Do Orthodox Really Agree On Doctrine?

[Cavaradossi]

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.

Why not try interacting with the thought of Yannaras or Loudovikos instead of putting Solovyov on a pedestal? Sure, his sophiology can be interesting (though whether it is within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy is another matter), but his philosophy is probably of little relevance to the major crisis which has been unleashed in this age upon all Christian confessions by postmodernity.

 

[prodromos]

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.”

This statement makes no claim as to the accuracy or truth of Soloviev’s conclusions about the Orthodox Church. That seems only a minor part of his works in general, so I’m not sure how it can be seen as validation of what he wrote about Orthodoxy.

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.”

Again, this say nothing about his conclusions about the Orthodox Church. Which work was Pope John Paul referring to?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why not try interacting with the thought of Yannaras or Loudovikos instead of putting Solovyov on a pedestal?

Well, I did ask you on several occasions to recommend a good, balanced book on Orthodoxy, but you never offered any suggestions.

I would be most interested in reading a book by a Catholic author whom you feel offers a fair treatment of Orthodoxy. Who do you think is the best in that regard?

And I did not put Soloviev on a pedestal. That was done by von Balthasar and St. John Paul.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This statement makes no claim as to the accuracy or truth of Soloviev’s conclusions about the Orthodox Church. That seems only a minor part of his works in general, so I’m not sure how it can be seen as validation of what he wrote about Orthodoxy.

Again, this say nothing about his conclusions about the Orthodox Church. Which work was Pope John Paul referring to?

You may recall assigning me “homework” in several of your previous responses.

Perhaps you can do this homework yourself.

 

[prodromos]

You may recall assigning me “homework” in several of your previous responses.

Perhaps you can do this homework yourself.

You are the one who quoted Pope John Paul. The least you can do is point us to where he made the statements you have quoted or at the very least paste a large enough quote to provide us with some context.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Tomyris posted a thread about this very problem of lifting what someone said out of context to prove one’s point. Very few here seem to care though…:crying:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Tomyris posted a thread about this very problem of lifting what someone said out of context to prove one’s point. Very few here seem to care though…

The problem with Tomyris’ post is that he seems to assume that ALL quotes ARE taken out of context and therefore to be ignored.

This is incorrect.

Quotes from scripture, an Early Church Father or a modern author can be given with sufficient context to assure the reader that the key portions are NOT being used incorrectly to prove a point that the text does not actually support.

The bigger problem, from my many years of experience in this forum, is that very few seem to care about the facts when confronted directly by these quotes.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are the one who quoted Pope John Paul. The least you can do is point us to where he made the statements you have quoted or at the very least paste a large enough quote to provide us with some context.

Since you had correctly cited “Fides et Ratio” in your response to me (before editing it to read as above), I’m not sure why you are now asking me to provide the passage from that document. Is this a test?

1. The fruitfulness of this relationship is confirmed by the experience of great Christian theologians who also distinguished themselves as great philosophers, bequeathing to us writings of such high speculative value as to warrant comparison with the masters of ancient philosophy. This is true of both the Fathers of the Church, among whom at least Saint Gregory of Nazianzus and Saint Augustine should be mentioned, and the Medieval Doctors with the great triad of Saint Anselm, Saint Bonaventure and Saint Thomas Aquinas. We see the same fruitful relationship between philosophy and the word of God in the courageous research pursued by more recent thinkers, among whom I gladly mention, in a Western context, figures such as John Henry Newman, Antonio Rosmini, Jacques Maritain, Étienne Gilson and Edith Stein and, in an Eastern context, eminent scholars such as Vladimir S. Soloviev, Pavel A. Florensky, Petr Chaadaev and Vladimir N. Lossky. Obviously other names could be cited; and in referring to these I intend not to endorse every aspect of their thought, but simply to offer significant examples of a process of philosophical enquiry which was enriched by engaging the data of faith. One thing is certain: attention to the spiritual journey of these masters can only give greater momentum to both the search for truth and the effort to apply the results of that search to the service of humanity. It is to be hoped that now and in the future there will be those who continue to cultivate this great philosophical and theological tradition for the good of both the Church and humanity.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio.html

Now, if you are asking me to provide you with a list of Soloviev’s books which led St. John Paul to the conclusions he reached about Soloviev, how can I possibly know this?

 

[prodromos]

Since you had correctly cited “Fides et Ratio” in your response to me (before editing it to read as above), I’m not sure why you are now asking me to provide the passage from that document. Is this a test?

I edited because I realised that the quote I was interested in was not from “Fides et Ratio”.

1. The fruitfulness of this relationship is confirmed by the experience of great Christian theologians who also distinguished themselves as great philosophers, bequeathing to us writings of such high speculative value as to warrant comparison with the masters of ancient philosophy. This is true of both the Fathers of the Church, among whom at least Saint Gregory of Nazianzus and Saint Augustine should be mentioned, and the Medieval Doctors with the great triad of Saint Anselm, Saint Bonaventure and Saint Thomas Aquinas. We see the same fruitful relationship between philosophy and the word of God in the courageous research pursued by more recent thinkers, among whom I gladly mention, in a Western context, figures such as John Henry Newman, Antonio Rosmini, Jacques Maritain, Étienne Gilson and Edith Stein and, in an Eastern context, eminent scholars such as Vladimir S. Soloviev, Pavel A. Florensky, Petr Chaadaev and Vladimir N. Lossky. Obviously other names could be cited; and in referring to these I intend not to endorse every aspect of their thought, but simply to offer significant examples of a process of philosophical enquiry which was enriched by engaging the data of faith. One thing is certain: attention to the spiritual journey of these masters can only give greater momentum to both the search for truth and the effort to apply the results of that search to the service of humanity. It is to be hoped that now and in the future there will be those who continue to cultivate this great philosophical and theological tradition for the good of both the Church and humanity.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio.html

Now, if you are asking me to provide you with a list of Soloviev’s books which led St. John Paul to the conclusions he reached about Soloviev, how can I possibly know this?

I’m simply asking you to provide context on the following quote you provided: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.”

 

[prodromos]

We see the same fruitful relationship between philosophy and the word of God in the courageous research pursued by more recent thinkers, among whom I gladly mention, in a Western context, figures such as John Henry Newman, Antonio Rosmini, Jacques Maritain, Étienne Gilson and Edith Stein and, in an Eastern context, eminent scholars such as Vladimir S. Soloviev, Pavel A. Florensky, Petr Chaadaev and Vladimir N. Lossky. Obviously other names could be cited; and in referring to these I intend not to endorse every aspect of their thought, but simply to offer significant examples of a process of philosophical enquiry which was enriched by engaging the data of faith.

I thought the bold text was worth pointing out, plus I’m rather surprised that G.K. Chesterton was not included in the above list, although Pope John Paul does offer a disclaimer for any particular person’s omission

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m simply asking you to provide context on the following quote you provided: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.”

I was quoting Scott Hahn from the preface of The Russian Church and the Papacy. Hahn did not provide a citation for John Paul’s statement, but he did provide a reference to that of von Balthasar. Let me know if you need it.

The passage Hahn quoted is found here:

ANGELUS MESSAGE July 30, 2000

Dearest Brothers and Sisters!

1. Even at the height of the summer, the Great Jubilee does not stop. Yesterday, among the numerous pilgrims who converged on St. Peter’s Square were those of the “Cursillos de Cristiandad” movement, born 50 years ago, and now extended to many countries of the world.

The characteristic of the Cursillos, as of similar ecclesiastical movements, is the new evangelization of adults. The Christian message is proposed through times of intense spiritual experience, capable of making one rediscover the beauty of encountering Christ and of being Church, as well as the joy of fraternity and reciprocal service, permeating the whole of life with a Christian spirit.

1. The demand of integral Christianity – that no reductions be made when it comes to truth – at the same time, knows how to measure itself against history and modernity. It marked the whole of the last century and emerged with force during Vatican Council II.

Through the unfolding of what at times were dramatic events of the past decades, the Church has understood ever more clearly that its task is care and responsibility for men and women, not in the “abstract”, but the “real,” “specific,” and “historical.” The Church incessantly offers Christ, the only Redeemer of humanity. In fact, only in Christ, and the Church does not tire of repeating it, especially in this Jubilee Year, can human beings find the real and full meaning of their existence. Therefore, Christianity cannot be reduced to a doctrine, or simple principles, because Christ, the center of Christianity, is alive, and his presence is the event that constantly renews the human creature and the cosmos. This truth of Christ is vigorously proclaimed today, as it was courageously defended in the 20th century by so many witnesses of the faith and illustrious Christian thinkers, among whom I am pleased to remember today Vladimir Sergeevic Soloviev, the centenary of whose death we commemorate these days.

Remembering this Russian personality of extraordinary profundity, who with great clarity also warned about the drama of the division among Christians and the urgent necessity of their unity, I would like to ask you to pray so that believers in Christ of the East and West will be able to find their full communion as soon as possible. For this to take place, it is indispensable that they all be converted to the living Christ, yesterday, today, and forever. By living his Gospel without compromises, they will become the yeast of a new humanity. This is the prayer we raise to heaven today, sustained by the Blessed Virgin Mary, Seat of Divine Wisdom, to whom we now turn in trust.

(©L’Osservatore Romano - 9/16 August 2000)

And this:

MESSAGE OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONFERENCE
ON THE THEME: “VLADIMIR SOLOVYOV,
RUSSIA AND THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH”

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2003/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20031028_vladimir-soloviev.html

 

[prodromos]

Thanks for your effort Randy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks for your effort Randy.

:tiphat:

 

[sirach2v4]

I hate to ask this question because if my very limited knowledge but can you help me understand how you can say they are all in communion with each other but another Orthodox will say this is not the case? I truly cannot understand this simple conundrum.

Peace!!!

From my sparse education about the Orthodox Church, it seems that they hold to a policy of refusing innovations in teaching or doctrine. That is a big reason that they, much after the fact of the schism, will say that they don’t agree with the idea of a pope or with anything more than what was decided at the first six (or is it seven) of the early ecumenical councils.

So, at my low level of insight, you might say that they have agreed to not disagree, as long as nothing is changed from where it was at a certain point in time.So, for example (from a former co-worker of mine who was Greek O) the patriarchs can express an opinion, let’s say, against the use of artificial contraception, but they relegate it ultimately to a matter of personal conscience.

This study bible (amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Ancient-Christianity/dp/0718003594/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423176850&sr=1-1&keywords=orthodox+study+bible) has essays explaining the OC, An introductory essay about the OC explains how they rationalize the “Greek” OC, the “Russian” OC, the “Armenian” OC, etc. I seem to recall that they cite the example in the book of Esther, where the king’s decrees are translated into the languages of his provinces and sent out – as a basis for their model of their church indifferent countries. Embedded in that is their opinion that there was no primacy of any of the original apostles, as far as they can clearly see in scripture.

 

[Kmon23]

From my sparse education about the Orthodox Church, it seems that they hold to a policy of refusing innovations in teaching or doctrine. That is a big reason that they, much after the fact of the schism, will say that they don’t agree with the idea of a pope or with anything more than what was decided at the first six (or is it seven) of the early ecumenical councils.

So, at my low level of insight, you might say that they have agreed to not disagree, as long as nothing is changed from where it was at a certain point in time.So, for example (from a former co-worker of mine who was Greek O) the patriarchs can express an opinion, let’s say, against the use of artificial contraception, but they relegate it ultimately to a matter of personal conscience.

This study bible (amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Ancient-Christianity/dp/0718003594/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423176850&sr=1-1&keywords=orthodox+study+bible) has essays explaining the OC, An introductory essay about the OC explains how they rationalize the “Greek” OC, the “Russian” OC, the “Armenian” OC, etc. I seem to recall that they cite the example in the book of Esther, where the king’s decrees are translated into the languages of his provinces and sent out – as a basis for their model of their church indifferent countries. Embedded in that is their opinion that there was no primacy of any of the original apostles, as far as they can clearly see in scripture.

I think most Orthodox will actually agree there was a primacy of the Apostles. They will agree that Rome holds the primacy out of the Pentarchy. Only because of schism they do not give Rome the primacy currently (and is currently held by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I).

In terms of the “Greek” “Russian” etc., I think this is more the result of history than say scripture etc. As far as I am concerned, ecclesiology of the church is not much of a dogmatic issue but of practical issue of the governing of the church. I think this is why the Pope’s supremacy/infallibility, place in the church etc., is such an issue for Orthodox because they have become a matter of dogma/doctrine for Catholics.
Now from the beginning of Christianity, a more conciliar nature of the church was used (as seen by the Council of Jerusalem and other synods from thereafter). After all, it is difficult for a single patriarch/bishop to rule the entirety of Christendom during the first several centuries, hence why large patriarchal sees that are assigned special honors would naturally form to manage the widespread growth and management of Christianity. Also, especially in the East, church and state were closely tied, so it is not surprising the patriarchal sees were tied to ethnic groups or a country’s borders. However, the jurisdiction is definitely not ultimately dependent on the borders of a country, because if I remember correctly, there have been times (and still are ???) where jurisdiction lines do not follow country borders. America is one example where multiple jurisdictions are running across the country with no well defined lines between them.

Now this is from my sparse education, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[czarlazar]

I think most Orthodox will actually agree there was a primacy of the Apostles. They will agree that Rome holds the primacy out of the Pentarchy. Only because of schism they do not give Rome the primacy currently (and is currently held by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I).

In terms of the “Greek” “Russian” etc., I think this is more the result of history than say scripture etc. As far as I am concerned, ecclesiology of the church is not much of a dogmatic issue but of practical issue of the governing of the church. I think this is why the Pope’s supremacy/infallibility, place in the church etc., is such an issue for Orthodox because they have become a matter of dogma/doctrine for Catholics.
Now from the beginning of Christianity, a more conciliar nature of the church was used (as seen by the Council of Jerusalem and other synods from thereafter). After all, it is difficult for a single patriarch/bishop to rule the entirety of Christendom during the first several centuries, hence why large patriarchal sees that are assigned special honors would naturally form to manage the widespread growth and management of Christianity. Also, especially in the East, church and state were closely tied, so it is not surprising the patriarchal sees were tied to ethnic groups or a country’s borders. However, the jurisdiction is definitely not ultimately dependent on the borders of a country, because if I remember correctly, there have been times (and still are ???) where jurisdiction lines do not follow country borders. America is one example where multiple jurisdictions are running across the country with no well defined lines between them.

Now this is from my sparse education, so take it with a grain of salt.

Neither the pope or patriarch holds any power above any other expect a “first among equals” maybe.

No church in the “east” was more closely tied to the state than the Latin church of Rome, which is a state of itself.

For reference the RCC has a bunch of “churches”:

Latin Rite
Eastern Rite
Alexandrian Rite
Coptic
Eritrean
Ethiopian
West Syrian
Maronite
Syriac
Syro-Malankara
Armenian Rite
Byzantine Rite
Albanian
Belarusian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Greek
Hungarian
Italo-Albanian
Macedonian
Melkite
Romanian
Russian
Ruthenian
Slovak
Ukrainian
Eastern Syrian
Chaldean
Syro-Malabar

 

[Kmon23]

Neither the pope or patriarch holds any power above any other expect a “first among equals” maybe.

No church in the “east” was more closely tied to the state than the Latin church of Rome, which is a state of itself.

For reference the RCC has a bunch of “churches”:

Latin Rite
Eastern Rite
Alexandrian Rite
Coptic
Eritrean
Ethiopian
West Syrian
Maronite
Syriac
Syro-Malankara
Armenian Rite
Byzantine Rite
Albanian
Belarusian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Greek
Hungarian
Italo-Albanian
Macedonian
Melkite
Romanian
Russian
Ruthenian
Slovak
Ukrainian
Eastern Syrian
Chaldean
Syro-Malabar

I do agree. When I meant primacy, that is what I meant (not papal supremacy). And I do understand the Catholic Church as a bunch of “churches” but I do not really include them since they are such a small population of the Catholic Church, with the Latin church dominating in pure numbers.

 

[Mongo]

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.

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 .

Why does it matter if they didn’t have any ecumenical councils that bound everyone? Is new dogma somehow a value in and of itself? If that is the case, why didn’t Jesus or the apostles define the nature of Christ? Why didn’t he anathematize Nestorianism before it ever even occurred? It would have saved the Church a lot of pain.

 

[czarlazar]

Why does it matter if they didn’t have any ecumenical councils that bound everyone? Is new dogma somehow a value in and of itself? If that is the case, why didn’t Jesus or the apostles define the nature of Christ? Why didn’t he anathematize Nestorianism before it ever even occurred? It would have saved the Church a lot of pain.

**Answers in Red

**Why does it matter if they didn’t have any ecumenical councils that bound everyone?

**The idea is that, while one man could be influenced by the devil or evil or demons or personal gain or whatever; in an entire council there are bound to be at least one that the Holy Spirit will work through to prevent the devils influence. **

Is new dogma somehow a value in and of itself?
**I don’t think so, but the Orthodox have not any new dogma in comparison to the Latins.
**
If that is the case, why didn’t Jesus or the apostles define the nature of Christ? Why didn’t he anathematize Nestorianism before it ever even occurred? It would have saved the Church a lot of pain.

**You are asking to understand the thoughts of God, this is impossible (in the case of your point of Jesus). In addition, can the apostles tell the future, how would they know this would occur? Finally, you could fill the world over a 100 times with paper, if you were to dispute each and ever counter point to true Christianity.If that happened (i.e. no councils as you are suggesting), then the Christian would have never left a few square miles, because instead of preaching the apostles would be too busy defending everything. **