Having doubts after looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, development of doctrine

[addictedkoala]

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.

Exactly. I agree with everything you just said. I did not come back to Christianity out of fear of hell, and I did not revert to Catholicism from fear. This is the first time I’ve really felt this way, and unfortunately this whole thing has become a rather emotional issue for me.

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.

I’m going to have to disagree with you here, Irene wrote to the Pope asking him to call a council because she didn’t have the authority. And the Pope also, earlier, called a synod condemning it. This, I believe, is a perfect example of how I see the EO downplay the role of the Pope in history.

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.

And this is an example of how I see RC boost the Papacy too far. Although it is great evidence of authority, I don’t see it as an example of yesteryear’s papacy being relatively the same as today.

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.

This I agree on, it’s one of the many things about EO that turn me off is the semantical arguments and elevating tiny issues into huge ones. Unfortunately the attitude of EO polemic doesn’t tell me if it’s wrong, only if the arguments are annoying

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I hear ya. I’m going through the exact same thing. My butt is currently parked at the Anglican conservative parish in my town. I’m trying to work through all this stuff. It’s frustrating as heck. Sentimentally I miss and love Catholicism, intellectually I’m having HUGE problems with it.

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.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Your language is far too harsh for someone going through a spiritual crisis. I know myself because I’ve been on the receiving end of the “cafeteria Catholic!” and “you’re no Catholic!” blasting lately. Not fun and definitely not edifying. I’m in a crisis of my own and what we need is a good, charitable, thought-provoking discussion, not accusations of cowardice and wimpitude. The OP is not a coward, just scrupulous and not sure if he’s in the right place. I wouldn’t make his crisis about contrition: perfect or imperfect. I would make it about theology, right or wrong? He’s having doubts. One of two things will probably come out of his spiritual crisis journey that he’s going through right now—either he’ll come out a more educated, more driven, theologically savvy and faithful Catholic or he’ll go Orthodox. As a Catholic yourself, you shouldn’t fear an exploration of the truth. If the Catholic Church is what she claims to be, he’ll discover that for himself and be ok. It take more that Matthew 16:18 sometimes. And a good, caring apologist will take the time, make the effort, and do it with love.

(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.

 

[Contarini]

As I was perusing the internet

That may have been your first mistake

The Internet is a good tool in many ways, but not a good basis for religious exploration.

So why am I here? I probably shouldn’t be, but it’s addictive.

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.

The strongest RC argument, I think, is that doctrinal development clearly happened in the first millennium. I am not sure that RC’s can get from this premise either that doctrinal development is something that should go on happening continuously and uniformly or that your own particular doctrinal developments are good ones. But when EO’s try to deny doctrinal development outright they weaken their case.

I say this as someone who generally think the EO’s have a better argument here. I am particularly impressed by their insistence that dogmatic definition is apophatic–it’s about ruling out error and is not a good thing in itself. Mind you, I know RC’s who think this too, but a good case can be made that this approach would never have resulted in the definition of the IC and the Assumption, at the very least.

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.

The Donatists made this argument in the fifth century. I think it’s a bad one whenever made. Salvation (and I’ll use EO terms here) is about sanctification, theosis, not about filling out the right paperwork. Of course bad doctrine will hinder your transformation into Christ’s likeness, and of course if there is a true Church there’s going to be grace available there that isn’t elsewhere, and of course deliberately turning away from Christ’s Church will do very bad things to your soul.

But I don’t think you need to be thinking in terms of “chances for salvation” at all. You will only hurt yourself spiritually if you make a decision out of fear rather than out of love for truth and goodness. Seek God, and let your salvation take care of itself (since salvation simply is to find God, or rather be found by Him).

The only way in which this consideration is relevant is, I think, that the RCC quite obviously can’t deny legitimacy to the EO’s, so their claims should certainly be taken seriously. That’s a major consideration for me as well.

But on the other hand, one of the reasons I have not become EO sooner and have often said that I’d be more likely to become RC is precisely that the RCC has a more generous account of the EO’s than vice versa.

If there is one thing that I know to be true about the different Christian churches, it is that grace and holiness can be found in more than one. Vatican II has a pretty good account of why that is so–I am not sure that any of the Orthodox explanations quite measure up, though I can accept Florovsky’s “we know where the Church is, but not where it is not.”

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.

What matters most of all is to live the Christian life in the place where you are. If God shows you clearly that your Church is wrong and the EO’s are right, then follow that guidance. But don’t obsess about it.

Edwin

 

[crazzeto]

And this is an example of how I see RC boost the Papacy too far. Although it is great evidence of authority, I don’t see it as an example of yesteryear’s papacy being relatively the same as today.

This I agree on, it’s one of the many things about EO that turn me off is the semantical arguments and elevating tiny issues into huge ones. Unfortunately the attitude of EO polemic doesn’t tell me if it’s wrong, only if the arguments are annoying

A number of points, first and foremost I posted only a single example supporting the authority of the Church… However I would not argue that the totality of our current understanding of the Papacy is explained by this single incident, no matter how powerful it is (and it’s quite compelling actually).

No, rather there are significant arguments directly from scripture, out of the history books and writings of the fathers. With regards to symantecs (tie in here), perhaps this is why at higher levels the Orthodox Church seems to not actually have quite the problem with the CC as the lay apologists do. Already the Patriarchs of the Greeks and Russians have talked about possible unity, the Russians (supprisingly) more firmly than the Greeks.

For more on the Papacy, I would suggest reading this document written by Dr. Scott Hahn offering further explanations of the doctrines.

More directly to your second point, again I simply exhort you to further research the issues. I would start with the hot button ones, the Filioque for instance and discover how we are in fact correct in it’s usage in the Latin (Roman) Rite.

Another hot button for some is the Canon of Scripture, research the history and see how the Catholic Church has been wholly consistant on this issue.

Purgatory? Check out Eastern Beliefs on the end of life (caution, the vary wildly actually) and break them down into the actual components. You’ll see how they in fact, accept our doctrinal teachings but do so in a way to make it appear different (you’ll also see percisly how innovative the Easterners have been in this regard).

 

[Harpazo]

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.

Orthodox heresies? I don’t understand how that makes sense.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Capital “O!”

Orthodox heresies? I don’t understand how that makes sense.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Contarini]

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.

Why do that? Because you are genuinely convinced that they are right after all? Or just because you don’t have to subscribe to everything to belong to their church?

In Catholicism it’s perfectly fine to have “difficulties.” I would strongly advise against changing churches (again, in your case) if you don’t have things “sorted out.” When you do sort things out, if you decide nondenominational Protestantism is correct (It’s hard for me to imagine a possible universe in which this might be true, but clearly you see things differently), then fine, act on that. But till then you have the Sacraments, the liturgy, the saints–what more do you need to help you sort things out?

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Please clarify the red statement, Edwin. I’m fuzzy as to what you mean?

Why do that? Because you are genuinely convinced that they are right after all? Or just because you don’t have to subscribe to everything to belong to their church?

In Catholicism it’s perfectly fine to have “difficulties.” I would strongly advise against changing churches (again, in your case) if you don’t have things “sorted out.” When you do sort things out, if you decide nondenominational Protestantism is correct (It’s hard for me to imagine a possible universe in which this might be true, but clearly you see things differently), then fine, act on that. But till then you have the Sacraments, the liturgy, the saints–what more do you need to help you sort things out?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Please clarify the red statement, Edwin. I’m fuzzy as to what you mean?

I was probably using sloppy rhetoric. My point was only that whatever version of Christianity might be true, I can’t imagine nondenominational Protestantism possibly being that version.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

Why do that? Because you are genuinely convinced that they are right after all? Or just because you don’t have to subscribe to everything to belong to their church?

In Catholicism it’s perfectly fine to have “difficulties.” I would strongly advise against changing churches (again, in your case) if you don’t have things “sorted out.” When you do sort things out, if you decide nondenominational Protestantism is correct (It’s hard for me to imagine a possible universe in which this might be true, but clearly you see things differently), then fine, act on that. But till then you have the Sacraments, the liturgy, the saints–what more do you need to help you sort things out?

Edwin

I don’t know - sometimes a bit of distance can be a good thing, especially if there are a lot of emotions at work.

But I have to say I have heard lately of a number of Catholic converts surprised by elements of Catholic belief. This surprises me.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t know - sometimes a bit of distance can be a good thing, especially if there are a lot of emotions at work.

If I am having difficulties in my relationship with my wife, I am not going to go and live with another woman in order to “sort things out.” That would not be helpful at all.

Edwin

 

[crazzeto]

Orthodox heresies? I don’t understand how that makes sense.

In Christ,
Andrew

You don’t believe Heretics called them selves that do you? You think Arians went around advertising the fact that their beliefs were pure heresy?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I guess on the flipside of that coin, one might want to be true to himself and not live a lie until things are ironed out. It’s better to be intellectually honest and true to oneself than stay and put on an act, take communion when you’re not really in line with the Church you’re attending. With Catholicism it’s truly all or nothing. One can attend your Episcopal Church and have disagreements; in the Catholic Church it’s 100% or not at all. I wouldn’t liken what he’s doing to adultery, respectfully, because I think he just genuinely wants to be truthful to the Church and himself.

If I am having difficulties in my relationship with my wife, I am not going to go and live with another woman in order to “sort things out.” That would not be helpful at all.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

If I am having difficulties in my relationship with my wife, I am not going to go and live with another woman in order to “sort things out.” That would not be helpful at all.

Edwin

But you might go stay with your mom for a few weeks.

I am probably taking this metaphor too far. But I have had the experience of being so upset in a church setting that it was difficult to think clearly. I just didn’t attend for a while, but that doesn’t seem like a great solution either.

In any case, given the items that the poster found worrisome, it seems like the conversion might have been premature.

 

[crazzeto]

I guess on the flipside of that coin, one might want to be true to himself and not live a lie until things are ironed out. It’s better to be intellectually honest and true to oneself than stay and put on an act, take communion when you’re not really in line with the Church you’re attending. With Catholicism it’s truly all or nothing. One can attend your Episcopal Church and have disagreements; in the Catholic Church it’s 100% or not at all. I wouldn’t liken what he’s doing to adultery, respectfully, because I think he just genuinely wants to be truthful to the Church and himself.

Of course even in this situation a Catholic who is truely being honest with him self should also not receive at an Episcapole church… They should at least be honest enough to admit that the truth does in fact matter, and as such if you don’t know what the truth is then perhaps it’s best not to receive, better still to spend a lot more time in prayer and study.

I guess that is just my perspective. Honestly if I had a crisis of faith on the order of this magnatude I don’t think I would switch churches to try and solve it, even as a temporary solution.

 

[Harpazo]

You don’t believe Heretics called them selves that do you? You think Arians went around advertising the fact that their beliefs were pure heresy?

Oh of course they did, and they still do. But there’s no such thing as an Orthodox heresy. If something is Orthodox, it isn’t heretical.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Nine_Two]

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.

Yep, people on all sides will make ridiculous accusations against the other side without thinking it through, or possibly make generalizations which are only meant to be such which get interpreted as ridiculous accusations or whatever, I’m sure I’ve done it. Either way that doesn’t excuse going back and trying to do it to the other side.

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.

Interestingly enough your language became much less strong here, you went from saying the Pope solved it to just making a huge contribution, which is probably the answer to your question. If a Catholic is going to make an over-eager claim to have “solved” our problems, the implication being that we can’t solve our own problems and need others to solve them for us, the people who hear that are probably going to retort with the opposite extreme, that we solved them without your help.
The Papacy certainly played a part in solving the Iconoclasm Controversy, however the Papacy did not solve it singularly, and was in fact as powerless as any Eastern Patriarch against Leo.

 

[Nine_Two]

No, rather there are significant arguments directly from scripture, out of the history books and writings of the fathers. With regards to symantecs (tie in here), perhaps this is why at higher levels the Orthodox Church seems to not actually have quite the problem with the CC as the lay apologists do. Already the Patriarchs of the Greeks and Russians have talked about possible unity, the Russians (supprisingly) more firmly than the Greeks.

The Patriarchs and Bishops have been discussing unity with various traditions for the past 50 years. Every time anything regarding unity is mentioned I see many Catholics here jumping up and down as though full unity is expected to commence next Tuesday, possibly after the evening news. I’m curious if you have any links that show this forthcoming unity that the Greek and Russian Patriarchs have apparently announced?

More directly to your second point, again I simply exhort you to further research the issues. I would start with the hot button ones, the Filioque for instance and discover how we are in fact correct in it’s usage in the Latin (Roman) Rite.

You’re saying the Filioque was there in the original Creed and the East took it out?

Purgatory? Check out Eastern Beliefs on the end of life (caution, the vary wildly actually) and break them down into the actual components. You’ll see how they in fact, accept our doctrinal teachings but do so in a way to make it appear different (you’ll also see percisly how innovative the Easterners have been in this regard).

No, Catholic doctrine says that Purgatory is a place where people are purged of their sins in fire. While Orthodox are welcome to accept this, it is not doctrine, nor is it accepted by the majority of Orthodox.

 

[Hesychios]

I’m going to have to disagree with you here, Irene wrote to the Pope asking him to call a council because she didn’t have the authority. And the Pope also, earlier, called a synod condemning it. This, I believe, is a perfect example of how I see the EO downplay the role of the Pope in history.

Queen Irene or Saint Tarasios would have sent a letter, all of the Patriarchs and bishops who were certifiably not iconoclasts themselves would have been sent letters of invitation and for help in any way they could. (I would like to read the text if available.) In fact, the Council itself was being held illegally within imperial territory, and had to be pulled together quickly before the project was to fall under government scrutiny and arrests were made. The goal was to decertify an earlier Council and thus reverse imperial laws and bishops outside of East Roman imperial control who were also iconodules were needed to participate.

The Pope did not call the Council which condemned iconoclasm. The Council that was called was not chaired by a bishop of Rome nor his legates, it was called by Saint Tarasios twice (the first effort in 786 in Constantinople was shut down by soldiers) and chaired by Saint Tarasios in every session. Saint Tarasios, like his predecessors, definitely did have the authority to call a church Council and it was he who would have been on the torturers rack if things went badly.

The Frankish/German bishops under Charlemagne were judged unreliable and therefore not called (bishops of central and southern Italy were called) and this was borne out later when the Frankish bishops condemned the Council of Nicea II (thus reaffirming the Iconoclast Council of 754AD), in the presence of Papal legates of the same Pope which is here supposedly given credit for calling Nicea II.

Had Hadrian/Adrian actually been responsible for the Ecumenical Council why would his own bishops and his own personally appointed legates oppose him at Frankfurt? That he himself was an iconodule (and Orthodox) is not in question. He did not call the Council at Nicea in 787AD nor the abortive attempt in 786AD and his legates did not lead it’s proceedings there.

Please reference the synod you mention that Pope Hadrian called which condemned iconoclasm in his area. Not that I disbelieve you, but my search through the Catholic Encyclopedia (usually a good source for this information) did not turn anything up.

Sometimes this kind of thing gets buried in references, which is why most Catholics are not aware of Frankfurt 794.