Disagree w/ or want argue Orthodox Church teaching? Please post here.

  • Thread starter Thread starter SingleMomMonica
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SingleMomMonica

Guest
This thread is being created for those who want to post disagreements about the Orthodox teachings. Currently those diagreements are being made on unrelated threads. Everyone should have a voice and be heard and I want to make this the safe and right place to do that.

I appreciate the zeal of those of Non-Orthodox and want to give them a right place to express it.

I ask that those here respect persons even if they don’t respect their view points aka no personal attacks.

Any issue of disagreement with the Orthodox Church is welcome to be expressed here:

The role of the Patriarchs
The Books of the Bible
The Sinlessness of Mary
The Councils
The Orthodox miracles
The understanding of Original/Ancestorial Sin
The use of leavened bread in the Eucharist
The date for the celebration of Pascha (Easter)
Or whatever your beef is with Orthodoxy, you’re welcome to express it here.
 
Vasian said:
Lack of sitting areas in the Russian Orthodox church:D:D
Click to expand...
I agree with you! And add that I don’t like the dress code in the Russian Church either! It’s a pain because my spiritual father is a Russian Orthodox priest so to go to confession is a big deal - where’ my headscarf and darn it I can’t fit in my only long skirt any more!! LOL
 
Vasian said:
Lack of sitting areas in the Russian Orthodox church:D:D
Click to expand...
What, no side benches? (Greek Americans are heretics for having pews!)

I didn’t want to respond to a point made in one of the other threads, but it was something Monica made. Where a father is silent on a particular teaching it does not prove that the teaching in and of itself is false. To cherry-pick one of them out of the blue, St. Isaac of Nineveh never wrote about the primacy of the bishop of Rome. He is not a witness for or against it. St. Gregory the Great is an interesting example of a father who did argue for the primacy of a group of Petrine Sees (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch) but he also argued against the concept of a universal bishop. I do not believe that the other Sees held as narrow a view of which see was Petrine or not, but it was clear to Gregory (and other Bishop of Rome) that those three sees held primacy in union over the church universal by virtue of the ancestry of the see itself going back to St. Peter. Call it the Petrine Veto if you like. Needless to say, Rome’s view of itself evolved after Chalcedon, with the loss of Alexandria and Antioch.
 
but he also argued against the concept of a universal bishop.
Click to expand...
bringyou.to/apologetics/num7.htm
Gregory the Great (540 - 604), saint, pope, and doctor of the Church … would have denied that the title “universal bishop” could be applied to anyone, himself included, if by that term one meant there was only one bishop for the whole world and that all other “bishops” were bishops in name only, with no real authority of their own. Such a distorted version of the biblical model of bishops is incompatible with Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Monica,

I have fairly recently, after looking at the filioque arguments on both sides for the millionth time, come across what seems to be a big problem in the modern/popular Orthodox understanding. By modern I mean the one that is self consciously contra the Catholic Church. I think there is more latitude in the Orthodox view than many recent theologians would like to admit.

When looking at the concerns about the harm to the monarcy of the Father and the problem of an upside-down triangle model of the Trinity that some Orthodox accuse the Catholic Church of having (because it supposedly confuses the persons of the Trinity and their specific roles) I discovered that this is more a problem for the Orthodox than Catholics. If the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son, properly understood of course, then it confuses the role of the Son and the Holy Spirit since the theological implication is that the Holy Spirit is also eternally begotten of the Father. Of course we know that only the Son is begotten of the Father. But if the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son then He must also be begotten of the Father alone. That cannot be. So the popular Orthodox view appears to be insufficient at best and flawed at worst.

This is one reason why I think the filioque issue is more of an excuse at it’s heart than a valid theological reason for separation. And the unintended result seems to put many Orthodox in a situation of being at odds with the theology of the pre-schism Church on the doctrine of the Trinity. It seems clear that what was intended by the second version of the Creed about the procession of the Spirit was not the much later argument of Photios. As with all clarification of doctrine there was good, sound reason the Church needed to be more specific about the procession of the Holy Spirit in light of heresy. Which is really what all the councils did - defend against the hereries of their time. Just as first Nicea did not give us the final product the church would ever see.

I am interested in your thoughts.

Mel
 
The biggest issue, though, is those Greeks using pews and organs! 😉
 
John_Larocque said:
What, no side benches? (Greek Americans are heretics for having pews!)

I didn’t want to respond to a point made in one of the other threads, but it was something Monica made. Where a father is silent on a particular teaching it does not prove that the teaching in and of itself is false. To cherry-pick one of them out of the blue, St. Isaac of Nineveh never wrote about the primacy of the bishop of Rome. He is not a witness for or against it. St. Gregory the Great is an interesting example of a father who did argue for the primacy of a group of Petrine Sees (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch) but he also argued against the concept of a universal bishop. I do not believe that the other Sees held as narrow a view of which see was Petrine or not, but it was clear to Gregory (and other Bishop of Rome) that those three sees held primacy in union over the church universal by virtue of the ancestry of the see itself going back to St. Peter. Call it the Petrine Veto if you like. Needless to say, Rome’s view of itself evolved after Chalcedon, with the loss of Alexandria and Antioch.
Click to expand...
I don’t recall the thread you’re referring to, but I’ll answer you as best I can from your post here.

The Orthodox Church did recognise that elder Rome held a primacy as one of the Ecumenical Councils gave that primacy to elder Rome because it was the ancient imperial city. When Byzantium/Constantinople was changed to be the new imperial city, the Council gave made it equal w/elder Rome.

As far as “Petrine” Sees there we’re w. Antioch founded by St, Peter alone and the elder Rome by both Sts. Peter and Paul. Alexandria was an Apostolic See founded by St. Mark. Byzantium was an Aposolic See founded by St. Andrew, St. Peter’s older brother. Jerusalem was an Apostolic See founded by St. James. Each of the Bishops of these Sees were given the title of Patriarch since they were bishops of the major cities of the Roman Empire.

Orthodox didn’t doubt that when the Church was in union with the rest of the Orthodox Churches thatshe held a primacy of first among equal because, as the Ecumenical Council stated she’d been the imperial city; however what the Orthodox do not agree with is that Rome has any supremacy or infalliblity in the person of the bishop of Rome as that is not found in the tradition of the Church, not found in the early Church Fathers and not found in the Ecumenical Councils.
 
I kind of mixed in two points in the same post. In one of the ecumenical patriarch threads you said that early church fathers had proven Roman claims false. It seemed to me that you were arguing on the basis of the silence of church fathers, as opposed to direct condemnations, of, for example, Vatican I-style papal primacy/infallibility. And I think, if that’s the point that’s being made, then it’s an incomplete argument.

As for Byzantium vs. Rome, the point that I am making is that St. Gregory the Great viewed the primacy of their See as being intimately connected to the fact that they were “Petrine” sees. Whatever else you can see about say about St. Gregory’s views, it affirms that the specialness of Roman primacy is based on it being founded by St. Peter. That this is being affirmed in a collegial way (a shared primacy with Antioch and Alexandria) doesn’t alter that this is still the Roman view. In practical terms, Rome’s always held a veto at the Councils, even if the reasons for accepting that veto may have differed from Rome’s reasons for why it held a veto.
 
Melchior said:
Hi Monica,

I have fairly recently, after looking at the filioque arguments on both sides for the millionth time, come across what seems to be a big problem in the modern/popular Orthodox understanding.

I am interested in your thoughts.

Mel
Click to expand...
There are two issues with the Latin “Filioque” addition to the Nicene-Constantinoplian Creed.

First has to do with each Ecumenical Council forbidding any alteration, addition or reduction under the pain of anathmatizing any who dare do it.

Second has to do with the theology of the issue…Who is this God within Himself outside of creation? How did He reveal Himself? This is what I think you are asking about the theology of it rather than the valididy of it. I have to take a call & then I will come back and post an answer.
 
The filioque from the theological perspeective.

The “filioque” is a clause which was added by Catholics to the creed ~ the Synod of Toledo, Spain in the very late 8th century if my brain serves me correctly on the date. The Pope of Rome at the time condemned the addition, as did other popes, so adamantly that he had the Creed written on silver in both Latin and Greek w/out the filioque. The clause means “and of the Son”. It was inserted so the creed would read that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Any way, God revealed Himself to the Church, and is recorded in Scripture, that Jesus is God and the Son of God, the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God and that God is One. That the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father.

God the Father is the fountain head of the other two the Son eterally begotten of Him and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from Him. This is Who God is in and of Himself. The God is made up of 3 Persons Who relate with each other in Love. God is Love in and of Himself.

Now , how is God in relation with Humans. God the Father is our Father, God the Father sent His Son to us to be our Saviour and perfect example of what it means to be truly human, and the Holy Spirit was sent to us from God the Father at the request of Jesus to comfort and guide the Church in all Truth. Some early Church Fathers have described God, in relation with humanity (not eternally within Himself) as the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son. Understood correctly, Orthodox can agree with this. Most Catholics seem to, according to their writings, not understand this difference when makes it frustrating in ecumenical dialog.

Now, when Catholics describe God within Himself stating that from God, the Son is begotten and from both the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally, they are describing another God altogether.

The Source of the Trinity is the Father, but only for the Son and the Holy Spirit then has 2 eternal causes…that being the case, then why would not the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit be the eternal cause of another?

The modern-day Orthodox position is the same as it was when the they first heard about the novel idea created by the Synod of Toledo. The “filioque” is false as it represents a different God than the one we worship.

Saints who at differnt times rose up against it. St. Constantine-Cyril, St. Methodius, St. Pope Leo condemned it synodically in 809, St. Photius and St. Mark are some of those from the early 9th to mid-15th centuries who fought against it preferring the ancient Orthodox view of Who God is.
 
There are a number of excellent threads at CAF on the filioque. The best feature remarks of Ghosty. For anyone interested in discussions on the subject, I suggest that you search the user name “Ghosty” with the keyword “filioque”.
 
dvdjs said:
There are a number of excellent threads at CAF on the filioque. The best feature remarks of Ghosty. For anyone interested in discussions on the subject, I suggest that you search the user name “Ghosty” with the keyword “filioque”.
Click to expand...
Ghosty is a Roman Cathic (as she puts it: Latin) who is currently attending a Melkite Greek Catholic Church, so Ghosty will provide the Catholic view on the issue, not the Orthodox. If anyone is looking for a Catholic view perhaps she will be a great resource? 👍
 
5Loaves said:
“Is outrage!” 😃
Click to expand...
Haha, I say this all the time. I told a girl at my church “You no have beard? You no is Ortodox!!” 😛 I was kidding, of course and I made sure she knew I was. 🙂

In Christ,
Andrew
 
Why should I/shouldn’t I be Oriental Orthodox? I have trouble understanding the position of the EO on this, as most of what I’ve read/heard amounts to “accept the council of Chalcedon already!”, as thought the formula put forth there should be self-evident. I had always assumed it to be (it is the basis of the Christology of the Catholic Church, after all), but looking at it from a different perspective I can begin to see why the OO would prefer their own way of putting things.

(This probably doesn’t belong here, but I figure this thread will at least have plenty of EO posting in it, and I don’t actually know if we have any OO posters, so…uh…li’l help, please?)
 
SingleMomMonica said:
Ghosty is a Roman Cathic (as she puts it: Latin) who is currently attending a Melkite Greek Catholic Church, so Ghosty will provide the Catholic view on the issue, not the Orthodox. If anyone is looking for a Catholic view perhaps she will be a great resource? 👍
Click to expand...
  1. Correct information on Catholic theology is important to dispel mistaken ideas, such as the alleged theology of “2 eternal causes”.
  2. On the other hand there are historical facts that are not, or at least should not be, a matter of viewpoint. The history of additions to the Nicean Creed - a history not well recounted on this thread - should be among them.
  3. One does not have to be a communicant in a particular church to be knowledgeable about its history or its theology. There is no logical basis for impeaching an argument merely on the basis of the religious affiliation of its proponent. Similarly, there is no teaching that chrismation magically imparts special knowledge of history and theology of Eastern (or, mutatis mutandis, Western Christianity); joining a religious group does not make one an expert in it.
 
dzheremi said:
Why should I/shouldn’t I be Oriental Orthodox? I have trouble understanding the position of the EO on this, as most of what I’ve read/heard amounts to “accept the council of Chalcedon already!”, as thought the formula put forth there should be self-evident. I had always assumed it to be (it is the basis of the Christology of the Catholic Church, after all), but looking at it from a different perspective I can begin to see why the OO would prefer their own way of putting things.

(This probably doesn’t belong here, but I figure this thread will at least have plenty of EO posting in it, and I don’t actually know if we have any OO posters, so…uh…li’l help, please?)
Click to expand...
I suppose this thread is not a bad choice 😉

I have very close friends who are Coptic Orthodox.

I chose Orthodoxy over Coptic (Oriental). For a couple of reasons. First, I’d always believed that Christ is fully God and fully Man, I’ve never had reason to doubt it, just like I’ve never had reason to doubt the divinity of Christ. Second, I believe Christ when He said He was sending the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in all Truth and I know that when the Bishops got together in the Ecumenical Councils they were guided by Him. The Councils were right on the other issues like of Arianism they they came together on, I trust that God didn’t fail them when they addressed the Nature(s) of Christ. That’s me.

My friends were born and raised in the Coptic Church. They state that today, their Church now teaches that Christ is fully God and fully Man, but that both His Humanity and Divinity in one unique Nature but that unlike their anscestors who believed that Christ’s Humanity was swallowed up by His Divinity, their Church now teaches that the Divinity and Humanity are equal and unmixed. Their current teaching is not far from Orthodoxy these days.

I guess another thing you may want to consider…is their even an Oriental Orthodox Church anywhere near you? My friends only had a priest available once a month and they had to drive over 3.5 hours to get to him.

Bottom line though is what do you believe? Deep in your heart?
 
Believe me, I understand all that. As for right now I am no kind of Orthodox, so I am really trying to find out where exactly the various church communions stand on these issues, and issues like them. I am not going anywhere soon. It is just frustrating for me, because there are layers upon layers of influences that are pulling me in several directions.

As I understand it, it is also the belief of the OO that Christ is fully God and fully man - the objection is more about the formulation as given by the Chalcedonian churches than anything else. Of course, I could be wrong (and I can’t really explain it in more depth than that; I’m still reading “The Council of Chalcedon Revisited” to try to understand the complexity of the issue and the OO position), but this is my very simple understanding of the OO Christology. Christ is FULLY God and FULLY man, but the natures are not separate.

Anyway, that was just an example. There isn’t actually an OO church near me at the moment, but I will be moving soon (God willing!) to attend graduate school, so there may be in the future. That’s another reason I’m not in any sort of hurry. While my life is still up in the air and I am struggling a bit, I don’t want to rush into communion with anybody! Though I am also uncomfortable being OUT of communion with everyone…

Ugh…sorry for hijacking your thread with my ego! Hahaha. I can’t really think of anything that I honestly disagree with the EO about, in terms of theology. It has always seemed to me that we (Latin Catholics or whatever you want to call it) are at a distinct disadvantage in these sorts of discussions, because we are to believe (theoretically, at least) in everything that the EO believe in. There are just a few more things that the RCC holds that the Orthodox will not, for obvious reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top