Having doubts after looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, development of doctrine

[Bluegoat]

I keep reading comments like this, and clearly that is the general impression people are getting, but can you quote or reference some Orthodox comments to that effect? I have read Catholics and Protestants who have said much the same about Orthodox, but I don’t take them seriously.

Let’s remember that opinions are like noses, everybody’s got one.

We know the ‘western approach’ was Orthodox once, and we honor and pray to many western saints. We have priests doing liturgical work on the many old western liturgies I have linked to in past threads and we have western rite parishes. I don’t see how we can be accused of denigrating the western approach.

Do you mean of official people, or anyone?

I’ve talked to people on several forums about Western Rite Orthodoxy, and they were almost all negative, for a variety of reasons. As I said above, the things I have read from actual leaders and scholars have been much more sensible. These were not people with any authority though, just regular folk. If you are keen I can IM you a link to one example.

 

[jlhargus]

I do believe he did, and I’m pretty sure that the EO Church doesn’t (sorry to my EO brothers/sisters here) have the fullness of the truth. Same with any form of Protestantism, but how am I supposed to know if Catholicism is completely true. You could say I’ve ruled out all the other options, but there’s a fourth, and that’s whether or not the Church founded by Jesus Christ still (fully) exists today. All of a sudden, I’m not too sure.

JL: Because Christ promised the Holy Spirit to lead his people into ALL TRUTH. He also promised Peter’s faith would NOT FAIL. Is Christ not able to do all he promised?

Scripture indicates, to be a valid minister one must be SENT, [Rm 10:14 …how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 how shall they preach EXCEPT THEY BE SENT?

Lk 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that HE went out into a mountain to pray, and CONTINUED ALL NIGHT IN PRAYER to God. 13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and OF THEM HE CHOSE TWELVE, whom also he NAMED APOSTLES;

JN 17:18 As thou hast SENT ME into the world, even so have I ALSO SENT THEM into the world. 19 And for their sakes I SANCTIFY MYSELF, THAT THEY ALSO MIGHT BE SANCTIFIED THROUGH THE TRUTH. 20 NEITHER PRAY I FOR THESE ALONE, but FOR THEM ALSO WHICH shall BELIEVE ON ME THROUGH THEIR WORD; 21 THAT THEY all may BE ONE; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE that THOU hast SENT ME.

Christ chose and prayed for one specific VISIBLE SENT group, the Apostles Fellowship, whom he sanctified through truth. Hearing their word and being ONE in fellowship, with THEM, **the world may believe the Father sent him. I don’t think Christ meant, he would only be with that fellowship and it would only be one, just while the apostles were alive, but to the end of the world, thru successors.

Mt28:16 Then THE ELEVEN disciples WENT away into Galilee, INTO A MOUNTAIN where JESUS had APPOINTED them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And JESUS came and SPAKE UNTO THEM, saying, ALL POWER IS GIVEN UNTO ME IN HEAVEN AND IN EARTH. 19 GO ye therefore, and TEACH ALL NATIONS, BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS whatsoever I HAVE COMMANDED YOU: and, lo, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, even UNTO THE END OF THE WORLD.

Christ SENT one visible fellowship to TEACH the whole world, he promised to be with that one fellowship till the END.

1Cor 1:9 God is faithful you were called into THE FELLOWSHIP OF his Son JESUS CHRIST 10 I appeal to you BREATHREN by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you AGREE that there be no dissensions among you that you BE UNITED in the same mind and THE SAME JUDGMENT. 1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH and the spirit of ERROR [John assures us listening to that teaching authority Christ established we can know TRUTH from ERROR.]

 

[Harpazo]

Do you mean of official people, or anyone?

I’ve talked to people on several forums about Western Rite Orthodoxy, and they were almost all negative, for a variety of reasons. As I said above, the things I have read from actual leaders and scholars have been much more sensible. These were not people with any authority though, just regular folk. If you are keen I can IM you a link to one example.

Sadly, it’s us regular folk who are the worst. I fully support Western Orthodoxy and I know many Orthodox online (and offline) that do as well. Did you see that link I posted earlier about Hieromonk Aidan? He is helping to lead the way to restore a Western Orthodox patrimony, but I don’t know if he is doing it alone.

Here’s the site again in case you missed it.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Nine_Two]

That was my point. But still, even Catholics here who are less than hospitable don’t do things like call you an Eastern Schismatic instead of Orthodox. On those forums there are many cases where the majority of people use such colourful language to describe most things that aren’t in agreement with them, most notably the RCC. I have seen the RCC described as a basically dead hangnail about to fall off kept aloof by a small minority who believe in Jesus. No I did not exaggerate that at all. It has been noted that most Orthodox are not like that, but their forum prescence (on Orthodox forums) gives that impression to some I’m sure.

Actually I have seen Catholics here refer to people as Eastern Schismatics or worse. I’m not surprised by some of the things you’ve heard, there are some pretty extreme people out there. Some of the Protestants who come over every once in a while are pretty extreme in what they say.

Although to be honest, and I’ll blame the reformation for this, Catholics in general do seem somewhat more tolerant of other faith systems then others (Certain Protestants, Anglicans in particular also are, but Protestantism as a whole, if it can be taken as a whole doesn’t really fit).

 

[Nine_Two]

Yes, I know it isn’t everyone, and in fact it seems to me that the leadership is more open than individuals are.

But what has really turned me off, and I hope this will not be terribly offensive, are Orthodox internet forums, or the people on them. Of course there are always jerks especially on the internet, but compared to other Christian forums (and I don’t go to the Evangelical ones) the Orthodox are the worst. The proportion of unkind people is large, and the others don’t seem to say anything when this happens.

There is an overwhelming attitude that there is nothing anyone else has that is even interesting, let alone worthwhile.

It makes me wonder if something is not wrong spiritually, and I certainly wouldn’t want to have to live among such people all the time if I could help it.

I might take offense if I didn’t agree.

There is a reason I come here instead of Orthodox forums, I don’t like them, but at the same time they tend to be small niche groups, so I don’t know if it is just groups of friends who start them or what. I’ve never actually met an Orthodox person who regularly uses them.

Although I don’t usually like religious forums because they usually seem to have an enforced orthodoxy required in the posts. This is one of the few that doesn’t.

 

[Hesychios]

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.

Here is my take on it, whether it makes sense to you or not it’s the best I can do right now.

In the early church, ‘development’ was driven by the heretics. It was this tendency to want to micro define or explain everything that caused people to draw erroneous conclusions, and the church had to react.

This was always a ‘conservative’ move on the part of the church fathers, they were pruning away. Sometimes the easiest way to do that would be to positively affirm a doctrine that excludes any other interpretation, but it was always approached with reluctance, and minimally.

We know it happened, it is our history.

So in regards to Arius, the church affirmed that Jesus IS God. But they didn’t just figure this out, this was what they always believed! It is not a development that required a lot of logic to figure out, they simply had to look at the liturgical prayers and know they have always prayed to Jesus as God. This is why the first problem Arius had was with his own bishop. Arius was contradicting the belief his own bishop already held and prayed in the liturgy of his city.

But today in the western Catholic church there is a new mood, and atmosphere in place that makes it seem safe to speculate about things no one can know. I guess it’s that the old “God is on our side” mentality has got the best of them. People dream dreams and see visions that talk to them, and soon enough are joyfully advocating new dogmas be proclaimed by their infallible pontiff. They even engage in politicking for these new dogmas, sending postcards and petitions to the Vatican, and some Popes get caught up in it too, making unwise statements.

To quote Dr. Mark Miravalle:
From that time to the present, great numbers of petitions have continued to flood the Holy See for the papal definition of Our Lady’s universal mediation. Petitions for a new Marian dogma from only the last ten years (approx. 1994-2004) number over six million from over 165 countries, and include over 550 bishops and 45 cardinals. (12) Although these numbers do not include the hundreds of bishop petitions, along with the multitudinous number of clergy and lay petitions submitted to the Holy See by Cardinals Mercier, (13) Gagnon, and others prelates from 1930 to 1994, the recent petition campaign of the last decade for this fifth Marian dogma represents the largest per annum petition drive in the history of the Church.

But the question of “why” must again be addressed. If the Magisterium already teaches the truth of Marian mediation in its three components of Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate, then where is the need for a solemn papal definition of the same truth in the form of a dogma?

Historic graces and world peace. **With every new Marian dogma proclaimed by the successor of Peter, bearer of the keys of the kingdom, a new ocean of graces descends upon the Church and the world. **For Our Lady to exercise fully the motherly roles granted her by God, humanity must exercise its free will in accepting her roles that they may be activated on our behalf.

The whole focus is wrong. Is there a tangible benefit to knowing more minutiae … are they essential to us? That implies that the early Christians were at a serious disadvantage. Can these new dogmas save us, or are they instruments of division?

Why now? Why not at Nicea in the fourth century, or at Jerusalem in the first? Originating in the west at least one might have expected these to show up at Arles, but no, no one discussed these things at Arles either. Those poor people didn’t know what they were missing!

I keep going back to Saint Vincent of Lerins, he said it so well. Whatever was believed everywhere from the beginning is dogma.

When Catholics met with Orthodox in the first few centuries of the schism there was a tendency to shock by insisting on certain dogmas (like purgatory) which the east had never heard of and others (like the filioque) which the east had already rejected (people say it originated in the east, which is true, in Persia, and it was quickly rejected there too which is rarely mentioned).

Frankly if the entire east had not heard of it or did not teach it (and the east is so notoriously conservative as it is), it cannot be something that was believed always and everywhere. It is new and is not then properly ‘Catholic’, certainly not Orthodox Catholic.

 

[addictedkoala]

But today in the western Catholic church there is a new mood, and atmosphere in place that makes it seem safe to speculate about things no one can know. I guess it’s that the old “God is on our side” mentality has got the best of them. People dream dreams and see visions that talk to them, and soon enough are advocating new dogmas be proclaimed by their infallible pontiff. They even engage in politicking for these new dogmas, sending postcards and petitions to the Vatican, and some Popes get caught up in it too, making unwise statements.

Well that’s not fair, dogmas in the RCC have not been defined based off of private revelation nor “postcards”

The whole focus is wrong. Is there a tangible benefit to knowing more minutiae … are they essential to us? That implies that the early Christians were at a serious disadvantage. Can these new dogmas save us, or are they instruments of division?

I could rephrase that question back to you. Is there any tangible benefit to not knowing? As to whether or not the immaculate conception, purgatory, or others could save us, I doubt it, that is not their purpose

 

[Hesychios]

I could rephrase that question back to you. Is there any tangible benefit to not knowing? As to whether or not the immaculate conception, purgatory, or others could save us, I doubt it, that is not their purpose

If there was a tangible benefit, Jesus would have taught it.

In the past, the only people who EVER declared dogma upon their own authority were heretics.

 

[addictedkoala]

If there was a tangible benefit, Jesus would have taught it.

In the past, the only people who EVER declared dogma upon their own authority were heretics.

I’m confused, are you saying the Pope does it on his own authority? Because that would be an incorrect understanding of Papal infallibility. If you’re claiming the RCC did it on their own authority, then I suppose so did the first 7 councils when defining things, obviously a false conclusion.

 

[Harpazo]

Here is my take on it, whether it makes sense to you or not it’s the best I can do right now.

In the early church, ‘development’ was driven by the heretics. It was this tendency to want to micro define or explain everything that caused people to draw erroneous conclusions, and the church had to react.

This was always a ‘conservative’ move on the part of the church fathers, they were pruning away. Sometimes the easiest way to do that would be to positively affirm a doctrine that excludes any other interpretation, but it was always approached with reluctance, and minimally.

We know it happened, it is our history.

So in regards to Arius, the church affirmed that Jesus IS God. But they didn’t just figure this out, this was what they always believed! It is not a development that required a lot of logic to figure out, they simply had to look at the liturgical prayers and know they have always prayed to Jesus as God. This is why the first problem Arius had was with his own bishop. Arius was contradicting the belief his own bishop already held and prayed in the liturgy of his city.

But today in the western Catholic church there is a new mood, and atmosphere in place that makes it seem safe to speculate about things no one can know. I guess it’s that the old “God is on our side” mentality has got the best of them. People dream dreams and see visions that talk to them, and soon enough are joyfully advocating new dogmas be proclaimed by their infallible pontiff. They even engage in politicking for these new dogmas, sending postcards and petitions to the Vatican, and some Popes get caught up in it too, making unwise statements.

To quote Dr. Mark Miravalle:
From that time to the present, great numbers of petitions have continued to flood the Holy See for the papal definition of Our Lady’s universal mediation. Petitions for a new Marian dogma from only the last ten years (approx. 1994-2004) number over six million from over 165 countries, and include over 550 bishops and 45 cardinals. (12) Although these numbers do not include the hundreds of bishop petitions, along with the multitudinous number of clergy and lay petitions submitted to the Holy See by Cardinals Mercier, (13) Gagnon, and others prelates from 1930 to 1994, the recent petition campaign of the last decade for this fifth Marian dogma represents the largest per annum petition drive in the history of the Church.

But the question of “why” must again be addressed. If the Magisterium already teaches the truth of Marian mediation in its three components of Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate, then where is the need for a solemn papal definition of the same truth in the form of a dogma?

Historic graces and world peace. **With every new Marian dogma proclaimed by the successor of Peter, bearer of the keys of the kingdom, a new ocean of graces descends upon the Church and the world. **For Our Lady to exercise fully the motherly roles granted her by God, humanity must exercise its free will in accepting her roles that they may be activated on our behalf.

The whole focus is wrong. Is there a tangible benefit to knowing more minutiae … are they essential to us? That implies that the early Christians were at a serious disadvantage. Can these new dogmas save us, or are they instruments of division?

Why now? Why not at Nicea in the fourth century, or at Jerusalem in the first? Originating in the west at least one might have expected these to show up at Arles, but no, no one discussed these things at Arles either. Those poor people didn’t know what they were missing!

I keep going back to Saint Vincent of Lerins, he said it so well. Whatever was believed everywhere from the beginning is dogma.

When Catholics met with Orthodox in the first few centuries of the schism there was a tendency to shock by insisting on certain dogmas (like purgatory) which the east had never heard of and others (like the filioque) which the east had already rejected (people say it originated in the east, which is true, in Persia, and it was quickly rejected there too which is rarely mentioned).

Frankly if the entire east had not heard of it or did not teach it (and the east is so notoriously conservative as it is), it cannot be something that was believed always and everywhere. It is new and is not then properly ‘Catholic’, certainly not Orthodox Catholic.

A very thoughtful and thought provoking post, Michael. I never really realized that it was the heretics that were doing the developing in the early Church, but now that I think about it, it is certainly true.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[wynd]

Actually I have seen Catholics here refer to people as Eastern Schismatics or worse. I’m not surprised by some of the things you’ve heard, there are some pretty extreme people out there. Some of the Protestants who come over every once in a while are pretty extreme in what they say.

Yep. Methinks addictedkoala is new here If you want more examples, head on over to Fisheaters.

 

[Hesychios]

I’m confused, are you saying the Pope does it on his own authority? Because that would be an incorrect understanding of Papal infallibility.

The simple fact is Pope Pius IX declared a dogma upon his own authority in 1854AD. The church in the west retroactively recognized his right to do so at a council he called when he was an old man 16 years later.

Before 1854AD no Pope had ever had the temerity to do such a thing.

It is also clear that he can do this even if not one other bishop should agree with him. In canon law, the bishops are supposed to be in agreement with the Pope, not the other way around. The Pope can (and should) consult with them, but he does not have to take their advice.

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our Saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the sacred council,

• we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
• when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
• Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours:
**let him be **anathema.

If you’re claiming the RCC did it on their own authority, then I suppose so did the first 7 councils when defining things, obviously a false conclusion.

You are mixing it up here.

The seven church Councils were not one man defining things as if he had all the authority do do that himself.

 

[addictedkoala]

The simple fact is Pope Pius IX declared a dogma upon his own authority in 1854AD. The church in the west retroactively recognized his right to do so at a council he called when he was an old man 16 years later.

I fail to see a problem with this if a council declares he can do so, no matter how much later. They could’ve always declared that he’s not infallible if he was the only one who believed in infallibility.

Before 1854AD no Pope had ever had the temerity to do such a thing.

ok

It is also clear that he can do this even if not one other bishop should agree with him. In canon law, the bishops are supposed to be in agreement with the Pope, not the other way around. The Pope can (and should) consult with them, but he does not have to take their advice.

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our Saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the sacred council,

• we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
• when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
• Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours:
**let him be **anathema.

I also see no problem with this. An infallible statement is infallible regardless of who believes it

 

[addictedkoala]

Catholics: Papal infallibility did not exist as a widespread belief until the 1800s, many doctrines that were defined had no reason to be, theory on doctrinal development did not show up until these definitions had to be justified, too much ecclesiastical authority for the Pope

Orthodox: Not enough ecclesiastical authority in a central leadership to preserve unity when Jesus definately established more than a first among equals position for Peter, many churches drawn on ethnic lines only, no objective method for determining what councils are eccumenical, no reasonable method for calling an eccumenical council, less interested in merging faith and reason

Protestant: From my perspective too many to list

Thank you everyone for pointing out these issues, now I know where to put my heart. I will found my own Church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I have been in CAF for a few years now and I’ve seen Catholics call just about every religion, as well as myself, just about everything in the book! I’ve been going through a spiritual crisis of my own for a while now not buying everything the Catholics teach and I’ve been called Mr. “Cafeteria Catholic” and plenty of other fun stuff! Martin Luther has been called Martin Loser. The Reformation, the Deformation, Anglicans are a bunch of gay-ordaining Henry VIII divorce-lovers according to most, I’ve heard it all. I just think Koala needs to hang out a little longer to get the full flavor. …But despite some folks, CAF is a great place. I love it. And most of the people, Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic, are awesome…but there always are those intersting folks!

Yep. Methinks addictedkoala is new here If you want more examples, head on over to Fisheaters.

 

[Hesychios]

I also see no problem with this.

The problem is that you said " … are you saying the Pope does it on his own authority? Because that would be an incorrect understanding of Papal infallibility."

You (a Catholic) pointed out (I don’t know why you bothered) that I was misrepresenting Catholic teaching.

I have shown that I did not misrepresent Catholic teaching and now you say it doesn’t bother you.

Fine.

 

[Hesychios]

… They could’ve always declared that he’s not infallible if he was the only one who believed in infallibility.

The Vatican Dogma.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Well it’s not like I’m signing up for Orthodox RCIA (word for this?) and I am in fact staying in the RCC. I’m just getting a little seasick along the way to God. OK, that’s a bad metaphor… ignore me

Christianity 101

Our emotions are nice, but at times can be unreliable. Let go of this irrational fear of going to hell because it is stopping you from doing things for the love of God. Have hope. In the end God’s love triumphs.

If your emotions are holding you back then cut them off/ignore them.

 

[Contarini]

I do believe he did, and I’m pretty sure that the EO Church doesn’t (sorry to my EO brothers/sisters here) have the fullness of the truth.

But you haven’t given any substantive reasons for this. All your reasons are based on preconceived assumptions about how often dogmas ought to be defined. That makes no sense.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If you study the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, you will be able to believe well enough to obey.

Catholic moral teaching is certainly the point where Catholicism holds up best, in my opinion, and where its claims can be most easily verified.

Edwin