• A blessed Nativity / Theophany season to all! For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Important Differences Between Orthodox and Catholic Eucharistic Theology

xOrthodox4Christx

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
7,322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'm still foggy on the differences between our various Eucharistic theologies. Does anyone here have greater insight on this than I do?
 

Luke

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
7,218
Reaction score
74
Points
48
xOrthodox4Christx said:
I'm still foggy on the differences between our various Eucharistic theologies. Does anyone here have greater insight on this than I do?
It seems that at some point the Catholics keep on going with explaining what is going on while the Orthodox say, "We don't know how it works.  It is a mystery."
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Luke said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
I'm still foggy on the differences between our various Eucharistic theologies. Does anyone here have greater insight on this than I do?
It seems that at some point the Catholics keep on going with explaining what is going on while the Orthodox say, "We don't know how it works.  It is a mystery."
They always kept going, on everything religious, and on and on and on. And killing people along the way. It was a really bad habit.

On a serious note, yes, Catholicism wanted to be scientific about it, make definite pronouncements as to the species, the instant, and so on. Along the way, I believe they also came to neglect or almost forget certain things. But in the end, I don't think their basic teaching needs to be understood differently from ours.

I'm not knowledgable; am casually opining.
 

Rohzek

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
1,364
Reaction score
1
Points
0
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Forced celibacy anyone?
Not to get too off-topic, but I often wonder how bad the consequences of these policies are. I know it sounds remarkably anecdotal, but forced celibacy seems to encourage sexual perversion. Some might contend that I'm letting the scandals of the past 20 something years that have rocked the Catholic Church color my vision too much. But having read a good deal of many excerpts of 9th century commentaries on the Benedictine Rule, even monks back then were writing about the sexual perversion that was abound within the monasteries, especially when young boys were involved. For example, one commentator (either Smaragdus or Hildemar, I forget which one) wrote that should an older monk have sex with a younger monk (probably an oblate who is still in their teens or even prepubescent), the younger monk was always punished the most, while the older monk was merely forbidden from chanting the Psalms for like a year if it is a first offense.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
Rohzek said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Forced celibacy anyone?
Not to get too off-topic, but I often wonder how bad the consequences of these policies are. I know it sounds remarkably anecdotal, but forced celibacy seems to encourage sexual perversion. Some might contend that I'm letting the scandals of the past 20 something years that have rocked the Catholic Church color my vision too much. But having read a good deal of many excerpts of 9th century commentaries on the Benedictine Rule, even monks back then were writing about the sexual perversion that was abound within the monasteries, especially when young boys were involved. For example, one commentator (either Smaragdus or Hildemar, I forget which one) wrote that should an older monk have sex with a younger monk (probably an oblate who is still in their teens or even prepubescent), the younger monk was always punished the most, while the older monk was merely forbidden from chanting the Psalms for like a year if it is a first offense.
Maybe, but if so it's a problem for Orthodox monasticism too.

Given the number of married child molesters out there, I personally don't think a married priesthood would have solved or even very much lessened the Catholic scandals and some might find the suggestion insulting.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Volnutt said:
Rohzek said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Forced celibacy anyone?
Not to get too off-topic, but I often wonder how bad the consequences of these policies are. I know it sounds remarkably anecdotal, but forced celibacy seems to encourage sexual perversion. Some might contend that I'm letting the scandals of the past 20 something years that have rocked the Catholic Church color my vision too much. But having read a good deal of many excerpts of 9th century commentaries on the Benedictine Rule, even monks back then were writing about the sexual perversion that was abound within the monasteries, especially when young boys were involved. For example, one commentator (either Smaragdus or Hildemar, I forget which one) wrote that should an older monk have sex with a younger monk (probably an oblate who is still in their teens or even prepubescent), the younger monk was always punished the most, while the older monk was merely forbidden from chanting the Psalms for like a year if it is a first offense.
Maybe, but if so it's a problem for Orthodox monasticism too.

Given the number of married child molesters out there, I personally don't think a married priesthood would have solved or even very much lessened the Catholic scandals and some might find the suggestion insulting.
Monastic populations can swell and dwindle. There's not really a "forcing" there. Besides, celibacy is inherent in the monastic choice. By contrast, the priesthood is always needed and bound to be numerous, and its duties are naturally irrelevant to virginity. Finally there is the very, very large difference that one group must be in the world. So I think your comparison is unfair.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Rohzek said:
Not to get too off-topic, but I often wonder how bad the consequences of these policies are. I know it sounds remarkably anecdotal, but forced celibacy seems to encourage is a sexual perversion.
T;ftfy.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
Porter ODoran said:
Volnutt said:
Rohzek said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Forced celibacy anyone?
Not to get too off-topic, but I often wonder how bad the consequences of these policies are. I know it sounds remarkably anecdotal, but forced celibacy seems to encourage sexual perversion. Some might contend that I'm letting the scandals of the past 20 something years that have rocked the Catholic Church color my vision too much. But having read a good deal of many excerpts of 9th century commentaries on the Benedictine Rule, even monks back then were writing about the sexual perversion that was abound within the monasteries, especially when young boys were involved. For example, one commentator (either Smaragdus or Hildemar, I forget which one) wrote that should an older monk have sex with a younger monk (probably an oblate who is still in their teens or even prepubescent), the younger monk was always punished the most, while the older monk was merely forbidden from chanting the Psalms for like a year if it is a first offense.
Maybe, but if so it's a problem for Orthodox monasticism too.

Given the number of married child molesters out there, I personally don't think a married priesthood would have solved or even very much lessened the Catholic scandals and some might find the suggestion insulting.
Monastic populations can swell and dwindle. There's not really a "forcing" there. Besides, celibacy is inherent in the monastic choice. By contrast, the priesthood is always needed and bound to be numerous, and its duties are naturally irrelevant to virginity. Finally there is the very, very large difference that one group must be in the world. So I think your comparison is unfair.
Rozhek is the one who brought up monasticism and that's what I replying to.

But yes, monastics are not forced into celibacy and priests should not be, I agree.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Volnutt said:
Porter ODoran said:
Volnutt said:
Rohzek said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Forced celibacy anyone?
Not to get too off-topic, but I often wonder how bad the consequences of these policies are. I know it sounds remarkably anecdotal, but forced celibacy seems to encourage sexual perversion. Some might contend that I'm letting the scandals of the past 20 something years that have rocked the Catholic Church color my vision too much. But having read a good deal of many excerpts of 9th century commentaries on the Benedictine Rule, even monks back then were writing about the sexual perversion that was abound within the monasteries, especially when young boys were involved. For example, one commentator (either Smaragdus or Hildemar, I forget which one) wrote that should an older monk have sex with a younger monk (probably an oblate who is still in their teens or even prepubescent), the younger monk was always punished the most, while the older monk was merely forbidden from chanting the Psalms for like a year if it is a first offense.
Maybe, but if so it's a problem for Orthodox monasticism too.

Given the number of married child molesters out there, I personally don't think a married priesthood would have solved or even very much lessened the Catholic scandals and some might find the suggestion insulting.
Monastic populations can swell and dwindle. There's not really a "forcing" there. Besides, celibacy is inherent in the monastic choice. By contrast, the priesthood is always needed and bound to be numerous, and its duties are naturally irrelevant to virginity. Finally there is the very, very large difference that one group must be in the world. So I think your comparison is unfair.
Rozhek is the one who brought up monasticism and that's what I replying to.

But yes, monastics are not forced into celibacy and priests should not be, I agree.
Thanks for pointing this out. I don't generally read his posts, hence the mistake.
 

Rohzek

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
1,364
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Volnutt said:
Rohzek said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Forced celibacy anyone?
Not to get too off-topic, but I often wonder how bad the consequences of these policies are. I know it sounds remarkably anecdotal, but forced celibacy seems to encourage sexual perversion. Some might contend that I'm letting the scandals of the past 20 something years that have rocked the Catholic Church color my vision too much. But having read a good deal of many excerpts of 9th century commentaries on the Benedictine Rule, even monks back then were writing about the sexual perversion that was abound within the monasteries, especially when young boys were involved. For example, one commentator (either Smaragdus or Hildemar, I forget which one) wrote that should an older monk have sex with a younger monk (probably an oblate who is still in their teens or even prepubescent), the younger monk was always punished the most, while the older monk was merely forbidden from chanting the Psalms for like a year if it is a first offense.
Maybe, but if so it's a problem for Orthodox monasticism too.

Given the number of married child molesters out there, I personally don't think a married priesthood would have solved or even very much lessened the Catholic scandals and some might find the suggestion insulting.
I should have added more context in my original post, so my apologies. By the 9th century, priests who were "sexually pure" (ie had no sex whatsoever, even in a past marriage) were the ideal priests in much of the Latin West. Therefore, people who were donated to the monasteries as children and raised as monks often became priests as well. In some monastic institutions of the period, we've been able to measure that at least two-thirds of them were in some form of major orders, mostly priests. So in many cases, priests were also priest-monks. In short, priesthood had become the pinnacle of the monastic career in the Latin West, whereas prior to, it was only a retreat for laymen young and old who had lived some years in the world as adults prior to. As to whether the suggestion is insulting or not, I care very little.

To your point though, it could have been/be a problem for Orthodox monasticism. However, I am not knowledgeable enough about Eastern monasticism to know if they had children in the monasteries as regularly as Latin monastics did. So I would argue a lot hinges on that.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
Where does "When there's wine and boys around, the monks have no need of the devil to tempt them?" come from? I thought it was Coptic in origin, but I'm not sure.

There's also St. Basil's harsh words about child molesting monks, so I'd say it did happen in the East. I don't know about relative frequency, though.

Anyway, I see your point now about the frequency of monastic priests who were raised in a monastery and that is a problem, I agree. Thanks for clarifying.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
9
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Volnutt said:
Where does "When there's wine and boys around, the monks have no need of the devil to tempt them?" come from? I thought it was Coptic in origin, but I'm not sure.
Saint John the Dwarf says, "He who gorges himself and talks with a boy has already in his thought committed fornication with him." There are other bits like this in the sayings of the desert fathers, which seem to indicate that pederasty was a rampant problem in ancient monasticism.
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
Iconodule said:
Volnutt said:
Where does "When there's wine and boys around, the monks have no need of the devil to tempt them?" come from? I thought it was Coptic in origin, but I'm not sure.
Saint John the Dwarf says, "He who gorges himself and talks with a boy has already in his thought committed fornication with him." There are other bits like this in the sayings of the desert fathers, which seem to indicate that pederasty was a rampant problem in ancient monasticism.
I recall reading quotes to the extent that boys should simply not be admitted, and that their presence had caused the failure of, at that early date, three monastic communities.

For several centuries the Benedictines took young boys on as oblates, and even after that ceased, continue to run schools even until the present.  So apparently that bit of Egyptian wisdom was unfortunately set aside.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Iconodule said:
Volnutt said:
Where does "When there's wine and boys around, the monks have no need of the devil to tempt them?" come from? I thought it was Coptic in origin, but I'm not sure.
Saint John the Dwarf says, "He who gorges himself and talks with a boy has already in his thought committed fornication with him." There are other bits like this in the sayings of the desert fathers, which seem to indicate that pederasty was a rampant problem in ancient monasticism.
An apophthegm isn't sufficient evidence of "a rampant problem." It only shows this species of fornication was not unknown.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
9
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Porter ODoran said:
Iconodule said:
Volnutt said:
Where does "When there's wine and boys around, the monks have no need of the devil to tempt them?" come from? I thought it was Coptic in origin, but I'm not sure.
Saint John the Dwarf says, "He who gorges himself and talks with a boy has already in his thought committed fornication with him." There are other bits like this in the sayings of the desert fathers, which seem to indicate that pederasty was a rampant problem in ancient monasticism.
An apophthegm isn't sufficient evidence of "a rampant problem." It only shows this species of fornication was not unknown.
When several different fathers comment on it, and Abba Isaac says it has led to monasteries being deserted, that seems to indicate a recurring issue.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Iconodule said:
Porter ODoran said:
Iconodule said:
Volnutt said:
Where does "When there's wine and boys around, the monks have no need of the devil to tempt them?" come from? I thought it was Coptic in origin, but I'm not sure.
Saint John the Dwarf says, "He who gorges himself and talks with a boy has already in his thought committed fornication with him." There are other bits like this in the sayings of the desert fathers, which seem to indicate that pederasty was a rampant problem in ancient monasticism.
An apophthegm isn't sufficient evidence of "a rampant problem." It only shows this species of fornication was not unknown.
When several different fathers comment on it, and Abba Isaac says it has led to monasteries being deserted, that seems to indicate a recurring issue.
I wasn't commenting on withheld evidence. As for what you put forward now, it needs some framework. How many centuries and regions are represented by how many quotes? Proving rampant pederast will take quite a bit of work on your part.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
9
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Porter ODoran said:
Iconodule said:
Porter ODoran said:
Iconodule said:
Volnutt said:
Where does "When there's wine and boys around, the monks have no need of the devil to tempt them?" come from? I thought it was Coptic in origin, but I'm not sure.
Saint John the Dwarf says, "He who gorges himself and talks with a boy has already in his thought committed fornication with him." There are other bits like this in the sayings of the desert fathers, which seem to indicate that pederasty was a rampant problem in ancient monasticism.
An apophthegm isn't sufficient evidence of "a rampant problem." It only shows this species of fornication was not unknown.
When several different fathers comment on it, and Abba Isaac says it has led to monasteries being deserted, that seems to indicate a recurring issue.
I wasn't commenting on withheld evidence. As for what you put forward now, it needs some framework. How many centuries and regions are represented by how many quotes? Proving rampant pederast will take quite a bit of work on your part.
I'm not here to prove anything. Believe what you like. Those who are familiar with this literature will know what I'm talking about.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Iconodule said:
Porter ODoran said:
Iconodule said:
Porter ODoran said:
Iconodule said:
Volnutt said:
Where does "When there's wine and boys around, the monks have no need of the devil to tempt them?" come from? I thought it was Coptic in origin, but I'm not sure.
Saint John the Dwarf says, "He who gorges himself and talks with a boy has already in his thought committed fornication with him." There are other bits like this in the sayings of the desert fathers, which seem to indicate that pederasty was a rampant problem in ancient monasticism.
An apophthegm isn't sufficient evidence of "a rampant problem." It only shows this species of fornication was not unknown.
When several different fathers comment on it, and Abba Isaac says it has led to monasteries being deserted, that seems to indicate a recurring issue.
I wasn't commenting on withheld evidence. As for what you put forward now, it needs some framework. How many centuries and regions are represented by how many quotes? Proving rampant pederast will take quite a bit of work on your part.
I'm not here to prove anything. Believe what you like. Those who are familiar with this literature will know what I'm talking about.
Vague appeals to vague authorities can't support a claim of rampant pederasty.
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
32
Website
marianapostolate.com
Almighty God was so pleased with what St. Thomas Aquinas' formulation of the doctrine of transubstantiation that He put His seal upon his work on the subject in the sight of his contemporaries. And though some Orthodox dismiss him today, St. Thomas was commonly cited in Byzantine seminaries for a long time.

I would place the Confession of Dositheus' in the Synod of Jerusalem/Bethlehem, 1672, second only to the dogmatic precision of Trent in describing Eucharistic theology against Protestant errors. Let the reader judge for himself whether this substantially deviates from Catholic theology or not. All of it is patristic, some of it clearly specific to eastern thought; while much of it is clearly Thomistic, including its precise use of substance and accident.

http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

"But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

Further, that the all-pure Body Itself, and Blood of the Lord is imparted, and enters into the mouths and stomachs of the communicants, whether pious or impious. Nevertheless, they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and life eternal; but to the impious and unworthy involve condemnation and eternal punishment.

Further, that the Body and Blood of the Lord are severed and divided by the hands and teeth, though in accident only, that is, in the accidents of the bread and of the wine, under which they are visible and tangible, we do acknowledge; but in themselves to remain entirely unsevered and undivided. Wherefore the Catholic Church also says: “Broken and distributed is He That is broken, yet not severed; Which is ever eaten, yet never consumed, but sanctifying those that partake,” that is worthily.

Further, that in every part, or the smallest division of the transmuted bread and wine there is not a part of the Body and Blood of the Lord — for to say so were blasphemous and wicked — but the entire whole Lord Christ substantially, that is, with His Soul and Divinity, or perfect God and perfect man."
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Xavier said:
Almighty God was so pleased with what St. Thomas Aquinas' formulation of the doctrine of transubstantiation that He put His seal upon his work on the subject in the sight of his contemporaries. And though some Orthodox dismiss him today, St. Thomas was commonly cited in Byzantine seminaries for a long time.
One of these claims is very unlike the other.
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
3
Points
36
Xavier said:
Almighty God was so pleased with what St. Thomas Aquinas' formulation of the doctrine of transubstantiation that He put His seal upon his work on the subject in the sight of his contemporaries.
St. Thomas himself, after an ecstasy while celebrating Mass, deemed everything that he wrote straw and left his most notorious work, the Summa Theologica, incomplete.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Xavier said:
Almighty God was so pleased with what St. Thomas Aquinas' formulation of the doctrine of transubstantiation that He put His seal upon his work on the subject in the sight of his contemporaries. And though some Orthodox dismiss him today, St. Thomas was commonly cited in Byzantine seminaries for a long time.

I would place the Confession of Dositheus' in the Synod of Jerusalem/Bethlehem, 1672, second only to the dogmatic precision of Trent in describing Eucharistic theology against Protestant errors. Let the reader judge for himself whether this substantially deviates from Catholic theology or not. All of it is patristic, some of it clearly specific to eastern thought; while much of it is clearly Thomistic, including its precise use of substance and accident.

http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

"But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

Further, that the all-pure Body Itself, and Blood of the Lord is imparted, and enters into the mouths and stomachs of the communicants, whether pious or impious. Nevertheless, they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and life eternal; but to the impious and unworthy involve condemnation and eternal punishment.

Further, that the Body and Blood of the Lord are severed and divided by the hands and teeth, though in accident only, that is, in the accidents of the bread and of the wine, under which they are visible and tangible, we do acknowledge; but in themselves to remain entirely unsevered and undivided. Wherefore the Catholic Church also says: “Broken and distributed is He That is broken, yet not severed; Which is ever eaten, yet never consumed, but sanctifying those that partake,” that is worthily.

Further, that in every part, or the smallest division of the transmuted bread and wine there is not a part of the Body and Blood of the Lord — for to say so were blasphemous and wicked — but the entire whole Lord Christ substantially, that is, with His Soul and Divinity, or perfect God and perfect man."
You claim that all this show of precision is "patristic" (without, however, deigning to demonstrate the claim) -- but if it were indeed the clear tenor of the Fathers, what need would there have been for a local synod to provide this interpretation? You compare the issue of this 1600s synod to Trent -- and that is apt, since the malicious hubris of the Counter-Reformation in its sweeping effects on the world of that day no doubt had some influence with these bishops of the Levant.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
While I generally agree with your point, the idea that a synod would not have been needed if it was the consensus of the Fathers seems to me a dangerous one given that there have been a lot of times in Christian history where a heresy grew so rampant that a synod or even an Ecumenical Council was needed to put a stop to it. In fact, Arianism was or was almost the majority at one point.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Volnutt said:
While I generally agree with your point, the idea that a synod would not have been needed if it was the consensus of the Fathers seems to me a dangerous one given that there have been a lot of times in Christian history where a heresy grew so rampant that a synod or even an Ecumenical Council was needed to put a stop to it. In fact, Arianism was or was almost the majority at one point.
Yes, that's a good point as far as it goes. However, if the hierarchs of the Levant were moved to counter the Reformation (and I don't know what other "heresy grown rampant" they could have been addressing; altho, granted, my knowledge of 1600s Levant is small), then all the more fuel for my suspicion that they were impelled by Trent and less than an independent witness.
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Porter ODoran said:
Volnutt said:
While I generally agree with your point, the idea that a synod would not have been needed if it was the consensus of the Fathers seems to me a dangerous one given that there have been a lot of times in Christian history where a heresy grew so rampant that a synod or even an Ecumenical Council was needed to put a stop to it. In fact, Arianism was or was almost the majority at one point.
Yes, that's a good point as far as it goes. However, if the hierarchs of the Levant were moved to counter the Reformation (and I don't know what other "heresy grown rampant" they could have been addressing; altho, granted, my knowledge of 1600s Levant is small), then all the more fuel for my suspicion that they were impelled by Trent and less than an independent witness.
They were impelled by accusations of Patriarch Cyril Loukaris being a Calvinist, of which there was pretty solid evidence.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
9
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Who says the Synod of Jerusalem was only about the Levant? It was really a pan-Orthodox synod, with representatives from Russia, Georgia, Moldavia, etc. That the council was answering a real need there can hardly be a doubt. Whether they answered it adequately of course is another question.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Antonis said:
Porter ODoran said:
Volnutt said:
While I generally agree with your point, the idea that a synod would not have been needed if it was the consensus of the Fathers seems to me a dangerous one given that there have been a lot of times in Christian history where a heresy grew so rampant that a synod or even an Ecumenical Council was needed to put a stop to it. In fact, Arianism was or was almost the majority at one point.
Yes, that's a good point as far as it goes. However, if the hierarchs of the Levant were moved to counter the Reformation (and I don't know what other "heresy grown rampant" they could have been addressing; altho, granted, my knowledge of 1600s Levant is small), then all the more fuel for my suspicion that they were impelled by Trent and less than an independent witness.
They were impelled by accusations of Patriarch Cyril Loukaris being a Calvinist, of which there was pretty solid evidence.
Wow. Pretty interesting times.
 
Top