Question for former Orthodox

[MrsNoahMoerbeek]

Hi, a Russian Orthodox woman is currently trying to convert me, but she’s…well, very confused, to say the least. My question to you is (as she’s given me contradicting answers):

Why do the Orthodox venerate certain saints (pre-schism) that supported the belief of papal primacy-infallibility?

I asked her, but like I said, I’ve received different answers. “They’re wrong” and “Faulty translation”. Anyone have an answer aside from either of those? And, what convinced you to convert?

 

[Splagchnizomai]

Are you confusing Orthodoxy with Eastern Catholicism?

 

[runningdude]

Are you confusing Orthodoxy with Eastern Catholicism?

No, she isn’t.

 

[Splagchnizomai]

No, she isn’t.

Then perhaps you are.

 

[runningdude]

Hi, a Russian Orthodox woman is currently trying to convert me, but she’s…well, very confused, to say the least. My question to you is (as she’s given me contradicting answers):

Why do the Orthodox venerate certain saints (pre-schism) that supported the belief of papal primacy-infallibility?

I asked her, but like I said, I’ve received different answers. “They’re wrong” and “Faulty translation”. Anyone have an answer aside from either of those? And, what convinced you to convert?

Even from a Catholic perspective, we as a Church recognize that while currently in heaven, each individual saint did not possess infallibility. Thus it has happened that several saints have promoted a position that was later over turned.

For instance several saints rejected in their earthly lives the idea that Mary was conceived without original sin. In heaven of course, they learned the truth, but humanity in general didn’t learn of the immaculate conception definitively until it was dogmatically declared in the 1800’s.

Because we Catholics venerate some saints that were “wrong” in their life time, it is not too inconsistent that the Orthodox venerate some saints that who taught beliefs currently disagree with.

 

[Big_Chris]

Why do the Orthodox venerate certain saints (pre-schism) that supported the belief of papal primacy-infallibility?

Because the pre-schism Church, both East and West, regarded those individuals as having lived a devout, virtuous life imitable of Christ. They weren’t canonized as a result of believing one or another particular thing about the bishop of Rome; and their nuanced beliefs concerning the bishop of Rome doesn’t make the dogma more or less correct.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi, a Russian Orthodox woman is currently trying to convert me, but she’s…well, very confused, to say the least. My question to you is (as she’s given me contradicting answers):

Why do the Orthodox venerate certain saints (pre-schism) that supported the belief of papal primacy-infallibility?

Ask your Orthodox friend which specific pre-schism saints believed in papal infallibility, and what they said about it. I think that will make the discussion a lot easier.

 

[MrsNoahMoerbeek]

Ask your Orthodox friend which specific pre-schism saints believed in papal infallibility, and what they said about it. I think that will make the discussion a lot easier.

She’s only providing youtube videos by Protestants to prove her point. I’ve asked her to provide (sainted, pre-schism) Church Fathers that disagree with the Catholic position, but she provides none.

 

[MrsNoahMoerbeek]

Even from a Catholic perspective, we as a Church recognize that while currently in heaven, each individual saint did not possess infallibility. Thus it has happened that several saints have promoted a position that was later over turned.

For instance several saints rejected in their earthly lives the idea that Mary was conceived without original sin. In heaven of course, they learned the truth, but humanity in general didn’t learn of the immaculate conception definitively until it was dogmatically declared in the 1800’s.

Because we Catholics venerate some saints that were “wrong” in their life time, it is not too inconsistent that the Orthodox venerate some saints that who taught beliefs currently disagree with.

Oh, I know that. It’s just that, she’s trying to make the argument that our teaching was made up in the 11th century and that before then the entire Church was Orthodox, which would just stand to reason that if that were the case, these Fathers were teaching outright heresy. Also, why wouldn’t a Council condemn such a wide-spread error? These things she chooses to ignore, then she gives me a Protestant website with the comment “learn your history” while providing nothing from history to the contrary. AHHHHH! Frustrating.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

For instance several saints rejected in their earthly lives the idea that Mary was conceived without original sin. In heaven of course, they learned the truth, but humanity in general didn’t learn of the immaculate conception definitively until it was dogmatically declared in the 1800’s.

How could humanity not have learned about the Immaculate Conception until the 1800s? Would that not mean that it was not part of the Faith once and for all passed down to the saints?

Perhaps you mean that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception wasn’t fully worked out in strict terms until it was dogmatized. I think the Church knew that there was something special about Mary for a while

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by runningdude
For instance several saints rejected in their earthly lives the idea that Mary was conceived without original sin. In heaven of course, they learned the truth, but humanity in general didn’t learn of the immaculate conception definitively until it was dogmatically declared in the 1800’s.

I think the key word there would be “definitively”.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

I think the key word there would be “definitively”.

Perhaps. Maybe I’m just being nit-picky, but in theological discussions one has to. At least to my reading, it seemed to imply that humanity (and therefore the Church) really didn’t know anything but vague shadows about Mary’s nature until it was dogmatized. I could be reading it wrong, but that is what it came across as.

 

[dcointin]

Perhaps. Maybe I’m just being nit-picky, but in theological discussions one has to. At least to my reading, it seemed to imply that humanity (and therefore the Church) really didn’t know anything but vague shadows about Mary’s nature until it was dogmatized. I could be reading it wrong, but that is what it came across as.

I would have to agree with you. The Church may clarify a dogma, which it does particularly in opposition to heresy, but no teaching can be promulgated that did not exist in the deposit of faith for all time. There is no development of dogma in that sense. Would Catholics agree with this?

 

[MrsNoahMoerbeek]

I would have to agree with you. The Church may clarify a dogma, which it does particularly in opposition to heresy, but no teaching can be promulgated that did not exist in the deposit of faith for all time. There is no development of dogma in that sense. Would Catholics agree with this?

Yes.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hi, a Russian Orthodox woman is currently trying to convert me, but she’s…well, very confused, to say the least. My question to you is (as she’s given me contradicting answers):

Why do the Orthodox venerate certain saints (pre-schism) that supported the belief of papal primacy-infallibility?

I asked her, but like I said, I’ve received different answers. “They’re wrong” and “Faulty translation”. Anyone have an answer aside from either of those? And, what convinced you to convert?

It comes down to two factors. Firstly, as others have mentioned, sainthood is determined by the sanctity of the individual, not whether his ideas were never wrong (a truly absurd and impossible criterion). Secondly, often it is a matter of interpretation: what you see as evidence for papal infallibility is probably not understood that way by an Orthodox reader. A good example of this is the “Peter has spoken through Leo” line from Chalcedon. A typical Roman Catholic reading of this line is that it is some sort of hint that the fathers believed in papal infallibility. The Orthodox understand the line differently, because from the context, our understanding is that the fathers were examining the Tome of Leo in order to determine its orthodoxy (there was in fact debate over the orthodoxy of the Tome), and that they only exclaimed “Peter has spoken through Leo” after finding the Tome to be theologically sound.

 

[Hesychios]

Oh, I know that. It’s just that, she’s trying to make the argument that our teaching was made up in the 11th century …

Actually, I think it was the 19th century.

Anyway, the Roman Catholic church did a lot of evolving of it’s thinking about the Papacy since the 11th century, so although this person might have difficulty expressing herself, there may be an element of truth to what she is trying to get across but it still might be coming across badly and she could posibly also be mis-understood.

On another matter, quite often Protestant objections to Papal claims were cited by the Orthodox first. So it might not be that these are Protestant inventions, the same arguments (if reasonable and valid), can be made by anyone (even Mormons and JW’s, or even some Roman Catholics).

I don’t know what transpired between you two, and I don’t know if I or anyone else here would advance the same arguments, but if you want to discuss the specific issues we can go over it and see where it leads.

This has already been addressed well by other posters, but the issue about venerating saints rarely if ever is contingent on what they thought of ecclesiastical discipline. Their holiness would be foremost. The papacy has changed a lot over time as it accumulated more responsibilities, and you should know that the Eastern churches had always expressed a high regard for the bishops of Rome. There were times when it was quite praiseworthy. So the question would be ‘are they supporters of a 21st century Papacy, or a 7th century Papacy … or both?’, there can be a difference. It’s worth a study.

Of course, if this person is bothering you, I suggest you simply break off the communication. It is not worth the anxiety.

 

[runningdude]

How could humanity not have learned about the Immaculate Conception until the 1800s? Would that not mean that it was not part of the Faith once and for all passed down to the saints?

Perhaps you mean that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception wasn’t fully worked out in strict terms until it was dogmatized. I think the Church knew that there was something special about Mary for a while

Got that covered

runningdude:

didn’t learn of the immaculate conception definitively

Heck, Saint Aquinas was arguing against it - someone must have thought it was at least a possibility!

 

[Hesychios]

Heck, Saint Aquinas was arguing against it - someone must have thought it was at least a possibility!

In arguing against a tendency toward inventive Christianity in the early 5nd century, Saint Vincent of Lerins gave us this rule of thumb and advice as a guideline for orthodox and catholic Christians …

Now in the catholic church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘catholic’ καθολικός ], as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

The reaction of Saint Thomas in the 13th century is clear evidence that even 1,300 years after Christ this was not a universal idea, even in the western church. It was a minority opinion everywhere at that time and contested vigorously by reknowned Roman Catholics.

That together with the fact that across the entire east the idea was totally unknown is clear evidence that the notion is not in any way Apostolic. As late as the 13th century then, most Catholics and Orthodox either did not believe the idea, or had never heard of it.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

She’s only providing youtube videos by Protestants to prove her point. I’ve asked her to provide (sainted, pre-schism) Church Fathers that disagree with the Catholic position, but she provides none.

I have also been asked to convert to Orthodoxy! But I tell them that I already am “Orthodox” and that I believe like the Orthodox of the first millennium etc.

There is no problem with any pre-schism Saint, East or West since the entire Church accepted the Petrine Primacy of the Pope of Rome until, I will say, the 13th century (the year 1054 marked the personal excommunication of two prelates that didn’t affect the Churches of East and West).

As for infallibility - I don’t know of any pre-schism Saint who understood that in the way the RC Church defined it in the 19th century. That Rome had the last word on things and that one could appeal to Rome etc. - that is something everyone accepted in the once united Church.

The point the Russian Orthodox person is making is that Rome has lost the primacy because of heresy (the Filioque etc.)

When I visited a Russian Orthodox Chuch near Buffalo two years ago, the wife (Presbytera) of the priest greeted me warmly. When I told her I was Ukrainian Catholic - she went right after me to say, “That’s not the same thing as being Orthodox - when you get home, join the Orthodox Church” etc.

I will always insist that I am already Orthodox and in communion with Rome - just like the Orthodox Church of the first millennium.

I don’t trouble my Orthodox friends - and I expect that the Orthodox won’t trouble me. If they do, then they really are asking for trouble . . .

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Got that covered

Heck, Saint Aquinas was arguing against it - someone must have thought it was at least a possibility!

In fact, when the Orthodox say they reject the Immaculate Conception, they are NOT saying they think the Most Holy Virgin Mary was conceived in any kind of “sin.”

They reject it because the East has always believed in the totaly holiness of Mary from her conception and because the RC definition contains the Augustinian notion of the “stain of Original Sin” that is not accepted in the East that follows the Cappadocian Fathers.

I don’t believe St Thomas Aquinas ever argued against the All-Holiness of the Virgin Mary - only against what eventually became RC dogma - and the two are not the same.

Alex