On Eastern Orthodoxy

[strugglingalong]

These questions come out of another thread but since it was off topic there, I thought I would post them here. I’d be curious to hear what Eastern Orthodox (if they are around!) think…

1. I’ve heard it said that the whole Church, and not one person, makes the definitive decisions when necessary. Now, I’d say the same of the Catholic Church. While the Pope can define things when necessary it is still the entire Church that is infallible. In regard to this point it was mentioned that the lay people must also agree with an Eastern Orthodox council. Is that true?
2. What do the Eastern Orthodox think of the Bishop of Rome’s authority, that he has none different than say the Patriarch of Constantinople?
3. What of the very ethic nature of each Eastern Orthodox group? I’ve heard that people who were trying to convert actually were turned away since they were not Russian or Romanian, etc. How can a Church be universal when the identity of each part is so closely tied to its ethnicity? That doesn’t seem very universal to me. Plus in this regard it sounds like the Patriarchs can butt heads a lot. I wonder if that is not part of the ethnic issue too?
4. I’ve heard the analogy that Eastern Orthodoxy is like a bunch of little boats traveling together (whereas the Catholic Church would look at themselves as one big boat). What do you think of that analogy? Is it accurate?
5. What Catholic dogmas do the Eastern Orthodox have a problem with? What keeps these two “lungs” from breathing as one again?

A lot of questions, I know!

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[strugglingalong]

These questions come out of another thread but since it was off topic there, I thought I would post them here. I’d be curious to hear what Eastern Orthodox (if they are around!) think…

1. I’ve heard it said that the whole Church, and not one person, makes the definitive decisions when necessary. Now, I’d say the same of the Catholic Church. While the Pope can define things when necessary it is still the entire Church that is infallible. In regard to this point it was mentioned that the lay people must also agree with an Eastern Orthodox council. Is that true?
2. What do the Eastern Orthodox think of the Bishop of Rome’s authority, that he has none different than say the Patriarch of Constantinople?
3. What of the very ethic nature of each Eastern Orthodox group? I’ve heard that people who were trying to convert actually were turned away since they were not Russian or Romanian, etc. How can a Church be universal when the identity of each part is so closely tied to its ethnicity? That doesn’t seem very universal to me. Plus in this regard it sounds like the Patriarchs can butt heads a lot. I wonder if that is not part of the ethnic issue too?
4. I’ve heard the analogy that Eastern Orthodoxy is like a bunch of little boats traveling together (whereas the Catholic Church would look at themselves as one big boat). What do you think of that analogy? Is it accurate?
5. What Catholic dogmas do the Eastern Orthodox have a problem with? What keeps these two “lungs” from breathing as one again?

A lot of questions, I know!

Pax Christi tecum.

No Easterners have any thoughts? I’ve run into bunches of Easterners elsewhere just not here I guess

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Mickey]

1. I’ve heard it said that the whole Church, and not one person, makes the definitive decisions when necessary. Now, I’d say the same of the Catholic Church. While the Pope can define things when necessary it is still the entire Church that is infallible. In regard to this point it was mentioned that the lay people must also agree with an Eastern Orthodox council. Is that true?

Are the laity not also considered to be part of “The Church”?

1. What do the Eastern Orthodox think of the Bishop of Rome’s authority, that he has none different than say the Patriarch of Constantinople?

Church history before the East/West schism does not point to a supreme infallible pontiff of Rome.

1. What of the very ethic nature of each Eastern Orthodox group? I’ve heard that people who were trying to convert actually were turned away since they were not Russian or Romanian, etc. How can a Church be universal when the identity of each part is so closely tied to its ethnicity? That doesn’t seem very universal to me. Plus in this regard it sounds like the Patriarchs can butt heads a lot. I wonder if that is not part of the ethnic issue too?

When I entered the Byzantine Catholic Church (Ruthenian)–before I entered Holy Orthodoxy–portions of the Liturgy were in Church Slavonic. There are also the Maronite Catholics, Ukrainians, Melkites, etc…each with its own distinct flavor.

1. I’ve heard the analogy that Eastern Orthodoxy is like a bunch of little boats traveling together (whereas the Catholic Church would look at themselves as one big boat). What do you think of that analogy? Is it accurate?

There is only one truth.

1. What Catholic dogmas do the Eastern Orthodox have a problem with? What keeps these two “lungs” from breathing as one again?

Papal supremacy/infallibility
Immaculate conception
purgatory
Filioque

 

[Isa_Almisry]

These questions come out of another thread but since it was off topic there, I thought I would post them here. I’d be curious to hear what Eastern Orthodox (if they are around!) think…

1. I’ve heard it said that the whole Church, and not one person, makes the definitive decisions when necessary. Now, I’d say the same of the Catholic Church. While the Pope can define things when necessary it is still the entire Church that is infallible. In regard to this point it was mentioned that the lay people must also agree with an Eastern Orthodox council. Is that true?

They are part of the Church.
And Inefflibilus Deus, etc. makes a similar claim.
To give an example of our objections to Pastor Aeternus, a priest on EWTN says that in seminary he was taught (and he approved) that the pope has 51% of the Church’s infallibility.

1. What do the Eastern Orthodox think of the Bishop of Rome’s authority, that he has none different than say the Patriarch of Constantinople?

Yes. The EP right now is standing in Rome’s place.

1. What of the very ethic nature of each Eastern Orthodox group? I’ve heard that people who were trying to convert actually were turned away since they were not Russian or Romanian, etc. How can a Church be universal when the identity of each part is so closely tied to its ethnicity? That doesn’t seem very universal to me. Plus in this regard it sounds like the Patriarchs can butt heads a lot. I wonder if that is not part of the ethnic issue too?

When someplace becomes Orthodox, it becomes VERY Orthodox. This is part of how it survived the Muslims and Communists.
Although what you described DID, and perhaps in some places DOES still happen, it is less now due to the increasing numbers of converts. And the mission history of the Orthodox, eg. St Herman of Alaska, St. Innocent, etc. shows that it never completely overtook the Church.

1. I’ve heard the analogy that Eastern Orthodoxy is like a bunch of little boats traveling together (whereas the Catholic Church would look at themselves as one big boat). What do you think of that analogy? Is it accurate?

That actually might be an accurate analogy. A better one might be a fighter formation. The traditional one is a symphony.

1. What Catholic dogmas do the Eastern Orthodox have a problem with? What keeps these two “lungs” from breathing as one again?

The papacy, the papacy, and did I mention the papacy?
Everthing seems to come down to that. For instance the pope of Rome was not stricken from the diptychs until he inserted the filioque into the Creed at Rome, the IC and the Annuciation (as dogma) was declared by the pope, Vatican I of course, etc all come back to the “surpemacy” of the pope. The term “Ultramontanism” sums up our objections.

A lot of questions, I know!

No problem.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[strugglingalong]

So for Eastern Orthodoxy, who decides if there is a debate within the Church and a definitive solution is needed?

Someone said the EP replaces the Pope - how so if the Pope, as you have said, does not have any particular authority (in your view)?

Also, you pray for the faithful departed, right? If you don’t believe in purgatory but yet pray for those who died in Christ, what are you praying for them for?

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So for Eastern Orthodoxy, who decides if there is a debate within the Church and a definitive solution is needed?

Historically it has happened when a number of patriarchs bring it to the attention of the others that a problem has arisen that is beyond the purview of one Patriarch.

Someone said the EP replaces the Pope - how so if the Pope, as you have said, does not have any particular authority (in your view)?

An exampel would be a few years ago he convened a synod to approve of the Synod of Jerusalem’s deposing the Patriarch of Jeursalem.

Also, you pray for the faithful departed, right? If you don’t believe in purgatory but yet pray for those who died in Christ, what are you praying for them for?.

We pray in time, but God answers from eternity. It is trying to explain that that led to the invention of a place called purgatory, like trying to explain the Eucharist led to the adoption of the idea of Transubstantiation.

 

[Mickey]

We pray in time, but God answers from eternity. It is trying to explain that that led to the invention of a place called purgatory, like trying to explain the Eucharist led to the adoption of the idea of Transubstantiation.

Amen.

 

[jfoges]

Historically it has happened when a number of patriarchs bring it to the attention of the others that a problem has arisen that is beyond the purview of one Patriarch.

An exampel would be a few years ago he convened a synod to approve of the Synod of Jerusalem’s deposing the Patriarch of Jeursalem.

We pray in time, but God answers from eternity. It is trying to explain that that led to the invention of a place called purgatory, like trying to explain the Eucharist led to the adoption of the idea of Transubstantiation.

Isa,

I think this shows one of the big differences between Catholicism and Christian Orthodoxy. Catholicism, coming from a Western philosophical perspective tries to build up dogma to explain everything, whereas Orthodox is more content to accept mysteries and not try to investigate it philosophically.

 

[strugglingalong]

Historically it has happened when a number of patriarchs bring it to the attention of the others that a problem has arisen that is beyond the purview of one Patriarch.

An exampel would be a few years ago he convened a synod to approve of the Synod of Jerusalem’s deposing the Patriarch of Jeursalem.

But how do you decide on dogmatic disputes and issues?

We pray in time, but God answers from eternity. It is trying to explain that that led to the invention of a place called purgatory, like trying to explain the Eucharist led to the adoption of the idea of Transubstantiation.

I can understand that but don’t you still believe there is some purification that takes place for the soul after death before it is in God’s presence? Or do you think all souls either go directly to heaven or directly to hell?

It seems like we both believe the same thing at the core but how we understand it is at issue.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[jfoges]

It seems like we both believe the same thing at the core but how we understand it is at issue.

Pax Christi tecum.

Good point struggling. I think the main difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is our way of thinking. Latins need to explain everything with language, to develop dogmata and laws. Easterns don’t need so much dogma, they can just let Christ be at the center of their faith, they are more mystic in a way. This is just my opinion, I have never been Orthodox so I can’t claim to understand their way of life too well.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

But how do you decide on dogmatic disputes and issues?

There hasn’t been a major one for quite some time. The Russian Church condemned toll house doctrine and sophiology, but as those only were thoughts current in the Russian Church, it wasn’t warranted a Pan-Orthodox response.

An example would be the Council of Jerusalem, actually Bethlehem. The EP Cyril Lukaris had written a confession which was influenced by Calvinism. Since the Calvinists and their Jesuit opponants were neither in the Church, an Ecumenical Council wasn’t required to put ou those already out. But the West’s Reformation and Counter-Reformation were spilling out East.

Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem had written a refutation of Cyril’s confession, with the pious fiction that Cyril didn’t write it. He invited all the Orthodox world for the rededication of the Church of the Nativity.

As it happened, the Pan-Orthodox Council of Iasi earlier had revised and approved the Catechism (approved by a Council of Kiev) of St. Peter Movila, the Romanian-Hungarian Metropolitan of Kiev, who had Jesuit influences (it is worthy to note, that St. Peter was against the revisions). At the dedication the hierarchs, from as far away as Russia, decided to promulgate a joint statement on the Jesuit and Calvinist influences coming in, and approved the Catechism of Iasi, approved the Confession of Dositheus, along with some other points of doctrine and practice of the day, like EP Jerimiah’s response to the Lutherans, and promulgated the collection as the Synod of Jerusalem. Not Ecumenical nor infallible, but Pan-Orthodox, accepted by all Orthodox and a representative of Orthodox thought on the Vatican-Protestant disputes, which both were trying to bring the Orthodox in on their side. Said definitions became accepted in their day by the Orthodox as expressions of the Faith.

I can understand that but don’t you still believe there is some purification that takes place for the soul after death before it is in God’s presence? Or do you think all souls either go directly to heaven or directly to hell?

It seems like we both believe the same thing at the core but how we understand it is at issue.

Pax Christi tecum.

I never could understand the whole system of indulgences.

The wife of the old priest where I embraced Holy Orthodoxy said “it’s a salve on the souls of the departed.” Since the only people we don’t prayer for are those who have been glorified, to whom we pray,and we don’t know who’s in hell, it’s not a practical issue for us.

 

[prodromos]

Also, you pray for the faithful departed, right? If you don’t believe in purgatory but yet pray for those who died in Christ, what are you praying for them for?

We pray for them because we love them and because nothing is set in stone regarding our ultimate destination (whether it be heaven or hell) until the final judgment at the 2nd coming. The Church is a communion of love, the bonds of which are not severed when those we love pass from this mortal life, so we obey Christ’s commandment to love one another as He loved us. The Church is one body, and those faithful who have departed this life are every bit as much a part of the true vine as they were while they still had breath in their lungs.
Since we are loved by God and we love each other, we continue to pray for each other until Christ comes again.

John

 

[strugglingalong]

We pray for them because we love them and because nothing is set in stone regarding our ultimate destination (whether it be heaven or hell) until the final judgment at the 2nd coming. The Church is a communion of love, the bonds of which are not severed when those we love pass from this mortal life, so we obey Christ’s commandment to love one another as He loved us. The Church is one body, and those faithful who have departed this life are every bit as much a part of the true vine as they were while they still had breath in their lungs.
Since we are loved by God and we love each other, we continue to pray for each other until Christ comes again.

John

So you don’t think anyone could be in hell before the Second Coming? If no one is in heaven or hell (since as you say “nothing is set in stone regarding our ultimate destination (whether it be heaven or hell) until the final judgment at the 2nd coming”), then where do these souls reside?

So what do you mean by that comment: “nothing is set in stone regarding our ultimate destination (whether it be heaven or hell) until the final judgment at the 2nd coming”?

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[strugglingalong]

There hasn’t been a major one for quite some time. The Russian Church condemned toll house doctrine and sophiology, but as those only were thoughts current in the Russian Church, it wasn’t warranted a Pan-Orthodox response.

An example would be the Council of Jerusalem, actually Bethlehem. The EP Cyril Lukaris had written a confession which was influenced by Calvinism. Since the Calvinists and their Jesuit opponants were neither in the Church, an Ecumenical Council wasn’t required to put ou those already out. But the West’s Reformation and Counter-Reformation were spilling out East.

Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem had written a refutation of Cyril’s confession, with the pious fiction that Cyril didn’t write it. He invited all the Orthodox world for the rededication of the Church of the Nativity.

As it happened, the Pan-Orthodox Council of Iasi earlier had revised and approved the Catechism (approved by a Council of Kiev) of St. Peter Movila, the Romanian-Hungarian Metropolitan of Kiev, who had Jesuit influences (it is worthy to note, that St. Peter was against the revisions). At the dedication the hierarchs, from as far away as Russia, decided to promulgate a joint statement on the Jesuit and Calvinist influences coming in, and approved the Catechism of Iasi, approved the Confession of Dositheus, along with some other points of doctrine and practice of the day, like EP Jerimiah’s response to the Lutherans, and promulgated the collection as the Synod of Jerusalem. Not Ecumenical nor infallible, but Pan-Orthodox, accepted by all Orthodox and a representative of Orthodox thought on the Vatican-Protestant disputes, which both were trying to bring the Orthodox in on their side. Said definitions became accepted in their day by the Orthodox as expressions of the Faith.

So Pan-Orthodox…but not Ecumenical Council. Have the Eastern Orthodox ever had an Ecumenical Council since the schism? Could they without the Bishop of Rome?

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So you don’t think anyone could be in hell before the Second Coming? If no one is in heaven or hell (since as you say “nothing is set in stone regarding our ultimate destination (whether it be heaven or hell) until the final judgment at the 2nd coming”), then where do these souls reside?

He tells us SOME of who are in Heaven.
He does not tell ANY of who are in Hell.
So besides knowing the saints who are glorified as being in Heaven, we do not know the personal state of any particular departed.

So what do you mean by that comment: “nothing is set in stone regarding our ultimate destination (whether it be heaven or hell) until the final judgment at the 2nd coming”?

Pax Christi tecum.

Those in Heaven, set in stone.
Those in Hell, the Lord’s hand is not shortened that He cannot save.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So Pan-Orthodox…but not Ecumenical Council. Have the Eastern Orthodox ever had an Ecumenical Council since the schism?

No. Even Constantinople IV doesn’t count as Ecumenical for most Orthodox.

Could they without the Bishop of Rome?

Pax Christi tecum.

Sure. We did it at the Second and Fifth Ecumenical Councils.

 

[strugglingalong]

Sure. We did it at the Second and Fifth Ecumenical Councils.

How is it Ecumenical without the Western Church? I’ve heard Eastern Orthodox say Catholic Ecumenical Councils aren’t ecumenical because the East was not a part of it. Do you not think the same thing of your own councils?

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

How is it Ecumenical without the Western Church? I’ve heard Eastern Orthodox say Catholic Ecumenical Councils aren’t ecumenical because the East was not a part of it. Do you not think the same thing of your own councils?

Pax Christi tecum.

I just record the facts: no one from the West was at the Second Ecumenical Council, the Fathers of which were not in communion with Rome at the time, and the Fifth was held over Pope Vigilius’ objections and he was struck from the diptychs, although there were a couple dozen bishops from the West there.

The question is not that the East is not part of the West’s councils, but that the Orthodox are not. I do belive, for instance that the patriarchs the the Vatican has in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were part of Vatican II for instance, but not their Orthodox patriarchs.