Whats The Difference Between The Mino Hd

Horos Council of Chalcedon (451)

Horos Council of Chalcedon

1. Next, therefore the holy Fathers,

2. confess one and the same Son,

3. Our Lord Jesus Christ,

4. we all unanimously teach

5. the same perfect in divinity

6. the same perfect in humanity,

7. truly God and truly man,

8. the same compound of a reasonable soul and body,

9. consubstantial with the Father according to the deity,

10. and consubstantial with us, even as humanity

11. like us in everything except sin,

12. before the ages begotten of the Father according to the deity,

13. and last, days,

14. the same for us and for our salvation,

15. of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to humanity,

16. one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, the Only Begotten,

17. acknowledged in two natures

18. without confusion, without change, without division, without separation,

19. Unlike the natures being in no way removed by the union,

20. but the property of each nature being preserved rather

21. and concurring in one person and one hypostasis,

22. non-shared and divided into two persons,

23. but being one and the same only-begotten son,

24. God, the Word, Lord Jesus Christ,

25. like the prophets of long about it

26. and himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, taught

27. and as we passed the symbol of the Fathers.

source : http://www.forum-orthodoxe.com/ ~ forum / viewtopic.php? F = 8 & t = 2428 # p17032

Howcan Ibuild Tolerance To Cat Allergy

THE CONFESSION OF FAITH of St. Mark of Ephesus

WAS DE LA Confession

De Saint Marc d'Ephese

Αγιος Μαρκος Ο Ευγενικος

Nourished by the grace of God, in the dogmas of piety, and following in all and all the holy Catholic Church, I believe and confess God the Father, only without origin or cause, but the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit because He is born the Son, and he makes the Spirit without the Son contributes nothing to the procession, because the Spirit Nor does not contribute to the generation, or because their sources are jointly and simultaneously to each other, as the Fathers teach theologians ( Damascene, De Fide 1, 8). For it is also why the Holy Spirit is said to proceed through the Son, that is to say with the Son, and as the Son, though not by as engendering it. But the Son is not generated by the Spirit said, lest the name of the Son being a relative term, we don not believe he is the Son of the Spirit.

It also follows that the Spirit is called Spirit of the Son because of their identical nature and the fact that it is through the Son that the Spirit appeared and it is given to men but the Son is not said and not the Son of the Spirit, according to Gregory of Nyssa .

What if "proceed through the Son" indicated, as claimed by neo-theologians, the cause of the Spirit, and not the fact that shines through the Son, that it appeared by him, and, absolutely speaking, they made out both jointly and in the words of s'entr'accompagnent Damascene (De Fide 1.7), the herald of God, theologians never do that here refuse unanimously, and in express terms, the role Because of the Son.

One declares: "The Father is sole source," that is to say only cause "of the Godhead suressentielle" and that's how it differs from son and the Spirit ( Dionysius . divine names; 2.5).

Another: "Only unbegotten and sole source of the Godhead: the Father" that is to say that only because it is both not only caused ( Athanasius of Alexandria . Counter the Sabellians , 2).

A third: "The whole of the Father is except the Son to be the cause" ( Gregory the Theologian . Speech 34, 10).

Another says: "People of Rome nor the Son are not the cause of the Spirit"

( Maximus the Confessor. Letter to Marin ; PG 91.136).

Tel other than: "The Father is the only causer" the same way: "For the Son, we say the point because neither Father", elsewhere again: "Anything that 'implies the notion of source, cause, creator, should apply only to the Father alone " ( Damascene . De Fide ; 1.12).

No, never Damascus, which is extremely accurate in his theology, attributing the "with" Son, do not banish the "from, derived from" as he did in his theological treatise in chapter eight, in these terms: "We're not saying Spirit from the Son, but we call it Spirit of the Son and confess that it is through the Son it is manifested and is transmitted to us "(PG 94, col.849) and then again in chapter thirteen of the same book:" Spirit of the Son, not as previously published him, but as proceeding from the Father by him for the Father alone is causer "(ditto Col.849). Then, in the Epistle to Jordan, toward the end: "enhypostatique Spirit, fruit of the procession, the result of projection from the Son, and not Son, as the Breath of the Mouth of God, herald, herald of the Word "(PG 95, 60). Finally, in his homily on the burial of the body theandric Lord's where he says:" Holy Spirit of God Father, because it proceeds from him, he is also known as Spirit of the Son, not that it derives from its existence, but because it is manifested through the Son and through him transmitted to the creation "( PG 96, 605).

For it is clear that wherever the preposition "with" indicates a medium-term cause and proximate cause, as the Latins want this be the case here, she absolutely equivalent to the preposition "of" and the two towers used interchangeably, so "I have gotten a man from God" (Gen. 4.1) is the same as "God" and " the man comes through woman "(Q. 11, 12) means" the woman ".

It follows that in cases where the preposition "de" is banned, the idea of cause is of course forbidden to her.

remains that the words "proceed from the Father through the Son" mean in the style of theology succinct the Spirit who proceeds from the Father, is made manifest, is made known, or appears shines through the Son.

"This is indeed," said Basil the Great, the sign owned by it, which admits its hypostatic property: it is to be known with the Son and jointly to him and take his father's hypostatic existence "(Letter 38.4). So that the phrase "the Son" still means: being seen with him. Indeed, we assign by the Spirit no other singular property in relation to Son, being known to Him and no other, from the Father, that to draw from him his hypostatic existence. So if the clean, strictly speaking, has its correlative that he is precisely the characteristic, the Holy Spirit has no relationship to the Son as "being seen with him" to even he has no relationship to the Father, that to make him his hypostatic existence.

This is not the Son that the Holy Spirit takes its hypostatic existence or is it to be. Were it otherwise, indeed, what would prevent that "by the Son proceeds the Holy Spirit, "exactly as we say" everything is through the Son came to be? "But while the latter formula is actually said, the preposition" with "being set for" de " the first, however does not say, and you can not find anywhere as is, without mention of the Father, because they always say "the Father through the Son." And these words do not necessarily causal role in son, that's why the phrase "the Son" as meaning "from the Son" is completely untraceable and explicitly prohibited.

II) Voices Fathers and Doctors of Western attributing the cause to the Son of the Spirit, I do not recognize nor accept them - because they have not only been translated into our language, nor reviewed by the ecumenical councils and I assume that have been falsified and altered; moin ¬ ty, among a thousand, this text * Seventh Ecumenical Council recently presented by them, whose credo includes the addition to Symbol, read at the meeting, that document was flooded with shame and of shame, then these people know. By the fact, these fathers have never been able to say in their writings the opposite of the ecumenical councils dogmas and their common or oppose the doctors of the East, nor even simply differ from them, like so many other passages of these Fathers are authentic.

is why I condemn this kind of inauthentic as perilous testimony on the procession of the Holy Spirit, and giving me to St. John Damascus ¬ Supper, I do not say Spirit from the Son, even when another, whatever it is, seems to say, I'm not saying either the cause or designer Son of the Spirit, to recognize fear in the Trinity causer and a second by just two causer and two principles.

So, indeed, the cause is not even an attribute ¬ purpose of gasoline - in which case it would be common to one and three persons - and therefore, by no means and no way, Latin can not escape the two principles, as they say that the Son is the Spirit principle. However, be principle is a personal attribute, which distinguishes them people.

presented * The Latins, in fact, a manuscript, they said very old, the Proceedings of the sixth Council, comprising the "filioque." The Orthodox had no difficulty to prove that it was a fake.

III) Next So all the seven ecumenical councils and the Fathers who shone with the brilliance of divine wisdom:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible.

- And in one Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made.

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

-He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.

And it ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, whence he will return in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who is adored and glorified with the Father and the Son, who spoke by the prophets.

-In Church, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I await the resurrection and the life of the next century. Amen.

IV) This doctrine and the sacred symbol of faith exhibited by the first and second councils, ratified and confirmed by all the others, I accept and I keep with all my soul I also acknowledge and embrace, in addition to the seven councils aforesaid, the council, which met later in the reign of the pious Roman Emperor Basil patriarchy and the very St. Photios and that one even called the eighth ecumenical *, with the participation of representatives of John, the pope blessed the former Rome-I have appointed the bishops and Paul Eugene and the priest and Cardinal Pierre, this council was first ratified and proclaimed the Seventh Ecumenical Council and ordered to put the ranks of previous and secondly it has restored on his throne the very St. Photios . Finally he condemned and anathematized, just like the previous councils, those who dare to innovate by adding, removing or altering anything of the Symbol statement above: "He who dares says he, in fact, make another symbol than this, or do at this sacred symbol addition or subtraction, and have the audacity to call the rule of faith, it is condemned and rejected any Christian communion "(Mansi. Volume 17, col. 520 E).

The Pope John , writing to the very St. Photios says the same thing, more developed and more clearly still on the addition to the Symbol. We may add that this Council has enacted the guns found in all canonical collections.

* Council of Constantinople in 879. The testimony of Mark of Ephesus is important here. It shows that this Council, which condemned the "filioque" and Popery, is regarded by the Orthodox Church as the true eighth Ecumenical Council.

V) Pursuant therefore to the decrees of this council and previous, I judge that we should keep unchanged the sacred symbol of the Faith, as it has been exposed, and those receiving the councils received, rejecting those that they have rejected, I will never in communion with those who dared to add the symbol of innovation on the procession of the Holy Spirit, as they persist in this such innovations. It says in effect: "Let he who communicates with an excommunicated himself is excommunicated."

And the divine Chrysostom, explaining the words of the Apostle: "If someone tells you a gospel that differs from the one you received, it is anathema! " states: "The Apostle did not say" if you announce to the contrary "or" if they put everything upside down ", no, but" even when their gospel would differ for a detail , the one you received, even if they do not disturb that the accessory, they are accursed. "The same says again:" We must temper, not breaking the law "(Gal to Commentary Ep. 1.7.).

And Basil the Great, in his "Ascetic": "This is clearly fall from the faith and show pride, than to convict one of the things written or introduce of unwritten, while Our Lord Jesus Christ said: "My sheep hear my voice" , and a bit ago: "They will not follow a stranger, but flee from before him, for they know not the voice foreigners " . And he wrote to the monks: "Those who pretend to confess the true faith and communion with the heterodox, if after being warned, they do not break this communion, not only do not have a relationship with them, but not even plus appoint brethren "(PG 31, 680).

And before these fathers theophoric Ignatius wrote to the divine Polycarp of Smyrna : "Whoever speaks against the orders, even though he would pursue in good faith, fasting, keep virginity, worked miracles and prophecies would, sees it as a wolf, working under the skin of a sheep to death for the sheep ".

And that would speak more?

All the doctors of the Church without exception, all Councils and all the divine scriptures urge to flee the heterodox and to dispose of their communion.

And I despise all for me to go follow those who call for unity under the pretext of a false peace? Those who have falsified the divine and sacred symbol and acknowledge the Son as second causer the Holy Spirit?

Because I leave aside for the moment the other nonsense that one would have sufficed to break with them.

May I, Comforter, you who are kind, never knowing that fate, or become so foreign to me and to the proper reasoning!

May I, attached to your teacher and that of men Blessed are you inspired to make fathers a single addition - the only thing that I go back from here - piety!

Smoking Wood Chips In Michigan

IDOLATRY CONTEMPORARY A. Kalomiros

The contemporary idolatry

Alexander Kalomiros

The European is characterized by a terrible antagonism: the opposition of the outer man and inner man. The European is different in appearance from what it actually is. He lives and moves in the lie of conventional. Any civilization is an addition to conventional lies which he has adapted. It is egocentric to the extreme, but he behaves with others with absolute politeness, almost sought.

In underdeveloped countries, where men have not the sophistication of European civilization, each more or less expresses his inner world with a certain freedom and simplicity that not found in Europe. Their manners are steep, but men are more real. In Europe, this is considered a lack of civilization and spiritual development. Thus, it has come to consider that civilization lies in the continual play of hypocrisy, this "whited sepulcher filled with putrefaction" Mt 23.27 . It continuously cleans the outside of the cup to look clean men Luke 11.39, Matthew 23.25-26 .

But as happens with the Pharisees, this continual lie in which they live do not humiliate them. Instead they filled them with perfection external assurance of their superiority. The most characteristic sign of Europeans is pride! They see from above all other peoples they consider "Uncivilized" or "underdeveloped"

It may be that some of them are very interested in the needs of others. Individuals, groups or nations, and especially the underdeveloped where they feed on feelings of pity. But basically, they look at others as an entomologist interested in insects. They are men of feeling inferior to the love they have for a dog.

They see their civilization the same high opinion they have of themselves. They accept nothing without sifting through critical thinking skills which they are proud. They consider all the related values, even those they accept, and discuss with apparent depth of all that humanity has believed.

Their usual attitude is sympathetic agnostics who are willing to agree with you, letting you understand, of course, that nothing can prove anything you tell them and that therefore you indifferent.

Yet there is one thing that never goes through the mind these agnostics: it is to question the value of their civilization. Never has a civilization was superior to theirs. They may call into question or discuss different problems or challenges and minor partial order on their culture, and in detail, they even manage to express strong opposition, but they never doubt the correctness of the general line of their civilization.

The civilization of Europe is based on a religion, a religion that nobody wants to call it that because it is not the worship of one or more deities, but the worship of man .

The religion of the ancient Greeks and their civilization were nothing else but the worship of man. If the civilization of ancient Greece has found such an echo in the heart of Europe is precisely because of this resemblance interior.

Like the ancient Greeks, and Europeans have deified human reason, passions, strengths and weaknesses psychic. In a word, they have made man the center, the extent and purpose of everything. It is in man that the civilization of Europe has its source. It exists for human rights and draws its justification.

Perhaps there is disagreement as to the means by which to realize the improvement of human life. It may be that there are differences in how to worship the man. It may be that taking the man as the measure we get some results, but still and all, man is the center around which everything revolves, the source of their inspiration and purpose of their effort.

This is Europe.

Whatever the religion he believes have, basically religion is nothing but the worship of the idol man. The European stopped seeing the man in the image of God. He simply sees the image of himself.

In other words, the religion of Europe is the old religion of humanity, one that separated man from God . God's purpose is to deify man. But man led astray by the devil thought he could become a god without the grace of the Creator on his own initiative and by its own efforts alone. He hastened to enjoy the tree of knowledge before it is ripe for such food.

The result was that his eyes were opened and he knew good and evil, saw her naked body and spirit and was terrified. He does watch over (across) the Lord his God and ran away to hide his face. He understood that a great chasm opened between him and his Creator. Then the merciful Father cursed the cause of the disaster: the devil, "the old serpent." In his immense love He already promised hello: "And I will put enmity between thee (the serpent, the devil) and women (the Virgin) and between thy seed and her seed (Christ)." He will crush your head and thou shalt bruise his heel " Gen 3.15 . And that man does not live forever in this state of spiritual death, he sent him out of paradise" for fear that wider in scope and does not hand take the fruit of the Tree of Life, he eats and live for ever " Gen 3.22 . God allowed this, by mercy and love, death and bodily corruption which, as spiritual death, have been the consequence of breaking contact (of man) to the source of Life, that the soul does not remain for centuries in its spiritual mortification, his misfortune and nudity. Thus man separated from God and living the reality of continual death has become a slave of the devil.

So it was in reaction to the experience of its nullity that man loved man by proclaiming god. Indeed, the ancients had taught that the soul was a part of the divine substance, that is to say, it is divine in essence and therefore has not need God.

This man's inner desire to believe in his god, the joint effect of his submission to Satanic powers is the basis of all idolatry.

The religion of Europe is simply this primitive idolatry in modern form.

Popery, Protestantism, humanism, atheism, democracy, fascism, capitalism, communism, etc., and many other things born in Europe, are expressions of the same mind "humanolâtre. The civilization of Europe is nothing else than the result of an ongoing effort and anguish of the man raise his throne above God's throne . It is nothing more than to build a new tower of Babel where confusion prevails as to how to build, although the goal is common to all.

The ideal of the European ideal is identified with Lucifer. Basically, the same contempt of the goodness of God, the same insult to his love, the same rebellion and expulsion of his providence, the same ingratitude the same course in the desert, instead of driving the man upstairs, where he believes go, leads to the abyss of death.

source: http://homepage.mac.com/thm72/orthodoxievco/bul/01.htm # Idolatry

Make Your Own I Heart Boobies

which separated from each other? Father B. Sakkas

which separated from each other?

We often hear expressions like this: "When the east is separated from the West", "when the Orthodox Church broke away from Roman", "the Greek schismatics" (see Cambridge) and now, as required ecumenical courtesy ... "separated brethren"! Thus, in the consciousness of Western people, the belief was formed in 1054, the Orthodox Church of the East ... separated from Rome "for various historical reasons and the wickedness of man."

A clarification is needed. In fact, we did not separate of anyone. Indeed, the 34th Apostolic Canon provides: " The bishops of each nation must know who is the first of them regard him as their head, and do nothing without his opinion, but do only what is incumbent upon each in its territory and the country annexed to it. But it also (the first) must not do anything without the opinion of all. Only in this way there will be harmony and God will be glorified by the Lord in the Holy Spirit ... "Thus, the structure of ecclesial orthodoxy is based on the apostolic tradition which prescribed the system of autocephalous churches, structured independently one another, "closed", so to speak, about their administration and internal affairs.

No legal interdependence has never existed among the autocephalous churches, each enjoying complete autonomy. The Orthodox Church does not know and never had another form of church structure. If subsequently various autocephalous churches, for purely historical and human, have enjoyed a certain prestige or some rule (in chronological order: Jerusalem - Antioch - Rome - Constantinople), this was to purely honored and moral, but never involved a canonical supremacy of a local church from another local church or centralism on the whole Church.

Each local church is in itself the image of the Church's fullness!

This was historically the relationship between Eastern and Western churches, because at that time all the churches of the West (eg Church of Spain) were not absorbed by Rome.

We do not know not and have never seen a barrel equivalent who prescribed another church structure as defined by the aforementioned third Apostolic Canon. We have never been under the tutelage of Roman and canon law so that we can we impute a "revolt", a "schism" or "posting" of a higher hierarchy. We never existed as part of a Church with a supreme head on earth.

Our relations with Rome, with one rule in dignity stipulated by the 28th canon of the fourth ecumenical council, relations were church-sisters, as equals, and we never existed as a dependency or attachment of the Roman Church.

The gun in question says: "The fathers have attributed the length (or doyenneté) to the throne of ancient Rome, for he was ruling in a city ..." and not because of an alleged divine right of succession from St. Peter.

Even if one takes seriously the challenges of future popes in this regard, it is nonetheless clear that, after Apostolic canons and ecumenical, "the Greeks" have never recognized the pope at Rome anything but a primacy of honor PRIMUS INTER PARES (first among equals). But if, in ancient times, popes have claimed a "divine right to rule", this has always been repulsed by the Greeks (broadly defined) as a unilateral claim of a local church. We can not speak of an acceptance of the undivided Church "on the alleged" divine rights "of the bishop of Rome, several popes have also denounced the idea as absurd.

There has never been "cut", "rupture" or "separation" canonical Orthodox Churches and legal headquarters in Rome, for the mere reason that the Orthodox churches have always been "autocephalous" and " SELF "from the origins of their Apostolic Tradition. It would simply show ignorance to suppose that such autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox churches is either a late phenomenon and later, an expansion of local power, granted as a benefit or privilege granted by dominance hierarchy. The autocephalous Orthodox churches is born with them, it is an integral part of their hypostasis.

The patriarchs of the East have never been ... cardinals, but also the patriarch of the West. The patriarchs of the East have always been independent from their origin as well as the patriarch of the West! (Whether we excuse our rehearsals, but it must be a growing awareness!) Therefore, the Greeks called "schismatic" can not be ignorance or dishonesty theological .

Secondly: disruptions between East and West before the fatal date of 1054 represent a period of time which in total is well over two centuries. These failures were repeated (we indicate this so that we do not assume that the Greeks are "fallen" into schism inadvertently!) If these failures were repeated, is that they were aware: that proves that the Greeks before 1054 did not consider as a condition sine qua non their full ecclesial communion in sacris with ancient Rome! These failures could not be explained if the Greeks had seen the pope as the head of the Catholic Church. But these breaks (and other acts and attitudes that we see later) show that for them at the beginning of the undivided Church, the communion of the interruption in sacris hardly detract their ecclesial fullness. They do not feel crippled because of this interruption, but could live in the fullness of grace be with the pope, or without him.

When have we ever made amends to the pope for having despised his role as so-called "infallible leader of the Church," "Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth" and "by right divine successor of the apostle Peter, "or when we have received and acknowledged as such?

Whoever ignores vehemence with which the Orthodox East for centuries prior to 1054, fought against the dogmatic and liturgical innovations of the West ( Filioque , Saturday fasting, celibacy priests, the bishop alone chrismation, unleavened bread), and who is not aware of the excommunications which then crossed both sides, obviously can not easily understand the full independence that the Orthodox East has always opposed to Rome, pretentious ally of the Emperor Charlemagne.

The mere fact that we can convene a council and the pope excommunicated and anathematized even in some cases ( Honorius), proves that we have never admitted nor as our leader, or that we have never held infallible because of its function sine concessum ecclesiae (without the consensus of the Church). For how could we excommunicate "our leader", which by its very function received the gift of infallibility, without needing the consent of the Church?

So do not be confused with the so-called orthodox "Patriarchs" Uniate and servile, pathetic position in the councils of Rome, fading by taking the name of ... Cardinals!

us Our patriarchs were never Cardinals. Each autocephalous, Orthodox in the east, designated, chosen, elected, swore and inducted its bishops and patriarchs by his own initiative and under his own responsibility. Once the patriarch was consecrated and enthroned, his name is communicated to the other patriarchs as a sign of unity and catholicity of the Church. But our bishops and our patriarchs were never elected or appointed by Pope, and they never received any nomination of him! In addition, our patriarchs, when they saw fit, excommunicated the Pope of Rome, which shows that their behavior toward him has always been a behavior of equals.

In addition, since we have always had disputes with Rome over land claims (eg the Church of Bulgaria, Greek Sicily, etc..). During these disputes, the patriarch of Rome and Constantinople demanded the incorporation of a territory to its own local church. This claim would also be a nonsense if Rome had been the mistress of the whole Church: How could she claim anything from Constantinople, supposedly under its jurisdiction, if Constantinople itself had belonged to him!

We did not separate after 1054 while supposedly in the background "Roman Catholic" or "strong-headed" (somewhat along the lines of "Gallican liberties" or "Council of Basel"), but since Orthodoxy has always had its own voice, she has always heard and that voice has never confessed to the papal system! We have never been "unaware that Catholics", but Instead, we have always protested against all the innovations of Rome from the beginning and very vigorously.

We have always regarded the system of the papacy as an arrogant claim, as an adulterous system and completely alien to the Holy Apostolic Tradition! We did never separated, but we have always denounced and protested against the innovations of Rome.

We were always accused of "frigidity" morbid instead of recognizing our Immutability! We confess Christ an eternal and immutable, and the Church, his Body and his wife, also eternal and unchanging image of her divine Spouse. Practices of church life to its smallest details: fasting, dress, customs, bearing the seal of the holy and life-giving Spirit, and you can not touch it without fear and trembling. Though for the worship of the Old Covenant, God has not neglected the most insignificant details, up to indicate the color of goat hair for making the tabernacle and the number of pickets to use, what veneration should we not now to worship the grace in which we are facing not a law engraved in stone, but Legislator of himself?

Who authorized the Roman pope and to put the sacred business of divine worship upside down, place the life of the Church to the trailer to this deceitful and perishable world, cut, add, change, change? Where do they take their traditions of aggiornamento , RENEWAL, FITNESS?

That shows if we ourselves have changed anything in dogmas, canons and ecclesiastical structure, and we will do penance.

What would our "schism," our "separation" or our heresy? If so we have changed nothing, if there was no home TRAVEL, how could we charge separation? We remain united to the Holy Apostolic Tradition, which knows and has always ignored the Filioque, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, papal infallibility, the liturgical reforms, the aggiornamento. Although there has been separation, but it was not performed by the Orthodox Church. Claim that Orthodoxy split from Rome, it would argue that because of the fall, God has separated from the man. But God is immutable in nature, the responsibility of separation, distance, distance between the Creator and the creature weighs about man alone!

Who then is separated from the other? we could answer it is just a pun. But it's a word game extremely dangerous that Rome has been very effective use. She wanted to put in the position of Orthodoxy "sponsor" she always tries to do these days, even if it replaced the term "schismatic" by "separated brother ," which means exactly the same thing. She wants to impose in people's consciousness the idea that Orthodoxy supposedly violated the primitive church structures and should be justified and answer for his transgression attitude, position "schismatic." After being named as guilty, he is now somewhat easier to pardon him and forgive him. This is the same logic.

However, Orthodoxy refuses the bench of the accused regarding the old church structures. By nature, she does not respond, nor to justify itself being judge and not charged! Of course, if we were administratively or canonically united with Rome, we should leave her where we would consider that faith is in danger. And in this case, we would have we "defend" and "justify" our decision to schism. While in reality, according to the structure of the Church before 1054, we're not even in the case of a "schism justified", having nothing transgressed the old structures.

That calls us "separated brethren" is a term accepted unilaterally but that we do and do not agree. If we are brothers, we can not be separated in sacris , because if we are separated in sacris ... we are not brothers!

Rome, unfortunately, insists on watching us from the top of his clemency. She wants to convince us that we are Catholic in spite of ourselves. Maybe the Catholics somewhat apart and somewhat bizarre, a little margin, but Catholics nonetheless. She would persuade us despite ourselves to be what we are not. Stress is a method like any other. It's a strategy!

While it is exhausting to argue. It is very dangerous for ourselves to take the attitude of "defenders" of Orthodoxy. However, we live in an age where confusion reigns everywhere. This forces us to be on our guard, is alas several hierarchs of the Orthodox Church are only spread and feed this confusion. This compels us to remind them that we expect more from them.

It goes without saying that this polemic is not directed to Catholics as individuals. We do we draw even against the pope himself as a person. We do not question nor virtue, neither the sincerity nor the good intentions of anyone. We are obliged to watch both the pope and Catholics in general as people who are absolutely sincere and good faith. However, neither good faith nor the sincerity in themselves are sufficient in our relationship with God. There are millions of sincere people and in good faith that are lost in different philosophical systems and religions.

We can not understand Rome and we doubt that Rome understands itself! His theological attitude toward us has no basis or reason. She says we are "schismatic" or if you prefer "separated brethren", but admits that our sacraments are valid, we have the grace of the priesthood, we can achieve in our church and hello sanctification! But if this is true, then Rome itself denies. Either it accepts that there can be two churches on the earth! A workshop of salvation and sanctification that would work in parallel with the Church! But in this case, the pope and his dogmas become merely desirable but not essential.

What about this? Theological ignorance? Confusion knowingly maintained? Deadlock or system of the papacy? We have always said, and we took to be "fanatics" and "backward", that Popery Latin is the source of all spiritual anarchy of the West and all heresies and sects followed. Popery Latin is also the cause of the current crisis in the Roman Church. Crisis current is not an accident, it's just the fever of an illness that lasts from the outset. But Rome, with its subtlety and its extraordinary powers of adaptation, might well emerge from this crisis, while preserving its unity and world prestige through reforms very well studied and intelligently applied. We are not talking about the issue of "faith" because it seems to have relegated it to second place. It is rather concerned about its strength and its glory rather than a living faith, having literally robotic its clergy and faithful, having transformed into docile instruments and manageable for its domination.

But not us, nor to his record, nor to propose remedies, it does not need us. What concerns us is the attitude of unconscious and scandalous many Orthodox hierarchs do everything possible to immerse ourselves in the current confusion. Do they forget that if we are contaminated by the same virus, our absorption by the Roman megatherium only be a matter of time and circumstances? These hierarchs would really get us out of this freedom we have in obedience to God for us to swallow rank of "satellite" Uniate intended to follow Rome in all its phases ... "Evolution"? These bishops have already forgotten the Orthodox streams of blood that flowed there is barely 30 years by the murderous hand of kindness Roman Orthodox Serbia, and their leader, by his silence, approved these horrors? No! We do not accept the Latins, nor as persecutors, nor as "separated brethren". We did not separate from the Church of Christ, but we completely separate our responsibility to those who distort the faith! The East has therefore never separated from the West. Just east remained and still is, by divine grace to the place he was summoned by Christ, by the holy apostles and fathers, we have generated by the Gospel. Our only hope and our only glory is to stay at this place, like faithful sentinels at their post, surrounded by the darkness of the night of the world, until the glorious return of our beloved Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, when he comes on the clouds with his holy angels and the crowd of witnesses saints and blessed. Dusk till dawn without this glorious day, say with Joseph Vryènios , The master of St. Mark of Ephesus :

"We do not deny thee, beloved Orthodoxy!

We you do not deny, oh piety transmitted by our fathers!

In you, we are born, we live in you,

and if the weather requires,

thousand times for you will die! "

Father Basile Sakkas Mr.

Raspberry Vodka Best Mixers

LIFE IN CHRIST RP Romanidis

Exploring the path to our Passover, Christ

The sacred task which is now in front of Orthodoxy and especially its youth that often detach liberalism of past generations, is to rediscover the paschal victory in the daily life of the Church . Common faith and worship of the Apostles and the Fathers remain essentially unchanged in our liturgical and canonical books, but in practice, in the spirit of the clergy and the faithful, much confusion, no doubt due to a lack of spiritual understanding the nature of the work of Christ in the Church.

So many people who claim to be Orthodox and who sincerely want to be, the design life of the Church according to vague feelings and not the spirit of the Apostles and Fathers the Church. What is lacking is an acceptance of living that presupposes the sacramental life of the Church.

This lack of understanding explains to a large extent the weaknesses of the Church in the Western world and especially that characterized his attitude toward the different variants of schism and heresy. Those who can not understand that "the Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God" (Rom . 8,16) can not preach the truth, but must ask the question: are they not themselves outside the Truth and, therefore, dead members of the Church?

1. Presupposition of the sacramental life

Unlike most denominations Western, which generally accept death as a normal phenomenon, or even consider the consequence of a legal decision of God to punish the sinner, Patristic Tradition of Orthodoxy takes very seriously the fact that death is related intrinsically sin (1 Cor. 15.56) and it belongs to the power of the Devil (Heb. 2:14). The Orthodox Fathers rejected the idea that God is the author of death, that the world is "normal" in its current situation and that man can live a "normal" subject only to follow the natural laws which are assumed to govern the universe. The Orthodox concept of the universe is incompatible with a static system of natural moral laws. The world is instead designed as a field of action and struggle of living persons. A living and personal God is the source of all Creation. His omnipresence does not exclude other wills, established themselves by Him with the same power to reject the will of their Creator. Thus the Devil is not only able to exist, but also to aspire to the destruction of God's works. He is trying to attract the Creation to the nothingness from which it comes. Death, a "nil return" ( St. Athanasius, De incarnatio Verbi , 4-5), constitutes the essence of the evil power of creation (Rom. 8.19 to 22). The Resurrection of Christ in the reality of His flesh and His bones (Luke 24.39) not only is the evidence of "abnormal" of death, but designates it as the real enemy (1 Cor. 15:26) . But if death is an abnormal phenomenon, there can be no such thing as a "moral law" inherent in the universe. The Bible, at least, do not know (Rom. 8.19 to 22).

Otherwise, the Lord Jesus Christ gave in vain "For our sins to rescue us from the present age is evil" (Gal. 1.4).

The destiny of man was perfect and the origin must now become perfect as God is perfect (Eph. 5.1, 4.13). This achievement was the perfection rendered impossible by the advent of death in the world (Rom. 5:12) because "the sting of death is sin" (1 Cor. 15.56). Once submitted to the power of death, man can only look smugly at his flesh (Rom. 7.14 to 25). His instinct for self-preservation saturates everyday life and often leads to be unfair to others for personal profit (1 Thess. 4.4). A man subjected to the fear of death (Heb. 2.15) can live a life of creative love and be imitators of God (Eph. 5:1).

Death and the instinct of self-preservation are at the root of sin that separates man from unity in love, life and divine truth. From St. Cyril of Alexandria , death is the enemy that prevents man to love God and neighbor without anxiety or concern for his own safety and comfort of his own. For fear of losing himself in value, all meaning, man seeks to demonstrate to himself and to others that he is really something.

He is then forced to stand outside as superior to others, in some respects at least. He loves those who flatter and hate those who insulted him. A striking deep insult a man who is afraid of becoming insignificant! What the world considers a "natural man" lived almost a life of lies and deceptions partial. He can only love her friends who provide a sense of security when her instinct for self-preservation moral and physical calls to hate their enemies (Matt. 5.46 to 48, Luke 6.32-36).

Death is the source of individualism: it is she who has the power to completely enslave the free will of man to the "body of death" (Rom. 7 18). Is death by reducing mankind to self-centeredness and selfishness, blind man to the truth. And the truth is rejected by many because it is too difficult to accept. The man still prefers to accept truth which satisfies his personal desires. Mankind research rather safety and happiness that the suffering of love which gives itself (Phil. 1.27 to 29). The natural man seeks a religion of emotional security and moral precepts of simple rules that generate feelings of comfort, but do not require any effort on his self-denial in "death with Christ to the rudiments of the world" (Col . 2.20). The Apostles and the Fathers do not send us a faith made of "feelings of piety or" comfort ".

They throw the contrary, each page a cry of victory over death and corruption. "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? ... Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ "(1 Cor. 15, 55-57).

The victory of Christ over the devil has destroyed the power of death that separates man from God and neighbor (Eph.2, 13-22). This victory over death and corruption has been accomplished in the flesh of Christ (Eph. 2.15), as well as among who died just before (1 Pet. 3.19). "Christ is risen from the dead, by death He conquered death, to those in the tombs he has given life" (Easter Hymn). The Kingdom of God is already established, both beyond the grave on this side of it (Eph. 2:19). The gates of Hell can not prevail on the Body of Christ (Matt. 16:18). The power of death can not invade the Kingdom of Life. Every day the Devil and his kingdom approach a little more of their final defeat (1 Cor. 15:26) which is provided in the Body of Christ.

2 .- SACRAMENTAL PARTICIPATION IN THE VICTORY OF THE CROSS

Participation in the victory of the Cross is not only a hope for the future but a present reality (Eph. 2.13 to 22). It is given to those who are baptized (Rom. 6.3 to 4) and grafted into the Body of Christ (Jn 15.1-8). Yet there is no guarantee of magical Hi and continued participation in the life of Christ (Rom. 9.19 to 2).

Christ came to destroy the power of disunity, uniting those who believe in him, inside his own body. The sign outside the Church is unity in love (Jn 17:21), while the center and source This unity is the Eucharist: "Because there is one bread, we who are many form one body, because we all partake of one bread" (1 Cor. 6.19 to 20). Baptism and Confirmation we are grafted into the Body of Christ, while the Eucharist keeps us alive in Christ and united with one another by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in our bodies (1 Cor. 6.19 to 20) .

Faith is insufficient for the Hi. Catechumens who were already "believers" should ensure, before receiving Baptism to reject everything that the world considers "normal life" dying in the body of sin and death to revive the unity of the Spirit is to say, be united with other members of a community in Christ and living together in love. Orthodoxy knows nothing like a sentimental love for humanity. It is with actual people that we must be united in Christ to live. The only way that leads to the love of Christ is to love the reality posed by other Christians. " I tell you the truth, whenever you have done it unto the least of these my brethren, is to Me that ye have done " (Matt. 15, 20).

Love in the Body of Christ does not consist of vague abstractions about the need to serve ideologies or human causes. Love, according to the image of Christ is to be crucified for the world and, freeing themselves of all vague ideas, to live all the complexities of community life, trying to love Christ in the body of brothers have a very real existence. It is easy to talk of love and kindness, but it is very difficult to get in intimate and sincere with people from diverse backgrounds. That, however, that the death and

Resurrection in Christ established: a community of saints who do not think to themselves, or their own opinions, but continually express their love for Christ and other men, seeking to humiliate as Christ humbled himself. This was not possible under the law of death, became the unity of the Spirit of Life.

3. HOW TO REALIZE THE VICTORY TODAY ON THE CROSS

Throughout its history the Church had to fight sin and corruption among its own members, and often within the clergy. However, at all times, she knew how to apply appropriate means, for she was able to recognize the enemy. The Church is in truth not because all its members are without sin, but because the sacramental life is always present in it and against it the devil is helpless. "When you come together often in one place (epi to auto ), the power of Satan is destroyed" ( St. Ignatius of Antioch , Ephesians , 13).

Whenever members of a community gather to celebrate the Eucharist and are sincerely ready to exchange the kiss of peace to commune together in the Body and Blood of Christ, the Devil is defeated.

However, when a member of the Body of Christ Communion unworthily, eats and drinks damnation (1 Cor. 11:29). When a Christian does not receive communion in the Body and Blood of Christ at every Eucharist, he is spiritually dead (Jn 6.53).

The Church has steadfastly refused to endorse the practice whereby a large number of Christians attending the Eucharist, so that only a few communes. Assistance, participation in prayer and communion are inseparable (7th Apostolic Canon; Chrysostom , third homily on Eph .).

"Let no one be deceived: if someone is not inside the sanctuary, he is deprived of the Bread of God ... He who does not assemble with Church has proven thus even his pride and was himself condemned "(St. Ignatius of Antioch , Eph. 5).

biblical and patristic tradition is unanimous on one point: Can be living member of the Body of Christ as one who died in the power of death and living in the renewal of the Spirit of life. For this reason, those who denied Christ during the persecution after hours of torture were considered excommunicated.

Once a Christian died with Christ in Baptism, we waited him to be ready to die at any moment in the Name of Christ. "Whoever denies me before men, I also deny before My Father Who is in Heaven" (Matt. 10:33). The 10th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council does not merely prohibit the ordination of those who denied Christ during the persecution, but declare the automatic invalidation of any such ordination, even if it took place in the dark the computer. Whoever had done this ordination was himself deprived of the priesthood. How much more serious is the offense against the wishes of the Baptism of those who are lazy to go to church. The approval of our clergy today gives our sacramental practice is still more impossible! If Chretien was excommunicated for having denied Christ after hours of physical torture, who week after week s'excommunient themselves are even more reprehensible.

The quality and methods of the Devil has not changed. He himself remained similar to himself, as Paul described, capable of "turning into an angel of light" (2 Cor. 11,15). The power of death in the world remained the same. Means of Hi, by the death of Baptism and the Eucharist are living together remained the same (at least in the liturgical books of the Church).

Canons of the Church have not changed. We always read the same scriptures approved by the Fathers. How then can we explain our modern weaknesses? They have never been so obvious. There can be only one answer to this question. Members of the Church no longer fighting the evil in the spirit of the Bible. Too many Christians use the church in their own interests and interpret the doctrine of

Christ according to their own feelings. The central task of youth today must consist Orthodox to return to the truth of the Apostles and the Fathers, no longer walking according to the laws of the prince of darkness and the rudiments of this world. Because that is why Christ died. Deny this is to deny His cross and blood of the martyrs.

Before criticizing the "rigidity" of patristic doctrine, the modern Orthodox should return to the presuppositions of life in Christ in Scripture and be careful not to pervert the doctrine of Christ.

http://users.edpnet.be/orthodoxes/revue/voile2006-01.pdf