Can Eastern Orthodox prove they’re the One True Church?

[Nine_Two]

Same as how you tell vagante bishops from - non-vagante?

Yes.

 

[Nine_Two]

I notice, however, that the OP hasn’t been back in this thread since posting it.

 

[johnnykins]

Excuse me?

I didn’t make a single argument in that post you’re quoting. I asked questions by which a basis of discussion on the questions could be established.
And lacking an argument of any sort, it certainly WAS NOT a polemic.

If you can’t be civil, please don’t bother replying to my posts.

The very way you phrased your question was polemical and that is clear. It was posted in a way so as to lead to no other conclusion than Catholicism is in error. On a Catholic forum, I can hardly think of anything more polemical.

As long as you attack Catholicism, you can expect me there - especially if you do so in the slight-of -hand way you favored in that post.

 

[FrKimel]

Can Eastern Orthodox prove they’re the One True Church?

I hope not.

I was hoping someone might respond to my quip (or at least chuckle), but given that the conversation has passed it by, let me say this:

Not only do I not think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should ever attempt to prove that she is the “one true Church”–the Church is a mystical-charismatic-sacramental reality and cannot be reduced to its institutional and formal elements–but I strongly believe that this is a spiritually dangerous exercise. How does one attempt such a proof without at that moment falling into the self-righteousness of the Pharisee?

Read Georges Florovsky’s essay “The Catholicity of the Church.” I think you will see why it would be impossible, from an Orthodox perspective, for the Orthodox Church to “prove” her catholicity. The Church can only be experienced in the Spirit. It cannot be rationally demonstrated by appeal to external and formal criteria.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Emperor was present.

Yes, but an ecumenical council is an imperial council (that is, it was convoked by command of the emperor). Even if you wish to argue that such a council defended apostolic truth, the title “Ecumenical” is inaccurate.

The orthodox doctrine was rejected much like the non-Chalcedonians rejected Chalcedon.

Or perhaps more similarly to how the Orthodox rejected Ephesus 449 (which was regarded as “ecumenical” by many).

well, history is confusing. Are you claiming this as the 8th ecumenical council? I thought Orthodoxy only accepted 7 - or is it 9 or even 10?

While not all Orthodox would agree with this sentiment, I believe (as do many of us) that history and tradition testify to nine ecumenical councils.

It is really isn’t that important of the distinction however, because a council is either truth teaching or it isn’t, regardless of whether or not it is called “ecumenical”.

Further, legates are not the Pope and the history on its acceptance is unclear at best. Certainly the Orthodox want it accepted - I guess as some sort of Synod since most do not include it among the Ecumenical Councils. I suppose the counter argument is that Rome wanted to reject it once it became clearer what it said. Which Rome did in fact do. Hmmm - again a Pope can reject a council as authoritative.

Legates mean everything when one is not physically present, as they speak on the pope’s behalf (especially in light of the fact that the pope was physically present at approximately zero ecumenical councils). The bishop of Rome approved the council, which repudiated the robber council of 869-870.

If, however, papal acceptance is the be the sole criteria of whether or not a council is deemed “ecumenical”, then bedrock of the Faith rests entirely on shifting sand.

tell me is there any single criterion for how the Orthodox determine a Council is authoritative? I’m aware of none. How do you know those who reject Chalcedon are in error? It seems to me that at Florence - with the Emperor present and approving - all the bishops but one accepted it. Only later did the east reject it. Seems to me that no other Council was so rejected, which tells me that the Eastern Orthodox are not “orthodox” but are like the non-Chalcedonians in error. perhaps it was a semantic or political thing? But if the EO can reject Florence, why can’t the Orientals reject Chalcedon?

A council’s teachings must be compared to the tradition of the Church. In fact, all councils (be they local or general) must be held to a such a standard. Ecumenical councils are infallible for no other reason than their adherence to truth. To affirm that the truth of a council is derived from the council itself would be erroneous, as it would equate the council with divine revelation.

 

[johnnykins]

I was hoping someone might respond to my quip (or at least chuckle), but given that the conversation has passed it by, let me say this:

Not only do I not think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should ever attempt to prove that she is the “one true Church”–the Church is a mystical-charismatic-sacramental reality and cannot be reduced to its institutional and formal elements–but I strongly believe that this is a spiritually dangerous exercise.

Hmmm and yet the formal and institutional elements are inseparable from it. As the transcendent Church is the spotless Bride of Christ, yet she is also the teaming hordes of sinners on the road. Are you saying the institution is irrelevant? Are you saying the One Catholic and Holy Apostolic Church is separate from Eastern Orthodoxy - or perhaps the term subsistit in should be applied - with the follow up question of where else does the OHAC subsist? And with that, when do you fall into phyletism - that old Anglican chestnut?

How does one attempt such a proof without at that moment falling into the self-righteousness of the Pharisee?

I seem to remember quite a few postings that attempted just such a thing by someone called the Pontificator. Has he changed his mind? If so, how? Or, is Florovsky all we’re gonna get?

Read Georges Florovsky’s essay “The Catholicity of the Church.” I think you will see why it would be impossible, from an Orthodox perspective, for the Orthodox Church to “prove” her catholicity. The Church can only be experienced in the Spirit. It cannot be rationally demonstrated by appeal to external and formal criteria.

Do you think it only limited to Orthodoxy? Even Catholcism says the consent of the Church can never be lacking in the Pope - as the Catholic Church explains VI.

 

[johnnykins]

If, however, papal acceptance is the be the sole criteria of whether or not a council is deemed “ecumenical”, then bedrock of the Faith rests entirely on shifting sand.

I would not say the “sole” criteria, but rather the “necessary” criteria - WE call that the Rock of Peter

A council’s teachings must be compared to the tradition of the Church. In fact, all councils (be they local or general) must be held to a such a standard. Ecumenical councils are infallible for no other reason than their adherence to truth. To affirm that the truth of a council is derived from the council itself would be erroneous, as it would equate the council with divine revelation.

But the very point is that the truth is disputed. Perhaps you are unaware there were disputes at Nicea, etc?

 

[fms]

Truth is evident, I would dare to say self-evident unless one is untrue and then they are confounded (cf. the Prophets, Christ, Apostles and their contemporaries).

Christ founded the Church as a visible reality (as one could identify: ‘these are the people God has chosen as His Own’) with the following marks: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

I remember when I first discovered that the Anglicans recited the Creed with these words, I was shocked. I would then say that if I were an Anglican, these very words would be the ones making me seek the One True Church (some of my Anglican friends in fact did).

But it is never as easy as this when it comes to God and His mysterious workings.

 

[FrKimel]

Do you think it only limited to Orthodoxy?

I hate to do this to you (grin), but I’m going to give you another Florovsky article: “The Limits of the Church.” This is a much debated issue within Orthodoxy. My private ecclesiological opinions ain’t worth arguing about.

I do think it can be helpful to discuss how and why various Churches look at these matters differently–but not as a way of proving which Church is “right,” as if we can step outside of our faith commitments and attain a neutral, objective perspective. I don’t think the gospel works that way.

 

[johnnykins]

I hate to do this to you (grin), but I’m going to give you another Florovsky article: “The Limits of the Church.” This is a much debated issue within Orthodoxy. My private ecclesiological opinions ain’t worth arguing about.

I do think it can be helpful to discuss how and why various Churches look at these matters differently–but not as a way of proving which Church is “right,” as if we can step outside of our faith commitments and attain a neutral, objective perspective. I don’t think the gospel works that way.

Florovsky’s not a bad place to turn. You opinions are certainly interesting when teased out in these latter days.

I have often found the discussions on what is “right” often is in response to someone saying what is “wrong” with the implication that he who said it’s wrong is always right.

I will add of all the Orthodox churches, I would have thought ROCOR is a rather odd place to look for some answers of this type, OCA perhaps… But, I suppose many think Catholicism is a strange place for that, too.

Well, a nuanced phyletism for all - and agape all around. (let the anathemas from all sides commence!)

 

[searn77]

I think they just forget that ROCOR was reconciled to the Russian Orthodox Church years ago.

Not all of the ROCOR went along with this union, and today there are still a few ROCOR synods who stay true to the ROCORs anathema against the heresy of false ecumenism issued by Metropolitan St. Philaret of New York.

So while it may be true to say a part of the ROCOR united with the Moscow Patriarchate years ago, not all of them did.

 

[johnnykins]

I hate to do this to you (grin), but I’m going to give you another Florovsky article: “The Limits of the Church.” This is a much debated issue within Orthodoxy. My private ecclesiological opinions ain’t worth arguing about.

I do think it can be helpful to discuss how and why various Churches look at these matters differently–but not as a way of proving which Church is “right,” as if we can step outside of our faith commitments and attain a neutral, objective perspective. I don’t think the gospel works that way.

ahhh you are an agent provocateur for unity. OK That makes sense. Few better equipped.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The posts here have been quite puzzling;

What does any councils have to do with proving it’s Church to be the One True Church? I fail to understand the purpose of a “council” argument justifying the question from the OP.

The One true Church founded by Jesus Christ is the True Church in which Jesus is always present, body, blood, soul and divinity and Jesus has never left her orphan.

A church possessing apostolic succession in Holy Orders, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, valid apostolic Sacraments, a Sacred Liturgy, having all these, “without Love” you have nothing.

Besides does not one have to prove and define what the Church is? before proving which is the True Church belonging to the defined Church? Maybe I missed this point?

 

[L_piperatus]

Truth is evident, I would dare to say self-evident unless one is untrue and then they are confounded (cf. the Prophets, Christ, Apostles and their contemporaries).

Christ founded the Church as a visible reality (as one could identify: ‘these are the people God has chosen as His Own’) with the following marks: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

I remember when I first discovered that the Anglicans recited the Creed with these words, I was shocked. I would then say that if I were an Anglican, these very words would be the ones making me seek the One True Church (some of my Anglican friends in fact did).

But it is never as easy as this when it comes to God and His mysterious workings.

Being a poorly catechized guy, I fell for the Protestant idea of “Church=all who confess Christ as savior”. But that’s a problematic position. When one group of Christians disagrees with another group, for example regarding the sinfulness/acceptability of “gay marriage” or contraception, who’s right and who’s wrong? How can the Church be “One”, when it’s divided by internal quarrels?

For me, it was a blessing when I met some EO Christians who explained to me that the Church is a visible organization with clearly defined teachings.

They would say things like, “don’t attend the Catholic churches because they teach heresies including the filioque, and the New Calendar”; “don’t attend the Armenian (Oriental Orthodox) churches because they teach heresies about the nature of Christ”; “don’t attend any of the Greek, Antiochian, or Romanian “Eastern Orthodox” churches that use the New Calendar, have pews, or have musical instruments, because those churches have fallen away from orthodoxy and became heretics, embracing the heresy of ecumenism”.

Thus, finding the “True” Church became a practical matter: Can I attend the Catholic church 5 blocks from me? - No, because they teach the filioque; Can I attend the Greek EO church that’s a few miles away and a 15-minutes drive? - No, because they use the New Calendar, have pews, and musical instruments (organ or piano), and so on.

According to my experience with Eastern Orthodox Christians, finding the One True Church is synonymous with finding a concrete organization of Bishops and Priests with specific church buildings at specific geographical addresses.

 

[searn77]

The simplest way to resolve this is to judge a tree by its fruits. I can show you dozens of glorified elders (i.e. those who have seen the uncreated light) in so-called “World” Orthodoxy. I have yet to see such a figure appear in the various zealot old calendarist sects.

We have our saints and holy people as well. St. Philaret of New York, St. John Maximovitch, St. Matthew the Confessor, Abp. Auxentius, Bp. Spyridon of Trimythus, Elder Moses of Athikia, St. Gregorios of Greece, St. Catherine the New Martyr, St. Charalambis fool for Christ, etc.

 

[johnnykins]

The posts here have been quite puzzling;

What does any councils have to do with proving it’s Church to be the One True Church? I fail to understand the purpose of a “council” argument justifying the question from the OP.

The One true Church founded by Jesus Christ is the True Church in which Jesus is always present, body, blood, soul and divinity and Jesus has never left her orphan.

A church possessing apostolic succession in Holy Orders, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, valid apostolic Sacraments, a Sacred Liturgy, having all these, “without Love” you have nothing.

Besides does not one have to prove and define what the Church is? before proving which is the True Church belonging to the defined Church? Maybe I missed this point?

The OP is in its essence unanswerable. While noting that, the next post posted that certain structural forms, specially “synodal” v. “monarchical” structure, was the touchstone - in a ham handed effort to make a point that Catholicism cannot be the OHCA Church, and Orthodoxy is. Having seen these types of responses (with the usual ‘what me’ reply when called on it) with some regularity over the years, it was in response to that straw man, that I set up a variety of positions that could be taken as indicia of the True Church that leads to the conclusion that Eastern Orthodoxy cannot be the True Church. One of those involves issues concerned Ecumenical Councils (which was also a slap at synodality) since such Councils, in our common history, determined orthodoxy (small case) so that if one rejects a council, one is no longer part of the OHCA Church as often commonly understood.

Fr. Kimel in his usual irenic manner derailed the sword play with an interesting couple posts. The subtext of Fr. Kimel and his posts, still to be illuminated -perhaps even for him.

 

[searn77]

It is determined the same way it is in the Catholic Church.

There are several men who claim to be pope at present, how do you tell which one is the true Roman Catholic Church?

Simple, it is the one that actually has the chain of legitimacy.

Same way in Orthodoxy. A Bishop who disagrees with his Holy Synod and decides to go off and claim to be the True Church, is no longer an Orthodox Bishop, as is the case with the Old Calendarists.

Then who was Orthodox in 4th century Antioch?
orthodox-standard.blogspot.com/2011/12/problem-of-canonical-authority-and.html

 

[L_piperatus]

Not all of the ROCOR went along with this union, and today there are still a few ROCOR synods who stay true to the ROCORs anathema against the heresy of false ecumenism issued by Metropolitan St. Philaret of New York.

So while it may be true to say a part of the ROCOR united with the Moscow Patriarchate years ago, not all of them did.

Also, the Bishops and Priests I knew at ROCOR, who reconciled with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2006, kept exactly the same teachings after 2006 as they had before. Thus, they still abide by the anathemas issued against false ecumenism by ROCOR’s Holy Synod, under Metropolitan St. Philaret, during the 1960s. Rejecting any of ROCOR’s doctrine was never a condition of their reconciliation with the MP. ROCOR priests still instruct the faithful not to attend and not to commune in Churches that adopted the ecumenist heresies of the New Calendar, pews, musical instruments, clergy with shaved beards/cut hair, not wearing priest’s robes (cassocks), etc.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

johnnykins;9039848]The OP is in its essence unanswerable. While noting that, the next post posted that certain structural forms, specially “synodal” v. “monarchical” structure, was the touchstone - in a ham handed effort to make a point that Catholicism cannot be the OHCA Church, and Orthodoxy is.

I understand, but I fail to see how any council proves anyone being the One True Church?

I do find it amazing every time Orthodoxy tries to prove her “authenticity” or her theological undertakings, Orthodoxy seems to always do so by negatively trying to discredit Catholicism. One day Orthodox apologetics will earn my respect when she can defend her theological undertakings by standing on her own two feet, without having to disprove others so as prove Orthodox positions.

To this date, I have yet to understand why Orthodoxy consistantly applies this tactic.

I thought I would be reading Orthodoxy enlightened theology proving her “Authenticity” as the True Church. But came here finding the same old tactics of attacks to prove herself somehow?

Fr. Kimel in his usual irenic manner derailed the sword play with an interesting couple posts. The subtext of Fr. Kimel and his posts, still to be illuminated -perhaps even for him.

Maybe Fr. Kimel can add to the discussion and prove Orthodoxy by standing alone, without having to disprove Catholicism with unorthodox approaches.

 

[searn77]

Also, the Bishops and Priests I knew at ROCOR, who reconciled with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2006, kept exactly the same teachings after 2006 as they had before. Thus, they still abide by the anathemas issued against false ecumenism by ROCOR’s Holy Synod, under Metropolitan St. Philaret, during the 1960s. Rejecting any of ROCOR’s doctrine was never a condition of their reconciliation with the MP. ROCOR priests still instruct the faithful not to attend and not to commune in Churches that adopted the ecumenist heresies of the New Calendar, pews, musical instruments, clergy with shaved beards/cut hair, not wearing priest’s robes (cassocks), etc.

That’s odd. I wonder why they would unite with the MP and yet still tell their faithful not to attend other World Orthodox churches of whom the MP is in communion with?

BTW, while musical instruments aren’t used in Old Calendarist and Catacomb Orthodox churches, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a church or two with pews, and I know of clergy who have secular jobs which require them to trim their hair and beards.

While pews are unfortunate, and the fact that a priest’s secular job may require him to cut his hair is also unfortunate, the faith doesn’t depend on either of these things. I’m not saying anybody here is saying that, but a common misconception of Old Calendarists are that we are all strict legalists, while my personal interactions with Old Calendarist clergy has been quite the opposite.