|
1 members (Richard R.),
502
guests, and
88
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,518
Posts417,611
Members6,169
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
It was accepted throughout all Orthodoxy as a correct expression of the Orthodox faith. And the proof of that is found. . . where? Kyr Kallistos is an careful and erudite scholar. If this synodal document had the magisterial standing which you ascribe to it, and was regarded as authoritative and binding upon all the Orthodox, he most certainly would not have made the statement he did in The Orthodox Church. Nor would he have repeated his statement in a public forum only a few years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Clearly this thorny issue would disappear if the West would stop trying to say that its theories are universal dogmas . In fact, the West seems to be doing just that, having backed down from its preconciliar positions on the Filioque, purgatory and a number of other doctrines. The real question is whether the Orthodox will be satisfied with de facto restorations of patristic doctrines, or whether their real interest is in humiliating the Latin Church by demanding formal recantations--in which case, we should all just pack up our bags and go home, because it ain't gonna happen--and, if the Orthodox gave it a moment of thought, they might perceive that it would not be good for them or for the whole world, if the largest Christian Church was suddenly plunged into chaos by an unnecessarily explicit repudiation of what many consider settled teachings. The reception of individual Catholics into Orthodoxy requires a formal renunciation of these dogmas. If we were to achieve a quick unity of, not individuals, but the Churches, I would think that a formal renunciation is necessary to make matters clear. If, on the other hand, the Church of Rome works slowly through the next few centuries to slough off these doctrines I imagine a formal renunciation at the time of union would be unnecessary. But of course this decision is way above my pay grade!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
It was accepted throughout all Orthodoxy as a correct expression of the Orthodox faith. And the proof of that is found. . . where? Kyr Kallistos is an careful and erudite scholar. If this synodal document had the magisterial standing which you ascribe to it, and was regarded as authoritative and binding upon all the Orthodox, he most certainly would not have made the statement he did in The Orthodox Church. Nor would he have repeated his statement in a public forum only a few years ago. Fine, then none of the statements known as the "Symbolical Books" have any acceptance and respect in the Orthodox world. Ignore them. So let's get back to liturgical basics. Take the text for the Feast of the Conception of the Mother of God and bring forth the texts which express the Immaculate Conception. If the Symbolical Books are unacceptable, let's get back to the rule of lex orandi lex credendi. Let's have a look at the texts of the Feast.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Yes, the last official Orthodox statement on the Immaculate Conception is the 1895 Encyclical to Pope Leo XIII. You keep saying that, and yet the last time I heard His Grace speak on the subject, at Orientale Lumen, he had not changed his mind at all. Moreover, you have yet to produce a first hand representation of his opinion, merely unsubstantiated hearsay from an unattested source. The words of the Metropolitan are given by a Byzantine Catholic Priest Daniel Barton. He says that he is quoting verbatim from his correspondence with the Metropolitan. I see no reason that he would claim words which the Metropolitan did not write.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Yes, the last official Orthodox statement on the Immaculate Conception is the 1895 Encyclical to Pope Leo XIII. In short, you read more into the document than it can support. The Encyclical states... The Immaculate Conception is 1. an heretical innovation 2. unknown to the Church 3. created in the West 4. rejected by some eminent Catholic theologians 5. must be rejected by Rome in order to have union between East and West These are certainly points which nobody needs to read into the document. They are stated plainly enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
One usually expects some presentation of evidence and the semblance of an argument. What we have here is a bald assertion. Since I doubt you would accept a reciprocal assertion from the Holy See, it is disingenuous to expect us to accept such a bald assertion from the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
The words of the Metropolitan are given by a Byzantine Catholic Priest Daniel Barton. He says that he is quoting verbatim from his correspondence with the Metropolitan. I see no reason that he would claim words which the Metropolitan did not write. Well, I demand a slightly higher standard of evidence. Especially as I have had personal conversations with His Grace on the matter. If he has indeed changed his mind, he hasn't told me. Also, to the best of my knowledge, Daniel Barton is not a priest of the Ruthenian Church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
Fine, then none of the statements known as the "Symbolical Books" have any acceptance and respect in the Orthodox world. Ignore them. Don't ignore them, put them into context.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 458
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 458 |
From the Defense of the Immaculate Conception Doctrine by Daniel Joseph Barton as found on http://www.loupizzuti.com/bartonic.htm ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Dan Barton officially is a member of a Byzantine Catholic parish in North Carolina. He is a military retiree, having served 22+ years active duty with the U.S. Army, including nine years in military intelligence within Special Operations Forces at Fort Bragg NC, and over nine years in Germany with NATO during the Cold War. He entered the Catholic Church in 1997.
HIS OWN WORDS: "After much study, I found myself eventually becoming a defender of the Immaculate Conception doctrine on an Eastern Orthodox e-mail chat-list. Unfortunately on such lists,when some persons cannot win by logic or reasoning, they tend to get angry and belittle the other. I was called an “apostate” for believing/defending the doctrine, by a Russian Orthodox priest! I then prayed, in front of a crucifix, for the Virgin Mother to lead us all to unity. At that moment, I had a wonderful smell of roses come to me, source unknown. After discovering that some devout Roman Catholics have had this happen to them at Marian apparition sites, I decided to join the Catholic Church, and write this document, and share as widely as possible, asking Our Lady of Guadalupe (Our Lady of the Mystical Roses) to pray for all of us. I pray for a return of communion and unity between all Catholics and Orthodox."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 701
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 701 |
In toto there were 13 bishops. Were all the then autocephalous churches part of that decree? Yes or No? At the time of signing, no. If no, how can it be binding upon all? (this being the logic behind the Orthodox claiming the 8th and later councils can't be Ecumenical, after all) It was accepted throughout all Orthodoxy as a correct expression of the Orthodox faith. "Binding" is some legalistic term which may not be appropriate. It is a matter of reception. It was seen as being of some significance and hence it was accepted into the small body of important post-787 statements known as the "symbolical Books" as a true expression of our Tradition(see Timothy Ware, "The Orthodox Church." http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/__P10.HTM ) My perception is that you wish to say that the 1895 Encyclical to Pope Leo XIII is valueless? Is that correct? I'm saying, that, intentionally or not, you're misrepresenting its acceptance. Its an artifact of 2 of the then 10 autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches, effectively a local council.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
Also, if OrthodoxWiki is to be believed, then it is not one of the "Symbolical Books", either. These are accounted to include the following five statements or synodal acts:
1. The Confession of Faith of Patriarch Gennadius of Constantinople, 1455-56
2. The Replies of Patriarch Jeremias to the Tubingen Divines, 1573-1581
3. The Confession of Faith of Metrophanes Kritopoulos, 1625
4. The Orthodox Confession of Peter Moghila, revised version, ratified 1642
5. The Confession of Dositheus, ratified 1672
So your claim that the 1895 Reply of the Synod of Constantinople to Pope Leo XIII has standing as one of Orthodoxy's Symbolical Books would appear to be open to challenge.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,394 Likes: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,394 Likes: 33 |
So your claim that the 1895 Reply of the Synod of Constantinople to Pope Leo XIII has standing as one of Orthodoxy's Symbolical Books would appear to be open to challenge. Here is another Orthodox source where the standing of the items receives a caveat: The following are the chief Orthodox doctrinal statements since 787:
(i) The Encyclical Letter of Saint Photius (867)
(ii) The First Letter of Michael Cerularius to Peter of Antioch (1054)
(iii) The decisions of ‘the Councils of Constantinople in 1341 and 1351 on the Hesychast Controversy
(iv) The Encyclical Letter of Saint Mark of Ephesus (1440-1441).
(v) The Confession of Faith by Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople (1455-1456)
(vi) The Replies of Jeremias the Second to the Lutherans (1573-1581)
(vii) The Confession of Faith by Metrophanes Kritopoulos (1625)
(viii) The Orthodox Confession by Peter of Moghila, in its revised form (ratified by the Council of Jassy, 1642)
(ix) The Confession of Dositheus (ratified by the Council of Jerusalem, 1672)
(x) The Answers of the Orthodox Patriarchs to the Non-Jurors (1718, 1723)
(xi) The Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius the Ninth (1848)
(xii) The Reply of the Synod of Constantinople to Pope Leo the Thirteenth (1895)
(xiii) The Encyclical Letters by the Patriarchate of Constantinople on Christian unity and on the ‘Ecumenical Movement’ (1920, 1952)
These documents — particularly items 5-9 — are sometimes called the ‘Symbolical Books’ of the Orthodox Church, but many Orthodox scholars today regard this title as misleading and do not use it. [ holy-trinity-church.org]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,394 Likes: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,394 Likes: 33 |
The words of the Metropolitan are given by a Byzantine Catholic Priest Daniel Barton. Daniel Barton is "a Byzantine Catholic Priest priest"? I doubt it is so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
My perception is that you wish to say that the 1895 Encyclical to Pope Leo XIII is valueless? Is that correct? I'm saying, that, intentionally or not, you're misrepresenting its acceptance. Its an artifact of 2 of the then 10 autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches, effectively a local council. I am not misrepresenting, but have it your own way. What you are saying, when we apply your logic, is that nothing is of any doctrinal value in Orthodoxy since the last Ecumenical Council in 787. For example, the teaching of Palamism formulated at two Councils,,,, can you prove they had universal acceptance. No? So Palamism is just the opinion of a small number of bishops and unreliable. The heresy we call Nameworshipping, Imiaslavie.... condemned by the universality of Orthodoxy? No, just by a Russian Council. So presumably it is in fact an acceptable belief since we cannot show the Council has universal acceptance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Also, if OrthodoxWiki is to be believed, then it is not one of the "Symbolical Books", either. These are accounted to include the following five statements or synodal acts:
1. The Confession of Faith of Patriarch Gennadius of Constantinople, 1455-56
2. The Replies of Patriarch Jeremias to the Tubingen Divines, 1573-1581
3. The Confession of Faith of Metrophanes Kritopoulos, 1625
4. The Orthodox Confession of Peter Moghila, revised version, ratified 1642
5. The Confession of Dositheus, ratified 1672
So your claim that the 1895 Reply of the Synod of Constantinople to Pope Leo XIII has standing as one of Orthodoxy's Symbolical Books would appear to be open to challenge. There are what could be called the Greater Canon of Symbolical Books and the Lesser Canon. Do not believe the clever clogs who endlessly tamper with the Wikis so as to promote their agenda. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware gives us a much more accurate account than the Wiki entry. http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_P10.HTM#13T"These documents — particularly items 5-9 — are sometimes called the ‘Symbolical Books’ of the Orthodox Church, but many Orthodox scholars today regard this title as misleading and do not use it." The following are the chief Orthodox doctrinal statements since 787: 1 The Encyclical Letter of Saint Photius (867) 2 The First Letter of Michael Cerularius to Peter of Antioch (1054) 3 The decisions of ‘the Councils of Constantinople in 1341 and 1351 on the Hesychast Controversy 4 The Encyclical Letter of Saint Mark of Ephesus (1440-1441). 5 The Confession of Faith by Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople (1455-1456) 6 The Replies of Jeremias the Second to the Lutherans (1573-1581) 7 The Confession of Faith by Metrophanes Kritopoulos (1625) 8 The Orthodox Confession by Peter of Moghila, in its revised form (ratified by the Council of Jassy, 1642) 9 The Confession of Dositheus (ratified by the Council of Jerusalem, 1672) 10 The Answers of the Orthodox Patriarchs to the Non-Jurors (1718, 1723) 11 The Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius the Ninth (1848) 12 The Reply of the Synod of Constantinople to Pope Leo the Thirteenth (1895)13 The Encyclical Letters by the Patriarchate of Constantinople on Christian unity and on the ‘Ecumenical Movement’ (1920, 1952) Even if one wishes to discount every one of these documents on the gounds that there is no proof of their acceptance in every autocephalous Church (which would be incorrect) it is clear that they are not of little importance in the Orthodox world.
|
|
|
|
|
