G
GIR
Guest
People always seem to forget that the Orthodox allow divorce and contraception.
Having doubts after looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, development of doctrine
- Status
E
eucharisteo
Guest
I guess I’ll chime in on this one since figuring out which organization best represents “The Church” has been something I’ve sought my entire life, even as a former evangelical Protestant. This is such a good thread - topic wise, I’m sorry I didn’t see it before.
I started to write an autobiography and realized that is not going to work because it would be far too long.
What I learned in my faith journey is that one can not seek communion with a church based on the examples of its members or leaders, particularly their leaders. In a compacted sentence this is my background in a nutshell: baptized against mom’s will, raised fundamentalist, anti-Catholic, but convinced I’m Catholic but with bible only beliefs, moved with non-practicing catholic dad, seminary, “victim” of priest scandal, struggle with foundations, fundamentalist believes, determined to return to be a catalyst for “change” return to holiness for clergy, met wife, proselytized out of my Catholic faith, realized most of my Catholic training is heretical or totally misunderstood, years of bible instruction, discover ECF, thought, maybe EO , read history, saw both sides but still angry at RCC, wanted to become Orthodox, wife rejected it, thought about Anglican, wife rejects it, dig deeper, discover EO have very similar beliefs as RCC, boiled down to more recent doctrinal developments, infalability, Immaculate Conception mostly, papacy, realized hierarchy in all faiths, discovered primacy of Rome in ACF, just out right believe IC, realized moral issues taught by only RCC stand the test of time, declare myself Catholic, 18 years of confession, my family unit converts to Catholic, discerning diaconate, etc. Really very overly simplified to fit.
If you take the time to look at “development of doctrine”, study anything about any “church” and you’ll discover some sort of doctrinal development. Thus for every congregation you’ll find at a minimum of a subtle difference in doctrinal beliefs. Many Protestants will exclude or chalk anything they don’t accept as “opinion”, and thus outside their sacred traditions passed down not only through man from Reformation times but also especially more recent. Example: abortion, contraception, etc. These 2 in particular are only taught today by the RCC. Many Protestants that believe they teach abortion is bad will tell you that except in the case of rape and incest. Well, what makes abortion wrong? If it is a person, then how do they justify killing a baby? Etc. Orthodox Jews teach the same thing on contraception, only are inconsistent with chemical contraception. Mechanical contraception is objectively wrong to them. I have issues only with NFP now and tend to believe that most Catholics, including some “orthodox” use it like contraception, which is not morally right. I go further and believe that if you do not want that many children you simply should not be engaging in the marriage act. It may mean years. However, scriptures clearly let us know that if your spouse desires you, you are obligated to give of yourself in the marriage act. etc. etc.
So in a nut shell, you seem to be confused about doctrinal development. Any organization that broke with RCC in essence did NOT return to “orthodoxy” but in essence created their own development of doctrine.
Do you see the pattern yet? In essence, we must go by what is consistent with the gospel, not our “feelings” or man’s tradition. It must be compatible with Sacred Tradition, Scripture and the Majesterium [correctly joined together with the seat of Peter is infallible - this can be stated much better]. The only issues I have with these doctrines is the confusion taught by people within the organization you call RCC, I call CC, is the over or under emphasis of the teaching. We must understand where these teachings come from and why they were “declared”. They were teachings that go all the way back to the Apostles carried at least through Sacred Tradition, evident in the ACF. All Catholics, the only Christians from the beginning, believed them as well.
I feel your pain. It is a very disturbing thing to reconcile our beliefs or our reasoning with Sacred Tradition declared. If you study EO you will find similar beliefs. And All Protestant faiths show their own development of doctrine rooted in their own “sacred tradition” guided by their own majesterium [fallible men].
I started to write an autobiography and realized that is not going to work because it would be far too long.
What I learned in my faith journey is that one can not seek communion with a church based on the examples of its members or leaders, particularly their leaders. In a compacted sentence this is my background in a nutshell: baptized against mom’s will, raised fundamentalist, anti-Catholic, but convinced I’m Catholic but with bible only beliefs, moved with non-practicing catholic dad, seminary, “victim” of priest scandal, struggle with foundations, fundamentalist believes, determined to return to be a catalyst for “change” return to holiness for clergy, met wife, proselytized out of my Catholic faith, realized most of my Catholic training is heretical or totally misunderstood, years of bible instruction, discover ECF, thought, maybe EO , read history, saw both sides but still angry at RCC, wanted to become Orthodox, wife rejected it, thought about Anglican, wife rejects it, dig deeper, discover EO have very similar beliefs as RCC, boiled down to more recent doctrinal developments, infalability, Immaculate Conception mostly, papacy, realized hierarchy in all faiths, discovered primacy of Rome in ACF, just out right believe IC, realized moral issues taught by only RCC stand the test of time, declare myself Catholic, 18 years of confession, my family unit converts to Catholic, discerning diaconate, etc. Really very overly simplified to fit.
If you take the time to look at “development of doctrine”, study anything about any “church” and you’ll discover some sort of doctrinal development. Thus for every congregation you’ll find at a minimum of a subtle difference in doctrinal beliefs. Many Protestants will exclude or chalk anything they don’t accept as “opinion”, and thus outside their sacred traditions passed down not only through man from Reformation times but also especially more recent. Example: abortion, contraception, etc. These 2 in particular are only taught today by the RCC. Many Protestants that believe they teach abortion is bad will tell you that except in the case of rape and incest. Well, what makes abortion wrong? If it is a person, then how do they justify killing a baby? Etc. Orthodox Jews teach the same thing on contraception, only are inconsistent with chemical contraception. Mechanical contraception is objectively wrong to them. I have issues only with NFP now and tend to believe that most Catholics, including some “orthodox” use it like contraception, which is not morally right. I go further and believe that if you do not want that many children you simply should not be engaging in the marriage act. It may mean years. However, scriptures clearly let us know that if your spouse desires you, you are obligated to give of yourself in the marriage act. etc. etc.
So in a nut shell, you seem to be confused about doctrinal development. Any organization that broke with RCC in essence did NOT return to “orthodoxy” but in essence created their own development of doctrine.
Do you see the pattern yet? In essence, we must go by what is consistent with the gospel, not our “feelings” or man’s tradition. It must be compatible with Sacred Tradition, Scripture and the Majesterium [correctly joined together with the seat of Peter is infallible - this can be stated much better]. The only issues I have with these doctrines is the confusion taught by people within the organization you call RCC, I call CC, is the over or under emphasis of the teaching. We must understand where these teachings come from and why they were “declared”. They were teachings that go all the way back to the Apostles carried at least through Sacred Tradition, evident in the ACF. All Catholics, the only Christians from the beginning, believed them as well.
I feel your pain. It is a very disturbing thing to reconcile our beliefs or our reasoning with Sacred Tradition declared. If you study EO you will find similar beliefs. And All Protestant faiths show their own development of doctrine rooted in their own “sacred tradition” guided by their own majesterium [fallible men].
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
NFP is interpreted so differently by different Catholics and even Catholic bishops and priests that it in itself is pretty ambiguous. Scott Hahn puts in his book about penance and confession a section about preparation for confession, going through one’s conscience and trying to think of all one’s sins carefully. One of his points to think about is NFP. He asks the individual to consider if he is using NFP as birth control and emphasizes that it ONLY may be used in extraordinary circumstances when a couple absolutely must use it. So the reality is that there are not “that” many times in a marriage when a couple absolutely “must” use NFP in extraordinary circumstances. So, given the fertility of my wife and I we would already have about 10-11 kids. Yet other priests and bishops say it’s fine to use NFP as long as the couple is reasonably charitable and open to life and some ignore it all together.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
This point was already looked at.
Other than the infamous Church of England example do you have any other examples of this? Sweden? Norway? Denmark? Prussia? Netherlands? Why did these states all adopt Protestantism. The answer has little to do with kings fighting with the Church.
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes, and in Romania I heard stories about nuns interrupting the Liturgy with shouted denunciations of the Patriarch (for collaborating with the Communists–this was in the late 90s, when the Patriarch was Teoctist, I believe).Not only that, but grannies have been known to attack bishops with their brooms.
I like that side of Orthodoxy, at least as shown in these instances. Unfortunately, mobs of drunk peasants beating up Baptists are also part of the Romanian Orthodox scene (or were in the 90s), and are a darker expression of the same impulse, I’m afraid.
Your point about bishops, though, is well taken. Whether it’s fear of hell or fear of broom-waving grannies, I think Orthodox bishops (at least when the state-church issue isn’t a factor) show an excellent combination of authority and accountability, by and large. Not that I know much about it, really. I do know that RC bishops are both too authoritarian and not free enough, while Episcopal bishops are loose cannons who can pretty much redefine the Christian Faith as they wish!
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
No, because at the time of the Reformation many Orthodox were under Catholic rule (and in Transylvania and perhaps a few other places, were at times even under Protestant rule).
And in fact the Reformation did affect those Orthodox a little, but it didn’t seem to get very far. It may have helped provoke the Romanian Orthodox to translate the Liturgy and the Scriptures into Romanian (instead of using Slavonic as they had previously done) to counter Protestant propaganda in the vernacular. If so, that’s one very good effect! The Romanians are still using that translation today.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
No. For one thing, the link was bad. For another, it’s bad form to argue through giving people reading assignments. You should make your arguments for yourself, and let your sources document your claims.
I did, just now, manage to find the website in question in spite of your poor documentation, and I skimmed it. Typical catena of citations, some of them clearly question-begging, like the claim that since Second Constantinople “followed in every way” the teachings of the Fathers, it thereby endorsed the Filioque!
Over and over again the article made assumptions about what follows logically from this or that abstruse principle of Trinitarian theology. I do not see these deductions as necessary in any way.
Feel free to do so!
Edwin
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
It’s not often that I get to read about drunk peasants beating up Baptists. See, that’s why I come to CAF each day…broom-waving grannies, man. That’s what keeps me here!
B
Bluegoat
Guest
It’s also assuming the outcome of the argument to bring this up in a discussion about authority.Catholics, on the other hand, call them annulments and NFP
C
crazzeto
Guest
Certainly not completely, and not truely answered.
All over Europe, and at many levels from Princes wanting independance from the Church to Pesents wanting to shed them selves of any and all yokes.
newadvent.org/cathen/12700b.htm
Politics was central to the reformation in western europe, as well as increasing wealth.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
What aspect wasn’t answered? Bring that up rather than restating the entire point.
No offense but a Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Reformation isn’t one I’m going to ascribe any degree of Authority to. Additionally just saying the Princes wanted independence from the Church is not enough to show they did. I brought up examples, and the example of Prussia is one that requires specific attention, as it was born out of the secularization and conversion to Protestantism of an entire Catholic military order. What evidence do you have that these rulers had been feuding with the pope?
C
crazzeto
Guest
Fainting claims that the Orthodox were unaffected by protestantism (they were) and claming they never had anything like this (they did, at about the same time) doesn’t answer the questions Nine.
I have a fair reading of history Nine, I offered you some general information in this last post… But hey, I guess if it’s not good enough for you I’m not sure what to offery ou
If you want more specifics, I would have to redig through history and pull out specific examples. But seriously, if you disregard the politics of the reformation then you’re either reading history with blinders on, or you haven’t read history. The reformation was pulmigated by politics, as were many previous heresy’s though previously western europe was not so primed to explode.
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: Asked yourself, why has there never been an EO Ecumenical Council since the split with the successor of Peter. That would answer the question of no development of doctrine since the split. There was certainly development before the split, the Trinity is a good example of that. The EO had no problem with development when there was unity. Is their lack of development recognition they cannot infallibly define doctrine without being in union with the holder of the keys, the successor of Peter?There are a couple things that bother me, but as I’ve been thinking about it all the issues seem to come down to, “Is this legitimate doctrinal development?” If the RCC is correct about it, then I have very little issue. However, if the EO are right about it I feel that I might be better served in their Church. But then again some things in EO bother me, such as the heterodoxy (might be the wrong word. I’m referring to their tendency to leave doctrine undefined). An example, the papacy. Most RC will admit the Papacy certainly did not look the same back then as it does now, but this falls under legitimate development for them and illegitimate for the EO. Historically I see less authority than RC gives them credit for, however development takes care of that, while I see the pontiff having more authority than the EO will say.
I want to explain the emotions I’m feeling about it all but I’m no good at expressing them, my mind is too logistical. I guess most of all I just wish I could live before the schism
Are EO ONE or a group of individual national Churches, without any authority to ACT as one in any given situation.
C
Contarini
Guest
“Ecumenical Council” is just a label. There have been Councils that addressed problems and heresies effectively.
And afterwards–the hesychast controversy is an example.
They seem to manage it when they need to, though admittedly the mechanisms are clunky.
Edwin
E
eucharisteo
Guest
Clunky?
H
Harpazo
Guest
What is it that I said?Oh my goodness, Edwin “it is at best a legitimate theological speculation”, did you even bother to read the article from whence I retrieved my quote???Moreover, the fact that Pope St. Leo agreed with the theology of the filioque does matter because Harpazo has implied through his posts that Pope St. Leo repudiated the filioque (I can give you the thread/post in which he insinuated this).
In Christ,
Andrew
K
KathleenGee
Guest
This thread has been most helpful to me in understanding Orthodoxy, its background and its relationship to the RCC.
I share the same perceptions of Orthodox’ attitude towards Catholics and St. Bernadette with Mary…I think the thread has confirmed my own lifelong faith journey where I have tended to learn through osmosis that there has always been the primacy of Peter…and the clarification of the conditions the papacy must follow in regards to infallibility…and the ongoing issues people have with any human authority. I am not sensitive to the super authority of any pope to come to create new or strange teachings or the super popes of the past, because believers should see the Church as teacher and nurturer, a mother, and not God of itself.
The freedom and presence of the Holy Spirit is there for any believer as a benefit to discern when any cleric is not correct in their teachings or example. I mean, in spite of questionable popes, one’s fidelity to Christ transcends the matter at hand. A bad pope is not the reason to leave the Church.
And it does look like at the bottom of the schism is hurt feelings…pride…and the Latin inclination to define anything and everything. That can be good for people who have answers, it can be bad when the rules and laws weigh too much on the freedom of faith we are given.
I share the same perceptions of Orthodox’ attitude towards Catholics and St. Bernadette with Mary…I think the thread has confirmed my own lifelong faith journey where I have tended to learn through osmosis that there has always been the primacy of Peter…and the clarification of the conditions the papacy must follow in regards to infallibility…and the ongoing issues people have with any human authority. I am not sensitive to the super authority of any pope to come to create new or strange teachings or the super popes of the past, because believers should see the Church as teacher and nurturer, a mother, and not God of itself.
The freedom and presence of the Holy Spirit is there for any believer as a benefit to discern when any cleric is not correct in their teachings or example. I mean, in spite of questionable popes, one’s fidelity to Christ transcends the matter at hand. A bad pope is not the reason to leave the Church.
And it does look like at the bottom of the schism is hurt feelings…pride…and the Latin inclination to define anything and everything. That can be good for people who have answers, it can be bad when the rules and laws weigh too much on the freedom of faith we are given.
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: National Councils only, but they have never defined a doctrine that ALL EO MUST teach. Indeed they cannot.
JL: You will have to enlighten me on the hesychast controversy.
JL: Please give me an example.
J
josie_L
Guest
No, not all but much of Orthodoxy was under Muslim rule, i.e.,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe
And even if at first the reformation made inroads in Muslim-controlled Hungary (only a part of Hungary was conquered), it is a testament to their theocratic ideology/government that it went no further, indicating that Christian lands/people occupied by Muslims were thus incapacitated and/or contained by a non-Christian people who would I daresay not countenance the presence of Christians of whatever newly adapted denomination preaching their new found faith.
Edit: Even parts of Russia had been under the Ottoman empire, until it was reconquered by Ivan the Terrible in 1552 (the czars of Russia ruled over the Russian Orthodox Church as did the Monarchs in Protestant nations over Protestant churches).
- Status