Catholic understanding of Sacred Tradition in the Orthodox Church

[Augustine3]

If Sacred Tradition is protected by the Holy Spirit why does the Orthodox Church differ with the Catholic Church in doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception?

I realise they are not in conformity with the Pope but do we need agree they have apostolic succession hence the Holy Spirit is with them in their Episcopal office?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Sacred Tradition is protected. We just say that they’re (slightly) wrong about what it is, and they can be wrong because their bishops aren’t in union with the Pope. It takes the bishops together with the Pope to be able to be infallible.

 

[Augustine3]

Ok – are we safe to say the Orthodox Church is not infallible (I say this with all respect to my Orthodox friends)?

What role does the Holy Spirit then play in their Episcopal office when it comes to teaching faith and morals?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Ok – are we safe to say the Orthodox Church is not infallible (I say this with all respect to my Orthodox friends)?

What role does the Holy Spirit then play in their Episcopal office when it comes to teaching faith and morals?

To the first, yes I’m pretty sure we can say this.

Two the second, I have no idea, but will be lurking to see if anyone else does.

 

[andrewstx]

Holy tradition is huge in the Orthodox churches. In fact there is no tradition/scripture dichotomy as is in the West.

To Orthodox Holy tradition covers all teachings and doctrines, the Scriptures are actually a part of Holy Tradition.

As for Orthodox holy orders it was made clear long ago that they are valid in Catholic eyes.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Holy tradition is huge in the Orthodox churches. In fact there is no tradition/scripture dichotomy as is in the West.

To Orthodox Holy tradition covers all teachings and doctrines, the Scriptures are actually a part of Holy Tradition.

As for Orthodox holy orders it was made clear long ago that they are valid in Catholic eyes.

Yup, however Catholics do not say, so far as I understand, that the Orthodox Church is protected from error as absolutely as the Catholic Church is. There is a divergence of teachings on some issues, which means that one of us is wrong, which means that one of our (group of) Churches is not infallible. Obviously, a Catholic isn’t going to remain Catholic while saying that the Orthodox can teach infallibly and we can’t, or the other way around.

I do not mean any insult towards, and have nothing but the highest respect for, the Orthodox Church and its clergy, and I certainly am not claiming that Orthodox orders are invalid. The question is, however, how is it that we disagree? That we disagree means that at least one of our groups isn’t guided completely by the Holy Spirit. Which raises the further question: to what extent and how exactly is each group guided?

We all know that individual bishops aren’t protected from error completely (demonstrated by history), but what exactly does the being a bishop do in this regard, and does the fact that the Orthodox Church is not just a collection of individual bishops but many bishops together (even if not in union with Peter so Catholics say that the entirety of the guidance promised to the Church is not present) change anything?

Again, this question makes sense from a Catholic perspective looking at the Orthodox. I do not know how the Orthodox would explain the divergence in teachings, and have even less of an idea of how they (you) would think our orders impact the teachings our Church gives. Though I’d be interested to learn about that too.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Ok – are we safe to say the Orthodox Church is not infallible (I say this with all respect to my Orthodox friends)?

I don’t think there’s any institution that pronounces pan-Orthodox teachings that could be fallible or infallible. For example, I don’t believe there’s been any definitive rejection of the Immaculate Conception. If I remember correctly, Lev Gillet (a Monk of the Eastern Church) accepted it. It’s just that many (most?) individual Orthodox believers have rejected it.

I stand open to correction.

 

[UncleBill]

I don’t think there’s any institution that pronounces pan-Orthodox teachings that could be fallible or infallible. For example, I don’t believe there’s been any definitive rejection of the Immaculate Conception. If I remember correctly, Lev Gillet (a Monk of the Eastern Church) accepted it. It’s just that many (most?) individual Orthodox believers have rejected it.

I stand open to correction.

If the Orthodox accepted the Augustinian view of Original sin they would probably accept the IC dogma…but since they don’t it makes no sense to them. The Orthodox do believe that the Theotokos was sinless though…just not as defined by Rome. It is a shame that Rome makes these dogmatic pronouncements without consultation with the Orthodox!

 

[Lester_S]

Real quickly, Orthodoxy wouldn’t accept something like the IC, due to the fact it wasn’t accepted ecumenically. Just because one declared it dogma, doesn’t make it correct.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

If the Orthodox accepted the Augustinian view of Original sin they would probably accept the IC dogma…but since they don’t it makes no sense to them. The Orthodox do believe that the Theotokos was sinless though…just not as defined by Rome. It is a shame that Rome makes these dogmatic pronouncements without consultation with the Orthodox!

Lester:

Real quickly, Orthodoxy wouldn’t accept something like the IC, due to the fact it wasn’t accepted ecumenically. Just because one declared it dogma, doesn’t make it correct.

Where can I read the definitive, pan-Orthodox statement rejecting the Immaculate Conception?

My point is, if there hasn’t been a declaration, then it doesn’t make sense to ask if the non-existent declaration is fallible or infallible.

 

[Lester_S]

Where can I read the definitive, pan-Orthodox statement rejecting the Immaculate Conception?

My point is, if there hasn’t been a declaration, then it doesn’t make sense to ask if the non-existent declaration is fallible or infallible.

Why would that matter? Orthodoxy’s claim has been a maintenance of the apostolic succession, in not just episcopate, but of the faith, the faith unchanged, since the beginning. If they see a need for a council, they’ll call for one

If you want a pan Orthodox statement, look at the seven councils. Orthodoxy didn’t need to rely on doctrinal development, like the west did, nor should it need it now.

 

[UncleBill]

Where can I read the definitive, pan-Orthodox statement rejecting the Immaculate Conception?

My point is, if there hasn’t been a declaration, then it doesn’t make sense to ask if the non-existent declaration is fallible or infallible.

Why would you think the Orthodox would even bother defining or rejecting the IC? It has NO PLACE in Orthodox theology, the IC only makes sense if one ascribes to Augustinian view of Original Sin, which the Orthodox do not…therefor the IC is completely unnecessary.

The IC is a fairly new dogma for the RC’s.

 

[Lester_S]

Why would you think the Orthodox would even bother defining or rejecting the IC? It has NO PLACE in Orthodox theology, the IC only makes sense if one ascribes to Augustinian view of Original Sin, which the Orthodox do not…therefor the IC is completely unnecessary.

The IC is a fairly new dogma for the RC’s.

From what discussed with a Melkite, he doesn’t believe the IC is dogma, from his understanding

 

[UncleBill]

From what discussed with a Melkite, he doesn’t believe the IC is dogma, from his understanding

Many Eastern Catholics will say this…if the original theology (Augustinian) is not part of Eastern theology, why would the IC be needed in Eastern theology.

I have heard Eastern catholic priests explain that It (the IC) has no place in OUR theology but it makes sense for the Western Church.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Why would that matter? Orthodoxy’s claim has been a maintenance of the apostolic succession, in not just episcopate, but of the faith, the faith unchanged, since the beginning. If they see a need for a council, they’ll call for one

If you want a pan Orthodox statement, look at the seven councils. Orthodoxy didn’t need to rely on doctrinal development, like the west did, nor should it need it now.

Prominent Orthodox monk Lev Gillet argued in a 1983 article entitled 'The Immaculate Conception and the Orthodox Church’ that there has always been a significant strain in Orthodoxy that accepts that Mary was without sin since her conception. This includes central figures like Photius and St. Gregory Palamas.

Objections to the Immaculate Conception only became common in Orthodoxy in the late 19th Century, in response to Rome’s ex cathedra declaration.

If Gillet is accurate, I think it raises two important issues:

1. Polemics can distort apostolic tradition. What was generally (but not universally) accepted by the Orthodox churches was later generally (though by no means universally) rejected due to distrust of and rivalry with Rome.
2. There is a tendency to confuse dogma with the theological language in which it’s presented. The Immaculate Conception, while explained within an Augustinian framework, does not depend on it. It seems that non-Augustinian explanations of the Immaculate Conception already exist within the Orthodox tradition.

 

[UncleBill]

Prominent Orthodox monk Lev Gillet argued in a 1983 article entitled 'The Immaculate Conception and the Orthodox Church’ that there has always been a significant strain in Orthodoxy that accepts that Mary was without sin since her conception. This includes central figures like Photius and St. Gregory Palamas.

Objections to the Immaculate Conception only became common in Orthodoxy in the late 19th Century, in response to Rome’s ex cathedra declaration.

If Gillet is accurate, I think it raises two important issues:

1. Polemics can distort apostolic tradition. What was generally (but not universally) accepted by the Orthodox churches was later generally (though by no means universally) rejected due to distrust of and rivalry with Rome.
2. There is a tendency to confuse dogma with the theological language in which it’s presented. The Immaculate Conception, while explained within an Augustinian framework, does not depend on it. It seems that non-Augustinian explanations of the Immaculate Conception already exist within the Orthodox tradition.

Of course the Orthodox believe Mary is without sin. Just not for the reasons the IC dogma proclaim.

Most Holy Theotokos save us!

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Holy tradition is huge in the Orthodox churches. In fact there is no tradition/scripture dichotomy as is in the West.

To Orthodox Holy tradition covers all teachings and doctrines, the Scriptures are actually a part of Holy Tradition.

As for Orthodox holy orders it was made clear long ago that they are valid in Catholic eyes.

Actually according to Catholic terminology also Sacred Scripture is part of Apostolic Tradition, though we do most often use the word “Tradition” to mean extra-Biblical Apostolic Tradition.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Of course the Orthodox believe Mary is without sin. Just not for the reasons the IC dogma proclaim.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on ‘infallibility’: ‘The validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached’ (emphasis mine).

Most Holy Theotokos save us!

Amen.

 

[dzheremi]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on ‘infallibility’: 'The validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based

Wow.

 

[tdgesq]

Wow.

I wouldn’t sweat it. All it means is that the arguments preceding the dogmatic declaration are not themselves infallible. So while you will find many arguments and explanations within - say - the texts of the first seven ecumenical councils, the canons are what contain the infallibly declared Tradition of the Church. The reasoning behind the canon is still important, and usually correct, in my experience.