Having doubts after looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, development of doctrine

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree with you. We don’t get a hard and fast look at defined theology about the Holy Trinity until Arius comes on the scene and the Church reacts with Nicaea. We don’t truly understand Original Sin in a Western definitive sense until Augustine and Ambrose. We don’t think about schismatics having valid baptisms or sacraments until Donatus. We don’t totally define works and individual holiness vs. grace and sin until Pelagius. We don’t make a final decision about sacred images until Iconoclasm. The list goes on and on. Heresies arose and the Church responded, stepped up, and helped us develop doctrine and the truth as the Church sees it. Development doctrine was a necessity. From where I see it, the Orthodox are ok with development doctrine until after 1054 in the West. I’m a little fuzzy, however, with what you mean by stagnation possibly being a good or ok thing at the end of the post after you talked about not having a problem with development doctrine at the beginning?

I only have a problem with this insofar as some Orthodox seem to think that there was no development of doctrine in the first millennium. It is clear that the Church of the first century didn’t look like the Church of the eighth.

I don’t see why a “lack of definitions” is a problem unless you think there is some heresy that has corrupted the Orthodox Churches and which could have been thwarted by a good resounding dogmatic definition.

Dogmas are defined to resist heresy, not for the sheer fun of the thing.

How so? Can you give a specific example?

Also, the Orthodox are odd and paradoxical this way–some of their theologians sound very “relaxed and free,” but in practice the Orthodox often tend toward ultra-conservatism and a confusion between cultural traditions and the dogmas of the Faith. Whatever you call the monks of Mount Athos, they don’t paticularly strike me as “relaxed and free.” I’d be more likely to become Orthodox if I thought they really were “relaxed and free.”

But is the Faith the kind of thing that one can know definitively about? And why are your feelings the measure for everything? Maybe your hunger for definitive knowledge is part of the sickness from which Christ came to free you?

Again, in my experience the Orthodox are extremely dogmatic–certainly compared to my own Episcopal Church! That’s one of the things I find intriguing and appealing about them–on the one hand, they affirm the dogmas of the Faith in great detail and with great confidence, while on the other insisting as firmly as any liberal Episcopalian that God is beyond our knowledge and language cannot encompass Him.

But what is “stagnation” and why is it bad? Stagnation is a metaphor–you haven’t really explained why what you call “stagnation” is a problem.

I’m not saying that there are no problems in this regard in Orthodoxy, but you haven’t explained what they are.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

I think he means that if Western Orthodoxy were to flourish, that would quiet his reservations.

Edwin

Yes this. It bothers me that in many cases Orthodoxy doesn’t seem to see the Western approach to Christianity as valid at all.

 

[addictedkoala]

I only have a problem with this insofar as some Orthodox seem to think that there was no development of doctrine in the first millennium. It is clear that the Church of the first century didn’t look like the Church of the eighth.

I don’t see why a “lack of definitions” is a problem unless you think there is some heresy that has corrupted the Orthodox Churches and which could have been thwarted by a good resounding dogmatic definition.

Your first paragraph answers the second for me. While there weren’t any heresies per se, it is the noticeable EO notion that (to quote Gurney) if it wasn’t said a thousand years ago then it’s balogna, which is a problem. Obviously there has been advancing theological opinion, but you can just ignore every single one of those opinions for the last 1000 years and be perfectly fine in the EO Church.

Dogmas are defined to resist heresy, not for the sheer fun of the thing.

I wouldn’t say we always need a flat out heresy, but certainly nothing should be defined for fun.

How so? Can you give a specific example?

I’d rather not get into arguments about them

**Also, the Orthodox are odd and paradoxical this way–some of their theologians sound very “relaxed and free,” but in practice the Orthodox often tend toward ultra-conservatism and a confusion between cultural traditions and the dogmas of the Faith. **Whatever you call the monks of Mount Athos, they don’t paticularly strike me as “relaxed and free.” I’d be more likely to become Orthodox if I thought they really were “relaxed and free.”

Exactly, for many issues there’s a huge range of things which are technically alright to believe, but the majority opinion in an area may as well be dogma for them. Paradoxical sums up my problem with the whole thing

But is the Faith the kind of thing that one can know definitively about? And why are your feelings the measure for everything? Maybe your hunger for definitive knowledge is part of the sickness from which Christ came to free you?

If He came to free me from knowing things about Him and the faith definitively that then I’m going back to being an evangelical

But what is “stagnation” and why is it bad? Stagnation is a metaphor–you haven’t really explained why what you call “stagnation” is a problem.

It’s not a metaphor, I’m not comparing the EO Church to a body of water which has stopped flowing, I’m saying they’ve had a lack of doctrinal development over the last 1000 years.

I’m not saying that there are no problems in this regard in Orthodoxy, but you haven’t explained what they are.

For me, the problem is this regard. I can’t see the Church developing as much as it did for 8-10 centuries and then, basically, just no more definitions. As I said earlier in the thread, I view the talk about how we can’t express God in words, we don’t have any heresies excuses to be just that, excuses. I personally see them as not being able to have (or at least it being very hard) any ecumenical councils, and needing to come up with a reason. While there weren’t any heresies, there has definitely been problems which definitions helped in the West. I don’t know much about eastern history but I find it hard to believe there weren’t issues that could’ve been solved by a council, especially when you see how many times some EO churches are in communion with some other churches but not all of them. While a great deal more is defined in the RCC, there is still a lot up for debate, most especially in the area of the nature of God, and how he works. This is why I feel I could not convert the EO, but they have given me pause for thought on my own Church.

 

[Contarini]

I agree with you. We don’t get a hard and fast look at defined theology about the Holy Trinity until Arius comes on the scene and the Church reacts with Nicaea. We don’t truly understand Original Sin in a Western definitive sense until Augustine and Ambrose. We don’t think about schismatics having valid baptisms or sacraments until Donatus. We don’t totally define works and individual holiness vs. grace and sin until Pelagius. We don’t make a final decision about sacred images until Iconoclasm. The list goes on and on. Heresies arose and the Church responded, stepped up, and helped us develop doctrine and the truth as the Church sees it. Development doctrine was a necessity. From where I see it, the Orthodox are ok with development doctrine until after 1054 in the West. I’m a little fuzzy, however, with what you mean by stagnation possibly being a good or ok thing at the end of the post after you talked about not having a problem with development doctrine at the beginning?

What I’m saying is that neither “continuous development” nor “no development” is a good thing in itself. We have to ask “what developments” and “why”?

When the Orthodox make the case that you shouldn’t define dogmas without necessity, I think they are on target. When some of them seem to claim that the conciliar definitions did not involve doctrinal development, they are completely unconvincing.

And clearly Orthodoxy has developed in the past thousand years in all sorts of ways. It just hasn’t added new dogmas.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

Your first paragraph answers the second for me. While there weren’t any heresies per se, it is the noticeable EO notion that (to quote Gurney) if it wasn’t said a thousand years ago then it’s balogna, which is a problem. Obviously there has been advancing theological opinion, but you can just ignore every single one of those opinions for the last 1000 years and be perfectly fine in the EO Church.

Actually, I don’t think the CC argues there is advancing theological opinion either. They would also agree that if something wasn’t said 1000 years ago it couldn’t be Tradition.

Exactly, for many issues there’s a huge range of things which are technically alright to believe, but the majority opinion in an area may as well be dogma for them. Paradoxical sums up my problem with the whole thing

Paradoxical isn’t always bad. The Trinity and the Incarnation are paradoxical too.

If He came to free me from knowing things about Him and the faith definitively that then I’m going back to being an evangelical

That’s not what Orthodoxy says. It says God is unknowable in himself, which is just what Western theologians say, and it says it is dangerous to speculate on things we are not given information about.

It’s not a metaphor, I’m not comparing the EO Church to a body of water which has stopped flowing, I’m saying they’ve had a lack of doctrinal development over the last 1000 years.

That is still a metaphor. It also is one which implies something undesirable, because we find stagnant water undesirable. But is that the case with theology? You haven’t shown why you think it is important that theology develop in the past 1000 years. (If indeed it hasn’t). If the Church always had the fullness of truth, and there has been no heresies that require explication, what more could you ask?

 

[crazzeto]

Actually, I don’t think the CC argues there is advancing theological opinion either. They would also agree that if something wasn’t said 1000 years ago it couldn’t be Tradition.

Paradoxical isn’t always bad. The Trinity and the Incarnation are paradoxical too.

Whoa whoa whoa, apples and oranges here. You’re comparing something that can never be known in the whole of human experience because we simply don’t have the capacity to understand it… We simply weren’t created with the ability to understand fully the trinaty and the incarnation, thus it’s possible they might appear to be a paradox, but are not to the Eternal God.

On the other we’re talking about fully comprehensible matters of faith. A completely different animal. If we fully understand it, and it is in fact paradoxical then it is and it can’t be true.

That’s not what Orthodoxy says. It says God is unknowable in himself, which is just what Western theologians say, and it says it is dangerous to speculate on things we are not given information about.

That is still a metaphor. It also is one which implies something undesirable, because we find stagnant water undesirable. But is that the case with theology? You haven’t shown why you think it is important that theology develop in the past 1000 years. (If indeed it hasn’t). If the Church always had the fullness of truth, and there has been no heresies that require explication, what more could you ask?

I think what he’s talking about is that the Orthodox are unable to define doctrine even to save the faith. Where as the Western Church has no such limitation, the Western Model is far more compatable with the vision of the Church as found in the Scriptures. An infalliable Church capable of leading the faithful into all truth, as well as condem any false teaching which will come up from time to time no matter where it springs up from.

 

[addictedkoala]

Actually, I don’t think the CC argues there is advancing theological opinion either. They would also agree that if something wasn’t said 1000 years ago it couldn’t be Tradition.

I’m talking about their dismissal of many opinions because they aren’t old, obviously these things aren’t Tradition

Paradoxical isn’t always bad. The Trinity and the Incarnation are paradoxical too.

True enough, in this case I just don’t like it

edit: crazzetto is correct in that it’s not really true, but for purpose of discussion I suppose I’ll run with it if I must

That’s not what Orthodoxy says. It says God is unknowable in himself, which is just what Western theologians say, and it says it is dangerous to speculate on things we are not given information about.

yes

That is still a metaphor. It also is one which implies something undesirable, because we find stagnant water undesirable. But is that the case with theology? You haven’t shown why you think it is important that theology develop in the past 1000 years. (If indeed it hasn’t). If the Church always had the fullness of truth, and there has been no heresies that require explication, what more could you ask?

Combatting incorrect beliefs that aren’t by definition heresies, like when the canon of scripture was defined by Trent. There wasn’t a heresy, but it was a response to Protestantism. Of course I’m sure synods have been held for these kinds of reasons in EO before, but they couldn’t help define what was the true belief and what was wrong

 

[Harpazo]

Yes this. It bothers me that in many cases Orthodoxy doesn’t seem to see the Western approach to Christianity as valid at all.

I wouldn’t say that. Many Orthodox equate the post-schism developments of the West as being Western Christianity, sadly. The Orthodox are very wary of scholasticism and rationalism because before the schism, there was a different united phronema. I would love to see Western Orthodoxy thrive and I plan on supporting the local Western Orthodox mission in Lynchburg, VA (founded by former Bp. Alban Waggener) as much as I can.

There are priests that are seeking to restore the venerable traditions of the West, however. Fr. Aiden (Keller) a ROCOR priest who celebrates the Sarum Divine Liturgy comes to mind. Have you seen his website? It’s pretty impressive. Here’s the liturgics page.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[addictedkoala]

That is still a metaphor. It also is one which implies something undesirable, because we find stagnant water undesirable. But is that the case with theology? You haven’t shown why you think it is important that theology develop in the past 1000 years. (If indeed it hasn’t). If the Church always had the fullness of truth, and there has been no heresies that require explication, what more could you ask?

OK, essentially my problem isn’t so much with the lack of definition, it’s the reasoning I perceive for why they do not. There is (and I’d hope you agree) an incredibly anti-scholastic and anti-reason temperment in the EO Church. Not that EO are illogical in themselves, but they don’t like things such as St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine’s approach to theology. They have arguments against the scholastic mindset, but I find them uncompelling.

The other reason I have for not liking their lack of definition is also that I don’t see them having anymore councils, because A. They have no central leadership with which to do that and B. Following from point A, they have no objective method for determining what an ecumenical council is.

is that a good enough definition of my dislike of their lack of definition?

 

[Contarini]

Your first paragraph answers the second for me. While there weren’t any heresies per se, it is the noticeable EO notion that (to quote Gurney) if it wasn’t said a thousand years ago then it’s balogna, which is a problem. Obviously there has been advancing theological opinion, but you can just ignore every single one of those opinions for the last 1000 years and be perfectly fine in the EO Church.

Yes, but what’s wrong with that? Which of these opinions ought to be binding on all Christians?

It seems to me that you are assuming that one of these two things must be true:

1. A blanket claim made by some Orthodox that doctrine does not/should not develop, which we agree is unconvincing because it clearly did develop in the first millennium; and
2. The blanket claim by some Catholics that doctrinal development is an ongoing process which naturally expresses itself from time to time in dogmatic definitions, so that if no such definitions occur over a long period of time there is some defect in the church in question.

I don’t see why either of these blanket claims must be true. I don’t see why either doctrinal development or the “lack” (at least in terms of new dogmatic definitions) of such development is either good or bad in itself. Why not look at the *actual *beliefs and practices in question instead of trying to come up with some general rule that will solve the question?

I do agree with the Orthodox blanket claim that dogmatic definitions rule out error rather than defining truth, and it seems to me that many (perhaps most) Catholic theologians would agree. I am quite confident that Pope Benedict would agree.

Another point to consider is that if you really want doctrinal definitions and councils, as a matter of fact the Orthodox have called councils which have resolved doctrinal questions. You can find a list of councils (some of them not accepted by the Orthodox) here. Note particularly

1. the council which the website calls the Ninth Ecumenical Council, though of course many Orthodox wouldn’t call it that, which condemned Barlaam and Akindynos and thus defended the teachings of Gregory Palamas;
2. the councils of Iasi and Jerusalem, which condemned Cyril Lukaris; and
3. the condemnation of phyletism in the 19th century.

It sounds as if the Orthodox have been fairly busy after all, and certainly as if they have no difficulty in rejecting heresies when heresies pop up. It seems to me that this whole accusation of “stagnation” is nothing but a myth.

I wouldn’t say we always need a flat out heresy

Why not?

but certainly nothing should be defined for fun.

What I really mean is “nothing should be defined just because it’s commonly believed and most people think it’s a valid part of the Faith.”

 

[Contarini]

I’d rather not get into arguments about them

Then why start this discussion at all? How can we possibly talk about whether the “lack of development” is a problem in Orthodoxy, when we have no idea what makes you think it’s a problem?

Why do you think that you can come up with a theory about how often one should have doctrinal definitions? The RCC has gone for more than a century at a time without one (at least without a Council or ex cathedra statement). Why can’t the Orthodox go for longer? This seems like an extremely abstract and flimsy basis on which to make a decision about the true Church.

Paradoxical sums up my problem with the whole thing

I think that if you don’t like paradox, you may have the wrong religion. I’m not sure there are any religions without paradoxes, but you might have better luck with Islam. That whole Incarnation thing kind of sticks us with paradox right from the start, doesn’t it?

Look at it this way: isn’t it interesting that liberals (and many evangelicals) think the Orthodox are dogmatic bigots who pontificate about things like the Filioque and have schisms over how many fingers you use to cross yourself, while conservative Catholics think they are loosey-goosey mystics who can’t define doctrine to save their lives. To apply Chesterton’s rule from the appropriately named Orthodoxy (though he wasn’t thinking of the East): if they are wrong, they are wrong in a really weird way to have such opposite accusations made about them.

If He came to free me from knowing things about Him and the faith definitively that then I’m going back to being an evangelical

Well, it’s my opinion that evangelicals who convert to Catholicism looking for absolute certainty about everything have been sold a bill of goods. But now you’re in the Catholic Church, why not stay there? I can’t see for the life of me that you have any particularly good reasons to consider converting to Orthodoxy. If I were either Catholic or Orthodox, I’d thank God and stay put. (Easy to say–admittedly one of the reasons I’m not either is precisely that I fear finality.)

It’s not a metaphor, I’m not comparing the EO Church to a body of water which has stopped flowing, I’m saying they’ve had a lack of doctrinal development over the last 1000 years.

And what I’m saying is that if you take away the icky metaphorical connotations of the word, you haven’t really given a reason for why this relative “lack of development” is a bad thing.

For me, the problem is this regard. I can’t see the Church developing as much as it did for 8-10 centuries and then, basically, just no more definitions.

But perhaps the basic building blocks were in place and the shape of the Faith was firm enough that definitions of that level of solemnity were no longer needed?

As I said earlier in the thread, I view the talk about how we can’t express God in words, we don’t have any heresies excuses to be just that, excuses.

Well, the claim that they haven’t had heresies is silly. They have, and they have dealt with them quite effectively. Orthodox are really not very good apologists–which in its way is rather charming, compared to the well-oiled machine that Catholic Answers and other organizations have created in recent years.

As for being able to express God in words: do you really think that’s just an excuse? Do you think we can express the nature of God adequately in words? If you do, you have not only the East but most of the West against you. I encourage you to read Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I.13 (on the Divine Names), for starters. The East goes way beyond Aquinas in terms of apophaticism, but he’s a lot more apophatic than most Orthodox recognize, and perhaps even more than many Catholics who think they agree with him recognize.

I personally see them as not being able to have (or at least it being very hard) any ecumenical councils, and needing to come up with a reason. While there weren’t any heresies, there has definitely been problems which definitions helped in the West. I don’t know much about eastern history but I find it hard to believe there weren’t issues that could’ve been solved by a council

Indeed. There have been, and they have had councils. They just don’t generally call those councils “Ecumenical.” What does it matter? They dealt with the problems. Why are you so concerned with having Ecumenical Councils?

While a great deal more is defined in the RCC, there is still a lot up for debate, most especially in the area of the nature of God, and how he works.

True. As far as I know the Roman Communion has not defined the question of essence and energies, although the Catholic Encyclopedia and similar sources treat the Orthodox view as heretical and/or unworthy of serious consideration. Many Eastern Catholics are Palamites. So there’s a point where the East has had development and has defined doctrine more carefully than the West (though not all Orthodox follow Palamas all the way when it comes to essence and energies). Does that make you happier

Seriously, I’m not trying to convert you to Orthodoxy. I just taught a class on it which has left me (not for the first time) wondering if I ought to become Orthodox myself. But as I said, if I were RC I wouldn’t leave.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I would love to see Western Orthodoxy thrive and I plan on supporting the local Western Orthodox mission in Lynchburg, VA (founded by former Bp. Alban Waggener) as much as I can.

That’s pretty recent, right? The last time I did a search on Western Orthodoxy, which was probably about five years ago, I don’t think it existed. (I ask because I have relatives in Charlottesville and my parents live in East Tennessee, so I am in that part of the country from time to time.)

Isn’t it fair to say that the Orthodox have somewhat differing opinions on when the West went wrong? I’ve heard some go back as far as Tertullian to trace the origins of the West’s “legalism,” and of course the Orthodox are very ambivalent about Augustine. I am not as put off by this as I once was–I still have feelings for Augustine, but sometimes I think we should just be friends. I have been finding the Cappadocians and St. Maximus preferable in many ways. But clearly the West of the first millennium was still in the Church from the Orthodox perspective, and that poses practical problems.

What about the Low Mass? What about instruments? Are these things just legitimate liturgical differences, or do they represent a “different phronema”? What about the more penitential and propitiatory tone of the Eucharistic Prayer in the West (which I don’t think was significantly altered by the Western Rite editors)?

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Awesome points, Edwin. Thanks for taking the time to expound and explain. I couldn’t agree more with your assessment. Tough to find that balance between the extremes. God bless.

What I’m saying is that neither “continuous development” nor “no development” is a good thing in itself. We have to ask “what developments” and “why”?

When the Orthodox make the case that you shouldn’t define dogmas without necessity, I think they are on target. When some of them seem to claim that the conciliar definitions did not involve doctrinal development, they are completely unconvincing.

And clearly Orthodoxy has developed in the past thousand years in all sorts of ways. It just hasn’t added new dogmas.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Whoa whoa whoa, apples and oranges here. You’re comparing something that can never be known in the whole of human experience because we simply don’t have the capacity to understand it… We simply weren’t created with the ability to understand fully the trinaty and the incarnation, thus it’s possible they might appear to be a paradox, but are not to the Eternal God.

On the other we’re talking about fully comprehensible matters of faith. A completely different animal. If we fully understand it, and it is in fact paradoxical then it is and it can’t be true.

What are these matters of faith that are fully comprehensible, which the Orthodox think are paradoxical? The paradox that we were discussing was the paradox between rigid doctrinal definition and freedom. That paradox stems from the incomprehensibility of God, so it falls under the first category and not the second. The fact that you think *any *matters of the Faith are fully comprehensible is frankly appalling, by the way.

And because I don’t think God’s essence is comprehensible, I don’t even know what it would mean for something to be a paradox to Him or not. Saying “it’s not a paradox to God” implies that God’s mind works like mine, through discursive reasoning.

I think what he’s talking about is that the Orthodox are unable to define doctrine even to save the faith.

But how on earth would you know this? It’s a completely empty claim, unless you can point to some point where the Orthodox have lost the Faith through inability to define doctrine.

As a matter of fact it’s quite possible to point to places where the Orthodox *have *successfully condemned heresy, such as the condemnations of Cyril Lukaris’s Calvinism or the condemnation of phyletism in 1872. They seem to be doing just fine, so when we look at the facts your argument comes back to bite you.

Where as the Western Church has no such limitation, the Western Model is far more compatable with the vision of the Church as found in the Scriptures.

I hope that you misspoke here out of an attempt to be polite to the Orthodox. Your Communion claims to be more than the Western Church, and claims the ability to define doctrine not as the Western Church but as the Catholic Church. Furthermore, are those much-vaunted 22 other sui juris churches chopped liver?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Of course I’m sure synods have been held for these kinds of reasons in EO before, but they couldn’t help define what was the true belief and what was wrong

Why on earth not?

The Orthodox had a Calvinist Patriarch at one point.

They condemned his ideas as heretical, and there hasn’t been a Calvinist Patriarch since

Admittedly, there were all sorts of political machinations going on, and the Turks were the ones who actually deposed (and executed). But the fact is that there were synods, and they condemned Protestant ideas, and Protestant ideas have been considered heretical ever since.

Edwin

 

[addictedkoala]

Why do you think that you can come up with a theory about how often one should have doctrinal definitions? The RCC has gone for more than a century at a time without one (at least without a Council or ex cathedra statement). Why can’t the Orthodox go for longer? This seems like an extremely abstract and flimsy basis on which to make a decision about the true Church.

Well for one thing I didn’t come into this thread with equal chances of going EO or RC. And I don’t think there’s a theory behind it, nor an oppurtune time to have a definition, but it seems the EO are quite opposed to making definitions without a crisis, and I don’t believe we need to totally limit ourselves to that. It’s not an incorrect method of definition, but I do see it as inferior.

I think that if you don’t like paradox, you may have the wrong religion. I’m not sure there are any religions without paradoxes, but you might have better luck with Islam. That whole Incarnation thing kind of sticks us with paradox right from the start, doesn’t it?

I’ve never seen it as a paradox, just incomprehensible for now. Like crazetto said, after we die we’ll understand it.

Look at it this way: isn’t it interesting that liberals (and many evangelicals) think the Orthodox are dogmatic bigots who pontificate about things like the Filioque and have schisms over how many fingers you use to cross yourself, while conservative Catholics think they are loosey-goosey mystics who can’t define doctrine to save their lives. To apply Chesterton’s rule from the appropriately named Orthodoxy (though he wasn’t thinking of the East): if they are wrong, they are wrong in a really weird way to have such opposite accusations made about them.

Right, it is weird that I would have to dislike a Church on the reasoning that they are dogmatic people with little dogma. It’s a contradiction to me, not just paradoxical.

Well, it’s my opinion that evangelicals who convert to Catholicism looking for absolute certainty about everything have been sold a bill of goods. But now you’re in the Catholic Church, why not stay there? I can’t see for the life of me that you have any particularly good reasons to consider converting to Orthodoxy. If I were either Catholic or Orthodox, I’d thank God and stay put. (Easy to say–admittedly one of the reasons I’m not either is precisely that I fear finality.)

More like answers on something. As a protestant the only thing I could be sure of was that Jesus was God and came to save us.

And what I’m saying is that if you take away the icky metaphorical connotations of the word, you haven’t really given a reason for why this relative “lack of development” is a bad thing.

But perhaps the basic building blocks were in place and the shape of the Faith was firm enough that definitions of that level of solemnity were no longer needed?

I tried to handle that in an earlier post, it’s not that the lack is incorrect in itself, but the reason I perceive to be why. You can disagree, but it’s in the realm of subjectivity and motivation.

As for being able to express God in words: do you really think that’s just an excuse? Do you think we can express the nature of God adequately in words?

no, not adequately, but that doesn’t mean we have to leave everything as a mystery

 

[addictedkoala]

Why on earth not?

The Orthodox had a Calvinist Patriarch at one point.

They condemned his ideas as heretical, and there hasn’t been a Calvinist Patriarch since

Admittedly, there were all sorts of political machinations going on, and the Turks were the ones who actually deposed (and executed). But the fact is that there were synods, and they condemned Protestant ideas, and Protestant ideas have been considered heretical ever since.

Edwin

So why define anything at all? This is a perfect example of how the councils could’ve just condemned heresies without forcing us to believe anything. Why not condemn arius but leave the trinity open ended?

 

[crazzeto]

So why define anything at all? This is a perfect example of how the councils could’ve just condemned heresies without forcing us to believe anything. Why not condemn arius but leave the trinity open ended?

In order to truely condem something it’s usually not good enough to just say “well it’s not that”, you must typically defend what it is. In so far as the trinaty, believe me no one on earth fully understands it, nor is it completely defined by dogmatic teaching. What we do dogmatically declare is that there is one, and that the father is the ultimate source of not just all life here, but also of the trinaty its self.

 

[Contarini]

So why define anything at all? This is a perfect example of how the councils could’ve just condemned heresies without forcing us to believe anything. Why not condemn arius but leave the trinity open ended?

Because as crazzeto said, in order to reject error you have to say something positive. To say that Arius is wrong, the Church needed to say that Christ was of one substance with the Father. Otherwise the Arians could just go back to the drawing board and come up with another heresy worded slightly differently. The homoousios was the sticking point–it ruled out all the varieties of Arianism. But since we really don’t know what “substance” means when it applies to God, it’s not a positive definition of God at all. It’s just something that people with an inadequate view of how Jesus relates to the Father could not agree to.

If you look at the way the controversy played out, you see that Athanasius was in the end willing to make common cause with people who were dubious about the homoousios but clearly didn’t hold to the Arian heresy. In other words, the positive language is never itself the important thing. What is important is to prevent a misunderstanding of the Divine Mystery that will distort the shape of the Faith.

Edwin

 

[Harpazo]

That’s pretty recent, right? The last time I did a search on Western Orthodoxy, which was probably about five years ago, I don’t think it existed. (I ask because I have relatives in Charlottesville and my parents live in East Tennessee, so I am in that part of the country from time to time.)

I believe the mission started in 2006 or so. Here is their website. They are a part of the Antiochian Archdiocese.

Isn’t it fair to say that the Orthodox have somewhat differing opinions on when the West went wrong? I’ve heard some go back as far as Tertullian to trace the origins of the West’s “legalism,” and of course the Orthodox are very ambivalent about Augustine. I am not as put off by this as I once was–I still have feelings for Augustine, but sometimes I think we should just be friends. I have been finding the Cappadocians and St. Maximus preferable in many ways. But clearly the West of the first millennium was still in the Church from the Orthodox perspective, and that poses practical problems.

Most Orthodox I have spoke with in real life (and on the internet as well) will say that the West as a whole did not lose grace right at the Schism in 1054. It was gradual when the faith began to become even more altered in the West. However, the Pope of Rome was struck from the diptychs by Constantinople a few decades earlier (I believer 1014 or so) when the filioque was chanted in the Creed at Rome. So yes, there are varying opinions. The Orthodox will not point to one exact day, or let a lone one year when the West collectively lost grace. However, many will say that there was little doubt after the Latin Occupation of Constantinople from 1204-1260s.

I feel like I must qualify the above statement so that people won’t freak out. I do not believe that there was not a single soul saved by God in the West after the Schism. That’s not something I can say, because I trust in God’s mercy for the individual Western Christians. An “invincible ignorance” type situation would be here.

Also, there is a great book on the place of St. Augustine in the Orthodox Church by Blessed Fr. Seraphim (Rose) of Platina. I have not read it yet, but many that have say it helps to dispel the notion that St. Augustine was not an Orthodox Saint and has no place in Orthodoxy. He certainly does and he has a feast day.

What about the Low Mass? What about instruments? Are these things just legitimate liturgical differences, or do they represent a “different phronema”? What about the more penitential and propitiatory tone of the Eucharistic Prayer in the West (which I don’t think was significantly altered by the Western Rite editors)?
Edwin

I’ll have to let the hierarchs work that out. Personally,–and this is the opinion of a sinful layman–I believe that instruments have no place in the Liturgy (and they should get rid of pews, too ). Certain heterodox liturgies were “baptized” so to speak when Western Orthodoxy began to gain some traction. The 1929 BCP was aligned to reflect Orthodox theology and is now known amongst the Western Orthodox that use it as the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon (who had a good rapport with the Episcopalians). It was not completely overhauled, but basically dropped the filioque from the Creed, restored chant, and commemorated Orthodox bishops.

The Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory, which is basically the Tridentine Mass, but in English, nixed the filioque, dropped commemoration of the Pope and added a more explicit epiclesis. I don’t have a problem with this. Sometimes they use organ accompaniment from what I understand. That’s fine, because their hierarchs approved of it. It’s not something I am a major fan of (instrument accompaniment during the Liturgy), but it is what their hierarchs have permitted and I am in no position to judge them or tell them otherwise.

I do like the work that Hieromonk Aidan is doing with Western Orthodoxy and I hope that it will bear much fruit. He may be moving to a monastery in Ft. Myers, which is close to the school I attend during the year. If he does, I will certainly visit him as much as I am able.

I hope this helps.

In Christ,
Andrew