Antioch communing the non-Chalcedonians [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Ryan

19-02-2009, 05:11 AM

Yes, I understand that Met. Philip and especially Bishop Basil have been very principled on this matter; I am more thinking of what has been widely reported to be happening in Syria and Lebanon.

Here is a statement issuing from the Holy Synod a while back (found at http://www.geocities.com/mfignatius/others/byzantine04.html, but available in a bunch of other places too):

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOLY SYNOD OF ANTIOCH

Prayers to God and fraternal greetings in our Lord, Jesus Christ.

It is our pleasure to inform you that pertaining to the Holy Synod decision concerning our unity with the Holy Syriac Church, a meeting was held in Damascus at the Orthodox Syriac Patriarchate on July 22, 1991. The following hierarchs attended the meeting: His Beatitude Patriarch Ignatius (Zakka) I (Iwass), His Beatitude Patriarch Ignatius IV, Metropolitan George Khodre, Malatius Barnabas, Aphram Barsoum, Isaic Saka, and Paul Al-Soukie.

After the discussion the participants consented to issue a draft which was preceded by a letter and whose contents were agreed upon to be discussed at the next meeting. It will assume its official status after the agreement of the Holy Synod: and what is sees as appropriate to the matter during the forthcoming Holy Synod meeting.

The Lord is always with us

Patriarch IGNATIUS IV
Damascus, Syria

To All Our Children,
Protected By God,
Both Clergy and Laity of
The Holy See of Antioch

Beloved:

You must have heard of the continuous efforts for decades by our Apostolic See with the sister Orthodox Syriac Church to foster a better knowledge and understanding of both churches whether on the dogmatic or pastoral level. Those attempts are nothing but a natural expression that the Orthodox Churches, and especially those within the Holy See of Antioch, are called to articulate the will of the Lord that all may be one, just as the Son is One with the Heavenly Father.

It is our duty and that of our brothers in the Syriac Church to witness to Christ in our Eastern area where He was born, preached, suffered, was buried and rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sent down His Holy and Life-Giving Spirit upon His holy apostles.

All the meetings, the fellowship, the oral and written declarations meant that we belong to One Faith even though history had brought forward the phase of our division more than the aspects of our unity.

All this has called upon our Holy Synod of Antioch to initiate a quick desire for our Church in the See of Antioch, for a unity that preserves for each Church its original Eastern heritage whereby the one Antiochian Church benefits from its sister Church and profits from its rich traditions, literature and holy rituals.

Every endeavour and pursuit in the direction of coming together of the two Churches is based on the conviction that this orientation is from the Holy Spirit, and it will give the Eastern Orthodox image more brightness and elegance that has lacked for centuries before.

Therefore, the Holy Synod of Antioch saw fit to translate the brotherly approachment relationship between the two Churches, the Antiochian Orthodox and the Syriac Orthodox for the edification of their faithful wherever they happen to be.

The Holy Synod of Antioch has decided the following matters:

1) The complete and mutual respect between the two Churches for their rituals, spirituality, heritage and holy fathers; and the full protection of both the Antiochian and Syriac liturgical practices.
2) The incorporation of the fathers of both Churches and their heritage in general in the Christian education curriculum and theological teaching; and the exchange of theological professors and students.
3) The refraining from accepting members of one Church in the membership of the other whatever the reasons might be.
4) Organizing meetings of both Synods whenever need and necessity may arise.
5) Leaving every Church as a reference for its members in all matters pertaining to marriage, divorce, adoption etc.
6) If two bishops of the two different Churches meet for a spiritual service the one with the majority of the people will generally preside. But if the service is for the sacrament of holy matrimony the bishop of the bridegroom will preside.
7) Whatever has been previously mentioned does not apply to the concelebration among the bishops in the Divine Liturgy.
8) Whatever has been said in number six applies to the clergy of both Churches.
9) If one priest of either Church happens to be in a certain area he will serve the Divine Mysteries for the members of both Churches including the Divine Liturgy and the sacrament of holy matrimony. The same priest will keep an independent record for both Churches and transmit the registration of the members of the sister Church to its spiritual authority.
10) If two priests of both Churches happen to be in a certain community they will take turns, and in case they concelebrate the one with the majority of the people will preside.
11) If a bishop from one Church and a priest from the sister Church happen to concelebrate, presiding naturally belongs to the bishop even though being in the community of the priest on the condition that there are people of both Churches.
12) Ordinations into the Holy Orders are performed by the spiritual authorities on candidates in every respective Church prefereably in the presence of the brothers from the other sister Church.
13) Godfathers, Godmothers and witnesses in the sacrament of holy matrimony are allowed to be chosen from the members of both Churches without any discrimination.
14) In all mutual celebrations the first clergyman in ordination will preside over the ceremony.
15) All organizations from both Churches will co-operate in all matters whether educational, cultural and social for the enrichment of the brotherly spirit.

We promise you on this occasion to continue strengthening our relationship with the sister Church and all other Churches for all to become one community under one Shepherd.

Paul Cowan

19-02-2009, 05:48 AM

I have no authority to speak since I don't know anything about the Syrian church. But you left out the editorial which I think is important.

In the "Editorial" section "the Word" magazine [April 92], the Editor of The Word, George S. Covey, writes:
The cause of division was a misunderstanding of certain theological words used in Greek by the Council of Chalcedon that were not known to the Egyptians, Syrians and others in Africa and Asia. Soon politics and ethnic pressures worsened this misunderstanding (sound familiar?), and the division continued to the present century. The Islamic invasion in the Middle East did not help and our Oriental brethren were further separated from the Imperial, Byzantine Church. Theologians from both Churches have agreed that division was a matter of semantics, which no longer exists today. Unity is not only possible but most desirable. It fulfills the will of God that "all may be one."

I am not saying monophysites are right. What I have been taught from the 7 Councils I know to be true. I didn't see present in the list of attendees His Grace Shanouda of Egypt. Since he is THE man in the Coptic Church, I would think he would have a say so on any unification. Or perhaps the Syrian Church is not as far away from the EO as the Coptic Church?

I don't know anything and am speaking out the back of my head.

Paul

D. W. Dickens

19-02-2009, 07:02 AM

I am not saying monophysites are right. What I have been taught from the 7 Councils I know to be true. I didn't see present in the list of attendees His Grace Shanouda of Egypt. Since he is THE man in the Coptic Church, I would think he would have a say so on any unification. Or perhaps the Syrian Church is not as far away from the EO as the Coptic Church?

Remember that the 7 Councils didn't invent the faith (they developed language perhaps and were certainly unequaled pastoral events), they defended it. There are councils we don't hold. This is important. The Church holds the Councils, the Councils don't hold the Church. The fullness of the faith existed prior to 3rd council.

It seems very reasonable to say the OO had the same faith even though they didn't participate in the later Councils, and if the modern historians of the Church are right and it was largely a misunderstanding compounded by sin... then what a tragedy that the later councils were denied our brothers!

Of course, I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm just repeating what I've been told by so many that I respect.

Ryan

19-02-2009, 07:14 AM

It seems very reasonable to say the OO had the same faith even though they didn't participate in the later Councils, and if the modern historians of the Church are right and it was largely a misunderstanding compounded by sin... then what a tragedy that the later councils were denied our brothers

The problem is that the later councils are still steadfastly rejected by the "Oriental Orthodox." Chalcedon is either regarded as Nestorian or Nestorian-leaning. Orthodox saints like Pope Saint Leo I are considered heretics by them. For the Orthodox, however, Chalcedon represents an essential statement of the Christian faith. I therefore don't see how those who stubbornly refuse to accept Chalcedon can really have the same faith as the Orthodox. Some of the non-Chalcedonians seem rather duplicitous on this issue- on the one hand, they insist that we share the same faith, and on the other, suggest that our Christology is infected with Nestorianism.

If the division is a "misunderstanding compounded by sin," this is to imply that the Holy Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council were confused and confounded by their sin, and that the council was not guided by the Holy Spirit, in contradiction to longstanding Tradition.

The later councils were not simply "denied our brothers", they were and are consciously rejected by them.

In light of this, even if one thinks that our Christology is fundamentally the same, it is very premature indeed to be restoring communion.

Antonios

19-02-2009, 07:57 AM

This is great news towards unity! The Lord works in mysterious ways!

Kris

19-02-2009, 03:00 PM

Chalcedon is either regarded as Nestorian or Nestorian-leaning. Orthodox saints like Pope Saint Leo I are considered heretics by them.

The OO hierarchy have all declared that they accept our understanding of Chalcedon as orthodox. They have gone as far as to say they'd accept Chalcedon as a local Council of the Roman (i.e. Byzantine) Church were a reunion to ever take place.

As for Pope Saint Leo, they have agreed to lifting the anathema, provided we do the same with Dioscoros and other figures venerated by the OO.

For the Orthodox, however, Chalcedon represents an essential statement of the Christian faith. I therefore don't see how those who stubbornly refuse to accept Chalcedon can really have the same faith as the Orthodox. Some of the non-Chalcedonians seem rather duplicitous on this issue- on the one hand, they insist that we share the same faith, and on the other, suggest that our Christology is infected with Nestorianism.

While Christology was the major issue at the time, that is not the case today. Accepting Chalcedon does not just mean accepting its definition of faith, but means condemning people they have commemorated in their services for over 1500 years, it means accepting a Council that led to the persecution of their churches and great amounts of bloodshed (those who died are naturally regarded by the OO as martyrs).

If the division is a "misunderstanding compounded by sin," this is to imply that the Holy Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council were confused and confounded by their sin, and that the council was not guided by the Holy Spirit, in contradiction to longstanding Tradition.

Not really. The Council rightly condemned the Monophysite heresy. However, this does not mean all who rejected Chalcedon were Monophysites. The OO also condemn Eutyches.

Also, while the statement of faith issued at Chalcedon was certainly inspired by the Holy Spirit, and while her canons are authoritative, does this mean every single thing that was said or done at the Council was equally valid?

The later councils were not simply "denied our brothers", they were and are consciously rejected by them.

The later councils were quite simply of no relevance to the OO since they were held by a Church with which they were not in Communion. Chalcedon is the point of contention.

Even if one thinks that our Christology is fundamentally the same, it is very premature indeed to be restoring communion.

This I agree with. We should be reconciled in all matters, whatever that entails, before Communion of any kind begins to take place.

Paul Cowan

19-02-2009, 04:23 PM

This I agree with. We should be reconciled in all matters, whatever that entails, before Communion of any kind begins to take place.

ok, yes. Question though. Given the persecution in the East by the Muslims and the common God the EO and OO share though we don't really agree, but we do. If I wereliving there in a situation of not being able to receive the sacraments except by going to the OO because my priest has been killed and my church burned down, and all the local Christians persecuted, would it not be ok to go t the OO for services and receiving the sacraments or do I go the rest of my life without them?

This is of course hypothetical, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend mentality. Though we are not enemies, but estranged cousins. It might seem prudent to combine resources for serving the faithful rather than both sides losing all their members.

But then again Constantinople rejected the Latins when they tried this same thing. So maybe I just typed a bunch of junk here.

Paul

Eric Peterson

19-02-2009, 04:46 PM

Christophoros

19-02-2009, 05:26 PM

The letter mentioned appears only to be a draft, and not an official approval of actual communion between the Orthodox and monophysites. At this time, to my knowledge, there is no such formal, official communion. All there is is dialogue and friendly relations. If there were communion, it would take a form more apparent than rumor.

It appears, from the following excerpt from an interview with Metropolitan George of Mount Lebanon which appeared in the June, 2001, issue of The Word, that a degree of communion does in fact exist:

How do you define our relationship with... the Syriac Church: are we in communion with the so-called on-Chalcedonians?...

We are not in communion with the Syriac Church or the other so-called non-Chalcedonians. We do, however, have a special relationship with the Syriac Church, especially in the Middle East. There are many towns, especially in northern Syria, where only one parish exists, be it theirs or ours. There may be no other parish for many miles. In those cases, we allow marriages, for example, to take place in each other’s churches, as well as shared communion, etc. This is a special agreement between the Patriarchate of Antioch and the Syriac Church.

Perhaps this is what the Thyateira Confession called "sacramental hospitality"!

Eric Peterson

19-02-2009, 05:38 PM

Either the first sentence of the statement is a lie, or it is being ignored in order to make more of something than there actually is. In America, there are cases where folks from non-Chalcedonian churches come to our churches and some even receive communion. Have they been formally received into the Church through means other than Communion? I don't know. Do they commune in their own churches when they travel? I don't know. But I do know, it's not limited to Antiochians. It's an issue in many places. The Antiochians are just talking about it. Apparently, silence would've been a better option, so that they would not have to explain themselves.

Nina

19-02-2009, 05:47 PM

ok, yes. Question though. Given the persecution in the East by the Muslims and the common God the EO and OO share
Paul

Paul do not forget Muslims and us share the same Father. He created them also... you know. If no one can dispute that fact then who is to say we should not "unite" with them too? Islam was product of a heresy also. They also have another form of Christ, Panaghia in their doctrine etc. I like unity and love with all, but just because my neighbour has Orthodox icons in her home and performs "white magic" , and visits Christian sacred places etc. doesn't mean we share the same view about the Truth. (I am not comparing my neighbour to any religion, just mentioning the fact that while I love and respect and help my neighbour it doesn't mean I share her views).

Kris

19-02-2009, 05:56 PM

Paul do not forget Muslims and us share the same Father. He created them also... you know. If no one can dispute that fact then who is to say we should not "unite" with them too?

Since Islam, although a heresy with Judeo-Christian roots, has no church nor sacraments, the word "unite" has little if any significance in this context.

Secondly, the idea that the OO actually hold to heretical doctrines is a subject of much dispute. If they do not, they are more comparable to the Old Calendarists than they are to heretics like the Catholics, Protestants or Moslems.

D. W. Dickens

19-02-2009, 06:12 PM

Paul do not forget Muslims and us share the same Father. He created them also... you know. If no one can dispute that fact then who is to say we should not "unite" with them too? Islam was product of a heresy also. They also have another form of Christ, Panaghia in their doctrine etc. I like unity and love with all, but just because my neighbour has Orthodox icons in her home and performs "white magic" , and visits Christian sacred places etc. doesn't mean we share the same view about the Truth. (I am not comparing my neighbour to any religion, just mentioning the fact that while I love and respect and help my neighbour it doesn't mean I share her views).

Nina, you are correct that desire for unity and some hand waving shouldn't result in unity.

However, this can be taken too far. I'm sure that if you probed many of your fellow Orthodox you might find more disagreement than is desirable about a great many things. Since becoming Orthodox I have come to learn one of the less advertised features is some unfortunate diversity.

Yet we share communion, and even administrative connections with some who are different from ourselves to a certain degree (this is a discussion about degrees). But even more so, we share communion with many people who could not (including myself) properly write a treatise on the very controversy we are talking about.

I am not equipped to prove any particular OO, Bishop or Synod is sufficiently close to Eutyches' teaching to deny unity. Nor can I adequately defend myself from being called a Nestorian in light of the OO's concerns (though I understand the basic principles behind the arguments).

This will all happen as it will happen. At some point the leadership from a major EO and OO group will effectively declare Eucharistic unity, then other sister Churches on both sides will react and if they essentially agree, or at least "allow" it, then the Church-at-large community will react as well. If the large portion of both traditions seems committed to this then, we'll have some more synods heading off into resistance, but the deal will be done.

There's many assumptions in that paragraph, but it seems likely to play out that way. My point is that this will happen communally, and by the Holy Spirit (or the Holy Spirit will prevent it) not by the declaration of perfected domatic defenses of eachother's history and development each in the language of the other (though some work there would certainly help).

Nina

19-02-2009, 06:15 PM

Since Islam, although a heresy with Judeo-Christian roots, has no church nor sacraments, the word "unite" has little if any significance in this context.

But aren't they people like all of us?

Nina

19-02-2009, 06:19 PM

Nina, you are correct that desire for unity and some hand waving shouldn't result in unity.

However, this can be taken too far.

Ah dear D.W. I can't read further than this, however I can sense what you are writing. What I have to repeat here is that all people of the world are people and they are children of our Father, Who is in Heaven. Now Christ's example when He came here and talked to the Samaritan woman and invited her and she became a Saint is good enough for me. I do not have loyalty to only certain groups of people. I should love all. But above all I should love the Holy Trinity and the Truth handed to us by our Holy Fathers who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

D. W. Dickens

19-02-2009, 07:05 PM

Ah dear D.W. I can't read further than this, however I can sense what you are writing. What I have to repeat here is that all people of the world are people and they are children of our Father, Who is in Heaven. Now Christ's example when He came here and talked to the Samaritan woman and invited her and she became a Saint is good enough for me. I do not have loyalty to only certain groups of people. I should love all. But above all I should love the Holy Trinity and the Truth handed to us by our Holy Fathers who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Something broke in our communication Nina. The issue is whether to commune with people who do not hold to the faith of the Church, not whether we admit that all human beings share in a common nature or dignity as eikons of God. Even in my most ecumenical temptations, I cannot see sharing communion with those who don't believe it is the body and blood of Christ, or even that Christ was God or that He came in the flesh.

Daniel Harrison

19-02-2009, 11:12 PM

No matter how we look a the Oriental "Orthodox" they are NOT Orthodox. Am I wrong? They dont except the faith of the 7 Ecumenical Councils which are Orthodox, and therefore should not be communed. I know this is not just the Antiochian Church. I had an experience when I was in boot camp at MCRD San Diego, in my platoon we had a Coptic "Orthodox" Christian, He attended the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy with me on Sunday, the OCA Priest Communed him saying that it was acceptable because he didn't have his own clergy avaliable. Needless to for the next two months I never went back to that Divine Litrugy on sundays.

This is the reasons I want to do a Jurisdictional transfer.

In Christ
nektarios

Alex Haig

20-02-2009, 12:00 AM

People were Christian even before the fourth century, so 'signing up' to the Ecumenical Councils does not in itself define Orthodoxy. Now, some questions:

The councils define Faith but do they define the boundaries of Faith? Can true Faith exist outside the Councils?
If someone rejects a certain definition of truth, does one therefore reject Truth Himself?
Can we define where the Church stops? Where Grace stops?
If two people describe their faiths in different ways and with a different vocabulary, do they believe different things?

A few questions to think about

In Xp

Alex

Christophoros

20-02-2009, 01:01 AM

No matter how we look a the Oriental "Orthodox" they are NOT Orthodox. Am I wrong? They dont except the faith of the 7 Ecumenical Councils which are Orthodox, and therefore should not be communed.

In Christ
nektarios

You are correct - they are not Orthodox. And despite any claimed breakthroughs in theological discussions, they are still not organic members in the Body of Christ.

That being said, my local Greek Archdiocese parish (as well as the Antiochian one) regularly communes non-Chalcedonians. The GOA priest and the previous Antiochian priest admitted to me privately that it is a genuine issue, but they inherited it and don't want to make a fuss with their respective bishops. In one case, while the parents are, strictly speaking, non-Chalcedonian, their children were baptized in the Orthodox Church.

Ryan

20-02-2009, 01:10 AM

[LIST=1]
The councils define Faith but do they define the boundaries of Faith? Can true Faith exist outside the Councils?

One can be prevented, by circumstances, from acknowledging particular authentic expressions of the faith. In such cases, it is possible that the same faith is fundamentally maintained. It is a different matter entirely when one knowingly rejects such expressions.

If someone rejects a certain definition of truth, does one therefore reject Truth Himself?

If the definition is inspired by the Holy Spirit, as Chalcedon was, then yes.

Can we define where the Church stops? Where Grace stops?

These are two separate questions. I would venture a yes to the former and a no to the latter. Grace can abound despite the delusions and errors of those whom it benefits.

If two people describe their faiths in different ways and with a different vocabulary, do they believe different things?

The same faith can be expressed differently, but one person can still recognize the Orthodoxy of the other. This is not the case with the non-Chalcedonians, who consider Chalcedon tainted by heresy. Some of their hierarchs may conditionally and grudgingly offer to accept Chalcedon, as a kind of bargaining chip, but this does not amount to a real acceptance.

Kris

20-02-2009, 01:24 AM

No matter how we look a the Oriental "Orthodox" they are NOT Orthodox. Am I wrong?

They are orthodox - right believing - but outside the Orthodox Church, and for that reason should not be communed.

They dont except the faith of the 7 Ecumenical Councils which are Orthodox, and therefore should not be communed.

They do not accept the 7 Ecumenical Councils as being ecumenical councils. However, they have repeatedly stated that they accept the faith of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, when interpreted correctly, as being orthodox.

D. W. Dickens

20-02-2009, 02:01 AM

You are correct - they are not Orthodox. And despite any claimed breakthroughs in theological discussions, they are still not organic members in the Body of Christ.

That being said, my local Greek Archdiocese parish (as well as the Antiochian one) regularly communes non-Chalcedonians. The GOA priest and the previous Antiochian priest admitted to me privately that it is a genuine issue, but they inherited it and don't want to make a fuss with their respective bishops. In one case, while the parents are, strictly speaking, non-Chalcedonian, their children were baptized in the Orthodox Church.

The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. If you take it, you are it. If you're communing them, it is a public declaration that they are a part of that body. You might think this is inappropriate, but I'm sure there are many folks taking the Eucharist to their condemnation for other reasons as well. This is why it is so important to safeguard.

The problem is, the public testimony and the spiritual fact is that these non-Chalcedonians ARE being included. Calling them non-Orthodox is like closing the barn door after the cow already got out.

Ryan

20-02-2009, 02:12 AM

They do not accept the 7 Ecumenical Councils as being ecumenical councils. However, they have repeatedly stated that they accept the faith of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, when interpreted correctly, as being orthodox.

Accepting a particular interpretation of a thing is very different from accepting the thing in itself. In this case, the non-Chalcedonians are accepting an Orthodox re-interpretation of documents which are still consider to be "Nestorianizing" or tainted with Nestorianism in themselves. In other words, the non-Chalcedonians believe the present Orthodox position to be different from the spirit that originally animated the Council at Chalcedon.

Olga

20-02-2009, 04:29 AM

In other words, the non-Chalcedonians believe the present Orthodox position to be different from the spirit that originally animated the Council at Chalcedon.

Umm, please correct me if I'm wrong, but if the Chalcedonians have "reinterpreted" the rulings of that Council (I assume to clarify to the OO the EO position, and to open a "window" towards future restoration of communion), yet the non-Chalcedonians do not accept this, rather, they regard it as different from the spirit that originally animated the Council at Chalcedon, then what is the point of such overtures?

Paul Cowan

20-02-2009, 06:01 AM

Too bad we ran off our OO posters a year or so ago.

I wonder who else we have or will run off.

If it's wrong, it's wrong. If it's right, it's right. If it is gray, it should be worked out so ALL peoples come to believe the same thing. No one should be left outside the Grace of God or the Church. I am not talking ecumenism, I am talking Love. If everyone is right, then everyone is wrong. We will never reconcile anyone to Orthodoxy. Someone has to say STOP; let's talk this out.

Wasn't there a EO Bishop flying ina helicopter off Athos a few years back on his way to Pope Shonouda that went down in the ocean? He was on his way to finish reconciling our two churches. Who is going to pick up his torch?

Paul

Olga

20-02-2009, 06:25 AM

Wasn't there a EO Bishop flying ina helicopter off Athos a few years back on his way to Pope Shonouda that went down in the ocean?

There were several hierarchs, clergy and laymen who lost their lives in that accident, including the then Patriarch of Alexandria. One of the hierarchs was Nektarios, bishop of Madagascar. He was born of Greek emigrant parents, who had settled in the city I live in, and had been the abbot of a Greek monastery there. His parents still live here. Such a tragic loss.

Nina

20-02-2009, 07:21 AM

Something broke in our communication Nina. The issue is whether to commune with people who do not hold to the faith of the Church,

Exactly. And according to the Fathers it is defined what Orthodoxy is. All those who are not recognized by the Fathers as Orthodox, they are not. Period. Many people will employ the logic to tell me that someone is more and some one is less but a pagan is equally non-Orthodox as is non-Orthodox an RC. This is like pregnancy. There is not a little pregnant or more pregnant. It is either pregnant, or not. When the Church will accept others in the communion, yes, we will obey. But until then sporadic desires and well-wishes are meaningless. Let's take those well-wishes and neighborly loves to the personal level and leave it there until the Church decides otherwise.

not whether we admit that all human beings share in a common nature or dignity as eikons of God. Yes it remains to this since, whoever is not Orthodox is not. Till the Church decides so. Plus there was reference in the thread (maybe you missed) about other people outside Christianity. The matter should not be "I + you-Christian-although-non-Orthodox versus those-non-Christians". The matter should be: "We Orthodox, responsible for all souls of the world and with the help and grace of God versus Lucifer". I better define responsible: As in the saying of St. Seraphim of Sarov: "Acquire the Holy Spirit and thousands around you will be saved."

D. W. Dickens

20-02-2009, 07:43 AM

Exactly. And according to the Fathers it is defined what Orthodoxy is. All those who are not recognized by the Fathers as Orthodox, they are not. Period. Many people will employ the logic to tell me that someone is more and some one is less but a pagan is equally non-Orthodox as is non-Orthodox an RC. This is like pregnancy. There is not a little pregnant or more pregnant. It is either pregnant, or not. When the Church will accept others in the communion, yes, we will obey. But until then sporadic desires and well-wishes are meaningless. Let's take those well-wishes and neighborly loves to the personal level and leave it there until the Church decides otherwise.

Yes it remains to this since, whoever is not Orthodox is not. Till the Church decides so. Plus there was reference in the thread (maybe you missed) about other people outside Christianity. The matter should not be "I + you-Christian-although-non-Orthodox versus those-non-Christians". The matter should be: "We Orthodox, responsible for all souls of the world and with the help and grace of God versus Lucifer". I better define responsible: As in the saying of St. Seraphim of Sarov: "Acquire the Holy Spirit and thousands around you will be saved."

Forgive me Nina, I really think we aren't communicating and I'm perfectly willing to accept it's my fault. I still have no idea what you were saying in post #19.

This post is even more confusing. I'm just missing something.

One thing I think we agree on is that just wanting something to happen won't make it happen. I think we also both agree that we, personally, aren't in a position to make pastoral judgments either about how to treat OO members or even how to react to those who are in a pastoral position if we don't like the judgment call they make.

Nina

20-02-2009, 07:47 AM

Forgive me Nina, I really think we aren't communicating and I'm perfectly willing to accept it's my fault. I still have no idea what you were saying in post #19.

This post is even more confusing. I'm just missing something.

One thing I think we agree on is that just wanting something to happen won't make it happen. I think we also both agree that we, personally, aren't in a position to make pastoral judgments either about how to treat OO members or even how to react to those who are in a pastoral position if we don't like the judgment call they make.

Well said. Until the Church decides otherwise we are to obey the Church and not decide in a forum whom we accept as Orthodox or not (humility where art thou?). About pastoral positions you mention - I do not really follow those whose judgments are not according to the judgment of the Church.

PS to all: I have said enough and clear and refuse to discuss this further so please do not refer to my posts again. Please.

Vasiliki D.

20-02-2009, 11:08 AM

ok, yes. Question though. Given the persecution in the East by the Muslims and the common God the EO and OO share though we don't really agree, but we do. If I wereliving there in a situation of not being able to receive the sacraments except by going to the OO because my priest has been killed and my church burned down, and all the local Christians persecuted, would it not be ok to go t the OO for services and receiving the sacraments or do I go the rest of my life without them?

Paul

This is MY opinion:

God is the only person who will judge anyone outside of Orthodoxy ... however, there is the Truth and if I have been blessed to come to the truth .. I have an obligation to acknowledge it above any previous ignorance that I lived in - so i should not be mad and not give it up for anything after that.

That is why I recommend IF YOU DO KNOW GOD in TRUTH then stand firm IN HIS church .. you DO NOT take the sacraments or participate in the mysteries of another religion once you are no longer ignorant to the fact and have come to the fulness of the truth and trust that God will provide for this martyric stance.

Did God not displace the Isrealites for 40 years intending for them the Promised Land? Did he not provide them the mannah on this journey?

If you are the last living Orthodox in the world; you stand firm in what has been handed down to you and do not allow "what you think is good for you at the time" fool you to lose your crown ...

Think with the intellect and not intelligence - have faith and God provides; St Mary of Egypt was in the desert for 40 years - martyring! When the time was right, then God sent Saint Zosimas ... consider yourself a martyr if you have no church to visit and only an OO! This will be a martyric test of not your body but your mind.

Ryan

20-02-2009, 10:53 PM

Wasn't there a EO Bishop flying ina helicopter off Athos a few years back on his way to Pope Shonouda that went down in the ocean? He was on his way to finish reconciling our two churches. Who is going to pick up his torch?

From what I read about this flight, they were en route to Mount Athos, so I don't think their purpose was "reconciling our two churches." For one thing, I doubt the Athonite monks would tolerate such shenanigans.

IMO, if this reconciliation were really so close, no helicopter crash could have prevented it. It is obviously not simply a matter of some hierarchs coming together to sort things out, though maybe some modern theologians think that over 1000 years of separation can be resolved by some verbal gymnastics and a few pen strokes.

The non-Chalcedonians will never really accept Chalcedon- an Orthodox Christian cannot accept Chalcedon as a "local council" any more than he can accept the Nicene creed as a "local creed."

Here is a good summary of their objections to the fourth ecumenical council: http://www.britishorthodox.org/113e.php

As long as we pretend that the non-Chalcedonians are already Orthodox, they will feel emboldened in their stubborn refusals.

The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. If you take it, you are it. If you're communing them, it is a public declaration that they are a part of that body... Calling them non-Orthodox is like closing the barn door after the cow already got out.

I may be misinterpreting here, but you seem to be arguing that the simple act of receiving communion makes someone Orthodox. This is obviously wrong, otherwise we are already united to Protestants, Roman Catholics, and others who have been wrongly communicated at various times, in various places.

D. W. Dickens

20-02-2009, 11:14 PM

Pardon me if I am misinterpreting here, but you seem to be arguing that the simple act of receiving communion makes someone Orthodox. This is obviously wrong, otherwise we are already united to Protestants, Roman Catholics, and others who have been wrongly communicated at various times, in various places.

Receiving the Body of Christ is to become the Body of Christ. I cannot understand this any other way. St Ignatius essentially said Bishop = Eucharist = Church.

"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid." — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8

This is one of the earliest and best definitions of the Church.

Andreas Moran

21-02-2009, 12:11 AM

Receiving the Body of Christ is to become the Body of Christ. I cannot understand this any other way. St Ignatius essentially said Bishop = Eucharist = Church.

Reception of communion does not make non-Orthodox Orthodox. To imply that receiving communion unites a non-Orthodox to the Body of Christ which is the Church cannot be right and is to misunderstand the effects of communion. Even Orthodox may receive communion unto their judgment and condemnation if they take unworthily which includes not taking it in the Orthodox faith. 'With fear of God, with faith and love draw near': 'faith', that is, Orthodox faith. The chalice must be the definite boundary of the Church. Sharing this cup is the aim of the reconciliation of Christians, not the means to it.

Christophoros

21-02-2009, 01:09 AM

Receiving the Body of Christ is to become the Body of Christ. I cannot understand this any other way. St Ignatius essentially said Bishop = Eucharist = Church.

"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid." — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8

This is one of the earliest and best definitions of the Church.

Such pseudo-Orthodox interpretations are the result of replying on ourselves and our own worldly opinions and misconceptions, and not the consensus Patrum.

D. W. Dickens

21-02-2009, 01:18 AM

Such pseudo-Orthodox interpretations are the result of replying on ourselves and our own worldly opinions and misconceptions, and not the consensus Patrum.

I'm just a convert and certainly no Bishop. But to wipe away something with a catch phrase doesn't convince me.

Clearly there are some Bishops that allow such communions. If those Bishops aren't disciplined with the breaking of communion over such a great offense (priests have been deposed over even spilling the gifts), how can you deny the gracefulness of their act?

Either Bishops have the power to loose and bind or they don't. It seems unless the Church stands up (that is other Bishops) and excludes that Bishop from their fraternal community you have no basis for judging their pastoral prerogative.

The Eucharist is both a testimony and a phenomenon.

To put this another way, if a Bishop in communion with my Bishop communes someone, I have no means of saying that communicant isn't my brother in Christ. How would I say such a thing? On what criteria do I stand in judgment over both my Bishop and the one committed what I see as an offense?

Andreas Moran

21-02-2009, 01:24 AM

We must insist on unity in faith, and in the fulness of faith. It is impossible for the Holy Orthodox Church to receive anyone who does not accept her faith in full without any qualifications. It must follow that bishops who do otherwise are in error.

Ryan

21-02-2009, 02:30 AM

I
To put this another way, if a Bishop in communion with my Bishop communes someone, I have no means of saying that communicant isn't my brother in Christ. How would I say such a thing? On what criteria do I stand in judgment over both my Bishop and the one committed what I see as an offense?

This argument can be refuted by the simple fact that many bishops still regard the non-Chalcedonians as outside of the church, and forbid communing with them, including bishops within the Antiochian church. In this case, we must decide which bishops are right. When it comes to pastoral concerns and application of canons, of course one must defer to the bishops, but in core matters of faith, the faith which is the inheritance of the entire church and not only clergy, all faithful are obligated to speak out when hierarchs diverge from the truth. When bishops commune Monophysites, they are not simply engaging in questionable pastoral activity, but are making a faith statement which is wrong. St. Maximus the Confessor was not a bishop, but this did not preclude him from defying Patriarchs who promulgated the heresy of Monothelitism.

Christophoros

21-02-2009, 02:36 AM

I'm just a convert and certainly no Bishop. But to wipe away something with a catch phrase doesn't convince me.

Clearly there are some Bishops that allow such communions. If those Bishops aren't disciplined with the breaking of communion over such a great offense (priests have been deposed over even spilling the gifts), how can you deny the gracefulness of their act?

Either Bishops have the power to loose and bind or they don't. It seems unless the Church stands up (that is other Bishops) and excludes that Bishop from their fraternal community you have no basis for judging their pastoral prerogative.

The Eucharist is both a testimony and a phenomenon.

To put this another way, if a Bishop in communion with my Bishop communes someone, I have no means of saying that communicant isn't my brother in Christ. How would I say such a thing? On what criteria do I stand in judgment over both my Bishop and the one committed what I see as an offense?

You seem to be assuming that since certain bishops permit certain controversial things, and they have not been disciplined for it (yet), then their action are "graceful" and Orthodox. Nothing could be further from the truth. Heresies, uncanonical acts, errors, etc., can exist for years, decades, even centuries before the Church rectifies the mistakes of erring hierarchs. There have been many public statements by Russian, Serbian, Greek, etc., bishops, monastics and theologians who have condemned such actions as you cite, and have even called on the worldwide Orthodox community to condemn the individuals involved. The fact that such a formal condemnation has not yet occured is more of a reflection of the practical, administrative disunity that exists in Orthodoxy today rather than a tacit approval of such actions and opinions.

Daniel Harrison

21-02-2009, 03:01 AM

Canon XLV of the Holy Apostles
"Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he had permitted them to perform any service as Clergymen, let him be deposed."

Canon LXV of the Holy Apostles:
"If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated."

CANON XLVI of the Holy Apostles:
"We order any Bishop, or Presbyter, that has accepted any heretics' Baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed; for what consonancy hath Christ with Beliar? or what part hath the believer with an infidel?"

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/athos.aspx

If we are not to even pray with those in Schism or Heresy where do some think its ok to Communion with them?! This is what worries me about my own jurisdiction ever since I read about the decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch about the Syriac Monophysites. How am I supposed to respond to this?

Ryan

21-02-2009, 03:21 AM

If we are not to even pray with those in Schism or Heresy where do some think its ok to Communion with them?! This is what worries me about my own jurisdiction ever since I read about the decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch about the Syriac Monophysites. How am I supposed to respond to this?

This is probably a question best answered by your spiritual father. But I would tentatively opine that one can be critical of a jurisdiction's conduct while remaining within it. The Church has weathered worse storms than this one. Don't be quick to switch jurisdictions... a few constructive critics from within might be just what's needed. Just the opinion of a beginner in the faith...

Antonios

21-02-2009, 03:21 AM

Dear friends,

Do the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches consider the Orthodox Church Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ?

In Christ,
Antonios

Nina

21-02-2009, 03:28 AM

...as the divine Meletios the Confessor says:

He who possesses knowledge of the truth,
And, in whatever way, deliberately hides it,
Not openly preaching it or speaking it with boldness,
And does not uphold the divine and august Canons,
Or the laws presided over by the Fathers,
Is justly punished no less than the transgressors of these.
He who is silent about the truth hides Christ in a tomb,
As one Father has said, and another, again, says.
He who is silent about the faith is in grave danger
Of eternal punishment and of the pit of perdition.
It is not just, lawful, or right for the faithful to be silent
When the laws of of God are being violated,
And the evil seek to support their deception.
When someone is in danger of being separated from God,
Said one of the great Fathers,
And when evils are attributed to God,
What faithful Christian can be silent? Who can be at peace?
For silence means consent and betrayal,
As was clearly shown by the Lord's Forerunner
And the brave Maccabees together with him,
Who, on account of the smallest commandment, were in danger unto death,
And did not even betray the smallest part of the Law.
War is many times known to be praiseworthy,
And battle appears better than soul-destroying peace.
For it is better to stand against those who do not believe correctly,
Than it is to follow them and be of one mind with them,
Thus being united with them and separated from God.As found in pp 172-173 Concerning Frequent Communion of the Immaculate Mysteries of Christ
by our Righteous God-bearing Father Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite

U is mine.

Kris

21-02-2009, 03:40 AM

Do the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches consider the Orthodox Church Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ?

Yes, they do.

Antonios

21-02-2009, 05:14 AM

http://www.monachos.net/forum/images/misc/quote_magn.gif (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=75449#post75449)
Do the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches consider the Orthodox Church Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ?

Yes, they do.

My four year old does too, and she doesn't know anything about the Council of Chalcedon.

My Orthodox friend who is much older than me knows about the Council of Chalcedon and partakes of the Eucharist every Sunday, though he confesses to me that 'of course it isn't really the Body and Blood of Christ, but merely a symbol or a gesture.'

I wonder who is justified before the Lord?

Eric Peterson

21-02-2009, 05:50 AM

The Orthodox faith, which it is neccessary for all who claim to be Orthodox to profess without subtraction, addition, blemish, or mutilation, in order to be saved, does not boil down to one, singular dogma, but is a totality. It encompasses not only dogma, but praxis, mindset, and spirituality. As well, it is not confined to intellecutal assent, but involves the whole person, such that saying with sincerity, "I confess and believe all that my mother the Holy Church teaches," and willingly submitting oneself to this, is enough, whether or not one can define, explain, or properly understand those teachings in their complexity.

We who have the true faith will have to answer for how we kept this precious gift of God. The judgement on us will be more severe. But there is a clear distinction of who is, and who is not, in the Church.

Antonios

21-02-2009, 06:00 AM

Nina

21-02-2009, 06:04 AM

So now the Orthodox are not Orthodox enough? And the non-Orthodox are?

Antonios

21-02-2009, 06:04 AM

So now the Orthodox are not Orthodox enough? And the non-Orthodox are?

No. Simply that we are all sinners.

Nina

21-02-2009, 06:12 AM

No. Simply that we are all sinners.

Yes but the requirement we in communion have is to go to our SF and confess and approach with a clean conscience. However if I am someone not in communion I am required to reject heresies and be chrismated/baptized. So Confession is different from Baptism/Chrismation.

This is what Symeon of Thesaloniki says: "The Divine Liturgy is a rite during which the all-holy body and blood of Christ itself is consecrated and then given to all of the faithful in Communion, and Communion is the sole purpose of the Divine Liturgy. p.97

Concerning Frequent Communion of the Immaculate Mysteries of Christ
by our Righteous God-bearing Father Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite

PS If you would like to guide your friend who is Orthodox maybe you can recomend to him this book so he can learn more. However ignorance in faith and heresy are completely different issues. Although one may lead to the other.

Eric Peterson

21-02-2009, 06:23 AM

Indeed, we are all sinners. We are all sinners. We are all sick. But are all sick people in the hospital? No. Does God love and seek their salvation anyway? Of course He does. He seeks to bring them to the hospital, for we know that it is His will that all be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

But, the Church does not have invisile walls. We know what is and what is not the right profession of faith. We have things like the sacraments and the Creed, which tell us the boundaries of the Church and the faith. We have expectations to live up to as Orthodox Christians.

To say the Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church and that the faith of the Orthodox alone is true and without error is not to assign everyone else to hell. This judgement belongs only to God.

Again, holding the true faith in sencerity and obedience is not about "knowing" things, but about humility and submission to the Church and to Christ. A child has this. A mentally-handicapped person has this. Even someone making an error in ignorance has this. Such a person, though, needs to be corrected. If he refuses correction, this is a grave matter, since he would be knowingly going against the teaching of the Church.

D. W. Dickens

21-02-2009, 06:23 AM

Post's #41 &# 42 both have the same two problems.

First, they appear to discount that the Eucharist *is* the Body and Blood of Christ, not a mere symbol. If the Bishop blesses, and the Priest prays, and the Holy Spirit causes a miracle to occur, the perfection of the believer's theological education is moot. You can sin against the Body and Blood, but you can't undo what it has become by the act of the Church. Incorrect theological training doesn't undo that work.

The second problem is that they assume that at some point in the future these Bishops will finally be disciplined and all will be set right (that is, everyone will agree with them). I have no such clairvoyance and I don't think it lacks humility to doubt they possess it. But even if it did, does such a discipline annul retroactively the communion of the Body and Blood (not only of those non-Orthodox communicants) but of all those faithful, even those who might have had no knowledge that some who communed by their Bishop weren't properly Orthodox?

This, I believe, is overly mechanical and legal thinking. Things must qualify, standards must be met, procedures followed, belief must be documented. You hold to the all the councils, but can you explain their canons as well as you expect these others to? What if someone is not bright? Or was not adequately taught by their priest? Some of these might "others" might well understand the faith better than those whom with you stand in line to commune. Who are we to judge?

I'm not saying that a non-Orthodox doesn't take communion to their condemnation (certainly many Orthodox may as well for other reasons). I'm saying that the incarnation of Christ makes the holy infectious, instead of the unholy corrupting. It is the leaven. It is the salt.

I am also saying that this belongs to the Bishops and not to us to speculate or judge. If you are correct and Bishops will be disciplined, then that will work itself out in time, without ever a comment from any of us.

Antonios

21-02-2009, 06:24 AM

Yes but the requirement we in communion have is to go to our SF and confess and approach with a clean conscience. However if I am someone not in communion I am required to reject heresies and be chrismated/baptized. So Confession is different from Baptism/Chrismation.

Is knowledge of Chalcedon a pre-requisite to Baptism?

Nina

21-02-2009, 06:31 AM

Is knowledge of Chalcedon a pre-requisite to Baptism?

Do you deem the Creed worthy enough as a representation of the teachings of the Fathers (in the Councils) of the Church? Eric has already mentioned that above.

Antonios

21-02-2009, 06:35 AM

Do you deem the Creed worthy enough as a representation of the teachings of the Fathers (in the Councils) of the Church? Eric has already mentioned that above.

Yes. Do those communing in Turkey under Muslim yoke not deem the Creed worthy? Do you know? If not, than let the Bishop lead his flock the best he knows and let us enjoy the fact that we can commune every Sunday without fear of persecution and threats of death.

Nina

21-02-2009, 06:57 AM

Yes. Do those communing in Turkey under Muslim yoke not deem the Creed worthy? Do you know? If not, than let the Bishop lead his flock the best he knows and let us enjoy the fact that we can commune every Sunday without fear of persecution and threats of death.

What does all this means because it is not making sense.

Daniel Harrison

21-02-2009, 11:40 AM

This conversation has gone way off topic.

This discussion is the Patriarchate of Antioch and the representative archdiocese thereof communing or being in communion with the
Syriac Monophysites.

Now According to the document that was decided on by the Synod of the Patriarchate of Antioch quoted below.

[QUOTE] herefore, the Holy Synod of Antioch saw fit to translate the brotherly approachment relationship between the two Churches, the Antiochian Orthodox and the Syriac Orthodox for the edification of their faithful wherever they happen to be.

The Holy Synod of Antioch has decided the following matters:

1) The complete and mutual respect between the two Churches for their rituals, spirituality, heritage and holy fathers; and the full protection of both the Antiochian and Syriac liturgical practices.
2) The incorporation of the fathers of both Churches and their heritage in general in the Christian education curriculum and theological teaching; and the exchange of theological professors and students.
3) The refraining from accepting members of one Church in the membership of the other whatever the reasons might be.
4) Organizing meetings of both Synods whenever need and necessity may arise.
5) Leaving every Church as a reference for its members in all matters pertaining to marriage, divorce, adoption etc.
6) If two bishops of the two different Churches meet for a spiritual service the one with the majority of the people will generally preside. But if the service is for the sacrament of holy matrimony the bishop of the bridegroom will preside.
7) Whatever has been previously mentioned does not apply to the concelebration among the bishops in the Divine Liturgy.
8) Whatever has been said in number six applies to the clergy of both Churches.
9) If one priest of either Church happens to be in a certain area he will serve the Divine Mysteries for the members of both Churches including the Divine Liturgy and the sacrament of holy matrimony. The same priest will keep an independent record for both Churches and transmit the registration of the members of the sister Church to its spiritual authority.
10) If two priests of both Churches happen to be in a certain community they will take turns, and in case they concelebrate the one with the majority of the people will preside.
11) If a bishop from one Church and a priest from the sister Church happen to concelebrate, presiding naturally belongs to the bishop even though being in the community of the priest on the condition that there are people of both Churches.
12) Ordinations into the Holy Orders are performed by the spiritual authorities on candidates in every respective Church prefereably in the presence of the brothers from the other sister Church.
13) Godfathers, Godmothers and witnesses in the sacrament of holy matrimony are allowed to be chosen from the members of both Churches without any discrimination.
14) In all mutual celebrations the first clergyman in ordination will preside over the ceremony.
15) All organizations from both Churches will co-operate in all matters whether educational, cultural and social for the enrichment of the brotherly spirit.

We promise you on this occasion to continue strengthening our relationship with the sister Church and all other Churches for all to become one community under one Shepherd./QUOTE]

This is our Issue. If you read my last post I quoted some of the canons of the Holy Apostles stating that we are not to pray with Heretics or Schismatics.

[QUOTE]Canon XLV of the Holy Apostles
"Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he had permitted them to perform any service as Clergymen, let him be deposed."

Canon LXV of the Holy Apostles:
"If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated."

CANON XLVI of the Holy Apostles:
"We order any Bishop, or Presbyter, that has accepted any heretics' Baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed; for what consonancy hath Christ with Beliar? or what part hath the believer with an infidel?"/QUOTE]

This is a Issue that we should NOT respond with "well let the bishop handle it" This is a Serious Issue, this statement I quoted the decision of the Antioch Synod is saying to the WORLD that, You are a sister church?!
They are not a Sister Church! The Greek Orthodox Church is a Sister Church, the Romanian Church is our Sister Church! Monophysites are enemies of the True Church which is the HOLY EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH.

Did not the father's of the Fourth Ecumenical Councils delcare Anathema to the Monophysite Heretics? They are in Schism and in Heresy. This is the Issue we are trying to discuss.

Excuse me for me strong expression of my belief.

In Christ
Nektarios

Kris

21-02-2009, 03:38 PM

Did not the father's of the Fourth Ecumenical Councils delcare Anathema to the Monophysite Heretics?

They declared Anathema to Eutyches and the Monophysite heresy.They Oriental Church has in like manner also condemned the Monophysite heresy and Eutyches.

As for Dioscoros, the Fourth Council deposed him, not for heresy, but for disciplinary matters.

They are in Schism

Certainly

and in Heresy.

While no one is arguing that Monophysitism isn't a heresy, it is debatable whether the Oriental churches are guilty of this heresy. An in-depth study of their Christology shows quite clearly that they are (or rather, were) guilty, not of Monophysitism, but of Cyrilline-extremism - i.e. viewing only the terminology of St. Cyril as adequate and any deviation from it as dangerous.

M.C. Steenberg

21-02-2009, 04:50 PM

Dear all,

One of the reasons that we don't include inter-church discussions in our remit here at Monachos.net is because this issue -- as this thread already shows -- quickly tugs at emotional, rather than constructive, cords. In internet discussions, these fast become all-consuming, and rarely productive. Such important matters are far better served by other means of communication and dialogue than on-line fora; but in terms of our own focus, it was long ago determined that we would exclude these quite deliberately, quite strictly, so as to be able to focus on that for which this forum really exists: Orthodoxy in its patristic heritage. To make the contours of our discussions here clearer, our definitions, terms, remit, etc. are all explained in our Community Handbook, which is available for all to read.

May I ask people please to remember and respect the focus of this forum, which is deliberately not for inter-church discussions of this sort. Let us instead focus our discussions here on the remit of this forum.

INXC, Deacon Matthew

Ryan

21-02-2009, 05:38 PM

Christophoros

21-02-2009, 08:01 PM

In light of Fr. Deacon Matthew's intervention, I'd like to just bring the discuss back to the initial question, relating to the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church. Namely, what are proper responses for the Orthodox faithful, when hierarchs of the Antiochian Church deliberately commune those who are outside the Church (irrespective of whether these outsiders ultimately share the same faith or not)? What consequences should there be for such activity?

After analyzing the whole question of Ecumenism (with attention being paid to the "non-Chalcedonian" question), the 2004 Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference, sponsored by the School of Pastoral Theology at The Aristotelian University, Thessaloniki, Greece, the following propositions were issued:

1. In so far as it is now universally confessed, after more than a century of participation of the Church in the "World Council of Churches" and inter-christian and inter-religious dialogues, on terms which level inter-confessional differences and make all religions equal, that such participation is unbeneficial and detrimental, it is proposed that the remaining autocephalous churches also withdraw from the "World Council of Churches" and bring an end to these kinds of dialogues. Toward this end, a Pan-Orthodox decision is not necessary, since the original decision to participate was made separately. The only dialogue which can be justified on the basis of the Gospel and the Patristic Tradition is to answer the question asked by those heterodox and persons of other religions who voluntarily approach in order to find salvation: "What must I do to be saved?" or "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

2. The Orthodox Churches, and above all the Church of Constantinople—which is first in honor and initiative—review and revise their relations with Papism, which all of the Holy Fathers, from St. Photios the Great, St. Gregory Palamas, St. Mark of Ephesus, the Kollyvades Fathers (St. Nikodemos the Athonite, St. Athanasios of Paros, St. Makarios of Corinth) up to, and including, St. Nectarios of Aegina and Elder Justin Popovich, have considered to be heretical and not a "sister church."

3. The holy canons of the Church be observed which forbid joint prayer with the heterodox in general, in every circumstance, and not only in eucharistic prayer, as has been suggested as of late.

4. An appeal be sent to the Orthodox Churches which have not, to date, agreed to allow the pope to visit their countries, to remain firm in this decision. Can one imagine one of the Holy Fathers organizing receptions in order to honor and embrace Arius, Nestorius, Eutichius, etc.? Likewise, let the unacceptable entry in the Calendar of the Church of Greece be erased which records the visit of the pope as a great historic event; let every attempt at reciprocation or repetition of such a visit in the future be prevented.

5. The issue of sacramental inter-communion of the Patriarchate of Antioch with the Monophysites [Syrian Jacobites] be investigated, as well as the recognition of certain mysteries of these heretics [Coptic Monophysites] by the Patriarchate of Alexandria. Let the canonical principle be enforced in this case which says: "he who communes with the excommunicated is likewise excommunicated."

6. Let inner-ecclesial dialogue (among the Orthodox) be strengthened and encouraged in the spirit of conciliarity (synadikoteta), and not be limited only to the bishops. It is, at the very least, lamentable that dialogue with various heretics and non-Christians is pursued while the differing views of brothers in the faith, who are slandered as fanatics, are rejected.

7. That liturgical changes and innovations be discouraged and terminated, since they constitute an application of the principles of Ecumenism whose aims are the creation of non-dogmatic worship, so as to facilitate the acceptance of heresy. Furthermore, the liturgical wealth of the Orthodox Church does not belong to any one local church. It expresses the life of the Church through the ages, and must be guarded as the apple of ones eye.

8. That it be made manifest to church leaders everywhere that, in the event that they continue to participate in, and lend support to, the pan-heresy of Ecumenism—both inter-christian and inter-religious—the obligatory salvific, canonical and patristic course for the faithful, clergy and laity, is excommunication: in other words, ceasing to commemorate bishops, who are co-responsible for, and co-communicants with, heresy and delusion. This is not a recourse to schism but rather to a God-pleasing confession, just as the ancient Fathers, and bishop-confessors in our own day have done, such as the esteemed and respected former Metropolitan of Florina, Augustinos, and the Fathers of the Holy Mountain (Athos).

9. It be declared with the sound of the trumpet that Ecumenism and unconditional dialogue with heterodox and non-Christians are not beneficial, but injurious, and thus not the work of love, but merely of a worldly way of thinking; these are conventional relationships, which aim not at spiritual ends but self-serving interests. They wear down and taint the Orthodox phronema through intermingling and obfuscation, and as a result bring harm to the faithful, since without purity of dogma, even in lesser matters, no one can be saved. To non-Christians and to the heterodox they close the gate of salvation, obstructing the formers view of Christ as being the only path of salvation, and hindering the latter from seeing the Orthodox Church as the ark of salvation, as the only Church. God, in His infinite love for mankind and the world, desires the salvation of every man. On the contrary, the Devil, who is the enemy of salvation, wars against man in a diversity of ways out of envy and hatred

Consequently, out of love we reject Ecumenism, for we wish to offer to the heterodox and to non-Christians that which the Lord has so richly granted to all of us within His Holy Orthodox Church: namely, the possibility of becoming and of being members of His Body.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/thess_conclusions.aspx

Note that the participants in this conference were not Old Calendarists or out-of-communion with their respective local Churches, but respected hierarchs, monastics and theologians.

Also, since this thread concerns the "non-Chalcedonians" in particular, the Conference concluded with this statement regarding dialogue with the Monophysites:

An identical picture of both total fruitlessness and serious compromises in matters of the faith, exists in theological dialogue with those who were until recently considered (and are) Monophysites , but who now, out of "love", are characterized as "anti-Chalcedonians," "pre-Chalcedonians", "Ancient Eastern Churches," or, finally just "Orthodox." At the conference it was established that the dialogue conducted has yielded no positive results. The three joint "Statements" of the Orthodox and anti-Chalcedonians are unacceptable from an orthodox standpoint. Among the most grievous errors are the sacramental intercommunion with the Monophysites [of Syria] accepted by the Patriarchate of Antioch [1991], the partial recognition by the Patriarchate of Alexandria of the mysteries of the Monophysites and the proposals for a revision of liturgical texts and determination of a typikon for the con-celebration of Orthodox and Monophysites. On the level of theological research, some have sunk to the point of arguing for the Department of Theology in the Theological School of the University of Thessaloniki to approve two doctoral dissertations which assert that the Monophysites Dioscorus and Severios werent heretics at all, but were rather were condemned for non-theological reasons this would be totally inconceivable and blasphemous for the holy Councils and holy Fathers.

Isa Almisry

22-02-2009, 03:12 PM

After analyzing the whole question of Ecumenism (with attention being paid to the "non-Chalcedonian" question), the 2004 Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference, sponsored by the School of Pastoral Theology at The Aristotelian University, Thessaloniki, Greece, the following propositions were issued:

1. In so far as it is now universally confessed, after more than a century of participation of the Church in the "World Council of Churches" and inter-christian and inter-religious dialogues, on terms which level inter-confessional differences and make all religions equal, that such participation is unbeneficial and detrimental, it is proposed that the remaining autocephalous churches also withdraw from the "World Council of Churches" and bring an end to these kinds of dialogues. Toward this end, a Pan-Orthodox decision is not necessary, since the original decision to participate was made separately. The only dialogue which can be justified on the basis of the Gospel and the Patristic Tradition is to answer the question asked by those heterodox and persons of other religions who voluntarily approach in order to find salvation: "What must I do to be saved?" or "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

2. The Orthodox Churches, and above all the Church of Constantinople—which is first in honor and initiative—review and revise their relations with Papism, which all of the Holy Fathers, from St. Photios the Great, St. Gregory Palamas, St. Mark of Ephesus, the Kollyvades Fathers (St. Nikodemos the Athonite, St. Athanasios of Paros, St. Makarios of Corinth) up to, and including, St. Nectarios of Aegina and Elder Justin Popovich, have considered to be heretical and not a "sister church."

3. The holy canons of the Church be observed which forbid joint prayer with the heterodox in general, in every circumstance, and not only in eucharistic prayer, as has been suggested as of late.

4. An appeal be sent to the Orthodox Churches which have not, to date, agreed to allow the pope to visit their countries, to remain firm in this decision. Can one imagine one of the Holy Fathers organizing receptions in order to honor and embrace Arius, Nestorius, Eutichius, etc.? Likewise, let the unacceptable entry in the Calendar of the Church of Greece be erased which records the visit of the pope as a great historic event; let every attempt at reciprocation or repetition of such a visit in the future be prevented.

5. The issue of sacramental inter-communion of the Patriarchate of Antioch with the Monophysites [Syrian Jacobites] be investigated, as well as the recognition of certain mysteries of these heretics [Coptic Monophysites] by the Patriarchate of Alexandria. Let the canonical principle be enforced in this case which says: "he who communes with the excommunicated is likewise excommunicated."

6. Let inner-ecclesial dialogue (among the Orthodox) be strengthened and encouraged in the spirit of conciliarity (synadikoteta), and not be limited only to the bishops. It is, at the very least, lamentable that dialogue with various heretics and non-Christians is pursued while the differing views of brothers in the faith, who are slandered as fanatics, are rejected.

7. That liturgical changes and innovations be discouraged and terminated, since they constitute an application of the principles of Ecumenism whose aims are the creation of non-dogmatic worship, so as to facilitate the acceptance of heresy. Furthermore, the liturgical wealth of the Orthodox Church does not belong to any one local church. It expresses the life of the Church through the ages, and must be guarded as the apple of ones eye.

8. That it be made manifest to church leaders everywhere that, in the event that they continue to participate in, and lend support to, the pan-heresy of Ecumenism—both inter-christian and inter-religious—the obligatory salvific, canonical and patristic course for the faithful, clergy and laity, is excommunication: in other words, ceasing to commemorate bishops, who are co-responsible for, and co-communicants with, heresy and delusion. This is not a recourse to schism but rather to a God-pleasing confession, just as the ancient Fathers, and bishop-confessors in our own day have done, such as the esteemed and respected former Metropolitan of Florina, Augustinos, and the Fathers of the Holy Mountain (Athos).

9. It be declared with the sound of the trumpet that Ecumenism and unconditional dialogue with heterodox and non-Christians are not beneficial, but injurious, and thus not the work of love, but merely of a worldly way of thinking; these are conventional relationships, which aim not at spiritual ends but self-serving interests. They wear down and taint the Orthodox phronema through intermingling and obfuscation, and as a result bring harm to the faithful, since without purity of dogma, even in lesser matters, no one can be saved. To non-Christians and to the heterodox they close the gate of salvation, obstructing the formers view of Christ as being the only path of salvation, and hindering the latter from seeing the Orthodox Church as the ark of salvation, as the only Church. God, in His infinite love for mankind and the world, desires the salvation of every man. On the contrary, the Devil, who is the enemy of salvation, wars against man in a diversity of ways out of envy and hatred

Consequently, out of love we reject Ecumenism, for we wish to offer to the heterodox and to non-Christians that which the Lord has so richly granted to all of us within His Holy Orthodox Church: namely, the possibility of becoming and of being members of His Body.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/thess_conclusions.aspx

Note that the participants in this conference were not Old Calendarists or out-of-communion with their respective local Churches, but respected hierarchs, monastics and theologians.

Also, since this thread concerns the "non-Chalcedonians" in particular, the Conference concluded with this statement regarding dialogue with the Monophysites:

An identical picture of both total fruitlessness and serious compromises in matters of the faith, exists in theological dialogue with those who were until recently considered (and are) Monophysites , but who now, out of "love", are characterized as "anti-Chalcedonians," "pre-Chalcedonians", "Ancient Eastern Churches," or, finally just "Orthodox." At the conference it was established that the dialogue conducted has yielded no positive results. The three joint "Statements" of the Orthodox and anti-Chalcedonians are unacceptable from an orthodox standpoint. Among the most grievous errors are the sacramental intercommunion with the Monophysites [of Syria] accepted by the Patriarchate of Antioch [1991], the partial recognition by the Patriarchate of Alexandria of the mysteries of the Monophysites and the proposals for a revision of liturgical texts and determination of a typikon for the con-celebration of Orthodox and Monophysites. On the level of theological research, some have sunk to the point of arguing for the Department of Theology in the Theological School of the University of Thessaloniki to approve two doctoral dissertations which assert that the Monophysites Dioscorus and Severios werent heretics at all, but were rather were condemned for non-theological reasons this would be totally inconceivable and blasphemous for the holy Councils and holy Fathers.

What, pray tell, would they make of St. Cyril's condemnation of St. John Chrysostom at the Synod of the Oak?

That this statement insists that the Orientals are Monophysites clears it of any credibility with me. I've argued with those who not only refuse to acknowledge that the Orientals condemned (and condemn) Eutyches, but insist that they have canonized him.

I do like the idea of pulling out of the World Council of "Churches," along with stopping fraternization between Old and New Rome.