Question for former Orthodox

[Cavaradossi]

Mrs Noah, if you don’t mind me asking, has your acquaintance discussed the Calendar issue with you? The Russians I know believe that the New Calendar (Gregorian Calendar) is a heresy, and thus not only Catholics, but also “New Calendar Eastern Orthodox” (i.e. Greek and Antiochian EO who adopted the New or Gregorian Calendar) are heretics. Thus Russians will not attend and commune in New Calendar EO churches, except maybe out of economy in extraordinary circumstances. They do commune with those who stick to the Old (Julian) Calendar - i.e. Serbian EO, the monks on Mount Athos, and Old Calendar factions of Greek EO who are in schism with New Calendar EO Churches.

I’m just curious, does your Russian EO acquaintance feel as strongly about the Calendar issue as the Russian people I knew and who regarded the Calendar as an extremely important issue?

The Russians you knew must have been part of an old calendarist sect. The Russian Orthodox Church and ROCOR are in full communion with all of the churches on the revised Julian Calendar (those old calendarists would call them heretics too), meaning that the laity and priests are free to intercommune, and the hierarchs commemorate the hierarchs of the other churches.

It’s also possible that they were part of ROCOR many years back, which had an old calendarist bent to it, but ROCOR’s main raison d’être back then was that the Russian Orthodox Church had been infiltrated by communists, and that thus all churches in communion with her had fallen. ROCOR has since reunited with the Russian Orthodox Church and now exists as an autonomous hierarchical structure within the Russian Orthodox Church.

 

[carlos19]

Rome has added dogmas since the first millenium.

in all fairness the Orthodox have added the doctrine of Palamism.

 

[L_piperatus]

The Russians you knew must have been part of an old calendarist sect. The Russian Orthodox Church and ROCOR are in full communion with all of the churches on the revised Julian Calendar (those old calendarists would call them heretics too), meaning that the laity and priests are free to intercommune, and the hierarchs commemorate the hierarchs of the other churches.

It’s also possible that they were part of ROCOR many years back, which had an old calendarist bent to it, but ROCOR’s main raison d’être back then was that the Russian Orthodox Church had been infiltrated by communists, and that thus all churches in communion with her had fallen. ROCOR has since reunited with the Russian Orthodox Church and now exists as an autonomous hierarchical structure within the Russian Orthodox Church.

The people I know are some formerly ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) priests and laity within the reunited Russian EO Church. Priests in the reunited Church keep instructing the faithful, after ROCOR’s reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2006, not to attend or commune in Greek and Antiochian EO Churches that use the New Calendar. The Russian faithful I know, will rather drive close to three hours to attend Divine Liturgy two states and more than 100 miles away (some even drive 400 miles to the closest Old Calendar church) in a ROCOR church under the umbrella of the reunited ROCOR-MP, rather than attend the New Calendar Greek EOC some 10 minutes away in the city, or the New Calendar Antiochian EOC which is also right there in the city some 20 minutes away.

 

[Hesychios]

The people I know are some formerly ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) priests and laity within the reunited Russian EO Church. Priests in the reunited Church keep instructing the faithful, after ROCOR’s reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2006, not to attend or commune in Greek and Antiochian EO Churches that use the New Calendar. The Russian faithful I know, will rather drive close to three hours to attend Divine Liturgy two states and more than 100 miles away (some even drive 400 miles to the closest Old Calendar church) in a ROCOR church under the umbrella of the reunited ROCOR-MP, rather than attend the New Calendar Greek EOC some 10 minutes away in the city, or the New Calendar Antiochian EOC which is also right there in the city some 20 minutes away.

I have a Greek Orthodox parish walking distance from my house.

I go to the OCA normally, and the bishop doesn’t care which parish I go to, there are no parish bounderies so I drive past several about forty or fifty minutes to the one uptown.

I had a good friend (of Italian Roman catholic background) whom I knew from the old Bielorussian mission in Chicago. The Bielorussion mission was closed by the Cardinal but the Romanian Catholics took over the physical plant for their mission so he could have actually stayed there. He lives all across the metro area and his drive takes up to 1 hour 20 minutes one way to get to the only Ruthenian parish in the state. He drives past several UGCC, one Melkite parish plus the Syro-Malabar cathedral and only God knows how many Latin Catholic parishes, but to him (for his reasons only) that’s where he goes.

People do that sort of thing and I have heard every conceivable reason why they would, including the advice of priests.

 

[Nine_Two]

in all fairness the Orthodox have added the doctrine of Palamism.

What doctrines of Palamism?

 

[Cavaradossi]

The people I know are some formerly ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) priests and laity within the reunited Russian EO Church. Priests in the reunited Church keep instructing the faithful, after ROCOR’s reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2006, not to attend or commune in Greek and Antiochian EO Churches that use the New Calendar. The Russian faithful I know, will rather drive close to three hours to attend Divine Liturgy two states and more than 100 miles away (some even drive 400 miles to the closest Old Calendar church) in a ROCOR church under the umbrella of the reunited ROCOR-MP, rather than attend the New Calendar Greek EOC some 10 minutes away in the city, or the New Calendar Antiochian EOC which is also right there in the city some 20 minutes away.

That is not the official position of the Russian Orthodox Church. Like I said, ROCOR had an old calendarist bent to it at one point. This is likely just a remnant of that.

 

[RyanBlack]

in all fairness the Orthodox have added the doctrine of Palamism.

I suppose you are referring to the essence-energies distinction. This distinction actually is much older that St. Gregory Palamas himself. Its roots can be traced at least as far back as St. Basil the Great (4th century), who is recognized by Rome as a Doctor of the Church.

 

[carlos19]

I suppose you are referring to the essence-energies distinction. This distinction actually is much older that St. Gregory Palamas himself. Its roots can be traced at least as far back as St. Basil the Great (4th century), who is recognized by Rome as a Doctor of the Church.

I appreciate that Ryan but wouldn’t you agree that the same could be said for all the supposed additions to the Latin Church?

 

[carlos19]

Also Ryan I am not saying that essence-energy distinction is theologically in error. I am just saying that it is an example of doctrinal development.

 

[dcointin]

Also Ryan I am not saying that essence-energy distinction is theologically in error. I am just saying that it is an example of doctrinal development.

“Is it not ridiculous to say that the creative power is an essence, and similarly, that providence is an essence, and foreknowledge, simply taking every energy as essence?” Basil the Great, Contra Eunomius, I.8, PG 29, 528B

“The energies are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His energies, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His energies come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach.” Basil the Great, Epistle 234

“And if we may reckon that the Cause of our existence did not come to the creation of man out of necessity but by benevolent choice, once more we say that we have seen God in this way too, arriving at an understanding of his goodness, not of his being…He who is by nature invisible becomes visible in his operations, being seen in certain cases by the properties he possesses.” Gregory of Nyssa, Homily on the Beatitudes, VI.

“Essence and energy are not identical.” Cyril of Alexandria Thesaurus 18, PG 75:312c

“The man divinized by grace will be everything that God is, apart from identity of essence.” Maximus the Confessor Ad Thalassium 22, PG 90:320a

 

[Nine_Two]

I appreciate that Ryan but wouldn’t you agree that the same could be said for all the supposed additions to the Latin Church?

No.

Not only are the Latin additions much farther reaching, but in many cases, we believe, they go against the previously established tradition of the Church.

It is one thing to take a doctrine and pull it into its logical form (such as in the case of the energy/essence distinction which both our churches subscribe to), and quite another to take things and just run with them (such as Papal primacy evolving into infallibility).

 

[carlos19]

No.

Not only are the Latin additions much farther reaching, but in many cases, we believe, they go against the previously established tradition of the Church.

It is one thing to take a doctrine and pull it into its logical form (such as in the case of the energy/essence distinction which both our churches subscribe to), and quite another to take things and just run with them (such as Papal primacy evolving into infallibility).

Interesting take…

there was a poster who said there were no additions, that is what I responded to. So what you are saying 9_2, is that there HAS been addition to Orthodox dogma unlike what the other poster said. I agree with you. There has been addition.

However you are saying that the Western Church over reached so much so that it went against tradition.

Help me understand this though, for I am a bit unclear… what is the standard to judge one incident of doctrinal development as over reaching?

This is where I draw blanks. Because when I compare incidents of doctrinal development occurred in the West vs the East. It seems to me that both the East and the West looked toward their past and found truth there.

So by what standard do you judge that part of western doctrinal development, in which you disagree to be contrary to tradition?

 

[Nine_Two]

Interesting take…

there was a poster who said there were no additions, that is what I responded to. So what you are saying 9_2, is that there HAS been addition to Orthodox dogma unlike what the other poster said. I agree with you. There has been addition.

However you are saying that the Western Church over reached so much so that it went against tradition.

Help me understand this though, for I am a bit unclear… what is the standard to judge one incident of doctrinal development as over reaching?

This is where I draw blanks. Because when I compare incidents of doctrinal development occurred in the West vs the East. It seems to me that both the East and the West looked toward their past and found truth there.

So by what standard do you judge that part of western doctrinal development, in which you disagree to be contrary to tradition?

Depending on how you define doctrine, there were developments in the early church, before the schism. For example the Christology, the idea of the trinity, etc. All of those, I think we could all agree, exist from the very earliest teachings of the Church - for example Christ himself gave us the formula “In the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit”, but the doctrine was developed after this in that it was flushed out.
The essences/energies doctrine grows out of questions that emerged from these questions.

The East has a habit of not defining (i.e. clarifying) doctrine unless it absolutely has to, whereas the West has slowly graduated to defining doctrine just because.

I’ll give an example of what I see as a proper doctrinal development which has happened in the west:

Transubstantiation. While I loath to accept the definition simply because it gets more technical than I like, it took a clear, pre-existing doctrine (the Real Presence) and further clarified it at a time when the doctrine was under attack.

An example of one that was defined when it shouldn’t have been (again in the West):

The Immaculate Conception: There was no pressure, and no heresy. Simply a pope with a particularly strong devotion to the Theotokos which he wanted everyone else to share in.

I have no idea when it could be claimed the Orthodox Church last engaged in development of doctrine - it certainly wasn’t Palamas, as it was a practice based on pre-existing doctrine which he taught. It was likely before the Seventh Ecumenical Council, as I’m pretty sure that council didn’t define anything new.

 

[carlos19]

Depending on how you define doctrine, there were developments in the early church, before the schism. For example the Christology, the idea of the trinity, etc. All of those, I think we could all agree, exist from the very earliest teachings of the Church - for example Christ himself gave us the formula “In the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit”, but the doctrine was developed after this in that it was flushed out.
The essences/energies doctrine grows out of questions that emerged from these questions.

The East has a habit of not defining (i.e. clarifying) doctrine unless it absolutely has to, whereas the West has slowly graduated to defining doctrine just because.

I’ll give an example of what I see as a proper doctrinal development which has happened in the west:

Transubstantiation. While I loath to accept the definition simply because it gets more technical than I like, it took a clear, pre-existing doctrine (the Real Presence) and further clarified it at a time when the doctrine was under attack.

I have no idea when it could be claimed the Orthodox Church last engaged in development of doctrine - it certainly wasn’t Palamas, as it was a practice based on pre-existing doctrine which he taught. It was likely before the Seventh Ecumenical Council, as I’m pretty sure that council didn’t define anything new.

So when the dogma was defined in the 14th century by the Orthodox, it was defined because it absolutely had to? Why did it absolutely have to be defined?

I have tried to do some research on this and it looks to me like the essence/energies as presented by Palamas was a doctrinal innovation that grew out of a monastic practice. You said that the essences/energies doctrine grows out of questions that emerged from prior theological questions. What were these questions? Were people being confused and being misled to heresy because there was no essence/energies doctrine? I would love if you can refer me to a good source where I can learn something about this. I did run into something called the Philokalia …(for the Kindle)…that seems really beautiful

Whatever doctrine palamas taught, it did not appear to be wide spread from what I read. It seems like it was a monastic practice. The issue came to a head when a monk challenged the practice of Hesychasm. A series of councils were held in the 14th century to address the issue between Palamas and that monk. At which point it became dogma.

PS. looked at the first seven councils and nothing of what Palamas taught jumped out at me. Can you show me?

 

[Nine_Two]

So when the dogma was defined in the 14th century by the Orthodox, it was defined because it absolutely had to? Why did it absolutely have to be defined?

Which doctrine was defined in the 14th century? Surely not the Energies/essences distinction. But yes, any doctrine that has been defined has been because it had to be.

I have tried to do some research on this and it looks to me like the essence/energies as presented by Palamas was a doctrinal innovation that grew out of a monastic practice. You said that the essences/energies doctrine grows out of questions that emerged from prior theological questions. What were these questions? Were people being confused and being misled to heresy because there was no essence/energies doctrine? I would love if you can refer me to a good source where I can learn something about this. I did run into something called the Philokalia …(for the Kindle)…that seems really beautiful

As was pointed out by myself and others, the Essence/Energies doctrinal distinction was made in the 5th century. It came about due to various dyphysite, monophysite, and monothelite heresies.
Palamas is in many ways seen as the father of Hesychism, but that is a spiritual practice, and not doctrine. To call it doctrine is similar to calling the spiritual practices of Catherine of Sienna, or Thomas Aquinas, doctrine. Certainly they all reference doctrine, but they are not themselves doctrine. I don’t know if you had a chance to look in the Philokalia, rather than just at it, but if you did you’ll see it traces hesychism through to the Desert Fathers.

Whatever doctrine palamas taught, it did not appear to be wide spread from what I read. It seems like it was a monastic practice. The issue came to a head when a monk challenged the practice of Hesychasm. A series of councils were held in the 14th century to address the issue between Palamas and that monk. At which point it became dogma.

Exactly. He taught practice, not doctrine. Practices change, develop, new ones come into being without antecedent (rarely, but it happens). There is no issue with that. Doctrine is something else. Palamas, as far as I know, did not teach any novel doctrines.

PS. looked at the first seven councils and nothing of what Palamas taught jumped out at me. Can you show me?

Exactly what are you looking for? I had assumed you were talking about Energies/Essences - as it seems most others were - this has its start in the Natures of Christ discussed at Chalcedon (4th Council). Many of the Church Fathers of this time go into depth with the whole essence/energies idea. There are others here who are more knowledgeable than myself regarding the arguments put forth.

 

[Cavaradossi]

So when the dogma was defined in the 14th century by the Orthodox, it was defined because it absolutely had to? Why did it absolutely have to be defined?

Because Barlaam of Calabria heretically taught that God cannot be experienced except through creation as a medium. In other words, for Barlaam, God did not exist, insofar as He could not directly interact with creation except through created means.

I have tried to do some research on this and it looks to me like the essence/energies as presented by Palamas was a doctrinal innovation that grew out of a monastic practice. You said that the essences/energies doctrine grows out of questions that emerged from prior theological questions. What were these questions? Were people being confused and being misled to heresy because there was no essence/energies doctrine? I would love if you can refer me to a good source where I can learn something about this. I did run into something called the Philokalia …(for the Kindle)…that seems really beautiful

You are confusing hesychasm with the essence-energies distinction. They are not the same thing. If you want a good source, why not read the Triads, by Gregory Palamas himself? You could also try reading Father Meyendorff’s book on Gregory Palamas, especially to understand the historical context. If you want an example of an early father teaching the essence energies distinction, read St. Basil’s epistle 234, where he writes about the ineffability of God’s essence, and the immanence of his attributes (what Gregory Palamas calls energies).

Whatever doctrine palamas taught, it did not appear to be wide spread from what I read. It seems like it was a monastic practice. The issue came to a head when a monk challenged the practice of Hesychasm. A series of councils were held in the 14th century to address the issue between Palamas and that monk. At which point it became dogma.

No, the debate was primarily about whether God could be directly experienced or not. Barlaam’s attack on hesychasm was not the primary issue.

PS. looked at the first seven councils and nothing of what Palamas taught jumped out at me. Can you show me?

That is irrelevant.

 

[Celticnovice]

I suppose you are referring to the essence-energies distinction. This distinction actually is much older that St. Gregory Palamas himself. Its roots can be traced at least as far back as St. Basil the Great (4th century), who is recognized by Rome as a Doctor of the Church.

True…but I can also see the roots of various Latin doctrines (that were later defined) in the ECF…

 

[Nine_Two]

True…but I can also see the roots of various Latin doctrines (that were later defined) in the ECF…

This can’t be denied. However whether a belief naturally rises out of what they wrote, or whether it is taking something and running off with it in a wholey unintended direction.

An example of this is the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination. It is very clearly rooted in the Augustinian beliefs on predestination which both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches accept, however it is nonetheless recognized as heretical by both churches.

Having roots isn’t enough, it has to logically flow from the previous position in a manner consistent with Holy Tradition, and (this is more my opinion than anything else) must only be clarified as doctrine when the need arises.

 

[carlos19]

Which doctrine was defined in the 14th century? Surely not the Energies/essences distinction. But yes, any doctrine that has been defined has been because it had to be.

As was pointed out by myself and others, the Essence/Energies doctrinal distinction was made in the 5th century. It came about due to various dyphysite, monophysite, and monothelite heresies.
Palamas is in many ways seen as the father of Hesychism, but that is a spiritual practice, and not doctrine. To call it doctrine is similar to calling the spiritual practices of Catherine of Sienna, or Thomas Aquinas, doctrine. Certainly they all reference doctrine, but they are not themselves doctrine. I don’t know if you had a chance to look in the Philokalia, rather than just at it, but if you did you’ll see it traces hesychism through to the Desert Fathers.

Exactly. He taught practice, not doctrine. Practices change, develop, new ones come into being without antecedent (rarely, but it happens). There is no issue with that. Doctrine is something else. Palamas, as far as I know, did not teach any novel doctrines.

Exactly what are you looking for? I had assumed you were talking about Energies/Essences - as it seems most others were - this has its start in the Natures of Christ discussed at Chalcedon (4th Council). Many of the Church Fathers of this time go into depth with the whole essence/energies idea. There are others here who are more knowledgeable than myself regarding the arguments put forth.

Hi 9-2 thank you for your response. I have been reading on awful lot about the Orthodox Church as of late. Before I came back to Catholicism, I did consider the Orthodox Church. Please understand that I am just trying to learn and am in no way challenging the correctness of Palamas’s doctrine. With that said I do have to take issue with the comment that the Catholics added to the faith. My positition is that these so called additions was merely doctrinal development which was arrived at in the same manner that the EO Church’s doctrinal development.

The Energies/essences distinction was defined and it became dogmatic in the 14th century. What Palamas preached was not the same thing that Basil wrote in his epistle 234. Read Basil’s epistle 234 if you have not (I am sure you have). The energies that he is referring to is not what Palamas taught.

I am assuming that when you said that you pointed out that the Essence/Energies doctrinal distinction was made in the 5th century you were referring to the Cappadocian fathers. I read Basil’s letters but I did not see anything that was written about that was what Palamas taught. Sure they used similar terms but not in the same manner that you are proposing here (at least in Basil’s letters.)

Why is saying that doctrinal development occurred in the EO Church so bad? The EO Church with such great thinkers could possibly not remained static in thought.

From my reading of St. Basil, there is not a linear connection between Basil’s energies and Palamas’s distinction theology.

but on the other hand, I am not calling Palamas’s teaching as an innovation by no means. If I made that impression I apologize.The EO Church deemed Palamas’s teachings as genuine development and consistent with tradition and that must be respected.

( and by the way I am loving the Philokalia! I am reading this and the Dark Night of The Soul, and Upon this Rock…I cannot make up my mind which to stick to. I love them all.

But you know what my real point is? As an observer, an outsider looking in, I think that when it comes to doctrinal development, there appears to be a double standard. Palamas’s doctrine was made into dogma in the 14th century and the way that it was declared, to me, seems identical to CC doctrinal development. Not sure where else to go with this because it appears that we are going to disagree.

However, can you clarify one final point? So are you saying, (because my thick skull is hard to penetrate), based on your comments, must a doctrine/tradition be challenged before it is declared dogmatic?

---

 

[carlos19]

Thanks Cavaradossi, great insight on Barlaam’s challenge. No wonder Palamas fought so hard. IF we are to believe Barlaam then that would mean that God would only be reachable or known to an elite few.

Yes, you are right I did mix both terms (hesychasm, essence/energies) when I wrote. Thanks for clearing that up. I will try to get a hold of the triads. I want to read though the philokalia first before I tackle another book.