Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

[Marc_Anthony]

Antioch is older.

True. I think the question of papal infallibility is a lot more complicated than people think. I think the Orthodox make a lot of excellent points, and I don’t think Catholics should just dismiss them out of hand.

To answer the original question: Yes, absolutely. It’s a pity that all of the true Churches aren’t united, that would indeed be a glorious day

 

[Trebor135]

Like I said, there is plenty of evidence that presents a reasonable argument to support papal infallibility both scripturally and in tradition. It’s a matter of whether you want to see it or not.

I’d like to ask that you begin a thread in the Apologetics forum so as to present this data.

I also request that this line of evidence exclude the quotes cited ubiquitously and perpetually in Catholic apologetics from Sts. Ignatius, Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Augustine.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The whole “when was it established” question is a red herring.

Four contemporary Communions (Rome, Constantinople, the “non-Chalcedonians,” and the Church of the East) all have reasonable claims to continuity with the ancient Church, and thus to having been “founded by Christ” 2000 years ago.

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.

Edwin, this is a great summary of the Catholic position. I envy your talent for thorough succinctness!

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.

Not definitively/authoritatively… for instance, no authoritative Orthodox council has addressed the papal dogmas.

Plus, Marduk is right… it seems that Orthodox (again, justly) reject caricatures of the teachings of Vatican I and haven’t yet addressed the teachings themselves yet…

So calling you guys heretics from our point of view is at best premature, and at worst inaccurate and uncharitable.

The ideas coming out of Rome are so schizophrenic that I don’t know what to believe anymore.

They’re nuanced, not schizophrenic.

The Church used to say schismatics were damned.

Not quite. The Church has always said that no one outside the Church can be saved, and Pope Eugene IV gave “schismatics” as an example of people who are outside the Church.

This does not constitute a claim that all known schismatics are damned, just that a “schismatic” is a given example of someone who may be outside the Church.

Consistent Catholic teaching has always reflected a distinction, one that I will describe in terms I owe to an article written by a traditionalist Catholic priest, between being inside the Catholic Church and being a visible member of the Church.

The former is absolutely necessary for salvation, but the former is not necessarily contingent upon the latter being the case for any given person. That is what links the teachings of the Second Vatican Council to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.

If the Orthodox are schismatics and reject the Papacy how are they not in grave sin?

Some may be; many (most?) are likely invincibly ignorant of their error and thus not culpable for it. Who are we to say? Individual guilt is for God to recognize and judge.

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

How does that contradict the fact that some Orthodox may theoretically be personally culpable for remaining in schism from the Church of Rome?

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

That always stood out to me, too.

 

[ahamid1]

Bienvenidos a ABA. - Oropesa del Mar. Marina d’Or .

Somos una empresa especializada en el alquiler, compra y venta de apartamentos en Marina d’Or, Oropesa del Mar ,Castellón. Alquilamos exclusivamente apartamentos dentro del complejo Marina d’Or. En los diferentes apartados que le presentamos podrán encontrar lo mejor de nuestra ciudad de vacaciones.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

It’s not entirely clear which post of mine you’re referring to, but I’m guessing it’s this one:

                  Originally Posted by **Contarini**

If so, I guess my question then would be: do you define “Eastern Christians” to include only EOs and OOs?

 

[GaryTaylor]

That always stood out to me, too.

It can’t be ignored. Exactly why V-II cannot be ignored.

 

[Contarini]

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.

By “allow” I meant “allow as a condition for reunion.” Obviously Rome has authority over whom it will be in communion with, and that’s all I was talking about.

We could just as easily speak of the Orthodox hierarchs “allowing” Rome to go on saying the Filioque.

I don’t see that the fact of historic Roman primacy can be disputed. It’s all over the first-millennium Church, and most Orthodox writers I’ve read acknowledge it (though some question whether Rome should enjoy primacy if it were to “return to Orthodoxy” in the future, given its millennium of schism/heresy from their perspective).

It’s the nature of primacy that is in dispute.

Can you point me to any good Orthodox critiques of Clement’s You Are Peter? I find its argument fundamentally convincing.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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

It’s not inconsistent at all.

The non-Chalcedonian position was condemned as heretical by Ecumenical Councils. The issues with the Orthodox are nowhere near as clearcut.

And in fact Rome has consistently treated the non-Chalcedonians as “good for the pickin’.” A number of non-C churches have been reunited with Rome on the same terms as those offered to the Orthodox. The Middle Eastern and Indian non-C churches have been much easier to “pick” (as have the Antiochian Chalcedonians) because they didn’t have the same connection with a national identity.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

But the question is, are we capable of knowing either of these things?

Rome has thought we can since the third century. I don’t see why not.

Apophaticism concerning God is admirable. Apophaticism concerning whether our brothers and sisters in Christ are really our brothers and sisters in Christ is a bit more dubious.

Is it not better to confess our ignorance than to presume to know that which we know not?

Petitio principii. If this is really unknowable, sure. But the sacraments are given us at least in part, surely, in order to establish a visible community on earth. (Not denying that their purpose is theosis, only suggesting that we need physical means of theosis in part because purely spiritual means would result in an individualistic religion.) Knowing where that community is to be found is important. I don’t think absolute certainty is necessary, just a consistent means of discernment. (The Vatican has at one time been a lot more dubious about the validity of Protestant baptisms than it is today, and they went back and forth for a while about Mormons before deciding that their baptisms were invalid.)

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

By the guidance of the Holy Spirit, yes. And coming from a Protestant background, I’d justify the RC position based on Jesus’ words that where two or three are gathered in His name, He is there in the midst of them. The strict Cyprianic position seems to deny this. I simply don’t see that the Orthodox do justice to this and other passages in the NT (especially the Gospels) which point toward a far more generous understanding of the limits of the Church than St. Cyprian allowed for. The RCC has combined St. Cyprian’s doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (rooted in the clear Scriptural command of unity) with the Scriptural passages that point toward a more generous view.

But why is it a bad thing to make Florovsky’s admission?

Actually I don’t think it is. I’d be willing to make that admission about, say, Mormons. But that’s because one can make a serious case that Mormons are in the fullest sense of the word outside the Church. As someone who has spent my entire life being spiritually nourished by forms of Christianity that are neither RC nor Orthodox (though I’ve certainly received about as much from those two Communions as it’s possible to do without belonging to either of them!), I have no doubt that Protestantism is in some sense within the Church. To doubt this would be to have little reason to go on being a Christian at all. The RC account explains my experience. The Orthodox account doesn’t even try to–it treats it as not even worth the effort. The RC account leaves room for the need to learn from non-Catholics. There’s little room in Orthodoxy for the need to learn from non-Orthodox. That may seem like a strength to you. It’s not a position I think I could ever accept (though the paradox is that I could accept it more readily of Orthodoxy than of anything else, which is one of the reasons I find choosing between the RCC and the EOC so hard!).

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

I’d like to remind you that jam is the one who said that Rome’s position was “schizophrenic.” My point is that this is an odd criticism for an Orthodox person to make.

I was not actually criticizing the Orthodox position in itself. I do find it frustrating for personal reasons, and that inclined me to think that maybe I’ve been too hard on Roman “juridicalism” at times. (I’ve never quite recovered from seeing a statement on an Orthodox forum to the effect that Rome recognizes sacraments outside its borders because of its “juridical” approach, while Orthodoxy, not being juridical, can’t do so. To my mind the advantage of not being “juridical” is that it leaves greater room for charity, but on this issue many Orthodox seem to take it in quite the opposite direction, which ruins any persuasive power their criticism of Rome’s “juridicalism” might have!) But in general I don’t find Roman criticisms of Orthodox “inconsistency” very compelling.

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.

I’ve argued that case myself . But I think there is a difference. I’m not talking about the Old Calendarist position per se but the broader “anti-ecumenical” position. Generally that tends to line up with Old Calendarism for obvious reasons.

Am I wrong that monasticism is the spiritual heart of Orthodoxy, credited with often maintaining the Faith when the hierarchy has failed?

Am I wrong that Mount Athos is one of the most important centers of Orthodox monasticism?

Am I wrong that many monks of Mount Athos consider Patriarch Bartholomew a heretic?

If I’m not wrong about these things, then this is very different from the truly marginal phenomenon of Catholic sedevacantism.

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.

I’m a bit baffled by this argument. If human salvation is on the line, surely uniformity is a good thing? If Bishop X is erring in admitting people without baptizing them, and thus putting his and their salvation on the line, wouldn’t it actually be a good thing to have something like the Vatican’s ability to tell Bishop X “no”?

If one bishop admits me to Orthodoxy without baptizing me, and takes the responsibility of answering for this at the Judgment, and I then move to the jurisdiction of another bishop, wouldn’t that bishop need to rethink the whole thing or else answer at the Judgment for his laxity? Doesn’t this start to unravel the whole conception of a visible Church?

I feel weird making this argument, because generally on this forum I argue the merits of the Orthodox approach, and in fact I only got into this because of what I found a weird argument from jam that Rome was inconsistent. But I do find Rome’s approach preferable on this particular point. I think that “legalism” has its uses when it serves charity.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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 term “schizophrenia” was used by jam about the Roman position. I pointed out that if anything such a criticism applied rather to the Orthodox. Which position is superior is a different question, although as I said above, I do see some advantages to the Roman approach in this particular issue (not necessarily in general).

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.

Yes, but how much of that is cultural?

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.

So Christological dogma is now reduced to geography?

And of course, this analogy works against you, because the geographical/cultural proximity of EO and OO is much greater than that of EO and Latin, for the most part.

I’m happy that many Orthodox are reaching rapprochement with the OO. I just wish they would use some of the same charity and generosity toward Westerners that they are willing to use when dealing with the OO. I wish they would consider the possibility that many of these supposed huge differences with the West arise from different cultural contexts and are not in fact as unbridgeable as they may appear.

There are indeed Orthodox who take this approach: Olivier Clement and David Hart, to name two (perhaps it’s no accident that both are/were converts, although of course many converts are fiercely anti-ecumenical). But it seems very controversial in Orthodox circles.

Edwin

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

It’s not inconsistent at all.

The non-Chalcedonian position was condemned as heretical by Ecumenical Councils. The issues with the Orthodox are nowhere near as clearcut.

I don’t think so. At least not the Oriental Orthodox position. But feel free to prove me wrong.

Am I wrong that monasticism is the spiritual heart of Orthodoxy, credited with often maintaining the Faith when the hierarchy has failed?

Am I wrong that Mount Athos is one of the most important centers of Orthodox monasticism?

Am I wrong that many monks of Mount Athos consider Patriarch Bartholomew a heretic

Only those from Esphigmenou. The other monasteries dispise them and fighting breaks out between the monks from Esphigmenou and the other monks now and then.

 

[Contarini]

And that is the problem, isn’t it. We aren’t supposed to be developing anything new. If it is not believed in and practiced by the Early Christians as evidence by the Church Fathers, what makes us think practicing it in the 1800s makes it real?

But this would rule out the homoousios.

Doctrinal development obviously happened in the early centuries, and I find Orthodox attempts to explain this away utterly unconvincing.

If in fact the Orthodox admitted this and taught what RC polemicists often claim they taught: that doctrinal development “froze” at a certain point–I might be persuaded of this (or I might not). But you’ll never persuade me that Nicea and Constantinople and Ephesus and Chalcedon just reaffirmed what everyone had always believed, with no development taking place.

(In part, I think the Orthodox often misunderstand what orthodox Catholics mean by “development.”)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think so. At least not the Oriental Orthodox position. But feel free to prove me wrong.

Only those from Esphigmenou. The other monasteries dispise them and fighting breaks out between the monks from Esphigmenou and the other monks now and then.

So is this letter a fake or badly translated? (The Greek text is also available on the website, but I only know ancient/Biblical Greek and am not truly fluent even in that, so it would take me a while to confirm the accuracy of the translation.)

Oh, and with regard to the non-Cs being condemned, I’m quite willing to grant that their position is not the one that was condemned. What I’m criticizing is the unwillingness of many Orthodox to apply the same methodology to differences with the West.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I’d like to ask that you begin a thread in the Apologetics forum so as to present this data.

I also request that this line of evidence exclude the quotes cited ubiquitously and perpetually in Catholic apologetics from Sts. Ignatius, Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Augustine.

That doesn’t make sense.

Catholics are supposed to make their case without some of the principal evidence?

If you mean “I request that this line of evidence take into account the standard objections to the standard quotations instead of starting the whole tiresome prooftexting debate from scratch,” then that’s reasonable

Catholics indeed tend to prooftext the Fathers in an indefensible manner. But the evidence you refer to is real evidence and is absolutely key to the debate.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

You mean this part:

As Monks of the Holy Mountain, we respect the Ecumenical Patriarchate, under whose canonical jurisdiction we belong. We honor and venerate His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Mr. Mr. Bartholomew and we rejoice in all that he has achieved and so labored for, in a Godly manner, for the Church. We especially commemorate his solid and untiring defense of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, amid the many unfavorable conditions that exist, as well as his support for impoverished local Orthodox Churches and the care that is taken to spread the message of the Orthodox Church throughout the world. Furthermore, we the Monks of the Holy Mountain honor the Most Holy Church of Greece, from which most of us grew up in, and we respect His Beatitude the Primate.

 

[Peter_J]

Rome has thought we can since the third century. I don’t see why not.

Apophaticism concerning God is admirable. Apophaticism concerning whether our brothers and sisters in Christ are really our brothers and sisters in Christ is a bit more dubious.

Petitio principii. If this is really unknowable, sure. But the sacraments are given us at least in part, surely, in order to establish a visible community on earth. (Not denying that their purpose is theosis, only suggesting that we need physical means of theosis in part because purely spiritual means would result in an individualistic religion.) Knowing where that community is to be found is important. I don’t think absolute certainty is necessary, just a consistent means of discernment. (The Vatican has at one time been a lot more dubious about the validity of Protestant baptisms than it is today, and they went back and forth for a while about Mormons before deciding that their baptisms were invalid.)

With that in mind, do you except Pope Leo XIII’s decision about Anglican ordinations being “absolutely null and utterly void” (Apostolicae Curae,1896)?

The RC account leaves room for the need to learn from non-Catholics. There’s little room in Orthodoxy for the need to learn from non-Orthodox. That may seem like a strength to you. It’s not a position I think I could ever accept (though the paradox is that I could accept it more readily of Orthodoxy than of anything else, which is one of the reasons I find choosing between the RCC and the EOC so hard!).

I notice, and am bothered by, that as well.

I’d like to remind you that jam is the one who said that Rome’s position was “schizophrenic.” My point is that this is an odd criticism for an Orthodox person to make.

Can we back up a little here … is jam Orthodox? I feel like I missed something. (Not that it would be the first time I’ve missed something, but I just want to make sure.)

 

[Contarini]

You mean this part:

As Monks of the Holy Mountain, we respect the Ecumenical Patriarchate, under whose canonical jurisdiction we belong. We honor and venerate His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Mr. Mr. Bartholomew and we rejoice in all that he has achieved and so labored for, in a Godly manner, for the Church. We especially commemorate his solid and untiring defense of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, amid the many unfavorable conditions that exist, as well as his support for impoverished local Orthodox Churches and the care that is taken to spread the message of the Orthodox Church throughout the world. Furthermore, we the Monks of the Holy Mountain honor the Most Holy Church of Greece, from which most of us grew up in, and we respect His Beatitude the Primate.

OK, you’re right that I initially overstated the issue.

A lot of Orthodox, including many of the monks of Mount Athos, consider the Patriarch to have erred seriously. A few of them go so far as to say that he’s a heretic and not the true Patriarch.

That’s still a serious issue though.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

With that in mind, do you except Pope Leo XIII’s decision about Anglican ordinations being “absolutely null and utterly void” (Apostolicae Curae,1896)?

Do you mean “accept”?

I do not currently accept it in practical terms–i.e., I receive the Eucharist in the Episcopal Church. If I were to become Catholic, I would submit to it (this is a serious difficulty for me, but it’s more of a practical/personal one than a theological one).

Note that I didn’t argue that such decisions must be infallible–I granted that Rome has varied somewhat. (The official Vatican stance is that this statement is derivatively infallible, and I do have a problem with that.)

In fact, I’d go so far as to say that Florovsky’s statement is an essential complement to Rome’s approach. So, for instance, I think it would be possible to say from the RC perspective that one can’t know what grace may or may not be present in Anglican Eucharists. What RCs can say is that they don’t discern evidence of true apostolic succession within the Anglican Communion, given the break that took place at the Reformation.

I’m not objecting to the generous agnosticism of Florovsky on this point: I’m objecting to setting that up as a sufficient answer that allows one to accept strict Cyprianic ecclesiology.

Can we back up a little here … is jam Orthodox? I feel like I missed something. (Not that it would be the first time I’ve missed something, but I just want to make sure.)

RC originally, I believe, but has been making very pro-Orthodox statements for some years. I don’t know if he/she has actually become Orthodox or not.

Edwin

 

[jam070406]

Do you mean “accept”?

I do not currently accept it in practical terms–i.e., I receive the Eucharist in the Episcopal Church. If I were to become Catholic, I would submit to it (this is a serious difficulty for me, but it’s more of a practical/personal one than a theological one).

Note that I didn’t argue that such decisions must be infallible–I granted that Rome has varied somewhat. (The official Vatican stance is that this statement is derivatively infallible, and I do have a problem with that.)

In fact, I’d go so far as to say that Florovsky’s statement is an essential complement to Rome’s approach. So, for instance, I think it would be possible to say from the RC perspective that one can’t know what grace may or may not be present in Anglican Eucharists. What RCs can say is that they don’t discern evidence of true apostolic succession within the Anglican Communion, given the break that took place at the Reformation.

I’m not objecting to the generous agnosticism of Florovsky on this point: I’m objecting to setting that up as a sufficient answer that allows one to accept strict Cyprianic ecclesiology.

RC originally, I believe, but has been making very pro-Orthodox statements for some years. I don’t know if he/she has actually become Orthodox or not.

Edwin

I am Catholic. But the modern Church has me scratching my head much of the time.
And I have a fondness for much in Orthodoxy. I don’t know that I could (or should) be able to make a leap.
I’m just being honest.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Rome has thought we can since the third century. I don’t see why not.

Apophaticism concerning God is admirable. Apophaticism concerning whether our brothers and sisters in Christ are really our brothers and sisters in Christ is a bit more dubious.

But the problem is that we cannot know if Rome was correct. Later, we see that a disciplinary canon from Nicaea dictated that the Novatianists ought to be received by the laying in of hands, as St. Stephen had argued they should be received, but St. Basil simply interprets this as being for management, not for any particular doctrinal reason. Why is St. Stephen’s claim to know more credible than St. Cyprian’s belief that each bishop should be free to receive converts however he likes?

Petitio principii. If this is really unknowable, sure. But the sacraments are given us at least in part, surely, in order to establish a visible community on earth. (Not denying that their purpose is theosis, only suggesting that we need physical means of theosis in part because purely spiritual means would result in an individualistic religion.) Knowing where that community is to be found is important. I don’t think absolute certainty is necessary, just a consistent means of discernment. (The Vatican has at one time been a lot more dubious about the validity of Protestant baptisms than it is today, and they went back and forth for a while about Mormons before deciding that their baptisms were invalid.)

But we don’t know if those sacraments given by other groups have grace. Rome has not given any sort of justification for why they believe they can discern the difference. It would be absurd to think that one can come to know by empirical evidence if sacraments have grace. Even Rome, in its attempt to discern the validity or invalidity of the sacraments of certain groups, has had to make the somewhat outrageous claim to be able to read the minds of others (so as to determine intent) in order to reject both Mormon baptisms and Anglican Holy Orders, because it is impossible to make this discernment by form alone.

Even if Rome’s approach is correct, that would not settle the issue within Orthodoxy. For if the Orthodox were to descend into the absurdity of thinking that we can read the intent of others, then it could still be argued that the trinitarian baptisms of those who believe in the Filioque are invalid, because the Holy Spirit they claim to worship is not the true Holy Spirit, or that Arians should be received by baptism, because they do not worship the same Christ (the most common discipline was to receive them by the laying on of hands). This reasoning sounds absurd, of course, because it is completely absurd, but that is essentially Rome’s justification for rejecting the sacraments of groups which have proper form.

By the guidance of the Holy Spirit, yes. And coming from a Protestant background, I’d justify the RC position based on Jesus’ words that where two or three are gathered in His name, He is there in the midst of them. The strict Cyprianic position seems to deny this. I simply don’t see that the Orthodox do justice to this and other passages in the NT (especially the Gospels) which point toward a far more generous understanding of the limits of the Church than St. Cyprian allowed for. The RCC has combined St. Cyprian’s doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (rooted in the clear Scriptural command of unity) with the Scriptural passages that point toward a more generous view.

Either Cyprian or Firmilian actually makes a comment concerning this one verse, writing that it is most often abused by those outside of the Church. I simply don’t understand Rome’s reasoning on this matter. By Rome’s thinking, ecclesial communities are good, churches in schism are better and the Catholic Church is the best. Sounds like a recipe for indifferentism to me, because people lose sight of the legitimate peril those in ‘good’ and ‘better’ could possibly be in. Every once in a while, I see threads popping up asking ‘is it ok if I become Orthodox?’ I never fail to be amazed by the number of Catholics who for whatever reason cannot say ‘no, going into schism could jeopardize your salvation’. Such a brutally honest answer, of course, does not necessitate uncharitable treatment, but it is something that needs to be said, lest we wind up forgetting where the church is (or what the truest manifestation of the Church is, to use Rome’s more inclusivist language).

Actually I don’t think it is. I’d be willing to make that admission about, say, Mormons. But that’s because one can make a serious case that Mormons are in the fullest sense of the word outside the Church. As someone who has spent my entire life being spiritually nourished by forms of Christianity that are neither RC nor Orthodox (though I’ve certainly received about as much from those two Communions as it’s possible to do without belonging to either of them!), I have no doubt that Protestantism is in some sense within the Church. To doubt this would be to have little reason to go on being a Christian at all. The RC account explains my experience. The Orthodox account doesn’t even try to–it treats it as not even worth the effort. The RC account leaves room for the need to learn from non-Catholics. There’s little room in Orthodoxy for the need to learn from non-Orthodox. That may seem like a strength to you. It’s not a position I think I could ever accept (though the paradox is that I could accept it more readily of Orthodoxy than of anything else, which is one of the reasons I find choosing between the RCC and the EOC so hard!).

It depends on what you mean by learn. If by learn, you mean in secular arts, like philosophy, science, or even church history, then we certainly can learn things from others. Even an atheist or pagan could give us instruction in these arts (David Bentley Hart points out that this sort of academic interplay between Christians and Pagans was common in the early years of the Church). But if by learn, you mean to obtain knowledge concerning God, we must admit that we cannot learn this from others, even if we may profit from learning their philosophy, which can help us better to express the God who is revealed to us.

This mentality is simply one of scepticism, however, not denial. We don’t know, maybe Buddhists, Daoists and Hindus do truly experience God (I think it was Seraphim Rose who once made the remark that Buddhism’s only flaw was that it did not go far enough, although I forget if this is just some apocryphal story or a genuine one), but we do affirm that they lack the revelation necessary to understand what they experience, and consequently to expound upon the truth.

I’d like to remind you that jam is the one who said that Rome’s position was “schizophrenic.” My point is that this is an odd criticism for an Orthodox person to make.

Duly noted. I am sure that jam has his own good reasons and good intentions for his remark.

I was not actually criticizing the Orthodox position in itself. I do find it frustrating for personal reasons, and that inclined me to think that maybe I’ve been too hard on Roman “juridicalism” at times. (I’ve never quite recovered from seeing a statement on an Orthodox forum to the effect that Rome recognizes sacraments outside its borders because of its “juridical” approach, while Orthodoxy, not being juridical, can’t do so. To my mind the advantage of not being “juridical” is that it leaves greater room for charity, but on this issue many Orthodox seem to take it in quite the opposite direction, which ruins any persuasive power their criticism of Rome’s “juridicalism” might have!) But in general I don’t find Roman criticisms of Orthodox “inconsistency” very compelling.

Understood.