dogmatic teaching in the Orthodox church

[dvdjs]

Because truth is neither determined by the bishops nor by the laity. In the Orthodox Church they have an organic understanding of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The Spirit acts through the whole Church, not just a few individuals. The history of the Church is in God’s hands and it will not fail but no individuals are infallible whether they are on their own or gathered together. Orthodoxy is associated with the presence of the Holy Spirit and consequently with holiness as well. It is through union with God that we have knowledge of the truth and so the closer we grow to God the more we will know Him. Consequently the only possibility of infallibility is in the saints, due to their relationship with God.

Of course, that is why it is, as I said, a puzzle, but not a problem. What you have said is the\at the truth is simply whatever Orthodox agree to say it is. And that lacking the stare decisis of infallibility, they have a continuing possibility of reconsidering things that have been in the past called the truth (eg the morality of artificial birth control). Indeed, I would quibble about the infallibility of the Saints. There are no shortage of Orthodox saints whose teachings, in some measure, are now considered to be in error - eg Nyssa on purgatorial fire, Nanzienzen on infant limbo, etc,

Not a problem. But it is a claim that leaves nothing irreformable and gives certain guidance only after a controversy has settled. And it is the very claim that is made by most every sect - except the Catholic church, which is far more conservative with its strict stare decisis, and its visible symbol of unity.

 

[peary1]

Not really because at least 2 Patriarchs were condemned in Ecumenical Council. The Roman Patriarch and the Patriarch of Constantinople. This was determined by Ecumenical Council and the Holy Spirit led them in the decision and the Holy Spirit led the people, laity, to accept it.

If the need should ever arise for another Ecumenical Council then the Holy Spirit will led the members of the Council and will led the people to accept it. There was at least one Council that the Orthodox Church attended that was not needed nor was it inspired by the Holy Spirit and it was rejected by the people & by the Church, the Council of Florence. The Holy Spirit will guide the Church in every era. Just as Jesus promised.

The Title of the thread made me think you wanted to know where Orthodox teaching is found. It is found in the prayers of the Church…even in the way we hold our hands in making the sign of the cross…it is found in the Liturgies of the Church. We believe what we pray and pray what we believe.

I don’t think the Orthodox churches have participated in a council since the end of the 7th one. I DO know that some orthodox bishops were observers at Vatican II, however. To date, the Catholic Church in the West (including eastern rite Catholics) has held 21 ecumenical councils. I don’t know if any bishops from the orthodox churches were participants or were observers as they were at Vatican II.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Of course, that is why it is, as I said, a puzzle, but not a problem. What you have said is the\at the truth is simply whatever Orthodox agree to say it is. And that lacking the stare decisis of infallibility, they have a continuing possibility of reconsidering things that have been in the past called the truth (eg the morality of artificial birth control). Indeed, I would quibble about the infallibility of the Saints. There are no shortage of Orthodox saints whose teachings, in some measure, are now considered to be in error - eg Nyssa on purgatorial fire, Nanzienzen on infant limbo, etc,

Not a problem. But it is a claim that leaves nothing irreformable and gives certain guidance only after a controversy has settled. And it is the very claim that is made by most every sect - except the Catholic church, which is far more conservative with its strict stare decisis, and its visible symbol of unity.

One of the things I find problematic with current Catholicism is this claim of visible unity and authority in a single person on earth and yet in practice, it is the Catholic Churh that has no unity in terms of Liturgy practiced and Doctrine taught from one parish to another, one diocese to another, one Rite/Church from another.

In Orthodoxy, with our head of the Church being Christ and not a one person visible unity, there is unity in Liturgy practiced and Doctrine taught from one parish to another, one diocese to another and one Church to another.

It just doesn’t make any sense to me. How do you reconcile it?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I don’t think the Orthodox churches have participated in a council since the end of the 7th one. I DO know that some orthodox bishops were observers at Vatican II, however. To date, the Catholic Church in the West (including eastern rite Catholics) has held 21 ecumenical councils. I don’t know if any bishops from the orthodox churches were participants or were observers as they were at Vatican II.

There were no Orthodox @ Vatican II, but there were Eastern Catholics there. I get this information from a Catholic Priest who spoke to one of the Bishops of Vatican II and there conversation, as he recounted to me, was him asking, “Why didn’t our Church invite Orthodox to come to Vatican II” and the response was, “Honestly, it didn’t even occur to us.”

The Orthodox did participate in some Councils after the 7th Ecumenical Council, but they were not considered to be Ecumenical. Like the council of Ferrara-Florence which was utterly rejected by the Church; but I think Catholics consider it Ecumenical?

 

[jimmy]

Of course, that is why it is, as I said, a puzzle, but not a problem. What you have said is the\at the truth is simply whatever Orthodox agree to say it is. And that lacking the stare decisis of infallibility, they have a continuing possibility of reconsidering things that have been in the past called the truth (eg the morality of artificial birth control). Indeed, I would quibble about the infallibility of the Saints. There are no shortage of Orthodox saints whose teachings, in some measure, are now considered to be in error - eg Nyssa on purgatorial fire, Nanzienzen on infant limbo, etc,

Not a problem. But it is a claim that leaves nothing irreformable and gives certain guidance only after a controversy has settled. And it is the very claim that is made by most every sect - except the Catholic church, which is far more conservative with its strict stare decisis, and its visible symbol of unity.

As I mentioned the Orthodox accept that the Church will not fail. They do not accept infallibility; their view would be closer to providence. God will provide what is necessary for the preservation of truth in the Church. All the Orthodox are claiming is that God will not abandon His Church and so it will always be present.

It seems that you want to base the preservation of truth and infallibility on human authority. You claim that the Orthodox can always change things because they don’t have an idea of infallibility. By making this claim you assume that man is acting solely on his own will rather than in synergy with the will of God. Again, the Orthodox believe in a strong sense of the providence of God.

What you want is a gaurantee slapped on the box, but in reality a gaurantee means nothing. What does it mean that the pope and college of bishops claim infallibility? When it comes down to it you have to have the same faith as the Orthodox have that God will guide the Church and protect it from error. By speaking of the Church as infallible all you have done is to limit the fashion in which God acts in His Church. God must act in a specific way. The Church doesn’t err because the bishops under certain strict circumstances are protected. We know that a council is true if the pope accepts it (unless he is not speaking for the whole Church). You start with a material sense of the Church as authority and then establish infallibility as the gaurantee of the authority of the Church. The Spirit is only a gaurantee of our knowledge rather than the very source of it. You can see this in the fact that the doctrine of infallibility is formed in the negative. The Church will not err in its definitions.

The difference between the EO and the CC can be summed up by pointing to Gregory Palamas. His theology is the essence of the theology of Byzantium. Gregory’s theological treatises were written in opposition to Barlaam of Calabria and concerned the knowledge of God. Barlaam viewed God as absolutely unknowable in Himself. Apophatic theology was purely negation and the abandonment of all thought for darkness. Gregory on the other hand argued that we can participate in the energies of God and so there is a true vision of God, even though it is not of His essence. There is an experience of the divine and the more you come into relationship with God the more you will become like God and so the more you will know Him. Knowledge is obtained through experience.

Whether Gregory of Nyssa believed in Purgatorial fire is irrelevant and so is Gregory Nazianzen’s belief in limbo of the infants. No one has claimed that all things were revealed to them or to every other saint. It is possible that at times they spoke on their own authority. But these doctrines are irrelevant and aren’t a question for anyone. No one is concerned about whether Gregory of Nyssa believed in Purgatorial fire except Roman Catholics who want to dogmatize purgatorial fire. None of it contradicts the experiential nature of truth. Gregory of Nazianzen himself had this experiential view of the truth. His theology was based on an ascetic view of Christianity. It is through being conformed to the truth that you come to know the truth. It was through this asceticism that he approached the theology of the Trinity.

 

[jimmy]

There were no Orthodox @ Vatican II, but there were Eastern Catholics there. I get this information from a Catholic Priest who spoke to one of the Bishops of Vatican II and there conversation, as he recounted to me, was him asking, “Why didn’t our Church invite Orthodox to come to Vatican II” and the response was, “Honestly, it didn’t even occur to us.”

The Orthodox did participate in some Councils after the 7th Ecumenical Council, but they were not considered to be Ecumenical. Like the council of Ferrara-Florence which was utterly rejected by the Church; but I think Catholics consider it Ecumenical?

The Orthodox Churches had observers (not participants) at the Second Vatican Council. I don’t think that they were invited to the first session, but were invited to later sessions starting in 1963.

 

[josie_L]

One of the things I find problematic with current Catholicism is this claim of visible unity and authority in a single person on earth and yet in practice, it is the Catholic Churh that has no unity in terms of Liturgy practiced and Doctrine taught from one parish to another, one diocese to another, one Rite/Church from another.

In Orthodoxy, with our head of the Church being Christ and not a one person visible unity, there is unity in Liturgy practiced and Doctrine taught from one parish to another, one diocese to another and one Church to another.

It just doesn’t make any sense to me. How do you reconcile it?

I believe the liturgy of the Church is the same in essentials but not in respect to the outward customs/practices of worship (this showcases the “catholicity/universality” of the Church). Furthermore, there is only one catechism of the Catholic Church (the differences between the rites has more to do with semantics, i.e., the way in which the doctrines are expressed), if anything else is being preached than that is the fault of individual disobedient priests not the Church as a whole who has held to the truth.

p.s. I’m curious but you say that the Orthodox have the same doctrine in every church, every diocese . . . etc., off the top of my head I can think of the Oriental Orthodox who differ from the Eastern Orthodox, or how about the fact that contraception is not uniformly denounced in Orthodoxy, or how about the fact that some Orthodox practice “rebaptism” while others don’t. These are just a few of the things that came to mind so how can you say they have the same doctrine?

 

[dvdjs]

jimmy:
Jimmy, your post had nothing to do with what I wrote. Not a thing. You make references to what I want. These “wants” are very inventive but ultimately just your fantasy. And you ignore what you yourself had written about the infallibility of saints. Is it worthwhile to give a detailed response?

 

[dvdjs]

One of the things I find problematic with current Catholicism is this claim of visible unity and authority in a single person on earth and yet in practice, it is the Catholic Churh that has no unity in terms of Liturgy practiced and Doctrine taught from one parish to another, one diocese to another, one Rite/Church from another.

In Orthodoxy, with our head of the Church being Christ and not a one person visible unity, there is unity in Liturgy practiced and Doctrine taught from one parish to another, one diocese to another and one Church to another.

It just doesn’t make any sense to me. How do you reconcile it?

You make claims that I am unprepared to accept at face value, so it is not worth a discussion to reconcile them.

First, let’s agree on the criteria and norms of liturgical practice and Doctrine. Then we can obtain some hard data on what is happening across all of the parishes in each communion. O r even some vetted anecdotal data. We probably should make an effort to view these matters across time in the respective churches; we certainly don’t want to obsess over some blip in time. Having done this research, we would be in a position to draw some conclusions; and do some reconciling. Perhaps there would be something to discuss even if we skipped the latter steps. But without the first step, we lack a language for an intelligent discussion.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I believe the liturgy of the Church is the same in essentials but not in respect to the outward customs/practices of worship (this showcases the “catholicity/universality” of the Church). Furthermore, there is only one catechism of the Catholic Church (the differences between the rites has more to do with semantics, i.e., the way in which the doctrines are expressed), if anything else is being preached than that is the fault of individual disobedient priests not the Church as a whole who has held to the truth.

p.s. I’m curious but you say that the Orthodox have the same doctrine in every church, every diocese . . . etc., off the top of my head I can think of the Oriental Orthodox who differ from the Eastern Orthodox, or how about the fact that contraception is not uniformly denounced in Orthodoxy, or how about the fact that some Orthodox practice “rebaptism” while others don’t. These are just a few of the things that came to mind so how can you say they have the same doctrine?

The Oriental Orthodox separated from the Orthodox Church before Rome did. Just because the use the name still doesn’t mean anything. They are not part of the Orthodox Church although some of them have united with the Catholic Church, They are much closer to the Truth than any Protestant denomination that I can think of.

I say the Orthodox Church holds the same doctrine because they do.

There’s no such thing as “rebaptism” either someone was baptised or they weren’t. Baptism consists (in the norm, exception would be death bed) is 3 full immersions (triple immersion) in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If that didn’t happen, meaning someone wasn’t baptised, then they are baptised when coming into Orthodoxy. (For example someone may be coming from a Protestant Church that “baptises” in the Name of Jesus or someone coming from Jehovah’s Witness’s that “baptise” in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Spirit directed organization and in my case being “baptised” in the Baptist Church it was a single immersion in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. - neither case was an actual Baptism).

Use of birth control can be granted through economia of a couple’s spiritual father - allowing the use of NFP or another non-abortive method.

I personally know Eastern Catholic hierachy that disagree with you regarding the CCC - they say that is for Western/Latin/Roman Catholics only and they are in the process of creating an Eastern Catholic Catechism - through, if I remember right: Light & Life.

In your mind the differences even just within the Roman Rite’s Liturgies are fine…Parishes that don’t have the Tabernacle in the Church, where priests have non-Catholic come and talk instead of the priest giving a homily, the Youth Mass using Popcorn and punch instead of Bread and Wine for the Eucharist. Then you have Latin Masses which have prayers that are clearly God-Centered as opposed to the NO Masses which have prayers that are focused on the Faithful and the Created rather than the Creator - just read through the two Missals.

Whatever.

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy, your post had nothing to do with what I wrote. Not a thing. You make references to what I want. These “wants” are very inventive but ultimately just your fantasy. And you ignore what you yourself had written about the infallibility of saints. Is it worthwhile to give a detailed response?

You sound very condescending dvdjs. Just answer the post and have a civil conversation.

Everything I said was right to the point of what you said. You said specifically that truth is a matter of consensus for the Orthodox. I responded with an explanation of the existential character of Orthodox theology and an emphasis on divine providence. Knowledge of the truth is obtained through a relationship to God. The saints are consequently the life of the Church.

I didn’t contradict anything I said about the infallibility of the saints. I assume that if you think I contradicted myself then you also would agree that Honorius contradicted the infallibility of the pope. I never said the saints were infallible on all points. I simply said that if there is any possibility of infallibility it is in the saints. What I assume is that the saints had a level of knowledge of God that others do not have because they are in a deep relationship with God. Simply having an office doesn’t give you knowledge.

 

[Harpazo]

As I mentioned the Orthodox accept that the Church will not fail. They do not accept infallibility; their view would be closer to providence. God will provide what is necessary for the preservation of truth in the Church. All the Orthodox are claiming is that God will not abandon His Church and so it will always be present.

It seems that you want to base the preservation of truth and infallibility on human authority. You claim that the Orthodox can always change things because they don’t have an idea of infallibility. By making this claim you assume that man is acting solely on his own will rather than in synergy with the will of God. Again, the Orthodox believe in a strong sense of the providence of God.

What you want is a gaurantee slapped on the box, but in reality a gaurantee means nothing. What does it mean that the pope and college of bishops claim infallibility? When it comes down to it you have to have the same faith as the Orthodox have that God will guide the Church and protect it from error. By speaking of the Church as infallible all you have done is to limit the fashion in which God acts in His Church. God must act in a specific way. The Church doesn’t err because the bishops under certain strict circumstances are protected. We know that a council is true if the pope accepts it (unless he is not speaking for the whole Church). You start with a material sense of the Church as authority and then establish infallibility as the gaurantee of the authority of the Church. The Spirit is only a gaurantee of our knowledge rather than the very source of it. You can see this in the fact that the doctrine of infallibility is formed in the negative. The Church will not err in its definitions.

The difference between the EO and the CC can be summed up by pointing to Gregory Palamas. His theology is the essence of the theology of Byzantium. Gregory’s theological treatises were written in opposition to Barlaam of Calabria and concerned the knowledge of God. Barlaam viewed God as absolutely unknowable in Himself. Apophatic theology was purely negation and the abandonment of all thought for darkness. Gregory on the other hand argued that we can participate in the energies of God and so there is a true vision of God, even though it is not of His essence. There is an experience of the divine and the more you come into relationship with God the more you will become like God and so the more you will know Him. Knowledge is obtained through experience.

Whether Gregory of Nyssa believed in Purgatorial fire is irrelevant and so is Gregory Nazianzen’s belief in limbo of the infants. No one has claimed that all things were revealed to them or to every other saint. It is possible that at times they spoke on their own authority. But these doctrines are irrelevant and aren’t a question for anyone. No one is concerned about whether Gregory of Nyssa believed in Purgatorial fire except Roman Catholics who want to dogmatize purgatorial fire. None of it contradicts the experiential nature of truth. Gregory of Nazianzen himself had this experiential view of the truth. His theology was based on an ascetic view of Christianity. It is through being conformed to the truth that you come to know the truth. It was through this asceticism that he approached the theology of the Trinity.

Amen, Amen, Amen.

In all honesty, I appreciate your willingness to present the Orthodox view in its fulness and not a misunderstanding that an armchair apologist gave you or even worse, creating a strawman to “prove” the Orthodox were “arrogant” and in schism from the RCC because we don’t “submit to Rome.” You have always been honest and fair in your posts and I for one, appreciate it greatly.

Perhaps one day will we share the same Chalice.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[mardukm]

Because truth is neither determined by the bishops nor by the laity. In the Orthodox Church they have an organic understanding of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The Spirit acts through the whole Church, not just a few individuals. The history of the Church is in God’s hands and it will not fail but no individuals are infallible whether they are on their own or gathered together. Orthodoxy is associated with the presence of the Holy Spirit and consequently with holiness as well. It is through union with God that we have knowledge of the truth and so the closer we grow to God the more we will know Him. Consequently the only possibility of infallibility is in the saints, due to their relationship with God.

I don’t see one idea in this paragraph that does not apply to the Catholic Church as well.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother jimmy,

They do not accept infallibility; their view would be closer to providence.

The EO were invited to V1 as deliberative members, but they refused. Perhaps it was Providence.

It seems that you want to base the preservation of truth and infallibility on human authority.

That statement hedges on Protestantism, with their denial that God works through his priests and bishops.

When it comes down to it you have to have the same faith as the Orthodox have that God will guide the Church and protect it from error. By speaking of the Church as infallible all you have done is to limit the fashion in which God acts in His Church.

The Catholic Church recognizes several organs of infallibility, and it includes any and all the manners and ways the Orthodox believe the Church’s infallibility is exhibited. Isn’t it rather the EO who are limiting the manner by which the infallible God can guide His Church?

God must act in a specific way. The Church doesn’t err because the bishops under certain strict circumstances are protected.

The Church has given us certain signposts so we may more easily determine what it is we should believe. How does that restrict God?

The difference between the EO and the CC can be summed up by pointing to Gregory Palamas. His theology is the essence of the theology of Byzantium. Gregory’s theological treatises were written in opposition to Barlaam of Calabria and concerned the knowledge of God. Barlaam viewed God as absolutely unknowable in Himself. Apophatic theology was purely negation and the abandonment of all thought for darkness. Gregory on the other hand argued that we can participate in the energies of God and so there is a true vision of God, even though it is not of His essence. There is an experience of the divine and the more you come into relationship with God the more you will become like God and so the more you will know Him. Knowledge is obtained through experience.

This can’t possibly be a “difference between the EO and the CC *,” because the Latins also teach about participation in divinity, though they call it by the different name of sanctification.

Blessings,
Marduk*

 

[jimmy]

I don’t see one idea in this paragraph that does not apply to the Catholic Church as well.

Blessings,
Marduk

Is there a correlation between infallibility and holiness? If there is then Catholics need to revise their apologetics. They are going to have to rethink the distinction between impeccability and infallibility. The teaching of the Catholic Church seperates holiness from knowledge of God. The pope could be completely vile in how he lives, but he remains infallible when defining matters of faith and morals.

That statement hedges on Protestantism, with their denial that God works through his priests and bishops.

It has nothing to do with protestantism. I have never denied that God works through his priests and bishops. I am arguing that truth is not a matter of intellectual study but rather of encounter with God.

The Catholic Church recognizes several organs of infallibility, and it includes any and all the manners and ways the Orthodox believe the Church’s infallibility is exhibited. Isn’t it rather the EO who are limiting the manner by which the infallible God can guide His Church?

No, the doctrine of infallibility reduces the guidance of the Church by God.

This can’t possibly be a "difference between the EO and the CC ," because the Latins also teach about participation in divinity, though they call it by the different name of sanctification.

I won’t deny that the west believes in deification but it is a stretch to say that it is the same as that of the EO.

 

[dvdjs]

You sound very condescending dvdjs. Just answer the post and have a civil conversation. Everything I said was right to the point of what you said.

Jimmy, I made a simple post, #21. Your response, #25 was not to the point of what I said. For example, you wrote:

It seems that you want to base the preservation of truth and infallibility on human authorit

I wrote no such thing and want no such thing.

You wrote:

What you want is a gaurantee slapped on the box…

I wrote no such thing and want no such thing.

You wrote:

you assume that man is acting solely on his own will rather than in synergy with the will of God

I made and make no such assumption.

You wrote:

You start with a material sense of the Church as authority and then establish infallibility as the gaurantee of the authority of the Church

I made and make no such argument.

I don’t like being used like this. If you have something that you want to say, then fine, say it. Perhaps it will be worth discussing. But don’t pretend that you are addressing my wants, assumptions, starting points, and conclusions. You are just making things up; they are not in my post or in my mind.

I am sorry if you think that I sound condescending in pointing this out, but I don’t like having words put into my mouth; it is terribly disrespectful, and completely lacking in civility. If you think you want a conversation on these matters, then please start by fixing your post. If you want to know my wants, assumptions, etc., just ask.

For the record:
I agree with Markdum: your ideas about the knowledge of the truth in Orthodoxy is not distinct from ideas of ideas about the knowledge of the truth in the Catholic Church.

If you claim an infallibility of the saints that is not contradicted by the errors of the saints, then please give a definition of “infallibility”.

I assume that if you think I contradicted myself then you also would agree that Honorius contradicted the infallibility of the pope

. You assume wrong. Such a conclusions is certainly required from from the Catholic understanding of infallibility. Two things to keep in mind: the case of Honorius was know to all the folks at VI; the folks at VI were not stupid. If your thinking is not consistent with these two simple facts, then revise your thinking.

Simply having an office doesn’t give you knowledge.

AFAIK, no one has made such a claim. You will find no such claim in Pastor Aeternus. So whose mouth are you putting words into now?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Thank you for your responses. Your comments are very worthy and deserve consideration by any serious Catholic

Is there a correlation between infallibility and holiness? If there is then Catholics need to revise their apologetics. They are going to have to rethink the distinction between impeccability and infallibility. The teaching of the Catholic Church seperates holiness from knowledge of God. The pope could be completely vile in how he lives, but he remains infallible when defining matters of faith and morals.

Yes, there is a correlation between infallibility and holiness. There were several morally bad popes in the history of the Catholic Church, and if you will only investigate the matter, you will discover that none of them had made any doctrinal pronouncements that could injure the fact of the Church’s indefectibility or infallibility. God’s Providence? Indeed! I believe you need to rethink your theory of the connection between impeccability and infallibility. Not a single saint in history was impeccable(aside from the Theotokos, of course - Oriental Tradition also assigns impeccability to St. John the Baptist and one or two OT Saints). You seem to support the historical error of the Donatists and Novatians.

It has nothing to do with protestantism. I have never denied that God works through his priests and bishops. I am arguing that truth is not a matter of intellectual study but rather of encounter with God.

If that is so, your earlier statement certainly did not reflect it very well. In any case, I don’t see how your statement here contradicts anything that the Catholic Church teaches. Can you cite some teachings by Popes or Western Councils setting intellectual study in contradiction to encountering God? Or that intellectual study is the best way to sanctification or theosis than other means? Otherwise, I don’t understand your criticism. It seems to me you are strongly exaggerating a certain facet of Latin Christianity and unjustly setting it in opposition to a certain facet of Eastern Christianity.

No, the doctrine of infallibility reduces the guidance of the Church by God.

Please explain for us what you believe the Catholic Church teaches about the doctrine of infallibility, and then point out what about it “reduces the guidance of the Church by God.”

I won’t deny that the west believes in deification but it is a stretch to say that it is the same as that of the EO.

And it is a stretch to think that any distinctions between the two is sufficient grounds for disunity. There is no dogma in the Eastern Church regarding deification, or at the very least, there is nothing dogmatic that would justify separation from the Latin Church.

Blessings,
Marduk