Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem 1672

[truefiction1]

the wording about Original Sin certainly has a Catholic sound, but it never actually expresses a Catholic meaning of the term. and the stuff about the afterlife seems to be in line with what many Fathers say. We believe that people can be moved from Hell to Paradise before the Second Coming, with the help of our prayers, good deeds, etc.

Is this really what we believe? Or is it simply that we understand that our prayers for a person after their demise can have back-reaching effects that would cause their lives and their final moments to be ordered differently so as to prevent them from being subject to hell in the first place? I heard it expressed this way by an Orthodox writer. We ask that God spares our departed the torments of hell, we don't know how He would accomplish this do we?

And regarding the statements concerning original sin and baptism, the Article clearly states that unless a person is baptized with water, even in the case of infants, there can be no salvation for such persons because they carry within themselves the "hereditary sin" which can only be removed by the sacrament. There is no reference made to the fact that for a repentant sinner or a blameless child, death itself serves as baptism, a view commonly held by Orthodox teachers who see the death of the thief upon the cross who repented and confessed Christ as the means of his baptism. According to this document however, those who do not receive baptism go to hell, period. No exceptions seem to be presented in the document. This is the Roman Catholic teaching and based upon original sin as an inherited guilt.

 

[buzuxi02]

I don't like the way that Article 18 or Article 16 is written. These both seem to be espousing the Western ideas regarding the afterlife and original sin, and I have no idea why such teachings would be in there. If these things are Orthodox, then I think I'm probably a heretic.

Much of this was intentionally done. Because this council was intended for western factions that wanted to lay claim that the Orthodox church agreed with them. It was more for westerners to know what we believe using terminology RC and calvinists would understand.

Cyril Lukaris was anti-Latin and this documented printed in 1629 was used by calvinists against RC. Jesuits and Franciscans and Capuchins used it as propaganda to defame Constantinople. This writing may have even been produced by them. The printing press became an effective weapon as they started translating the Orthodox liturgical texts into Arabic with "corrections" starting in 1630 when they embedded themselves into the Christian communities of Syria. In 1670 or so the Latin monks even came close to establishing a theological school to educate the undereducated Athonite monks.

The use of the printing press by the west to undermine Orthodox belief was quite common seen with the tampering
of many of the writings of ST Nikodemos.

 

[Nephi]

Is this really what we believe? Or is it simply that we understand that our prayers for a person after their demise can have back-reaching effects that would cause their lives and their final moments to be ordered differently so as to prevent them from being subject to hell in the first place? I heard it expressed this way by an Orthodox writer. We ask that God spares our departed the torments of hell, we don't know how He would accomplish this do we?

We affirm the particular judgment and the final judgment. One's status with God can be changed between the two judgments, as shown by our prayers for the dead, etc. I don't think the change-momentarily-before-death understanding of prayers for the dead applies in Orthodoxy.

And regarding the statements concerning original sin and baptism, the Article clearly states that unless a person is baptized with water, even in the case of infants, there can be no salvation for such persons because they carry within themselves the "hereditary sin" which can only be removed by the sacrament. There is no reference made to the fact that for a repentant sinner or a blameless child, death itself serves as baptism, a view commonly held by Orthodox teachers who see the death of the thief upon the cross who repented and confessed Christ as the means of his baptism. According to this document however, those who do not receive baptism go to hell, period. No exceptions seem to be presented in the document. This is the Roman Catholic teaching and based upon original sin as an inherited guilt.

I think this could be both-and. Under normal circumstances, the human condition is such that we require baptism to become regenerate (restored and healed through being united with the Body of Christ, allowing us to reunite with God's grace). There are, as you mentioned, possible exceptions to this, but the synod is a rebuttal to claims, I believe, of a more memorial-symbolic baptism rather than a regenerate one.

 

[MariaRegina]

Is this really what we believe? Or is it simply that we understand that our prayers for a person after their demise can have back-reaching effects that would cause their lives and their final moments to be ordered differently so as to prevent them from being subject to hell in the first place? I heard it expressed this way by an Orthodox writer. We ask that God spares our departed the torments of hell, we don't know how He would accomplish this do we?

And regarding the statements concerning original sin and baptism, the Article clearly states that unless a person is baptized with water, even in the case of infants, there can be no salvation for such persons because they carry within themselves the "hereditary sin" which can only be removed by the sacrament. There is no reference made to the fact that for a repentant sinner or a blameless child, death itself serves as baptism, a view commonly held by Orthodox teachers who see the death of the thief upon the cross who repented and confessed Christ as the means of his baptism. According to this document however, those who do not receive baptism go to hell, period. No exceptions seem to be presented in the document. This is the Roman Catholic teaching and based upon original sin as an inherited guilt.

Almost sounds like a time machine such as in Back to the Future.

However, humans have invented the idea of the clock and calendar to keep time (chronos), but God's time is eternal. Thank goodness we will not have the Calendar issue in Heaven. One less issue to debate in Heaven.

 

[jckstraw72]

Is this really what we believe? Or is it simply that we understand that our prayers for a person after their demise can have back-reaching effects that would cause their lives and their final moments to be ordered differently so as to prevent them from being subject to hell in the first place? I heard it expressed this way by an Orthodox writer. We ask that God spares our departed the torments of hell, we don't know how He would accomplish this do we?

And regarding the statements concerning original sin and baptism, the Article clearly states that unless a person is baptized with water, even in the case of infants, there can be no salvation for such persons because they carry within themselves the "hereditary sin" which can only be removed by the sacrament. There is no reference made to the fact that for a repentant sinner or a blameless child, death itself serves as baptism, a view commonly held by Orthodox teachers who see the death of the thief upon the cross who repented and confessed Christ as the means of his baptism. According to this document however, those who do not receive baptism go to hell, period. No exceptions seem to be presented in the document. This is the Roman Catholic teaching and based upon original sin as an inherited guilt.

here is the paper i wrote on the intermediate state of souls: From Repose to Resurrection: the Intermediate State of Souls | Old Believing's Blog. take a gander if you want and see what you think.

and you could read "hereditary sin" as "ancestral sin" just as Fr. Romanides talks about. i dont think the 1672 document specifically says we are born with guilt.

 

[WisdomTree]

It is not prejorative, I think Buzuxi is referring to the Melkites who are in communion with Rome who I guess went from monophysite to in union w/ Rome. It is also sad that it seems that Patriarch Lukaris was perceived as a Calvinist for centuries when he was not & became a saint a few years ago. I am Antiochian & despite the split, the Melktes & Antiochian Orthodox have generally good relations.

I thought the Melkites were the opposite of being monophysites?

 

[buzuxi02]

The scripture says, that we must be born anew to inherit the kingdom of God. This is why we baptise infants, have emergency baptisms etc. St Cyprian even argued against those forbidding baptism to infants before the 8th day.

Death is not baptism or else we wouldnt need water baptism. What your probably thinking is a martyr's death, baptism by blood. St Gregory of Nyssa tackled the subject of infants death before baptism, its available online but a somewhat difficult read.

 

[Nephi]

I thought the Melkites were the opposite of being monophysites?

Yeah, IIRC the Melkites came out of the Antiochian Orthodox Church, meaning they're Chalcedonian dyophysite. The Syriac Orthodox Church is non-Chalcedonian miaphysite, and wouldn't have been Eutychian monophysite either; their members wouldn't have gone Melkite since they're not Byzantine Rite.

 

[buzuxi02]

It is not prejorative, I think Buzuxi is referring to the Melkites who are in communion with Rome who I guess went from monophysite to in union w/ Rome. It is also sad that it seems that Patriarch Lukaris was perceived as a Calvinist for centuries when he was not & became a saint a few years ago. I am Antiochian & despite the split, the Melktes & Antiochian Orthodox have generally good relations.

oops sorry. I should have explained further. The 1672 council took place at an unusual time when the RC Congregation of Propaganda was created and was effective in eastern christian lands this included using the printing press as a tool of that propaganda.

In 1625 various orders of RC (capuchins, jesuits, franciscans) monks arrived in Syrian christian communities as protectors of all christians against the Turks. They befriended both the Antiochan Orthodox and Syriac monks who at the time were poor and uneducated. They educated and offered support to these communities, printed new liturgical books (with latin corruptions of course). Within 20 years these two communities were basically in communion with Rome. The Syriac catholics broke away in 1662 joining the miaphysite unia.

The Antiochan Orthodox syrians were to enter communion in their entirety as well in the 1600's but the Turks learned of it and poisoned the Antiochan Patriarch on the eve of reunion. It wasnt until 1724 that the Congregation of Propaganda Fide was successful in luring the Antiochans into the unia. At that time those remaining sought out a new Orthodox bishop and traveled to Constaninople where one was appointed.

This is why there was much anti-latin sentiment in the 1600's even prefering calvinists. And it is from this melkite uniate ropaganda machine that invented the lie that greeks hellenized the arabs (actually the arabs arabized the greeks except for Cyprus) and that the greeks suppressed the rites of other patriarchates when they simply fell out of usage organically for numerous legitimate reasons.

 

[truefiction1]

here is the paper i wrote on the intermediate state of souls: From Repose to Resurrection: the Intermediate State of Souls | Old Believing's Blog. take a gander if you want and see what you think.

and you could read "hereditary sin" as "ancestral sin" just as Fr. Romanides talks about. i dont think the 1672 document specifically says we are born with guilt.

I'll be sure to take a look next time I get the chance. Thanks.

 

[MrJim]

This took an interesting turn - thanks for the input

 

[truefiction1]

here is the paper i wrote on the intermediate state of souls: From Repose to Resurrection: the Intermediate State of Souls | Old Believing's Blog. take a gander if you want and see what you think.

and you could read "hereditary sin" as "ancestral sin" just as Fr. Romanides talks about. i dont think the 1672 document specifically says we are born with guilt.

Finally got to read it. I think this was very well done, and helped me understand things better. Thanks jckstraw.

 

[jckstraw72]

Finally got to read it. I think this was very well done, and helped me understand things better. Thanks jckstraw.

thank God!