Oriental "Orthodox Church"

[Joe Zollars]

I agree. And thus why ROCA has fallen from the Church and from grace.

Nicholas Zollars

[Joe Zollars]

perhaps this Anathama issued in 1983 with the blessing of St. Philaret of New York is pertinent to remember:

The Anathema Against the Heresy of Ecumenism and Its Adherents

To those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called branches which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all branches or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians,

Anathema!

[尼古拉前执事]

When they say they are officially in communion with the monophysites.

How does the following NOT say this?

To All Our Children,
Protected By God,
Both Clergy and Laity of
The Holy See of Antioch

Beloved:

You must have heard of the continuous efforts for decades by our Apostolic See with the sister Orthodox Syriac Church to foster a better knowledge and understanding of both churches whether on the dogmatic or pastoral level. Those attempts are nothing but a natural expression that the Orthodox Churches, and especially those within the Holy See of Antioch, are called to articulate the will of the Lord that all may be one, just as the Son is One with the Heavenly Father.

It is our duty and that of our brothers in the Syriac Church to witness to Christ in our Eastern area where He was born, preached, suffered, was buried and rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sent down His Holy and Life-Giving Spirit upon His holy apostles.

All the meetings, the fellowship, the oral and written declarations meant that we belong to One Faith even though history had brought forward the phase of our division more than the aspects of our unity.

All this has called upon our Holy Synod of Antioch to initiate a quick desire for our Church in the See of Antioch, for a unity that preserves for each Church its original Eastern heritage whereby the one Antiochian Church benefits from its sister Church and profits from its rich traditions, literature and holy rituals.

Every endeavour and pursuit in the direction of coming together of the two Churches is based on the conviction that this orientation is from the Holy Spirit, and it will give the Eastern Orthodox image more brightness and elegance that has lacked for centuries before.

Therefore, the Holy Synod of Antioch saw fit to translate the brotherly approachment relationship between the two Churches, the Antiochian Orthodox and the Syriac Orthodox for the edification of their faithful wherever they happen to be.

The Holy Synod of Antioch has decided the following matters:

1) The complete and mutual respect between the two Churches for their rituals, spirituality, heritage and holy fathers; and the full protection of both the Antiochian and Syriac liturgical practices.

2) The incorporation of the fathers of both Churches and their heritage in general in the Christian education curriculum and theological teaching; and the exchange of theological professors and students.

3) The refraining from accepting members of one Church in the membership of the other whatever the reasons might be.

4) Organizing meetings of both Synods whenever need and necessity may arise.

5) Leaving every Church as a reference for its members in all matters pertaining to marriage, divorce, adoption etc.

6) If two bishops of the two different Churches meet for a spiritual service the one with the majority of the people will generally preside. But if the service is for the sacrament of holy matrimony the bishop of the bridegroom will preside.

7) Whatever has been previously mentioned does not apply to the concelebration among the bishops in the Divine Liturgy.

Whatever has been said in number six applies to the clergy of both Churches.

9) If one priest of either Church happens to be in a certain area he will serve the Divine Mysteries for the members of both Churches including the Divine Liturgy and the sacrament of holy matrimony. The same priest will keep an independent record for both Churches and transmit the registration of the members of the sister Church to its spiritual authority.

10) If two priests of both Churches happen to be in a certain community they will take turns, and in case they concelebrate the one with the majority of the people will preside.

11) If a bishop from one Church and a priest from the sister Church happen to concelebrate, presiding naturally belongs to the bishop even though being in the community of the priest on the condition that there are people of both Churches.

12) Ordinations into the Holy Orders are performed by the spiritual authorities on candidates in every respective Church prefereably in the presence of the brothers from the other sister Church.

13) Godfathers, Godmothers and witnesses in the sacrament of holy matrimony are allowed to be chosen from the members of both Churches without any discrimination.

14) In all mutual celebrations the first clergyman in ordination will preside over the ceremony.

15) All organizations from both Churches will co-operate in all matters whether educational, cultural and social for the enrichment of the brotherly spirit.

We promise you on this occasion to continue strengthening our relationship with the sister Church and all other Churches for all to become one community under one Shepherd.

They are, indeed, quite obviously in communion

[Nektarios14]

The Orthodox East remained in communion with the Latins even after they began using the Filioque and some of their other errors. Thus there is historical precident to not immediantly break communion with the Antiochians.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

No one is about to doubt that the errors of Papism appeared long before 1054. But that which is the shameless and cunning slander many new-calendar priests and bishop say today, and Nektarios seems to be repeating, is that the Church tolerated the errors. The great Photius, the primary cause for the expulsion of the erring Latins from the Church, is represented as tolerating heresy!

This new-calendar enemy of Orthodoxy is exploiting here the erroneous notion that is very widely disseminated: that the Schism supposedly began in 1054. However, the Council that condemned Papism and the errors of the West, the official Council with representatives from all the Patriarchates, was not convoked in Constantinople during the patriarchate of Cerularius in 1054, but during that of Photius in 867.

“Indeed,” writes Professor and Academician Balanos, “during the autumn of 867 a Council convened in Constantinople with representatives of the Patriarchs in attendance. This Council anathematized Pope Nicholas and the Papal envoys that had travelled to Bulgaria... Thus, the schism between the two Churches became final.” And in the same article he writes, “The name of Photius was immortalized principally because it was inextricably connected with the events surrounding the schism of the Churches.”

The Schism, therefore, did not become final in 1054, but in 867, that is, just when the various errors, which up to that time were merely tendencies and debatable theological subjects of the Western world, took definite shape in the person of Pope Nicholas I. The Church never tolerated heretical Papism for any space of time, but struck at its source as soon as it reared its horrible head.

Papism once and for all was condemned during the Patriarchate of Photius, and that condemnation never was lifted, nor could it possibly ever be lifted. There have only been renewals and confirmations of that anathema imposed during Photius’ time. If there were periods of reconciliation with Rome after 867, this is not due to the Church’s toleration of heresy, but to the fact that Rome at times retracted its errors and the Pope appeared, as formerly, with the visage of an Orthodox bishop.

This is exactly what happened when Pope John VIII ascended the throne of Rome in 872. “We have incontestable proof that John, as well as Leo III, was Orthodox all his life,” writes Saint Nectarios, Metropolitan of Pentapolis. “We have four indelible proofs that John VIII was Orthodox and a guardian of the holy Creed of the Nicean Fathers, that is, of the common heritage of Christians, and rivalled Leo III, who is among the blessed.”

The intransigent Latins hated this Pope so much for his Orthodoxy that they slandered him as being feminine, “and from this, the myth of Pope Joan was fabricated.” Indeed this Pope of Rome, John VIII, sent three legates to Constantinople as his representatives at the Ecumenical Council of 879, and he ratified the decisions made under that Council. That Council which convened under the presidency of Photius anathematized anyone who would dare to add anything to the Symbol of Faith, and, therefore, anathematized all those Latins who advocated the Filioque heresy, that is, the enemies of Photius and John.

Besides this, this Council, along with the legates of Pope John, not only made Photius equal to the Pope, but in the acclamations placed Photius first and the Pope second. When Procopius, the Bishop of Caesarea referred to Saint Photius and exclaimed, “Truly, such a man is he to whom has fallen the charge of the whole world!” the legates of the Pope not only did not protest, but confirmed the statement saying, “and we who dwell in the ends of the earth hearken unto this.” In other words, they accepted Photius as higher than their own Pope. Thus, the heresy of Papal
Supremacy, as much as the heresy of the Filioque, were condemned by the Council, and Pope John ratified the decisions of the Council.

Therefore, since Pope John officially condemned the false teachings of the Latins through the Council of 879, the condemnation of heretical Papism by the Council of 867 could not possibly be applied to him. John was not a heretic as was his predecessor Nicholas; rather, he upheld the Orthodox Confession of Faith.

Where, then, is the toleration of heresy Nektarios ascribes to the Church?

Indeed, it is known that many scholars have recognized the seeds of the Filioque heresy in Augustine, the great fountainn of the Westerners. Already during the fourth and fifth centuries, Latin theologians discussed this tenet. The Filioque first appeared in Spain, principally at the Councils of Toledo in 547 and 589.

Although it sprang from Orthodox motives, it was a rationalistic extrapolation which appeared during the theological battle against Arianism. From Spain, the Filioque found its way into the local confessions of the Frankish nation a little after 767. It began to take on dangerous dimensions in the hands of Charlemagne’s theologians, but always remained a theological opinion (theologoumenon) without any official status whatsoever. When Charlemagne asked Pope Leo III to add the Filioque to the Symbol of Faith, the Pope summarily rejected the addition and, in the Church of Saint Peter, placed two silver plaques which had the Symbol of Faith inscribed in Greek and Latin without the Filioque.

As for the primacy of the Pope, this developed with the passage of time as a reaction to the progressive waning of Rome’s significance.

It reached full development in the mid-ninth century with the appearance of the pseudo-Isidorian decretals. Pope Nicholas I of Rome, who was anathematized by Saint Photius, was the first who sought to enforce these false decretals. As Professor Basil Stephanides of the University of Athens writes in his “Church Histor”, “Rome’s struggle for world rulership already had begun with Nicholas I (858—867). According to his contemporaries: ‘Nicholas made himself emperor of the whole world.’ Thus, it is easy to understand why the schism began during his time.”

When Nicholas attempted to place the Church of Bulgaria under his authority, the Roman Church had not added the Filioque addition to her creed. Nonetheless, Nicholas officially introduced the Filioque teaching into the Bulgarian Church. As Stephanides writes: The teaching concerning the Filioque, having been introduced officially into the Bulgarian Church, ceased being a matter of theological opinion (theologoumenon) in the relations between the Western and Eastern Church; rather, it now appeared as an ecclesiastical dogma. Because of this Photius was the first to combat this teaching as heretical. Through Nicholas’ of Rome intervention in the Bulgarian Church, the Papal Primacy finally developed from the theoretical and indefinite form which it had maintained up to this point, and took an applied and definite form.

One clearly sees, therefore, that the Church never tolerated ‘the Pope and his false teachings.’ When the filioque appeared again in 1009, the pope was for the last time struck from the Dyptichs as a true confessing bishop.

[Aaron]

Although I am no expert on the Oriental Orthodox, it does seem to me that most - if not all, of the Oriental Churches are involved in ecumenical activities.

In Christ,
Aaron

[Nektarios14]

No one is about to doubt that the errors of Papism appeared long before 1054. But that which is the shameless and cunning slander many new-calendar priests and bishop say today, and Nektarios seems to be repeating, is that the Church tolerated the errors. The great Photius, the primary cause for the expulsion of the erring Latins from the Church, is represented as tolerating heresy!

I never said, nor intended to say that Saint Photios tolerated heresy. But that the church did have relations with the Latins while thier heresies were in the infant stage. So I don't think it is a cut and dried simple issue.

Give me some time to read through and think about the rest of your post though before I can respond further.