Orthodoxy and Transubstantiation

[Xeno.of.athens]

Synod of Jerusalem, (1672), council of the Eastern Orthodox church convened by Dosítheos, patriarch of Jerusalem, in order to reject the Confession of Orthodox Faith (1629), by Cyril Lucaris, which professed most of the major Calvinist doctrines. The synod rejected unconditional predestination (the doctrine that God has eternally chosen those whom he intends to save) and justification by faith alone, while it affirmed the essentially Roman doctrines of transubstantiation (the change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the mass) and of purgatory. Against Rome, however, it continued to affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The synod also decreed that the church and Scripture are equally infallible, that there are seven sacraments, and that the books of Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom of Solomon are canonical books of the Bible. Synod of Jerusalem | Synod of 843, Byzantine Empire, Iconoclasm | Britannica

I am curious, is Britannica accurate on this matter?

 

[Always in His Presence]

As opposed to what?

Is there a second source that says differently?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Synod of Jerusalem, (1672), council of the Eastern Orthodox church convened by Dosítheos, patriarch of Jerusalem, in order to reject the Confession of Orthodox Faith (1629), by Cyril Lucaris, which professed most of the major Calvinist doctrines. The synod rejected unconditional predestination (the doctrine that God has eternally chosen those whom he intends to save) and justification by faith alone, while it affirmed the essentially Roman doctrines of transubstantiation (the change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the mass) and of purgatory. Against Rome, however, it continued to affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The synod also decreed that the church and Scripture are equally infallible, that there are seven sacraments, and that the books of Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom of Solomon are canonical books of the Bible. Synod of Jerusalem | Synod of 843, Byzantine Empire, Iconoclasm | Britannica

I am curious, is Britannica accurate on this matter?

I do not think we affirm purgatory in any way...so that may make other parts suspect too

 

[Philip_B]

Synod of Jerusalem, (1672), council of the Eastern Orthodox church convened by Dosítheos, patriarch of Jerusalem, in order to reject the Confession of Orthodox Faith (1629), by Cyril Lucaris, which professed most of the major Calvinist doctrines. The synod rejected unconditional predestination (the doctrine that God has eternally chosen those whom he intends to save) and justification by faith alone, while it affirmed the essentially Roman doctrines of transubstantiation (the change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the mass) and of purgatory. Against Rome, however, it continued to affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The synod also decreed that the church and Scripture are equally infallible, that there are seven sacraments, and that the books of Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom of Solomon are canonical books of the Bible. Synod of Jerusalem | Synod of 843, Byzantine Empire, Iconoclasm | Britannica

I am curious, is Britannica accurate on this matter?

the discussion here may help:

Metousiosis - Wikipedia

My feeling is that Orthodoxy is generally happy to speak of the Mystery of the Holy Liturgy and of the real presence of Jesus without have a need to say how. For them, the question of the Eucharist is who not how. The legalistic mindset of the western mind simply asks questions which do not need to be answered.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

the discussion here may help:

Metousiosis - Wikipedia

My feeling is that Orthodoxy is generally happy to speak of the Mystery of the Holy Liturgy and of the real presence of Jesus without have a need to say how. For them, the question of the Eucharist is who not how. The legalistic mindset of the western mind simply asks questions which do not need to be answered.

What?

Imagine that, leaving some questions unanswered!

I suspect that the western minds on CF might be well acquainted with leaving a difficult or deeply obscure question unanswered.

 

[The Liturgist]

I am curious, is Britannica accurate on this matter?

Nope.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Nope.

okay ... any more?

 

[The Liturgist]

okay ... any more?

You may or may not be amused by the fact the synod referred to John Calvin as a heresiarch.

Other than that, nope. I’ve read the synodical text, and recall no mention of purgatory, and so to me this just looks like pure complacency on the part of the Brittanica encyclopedists.

 

[The Liturgist]

As opposed to what?

Canonical Orthodoxy as defined by the ecumenical councils and the Early Church Fathers and more recent Church Fathers, such as blessed Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, who will hopefully soon be officially glorified as a saint for his work in disseminating the Orthodox faith among the members of ROCOR, and who was translated into English by blessed Fr. Seraphim Rose of Platina, whose own glorification seems likely to happen.

Is there a second source that says differently?

Yes, there are the acts of the Synod, in the original Greek, which have been bedtime reading for me since 2014, when I was exhilarated by reading this synod for the first time. Perhaps because of the very, shall we say, refreshingly direct language it uses concerning certain historical figures who I rather dislike.

There exists an English translation in the public domain, but it is unreliable, although even it does not mention purgatory, except in the context of the Calvinist confession allegedly written by Patriarch Cyril, in which Purgatory is described as a “mere fable,” which is a strangely Western polemic to insert into an Eastern confession of faith, which as I see it constitutes one of the more compelling bits of evidence that the confession of faith attributed to him was a forgery, perhaps part of a conspiracy to suggest he was conspiring with a Calvinist power in Western Europe against the Sublime Porte (the government of the Ottoman Empire) leading to his eventual strangulation, which was believed to be on the orders of the Sultan (the preferred method of execution among the Ottoman Turks was strangulation, so for someone to be killed in this way suggested that either they were killed by the Sultan or they were killed extra-judicially by a man or a group in a position of power, for example, the Grand Vizier or a regional Pasha or the Corps of Janissaries.

But at any rate, Britannica was being spectacularly lazy, in that they appear to have looked only at the English translation, and their thought process appears to have been “the synod rejected this confession of faith, which rejects purgatory, therefore the synod accepted purgatory,” which is obviously fallacious and also so profoundly lazy as to be shocking. One ought to expect more.

For my part, I always enjoyed my family’s heirloom, the Encyclopedia Americana edition from around 1960. However, the traditional general encyclopedia has been rendered obsolete by the Internet. What we now have is the more interesting world of specialized encyclopedias being more readily accessible, along with a surprisingly rich content base on Wikipedia, where reliability is of course not guaranteed, but as long as one takes the time to evaluate the potential accuracy of the information contained and look for biases, it can be quite useful. Where Wikipedia really shines is in articles of a technical nature on subjects which are uncontroversial.

For example, the articles it provides on the fleet history of the major US airlines are thrilling to say the least, as are the many articles it provides on urban transport systems, and I have been able to independently verify their veracity, which was itself thoroughly enjoyable (for example, the superb airline profiles by R.E.G. Davies such as Delta: An Airline and Its Aircraft, or TWA: An Airline and its Aircraft, or Eastern: An Airline and its Aircraft, or the classic Pan Am: An Airline and its Aircraft, not to mention the rare and highly sought after Aeroflot: An Airline and its Aircraft, which cost $150 in my childhood and is now worth around $300, so thanks be to God I have a physical copy, contain fleet histories which are extremely detailed. For instance, we know the Clipper names with Pan Am, and the tail numbers with all of the above, as well as the manufacturer’s serial numbers, the production numbers, the entry into service, the disposition, and in the case of TWA’s Boeing 727s, even the porcine-themed nicknames.

For example, Fleet Number 4319, N64319 “Aurora Boorialis”, delivered on 4/18/69, and initially leased to National, and later sold and leased back from ASC in 1984 in one of several such deals intended to shore up TWA’s cashflow. This was a Boeing 727-231, serial number 20052, a standard -200 and not one of the -200Adv aircraft with improved efficiency and avionics delivered starting in 1974. Her sister ship, “Pigmalion”, serial number 20051, N64318, fleet number 4318, was delivered two days earlier, and was retired from TWA service by being returned to the lessor following the same sale-leaseback transaction as “Aurora Boorialis”, on August 31, 1992. The final TWA 727 service in on 9/30/2000 was operated by N64339, fleet no. 4339, a 727-231Adv, “Swine, Star of Beirut,” so called because she was hijacked in 1985, but successfully retrieved and returned to service, in what would have been a very good plot for a Chuck Norris film (actually I do recall there being a Churck Norris film involving Delta Force having to deal with a hijacked aircraft).

Now obviously with theological material, more care must be exercised than when verifying airline fleet rosters, which is why I exhort people to read the original Greek acts of the Synod of Dositheus.

Lastly it must be stressed that the synod was a local synod, and not an ecumenical synod, although in terms of its rejection of Calvinism by the Orthodox, Calvinism tends to be incompatible with various doctrinal positions adopted at the third, fifth, sixth and seventh ecumenical councils, so there is nothing new or particularly interesting in that decision. The main controvery stems from the synods use of the word “transubstantiation” which one sees in Orthodox texts from that era through to the early 20th century to refer to our belief in the real presence, but which was not used in Patristic texts and which has fallen out of favor starting in the mid 20th century, since the specific detail in the Thomistic concept of transubstantiation has never been embraced by the Orthodox:

As an example, we do not believe in the idea of the substance changing while the accidents remain the same, as these are Aristotelian concepts which also I would note do not reflect the true nature of reality, except perhaps as shorthand for the difference between the perceptual reality of an object and the hidden truths it contains, but with the Eucharist we really don’t want to go there, far less do we want a discourse on the molecular biology of the real change or what transpires at a quantum level (I have a profound contempt, which I suspect you might share, for those people, usually quacks selling bogus panaceas, that try to mix quantum mechanics with theology, usually non-Christian theology such as the Far Eastern concept of “chakras”, Gwenneth Paltrow being a particularly notorious offender in this regard, but one also does encounter the odd “New Age Christian” who seems determined to blend Christianity with what actual particle physicists refer to as “Quantum Woo,” usually for nefarious purposes, such as selling herbal concoctions to gullible Christians who believe in our Lord but who have not been … well catechized.

 

[Philip_B]

Imagine that, leaving some questions unanswered!

Yes, I think that may well be the point. Western Theology has sought to define the divine whereas Eastern Theology has focused more on probing the mystery of the divine. So yes, I think Eastern Theology leaves far more things unanswered.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes, I think that may well be the point. Western Theology has sought to define the divine whereas Eastern Theology has focused more on probing the mystery of the divine. So yes, I think Eastern Theology leaves far more things unanswered.

My comment was humor.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Yes, I think that may well be the point. Western Theology has sought to define the divine whereas Eastern Theology has focused more on probing the mystery of the divine. So yes, I think Eastern Theology leaves far more things unanswered.

Isaiah 55:8-9

 

[zippy2006]

I am curious, is Britannica accurate on this matter?

It certainly seems to be, and no one has presented any evidence to the contrary. Obviously Britannica is a reputable source which cannot simply be dismissed out of hand.

Philip Schaff says of the doctrine, "This is essentially the Romish doctrine of purgatory, although the term is avoided, and nothing is said of material or physical torments" (Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 1).

For quotes from the Council itself, see:

• The Orthodox view of Purgatory (Catholic Answers)
• Orthodox version of Purgatory (Christian Forums)
• The Confession of Dositheus, especially Decree 18

 

[The Liturgist]

It certainly seems to be, and no one has presented any evidence to the contrary.

That’s not true. I specifically described the acts of the Council of Dositheus.

The Orthodox have always rejected Purgatory, we have an alternate view of what happens to the soul after death, and the only place Purgatory was even mentioned at the Synod of Dositheus was at the reading into the record of the heretical confession of Jeremiah.

I also said where the text could be found.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Confession of Dositheus (Eastern Orthodox)

The above reference from @zippy2006 's post is quite good reading.

 

[The Liturgist]

Also, the doctrine you linked to @zippy2006 contains what one might delicately refer to as an inaccuracy:

“Since the Orthodox lack an objectively identifiable teaching authority, some Orthodox today reject this synodal teaching on purgatory as authoritative in Orthodoxy.”

The Orthodox have an objectively identifiable teaching authority in the form of the bishops of the Church and the acts and canons of the Ecumenical Councils and also local councils that individual churches participate in. There is additionally the liturgy itself, which along with Sacred Scripture, is our primary teaching authority.

The Synod of Dositheus was a local synod, which means it is applicable only for those churches whose bishops participated in it directly while in Bethlehem for the consecration of the rebuilt Church of the Nativity and whose Holy Synods subsequently approved this.

I would respectfully suggest that in the future, if anyone has serious questions about the Orthodox, you ask them in the Orthodox subforum The Ancient Way, which also provides a facility where you can debate us if you don’t like the answers. To my knowledge the Orthodox congregational forum on CF.com is the only one that provides a subforum where members of other churches can debate us.

Otherwise it runs a risk of giving off the impression, however unwarranted, of members of other denominations having a grand old time discussing how superstitious or backwards or disorganized we are, by posting in a forum where most Orthodox on the forum do not post. And such an impression is definitely going to offend many Orthodox members of the forum, given you know, the whole Fourth Crusade, and the Council of Florence, and the case of St. Peter the Aleut, a 15 year old native Alaskan, who was martyred in California after inadvertently sailing into Spanish territorial waters while on a fishing expedition and being arrested, where his baptismal cross and Orthodox status resulted in him being taken to one of the missions and martyred for being Orthodox - basically for crossing himself right to left rather than left to right.

And of course, I will be the first to admit Roman Catholics have legitimate grievances with us. There has been sectarian violence on both sides. When Yugoslavia broke up, most of the violence on the part of Republica Srpska (the ethnically Serbian part of Bosnia-Herzegovinw-Srpska, not a part of Serbia proper, but heavily influenced by the dictatorship of Slobodan Milosevic) was directed at the Muslim-majority Bosnians, but some Catholics, both in Sarajevo and other parts of Bosnia, and in the predominantly ethnically Croatian Republic of Herzegovina (whose relationship with Zagreb is similar to that between Srpska and Belgrade).

I am opposed to sectarian violence, and for the same reason I am also opposed to pointless arguments between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox members of the forum.

If we are to achieve the goal of reunification by 2054, so that the apppalling schism is not permitted to exist for another century, we have 30 years in which to start loving each other unconditionally. As it stands, the only churches not in communion with Rome, where Rome nonetheless permits Catholics to receive the sacraments, and vice versa, are the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East.

Additionally it is the case that most sui juris Eastern Catholic churches, including most notably the Byzantine Greek Catholic Church, do not use the filioque - apparently the Roman church regards it as being inappropriate to use with the Greek language due to the syntax and grammar of Greek leading to the potential for the filioque to ne misinterpreted in a manner that would constitute a theological error. This is interesting and it suggests to me a willingness on the part of the Roman church to address the concerns of the Orthodox.

And for our part, in addition to the Syriac Orthodox (Oriental Orthodox) parish in Istanbul providing communion to Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics, there has been extremely close practical cooperation in Syria and Lebanon between the Antiochian Orthodox (EO), the Syriac Orthodox Church and Armenian Apostolic Church (OO), the Melkite Greek Catholics, Syriac Catholics, Maronites, and the Roman Rite Catholics, and likewise, in Iraq between the relatively small number of Antiochians, and the very large number of Syriac Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Chaldean Catholic Church, and the Ancient Church of the East, and between the Roman Rite Catholics, Armenian Catholics and Chaldean Catholics in Iran, and the Armenian Apostolic Church, Syriac Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, a country where extreme solidarity is required due to Ayatollah Khamenei apparently being a clone of Ayatollah Khomeini, or at least, of near-identical politics as well as fanaticism, bigotry, hatefulness and physical appearance.

Likewise in Egypt there are very good relations between the Coptic Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria and All Africa, and the Coptic Catholics, Melkite Catholics and Roman Rite Catholics, in the only place in the world where there are three Popes, all on good terms: His Holiness Pope Francis of Rome, His Beatitude Theodore II the Greek Orthodox Pope of Alexandria, Patriarch of All Africa, 13th Apostle and Judge of the Universe (yes, that actually is his title, so the next time some Protestant complains about the titles used by the Pope of Rome, just refer them to Pope Theodore II of Alexandria) and His Holiness Tawadros II, the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria (whose name is literally the Coptic form of the Greek name Theodore II).

So rather than firing broadsides at each other over which church has more authority, perhaps the Orthodox and Catholic members on CF.com should follow the example of the three Popes who preside over churches which amount to the majority of Christians in Egypt and Africa. In so doing, Popes Francis, Theodore and Theodore have made themselves an icon of the Holy Trinity, which in Orthodox soteriology, is the vocation for humanity as a whole and the path to salvation, to make ourselves an icon of the Holy Trinity in terms of our relations with each other, with our families, our neighbors, our clients or employers, our fellow Christians in the Church, and the human race in its entirety.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Also, the doctrine you linked to @zippy2006 contains what one might delicately refer to as an inaccuracy:

“Since the Orthodox lack an objectively identifiable teaching authority, some Orthodox today reject this synodal teaching on purgatory as authoritative in Orthodoxy.”

The Orthodox have an objectively identifiable teaching authority in the form of the bishops of the Church and the acts and canons of the Ecumenical Councils and also local councils that individual churches participate in. There is additionally the liturgy itself, which along with Sacred Scripture, is our primary teaching authority.

The Synod of Dositheus was a local synod, which means it is applicable only for those churches whose bishops participated in it directly while in Bethlehem for the consecration of the rebuilt Church of the Nativity and whose Holy Synods subsequently approved this.

I would respectfully suggest that in the future, if anyone has serious questions about the Orthodox, you ask them in the Orthodox subforum The Ancient Way, which also provides a facility where you can debate us if you don’t like the answers. To my knowledge the Orthodox congregational forum on CF.com is the only one that provides a subforum where members of other churches can debate us.

Otherwise it runs a risk of giving off the impression, however unwarranted, of members of other denominations having a grand old time discussing how superstitious or backwards or disorganized we are, by posting in a forum where most Orthodox on the forum do not post. And such an impression is definitely going to offend many Orthodox members of the forum, given you know, the whole Fourth Crusade, and the Council of Florence, and the case of St. Peter the Aleut, a 15 year old native Alaskan, who was martyred in California after inadvertently sailing into Spanish territorial waters while on a fishing expedition and being arrested, where his baptismal cross and Orthodox status resulted in him being taken to one of the missions and martyred for being Orthodox - basically for crossing himself right to left rather than left to right.

And of course, I will be the first to admit Roman Catholics have legitimate grievances with us. There has been sectarian violence on both sides. When Yugoslavia broke up, most of the violence on the part of Republica Srpska (the ethnically Serbian part of Bosnia-Herzegovinw-Srpska, not a part of Serbia proper, but heavily influenced by the dictatorship of Slobodan Milosevic) was directed at the Muslim-majority Bosnians, but some Catholics, both in Sarajevo and other parts of Bosnia, and in the predominantly ethnically Croatian Republic of Herzegovina (whose relationship with Zagreb is similar to that between Srpska and Belgrade).

I am opposed to sectarian violence, and for the same reason I am also opposed to pointless arguments between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox members of the forum.

If we are to achieve the goal of reunification by 2054, so that the apppalling schism is not permitted to exist for another century, we have 30 years in which to start loving each other unconditionally. As it stands, the only churches not in communion with Rome, where Rome nonetheless permits Catholics to receive the sacraments, and vice versa, are the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East.

Additionally it is the case that most sui juris Eastern Catholic churches, including most notably the Byzantine Greek Catholic Church, do not use the filioque - apparently the Roman church regards it as being inappropriate to use with the Greek language due to the syntax and grammar of Greek leading to the potential for the filioque to ne misinterpreted in a manner that would constitute a theological error. This is interesting and it suggests to me a willingness on the part of the Roman church to address the concerns of the Orthodox.

And for our part, in addition to the Syriac Orthodox (Oriental Orthodox) parish in Istanbul providing communion to Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics, there has been extremely close practical cooperation in Syria and Lebanon between the Antiochian Orthodox (EO), the Syriac Orthodox Church and Armenian Apostolic Church (OO), the Melkite Greek Catholics, Syriac Catholics, Maronites, and the Roman Rite Catholics, and likewise, in Iraq between the relatively small number of Antiochians, and the very large number of Syriac Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Chaldean Catholic Church, and the Ancient Church of the East, and between the Roman Rite Catholics, Armenian Catholics and Chaldean Catholics in Iran, and the Armenian Apostolic Church, Syriac Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, a country where extreme solidarity is required due to Ayatollah Khamenei apparently being a clone of Ayatollah Khomeini, or at least, of near-identical politics as well as fanaticism, bigotry, hatefulness and physical appearance.

Likewise in Egypt there are very good relations between the Coptic Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria and All Africa, and the Coptic Catholics, Melkite Catholics and Roman Rite Catholics, in the only place in the world where there are three Popes, all on good terms: His Holiness Pope Francis of Rome, His Beatitude Theodore II the Greek Orthodox Pope of Alexandria, Patriarch of All Africa, 13th Apostle and Judge of the Universe (yes, that actually is his title, so the next time some Protestant complains about the titles used by the Pope of Rome, just refer them to Pope Theodore II of Alexandria) and His Holiness Tawadros II, the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria (whose name is literally the Coptic form of the Greek name Theodore II).

So rather than firing broadsides at each other over which church has more authority, perhaps the Orthodox and Catholic members on CF.com should follow the example of the three Popes who preside over churches which amount to the majority of Christians in Egypt and Africa. In so doing, Popes Francis, Theodore and Theodore have made themselves an icon of the Holy Trinity, which in Orthodox soteriology, is the vocation for humanity as a whole and the path to salvation, to make ourselves an icon of the Holy Trinity in terms of our relations with each other, with our families, our neighbors, our clients or employers, our fellow Christians in the Church, and the human race in its entirety.

You made a number of very good points in your reply. I do want to point out however, that contrary to one statement you made in a previous post, at least some orthodox at some time in history do appear to have taught something very much like purgatory. You are without doubt correct in saying that orthodoxy as a whole does not teach this. Nevertheless some appear to have taught it at one time or another. Am I mistaken in making that assertion?

 

[The Liturgist]

The Confession of Dositheus (Eastern Orthodox)

The above reference from @zippy2006 's post is quite good reading.

Is it though? How does that inaccurate translation of a council whose raison d’etre was to consider how to respond to the problems posed if Patriarch Cyril Lukaris had in fact become a Calvinist, or worse, if such an event were to happen again, help promote harmony between traditional Christians of Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican and Calvinist opinion?

Are you aware that at the time the canonical Orthodox Churches actively anathematized your church, and vice-versa, and since that time have stopped anathematizing each other?

There is a reason why I did not provide a link to that document (by the way, I would not have provided a link to that edition, but to an older edition which is still inaccurate but which at least I had the time to read and compare to the Greek, whereas I have not seen that copy before. I have nothing to hide - it is no secret, but I did not deem it profitable, for reasons which I hope you will come to understand in the fullness of time, since our dialogue has made it clear you desire ecumenical reconciliation, as do I - you doubtless want it in terms of adoption of Roman Catholic doctrine, and I want it on Orthodox terms, but nonetheless we still want it - and to be clear I am not calling for compromise or syncretism.

Rather, my position is that at some point, God will provide us with the opportunity to reconcile. Most schisms in the Orthodox church have healed, historically speaking, as indeed have several of the worst schisms in the Roman Catholic church, for example, the rival papacies of the Third Century, the Three Chapters Controversy, and the Great Western Schism in the 15th century. It can be the same with us, and with the Lutherans, and indeed many Anglicans have joined the Catholic and Orthodox churches, reducing the scale of that schism on an individual basis.

But we will not attain unity unless we love each other. And reading that document does not produce love. The document is specific to conditions that existed in the 17th century which are relevant only to the Orthodox as a matter of internal reference, not unlike certain synods that are specific to the Roman Catholic Church - it is by definition a local synod, and not an ecumenical one.

That said I would note you would have had access to the acts of that synod via my library as naturally it is in there, but if I do share my library with you and other members, I should like it if we could agree to not use the library to write polemics about each other’s churches, except, I would argue, with the very limited case of if someone tries to hijack one of the churches and change its teaching on human sexuality, like what happened with the mainline Protestant denomination in which I was baptized, and also the mainline Protestant denomination I used to work for, before realizing that the United Church of Christ was a false cause and the unity it pursued on ecclesiastical grounds had been replaced by a unity based on left-wing political extremism, to the extent that the Gospel was being diluted even in the remaining traditionalist churches of the “Faithful and Welcoming” group, which furthermore to a large extent included liturgical congregational reformed churches from central Europe, a typical example being the Hungarian Reformed Church in Los Angeles, which is solidly traditional and operates to a large extent in blissful ignorance of what happens at, say, the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas, Texas or Old South Church in Boston.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Is it though? How does that inaccurate translation of a council whose raison d’etre was to consider how to respond to the problems posed if Patriarch Cyril Lukaris had in fact become a Calvinist, or worse, if such an event were to happen again, help promote harmony between traditional Christians of Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican and Calvinist opinion?

Are you aware that at the time the canonical Orthodox Churches actively anathematized your church, and vice-versa, and since that time have stopped anathematizing each other?

There is a reason why I did not provide a link to that document (by the way, I would not have provided a link to that edition, but to an older edition which is still inaccurate but which at least I had the time to read and compare to the Greek, whereas I have not seen that copy before. I have nothing to hide - it is no secret, but I did not deem it profitable, for reasons which I hope you will come to understand in the fullness of time, since our dialogue has made it clear you desire ecumenical reconciliation, as do I - you doubtless want it in terms of adoption of Roman Catholic doctrine, and I want it on Orthodox terms, but nonetheless we still want it - and to be clear I am not calling for compromise or syncretism.

Rather, my position is that at some point, God will provide us with the opportunity to reconcile. Most schisms in the Orthodox church have healed, historically speaking, as indeed have several of the worst schisms in the Roman Catholic church, for example, the rival papacies of the Third Century, the Three Chapters Controversy, and the Great Western Schism in the 15th century. It can be the same with us, and with the Lutherans, and indeed many Anglicans have joined the Catholic and Orthodox churches, reducing the scale of that schism on an individual basis.

But we will not attain unity unless we love each other. And reading that document does not produce love. The document is specific to conditions that existed in the 17th century which are relevant only to the Orthodox as a matter of internal reference, not unlike certain synods that are specific to the Roman Catholic Church - it is by definition a local synod, and not an ecumenical one.

That said I would note you would have had access to the acts of that synod via my library as naturally it is in there, but if I do share my library with you and other members, I should like it if we could agree to not use the library to write polemics about each other’s churches, except, I would argue, with the very limited case of if someone tries to hijack one of the churches and change its teaching on human sexuality, like what happened with the mainline Protestant denomination in which I was baptized, and also the mainline Protestant denomination I used to work for, before realizing that the United Church of Christ was a false cause and the unity it pursued on ecclesiastical grounds had been replaced by a unity based on left-wing political extremism, to the extent that the Gospel was being diluted even in the remaining traditionalist churches of the “Faithful and Welcoming” group, which furthermore to a large extent included liturgical congregational reformed churches from central Europe, a typical example being the Hungarian Reformed Church in Los Angeles, which is solidly traditional and operates to a large extent in blissful ignorance of what happens at, say, the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas, Texas or Old South Church in Boston.

Please accept my apology if anything I have written was offensive to you, I have not intended to offend you in any way. God willing I shall find my way to the orthodox sub forum and to the debate area and if I have any questions that I would like to discuss on a more debate-oriented approach I will do so in there, if I failed to do so please remind me, my memory is not perfect. God bless I thank you for your kind words.

 

[The Liturgist]

You made a number of very good points in your reply. I do want to point out however, that contrary to one statement you made in a previous post, at least some orthodox at some time in history do appear to have taught something very much like purgatory. You are without doubt correct in saying that orthodoxy as a whole does not teach this. Nevertheless some appear to have taught it at one time or another. Am I mistaken in making that assertion?

If you want to know what we have actually been taught, my library contains a volume which I will supply you with, called “The State of the Soul After Death” by Fr. Seraphim Rose.

It is also the case that the Orthodox believe that the suffering of those in Hades before the General Resurrection can be alieviated through prayer for the dead, and some would argue that the possiblity might exist for a change in eschatological status through intercessory prayer, owing to the infinte mercy of God the Father Almighty, the Holy Spirit and Christ Pantocrator, and the loving compassion of our glorious lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary and all the Saints, who, by virtue of their salvation through theosis, their sainthood, have become more like God in terms of their capacity for love and mercy, which is why they are worthy of veneration as icons of God, just like those icons which depict our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ.

But we must still prepare ourselves to stand before Christ Pantocrator.

+

Perhaps a reconciliation to our argument could be attained on these lines: Orthodoxy does, in general, but not exclusively, teach something vaguely similar to the idea of Purgatory as expressed in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. However, Purgatory as expressed historically, as a place, for example, in Dante’s Divine Comedy, is unknown to us.

I would also note that the entire Orthodox Church has not reached consensus on this part, and additionally, the specific points I am raising are predominantly Eastern Orthodox - the Oriental Orthodox position is not as expressly defined, but the prevailing Eastern Orthodox view is not universally accepted either.

This takes us to my remark that the teaching authority in the Orthodox Church consists of the canonical diocesan bishops and the liturgy.

Whatever the liturgy says, is doctrine. Whatever Scripture says, in an accurate translation, is doctrine. The hymns in the liturgy, including the Creed, which we sing as a hymn rather than merely saying it in unison, provide the official interpretation of Scripture.

Everything else, for example, the highly regarded book by Fr. Seraphim Rose, has some merit, but it is secondary compared to the liturgy. But within each diocese, the Bishop, as the archpastor of that diocese, exercises a personal teaching office and is to be looked to as a figure of authority.