Having doubts after looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, development of doctrine

[Bluegoat]

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.

Yes, this is true. From here though I think it is easy to understand why we don’t want to go beyond what we need to without being very careful.

We cannot know God in himself, and he has a completely different mode of Being than we do (or not-being if you want to talk about it that way.)

Every bit of information we have about God, even Biblical information, is a kind of dumbing down or approximation, because human language, and the human mind itself, are inadequate to understand God in his essence. It is a bit like a scientific or mathematical model of the universe - it approximates and communicates something of the nature of the thing, but it does not totally describe it and it isn’t the thing in itself.

If we take these ideas as equivalent to the things in themselves, as perfectly communicating it’s essence, even when they are revealed directly through scripture, we can make very dangerous mistakes. We can see that many heresies have in fact arisen in this way.

Now God has revealed himself, both directly and indirectly, so we are not stuck with saying only “God is not” or “God is like” with the neoplatonists. But we want to be very careful about going beyond what Tradition gives us. Protestants typically have tried to do this by not going beyond scripture, but that has its own difficulties.

 

[jlhargus]

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

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

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

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

JL: You need to answer for yourself the question, “did Christ appoint a universal pastor?” JN 21:14-17 Jesus saith to Peter three times do you love me more than these? Peter answered yes, Christ said feed my lambs, 2nd time Christ said feed my sheep, 3rd time feed my sheep.

Peter is to feed all Christ’s lambs and sheep in the kingdom=Church. Christ said Simon, do you love me more than these=other apostles, whom Peter is also to feed. The brethren Peter is to strengthen. Lk 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 And the Lord said, Simon, SIMON, behold, SATAN hath DESIRED TO HAVE YOU, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 BUT I HAVE PRAYED FOR THEE, THAT THY FAITH FAIL NOT: and WHEN thou art CONVERTED, STRENGTHEN THY BRETHREN. Choosing twelve apostles, Jesus regenerates the Davidic Kingdom=twelve tribes of Israel, the new spiritual kingdom of Israel, in the world, but not of the world, he appoints the apostles as ministers to oversee spreading of the Kingdom on earth, with Peter as Prime Minister, as Rock Mt16 and delegated holder of the keys, Isa 22:19-22. A firm visible rock of truth and unity. Jesus, the invisible Rock the King, holder of the keys by right, prayed ONLY for Peter in the presents of the other apostles, Satan desired to have you (all Apostles), but I have prayed for thee (singular Peter only). Peter is to strengthen his brethren in the faith, feed all the sheep and lambs. All the apostles including Peter in Mt18:18 were given authority to bind and loose, as a collective group which includes Peter, they share the authority of the keys only in union with Peter. In Mt 16:13-20. Peter ALONE is given the keys and authority to bind and loose individually, apart from the others.

Also ask yourself, have the EO every held a ecumenical council or defined any doctrine since 1054? Why? Why has no EO ecleciastical body never defined the filoque as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only? Are EO only national Churches and not one Catholic Church? Who speaks for the EO with universal authority?

 

[crazzeto]

Yes, this is true. From here though I think it is easy to understand why we don’t want to go beyond what we need to without being very careful.

We cannot know God in himself, and he has a completely different mode of Being than we do (or not-being if you want to talk about it that way.)

Every bit of information we have about God, even Biblical information, is a kind of dumbing down or approximation, because human language, and the human mind itself, are inadequate to understand God in his essence. It is a bit like a scientific or mathematical model of the universe - it approximates and communicates something of the nature of the thing, but it does not totally describe it and it isn’t the thing in itself.

If we take these ideas as equivalent to the things in themselves, as perfectly communicating it’s essence, even when they are revealed directly through scripture, we can make very dangerous mistakes. We can see that many heresies have in fact arisen in this way.

Now God has revealed himself, both directly and indirectly, so we are not stuck with saying only “God is not” or “God is like” with the neoplatonists. But we want to be very careful about going beyond what Tradition gives us. Protestants typically have tried to do this by not going beyond scripture, but that has its own difficulties.

Well I think the fundamental difference any form of Orthodox Christian has with Protestants is that we acknowlege (as does scripture) that scripture is not the sum total of all divinly revealed information.

With regards to your comments about the nature of God, when one takes Tradition and scripture as a whole it’s quite possible to know quite abit of information (from our perspective) about God, with out knowing the totality of what God is and to know that we are in fact correct. We know we are correct, because the doctrines have be been infallibly pronounced by the Church, which was done under the inspiriation of the Spirit which does not error.

I think the best anaology for understanding this I’ve heard was from a priest off of (I believe) EWTN. Basically he said that, it’s very possible for one to know much about a particular object with out knowing the totality of it. His example was the iPhone, most of us can (or do if you have one) know much about the iPhone. We can know about it because we can use it, and it will respond consistantly to our commands. We can even read the documentation about the object, and learn still more.

But for most of us (heck, possibly all of us) we don’t know the totality of it. We don’t know every detail, of how every peice of electronics in there interacts with the others on a hardware level. We don’t know how the software operates at a low level on top of that. We don’t know how AT&T’s network works. These are all things that we don’t understand, yet we still know a lot about the iPhone and we can be sure that what we know is true.

 

[addictedkoala]

JL: You need to answer for yourself the question, “did Christ appoint a universal pastor?” JN 21:14-17 Jesus saith to Peter three times do you love me more than these? Peter answered yes, Christ said feed my lambs, 2nd time Christ said feed my sheep, 3rd time feed my sheep.

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.

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

Well, I think you could break down that last further.

If it doesn’t exist at all, then it never did.

Or, it is still here but it just doesn’t look the way you think it is supposed to. The saints in Heaven have the fullness of truth, but we are pretty sure they didn’t in their earthly lives, because we are limited that way. It might be possible to apply a similar logic to the Church.

 

[addictedkoala]

Well, I think you could break down that last further.

If it doesn’t exist at all, then it never did.

Or, it is still here but it just doesn’t look the way you think it is supposed to. The saints in Heaven have the fullness of truth, but we are pretty sure they didn’t in their earthly lives, because we are limited that way. It might be possible to apply a similar logic to the Church.

The second one, I’m stuck between that and Catholicism

 

[Nine_Two]

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

As I already said, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory isn’t the state of purification after death, it’s the state of purification after death by fire. The by fire is the important part as it is where the disagreement comes in.

 

[Nine_Two]

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.

And you have evidence toward this?

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.

I’ve heard that said before, but it is irrelevant where it started, and yes I know it wasn’t in the creed to begin with, but that’s what it seemed like you were saying. As for it being “Orthodox” (Nice big “O”) it isn’t, as for being orthodox, it certainly isn’t, by admission of JPII, orthodox in Greek, and is in fact heretical.

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

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1031.htm

Yes, that says exactly what I said. What’s the issue here?

 

[Bluegoat]

The second one, I’m stuck between that and Catholicism

Well, what would you do if you decided that was probably true?

 

[Nine_Two]

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

Actually I’d ascribe that to individuals, not the Church itself. Just like a lot of Catholics think Eastern Catholics are somehow lesser, and in some cases heretics, Eastern Orthodox sometimes look on Western Orthodox as though they don’t belong. My personal experiences suggest these people are the minority. Personally I want to have the opportunity to visit a Western-rite Parish, although I love the Eastern services.

 

[Nine_Two]

I need to go so I can’t finish getting caught up on this thread, but I’d like to point out that the Orthodox Church isn’t against new things per se, things like Hesychism have only come to be “defined” in the past 1,000 years, rather it is defining without what we see as a reason. So while the definition of transubstantiation would stand (as it was done in response to the Lutherans), the Marian doctrines were pretty much just formalized without need. It is the latter to which we object. As far as I am aware neither the doctrines of purgatory or indulgences were defined in the face of heresy, however I could be wrong.

 

[mark_a]

but how am I supposed to know if Catholicism is completely true.

We don’t know. We believe.

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

Best wishes to you.

 

[addictedkoala]

As I already said, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory isn’t the state of purification after death, it’s the state of purification after death by fire. The by fire is the important part as it is where the disagreement comes in.

“The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire”

It certainly says it’s traditionally fire, but it does not say it is, without question, fire. The Catholic Encyclopedia does not even mention fire in the definition. (newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm) I could be wrong on this, and please do correct me if I am with a source if possible, but I don’t think we need a literal fire to be in line with RC teaching

 

[addictedkoala]

Well, what would you do if you decided that was probably true?

I don’t know…

We don’t know. We believe.

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

Best wishes to you.

It’s almost uncanny how I’ll be praying and realize this, and at the same time someone posts it. I figure, from my perspective, if either of them is true then I think it’s the RCC, and what’s God going to say to me if I die without putting my faith into anything. At least for the moment I can do nothing but accept the RCC and pray for stronger, better, faith from now on.

Jesus, I trust in you!

 

[Bluegoat]

Actually I’d ascribe that to individuals, not the Church itself. Just like a lot of Catholics think Eastern Catholics are somehow lesser, and in some cases heretics, Eastern Orthodox sometimes look on Western Orthodox as though they don’t belong. My personal experiences suggest these people are the minority. Personally I want to have the opportunity to visit a Western-rite Parish, although I love the Eastern services.

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.

 

[addictedkoala]

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 know what you mean, it was the attitude of Orthodox forums that led me to create this thread. We can’t judge Orthodoxy by the people online, but those people still do not give a good impression

 

[prodromos]

I know what you mean, it was the attitude of Orthodox forums that led me to create this thread. We can’t judge Orthodoxy by the people online, but those people still do not give a good impression

If I were to judge the Catholic Church by some of the Catholics on this forum then I would have a very low opinion of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately what Bluegoat described is found everywhere regardless of belief, whether Orthodox, Catholic or anything else.

John

 

[addictedkoala]

If I were to judge the Catholic Church by some of the Catholics on this forum then I would have a very low opinion of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately what Bluegoat described is found everywhere regardless of belief, whether Orthodox, Catholic or anything else.

John

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.

 

[barnesms]

If I were to judge the Catholic Church by some of the Catholics on this forum then I would have a very low opinion of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately what Bluegoat described is found everywhere regardless of belief, whether Orthodox, Catholic or anything else.

John

This is the sad truth about organized religion, all of them. I don’t know what happens to to adherents, but some of them become such extreme zealots. Their pride and sanctimonious self-righteous becomes so over-powering that it turns off their fellow adherents as well as those from other Christian churches. It is across the board and in all Christian churches.

I have found some really fine Christians on this website, but let me assure you, I have found enough of the other that I have to struggle to remain interested in this ecumenical effort.

 

[Hesychios]

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 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.