Time for some more controversy...

[George Australia]

The Pope had proclaimed himself as "Infallible", which means without sin...<snip>.... Do not try to humble the RC as misunderstood, Seraphim, because I will be there to expose the truth.

Dear In Christ, Joasia,
We must seek the truth diligently, and not become a voice for the enemy of souls by mixing truth with error and by resorting to rudeness.
The false doctrine of the infallability of the pope does not mean that he is without sin. It means that when he speaks "ex cathedra" ("from the chair"- meaning, when he speaks from his office as pope) on matters of doctrine or morals, he is preserved from making an error in what he says.

You are making this up as you go along. I can tell. You're really full of it...<snip>...As a "lawyer" , you talk B.S. and make no sense to someone who knows the difference....<snip>....Again, your B.S. astounds me. You obviously, know nothing of the true theological debate of the RC and Orthodox. On the other hand, I do. But, there's no point in continuing a conversation with someone who is completely ignorant to the diffferences between the papist church and the true church of Orthodoxy

Dear friend, do you believe in Christ? He said:

"But I say unto you that whoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of the judgement. And whoever says to his brother 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says 'you fool!' shall be in danger of gehenna." (Matthew 5:22)

You should ask forgiveness from your brother for speaking to him this way.
George

[Liudmilla]

Thank you George, I could not have answered better than your post. I thought about this all night, but your post is far better than any I could have posted.

Again, Thank you and Amen!

Milla

[Seraphim Reeves]

Josia,

No. The idea of purgatory has the Christian believing that they can still work out their sins in order to get into God's Kingdom. But, all knowledgable Orthodox Christians know that after death, that option is null and void, because only their guardian angel can defend them and the soul is place in a position of anticipation of their personal judgement. They do not live in the fullness of the judgement but are in the anticipation of heaven or hell. All the Holy Fathers have taught that. Maybe you should read their writings to understand what I mean.

The basic concept of a "particular judgement" which occurs after death but prior to the Last Judgement which will occur when souls are re-united with their bodies is found throughout the writings of the Holy Fathers and is implicit in Holy Scripture. While it is true that no one will receive the fullness of either their blessing or punishment until the final judgement, it is incorrect to present the opinion that all exist after death in a fundamentally undifferentiated state, let alone that all "reside" in hades/sheol.

That's a load of crock. The Pope had proclaimed himself as "Infallible", which means without sin. That is blasphemy, because only Jesus Christ was a man without sin.

You're simply mistaken. The RCC does teach the Pope is "infallible" (un-failing) when he excercises the fullness of his authority in the teaching of doctrine or morality, but that is quite different than a claim that the Popes are sinless. That would be "impeccability", which the RCC does not teach, and which no shortage of RC theologians and historians would vehemently deny. I'm not sure where you gained your understanding of Catholicism, but I can tell you on this point it is mistaken.

He had proclaimed himself as the representative of God for the people, whereas, the hierachy of Orthodox proclaim themselves to be the representatives of the people to God. There is a big difference. The RC has always tried to establish themselves as the authority over all Christians, despite the fact that they caused the Great Schism in 1054 A.D. due to the infiltration of the Germanic Franks in the See of Rome.

This much I'd (basically - though there is more to the story than this) say is basically true. The heterodox theology of the filioque was a bludgeon (along with other ideas/practices at variance with the ancient Roman and Orthodox usages) used by the Franks to shore up their claims to legitimacy. As for the issue of the expansion of Papal claims to authority, that is partially due to Frankish influence, but the seeds of this were sewed much earlier than the intrusion of the Franks into these matters; though perhaps without them (the Franks) this would never have become the divisive issue that it did.

Do not try to humble the RC as misunderstood, Seraphim, because I will be there to expose the truth.

Ok...

btw. I do not posit that they are totally misunderstood; simply that some of the arguments used against the real excesses of Papism are very poor, both objectively, but more so in their value to actually convince anyone (save the already converted) to come over to the Orthodox view. Telling Papists they believe things they do not, will accomplish nothing.

No one was adhering to??? The people were dishing out the money for this SAFE passage to heaven and the See of Rome was taking in all the money. They had no right to proclaim that they could GUARANTEE free passage to heaven!!!

I will take a middle of the road position here, just to be clear. In this, I will actually recognize that the treatment of the Sigillion on this topic has some propriety, but it's value needs to be heavily qualified (in so far as it reflected a particular period of history; it's value now is more dubious.)

It is true that there were quite popular "abuses" of the whole notion of "indulgences" in the period leading up to the Protestant Reformation (and the Sigllion was authored only shortly after this.) There were unscrupulous men (even by Papist standards) who were definatly collecting funds with the misrepresentation that what was being "bought" was essentially a ticket to paradise. That this popular belief was widespread is part of what sparked the disgust of the early Protestants; and I assume it is this that the Sigillion was addressing.

However what needs to be said is that such practices were not representative of the official Papal teaching on the subject, and was eventually reigned in by the Council of Trent (the 16th century RC council which was a response to the Protestant Reformation.) From an RC p.o.v. the "sale of indulgences" under the guise of being (essentially) "pre paid tickets to heaven" was an abuse and not representative of the RCC's "official" teachings.

This is not to say that the actual RC teaching on indulgences is correct either - but THAT teaching, is markedly different than what the "abuses" indicated, and it remains the official teaching of the RCC. Thus, while the Sigillion had a value perhaps contemporary to the time of it's issuing (though I still think it's imprecise when it presents this as if it were the teaching of the Pope and those obedient to him), it's value now is almost nil in this matter, since this abuse was cleaned up by Trent.

We ALL have to go through our personal 40 day judgement. No indulgent note will guarantee safe passage. Are you insane to even promote this stupidity? Have you no idea of the judgement we all face when we die??

You need to read more carefully - I've stated repeatedly that the actual teaching of the RCC on indulgences is heretical. However, it is not incorrect for the reasons cited by the Sigillion, which was at best observing and condemning what was really a popular departure from the official Papist teaching amongst the masses of westerners.

You are making this up as you go along. I can tell. You're really full of it. With the RC, it's all a matter of rules and regulations. You confess, you get 5 hail marys and 6 our fathers. How stupid is that? There's no spirituality involved. It's all about you did this... you get that punishment. If it was that way then the thief on the Cross would not have been forgiven by Christ and not been the first to enter into God's Kingdom.

Once again, you're not reading carefully. I was presenting the actual Papist teaching here, not expressing my agreement with it. My point was to illustrate how this actual Papist teaching (which is heretical for it's own reasons) is different that the popular misrepresentation of it in the west, which is I suppose what the Sigillion was observing and reacting to (though erring by imprecision, imho, by not understanding that this disturbing popular practice in the west was not in line with the "dogmatics" of the RCC.)

Vicar of Christ??? Treasure of merits? As the point I made with the thief on the Cross...what PIOUS works did he perform in order to receive the "treasure of merits" of entering the Kingdom of God??? But, Christ did say to that that he would be with Him in Paradise.

More of the same (misunderstanding on your part.)

As a "lawyer" , you talk B.S. and make no sense to someone who knows the difference. But, perhaps you want to confuse the less-informed.

Your whole "reply" is filled with a spirit of fear and sectarianism which I make no bones about trying to avoid. To be clear - I believe in the teachings of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, the Orthodox Church.

However, unworthy or unpersuasive arguments (or those which employ incorrect premises) should not be coddeled, simply because they are "anti-Papist." Just because an accusation or argument "really slams our foes", does not mean that lovers of truth should entertain them, which I always believed (and still believe) is what characterizes Orthodoxy - a love of truth.

You seem to perceive any attempt at clarification, perhaps even trying to remove misconceptions some Orthodox may have about the Papists (which do not serve in any way to bring them back to a better way of thinking, but I guarantee you, will only drive them away and confirm them in their conceit), or being fair to them and what they actually believe, as being a slight against Orthodoxy. This is very unfortunate.

I also think you do not grasp the idea that conversation is a place where ideas are clarified and worked out - where we even put forward "devil's adovocate" type arguments so as to test and better articulate the things we believe, or to dispel confusion if there is a matter about which there is some doubt.

The reality is that, strictly speaking, the "revised Julian menologian" and the "Gregorian menologian" are not identical. That is something those making the accusation that the act of the new-calendarists in adopting their "new calendar" violates the Sigillion of 1583, must contend with.

If you must know, personally I think the differences between the "revised Julian" and "Gregorian" menologians are so small, and will only be realized in terms of causing divergence between the two in the far future (long after both you and I or our children are dead, even if we live to a ripe old age), that the difference is a pharisaical one. And that is in part, a response to the question I threw out there - it's my response, but I wanted to hear what others thought or had to say. I would also add, even apart from the Sigillion of 1583, there are other grounds (outlined by others, including the 1935 Declaration of the three heirarchs of the Old Calendar movement) for viewing the calendar change as being schismatic and against ecclessiastical tradition.

Again, your B.S. astounds me. You obviously, know nothing of the true theological debate of the RC and Orthodox. On the other hand, I do. But, there's no point in continuing a conversation with someone who is completely ignorant to the diffferences between the papist church and the true church of Orthodoxy.

Romans 10:2

Seraphim

[John Haluska]

What is so terribly wrong with following and adhering to the Sacred Traditions and descisions of the Orthodox Church handed down to us from the Holy Apostles, and the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church?

John

[Etienne]

A study of The Papacy by Abbe Guette might be helpful. The bishops of Rome have long taken to themselves a status without justification according to Holy Scripture or Sacred Tradition. Titles such as Pontifex Maximus, Vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff and Head of the Church Militant are innovations, as are the teaching on the Immaculate Conception, and Infallibility.

Orthodoxy is sometimes accused of caesaropapism, interesting when one looks at the Papacy with its trappings of Statehood, including ambassadors, an intelligence service, state bank, gendarmerie, etc., etc.

The Papacy is an anti-Christian and self-perpetuating bureacracy whose practices and tatics appear more appropriate to international diplomacy rather than Christianity. John, there is nothing wrong with adhering to Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teachings of our Holy Fathers, save the world will hate you.

[John Haluska]

Phil wrote,

"What status does this Sigillon have in the EO Church? Does it have ecumenical standing equivalent to the teachings of your Ecumenical Councils, even though it wasn't issued by one of them? Or is its status less than this? The impression I've gotten (perhaps mistakenly) is that it indeed has ecumenical standing. If this is correct, then I'll have another question later, but first I must know if I am right in assuming this. Thanks."

Phil,

Please read the following regarding your question. The "highlighted" portions may be of specific interest to you.

The following quotes are from The Calendar Question, by Reverend Basile Sakkas, Translated by Holy Transfiguration Monastery.

QUOTE:

“OUR ADVERSARIES pretend that the calendar “is not a dogma”, thus leaving it to be understood that one can do with it what one pleases. Is the question of the calendar truly one of dogma? (The Calendar Question, by Reverend Basile Sakkas, p. 10, Published by Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, New York.)

Does the wearing of a beard, or a rassa (garment) denote a dogmatical action? The Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary gave birth in time to the Timeless One, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ. That is an established dogma. It would seem appropriate that the entire Orthodox Church (since it is one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic) would celebrate the Birth of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ – ON THE SAME DAY.

Sadly, this does not happen. Why does this not happen one may ask? After all, this is a most important Feast of the Orthodox Church.

The “reason” that all who call themselves Orthodox do not celebrate this most joyous Feast, which has a 40-day fast prescribe prior to the Feast itself, is that a “new” calendar has been, for lack of a more polite term, “introduced”.

In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII the reform of the calendar was passed. This act made October 4th now October 14th. Thus Gregorian calendar was initiated. The calendar used up until that time was known as the Julian calendar, named after Julius Caesar.

In 1924, the then Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople instituted the “new” calendar in Greece (quite forcefully one may add) so that the difference now measured 13 days as opposed to just 10 with Pope Gregory’s calendar.

“THE HOLY APOSTLE commands us saying, “Hold fast the traditions which ye have received, whether by word of mouth or through an epistle of ours.” (2 Thes. 11:15). These words were the exact words used by the Blessed Metropolitan Philaret, in the introduction of the book The Calendar Question. He goes on to state, “These condemnations (three condemnations of the Gregorian Calendar enacted by Pan-Orthodox councils in the 16th century and the Pan-Orthodox condemnation of modernism last century presided over by Patriarch Anthemus) were never lifted by any later council –they still stand and are binding for all Orthodox Christians. (Ibid, p, 5)

It would seem proper that if an Apostle actually commands something, then it should be obeyed.This is obviously not the case; at least in this case. Consider the following:

A. The Condemnation of the Papal New Calendar in 1583
In the work Ecclesiastical History, written by Metropolitan Meletius of Athens (published in Austria, 1784. Ch. XI, p. 402) we read:

Council of Jerusalem convoked because of the New Calendar. During the reign of the same Patriarch Jeremy, a Council of Metropolitans was convoked in Constantinople in 1583, with Sylvester, Patriarch of Alexandria, also being in attendance. This Council condemned the calendar which had been introduced by Gregory of Rome, and did not accept it, as the Latins had requested.

According to the Codex Manuscript (#772) of the Russian Monastery of St. Panteleimon on Mount Athos, we learn of the sigillium (an official synodical decree, bearing the Patriarchal seals) issued by this council:

The sigillium of the Patriarchal Encyclical to the Orthodox Christians in every land commands them under the punishment and anathema not to accept the new Paschalion (the system of reckoning the date of Pascha) or the new calendar but to remain with that which was well defined once and for all by the 318 Holy and God-bearing Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council.

In the year of the God-Man, 1583.

12th Indiction. November 20
The Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremy II
The Patriarch of Alexandria Sylvester
The Patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius
And the other hierarchs of the Council who were present.

1. The Second Condemnation of the New Calendar in 1587.

In the Ecclesiastical History (Constantinople 1912. Vol. III., p. 125), written by Philaret Baphides, Metropolitan Of Didymotichon, we read a confirmation of the condemnation of 1583 and moreover: “Likewise in 1587, a council at Constantinople was convoked where, in the presence of Jeremy II, Meletius Pegas and Sophronius of Jerusalem, the correction of the calendar was condemned as being perilous and unnecessary and as being, rather, the cause of many dangers.”

1. The Third Condemnation of the New Calendar in 1593.

This Council took place in February, 1593, in the Holy Church of the Mother of God of Consolation. In its Eighth Canon, it prescribes the following concerning the change of the calendar:

Concerning the rejection of the new calendar, that is, the innovation of the Latins regarding the celebration of Pascha. We wish that that which has been decreed by the Fathers concerning Holy and Salutary Pascha remain unshaken … Let all those who have dared to transgress the definitions regarding the Holy Feast of the Salutary Pascha be excommunicated and rejected from the Church of Christ.

According to Polycarp, Bishop of Diaulia (Cf. The Change of the Calendar. Athens, 1947 p. 13) “…in 1593, a Council of the Orthodox Churches was convoked where the four patriarchs, the plenipotentiary of the Russian Church and many other Orthodox hierarchs representing the Orthodox churches participated. This Council reiterated the excommunication of the Most Holy Patriarch Jeremy II and issued an encyclical which, among other things, stated the following:

He that does not follow the customs of the Church which were decreed by the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils which have ordained well that we observe the Holy Pascha and the Menologion,(the calendar of the moveable feasts) and wishes to follow the new Paschalia and Menologion of the Pope’s astronomers, and, opposing himself to all these things, wishes to overturn and destroy them, let him be anathema and outside of the Church of Christ and the assembly of the faithful…”

D. The Requirements of Sacred Tradition.

“Let him that transgresses the ecclesiastical traditions be deposed” (Canon No. 7 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council).

Of the doctrine and preaching which are preserved in the Church, some we possess derived from written doctrine, others we have received delivered to us “in secret” (en mysterio) by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these have the same validity and force as regards piety. And these no one contradicts – no one, at all events, who is even moderately no written authority, on the ground that the importance that they possess is small, we would unintentionally harm the Gospel in its vitals; or, rather, would make our preaching mere words and nothing more (St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit 27:66; also Canon 91 of St. Basil the Great).

It should be required reading of all Orthodox Christians to learn this entire Canon by heart. The 92nd Canon of the same Saint confirms the above and also recalls the words of the divine Apostle: “Hold fast the traditions which ye have received, whether by word of mouth or through an epistle of ours” (2 Thes. 2:15).

Behold, therefore, why we adhere to the calendar of the Fathers:
Not because it is “Julian”, but because it has become “Ecclesiastical” and has always been the pulse of the Body of our most Holy Church. We keep this calendar because it is the one which we have received from the Fathers. The calendar of the West has been transmitted to us by no one. We keep this calendar because it was with this one that the Martyrs shed their blood, and our Fathers and Mothers in the Faith burned like living candles in their ascetical discipline. We keep this calendar of our Fathers because, according to the principle stated by St. Vincent of Lerins, it is the only one which has been used “always, everywhere, by all.” We keep this calendar because, if our Fathers were not upset by its inaccuracies, why should we become upset? We keep this calendar because, even if it is “erroneous, irregular, obsolete and antiquated,” yet it is also patristic, orthodox, sanctified, ecclesiastical, lived and celebrated at the same time by the whole Church, both in heaven and on earth.”

ENQUOTE

Phil,

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "EO" in "...the EO Church.

The anathemas pronounced, as well as others, are for the Orthodox Christians to follow, or reject.

Anathemas pronounced are not done so to judge anyone, rather they are pronounced, with love, to bring people, who have disobeyed something, back into the Orthodox Church.

It's kind of like one's father admonishing his son NOT to drive recklessly, to wit:

If the son obeys, he (1) learns to drive properly; and (2) he earns the respect and love of his father.

If the son disobeys and persists in his wrong-doing, he (1) drives improperly (speeds); (2) "earns" the disrespect and distrust of his father; and (3) may injure or kill someone by his improper speeding, and disobedience.

I apologize if this is simplistic, but I believe the simple analogy may be appropriate.

Regarding the adherence to the Orthodox Church Calendar, the same applies.

If the individuals/churches on the "new calendar" wish, they can remove themselves from the anathemas by simply rejecting this innovationist schism and returning to the Orthodox Church Calendar.

If the individuals/churches elect to continue using the schismatic "new calendar", they remain under the anathemas pronounced against those who disobey them.

The "punishment" involved is up to God Alone.

Tell me, which Calendar was in use/effect prior to 1583?

Was it not the Julian Calendar?

The Gregorian "new calendar" schism had not yet occurred, correct?

Therefore, the ONLY Calendar was the Julian Calendar, and that Calendar, is the one used by the Orthodox Church, is that not correct?

If the above is correct, then why was there any reason, other than pride, to change to an entirely new calendar and disrupt the unity of the Orthodox Church and create a schism?

This process was repeated in 1924 in Greece, and in the early 1980s in the Orthodox Church in America. All these subsequent two occurrences accomplished was furthering the already bad schism.

One must remember that the Orthodox Church was never, is not, and never will be split - NEVER!

There was, is, and ever shall be ONLY One Orthodox Church.

Individuals and whole churches can elect to unilaterally and voluntarily separate themselves from the bosom of the Orthodox Church. This has been done in numerous instances and more than likely will continue.

The important thing to remember is that no matter who leaves or separates themselves from the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church still remains ONE and continues on its chosen path as the One True Orthodox Church.

This will always be so. Why? Simple...

Our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, Himself, said so when he said,

"The gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church".

Since our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ CANNOT lie, then the Orthodox Church will always remain ONE. No matter if there ends up only being two Orthodox Christians gathered together in His Name.

The anathemas apply to all Orthodox Christians, whether they like it or not.

The Orthodox Church is NOT a democracy.

As such, the laity cannot "pick and choose" what they want to follow or not follow. That is definitely NOT the case!

If it were, then total anarchy would be the rule.

I will not say, anything against the Holy Apostles, and the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church. No, I fear doing that, as everyone should.

All I try to do is reiterate either by verbatim, or as well as I can recall what they have said. If I err, then I need to be corrected.

The Holy Fathers of Esphigmenou Monastery use the words, "Orthodoxy or Death".

It is not a "slogan" in modernistic terms.

Rather, I believe it to be a promise to defend the Orthodox Faith, to the death.

They do not say "The Greek, Russian, Bulgarian or any other Orthodox Church or Death". No, they quite simply say, "Orthodoxy or Death".

Today, 27 July was the commemoration of the Great-martyr and Healer Panteleimon, as well as Saint Herman of Alaska.

The "new calendar" would have it be the commemoration of Apostle Matthias (the replacement Apostle for the traitor Judas), and, the Saints of Solovki.

Read the Canon to the New martyrs of Russian where they explicitly state how the Martyrs of Solovki were being "marched" to their deaths, in the dead of winter. Read how a Priest gave his outer rassa to a man who had none, then the Priest died from exposure.

Unfortunately, due to the "new calendar" schism, these Saints, if commemorated at all, will NOT commemorated in UNITY with the WHOLE, ONE Orthodox Church, as according to the Orthodox Church Calendar they will not be commemorated for another 13 days.

Pity there is such a separation.

Unity, by its very definition means a onenness, a singularity, NOT a division or separation by any means.

I hope this helps. If it does, thank God; if it doesn't then thank God anyway, as it was meant in an instructional as opposed to argumentative in tenor.

I will defend to the death my belief in the Orthodox Faith, the Orthodox Church.

If individuals do not like this, then so-be-it.

John

[John Haluska]

Stephen,

Well put, thank you.

It is very interesting how many individuals/churches come up with so many varied "excuses", in this age of "modernism", against following/doing what the Orthodox Church has set forth for our edification and salvation.

Then....it is all rationalized away, and what should be done, is regarded as "fanaticism, extremeism, mean-spiritedness, "old-calendarist"" and many more epithets.

All of these are as smoke and mirrors and dust in the wind. They do nothing else except "satisfy'" the complacency of some and "justify" their present paths.

Orthodoxy is a two edged sword to some;

On one side some consider It as a 'legalistic' realm and 'strictness' prevails above all.

On the other side it is exactly the same "things" mentioned, except these "things" are voluntarily done with love and obedience to the Orthodox Church, simply because She says to do them.

Dormition Fast starts soon. The Orthodox Church will celebrate the most glorious Feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God. We are called to fast for this short period of time.

Fasting is a weapon, it is the weapon that the Orthodox Church gives us, much the same as a soldier is armed by his military. That weapon is used to quell the spiritual insurrection within each and everyone of us. We are given that weapon fight against the passions, or disregard the fast and fight the battle unarmed.

Simple, voluntary, selfless, humble obedience to the Orthodox Church and Her Dogmas and Sacred Traditions are all She asks. In return Orthodox Christians are given a wealth untold in knowledge of the fact that all they have done nothing more than what the Orthodox Church has set before us for our soul's salvation.

Simple unremitting humility to the Church, that's what is asked.

John