- May 23, 2020
- 235
- 104
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
I have been studying Orthodoxy for a few months now and have a question regarding synods. Today I was reading into reformed theology for the first time in years and came across Cyril Lucaris who was both Patriarch of Alexandria and later Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. It is speculated that he had Calvinist sympathies and wrote a confession affirming Calvinist doctrines (1629). This confession was condemned at the Synod of Jerusalem (1672).
I am not looking to discuss the merits of Calvinism or reformed theology. Rather, my question is in regard to the authority of synods. Since it is not an ecumenical council, is it binding on the whole Church? If it is not, is it binding in some local sense? I'm interested because this particular synod affirmed some odd things:
These two affirmations don't appear to be in accord with the teachings of the Orthodox Church I have come across. Namely, the Orthodox Church doesn't adopt the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation wholesale or the teaching of purgatory (although the latter may be accepted by an individual believer, I think).
I'd appreciate some help on this one!
I am not looking to discuss the merits of Calvinism or reformed theology. Rather, my question is in regard to the authority of synods. Since it is not an ecumenical council, is it binding on the whole Church? If it is not, is it binding in some local sense? I'm interested because this particular synod affirmed some odd things:
Article XVII.—The Eucharist is both a sacrament and a sacrifice, in which the very body and blood of Christ are truly and really (ἀληθῶς καὶ πραγματικῶς) present under the figure and type (ἐν εἴδει καὶ τύπῳ) of bread and wine, are offered to God by the hands of the priest as a real though unbloody sacrifice for all the faithful, whether living or dead (ὑπὲρ πάντων τῶν εὐσεβῶν ζώντων καὶ τεθνεώτων), and are received by the hand and the mouth of unworthy as well as worthy communicants, though with opposite effects. The Lutheran doctrine is rejected, and the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation (μεταβολή, μετουσίωσις) is taught as strongly as words can make it; but it is disclaimed to give an explanation of the mode in which this mysterious and miraculous change of the elements takes place.
Article XVIII.—The souls of the departed are either at rest or in torment, according to their conduct in life; but their condition will not be perfect till the resurrection of the body. The souls of those who die in a state of penitence (μετανοήσαντες), without having brought forth fruits of repentance, or satisfactions (ἱκανοποίησις), depart into Hades (ἀπέρχεσθαι εἰς ᾄδου), and there they must suffer the punishment for their sins; but they may be delivered by the prayers of the priests and the alms of their kindred, especially by the unbloody sacrifice of the mass (μαγάλα δυναμένης μάλιστα τῆς ἀναιμάκτου θυσίας), which individuals offer for their departed relatives, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church daily offers for all alike. The liberation from this intervening state of purification will take place before the resurrection and the general judgment, but the time is unknown.
Article XVIII.—The souls of the departed are either at rest or in torment, according to their conduct in life; but their condition will not be perfect till the resurrection of the body. The souls of those who die in a state of penitence (μετανοήσαντες), without having brought forth fruits of repentance, or satisfactions (ἱκανοποίησις), depart into Hades (ἀπέρχεσθαι εἰς ᾄδου), and there they must suffer the punishment for their sins; but they may be delivered by the prayers of the priests and the alms of their kindred, especially by the unbloody sacrifice of the mass (μαγάλα δυναμένης μάλιστα τῆς ἀναιμάκτου θυσίας), which individuals offer for their departed relatives, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church daily offers for all alike. The liberation from this intervening state of purification will take place before the resurrection and the general judgment, but the time is unknown.
These two affirmations don't appear to be in accord with the teachings of the Orthodox Church I have come across. Namely, the Orthodox Church doesn't adopt the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation wholesale or the teaching of purgatory (although the latter may be accepted by an individual believer, I think).
I'd appreciate some help on this one!