the same thing

[Mark of Ephesus]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

It does not surprise me in the least that an EO priest would make the reamrk in the OP to a Greek Catholic. I would, however, be surprised if it were said to a Roman Catholic.

Considering RC's and GC's are of one communion and share the same beliefs, it would be illogical to accept one but reject the other.

Originally Posted by dvdjs

I don't believe for a minute that the elders in the link did not require food or sleep. And I am wondering if you have evidence to support what you suggest.

Glorification is not always a permanent state, so not all elders permanently live off of the Divine Energies. Moses, for example, did so only for forty days. In the end, however, I cannot tell you anything that will convince you. My own experience at Elder Ephraim's monastery in Arizona (St. Anthony's) confirmed my speculations, but it is just that - my experience. One of the most wonder and beautiful things about Orthodoxy is that our elders (or any Glorified individual) carry on the tradition of the OT prophets (though since Pentecost, they have become much more abundant). Very often, those who have these experiences hide themselves from the world (for the sake of humility). It is often only by divine command that they reveal themselves for our benefit (though some, such as the twelve invisible monks of Mt. Athos, do so rarely). I cannot provide for you any proof of these miracles save the words of others and my own experience (at least not any more than I can of the Resurrection). I do, however, believe the words of St. Gregory Palamas, St. Symeon the New Theologian, and St. Gregory the Theologian (and many others) in describing these events. What little knowledge and experience I have has convinced me that the aforementioned saints were correct, and that noetic prayer exists, as does the miraculous occurrence of theosis.

Originally Posted by dvdjs

As to contradiction of the Fathers - I find their disinterest in unity to contradict Christ. I find their lack of a demeanor of philanthropos, again to contradict Christ. These findings are provisional of course: there is so little on the video. By the same token your claim of "never" contradicting the Fathers is beyond your knowing; it is beyond proving. Your criteria for recognition are a bit fanciful.

Christ never advocated unity as most would describe it. In fact, the "unity" most reference (in John 17) has nothing to do with the ecumenical relations of Christians, but of noetic unity.

On the contradiction of fathers, many will happily tell you they never contradict the fathers. If I remember correctly, St. Moses of Optina proudly said towards the end of his life that he never once gave advice that could be found outside the fathers.

Originally Posted by dvdjs

Overall I think PR has the right idea. We have, from the earliest times, the episcopal office for oversight of the church. We of course can learn much from holy men and women, but it is an innovation to look to them for the oversight of the church. (And there is the danger of personality cults.) Do you see this as a idiosyncratic belief on your part, or do you think it is embedded in the EOC; if the latter, when did this come about?

It is no innovation. Does not St. Paul write to the Corinthians :

"And God has set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."

In the early church, more were glorified, especially in the ranks of the episcopacy. Gradually, the more worldly minded worked their way in and reforms were made (around the time of St. Symeon) to reserve the episcopacy entirely for those devout and pious monks (i.e. the hesychasts). In our day and age, however, even many Orthodox monasteries have begun neglecting hesychas, thus many our bishops are devoted to the ways of the world. They do not follow tradition. Nevertheless, we are obedient to them, but not when they contradict the fathers. Remember that Nestorius and his ilk were bishops.


Yes but that takes us back to the above: you have not given any useful ways by which you can recognize the glorified. You can claim it, but i sis just a claim.[/quote]

[twf]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

It does not surprise me in the least that an EO priest would make the reamrk in the OP to a Greek Catholic. I would, however, be surprised if it were said to a Roman Catholic.



I don't believe for a minute that the elders in the link did not require food or sleep. And I am wondering if you have evidence to support what you suggest. As to contradiction of the Fathers - I find their disinterest in unity to contradict Christ. I find their lack of a demeanor of philanthropos, again to contradict Christ. These findings are provisional of course: there is so little on the video. By the same token your claim of "never" contradicting the Fathers is beyond your knowing; it is beyond proving. Your criteria for recognition are a bit fanciful.

Overall I think PR has the right idea. We have, from the earliest times, the episcopal office for oversight of the church. We of course can learn much from holy men and women, but it is an innovation to look to them for the oversight of the church. (And there is the danger of personality cults.) Do you see this as a idiosyncratic belief on your part, or do you think it is embedded in the EOC; if the latter, when did this come about?


Yes but that takes us back to the above: you have not given any useful ways by which you can recognize the glorified. You can claim it, but i sis just a claim.

Actually, the idea of holy men and women reaching a state of sanctification, or in Eastern terminology, theosis, in which they no longer require food or drink is not unknown to Catholicism...I have read accounts of Latin saints who, reportedly for decades, lived off the body and blood of Our Lord, received at daily mass, and nothing else...

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by twf

Actually, the idea of holy men and women reaching a state of sanctification, or in Eastern terminology, theosis, in which they no longer require food or drink is not unknown to Catholicism...I have read accounts of Latin saints who, reportedly for decades, lived off the body and blood of Our Lord, received at daily mass, and nothing else...

Nothing else is not nothing.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Mark of Ephesus

Considering RC's and GC's are of one communion and share the same beliefs, it would be illogical to accept one but reject the other.

It is not illogical; rather it points out the importance of drilling deeper to establish criteria and standards of "sameness" or for that matter "beliefs".

I cannot tell you anything that will convince you. My own experience at Elder Ephraim's monastery in Arizona (St. Anthony's) confirmed my speculations, but it is just that - my experience.

I agree with this comment, and do not wish to dispute your understanding of your experience. But it is worth pointing out that mileage varies. In particular, some EOs see Elder Ephraim in an extremely different light. God knows. You have a belief in this man. That perspective is not without danger.

Christ never advocated unity as most would describe it. In fact, the "unity" most reference (in John 17) has nothing to do with the ecumenical relations of Christians, but of noetic unity.

I am fine with the idea of noetic unity - what is the fruit of the men that you have linked to? How does their pointedly divisive talk advance noetic unity?

On the contradiction of fathers, many will happily tell you they never contradict the fathers. If I remember correctly, St. Moses of Optina proudly said towards the end of his life that he never once gave advice that could be found outside the fathers.

Why would anyone be interested in this saints prideful claim?

It is no innovation. Does not St. Paul write to the Corinthians :

"And God has set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."

In the early church, more were glorified, especially in the ranks of the episcopacy. Gradually, the more worldly minded worked their way in and reforms were made (around the time of St. Symeon) to reserve the episcopacy entirely for those devout and pious monks (i.e. the hesychasts). In our day and age, however, even many Orthodox monasteries have begun neglecting hesychas, thus many our bishops are devoted to the ways of the world. They do not follow tradition. Nevertheless, we are obedient to them, but not when they contradict the fathers. Remember that Nestorius and his ilk were bishops.

So you see a change over time - good enough - and call attention to some going off the tracks. We have the church telling us that the Nestorians were off the track. By what authority can you make conclusions about bishops of our day and age?

[steve b]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

Hi Steve. Just FYI, this is probably not a good argument to make. A rose by any other name..., you know? If things really were this simple, then I'm afraid you would have to abandon your Pope and follow the Pope of Alexandria, as it was an honor bestowed upon the bishop of the See of St. Mark in Alexandria who first received that title, actually from the Bishop of Rome (not to him, as you might expect if you're RC), as its first recorded use was from him, in a letter from Dionysus of Rome in reference to St. Pope Heraclas of Alexandria (232-248), the 13th bishop to preside as bishop of Alexandria. You can read it yourself in Eusebius' church history, wherein the relevant line in the original is: τοῦτον ἐγὼ τὸν κανόνα καὶ τὸν τύπον παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου πάπα ἡμῶν Ἡρακλᾶ παρέλαβον. This was the first time in recorded history that this term was used to refer to a bishop. Rome would not take up the term for its own bishops until several centuries later.

The question I asked was not the 1st use of "pope", the question was the 1st time we see [O]rthodox Church] in history as the proper name

[steve b]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

And of course, the argument he makes is also fallacious, because neither the Eastern Orthodox nor the Oriental Orthodox have stopped claiming to be the Catholic Church,

It's my understanding, that this equalization of terms is not allowed on this forum. It only introduces confusion

Originally Posted by C

just as the Catholics have never stopped claiming that their faith is the orthodox faith. One could easily turn Steve's fallacious question around and say, "when did the Catholics cease believing that their faith is orthodox?" A rose by another name indeed.

It's why I highlighted small [o] vs capitalized [O]. One way is an adjective the other is a proper noun. The Orthodox Church is NOT the Catholic Church. And yes the Catholic Church is fully orthodox.

Go back and look at what I was addressing from Hesychios.

[Mark of Ephesus]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

In particular, some EOs see Elder Ephraim in an extremely different light. God knows. You have a belief in this man. That perspective is not without danger.

Some saw the apostles in a different light too.

Originally Posted by dvdjs

I am fine with the idea of noetic unity - what is the fruit of the men that you have linked to? How does their pointedly divisive talk advance noetic unity?

Noetic unity is not acquired through conversation, study, or research. If one desires noetic unity with the saints, then one should submit to the guidance of a spiritual father who himself prayers noetically. One should take to heart St. John Chrysostom's words :

"It is necessary for everyone, whether eating, drinking, sitting, serving, traveling, or doing anything, to unceasingly say: 'Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me,' that the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, descending into the depths of the heart, may subdue the pernicious serpent, and save and quicken the soul."

Originally Posted by dvdjs

Why would anyone be interested in this saints prideful claim?

You were skeptical of my claim that certain saints never contradicted the fathers. That was just an example of one who made it his "boast".

Originally Posted by dvdjs

So you see a change over time - good enough - and call attention to some going off the tracks. We have the church telling us that the Nestorians were off the track. By what authority can you make conclusions about bishops of our day and age?

Canon 15 of the Eighth Ecumenical Council :

"But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions."

That is authority to break communion with one's bishop. This would cover episcopal criticism (which is much lesser of an act).

Originally Posted by dvdjs

In particular, what authority can you suggest that Patriarch Athenagoras went off the tracks? As elevated as your motives and standards are, ultimately you are relying on your personal judgment. It may all work out well, but the potential risks are very high.

I would not trust my personal judgment as I am not Glorified. Elder Paisios (and many others on Athos) rebuked Patriarch Athenagoras for his ecumenism. That is enough authority for me.

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by steve b

It's my understanding, that this equalization of terms is not allowed on this forum. It only introduces confusion

It's not allowed for people to identify their faith as 'Catholic' or 'Orthodox Catholic' on this forum, unless they are in communion with the bishop of Rome, in order to prevent confusion. I am not aware of any other restrictions, but if I an wrong, then somebody can correct me.

Originally Posted by steve b

It's why I highlighted small [o] vs capitalized [O]. One way is an adjective the other is a proper noun. The Orthodox Church is NOT the Catholic Church. And yes the Catholic Church is fully orthodox.

Go back and look at what I was addressing from Hesychios.

The Orthodox Church, according to the Orthodox, is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. We say it every time we say the creed. As you have pointed out, we don't normally say that we are the Catholic Church, in order to prevent confusion, but we self-identify our Church to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, not yours.

[dzheremi]

There is only one clause in the Creed that I have had to stop using (gladly!) since coming into the Orthodox Church, and it is not the "Catholic" one. Oddly enough, not even the Jordanians united with Rome who often attend our liturgies are confused as to where they are...not even when they say they prefer our liturgies to theirs.

[rben20]

If Peter established several sees why then is Rome reserved to be the "chair of peter?"

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by rben20

If Peter established several sees why then is Rome reserved to be the "chair of peter?"

Same reason why the Pope of Alexandria is the judge of the universe. Those silly Romans (East and West), loved titles.

Now is he literally the judge of the universe? I don't think so. If I am correct, that title was given to him because he was in charge of calculating the date of Easter according to the council of Nicaea. Is the Pope of Rome, then, literally the only see of Peter? Pope Gregory even wrote that the sees of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome share the one see of Peter. That title of the see of Peter and its meaning are a mystery to me.

[dzheremi]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Same reason why the Pope of Alexandria is the judge of the universe. Those silly Romans (East and West), loved titles.

Hey! Whose side are you on here, anyway?

Now is he literally the judge of the universe? I don't think so.

If you have to ask... (no, he's not). You don't hear it very often, anyway, except for maybe in glorification hymns for departed Popes as we have for Pope Kyrillos VI and probably also by now for Pope Shenouda III. As you will notice in the video even if you don't speak Arabic, Jesus Christ is the true judge and the Pope and all of the universe are in servitude to Him (this is what the first line is about, saying Pope Kyrillos is, as the stars in the universe which serve Christ Jesus, shining upon Deir el-Baramous, one of the famous Coptic monasteries).

Is the Pope of Rome, then, literally the only see of Peter? Pope Gregory even wrote that the sees of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome share the one see of Peter. That title of the see of Peter and its meaning are a mystery to me.

Seeing as how St. Mark was educated in the Christian faith directly by St. Peter (as recounted in the synaxarium and other places), in the Alexandrian church we would take such a thing quite literally! But as to what the Romans mean by "see of Peter"...yeah, you got me. If it's Rome (and it is), then surely it must also be Antioch, but you don't see the Romans clinging so tightly to that one. They say it's because Rome was the center of the empire. Fine, Rome was the center of the Empire. Was. In other ways, Rome pales in comparison to both Alexandria and Antioch or even Nisbis (and later Edessa), as they all were centers of Christian learning, the type of which did not flourish in Rome until sometime later (since it wasn't until after the founding of the schools in those places that Christianity was even legalized). So Romans came to Alexandria to learn the way of monasticism and the true Christian faith, or other places (I don't know as much about the schools of Antioch and Edessa, but there are records of many fine Romans who went on to be saints visiting Alexandria to learn there and even establish monasteries; Deir el-Baramous in fact is the Copto-Arabic pronounciation of "Pa-Romeos", so it means "Monastery of the Romans"). Go figure. Turns out they're not the center of the universe after all.

[John of Patmos]

For those familiar with St Elias TODAY!, look at the articles,They emphasize how little of a difference there is.

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

Hey! Whose side are you on here, anyway?

Well, to be fair, the Eastern Orthodox Pope of Alexandria , who in all humility serves a much smaller flock than his much-esteemed Oriental Orthodox counterpart, bears all of those funny titles too, minus maybe one or two which are no longer true (I don't think ours is called the dean of the catechetical school of Alexandra, for example, since he isn't).

[steve b]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Pope Gregory even wrote that the sees of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome share the one see of Peter. That title of the see of Peter and its meaning are a mystery to me.

The context was Gregory trying to correct a faulty notion advanced about him as "universal bishop" because he's sitting on the chair of Peter. He condemned the sense in which the term/ title is taken to mean that in the Church there is only one true bishop, with all others who claim the title merely acting as the true bishop’s delegates or deputies.

In the true sense, as opposed the faulty sense, Gregory believed the papacy to possess a universal jurisdiction and supremacy of authority, because it's the chair of Peter, but he didn’t think, nor does the Catholic Church teach, that this means only the Bishop of Rome is truly a bishop endowed by Christ with the power to teach, sanctify, and govern in Christ’s name.

Re: your thoughts on, "see of Peter"

I think one can see alot by the ancient ranking of sees, in their order, as to how that term "see of Peter" was understood

1. Rome (chair of Peter)
2. Alexandria
3. Antioch
4. Jerusalem

After Constantine moved to Byzantium early 4th century, the listing of sees went like this

1. Rome (chair of Peter)
2. Constantinople
3. Alexandria
4. Antioch
5. Jerusalem

I would think, one could ask, at least from an Eastern perspective

• where is Constantinople's defference to Peter with regards to Alexandria, or Antioch in this listing?
• How could Constantinople so easily usurp 1st position ahead of those other Eastern sees if those sees were truly understood to be in the full sense of the word, sees of Peter?

Would you agree, this list has the look of no special regard for previous sees of Peter, only the current one?

Maybe you could address this next point. With regards the ranking of sees in the East today, it's my understanding Moscow considers itself 1st, not Constantinople Istanbul. Is that true or false?