Eastern Orthodox and Infallibility

[chimo]

Randy if I can make it very simple for you and others to understand Peter’s role in the East it is this. The East sees Peter’s authority within each of their Bishops but sees it more interiorly. We accept Peter because he is in each Bishop. However Rome sees more of this exterior authority. Do you see what I am saying? Peter does have this authority within each Bishop of the East as they share it with Peter. Not the exterior Peter that is in Rome but interiorly with the Apostle and even with the one in Rome which means all the Bishops are connected with Peter somehow. The problem with Catholic and Orthodox is their different ways in defining Peter’s role. While the one in the East is an interior authority the one in the West is an exterior authority. What we need in the Church is to find the right balance that both can agree to.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Rome must come to an understanding of the Eastern model if we will go forward to our eventual unity.

Because Rome must be wrong. It has to be.You can’t be wrong because that would require you to change. So it has to be Rome that changes.

I understand the Orthodox position, I think.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy if I can make it very simple for you and others to understand Peter’s role in the East it is this. The East sees Peter’s authority within each of their Bishops but sees it more interiorly. We accept Peter because he is in each Bishop. However Rome sees more of this exterior authority. Do you see what I am saying? Peter does have this authority within each Bishop of the East as they share it with Peter. Not the exterior Peter that is in Rome but interiorly with the Apostle and even with the one in Rome which means all the Bishops are connected with Peter somehow. The problem with Catholic and Orthodox is their different ways in defining Peter’s role. While the one in the East is an interior authority the one in the West is an exterior authority. What we need in the Church is to find the right balance that both can agree to.

What if the Western view of papal authority is both interior and exterior?

 

[Randy_Carson]

This was posted in another thread:

Just to follow-up on this point, the modern EO reject our understanding of original sin (reducing it to merely concupiscence and death), when it was not an issue pre-schism and when they themselves taught the same understanding as us at the pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalen in 1672 (along with definitively numbering the sacraments at 7, using the word “transubstantiation,” teaching the Catholic understanding of temporal punishment and satisfaction after death, mortal sins, the Catholic canon of Scripture, etc.). These pronouncements were used as a binding profession of faith for those who wished to be in communion with the Orthodox Church as late as 1721.

Similarly, they now call indulgences heretical when they issued them and even confirmed their validity at the pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople in 1727. Furthermore, the pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople in 1838 condemned their use for enrichment–but not the practice, which continued until as late as the 1950s in the Greek Church.

Note, no EO apologist or theologian I know even tries to argue these things taught at pan-Orthodox Councils are legitimate developments. They freely claim they were in error during those times, but that since the Church got rid of them later its ok. Of course, if that’s the case, who knows what they might later think they are in error about and get rid of–there’s no more certainty of faith.

I’m trying to understand the Eastern Orthodox and Infallibility, but I’m not really getting it. And if what has just been posted above is true, then it would seem to me that the Orthodox have no claim to infallibility at all. Perhaps that’s how they see it, too. I just don’t see that the Church is fallible based on any number of scriptures I could point to.

This quote, however, seems to dove-tail nicely with what Nine_Two was saying earlier about EO doctrine requiring the acceptance of all the faithful…the “one man-one vote” principle applied to Church teaching.

No, thank you. :dts:

 

[Randy_Carson]

In my quest to understand what divides Catholics and Orthodox, I came across an article written by Fr. Brian Harrison entitled “Why I Did Not Convert to Eastern Orthodox” in which Fr. Harrison attempts to define precisely the Orthodox understanding of the infallibility of the Church. That’s a western thing, I guess.

Fr. Harrison writes:

"I shall argue that Eastern Orthodoxy’s account of how the Church transmits revelation is vitiated by a circular argument, and so cannot be true.

"…In order to justify their continued separation from Rome, the Orthodox have had to nuance their position on the infallibility of ecumenical councils. They have had to maintain that the participation in a given council of bishops representing the whole Church and the confirmation of their decrees by the pope, while undoubtedly necessary, is still not sufficient to guarantee the true ecumenical status of that council. For over and above the fulfillment of those conditions, it is also necessary (so they have told us in recent centuries) for the faithful as a whole in both East and West—not just the pope and bishops or even the entire clergy—to accept that council’s decrees as expressing the true faith.

"…if we remember that the whole purpose of an infallible church authority is simply to enable Christians to distinguish revealed truth clearly and certainly from falsehood and heresy…we can formulate … the Eastern Orthodox proposition … so as to unpack the word infallible, spelling out its meaning and function:

Christians can come to know with certainty what is true doctrine by recognizing the solemn doctrinal decisions of those councils which are not only papally confirmed as ecumenical, but which are also subsequently accepted as such by the whole community of those Christians who adhere to true doctrine.

“The words italicized above lay bare the underlying circularity—the tautology—that vitiates the logical coherence of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. We want to know how to identify true Christian doctrine with certainty, but the proffered solution to our problem assumes we already know the very thing we are seeking to discover. We are being told, ‘To discover what is true Christian doctrine, you must pay heed the teaching of those who adhere to true Christian doctrine’”!

See full article here: catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-i-didn%E2%80%99t-convert-to-eastern-orthodoxy​

Note how closely Fr. Harrison’s explanation mirrors that of Nine_Two earlier in this thread.

Now, in the interest of being “fair and balanced”, Fr. Harrison’s article received a response from an Orthodox priest who went through Fr. Harrison’s article point by point in significant detail. Concerning the words bolded above, Rev. Pr. Laurent Cleenewerck wrote:

May[be] this would be a good time to express the Orthodox proposition in one paragraph. It cannot be so short as to be reduced to a slogan but needs to be workable. **True doctrine is revealed in Holy Scripture and this is discerned by the operation of the Holy Spirit in the life of the people of God, which is those who participate in the life of the Church. When a controversy occurs, the truth is discerned by a network or community, the wider and deeper (historically) the better. Once a Council takes place (e.g. Nicea in 325) it may take many years (or centuries) for the common union of Churches to function as a network of sensors that will harmonize and stabilize. ** [emphasis added] This is why the Orthodox often spoke of the five senses (five patriarchates) of Christendom as reflecting such a mechanism. One may ask then if it was wise for the Latin West to have dogmatic ‘ecumenical Councils’ without the sensus fidelium of the ancient Greek-speaking Churches.

See full article here: orthodoxanswers.org/catholicorthodoxdebate2

Fr. Cleenewerck acknowledges that it may take centuries for the Orthodox to determine whether they are willing to accept a Council’s teaching.

Does this strike anyone else as being a completely unworkable approach to the guidance of the Church? We’re supposed to wait around for a century or two before we the people have decided whether to accept the teaching of a Church council?

I think Jesus made better provision for us than that.

 

[dzheremi]

Just as a general comment, it’s not a good idea to try to get an accurate picture of a particular church’s doctrine or practices from people who write articles called “Why I didn’t convert to the Church I’m about to tell you all about”. You wouldn’t trust someone who dropped out of medical school to perform surgery on you over a practicing, credentialed surgeon, would you? The same applies to the sources you use to learn about other churches.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Nice touch bringing them into the discussion. But again, wow. There is something in scripture which could conceivably be construed as support for universal jurisdiction.

There are also passages in scripture which could be construed as support for Arianism, Adoptionism, Sabellianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Iconomachy, Pneumatomachianism, and all of the other heresies of old. As St. Basil points out in his anti-eunomian polemics, claiming that one’s doctrine is consistent with the Scriptures is not enough to show that it is Catholic doctrine (and on this St. Vincent of Lerins agrees with St. Basil, teaching of the importance of looking to the definitions of councils and of antiquity).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Just as a general comment, it’s not a good idea to try to get an accurate picture of a particular church’s doctrine or practices from people who write articles called “Why I didn’t convert to the Church I’m about to tell you all about”. You wouldn’t trust someone who dropped out of medical school to perform surgery on you over a practicing, credentialed surgeon, would you? The same applies to the sources you use to learn about other churches.

Actually, I think it is entirely reasonable to listen to the perspective of an obviously well-educated individual who gave long hours to the investigation of two options and selected one.

Suppose you had a friend who was an auto mechanic or the editor of a car buff magazine. If you were about to buy a car, would you be interested in hearing your friend’s story, “Why I did not buy an AMC Pacer”?

Of course you would.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There are also passages in scripture which could be construed as support for Arianism, Adoptionism, Sabellianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Iconomachy, Pneumatomachianism, and all of the other heresies of old. As St. Basil points out in his anti-eunomian polemics, claiming that one’s doctrine is consistent with the Scriptures is not enough to show that it is Catholic doctrine (and on this St. Vincent of Lerins agrees with St. Basil, teaching of the importance of looking to the definitions of councils and of antiquity).

I understand completely.

However, you might consider that after listening to so many non-Catholics who arrive at this forum with armed with a couple of favorite Bible verses and the conviction that Catholics don’t know a lick about scripture, it’s kinda refreshing to hear someone admit that, well, maybe we have a point or at least the Biblical basis for one.

 

[chimo]

What if the Western view of papal authority is both interior and exterior?

It is exterior for you and it is interior to us. The Orthodox could never accept the claims of Rome for her to have this exterior authority over them since it is very foreign to what the Orthodox believe in or as I said earlier how they proclaim what is doctrine. The only principal for Rome and the East to exist upon is a shared authority.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It is exterior for you and it is interior to us. The Orthodox could never accept the claims of Rome for her to have this exterior authority over them since it is very foreign to what the Orthodox believe in or as I said earlier how they proclaim what is doctrine. The only principal for Rome and the East to exist upon is a shared authority.

So, here is my question for you:

If we agreed on every other point of doctrine, it would come down to the universal jurisdiction of the papacy, would it not?

So, what exactly do you lose by agreeing to the supremacy of the pope?

How does this harm you, your family, your local church, your anything in any way?

 

[chimo]

In my quest to understand what divides Catholics and Orthodox, I came across an article written by Fr. Brian Harrison entitled “Why I Did Not Convert to Eastern Orthodox” in which Fr. Harrison attempts to define precisely the Orthodox understanding of the infallibility of the Church. That’s a western thing, I guess.

Fr. Harrison writes:

"I shall argue that Eastern Orthodoxy’s account of how the Church transmits revelation is vitiated by a circular argument, and so cannot be true.

"…In order to justify their continued separation from Rome, the Orthodox have had to nuance their position on the infallibility of ecumenical councils. They have had to maintain that the participation in a given council of bishops representing the whole Church and the confirmation of their decrees by the pope, while undoubtedly necessary, is still not sufficient to guarantee the true ecumenical status of that council. For over and above the fulfillment of those conditions, it is also necessary (so they have told us in recent centuries) for the faithful as a whole in both East and West—not just the pope and bishops or even the entire clergy—to accept that council’s decrees as expressing the true faith.

"…if we remember that the whole purpose of an infallible church authority is simply to enable Christians to distinguish revealed truth clearly and certainly from falsehood and heresy…we can formulate … the Eastern Orthodox proposition … so as to unpack the word infallible, spelling out its meaning and function:

Christians can come to know with certainty what is true doctrine by recognizing the solemn doctrinal decisions of those councils which are not only papally confirmed as ecumenical, but which are also subsequently accepted as such by the whole community of those Christians who adhere to true doctrine.

“The words italicized above lay bare the underlying circularity—the tautology—that vitiates the logical coherence of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. We want to know how to identify true Christian doctrine with certainty, but the proffered solution to our problem assumes we already know the very thing we are seeking to discover. We are being told, ‘To discover what is true Christian doctrine, you must pay heed the teaching of those who adhere to true Christian doctrine’”!

See full article here: catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-i-didn%E2%80%99t-convert-to-eastern-orthodoxy​

Note how closely Fr. Harrison’s explanation mirrors that of Nine_Two earlier in this thread.

Now, in the interest of being “fair and balanced”, Fr. Harrison’s article received a response from an Orthodox priest who went through Fr. Harrison’s article point by point in significant detail. Concerning the words bolded above, Rev. Pr. Laurent Cleenewerck wrote:

May[be] this would be a good time to express the Orthodox proposition in one paragraph. It cannot be so short as to be reduced to a slogan but needs to be workable. **True doctrine is revealed in Holy Scripture and this is discerned by the operation of the Holy Spirit in the life of the people of God, which is those who participate in the life of the Church. When a controversy occurs, the truth is discerned by a network or community, the wider and deeper (historically) the better. Once a Council takes place (e.g. Nicea in 325) it may take many years (or centuries) for the common union of Churches to function as a network of sensors that will harmonize and stabilize. ** [emphasis added] This is why the Orthodox often spoke of the five senses (five patriarchates) of Christendom as reflecting such a mechanism. One may ask then if it was wise for the Latin West to have dogmatic ‘ecumenical Councils’ without the sensus fidelium of the ancient Greek-speaking Churches.

See full article here: orthodoxanswers.org/catholicorthodoxdebate2

Fr. Cleenewerck acknowledges that it may take centuries for the Orthodox to determine whether they are willing to accept a Council’s teaching.

Does this strike anyone else as being a completely unworkable approach to the guidance of the Church? We’re supposed to wait around for a century or two before we the people have decided whether to accept the teaching of a Church council?

I think Jesus made better provision for us than that.

Not exactly Randy for all the major doctrines and teachings have already been formulated into doctrine. There is really nothing new under the sun but to try to implement these doctrines and teachings into practice. There is no further teachings that need to be discovered for the Church to know to become saved. It took time in the past to get where we are today but we don’t need if you can say further discussions to spell out certain doctrines. All is now necessary for us to receive the Good News and to proclaim it. This is what we need to do. I must say that in principal the Orthodox tend to define their catechism through a process I call “on the job training” while the Catholic goes about it through “theory”. You cannot make comparisons between East and West since we are very different in how we receive catechism and how we proclaim it. These differences in my opinion are actually helpful in determining that we can receive revelation of God either way. The Catholic goes through a process more of “theory” while the Orthodox goes through a process more of “experiencing”. Either way is acceptable to God.

 

[chimo]

So, here is my question for you:

If we agreed on every other point of doctrine, it would come down to the universal jurisdiction of the papacy, would it not?

So, what exactly do you lose by agreeing to the supremacy of the pope?

How does this harm you, your family, your local church, your anything in any way?

I don’t disagree on his primacy at all. In fact the Pope is just as important to me as are the Orthodox. I don’t differentiate between the two. I look up to the Pope, I read his words and his statements and his encyclicals. I just don’t believe that the model by which Rome wants will be the model for the whole Church. I even think the Popes do not want it as well. There has to be another model by which the Pope and the Patriarch can work out together so that it agrees to both parties. If anything that will come to make us more united is when the Catholic Church begins to understand more the Orthodox model.

 

[Cavaradossi]

This was posted in another thread:

I’m trying to understand the Eastern Orthodox and Infallibility, but I’m not really getting it. And if what has just been posted above is true, then it would seem to me that the Orthodox have no claim to infallibility at all. Perhaps that’s how they see it, too. I just don’t see that the Church is fallible based on any number of scriptures I could point to.

This quote, however, seems to dove-tail nicely with what Nine_Two was saying earlier about EO doctrine requiring the acceptance of all the faithful…the “one man-one vote” principle applied to Church teaching.

No, thank you. :dts:

Except that his statement is not correct, because Orthodox theologians do not regard those things as being developments at all, but they only object to the language they used. No theologian of note has argued that the council of Jerusalem was in error, for example. He frankly bases himself upon an erroneous reading of the confession of Dositheos (who was known as the ‘scourge of the Latins’), as well as an erroneous understanding of the teaching of our modern theologians.

On original sin, Dositheos and our modern theologians are not in conflict, because Patriarch Dositheos, like our most eminent theologians of the past century, carefully maintains the distinction between original sin and actual sin. Both teach that original sin is not a moral fault as actual sin is, but it is a state of ontological fracture (this being one of the fruits of Adam’s transgression), where the natural will and energies of the particular human being have been turned against nature (nature here meaning human nature). Baptism enables the restoration of the natural will and energies of man, such that they may be exercised in accordance with nature, allowing the individual to acquire the state which St. Maximus calls ‘well-being.’ Through acquiring this state in life, the blessed in eternity experience heaven, for they shall live for eternity in accordance with nature rather than against nature, for those who never acquired well-being shall in eternity live forever in a state of ill-being, a state of ontological fracture, which is itself hell.

On the issue of the seven sacraments (or as they are actually called, the mysteries) this is merely a question of definition. This concept pre-dates the council of Jerusalem in Orthodoxy, and I do not know one theologian who rejects it outright. Schmemann dislikes the way that some, limiting the sacraments to seven, tend to undermine the mystical and sacramental character of all of the other actions of the Church, but he does not to my knowledge deny there are seven mysteries of the Church which have their institution in scripture, which is the very definition of a ‘sacrament’ (that is to say, for example, that certain rites like monastic or clerical tonsure have a sort of sacramental character to them, and are also sometimes informally called mysteries, but they differ from the sacraments in that they were not firmly instituted in scripture). Rather, I think that Fr. Alexander Schmemann tries to approach the life of the Church in a more holistic fashion.

On the use of the word ‘transubstantiation’ (actually in Greek metousiosis), he is mistaken to think that Dositheus stands in opposition to our modern theologians. As Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky explains in his book Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (a book which has a history of use in certain English-speaking seminaries, and an excellent book to read if one wants a concise summary of Orthodox dogmatic theology, rather than trying to learn from people on the internet), the use of the term metousiosis is rather atypical when compared to the use of the word ‘change’ (metaballo), which comes directly from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, because we do not allow for the mystery to be defined in terms of Aristotelian categories. In this, he and modern Orthodox theologians are in agreement with Patriarch Dositheos himself, because Patriarch Dositheos in his confession writes that by metousiosis, we do not define the manner by which the bread and wine change into the body and blood of Christ, but only use it to signify that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ, and do not do so merely figuratively, typically, or by superabundant grace. The Aristotelian distinction between substance and accident is thus used as a general descriptor for what is perceived to happen (that is, that the form of the gifts remains as if they were bread and wine while they truly become the body of Christ), but it is not posited that these Aristotelian categories thereby explain the manner in which the change takes place (i.e., substance and accident are being employed analogically). Modern theologians, disliking the way that this expression may mislead people to believe that Aristotelian categories do in fact define the manner of the change, do not typically use the term metousiosis, but that does not mean that they believe that Patriarch Dositheus was in error, for he very clearly maintains that the the term metousiosis does not explain the manner of the change.

 

[Cavaradossi]

On the issue of purgatory and temporal punishment, this is simply false. Dositheos does not teach either. He teaches in accordance with St. Mark of Ephesus that the departed immediately go into a state of paradise or of suffering, but that this state is not yet complete, for the resurrection has not yet happened. He further teaches in accordance with St. Mark of Ephesus that the souls of those who had died in repentance but had not produced the fruits of repentance depart into Hades and there receive punishment for their sins (which according to St. Mark of Ephesus is a foretaste of the eternal punishment). But they can be released from this state by the bloodless sacrifice of the Eucharist, the prayers of the living, and the prayers of the Church. Notice here that he does not teach that there is a temporal punishment due to their sins, and that the souls are released when this punishment has been exacted (as in the Latin doctrine of purgatory), but that the souls of the departed are released from this condition by God (the Supreme Goodness), the prayers of the faithful, and the bloodless sacrifice.

It is true that Patriarch Dositheos speaks of ‘satisfaction,’ but satisfaction, as St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite teaches, is an expiation, not a propitiation. Satisfaction (also called epitimia, which is given after one completes the mystery of repentance) is meant for the edification of the sinner, making him acceptable to God, not for the placation of some need for God to exact vengeance upon the sinner for his sins. Those who are repentant, but have not completed their satisfaction descend into suffering and Hades after death because they themselves are not yet healed of the disease which sin has inflicted upon them. But through the mercy of God, the prayers of the faithful, and the bloodless sacrifice, they are able to be released from the sufferings of Hades prior to the judgment at the resurrection, because it is through these things that their souls are healed of the sickness of sin enabling them to experience the presence of God as paradise.

The claim that Patriarch Dositheos taught the Latin canon of scripture is an odd one. The Greek and Latin canons only differ by two books, one is another book titled Ezra (Greek Ezra), and another is the very short Prayer of Manasses which is included as part of the Biblical Odes, which occur after the Psalms. It is possible that Patriarch Dositheos does not mention these books because one is quite short and already included in a set of texts which is used extensively liturgically, while the other is a variant of the book of Ezra.

The deal with mortal sin is also strange. It is not that the Orthodox do not teach sins which are unto death (a scriptural concept). We simply understand that certain actions are not always mortal sins, because of the condition of the penitent. In fact, this how it is supposed to work in the Roman Catholic Church too, namely, the confessor is supposed to assess the life and condition of a penitent before determining whether his sins committed were sins unto death or not (because a sin not committed with the full consent of the will cannot be mortal), but for some reason there is a certain disconnect, so that the laity and the clergy do not practice what is taught theologically. The Orthodox do not criticize the popular Roman Catholic notion of mortal sin because we do not have our own concept of mortal sin, but rather we criticize what we see as a lack of good pastoral theology in Roman Catholicism.

On indulgences: the Orthodox church has never issued indulgences, because indulgences require a theological system whereby sins committed incur a debt (in some sense) of temporal punishment, which must be satisfied either through penance or by the superabundant merits of the treasury of the saints. Rather, certain bishops in the Orthodox Church in the past had issued certificates of absolution. These certificates did not claim to remit the temporal punishment due for sins, but rather they claimed that the named person had received absolution from his sins through the bishop’s power to bind and loose.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not exactly Randy for all the major doctrines and teachings have already been formulated into doctrine.

Ah, but that wasn’t always the case, was it? This is why I see the Orthodox approach as unworkable. At one point in history, doctrine was still in development as the Church sought to understand the revelation delivered once for all to the saints. Then, at some point in history (according to you), it became true that “all the major doctrines and teachings have already been formulated into doctrine”?

When was this? Do you have a date in mind? Even narrowing it down to within a century or two would be something. And who gets to decide which are major doctrines and which are minor any way?

If you were a Protestant, I’d ask you for a verse to prove your position…because I know you have none.

But here’s the thing, and there’s no getting around this for you: at one stage in Church history doctrine developed, and you cannot point to any legitimate reason, basis or causation for the discontinuation of doctrinal development. It’s an arbitrary cut-off designed specifically to insulate your beliefs from the advance of Roman Catholic theology. “Major teachings and doctrines” have all been developed (since they did not always exist), but conveniently for the Orthodox, this occurred before the development of the doctrine concerning papal infallibility and anything else distinctively Roman that you want to ignore? I don’t buy it for a second. :nope:

This reminds of the Great Apostasy theory put forth by Mormons and some Protestants who hold that at some point, the Catholic Church went off the rails thus making it possible (surprise, surprise) for their group to step into the void as the true Church. Funny, but I’ve never been given a firm date by any of them, either.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t disagree on his primacy at all. In fact the Pope is just as important to me as are the Orthodox. I don’t differentiate between the two. I look up to the Pope, I read his words and his statements and his encyclicals. I just don’t believe that the model by which Rome wants will be the model for the whole Church. I even think the Popes do not want it as well. There has to be another model by which the Pope and the Patriarch can work out together so that it agrees to both parties. If anything that will come to make us more united is when the Catholic Church begins to understand more the Orthodox model.

The guys in Rome are kinda smart, chimo.

Is the problem that they don’t understand your model? Or that that they DO understand it and reject it?

 

[Rawb]

Ah, but that wasn’t always the case, was it? This is why I see the Orthodox approach as unworkable.

And yet, here we are, working.

Sometimes I think the biggest problem Roman Catholics have with us is that we still exist even without all the popes and infallibilities and definitions that they keep trying to convince the rest of Christendom are so necessary. Don’t have 'em, and yet have none of the problems they say will become rampant without them.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Except that his statement is not correct, because Orthodox theologians do not regard those things as being developments at all, but they only object to the language they used. No theologian of note has argued that the council of Jerusalem was in error, for example. He frankly bases himself upon an erroneous reading of the confession of Dositheos (who was known as the ‘scourge of the Latins’), as well as an erroneous understanding of the teaching of our modern theologians.

On original sin, Dositheos and our modern theologians are not in conflict, because Patriarch Dositheos, like our most eminent theologians of the past century, carefully maintains the distinction between original sin and actual sin. Both teach that original sin is not a moral fault as actual sin is, but it is a state of ontological fracture (this being one of the fruits of Adam’s transgression), where the natural will and energies of the particular human being have been turned against nature (nature here meaning human nature). Baptism enables the restoration of the natural will and energies of man, such that they may be exercised in accordance with nature, allowing the individual to acquire the state which St. Maximus calls ‘well-being.’ Through acquiring this state in life, the blessed in eternity experience heaven, for they shall live for eternity in accordance with nature rather than against nature, for those who never acquired well-being shall in eternity live forever in a state of ill-being, a state of ontological fracture, which is itself hell.

On the issue of the seven sacraments (or as they are actually called, the mysteries) this is merely a question of definition. This concept pre-dates the council of Jerusalem in Orthodoxy, and I do not know one theologian who rejects it outright. Schmemann dislikes the way that some, limiting the sacraments to seven, tend to undermine the mystical and sacramental character of all of the other actions of the Church, but he does not to my knowledge deny there are seven mysteries of the Church which have their institution in scripture, which is the very definition of a ‘sacrament’ (that is to say, for example, that certain rites like monastic or clerical tonsure have a sort of sacramental character to them, and are also sometimes informally called mysteries, but they differ from the sacraments in that they were not firmly instituted in scripture). Rather, I think that Fr. Alexander Schmemann tries to approach the life of the Church in a more holistic fashion.

On the use of the word ‘transubstantiation’ (actually in Greek metousiosis), he is mistaken to think that Dositheus stands in opposition to our modern theologians. As Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky explains in his book Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (a book which has a history of use in certain English-speaking seminaries, and an excellent book to read if one wants a concise summary of Orthodox dogmatic theology, rather than trying to learn from people on the internet), the use of the term metousiosis is rather atypical when compared to the use of the word ‘change’ (metaballo), which comes directly from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, because we do not allow for the mystery to be defined in terms of Aristotelian categories. In this, he and modern Orthodox theologians are in agreement with Patriarch Dositheos himself, because Patriarch Dositheos in his confession writes that by metousiosis, we do not define the manner by which the bread and wine change into the body and blood of Christ, but only use it to signify that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ, and do not do so merely figuratively, typically, or by superabundant grace. The Aristotelian distinction between substance and accident is thus used as a general descriptor for what is perceived to happen (that is, that the form of the gifts remains as if they were bread and wine while they truly become the body of Christ), but it is not posited that these Aristotelian categories thereby explain the manner in which the change takes place (i.e., substance and accident are being employed analogically). Modern theologians, disliking the way that this expression may mislead people to believe that Aristotelian categories do in fact define the manner of the change, do not typically use the term metousiosis, but that does not mean that they believe that Patriarch Dositheus was in error, for he very clearly maintains that the the term metousiosis does not explain the manner of the change.

Before I wade into all this: whose statement is not correct? My post referenced three people.

Nine_Two?
Fr. Harrison?
Rev. Pr. Cleenewerck?

 

[Randy_Carson]

And yet, here we are, working.

How do you figure? Making disciples of all nations? :nope:

The problem, well, one problem anyway is ethnocentricity which Fr. Harrison mentions in his article. I’m not Greek or Russian…I don’t speak either language…I don’t fit into that culture, and Orthodoxy has not proven its ability to be truly catholic at all. And to hear you tell the tale, you’ve been working at it just as long as we have.

Sometimes I think the biggest problem Roman Catholics have with us is that we still exist even without all the popes and infallibilities and definitions that they keep trying to convince the rest of Christendom are so necessary. Don’t have 'em, and yet have none of the problems they say will become rampant without them.

It’s fairly easy to avoid some problems when your membership is largely confined to relatively small geographic areas and enjoys the advantage of ethnic homogeneity.

And as long as contraception, multiple marriages and married clergy are acceptable, how many problems do you really have to deal with any way?

That you’ve survived the passage of time and the ravages of war, etc. is laudable. That you have not fulfilled the Great Commission seems to be the most serious charge against you.