Why doesn't Protestantism look like Eastern Orthodoxy?

[Surnaturel]

I’m going to take a stab at this, even though I didn’t do so well with the economy thing.

There may be a difference in how Catholics and Orthodox tend to look at ecumenical councils. In my mind, I imagine that Catholics imagine it as an upgrade from the Xbox 360 to the Xbox 720. You can play the new Halo games on there, do amazing things, and pwn heretic n00bs. It’s fun and exciting.

Whereas I imagine that Orthodox Christians look at it like major surgery. You’re eventually going to be ok and it will save your life, but you will be hurting for awhile and maybe you could have avoided it with regular screenings, checkups, and healthy living. It’s not something you look forward to- it’s something you try to avoid.

And there’s one other thing. I also imagine that if there was a fairly major problem, the EO churches would share a bit of reluctance toward making major decisions as a group with Rome being absent from the table. I have to admit I see a different attitude from Rome.

Thought I’d run that up and see how my imagination’s doing.

I think there is a lot of truth to your analysis. I’ll only speak on behalf of my Church (Catholic), but the excitement for councils is due to this: the West was hit by modernity with a ferocity that the East is only now starting to feel the pressure of. Catholics were yearning for the Church to convey the faith for them and clarify the mission and approach for a pluralistic and secular world. So, unlike the other councils in history, Vatican II was a pastoral council which was not called to combat heresy but to renew the tradition by turning to the patristics. Patriarch Bartholomew commended positively about VII for this particular aspect, ressourcement. Thus, the doom and gloom and pain of past councils is not the most recent impression on the hearts of Catholics.

As for your second point about the Orthodox not calling an Ecumenical Council without Rome, you are right. And they have gained my respect for that although most lay Orthodox appear to believe that the Orthodox Church can convene an ecumenical council without Rome. Moreover, there has been increasing calls for a Pan Orthodox Council.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Right. So the Holy Spirt didn’t work through the councils to elucidate the Trinitarian truths? How about the two wills of Christ?

It protected such councils from teaching error, most certainly, but the Trinitarian truths were not just inspired from nowhere, insofar as the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father is expressed within the sacred scriptures, and expressed by the ante-Nicene Fathers, who nevertheless were not quite capable of expressing Trinitarian concepts with precision, since they lacked a distinction between hypostasis and substance. Similarly, the two wills of Christ is a teaching drawn directly from the Scriptures, and from the Fathers’ exegeses of the Scriptures.

Do you think that Christ taught Palamos’ divine energies doctrine or was that a development of doctrine that grew from contemating the sacred Mystery in light of neo-platonic philosophy?

Christ and the Scriptures most certainly teach that we are to become partakers of God, and that our participation in the divine is real. The use of the categories of essence and energy is only meant to encapsulate the truth that we are to be united with God by participation, but that we remain ontologically distinct from Him. It is not a truth which was realized by contemplating Christianity in light of neoplatonic philosophy (and frankly, I would object to that characterization, because it is clear that by the time of the Cappadocians, a very distinctly Christian school of philosophy had come into existence in the East), but rather one that was captured with precision using philosophical terms which had been appropriated by the fathers for over a millennium.

 

[Cavaradossi]

As for your second point about the Orthodox not calling an Ecumenical Council without Rome, you are right. And they have gained my respect for that although most lay Orthodox appear to believe that the Orthodox Church can convene an ecumenical council without Rome. Moreover, there has been increasing calls for a Pan Orthodox Council.

It most certainly is not true that Rome is needed for an Ecumenical Council, even though by the time of the Seventh Council, this had become customary, for the Second Ecumenical Council had not a single Western bishop present. It is, however, debatable whether or not a council could rightfully be called ‘Ecumenical’ when the Ecumene no longer exists in the Medieval sense of the word.

 

[Surnaturel]

It protected such councils from teaching error, most certainly, but the Trinitarian truths were not just inspired from nowhere, insofar as the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father is expressed within the sacred scriptures, and expressed by the ante-Nicene Fathers, who nevertheless were not quite capable of expressing Trinitarian concepts with precision, since they lacked a distinction between hypostasis and substance. Similarly, the two wills of Christ is a teaching drawn directly from the Scriptures, and from the Fathers’ exegeses of the Scriptures.

They were inspired by the Holy Spirit through reflection on the Scriptures, patristics, and philosophy. These were developments in doctrine, they developed from a scriptural foundation to be sure but they are developments no less. Thus, your criticism of Newman is unwarranted and blatantly wrong.

Christ and the Scriptures most certainly teach that we are to become partakers of God, and that our participation in the divine is real. The use of the categories of essence and energy is only meant to encapsulate the truth that we are to be united with God by participation, but that we remain ontologically distinct from Him. It is not a truth which was realized by contemplating Christianity in light of neoplatonic philosophy (and frankly, I would object to that characterization, because it is clear that by the time of the Cappadocians, a very distinctly Christian school of philosophy had come into existence in the East), but rather one that was captured with precision using philosophical terms which had been appropriated by the fathers for over a millennium.

I agree that Scriptures teach as much. My point is that a fully developed theology of grace and theosis is not available straight away, it had to develop through prayerful meditation over time. The Cappadocians drew heavily on neo-platonic philosophy; there is nothing wrong with that, St. Augustine did too. The Chrisian philosophy that emerged was a purification of neo-Platonism in many respects. But this reinforces my point that Palamos’ theology, for example, shows a further development of doctrine so there is no need to uphold the illusion that the Orthodox Church has no doctrinal developments.

 

[Surnaturel]

It most certainly is not true that Rome is needed for an Ecumenical Council, even though by the time of the Seventh Council, this had become customary, for the Second Ecumenical Council had not a single Western bishop present. It is, however, debatable whether or not a council could rightfully be called ‘Ecumenical’ when the Ecumene no longer exists in the Medieval sense of the word.

Rome was still in communion which is why it was still considered ecumenical by the West. A declined invitation is the same as a no vote or absence in protest. To exclude the see, any see, would be problematic. And to be clear, I did say that most EO lay believe that an ecumenical council can be called without Rome in communion, but some EO theologians have kept the seat open as a gesture of peace to RCs and I was tellin the other poster that the theogians who discuss that have made a profound impact on a lot of us Catholics which has led to our willingness to make more changes in hope of communion with EO than past generations.

My prediction is that whenever a reunification occurs a Pan Orthodox Council will have been called already and the condition for reconciliation it seems to me will have to involve appropriating post-schism councils prior to a reunified ecumenical council.

 

[ConstantineTG]

They were inspired by the Holy Spirit through reflection on the Scriptures, patristics, and philosophy. These were developments in doctrine, they developed from a scriptural foundation to be sure but they are developments no less. Thus, your criticism of Newman is unwarranted and blatantly wrong.

I agree that Scriptures teach as much. My point is that a fully developed theology of grace and theosis is not available straight away, it had to develop through prayerful meditation over time. The Cappadocians drew heavily on neo-platonic philosophy; there is nothing wrong with that, St. Augustine did too. The Chrisian philosophy that emerged was a purification of neo-Platonism in many respects. But this reinforces my point that Palamos’ theology, for example, shows a further development of doctrine so there is no need to uphold the illusion that the Orthodox Church has no doctrinal developments.

No, they are not developments. The whole process of decision in a council is showing proof that what is taught today is the same exact faith of those who came before. Granted that certain terminologies may be introduced for better understanding, but that doesn’t introduce something new. The two wills of Christ isn’t something that someone cooked up in the 500s or 600s. It was always there. Normally if there is no controversy, something isn’t mentioned explicitly. It happens even today. For example, before 9/11 we never talked about Al Quaeda as much or about terrorists flying airplanes into buildings. That doesn’t mean that concept wasn’t there. The plot was there as early at least as 1995. Japanese pilots in world war 2 rammed their planes onto aircraft carriers to sink them. Of course today we always talk about terrorism and such, but that doesn’t mean terrorism only began in 2001.

Our faith is unchanging. We believe there is a once and for all revelation given by Christ. Nothing more can be added or removed. We can’t even deduce something from it for it will only be speculation. Dyotheletism isn’t a new concept. But it wasn’t discussed much because the Fathers assumed that when they already clarified earlier that Christ was fully human and fully divine, it was taken care of. Until later on when Christ’s humanity was further broken apart and subdivided and analyzed differently and heresy came out of it did the need to have a clarification for this come up. But they never made this up.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Because unlike the protestants we orthodox didn’t abandon the sacramental or ecclesiological outlook on things which is found so profoundly in the fathers of the church through all centuries.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Right. So the Holy Spirt didn’t work through the councils to elucidate the Trinitarian truths? How about the two wills of Christ? Do you think that Christ taught Palamos’ divine energies doctrine or was that a development of doctrine that grew from contemating the sacred Mystery in light of neo-platonic philosophy?

Certainly. Hesychasm came from St. Paul’s teaching in Scripture to “pray without ceasing”. Also, what do you think the Desert Fathers did in the 200s, 300s, and so on?

As I mentioned earlier, we do not need to keep using Greek Philosophical terms. That has no bearing on our faith. They were used then because it was clear to the people back then what it meant. That was the purpose of the councils, to clearly explain what the faith always have been is. If today we want to use computer programming concepts to explain the faith, we can, without altering or introducing something new to the faith. It was just all about explaining what is.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The language itself is not dogmatized, it’s the concept; hence, why Eastern Catholics don’t have to consent to the language, but the point that the language conveys.

I agree. I was being sincere by saying that that part of your post was mature.

The language itself is dogmatized. This is what Trent says:

Thirteenth Session, Canon II
If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

Transubstantiation is not only a technical term used to explain the change, the Roman Catholic Church herself has incorporated it into her teachings.

 

[Surnaturel]

The language itself is dogmatized. This is what Trent says:

Thirteenth Session, Canon II
If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

Transubstantiation is not only a technical term used to explain the change, the Roman Catholic Church herself has incorporated it into her teachings.

That’s a faulty interpretation. The text itself says that the Cathic Church most aptly describes the Eucharist in the term transubstantiation. The essence of the doctrine - the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist - is what is unacceptable to deny. The so-called silent enemies would certain Protestst sects that deny this. The Church does not impose the use of the term, although it does use it itself. Plenty of Catholic theogians affirm the essence of Trent without the particular language without any issues.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s a faulty interpretation. The text itself says that the Cathic Church most aptly describes the Eucharist in the term transubstantiation. The essence of the doctrine - the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist - is what is unacceptable to deny. The so-called silent enemies would certain Protestst sects that deny this. The Church does not impose the use of the term, although it does use it itself. Plenty of Catholic theogians affirm the essence of Trent without the particular language without any issues.

Read the whole thing again. There is nothing in that canon that isn’t what Transubstantiation is.

The Orthodox Church never adopted transubstantiation, and we have no problem with the Protestants. Our Prayers before Communion clearly state our belief in the Eucharist.

Also the other objection to transubstantiation is echoed by the writing of Fr. Alexander Schmemann. He rejected the false dichotomy that the Catholic Church introduced about “symbolic” and “real”. Essentially since around the 1200s, the Eucharist ceased to be symbolic in the West and was exclusively “real”. But those two things are not opposed to one another and thus something that is symbolic is also real. Transubstantiation denies that by not seeing the bread and wine as symbols, but rather merely a false appearance of the reality within.

 

[Surnaturel]

No, they are not developments. The whole process of decision in a council is showing proof that what is taught today is the same exact faith of those who came before. Granted that certain terminologies may be introduced for better understanding, but that doesn’t introduce something new. The two wills of Christ isn’t something that someone cooked up in the 500s or 600s. It was always there. Normally if there is no controversy, something isn’t mentioned explicitly. It happens even today. For example, before 9/11 we never talked about Al Quaeda as much or about terrorists flying airplanes into buildings. That doesn’t mean that concept wasn’t there. The plot was there as early at least as 1995. Japanese pilots in world war 2 rammed their planes onto aircraft carriers to sink them. Of course today we always talk about terrorism and such, but that doesn’t mean terrorism only began in 2001.

The concepts were not explicitly present in 1st century AD. Councils clarify the truth of doctrines in scripture and tradition but they do so by faithfully building upon the scriptural material. It wasn’t mentioned explicitly because the philosophical language wasn’t available in the 1st century AD to make these refinements. Perhaps we are talking over each other and don’t really disagree as much as we think we do. I am not saying that Christians didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ before Nicaea and Chalcedon but I am saying that those councils share continuity with tradition but they also expanded our knowledge about Christ’s natures which is expressed in scriptures but not immediately evident nor incredibly detailed that the human and divine natures are unified in the second person.

Our faith is unchanging. We believe there is a once and for all revelation given by Christ. Nothing more can be added or removed. We can’t even deduce something from it for it will only be speculation. Dyotheletism isn’t a new concept. But it wasn’t discussed much because the Fathers assumed that when they already clarified earlier that Christ was fully human and fully divine, it was taken care of. Until later on when Christ’s humanity was further broken apart and subdivided and analyzed differently and heresy came out of it did the need to have a clarification for this come up. But they never made this up.

I am not saying that they ‘made it up’ but rather they came to a fuller knowledge of the truth about Christ’s divinity and humanity after the dialoging with each other and using a rational metaphysics to analyze the matter at hand.

 

[Surnaturel]

Read the whole thing again. There is nothing in that canon that isn’t what Transubstantiation is.

The Orthodox Church never adopted transubstantiation, and we have no problem with the Protestants. Our Prayers before Communion clearly state our belief in the Eucharist.

I am telling you as a RC theologian that Trent dogmatized the meaning behind the term transubstantiation. The language is normative for Catholics but it is permissible to describe the presence of the flesh and blood of The Lord in the Eucharist in other ways.

What I said is that Zwingelli for example (a Protestant) of whom some Protestant sects today draw on which deny any presence at all in the Eucharist. I am quite sure that the Orthodox do have a problem with that.

Also the other objection to transubstantiation is echoed by the writing of Fr. Alexander Schmemann. He rejected the false dichotomy that the Catholic Church introduced about “symbolic” and “real”. Essentially since around the 1200s, the Eucharist ceased to be symbolic in the West and was exclusively “real”. But those two things are not opposed to one another and thus something that is symbolic is also real. Transubstantiation denies that by not seeing the bread and wine as symbols, but rather merely a false appearance of the reality within.

His critique is off base. The Catholic Church didn’t introduce that distinction to deny that the Eucharist is also symbolic; the Catholic liturgy recited ‘do this in remembrance of me’ and always has since the earliest recorded liturgies in the Fathers. It upholds the commemoration of the Lord’s death but it rejects those who claim the Eucharist is only symbolic or that the presence isn’t actually flesh and blood of the risen Lord. Do you not agree?

 

[Surnaturel]

Certainly. Hesychasm came from St. Paul’s teaching in Scripture to “pray without ceasing”. Also, what do you think the Desert Fathers did in the 200s, 300s, and so on?

As I mentioned earlier, we do not need to keep using Greek Philosophical terms. That has no bearing on our faith. They were used then because it was clear to the people back then what it meant. That was the purpose of the councils, to clearly explain what the faith always have been is. If today we want to use computer programming concepts to explain the faith, we can, without altering or introducing something new to the faith. It was just all about explaining what is.

Using philosophical categories enables a more profound understanding of our faith. It’s not just that the language was intelligible.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Also the other objection to transubstantiation is echoed by the writing of Fr. Alexander Schmemann. He rejected the false dichotomy that the Catholic Church introduced about “symbolic” and “real”. Essentially since around the 1200s, the Eucharist ceased to be symbolic in the West and was exclusively “real”. But those two things are not opposed to one another and thus something that is symbolic is also real. Transubstantiation denies that by not seeing the bread and wine as symbols, but rather merely a false appearance of the reality within.

I’m not following the 1200 thinking. The Bread and Wine are Bread and Wine until the consecration, they are symbolic. The physical properties of bread and wine remain after consecration. Yet the substance of bread and wine becomes everything which Christ is. I don’t see the issue?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Before we go into this any further, what is it to you Roman Catholics if the Orthodox do not accept things your Church define? Why insist?

 

[Cavaradossi]

They were inspired by the Holy Spirit through reflection on the Scriptures, patristics, and philosophy. These were developments in doctrine, they developed from a scriptural foundation to be sure but they are developments no less. Thus, your criticism of Newman is unwarranted and blatantly wrong.

I do not believe that I have criticized Cardinal Newman in this thread. You must be confusing me with somebody else.

The Cappadocians drew heavily on neo-platonic philosophy…

Here I must object. The Cappadocians do appear to make references to Neoplatonic thought, but then they were equally comfortable appropriating terminology and concepts originally associated with the Stoics (and even with Epicureanism). Furthermore, the lack of references to philosophers as sources and authorities in their works makes it somewhat specious to speculate upon the philosophical background from which the Cappadocians derived such and such a term.

The Cappadocians were in fact rather impartial to philosophy, using it as a practical tool for the exposition of the Scriptures and the Tradition. To say that they drew heavily from Neoplatonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism, etc., is rather unfair to the Cappadocians, because they do not display any particular inclination towards any one of these schools of thought over any other schools of thought (not to mention that they always asserted the supreme authority of the Scriptures over the vain use of philosophy), and in many cases their use of philosophical terminology (like the distinction between ὑπόστασις and οὐσία) is not to be found in any non-Christian school of philosophy. The Cappadocians need to be read in virtue of themselves and of Christianity, not in virtue of Neoplatonism.

As Torstein Tollefsen, a scholar on St. Maximus the Confessor, notes in his book, The Christocentric Cosmology of St. Maximus the Confessor, “I am sceptical about the strategy of interpreting Christian thinkers in the light of non-Christian philosophy, as if they could be reduced to ‘Platonists’, ‘Aristotelians’, etc. To quote from Mark Julian Edwards’ stimulating book on Origen, scholars often seems to hold that ‘a Christian never thinks but only inhales the thoughts of others’. For instance, when von Balthasar writes about Maximus’ basic concept of ousia he starts his treatment with the Aristotelian distinction between primary and secondary substance…”

 

[Surnaturel]

Before we go into this any further, what is it to you Roman Catholics if the Orthodox do not accept things your Church define? Why insist?

It is not entirely clear that EO don’t accept the essence of RC Eucharistic theology without using the same language. I am concerned for Christian unity, particularly with EOs but with all Christians. As I have said, I don’t insist that EOs agree on every point but I am discussing these ‘apparent’ dividing issues to see where the distinctions rest. The witness of Jesus Christ has alread been severely damaged through both RC and EO actions and it makes a mockery of God to continue intransigently (not referring to you) and not have a spirit of love and dialogue and patience.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It is not entirely clear that EO don’t accept the essence of RC Eucharistic theology without using the same language. I am concerned for Christian unity, particularly with EOs but with all Christians. As I have said, I don’t insist that EOs agree on every point but I am discussing these ‘apparent’ dividing issues to see where the distinctions rest. The witness of Jesus Christ has alread been severely damaged through both RC and EO actions and it makes a mockery of God to continue intransigently (not referring to you) and not have a spirit of love and dialogue and patience.

It is important in the dialogue that we be honest with what we believe. Because if we are not, how are we going to work out our issues? I see people (not you) who insist that the difference is only terminology, the Filioque and the Pope. That is far, far, far from the truth. As I investigated Orthodoxy when I was deciding whether to convert or not, I found out that it wasn’t a simple as that. It really is a whole different mindset.

 

[Surnaturel]

I do not believe that I have criticized Cardinal Newman in this thread. You must be confusing me with somebody else.

Apologies, I did confuse you with somebody else.

Here I must object. The Cappadocians do appear to make references to Neoplatonic thought, but then they were equally comfortable appropriating terminology and concepts originally associated with the Stoics (and even with Epicureanism). Furthermore, the lack of references to philosophers as sources and authorities in their works makes it somewhat specious to speculate upon the philosophical background from which the Cappadocians derived such and such a term.

I agree that their use of philosophy was eclectic but most Eastern patrisic scholars acknowledge neo-Platonism as the primary philosophical influence on Cappadocian theology, I.e. God beyond being and apophatic descriptions and divine light.

The Cappadocians were in fact rather impartial to philosophy, using it as a practical tool for the exposition of the Scriptures and the Tradition. To say that they drew heavily from Neoplatonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism, etc., is rather unfair to the Cappadocians, because they do not display any particular inclination towards any one of these schools of thought over any other schools of thought (not to mention that they always asserted the supreme authority of the Scriptures over the vain use of philosophy), and in many cases their use of philosophical terminology (like the distinction between ὑπόστασις and οὐσία) is not to be found in any non-Christian school of philosophy. The Cappadocians need to be read in virtue of themselves and of Christianity, not in virtue of Neoplatonism.

I think you mistake my point. Although I disagree with your assertion that neo-platonic language and ideas were not more influential than other philosophies in the Cappadocian Fathers, I do agree with you that scripture is the foundation for all their work, rightfully so. The point I was making is that St. Thomas’s use of Aristotelian language to describe the Eucharist is not heretical nor is it unChristian which another poster ITT said: that transubstantiation doesn’t belong in Christianity. I was simply drawing a parallel to Eastern Fathers who also employed philosophy in their theology such as neo-Platonism. Personally, I rather enjoy the Cappadocians and have more affinity with them than most scholastic concepts.

As Torstein Tollefsen, a scholar on St. Maximus the Confessor, notes in his book, The Christocentric Cosmology of St. Maximus the Confessor, “I am sceptical about the strategy of interpreting Christian thinkers in the light of non-Christian philosophy, as if they could be reduced to ‘Platonists’, ‘Aristotelians’, etc. To quote from Mark Julian Edwards’ stimulating book on Origen, scholars often seems to hold that ‘a Christian never thinks but only inhales the thoughts of others’. For instance, when von Balthasar writes about Maximus’ basic concept of ousia he starts his treatment with the Aristotelian distinction between primary and secondary substance…”

I am not sure that he hits the target with that. Catholics like Balthasar do not doubt that Maximus is chridtocentric first and foremost but after one reads Maximus it becomes clear that his theological methodology incorporates philosophical and metaphysical concepts to deepen our understanding of the inexhaustible Trinitarian Mystery.