Having doubts after looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, development of doctrine

[josie_L]

*Note for this thread just in case someone cares, RCC and EO will be used to denote each Church. Even if the terms aren’t technically correct they are unambiguous

As I was perusing the internet I became curious as to Eastern Orthodox beliefs, and their view of history. I will not state what some of my problems are because I do not want to discuss issues outside of my question. Anyways, throughout my reading I’ve noticed the different views on doctrinal development in the two churches, and this is the issue that if I could be convinced of the RC way of thinking would really help clear some of the doubt up. At the moment I do not take any view as I’m not educated enough on the defense of either. What I’m looking for is reasons why I should accept the Roman Catholic view on doctrinal development vs. the EO view. I would also like EO members to post their views/retorts so I can make sure there’s no strawmen going on.

My next problem is the EO and RCC view of each other. While the RCC views EO sacraments as valid and that they have apostolic succession, my understanding is that orthodox EO people do not reciprocate those feelings. I was looking for an EO forum online to express some of these questions to, and I noticed a very hostile attitude toward Catholicism and use of derogatory words in contrast with the EO here who seem to be much more cordial. This got me thinking, seeing the huge similarity of our history pre-1054, choosing between these two Churches is quite an undertaking. From my point of view both were founded by Jesus, and if I could have any wish in the world it would be unification. However, objectively speaking, I seem to have statistically the best chance for salvation through the EO Church. Since both churches recognize EO sacraments but EO do not recognize the RCC. While this is not reason to convert, it has scared the pants off me as a Roman Catholic and I’m starting to struggle with living my faith as well as possible from the stress.

Thank you to everyone in advance. And once again I implore you not to give me off-topic arguments

Just letting you know that the Russian Orthodox Church does view our sacraments as valid, in fact, if a Catholic should convert to their church, penance is the method by which to receive them (as opposed to the mishmash of methods by which a Catholic is received into the EO). Thus, there is no uniformity (which should make you wonder) amongst the Orthodox pertaining to this issue.

p.s. I believe the stance of the EO is that they cannot say whether or not our sacraments are valid. Here are a few helpful (Catholic) sites which I think you will benefit greatly from:

catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/08/filioque.html

pblosser.blogspot.com/

credo.stormloader.com/jlindex.htm

salvationhistory.com/

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Arianism and Iconoclasm rose in the East. It’s just a fact. Just like Donatism and Pelagianism plagued the West. It’s nobody’s fault, just a fact. Everyone knows both were united at the time. But the location of the heresies cannot be denied. I hear Orthodox accuse Catholics of being responsible for the “heresies” of the Reformation. Whether that’s a fair charge or not is debatable. The fact that Arianism affected all of Christendom is true but the fact it arose in the East is just a fact.

I am an Orthodox Christian

I would like to clarify some of the things that have been said here.

First, the Roman Church and Orthodox Churches were all united up until approximately 1054 when the Papal Legate laid down the bull of excommunication on the altar in the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople and Rome cut itself off from the other Churches in Christendom. Thus, Arianism and Iconoclasm are not “eastern heresies” but heresies that affected the whole Church. We pray for unity with the Roman Church but at the same time we cannot change our beliefs that Christ and the Apostles have taught so somewhere we have to find a balance.

On the 7th Sunday of Pascha we celebrate the Fathers of the 1st Nicene Council in 325. Arius was a priest who challenged his own bishop in the streets of Alexandria. This is already a problem. No priest should openly challenge his bishop publically. Arius was a heretic and wanted to push his beliefs as far as he could. This is an anamoly and the Orthodox Churches do NOT condone Arianism.

Iconoclasm more or less started with the Byzantine Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople did not have the politcal authority to override the Emperor when the Emperor wished that the churches be stripped of icons. Only the weight of an Ecumenical Council could override the Emperor. Also notice how a Council was formed instead of a simple decree being given from Rome. If the Bishop of Rome was this sort of supreme bishop whose teachings were protected by the Holy Spirit, then all it would have taken was a solemn decree to override the Eastern Emperor. But rather the Second Council of Nicea in 787 was called which ultimately destroyed Iconoclasm.

On Original Sin we teach that humans are currently born with the effects of sin, but are not born with the guilt of sin. That is, we are born with a clean slate with God in a broken body. Baptism brings us into the Church and removes any sin that we have committed and begins the process of theosis, that is becoming like Christ. Also, we believe Mary to be a holy woman like the kind of older ladies you see in church who are pious. But she was not sinless. Also we believe in the Assumption of Mary but we also believe that she died, that is fell asleep in the Lord.

On Salvation we teach that Heaven and Hell are not places but states of existence. There is only the Heavens and the Earth. We talk about God having essence and energies and that all contact that humans have, even in the Eucharist, is with the Energies of God. These Energies of God surround the Heavens. For those that love God they illuminate the souls and create a great and awesome afterlife. For those that hate and resist God those same energies burn that soul forever. Thus everyone will be surrounded by God and his love when they die but many will hate that. Its kind of like going to Church for eternity and not wanting to go to Church.

Our views on the Roman Church are that they have Apostolic Succession and thus have the Sacraments. We do not talk about Validity but rather intent. Now there are to a certain degree required elements but overall what matters is intent. You have to have bread and wine for the Divine Liturgy and only a bishop can confer Holy Orders.

I just wanted to clear some things up. Post some responses and I will try to help. May God bless you.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re correct, Josie. The Orthodox view the Catholics as schismatic and embrace a Cyprianic view of sacraments. They view Catholics as outside of the Church and therefore their sacraments are suspect and their efficacy or validity is anyone’s guess. That’s how I’ve always had it explained to me. They don’t have the “valid but illicit” Augustinian view that Catholics have of schismatic groups like Old Catholics who maintain valid lines, etc.

Just letting you know that the Russian Orthodox Church does view our sacraments as valid, in fact, if a Catholic should convert to their church, penance is the method by which to receive them (as opposed to the mishmash of methods by which a Catholic is received into the EO). Thus, there is no uniformity (which should make you wonder) amongst the Orthodox pertaining to this issue.

p.s. I believe the stance of the EO is that they cannot say whether or not our sacraments are valid. Here are a few helpful (Catholic) sites which I think you will benefit greatly from:

catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/08/filioque.html

pblosser.blogspot.com/

credo.stormloader.com/jlindex.htm

salvationhistory.com/

 

[josie_L]

And this is exactly why I am trying to look at legitimate vs false development of doctrine. I would think we can admit the Pope was not known/thought to be infallible back then, it is established through development, and it can’t just be claimed that papal infallibility was just some declaration out of absolutely nowhere at Vatican I. It might be said that the RCC took primacy too far, but it’s not like the Pope at Vatican I just stood up and said, “Listen guys, you see me? I’m infallible!”

Papal Infallibity may not have been declared formally pre-schism but it was definitiely alluded to and in some cases outrightly stated by several church fathers, here is a thread wherein I support the Catholic understanding of the papacy through the Church fathers:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6467366#post6467366

p.s. Please go to post #159 and proceed from there to read my other posts on that page which provide further evidence.

 

[addictedkoala]

Thinking about this whole mess more, I’m seeing it as being mainly emotional. Like I said before, I envy the Orthodox style of hierarchy and (at least it looks this way from my perspective) the EO Church seems less prone to modernists both in the clergy and laity. I also like the Eastern icons more, but that can be found in Eastern Catholic churches so it’s less of an issue. Finally, because the RCC recognizes EO sacraments but (sort of) not vice versa, I’m worried that I’d be “safer” in the EO Church according to the odds.

Now with all that I have the simple issue of doctrinal development. I’m using this as something to latch my other emotional reasons on to, because if the EO are right on doctrinal development it means I would get everything mentioned above. It seems that the EO and the RCC both have all 4 marks of the Church founded by Jesus, and neither of them have a good “silver bullet” argument against them like when I came back from Protestantism (No offense meant to protestants, but it’s just how I feel). Normally this would be a quick thing, I’d read up on the RC view of the subject and be happy with a well thought out and defended explanation, but this this time I have emotional reasons to continue holding doubt. I suppose I’m just cursed at being great at psycoanalyzing myself without knowing how to fix it

 

[josie_L]

Thinking about this whole mess more, I’m seeing it as being mainly emotional. Like I said before, I envy the Orthodox style of hierarchy and (at least it looks this way from my perspective) the EO Church seems less prone to modernists both in the clergy and laity. I also like the Eastern icons more, but that can be found in Eastern Catholic churches so it’s less of an issue. Finally, because the RCC recognizes EO sacraments but (sort of) not vice versa, I’m worried that I’d be “safer” in the EO Church according to the odds.

Now with all that I have the simple issue of doctrinal development. I’m using this as something to latch my other emotional reasons on to, because if the EO are right on doctrinal development it means I would get everything mentioned above. It seems that the EO and the RCC both have all 4 marks of the Church founded by Jesus, and neither of them have a good “silver bullet” argument against them like when I came back from Protestantism (No offense meant to protestants, but it’s just how I feel). Normally this would be a quick thing, I’d read up on the RC view of the subject and be happy with a well thought out and defended explanation, but this this time I have emotional reasons to continue holding doubt. I suppose I’m just cursed at being great at psycoanalyzing myself without knowing how to fix it

You don’t need to fix it per se, i.e., pray before the blessed sacrament with all humility and you will find the answers you are seeking for.

p.s. Have you ever read “Essays on the Development of Doctrine” by blessed Cardinal Newman?

 

[FantomScholar]

I do not think that the Church has to adopt theologican opinions in order for them to have a measure of validity. It is clear that doctrine develops over time and certainly we can agree as Christians of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant traditions that with respect to doctrines like the Trinity, or the Incarnation, understanding of the Truth that was left to the Church was parsed out over time, and in the face of challenge to those truths. So to can it be said with respect to the teaching authority of the Church and the position of the successor of Peter within that authority.

I agree with you; our understanding of doctrine does change and improve over time. However, at least as regards the papacy, if not other doctrines as well, Rome in her dogmatic pronouncements doesn’t allow for it. It says the doctrine as it is being taught now has always been the dogma of the Church.

 

[Nine_Two]

Arianism and Iconoclasm rose in the East. It’s just a fact. Just like Donatism and Pelagianism plagued the West. It’s nobody’s fault, just a fact. Everyone knows both were united at the time. But the location of the heresies cannot be denied. I hear Orthodox accuse Catholics of being responsible for the “heresies” of the Reformation. Whether that’s a fair charge or not is debatable. The fact that Arianism affected all of Christendom is true but the fact it arose in the East is just a fact.

That they arose out of the East is undeniable, however that is not what you said.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It basically is what I said. They were Orthodox heresies in reality. You guys want to claim everything good that came out of the East pre-schism and call it “Orthodox” but you don’t want to own the bad. There’s no shame in admitting that these were Eastern issues and that the popes played a great role in striking down these infections within the Church. Iconoclasm was more of an Eastern problem, an Orthodox issue, and the pope took care of it. Naturally the Church was ONE body in Christ at the time, but the heretical crises came from the Orthodox side just as much as the Catholic. Like I said, Pelagianism and Donatism were dangerous toxins that men like Augustine fought bravely in the Western side of the coin, Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism all flourished in the East and cultivated themselves with Eastern bishops as well.

To be fair to Catholicism, there is a constant contention in here that the Orthodox never had a Reformation and that the Protestants are the other side of the Catholic coin. In other words, the presence of some heretics is somehow the fault of popes and the Church at all times. It’s a silly idea. There are many factors that led to the Reformation that never occured in the East. The dynamic of the East after 1054 was different from the West and the constant reminder that the East never had a Reformation is a worthless point to me. I think Orthodox in here are not willing to concede how much the popes of Rome helped fight their own Eastern heresies and, were it not for the popes, the East would’ve had more than it could swallow.

That they arose out of the East is undeniable, however that is not what you said.

 

[Nine_Two]

It basically is what I said. They were Orthodox heresies in reality. You guys want to claim everything good that came out of the East pre-schism and call it “Orthodox” but you don’t want to own the bad. There’s no shame in admitting that these were Eastern issues and that the popes played a great role in striking down these infections within the Church. Iconoclasm was more of an Eastern problem, an Orthodox issue, and the pope took care of it. Naturally the Church was ONE body in Christ at the time, but the heretical crises came from the Orthodox side just as much as the Catholic. Like I said, Pelagianism and Donatism were dangerous toxins that men like Augustine fought bravely in the Western side of the coin, Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism all flourished in the East and cultivated themselves with Eastern bishops as well.

Errr, wow, reading a bit into what I said…
Something coming out of the East is different than it belonging to “The Orthodox”, I’ve got to ask how many times you’ve seen Orthodox posters here jumping over Catholics for quoting Eastern Church Fathers claiming a monopoly on them? Exactly what good pre-schism do the Orthodox claim to be exclusively theirs? Now specific Churches might be able to claim some stuff, Constantinople and Antioch certainly have a special claim on St. John Chrysostom that neither Rome nor my own autocephalus Orthodox Church can claim on him, but that certainly gives no monopoly… Yes, during the first millennium most of the heresies to hit the Church came out of the East, and were led by men who had, prior to their fall, been identified as being of orthodox faith, not sure that makes it any more an “Orthodox” heresy. Of course if you want to get technical, you can blame the Protestants on the East as well, Calvin was really the only protestant with theology the east hadn’t seen.
By the way, the pope didn’t solve the iconoclastic heresy in the East, although he did preserve the faith in the west as it faced persecution in the east.

To get back to my original point, saying it originated in the East and saying it originated in the Orthodox Church are two different things, and are very different things. As for the Protestants, they began as a movement to inject reform into the church, they got carried away and fell into heresy. The Reformation certainly stands in stark contrast to the rise of any other heresy in either the East or the West.

To be fair to Catholicism, there is a constant contention in here that the Orthodox never had a Reformation and that the Protestants are the other side of the Catholic coin. In other words, the presence of some heretics is somehow the fault of popes and the Church at all times. It’s a silly idea. There are many factors that led to the Reformation that never occured in the East. The dynamic of the East after 1054 was different from the West and the constant reminder that the East never had a Reformation is a worthless point to me. I think Orthodox in here are not willing to concede how much the popes of Rome helped fight their own Eastern heresies and, were it not for the popes, the East would’ve had more than it could swallow.

There are many factors which created the Reformation which prevented it in the East, you’re absolutely correct, I’m not sure what has to do with the original contention that Eastern heresy = Orthodox Heresy

I’m not sure what you want the Orthodox to concede regarding the Pope, I know I’ve admitted, and I’ve seen others admit here and elsewhere that the Rome was the example of Orthodoxy in the church, until it finally fell into schism at the end beginning of the second millennium of the Churches history.

 

[TheQuestioner]

I managed to call into Catholic Answers Live a few minutes ago (first time caller ) and Jim Blackburn actually helped me understand the development stuff, I’m feeling better about it, though continuing discussion would be nice. What’s not rested in my mind is my fear of being wrong. Unless I’ve misunderstood, it seems that Catholics have bad chances for salvation according to what I’ve read on orthodox EO sites. You could say that any other religion would say the same, but they aren’t linked back to Jesus. How can I alleviate these fears

(Warning: Excuse my language)

Stop being such a coward, that is how you alleviate your fears. You seem more concerned with statistics than you do about what God wants. You come as close to God as you possibly can. So if the Catholic Church is right and you go to EO you forfeit a closeness with God simply because you wanted to be “safe” and feared hell more than you loved God.

But the problem with your statements are bigger than this. Lets look at this from a different perspective. When you die (if the Catholic Church is correct) you may have to explain to God a couple of things, those being.

1. Instead of trusting in the Church, you became a formal schismatic because you wanted to increase your chances of going to heaven, not because you wanted to come as close to God as possible. Heck, even if the EO is right you still have to explain to God why you switched Churches, not for His sake but because you were scared of going to hell
2. Your contrition is imperfect. You would not be doing what you would be doing for the sake of God, but because you wanted to save your hide. Its as if you follow the rules not because you want to please God, but because you don’t want to make Him mad.
3. You are letting fear govern your actions. Your actions are not driven by the Love of God, but by the fear of hell. Believe it or not Satan can use this against you.
4. This fear of hell over closeness to God seems to be the driving force. You have to mature in your faith. The mark of a good Christian is not that a person does good, but why they do it. If they do everything for the love of God then their actions have meaning. Your actions seem to be for love of self, not God.
5. catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp , catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp Something to think about.

So now, even from the Catholic point of view your switch to EO seems to be a little less innocent than you may have realized. For the reasons you have posted, it is doubtful as to whether you actually increase your chances of salvation by converting.

 

[prodromos]

But on the other hand, it was the popes that struck down many of the Orthodox heresies like Arianism, Iconoclasm, etc.

Er, no. The heresies which arose in the Eastern realm of the Church were defeated by champions of Orthodoxy in the East. None of them were struck down by popes. The only pope who had a major role in defeating heresy was Leo, when the Council of Chalcedon agreed that he taught the same as Cyril of Alexandria taught and expressed the Orthodox faith.

John

 

[TheQuestioner]

Er, no. The heresies which arose in the Eastern realm of the Church were defeated by champions of Orthodoxy in the East. None of them were struck down by popes. The only pope who had a major role in defeating heresy was Leo, when the Council of Chalcedon agreed that he taught the same as Cyril of Alexandria taught and expressed the Orthodox faith.

John

But the Popes did stand their ground and excommunicated some Heretic Patriarchs that the Emperors appointed. This helped to remind the Emperor that the Church was it’s own autonomous body.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I always question any post that starts with “er” LOL! That’s what my sixth graders say! Easy, dude!

Er, no. The heresies which arose in the Eastern realm of the Church were defeated by champions of Orthodoxy in the East. None of them were struck down by popes. The only pope who had a major role in defeating heresy was Leo, when the Council of Chalcedon agreed that he taught the same as Cyril of Alexandria taught and expressed the Orthodox faith.

John

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That’s right. In 730 AD Pope Gregory III convened a synod and under his leadership iconoclasm was condemned as a heresy and several iconoclastic adherents were excommunicated and told to hit the bricks. And in the 780’s Empress Irene begged the help of Pope Hadrian I in once and for all stamping out Iconoclasm. A heresy spawned in the East, stopped by the Pope. It happens…

But the Popes did stand their ground and excommunicated some Heretic Patriarchs that the Emperors appointed. This helped to remind the Emperor that the Church was it’s own autonomous body.

 

[Hesychios]

… reading a bit into what I said…
Something coming out of the East is different than it belonging to “The Orthodox”,

Which is correct.

It is “the Orthodox” who opposed the heresies.

… Yes, during the first millennium most of the heresies to hit the Church came out of the East, …

In fact, most of the Christians were in the east.

Most of the economic development was in the east.

Most of the schools were in the east.

Most of the intellectual capital of the Christian world was in the east in the first millenium. That’s just how it was. That’s probably why the Orthodox are so conservative (some might rightly think of it as stubborn) about doctrinal matters. To win for Apostolic Christianity in a climate of such intellectual ferment one has to stick to the Apostolic basics.

Holy Orthodoxy has had to face it’s dragons, and knows them when it sees them.

By the way, the pope didn’t solve the iconoclastic heresy in the East, although he did preserve the faith in the west as it faced persecution in the east.

Interesting case in point!

Pope Hadrian (an Orthodox man) played no part in the defeat of iconoclasm in the east. He had trouble enough with it in the west, his hands were full.

In the east, I think it fair to say saint John of Damascus was far more influential in defeating the iconoclasts the first time. He and the Orthodox monastics opposed the government over this issue. One can still read his “” after all these (1200) years and see Holy Orthodoxy in it.

Empress Irene (regent to her young son) also deserves credit for defeating the iconoclasts, she called a council (at Nicea in 787AD) which reversed the iconoclastic policy of the church. It is most interesting that the Frankish bishops were not invited. The Frankish bishops were not called because as a class they were largely uneducated! The Council condemned iconoclasm and we celebrate that on the first Sunday of Lent.

Charlemagne took great offense to this, and wrote his libri carolini in opposition, which Pope Hadrian rebutted by letter (good for him!). Not to be outdone, Charlemagne called a council of Gallo-Frankish and German bishops at Frankfurt (794AD) with Papal legates present, which repudiated the Council of Nicea II !

Pope Hadrian (who really did support the iconodules) could do nothing about this, although he was a good and holy man he had no power in this matter within his own western church and he died with this paradox in his church. His own bishops turned against him and those are the facts, he was Orthodox and they were not.

Iconoclasm in the empire was to rear it’s ugly head once again later from 814AD to 842AD, so whatever the Popes were supposed to have done about the matter to ‘defeat it’ was no more effective than anyone else’s efforts. That crises was finally resolved by another empress! Her name was Theodora.

It was actually Theodora’s effective efforts which have proven to be the last word on the subject.

I’m not sure what you want the Orthodox to concede regarding the Pope, I know I’ve admitted, and I’ve seen others admit here and elsewhere that the Rome was the example of Orthodoxy in the church, until it finally fell into schism at the end beginning of the second millennium of the Churches history.

This is just the point, isn’t it?

Rome was faithful.

 

[searn77]

Also, we believe Mary to be a holy woman like the kind of older ladies you see in church who are pious. But she was not sinless. Also we believe in the Assumption of Mary but we also believe that she died, that is fell asleep in the Lord.

Our views on the Roman Church are that they have Apostolic Succession and thus have the Sacraments. We do not talk about Validity but rather intent. Now there are to a certain degree required elements but overall what matters is intent. You have to have bread and wine for the Divine Liturgy and only a bishop can confer Holy Orders.

I just wanted to clear some things up. Post some responses and I will try to help. May God bless you.

Actually we believe Mary to be more than just a holy woman like the older women you see at church as she held God in her womb. She is the Theotokos, the tabernacle of God. And we DO believe that she was sinless.

As for if the RCC have the sacraments, some Orthodox say they do, some Orthodox say they don’t, and most say they don’t know. There is no official EO doctrine about if the RCC has the sacraments or not.

 

[Topaz1128]

I understand where the OP is coming from. I have been having major doubts about the Catholic Church since I converted. Doctrinal development, marian dogmas, transubstantiation, etc. have been troubling my conscience. I perhaps might go back to my old non-denominational church for a while until I sort things out.

 

[crazzeto]

There are a couple things that bother me, but as I’ve been thinking about it all the issues seem to come down to, “Is this legitimate doctrinal development?” If the RCC is correct about it, then I have very little issue. However, if the EO are right about it I feel that I might be better served in their Church. But then again some things in EO bother me, such as the heterodoxy (might be the wrong word. I’m referring to their tendency to leave doctrine undefined). An example, the papacy. Most RC will admit the Papacy certainly did not look the same back then as it does now, but this falls under legitimate development for them and illegitimate for the EO. Historically I see less authority than RC gives them credit for, however development takes care of that, while I see the pontiff having more authority than the EO will say.

I want to explain the emotions I’m feeling about it all but I’m no good at expressing them, my mind is too logistical. I guess most of all I just wish I could live before the schism

The Bishop of Rome has always enjoyed a unique authority over the entire Church since the very begining. Take the first Epistle of Clemet to the Corinthians, the fact that this Epistle exists at all is a strong testamony of this.

You see at the time the Corinthians were having their latest scandal, the Apostle John (the Beloved Apostle and only surviving direct Apostle of Christ at the time) was living in Patmos. Patmos is an island geographically very close to Corinth, while Rome might as well be on the other side of the World from Corinth.

So what do the Corinthians do when they have a major doctrinal dispute? Do they write Christ’s own Apsotle who was a witness to his whole ministry, resurection and directly received the Holy Spirit from the Word made flesh him self? Curiously no, that’s not who they deem appropriate to ask this kind of question, rather they write to a bishop half way around the world who is third in succession after Peter. This alone speaks greatly of the authority enjoyed from the very begining, by the Bishop of Rome.

There are many further testamonies, but already we see the typical Eastern Claim made about the papacy not quite holding water. In fact I would urge you this, I would take a deep and good look at Eastern beliefs, and compare them to “Roman” Beliefs (i.e. the doctrinal beliefs of the Catholic Church). You’re giong to find something shocking, more often than not Eastern Apologists are making mountains out of mole hills, thier theology confesses the whole of our doctrinal theology. But they argue over symatecs.

It’s good to have doubts and questions, my main exhortation is to look deeply into what the Eastern Church is, and do the math on it. Does it fully and completely add up to what Christianity should look like today (IMHO it is close but misses the mark just a little), how about the Catholic Church? At least in my opinion, it has proven to be spot on in every single issue.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I understand what you’re saying. I’m simply saying that the whole line of attack from Orthodox in here against Catholics is unfair. I have, on many occasions, seen Orthodox point out the Reformation as the Catholic Church’s fault and talk about Western heresies. Orthodox tend to lay claim to all things good that came out of the East pre and post-schism, and yet they never realize that on both sides, including the East, heresies have been rampant for centuries and will continue to be.

I also notice that very few Orthodox posters are ever willing to acknowledge the popes’ huge contribution and leadership in fighting heresies. Most of you guys won’t budge much on that because Orthodoxy gets a lot of fuel from an anti-papacy sentiment. I have my own issues right now with the papacy. Maybe I’ll work 'em out, maybe I won’t, but in order to be intellectually honest I have to acknowledge their mammoth contributions. And to think that the popes didn’t play a huge role in blasting down the Iconoclasm crises is just plain dishonest.

Errr, wow, reading a bit into what I said…
Something coming out of the East is different than it belonging to “The Orthodox”, I’ve got to ask how many times you’ve seen Orthodox posters here jumping over Catholics for quoting Eastern Church Fathers claiming a monopoly on them? Exactly what good pre-schism do the Orthodox claim to be exclusively theirs? Now specific Churches might be able to claim some stuff, Constantinople and Antioch certainly have a special claim on St. John Chrysostom that neither Rome nor my own autocephalus Orthodox Church can claim on him, but that certainly gives no monopoly… Yes, during the first millennium most of the heresies to hit the Church came out of the East, and were led by men who had, prior to their fall, been identified as being of orthodox faith, not sure that makes it any more an “Orthodox” heresy. Of course if you want to get technical, you can blame the Protestants on the East as well, Calvin was really the only protestant with theology the east hadn’t seen.
By the way, the pope didn’t solve the iconoclastic heresy in the East, although he did preserve the faith in the west as it faced persecution in the east.

To get back to my original point, saying it originated in the East and saying it originated in the Orthodox Church are two different things, and are very different things. As for the Protestants, they began as a movement to inject reform into the church, they got carried away and fell into heresy. The Reformation certainly stands in stark contrast to the rise of any other heresy in either the East or the West.

There are many factors which created the Reformation which prevented it in the East, you’re absolutely correct, I’m not sure what has to do with the original contention that Eastern heresy = Orthodox Heresy

I’m not sure what you want the Orthodox to concede regarding the Pope, I know I’ve admitted, and I’ve seen others admit here and elsewhere that the Rome was the example of Orthodoxy in the church, until it finally fell into schism at the end beginning of the second millennium of the Churches history.