Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T12:41:06.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Russian Opinion

The Orthodox and the Council

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2024

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Other
Information
Blackfriars , Volume 43 , Issue 501 , March 1962 , pp. 136 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © 1962 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

1 Text in Documentation Catholique, 15 January 1961.

2 Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1961, 4. 1960, 8, p. 52.

3 ‘There is no schism that does not devise some heresy for itself, that it may appear to have had a reason for separating from the church’. St Jerome, Epistle to Titus, iii,

4 Quoted by St Thomas, S.T. 11 ‐ II. 39, 2. ad iii.

5 Russian. A. S. Merzlyukin. Paris, 1960.

6 Migne. P.L. 182, 336.

7 ‘cf. J. M. P., 1960,11, p. 46.

8 cf. J. M. P., 1961,3, p. 79.

9 cf. J. M. P., 1960, 8, p. 47.

10 Dec1aration at the Lausanne Conference, quoted J. M. P., 1960, 8, p. 49,

11 ibid.

12 aquoted J. M. P., 1960, 8, p. 50.

13 Declaration at the Lausanne Conference.

14 Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church.

15 ‘For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His assistance they might make known new doctrine’. Vatican Council, Session IV, cap 4.

16 ‘Only in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, in the same sense and with the same meaning’. Inefabilis Deus, 8 December 1854.