What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

[JoeBowen7]

An Eastern Orthodox priest I talked to earlier this year mentioned the quality of the liturgy as a bone he had to pick with the Latins, at or near the same level of importance as the hot-button Catholic doctrines (not in those precise terms–I’m paraphrasing).

Not all of those issues should be deal-breakers, dogmatically speaking, for the Eastern Orthodox Church–though I’m becoming an inquirer at an ACROD parish in a few weeks, so I’m sure we’ll cover this ground at some point. But the Latins haven’t defined as de fide teaching the use of statues, the Augustinian view of original sin, the use of the Western calendar for determining when to have Easter, the celibacy of the priesthood, the prescribed times and dates for fasting, and the use of musical instrumentation at Mass. (I’d definitely attend to see a Roman-rite liturgy sung a cappella, though. )

At one time, the use of unleavened bread was considered to be a serious error by the Orthodox, so many things are not “deal-breakers”, but i don;t see the Orthodox accepting the RC doctrine on papal infallibility and universal papal jurisdiction.

 

[Trebor135]

At one time, the use of unleavened bread was considered to be a serious error by the Orthodox, so many things are not “deal-breakers”,

That’s true.

but i don;t see the Orthodox accepting the RC doctrine on papal infallibility and universal papal jurisdiction.

Nor do I.

On those two dogmas, no compromise seems in any way possible. Either the Latins repudiate Vatican I, or the Greeks declare it a general council of the Church–and reunion talks proceed swiftly from there.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

…many things are not “deal-breakers”, but i don;t see the Orthodox accepting the RC doctrine on papal infallibility and universal papal jurisdiction.

neither does the Catholic Church - the last two popes have expressed this rather directly, and the door has been open for dialogue

does that mean the Papacy disappears? no

does that mean that a bishop other than the Bishop of Rome becomes “Pope”? no

does it mean that the Papacy looks, feels and acts as it does today in a unified Church? no

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Either the Latins repudiate Vatican I, or the Greeks declare it a general council of the Church–and reunion talks proceed swiftly from there.

You can’t take back a dogmatic declaration - consider the consequences - that’s the dilemma

 

[ConstantineTG]

Papal Infallibility can be accepted by the Orthodox, in a sense that the Pope is made what St. Peter always is, the spokesperson for the Apostles. In the Pope’s case, he speaks for the council of bishops of the entire Church. If infallibility is interpreted in such a way that the Pope only speaks infallibly in such a case, I don’t see how that could be against what has happened in the past. Such as Pope Leo the Great. But a unilateral authority, that is he does not need consent of other bishops to decalre things infalliblly, not going to happen. Remember, St. Peter was head of the choir, not a soloist.

If universal ordinary jurisdiction is to be interpreted only to apply to the Roman Church, then it is acceptable. Patriarch Kirill is somewhat this way within the Russian Orthodox Church.

 

[Trebor135]

neither does the Catholic Church - the last two popes have expressed this rather directly, and the door has been open for dialogue

Wouldn’t such dialogue over Vatican I between Catholics and Orthodox be somewhat like similar dialogue over Nicea I between Christians and Muslims? Not in the sense that the role of the papacy is analogous to the nature of God and the person of Christ–the point is rather to bring out how irreconcilable the two positions are.

does that mean the Papacy disappears? no

One would hope not. The bishop of Rome played an important role during the first millennium.

does that mean that a bishop other than the Bishop of Rome becomes “Pope”? no

Will the Eastern Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria be able to keep his title?

does it mean that the Papacy looks, feels and acts as it does today in a unified Church? no

This seems like a viable solution, but only on paper–see my reply to ConstantineTG below.

You can’t take back a dogmatic declaration - consider the consequences - that’s the dilemma

Indeed.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Wouldn’t such dialogue over Vatican I between Catholics and Orthodox be somewhat like similar dialogue over Nicea I between Christians and Muslims? Not in the sense that the role of the papacy is analogous to the nature of God and the person of Christ–the point is rather to bring out how irreconcilable the two positions are.

Using the analogy you did strongly suggests that there are very fundamental differences between Catholic and Orthodox Christians, at the core. Let’s assume that is not what you meant.

However, I gather you are trying to assert that the position on the Papacy is hopelessly irreconcilable. Despite the rhetoric, polemics or other things you may read, there are various possibilities which (i) would be faithful to a common understanding of the first millenial relationship between the patriarchal churches and (ii) would imply a level of structural ecclesiastical change on both sides. This is not simply a matter of “surrender” on either side.

Suggest you take a look at this: Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future (October 2010)

 

[dzheremi]

Will the Eastern Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria be able to keep his title?

Oh you Chalcedonians…thinking that your popes are the only popes!

http://mamafayza.tripod.com/design/pope-shenouda-laughs.jpg

You make Baba Shenouda laugh!

 

[Trebor135]

Oh you Chalcedonians…thinking that your popes are the only popes!

http://mamafayza.tripod.com/design/pope-shenouda-laughs.jpg

You make Baba Shenouda laugh!

I’m happy to do that. He was so uppity as to be placed under monastery-arrest from 1981 to 1985 by the Egyptian state, so wins my automatic admiration and sympathy. May his soul rest in peace.

(I for one was aware that the head bishop of the Coptic Orthodox Church is referred to as pope, having read that the patriarch of Alexandria was referred to as such prior, in fact, to that of Rome being widely called by the title.)

 

[Trebor135]

Papal Infallibility can be accepted by the Orthodox, in a sense that the Pope is made what St. Peter always is, the spokesperson for the Apostles. In the Pope’s case, he speaks for the council of bishops of the entire Church. If infallibility is interpreted in such a way that the Pope only speaks infallibly in such a case, I don’t see how that could be against what has happened in the past. Such as Pope Leo the Great. But a unilateral authority, that is he does not need consent of other bishops to decalre things infalliblly, not going to happen. Remember, St. Peter was head of the choir, not a soloist.

If universal ordinary jurisdiction is to be interpreted only to apply to the Roman Church, then it is acceptable. Patriarch Kirill is somewhat this way within the Russian Orthodox Church.

As I mentioned to ByzCathCantor, such proposals look good on the surface, but after further scrutiny it doesn’t turn out that they truly address the problem.

Eastern Orthodox apologist Perry Robinson put it well in comment #68 of a thread over at CalledToCommunion.com–here are the relevant excerpts:

What is relevant is what the documents teach and what their intended scope of application is. Rome seems to have taken those definitions to be applicable at that time and for a long time afterwards to the Easterners (as well as to Protestants) whether those bodies liked it or not. The main line of Catholic ecumenical thought has been to tweak the administration of papal universal jurisdiction and how the plenitude of power is implemented, rather than alter those concepts. So there is a kind of “slide” from the former to the other, which sometimes gives people the impression that Rome has changed its teaching. It hasn’t in the least. But the Orthodox object to the teaching and not merely to administration and so changing the administration is of limited ecumenical import.

[T]here is really nothing new or anything that moves the discussion on the papacy one way or the other. It doesn’t respect both because it fudges on both-the primary point isn’t about the application of papal primacy but the nature of papal primacy. The former is just window dressing and both sides know it.

For the recored, it is not that I am opposed to reunion in principle. Nor do I think that I couldn’t be mistaken. Rather I think that papering over problems with ambiguous terms is no way to achieve union. At best it will only create more schisms. Such is the testimony of history. The real way forward is to see if there is some third conceptual model that entails both views such that each view can be translated conceptually into the other without remainder. Only in this way will you be able to convince each side that they in fact share the same faith.

 

[Trebor135]

Using the analogy you did strongly suggests that there are very fundamental differences between Catholic and Orthodox Christians, at the core.

That’s why I’m not really satisfied with the comparison I myself drew.

Let’s assume that is not what you meant.

Well, recall that I clarified, “Not in the sense that the role of the papacy is analogous to the nature of God and the person of Christ…”

However, I gather you are trying to assert that the position on the Papacy is hopelessly irreconcilable. Despite the rhetoric, polemics or other things you may read, there are various possibilities which (i) would be faithful to a common understanding of the first millenial relationship between the patriarchal churches and (ii) would imply a level of structural ecclesiastical change on both sides. This is not simply a matter of “surrender” on either side.

In light of the points made by Perry Robinson which I cited in my above reply to ConstantineTG, this seems overly optimistic.

Suggest you take a look at this: Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future (October 2010)

I skimmed that document–having read something similar a while back–and though in my view “preparatory steps” like (c) merit a hearty endorsement, I would still like to know how my and Robinson’s concerns can be addressed under this framework. (You’re under no pressure to write a fifteen-page essay, of course–these issues are rather… complex. )

 

[Mystophilus]

I always wonder,what Catholics and Protestants think about Orthodoxy?In general,we (Orthodox) are hostile to Catholics (because of the arrogance of the Popes) and a bit to Protestants.
Feel free to share your opinion

PS I’m not hostile to anyone.We are all Christians.

For fairly obvious historical/geographic reasons, Protestants tend to be very ignorant about Orthodoxy, even more than we are about Catholicism.

Having said that, Orthodox mystics provide an antidote to biblical literalism, and the Greek Fathers provide a connection to centuries of Christian thought without the polemical baggage of the Catholic-Protestant conflict.

Personally, I admire a great deal of Orthodox theology, and am very slowly and carefully working my way through the Philokalia.

 

[ConstantineTG]

As I mentioned to ByzCathCantor, such proposals look good on the surface, but after further scrutiny it doesn’t turn out that they truly address the problem.

Eastern Orthodox apologist Perry Robinson put it well in comment #68 of a thread over at CalledToCommunion.com–here are the relevant excerpts:

What is relevant is what the documents teach and what their intended scope of application is. Rome seems to have taken those definitions to be applicable at that time and for a long time afterwards to the Easterners (as well as to Protestants) whether those bodies liked it or not. The main line of Catholic ecumenical thought has been to tweak the administration of papal universal jurisdiction and how the plenitude of power is implemented, rather than alter those concepts. So there is a kind of “slide” from the former to the other, which sometimes gives people the impression that Rome has changed its teaching. It hasn’t in the least. But the Orthodox object to the teaching and not merely to administration and so changing the administration is of limited ecumenical import.

[T]here is really nothing new or anything that moves the discussion on the papacy one way or the other. It doesn’t respect both because it fudges on both-the primary point isn’t about the application of papal primacy but the nature of papal primacy. The former is just window dressing and both sides know it.

For the recored, it is not that I am opposed to reunion in principle. Nor do I think that I couldn’t be mistaken. Rather I think that papering over problems with ambiguous terms is no way to achieve union. At best it will only create more schisms. Such is the testimony of history. The real way forward is to see if there is some third conceptual model that entails both views such that each view can be translated conceptually into the other without remainder. Only in this way will you be able to convince each side that they in fact share the same faith.

I agree with this statement. I was merely echoing that a universal ecclesiology is not beyond Orthodoxy. The problem really is the dogmatization of that universal ecclesiology by the Roman Catholic Church. As long as that is dogma, the Orthodox will not accept it. And there is no chance the RC Church will ever reverse a dogma because by it they will admit that they invented a dogma centuries after the Deposit of Faith has been made.

And the farther I go into learning about Orthodoxy theology, the farther apart we are I see. I have taken an interest in Sacramental theology and so far I think that even the very basic concept of what a Sacrament is cannot be easily reconciled between the two Churches.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Good you know you agree with an apologist who admits “Nor do I think that I couldn’t be mistaken”

 

[Cavaradossi]

Good you know you agree with an apologist who admits “Nor do I think that I couldn’t be mistaken”

Nobody who thinks he can’t be mistaken is worth listening to.

 

[Trebor135]

For fairly obvious historical/geographic reasons, Protestants tend to be very ignorant about Orthodoxy, even more than we are about Catholicism.

And to think early Lutheran theologians wrote to the Patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremias I, in hopes (one can deduce) of forming a united front against the so-called “Papists”. If only the two camps had ironed out their differences–they both are, indeed, on the same page in some respects given shared wariness of papal authority, purgatory, indulgences, and celibacy of parish clergy–the map of the Christian world might be far less scandalously chaotic today.

Personally, I admire a great deal of Orthodox theology,

and am very slowly and carefully working my way through the Philokalia.

I’ll have to check that compilation out.

I would also recommend getting to a Byzantine Liturgy as soon as possible. To live without experiencing such splendid worship is to be deprived of among the highest spiritual goods.

I agree with this statement. I was merely echoing that a universal ecclesiology is not beyond Orthodoxy. The problem really is the dogmatization of that universal ecclesiology by the Roman Catholic Church. As long as that is dogma, the Orthodox will not accept it. And there is no chance the RC Church will ever reverse a dogma because by it they will admit that they invented a dogma centuries after the Deposit of Faith has been made.

Understood. You’re right.

And the farther I go into learning about Orthodoxy theology, the farther apart we are I see. I have taken an interest in Sacramental theology and so far I think that even the very basic concept of what a Sacrament is cannot be easily reconciled between the two Churches.

Interesting. What have you discovered which leads to the conclusion that the two communions may have irreconcilable ideas about even the sacraments?

Good you know you agree with an apologist who admits “Nor do I think that I couldn’t be mistaken”

Haha.

Nobody who thinks he can’t be mistaken is worth listening to.

Indeed.

 

[benjohnson]

As long as that is dogma, the Orthodox will not accept it. And there is no chance the RC Church will ever reverse a dogma because by it they will admit that they invented a dogma centuries after the Deposit of Faith has been made.

The good news is that our Catholic friends are very good over time at giving further explanations of dogma so that it seems that some of the sting is taken out of it.

If I understand history correctly, for example, “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” is understood a bit more then it used to be.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The good news is that our Catholic friends are very good over time at giving further explanations of dogma so that it seems that some of the sting is taken out of it.

Dogma is a final, definitive declaration of Truth. It cannot be explained any differently than was defined when and how the dogma was declared.

If I understand history correctly, for example, “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” is understood a bit more then it used to be.

That’s doctrine, not dogma. If it were, there would be no ecumenism involving the Catholic Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Interesting. What have you discovered which leads to the conclusion that the two communions may have irreconcilable ideas about even the sacraments?

First, the fact that priests can perform valid Sacraments outside the Church. The Catholic point of view is that once a priest, always a priest and that the priest can perform Sacraments (such as the Eucharist) even if he is kicked out of the Church as long as he uses proper matter, form and intent. The Orthodox point of view is that the Sacraments belong to the Church and therefore any priest who leaves the Church cannot perform the Sacraments because they are not in the Church. The priest is still a priest but has no power fo confer the graces promised to the Church if the preist is no longer in the Church. This also includes bishops ordaining priests or other bishops, can’t do it outside of the Church. But the Catholic Church recognizes validity of ordinations by valid bishops who are outside the Church (or not in communion with the Bishop of Rome).

Second, the Eucharist cannot be celebrated without the people. Private Masses are a common thing in the Roman Catholic Church and it even happens in some Eastern Catholic Churches. In Orthodoxy you can never have a Liturgy without the people. This follows the teaching that “whenever two or three are gathered”. Of course both sides says that the communion of saints are present in every Liturgy. But if you think about it, Liturgy literally means “work of the people.” So if it is the work of the people, why can it be done without the people?

Marriage is completely different too, but I’m still learning on this aspect. For one thing, the ministers of the Sacrament in Orthodoxy is still the priest. You can see even in the Crowning Rite that the very idea of what a marriage is differs from that of the West.

There’s much more, I am only learning and still just touching the surface.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The good news is that our Catholic friends are very good over time at giving further explanations of dogma so that it seems that some of the sting is taken out of it.

If I understand history correctly, for example, “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” is understood a bit more then it used to be.

I don’t think there is an amount of explanatio that will satisfy the Orthodox. If the belief in the primacy of the Pope of Rome is a dogma, no matter what the explanation is they will not accept that. From what I have learned about the development of ecclessiology in the East, the Papacy as it is today is fully acceptable to the Orthodox. Provided the agree to it AND it is not a dogma. The very fact it is dogma is an admission that such a belief which from their history and tradition did not exist in the First Millennium. They can accept developments in ecclesiology because their present ecclessiology is indeed a development. But it is not a dogma.