Eastern Orthodox and Infallibility

[chimo]

Thanks, chimo, your answer is very interesting and I look forward to any sources that you can dig up. I am aware of the reversal of the Council of Florence decision but was always under the impression that it was bishops who did not attend, some clergy and the Emperor who led the opposition, not so much the laity as we understand it today.

A few questions on your above points:
1 This “another Council” - what kind of council is this? Another Ecumenical Council?
2 If an ecumenical council decision is reversed, is it then retrospectively delisted? Or does it get confirmed at a later point - if so when and would it be considered as only a provisional council until then?
3 “Canon structure” does this have the same meaning as Canon law in Catholic Church?
4 “all levels of government” - is this similar to the CoE’s three houses?
5 Would this be an Eastern equivalent of the Western concepts of sensus fidelium and acceptance by the people? I noticed sensus fidelium was in the quote by Rev. Pr. Laurent Cleenewerck (I presume he is Orthodox) posted by Randy Carson.

Sorry if this is too Latin thinking trying to grasp at Eastern concepts. I am disappointed that what could have been a valid line of inquiry has degenerated into a debate over Petrine primacy, when the positions of both sides are already well understood by the other side, even if not agreed to. I hope my search for light do not get darkened by the heat of the debate.

On no for it by asking the right questions we hopefully get the right answers. This is actually quite productive and if I am correct about this involves more with the use of philosophy which the Catholic Church leans more to and is very good at. Yes we have our own “Canon Law” which is what I meant in the words “canon structure” but it is somewhat different than Rome and in some areas very similar. Yes it must take another Ecumenical Council to confirm what the other had said to be confirmed. Yet it is very strange that the Orthodox had no other Council after the 7th Ecumenical Council that will determine its “Canon Law” to be brought into a more modern setting. This is one of the weaknesses of the East. Perhaps we will enter into another Ecumenical Council when it is with Rome for in truth any real Ecumenical Council needs the participation of all the Churches. When I refer to all levels of government I am referring to the clergy as separately from the Laity. In truth even though the Laity are very involve within the framework of Church government it is usually the clergy which implements it. I didn’t know about Sensus Fidelium so I thank you for bringing it up. It seems to be a very excellent document. I think it is very similar to the East with the exception that the Laity in the East has a voice to whom can be ordained. I do not think the Catholic Church has this same principal but you can correct me on this. I presume when watching the video “Orthodoxy 101” that it helped explained to me some principals involving how the East governs. Not all decisions of those councils were accepted until another future council ratifies it. This was how the East did her business. However one can say about the 7th Council that it still needs an 8th to ratify it. As yet no 8th ever came to being. Hopefully an 8th will just what we all need both Catholic and Orthodox and it may come just around the corner. In truth the Eastern Church does not work out their levels of government as does the Church of England. In the Anglican Church things can be past as long as there is a 51% majority. I may think it is higher in percentage but the point is in the Orthodox Church it needs a 100% approval at all levels. This type of government resembles more the action in the Acts of the apostles when it was said “it is good to us and to the Holy Spirit.” All must agree or it will not get pass. The Orthodox Church still copies this action from Acts. In similar fashion Rome still does within its own structure but as I said in my other posts neither Church consults the other anymore. I hope to get you more decisions from the East as soon as I get them. My life in the East is much shorter than my life in the West so I forget easily some meetings or councils that the Church had rejected when it was not accepted by the Laity. I heard this many times while living in the East.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

You say that you put the private revelation “in its place” and then proceed to use it as part of your argument. This doesn’t make sense.

Okay, let me explain. I think that it is obvious that Satan wants to take down the Catholic Church first because everything else will be easier for him after that. Now, it just so happens that the Pope had a vision that seems to correspond to this. However, that vision is private revelation and not public revelation, and we are under no obligation to accept private revelation given to any pope or saint. So, if you happen to agree with me, then you may be interested to know of that vision. If you disagree with me, well, that’s okay, too.

You’re bearing the brunt? WE ALL are bearing the temptations of Satan…every Christian battles with evil, in our hearts…where the true fight is. You say you don’t discount us, and then you proceed to discount us.

No, I am not speaking of personal temptations to sin. I am saying that I believe that Satan is seeking to destroy the Catholic Church as an institution. Of course, he also wants to destroy each of us individually, but that is not his primary goal, IMO.

I am pointing this out, because I don’t think that you are acting maliciously. I think you honestly don’t see how rude and belligerent your posts come across to us. It smacks of a Triumphalism that provokes a response in us.

I understand why you would feel that way. I had to carpool some kids for the past hour, and I was thinking about this thread while I was driving. Here’s what I came up with:

A few weeks ago, President Obama spoke of American Exceptionalism. What exactly does that mean? Well, according to the ever popular Wikipedia:

American exceptionalism is the theory that the United States is “qualitatively different” from other nations. In this view, America’s exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called “the first new nation” and developing a uniquely American ideology, “Americanism”, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, populism and laissez-faire. This ideology itself is often referred to as “American exceptionalism.”

Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense. To them, the United States is like the biblical shining “City upon a Hill”, and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries.

Now, to the rest of the world, this may be an incredibly offensive concept.

How does this apply to our discussion? Well, I could speak of Petrine exceptionalism in much the same way, but whereas the United States is like the city on a hill, the Catholic Church IS that city.

It’s really simple on one level. As a Catholic, I have a pope, and you don’t. That doesn’t mean that I’m superior to you. In fact, to whom more is given more is expected. So, I should be more humble, for sure. But there’s really no way for me, as a Catholic, to say, “I’m sorry but you have it wrong here” without offending anyone who is Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, or whatever. I’m not trying to puff myself up or put you down. I’m just stating what I (and about a billion other people) happen to believe.

I do understand why you might have a chip on your shoulder or get immediately defensive, but this IS and apologetics forum hosted by an organization devoted to explaining and defending the Catholic faith. You must expect that I’m going to point out some inconvenient truths, right? And have you noticed that I don’t get as upset when y’all fire back? It’s because I don’t really expect you to agree with me…at first.

I too am asking myself “Why are you here?” This is a Roman Catholic board. quite obviously you are being prickly and defensive because you perceive our arguments and posts as an attack on Holy Mother Church. You seek to best us in the argument, and when that fails you resort to sarcasm and the fall back apologetic talking points that Latins use. Perhaps you view the very fact that we are vigorously arguing these points as an attack. In real dialogue, things can get prickly.

Oh. So, you think I have been prickly. Gee, you should see me when I’m really fired up, then. I thought I was being pretty even-keeled. I’ll review my recent posts and try to do better.

We are not going to accept Universal Jurisdiction, nor are we going to “Come Home to Rome”…our view is that “Rome needs to come Home.” Our respective leaderships are trying to meet in the middle, but it is a long process.

Yes, this is what I have been learning the past few weeks. If you had asked me about ecumenism a month ago, my first reaction would have been that we are really close with the Orthodox but the LUTHERANS are the problem. Now, having read some jointly prepared documents, I am very impressed with the possibility of real healing on that front, but my interactions with EVERY SINGLE ORTHODOX ON THIS FORUM WITHOUT EXCEPTION has been “prickly” at best.

I have noticed that many online Latin Apologists are particularly defensive when arguing with Orthodox (be they EO or OO) because as someone else pointed out…we are an alternative historical narrative. Our existence is a threat to Roman Ultramontane apologetics, and we are not easily pushed over…Rome does not own the word “Catholic”…

Nah. None of that worries me. Augustine was right…everyone wants to horn in on our brand name.

Perhaps this last post will result in my banning. So be it. I don’t wish to argue with you or anyone else anymore after today…

Lord have mercy on us.

I hope neither of us are banned, but sometimes the truth needs to be spoken and heard. I have done my part.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The major doctrines of our Lord Jesus were formulated in the first 8 centuries and were accomplished by both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Were there two churches at that time, chimo?

 

[jimkhong]

Thanks chimo, it is very illuminating. I think Easterners will find Pope Francis way of doing things one step closer to you. After more than a century of Curial papacies (with a little interrugnum under John XXIII when the Holy Spirit breathed into the Church), it is refreshing to have the Holy Spirit allowed in once again and I pray for the protection of the person of Pope Francis and his mission.

However one can say about the 7th Council that it still needs an 8th to ratify it. As yet no 8th ever came to being. Hopefully an 8th will just what we all need both Catholic and Orthodox and it may come just around the corner.

Just out of interest, does this mean that the 7th Council is not yet validated? If so, wouldn’t that mean iconoclasm is not yet officially condemned in the Orthodox Church? And so, the Feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy would seem to have no firm basis?

 

[Randy_Carson]

So now I don’t know why I’m here. Maybe I still feel it’s some obligation to defend my church against the blatant inaccuracies perpetuated by CA members.Maybe because it’s the only place I get to read Cavaradossi and dzheremi, as I don’t spend a lot of time on OC.net

Does Cavaradossi teach at a university somewhere?

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t recall that either Fr. Harrison or I “blamed” you for the obvious ethnicity of your churches. It’s just an obvious statement of fact, and one that seems to undermine your claim to true catholicity.

What is ‘obvious’, and even what may be taken as ‘fact’, apparently varies according to jurisdiction around here, because none of what you have said against the Eastern Orthodox Church strikes me as particularly factual. It is rather a series of distortions and prejudices that you have proclaimed as though they have the a priori status of facts, purely based on the strength with which you cling to them despite all evidence to the contrary. Sorry, my friend, but that does not pass for fact in the rest of the world, and it is not obvious why anyone should take your viewpoint as anything other than the opinion of one whose zeal exceeds his experience in the matters of which he speaks.

Look, no one is saying that you’re not in communion with Rome or that you’re not members of a true Church.

Pardon? I’m not sure if the pronoun you’re using is referring to me as an individual, or the Eastern Orthodox Church as a Church, or what…no matter, as neither of us are in communion with your Pope, nor would we take that communion (or the absence of it) as evidence that we are members of a true church…whatever that’s supposed to mean anyway when someone you’re not in communion with says it… (the Orthodox do not theologize outside of the Church, so that whole sentence strikes me as odd.)

You have a long and honorable history and heritage, and your faith has been watered by the blood of martyrs same as ours.

Okay.

You just haven’t maintained the proper perspectives on the papacy, and that has made all the difference.

Interesting that you should put this after honoring the blood of the martyrs, and maintain that it, not their blood, is what makes all the difference. What was it that Tertullian wrote – was it that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church, or was it that the proper perspectivs on the Roman papacy is the seed of the Church? Hmm…

You’re in a tight orbit like Mercury around the sun - better than many others, but a distinct body in orbit nonetheless.

I haven’t the slightest idea what this means.

Um…doesn’t that prove my point to some degree? Orthodoxy is largely irrelevant in much of the world. Maybe not in YOUR world, but everywhere else outside of a few European and Asian countries.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I thought I shared the same earth with everybody else. Anyway, I live in the United States, and our liturgy is in English here, so…yeah. No clue what you’re talking about here.

I don’t get it. Is your point that we’re not a big enough deal in Western Europe and North America, i.e., where all the white people are? I’m not going to speak for the EO, but regarding my own church, we seem to be doing quite well by all accounts, particularly given the newness of the Coptic presence in the West (first church established in the USA circa 1960; I think there might have been one in London a year or two before that, but that was it for Copts outside of the Middle East). There are native Orthodox churches within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in France and Britain, and in those places we also worship in the language of the people, same as we do in Coptic monasteries in Italy. And in Americas, we’ve got churches in Mexico and Bolivia, which are all converts except for the priests (in Bolivia, over 400+ attend weekly at the cathedral in La Paz). And from the humble beginnings of less than a dozen churches in all of North America in the times of HH Pope Kyrillos VI (d. 1971), there are now over 200 in the United States alone. And that’s only counting the Coptic church. The Ethiopians, Armenians, Indians, Syriacs, etc. all of their own churches, monasteries, etc. spread throughout the world, too. I would venture to guess that in terms of active membership, the Syriac Orthodox Church could be the largest functioning church in Sweden (Syriacs have been settling in Sweden since the 1960s, and are there in huge numbers and are fully integrated into Swedish life; check out Fr. Suleyman Wannes giving an interview in Swedish on Suryoyo SAT channel)… If England, France, Sweden (in addition to Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and all the other places that have Orthodox churches of all kinds in them) and the rest of the world are just a “few countries in Europe and Asia”, that’s news to the people who actually live in those countries. Here’s a question for you, since you seem to be bothered about what you falsely claim is the limited geographic range of the Orthodox Church: Where would Orthodox have to be present for you to not write them off based on your false idea that they’re “irrelevant” because you’ve never been to one?

 

[dzheremi]

(cont’d.)

Okay. Normally, I’m up for a good row, but that’s not why I started this thread. And whuile folks don’t always agree with my positions or like my presentation style, that’s the first time anyone on CAF has called me a liar.

You know, I think you’re right about this. You’re not lying. You’re presenting your opinions as though they’re self-evident facts, and that’s even worse. To actually lie, you have to respect the truth enough to recognize that what you’re choosing to present instead is something else. So I retract my previous statement. You have not lied. You have disrespected the truth in favor of a caricature, and in eviscerating that caricature, seen fit to tell the rest of us how woefully deficient our churches are, for some reason, how they are unworkable and irrelevant and all that because they’re not like your church. Fine. If that’s your yardstick, then I guess you’re technically right (how could you not be when you’re the one deciding and then presenting your opinion as fact?), but that’s awfully myopic and deeply ahistorical. In that context, I can say without a hint of malice that I hope that we stay “irrelevant” to those whose acceptance would involve us giving up our faith and embracing another. Better to be seen as irrelevant while working for the kingdom of God than to be embraced by the world and become transformed for the worse by it. I’m not so much interested in relevance if what comes with harms the faith and the soul.

Or as our mother among the hermits of the desert Amma Syncletica once put it:

‘Just as it is impossible to be at the same moment both a plant and a seed, so it is impossible for us to be surrounded by worldly honor and at the same time to bear heavenly fruit.’

Long live the irrelevant, unworkable and baffling Orthodox faith that has brought many a learned fool to salvation in Christ as little children.

(An aside: Obviously I am using these negative terms in something of a different sense than you intended them, but if you truly believe that Orthodoxy is not relevant to the life of the average Christian for any reason, it might not be a bad idea to find a copy of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers for yourself. I bought one several years ago for something like $7 from a religious bookstore when I first began seriously exploring Orthodoxy, and while I very much expected to find in them an esoteric, otherworldly and inscrutably mystical – that is to say irrelevant – spirituality, I was shocked at how utterly normal they are. Really, my previous exposure to Orthodoxy had been visits to Russian and OCA churches when I was taking Russian classes, so while I could understand the language more or less [Slavonic is similar to Russian, but definitely not the same], I probably thought much the same as you seem to: This is a church for Slavic people or people enamored with that culture, and I’m not a part of it. It wasn’t really until I found the Coptic Orthodox Church, and moreover the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, that I realized that Orthodoxy could be for me, too. Not only could be, but is! And so I must be for it. Please understand, this is not a call to convert, but to attain some level of understanding from an interior perspective, as a sort of “first step” to really know what it is that Orthodoxy is about, because it’s not about being Greek, or Russian, or Arab, or Syriac, or whatever. And it’s certainly not about being anti-Latin, as the Western Romans among the Desert Fathers such as St. Arsenius will attest. But to get a sense of it as a practical path to participation in the life of the Holy Trinity and transformation through direct communion with God, it is good to mediate on the same simple words that fed our fathers and continue to feed us, not as they may be presented relative to modern ecclesiastical divisions, but as they were received, and for the same spiritual benefit that they may provide us if we seek them with a pure heart.)

 

[Nine_Two]

Ah. Then you will be comforted to learn that infallibility is a check which prevents the Holy Father from ever going outside the bounds of Tradition.

IOW, every pope is constrained by the teaching of his predecessors.

But the infallibility of man is itself against Tradition. You’ve created a Catch-22. He is infallible within the bounds of a tradition which says man cannot be infallible.

 

[chimo]

Thanks chimo, it is very illuminating. I think Easterners will find Pope Francis way of doing things one step closer to you. After more than a century of Curial papacies (with a little interrugnum under John XXIII when the Holy Spirit breathed into the Church), it is refreshing to have the Holy Spirit allowed in once again and I pray for the protection of the person of Pope Francis and his mission.

Just out of interest, does this mean that the 7th Council is not yet validated? If so, wouldn’t that mean iconoclasm is not yet officially condemned in the Orthodox Church? And so, the Feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy would seem to have no firm basis?

No it was ratified in a different manner. As I said earlier the motions of these decisions must first exist if they are to be accepted. Since there was no movement from the Church to disqualify the 7th Council there is no need to reject it. However this may be and how the Eastern Church governs herself an 8th Council will just say, its OK. Remember too that it took another hundred years or more after the Council before the whole Church completely rejected Iconoclasm. All the 7th Council did was to put the right teaching into motion. This would qualify it as being valid once the whole Church accepts it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Pardon? I’m not sure if the pronoun you’re using is referring to me as an individual, or the Eastern Orthodox Church as a Church, or what…no matter, as neither of us are in communion with your Pope, nor would we take that communion (or the absence of it) as evidence that we are members of a true church…whatever that’s supposed to mean anyway when someone you’re not in communion with says it… (the Orthodox do not theologize outside of the Church, so that whole sentence strikes me as odd.)

Since Orthodox members of this forum are quick to point out how much respect they have for the Bishop of Rome, I hope you don’t mind if I answer with a paragraph or two from a book produced at his initiative:

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 “All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.”

837 “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’”

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."

This is what I was referring to.

 

[Randy_Carson]

(An aside: Obviously I am using these negative terms in something of a different sense than you intended them, but if you truly believe that Orthodoxy is not relevant to the life of the average Christian for any reason, it might not be a bad idea to find a copy of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers for yourself. I bought one several years ago for something like $7 from a religious bookstore when I first began seriously exploring Orthodoxy, and while I very much expected to find in them an esoteric, otherworldly and inscrutably mystical – that is to say irrelevant – spirituality, I was shocked at how utterly normal they are. Really, my previous exposure to Orthodoxy had been visits to Russian and OCA churches when I was taking Russian classes, so while I could understand the language more or less [Slavonic is similar to Russian, but definitely not the same], I probably thought much the same as you seem to: This is a church for Slavic people or people enamored with that culture, and I’m not a part of it. It wasn’t really until I found the Coptic Orthodox Church, and moreover the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, that I realized that Orthodoxy could be for me, too. Not only could be, but is! And so I must be for it. Please understand, this is not a call to convert, but to attain some level of understanding from an interior perspective, as a sort of “first step” to really know what it is that Orthodoxy is about, because it’s not about being Greek, or Russian, or Arab, or Syriac, or whatever. And it’s certainly not about being anti-Latin, as the Western Romans among the Desert Fathers such as St. Arsenius will attest. But to get a sense of it as a practical path to participation in the life of the Holy Trinity and transformation through direct communion with God, it is good to mediate on the same simple words that fed our fathers and continue to feed us, not as they may be presented relative to modern ecclesiastical divisions, but as they were received, and for the same spiritual benefit that they may provide us if we seek them with a pure heart.)

I read Sayings of the Desert Fathers many years ago along with other writings of Eastern and Western monks when I was a candidate at a Trappist monastery. I was quite fascinated by the heroic accounts of Anthony and other Abbas who turned into living flames, etc.

Come to think of it, though - I did not enter that monastery, so perhaps I never really understood the interior life very well at all.

 

[Randy_Carson]

He is infallible within the bounds of a tradition which says man cannot be infallible.

Matthew 19:26
Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

 

[Nine_Two]

So now I don’t know why I’m here. Maybe I still feel it’s some obligation to defend my church against the blatant inaccuracies perpetuated by CA members.Maybe because it’s the only place I get to read Cavaradossi and dzheremi, as I don’t spend a lot of time on OC.net

I’ve just read through everything in this thread that has been posted since I posted this morning (several pages!) and now I’m beginning to question why I’m here. I thought it was to learn about Catholicism and interact with Catholics on an ecumenical level, but all these loaded questions… what do we Orthodox accomplish by being here?

I can’t help but wonder how many will be banned or warned as a result of this thread?

 

[jimkhong]

I’ve just read through everything in this thread that has been posted since I posted this morning (several pages!) and now I’m beginning to question why I’m here. I thought it was to learn about Catholicism and interact with Catholics on an ecumenical level, but all these loaded questions… what do we Orthodox accomplish by being here?

I can’t help but wonder how many will be banned or warned as a result of this thread?

If it makes you guys feel any better, I have learnt a lot from the Orthodox in this forum. Both about the faith and practices of the Orthodox as well as understanding the basis and weakness of of my own Mother Church.

There is much in both positions on this thread and others similar to it that the churches of Francis and Bartholomew can reflect on. And I will do my own relection as well.

Also, the forum here seems to be more user friendly than OrthodoxChristianity.net. Not that this should be used a proof of that the Catholic Church is better.

 

[dzheremi]

Randy,

Thanks for clarifying what you meant by that “I’m not saying you’re not in union with the Bishop of Rome” comment. I was aware of your church’s view of the Orthodox, but hadn’t made that connection based on your post.

While it’s nice to know that you don’t completely hate us on an official level or whatever, it should be noted that the Orthodox do not see things in this manner. To say “the only thing that’s lacking is communion” doesn’t really make sense. There isn’t some sort of ‘tipping point to Orthodoxy’ whereby you can get really, really close to it in some way and then you’re Orthodox by virtue of that closeness even if you’re not actually baptized and communed within the Orthodox Church. You either are Orthodox or you’re not, and it’s not possible to be Orthodox outside of the Orthodox Church. So, by the same token, as I am not in actual sacramental union (which from the Orthodox point of view necessitates unity of faith) with the Roman Catholic Church, there is no way by which it can be said that I am somehow in union with Rome. We do not commemorate the Pope of Rome in our diptychs, we do not look to him or those in his fold for Orthodox teaching or guidance, and if I were to attempt to share in your Mass, even if it were in an Eastern Catholic Church which might seem to you to be very close to Orthodoxy, I would be immediately excommunicated from my own Church. We simply are not in union with you in any fashion.

Sorry if this is kind of a bummer to read, but it’s the reality of the situation. We don’t go in for any kind of dematerialized/dualistic/cosmic approach to communion whereby contradicting theologies, ecclesiologies, etc. may be united so long as we all pay appropriate homage to the Pope of Rome, or any Christian leader. If you want to commune with us, you must actually become Orthodox (as in, leave your present communion and seek and obtain baptism and/or charismation [the reception of Catholics varies across my communion] in our Church). If we want to commune with you…well, it sounds like the RCC is all for it, but that’s not right according to our own doctrines and practices.

 

[Rawb]

I’ve just read through everything in this thread that has been posted since I posted this morning (several pages!) and now I’m beginning to question why I’m here. I thought it was to learn about Catholicism and interact with Catholics on an ecumenical level, but all these loaded questions… what do we Orthodox accomplish by being here?

I can’t help but wonder how many will be banned or warned as a result of this thread?

I know what you mean. I’m not sure if being here actually does help explain Orthodoxy to people or if it’s just banging my head against the wall. Especially when I lose my temper at being told so often what it is my Church believes and the patronizing tones of those who believe they both know our faith better than we ourselves and who seem to believe we just need to stop being children about it and start falling in line behind the pope of Rome.

Also, the forum here seems to be more user friendly than OrthodoxChristianity.net. Not that this should be used a proof of that the Catholic Church is better.

I would actually agree about that. I prefer The Ancient Way, an Orthodox forum on the Christian Forums network (they have tons of subforums for different churches, including Roman Catholicism (One Bread, One Body) for community and politeness, but few, IMO, beat CAF for ease of use.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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

I’m talking about the claim made in that quote from another thread which you cross-posted here, claiming that there is a disconnect between what Patriarch Dositheos taught and what our modern theologians teach. Essentially my criticism of that statement is that one must understand Orthodox tradition before understanding what Patriarch Dositheos wrote in his confession (i.e., one must understand what the Orthodox traditionally have objected to when it comes to the Western models of original sin, purgatory, temporal punishment, the use of Aristotelian categories to describe the mystery of the Eucharist, etc.) There is no conflict between the Confession of Dositheos and our own modern theologians, but there rather is a difference in the language used (namely, Patrairch Dositheos’ importation of terms which are foreign to the patrimony of the East).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

Thanks for clarifying what you meant by that “I’m not saying you’re not in union with the Bishop of Rome” comment. I was aware of your church’s view of the Orthodox, but hadn’t made that connection based on your post.

Ah. Good.

While it’s nice to know that you don’t completely hate us on an official level or whatever,

Actually, I don’t hate you on any level. I don’t agree with you completely, but I don’t hate anyone.

it should be noted that the Orthodox do not see things in this manner. To say “the only thing that’s lacking is communion” doesn’t really make sense.

I agree. And that’s not what the Catechism says. The passage is:

"With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

There isn’t some sort of ‘tipping point to Orthodoxy’ whereby you can get really, really close to it in some way and then you’re Orthodox by virtue of that closeness even if you’re not actually baptized and communed within the Orthodox Church. You either are Orthodox or you’re not, and it’s not possible to be Orthodox outside of the Orthodox Church.

Ah. And you see, I believe that everyone who is baptized is a member of the one body of Christ, and that body began calling itself the “Catholic Church” prior to the end of the first century. Here’s how I would make that case (and this is not a cut & paste from some website):

Earliest Use of the Name “Catholic Church”

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26). As early as 107 A.D., those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. John, the beloved disciple, may have thought of himself as a member of the Catholic Church!

The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day. As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” – terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.

Protestant Scholar on the use of the Proper Name "Catholic"

One Protestant author who is honest about this history is the renowned Church historian, J. N. D. Kelly. Kelly dates the usage of the name “Catholic” after the death of the Apostle John, but he acknowledges that the original Church founded by Jesus called itself the “Catholic Church”.

“As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general’ … As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).​

So, even Protestant scholars admit that the Fathers of the Church were using the term “Catholic Church” as a proper noun and not as an adjective.

Now, what does that mean? Well, for me it means that every single Christian on the planet is a member of the Catholic Church whether they know it or want it or not.

We could talk about formal communion and implicit and explicit desire, etc., but the bottom line is that you, as a member of the Orthodox Church, are ultimately a member of the one body of Christ which is known properly as the “Catholic Church”. Thus, you ARE in some communion with Rome whether you like it or not.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, by the same token, as I am not in actual sacramental union (which from the Orthodox point of view necessitates unity of faith) with the Roman Catholic Church, there is no way by which it can be said that I am somehow in union with Rome. We do not commemorate the Pope of Rome in our diptychs, we do not look to him or those in his fold for Orthodox teaching or guidance, and if I were to attempt to share in your Mass, even if it were in an Eastern Catholic Church which might seem to you to be very close to Orthodoxy, I would be immediately excommunicated from my own Church. We simply are not in union with you in any fashion.

I know you think that which is what is so distressing. Lutherans and Anglicans have far less in common with Catholicism than you do, yet they are more eager to acknowledge that they are Catholics than you. There is a deep, bitter root in Orthodoxy that has to be removed.

Sorry if this is kind of a bummer to read, but it’s the reality of the situation. We don’t go in for any kind of dematerialized/dualistic/cosmic approach to communion whereby contradicting theologies, ecclesiologies, etc. may be united so long as we all pay appropriate homage to the Pope of Rome, or any Christian leader. If you want to commune with us, you must actually become Orthodox (as in, leave your present communion and seek and obtain baptism and/or charismation [the reception of Catholics varies across my communion] in our Church). If we want to commune with you…well, it sounds like the RCC is all for it, but that’s not right according to our own doctrines and practices.

Gee…the very sentiments for which Protestants usually slam Catholics.

 

[Randy_Carson]

To All Orthodox:

I appreciate the fact that some of you are unhappy with a few of my questions and posts.To be fair, I’m not entirely comfortable with all of yours, either.

Perhaps some context for my statements will help. I see the world as an increasingly dangerous place for people of faith. Militant Islam is on the rise, secular humanism and an agressive atheism are making inroads into what was, here in the US, a predominantly Christian society. The days are shortening, night is getting longer, and the enemy is encamped around us. This is not a time for disunity and discord.

Sacred Scripture reveals that the unity of the Body of Christ was intended to be a sign to the world that Jesus was sent from the Father. It stands to reason, then, that our lack of unity has weakened our witness to the Truth. As the world slides into disbelief, not only are souls lost, but we ourselves are endangered. An apologist whose name I have forgotten once offered the idea that one reason for doing apologetics is to make our own lives better. It’s not the primary reason, of course, but I agree with his point: it would be wise for us to convert our enemies before they convert or kill us.

With these thoughts in mind, I am seeking to understand what divides Christianity. Catholic and Protestant. East and West. I read, I listen to debates, I ask questions, I poke, and I prod. I quote from what I read and watch the reactions to those quotes.

Sometimes, as someone rightly pointed out, I am guilty of “triumphalism”. Well, I’m guilty of believing in “American Exceptionalism”, too. Just as no country on earth has brought freedom to more people than the U.S., so, too, no other church has brought the good news to more people than the Catholic Church. I’m proud of this.

Until a month or so ago, I rarely ventured into this subforum. I spent all my time in the Apologetics forum where I fielded questions from Catholics and Protestants alike. But I wanted to learn more about what other faiths believe, so here I am. It’s been an eye-opening experience. Two examples will suffice.

In the past, I’ve had real, serious doubts about Martin Luther personally and Lutheranism in general. If you were to read my older threads and posts on Lutheranism, you would be in no doubt about my disdain and contempt. However, recently, very recently, I was intrigued by someone’s reference to a document produced by the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity, so I began to read it (lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/From%20Conflict%20to%20Communion.pdf).

Needless to say, my eyes have been opened. While it is fair to say that there is much work yet to be done to heal the divide that separates us - truthfully, more than may ever be accomplished - I’m very encouraged by what I read, and my attitude toward Lutherans has done a complete 180. I’m still not a fan of Martin Luther, though.

At about the same time, I also opened several threads on Eastern Orthodoxy. I’m college-educated, reasonably well-read in some subjects, and I’m highly interested subjects relating to our common faith. Yet, in my entire life, I think I have known exactly two people who were Orthodox. So, I have much to learn.

Now, I can appreciate that my approach needs polishing and that my style tends to be more aggressive than some people can handle. For all of that I apologize. But I am open-minded and eager to understand. And thus far, I don’t. What I’m hearing from Orthodox is that you have no interest whatsoever in re-uniting with Rome, that our laity are nominal at best, that our liturgy is a joke, and that the Bishop of Rome is directly responsible for all that has gone wrong in the West. That may not be what you meant, but that’s what I’ve heard. I hope that official East-West dialogue is more cordial than that, but I’d have to read something better than the posts in this forum to believe that they are.

Gentlemen, we don’t have time for this. The prophet Nehemiah said,

“You see the trouble we are in: Jerusalem lies in ruins, and its gates have been burned with fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, and we will no longer be in disgrace (Neh 2:17).”

Can we rebuild together?

Randy Carson