Having doubts after looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, development of doctrine

[Contarini]

Clunky?

Yes, it takes them a while to respond to new crises and the decision-making process isn’t as clear-cut as in your Communion. But in the long term they seem quite able to solve their problems effectively.

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

Exactly. Those who propose such an excuse are really inventing.

Nestorians and Monophysites (having never experienced a reformation) can still be found till this very day as they once were (theologically-speaking), is it because they are the true Church of Christ being led by the Holy Spirit or is it because of the fact that under Muslim rule said Christians were subjugated whereby restricting access to the Christian world?

Eastern Hungary was mostly Orthodox, but with a Catholic population too. The Catholics overwhelmingly went over to the Reformation in eastern Hungary, the Reformation seemingly ‘jumped over’ the Orthodox communities.

Can you provide us with the data that the reformation “seemingly jumped over the Orthodox communities” so I can verify it’s veracity?

Russia was not controlled by Muslims, neither was Poland. It probably comes as a surprise to many Catholics that Poland was once in the grip of the Reformation (mostly Calvinist), and had to be won back’ in about three generations by the work of the Jesuits

.

Parts of Russia were controlled by the Ottoman empire until 1552 when Ivan the Terrible regained it back. Moreover, the Russian Czars ruled autocratically, i.e., the Czars would not likely have allowed reformed Christians to disrupt the unity of the faith in Russia because they controlled the Church (in fact, I’m pretty certain that in Russia one cannot proselytize the Orthodox).

But the Orthodox of the kingdom of Poland were relatively unaffected, and the Orthodox across the border in Russia not at all.

And yet the Holy Roman empire, i.e., Catholic Europe was saved from Muslim rule while most if not all of the Byzantine empire was not.

Edit: You fail to take into account many possible and natural causes that prohibited and/or contained the reformation from infecting the East as it did the West, in fact, you do not even realize that were it not for the greedy and power-hungry monarchs/nobility of the West the Reformation (as it played out) would never have taken place?

 

[josie_L]

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.

First, you yourself failed to provide me with an argument when you wrote what you did about the filioque (a little odd too considering you’re Episcopalian, that is, do you not recite the Nicene creed with the filioque addition?)

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.

Since your criticisms seem rather vague, I’ll ask you some questions instead, the first of which is: do you deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also (the only person prior to the schism who ever stated that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone was Photius)? And if you do not deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also, why exactly are you (theologically) critical of the filioque?

Feel free to do so!

So you admit you were wrong, good D), here’s the thread/post I was referring to:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=456024&page=8

p.s. It’s post 112.

 

[steve_b]

Exactly. Those who propose such an excuse are really inventing.

Eastern Hungary was mostly Orthodox, but with a Catholic population too. The Catholics overwhelmingly went over to the Reformation in eastern Hungary, the Reformation seemingly ‘jumped over’ the Orthodox communities.

Russia was not controlled by Muslims, neither was Poland. It probably comes as a surprise to many Catholics that Poland was once in the grip of the Reformation (mostly Calvinist), and had to be won back’ in about three generations by the work of the Jesuits.

But the Orthodox of the kingdom of Poland were relatively unaffected, and the Orthodox across the border in Russia not at all.

Bp Kalistos Ware in his book Orthodoxy says that Greeks who wished for a higher education were obliged to travel to the non-Orthodox world, to Italy and Germany, to Paris, and even as far as Oxford. Among the distinguished Greek theologians of the Turkish period, a few were self-taught, but the overwhelming majority had been trained in the west under Catholic or Protestant masters. And Ware said the EO in the 17th century went through their own “developments in theology”.

 

[jlhargus]

Yes, it takes them a while to respond to new crises and the decision-making process isn’t as clear-cut as in your Communion. But in the long term they seem quite able to solve their problems effectively. Edwin

JL: Got any examples where ALL EO acted as one in a crises, instead of only a National group on a national level?

 

[Nine_Two]

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.

No one claimed the Orthodox were “unaffected”, the claim was mostly. Additionally I’m curious what the Orthodox Church had at the same time “like this”, certainly you can’t mean the Old Believers, who took up the belief that the Bishops had betrayed Christ due to minor liturgical reforms, not only was that heresy much more minor in scope, but it was not an effort to overhaul major aspects of the Church.
When Orthodox claim to not have had anything like the Reformation, they aren’t claiming there have never been schisms from the Orthodox Church.

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

You offered me one well known case where what you said was true (England), and then claimed that was the norm. I asked for more examples, and named off some major examples where, as far as I know, it wasn’t the case, and you just quoted a general reformation page on a biased website. Sorry, doesn’t fly.

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.

I do want more specifics, and if you want the argument to stand you need to offer them. Saying that “You’re just disregarding politics” isn’t an argument, it is a statement, and one that is unproven. In fact given your avoidance of giving any further examples beyond the Church of England, yet sticking to the argument as is I’m going to have to say you’re reading history with blinders on.
Large portions of the Reformation were guided by politics, however that doesn’t mean specifically that it was kings or princes who were in a power struggle with the pope.

 

[Nine_Two]

No, not all but much of Orthodoxy was under Muslim rule, i.e.,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe

Much, not all. Yet it didn’t spread through Orthodox lands.

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.

The only portion of Hungary not under Ottoman control at their peak was the territory then known as “Upper Hungary”, and now called “Slovakia”, the rest was under Muslim control. It was Transylvania, deep in Ottoman territory (modern Romania but at the time considered part of Hungary), where Catholicism was wiped out. The Turks encouraged the Protestants and during the 30 years war recognized one as King of Hungary (under the Sultan of course) as he attacked the Habsburgs.

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).

The Ottoman Empire controlled a small portion of the Crimean coast (with most of it under the control of a vassal), most notably the fort of Azov, however the Rus had never controlled that region directly. There may have been an Orthodox population in the region but it would not have been significant, Which is really beside the point since Protestantism didn’t spread very well among the Orthodox inside or outside Muslim lands.

Additionally your conception of how the Orthodox Church was run is flawed. At the time of Ivan IV the Metropolis of Moscow was an autonomous Church under the Patriarch of Constantinople, it was not until Tsar Boris Godunov petitioned Constantinople that Russia became a Patriarchite in its own right, it was not until tsar Peter I that the state took some control over the church, however it should be noted that even after he abolished the office of Patriarch and put in place his Most Holy Synod the Church still directed its own affairs, an offer from The Sorbonne for reunion which Peter received during his travels was forwarded to the Most Holy Synod, as Peter acknowledged he did not have the authority to accept or reject it (incidentally this offer denied quite directly any sort of concept of infallibility of the Pope, proof that it was not accepted by some of the preeminent Catholic theologians even this late). While there were brief periods in which the secular and spiritual government merged, these periods were the spiritual government taking control of the temporal rather than the other way around. Most notably you have Patriarch Philaret who ruled during the reign of his son Michael, and Patriarch Nikon who served as Regent while Tsar Alexis was off fighting in Poland during the Deluge.

 

[Nine_Two]

Bp Kalistos Ware in his book Orthodoxy says that Greeks who wished for a higher education were obliged to travel to the non-Orthodox world, to Italy and Germany, to Paris, and even as far as Oxford. Among the distinguished Greek theologians of the Turkish period, a few were self-taught, but the overwhelming majority had been trained in the west under Catholic or Protestant masters. And Ware said the EO in the 17th century went through their own “developments in theology”.

I’m not sure what developments in theology you mean, if you don’t mind sharing.

But yes, the Ottoman’s shut down all Orthodox seminaries for a time and Russia didn’t have any for a time, this is why you find Orthodox documents from this time period using Western terminology. Yet Orthodoxy persevered. I don’t know what this shows for either side on this subject.

 

[Contarini]

JL: National Councils only, but they have never defined a doctrine that ALL EO MUST teach. Indeed they cannot.

What Orthodox teach that the light seen by mystics is created? (This was the issue in the hesychastic controversy.) It’s true that not everyone holds to Palamas’s precise position, but the Council of Constantinople condemned the position that the light was created, and as far as I know that position is not held in the Orthodox Church today. So your claim appears to be wrong.

You are starting from the wrong end–from the assumption that one must have something called an “Ecumenical Council” which defines “doctrines that all EO must teach.” Instead, why not ask what heresy has managed to flourish in Orthodoxy in the past thousand years?

JL: You will have to enlighten me on the hesychast controversy.

Basically it was a controversy in the fourteenth century concerning

a. whether practices of contemplative prayer including certain bodily postures, breath control, etc., were legitimate and health, and more fundamentally

b. whether the light seen by the mystics who used these methods was uncreated or created.

JL: Please give me an example.

Hesychasm, as mentioned above. The condemnation of phyletism in 1872, although admittedly the fight continues today in practice. But your Communion doesn’t manage to stamp out heresies all at once either. What matters is that the Orthodox Church as a whole has gone on record saying that the Church in a particular place should not be divided along ethnic lines. In fact, they are clearer in this respect than your Communion is. Your Communion seems to have no problem with several bishops having jurisdiction over one place.

Edwin

 

[Allyson]

But on the other hand, it was the popes that struck down many of the Orthodox heresies like Arianism, Iconoclasm, etc.

On the contrary, the whole Church including the Pope stuck down these heresies, which yes did originate in the East. The Pope did not act on his own, rather it was the Church through its synodal structure which challenged these heresies. The Pope himself want not present at many of the early councils, although his representative was. It was an Eastern probelm, solved in the East predominantly by the Eastern bishops.

Later these very heresies snuck into Europe, and were thriving for quite a while among the Franks. Charlemagne was taught early on about Christianity by the western Arians, if I remember correctly. Iconoclasm still survives today among the Protestants and the Muslims.