Question to protestants about Faith Alone

[Nagomirov]

I have a spiritual education, I graduated from an Orthodox college in 2006.

 

[The Liturgist]

You know neither theology, nor patristics, nor the canons of the Orthodox Church

I can quote from memory the canons of the Council of Nicaea, the Quinisext Council, and several other key sources of Orthodox canonical legislation from the Pedalion, which I have also memorized. For example, it is uncanonical according to canon 20 of Nicaea to prostrate oneself during the period following Pascha (the Pentecostarion) and on all Saturdays and Sundays throughout the church year, although this canon is widely ignored. Canon I of Nicaea on the other hand prohibits anyone who has been voluntarily castrated without medical necessity from being ordained, on the grounds that they are, to quote the Pedalion, a “Self-murderer’, and this canon is now extremely important because of the issue of “trans rights”, in that it ensures that people who falsely claim to be a gender other than their natural sex, and who have had their genitals mutilated to accommodate that change, will not be admissible as Orthodox clergy, and in the event we ordained someone who later had themselves mutilated in this way, they could be deposed.

 

[Nagomirov]

I can quote from memory the canons of the Council of Nicaea, the Quinisext Council, and several other key sources of Orthodox canonical legislation from the Pedalion, which I have also memorized. For example, it is uncanonical according to canon 20 of Nicaea to prostrate oneself during the period following Pascha (the Pentecostarion) and on all Saturdays and Sundays throughout the church year, although this canon is widely ignored. Canon I of Nicaea on the other hand prohibits anyone who has been voluntarily castrated without medical necessity from being ordained, on the grounds that they are, to quote the Pedalion, a “Self-murderer’, and this canon is now extremely important because of the issue of “trans rights”, in that it ensures that people who falsely claim to be a gender other than their natural sex, and who have had their genitals mutilated to accommodate that change, will not be admissible as Orthodox clergy, and in the event we ordained someone who later had themselves mutilated in this way, they could be deposed.

You do not know that the Orthodox Confession of Patriarch Dositheus is a Symbolic book of Orthodox Christianity, which was approved as such by all the patriarchs at the Council. You do not know that among Orthodox Christians, all Orthodox Cathedrals have authority no less than that of Ecumenical Cathedrals. You do not know the traditional dogmas of Orthodoxy, as set forth by Makarii Bulgakov and Nikolai Malinovsky. You don't know the Eastern Fathers, that they taught satisfaction, that we have a common faith with Roman Catholics in this regard.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have a spiritual education, I graduated from an Orthodox college in 2006.

Well then you should know that Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky and the other leaders of ROCOR, along with Fr. Seraphim Rose were by no means modernists, but were fiercely opposed to modernism, which is presumably why you quoted Fr. Seraphim Rose.

I can assure you I am not a modernist, nor am I someone who would propose changing Orthodox doctrine for purposes of ecumenical reconciliation. I adamantly oppose the ordination of women in the Orthodox church, I oppose the blessing of homosexual marriages or any activities which could appear to promote homosexuality or other forms of sexual immorality, I believe that anyone who engages in homosexual relations should, according to the canons of St. John the Faster, and of St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Basil the Great and other sources in the Pedalion who commented on Arsenokoetia, be disqualified from ordination and if anyone in holy orders engages in arsenokoetia they should be deposed, which is the rule in Orthodoxy at present but there are some who would change it, and likewise, our restrictions on the ability of divorced persons to remarry and the prohibition on their ordination and the elligibility of adulterers for ordination, and the strict canons we have against adultery, are extremely desirable, since adultery and divorce are destroying the families of the United States, and in the last decade of the Soviet Union, it was known for a high divorce rate probably due to the toxic influence of Communism, and so this is something that the former SSRs must reduce as well.

You should also know that i regard the OCU as an uncanonical violation of the canonical territory of the MP and am aghast at the persecution of UOC clergy in Ukraine. In the United States and Canada, several churches belonging to the ROCOR and the OCA (and probably the 25 churches we have that are Patriarchal Parishes under the MP) have been vandalized despite the fact that they have large numbers of Ukrainian members and have contributed substantially for the assistance of refugees, just because they say “Russian Orthodox.” And I am livid about this.

 

[Nagomirov]

I can quote from memory the canons of the Council of Nicaea, the Quinisext Council, and several other key sources of Orthodox canonical legislation from the Pedalion, which I have also memorized. For example, it is uncanonical according to canon 20 of Nicaea to prostrate oneself during the period following Pascha (the Pentecostarion) and on all Saturdays and Sundays throughout the church year, although this canon is widely ignored. Canon I of Nicaea on the other hand prohibits anyone who has been voluntarily castrated without medical necessity from being ordained, on the grounds that they are, to quote the Pedalion, a “Self-murderer’, and this canon is now extremely important because of the issue of “trans rights”, in that it ensures that people who falsely claim to be a gender other than their natural sex, and who have had their genitals mutilated to accommodate that change, will not be admissible as Orthodox clergy, and in the event we ordained someone who later had themselves mutilated in this way, they could be deposed.

And why do you think there is still a need to pray for the dead? Mortal sins cannot be forgiven after death, there remains only the release of temporary punishment for what they repented of during their lifetime. We have many examples from the Holy Scriptures about temporary punishment. David is forgiven the sin of adultery and murder, but his child dies as punishment; David is forgiven his other sin, but as punishment in his country the plague spreads for 3 days; Moses and Aaron are forgiven the sin of unbelief, but as punishment they cannot enter the promised land; Original sin is forgiven to every Christian in baptism, but death and the hardships of life remain as a temporary punishment.

The Russian Saint Ambrose of Optina also wrote about the need for satisfaction for sins: "One should know that sins are forgiven not by confessing them alone, but satisfaction is also needed. The Lord Himself said to the robber on the cross (Luke 23:43): Today you will be with Me in paradise. But even after this promise, the robber did not immediately and not without difficulty pass into heavenly pleasure, but first had to undergo a fracture of the shins. So we, too, although our former sins were forgiven during the Sacrament of Confession and when adopting the monastic image, but by God's penance we must bear for them, that is, suffer illnesses, sorrows, inconveniences, and everything that the Lord sends us to cleanse our sins."

Metropolitan Stefan (Yavorsky), in his book "The Stone of Faith of the Orthodox Cafolic Eastern Church," writes: "For those who have been absolved of mortal sin and eternal punishment, the inevitability of temporary punishment remains. The guilt of death and eternal punishment following it is released in the holy sacrament of penance, and temporary punishment is carried out through penance. If someone dies without performing penance, his soul, separated from his body, bears the duty of temporary punishment after death."

 

[Nagomirov]

Well then you should know that Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky and the other leaders of ROCOR, along with Fr. Seraphim Rose were by no means modernists, but were fiercely opposed to modernism, which is presumably why you quoted Fr. Seraphim Rose.

Pomazansky does not teach traditional Orthodox theology. He does not express traditional, classical Orthodox theology. Read the classics of Orthodox theology: Metropolitan Makarii Bulgakov, Nikolai Malinovsky.

 

[The Liturgist]

Pomazansky does not teach traditional Orthodox theology. He does not express traditional, classical Orthodox theology. Read the classics of Orthodox theology: Metropolitan Makarii Bulgakov, Nikolai Malinovsky.

What does Pomazansky teach that is in error? Because I have heard no criticism of him, even from the Old Calendarists.

I myself have read Metropolitan Macarius Bulgakov, and I am of the view that it might be worthwhile for him to be glorified as a saint of the Orthodox Church based on the importance of his work. But there is nothing in his work that disagrees with Pomazansky that i am aware of. Have you even read Pomazansky?

Now, by the way, unfortunately, I have never been able to find an English translation of Malinkovsky, so I haven’t read him, but I am sure what he wrote is fine.

The only book of Orthodox dogmatic theology that I dislike is that by Fr. Michael Azkoul, who is a schismatic Old Calendarist, because he inserts into the works perspectives on the canonical Orthodox churches held by the schismatic Old Calendarists, which as I see it makes it not actually a work of Eastern Orthodox dogmatic theology but rather of Old Calendarist dogmatic theology, since they left the canonical Orthodox churches, decrying us as “World Orthodox”, and formed their own schismatic churches, despite the fact that in the case of the Russian and Georgian churches the Julian calendar has been maintained, modernism has been rejected, and participation in sycnretist bodies such as the deeply problematic World Council of Churches (which the Eastern Orthodox churches in the Communist lands were forced to join, by the way, by the governments, who saw it as a vector for propaganda and to influence Western policy via an indirect ecclesiastical route, where no one would suspect it; since that time the Georgian Orthodox Church has, in my opinion, very properly withdrawn from the World Council of Churches, and I think every Orthodox Church should follow suit, because of objectionable statements and actions connected to the “Faith and Order Committee” of that body. These have gone unnoticed perhaps, because the Orthodox churches do not participate in the Faith and Order Committee, but its still the sort of thing one would want to avoid.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So i was watching a random video on youtube featuring a guy named Jeff Durbin, who I eventually researched and found out he is a sidekick to James White's (i think he is at least). Anyway, i found him to be the typical arrogant protestant who just dictates, accuses, and insists what Catholics believe him no matter what is being told to him. I was listening closely as to what he thinks about the whole faith by works, and how he eventually tries to brag and praise himself about how he is the one truly saved because being a christian. So he speaks about the 7 sacraments, purgatory, and just how faith alone is just biblically true and tries to bully random catholics about it.

Here is the video for your reference:

So my question is this. If protestants believe that strongly about faith alone, then why do they care so much to the point that they feel the need to throw out condemnation, judgment, and demonizing at us for how we practice and worship God? Us doing the wrong thing like the sacraments, praying to saints, and whatever wouldn't mean much anyway since it's all about faith alone, right?

Well I’m not a Protestant and I’m not a Roman Catholic. I listened to the first 5 minutes of the video and both guys are wrong. The Protestant is saying that we’re justified forever once we’re saved which is incorrect but only those who remain in Christ are justified. The Catholic is saying that we must pay a penalty in the afterlife for any sins we may have committed after our last confession which is also wrong because as soon as we repent and turn back to Christ our sins are automatically atoned for. The doctrine of purgatory was created in 1439AD by the Roman church. Anyone who doesn’t agree with me just do a google search “ catechism purgatory” and you can read it straight from the catechism yourself. Furthermore the doctrine of purgatory has been rejected by every other apostolic church. It’s not what the early church taught, it’s only what the Roman church taught, it’s not supported by the scriptures, and it didn’t become an official doctrine until the 15th century. And before anyone wants to quote 1 Corinthians 3:15 let me go ahead and point out that Paul isn’t talking about sin, he’s talking about failed attempts at good works. Paul never says anything about sin in the entire passage and it’s not the “builder” that is tested by fire but the works themselves. The works are tested to determine if they were of any value or not. Any works that were not fruitful will not be awarded. That’s what Paul was writing about, not purgatory.

 

[The Liturgist]

Well I’m not a Protestant and I’m not a Roman Catholic. I listened to the first 5 minutes of the video and both guys are wrong. The Protestant is saying that we’re justified forever once we’re saved which is incorrect but only those who remain in Christ are justified. The Catholic is saying that we must pay a penalty in the afterlife for any sins we may have committed after our last confession which is also wrong because as soon as we repent and turn back to Christ our sins are automatically atoned for. The doctrine of purgatory was created in 1439AD by the Roman church. Anyone who doesn’t agree with me just do a google search “ catechism purgatory” and you can read it straight from the catechism yourself. Furthermore the doctrine of purgatory has been rejected by every other apostolic church. It’s not what the early church taught, it’s only what the Roman church taught, it’s not supported by the scriptures, and it didn’t become an official doctrine until the 15th century. And before anyone wants to quote 1 Corinthians 3:15 let me go ahead and point out that Paul isn’t talking about sin, he’s talking about failed attempts at good works. Paul never says anything about sin in the entire passage and it’s not the “builder” that is tested by fire but the works themselves. The works are tested to determine if they were of any value or not. Any works that were not fruitful will not be awarded. That’s what Paul was writing about, not purgatory.

While your statement is largely correct, my understanding is that the Roman Catholic conception of purgatory emerged a few centuries earlier, during the initial formative period of Scholastic theology that accompanied their schism with the Orthodox.

 

[com7fy8]

Anyway, i found him to be the typical arrogant protestant who just dictates, accuses, and insists what Catholics believe him no matter what is being told to him.

There are people who are arrogant and can make such a big show of themselves so you can suppose they represent everyone in a group. There are Catholics who are like this, too, making it seem they represent what all real Catholics believe.

I maybe have known both Catholics and Protestants who are snotty brats.

And as a Catholic I was a jerk and a screwball who did not know how to love. Then I became a born again jerk and a screwball who did not know how to love.

Narcissists are known for piggybacking on the credibility of things and people, so they can make themselves be somebody, by means of their association with things and people who are popular and have some power.

People can highjack the Bible and Catholicism or Protestantism for their own nasty stuff.

So, I would say, get to know each person: let each one speak for oneself; see how they are and how they live and if they love, in connection with whatever they claim for beliefs.

And read your Bible to see what it really does say. Any part of God's word can be used by God to help us become like Jesus and find out how to love. And God has people who are examples to help you with this.

So he speaks about the 7 sacraments, purgatory, and just how faith alone is just biblically true and tries to bully random catholics about it.

A narcissist can feel really important by browbeating a big group of religious people. I did this, once I switched from Catholic to born again; I would punish Catholics for not telling me about being born again. And I did not fool the Catholics or the born again people.

It did not matter what I claimed. Anyone could see through my show and see what I was doing with it.

But people prayed for me and I met examples.

Here is the video for your reference:

I would offer that we need to be careful about where our attention is going.

Hopefully, we spend more time in the Bible and prayer, than we spend watching and reading counterfeit stuff.

So my question is this. If protestants believe that strongly about faith alone, then why do they care so much to the point that they feel the need to throw out condemnation, judgment, and demonizing at us for how we practice and worship God? Us doing the wrong thing like the sacraments, praying to saints, and whatever wouldn't mean much anyway since it's all about faith alone, right?

I offer that I get what you are saying. The narcissistic "faith alone" ones can feel so threatened if you question their stuff. And if you question a narcissistic Catholic . . . they, too, can burn you at the stake.

You can look at Galatiams 5:6 >

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love." (Galatians 5:6)

So, to me this is saying that faith works through love. So, faith is not alone, but faith has its works. Plus, the faith and the works are "through love".

So, faith is not alone but with works and with love. But it seems ones arguing about faith alone might ignore the need for love. And ones arguing for works leave out the love. Neither seems to mention love!!

Both sides arguing can be wrong, right?

God's love is meant, here, by the way, I would say. Saving faith has us with God in His own love doing the works which He Himself in us has us doing >

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

And if you look in James chapter two, you can see how faith without works is dead, and he gives three examples of works . . . works of love.

So, we need faith which is not alone but working in God's love sharing God's creativity with us for how to obey Him and love any person.

 

[The Liturgist]

I found the canons of the Jerusalem Cathedral of 1672 in English. Patriarch Dositheus was the chairman of the Council.

The Confession of Dositheus (Eastern Orthodox)

Those are Decrees, not Canons. There is a rather important distinction. The Decrees are dogmatic definitions promulgated by a council, whereas Canons are disciplinary rules, sometimes called Canon Laws, which have been promulgated over time by some of the ecumenical councils (except for the Second and Third Councils of Constantinople, instead, a subsequent council was held in Trullo for purposes of amending the canonical legislation of the Orthodox Church, which the Roman Catholics immediately rejected, even before the reign of Pope St. Gregory Diologos).

 

[The Liturgist]

There are people who are arrogant and can make such a big show of themselves so you can suppose they represent everyone in a group. There are Catholics who are like this, too, making it seem they represent what all real Catholics believe.

I maybe have known both Catholics and Protestants who are snotty brats.

And as a Catholic I was a jerk and a screwball who did not know how to love. Then I became a born again jerk and a screwball who did not know how to love.

Narcissists are known for piggybacking on the credibility of things and people, so they can make themselves be somebody, by means of their association with things and people who are popular and have some power.

People can highjack the Bible and Catholicism or Protestantism for their own nasty stuff.

So, I would say, get to know each person: let each one speak for oneself; see how they are and how they live and if they love, in connection with whatever they claim for beliefs.

And read your Bible to see what it really does say. Any part of God's word can be used by God to help us become like Jesus and find out how to love. And God has people who are examples to help you with this.

A narcissist can feel really important by browbeating a big group of religious people. I did this, once I switched from Catholic to born again; I would punish Catholics for not telling me about being born again. And I did not fool the Catholics or the born again people.

It did not matter what I claimed. Anyone could see through my show and see what I was doing with it.

But people prayed for me and I met examples.

I would offer that we need to be careful about where our attention is going.

Hopefully, we spend more time in the Bible and prayer, than we spend watching and reading counterfeit stuff.

I offer that I get what you are saying. The narcissistic "faith alone" ones can feel so threatened if you question their stuff. And if you question a narcissistic Catholic . . . they, too, can burn you at the stake.

You can look at Galatiams 5:6 >

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love." (Galatians 5:6)

So, to me this is saying that faith works through love. So, faith is not alone, but faith has its works. Plus, the faith and the works are "through love".

So, faith is not alone but with works and with love. But it seems ones arguing about faith alone might ignore the need for love. And ones arguing for works leave out the love. Neither seems to mention love!!

Both sides arguing can be wrong, right?

God's love is meant, here, by the way, I would say. Saving faith has us with God in His own love doing the works which He Himself in us has us doing >

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

And if you look in James chapter two, you can see how faith without works is dead, and he gives three examples of works . . . works of love.

So, we need faith which is not alone but working in God's love sharing God's creativity with us for how to obey Him and love any person.

Remember, in addition to Catholics and Protestants, you have Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and members of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East, whose territories somewhat overlap that of two of the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Armenian Apostolic Church and especially the Syriac Orthodox Church.

At any rate, the combined total of all these Christians is around 300 million; the Eastern Orthodox alone are the third largest denomination in Christendom, and the Oriental Orthodox are around the seventh or eighth largest. In addition, they made extremely important contributions to the development of the Scriptural Canon and the Creed, invaluable contributions, and they have experienced the most persecutions in recent years of any Christians.

Thus I consider that it is extremely important to avoid the false dichotomy of Catholic vs. Protestant.

Additionally, there are also Old Catholics, who are not Protestant, but who broke communion with the Pope over the issue of Papal Infallibility in the 1870s. Many are now extremely liberal, but there are also two large traditional Old Catholic churches, the Polish National Catholic Church and the Norwegian Catholic Church.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So i was watching a random video on youtube featuring a guy named Jeff Durbin, who I eventually researched and found out he is a sidekick to James White's (i think he is at least). Anyway, i found him to be the typical arrogant protestant who just dictates, accuses, and insists what Catholics believe him no matter what is being told to him. I was listening closely as to what he thinks about the whole faith by works, and how he eventually tries to brag and praise himself about how he is the one truly saved because being a christian. So he speaks about the 7 sacraments, purgatory, and just how faith alone is just biblically true and tries to bully random catholics about it.

Here is the video for your reference:

So my question is this. If protestants believe that strongly about faith alone, then why do they care so much to the point that they feel the need to throw out condemnation, judgment, and demonizing at us for how we practice and worship God? Us doing the wrong thing like the sacraments, praying to saints, and whatever wouldn't mean much anyway since it's all about faith alone, right?

I watched the rest of the video and I’d really like to ask that guy, if we can’t lose our salvation why did Paul write 1 Timothy 2:12? Why did James write James 5:19-20?

 

[BNR32FAN]

They are trying to change the Catholic's mind so that she will believe the "true gospel" and be saved. It makes sense to me.

So no one was saved before the 16th century?

 

[Reasonably Sane]

So i was watching a random video on youtube featuring a guy named Jeff Durbin, who I eventually researched and found out he is a sidekick to James White's (i think he is at least). Anyway, i found him to be the typical arrogant protestant who just dictates, accuses, and insists what Catholics believe him no matter what is being told to him. I was listening closely as to what he thinks about the whole faith by works, and how he eventually tries to brag and praise himself about how he is the one truly saved because being a christian. So he speaks about the 7 sacraments, purgatory, and just how faith alone is just biblically true and tries to bully random catholics about it.

Here is the video for your reference:

So my question is this. If protestants believe that strongly about faith alone, then why do they care so much to the point that they feel the need to throw out condemnation, judgment, and demonizing at us for how we practice and worship God? Us doing the wrong thing like the sacraments, praying to saints, and whatever wouldn't mean much anyway since it's all about faith alone, right?

I can only speak for myself. I suppose I could be classified as "protestant", but I don't do any of those things you talk about. At least I don't do them on purpose and if I do, I'm wrong. I disagree with a few things Catholics teach, but it's none of my business because I'm not a Catholic. Heck, there is not a church on the planet I agree with 100%

 

[Reasonably Sane]

So no one was saved before the 16th century?

I am no fan of Catholicism, but I completely agree with your sentiment. In fact, that is a question I had to ask regarding all sorts of "Christian" faiths that I consider to be teaching silly stuff. Heck, I have no doubt my church teaches some silly stuff. One by one those teachings are being cleansed from me. At least that is what I believe. But I still go to my church.

 

[Nagomirov]

What does Pomazansky teach that is in error? Because I have heard no criticism of him, even from the Old Calendarists.

I myself have read Metropolitan Macarius Bulgakov, and I am of the view that it might be worthwhile for him to be glorified as a saint of the Orthodox Church based on the importance of his work. But there is nothing in his work that disagrees with Pomazansky that i am aware of. Have you even read Pomazansky?

Now, by the way, unfortunately, I have never been able to find an English translation of Malinkovsky, so I haven’t read him, but I am sure what he wrote is fine.

The only book of Orthodox dogmatic theology that I dislike is that by Fr. Michael Azkoul, who is a schismatic Old Calendarist, because he inserts into the works perspectives on the canonical Orthodox churches held by the schismatic Old Calendarists, which as I see it makes it not actually a work of Eastern Orthodox dogmatic theology but rather of Old Calendarist dogmatic theology, since they left the canonical Orthodox churches, decrying us as “World Orthodox”, and formed their own schismatic churches, despite the fact that in the case of the Russian and Georgian churches the Julian calendar has been maintained, modernism has been rejected, and participation in sycnretist bodies such as the deeply problematic World Council of Churches (which the Eastern Orthodox churches in the Communist lands were forced to join, by the way, by the governments, who saw it as a vector for propaganda and to influence Western policy via an indirect ecclesiastical route, where no one would suspect it; since that time the Georgian Orthodox Church has, in my opinion, very properly withdrawn from the World Council of Churches, and I think every Orthodox Church should follow suit, because of objectionable statements and actions connected to the “Faith and Order Committee” of that body. These have gone unnoticed perhaps, because the Orthodox churches do not participate in the Faith and Order Committee, but its still the sort of thing one would want to avoid.

I am not writing about criticism of Pomazansky, but I am writing to you that if you want traditional classical Orthodox theology, read Bulgakov and Malinovsky. For example, Metropolitan Makarii Bulgakov reports which books are symbolic books of Orthodoxy.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Ephesians 2:8-10

Easy-to-Read Version

​

8 I mean that you have been saved by grace because you believed. You did not save yourselves; it was a gift from God. 9 You are not saved by the things you have done, so there is nothing to boast about. 10 God has made us what we are. In Christ Jesus, God made us new people so that we would spend our lives doing the good things he had already planned for us to do.

 

[Nagomirov]

Those are Decrees, not Canons. There is a rather important distinction. The Decrees are dogmatic definitions promulgated by a council, whereas Canons are disciplinary rules, sometimes called Canon Laws, which have been promulgated over time by some of the ecumenical councils (except for the Second and Third Councils of Constantinople, instead, a subsequent council was held in Trullo for purposes of amending the canonical legislation of the Orthodox Church, which the Roman Catholics immediately rejected, even before the reign of Pope St. Gregory Diologos).

I am not writing about decrees or canons, but about the Confession of Patriarch Dositheus. I have given you the decrees of the Jerusalem Council additionally for the sake of interest. But the symbolic book of Orthodoxy is precisely the Confession of Patriarch Dositheus.

 

[Nagomirov]

What does Pomazansky teach that is in error? Because I have heard no criticism of him, even from the Old Calendarists.

I myself have read Metropolitan Macarius Bulgakov, and I am of the view that it might be worthwhile for him to be glorified as a saint of the Orthodox Church based on the importance of his work. But there is nothing in his work that disagrees with Pomazansky that i am aware of. Have you even read Pomazansky?

Now, by the way, unfortunately, I have never been able to find an English translation of Malinkovsky, so I haven’t read him, but I am sure what he wrote is fine.

The only book of Orthodox dogmatic theology that I dislike is that by Fr. Michael Azkoul, who is a schismatic Old Calendarist, because he inserts into the works perspectives on the canonical Orthodox churches held by the schismatic Old Calendarists, which as I see it makes it not actually a work of Eastern Orthodox dogmatic theology but rather of Old Calendarist dogmatic theology, since they left the canonical Orthodox churches, decrying us as “World Orthodox”, and formed their own schismatic churches, despite the fact that in the case of the Russian and Georgian churches the Julian calendar has been maintained, modernism has been rejected, and participation in sycnretist bodies such as the deeply problematic World Council of Churches (which the Eastern Orthodox churches in the Communist lands were forced to join, by the way, by the governments, who saw it as a vector for propaganda and to influence Western policy via an indirect ecclesiastical route, where no one would suspect it; since that time the Georgian Orthodox Church has, in my opinion, very properly withdrawn from the World Council of Churches, and I think every Orthodox Church should follow suit, because of objectionable statements and actions connected to the “Faith and Order Committee” of that body. These have gone unnoticed perhaps, because the Orthodox churches do not participate in the Faith and Order Committee, but its still the sort of thing one would want to avoid.

SYMBOLIC BOOKS OF THE CAFOLIC ORTHODOX CHURCH

As Metropolitan Makarii writes to Blessed memory, "as a deliberate guide to the detailed presentation of this teaching, as a touchstone for verifying one's Faith, one should recognize "only" two deliberately composed confessions of the Orthodox faith, in the guidance of all Orthodox":

"a) One – about half of the twentieth century (1640) in Kiev, to protect the purity of Orthodoxy both from the opinions of Lutherans and Calvinists, and even more from the opinions of Roman Catholics and former Uniates. This is the “Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East.” At first it was considered at the Council of Kiev, and soon (in 1643) at the Council of Iasi; then it was considered and approved by all four Eastern Patriarchs, and unanimously accepted by the entire Greek Church. Finally, it was approved and approved for the entire Russian Church by Patriarchs Joachim (in 1685) and Adrian (in 1696), who even called this book “inspired by God” (of course, not in the strict sense), and by the Most Holy Governing All-Russian Synod...

b) Another – in the last half of the same century (in 1672), at the Council of Jerusalem, to protect the purity of Orthodoxy from Calvinist errors, under the title: “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith of the Eastern Church.” The truth and purity of this Exposition were again attested by all the Most Holy Patriarchs and other Archpastors of the Eastern Church when they sent it from themselves (1723) in response to the British Christians, as a true exposition and wisdom of the Orthodox faith, and at the same time they informed our Saint for the same purpose. To the Synod; received and witnessed and St. The Synod of All-Russia, which published this confession in Russian in 1838, under the title: “The Message of the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith”, for the guidance of all Orthodox [3].

In general, it should be remembered that the symbolic book of any Church can only be called an Exposition of the faith, published on behalf of all the hierarchs ruling in it, and, consequently, on behalf of the whole Church, and by no means the confession of any private Believer or even a Hierarch, no matter how famous he may be."

__________________________

Source: Makarii (Bulgakov), mitr. Introduction to Orthodox Theology, §151. St. Petersburg, 1897. pp. 415-418