Do Orthodox Really Agree On Doctrine?

[boar2roar]

Then the Catholic Church is not one body either as you too are a confederation of national and ethnic Churches. In fact Rome just erected a brand new national Church for your confederation just recently.

True on paper but since the catholic church has essentially one "national/ethnic church " with over 1.1 bil members spanning the globe compared to a tiny amount of others, that really does make it function much more differently then the confederate national church model of the orthodox.

 

[Seraphim73]

True on paper but since the catholic church has essentially one "national/ethnic church " with over 1.1 bil members spanning the globe compared to a tiny amount of others, that really does make it function much more differently then the confederate national church model of the orthodox.

I imagine there are a few members here who belong to one of the various Eastern Churches who would take more than a little offense to that characterization.

 

[jlhargus]

You’ve never heard of Hesychasm apparently, nor the councils held between 1341 and 1351 in its defense against Barlaam of Calabria?

I have now, newadvent.org/cathen/07301a.htm There were seven local councils or synods in Constantinople total, 1341-1351, dealing with hesychasm, even though the first council had already delivered the judgment with the Patriarch of Constantinople present, see the link. They were local councils within the Orthdox Church at Constantinople. It wasn’t an ecumenical council of Orthodox Churches. So we see not one of those councils’ judgements were binding on anyone other than those under Constantinople. Otherwise there would be no need to revisit the same problem seven times. The other, self governing, Othodox Churches may have accepted the judgment of the council volutarially at some point in time, but the council had no authority to bind them unless the Church at Constantinople was viewed as infallible.

In fact the 3rd council with the same Patriarch of Constantinople present, as at the first council, but a different emperor, excommunicated Palamas and Isidore Buchiras who supported hesychasm. The first two councils supported hesychasm excommunicating Barlaam of Calabria who was against it.

Can you recommend any fringe Catholic writers for us to base our understanding of Catholicism on?

Why do you consider Soloviev a fringe writer? The book I have has reviews writen on the back cover by Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna. According to Scott Hahn’s review, Catholic theoligian Hans Urs von Balthasar praised Soloviev .

 

[jlhargus]

Perhaps you can enlighten everyone reading this thread as to the terrible heresies we Orthodox have had to defend our faith against since the schism?

Wasn’t heresy the reason the local council on Hesychasm was called? What about the schsim of the Russian Orthodox Church when Peter the Great made changes. There are still those who are called Old Believers in Russia today. When communism fell and Ukraine became independant there were three Orthodox Churches in Ukraine. One was the Russian Orthodox under the Patriarch of Russia and the Ukrainian self governing Orthodox. Each claiming to be the rightfull church. There is also Orthodox in union with Rome. I doubt anyone could look closely at the history of each self governing Othodox Church and not find problems and heresy at some point.

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by jlhargus They have different theological theories, such as toll houses, which is to be expected in any faith group. My understanding of toll house is different places of purification as the soul progress toward entering heaven. The Orthodox have never defined a doctrine, nor held an ecumenical council, since the split with the see of Peter.

Well it’s not true at all to say we haven’t held any councils. There have been many councils since Rome left that are just as authoritative as any council the Roman Church has held.

Not to be antagonistic, but what are some of those councils, who called them, what self governing Othodox Churchs took part, what did they discuss, what decisions were rendered and was the decisions infallible and binding on all Orthodoxy?

Originally Posted by jlhargus They hold those traditions never being able to develop doctrine beyond its understanding at the split, therefore freezing their development.

You are correct in a sense. And by the grace of God we’ll continue to remain stuck right where we are holding the ancient Apostolic Faith whole and unchanged, the same faith you once shared with us.

I praise God you have held the faith of the apostles, which we share with you. However we have not remained frozen in time. But thanks be to God have continued to develop in understanding of God’s Word. Don’t you find it odd that all one needed to develop and understand was accomplished with the last ecumenical council before the schism?

Could one as an Orthodox believe Christ is present along with the bread in the Eucharist? Could another Orthodox believe bread is not present but only the body of Christ? Would they both be considered Orthodox? If not then why as there is no definition either way?

Originally Posted by jlhargus I would say they are not one body but a confederation of national Churches.

Then the Catholic Church is not one body either as you too are a confederation of national and ethnic Churches. In fact Rome just erected a brand new national Church for your confederation just recently.

Pope establishes Eastern Catholic church for Eritrea

There is a great deal of difference between the Pope exercising his office, in the one body of Christ, as universal pastor in a given country. Than a self governing church, in a confederation, independent of any other authority than it’s own geographic area.

Originally Posted by jlhargus It’s not that they agree so much as it is they haven’t developed since the split.

That’s a completely illogical statement. So do we agree or not?

Point is Seraphim the Orthodox seem to recognize they have no authority to define doctrine infallibly, without the see of Peter. That’s why you have remained frozen in time.

Originally Posted by jlhargus So it isn’t that remarkable.

“Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear?” It’s nothing short of a miracle that Orthodoxy has survived and maintained unity in the faith. On the other hand, since Rome abandoned the unity of the faithh she has spawned off division after division after division.

The Catholic Church is and will always remain one body not a confederation of body parts. There have always been those who go into heresy. Even before the schism there were several divisions. Satan will always try to destroy the Church creating division and heresy. He doesn’t need to bother much with those in heresy.

Originally Posted by jlhargus They seem to recognize they have no authority, as a body, to define doctrine apart from the see of Peter.

No, we recognize that authority is for the preservation of the Apostolic Faith, not for the definition of new doctrines.

True no authority on earth can define a new doctrine but there can be definition and development of understanding. That was certainly done in ecumenical councils before the schism which you accept.

I don’t debate much with Orthodox because I really don’t want to offend. My point is to make people think. We have really so little that keep us separated. May God bless all the Orthodox.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Why do you consider Soloviev a fringe writer?

Would you consider Soloviev in the same light as Alexis Toth? Would Toth be a representative of Catholicism in like manner as Soloviev to be a representative of Orthodoxy?

 

[jlhargus]

Would you consider Soloviev in the same light as Alexis Toth? Would Toth be a representative of Catholicism in like manner as Soloviev to be a representative of Orthodoxy?

I have never heard of Alexis Toth. I know very little about Soloview but he seems to have good reviews by theologians.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I have never heard of Alexis Toth. I know very little about Soloview but he seems to have good reviews by theologians.

Well, if Orthodox posters express that there are other writers that represent their faith more faithfully. Would that not be the same as us Catholics expressing who would be a better writer that represents Catholicism more faithfully?

Why should we be the ones to decide what authors represent Orthodoxy?

 

[Seraphim73]

Not to be antagonistic, but what are some of those councils, who called them, what self governing Othodox Churchs took part, what did they discuss, what decisions were rendered and was the decisions infallible and binding on all Orthodoxy?

(Orthodox Church Listing of Synods and Councils)

I praise God you have held the faith of the apostles, which we share with you. However we have not remained frozen in time. But thanks be to God have continued to develop in understanding of God’s Word. Don’t you find it odd that all one needed to develop and understand was accomplished with the last ecumenical council before the schism?

Who says that? The last major heresy to threaten the Church was iconoclasm and it was repudiated at the 7th Council. But there have been issues that have been dealt with synodically. The Barlaamite heresy is one example along with phyletism and even Calvinism. I will also say simply because the Western Church has had such a struggle with heresy in the past 500 years or so doesn’t mean the East has.

Could one as an Orthodox believe Christ is present along with the bread in the Eucharist? Could another Orthodox believe bread is not present but only the body of Christ? Would they both be considered Orthodox? If not then why as there is no definition either way?

Again, that’s a fight the Western Church has had, not us. And a silly question frankly.

There is a great deal of difference between the Pope exercising his office, in the one body of Christ, as universal pastor in a given country. Than a self governing church, in a confederation, independent of any other authority than it’s own geographic area.

That is a big difference. Of course I’m not sure which Church you are describing here because it’s certainly not the Orthodox Church.

Point is Seraphim the Orthodox seem to recognize they have no authority to define doctrine infallibly, without the see of Peter. That’s why you have remained frozen in time.

That’s a non sequitur. Either way the Church deals with heresy when it arises.

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by jlhargus View Post Not to be antagonistic, but what are some of those councils, who called them, what self governing Othodox Churchs took part, what did they discuss, what decisions were rendered and was the decisions infallible and binding on all Orthodoxy?

List

Except for Ecumenical Councils with the see of Peter, with the exception of one, all the Orthodox councils have been local Synods. Therefore not binding on other self governing Orthodox Church. Since most of your Synods seem to concern heresy I would say Orthodox certainly have their fare share of heresy. So playing the no heresy card doesn’t work anymore.

Originally Posted by jlhargus View Post I praise God you have held the faith of the apostles, which we share with you. However we have not remained frozen in time. But thanks be to God have continued to develop in understanding of God’s Word. Don’t you find it odd that all one needed to develop and understand was accomplished with the last ecumenical council before the schism?

Who says that? The last major heresy to threaten the Church was iconoclasm and it was repudiated at the 7th Council. But there have been issues that have been dealt with synodically. The Barlaamite heresy is one example along with phyletism and even Calvinism. I will also say simply because the Western Church has had such a struggle with heresy in the past 500 years or so doesn’t mean the East has.

Apart from the reformation what real heretical struggles in the last 500 years?

Originally Posted by jlhargus View Post Could one as an Orthodox believe Christ is present along with the bread in the Eucharist? Could another Orthodox believe bread is not present but only the body of Christ? Would they both be considered Orthodox? If not then why as there is no definition either way?

Again, that’s a fight the Western Church has had, not us. And a silly question frankly.

Frankly what I find silly is dodging such an easy question to answer. Either you really don’t know or Orthodox can hold differing views on the real presents.

Originally Posted by jlhargus View Post There is a great deal of difference between the Pope exercising his office, in the one body of Christ, as universal pastor in a given country. Than a self governing church, in a confederation, independent of any other authority than it’s own geographic area.

That is a big difference. Of course I’m not sure which Church you are describing here because it’s certainly not the Orthodox Church.

Are you telling me autocephalous (self governing) Orthodox Churches are under an earthly authority outside their particular geographic area and apart from an Ecumenical Council? Then what authority in Orthodoxy has authority over another self governing Orthodox Church? If there is none then it’s a confederation of body parts that can act independently from the other body parts.

For instance around 1872 the Greek patriarchs excommunicated the entire Bulgarian church for the heresy of phyletism. Phyletism was separating churches by racial and national divisions. The Russian Orthodox Church when it received the notification of excommunication of the Bulgarian Church didn’t respond one way or the other. Remaining in communion with the Bulgarians and the Greeks.

Originally Posted by jlhargus View Post Point is Seraphim the Orthodox seem to recognize they have no authority to define doctrine infallibly, without the see of Peter. That’s why you have remained frozen in time.

That’s a non sequitur. Either way the Church deals with heresy when it arises.

The Orthodox never act as one body. Heresy is dealt with inside the self governing church in local synods. The other self governing churches can ratify the decision, some might. Or they can not act on it at all and some don’t. Therefore being in union with the other Orthodox self governing churches remaining also in union the heretical self governing Orthodox Church. They are not bound to accept any decision by a synod of another self governing church.

 

[jlhargus]

Well, if Orthodox posters express that there are other writers that represent their faith more faithfully. Would that not be the same as us Catholics expressing who would be a better writer that represents Catholicism more faithfully?

Why should we be the ones to decide what authors represent Orthodoxy?

I have never had an Orthodox express any writers.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I have never had an Orthodox express any writers.

So when prodromos posted in reply to you:

Can you recommend any fringe Catholic writers for us to base our understanding of Catholicism on?

Don’t you think that an Orthodox member considers Soloviev to be “lukewarm” in his Orthodox beliefs? Thus asking you in like manner for a lukewarm “fringe” Catholic writer he can use a representative for Catholicism.

Instead you want to reinforce the opinion of Non-Orthodox theologians (Catholic nonetheless) on who is a good representative for Orthodoxy? Doesn’t sound fair to me.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

So when prodromos posted in reply to you:

Don’t you think that an Orthodox member considers Soloviev to be “lukewarm” in his Orthodox beliefs? Thus asking you in like manner for a lukewarm “fringe” Catholic writer he can use a representative for Catholicism.

Instead you want to reinforce the opinion of Non-Orthodox theologians (Catholic nonetheless) on who is a good representative for Orthodoxy? Doesn’t sound fair to me.

Ah, but the easy way out is so comfortable.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Would you consider Soloviev in the same light as Alexis Toth? Would Toth be a representative of Catholicism in like manner as Soloviev to be a representative of Orthodoxy?

Hans Urs von Balthasar paid tribute to Soloviev’s “skill in the technique of integrating all partial truths in one vision.” Von Balthasar ranked Soloviev second to Thomas Aquinas as “the greatest artist of order and organization in the history of thought.”

Pope John Paul called attention to Soloviev in 1998’s “Fides et Ratio” as standing in a line of distinguished Christian philosophers. A couple of years later, the Holy Father declared that Soloviev’s “prophetic” work makes him one of our era’s great “witnesses of the faith and illustrious Christian thinkers.”

Does Toth rank in that category?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Don’t you think that an Orthodox member considers Soloviev to be “lukewarm” in his Orthodox beliefs? Thus asking you in like manner for a lukewarm “fringe” Catholic writer he can use a representative for Catholicism.

Instead you want to reinforce the opinion of Non-Orthodox theologians (Catholic nonetheless) on who is a good representative for Orthodoxy? Doesn’t sound fair to me.

Doesn’t it come down to the idea of whether a critic is being fair in his or her critiques?

For example, someone might have objections to the way that certain bishops handled the pedophile priest issue. Objective analysts might agree that the critic has a legitimate complaint.

Similarly, someone might think that Soloviev’s criticisms of Orthodoxy were on target and driven by his desire to see the Russian Orthodox Church end its schism with the Catholic Church.

On the other hand, both churches might have critics that can be shown to be off the mark and not representative of the orthodox thought of their respective churches. Those folks can be safely ignored.

I’m not convinced Soloviev falls into this latter group given the recognition that he has received from some VERY intelligent folks who were in a position to judge his work in an informed manner.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Hans Urs von Balthasar paid tribute to Soloviev’s “skill in the technique of integrating all partial truths in one vision.” Von Balthasar ranked Soloviev second to Thomas Aquinas as “the greatest artist of order and organization in the history of thought.”

Pope John Paul called attention to Soloviev in 1998’s “Fides et Ratio” as standing in a line of distinguished Christian philosophers. A couple of years later, the Holy Father declared that Soloviev’s “prophetic” work makes him one of our era’s great “witnesses of the faith and illustrious Christian thinkers.”

Does Toth rank in that category?

Soloviev may be a brilliant philosopher but he does not represent the best of what the Orthodox have to offer. I think what Isaiah is getting at is if you want to critique Orthodoxy, you must engage its best thinkers who best represent it and be sympathetic to them. Soloviev was more sympathetic to Catholicism than Orthodoxy so he is not the best choice. One’s opponents have to portrayed in the best way possible way. Otherwise, one is merely engaging a caricature of the opponent’s belief.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Soloviev may be a brilliant philosopher but he does not represent the best of what the Orthodox have to offer. I think what Isaiah is getting at is if you want to critique Orthodoxy, you must engage its best thinkers who best represent it and be sympathetic to them. Soloviev was more sympathetic to Catholicism than Orthodoxy so he is not the best choice. One’s opponents have to portrayed in the best way possible way. Otherwise, one is merely engaging a caricature of the opponent’s belief.

I do understand this point, Jon.

What I guess I’m getting at is the idea that Soloviev was recognized as brilliant by some men who were themselves in that class capable of judging his talent.

I’m also saying that it could very well be possible that because of his great love for the Russian Church and her people, Soloviev was willing to look hard at the problems of Orthodoxy and propose solutions that would prove to be very unpopular among people who were unwilling or unable to see the weaknesses in the East that are directly attributable to the Eastern Schism.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

I do understand this point, Jon.

What I guess I’m getting at is the idea that Soloviev was recognized as brilliant by some men who were themselves in that class capable of judging his talent.

I’m also saying that it could very well be possible that because of his great love for the Russian Church and her people, Soloviev was willing to look hard at the problems of Orthodoxy and propose solutions that would prove to be very unpopular among people who were unwilling or unable to see the weaknesses in the East that are directly attributable to the Eastern Schism.

I understand where you’re coming from too. I was just taught in my four years of college as a philosophy major that if you want to engage a worldview, you go to the source–ad fontus, as Erasmus put it. So to engage the Orthodox, one has to play by their rules and hopefully follow their thinking to a reductio ad absurdum to highlight the contradictions in their own religion. This is exactly what Socrates did with his opponents. The authority for the Orthodox is the patristic consensus. Hence, engaging the Fathers of the Church is the best method of apologetics it seems. I’ve noticed that you do this sometimes to your commendation. Whether or not you have understood the thought of the early Church Fathers, I do not know because I don’t know much about the Fathers themselves. The Orthodox here don’t seem to think that you do. Whenever the Fathers are brought up, they shout “out of context!” and the debate goes no further.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Similarly, someone might think that Soloviev’s criticisms of Orthodoxy were on target and driven by his desire to see the Russian Orthodox Church end its schism with the Catholic Church.

Randy,

Soloviev lived during the 2nd half of the 1,800’s. I know I don’t know much about the state of Catholicism at the time, and I sure know less about the state of Orthodoxy at the time.

To make an assertion that Soloviev’s criticisms of Orthodoxy were on target - implies a sufficient knowledge of Orthodoxy and Soloviev’s criticisms.

In the exchanges I have had with you in these forums, I have not derived the opinion that you were so well versed in Orthodox matters during the 1,800’s.

Perhaps you can help me understand better what were the state of matters in Orthodoxy during the 1,800’s and how Soloviev was able to address them.

You are aware that in his youth Soloviev was believed to be a nihilist? That is a point of view that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded because existence is basically senseless. Not only that but nihilism denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths.

One of the most respected Orthodox theologians, Vladimir Lossky, opposed Soloviev’s sophiological theories. That is basically gnostic christianity. Sophiology was considered equivalent to sophianism and was condemned as heresy by the Moscow Patriarchate:

1. A decree of Moscow Patriarchate dated 24 August, 1935, No.93.

In this document the following is said: "By our decision of 24 August, 1935, No.93 it was determined:

i) The teaching of Professor and Archpriest S.N. Bulgakov – which, by its peculiar and arbitrary (Sophian) interpretation, often distorts the dogmas of the Orthodox faith, which in some of its points directly repeats false teachings already condemned by conciliar decisions of the Church, and the possible deductions resulting from which could even prove dangerous to spiritual life – this teaching is to be recognized as alien to the Holy Orthodox Church of Christ, and all its faithful servants and children are to be cautioned against an acceptance of this teaching.

ii) Those Orthodox Reverend Archpastors, clergy and laity who have indiscreetly embraced Bulgakov’s teaching and who have promoted it in their preaching and works, either written or printed, are to be called upon to correct the errors committed and to be steadfastly faithful to “sound teaching”.

1. A Decision of the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad of the 17/30 October 1935 concerning the new teaching of Archpriest Sergei Bulgakov on Sophia, the Wisdom of God.

The first three points of this Decision state:

"i) To recognize the teaching of Archpriest Sergei Bulgakov on Sophia the Wisdom of God as heretical.

ii) To inform Metropolitan Yevlogy of this Decision of the Council and to request that he admonish Archpriest Bulgakov with the intention of prompting him to publicly renounce his heretical teaching concerning Sophia and to make a report about the consequences of such admonition to the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

iii) In the event that Archpriest Bulgakov does not repent, the present Decision of the Council which condemns the heresy of Sophianism is to be made known to all Autocephalous Churches."

I little research before exalting someone as a great expositor of another faith pays great dividends.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

Soloviev lived during the 2nd half of the 1,800’s. I know I don’t know much about the state of Catholicism at the time, and I sure know less about the state of Orthodoxy at the time.

To make an assertion that Soloviev’s criticisms of Orthodoxy were on target - implies a sufficient knowledge of Orthodoxy and Soloviev’s criticisms.

In the exchanges I have had with you in these forums, I have not derived the opinion that you were so well versed in Orthodox matters during the 1,800’s.

Perhaps you can help me understand better what were the state of matters in Orthodoxy during the 1,800’s and how Soloviev was able to address them.

Actually, if you read my post #26 carefully (and perhaps you did), I was intentionally trying to be even-handed and to say that both Catholics and Orthodox can point to authors, theologians and priests who are critical of their own Churches. Some of these will have good arguments and some can be safely ignored.

I can’t speak to the state of Orthodoxy in the 1800’s (though I did recently learn that like the Catholic Church of the Dark Ages, the Eastern European clergy went through a “dark age” in which education of its priests was so bad that some had simply memorized the divine liturgy, but they did not really understand it! Apparently, the East is just emerging from this relatively recently.).

However, apparently SOMETHING caught the attention of John Paul and von Balthasar.