Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

[Nine_Two]

I’m pretty convinced that the Filioque shouldn’t have been added to the Creed, but I’m not convinced it’s heretical. The Roman Communion is willing to allow the East not to say it. So unless it’s clearly heretical, that still makes the Easterners schismatic, I think (but it’s a tough issue and sometimes I think the East is really right on this one).

Begging the question that you’ve conveniently skipped over.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Catholic claim against the Orthodox, in what I find its strongest form, is simply that the differences between East and West never warranted schism. Since both are essentially orthodox, and the Orthodox mistakenly claim otherwise, the Orthodox are guilty of schism though not of heresy.

This is a rather novel approach (saying that the Orthodox are schismatic but not heretical), and it has not always been the approach taken by Catholics. I honestly do not see how any Catholic of reasonable conscience can affirm that, however, considering that the Orthodox absolutely reject Vatican I without reservation as not being a faithful witness to the Apostolic faith.

The two counterclaims would be the Filioque and Papal authority.

I’m pretty convinced that the Filioque shouldn’t have been added to the Creed, but I’m not convinced it’s heretical. The Roman Communion is willing to allow the East not to say it. So unless it’s clearly heretical, that still makes the Easterners schismatic, I think (but it’s a tough issue and sometimes I think the East is really right on this one).

But, even if the Roman Church allows for Eastern Catholics to recite the creed sans Filioque, and assuming that this has always been the policy of the Latin Church since the schism (I am not entirely convinced), belief in the Latin Filioque according to Second Lyons and Florence is de fide in the Catholic Church, and we would contend that the language used therein is unclear at best and wrong at worst. Perhaps you will claim that unclear language is no good reason for schism, but then the Church post-Ephesus would be guilty of schism with Nestorius, because his language was arguably not heretical, but only unclear.

On papal authority, the question is whether the essential Western claims are false or whether it’s just that papal authority has been exercised badly.

If you frame the dispute over whether the distinctive Petrine ministry of the See of Rome is of divine institution or just an ecclesiastical tradition of political origin, then I would say that again, it’s a tough issue, but I find the arguments for the former position convincing.

I would recommend Olivier Clement’s You Are Peter as the best treatment of this issue I know. Clement was an Orthodox theologian who never sought union with Rome individually, and he has many criticisms of how Roman primacy came to be exercised. But I think he makes a convincing argument against the standard orthodox view that Roman primacy is just the same sort of thing as the 5-fold Patriarchate.

And by the way, since you mentioned the “4 vs. 1” issue, that’s not a serious argument. Everyone agrees that the five-fold Patriarchate is just an ecclesiastical arrangement dating to the era of imperial Christianity. It’s not of apostolic origin and not necessarily a permanent part of the Church’s structure. (It’s a venerable ecclesiastical tradition that should be respected–the question is whether Roman primacy is the same kind of thing or, as the Catholic Church teaches and I believe, something quite different.)

But such issues cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Even if all of that were true, it still does not lead to the logical conclusion that the Roman See is inerrant, most especially with its self-proclamation of infallibility. Primacy, you see, is a system which also has near-apostolic sanction in the Orthodox Church, owing to apostolic canon 34. Primacy, however does not naturally lead to infallibility, nor does it lead to the conclusion that it is impossible to leave an abusive primate without committing the sin of schism, since such a schism would be justified.

 

[jam070406]

This is a rather novel approach (saying that the Orthodox are schismatic but not heretical), and it has not always been the approach taken by Catholics. I honestly do not see how any Catholic of reasonable conscience can affirm that, however, considering that the Orthodox absolutely reject Vatican I without reservation as not being a faithful witness to the Apostolic faith.

But, even if the Roman Church allows for Eastern Catholics to recite the creed sans Filioque, and assuming that this has always been the policy of the Latin Church since the schism (I am not entirely convinced), belief in the Latin Filioque according to Second Lyons and Florence is de fide in the Catholic Church, and we would contend that the language used therein is unclear at best and wrong at worst. Perhaps you will claim that unclear language is no good reason for schism, but then the Church post-Ephesus would be guilty of schism with Nestorius, because his language was arguably not heretical, but only unclear.

But such issues cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Even if all of that were true, it still does not lead to the logical conclusion that the Roman See is inerrant, most especially with its self-proclamation of infallibility. Primacy, you see, is a system which also has near-apostolic sanction in the Orthodox Church, owing to apostolic canon 34. Primacy, however does not naturally lead to infallibility, nor does it lead to the conclusion that it is impossible to leave an abusive primate without committing the sin of schism, since such a schism would be justified.

I had a Priest tell me that the Orthodox are heretics because they reject VI.
The ideas coming out of Rome are so schizophrenic that I don’t know what to believe anymore. The Church used to say schismatics were damned. If the Orthodox are schismatics and reject the Papacy how are they not in grave sin? Yet Pope John Paul said the Holy Spirit works through the Orthodox church; they have valid sacraments and salvation is found there.

 

[Madaglan]

I had a Priest tell me that the Orthodox are heretics because they reject VI.
The ideas coming out of Rome are so schizophrenic that I don’t know what to believe anymore. The Church used to say schismatics were damned. If the Orthodox are schismatics and reject the Papacy how are they not in grave sin? Yet Pope John Paul said the Holy Spirit works through the Orthodox church; they have valid sacraments and salvation is found there.

I haven’t heard many Catholics refer to the Orthodox as heretics. In my experience, Catholicism today sees the Orthodox Church as in schism, while also understanding individual Orthodox to not be schismatics (the reasoning is that individual Orthodox today have nothing to do with the schism that began a millenium ago).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yet Pope John Paul said the Holy Spirit works through the Orthodox church; they have valid sacraments and salvation is found there.

SOLD!!! :extrahappy::extrahappy:

 

[Contarini]

Begging the question that you’ve conveniently skipped over.

I’m not sure what you mean by this.

If you mean the question of whether the Filioque is heretical, I didn’t “beg” anything. I explicitly said that my position works only if the Filioque is in fact not heretical.

If Lossky is right, then Orthodoxy is clearly the true Church.

But not all Orthodox theologians agree with Lossky.

Edwin

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’m not sure what you mean by this.

If you mean the question of whether the Filioque is heretical, I didn’t “beg” anything. I explicitly said that my position works only if the Filioque is in fact not heretical.

If Lossky is right, then Orthodoxy is clearly the true Church.

But not all Orthodox theologians agree with Lossky.

Edwin

I think it’s more than Lossky. It must be admitted that Lossky makes some pretty creative arguments against the Filioque, but he is still drawing from the basic framework laid down by Palamas, Gregory of Cyprus, Mark of Ephesus, and Photius.

 

[Contarini]

This is a rather novel approach (saying that the Orthodox are schismatic but not heretical), and it has not always been the approach taken by Catholics.

I agree that it hasn’t always been the dominant approach, but I don’t think it’s novel. This extremely triumphalist and patronizing article by Adrian Fortescue from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911 (so insulting that I feel embarrassed bringing it to the attention of an Orthodox Christian) clearly distinguishes the Chalcedonian Orthodox as “schismatic” from the “heretical” non-Chalcedonians, and affirms that the theological differences between Catholics and Orthodox are essentially unimportant and are basically excuses for nationalism on the Orthodox side.

I honestly do not see how any Catholic of reasonable conscience can affirm that, however, considering that the Orthodox absolutely reject Vatican I without reservation as not being a faithful witness to the Apostolic faith.

That’s certainly a good question, and I’d like to see Catholics answer it. I think the best Catholic answer would be to admit that Vatican I is a “development,” to argue that it is a development in response to Western issues (particularly a kind of juridical conciliarism that is quite different from the Orthodox approach, at least at its best), and to distinguish between a refusal to accept a development (based on misunderstanding of its nature) and heresy.

As an Anglican, it does indeed seem to me that Rome plays by two standards in a way, judging the Orthodox much more leniently even when you are saying the same things we are. However, I think that’s justified given that we broke away and embraced doctrines clearly contrary to the Tradition, while you guys are simply rejecting certain ways in which the Tradition has developed in the West.

But, even if the Roman Church allows for Eastern Catholics to recite the creed sans Filioque, and assuming that this has always been the policy of the Latin Church since the schism (I am not entirely convinced),

I’m not sure you need to be. I don’t think anyone would claim that it has always been the policy.

belief in the Latin Filioque according to Second Lyons and Florence is de fide in the Catholic Church, and we would contend that the language used therein is unclear at best and wrong at worst. Perhaps you will claim that unclear language is no good reason for schism, but then the Church post-Ephesus would be guilty of schism with Nestorius, because his language was arguably not heretical, but only unclear.

I’d argue that the parallel works the other way round.

In both cases there’s a key term at issue (Filioque and Theotokos), added by one party in the dispute to clarify a doctrine.

In the case of Nestorianism, the Church as a whole was right that Theotokos was needed to clarify the unity of Jesus’ humanity with His divinity and the full incarnation of the Logos in the human being Jesus. One can argue whether Nestorius was actually a heretic or just misunderstood what the implications of Theotokos were. But there’s no dispute among non-Nestorian Christians that insofar as the Nestorians maintain the division because of their view that Theotokos is heretical (I’m not actually sure if they have ever done this or do so today), they are in schism.

In the case of the East-West schism, the Catholic Church has determined that the East is clearly not heretical, in part because the Filioque was addressing a late version of Arianism that existed only in the West. The question is rather whether the Filioque was really necessary.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I think it’s more than Lossky. It must be admitted that Lossky makes some pretty creative arguments against the Filioque, but he is still drawing from the basic framework laid down by Palamas, Gregory of Cyprus, Mark of Ephesus, and Photius.

Sure. Christians in the past often took highly polemical stances against each other from which we might now want to distance ourselves, while maintaining the substance of their doctrine. For instance, I think most modern Catholics and Orthodox evaluating the Nestorian controversy would say that St. Cyril’s evaluation of Nestorius is questionable, and that this doesn’t call the truth of St. Cyril’s doctrine into question.

But among modern Orthodox theologians, Lossky is the most important (certainly not the only) defender of the view that the Filioque really is fundamentally heretical and not just infelicitous or unnecessary.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I had a Priest tell me that the Orthodox are heretics because they reject VI.
The ideas coming out of Rome are so schizophrenic that I don’t know what to believe anymore.

I find this an odd charge, given that the Orthodox

1. Cannot agree among themselves even about the validity of the baptism of non-Orthodox Christians, and
2. Have in general no coherent doctrine concerning the status of non-Orthodox Christians.

The RCC, on the other hand, does have a coherent position. I see nothing “schizophrenic” about it at all.

The Church used to say schismatics were damned. If the Orthodox are schismatics and reject the Papacy how are they not in grave sin?

Material vs. formal. The only Christians who incur the guilt of schism would be Christians who separate themselves from other orthodox Christians out of pride or for some other sinful motive.

Yet Pope John Paul said the Holy Spirit works through the Orthodox church; they have valid sacraments and salvation is found there.

Indeed. And that’s a coherent position given the historic Catholic view that valid sacraments are found outside the strict visible boundaries of the Church, and given the general trajectory toward a more generous evaluation of non-Catholic Christians.

The Orthodox, on the other hand, have the official teaching that sacraments outside the Orthodox Church are not “grace-filled,” and use the concept of “economia” to justify an inconsistent practice with regard to the baptisms and ordinations of converts to Orthodoxy. At the same time, theologians such as Florovsky say “we know where the Church is but not where it isn’t,” and official Orthodox ecumenists even use the language of “sister churches,” for which they are then condemned as heretics by Orthodox traditionalists.

The fact that Catholics have a coherent and convincing explanation for the evidence of grace among non-Catholics, while Orthodox don’t, is one of the major reasons I lean toward Catholicism over Orthodoxy.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

I agree that it hasn’t always been the dominant approach, but I don’t think it’s novel. This extremely triumphalist and patronizing article by Adrian Fortescue from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911 (so insulting that I feel embarrassed bringing it to the attention of an Orthodox Christian) clearly distinguishes the Chalcedonian Orthodox as “schismatic” from the “heretical” non-Chalcedonians,

I was thinking that too – not that I was thinking of that specific article, naturally, but I agree with you that the Eastern-Orthodox-are-only-in-schism non-Chalcedonians-are-in-heresy idea was well established long before Vatican II.

 

[Contarini]

I was thinking that too – not that I was thinking of that specific article, naturally, but I agree with you that the Eastern-Orthodox-are-only-in-schism non-Chalcedonians-are-in-heresy idea was well established long before Vatican II.

Right. What’s relatively novel is the idea that the non-Chalcedonians may also not be heretics.

And a further irony, for me, is that many Orthodox seem friendlier to that than they are to rapprochement with the West. There seems to be a sizeable group of Orthodox who accept all Eastern Christians as Orthodox, while insisting that all Westerners are heretics. . . . .

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m not sure what you mean by this.

If you mean the question of whether the Filioque is heretical, I didn’t “beg” anything. I explicitly said that my position works only if the Filioque is in fact not heretical.

If Lossky is right, then Orthodoxy is clearly the true Church.

But not all Orthodox theologians agree with Lossky.

Edwin

The bolded part, Rome allowing anything. You beg the question of whether or not Rome has authority over the other Churches. That is the pink elephant in the room, and that is ultimately the question everything comes down to.

 

[Peter_J]

There seems to be a sizeable group of Orthodox who accept all Eastern Christians as Orthodox, while insisting that all Westerners are heretics. . . . .

Indeed, I’ve expressed my puzzlement about this a number of times. (Although I have to admit that I myself was pretty gung-ho about “Eastern Christianity” for 5 or 6 years.)

 

[Cavaradossi]

I was thinking that too – not that I was thinking of that specific article, naturally, but I agree with you that the Eastern-Orthodox-are-only-in-schism non-Chalcedonians-are-in-heresy idea was well established long before Vatican II.

It is a nice, but ultimately inconsistent sentiment. Some apples good only to let rot while the Orthodox apples are good for the pickin’.

 

[Peter_J]

It is a nice, but ultimately inconsistent sentiment.

You could be right; in fact, I have difficulty seeing the consistency of it myself. (But as Contrarini pointed out, that doesn’t make it novel.)

 

[Cavaradossi]

I find this an odd charge, given that the Orthodox

1. Cannot agree among themselves even about the validity of the baptism of non-Orthodox Christians, and
2. Have in general no coherent doctrine concerning the status of non-Orthodox Christians.

But the question is, are we capable of knowing either of these things? Is it not better to confess our ignorance than to presume to know that which we know not?

The RCC, on the other hand, does have a coherent position. I see nothing “schizophrenic” about it at all.

But can the RCC justify its claim to know what we say we cannot know based on the Scriptures and Traditions?

The Orthodox, on the other hand, have the official teaching that sacraments outside the Orthodox Church are not “grace-filled,” and use the concept of “economia” to justify an inconsistent practice with regard to the baptisms and ordinations of converts to Orthodoxy. At the same time, theologians such as Florovsky say “we know where the Church is but not where it isn’t,” and official Orthodox ecumenists even use the language of “sister churches,” for which they are then condemned as heretics by Orthodox traditionalists.

But why is it a bad thing to make Florovsky’s admission? Can we presume to know the status of those outside of the confines of the Catholic Church? You see oikonomia as some sort of inconsistecy, while we see oikonomia as an admission that we know not, so the decision of how converts should be received is for the bishop to make, one which he will render account for on the day of judgment. You are trying to fit economy into the paradigm of valid and invalid, where the concept simply does not work, because having an Augustinian paradigm necessitates uniformity, while the Cyprianic paradigm does not. Now as for the Old Calendarists, I don’t see how they show that Orthodoxy is inconsistent any more than the sedevacantists show Catholicism to be inconsistent. The debate guidelines discourage arguments of this sort for that very reason.

The fact that Catholics have a coherent and convincing explanation for the evidence of grace among non-Catholics, while Orthodox don’t, is one of the major reasons I lean toward Catholicism over Orthodoxy.

But is it necessary to have uniformity? What if they are wrong? We’re not playing with intellectual issues here, human salvation is on the line.

 

[dzheremi]

Rome and her children think my communion is heretical!



I’d like to thank everyone who made this possible…of course, St. Cyril, our teacher St. Dioscoros, St. Philoxenos of Mabbug, St. Jacob of Sarugh…gosh, there are just so many…! God bless us, everyone!

It seems to me that the way this thread has evolved should answer Peter J’s confusion regarding OO-EO relations. Contarini, a child of Rome, sees the “schizophrenia” on the Orthodox side for not being “unified” as Rome is in having a ready-made stance on this or that aspect of another communion that they’re not even a part of. The Orthodox response is, of course, “why do we need to have a uniform response on these things?”

In these kinds of questions, the OO and EO believe similarly. While we have been not in communion with each other (or Rome) for much longer than the EO and RCC have been estranged from one another, substantial progress is made to the extent that it is in OO-EO relations precisely because our approach to the faith is substantially similar in many respects, such as this one. We may have a Pope while they do not have a Pope (or I don’t know, maybe they call their Chacledonian Patriarch in Alexandria a Pope; I don’t really care one way or another), but our thinking about the Papacy is closer to their thinking about their own leaders than RCC ideas about the same. And so on and so forth, until we get to questions surrounding Chalcedon, the Tome of Leo, its Orthodoxy, its Christological definitions, etc. But we have not been inventing new doctrines and new powers for ourselves in the ~1500 years since Chalcedon that would further estrange us from the Byzantines, as the Romans have. So it is really any wonder that some EO may see themselves as closer to the OO than the RCC, despite our supposed “heresy”? It’s like the difference between having a neighbor that supports abortion and having a pen-pal 20,000 miles away in rural Mongolia who opposes it. Even though you and your neighbor do not see eye to eye on this one very important issue (and connected to it, possibly many others), you still are likely to have more in common with them than with your Mongolian pen-pal.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

At least I don’t think you’re heretical. I’m a miaphysite myself (who can accept Chalcedon in the light of Constantinople II).

 

[dzheremi]

Thanks. It wouldn’t matter, either way. I didn’t join the Orthodox Church out of my hatred for Chalcedon, anyway (mainly because I don’t hate it, or the people who hold to it). That would just be silly. Silly like this thread.