Criticisms of Orthodoxy (is back!)

[KathleenGee]

No offense intended either…

I am looking at #7…also…the world is constantly changing…I would think it most important we have our faith updated…and this is the work of the Church, not temporal ruler…and the last one called by the emperor was way back 1,000 years ago…he called them for Orthodox…

My overall perception of Orthodox is that they are on the closed side rather than open and growing. I am not intending to be offensive…I have great respect for the Orthodox.

 

[Hesychios]

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).

People blow a lot of smoke around here, and believe what they want.

Mostly, this is accompanied by a terrible ignorance of their own church history, and examples of most criticism they have can be found in the history of their own church.

But it is a comfort to them to project these on the Orthodox.

It is easy to criticize another church when the people who would be able to respond are somewhere else. The topic spins freely.

I repeat that if anyone here has sincere questions, comments or criticisms about the Orthodox church, there are Orthodox forums on the net with members that can respond to them very quickly and honestly.

For those not interested in a balanced and honest response in real time, there are archives even here at CAF where all of these questions and concerns have been addressed, and a very good search function provided by the hosts here.

 

[dvdjs]

People blow a lot of smoke around here, and believe what they want.
…
Mostly, this is accompanied by a terrible ignorance of their own church history, and examples of most criticism they have can be found in the history of their own church.
…
I repeat that if anyone here has sincere questions, comments or criticisms about the Orthodox church, there are Orthodox forums on the net with members that can respond to them very quickly and honestly.

I agree with Hesychios on this. There are other fora with well-rooted and learned Orthodox who, outside of a dueling church context, can provide honest, accurate information on these points. Here we do typically get “a lot of smoke” from folk relatively new to Orthodoxy, who are largely ignorant of actual Orthodox church history but seemingly aware only of the criticisms of other churches and the triumphant myths, legendary claims of the Orthodox church.

 

[Hesychios]

I agree …

Nice scissor job …

 

[dvdjs]

Nice scissor job …

And thanks for the great example of projection, which is, mutatis mutandis, just what you were talking about.

 

[waxwing]

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.

On point 10 - lets leave whats happened in the past in the past. Where on the EO Church Radar is Evangelism right now? Seems like Protestant put strong emphasis on missions - which is great. But have no idea what the EO is up to, and frankly I’m a bit ignorant as to what the RCC present day vision/and practice is on Missions as well

 

[KathleenGee]

I read through all of Constantine’s responses to the list…but the one that stood out to me…was #7…people shouldn’t be hurt by that…because the Roman Church is outward looking, has ongoing councils.

The Church is looking at now forming a new evangelization, the call put out by John Paul II.

The difficulties with universality is that there is a watering down of different cultures…to hold on to what is best of your culture, but to integrate and be one which is not the norm among Christians today.

My whole life I was taught by priests and nuns we could receive the Eucharist in an Eastern Church…and now on CAF I am finding out this is not true. I never knew the Orthodox considered us heretics and schismatics…there are number of the original 12 apostles who have gone out…I am hoping to recover this list that showed regions of the world the apostles had founded churches. So we cannot receive communion from the Orthodox.

So I do believe we need the primacy of Peter, that universality also requires proper defining that across multitude of cultures and languages, we know we are talking about the same thing with the same intent and purpose. So the Latin Church needs to be more definition bound.

A number of Protestants see us as sound much bound by rules and disciplines and dogmas…perceptions, perceptions.

 

[Cavaradossi]

And thanks for the great example of projection, which is, mutatis mutandis, just what you were talking about.

Perhaps you are the one who is projecting. If our triumphalism is Greek in flavor, yours comes in sour Latin.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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,

Read what I said again. I said Rome is the only Church establish by the Apostles IN THE WEST. Look at a map of St. Paul’s journey and all the places where his Epistles are addressed to. Besides Rome, everything else is on the Eastern side of the Roman Empire what is today Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Cyprus and Israel.

 

[dzheremi]

I can’t really speak for Eastern Orthodoxy on this account, but I know that the Coptic Church (Oriental Orthodox) are heavily involved in missions in Southern Africa. I’ve also heard about Greek Orthodox missions in places like Tanzania and elsewhere. In addition, Orthodoxy is growing in Latin America, with Byzantine and Oriental Orthodox churches in Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Bolivia, and elsewhere.

Some links:

Coptic Mission (About the Coptic Orthodox missions in Africa outside of Egypt/Sudan/Ethiopia, which are considered traditional territories of the OO in Africa)

Coptic Mexico

The Orthodox Mission in South Africa (EO in South Africa)

Orthodox missions are definitely on a much smaller scale than Catholic or Protestant ones. This is understandable when you consider how much poorer the Orthodox churches are in general, and that much of their aid goes to their own laypeople as well (e.g., organizations like Coptic Orphans or Copts In Need deal with people who are already Copts, and these are in addition to the missions that are constantly going on in Africa and elsewhere…all with much less money than most Western churches). I don’t know the hard numbers, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Orthodoxy were much more mission-oriented today than in the past, given the reality of the diaspora (for both EO and OO) and the end of communism in the EO lands.

 

[Bezant]

On point 10 - lets leave whats happened in the past in the past. Where on the EO Church Radar is Evangelism right now? Seems like Protestant put strong emphasis on missions - which is great. But have no idea what the EO is up to, and frankly I’m a bit ignorant as to what the RCC present day vision/and practice is on Missions as well

It was a very arrogant criticism, especially because Catholicism everywhere is becoming a thing of a past in these regions, and in partiuclarly South America / the Caribbean, evangelical Protestant streams are becoming very popular.
What do sweeping conversions in South America / Caribbean – some of which were coerced – in the 15th and 16th century – not the best age of the Catholic Church – have to do with the reality of empty pews today?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Keep it civil and adult please

 

[Bezant]

Cavadarossi, Markdum, and Constantine, thank you for your responses, I really appreciate them.

 

[dvdjs]

Hi,
"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

Some of these are true, but some are highly exaggerated. Are any good reasons for turning away from the EOC? Most aren’t IMO. But some, at least to me, are important…

(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.)

The issue raised here is not Apostolic succession (which is of definite importance), but of the honor of a See being founded by an apostle. Moscow was not founded by Andrew. And neither in all likelihood was Constantinople. This story did not emerge until the ninth century. There is plenty of work to read on the development of this story - including a medieval forgery no less. Of course the Patriarchal Sees of many of the autocephalous churches were not founded by Apostles. So what? If the issue is that primacy would beong to Rome in a united church, there are very, very few who would deny that.

(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.)

So what; it’s not as though there were questions on the fundamentals.

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

The treatment of divorce and remarriage in the EOC has been a gradual decline and deviation from Apostolic tradition, with some “symphonic” interactions with the state. The major shift - remarriage of divorcees by the church happened in the 10th century. It would be interesting to also know about the time-line of the extending of grounds for divorce to cases beyond adultery. I am not sure how common divorce before recent times. I suspect that whatever each church had been doing was of little consequence until now, when divorce has become so common.

I think it fair to say that the EOC caved on contraception. HV was prescient in understanding the link between acceptance of ABC and everything else that has followed as a result of mainstreaming the decoupling of sexual activity from family life. Even if the EOC affirms that coupling, it is nevertheless contributing to the culture that is denying. That is a problem.

Having said that, it is clear that that every church is having problems with the culture shift of the last century. These are problems that we should be working with each other to solve rather than grandstanding about the superiority of what one group or another does, because all are falling dreadfully short.

 

[dvdjs]

(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.

What has been said on this thread is simply wrong. I posted a link to an good article elsewhere:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8155089&postcount=23. This big issue here, ISTM, is not what is being done, but the absence of a willingness among so many to see the real history of what is being done.

(5) They cannot agree as to whether decrees such as the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 was 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).

This problem goes beyond the council of Jerusalem - the council at which the word “transubstantiation” - was used, btw. There is a cultivated view that theology and practice of the EOC is pretty much the same now as it was in 330 if not even 33 AD - and that they have never changed, This is just not true.

The whole idea of a “Latin captivity” is interesting. If ever the same, then this is a part of Orthodox tradition; if not a part of Orthodox tradition, then the tradition varies over time. And if the Latin thinking was so alien, how did it seize the thinking of the East? Much food for thought here. Overall, I think that the reality is that there are various schools of thought within Orthodoxy - on this matter, on sacramental economy , even on civil unions, etc… Is that a big deal? No - except for those whose interest in the EOC is contingent on the conceit of a never changing church.

(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.

Yup. I heard Metropolitan (then Hieromonk) Jonah hold forth on Augustine as heretic. But this undisciplined thinking extends in many ways. For example, while there are Orthodox who are interested in reconciliation with other Christians, others think of them as they do Hindus, while others still, including a Saint of our times, regards the papal church as arch-heretics. Some living hierarchs see the Vatican as solely interested in the destruction of the EOC. Again, these are not the rantings of a fringe group, but thoughts of hierarchs and recently glorified saints, they are mainstream and celebrated. For me this is a huge problem. To enter the EOC one must accept these fringe perspectives as mainstream. How can one genuinely say: I love Catholics, and also love and choose those who accept a mainstream of hatred toward the Catholic 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.

So what? Did they need one?

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

Much too much proof-texting all around, Much too little comprehensive thinking all the way around. At least on internet fora.

(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.

We accept what we accept. That is universal.

(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."

This is true. The Catholic church is present in some over 99% of the countries on earth. No one else is comes close to her.

 

[waxwing]

It was a very arrogant criticism, especially because Catholicism everywhere is becoming a thing of a past in these regions, and in partiuclarly South America / the Caribbean, evangelical Protestant streams are becoming very popular.
What do sweeping conversions in South America / Caribbean – some of which were coerced – in the 15th and 16th century – not the best age of the Catholic Church – have to do with the reality of empty pews today?

:shrug:Ahh, I thought this was about Orthodoxy…Basically I was wondering what is EO stance on Evangelism? How important is it? To what extent is it going on?..Re the RCC, I am not sure what the the present day Evangelicalism is like? Sounds like something may have got lost in the mix.

 

[Hesychios]

:shrug:Ahh, I thought this was about Orthodoxy…Basically I was wondering what is EO stance on Evangelism? How important is it?

Why the question?

What do you expect?

Do you know any church anywhere that as a policy does not evangelize? If you do, please list them. I want to see examples.

Thanks

 

[waxwing]

Why the question?

What do you expect?

Do you know any church anywhere that as a policy does not evangelize? If you do, please list them. I want to see examples.

Thanks

Context…You can read back into the posts to get that.

The Protestants/Protestant Churches I am familiar with place a lot of emphasis on Evangelism/Missions. I don’t know the official RCC position but by the very fact its is in every corner of the earth I must conclude it has been important - not 100 percent sure of where it is currently though.

Regarding the Orthodoxy and Evangelism, I have no idea, I don’t the official church Policy nor do I know the unofficial policy…which leads to question(s)

 

[dzheremi]

Did no one visit the links I posted? The OO and EO are in Africa (and have been for centuries), and have been increasingly evangelizing the southern and western African nations that were previously only Protestant or Catholic. They’re also both in South and Central America, and Oceanic countries (e.g., Coptic Orthodox in Fiji). What more evidence of evangelism do you need?

 

[Hesychios]

Regarding the Orthodoxy and Evangelism, I have no idea, I don’t the official church Policy nor do I know the unofficial policy…which leads to question(s)

The fact that you have to ask is insulting, which leads to my questions.