Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

[dzheremi]

I’m no expert on western-rite Orthodox Christianity, but in the discussions I’ve read online, where people far more informed, specific, and detailed than I in their knowledge and terminology have discussed it, there were many who found it to be problematic. Some even identified aspects they claimed amounted to “Byzantinizations” - the Orthodox equivalent of our far longer, more extensive, and more embarrassing history of Latinization of eastern churches in communion with Rome.

Alright. My point was not that Western Rite Orthodoxy is free of problems, but the fact that it exists (and the existence of the British Orthodox and French Orthodox Churches, both of which are OO) shows that the there is no such simple dichotomy as “the West is heretical because it’s Western”. That’s just silly.

Don’t you see that this “ontological difference” business is useless for discussion precisely because it assumes, as you’ve just pointed out, rather than argues for the notion that Rome is heterodox?

I think you need to re-read what I wrote, because that’s not what I pointed out. I wrote “you cannot really say ‘sure, we think differently, but that doesn’t mean we’re necessarily heterodox’, if, yes, your doctrine is heterodox.” The key here is the if, which is not an element that would be there if I were just assuming that Rome is heterodox just because it’s Rome. Rome used to be very Orthodox, and was no less Roman/Latin/Western for it. And, furthermore, the proposition that Rome and the East are ontologically different does not argue in and of itself that Rome is heterodox – rather, it explains how it is that Rome and the East arrive(d) at the philosophical underpinnings of their faiths. Remember what I wrote earlier about me not understanding you as much as the reverse is also the case.

It really shouldn’t surprise you that we who are Catholic - whatever our rite and church may be - don’t believe that. So I don’t know what you hope to accomplish by asserting something that presupposes the very claim whose legitimacy is in question.

I’m not hoping to accomplish anything. I’m attempting to expound upon an idea that I think, if carefully considered, can help Catholics better understand where the Eastern Orthodox are coming from. This thread is about Eastern Orthodoxy, is it not? I would think that asserting that Eastern Orthodoxy is the true church, as all EO would do, without presenting such ideas/support would garner even more criticism from the Catholics.

The filioque? You do know, don’t you, that the growing consensus is that the filioque can be interpreted in an Orthodox manner, right? (And don’t dodge the question by implying in any way that we’d want to force it on you; Rome has literally gotten flack from some eastern Catholic churches for making them remove the filioque from their liturgies…)

Now who’s assuming what? I have been in Eastern Catholic churches that recited the Filioque, even though they technically weren’t supposed to be allowed to. And anyway, this is a situation in which I am actually more sympathetic to the Roman Catholic Church than many of its detractors. We OO have been subject to our fair share of historical and contemporary condemnations for things that we do not believe and have never believed. That said, the Filioque is not accepted by our church, regardless of who says it may be interpretable in an Orthodox fashion (and I have read some big names who do, like the EO writer and theologian Kallistos Ware). So it would be a stumbling block to reunion.

From many of the things Marduk has explained, Oriental Christianity actually has many things in common with Latin Christianity that are different from Eastern Christianity.

Mardukm is wrong. There is a reason why the Coptic Catholic Church is tiny. 90+% of Copts do not accept such things as Mardukm must accept to be in union with Rome. It is fitting to remember that even the first errant bishop to lead the Coptic Catholics, Anba Athanasius of Jerusalem, eventually thought better of his move and went back to Orthodoxy.

I don’t see why you think this is in any way significant when many Catholics agree. Just look at any thread in which a scrupulous question is asked or a nitpicky distinction is made, and you’ll find plenty of Catholics who react quite strongly against such things.

Within the context from which you extracted it, it is a sensible and immediate illustration of our differences on an everyday level. If Roman Catholics (and not just “scrupulous” ones, but theologians and others, too) preoccupy themselves with questions that the East doesn’t even think to ask, what does that tell you? They have very different mindsets. That’s all.

 

[Peter_J]

I think you need to re-read what I wrote, because that’s not what I pointed out. I wrote “you cannot really say ‘sure, we think differently, but that doesn’t mean we’re necessarily heterodox’, if, yes, your doctrine is heterodox.” The key here is the if, which is not an element that would be there if I were just assuming that Rome is heterodox just because it’s Rome. Rome used to be very Orthodox, and was no less Roman/Latin/Western for it. And, furthermore, the proposition that Rome and the East are ontologically different does not argue in and of itself that Rome is heterodox – rather, it explains how it is that Rome and the East arrive(d) at the philosophical underpinnings of their faiths. Remember what I wrote earlier about me not understanding you as much as the reverse is also the case.

I’m not hoping to accomplish anything. I’m attempting to expound upon an idea that I think, if carefully considered, can help Catholics better understand where the Eastern Orthodox are coming from.

Well said. There’s nothing wrong with presenting your position without proving it (and, of course, we can do the same). The only problem would be if you thought you had proven it when you hadn’t.

 

[rben20]

Thanks for the information. Very helpful. I learned quite a lot about Eastern Christianity.

 

[dvdjs]

Dizzy,

I read the entire discourse [address given by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew delivered at Georgetown University] 3 times and find nothing there that describes what is said to be an ontologic difference other than stating that there is a difference. Everything that is said there could be said of any Catholic Church as it regards the notion of transmission. While there is stated to be some notion of difference it is never defined. I found the expression of transmission of faith from generation, mystery, grace, expression all compatible and not distasteful. While you may agree with the notion of ontologic difference this document does not define that difference, it actually comes closer to declaring similarity.

Bravo. For as often as this pithy remark is bandied about, it never is accompanied by a substantive discussion - i.e., one that goes beyond mere assertion. And that is true even in the EP’s address.

And this response is very telling too.

Well, yes, I would think that you have to see it as compatible, or else you couldn’t be Catholic. Perhaps the point is better made by an old Russian joke I once heard years ago: During the “space race” between the United States and the Soviets in the 1950s, both sides were spurred on to technical innovation by looking at what the other side did and trying to exceed it, so when the Russians sent Laika, a dog, into space, the Americans became determined to send a person, as that would prove their technological superiority and hence the superiority of their way of life in comparison to Russia’s communism. But sending people into space presented some challenges, such as how the person would be able to write things down in zero gravity, such as the measurements from the various instrument panels that would need to be monitored to ensure the success of the mission. Consumed with scientific curiosity about this problem, the Americans spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours in the lab, testing and re-testing until they invented a pen that could write in zero gravity without losing its ink. The Russian response to the American scientific marvel? They used a pencil.

What does this story illustrate about ontology?
Should we first take a reality check?

snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
techrepublic.com/article/geek-trivia-the-space-pen-is-mightier/6183964
etc., etc.

That idea that we need to test the reality of our own musings - perhaps that is the ontological difference.

 

[dzheremi]

Bravo. For as often as this pithy remark is bandied about, it never is accompanied by a substantive discussion - i.e., one that goes beyond mere assertion. And that is true even in the EP’s address.

And this response is very telling too.

What does this story illustrate about ontology?
Should we first take a reality check?

snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
techrepublic.com/article/geek-trivia-the-space-pen-is-mightier/6183964
etc., etc.

That idea that we need to test the reality of our own musings - perhaps that is the ontological difference.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. You have to be freaking kidding me.

Perhaps the point is better made by an old Russian joke I once heard years ago:

 

[dvdjs]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. You have to be freaking kidding me.

Is it of Russian provenance? Is the false story meant to illustrate some truth? If so, what truth, and how can a false story illustrate? Sounds like pure stereotype - the humor of which depends on one’s preconceived ideas.

 

[Peter_J]

Bravo. For as often as this pithy remark is bandied about, it never is accompanied by a substantive discussion - i.e., one that goes beyond mere assertion. And that is true even in the EP’s address.

And this response is very telling too.

What does this story illustrate about ontology?
Should we first take a reality check?

snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
techrepublic.com/article/geek-trivia-the-space-pen-is-mightier/6183964
etc., etc.

That idea that we need to test the reality of our own musings - perhaps that is the ontological difference.

I’m a little surprised that you’re so critical of a joke.

 

[Nine_Two]

and how can a false story illustrate?

Parable?

 

[dvdjs]

I’m a little surprised that you’re so critical of a joke.

Stories with a humourous punch line may be true stories or false. This one is false. Not just fictitious, but false. It is difficult to see what can be learned from or how it in any way whatsoever addresses the issue of “ontological difference”.

This remark is raised over and over again. What does it mean? As CopticChristian noted, whatever it means cannot be deduced from the EP’s speech: the EP merely makes the claim, then discusses Orthodoxy; there is no explicit contrast to Catholicism. At the same time, what is offered up about Orthodoxy is not the least bit alien to Catholic self-understanding. What does it mean?

Requests for clarifications, get stubborn insistence, with ostensible support by resorts to limited personal experience. But never an explanation. And now this story, which given its absence of truth is difficult to see as funny let alone as illuminating.

This path has been well traveled. On an Eastern Catholic forum, it is particularly vexing. I can assume you from my limited experience, that I as a cradle Greek Catholic find a great deal of common thinking on matters of all sorts, in particular about Eastern Christianity, with cradle Orthodox - both American and Eastern European.

That experience undercuts the*** generality*** of the insistent notion that: we are different, we just are. If a person were to cautiously limit their remarks to their own experiences, fine. But to make such a claim as though it a general truth is wrong and falsified by other experience - as noted time and time again on such threads. And beyond wrong it is an insult to the many Greek Catholics who are Catholic and as connected to Orthodox mentality just as well as most any Orthodox. One cannot say: we are different; we just are, unless one were to deny us and our experience. Not cool.

 

[dvdjs]

Parable?

Are parables false?

 

[Nine_Two]

Are parables false?

Yes, they are made up stories to illustrate a point. Like the one in this thread.

 

[dvdjs]

Yes, they are made up stories to illustrate a point. Like the one in this thread.

Fiction is different than falsehood. Parables may be fiction but they reveal truth.

What is illustrated by false stories?

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
I’m a little surprised that you’re so critical of a joke.

Notwithstanding my last post, I do share much of your frustration and confusion regarding the EP. His stance on ecumenism is far from clear.

Something I have found helpful, at least in some ways, is the Touchstone article Never the Twain?

"… It notes, correctly, that the views of Schaeffer and Young are at odds with the thinking of certain Orthodox hierarchs, especially the ecumenical patriarch (of Constantinople). When it goes on to speculate, however, relative to Patriarch Bartholomew and Orthodox Christians, that “most of them are on the trail he is blazing” toward Rome, this is saying far more than can safely be said. The statement does, however, merit more comment.

**Frustrated Ecumenical Hopes
**
Conservative Roman Catholics seem to feel close to the Orthodox Church in ways that they do not necessarily feel close to Protestants…

The article can be found here.

 

[Apotheoun]

Jokes, like other forms of discourse (including, but not limited to parables), can be used to illustrate a point in a discussion.

Strangely many people in this thread seem to lack a sense of humor; while they also seem to be incapable of grasping the point of dzheremi’s original post (i.e., the one with the Russian joke). It isn’t rocket science (pun intended).

 

[Apotheoun]

Notwithstanding my last post, I do share much of your frustration and confusion regarding the EP. His stance on ecumenism is far from clear.

Something I have found helpful, at least in some ways, is the Touchstone article Never the Twain?

"… It notes, correctly, that the views of Schaeffer and Young are at odds with the thinking of certain Orthodox hierarchs, especially the ecumenical patriarch (of Constantinople). When it goes on to speculate, however, relative to Patriarch Bartholomew and Orthodox Christians, that “most of them are on the trail he is blazing” toward Rome, this is saying far more than can safely be said. The statement does, however, merit more comment.

**Frustrated Ecumenical Hopes
**
Conservative Roman Catholics seem to feel close to the Orthodox Church in ways that they do not necessarily feel close to Protestants…

The article can be found here.

I think the Ecumenical Patriarch’s address at Georgetown was meant to relate the reality of the situation, i.e., that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are still very far from reaching agreement about key theological differences, and that this lack of agreement is merely a reflection of the different approaches of the two Church’s to the Christian life itself.

As far as Bartholomew’s position being confused is concerned, I agree that it is confused, but then I also see the position of the Roman Catholic Church on these issues as confused. Anyone who reads the Ravenna Document disclaimer on the Vatican’s own website can see that that is the case.

 

[dvdjs]

Jokes, like other forms of discourse (including, but not limited to parables), can be used to illustrate a point in a discussion.

Strangely many people in this thread seem to lack a sense of humor; while they also seem to be incapable of grasping the point of dzheremi’s original post (i.e., the one with the Russian joke). It isn’t rocket science (pun intended).

Stories both true or fictious can be funny. But the humor of this story is undercut by the facts: both the US and USSR used pencils. An private company came up with the pen with pressurized flow. Both the US and the USSR bought and used them in space. So the point being made, whatever it is, is at odds with reality.

I think that I am capable of grasping the point, if there is one. But I have asked, here and on other threads, and have not gotten a cogent response.

 

[dvdjs]

I think the Ecumenical Patriarch’s address at Georgetown was meant to relate the reality of the situation, i.e., that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are still very far from reaching agreement about key theological differences, and that this lack of agreement is merely a reflection of the different approaches of the two Church’s to the Christian life itself.

Perhaps. But that isn’t what he said. And that doesn’t seem to be what those who glibly quote it mean.

 

[dzheremi]

Stories both true or fictious can be funny. But the humor of this story is undercut by the facts: both the US and USSR used pencils. An private company came up with the pen with pressurized flow. Both the US and the USSR bought and used them in space. So the point being made, whatever it is, is at odds with reality.

Yes, and a priest, a rabbi, and a minister probably never walked into a bar…

I think that I am capable of grasping the point, if there is one. But I have asked, here and on other threads, and have not gotten a cogent response.

If you are capable, then your responses are even more bizarre. Maybe I’m the one missing the joke here. You’re really on the cutting edge of anti-humor, dvdjs.

 

[Apotheoun]

Perhaps. But that isn’t what he said. And that doesn’t seem to be who those who glibly quote it mean.

I guess it depends upon how you read the address, because I think that is precisely what Patriarch Bartholomew said. Ultimately it boils down to the idea that Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics live the Christian life in a manner that is ontologically different (n.b., remember that being corresponds to energy in Orthodox thought).

 

[dzheremi]

I guess it depends upon how you read the address, because I think that is precisely what Patriarch Bartholomew said.

I agree. I would be at a loss to understand what else (if anything) a reader could understand from the address, if not that (perhaps that’s why presenting it here as I did has caused problems; it really does seem obvious to me, but if it wasn’t I don’t know what I’d think about it).