Criticisms of Orthodoxy (is back!)

[Bezant]

Hi,

Repost of an earlier thread.

If any Orthodox members can respond to this blogger’s criticisms of Orthodoxy, I’d appreciate it.

"The following ten reasons (not necessarily exhaustive) are why I’m not Eastern Orthodox, while not forgetting there is much good in the Orthodox Churches and that they are very close to Catholicism in many ways:

(1) Their leading Bishoprics, Constantinople and (now) Moscow, have no Apostolic Roots. (Where as the Roman Church was founded by the “two most glorious Apostles,” Saints Peter and Paul.)

(2) They cannot agree upon a Canon of Scripture - nor does there appear to be a means of infallibly defining one. (e.g. The EO at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 affirmed the same Canon as Catholics, though I’ve seen other EO sources denying some of those books.)

(3) They have manifestly defected from basic Christian principles, caving into worldly pressure, for example they allow Divorce and Contraception.

(4) They cannot agree as to whether Catholics have valid holy orders or other valid sacraments - some EO say ‘yes’, others say ‘no’. Some re-baptize Catholics, others do not. And, again, there appears no way of ‘officially’ settling the issue.

(5) They cannot agree as to whether decrees such as the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 was universally binding - moreover, those EO who deny the authority of the Council of Jerusalem (often because it sounds too “Latin”) wont go as far as to condemn it as manifest heresy and an abomination (which it logically should be if it teaches heresy and other abominable things).

(6) They cannot agree as to whether “Latin” figures such as Augustine are “saints,” or “venerable,” or merely confused Christians, or even arch-heretics (nor have I seen any ‘official’ EO pronouncements for the last option). Further, they generally don’t give the Western Fathers as much respect or recognition as they do the Eastern Fathers.

(7) They have not had an Ecumenical Council in over 1,000 years, and this is apparently because they have no objective means of calling and establishing one.

(8) They downplay into virtual irrelevance the strong testimony (be it in Scripture, Tradition, or Patristics) for the Papacy.

(9) They have backed out of agreements, such as the Council of Florence, often with individual bishops overturning the ‘votes’ of other bishops and Patriarchs.

(10) They have had little influence in terms of evangelization outside of Eastern Europe, where as the Catholic Church originally evangelized (and still dominates) North and South America, Africa, and Asia all centuries ago."

Source: (catholicnick.blogspot.com/201…-orthodox.html)

I don’t know much about Orthodoxy, but my greatest disagreements are with #10 (which I think just silly) #8, and perhaps #3.

Thanks.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

I agree, and I think number 1 is a very strong point to me. From numbers 2 to 9, it all sums up in the fact that there is like no “Main Authority” in the Orthodox church. We have the Pope whos is the authority above all other bishops/priests. But all the “orthodox churches” have their own specific authority/bishops and there is not ONE for all of them all put together. And that to me is not good because just as you posted in several of those 10 points, they cannot “agree” in many things that are important to their faith. In the Catholic Church however, we have a main authority which is the Pope (the succesor to Peter which even the orthodox admit is), and whatever he defines is binding to all catholics because he has the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

 

[Hesychios]

I suggest that anyone really interested in discussing Holy Orthodoxy go to an Orthodox website and ask these questions.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hi,

Repost of an earlier thread.

If any Orthodox members can respond to this blogger’s criticisms of Orthodoxy, I’d appreciate it.

"The following ten reasons (not necessarily exhaustive) are why I’m not Eastern Orthodox, while not forgetting there is much good in the Orthodox Churches and that they are very close to Catholicism in many ways:

I’m not really Orthodox, just one trying to live the Orthodox faith and maintain communion with the Pope

(1) Their leading Bishoprics, Constantinople and (now) Moscow, have no Apostolic Roots. (Where as the Roman Church was founded by the “two most glorious Apostles,” Saints Peter and Paul.)

But Antioch was founded by St. Peter and it is part of the East. Also, many of the churches the Apostles established are in the East. In the West its only Rome that was established by the Apostles.

(2) They cannot agree upon a Canon of Scripture - nor does there appear to be a means of infallibly defining one. (e.g. The EO at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 affirmed the same Canon as Catholics, though I’ve seen other EO sources denying some of those books.)

Ecumenical Councils are how things are infallibly defined in the East.

(3) They have manifestly defected from basic Christian principles, caving into worldly pressure, for example they allow Divorce and Contraception.

This is something not easily explained, but I will try. Divorce and contraception is not something that every Orthodox can do. With the Orthodox, such break in belief is not a sweeping change to discipline and change in doctrine in the Church, but rather part of a long process of counseling and guidance by a spiritual father to his spiritual child. There is a principle called Oikonomia (or economy) where if it can be seen that something can be spiritually advantageous (either now or in the future) that is a sin or forbidden as a discipline, then it will be allowed. But again this is against close guidance, it doesn’t apply to everybody, and of course the objective is to grow you spiritually. For example if one really cannot contain their sexual appetite, yet having more children is a problem, the contraception will be allowed. This possibly is temporary, and the spiritual father will also guide the person to temper their sexual appetite. If they simply ask the person to abstain and that’s that, the passion will overwhelm the person and move him further away from God than closer.

(4) They cannot agree as to whether Catholics have valid holy orders or other valid sacraments - some EO say ‘yes’, others say ‘no’. Some re-baptize Catholics, others do not. And, again, there appears no way of ‘officially’ settling the issue.

Some are suspicious and would do so to be certain the “convert” received valid Sacraments. One poster here in the past gave a good picture of how this relationship is. Orthodox see Catholics the way Catholics see Anglicans. And Anglicans see Catholics the way Catholics see Orthodox. Simply, Anglicans believe they have a valid priesthood and valid Sacraments including the Eucharist. Catholics do not agree with that and think Anglicans can only validly baptized and marry. That is essentially how the Catholic-Orthodox relationship is. But as you say, some are more welcoming and acknowledging of us than others.

(5) They cannot agree as to whether decrees such as the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 was universally binding - moreover, those EO who deny the authority of the Council of Jerusalem (often because it sounds too “Latin”) wont go as far as to condemn it as manifest heresy and an abomination (which it logically should be if it teaches heresy and other abominable things).

The thing about councils is that you can always agree to it or not. Of course not agreeing to a council could mean excommunication (being removed from communion) and being seen as heretic.

(6) They cannot agree as to whether “Latin” figures such as Augustine are “saints,” or “venerable,” or merely confused Christians, or even arch-heretics (nor have I seen any ‘official’ EO pronouncements for the last option). Further, they generally don’t give the Western Fathers as much respect or recognition as they do the Eastern Fathers.

For one thing, Western Fathers defined Western Theology which doesn’t really fit Eastern spirituality. So for the most part they do not have use for it.

As for saints, saints in the East usually come from veneration by local communities, and as the popularity of a saint grew, then they become a saint for the Church. So Western saints, because they are not “local heroes”, do not enjoy the same level of veneration. So their recognition does not happen. Also note that there is an amount of independence of Churches in the East. Meaning that a saint in one Church may not be a saint in another. Not that the other Church is denying the holiness or the saint, just that the particular saint may not have been venerated by the faithful of their Church.

(7) They have not had an Ecumenical Council in over 1,000 years, and this is apparently because they have no objective means of calling and establishing one.

Or that they have no reason for calling one.

 

[ConstantineTG]

(8) They downplay into virtual irrelevance the strong testimony (be it in Scripture, Tradition, or Patristics) for the Papacy.

I though so too but I found out to be otherwise. They just have a different view on it. They do think that the Bishop of Rome has a special place in the Church, just not the way Catholics think it is.

(9) They have backed out of agreements, such as the Council of Florence, often with individual bishops overturning the ‘votes’ of other bishops and Patriarchs.

The Orthodox leadership is very democratic among Bishops.

(10) They have had little influence in terms of evangelization outside of Eastern Europe, where as the Catholic Church originally evangelized (and still dominates) North and South America, Africa, and Asia all centuries ago."
Thanks.

They never enjoyed the benefits of the age of exploration, where the Western nations did. Spain mostly spread Roman Catholicism to many places around the world, followed by France and Portugal. They were just on the wrong side of Europe. Also, the growth of Muslim lands prevented their advance to the East. There was a story that they had reached China at one point and started establishing Orthodox churches there. But it didn’t take root, not sure if it was because they were eventually cut off by the Muslims.

 

[Rawb]

I suggest that anyone really interested in discussing Holy Orthodoxy go to an Orthodox website and ask these questions.

+1. Any Orthodox poster can recommend one to you.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Bezant,

Eastern Orthodoxy holds no attraction for me, but none of these 10 points are the reasons I would not consider joining Eastern Orthodoxy. I believe each of these points is either (1) an overblown generalization, or (2) a mischaracterization.

Blessings,
Marduk

(1) Their leading Bishoprics, Constantinople and (now) Moscow, have no Apostolic Roots. (Where as the Roman Church was founded by the “two most glorious Apostles,” Saints Peter and Paul.)

(2) They cannot agree upon a Canon of Scripture - nor does there appear to be a means of infallibly defining one. (e.g. The EO at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 affirmed the same Canon as Catholics, though I’ve seen other EO sources denying some of those books.)

(3) They have manifestly defected from basic Christian principles, caving into worldly pressure, for example they allow Divorce and Contraception.

(4) They cannot agree as to whether Catholics have valid holy orders or other valid sacraments - some EO say ‘yes’, others say ‘no’. Some re-baptize Catholics, others do not. And, again, there appears no way of ‘officially’ settling the issue.

(5) They cannot agree as to whether decrees such as the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 was universally binding - moreover, those EO who deny the authority of the Council of Jerusalem (often because it sounds too “Latin”) wont go as far as to condemn it as manifest heresy and an abomination (which it logically should be if it teaches heresy and other abominable things).

(6) They cannot agree as to whether “Latin” figures such as Augustine are “saints,” or “venerable,” or merely confused Christians, or even arch-heretics (nor have I seen any ‘official’ EO pronouncements for the last option). Further, they generally don’t give the Western Fathers as much respect or recognition as they do the Eastern Fathers.

(7) They have not had an Ecumenical Council in over 1,000 years, and this is apparently because they have no objective means of calling and establishing one.

(8) They downplay into virtual irrelevance the strong testimony (be it in Scripture, Tradition, or Patristics) for the Papacy.

(9) They have backed out of agreements, such as the Council of Florence, often with individual bishops overturning the ‘votes’ of other bishops and Patriarchs.

(10) They have had little influence in terms of evangelization outside of Eastern Europe, where as the Catholic Church originally evangelized (and still dominates) North and South America, Africa, and Asia all centuries ago."

Source: (catholicnick.blogspot.com/201…-orthodox.html)

I don’t know much about Orthodoxy, but my greatest disagreements are with #10 (which I think just silly) #8, and perhaps #3.

Thanks.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hi,

Repost of an earlier thread.

If any Orthodox members can respond to this blogger’s criticisms of Orthodoxy, I’d appreciate it.

"The following ten reasons (not necessarily exhaustive) are why I’m not Eastern Orthodox, while not forgetting there is much good in the Orthodox Churches and that they are very close to Catholicism in many ways:

Ok, here we go.

(1) Their leading Bishoprics, Constantinople and (now) Moscow, have no Apostolic Roots. (Where as the Roman Church was founded by the “two most glorious Apostles,” Saints Peter and Paul.)

This is groundless. Most sees in Orthodoxy, including Constantinople and Moscow trace their succession to Andrew; Jerusalem traces her succession to St. James; Antioch traces her succession to St. Peter; and Alexandria traces her succession to St. Mark.

(2) They cannot agree upon a Canon of Scripture - nor does there appear to be a means of infallibly defining one. (e.g. The EO at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 affirmed the same Canon as Catholics, though I’ve seen other EO sources denying some of those books.)

Neither could people agree on a Canon of scripture in the post-Nicene days of the Church. Most of the Church Fathers had their own list of what books were canonical, and while most agreed on the books of the New Testament, they tended to disagree on the books of the Old Testament. For this reason, bibles in some regions will sometimes have Old Testament books which are in the main body of bibles from other regions as an appendix. It’s really not a huge issue because scripture is part of Tradition, so if a book isn’t on one person’s list of Canonical books, it’s still included in the Tradition.

(3) They have manifestly defected from basic Christian principles, caving into worldly pressure, for example they allow Divorce and Contraception.

Divorce, believe it or not, was granted by the Church before the schism. Contraception is only allowed as a dispensation for family planning. It’s not something which one is supposed to do without consulting his or her priest. The Orthodox Church has actually preserved far more traditions than the Roman Catholic Church has, such as the Wednesday and Friday fast every week, and the four fasting periods of the year where fasting is daily.

Edit: after reading ConstantineTG’s response on this issue, I think his is far better, especially his explanation of economy.

(4) They cannot agree as to whether Catholics have valid holy orders or other valid sacraments - some EO say ‘yes’, others say ‘no’. Some re-baptize Catholics, others do not. And, again, there appears no way of ‘officially’ settling the issue.

Canonically, all Orthodox can agree that Catholics should be re-baptized. It is only through economy that people baptized in other churches are allowed into the Orthodox Church without baptism. Some bishops are much less liberal with economy, hence what appears to be a disagreement.

(5) They cannot agree as to whether decrees such as the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 was universally binding - moreover, those EO who deny the authority of the Council of Jerusalem (often because it sounds too “Latin”) wont go as far as to condemn it as manifest heresy and an abomination (which it logically should be if it teaches heresy and other abominable things).

The Council of Jerusalem is generally accepted within the Eastern Orthodox Church as being a rejection of Protestant theology and Counter-Reformation theology. It is not universally binding because it was not a general synod, but it is generally agreed to be a good representative of the Orthodox Church’s position on the newer theological issues in Post-Reformation Western Christianity.

 

[Cavaradossi]

(6) They cannot agree as to whether “Latin” figures such as Augustine are “saints,” or “venerable,” or merely confused Christians, or even arch-heretics (nor have I seen any ‘official’ EO pronouncements for the last option). Further, they generally don’t give the Western Fathers as much respect or recognition as they do the Eastern Fathers.

Augustine is certainly a saint. While the polemically minded will sometimes trash Augustine for his association with the development of very “Latin” theology, those who actually bother to read Augustine’s works will realize that he was rather Orthodox in belief, except for a few speculative beliefs which he himself admitted were mere speculation.

(7) They have not had an Ecumenical Council in over 1,000 years, and this is apparently because they have no objective means of calling and establishing one.

The Emperor (that’s right, not the Pope, the Emperor) called Ecumenical Councils. No more Emperor, no more Ecumenical Councils. That being said, pan-Orthodox councils have been called in the past 1000 years, like the Fifth Council of Constantinople, which was called in response to the Hesychast controversy.

(8) They downplay into virtual irrelevance the strong testimony (be it in Scripture, Tradition, or Patristics) for the Papacy.

The Roman Catholics see evidence for the a divine right for Rome to rule where there is none. To me this charge is rather silly as it’s purely based on perspective.

(9) They have backed out of agreements, such as the Council of Florence, often with individual bishops overturning the ‘votes’ of other bishops and Patriarchs.

Only 22 Eastern bishops were at Florence; because of this, and the death of the Patriarch of Constantinople, they insisted that Florence needed to be approved by a synod in the East; no Eastern synod has ever approved of Florence.

Of those twenty-two bishops, one did not sign; two died (including the Patriarch); two escaped the council where they were being virtually imprisoned by the Emperor; and seventeen signed. That is hardly representative of the hundreds of bishops who were in the East.

It didn’t take much for them, however, to see that they were clearly in the minority when they got home. According to some contemporary accounts, some bishops, after arriving back in the East, even cried before their people that they had, “sold their faith,” and asked them for their forgiveness, retracting their approval of Florence.

(10) They have had little influence in terms of evangelization outside of Eastern Europe, where as the Catholic Church originally evangelized (and still dominates) North and South America, Africa, and Asia all centuries ago."

Yes, this one is silly. Evangelizing isn’t some sort of ‘my evangelism is bigger than your evangelism’ game. The Easterners did manage to evangelized the Slavs before being crushed by Muslim conquest. I would say that the massive evangelism performed by the West is more of an accident of history, especially when you stop to realize that the major colonial powers of the Enlightenment Era were either French, Spanish, Portuguese or English. That being said, the Russians did attempt to evangelize in the 19th and 20th Century. They set up missions with the Aleutians, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Koreans, and in North America.

 

[Cavaradossi]

They never enjoyed the benefits of the age of exploration, where the Western nations did. Spain mostly spread Roman Catholicism to many places around the world, followed by France and Portugal. They were just on the wrong side of Europe. Also, the growth of Muslim lands prevented their advance to the East. There was a story that they had reached China at one point and started establishing Orthodox churches there. But it didn’t take root, not sure if it was because they were eventually cut off by the Muslims.

This one, I can actually answer, being Chinese myself. There was a time when China reacted violently against all foreign religions during the Tang Dynasty (more specifically, during the 9th Century). Buddhism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism were all made illegal, and the assets belonging to their places of worship were seized for the benefit of the state. Only Buddhism managed to survive.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Why aren’t there any theological criticisms of Orthodoxy, but only “technical” ones? The Orthodox certainly have their theological criticisms of Catholicism.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

This one, I can actually answer, being Chinese myself. There was a time when China reacted violently against all foreign religions during the Tang Dynasty (more specifically, during the 9th Century). Buddhism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism were all made illegal, and the assets belonging to their places of worship were seized for the benefit of the state. Only Buddhism managed to survive.

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but Chinese Orthodox? That is the most awesome thing ever!!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Maximus,

Why aren’t there any theological criticisms of Orthodoxy, but only “technical” ones? The Orthodox certainly have their theological criticisms of Catholicism.

That’s because Eastern Catholics hold to the same theology as Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church understands that the difference is only in theological expression and not in the essence of the Faith. So Easterns, Orientals, Latins, and Chaldeans can come together on the basis of the essence of Faith, and have overcome differences in expression through the spiritual fruit of understanding. See my signature line below for the biblical rationale for this.

Many EO (not all) on the other hand still have not been able to get beyond the theological expressions, and so often criticize us. They also manage to criticize us (particularly the Latins) on theologoumena and disciplines, using them as points of separation as if they were dogmas. Many EO (to repeat, not all) just like to criticize what they don’t understand.

The only matters about which Catholics “criticize back” are the usual misrepresentations of the Catholic Faith (often the Latin portion of our Church).

When I was Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome, I was very critical of many things in Eastern Orthodoxy on theological matters. But, as stated, I have come to look beyond theological expressions of Faith because of my friendly contact with Eastern Catholics.

I do have personal criticisms of Eastern Orthodoxy on particular theological points, and I will discuss them as they come up, but they are not dogmatic teachings in EO’xy (it’s rare to find such an animal in EO’xy), so I wouldn’t be the one to start a discussion/debate about them, since I wouldn’t consider them matters that are a cause of separation. But there are EO out there who will discuss such matters as if they were grounds for separation, and when such instances come to my attention, I will often engage in the debate.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Dear brother Maximus,

That’s because Eastern Catholics hold to the same theology as Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church understands that the difference is only in theological expression and not in the essence of the Faith. So Easterns, Orientals, Latins, and Chaldeans can come together on the basis of the essence of Faith, and have overcome differences in expression through the spiritual fruit of understanding. See my signature line below for the biblical rationale for this.

Many EO (not all) on the other hand still have not been able to get beyond the theological expressions, and so often criticize us. They also manage to criticize us (particularly the Latins) on theologoumena and disciplines, using them as points of separation as if they were dogmas. Many EO (to repeat, not all) just like to criticize what they don’t understand.

The only matters about which Catholics “criticize back” are the usual misrepresentations of the Catholic Faith (often the Latin portion of our Church).

When I was Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome, I was very critical of many things in Eastern Orthodoxy on theological matters. But, as stated, I have come to look beyond theological expressions of Faith because of my friendly contact with Eastern Catholics.

I do have personal criticisms of Eastern Orthodoxy on particular theological points, and I will discuss them as they come up, but they are not dogmatic teachings in EO’xy (it’s rare to find such an animal in EO’xy), so I wouldn’t be the one to start a discussion/debate about them, since I wouldn’t consider them matters that are a cause of separation. But there are EO out there who will discuss such matters as if they were grounds for separation, and when such instances come to my attention, I will often engage in the debate.

Blessings,
Marduk

As always, your posts are concise, clear, and fill me with understanding.
Thanks for the information!

 

[jwinch2]

In the West its only Rome that was established by the Apostles.

I’m not trying to start a big thing here but this does not make sense to me. Are you suggesting that all of the Churches started by St. Paul which are discussed throughout the NT, were somehow not established by an Apostle? I don’t wish to misunderstand your comments so I figured I would ask for clarification.

God Bless,

 

[KathleenGee]

I am glad to see this thread brought back up. It touched on some of my perceptions looking at Orthodoxy.

I see the Orthodox as being mystical in action. I see a flourishing of local jurisdiction, of expression of faith in a most beautiful way, transcending Western material economy that impacts our faith in the West.

But on the other hand, because the West is open to innovation, expansive development, I see its perspective more global…and likewise the Latin Church sharing the same perspective.

Don’t forget the flesh and blood of the Irish who brought so much faith to America as well as preserving the holy books while Europe was undergoing invasion and destruction, as well as the Italians…the French Jesuits…I think many European clerics contributed to the expansion of Christianity.

So I do see the Latin Church being more evangelical…although Russia has done great work as mentioned by someone here…and I also see the Latin Church’s work of defining universal faith…and the work of the primacy of Peter to bring unity to the Church…including the Orthodox.

I can see what the Council of Florence was reaffirming…that it is the Church, and not temporal rulers, nationalistic oriented, to represent Christianity and govern it.

I did not know clearly until now that temporal rulers run the Orthodox churches…this makes me think again of the Anglican Church.

I prefer to be in a more universal Church…you have watered down liturgies at present…but Pope Benedict is working on this to bring back more of the spirit of the Liturgy to the universal church…as well as give expression of belief to new regions of peoples coming to Christ as is in Africa and the like.

I appreciate all the posts here and continue to grow to learn more about Orthodoxy.

 

[Volkov]

Quote: “I did not know clearly until now that temporal rulers run the Orthodox churches…this makes me think again of the Anglican Church.”

I have no idea what you mean by this Who are these “temporal rulers”? The Church (meaning the Orthodox Church) is headed by Christ, but is “run” by the communion of believers, overseen by their spiritual hierarchs (priests, bishops, archbishops, metropolitans, patriarchs).

 

[KathleenGee]

I am thinking of the Church of England by King Henry the VIII.

I think it only right local churches and regions have their jurisidiction…but not entities for themselves…but to be the salt of the earth, a beacon of light to the world.

And I do not see temporal rulers who are not consecrated as ministers of Christ to run churches…it is happening in China right now, and a Chinese bishop sanctioned by the communists was excommunicated.

I do not want the temporal world running our church…especially my federal government. I am speaking tongue in cheek…

I got an email recently that showed where all the original apostles established churches throughout the ancient world at that time…will look up…

 

[KathleenGee]

I am also thinking that the original 12 apostles, a number of them fishermen, had more impact on the world…men chosen by Christ…to bring lasting good to the world than any secular, temporal ruler.

 

[Volkov]

Sorry–still confused.

I get Henry VIII. But where does your statement that the Orthodox Church is run by temporal rulers come from? Are you implying that because we have nationally based churches the Church is somehow “temporally run”?

(And I mean this lightheartedly, so please don’t take offense, but technically the Pope is the temporal ruler of the world’s smallest state, Europe’s only theocracy… )

Have a blessed day!