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

[chrisb]

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.

Far before there is unity between institutional heads there is unity among the hearts of individuals. It’s not a ‘top down’ situation. I don’t find unity in theology among some Orthodox Christians whom literally debate endlessly yet they would take communion without batting an eye. Frankly, I know Catholics who do the same thing.

PS: scroll up to post 31 and give your feedback if you don’t mind.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Chesterton,

I think your whole post is not an example of apologetics for your church at all but sheer raw and spun polemics.

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.

This is a greatly distorted argument on your part. And you know this very well.

The Monophysites are not schismed from the Byzantine church. They are schismed from BOTH the Latin and Greek Orthodox-Catholic church! for then we were one (and continue to both be diaphysite communities theologically). Just because the Monophysites call themselves Orthodox does not make them somehow more the responsibility of the Greeks. They also consider themselves Catholics.

For an example. I could easily say the Catholics are not unified among themselves because the fifth-century Monophysite controversy over whether Christ has two natures or one separated the Roman Catholic church from the ancient Eastern churches.

And I would be just as correct as you are.

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.

This is also true within the Papal communion…to the letter.

Multiple overlapping jurisdictions and different dates for Easter. If anyone desires evidence of this there are threads all over these forums discussing it. You may begin by reading the Eastern Catholic section.

In fact it’s even worse, because now the papacy has introduced (within just a few decades) something called a “Personal Prelature” which really is only another form of overlapping episcopal jurisdiction, this form only previously used by heretics like Marcion who erected their own church structures under their personalities and extended them across diocesan boundaries.

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.

This is nothing new or even undesirable. All nations have their own churches, as exemplified by your National Episcopal Conferences. The local synod is a fact of history, it is (in fact) the normal ecclesiology of the early church!

You can see this for yourself in the many local church councils in the history of the west: Arles, Carthage, Elvira, Orange etc. Your church does not have local Councils today because your church has changed it’s ecclesiology from it’s own original structure established in the sub-Apostolic era.

In the various great western wars the nations on each side had Roman Catholic priests blessing the combatants just before they went at it blasting one another apart. Catholic priests and bishops stood on both sides of the trenches and barbed wire saying Masses and praying for victory. This is what priests do, it’s part of their job, so when you see this in Orthodox lands it is somehow a problem?

Remember that it was Roman Catholic bishops who had St Jean d’Arc burned at the stake during a war between Roman Catholic princes. This is a perfect textbook example of two national Catholic churches in history.

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.

All of these criticisms can be laid at the feet of your own church. From the triumphalism to the cluster of conflicting traditions, theologies and and ecclesiastical structures.

Just read the various forums here and see for yourself, start with the Traditionalist section.

Perhaps you are projecting…

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Chris,

Far before there is unity between institutional heads there is unity among the hearts of individuals. It’s not a ‘top down’ situation.

I will not disagree with this point. It is as plausible as anything else we have stated here.

I don’t find unity in theology among some Orthodox Christians

If they are knowledgeable in their own Faith they will believe the same things. It is the essence of Orthodoxy.

I know Latin Catholics make a distinction between theology and praxis, perhaps if you looked at it in that light…

…whom literally debate endlessly yet they would take communion without batting an eye. Frankly, I know Catholics who do the same thing.

There is nothing wrong with argumentation. I am not able to address the particulars because I would need you to elaborate.

All I can think of right now is St Paul wishing some of HIS opponents would slip the knife “and castrate themselves” !!! GAL 5:12 I wonder if he went to confession after that one

PS: scroll up to post 31 and give your feedback if you don’t mind.

It’s a big post.

I think I answered your main concerns beforehand in my post 20.

 

[Peter_J]

Who cares about councils, or changing the creed, or exactly which bishop has most authority’ when none of these things will matter in heaven.

You make a good point: these things won’t matter in heaven.

But let me ask you this: have you ever been to a liturgy where there were 100 people, and 100 different creeds?

 

[Peter_J]

Hello Ralph,

I will charitably as possible try to explain why you are misreading the OE position.

In the main, the early church (and the East to this day) uses apophatic reasoning, and did so during the seven Councils. The bishops of the church were not the ones engaging in doctrinal development, the heretics were.

The Councils did their best to determine if these ideas were taught in their local churches in prior times, and judiciously pruned away and condemned what they were convinced was novel teaching. *This was not a process of development, but a cleaning up and trimming away of errors.
*
Normally these errors were mixed in with the received Truth in the affected congregations. Not everything a heretic believed and taught was necessarily in error. The people just piled on the errors with what they already knew to be true.

**Now how was it that the Fathers could know?

**For the most part, what the orthodox Christians believed was already taught in the liturgy, in the many hymns and prayers of the liturgical cycle.

As an example, this is what failed Arius eventually, because in the liturgy taught to him were prayers to the Real Presence. Although he used his intellect and scholarship to decide that Jesus Christ was not divine the received liturgy in Egypt, Syria and elsewhere said otherwise.

The prayers and hymns of the liturgy are our witness that these beliefs were not developments, but ancient understandings.

The Councils did their work removing the rubbish, they were not called to craft new doctrines and search for rationale to believe them (a cataphatic approach).

In the early church the Councils condemned those who introduced errors. In the modern Latin church the people who cannot believe the new ideas are the ones condemned. Two entirely different kettle of fish.

Hesychios,

I can see what you mean about Ralphinal having misread the Orthodox position; but I also think that you’ve misread the Catholic position a little.

Specifically, you don’t seem to realize that we Catholics believe that all of our dogmatic teachings were contained in the Deposit of Faith to begin with. Indeed, as Cardinal Newman tells us, the Pope couldn’t dogmatically define anything not contained in the Deposit of Faith, even if he wanted to. (“the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum, through the channel either of Scripture or Tradition”)

So in fact, Orthodox and Catholics believe that the Deposit of Faith never changes – even though we disagree about what is contained in that Deposit of Faith.

 

[excaliber]

You make a good point: these things won’t matter in heaven.

But let me ask you this: have you ever been to a liturgy where there were 100 people, and 100 different creeds?

LOL yes I have. God deals with people individualy, each person is different…in a sence we all live by our own creeds. regardless of what we repeat verbaly every sunday.

All the apostolic churches have enough truth and Jesus has enough love to fill the small gaps.

I think that if you are in an apostolic church you should stay there and let your leaders work out the details. After all we worship Jesus not a liturgy or a creed or the visible church itself.

We need to make it to heaven, and that’s about it truthfully.

 

[Peter_J]

LOL yes I have.

Ah. When I asked that, I assumed you’d answer in the negative.

So … what did it sound like?

 

[Peter_J]

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.

I sometimes say “Roman Catholic Communion”, rather than “Roman Catholic Church”, to make it quite clear that I’m including all Churches that are in full communion with Rome (the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches).

But more importantly, regardless of what name you call it, I believe that the RCC is the One True Church, i.e. the Catholic Church.

 

[excaliber]

Ah. When I asked that, I assumed you’d answer in the negative.

So … what did it sound like?

what would you have said if I answered in the negative.

I was talking about something different.

 

[Peter_J]

what would you have said if I answered in the negative.

I was talking about something different.

Well, you were talking about “Who cares about councils, or changing the creed” etc.

I asked “have you ever been to a liturgy where there were 100 people, and 100 different creeds?” (wrongly assuming that you hadn’t oops ) … basically as a rhetorical way of saying “Okay, but when people are worshipping together, it helps if they can all say the same Creed together.”

P.S. I think it is interesting to note that, notwithstanding the rather strong claims that Rome makes regarding her authority, she has only changed the Creed once in all these centuries.

 

[excaliber]

Well, you were talking about “Who cares about councils, or changing the creed” etc.

I asked “have you ever been to a liturgy where there were 100 people, and 100 different creeds?” (wrongly assuming that you hadn’t oops ) … basically as a rhetorical way of saying “Okay, but when people are worshipping together, it helps if they can all say the same Creed together.”

P.S. I think it is interesting to note that, notwithstanding the rather strong claims that Rome makes regarding her authority, she has only changed the Creed once in all these centuries.

It would be nice to have only one creed, very true. But that’s not my problem, Im not a bishop. So what
is the point in worrying?

It seems that Christ takes care of all the apostolic churches.

 

[Peter_J]

It would be nice to have only one creed, very true. But that’s not my problem, Im not a bishop. So what
is the point in worrying?

Touché.

In any case, I think having 3 creeds (Creed-of-381, Creed-of-381-plus-filioque, and Apostles’ Creed) is better than 100 creeds.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

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…

Hmmm. But they aren’t saying those in the Latin church are safe either.

 

[excaliber]

Hmmm. But they aren’t saying those in the Latin church are safe either.

what exactly are you worried is unsafe in eather of these churches…and what proof is there that it effects salvation ?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

what exactly are you worried is unsafe in eather of these churches…and what proof is there that it effects salvation ?

I’m not quite following your question. Perhaps you could help me with what I am confused about.

You said the Orthodox priest you spoke to said that he knows where salvation is. He then said he does not know where it is not. Does that mean he does not know if salvation is found within Roman Catholicism?

I am not worried about either Orthodoxy nor Roman Catholicism as being unsafe. I am concerned about the divisions between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism which includes that the Orthodox (or perhaps this priest anyway) may be taking the position that it is unsafe to be within Roman Catholism.

 

[Hesychios]

I’m not quite following your question. Perhaps you could help me with what I am confused about.

You said the Orthodox priest you spoke to said that he knows where salvation is. He then said he does not know where it is not. Does that mean he does not know if salvation is found within Roman Catholicism?

I am not worried about either Orthodoxy nor Roman Catholicism as being unsafe. I am concerned about the divisions between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism which includes that the Orthodox (or perhaps this priest anyway) may be taking the position that it is unsafe to be within Roman Catholism.

No.

What the priest stated (as quoted here) is perfectly correct.

There is no opinion about Roman Catholicism at all. If one wants an opinion about Roman Catholicism, ask a Roman Catholic priest! Plain and simple.