Complete Decision from Chambesy

AOI posted an English version of the full decision of the 4th Pan-Orthodox Preconciliar Conference in Chambesy in June.

Here is the link to their source - Decision.

July again

Here is a link to my post from last July about some of the important saints commemorated in July - July There is also one about St. Vladimir, also celebrated in July - Vladimir

I've been thinking lately about the interesting set up for calendar dates for the newer Russian saints. In the OCA, St. John of Shanghai is commemorated on July 2nd; The Royal Passionbearers on July 17th; and St. Elizabeth the New Martyr on July 18th. Those are the actual Gregorian calendar days of the deaths of those saints. But, since they were canonized after the New Calendar was put in place, the OCA commemorates them on these dates. The Russian Church though, who canonized them, celebrates them on the Old Calendar dates from when they died, so June 19th, July 4th, and July 5th, respectively. I have always personally used the Old Calendar dates as well, since that is what is in the Menaion, at least with the Royal saints. St. John is a different story. Since he is a North American saint, he is celebrated on the New Calendar date. With the others, since they were killed before the New Calendar came into place, I think it is ok to commemorated them according to their date on the "church (old)" calendar. Confused?

SOCHA

The Society for Orthodox Christian History in the Americas is a new group that, according to their website, "desires to begin to shift the approach to studying and writing the history of Orthodoxy in the Americas (and elsewhere, of course, should members desire it) to reflect an earnest engagement with primary sources."

One of the things that the two main proponents of this group, Matthew Namee and Fr. Oliver Herbel, have done is too debunk the myth of jurisdictional unity in early 20th Century America. There have been studies that claim that everyone was basically subservient to Moscow before 1917, but according to SOCHA, a look at primary sources quickly shows that this was not the case. Either way, lively debates have been taking place online, which have lead to the formation of SOCHA; a new website - orthodoxhistory.org; and a new podcast on Ancient Faith Radio - American Orthodox History.

It is a very interesting topic and relevant to the current discussions of Orthodox Unity in America. Mr. Namee also gave a talk at the recent conference mentioned in my previous post. Follow the links there to listen to his talk on the "Myth of Past Unity."

Live Webcast Starts Tonight

St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary announced that the conference starting today titled "The Council and The Tomos: 20th Century Landmarks Towards a 21st Century Church" about Orthodoxy in America will be available to watch by live webcast. The sessions will also be available as podcasts from Ancient Faith Radio. The first session is tonight at 7:30pm ET.

For the live webcast, go here - webcasts

For the podcasts, go here - podcasts

For information on the actual conference, go here - conference

Differences

This is taken from a response I made to a post on an Orthodox forum. The original poster was looking for some points to make when discussing our differences with the Roman Catholic Church. These are some ideas I had that you could use if you aren't interested in debating the theology behind the major points of contention.

The Orthodox Church teaches that:
1) Doctrinal decisions are made in council (7 Ecumenical Councils to be exact).

Take the Filioque, for example. The canons of the 2nd council state that not one word should be added to or subtracted from the creed, and even if that were not the case, it would at least take another ecumenical council to do so. But, the Fiolioque did not follow that path. It was first added by one priest, then adopted on a local level at the council of Toledo (589), and then over 400 years or so, it was in wide use, never being adopted by an ecumenical council of both East and West. Even though the intent may have been for good (combatting Arianism in the West), it doesn't change the fact that the idea started with one priest and expanded without the consent of a council.

2) Decisions made after the 7th Ecumenical Council (787) do not apply.

Another point to make, that many Roman Catholics do not know, is that many of the main contention points (Papal Infallibility, Immaculate Conception, Assumption) have only been "on the books" officially since the mid-19th century. There really isn't much written proof of some of these teachings in their now-proclaimed forms before they were made official dogma. They may have been taught in various places, but there was never church-wide acceptance, especially before the Great Schism (1054).

3) Semantics and translations are important.

And of course, there is always the translation issue. We Orthodox thrive on semantics. One wrong letter or syllable in Greek can make a huge difference. So, things like Original sin are often credited to a mis-translation in the Latin from the Greek of Romans 5:12. The Vulgate renders it as "in whom all have sinned," while the original Greek says "in that all have sinned." The first referring to Adam as the "whom." I'll let you figure out the theological impact of that. This mis-translation helped lead to the eventual adoption of the Immaculate Conception as well. The same thing happened with Coptic Church and the Chalcedon issues. Many claim it is just mis-translation. If so, maybe someone should clear that up.

So, those are some simplified non-theological points that you might be able to bring to the table. Bottom line, the Orthodox Church likes decisions made in councils; decisions made in 787 AD or before; and properly translated terms.