On the nature of the Western confessions...

In this excellent romp through Church History, Khomiakov elucidates the impetus and disease underlying the Western Schism, and the means of its healing, clearly identifying the core values of the Western Schism in its two halves (Romanism and Protestantism [and touching on the two further halves of this as well]).

Highly accessible to both scholar and layperson alike, this article includes a brilliant (and I dare say holy) description of the Orthodox Church, and a careful but direct demarcation of the ground it stands on (and a critical comparison of that solid rock to the shifting sands of the West).

The reader will also have obtained, by the end of the piece, a clear understanding of the reason that the filioque controversy is such a touchstone, and was the watershed of the schism, without having to melt his or her brain by touching (beyond the broad ecclesiological considerations being discussed, of course) on the particulars of the doctrine and/or the specific theological implications of its acceptance in the West, nor the particular theological reasons for its rejection by the East.

https://www.archangelsbooks.com/articles/east_west/WesternConfessions_Khomiakov.asp
https://pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/325/texts/Khomiakov/On%20the%20Western%20Confessions%20of%20Faith.htm

(Update 9/2/2022: Apparently in the last decade the link above went stale. Here is a link to the same text. I'm not sure if this is the exact same text, or another translation, since the old one is not available for comparison.)


Enjoy!

(NOTE: In the article, the Translator notes that Khomiakov may be referring in a particular place to an earlier article of his, entitled "The Church is One", and the webmaster provides a link.   However, that link is broken in the above linked version of the article.  Here is a substitute link:

http://www.antiochian.org/node/25456)

Comments

Post a Comment

Hi! Feel free to comment. However, I was getting posts from different Anonymous people, and it's difficult to know who is who so I can keep the conversation straight in my head. So I'm requesting that you please bear with my weakness, and identify yourself. Even if you want to use a different name than your real name -- that's fine. But give yourself a handle for me, please. :) Thanks...

Popular posts from this blog

Non-Intervention In the Real World

I received a list of excellent questions from an Anonymous commenter on my last post, summarized by the first one: "How does non-intervention work in the real world?"  There are several followup questions, so I'll answer them here. You write: "If we maintain a standing army, we keep it at home to secure our own borders" So there is some discussion amongst non-interventionists as to whether or not the U.S. would keep a standing army?  This is more a dispute between Libertarians in general.  Most non-interventionists (including myself) would not go as far as to completely disband the military.  However, we would significantly reduce it's size when not in times of declared war.  The details of the reduction (which branches get cut the most, what we do with the hardware in the meanwhile, how we keep people trained in it, etc.) would be up for serious discussion. Would I be correct in assuming that “standing army” is a metaphor for all branches of the ...
Read more

Complementarianism...Why?

I just finished reading this post, entitled "Why women cannot be head pastors", by C. Michael Patton, whose insights I usually find spot on. However, I must disagree with his argument on this one, for the simple reason that it's not rooted in anything but a generalization, as several of the egalitarians, and a couple of the complementarians even, have pointed out in the comments (to his post, not this one — as of the time of writing at least). I am a complementarian as well, and as such it pains me to see this kind of argument being offered, because of it's weakness. Since it comes from someone who normally offers great insights, my fear is that people will get the impression, as one commenter did, that this is the best complementarians have to offer. EDIT 2/16/2010 10:33PM PST: Mr. Patton has clarified that he was not making an argument for complementarianism, but rather speculating on God's reason for the design, assuming it's true. However, I believe t...
Read more

On the consumption of alcohol....Part 1: Overview

This is not a confession (because, as we'll see, I don't consider drinking to be an absolute sin); rather, it is a statement of position — i.e. where I'm "coming from" currently. It is not a statement of how I got here, or why I'm staying here. That follows below. Overview I drink. Not very much (I don't like the weight gain and brain damage it does if consumed in quantity for a long time), and usually not in large amounts at a time, either (I also don't like the feeling of being drunk; buzzed is great — drunk, not so much). But socially, sure, and also every once in a while at home when experimenting with different mixes, cooking, etc. However, I was raised in a community and household that taught that consumption of alcohol was evil in and of itself. There was some him-hawing over whether Nyquil counted or not, but the general idea was that consumption of alcohol for recreational purposes is absolutely verboten for all pe...
Read more