Hey, excuse my red face... my scarf is on too tight.

[Anastasios]

Anastasi,

From what I've learnt, when you STUDY the faith it is an exercise of intellect and philosophy, but when you LIVE the faith, it is a test of how much faith you have in God to get you through. Only when you are tested, will you be proven. You can study to your heart's content, but when you are faced with the real deal....then what will you do?

God bless,

Joanna

But many of the Fathers were philosophers. God gave us an intellect, and when it is used in conjunction with the nous and not the gnomic will, then it is rightly-oriented reason.

Some people read the fathers and saints and live pious lives but cannot explain the Trinity or other dogmas to Non-Orthodox. I am not saying that is you, but I am just saying that it is important to live the faith and let the faith be enriched by studying it as well.

Anastasios

[Mor Ephrem]

Mor Ephrem,

That still leaves you with Nestorians and Orientals to deal with.

If, for example, the Spanish Church had to contend with Nestorians (after the 600's ) who denied that Mary was the Mother of God, and the Spanish Church unilaterally added the term Theotokos to the Creed, so that it read "and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit, and the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, and became man", would that still be disagreeable?

I'm confused with your comment.
Can you please rephrase it and remember that you are talking to someone who has no idea what the Nestorians believe.

The Nestorians don't believe in the Mary being the mother of God? Were Nestorians in Spain, in the 600's? The Church added the word, Theotokos? What parts are historical and what parts are you trying to make a comment. I will answer your questions if I knew what you were trying to say.

OK. The Nestorians are Assyrian Christians who have their origin in Iraq. They teach that Mary is not the Mother of God, but only the Mother of Jesus Christ. The implication of this teaching is that Jesus Christ and God the Son are two different persons.

My question was hypothetical. The Spanish Church added the Filioque to the Creed in order to combat ArianIF the heresy running through Spain at the time was not Arianism but Nestorianism, and IF the Spanish Church decided to add the word "Theotokos" to the clause in the Creed where the Virgin is mentioned, would that still be a wrong thing to do, even if it did not alter the faith? In other words, is the mere changing of the words of the Creed, even if they don't substantially change the faith, wrong?

"separated Eastern Churches"

We have to get on the same page...who are the these seperate Eastern Churches you are thinking of? I'm talking about ALL religions outside of Orthodoxy. You mean Eastern as Muslims or Buddhists. What do you mean? AND I WILL PROVE IT.

My apologies for being unclear. By "separated Eastern Churches", I mean the Nestorians and the "Monophysite" Oriental Churches.

The Creed confesses one baptism for the remission of sins, but doesn't say a word about the other six sacraments. The Creed refers to the Virgin Mary as the Virgin Mary, without reference to her ever-virginity or her being the Mother of God. These are just two examples of things which are a part of the faith of the Apostles, and yet are not contained in the Creed. If a Baptist confesses the Creed and still holds to his heretical teachings, thinking that the Creed contains all the necessary teachings of the Church, the Orthodox would still say he was in error, because the Creed is of great importance, but obviously doesn't contain within itself everything that constitutes the faith of the Apostles, the Orthodox faith.

I see what you mean. There is more to learn about AFTER the Creed. But, if there are religions that can't accept ALL the points of the Creed FIRST, then they will not believe in the rest, right? So the Creed is the doorway, into the House of the Lord.

OK, but Nestorians, Orientals, and some Protestants agree on all the tenets of the unaltered Creed of the first two Ecumenical Councils. RC's, while confessing the Filioque, accept the original version as well. If you'd rather omit them from this discussion, that is fine with me. You still must contend with these groups that, however removed from Eastern Orthodoxy, still confess the unaltered Creed and agree with all of it.

You seem to be making the same kind of comments. You seem pretty definite about your views....

I make my comments without implying that those I am conversing with do not know what they are talking about because they're not living a Christian life. That said, my posts don't claim to be definitive: I don't know everything, and even with things I have a good grasp of, I still am unsure about a lot. Prove me wrong. I'm willing to listen.

Am I talking to a tornado?

I don't know. Sometimes I think talking to you is like watching a car accident. You know you probably shouldn't, but some sort of innate morbid desire compels you to do so.

The basis of the faith with the Creed is the essential measuring stick. If the other religions can't agree on ONE of those points, then the Christian tradition thereafter, is pointless to discuss. Show me a religion that follows all the points of the Creed, TO THE LETTER. Then we can discuss the rest, IF there is a religion still standing.

Define what you mean when you ask me to show you a religion that follows all the points of the Creed "TO THE LETTER". I'm sure that Nestorians and Monophysites do, but I think you'd disagree.

Why am I even explaining this to someone who is suppose to be Orthodox? I shouldn't be arguing about other religions not following the Creed to another Orthodox!

It's not about Orthodox not agreeing on the Creed, Joasia. You seem to be saying that only the Eastern Orthodox agree on all points of the Creed, while other "denominations" like the Nestorians or Monophysites do not, but have added or subtracted from the Creed. I don't think that is true, and want you to prove your case.

My logic is, that I shouldn't even be arguing with another Orthodox about the Creed, it doesn't make sense. We should be agreeing with each other.

I confess the Creed, and if you do as well, then we both agree. I disagree, however, that the Creed is the main measuring stick with which you discern Orthodoxy from heterodoxy, because then Nestorians, Monophysites, and at least some Catholics and Protestants are all Orthodox. The Creed is a very important expression of the Orthodox Faith, but the measuring stick for Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy.

This is only one interpretation of events. RC's regard themselves as "orthodox", and they believe you left them. Nestorians regard themselves as Orthodox, and Nestorius as "the bloodless martyr, persecuted for the truth of the Orthodox faith" (or something like that). My Church regards itself as Orthodox. EO believe that all of these are wrong, and they are right.

First of all, an Orthodox should be able to disregard ANYTHING the RC say. Don't get me started with them. How in the world, can they consider themselves "Orthodox"?? Paalleesse. That is ridiculous!

Note my use of "orthodox" as opposed to "Orthodox". Orthodoxy, as you defined it, means the straight path. Catholics surely think that their religion and church is "the straight path". They don't think they've swerved away from the true faith. So of course they would regard themselves as "orthodox".

You're with the OCA?

Nah. Worse.

They're ecumenists. There is an OCA church here, who sends people to my priest, in ROCOR when they ask spiritual questions, because they couldn't care to talk about it. It's like the OCA priest is in a profession, like a job and he doesn't even know the basics.

Again, you're making my case. You disagree that the OCA is Orthodox. But if I asked all the Orthodox people I know if the OCA was Orthodox, the vast majority would say yes. Why should I believe you, a person I don't know, over them? Old Calendarists rail against "world Orthodox", Old Calendarists fight amongst themselves, etc. Lots of people with different views of who is Orthodox and who is not, and what Orthodoxy is and what it is not...who is right? I'm sure I'd get a lot of different answers to that.

I don't know what the EO is. Many abbreviations, here, are unfamiliar to me.

I'm sorry. EO = Eastern Orthodox.

Why indeed. I'm glad, I'm not confused like you. I'd go crazy. Just try to believe in the Apostles, the Creed, the saints and the Holy Mysteries. Then you will be fine.

LOL. I'm not confused, Joasia. I'm trying to talk to you. I already believe in CHRIST, the Apostles, the Fathers, the saints, the Creed, the Holy Mysteries, etc...I am Orthodox.

I hope you believe in the Holy Fire. So many sad people don't believe in the Holy Fire.

Where did that come from?? I've heard opinions in support of the Holy Fire and opinions against it. The Holy Fire does not impact my faith in the least. Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy with or without it.

HaHa. Cute humour.. the Monophysites Protestants and Eastern catholics follow the Creed...hehehehe. I have a sense of humour too.

Nestorians, Monophysites, some Protestants, and Eastern Catholics who do not recite the Filioque in the Creed profess the Orthodox Creed of the first two Ecumenical Councils. If you don't think they do, prove it.

Paaallleeessse, don't start me up about the catholics, I will pulvarize you.

I guess you can take Joasia out of the Crusader religion, but you can't take the Crusader religion out of Joasia.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Mor Ephrem and Justin,

Here is another article I found now that I have more time.

http://www.nestorian.org/is_the_theolog ... urch_.html

If you are short on time, sjip down about a 1/3 of the way to:
" E. The Breakdown of Moderation: King and Church and Confession." -- OR SEE BELOW...

There is also a interesting little diagram in the middle of the article.

I'm not sure I agree with everything written as I have not had the time to study it, but just thought you might find it interesting like I have.

Anyway, I'll be away until Tuesday, God bless.

=======================================

The long period of accommodating various viewpoints—doubtless uncomfortable to many, if not most —came to a rapid conclusion in the year 612 when the Persian king, influenced by his Christian wife, who was in turn influenced by her personal physician, a monophysite, sought to recommend a monophysite candidate to the Church of the East to fill the vacant see of the Catholicos-Patriarch. The “one nature” party had been greatly strengthened over the years through infusions of captive populations from Byzantium, and relations between them and the dyophysites had worsened as they became bolder and more assertive in time. Meanwhile the supporters of Nestorius and his cause, always dominant in the schools and influential among the bishops, had sharpened their polemical tools as they were increasingly challenged by the dissidents. When the Church petitioned the king for the right to elect a head, the king suggested a “debate” in which the parties would prove through arguments which was the correct “Christian” point of view.[34] And as in the case of imperial intervention in the West, each faction viewed the occasion as an opportunity to set­tle the issue once and for all in its own favor through the acquisition of an imperial fran­chise. Official moderation gave way before the opportunity of a political “solution”. The king presented the questions in such a way as to label the easterns as “Nestorians”.[35] Though the dyophysites did not defend themselves as such, they did defend the terminolo­gy he (and they) used as being “pre-Nestorian”. Throughout the debate the dyophysite dis­putants mentioned the name of Nestorius only in the context of asserting that the manner in which they themselves spoke did not originate with him, but had Scriptural and paternal precedents.

Code: Select all

        We cannot overlook the fact that at this crucial moment in the history of the Church of the East both Antiochene partisans and those who were supporters of the Chalcedonian position were termed—and were considered to be—Nestorian by those of the mono­phy­site party.  For them the term had become a synonym for dyophysite.  The extreme threat they presented forced the defenders of the “two natures” position, alarmed by the imminent possibility of being subjected to a minority faction among them, to reach for the rhetorical tools with which they were most familiar, the linguistic usages and philosophical categories traditional in the East for generations, unfiltered by the modifications or reformulations of Ephesus and Chalcedon.  To them the monophysites posited the impossible:  the corruption of divinity through admixture and confusion, and the abolition of man’s hope of salvation through the denial of the integrity of the Son of God’s substantive humanity.  For the first time the Church of the East allowed a faction (to be sure, always a very influential faction) to speak on be­half of the entire Church and to employ the very controversial terminology which it had sought for 150 years or more to avoid using in synodal confessions:

“Concerning this, we believe in our hearts and confess with our lips one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose Godhead does not disappear, and whose manhood is not stolen away, but who is complete God and complete man. When we say of Christ ‘com­plete God’ we are not naming the Trinity, but one of the qnome of the Trinity, God the Word. Again, when we call Christ ‘complete man’ it is not all men we are naming, but the one qnoma which was specifi­cally taken for our salvation into union with the Word.”[36]

[joasia]

OK. The Nestorians are Assyrian Christians who have their origin in Iraq. They teach that Mary is not the Mother of God, but only the Mother of Jesus Christ. The implication of this teaching is that Jesus Christ and God the Son are two different persons.

The belief that the Virgin Mary is the mother of God IS in the Creed. It's just that you have to put two different statements together to see the complete picture.

And in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten, Son of God....of One Essence with the Father.

...and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became Man.

This shows Jesus as being of One Essence with the Father(God) and since He was born of the Virgin Mary, she is the Mother of God.

Why do people miss such obvious facts?? So the term Theotokos was explained...no need to add the word.

OK, but Nestorians, Orientals, and some Protestants agree on all the tenets of the unaltered Creed of the first two Ecumenical Councils. RC's, while confessing the Filioque, accept the original version as well. If you'd rather omit them from this discussion, that is fine with me. You still must contend with these groups that, however removed from Eastern Orthodoxy, still confess the unaltered Creed and agree with all of it.

I just showed you the Nestorian heresy.

As for the Monophysites: they believe that Jesus was perfect man. He wasn't God. I read an explanation about this by St. John Chrysostom. He said that Jesus Christ, Who is God, is the Only One that could let mankind back into Heaven since the original sin. No created man could have the AUTHORITY to do that. Only God could, so He sent His Son, who is also God, to do that. But He did it at a price that would never mean as much as it would if a mere creation did it. Because the sacrifice that God did for us will always outweigh any sacrifice a created being could do(for us). God was spit on and beaten to a pulp and treated worse than a dog. He did that for us. Mor, would you allow that to be done to you? You can't even accept constructive critism.

That's why the priest gives the offering of Holy Communion by saying: Thine own of Thine own we offer to Thee, in behalf of all, and for all. That means, that God is the offering for us, as the priest stands in front of the Holy Altar and presents the Offering to Him, of Himself. We have nothing to offer Him, at the altar. He gave it all to us. We are offering His gift back to Him.

Define what you mean when you ask me to show you a religion that follows all the points of the Creed "TO THE LETTER". I'm sure that Nestorians and Monophysites do, but I think you'd disagree.

All the beliefs stated in the Nicene Creed are the blueprint of the Christian faith, which has been preserved up until this day, in the Orthdox doxology.

I've already pointed out the errors of belief with them.

It's not about Orthodox not agreeing on the Creed, Joasia. You seem to be saying that only the Eastern Orthodox agree on all points of the Creed, while other "denominations" like the Nestorians or Monophysites do not, but have added or subtracted from the Creed. I don't think that is true, and want you to prove your case.

How's it going so far?

I confess the Creed, and if you do as well, then we both agree. I disagree, however, that the Creed is the main measuring stick with which you discern Orthodoxy from heterodoxy, because then Nestorians, Monophysites, and at least some Catholics and Protestants are all Orthodox. The Creed is a very important expression of the Orthodox Faith, but the measuring stick for Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy, as many people assume is a religion of itself, like Protestant, Anglican, etc. That's not what Orthodoxy means. It is the confession of a tradition of belief preserved from the time of the Apostles. They used the term before the Great Schism, to express a definite belief system. But, after the Great Schism, it was used to identify a certain body of people that upheld the original teachings, since the See of Rome labelled themselves Catholics.

Did you know that cathaloki, means universal, in ancient Greek? The Holy, Cathaloki, Apostolic Church. God was referring to universal as all His creation. I learnt that from St. John Chrysostom.

By the way, the Protestant group is less familiar to me at the moment. Why don't you list their beliefs, so that I can understand them better. Then we can discuss it. Okay?

Again, you're making my case. You disagree that the OCA is Orthodox. But if I asked all the Orthodox people I know if the OCA was Orthodox, the vast majority would say yes. Why should I believe you, a person I don't know, over them? Old Calendarists rail against "world Orthodox", Old Calendarists fight amongst themselves, etc. Lots of people with different views of who is Orthodox and who is not, and what Orthodoxy is and what it is not...who is right? I'm sure I'd get a lot of different answers to that.

I'm saying that their belief system is not following the Orthodox pattern. Like people who believe that all Christian religions agree with the Creed. They don't understand the intricacies of the spiritual faith. There are spiritual detriments in believing the false teachings. There is an OCA church here, who sends people to my priest, in ROCOR when they ask spiritual questions, because they couldn't care to talk about it. It's like the OCA priest is in a profession, like a job and he doesn't even know the basics.

Let me put it another way...the OCA priests, in my region admit that they do not know the answers to spiritual questions about Orthodoxy, when approached by a questioning layman, so they send them to our parish, who they have admitted know more.

Maybe the OCA laity that go to the church in your area are more knowledgable. That's good. But, unfortunately, the ones in my area are really out of it. Nobody seems to understand that we are in spiritual danger if we fall away from the Truth and the teachings of the Truth. How can we enter into God's Kingdom when we don't believe everything He has taught the Apostles to teach us?

Lots of people with different views of who is Orthodox and who is not, and what Orthodoxy is and what it is not...who is right? I'm sure I'd get a lot of different answers to that.

Yes, you will. But, the answer is in your heart. Do you truely want to believe in the Truth of God? What HE wants us to understand? That will eliminate the other people's voices. Yes, even mine. I'm just talking with you. It is a good exercise for our faith.

Where did that come from?? I've heard opinions in support of the Holy Fire and opinions against it. The Holy Fire does not impact my faith in the least. Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy with or without it.

Oh, I mentioned that because it came up in my thoughts when I was writing. The Mysteries of God. This is something else not talked about in the Creed, but I believe in it.

I guess you can take Joasia out of the Crusader religion, but you can't take the Crusader religion out of Joasia.

A girl's got to have a hobby.

[CGW]

The belief that the Virgin Mary is the mother of God IS in the Creed. It's just that you have to put two different statements together to see the complete picture.

It's really too bad you weren't around back then; they could have skipped all the trouble of having the council at Chalcedon, with you to explain it to them.

As for the Monophysites: they believe that Jesus was perfect man. He wasn't God. I read an explanation about this by St. John Chrysostom.

You know, if I want to know what Monophysites believe, I'll ask one, Not Chrysostom.

Orthodoxy, as many people assume is a religion of itself, like Protestant, Anglican, etc.

As an genuine Anglican, I'll thank you not to tell me what I believe or how I think.

[Mor Ephrem]

The belief that the Virgin Mary is the mother of God IS in the Creed. It's just that you have to put two different statements together to see the complete picture.

And in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten, Son of God....of One Essence with the Father.

...and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became Man.

This shows Jesus as being of One Essence with the Father(God) and since He was born of the Virgin Mary, she is the Mother of God.

Why do people miss such obvious facts?? So the term Theotokos was explained...no need to add the word.

I agree that the teaching that Mary is the Theotokos is implicitly in the Creed, but it isn't there explicitly. Nestorians have not changed this article of the Creed, yet they have come to believe an un-Orthodox teaching. How is that? Is it really possible to believe one thing while verbally confessing something quite obviously the opposite of that belief? I don't think this is possible (someone should've figured it out by now) unless they, while not having changed the letter of the Creed, interpret its articles differently. That is why the Creed alone is not a guarantee of Orthodoxy. It's a start, but it's not a guarantee or the only measuring stick to be used to evaluate Orthodoxy. The measuring stick for Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy. The argument that the Creed alone and as is should be used in order to determine Orthodoxy, and this attachment to the notion that schismatic/heretical groups have changed the words and fallen away strikes me as somewhat akin to sola Scriptura. Nice idea in principle, but it doesn't work.

As for the Monophysites: they believe that Jesus was perfect man. He wasn't God.

If I recall correctly, you said in the past that at one time you were affiliated with the GOC of Greece (centred, in America, at Saint Markella's in Astoria). If this is true, then this must be a pretty common impression among them, as when I went to Saint Markella's this past August, some of the people there told me this exact same thing. Monophysitism is not the belief that Jesus was perfect man and not perfect God. Monophysitism is the belief that Jesus was God, but not perfect man.

God was spit on and beaten to a pulp and treated worse than a dog. He did that for us. Mor, would you allow that to be done to you? You can't even accept constructive critism.

Hmm. When the Oriental Orthodox pray the Trisagion and teach that it is a hymn addressed to Our Lord and God Jesus Christ, we are anathematised by you (you think we think the Holy Trinity suffered all these things or some misguided notion like that). But it's OK for you to say the exact same thing we say, and you are not anathematised, but we are. But that's besides the point.

I don't know what constructive criticism you've offered to me in this thread. If you will point it out to me, I will take it into consideration. I try my best to see constructive criticism for what it is, and apply it. If I haven't done that here, it is either because I don't know what you said, or because I think you're wrong.

And I'm not in the business of comparing myself to our Lord, so I won't even answer your question--the answer should be obvious.

That's why the priest gives the offering of Holy Communion by saying: Thine own of Thine own we offer to Thee, in behalf of all, and for all. That means, that God is the offering for us, as the priest stands in front of the Holy Altar and presents the Offering to Him, of Himself. We have nothing to offer Him, at the altar. He gave it all to us. We are offering His gift back to Him.

Who is this prayer addressed to? God the Father? God the Son? The Holy Trinity?

All the beliefs stated in the Nicene Creed are the blueprint of the Christian faith, which has been preserved up until this day, in the Orthdox doxology.

I've already pointed out the errors of belief with them.

No you haven't. You have pointed out where their belief is un-Orthodox, but you haven't pointed out where this is reflected in the Creed as they express it. My understanding of your POV is that these heretical groups have changed the Creed. But they haven't done so. Sure, they've introduced a heresy into the Orthodox faith, but they haven't changed the Creed. They accept the Creed at face value. Now I would agree that the Creed is a summary of the faith, but it doesn't go into all of the doctrines of the faith. The Creed is not enough.

It's not about Orthodox not agreeing on the Creed, Joasia. You seem to be saying that only the Eastern Orthodox agree on all points of the Creed, while other "denominations" like the Nestorians or Monophysites do not, but have added or subtracted from the Creed. I don't think that is true, and want you to prove your case.

How's it going so far?

I'm not convinced.

By the way, the Protestant group is less familiar to me at the moment. Why don't you list their beliefs, so that I can understand them better. Then we can discuss it. Okay?

We don't need to. It is pretty clear that all Protestants, to a greater or lesser degree, hold teachings that are in opposition to the Orthodox Faith. The same is true of Nestorians and genuine Monophysites. However, none of these has altered the words of the Creed. They may have different beliefs, but it isn't reflected in the Creed as they profess it. I don't need to be convinced that they are un-Orthodox. I need to be convinced that they have changed the Creed.

I'm saying that their belief system is not following the Orthodox pattern. Like people who believe that all Christian religions agree with the Creed. They don't understand the intricacies of the spiritual faith. There are spiritual detriments in believing the false teachings.

The Creed is a pretty generic statement of faith. It is very important, but still generic. It says nothing explicitly about Person and Nature in Christ, the ever-virginity of Our Lady, six of the sacraments, the proper role of the Scriptures in the Church, Holy Tradition, the veneration of saints, efficacious intercessory prayer for the departed, etc. Most Christian confessions can agree with the Creed as it stands. Even the Catholics can agree with the original Creed. Obviously, you see that there is more to the Orthodox faith when you say that certain people don't understand the intricacies of the faith, and that there are spiritual detriments in believing heterodox teaching, and I agree with you. Where we disagree, and I know I sound like a broken record at this point, is the idea that the Creed as it stands is enough to determine Orthodoxy.

[joasia]

To Mor,

I agree that the teaching that Mary is the Theotokos is implicitly in the Creed, but it isn't there explicitly. Nestorians have not changed this article of the Creed, yet they have come to believe an un-Orthodox teaching. How is that?

Maybe it's an attack on the Truth, in order to create schisms. There is an invisible spiritual warefare going on, you know.

Is it really possible to believe one thing while verbally confessing something quite obviously the opposite of that belief? I don't think this is possible (someone should've figured it out by now) unless they, while not having changed the letter of the Creed, interpret its articles differently.

The Holy Fathers with the Holy Spirit established the faith passed down from Christ. They were the leading authority on the subject. Just because the Nestorians put their own interpretation into it, doesn't make them right. Were there Nestorians who were numbered WITH the Holy Fathers during the two Ecumenical Councils?

That is why the Creed alone is not a guarantee of Orthodoxy.

When a person builds a house, they need the blueprint first, right? When the workman start building and change some things, all that needs to be reviewed is the blueprint. Would you like it if your blueprint showed a wall here and a wall there, but the workmen DECIDED not to put them up or add other walls. How dare they make a decision about something that belongs to you. It's your house. You know what you want to be done. And if they denied changing anything, then you can look at the blueprint and prove them wrong.

It's a start, but it's not a guarantee or the only measuring stick to be used to evaluate Orthodoxy. The measuring stick for Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy.

But, where does Orthodoxy originate from? The Creed. It's the blueprint of Orthodoxy, or original Christianity, to be more specific.

But, as you said previously: Lots of people with different views of who is Orthodox and who is not, and what Orthodoxy is and what it is not...who is right? I'm sure I'd get a lot of different answers to that.

So where do you turn to for the full truth? The original source...

The argument that the Creed alone and as is should be used in order to determine Orthodoxy, and this attachment to the notion that schismatic/heretical groups have changed the words and fallen away strikes me as somewhat akin to sola Scriptura. Nice idea in principle, but it doesn't work.

This comment is totally lost to me. How else do you determine whether a group is following their own innovations, if you don't look to the original source?

If I recall correctly, you said in the past that at one time you were affiliated with the GOC of Greece (centred, in America, at Saint Markella's in Astoria).

I never said that. Read my thread called My conversion. You must have me mixed up with someone else. Mistakes happen. I have made some here too.

Hmm. When the Oriental Orthodox pray the Trisagion and teach that it is a hymn addressed to Our Lord and God Jesus Christ, we are anathematised by you (you think we think the Holy Trinity suffered all these things or some misguided notion like that). But it's OK for you to say the exact same thing we say, and you are not anathematised, but we are. But that's besides the point.

One, I cannot answer this reply, unless I understand who you think I am. Two, I, personally, did not anthematise YOU. Let's get back to this when you are clear on who I am.

I don't know what constructive criticism you've offered to me in this thread. If you will point it out to me, I will take it into consideration. I try my best to see constructive criticism for what it is, and apply it. If I haven't done that here, it is either because I don't know what you said, or because I think you're wrong.

Yes, I do see that you don't know what I've said.

And I'm not in the business of comparing myself to our Lord, so I won't even answer your question--the answer should be obvious.

I'm not comparing myself to God...I'm saying that Christ, as God took more punishment from His creation than we would allow for ourselves, with each other. His sacrifice as God is expressed in the reading for Great Lent. I have the whole service of Holy Week, if you want me to check the specific prayers.

That's why the priest gives the offering of Holy Communion by saying: Thine own of Thine own we offer to Thee, in behalf of all, and for all. That means, that God is the offering for us, as the priest stands in front of the Holy Altar and presents the Offering to Him, of Himself. We have nothing to offer Him, at the altar. He gave it all to us. We are offering His gift back to Him.

Who is this prayer addressed to? God the Father? God the Son? The Holy Trinity?

Your priest should know that answer. It's part of liturgy. But, what's your point?

No you haven't. You have pointed out where their belief is un-Orthodox, but you haven't pointed out where this is reflected in the Creed as they express it

As to my points earlier, Orthodoxy stands on the Creed. The Nestorians don't believe that the Virgin Mary gave birth to God. I showed you, in the Creed, where the statements are expressed to the fact.

The Monophysites don't believe that Jesus is God...it's stated in the Creed.

My understanding of your POV is that these heretical groups have changed the Creed.

That's not what I said. I said that they don't ADHERE to the Creed, which makes their teachings heretical. Don't twist this around, Mor.

Sure, they've introduced a heresy into the Orthodox faith, but they haven't changed the Creed.

Well, the RC have, we know that. But, all the other heretical divisions don't agree on all the points or add to it. Their confession doesn't follow the Creed.

Now I would agree that the Creed is a summary of the faith, but it doesn't go into all of the doctrines of the faith. The Creed is not enough.

I won't go into my blueprint explanation again.

We don't need to. It is pretty clear that all Protestants, to a greater or lesser degree, hold teachings that are in opposition to the Orthodox Faith. The same is true of Nestorians and genuine Monophysites. However, none of these has altered the words of the Creed. They may have different beliefs, but it isn't reflected in the Creed as they profess it. I don't need to be convinced that they are un-Orthodox. I need to be convinced that they have changed the Creed.

I never said that they changed the Creed. I've been saying that they don't FOLLOW it. Maybe we have been mis-reading each other.
Let me ask you...if you went around stating that you believed in the sanctity of marriage and it was important and you wouldn't divorce your wife...but fooled around on the side...are you following the law, in your heart? No. The law is there, but you are doing something else. The same with the Creed...they are not disagreeing with the Creed, but their actions are proving their belief against it.

The Creed is a pretty generic statement of faith. It is very important, but still generic. It says nothing explicitly about Person and Nature in Christ,

First of all, it's the original confession of Christianity. Second...
And in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light, True God of True God, begotten, not of one Essence with the Father, through Whom all was made.

the ever-virginity of Our Lady, six of the sacraments, the proper role of the Scriptures in the Church, Holy Tradition, the veneration of saints, efficacious intercessory prayer for the departed, etc.

Yes, the rest came with time. By the way, there are 7 sacraments(Holy Mysteries). But, I'm talking about the essential faith of the foundation of Christianity. If you don't have that, you can't go on to the next level.

Most Christian confessions can agree with the Creed as it stands. Even the Catholics can agree with the original Creed.

The catholics, CAN'T agree with the original Creed. They ADDED the Filioque. They say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son. The ORIGINAL Creed states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and who with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified.

DON'T get me started about the catholics.

Obviously, you see that there is more to the Orthodox faith when you say that certain people don't understand the intricacies of the faith, and that there are spiritual detriments in believing heterodox teaching, and I agree with you. Where we disagree, and I know I sound like a broken record at this point, is the idea that the Creed as it stands is enough to determine Orthodoxy.

Obviously, we can agree that we disagree. But, I have explained everything pretty clearly. I think the subject has been beaten to death.

If you consent, let's just end this discussion. Because, we keep repeating ourselves and getting nowhere.