serge

Matt,
Again I do not dispute your point that there have been instances of inter communion. The question is whether or not it is proper and correct. You correctly point out that each (canonical) Orthodox Church is self governing. And yes that means the Antiochians have very broad rights in determining whom they are in communion with. So let me ask the question. Is the Antiochian Patriarchate in communion with Rome? Have they formally repudiated the Council of Constantinople of 1484? If they have then I missed the memo.

You ask if certain groups are "Orthodox" or not. My answer in most cases is that I leave that up to God and the legitimate hierarchs of The Church to determine. The question I would ask is; are they in communion with me via my bishop? If the answer is yes then there is no problem. If the answer is no than we have a problem which may or may not (there are many reasons for not being in communion) touch on matters intrinsic to The Faith.

You say that each Orthodox Church can decide how or when to apply Church Canons. Thats a very broad statement that I am not able to fully agree with. Yes, there is such a thing as oikonomia which is far better understood and more widely practiced in Orthodoxy than in the Latin Church. But economy is not carte blanche to disregard the immemorial disciplines of The Church. If some in the Antichian Church are communing in the Melkite/Latin Church then the question which needs to be asked is; is this with the blessing of their bishop?

If the answer is yes than I am constrained to express my respectful disagreement with that policy. But beyond that it is indeed up to their Synod to determine if anything improper is going on. If they are doing so without the blessing of their bishop than it is a serious sin which by default places the offending party outside communion with his/her own bishop. While Orthodoxy is not quite as legalistic as some might think neither are we a do it yourself church either.

Finally another question looms. Even if there have been some instances of inter-communion sanctioned (or at least tolerated) by one or two bishops mostly in Lebanon, what are the broader implications? My answer is very few. Even after 1484 there were isolated cases of inter-communion between Orthodox and Latins. But they were "isolated." They were, and I would argue, are today extremely rare.

You refer to the Church Canons prohibiting praying with schismatics and heretics. And you correctly note that few outside of the Old Calendarist sects practice akria (a strict application of the letter of the law as opposed to oikonomia). But as far as I know all of the canonical Orthodox prohibit communion with non-Orthodox. That for us is the litmus test of your relationship to The Church. Are we in communion with one another? Is it possible that there have been aberrations and tolerances or abuses of this canon? It is more than possible. It is certain. But thats not to be seen as restoration of communion. If any Orthodox jurisdiction wishes to restore communion with Rome they are free to do so. But actions can have consequences.

This is where I note my objection to your assertion that each jurisdiction has absolute authority to determine if, when, or in what manner they will obey Church Canons. If a jurisdiction strays too far from what the rest of the Orthodox world is prepared to accept they may find themselves isolated to one degree or another. Orthodoxy (despite some superficial similarities in ecclesiology) is not the Anglican Communion where one jurisdiction can do whatever it wants and the rest just have to lump it. Orthodox jurisdictions have severed communion with one another for far less significant things than permitting open communion. While I will not make concrete predictions I think that any Orthodox jurisdiction that chose to restore communion with Rome before there was a consensus within The Church as a whole that the time was right, would find itself quickly isolated. That isolation would likely (IMO) also extend to communion with the other Orthodox Churches.

This brings us back to my litmus test. Is the church / parish you wish to commune in itself "in communion" with your bishop? If the answer is "no" then do not do it, unless it is your intention to sever communion with him.

ICXC
John