Examining Orthodox Theology

[Credo_ergo_sum]

For many it is beause when ever one debates theology, for Catholics it always comes down to one thing: Authority. Who has the authority to define a dogma or teaching? And where do they get that authority from?Any time we compare and contrast theology, whether with our Orthodox brethren or Protestant ones, it will and does always come to that.

This hasn’t been the traditional approach of the CC though. The Council of Florence for example was all debate on the Fathers and theology instead of authority. I think I like the Florentine approach better.

 

[Cider]

Though I am veering toward the Orthodox position of authority vested in ecumenical synods and councils, than in just one Bishop. And even then, it is my understanding that the Orthodox position is that even synods and councils don’t have ultimate authority or supremacy, that any Bishop can disagree with them, since each Bishop/Patriarch has primacy over his own patriarchate as a successor to an Apostle. I don’t know if I like that, as I think the Christian faith should always have an outward sign of unity.

-Chris

I think that the Orthodox communion with each other is clearly a sign of unity. They are in communion with those that believe that same as they do. As far as synods and ecumenical councils go, that form of authority is the history of the Church. And there is much stronger historical evidence of that than there is in Primacy or Supremacy, IMO. Even going back to the first council in Jerusalem and all through the first 7 ecumenical councils.

 

[GaryTaylor]

This hasn’t been the traditional approach of the CC though. The Council of Florence for example was all debate on the Fathers and theology instead of authority. I think I like the Florentine approach better.

And does everyone in the East agree with this? There seems to a point of contention in the theology of the Sacraments.

Yet here is the words of Florence…

PENANCE

[DS 1323] The fourth sacrament is penance. The material, as we may say, consists in the acts of penitence, which are divided into three parts. The first of these is contrition of the heart, wherein the sinner must grieve for the sins he has committed, with the resolve to commit no further sins. Second comes confession with the mouth, to which it pertains that the sinner should make confession to his priest of all the sins he holds in his memory. The third is satisfaction for sins according to the judgment of the priest, and this is made chiefly by prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. The form of this sacrament consists in the words of absolution which the priest speaks when be says, “I absolve thee,” etc. ; and the minister of this sacrament is the priest, who has authority to absolve either regularly or by the commission of a superior. The benefit of this sacrament is absolution from sins.

“The benefit of this Sacrament is the absolution of sins”

So then what is the East theological perspective that is so very different from the West?

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CGMQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fordham.edu%2Fhalsall%2Fsource%2F1438sacraments.html&ei=dnEaUIvsHKTi0QG-nYHoBg&usg=AFQjCNHrCjv3Z18dUvtWd2JKvtvOraBONQ&sig2=5FxK6J0McLBc8PM15BLCUQ

Take particular notice also of the Non-Issues of other Sacraments also such as Baptism and the Eucharist. This like thinking can be further confirmed in the existing issues of the BVM, the IC etc etc.

 

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Nicea325 V
My brother…I beg your pardon? Imposed? Where are sources confirming such a statement, the Church of Rome “imposed” it on the Eastern Rites? B…

The Papacy was imposed on the western churches, and it was later imposed upon the eastern churches which have been taken over by Rome.

The modern method of imposition appears to be by codifying the canons, which only Rome is presently allowed to do. Eastern churches are required to adopt the CCEO, which is not of their own making and does not derive from the seven councils nor local eastern councils.

In modern times, the Papacy also has the advantage of controling diaspora communities, by unilaterally restricting the eastern churches to a ‘home territory’. This gives the Pope the sole power to erect dioceses and name bishops for them.

As the situation continues to evolve and more eastern Catholics flee the Middle east, one can expect that the Pope will directly name more and more bishops to the synods of those ancient and venerable churches, and the grip on them will grow even tighter.
.

“imposed”, “taken over”, “controlled”, “grip” …
Just more invented polemic and no substantive response to Nicea325.

 

[dvdjs]

So, the Orthodox have no case against the Filioque, in your view?

The evidence from Orthodox history is that filioque in not inherently contrary to Orthodox theology; its addition was early - prior to the idea of a “base” text - spread organically, and was ultimately accepted in an ecumencial council, albeit one that was disavowed after the Ottomans conquered Constan(name removed by moderator)ole.

The is plenty of room for discussion about certain theological interpretations that may depart from Orthodox theology, and even ones that are in contradiction with it, but the rest is quibbling.

 

[ConstantineTG]

To be honest, Constantine, I disagree. That sounds like a form of branch theory…

Recall the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which clarifies and asserts that Christ’s Church on earth, as organized and constituted as a visible society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is pretty clearly defined as that communion of churches in full communion with the Roman Pontiff.

Of course, it goes on to state quite unambiguously that many elements of truth and sanctification are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church, and this is certainly more true of the Orthodox Churches than of any other group. But even with their status - from our point of view - of being true particular churches who have preserved the orthodox and apostolic faith, and who have all seven Holy Sacraments, I still don’t think we can say they’re considered by our Church to be a communion in which the Catholic Church visibly subsists. As I said, that would be branch theory.

If you want, I can probably dig up the several CDF clarifications issued about this precise matter.

Christ is where we find truth.

 

[ConstantineTG]

For many it is beause when ever one debates theology, for Catholics it always comes down to one thing: Authority. Who has the authority to define a dogma or teaching? And where do they get that authority from?Any time we compare and contrast theology, whether with our Orthodox brethren or Protestant ones, it will and does always come to that. So it’s not so much “submission to Rome,” at least in a proud and bullying way, but that we believe only the successor to Peter, who just coincidentally happens to be the Bishop of Rome, and those Apostolic successors (Bishops) in communion with him, has that authority.

Though I am veering toward the Orthodox position of authority vested in ecumenical synods and councils, than in just one Bishop. And even then, it is my understanding that the Orthodox position is that even synods and councils don’t have ultimate authority or supremacy, that any Bishop can disagree with them, since each Bishop/Patriarch has primacy over his own patriarchate as a successor to an Apostle. I don’t know if I like that, as I think the Christian faith should always have an outward sign of unity.

-Chris

The ultimate authority of a Church is the bishop. The other titles are just how the ecclesiology of the Church developed, but they are just bishops as well. A council is when bishops (who all are of equal rank) come together and discuss important issues, including those where important matters of the faith are in question. They decide what is the correct course of action and what the correct belief is. Those who don’t agree are anathemized and removed from the Church for heresy if they do not repent of their error. So there is unity in faith.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The ultimate authority of a Church is the bishop. So there is unity in faith.

And where does this Bishops authority originate from in your understanding. Also how do you define Unity sense you have a diverse idea in Christians receiving Communion together, and issue btw which I totally disagree with.

And how does this Bishops authority interact with the temporal in the case where Russia has a moratorium on the Catholic Faith. The Bishop of Rome isn’t even allowed in the country.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

And where does this Bishops authority originate from in your understanding.

From God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

From God.

Exactly and thats who made St Peter the Prince of the Apostles, leader of Choir and all that other good pious writing the Saints so clearly transmitted to us, and that is passed in Apostolic Succession.

 

[cmforte]

=GaryTaylor;9603884]And where does this Bishops authority originate from in your understanding.

In my understanding in my research of Orthodox theology is a Bishop/Patriarch in an Orthodox church gets it exactly like where the Pope does: an Apostle, who himself got that authority from Jesus/God.

-Chris

 

[GaryTaylor]

In my understanding in my research of Orthodox theology is a Bishop/Patriarch in an Orthodox church gets it exactly like where the Pope does: an Apostle, who himself got that authority from Jesus/God.

-Chris

This is what I find facinating with not only the EO but with the Anglicans also. 11-12 centuries, thus we are debating their own history to a very large extent. And I shouldn’t say “their” it is “our” history.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Since we are talking theology, let me put this another way. Often we see two versions of the same topic. Most often I find no issue East or West after in-depth reading.

The Primacy which IMHO is the topic, we are awaiting the Pope to clarity the East/West point of contention. Can this be done? Sure, but when is speculation. Realistically this is as far we can draw out that conversation of the topic.

 

[ConstantineTG]

And where does this Bishops authority originate from in your understanding.

Jesus Christ.

Also how do you define Unity sense you have a diverse idea in Christians receiving Communion together, and issue btw which I totally disagree with.

There is no diverse idea in Christianity, there is one belief. Either you believe or you don’t. If not, then you do not possess the Kingdom of God in your Church.

And how does this Bishops authority interact with the temporal in the case where Russia has a moratorium on the Catholic Faith. The Bishop of Rome isn’t even allowed in the country.

Does it matter? It is no different in the early Roman times when the Church was outlawed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Since we are talking theology, let me put this another way. Often we see two versions of the same topic. Most often I find no issue East or West after in-depth reading.

There is a lot of difference, and you need to experience, not read. Reading, you make your own conclusion which is usually what you want it to be.

The Primacy which IMHO is the topic, we are awaiting the Pope to clarity the East/West point of contention. Can this be done? Sure, but when is speculation. Realistically this is as far we can draw out that conversation of the topic.

Primacy is not the topic of this thread. There are two other threads already dedicated to that, let us focus this one on theology of the East.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Primacy is not the topic of this thread. There are two other threads already dedicated to that, let us focus this one on theology of the East.

We’re on page 12 and very little has been said about Orthodox Theology, where this thread was about in the first place.

 

[ConstantineTG]

We’re on page 12 and very little has been said about Orthodox Theology, where this thread was about in the first place.

Well, for most people that is the only issue they can find with the Orthodox, the Papacy.

 

[GaryTaylor]

let us focus this one on theology of the East.

Amen

 

[GaryTaylor]

My question since I make no claim to worship in the Eastern Church’s, but from what I have read here. Where is the difference in the Deposit of Faith?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
My brother…I beg your pardon? Imposed? Where are sources confirming such a statement, the Church of Rome “imposed” it on the Eastern Rites? B…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios
The Papacy was imposed on the western churches, and it was later imposed upon the eastern churches which have been taken over by Rome.

The modern method of imposition appears to be by codifying the canons, which only Rome is presently allowed to do. Eastern churches are required to adopt the CCEO, which is not of their own making and does not derive from the seven councils nor local eastern councils.

In modern times, the Papacy also has the advantage of controling diaspora communities, by unilaterally restricting the eastern churches to a ‘home territory’. This gives the Pope the sole power to erect dioceses and name bishops for them.

As the situation continues to evolve and more eastern Catholics flee the Middle east, one can expect that the Pope will directly name more and more bishops to the synods of those ancient and venerable churches, and the grip on them will grow even tighter.
.

“imposed”, “taken over”, “controlled”, “grip” …
Just more invented polemic and no substantive response to Nicea325.

Indeed. I am just curious to read the historical evidence showing when Rome “imposed” the papacy on the western churches and later the eastern churches?