Having doubts after looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, development of doctrine

[addictedkoala]

Economia

I think it’s a bigger issue than that. The ROC teaches something is intrinsically evil, and the GC teaches that same thing is not, just have your priests permission. Since it’s mortal sin, this is not a small matter. Either contraception is wrong, or it’s ok with permission. These are contradictory positions in the same Church. And lets not debate contraception itself, obviously it’s been rehashed over and over, but why is it alright to have contrary positions on things as important as morality. Same goes for rebaptism of Catholics, if I’m in a (lower-c) church which teaches Catholics must be rebaptised, then every Catholic convert in churches that don’t isn’t even part of the (upper-c) Church yet. The vast majority of beliefs that differ by Orthodox churches don’t have implications in salvation, but some, most notably these two, do.

 

[Contarini]

I think it’s a bigger issue than that. The ROC teaches something is intrinsically evil, and the GC teaches that same thing is not, just have your priests permission. Since it’s mortal sin, this is not a small matter. Either contraception is wrong, or it’s ok with permission. These are contradictory positions in the same Church. And lets not debate contraception itself, obviously it’s been rehashed over and over, but why is it alright to have contrary positions on things as important as morality. Same goes for rebaptism of Catholics, if I’m in a (lower-c) church which teaches Catholics must be rebaptised, then every Catholic convert in churches that don’t isn’t even part of the (upper-c) Church yet. The vast majority of beliefs that differ by Orthodox churches don’t have implications in salvation, but some, most notably these two, do.

*If *the ROC really uses the language “intrinsically evil” and *if *the GC really teaches that contraception is intrinsically fine, and *if *this turns out not just to be a temporary situation of uncertainty, then you have a point.

My interpretation of the Orthodox position is that artificial contraception is not a good thing but that in some cases, for some couples, it may be the best alternative. Since that corresponds to my position, I may be jumping to that conclusion.

The rebaptism issue does bother me, mostly because the only way to explain this is that the Orthodox do not regard non-Orthodox baptisms as intrinsically valid, only valid “by economia.”

I’m still trying to decide what I think about this whole “economia” business. It offends my love of clarity, but maybe there’s something to it. Certainly in some “difficult cases” like birth control and divorce neither the Protestant nor the Catholic alternatives look clearly superior to me.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

I believe that your interpretation of this is correct. Baptism outside the OC is not seen as intrinsically valid.

Catholics use it too at times. For example, when two unbaptized but validly married individuals are baptized, their marriage becomes sacramental without the need for any action on their part, which is a form of ekonomia.*

 

[addictedkoala]

I believe that your interpretation of this is correct. Baptism outside the OC is not seen as intrinsically valid.

So am I baptized or not? I know that my baptism would not be considered valid (or more likely it’s state is unknown) as long as I am outside the Orthodox Church. If I were to join Orthodoxy, (which I am not, so don’t get any ideas ) one church, the ROC, says everything is hunky-dory without an Orthodox baptism after chrismation. The other, GC, says I have none of the effects of baptism short of being rebaptized by them. So do I pick a church that rebaptizes me or the one who doesn’t?

While the belief on valid, not sacramental marriages in the Catholic Church is analogous to the baptism situation in the ROC, the Catholic Church is also not in communion with a different church that says you must be remmarried.

 

[StevieD]

The rebaptism issue does bother me, mostly because the only way to explain this is that the Orthodox do not regard non-Orthodox baptisms as intrinsically valid, only valid “by economia.”

As I understand the situation (and I could be wrong), apart from the difference over contraception between the GOC and the ROC, the GOC rejects Catholic baptism and orders, but the ROC regards both as valid. (This is surprising because historically - up to around 200 years ago - I understand that the GOC permitted members unable to reach an Orthodox priest to confess to a Catholic priest and to attend Catholic Mass).
When you start to look closely, you begin to wonder whether these national churches possess a unity that is more theoretical than real. What is their machinery for common decision making/clarification? Is it a full, formal, Council only?

 

[Nine_Two]

Regarding Baptism, I book I’ve been reading recently, a chronology of the Russian Church (From the point of view of the Church, and approved by the Church), shows an interesting trend. Councils and Synods have ruled again and again that Catholics should not be rebaptized, however again and again whenever tensions begin to rise between Catholicism and Orthodoxy - as you have now in Russia, Bishops begin demanding that Catholics be baptized.

As for the priests, since we don’t extend any official recognition to your bishops, we don’t recognize Catholic ordination.

This is certainly an unfortunate state of affairs, and it should stop - in a most Orthodox Jurisdictions Catholics are accepted by Chrismation (which we hold to be a repeatable sacrament, though I know Catholics hold it to be one that should only be done once). At the same time I don’t think it should be held as the stumbling block it is. As discussion proceeds between the two communions I have little doubt this will be fully cleaned up (as I said, it is not done in most jurisdictions, although a few give the catachumen a choice).

 

[Contarini]

As I understand the situation (and I could be wrong), apart from the difference over contraception between the GOC and the ROC, the GOC rejects Catholic baptism and orders, but the ROC regards both as valid. (This is surprising because historically - up to around 200 years ago - I understand that the GOC permitted members unable to reach an Orthodox priest to confess to a Catholic priest and to attend Catholic Mass).
When you start to look closely, you begin to wonder whether these national churches possess a unity that is more theoretical than real. What is their machinery for common decision making/clarification? Is it a full, formal, Council only?

I think that a close look–when not taken through the lens of Roman Catholic assumptions about what unity looks like–reveals that the Orthodox are truly unified. I don’t think it’s theoretical at all. Compare what has happened in Protestantism in 500 years (and happens in most Protestant traditions in a matter of decades) with what has happened in Orthodoxy over the past thousand.

Edwin

 

[Nine_Two]

I think that a close look–when not taken through the lens of Roman Catholic assumptions about what unity looks like–reveals that the Orthodox are truly unified. I don’t think it’s theoretical at all. Compare what has happened in Protestantism in 500 years (and happens in most Protestant traditions in a matter of decades) with what has happened in Orthodoxy over the past thousand.

Edwin

The Orthodox conception of unity is different than the Catholic idea of unity. An Orthodox friend of mine joked the other day that the Orthodox Churches wouldn’t know what to do with ourselves if we were united in the Catholic way, things would be too peaceful.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Edwin,

To what would you attribute the successful unity of Orthodoxy compared to Catholicism over the past 1,000 years? Most Orthodox posters like to blame the Reformation on the Catholic Church and brag that they never had a Reformation. What’s your take?

I think that a close look–when not taken through the lens of Roman Catholic assumptions about what unity looks like–reveals that the Orthodox are truly unified. I don’t think it’s theoretical at all. Compare what has happened in Protestantism in 500 years (and happens in most Protestant traditions in a matter of decades) with what has happened in Orthodoxy over the past thousand.

Edwin

 

[Hesychios]

What is their machinery for common decision making/clarification? Is it a full, formal, Council only?

Decision making is at the diocesan level for parochial concerns (like where to build a parish).

At the synodal level for inter-diocesan concerns. The synod would normally be regional bishops around a Metropolitan bishop.

Other than that, a general council is like representatives of several local synods meeting simultaneously (there is historical evidence of this practice in the early western church too). It could also be termed a general synod. Still, the local synods need to ratify the work and put it’s canons into practice (which they might not do), so a Council might not be seen as legitimate until a later gathering proclaims that it has been accepted. Sometimes the more general synods have adopted (or ratified) the canons of more local synods wholesale.

The term ‘ecumenical’ referred to the empire. The ecumenical Councils were empire-wide in scope. Bishops outside of the empire would be asked to participate (if possible), and hopefully adopt the council’s findings and decisions.

The keeper ‘at the gate’ is the local bishop. He supervises and manages the local church. He is on duty all of the time, and it is his responsibility see that his priests are teaching rightly and false ideas do not come into his flock from some outside source (of which there were many in the early church, particularly renegade gnostics of all sorts). If the concern is great enough the issue might cause the calling of a synodal gathering and if it becomes a much bigger, or more widespread problem it could require the attention of bishops all over, and a council could meet. Councils have always been remedial in nature, intended to address serious concerns. Doctrinally they clarified, they were not to ‘improve’ on the teachings of the church (which heretics were busy attempting) nor add to the deposit of Faith.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello my brother Scott,

Most Orthodox posters like to blame the Reformation on the Catholic Church and brag that they never had a Reformation. …

I don’t think ‘brag’ is appropriate here.

If there are many potholes in my street, but not on yours, I don’t think one can assume you are bragging when you say “there are hardly any potholes on my street”.

If we discuss why my street has more potholes, you might say, the “substrate isn’t evenly compacted” or some such thing. That’s just intelligent conversation, even if we aren’t really sure why, you have an intelligent opinion I can’t casually disregard.

Now if you said “God specially blessed my street to not have pot holes” I might think you were bragging, or nuts.

Prayers from commieland

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Michael,

Hope all’s going well in China, friend.

You’re getting a bit persnickety with the politically correct sensitivity lingo here! …Come on…you know that many Orthodox love to brag about how they never had a Reformation. And I do emphasize the word brag…because it’s true. That may not be true of you, but it has been the case in the tone of several CAF Orthodox posts I’ve read. Notice my post, if we’re going to get semantically-analytical here, I said “many” Orthodox, not “all.” I have heard that boasted more times than I care to remember.

I can’t speak to the potholes analogy, but I will say that Catholics love to brag in here as well. It’s not unique to Orthodoxy. Catholics do it just as much. But your potholes analogy doesn’t include a tone and tenor. I have read posts on multiple occasions that had a definite vocabulary and tone that indicated a clear boasting and sense of pedestal high horsery (thought I’d employ a Bushism)…

There are several potholes in California, luckily not too many in my area. And with our budget and furloughs to Caltrans, we’ll probably have potholes the size of New Jersey in the near future…

Be careful with that “commieland” remark, brother! Mao is watching! Be careful or you’ll end up in a Great Leap Forward Cultural Revolution crossfire with Beijing!

Hello my brother Scott, I don’t think ‘brag’ is appropriate here.

If there are many potholes in my street, but not on yours, I don’t think one can assume you are bragging when you say “there are hardly any potholes on my street”.

If we discuss why my street has more potholes, you might say, the “substrate isn’t evenly compacted” or some such thing. That’s just intelligent conversation, even if we aren’t really sure why, you have an intelligent opinion I can’t casually disregard.

Now if you said “God specially blessed my street to not have pot holes” I might think you were bragging, or nuts.

Prayers from commieland

 

[Bluegoat]

Regarding Baptism, I book I’ve been reading recently, a chronology of the Russian Church (From the point of view of the Church, and approved by the Church), shows an interesting trend. Councils and Synods have ruled again and again that Catholics should not be rebaptized, however again and again whenever tensions begin to rise between Catholicism and Orthodoxy - as you have now in Russia, Bishops begin demanding that Catholics be baptized.

As for the priests, since we don’t extend any official recognition to your bishops, we don’t recognize Catholic ordination.

This is certainly an unfortunate state of affairs, and it should stop - in a most Orthodox Jurisdictions Catholics are accepted by Chrismation (which we hold to be a repeatable sacrament, though I know Catholics hold it to be one that should only be done once). At the same time I don’t think it should be held as the stumbling block it is. As discussion proceeds between the two communions I have little doubt this will be fully cleaned up (as I said, it is not done in most jurisdictions, although a few give the catachumen a choice).

What about baptisms from other Christian groups apart from Catholicism?

 

[Hesychios]

What about baptisms from other Christian groups apart from Catholicism?

From my limited experience Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran and Latin Catholic baptisms are usually regarded the same way. I can’t speak about the other traditions.

When I was accepted into Orthodoxy there was one other Catholic being received. She was to be Chrismated with the others but I was to be accepted through confession and communion, as per the bishop’s instructions (this was an expression of economia on my behalf, but not at my request). For the record I asked to be received through Chrismation as well, the priest readily agreed with my decision, and so it was.

I don’t want to analyze this case too deeply for fear of assuming too much and spreading misinformation. The fact is I don’t know why the same bishop would accept two Catholics at the same time in two different ways. But this is not a case of two bishops who cannot agree among themselves, it is not one bishop who cannot make up his mind, it is a bishop using his economia to make a ‘dispensation’ in my case (to use the Catholic term). He didn’t have to go to the synod or some Patriarch to get approvals to do this, it is within his authority.

One might think that he would have never have received one of the Protestants through economia with communion and confession, but I will never really know.

 

[Nine_Two]

What about baptisms from other Christian groups apart from Catholicism?

Basically if they are baptized with the trinitarian formula, they should be accepted with Chrismation, which I believe is the same as the Catholics. I, as an Anglican was accepted by Chrismation alone. Shortly before me a former Baptist Pastor was received through baptism and Chrismation (since they only Baptize in the name of Jesus).

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

To what would you attribute the successful unity of Orthodoxy compared to Catholicism over the past 1,000 years? Most Orthodox posters like to blame the Reformation on the Catholic Church and brag that they never had a Reformation. What’s your take?

I don’t know. It could just be cultural factors, or it could, as the Orthodox claim, be the Holy Spirit. Here’s a middle-of-the-road possibility: it could just demonstrate that central authority isn’t as necessary for maintaining unity as RCs claim, and that unity around a commonly held Tradition actually works quite well. The Reformation would then be significant as an example of the kind of rebellion and disunion provoked by an overly centralized, juridical view of authority.

However, just because the Orthodox approach maintains unity doesn’t mean it is free from problems. They do have a tendency to become subservient to the state and to cultural loyalties, and like Sunni Muslims (who seem to me to have a similar approach to authority, though even more decentralized) they often wind up being disproportionately represented by their more extreme members, who in the absence of a central authority function as the guardians of tradition.

Note: I would far prefer the most ferocious monk on Mount Athos to an Islamic extremist, of course, even apart from the common faith I share with the former and not with the latter!

But from my perspective one of the great functions of the Papacy is to discredit extremists, as in the phrase “more Catholic than the Pope.” If the Pope takes a “liberal” position, most Catholics are going to follow. There’s no such possibility in Orthodoxy, because there is no guarantee that a “liberal” Patriarch is being faithful to the Tradition.

Edwin

 

[Monica4316]

To the OP:

I found some more quotes

“My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! Matthew 16:18 This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. Exodus 12:22 This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. Genesis 7:23 … He that gathers not with you scatters; Matthew 12:30 he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist.”

– St Jerome, Letter 15, to Pope Damasus.

from A Guide to the Thought of Saint Augustine by Fr. Eugène Portalié, S.J.

c. ORGANIZATION OF THE HIERARCHY

The essential superiority of the episcopacy over the priesthood was recognized by Augustine. In his work On Heresies he mentions the error of Aerius who had denied this. 56 This passage should clear up a statement in a letter to St. Jerome in which an expression of humility could be misinterpreted. 57

Finally, at the summit of the hierarchy, he proclaimed the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and recognized the monarchical character of government established by Jesus Christ in His Church. Attempts have been made to make Augustine an Episcopalian who would admit the equality of all the bishops and not recognize a sovereign authority either in St. Peter or his successors. 58 The further charge is made that he maintained that the Bishop of Rome is only the representative, the symbol of the unity of the Church, not the principle of a true sovereign authority. 59 Explicit passages, however, and the whole conduct of the Bishop of Hippo 60 give the lie to these assertions.

Augustine affirms the Primacy of Peter among the Apostles with a clarity which dispels all doubt. The comparison between St. Cyprian and St. Peter must be read: In martyrdom they are equal, but what a preeminence of dignity in Peter “in whom the primacy of the Apostles shone forth with such excelling grace. … For who does not know that that primacy over the apostolate is to be preferred to any other bishopric? 62 Peter represented the Church when he received the keys, not in this sense that this power was handed over to the community, as some still claim, 63 but as the head of a people representing this people: “The Apostle Peter, because of the primacy of his apostolate, personified this Church, symbolizing her generality.” 64 pp. 237ff.

“We greatly wondered that in your imperial commands, directed for the Patriarch of the royal city, Tarasius, we find him there called Universal. … Because if he be named Universal, above the holy Roman Church which has a prior rank, which is the head of all the Churches of God, it is certain that he shows himself as a rebel against the holy Councils, and a heretic.”

“For, if he is Universal, he is recognized to have the Primacy even over the Church of our See, which appears ridiculous to all faithful Christians: because in the whole world the chief rank and power was given to the blessed Apostle Peter by the Redeemer of the world himself; and through the same Apostle [not merely for political or geographical reasons], whose place we unworthily hold, the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds the first rank, and the authority of power, now and for ever…”

Second Council of Nicæa

“Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches…”

Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451)

 

[Monica4316]

The existence of an ecclesiastical hierarchy is emphasized by St. Stephan I, 251, in a letter to the bishop of Antioch: “Therefore did not that famous defender of the Gospel [Novatian] know that there ought to be one bishop in the Catholic Church [of the city of Rome]? It did not lie hidden from him…” (Denziger §45).

St. Julius I, in 341 wrote to the Antiochenes: “Or do you not know that it is the custom to write to us first, and that here what is just is decided?” (Denziger §57a, emphasis added).

St. Siricius wrote to Himerius in 385: “To your inquiry we do not deny a legal reply, because we, upon whom greater zeal for the Christian religion is incumbent than upon the whole body, out of consideration for our office do not have the liberty to dissimulate, nor to remain silent. We carry the weight of all who are burdened; nay rather the blessed apostle PETER bears these in us, who, as we trust, protects us in all matters of his administration, and guards his heirs” (Denziger §87, emphasis in original).

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450):
“I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds.” (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

 

[Monica4316]

This might show that there was a single successor of St Peter in Rome… there is some debate whether it was Clement or Linus, but in any case, it was one of them.

A final and most enigmatic passage from Tertullian in Against Heretics gives us the information that Peter ordained Clement, the third bishop of Rome:

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the Apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the Apostles, because they existed in the time of the Apostles, we can say:� Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that (that first bishop of theirs), ed. note bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of Apostolic men � a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the Apostles. �For this is the manner in which the Apostolic Churches transmit their registers:� as the Church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the Church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.� [Ibid.]

 

[Monica4316]

(1) Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).
(2) The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how “Peter bad Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat” (III, 80). The word “chair” (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one’s episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop’s chair).
(3) Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).
(4) Hippolytus (225 AD) counts Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (Dict Christian Biog I, 577).
(5) Cyprian (in 250) speaks of Rome as “the place of Peter” (Ep ad Anton), and as “the Chair of Peter” (Ep ad Pope Cornelius).
(6) Firmilian (257) speaks of Pope Stephen’s claim to the “succession of Peter” and to the “Chair of Peter” (Ep ad Cyprian).
(7) Eusebius (314) says that Peter was “the bishop of Rome for twenty-five years” (Chron an 44), and calls Linus “first after Peter to obtain the episcopate” (Chron an 66). He also says that Victor was “the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter” (HE III, 4).
(8) The Council of Sardica “honors the memory of the Apostle Peter” in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and Ep ad Pope Julius).
(9) Athanasius (340’s) calls Rome the “Apostolic Throne” – a reference to the Apostle Peter as the first bishop to occupy that throne (Hist Arian ad Monarch 35).
(10) Optatus (370) says that the episcopal chair of Rome was first established by Peter, “in which chair sat Peter himself.” He also says how “Peter first filled the pre-eminent chair,” which “is the first of the marks of the Church.” (Schism Donat II, 2 and II, 3).
(11) Pope Damasus (370) speaks of the “Apostolic chair” in which “the holy Apostle sitting, taught his successors how to guide the helm of the Church” (Ep ix ad Synod, Orient ap Theodoret V, 10). Damasus also states how “The first See is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church” and says how Rome received primacy not by the conciliar decisions of the other churches, but from the evangelic voice of the Lord, when He says, “Thou art Peter…” (Decree of Damasus 382).
(12) Ambrose (c. 390) speaks of Rome as “Peter’s chair” and the Roman church where “Peter, first of the Apostles, first sat” (De Poenit I, 7-32, Exp Symb ad Initiand).
(13) Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the “chair of Peter” and the “Apostolic chair,” and states that Peter held the episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I, 1).
(14) Augustine (c. 400) tells us to number the bishops of Rome from the chair of Peter itself (in Ps contra Part Donat), and speaks of “the chair of the Roman church in which Peter first sat” (Contra Lit Petil).
(15) Prudentius (405) writes how in Rome there were “the two princes of the Apostles, one the Apostle of the Gentiles, the other holding the First Chair” (Hymn II in honor of St Laurent, V).
(16) Bachiarius (420) speaks of Rome as “the chair of Peter, the seat of faith” (De Fide 2).
(17) Prosper of Aquitaine (429) calls Rome “the Apostolic See” and the “Chair of the Apostle Peter” (Carm de Ingratis).
(18) The Roman legates at the Council of Ephesus (431) declare how “it is a matter doubtful to none that Peter lived and exercised judgement in his successors” and how “the holy and most blessed [Pope] Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place” (Acta Councilia, session 3, tom III, col 621).
(19) Peter Chrysologus (440) speaks of “blessed Peter living and presiding in his own see” (Ep ad Eutech).
(20) Pope Leo the Great (440) says how “the whole Church acknowledges Peter in the See of Peter (Rome)” (Serm II, 2).
(21) At the Council of Chalcedon (451), the assembled bishops respond to the teaching of Pope Leo the Great by crying out, “Peter has spoken through Leo.” The sentence of the council is pronounced by the legates “in the name of Leo, the Council, and St. Peter” (Canons of Chalcedon).
(22) The Synodical Letter to Pope Leo from Chalcedon calls the Pope “the interpreter of Peter’s voice.”
(23) Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III (450) speak of “the primacy of the Apostolic See (Rome), made firm on account of the merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops” (Inter ep Leon I, Vol XI, col 637).