"Progressive Revelation" in Catholicism vs. (nothing) in Orthodoxy?

[Hesychios]

Now, the EO counter to that would be that it is not a judgement on their part but something that is the conclusion drawn from the fact that in abandoning the Apostolic Traditions,** the Catholics have made their sacraments invalid.** There are two sides to everything.

Who tells you this?

It did not come from me.

That whole concept of validity of sacraments is a peculiarly Latin concern. The Orthodox don’t know anything about the validity of non -Orthodox sacraments, and we don’t generally care. Non-Orthodox should just go on and do their thing without reference to us.

Why the Papacy should be concerned about the validity of Orthodox sacraments is a constant source of amazement. Of course we are flattered to some extent that you think they are valid, but really it’s not your place to tell us this, we already know it and we are not asking you.

So don’t ask us if we think your sacraments are valid, the question is out of place.

Michael

 

[ralphinal]

Who tells you this?

It did not come from me.

That whole concept of validity of sacraments is a peculiarly Latin concern. The Orthodox don’t know anything about the validity of non -Orthodox sacraments, and we don’t generally care. Non-Orthodox should just go on and do their thing without reference to us.

Why the Papacy should be concerned about the validity of Orthodox sacraments is a constant source of amazement. Of course we are flattered to some extent that you think they are valid, but really it’s not your place to tell us this, we already know it and we are not asking you.

So don’t ask us if we think your sacraments are valid, the question is out of place.

Michael

I am sorry. I should have been more clear. We’ve discussed this before.
There are a FEW EO and related bishops who are willing to say that. It is a minority. Every now and then, one of their faithful pops up on here.

Again, it is a few that say that

 

[Eucharisted]

I don’t know much about Orthodoxy, but I know a bit about revelation. Correct me if I’m wrong, please.

To say revelation is not progressive - that it dose not progres - is a lie against God and Christ, for it would be calling the Lord and His Messiah liars.

God told Israel He would make a new covenant, and He did. But if revelation dose not progress, than God lied, and there is no new covenant.

Jesus said He had much to tell His Apostles, but they could not bear it then, yet when the Spirit comes, He would lead them into all truths. The Holy Spirit came and the Church is led deeper into revelation. Yet if revelation dose not progress, than Christ lied, and there is no Spirit, or Pentecost, or a Church for that matter (since the Church was born on Pentecost).

The revelation which the Orthodox and Catholics talk about is the same one revelation, from the same one God, not a new revelation. Since the beginning, God has revealed Himself to man little by little, progressing through history, from Adam to Abraham to Moses to David to the prophets to Jesus and now the Holy Spirit leads us into all truths, as Christ Himself had promised.

But if revelation is not progressive, than our faith is a lie, and we ourselves, deceived by a liar.

 

[excaliber]

Who tells you this?

It did not come from me.

That whole concept of validity of sacraments is a peculiarly Latin concern. The Orthodox don’t know anything about the validity of non -Orthodox sacraments, and we don’t generally care. Non-Orthodox should just go on and do their thing without reference to us.

Why the Papacy should be concerned about the validity of Orthodox sacraments is a constant source of amazement. Of course we are flattered to some extent that you think they are valid, but really it’s not your place to tell us this, we already know it and we are not asking you.

So don’t ask us if we think your sacraments are valid, the question is out of place.

Michael

If you are Christian other people ARE your buisness.
You say we a lot. However since the Orthodox church is christian this canot be the view of the church. Christ taught to love neighbors as yourself. Not you go your way and I will go mine.

mabey I misunderstand your post.

 

[Hesychios]

If you are Christian other people ARE your buisness.
You say we a lot. However since the Orthodox church is christian this canot be the view of the church. Christ taught to love neighbors as yourself. Not you go your way and I will go mine.

mabey I misunderstand your post.

It is not my place or yours to judge. It is not about love and care for fellow Christians. Although I do love other Christians I will not tell them they are destined for hell, or their orders and sacraments are no good just because their bishops do not commune with mine. How could I know such things…how could anyone?

It is Our Saviour’s job to judge us. I believe that He will be scrutinizing our spiritual leaders most carefully. They carry a great responsibility.

What we can do for one another is admonish each other if we believe the other is in danger for a false belief or poor behaviors and choices. That’s our responsibility to one another.

Hopefully some fine day sooner rather than later, your church and mine will teach the same theology and share in the sacraments. You and I sharing a common cup and our bishops concelebrating on one another’s altars, then we will not be wondering about such things.

That day has yet to come. So we pray.

 

[dzheremi]

I have yet to read in this thread a reply to the Orthodox way of thinking on this issue. It seems to have gotten side-tracked into the same “my Church is right”, “no, MY church is right” sort of argument that happens in every thread about Orthodoxy.

Please, anyone…what is a proper Catholic response to this charge of the Orthodox against the Catholic Church? I really like Hesychios’ point that it was not the bishops who were defining new doctrine, but the heretics. This does not seem to contradict the Catholic explanation I was given regarding “new” doctrine (in post #7), though I’m sure people on either side of the great divide will have their reasons to insist that we aren’t in fact in agreement.

I guess I am having trouble being “Catholic” right now not because I think the Catholic Church is in some way wrong, but because I fail to see how the Orthodox are wrong. As Excaliber wrote in post #9, it seems like both Churches believe the Church to be inerrant, but disagree as to how this inerrancy is manifested. I see this sort of thing in a lot of threads on Orthodoxy, where the Orthodox have their own way of answering the same question/problem that the Catholic Church answered by defining dogma. I don’t see why this necessarily makes the Orthodox way of doing things “wrong”, especially in light of the fact that the Catholic Church apparently considers them at least doctrinally correct enough (a strange idea, but thanks for bringing it to my attention, Ralphinal) to have valid sacraments.

Ugh. I hated writing that. Can someone please set me straight on this? Due to scheduling issues I cannot meet with my priest to discuss this until next week. In the meantime, I am really concerned. If anyone might see me worthy of being prayed for in a time of confusion and doubt, I would really appreciate it.

 

[ralphinal]

The reason that you do not see the Catholic Church saying that the Orthodox are wrong in the same way that we say the Protestants are wrong is because they are not. That does not mean that they are correct.

The vast majority of the reasons for the split between the East and the West are cultural, geographical, and political. There are very few actual theological differences. If you take the Roman version of the story, when the Orthodox decided to leave, it was because the did not see the need to see the Pope as head of the Church (the last straw of many). The did not and do not deny any of the sacraments and they have valid Succession. Unlike the Protestant reformation, the Bishops lead the split. It was not as major a thing as it may seem, as a majority of these Churches already had their own thing going and were not a part of the Latin Rite.

There is a logic in saying that anything that came in a Council after the Schisim is not binding on the whole Church, as the whole Church was not there. This would mean that many Roman Catholic teachings would not be binding on them at all. There is also a logic in saying that the faith needs to be preserved in the truest form possible. However, the Catholic Church does not deny that. The “innovations” in the faith were developed in response to heresy, not because the people running the Church were heretics.

 

[cretu]

I don’t see why this necessarily makes the Orthodox way of doing things “wrong”, especially in light of the fact that the Catholic Church apparently considers them at least doctrinally correct enough (a strange idea, but thanks for bringing it to my attention, Ralphinal) to have valid sacraments.

to be honest i dont see how they could be “right”, i`ve been reading a bit more on the orthodox websites and i barely think that they know whats ‘orthodox’ and whats not, i read a book of an orthodox priest/monk who has nothing against the new calendar, but on the forums there are a lot of stories how Orthodoxy will return to the old calendar, many see this (the calendar) as innovation that they abandoned a part of, lets say Tradition,

im actually not even sure what i read about Orthodoxy is from an Orthodox point of view, im stomped.

 

[Eucharisted]

Cretu,

This is what I gathered on Orthodoxy from OrthodoxWiki:

The word orthodoxy, from the Greek orthos (‘straight’, ‘correct’) and doxa (‘thought’, ‘teaching’, ‘glory’), is used to refer to the correct theological or doctrinal observance of religion, as determined by some overseeing body. The term did not conventionally exist with any degree of formality (in the sense in which it is now used) prior to the advent of Christianity in the Greek-speaking world, though the word does occasionally show up in ancient literature in other, somewhat similar contexts. Orthodoxy is opposed to heterodoxy (‘other teaching’), heresy and schism. People who deviate from orthodoxy by professing a doctrine considered to be false are most often called heretics, while those who deviate from orthodoxy by removing themselves from the perceived body of believers, i.e. from full communion, are called schismatics. Not infrequently these occur together. The distinction in terminology pertains to the subject matter; if one is addressing corporate unity, the emphasis may be on schism; if one is addressing doctrinal coherence, the emphasis may be on heresy.

Derived from late classical and medieval Christian apologetics for orthodoxy, more specifity is often applied when defending a claim to orthodoxy or refuting heresy. Apostasy, for example is a violation of orthodoxy that takes the form of abandonment of the faith, be it for some form of atheism or for some other faith, a concept largely unknown before the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of Rome. The first well-known apostate is probably Julian, the last pagan emperor of Rome. A lighter deviation from orthodoxy than heresy is commonly called error, in the sense of not being grave enough to cause total estrangement while yet seriously affecting communion. Sometimes error is also used to cover both full heresies and minor errors.

Religion embraces conceptualization of the divine and practice of worship, and how adherents of all faiths represent to others how they perceive these things, both from within and from without. In each there is a degree of openness, and an extent to which these elements are non-negotiable, in all religions. Tribal religions may involve cannibalising non-believers, or may be very open to theological discussion; while monotheistic religions adapt themselves to diverse cultures in manifold ways while yet not relinquishing certain precepts. Issues of tolerance and syncretism are distinct; a religion may tolerate another, neither oppressing nor adapting to it; a religion may permit itself to be absorbed into another; a religion may be outwardly intolerant while yet absorbing some teachings from another religion. A religion may be more tolerant of others at a given point in time than at another. These forms of cultural interplay impinge upon the extent to which a religion may or may not appear to maintain a consistent stance concerning its theology and practice.

The concept of orthodoxy is the most prevalent and even inherently pervasive in nearly all forms of organized monotheism, but orthodoxic belief is not usually overly emphasized in polytheistic or animist religions. Certainly, orthodoxy still exists and actively governs belief within these traditions, but in a much more flexible and limited way. Often there is little to no concept of dogma, and varied interpretation of doctrine and theology is tolerated and sometimes even encouraged within certain contexts. Syncretism, for example, plays a much wider role in non-monotheistic (and particularly, non-scriptual) religion. The prevailing governing idea within polytheism is most often orthopraxy (“right cultic practice”) rather than “right belief”.

(Source)

This is what I gathered on Orthodoxy from CatholicWiki:

Orthodoxy dictates orthopraxis. What this means is that what one believes dictates the way that person practices his or her Faith. If their is not a fullness of belief, there will not be a fullness of practice. On the other hand, one can go through the motions all day, but this is not a factor that he or she believes it. If a man believes, he is drawn into practice.

(Source)

 

[cretu]

well i know who they are, i meant how can an Orthodox be sure what they believe is orthodox, for example, some say the calendar is a big thing some say they dont, which one is more orthodox ? i saw different answers about these things but i guess it doesnt has an ‘official’ answer.

 

[Eucharisted]

well i know who they are, i meant how can an Orthodox be sure what they believe is orthodox, for example, some say the calendar is a big thing some say they dont, which one is more orthodox ? i saw different answers about these things but i guess it doesnt has an ‘official’ answer.

Orthodoxy to Orthodox is almost identical to the Traditionalist movement in the Catholic Church: An emphasis on older rites and devotions, a love for icons, and a desire to keep the Apostolic faith. The problem with this approach, though, is that Orthodox and Traditionalists are (quite literally) stuck in the past; they cannot move forward with Christ, because the former only accept the first few Councils, while the latter do not accept anything new within the Catholic Church (Vatican Council II, the Popes, etc.). So, for example, should the Orthodox be under attack by heresy, they’ll have no means to defeat it, because they lack what is necessary to define dogma: Councils! They only accept the first few Councils, so they cannot logically make any new Councils, or else they’d have to change their belief on Councils, which would open the door for Orthodox to convert to the Catholic Church, since the Orthodox Church would become like the Catholic Church (in regards to Councils).

But if I’m wrong, please correct me.

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

I’ve attended Vespers with an Orthodox Parish in my area for over 3 years now and I’ve had very long discusses with the Parish Priest there. I’ve even, at times, considered entering Orthodoxy. Clearly they can present a very compelling argument and they have had 1000’s of years to write polemics against the Roman Catholic Church. Rome used to write the same kinds of things about them too up until about 100 years ago when the Popes started reentering into dialogue with their Greek Brothers and Sisters. For some time now there has been Latin and Greek Fathers of the Faith. At one time Canon Law was ‘one orthos’. To some the splintering of the Canon was the splintering of the Church into orthodox and heterodox and eventually even apostasy. It just all depends on who you are listening to.

With regards to “Progressive Revelation” there can be no doubt that our God saw fit to reveal Himself to the Jews in what can and is described by scholars as a “progression of revealed truths” built up over the generations. St. Paul, for example, called the Old Law of Moses literally a “child’s teacher” preparing the Jews for the coming of the Messiah and the Gospel of the New Covenant. Progression is evident in the Sacred Text. Even among the individual Prophets we see a progression. For example, our Lord said of John the Forerunner that “he was the greatest of those who came from woman”. Providence is the progression to God’s fulfilled purpose in His Creation… it is progressive.

There is a distinction between the West and the East, at least between their respected apologists and that is a progressive understanding of the truths in which the Holy Spirit reveals to the Church as one static deposit of truth (Orthodox View) and one the reveals these truths in greater detail and glory with the progress of His Providence in the World (Catholic View).

Now some might argue that these distinctions are merely semantic in nature but there are certainly others who will disagree and suggest that any progress in the understanding of the Faith in the Church is a breach of that once and for all revealed truth of God given to the Church on Pentecost.

Ultimately, it is my understanding that the distinction between East and West rests in our understanding of this “revelation into all truth” which the Holy Spirit would reveal to us (as a Church). The West see this ‘revelation’ progressing through time as the layers are peeled away from the delusion of the World. Perhaps there is ‘one deposit of faith’ I’m not sure that the Roman Catholic Church would deny this but my guess is that they might deny that mankind continues to struggle in professing it in language and custom and that this is an on going purification within the lives of His Faithful.

 

[Eucharisted]

We call ourselves the Catholic Church. It is the official title of the Church. The term ‘Roman Catholic Church’ and ‘Roman Catholics’ is meant as an insult against Catholics - though few non-Catholic Christians seem to realize it - in saying that we Catholics are in communion with Rome (the church in Rome). However, we are not; we are rather in communion with each other and we submit to the Vicar of Christ (the Pope), who is the visible Head of the visible Church.

If you wish to refer to Catholics of the Latin rite, than say Latin Catholics or Latin Rite Catholics. If you wish to refer to Catholics in the West, than say Western Catholics. If you wish to refer to Catholics in America, than say American Catholics. Please use the proper terms. Thank you.

 

[Addai]

What is a proper Catholic response to this point?

Thanks!

You should read this guy’s book

credo.stormloader.com/Reviews/eopolems.htm

He would say that this is a myth. That most EO are simply ignorant of their own doctrinal developement. (The Hesyacsm movement / Palamian theology being one example, he gives other ones in his book)

 

[chrisb]

We call ourselves the Catholic Church. It is the official title of the Church. The term ‘Roman Catholic Church’ and ‘Roman Catholics’ is meant as an insult against Catholics - though few non-Catholic Christians seem to realize it - in saying that we Catholics are in communion with Rome (the church in Rome). However, we are not; we are rather in communion with each other and we submit to the Vicar of Christ (the Pope), the visible Head of the visible Church.

If you wish to refer to Catholics of the Latin rite, than say Latin Catholics. If you wish to refer to Catholics in the west, than say Western Catholics. If you wish to refer to Catholics in America, than say American Catholics. Please use the proper terms. Thank you.

This seems to be a novelty not shared by texts produced by that august body in the late 1800’s when it proclaimed itself to be simply the “Roman Church”. This seems to be a apologetic sensitivity. I am in communion with the Bishops in communion with Rome and I have no problem with this.

 

[excaliber]

I spoke to an orthodox priest.
He said the Orthodox know where
salvation is, but they do not know
where it is not.

If that is the Official view of the church. Then the Orthodox are not saying that those in the latin church are in danger.

I personaly don’t put all my eggs in one basket. I associate with both sides as if there was never a split.
Because I don’t believe in splits.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Forgive me for being a rush so that I cannot find the reference right now, but last night I came across a website Q & A on Orthodoxy and its relationship with Catholicism, and one of the points on which Orthodoxy apparently differed with Catholicism is that (it alleged) Catholicism views doctrine as “progressive”, whereas Orthodoxy does not. This site was written from an Orthodox perspective, so it went on to say that this distinguishes the heretical Catholic Church from the pure, whole Orthodox Church (it must be pure because they haven’t added any of those controversial “inventions” that Catholics have).

So…is this “progressive revelation” model an accurate charge against Catholicism, and if it is, is it not at the root of what the Orthodox call our “inventions” (aka everything they don’t agree with us on doctrinally: IC, Papal Infallibility, etc)? How is progressive revelation qualitatively different than just making it up as we go along?

Please, as to that last question: I am a proud Catholic, I had just never heard this particular charge before, and it is troubling me. I am not saying that anything is being made up, only that I could see how it might look that way to an Orthodox Christian.

What is a proper Catholic response to this point?

Thanks!

It is also important to keep in mind that Orthodox Churches don’t even agree with eachother on some issues.

These churches have significant theological, ecclesiastical, and cultural differences among themselves. For example, the fifth-century Monophysite controversy over whether Christ has two natures or one separated the Byzantine church from the ancient Eastern churches. Furthermore, the Eastern churches disagree on the date for Easter and the legitimacy of church hierarchy and sacraments. As a result of such differences, the Eastern churches have parallel ecclesiastical structures not only in the same country but even in the same city, thus disregarding the rule of one bishop in one city.

Culturally, in addition to differing local liturgical traditions, the link between church and nation that became characteristic of Eastern Orthodoxy led to the founding of churches on ethnic principles. Most of the churches understand themselves as the real protector of their individual nations, people, and cultures. Despite political benefits, the church-nation relationship raises questions regarding the universality and the unity of the church, particularly in times of political or military tension between nations supported by sister Orthodox churches.

Despite triumphalistic claims of Orthodox apologists that they embody the true apostolic faith, in reality there is a cluster of conflicting traditions, theologies, and ecclesiastical structures. Protestant evangelicals in America who were eager to embrace the Orthodox faith soon discovered that Orthodox churches in America are divided. In fact, their liturgies are spoken in their national languages and they are hesitant to welcome outsiders.9 For example, Frank Schaeffer, a passionate promoter of Orthodoxy, concluded that one side of the Orthodox church in America is a ‘‘sort of social-ethnic club,’’ infected with nominalism, materialism, ethnic pride, exclusivism, and indifference to the sacraments.10

apologeticsindex.org/o06.html

 

[excaliber]

We call ourselves the Catholic Church. It is the official title of the Church. The term ‘Roman Catholic Church’ and ‘Roman Catholics’ is meant as an insult against Catholics - though few non-Catholic Christians seem to realize it - in saying that we Catholics are in communion with Rome (the church in Rome). However, we are not; we are rather in communion with each other and we submit to the Vicar of Christ (the Pope), who is the visible Head of the visible Church.

If you wish to refer to Catholics of the Latin rite, than say Latin Catholics or Latin Rite Catholics. If you wish to refer to Catholics in the West, than say Western Catholics. If you wish to refer to Catholics in America, than say American Catholics. Please use the proper terms. Thank you.

I thought it was just because the latin rite is the majority, and its from rome. And eventualy instead of this or that rite, because most were in the roman latin rite so people started saying Roman Catholic instead of latin Catholic.

but then again you learn something new every day.

 

[chrisb]

I spoke to an orthodox priest.
He said the Orthodox know where
salvation is, but they do not know
where it is not.

If that is the Official view of the church. Then the Orthodox are not saying that those in the latin church are in danger.

I personaly don’t put all my eggs in one basket. I associate with both sides as if there was never a split.
Because I don’t believe in splits.

My guess is that you, in fact, do not associate with both sides as if there was never a split for the simple reason that you or I, as Roman Catholics are barred from participation in their communion. No communion, no unity.

 

[Hesychios]

I spoke to an orthodox priest.
He said the Orthodox know where
salvation is, but they do not know
where it is not.

If that is the Official view of the church. Then the Orthodox are not saying that those in the latin church are in danger.

I personaly don’t put all my eggs in one basket. I associate with both sides as if there was never a split.
Because I don’t believe in splits.

One can mentally associate with the early undivided church. I did when I was an eastern Catholic and still do as an Orthodox Catholic. There is no reason a Latin Catholic should not feel the same about it.

My guess is that you, in fact, do not associate with both sides as if there was never a split for the simple reason that you or I, as Roman Catholics are barred from participation in their communion. No communion, no unity.

This is a technical difficulty for the believer, not a barrier to the heart.

If one is able to receive the sacraments at one’s parish and knows these to be true and effective helps, the person is not denied anything, so not a cause of immediate concern.

True unity does not come from sharing in communion. Sharing in communion comes from true unity, and that follows from agreement in theology. This is actually where the hard work for us comes from.

Schism is a fact of history,a reality of our world. We don’t like it but there it is. We as individuals cannot mend it, this requires a communal effort (on what today would be a very grand scale!) We are in fact “born” into schism, and thus usually don’t get a chance to choose which side we will be on. Conversions one way or another do not heal the schism, this just changes which side of the chasm one stands upon.

One can, however, identify with the ideal of the unschismed church. I think Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew both do.

I do.