Hello Tomster,
I really had no intention of going into this here, but I must address what I believe are incorrect assumptions on your part, for the sake of those individuals reading here.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, though your postings on the orthodox site cited above make me doubtful.
This is only a matter of opinion on the part of your church, but of course we are flattered.
Does this mean you disagree and don’t believe orthodoxy has valid mysteries. Curious, to say the least. Otherwise I fail to see the aptness of such a comment.
Respectfully, I should point out that any decision your church makes on the validity of Holy Orthodoxy one way or another is meaningless to the Orthodox themselves.
well, that answers Ecumneism. Though I must admit I wonder how you speak for all Orthodox? Must be a catholic holdover position since your conversion. Let’s face it the sigular problem with Orthodoxy is it’s lack of any means of authoritatively determining any Orthodox position without an Ecumenical Council - and it’s been 1200 years since you have had one.
There is no reason to bring up the Protestants at all. They are the children of your church tradition, and everything they are is the fruit of your church. You may compare them to your church but not to ours. This is an unfair comparison.
Not at all. Orthodoxy left the Holy Catholic Church (like the Protestants left Catholicism) at least when it rejected the Council of Florence - just like the Orientals left the Church when they rejected Chalcedon. So just as the Protestants are derivative from catholicism, so is Orthodoxy
Can you say any one RC theologion speaks for the Catholic church? Avery Dulles? … Hans Kung?
Of course not - but I can name one Bishop who does. Can you name any one person at all who speaks authoritatively for Orthodoxy? You can’t even authoritatively say that the post-schism doctrines of catholicism are truly not valid since you haven’t had an ecumenical council to address the issue. At best all you have is a bunch of opinions that bind no one.
For Holy Orthodoxy the traditional theology is set, everyone knows or has access to it and the resources are very abundant.
One could also call it calcified, sclerotic and dead. It’s always struck me as strange that the orthodox were part of a vibrant church - the Holy Catholic Church - that defined dogma, held councils and made authoritative statements - and now claims that doing just that is a sign that catholicism is no longer a part of the church!! Inconsistent.
You could study it for a lifetime and not exhaust your resources. This is one important reason why Holy Orthodoxy has been so consistant in it’s beliefs and teachings all of these centuries, we have not resorted to any artificial institutional means to maintain our orthodoxy, simply Tradition and the Holy Spirit. We have been so successful at this, without a Pope, that even your own church praises us.
One could also claim Orthodoxy’s lasted because it’s been oppressed and has become a rump survivor of a greater tradition that has existed prior to the schism. Let’s not forget that Orthodoxy holds that the Athanasian Creed is one of the sources of orthodoxy - and that Creed clearly states the filioque. So much for tradition. Some are more consistent that others. But I will grant you that oppression forms unity.
There is a natural reluctance to explore new theological frontiers, which are typically so attractive to heretics. Our only development is in the form of paring back, reining in on what others try to push as True.
Pity it wasn’t always that way - such as when there was one church. The Catholic Church continues to be a font of revelation - while that font is dry - at least - in Orthodoxy The whole Church was katphatic - and now Orthodoxy is not. What does that say?!
Our theology is apophatic and by it’s very nature much more conservative.
Because Orthodoxy has rejected the One True Church that continues to act like the early Church.
Tertullian, the notable early Latin Father, had
this to say in his “Catholic phase” in about the year 200AD (just 165 years after Christ and two hundred years before Augustine). I find it a very Orthodox attitude: …
of course - Catholicism is orthodox (small case) - as was the early church, and much of the early church is shared by Orthodoxy (large case) and Catholicism.
There have been seven and no more, just seven.
Come now there have been numerous threads on whether orthodoxy accepts 8 or nine - why you well know the letter from the 4 Patriarchs and 3 synods of 1859 (?) (gotta check the date) references 8. In any event Florence was most certainly a valid council . Those rejecting a valid Council are in Schism and outside the Holy Catholic Church.
This is an erroneous assumption, I suggest you speak for your own church, let Holy Orthodoxy speak for itself.
Well, just say for 500 years the whole true church was holding councils - and then for Orthodoxy it stopped. A power unused for 1200 years is suspect as to its existence, at least.
You make the error that your more “developed” theology is somehow more precise, when in fact this is precisely how the western tradition spawned Protestantism.
It’s how orthodoxy was spawned by its rejection of Florence, it’s how the Orientals were spawned by the rejection of Chalcedon. Arius, Nestorius?? Not to mention Old Believers, Skoptsis, all manner of vagante Bishops and sects - Orthodoxy, too, has had splinters when one or more person ventured to offer an opinion. Orthodoxy simply can’t truly say who’s right or wrong in any understandabble authoritative manner. See the Patriarchs and Synods on 8 councils, e.g.
