Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by John of Damascus

[Monachos.net]

Dear friends,

A text that has been mentioned many times on these boards, the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St John of Damascus, is being made available in a study version on this website. This very large project is being carried out in stages, one volume (out of the total of four) at a time; but pages are being placed online as they become available.

While the text is not yet provided in the Patristics Area (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/index.shtml), members of this discussion community can access Book I of the Exposition at the following link:

Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St John of Damascus, Book I. (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/damascene/exposition.shtml)

With hopes that an accessible version of this important text will be profitable for all its readers,

Monachos.net

[Justin]

I'll be sure to use this version the next time I go read through it http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Geoffrey Wind]

About the Exact Exposition ... I have heard that monks are given this books to read when they first take their vows. Does anyone know if this is true? or is it more of a legend?

Thanks.

[sinjin smithe]

I have a question regarding the exact exposition of the Orthodox faith published here at this website.

St John of Damascus writes:


Thus because of the unity in nature, the error of the Greeks in holding that God is many, is utterly destroyed; and again by our acceptance of the Word and the Spirit, the dogma of the Jews is overthrown. There remains of each party only what is profitable: on the one hand, from the Jewish idea we have the unity of God's nature; and on the other, of the Greek, we have the distinction in subsistences and that only.

My question here is in regards to the Jewish idea of monotheism. It says in the side notes that they idea of monotheism is overthrown as is polytheism. But thing is I thought that God is one in essence, so wouldn't Christianity still be monontheistic? I have always thought that Christianity was monotheistic. I guess in Judaism they say that God is only one, and there is no son, but is there a holy spirit? I do not know much about the Jewish tradition so please forgive my ignorance here.

[Richard Maybrew]

I remember many years back, learing about the distinction between "monotheism" and "henotheism". Does the distinction in this context have something to do with it?

---Richard

[Justin]

It is important to remember that when the Church Fathers speak against "the Jews," they are speaking against Judaism, and usually that particular strand of Judaism which survived after the 1st century. They are not speaking of "True Judaism" (ie. the faith Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah, and so forth held), but are speaking of the corrupted version that would not accept Messiah exactly because they did not hold to the true Judaism of their fathers. Monotheism is not what was being attacked here; as you point out, Christianity itself is monotheistic. What is being spoken against is the Jewish (=corrupt Judaic) view of God. Saint John's point here is that the Jews and Greeks each got part of it right, but both groups got it wrong in part (and continue getting it wrong so long as they stay outside orthodox Christianity)

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Sinjin and others,

As a first comment: the summary notes next to each paragraph in the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, as it is presented on this web site, are written by me -- and should they cause any confusion, they should be disregarded. Of essential importance is the text itself.

As to your particular comment: the note next to the second paragraph of Chapter 7 is largely a compilation of notes on the same text from older editions of the document. As a reminder, here is the text of that paragraph itself, with a few sections highlighted in boldface:


Thus because of the unity in nature, the error of the Greeks in holding that God is many, is utterly destroyed; and again by our acceptance of the Word and the Spirit, the dogma of the Jews is overthrown. There remains of each party only what is profitable: on the one hand, from the Jewish idea we have the unity of God's nature; and on the other, of the Greek, we have the distinction in subsistences and that only. (Exact Exposition, ch. 7 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../patristics/damascene/exposition_book_1.shtml#ch7))

Here we see St John noting an 'overthrow' of the 'dogma of the Jews',which, in this particular instance, is in reference to the prevalent Jewish assertion (especially in the first centuries of Christian history) that God is one and one alone, and thus any notion of 'Trinity' is both blasphemous and heretical. To this sort of 'monotheism', St John of course would not subscribe. Yet he notes at the same time that there are some aspects of the Jewish belief that are 'profitable' to a Christian understanding. Namely, the unity of essence in the Trinitarian God is, indeed, one - and in this sense, something is to be gleaned from the belief. Yet inasmuch as the particular Jewish monotheism at hand believes God's oneness to prevent any aspect of Trinity, it is not supportable. Christianity is indeed monotheistic,
but it is not this sort of monotheistic.

This is what is intended to be gleaned from the side-note to the text. That note is included here, with an important clause in boldface:


By the one divine essence, polytheism is overthrown; and by the distinction of the three Persons, the Jewish misconception of monotheism is overthrown. Christianity takes from the Greeks and the Jews only that which is helpful: evidence that there are multiple Persons yet one undivided Nature.

It is specifically the misconception of monotheism as prohibitive of Trinity that is intended to be read: if 'monotheism' is taken to mean that there is no possibility for a Father, Son and Spirit together to be God (and this is precisely the manner in which the term was used against the Christians by the early Jewish apologists), then Christianity cannot be said to be monotheistic in this particular sense.

But it is St John's point that we cannot dismiss the entire concept so quickly. Christianity is, after all, decidedly monotheistic. We simply understand this term in a different manner: 'From the Jewish idea we have the unity of God's nature [... and from] the Greek, we have the distinction in subsistences and that only'.

INXC, Matthew

[erich von abele]

I would like to focus on the other half of this part of the text from St. John of Damascus -- 'From the Jewish idea we have the unity of God's nature [... and from] the Greek, we have the distinction in subsistences and that only' --: the "Greek" half.

Is John here referring not to Greek theology, but more specifically to Greek philosophy, insofar as its linguistic terminology provided the flexibility to articulate the Trinity into (one) ousia and (three) hypostaseis (translated as "subsistences")?

Or is John implying something a little more daring, that Christian Trinitarian theology retains some aspect of Greek polytheism and holds it in a paradoxical balance with Israelite monotheism?

[Owen Jones]

This is a very interesting question, ERich. All I know is that Eric Voegelin once described pre-Nicean theology as di-theistic. He went on to say that in so-called monotheism (a conceit of 18th Century German romantic scholars) there is a very supple spiritual world with a plethora of spiritual beings, good and bad, and one most high God. In "polytheism" there is always a most high God who is typically namesless or unknowable.

So the real difference is not monotheism vs. polytheism (again, a modern conceit by the sociologists of religion), but rather, what is the true nature and purpose of this most high God? And what are the virtues required of us to please Him? What are the revelatory experiences that we have as evidence? The proof of this revelation is not found in history, but in our own experience. The truth of the revelation is validated when we live our lives in accord with its precepts. When we put our faith into practice. But this is extremely difficult and most of us have to be content with simply following some of the rules and regulations. It is left up to saints to show us that it is at least possible for us all to some degree, and to constantly remind us of the truth and impart their wisdom and grace to us.

Regarding Islam, I have to resort to the same philsopher, Eric Voegelin. He came up with the distinction between compactness and differentiation to describe the change in consciousness that occurs as God reveals Himself as transcendent. Compact consciousness sees God as consubstantial with nature. A differentiation of consciousness occurs in the revelation to the philosopher that psyche and cosmos are iconic representations of Being which is beyond all things. The differentiation reaches what Voegelin calls the experiential breaking point with the Doctrine of the Trinity, because it requires faith as the assurance. Most of us cannot live in a condition of faith -- we want certitude. We desire a return to the reassurance of a compact vision of God/Man/Cosmos. As a result, there are numerous post-Christian mass movements that intentionally attempt to return to a pre-Christian, pre-philosophic consciousness that does not require man to live by faith. It lays out everything in a formula or recipe. The problem is that there is no going back to a pre-Christian, or pre-philosophic consciousness in any genuine sense. A real change has occured in the nature and structure of consciousness as a result of God's revelation. And as a practical matter, the compact pre-philosophical/pre-Christian consciousness was still essentially spiritual, whereas these modern mass movements are ideologically motivated "second realities" that actually destroy the compact experience of consubstantiality with God. Hence, all of the modern political mass movements promise innerworldly fulfillment, i.e., salvation, if you just recite the slogans, and are fanatical enough, and kill millions of innocent people as ritual sacrifices. They find their power in exploiting the natural alienation that most people feel -- not being able to physically encounter God. I'm not prepared to say that the catholic faith is unique in this sense, but the bridge is built through the eucharist. We Christians still participate in the compact experience through a physical union with God in the eucharist.

Now, we can look at it typologically and less philsophically as well, and simply compare the extrensic dogmas of these groups. Isn't Islam, for example, much like Mormonism. Some guy digs up a bunch of tablets claiming they were written by God himself. Then builds a movement around it in order to justify his own sins. People unthinkingly adhere to it because they no longer need to live by faith. They only have to believe it is true. It also allows them to participate in all kinds of sinful behavior (like polygamy) while justifying it.

Then look at Marxism and Naziism. These are erzatz religious movements that do away with faith. All one has to do is believe in the system.

[erich von abele]

Owen:

I'm glad you mentioned Voegelin, one of my favorite philosophers. However, my Orthodox friend who is very learned in his own faith and quite well read in philosophy in general concluded from his reading of a few of Voegelin's writings (including OH IV and Voegelin's letter to Alfred Schuetz on Christianity) that Voegelin had a "modalist" and "Sabellian" understanding of the Trinity -- i.e., that he really had not grasped what could be argued to be a further differentiation past monotheism, to triunity. I do not yet go this far, for I do not know what to make of Voegelin's consideration of the Chalcedonian Definition to be philosophically somewhat crude in its articulation of the terminology of physis, ousiai hypostaseis, etc. In other words, I am hesitant to consider Voegelin heterodox, as perhaps some Orthodox might more easily do.

I tend to agree with your comments about Islam, particularly its comparison to Mormonism.

[Owen Jones]

Voegelin was not advocating modalism or Sibellianism. I think he was simply pointing out that pre-Nicean Christianity generally speaking had a very diverse understanding of the persons of the Godhead. It was a very dynamic period in the development of our consciousness regarding theological matters which he thought was not all bad. He also had very positive things to say about Chalcedon. But he had, as many of us do today, personal problems with the state of institutionalized religion. He saw good and bad aspects to the codification of Christian doctrine post Empire. He saw dogma as an important protection against heretical movements, but those heretical movements are the result of some inner disorder that did not accurately render the revelatory experience. His focus was on the underlying experience, and trying to preserve that, which, he argued, cannot be done simply through dogmatic statements. We do not live dogmatically.

His essay on The Gospel and Culture is surely an indiosyncratic look at the Gospel, an attempt to analyse St. Paul's experience of the resurrected Christ, and perhaps he failed in that attempt.

But he is also focusing on certain problems caused by the more gnostic elements in the New Testament. I wish he had shown a greater knowledge of post-Nicean mystical theologians such as Maximos the Confessor. Instead he tended to focus on certain problems of Thomistic philosophy. I don't think you look to Voegelin for an Orthodox exposition of the faith. But then, that was not his purpose. His purpose was to analyse the contemporary crisis of the demono-maniacal nature of modern politics as a manifestation of mass spiritual disorder. He found that to be a constant in human history, but he also argues, I think quite persuasively, that without certain gnostic heresies that are rooted in the New Testament, i.e. a misunderstanding of the promise of the transfiguration of man and nature, you would not have had the foundation of modern political mass movements that engage in mass murder. He was fully aware of the paradoxical aspect of the promise of human transfiguration, not a skeptic about it. He believed however that such promises had to be held in check through a consideration of the entirety of Scripture and human history. He did not believe that institutional force was the answer. The Church cannot institutionalize the Holy Spirit. Mystical theology is not something that the institutional church holds the copyright to. In fact, our history shows that it is more likely to suppress it.

Finally, Orthodoxy in its wisdom agrees that certain New Testament writings are prone to error in interpretation, has gone so far as to ban certain apocalyptic passages from the lectionary because of the tendency to foment chiliasm. It's interesting to note that as the Episcopal Church's lectionary has been revised, there is a preponderance of apocalyptic, millenarian type readings.

[erich von abele]

Owen:

[Voegelin] also had very positive things to say about Chalcedon.

He did, but he said a couple of times that the philosophy of the Patres who contributed to the Creeds was poor philosophy -- which puts him in a position of knowing better than the Patres what the Creed appropriately means. I.e., I'm not sure it is as easy as you seem to imply to harmonize Voegelin and Orthodoxy, insofar as I don't think Voegelin draws the line that Orthodoxy does between "Son by Nature" (Christ) and "Sons by Adoption" (all other humans).

His essay on The Gospel and Culture is surely an indiosyncratic look at the Gospel, an attempt to analyse St. Paul's experience of the resurrected Christ, and perhaps he failed in that attempt.

I believe you're confusing this essay with his chapter on St. Paul in the 4th volume of Order and History (The Ecumenic Age). In The Gospel and Culture he doesn't really go into Paul, but rather explores mostly the Synoptic Gospels, especially John.

But he is also focusing on certain problems caused by the more gnostic elements in the New Testament.

Yes. Both in that essay and in Order and History IV (in the introduction, I believe) he mentions the gnostic tendencies in the Gospel of John.

I wish he had shown a greater knowledge of post-Nicean mystical theologians such as Maximos the Confessor.

His biographer, Prof. Eugene Webb, mentioned this lacuna in Voegelin's otherwise astounding grasp of history. It seems Voegelin at some point in his studies spent some time going through the (Eastern) Patristic period, and concluded it was by and large either unremarkably sound philosophically, or at times philosophically poor.

He was fully aware of the paradoxical aspect of the promise of human transfiguration, not a skeptic about it.

Yes, and his central point always was the maintenance of balance between the two poles of this eschatological tension.

Finally, Orthodoxy in its wisdom agrees that certain New Testament writings are prone to error in interpretation, has gone so far as to ban certain apocalyptic passages from the lectionary because of the tendency to foment chiliasm.

It seems Orthodoxy culturally manifests no danger of over-emphasizing the pole of a realized eschatology at the expense of the mysteriously perduring imperfection of history before the Second Coming.

[Owen Jones]

I'm not trying to harmonize Voegelin and Orthodoxy. That would be to misunderstand his purpose. Ellis Sandoz tries to harmonize Voegelin and Southern Baptists! Some of his German students try to harmonize him with socialism. Southern partisans try to harmonize him with the Old South. His argument about Christianity is that it represented a leap in pneumatic differentiation (The HOly Spirit was made available to all men) but with a price to be paid in noetic differentiation. He was, first, and foremost, a political scientist. He simply recognized, scientifically, that one cannot leap back to a pre-Christian consciousness, which is one of the fallacies of modernity.

The only point of yours I tend to disagree with you about is your last one. Orthodox Empires have had a pretty bad history of an immanentized and/or eminent (sp?) eschatology. For a while, the Eastern Empire toyed with a Triumverate to represent the Holy Trinity. Then you have all kinds of horrific things justified in Russia by the idea of a Third Rome. More recently, a greater Serbia. And in the U.S. I detect a kind of subculture of apocalyptism, especially among converts.

My fantasy, and it is just that, is an Orthodox theology combined with a Celtic, pre-650 ecclesiology.

[Owen Jones]

btw, Erich, I don't see any problem with saying that the formulators of the Chalcedonian definition could perhaps have come up with a better formula, if one wishes to judge by strict philsophical standards. Remember that all of the councils were designed to respond to certain heresies, and so they had to confront the language that the heretics were using. They weren't just sitting around saying, hey, why don't we come up with a definition of Christ's nature? I think Voegelin says that that is an inherent limitation to some of the doctrinal formulations. It's not a judgment that he knows better than the FAthers.

But he also makes a good point about incarnation. That Christ's incarnation is unique in degree but not in kind. From a philsophical standard, this is probably better than saying we are sons by adoption. But people need a homey analogy to base their faith on, not a philsophical analysis. But Voegelin is more at home, spiritually, as a spiritual son of Socrates, and that's simply a choice he made. A personal one. So let's not try to force a square peg in a round hole.

On the other hand, because of his Greek philsophical training, I think he had a better grasp of the idea of communion in Christ and a sharing in his Divinity than most contemporary Orthodox have.

[sinjin smithe]

Owen said:
My fantasy, and it is just that, is an Orthodox theology combined with a Celtic, pre-650 ecclesiology.

What do you say that? What exactly is a pre-650 Celtic ecclesiology?

[erich von abele]

Owen:

Thanks for the historical reminder of occasional Orthodox immanentizations.

[Owen Jones]

Sinjin (St. John???),

At the Council of Whitby in 650, the British Isles came under the authority and rubrics of Rome. Before then, it had developed as a local, indigenous form of Christian Orthodoxy that was not imperial and did not confuse the temporal with the eternal. It produced the most remarkable of saints. But the point is that it was beautiful in its simplicity, with no imperial trappings. It was renouned for promoting the highest level of learning among its monastics, which it exported to Europe, but it was also very close to the common people.

I guess it exemplifies in my mind the kind of suffering Christianity that I admire, vs. the imperial, triumphalistic Christianity that prevailed over time.

It's one of the more interesting what if's in history to imagine what might have developed if it had maintained its local identity.

[sinjin smithe]

Where can I read more about this? This seems very interesting to me. I would like to learn more about it.

[Huw Richardson]

In 650 Rome was Orthodox and the Celts were, to a large extent were being DIY sorts of folks, kind of drifting around, cut off on the edge of Europe. Whitby brought them back into unity with the Orthodox Church. Only by being in communion with the Church can a "local, indigenous form of Christian Orthodoxy" exist.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Huw,

Yes, I am familiar with the Catholic triumphalistic view of history.

I don't buy it.

[Huw Richardson]

Dear Owen - Actually I was speaking of Orthodoxy (I may be misreading your use of the word "Catholic" if so forgive me). I don't see it as triumphalistic, because there is certainly no triumph involved, but rather a realization of human sin - we tend to fall apart and the Church brings us back together. Rome was part of the unified church at that time as was my point. The council was actually a very grace-filled thing. No one killed. No one destroyed. No crusades. But one group submitting in grace to the Authority of the Church. Whitby brought Christians, first enlightened by Orthodox missionaries, back into Communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church.

[Owen Jones]

Huw, you make it sound like the Celtic Church was out of communion, as if they had been excommunicated or something. They had different methods of dating Easter according to ancient custom which led to controversy and discord. But that's not the same as not being in communion.

The true name for Orthodoxy at that period is the Eastern Catholic Church.

I still think the basic distinction between a suffering Church and a triumphalistic church is a good distinction. Rome brought wealth and power and organization into a political void. But a price can be paid for that advantage in a loss of spiritual simplicity and localism. There are a lot of local customaries today in Orthodoxy today, even having to do with the dating of Easter, and that doesn't mean we are not in communion or it isn't one faith.

Bottom line, I'm just not a triumphalist Christian. I think we win by losing. By being poor and powerless as a Church, by holding up that example to individuals as an ideal. Only then are we free.

The official RC version of the Synod of Whitby is almost comical, by the way. It sounds like they saved the Celtic Church from extinction. I wonder how many palms were greased.

[Huw Richardson]

Dear Owen -

Thanks for your note, and thanks for clearing up "catholic". I'm sorry I misunderstood what you wrote before.

I couldn't agree more on a suffering church verses a politically well connected church. We see it in the US today, constantly, as well as in other countries where Culture and/or Nationalism get confused with Church, the "Kingdom Not of this World"

On your comments about discord as compared to lack of communion, I think it really matters how great the discord, and how public it is. Of course, the "not-excommunicated" status is shown by the Council itself: "heretics" would not have been in that kind of council. But what do the neighbors say? Rather like St Paul warning churches *not* to go before the Civil Authorities. If we can't love each other inside the Church, we're not doing it right and the neighbors will laugh at us.

Yours,

Huw

[erich von abele]

Owen

I don't think it would be possible to maintain for very long such an idyllically otherworldly church as you describe the Celtic Church to be, unless it were to remain hermetically sealed off (perhaps as a commune tucked away somewhere) from the complexities and turmoils of the City of Man as it evolves over the millennia.

[Owen Jones]

I totally disagree. It simply depends on what your standards are. The Celtic Church was not something apart from the culture. It set the standard and tone for the Culture. But, as in our society today, the culture was predominantly pagan. But there was also a rigorous monasticism and asceticism. That was set apart, in places like Iona. That has to be a part of a vibrant Christianity. A portion of it that is virtually walled off from the world that serves as both a practical standard as well as an icon.

[erich von abele]

Owen

The Celtic Church was not something apart from the culture. It set the standard and tone for the Culture.

What I mean is, it could have lasted that way for a couple, maybe a few centuries, until England and the West changed -- unless what you envision as a viably ideal church would also entail the West never having dynamically evolved and exploded with good and bad changes over the following 14 centuries... or unless what you envision would also entail the church having become even more marginal far earlier than it has only recently become.

But there was also a rigorous monasticism and asceticism. That was set apart, in places like Iona... [a] portion of it that is virtually walled off from the world that serves as both a practical standard as well as an icon.

As a part of a larger church, this can work, but again, to expect the entire church within a civilization to resist or "tame" the wildly unpredictable secular dynamism of the City of Man would probably involve a considerable attenuation of the eschatologically ecumenic drive that to a great extent motivated the nascent church.

[Moses Anthony]

Isn't it supposed to be the role of the Church to set the tone for societies culture, without regard to geographical boundaries. Could this be why there's such a lament for Christianity in the West, and in particular, in the United States?
Celtic Orthodoxy is at www.orthodoxireland.com (http://www.orthodoxireland.com)
All the lives of Celtic saints is at www.users.erols.com/saintpat/ss/ss-index (http://www.users.erols.com/saintpat/ss/ss-index)
Saints lives are archived at www.groups.yahoo.com/groups/celtic-saints (http://www.groups.yahoo.com/groups/celtic-saints)
If I've mis-typed any of url's go to orthodox-theo@snet.net, where in the digest they have the url's at the end of the bio for the saints of the day.

tus

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

I assume that a reference to Celtic pre-650 ecclesiology is a harkening back to the state of things before the Synod of Whitby (actually held in 664 AD) applied the Roman way in preference to native traditions. But the arguments were over matters such as the dating of Easter and the shape of the monastic tonsure. What is preferential about the Celtic way that should recommend it?

[Owen Jones]

The Celtic Church lost its indigenous autonomy as well as its local flavor as a result of the Council of Whitby. It became an imperial Church. I'm sure this is a simplistic way of looking at it, though, and, as I said, it's one of my fantasies to have a local indigenous Orthodoxy that doesn't see itself as part of a massive corporate structure.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Geoffrey wrote:


About the Exact Exposition ... I have heard that monks are given this books to read when they first take their vows. Does anyone know if this is true? or is it more of a legend?

Yes, this is often the case in monasteries around the world -- and especially so for beginners in the monastic life who have not had any previous 'theological education' (which is, indeed, the majority), since the Exact Exposition is as close to a compendium of Orthodox doctrine as one might find in the patristic tradition.

There is no specific 'rule' to the effect that this text must be read on entrance into the monastic life; but that is largely because there is no set 'rule' for the monastic life which is common throughout the Orthodox world. Such things are established within the tradition of a given community as part of its own heritage and spiritual leadership.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard McBride]

Someone recently asked about the Filioque and Orthodoxy’s differences with Roman Catholicism. Below is a list of the issues on which the Roman Church considers Orthodoxy to be in error:

“During the past eight months I have made a careful investigation, whether Bishop Yurchyk accepts the Catholic faith, especially in those matters which were rejected by the schismatic Orthodox Church; namely:
1. the Papacy,
2. the Primacy of Jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff,
3. Papal Infallibility,
4. the “Filioque” of the Nicene Creed (the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father AND THE SON by one principle of spiration),
5. the transubstantiation of the bread and wine at Holy Mass into the Body and Blood of Christ (not by the Epiclesis — the invocation of the Holy Ghost); also
6. the doctrines of Purgatory and of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, (which the Orthodox hold but not in an explicit manner).

Bishop Yurchyk responded both in writing and in the presence of Fr. Eugene Rissling, a traditional Roman Catholic priest from Munich, Germany, with a firm assent to the Catholic Faith, especially those doctrines rejected by schismatic Orthodox Church.
Mindful of the consistent practice of the Catholic Church to receive schismatic clergy (who have been born and raised in schism) back into the Church as clergymen, I have personally reviewed with Bishop Yurchyk the pertinent areas of dogmatic and moral theology as well as the Code of Canon Law for Eastern Rite Catholics.”

signed:
+ Mark Anthony Pivarunas, CMRI
blue marble bar
Most Rev. Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI
Mary Immaculate Church
7745 Military Avenue
Omaha, NE 68134

******************

This was an account of an Orthodox Ukrainian Bishop Yuri, converting [God Forbid] to the Catholic mimicry of true faith. The page may be viewed at:

http://www.cmri.org/yurchik.html

The title of the report was:

Testimony of
Reception into the Catholic Church of
Bishop Yuri Yurchyk of Donetsk, Ukraine

**********************

My purpose for sending this, which came to me from Father Justin, is to remind that fence-sitting so-called “ecumenicism” is not a reality, and that there is no way for the Church to move in that direction [as yet] except by subjugation to and assumption of, what is true schism.

richard mcb

[Owen Jones]

Dear Richard,

The Orthodox need to overcome their historic sense of victimhood and seek reconciliation with the See of St. Peter, which surely has primacy. It should not have dictatorial powers over the whole Church, but it has primacy. In exchange, the RC Church will give up filioque. There should be some limited intercommunion, and it should be according to local custom and the local bishop and priest should have authority over who receives communion.

We should see Roman Catholicism as something in serious need of theological renewal and we can offer that gift to them. At the same time, we have to get off our high horse. We should not give up anything theological. Just our attitude.

[Stephen Keeler]

Owen,

Power, not primacy,is the issue. The Roman Catholic Church claims that the Pope has full and complete universal jurisdiction over all souls, which supercedes any bishop's authority. How would you propose they back away from that?

There are and have been many people in communion with Rome who have never professed belief in the filioque in their liturgies. In fact, Rome itself is happy to still say the creed in Greek sans filioque. So that's not the issue. The claim to universal authority and jurisdiction is.

[Stephen Keeler]

And to Richard, this also appeared on that web site attributed to some bishop + Mark Anthony Pivarunas, CMRI:

"In view of the extraordinary situation in the Catholic Church with the vacancy of the Apostolic See and in virtue of Canon 209 by which the Church supplies jurisdiction in the internal and external fora, I have received the abjuration of error and profession of faith of Bishop Yuri Yurchyk and have absolved him from the bond of excommunication and restored him to the communion and unity of the faithful."

Who is this Bishop Pivarunas? My hunch is that he and his group are thoroughly uncanonical, one of those sects of Roman Catholicism who believe that the See of Rome is vacant. Come on. And what is the level of intelligence of this Ukranian bishop to be taken in by such a group? Not the sharpest tool in the shed, eh?

[Richard Domina]

Dear Richard, Your understanding of this issue of Orthodoxy tending toward Catholicism being schismatic ,(although I disagree),is the exact same principle I was trying to illustrate on the 'Greater or lesser Evil' thread. One can not go in two opposite directions at once. I used words like Light and darkness to illustrate but everyone's gnostic-alerts went off and missed the essence. As to your essential point,ecumenicism being fence-sitting; I guess it could be if one was apathetic but not necessarily if one realized we're not just talking about differences or cultures but the Body of Christ. The fact the the Body is divided is sad enough but to bitterly reject any movement towards reconciliation is surely not of the Spirit of Christ. I guess we have to ask ourselves what are we afraid of and do I really believe in the Holy Spirit guiding this Church. Peace. Rick

[Richard Domina]

Dear Stephen, You stated that the 'Pope has full and complete jurisdiction over all souls, which supercedes the bishops authority.' He in fact has jurisdiction over all bishops. Only God has full and complete jurisdiction over my soul. As it is, many bishops do not obey in matters they should and it is the cause of most of the churches ills. I wish Roman Catholics would recognise and honor what is your sore spot. I see very little unity or consistancy in the structure of the Orthodox church. I know it suffers greatly from this. If the bishop of Rome wasn't intended to be pope- he certainly should have been. What would a family be like if there was no final authority? To avoid ecumenism is to be a part of schism and this is sin. Peace, Rick

[Stephen Keeler]

Richard,

Just doing some quick searches here on these points, these from the RC Code of Canon Law:
Vatican I and II may be more expansive on these points, but this may allow us to probe further.

I am less scandalized than other about the jurisdictional confusion of Orthodoxy these last 100 years, in that the decentralization may have protected many of the faithful from the whims and fashions of our time. A price was paid in many ways, but there it is.

And, while Roman Catholicism may appear clean and crisp jurisdictionally, it is experiencing a tremendous internal crisis of faith.
ARTICLE 1: THE ROMAN PONTIFF
Can. 331 The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.
Can. 333 §1 By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings. This reinforces and defends the proper, ordinary and immediate power which the Bishops have in the particular Churches entrusted to their care.
§2 The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling his office as supreme Pastor of the Church, is always joined in full communion with the other Bishops, and indeed with the whole Church. He has the right, however, to determine, according to the needs of the Church, whether this office is to be exercised in a personal or in a collegial manner.
§3 There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgement or a decree of the Roman Pontiff.

[Richard McBride]

This is an issue that will not benefit from argument -- that is, little benefit will be had between Orthodox and Romans. There are those who follow the Ecumenical Patriarch in bowing to Rome, and that may be what is needed. I am convinced not. There are also those who refuse to have the Pope in their country, and that may serve to wake a few up to the issues at stake, but it is not helpful.

For myself, I am convinced of the fact of Rome’s apostasy from the Church, and the several heresies it has committed since. There is no question of simpering over a false case of ecumenicism -- a new age posture which I feel certain was invented by the prince of all heresies and lies, to agitate matters. When the Roman Church wants to be reformed into the Body which it willingly left, then such a request may be taken up by those who are concerned. Otherwise, it will be up to Christ Himself to repair the matter -- which He will do if necessary.

But to Orthodox, I should point out that the notion of a centralized and controlling power over the Church is entirely a Roman invention. Even the Byzantine Emperors did not feel they had total control of the Church on Earth, and certainly it was never the intention (outside of Rome) to submit to Rome as the Hierarch (also a word invented by Rome since the Great Schism of 1054, but which is argued by Roman sources to have been taken from earlier times: not true).

To Orthodox I remind that the Church has always been operated sloppily and roughly at times, under the hand of the Holy Spirit, Who has always acted through His “college” of Patriarchs. It is not at all what the West admires as dominating power, from its many dictators and tyrants; nor is the Church the model of modern administrative control (thank God). The problem for Orthodoxy, as the Church moves more and more into Western cultures, is to avoid, resist, and rebuff the very obsessions for control which dominate our secular places. Control freaks simply cannot give up to God, neither can they submit to the Church. That is the very war going on in so many high places and low -- much as we see it in these arguments.

It is not a profitable thing to argue, but it is very nearly impossible to discuss. I see no reason to go at it any more. We are much better off discussing aesthetics, where no one has control.

richard mcb

[Owen Jones]

Dear Richard,

I think the number one issue that has to be discussed is control. How much of your argument is grounded in a desire to control? Also, it seems to me that if there is a problem we have caused, it's not quite right to expect Christ to fix it for us. He gave us heads and hands and feet.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Ecumenical Patriarch bowing to Rome. Bowing to the Bishop of Rome, at least ritually, is actually what he should do. But the problem with the Ecumenical Patriarch that we have today is, if anything, a desire to be on a par with the Papacy in terms of geopolitical power. Every time he tries to grab power he fortunately gets a slap on the wrist by Orthodox people who know better. The Patriarch in fact is pretty good at spouting new age mumbo jumbo himself. When he visited the U.S. he took every opportunity to visit every leftist, politically correct shrine, and blew an historic opportunity to present the Orthodox way to Americans. The Pope, on the other hand, when he visits abroad, always evangelises for Christ.

Regarding ecumenism, if it's an ideology on a par with multiculturalism, then we should reject it. But much can be gained if we use dialogue, not defensively, but as a way of representing the true faith. Why should Orthodox be so defensive? I know of no religious people who are so defensive about their faith.

Instead of spending our time and energy worrying about ecumenism and what the Pope thinks and does, we ought to be building schools and starting missions, especially in RC areas of the world where there is a shortage of priests.

[Richard McBride]

Dear Blessed of God Seraphim

No, your message convinces me that this is not the forum to worry about the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy (except perhaps in theological terms; that might tend to remove the too quick retorts). As it is, I speak in sound bites and you speak with wisdom. There can be no meeting between the two forms.

REferring to control, one example is imagining that this “is a problem we have caused” and that we should set it right with our own two hands -- whatever “this” may be -- unless, of course, we speak individually of our own sins, and far far away from the safe collective of what all may be wrong with the world.

Contrarily, it is much closer to the real thing (which means the stuff all about us, in our gardens and in our pockets) to speak of “building schools and starting missions”. I shall pray for your success if that is your calling. And if I have seemed to be excessively control seeking, you may pray for remission of my sins.

By the way, it is nice to have another Richard to take the heat, but my memory is such that I often cannot tell to which of us a message may be aimed. Since we are both “Rick” as well, that may not solve the problem either. Perhaps, I should be “richard” and Mr.Domina should be “Richard”; or maybe I can simply be referenced as “subrichard”?.

So, until Wisdom prevails, I remain

subrichard

[Gregory Myron]

Perhaps, I should be “richard” and Mr.Domina should be “Richard”; or maybe I can simply be referenced as “subrichard”?

It's like a whole new hierarchical category for our message boards here.

Maybe one day I'll be tonsured a subrichard........

--Gregory

[Owen Jones]

Dear Richard M,

I certainly don't have any wisdom. Just strong opinions. One of my strong opinions is that we Orthodox should be genuinely self-critical. We are ritualistically self-critical, and overly defensive to an extreme, but I think we could use some genuine self-criticism. WE tend to suffer from victimology rather than the true spirit of joy and gratitude in suffering.

We have had our share of extreme sins as a Church body over the centuries and so I think we should look at Roman Catholicism in that light. Using this forum for self-criticsm is another issue. Just whatever people and the moderator allow. But I would not want us to simply critice and condemn Roman Catholicism here without a good dose of self-criticism as part of it.

Unfortunately, and I think this is particularly true among converts, there is this false sense of devotion to authority in ORthodoxy sometimes. As if we are not permitted any criticism of any authority. Then someone always trots out the quote from St. Athanasius and that's the end of the discussion. But if we want a Church that is true to its apostolic origins, then there has to be change and for there to be change there has to be some criticism. And that is very much tied in with where we stand regarding other "church" bodies.

This is a rambling, incoherent message.

[Richard Domina]

To force any ecumenism or bitterly shun it seems to be the same distortion. If it's not a careful and long term (and willing) effort it will either never happen or be a socio-political glazing over. Real ecumenism is unnecessary because there is no need to unite that which is not divided. I see that this statement implies that I don't think anything of Eternal value is at stake. Our Lord said "My sheep hear My voice and know Me". If we don't know Him than we do what ever it takes. If we are united in Spirit, then by the same Spirit we will end up on the same road. In fact I'm sure that when the Orthodox and Catholic emissaries meet the Orthodox Patriarch will say to the Catholic:"Long time no See!" Peace, Rick D

[Richard Domina]

Stephen, Thank you for bring this into focus. I maintain that only God has jurisdiction over my soul. The pope a huge topic for me. I have no time today. Peace, Rick D

[Richard McBride]

"It's like a whole new hierarchical category for our message boards here.
Maybe one day I'll be tonsured a subrichard......."

GREAT NEWS! NO NEED TO WAIT!

Free Online Ordination

Become a legally ordained clergy person - for free online. Perform weddings, baby namings and religious services. Members in all 50 states and worldwide. Recognizing all religious traditions.


You can become an ordained member of the Spiritual Humanist clergy for FREE right now! As a legally ordained clergy member you can legally perform religious ceremonies and rituals like weddings, funerals, benedictions, etc.
As Spiritual Humanists we believe that every person has innate spiritual connection to the rest of the cosmos. Our premise is simple:
We can solve the problems of society using a religion based on reason.

http://www.spiritualhumanism.org/