Having doubts after looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, development of doctrine

[addictedkoala]

The problem is of course that they are so similar. I remember that this was an issue that slowed my own acceptance of Orthodoxy. I looked at Catholicism and I looked at Orthodoxy, and while I identified more with Orthodoxy I couldn’t decide between them. I just wished they were united as one so my decision would be made for me.
Strangely enough the thing which finally made me take the leap of faith was reading a heretical document, when I saw the necessity of having grounded theology, something that within Christianity only the Orthodox and Catholic Churches truly offer, and something which I didn’t have as long as I was in that middle state.
I went with the Orthodox Church because I do believe everything it teaches, however I don’t believe Catholics are damned because they believe certain things that we do not hold to be required belief.

I believe it was The Pilgrim’s Tale which stated it best, But one should not base ones salvation on a desire to get into heaven, nor a fear of damnation, but rather out of a simple desire to get close to God.

:clapping:

Thank you

 

[Nine_Two]

What you are calling “sole credit” I call the leadership over the councils and synods that made the success against heresies happen. My original post in the beginning of this thread said “But on the other hand, it was the popes that struck down many of the Orthodox heresies like Arianism, Iconoclasm, etc.” Where am I incorrect? I detailed the goings-on around the Iconoclastic nonsense of Byzantine Emperor Leo and how a couple of diligent, stubborn, godly popes stood up to said emperor, galvanized the other bishops and priests against him as well as his pick for the Patriarch of Constantinople, and refused to adhere to the idiocy of Iconoclasm period. It was the pope all the way through leading the way. The pope did strike it down.

So are you giving the pope sole credit or not?

You are using semantics, absolutely. If I say Franklin Roosevelt brought us the New Deal or President Reagan won us the Cold War or Bill Clinton got us a balanced budget, or George Bush fought the War on Terror, do I truly need each time to say “with the help of the American people, the House of Representatives, the United States Senate, the approval of the Supreme Court, etc. etc.??” Of course no pope goes it 100% alone. I’ve yet to hear a reasonable Catholic in here make that ludicrous a claim. Leadership, primacy, even infallibility or supremacy we hear but never 100% unilateral defeats of heresy. But things have to start somewhere, leadership, drive, and commitment to stopping a heresy had to be there. So I give the popes credit. They were huge in striking down Arianism, Donatism, Docetism, Pelagianism, etc. But would I be crazy enough to omit Augustine when speaking of anti-Pelagianism? No way. Or Athanasius’ contribution versus Arianism? Nope.

A better example would be saying “The US beat the Nazis”, certainly true, but it minimizes the efforts of everyone else, and while it is fine to talk this way when speaking to other Americans, when you are talking to people of other nationalities who were involved you end up minimizing what they did. Same thing here. When you say the Pope solved all those problems you are telling everyone else that they were worthless, so yes, the inclination is to minimalize your point. As I already said earlier in the thread, dismissing something because it is semantics (which it isn’t, but that going into that would be) is wrong, semantics does not render an argument worthless.

If Catholics in CAF are guilty of giving popes too much credit, my observation is that Orthodox are often all-too-guilty of not giving them enough…intentionally and with a grudge at times.

As I’ve already stated in every reply to you, that is the natural inclination when faced with someone minimalizing your perspective, minimize theirs in return.

 

[addictedkoala]

A better example would be saying “The US beat the Nazis”, certainly true, but it minimizes the efforts of everyone else, and while it is fine to talk this way when speaking to other Americans, when you are talking to people of other nationalities who were involved you end up minimizing what they did. Same thing here. When you say the Pope solved all those problems you are telling everyone else that they were worthless, so yes, the inclination is to minimalize your point.

The problem with the metaphors is that they are both right, but which one depends on your (wait for it ) perspective. The metaphor used by gurney was quite adequate in describing how a RC sees the situation, the Church defeated the heresy, the Pope, as it’s universal leader, played a big, instrumental role, like the president when passing a bill.

Your metaphor works from the EO point of view, where there were a number of participants in defeating the heresies, (I’m not saying different churches mind you) one of which who was the Pope who helped a lot, but it was in conjunction with other parties who in authority are the same as him and who all did their part. Like a country in an alliance

By the way, lets not get carried away in which is an adequate metaphor

 

[TheQuestioner]

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.

Then cut off all emotions. Think rationally about what you are troubled about. You go to the EO and if Catholicism is right you may anger God because you let your fear of hell overpower your faith in His Church.

You go to the EO Church and your actions still may seem in vain in the eyes of God because you only converted out of fear and love for self, not out of Love for Him.

Pretty much, if it is emotions that are keeping you in this state, let them go. I would say when looked at from the outside, you are probably better off staying where you are now, in the Catholic Church.

 

[addictedkoala]

Then cut off all emotions. Think rationally about what you are troubled about. You go to the EO and if Catholicism is right you may anger God because you let your fear of hell overpower your faith in His Church.

You go to the EO Church and your actions still may seem in vain in the eyes of God because you only converted out of fear and love for self, not out of Love for Him.

Pretty much, if it is emotions that are keeping you in this state, let them go. I would say when looked at from the outside, you are probably better off staying where you are now, in the Catholic Church.

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

 

[Nine_Two]

The problem with the metaphors is that they are both right, but which one depends on your (wait for it ) perspective. The metaphor used by gurney was quite adequate in describing how a RC sees the situation, the Church defeated the heresy, the Pope, as it’s universal leader, played a big, instrumental role, like the president when passing a bill.

Your metaphor works from the EO point of view, where there were a number of participants in defeating the heresies, (I’m not saying different churches mind you) one of which who was the Pope who helped a lot, but it was in conjunction with other parties who in authority are the same as him and who all did their part. Like a country in an alliance

By the way, lets not get carried away in which is an adequate metaphor

Actually that is exactly the point I was trying to make, you said it much better than me.

People overstate their point because they perceive others of doing the same, basically creating two extreme positions.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This is a very poor analogy for a host of reasons. But honestly, where did I completely minimize everyone involved? As I said, your expectation that I have to name every single member of every synod and council throughout all the heresies is not something I’m going to do. My point was a simple one that you’ve tried to complicate in order to minimize the efforts of popes. And I think it “outs” the degree to which so many Orthodox are driven by an anti-papal zeal and an extreme touchiness about anything positive about the popes. Anyone worth his weight knows that the pope led the way on the iconoclasm heresy in shooting it down. I made the case. Leadership, strength, being the point man who gets things going and sees they get done. That’s what the popes did in fighting this heresy. They garnered support, had the loudest voice, they led, period. So if I say that the popes struck down the heresy, again, where am I wrong? I am not about to name every single bishop, priest, deacon, and administrative assistant who was involved in every one of these synods and sessions. That’s goofy. Again, you are using semantics to render things worthless. You’re trying to oversimplify and make it either the pope did it all or he was a bit player who was just in the crowd. It’s rare to find an Orthodox in here who is willing to give an inch of credit to a pope.

You are being far too touchy-feely with the notion that I’m trying to marginalize other parties outside of the pope. It’s not what I’ve said and you know that. You’d like me to minimize the pope as a bit player and just a typical schlameel when you know he was far more than that. The Coryphaeus, the primus inter pares, the first among equals, the jury foreman, you guys have plenty of names for the Pope. That’s fine with me. But the point is, leadership. And in the iconoclasm incident, he led HARD. I give him more credit than anyone. There, let me put this in a precisely perfect, succinct, semantically-correct form that you will appreciate: *The pope led against iconoclasm, was the loudest and strongest voice against it, and while not totally alone in his crusade against said heresy, he did the most to galvanize support for his orthodox position and defend the use of sacred images. His leadership was the primary ingredient that led to the defeat of this heresy. *

There…sigh…

The irony is, of course, that a Western pope did more to protect sacred images, icons, than the Eastern bishops did. Another irony is that the Byzantine emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople, both of the East, had the loudest voices against iconography and sacred images. One might conclude that without the popes, iconography would’ve possibly been toast…ironic!

So are you giving the pope sole credit or not?
A better example would be saying “The US beat the Nazis”, certainly true, but it minimizes the efforts of everyone else, and while it is fine to talk this way when speaking to other Americans, when you are talking to people of other nationalities who were involved you end up minimizing what they did. Same thing here. When you say the Pope solved all those problems you are telling everyone else that they were worthless, so yes, the inclination is to minimalize your point. As I already said earlier in the thread, dismissing something because it is semantics (which it isn’t, but that going into that would be) is wrong, semantics does not render an argument worthless.

As I’ve already stated in every reply to you, that is the natural inclination when faced with someone minimalizing your perspective, minimize theirs in return.

 

[WetCatechumen]

There would be none of this ‘appointing bishops around the world’ and requiring ad limina visits. No erecting and suppressing dioceses upon his own authority beyond his Metropolitanate. No regulating the liturgy on his own authority. No writing the canons on his own authority, editing and deleting the work of the fathers in council on his own authority.

I know I’m a little late responding, but I had to respond to this.

The First Ecumenical Council at Nicæa affirmed the right of the Pope of Rome to have oversight of the election of bishops in all of Europe. Since it was European missionaries that carried the Gospel to the New World, to India (much after St. Thomas - I refer to the Portuguese missions only), and much of Western and Sub-Saharan Africa, they fall under his metropolis. He has the right to prevent anyone from being made a bishop. Likewise, the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Antioch have that right for Eastern Africa and Asia and all the East respectively.

The ideas of autocephaly and national churches are innovations. The idea that the Patriarch of Constantinople has this authority is an innovation, an innovation rightly condemned by the Pope after the Council of Chalcedon.

The Pope absolutely has the right to control the appointment of bishops. In the Eastern church, in areas that fall under the jurisdiction of the Pope of Alexandria or the Patriarch of Antioch? No, but he has the right in the West.

 

[Hesychios]

I know I’m a little late responding, but I had to respond to this.

The First Ecumenical Council at Nicæa affirmed the right of the Pope of Rome to have oversight of the election of bishops in all of Europe.

Perhaps you need to reread the canons.

It refers to the Metropolitans, that they should approve of the choice. The choice is made by the local synods, each led by a Metropolitan.

Historically the Metropolitanate of Rome did not extend to Milan (which even had it’s own liturgical rite) and the bishop of Rome did not select Saint Ambrose of Milan nor Saint Augustine of Hippo, nor saint Ireneaus of Lyons, they were elected by the local churches. North Africa, Spain and Gaul selected their own bishops.

Today the Pope through his Vatican staff names the bishops, and moves them around. It is not even possible to have a free and open church Council under these conditions, the bishops have become a collective rubber stamp.

I think it is funny that the Latin church can take a canon like that and stretch it to mean whatever it wants, but a simple canon (they couldn’t be simpler) like canon twenty is forgotten as if it never existed.

 

[prodromos]

The ideas of autocephaly and national churches are innovations.

I would call them adjustments due to growth and maturity.

The idea that the Patriarch of Constantinople has this authority is an innovation, an innovation rightly condemned by the Pope after the Council of Chalcedon

So when Rome accepted it after the 4th Crusade, did it fall into error?

 

[josie_L]

This is a very poor analogy for a host of reasons. But honestly, where did I completely minimize everyone involved? As I said, your expectation that I have to name every single member of every synod and council throughout all the heresies is not something I’m going to do. My point was a simple one that you’ve tried to complicate in order to minimize the efforts of popes. And I think it “outs” the degree to which so many Orthodox are driven by an anti-papal zeal and an extreme touchiness about anything positive about the popes. Anyone worth his weight knows that the pope led the way on the iconoclasm heresy in shooting it down. I made the case. Leadership, strength, being the point man who gets things going and sees they get done. That’s what the popes did in fighting this heresy. They garnered support, had the loudest voice, they led, period. So if I say that the popes struck down the heresy, again, where am I wrong? I am not about to name every single bishop, priest, deacon, and administrative assistant who was involved in every one of these synods and sessions. That’s goofy. Again, you are using semantics to render things worthless. You’re trying to oversimplify and make it either the pope did it all or he was a bit player who was just in the crowd. It’s rare to find an Orthodox in here who is willing to give an inch of credit to a pope.

You are being far too touchy-feely with the notion that I’m trying to marginalize other parties outside of the pope. It’s not what I’ve said and you know that. You’d like me to minimize the pope as a bit player and just a typical schlameel when you know he was far more than that. The Coryphaeus, the primus inter pares, the first among equals, the jury foreman, you guys have plenty of names for the Pope. That’s fine with me. But the point is, leadership. And in the iconoclasm incident, he led HARD. I give him more credit than anyone. There, let me put this in a precisely perfect, succinct, semantically-correct form that you will appreciate: *The pope led against iconoclasm, was the loudest and strongest voice against it, and while not totally alone in his crusade against said heresy, he did the most to galvanize support for his orthodox position and defend the use of sacred images. His leadership was the primary ingredient that led to the defeat of this heresy. *

There…sigh…

The irony is, of course, that a Western pope did more to protect sacred images, icons, than the Eastern bishops did. Another irony is that the Byzantine emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople, both of the East, had the loudest voices against iconography and sacred images. One might conclude that without the popes, iconography would’ve possibly been toast…ironic!

:clapping:

 

[josie_L]

You do, but we don’t accept the Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory, even if we believe in something like purgatory. It is the Catholic Church which has made it unacceptable to believe in anything that is not purgatory in its canons.

On what basis do you reject purgatory, i.e. the state of purification after death

 

[crazzeto]

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?

It’s been discussed for far longer than 50 years, but these are the clearest discussions we’ve seen in a long time particularly since the break down of communications durring the potificit of JPII.

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

It actually originiated in the East, but you know well it wasn’t in the creed to begin with. However it’s usage in the Creed is completely Orthodox, as is the teaching.

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.

Is that what Catholic doctrine says? Are you sure about that?

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1031.htm

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

 

[Contarini]

I agree, but regardless of the status of unity it would be nice to get a general summary of what the upper hierarchy of EO thinks of the RCC…

Yes it would, but the Orthodox don’t seem to work that way! Furthermore, the guardians of the Faith in Orthodoxy have tended historically to be the monks rather than the bishops. You may be able to get a general summary of what the monks of Mount Athos think of the RCC, but you may need to cover your ears first.

He didn’t say that at all, he said that the Creed is more correct with the filioque than without. I personally don’t care, when I was a nondenominational protestant I did a report on the events of 1054 and I couldn’t help but laugh at how both sides make incredible semantic arguments with little theological substance toward each other.

I used to dismiss this issue too, but I have finally read Lossky on the subject, and he makes more sense than I had thought. I encourage you not to dismiss the arguments until you have seriously studied them (or don’t study them, but then don’t say that they have “little theological substance”).

The quote from Akin is describing the situation of a Protestant who might hope to hang on to a lot of Protestant attitudes while becoming Orthodox. That isn’t your situation–and it isn’t really mine, though more so than yours (I’m Episcopalian and don’t have any problem with prayer for the dead and some kind of postmortem purgation, for instance–I do have a problem with the traditional Western juridical language about this, issuing in the doctrine of indulgences).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The problem is of course that they are so similar. I remember that this was an issue that slowed my own acceptance of Orthodoxy. I looked at Catholicism and I looked at Orthodoxy, and while I identified more with Orthodoxy I couldn’t decide between them. I just wished they were united as one so my decision would be made for me.
Strangely enough the thing which finally made me take the leap of faith was reading a heretical document, when I saw the necessity of having grounded theology, something that within Christianity only the Orthodox and Catholic Churches truly offer, and something which I didn’t have as long as I was in that middle state.

Yes. Several years ago I had a conversation with an Orthodox priest (himself a convert from Pentecostalism), and told him that my theology was basically that of Louis Bouyer, Henri de Lubac, et al. His response: “In that case you should be Orthodox. . . or Catholic.” Point being that Anglicanism isn’t really tenable. I agree in principle. But I find the Orthodox criticisms of Catholicism telling, while finding it very hard to accept the idea that the Orthodox Church is *the *True Church. (I basically believe it to be the “truest Church” in terms of its doctrine and liturgy, but that’s not really enough, is it?)

I went with the Orthodox Church because I do believe everything it teaches,

I believe pretty much everything it teaches except what it teaches about itself!

however I don’t believe Catholics are damned because they believe certain things that we do not hold to be required belief.

What bothers me about the Orthodox position is not that they think non-Orthodox are damned (as far as I can see very few of them make that claim) but that they think the Church ceased to exist in the West. In other words, it’s not individual salvation but the identity of the Church that is at stake for me. I can’t accept the idea that Western Christianity is, taken as a whole, false, although I have no problem with the idea that it is distorted in quite a number of ways (that seems obviously true to me, whether or not the Orthodox are actually in better shape). Part of my problem is that I first encountered Orthodoxy in Romania, and while I began to fall in love with it there in spite of seeing it through the eyes of my Protestant friends, the fact is that I’ve seen a lot of the ways in which Orthodoxy itself is flawed and I find it hard to see it as having all the answers while we poor Westerners have gone off the rails.

Mushy as it sounds, I’m not convinced that any of us have all the answers, and I think we all need each other. And that’s why I remain a de facto Anglican/Protestant, even though I do not believe Protestantism to be as authentic a continuation of historic Christianity as either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

Yes. Several years ago I had a conversation with an Orthodox priest (himself a convert from Pentecostalism), and told him that my theology was basically that of Louis Bouyer, Henri de Lubac, et al. His response: “In that case you should be Orthodox. . . or Catholic.” Point being that Anglicanism isn’t really tenable. I agree in principle. But I find the Orthodox criticisms of Catholicism telling, while finding it very hard to accept the idea that the Orthodox Church is *the *True Church. (I basically believe it to be the “truest Church” in terms of its doctrine and liturgy, but that’s not really enough, is it?)

I believe pretty much everything it teaches except what it teaches about itself!

What bothers me about the Orthodox position is not that they think non-Orthodox are damned (as far as I can see very few of them make that claim) but that they think the Church ceased to exist in the West. In other words, it’s not individual salvation but the identity of the Church that is at stake for me. I can’t accept the idea that Western Christianity is, taken as a whole, false, although I have no problem with the idea that it is distorted in quite a number of ways (that seems obviously true to me, whether or not the Orthodox are actually in better shape). Part of my problem is that I first encountered Orthodoxy in Romania, and while I began to fall in love with it there in spite of seeing it through the eyes of my Protestant friends, the fact is that I’ve seen a lot of the ways in which Orthodoxy itself is flawed and I find it hard to see it as having all the answers while we poor Westerners have gone off the rails.

Mushy as it sounds, I’m not convinced that any of us have all the answers, and I think we all need each other. And that’s why I remain a de facto Anglican/Protestant, even though I do not believe Protestantism to be as authentic a continuation of historic Christianity as either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

Edwin

I think you have almost perfectly described my thoughts and feelings about this. I think this is why I find the rather emphatic rejection of Western Orthodoxy by many Orthodox to be very deflating; potentially it could go a long way in my mind to quieting some of my reservations about Orthodoxy’s vision f the Western Church.

 

[Bluegoat]

The lack of definitions (and ecumenical councils beyond the 7th) in EO is one of my least favourite things about EO. It all feels much too relaxed and free. I know these are often times good traits, but to me it feels like our faith is one of the most important things to know definitively about especially with the world like it is now. While I can see the argument for why another infallible council has not been needed, my perspective is that they couldn’t hold another one (very difficult without someone in authority) and the arguments being brought out now developed over time to explain the predicament. It’s just how I’m seeing the situation I feel my choice is between Catholic development and stagnation of doctrine

I can understand why you might be concerned about the stagnation of doctrine in Orthodoxy. However, I don’t think I would consider the unwillingness to define things and develop theories in the same light. Rather, to engage in such things could be understood as a potentially spiritually dangerous and destructive practice. What does it say about us if we continually try to define, nail down, and explain God who is in essence unknowable to us? Are we not likely to unwittingly affirm things that are untrue, or demand adherence to doctrines that are only approximate?

These are the worries that the Eastern Church has, I think, regarding the West,

As an aside, I am very surprised and disseminated that Jimmy Aiken said that the concept of prayers for the dead depended on an idea of some kind of purgation period after death. God is outside of time as well as space, and can make effectually prayers in any time or place he wants to, even before the prayers were made.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Don’t you mean it affirms your reservations?

I think you have almost perfectly described my thoughts and feelings about this. I think this is why I find the rather emphatic rejection of Western Orthodoxy by many Orthodox to be very deflating; potentially it could go a long way in my mind to quieting some of my reservations about Orthodoxy’s vision f the Western Church.

 

[Contarini]

Don’t you mean it affirms your reservations?

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

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The lack of definitions (and ecumenical councils beyond the 7th) in EO is one of my least favourite things about EO.

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.

It all feels much too relaxed and free.

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.”

You are I know these are often times good traits, but to me it feels like our faith is one of the most important things to know definitively about

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.

especially with the world like it is now. While I can see the argument for why another infallible council has not been needed, my perspective is that they couldn’t hold another one (very difficult without someone in authority) and the arguments being brought out now developed over time to explain the predicament. It’s just how I’m seeing the situation I feel my choice is between Catholic development and stagnation of doctrine

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