Why not Orthodoxy?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 5 2005, 07:49 AM'][[Aside: Some Orthodox theologians, like St. John Maximovitch of San Francisco, do seem to believe that Mary was not sinless.]][/quote]
It is true that today many Eastern Orthodox deny the immaculate conception, but this was not always the case as Fr. Kucharek has shown in his book [u]The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom[/u], which you referred to above, for as he puts it:

[quote name='The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom' date=' pages 355-357']     Also, from end to end of the Byzantine world, both Catholic and Orthodox greet the Mother of God as [i]acrantos[/i], "the immaculate, spotless one," no less than eight times in the Divine Liturgy alone. But especially on the feast of her conception (December 9 in the Byzantine Church) is her immaculateness stressed: "This day, O faithful, from saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary . . ."; "She is conceived . . . the only immaculate one"; "or "Having conceived the most pure dove, Anne filled. . . ."  No sin, no fault, not even the slightest, ever marred the perfect sanctity of this masterpiece of God's creation. For hundred of years, the Byzantine Church has believed this, prayed and honored Mary in this way. Centuries of sacred tradition stand behind this title.  Even during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when some Western theologians doubted or denied the truth of her immaculate conception, Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox theologians unanimously taught it.  Two of Thomas Aquinas' most ardent disciples among the Greeks disagreed with him on one point only, his failure to admit the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. Demetrios Kydonios (fourteenth century) translated some of Aquinas' works into Greek, but vehemently opposed Thomas' views on the immaculate conception.
     The Greek Orthodox Church's belief in the immaculate conception continued unanimously until the fifteenth century, then many Greek theologians began to adopt the idea that Mary had been made immaculate at the moment of the Annunciation. *   Among the Eastern Slavs, belief in the immaculate conception went undisturbed until the seventeenth century, when the Skrizhal (Book of Laws) appeared in Russia, and proposed what the Slavs considered the "novel" doctrine of the Greeks. The views proposed in the Skrizhal were branded as blasphemous, especially among the [i]Staroviery[/i] (Old Believers), who maintained the ancient customs and beliefs, however small or inconsequential.  This reaction confirms the ancient Byzantine and Slav tradition of the immaculate conception. Only after Pope Pius IX defined the dogma in 1854 did opposition to the doctrine solidify among most Orthodox theologians. The Orthodox Church, however, has never made any definitive pronouncement on the matter. When Patriarch Anthimos VII, for example, wrote his reply to Pope Leo XIII's letter in 1895, and listed what he believed to be the errors of the Latins, he found no fault with their belief in the immaculate conception, but objected to the fact that the Pope had defined it.[/quote]

As far as St. John Maximovich (1896-1966), whose body I've visited, is concerned, he was born many years after the definition of the dogma of the immaculate conception by Pius IX, and so his views in opposition to the dogma may have been influenced by the anti-Latin opinions of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, and his own personal prejudices. Moreover, it should never be forgotten that many great Eastern saints, including St. Gregory Palamas, have defended the dogma.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 5 2005, 07:34 AM'] I would also add that the Orthodox are often critiquing a Protestant concept of original sin (similar to Augustine's, but going even further) which Catholics do not accept either.
[/quote]
I agree.

The Eastern Orthodox seem to confuse Catholic teaching with a form of Calvinism. Moreover, in defense of Augustine it should be noted that because of his aversion to Manichaeism he never would have subscribed to the teaching of the Protestant Reformers on original sin.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 5 2005, 07:49 AM'] In my opinion, it can be perfectly orthodox to say either "the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" (as the Latins do) or "the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone" (as Photios would do), depending on what is meant by "proceed." I have at least one friend who believes that full council of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox bishops should be convened to make the Creed include [i]both[/i] words translated as "proceed" (the [i]ekporeusis[/i] one and the [i]proienai[/i] one). 
[/quote]
Yes, I agree, and I have no problem with the [i]filioque[/i] as long as one does not assert the origination of the [i]hypostasis[/i] of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. The Father, as the font of Godhead, is alone the cause ([i]aitia[/i]) of the [i]hypostasis[/i] of the Son and the [i]hypostasis[/i] of the Spirit.

So, there is no problem with the use of the [i]filioque[/i] as long as the distinction between [i]ekporeusis[/i] and [i]proienai[/i] is borne in mind.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 5 2005, 12:13 PM'] As far as St. John Maximovich (1896-1966), whose body I've visited, is concerned, he was born many years after the definition of the dogma of the immaculate conception by Pius IX, and so his views in opposition to the dogma may have been influenced by the anti-Latin opinions of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, and his own personal prejudices. Moreover, it should never be forgotten that many great Eastern saints, including St. Gregory Palamas, have defended the dogma. [/quote]
Certainly!

I am jealous, by the way, that you have visited St. John Maximovitch! I hope to do that myself one day. I have a friend who was present at his glorification.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 5 2005, 02:01 PM']Certainly!

I am jealous, by the way, that you have visited St. John Maximovitch! I hope to do that myself one day. I have a friend who was present at his glorification.[/quote]
I've gone to the Russian Orthodox Cathedral in San Francisco several times; I only wish it was in communion with the Pope.

[Guest Aluigi]

we don't recognize their saints after the Schism, do we?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Jan 5 2005, 06:57 PM'] we don't recognize their saints after the Schism, do we? [/quote]
It depends. St. Gregory Palamas (AD 1296-1359), who is commemorated on the second Sunday of Great Lent, lived after the schism and he is venerated as a saint, and there are others as well. When the various Byzantine Churches came back into communion with Rome they were permitted to continue using their liturgical books as they existed prior to the restoration of communion. Also, because some of the Byzantine rites have close connections with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, they often commemorate saints held in common within their liturgical family.

It should always be remembered that a man's glorification as a saint does not mean that his views on every issue are [i]de fide[/i].

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

This is the interior of the Russian Orthodox Cathedral of the Holy Virgin in San Francisco.

[img]http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/holy_virgin.jpg[/img]

[cathqat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 5 2005, 09:14 PM'] This is the interior of the Russian Orthodox Cathedral of the Holy Virgin in San Francisco.
[/quote]
Someday! Someday I will go.

[cathqat]

[img]http://members.aol.com/PraviSrbin/Saint-Seraphim-of-Sarov-with-Scenes.jpg[/img]

Pope John Paul II has also praised St. Seraphim of Sarov.

[Benedict]

I will have to ask Scott Windsor (head of the [b]A[/b]merican [b]C[/b]atholic [b]T[/b]ruth [b]S[/b]ociety, or [url="http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com"]ACTS[/url]) where the Ukrainian Catholic church is in Phoenix. I can only hope it is half as beautiful.