Why not Orthodoxy?

[itsjustdave1988]

The Iambic Pen,

See here…

Did the Bishop of Rome originally have only "primacy of honor?"

 

[BrianH]

Its justdave
It is a long article and I do not intend to butt into this very good thread but I do not see how people can continue to quote these letters:

newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm
"The oldest collection of the writings of St. Ignatius known to have existed was that made use of by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century, but which unfortunately is no longer extant. It was made up of the seven letters written by Ignatius whilst on his way to Rome; These letters were addressed to the Christians

of Ephesus (Pros Ephesious);
of Magnesia (Magnesieusin);
of Tralles (Trallianois);
of Rome (Pros Romaious);
of Philadelphia (Philadelpheusin);
of Smyrna (Smyrnaiois); and
to Polycarp (Pros Polykarpon).
We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius (“Hist. eccl.”, III, xxxvi) but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the “long recension”. This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. "

 

[TamaraS]

The Iambic Pen:

And yet, if Christ desires His Church to spread the Gospel to all the world, one wonders why Orthodoxy is still focused on a few cultures in Eastern Europe. Now, I know there are Orthodox Churches outside of Eastern Europe, so I’m not trying to attack Orthodoxy. It does seem, though, that even these “satellite Churches” are still very much tied to a specific Eastern European community. I think it’s safe to say most Orthodox in the U.S. are Russian, Ukrainian, or Greek.

Yes. I am definitely no expert on the Orthodox Church, but this is basically what I’ve always thought as well.
The Iambic Pen:

Well, Mary issues aren’t all that hard to accept, once one accepts the teaching authority of the Church.

I’m glad you made this comment about Marian Doctrines. A lot of the threads on here concerned with Mary issues seem so impossible sometimes. I’ve mentioned this on other Mary threads that if people understand or accept issues such as Authority and Tradition, then other issues such as Mary or Purgatory seem a lot easier to accept.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

BrianH:

Its justdave
It is a long article and I do not intend to butt into this very good thread but I do not see how people can continue to quote these letters:

newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm
"The oldest collection of the writings of St. Ignatius known to have existed was that made use of by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century, but which unfortunately is no longer extant. It was made up of the seven letters written by Ignatius whilst on his way to Rome; These letters were addressed to the Christians

of Ephesus (Pros Ephesious);
of Magnesia (Magnesieusin);
of Tralles (Trallianois);
of Rome (Pros Romaious);
of Philadelphia (Philadelpheusin);
of Smyrna (Smyrnaiois); and
to Polycarp (Pros Polykarpon).
We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius (“Hist. eccl.”, III, xxxvi) but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the “long recension”. This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. "

This is speaking of the reliability (or lack thereof) of ONE recession of the Ignatian letters, the “later collections.”.

Nonetheless, the Ignatian letters in every recession speak of the Church of Rome as having the “presidency.” I not only quoted from the letter, but also from an Eastern Orthodox author regarding the Ignatian letters.

We likewise do not have the original manuscripts of the Bible, and the same could be said of it. However, you are not advocating that we stop quoting the Bible, are you?

If my thesis relied entirely upon Ignatius’ letter alone, then it would certainly be a thesis having very little support. However, did you read the letter from Patriarch Anatolius to Pope Leo from my article? Didn’t Pope Leo have singular juridic authority to veto or ratify the canons of Chalcedon? If this authority was merely that of “honor” alone, then why did the Patriarch of Constantinople apologetically admit in his letter to Pope Leo that the canons of Chalcedon which the bishops definitively decided at Chalcedon had no force unless Pope Leo ratified them? Does that not seem like presidential authority which does indeed include primacy of jurisdiction as well as honor? Which other bishop had this authority? Why didn’t they send the canons to every bishop requesting for their ratifications as well, with the view that if it was not ratified, it had no force?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

BrianH,

Even the article you cited asserts:

While it can hardly be said that there is at present any unanimous agreement on the subject, the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius. Even such eminent non-Catholic critics as Zahn, Lightfoot, and Harnack hold this view.

Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant scholars agree that the seven letters are genuine, and that we can through the use of comparing the multiple recessions, come to know what Ignatius taught.

What Ignatius taught regarding the “presidency” of the Church of Rome is accepted by Eastern Orthodoxy.

According to one Eastern Orthodox scholar:

“Speaking of the Church of Rome, Ignatius [AD 110] uses the phrase ‘which presides’ in two passages. … The term ‘which presides’ [Greek given] needs no discussion; used in the masculine it means the bishop, for he, as head of the local church, sits in the ‘first place’ at the eucharistic assembly, that is, in the central seat. He is truly the president of his church…[Ignatius] pictured the local churches grouped, as it were, in a eucharistic assembly, with every church in its special place, and the church of Rome in the chair, sitting in the ‘first place.’ So, says Ignatius, the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord…In his period no other church laid claim to the role, which belonged to the Church of Rome.” (THE PRIMACY OF PETER : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church edited by John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992, page 126-127)

To assert the “presidency” of the Church or Rome to be that of “honor only” is as absurd as asserting a bishop’s presidency to be that of “honor only” over his Church.

 

[Contarini]

BrianH:

Its justdave
It is a long article and I do not intend to butt into this very good thread but I do not see how people can continue to quote these letters:

newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm
"The oldest collection of the writings of St. Ignatius known to have existed was that made use of by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century, but which unfortunately is no longer extant. It was made up of the seven letters written by Ignatius whilst on his way to Rome; These letters were addressed to the Christians

of Ephesus (Pros Ephesious);
of Magnesia (Magnesieusin);
of Tralles (Trallianois);
of Rome (Pros Romaious);
of Philadelphia (Philadelpheusin);
of Smyrna (Smyrnaiois); and
to Polycarp (Pros Polykarpon).
We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius (“Hist. eccl.”, III, xxxvi) but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the “long recension”. This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. "

Brian,

As you can see from what you quote, this is talking about the “long recension.” The “short recension” is accepted by almost all scholars as genuine. The skeptical position does find a champion from time to time, but there’s a pretty strong consensus that the “short recension” is valid (there is also a Syriac version of three of the letters, if I remember rightly).

Note that the Catholic Encyclopedia is nearly 100 years old. It’s not the best source for modern scholarship (though on this point it’s correct). It’s unfortunate that Catholics on the Internet cite it all the time as if it were the last word.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

itsjustdave1988:

BrianH,

To assert the “presidency” of the Church or Rome to be that of “honor only” is as absurd as asserting a bishop’s presidency to be that of “honor only” over his Church.

That analogy is completely false. The bishop of Rome is not to other bishops as a bishop is to his own local church. This is the point on which Protestants and Orthodox will never give in. If we are ever to have reunion, Roman Catholics (and I’m using that term deliberately in this context) will need to give up forever this faulty analogy, which posits the same kind of hierarchical relationships existing between laypeople and priests, priests and bishops, bishops and the Pope. . .

I don’t think the presidency is of honor only. That’s a legitimate challenge. But you can’t use the analogy of bishops. The Pope is a bishop among other bishops. All ecumenical dialogue needs to begin with this, and move on just how he exercises his primacy *within *the college of bishops.

Edwin

 

[itsjustdave1988]

That analogy is completely false. The bishop of Rome is not to other bishops as a bishop is to his own local church. This is the point on which Protestants and Orthodox will never give in.

I was echoing the analogy of the bishop’s “presidency” as put forth by the Eastern Orthodox article I cited. I did not assert the Pope as having the same relationship to other bishops as bishops do to their priests or lay members of his Church. The only connection I made was that just as a bishop has more than authority of mere honor as one who “presides” within his Church, so too does the Church of Rome has more than authority of honor when it “presides” in the universal Church.

This was once held by the Patriarchs of the East. The Council of Chalcedon is evidence of that, as it admitted to Pope Leo a jurisdictional authority it matters of mere governance. Why? Chalcedon asserted the Pope was “HEAD” of the Church, not by political gain or influence, but given the “CUSTODY OF THE VINE BY THE SAVIOR.” Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople writing to Pope Leo clearly saw Leo as having jurisdictional authority to either ratify or veto canons decided upon by ecumenical council, admitting that the canons had no force without his agreement. That appears to be more than mere “honor.”

 

[Palamite]

Iambic Pen,

That has also occurred to me, and it is one of the reasons I never seriously considered Orthodoxy before. Still, it’s not an automatic disqualifier, as truth does not depend on the number of believers. I am concerned by the relatively narrow ethnic focus of the Church, however. It seems like a very cultural, rather than a universal Church.

There is much to this assessment that is really more a case of unknowingly “wearing blinders” than anything else. We often unwittingly confuse “the world” with “the world of people more or less like me” or “the world closer to me than not”. Consider that the conversion of the various Slavic peoples was primarily a project of the Orthodox Church, even into the period well after the “great schism” (1054 A.D., though this is more a date of convenience than anything else…it’s a little more complicated than that.)

Also you are right, “truth” and “ongoing missionary success” don’t always add up. Islam comes to mind, for example.

There is a deeper issue at the core, though. The Catholic Church claims that this doctrine was believed long before it was defined (and pre-Schism quotes are given in support of it). This is also the case with the other doctrines in the following list:
Papal infallibility/primacy
Original sin
Purgatory

Don’t you think it’s telling that so many of these things need a chain of “proof texts”, none of which actually outline the totality of any of these ideas? I find the dialectic in Catholicism very strange - the process of “development” resembles more the ingenuity of hellenic philosophers (who were very much searching for a natural revelation, via the unfolding of nature under the lense of their scrutiny) than a “faith once received.” I know lots of non-sequiter references to the “development of Trinitarianism” will be forthcoming, but they miss the point - for while the symbolic language disqualifying falsehood (like that of Arius - a heresy which surprisingly few people actually understand - many believe he simply taught “Jesus isn’t God” which is only “kinda” true) was obviously a matter of development, conceptually there was no development whatsoever - how could there be, unless people are claiming the Apostles did not know and experience God as Three Persons?

OTOH. all of those controversial ideas you listed, would have been looked at askance by the early Christians no matter how much you qualified them - and I think anyone reading the pre-Nicene Fathers without an agenda will readily realize this.

 

[Palamite]

Iambic Pen,

And yet, if Christ desires His Church to spread the Gospel to all the world, one wonders why Orthodoxy is still focused on a few cultures in Eastern Europe. Now, I know there are Orthodox Churches outside of Eastern Europe, so I’m not trying to attack Orthodoxy. It does seem, though, that even these “satellite Churches” are still very much tied to a specific Eastern European community. I think it’s safe to say most Orthodox in the U.S. are Russian, Ukrainian, or Greek.

In all fairness though, I think this is how the typical Protestant American would have felt about the vast majority of Roman Catholic Churches in the U.S.A. during the early part of the 20th century - “it’s like an Irish/Mexican/Italian/etc. convention! The services are all in LATIN and afterwards no one wants to speak of anything but ‘the mother country’ in languages I can scarcely tolerate!” There were obviously notable exceptions to that tendency - but then again, so there is with the Orthodox, and certainly now more so that ever.

 

[BrianH]

itsjustdave1988:

BrianH,

Even the article you cited asserts:

Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant scholars agree that the seven letters are genuine, and that we can through the use of comparing the multiple recessions, come to know what Ignatius taught.

What Ignatius taught regarding the “presidency” of the Church of Rome is accepted by Eastern Orthodoxy.

According to one Eastern Orthodox scholar:

To assert the “presidency” of the Church or Rome to be that of “honor only” is as absurd as asserting a bishop’s presidency to be that of “honor only” over his Church.

Thanks for the correction.
BH

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

I’ve been a little lax in attending to my own threads lately…

Hesychios:

…Our focus then should be to avoid error and live the Gospel, not to “know more”.

That sounds very good to me. However, there seems to be a great deal of knowledge that believers are required to accept, lest they be cast out. Perhaps this does not apply as fully to Orthodoxy. On the Catholic side, the problem I have is this: For example, prior to the defining of a dogma, a Catholic could be unconvinced and still remain in the Church. After the dogma is defined, this Catholic must either accept something he does not believe (and was not previously required to believe) or leave the Church. I guess my concern is that some development of doctrine may have come about, not due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but rather because of fallen human reason. But, perhaps I am completely wrong.

The Eastern churches were limited in their geographical extension due to a number of historical factors…Nevertheless, there have been spectacular achievements…

Fair enough. I must admit I tend to view the world through Western (Protestant ) eyes.

Your comments about the “immigrant Church” and such do make sense. After all, as you said, the Catholic Church was once in a similar situation and yet is very universal in America today.

itsjustdave1988:

See here…

Did the Bishop of Rome originally have only “primacy of honor?”

Thanks! Very interesting.

TamaraS:

Yes. I am definitely no expert on the Orthodox Church, but this is basically what I’ve always thought as well.

Yes, though I must be fair and say that Hesychios has made a good point. Maybe in a few more generations, the Orthodox Church will be more universal in American society (and throughout the world). After all, there has been much that has held it back in recent years.

I’m glad you made this comment about Marian Doctrines. A lot of the threads on here concerned with Mary issues seem so impossible sometimes. I’ve mentioned this on other Mary threads that if people understand or accept issues such as Authority and Tradition, then other issues such as Mary or Purgatory seem a lot easier to accept.

Indeed. The difficult part is accepting the authority first (or knowing if one should… ).

Palamite:

Also you are right, “truth” and “ongoing missionary success” don’t always add up. Islam comes to mind, for example.

Good point.

There is a deeper issue at the core, though. The Catholic Church claims that this doctrine was believed long before it was defined (and pre-Schism quotes are given in support of it). This is also the case with the other doctrines in the following list:
Papal infallibility/primacy
Original sin
Purgatory

Don’t you think it’s telling that so many of these things need a chain of “proof texts”, none of which actually outline the totality of any of these ideas? I find the dialectic in Catholicism very strange - the process of “development” resembles more the ingenuity of hellenic philosophers (who were very much searching for a natural revelation, via the unfolding of nature under the lense of their scrutiny) than a “faith once received.” I know lots of non-sequiter references to the “development of Trinitarianism” will be forthcoming, but they miss the point - for while the symbolic language disqualifying falsehood (like that of Arius - a heresy which surprisingly few people actually understand - many believe he simply taught “Jesus isn’t God” which is only “kinda” true) was obviously a matter of development, conceptually there was no development whatsoever - how could there be, unless people are claiming the Apostles did not know and experience God as Three Persons?

It is telling. I think the debate over these issues would be much more easily resolved if we had the official writings of Church Councils supporting these doctrines rather than just the quotes of individuals (wise though these men certainly were).

OTOH. all of those controversial ideas you listed, would have been looked at askance by the early Christians no matter how much you qualified them - and I think anyone reading the pre-Nicene Fathers without an agenda will readily realize this.

That’s the debate, I guess. Who do the pre-Nicene Fathers really support? I must say, for a (former?) Protestant who is trying to find the true Church, I find this whole Schism decidedly inconvenient. I’m quite convinced that Protestantism in its various forms isn’t true, but there is not an immediate, logical conclusion to make from this.

God bless!

 

[DeFide]

The Iambic Pen:

That sounds very good to me. However, there seems to be a great deal of knowledge that believers are required to accept, lest they be cast out. Perhaps this does not apply as fully to Orthodoxy. On the Catholic side, the problem I have is this: For example, prior to the defining of a dogma, a Catholic could be unconvinced and still remain in the Church. After the dogma is defined, this Catholic must either accept something he does not believe (and was not previously required to believe) or leave the Church. I guess my concern is that some development of doctrine may have come about, not due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but rather because of fallen human reason. But, perhaps I am completely wrong.

Would you have the same anxiety about following Jesus? If you were an apostle, would you be afraid of what difficult teaching he might propose next?

Perhaps. But that anxiety, that fear of having to strip away your personal pride and preference, shouldn’t stop you from following the beautiful truth of God.

 

[Ahimsa]

From an Orthodox perspective, the fact that the second coming has not yet arrived, might be a point in Orthodoxy’s favor. If Jesus said that all nations would hear the gospel before the parousia, and if Orthodoxy is the only major Christian tradition that has not yet spread uniformly across the globe, then perhaps the “gospel” Jesus was referring to, is Orthodoxy.

 

[DeFide]

Ahimsa:

From an Orthodox perspective, the fact that the second coming has not yet arrived, might be a point in Orthodoxy’s favor. If Jesus said that all nations would hear the gospel before the parousia, and if Orthodoxy is the only major Christian tradition that has not yet spread uniformly across the globe, then perhaps the “gospel” Jesus was referring to, is Orthodoxy.

I don’t see that at all.

Futher, I can’t imagine Christ’s instruction to his Church involves teaching that contraception is intrisically immoral and then later acceptable, as Orthodoxy has done.

scripturecatholic.com/orthodoxy.html

 

[Ahimsa]

DeFide:

I don’t see that at all.

Futher, I can imagine Christ’s instruction to his Church involves teaching that contraception is intrisically immoral and then later acceptable, as Orthodoxy has done.

Uh oh…another contraception thread.

 

[Aaron_I]

I’m not too familiar with the differences between us and the orthodox, but I’ve started looking into it some lately. I find that almost every time I find a difference, the Orthodox are the ones I’m disappointed in.

One thing I find particularly disappointing is that the different Orthodox Churches have different canons of scripture. They don’t differ greatly, of course, but it’s significant nonetheless. If I’m wrong about that, someone please correct me, but I’m pretty sure it’s correct.

 

[DeFide]

Aaron I.:

I’m not too familiar with the differences between us and the orthodox, but I’ve started looking into it some lately. I find that almost every time I find a difference, the Orthodox are the ones I’m disappointed in.

One thing I find particularly disappointing is that the different Orthodox Churches have different canons of scripture. They don’t differ greatly, of course, but it’s significant nonetheless. If I’m wrong about that, someone please correct me, but I’m pretty sure it’s correct.

That’s correct. They accept all the books accepted by the Catholic Church plus various other books, depending on which Eastern Orthodox church you look at.

This, and other issues cannot be definitively settled as objective truth by the Eastern Orthodox because any Patriarch setting himself up as the supreme and final authority on matters of faith and morals would be making himself Pope which would negate the Eastern Orthodox position. Also, any Eastern Orthodox “ecumenical council” could not occur since if anyone tried to definitively ratify the council as such, they would again run into the problem of setting themselves up as Pope and supreme governing authority.

The schism has left them paralyzed and open to slow decay.

 

[TamaraS]

The Iambic Pen:

TamaraS:
Yes, though I must be fair and say that Hesychios has made a good point. Maybe in a few more generations, the Orthodox Church will be more universal in American society (and throughout the world). After all, there has been much that has held it back in recent years.
God bless!

Okay, I’m a Catholic, but I even have to admit this- the Protestant (especially the Evangical) churches have experienced tremendous growth in recent years, but does that make them the universal church? No.
I have thought about and pondered that point that you are talking about in your post. A while back I started to wonder about something. I will admit something that I have had to learn how to cope with myself. I am what one might consider a very conservative Catholic, at least as far as the mass is concerned. I REALLY enjoy the very traditional mass, and one of the things I have been guilty of is picking apart mass (things that aren’t proper), I don’t always enjoy all of the newer music. I feel sometimes feel like we, as Catholics, are trying to attract people in the way that we think Protestant churches do. I went to a Catholic church by my house that showed very little reverence for the Eucharist, and the second half of the mass was always rushed through, omitting little things, so the priest could spend 20-30 minutes on his exciting homilies.

So now you have non-Catholic Christians that may want to convert to the Catholic Church because of the truth, history, and beautiful tradition. But they may encounter a mass that seems lifeless with no real reverence for the Eucharist (it IS Christ’s Body and Blood, right- why don’t these people act like it?), and some of the newer buildings don’t possess all that beautiful Catholic art. So they may start to ponder the Orthodox Church because they also possess that same beauty and sense of holiness that they are craving.
A lot of the Protestant churches have tried to focus on not having the traditions and all the rich decor, and have focused on great music and awesome preaching. But there are actually Christians that are drawn to the beautiful sacramental life that the Catholic Church has to offer. In my opinion, when you don’t have the Holy Eucharist, the greatest of all Sacraments, I guess you have to focus on something else. For me, of course I would love beautiful sounds and having incense fill the air , and even having a powerful homily, too, but that’s alright if it isn’t there. I go for the Eucharist only- I know that it is really his body and blood even if other people don’t seem to realize it, or if I haven’t had the “atmosphere” that I desire.
I know that the Orthodox Church possesses so much beauty and depth, but the Catholic Church does, too. They have the traditions as well as the scriptures, but so does the Catholic Church. People have tried to hold them back and they have faced persecution, but the Catholic Church, as well as other Christian churches, have also have to deal with that .
On the other hand, many of the other Christian Churches have great fellowship, music, and great homilies. But they lack many of the things that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches possess. For me, at some point I just had to lay everything out in front of myself and decide. As long as I’m breathing I will “cast my lot” with the Catholic Church.

Sorry for rambling on so long! I actually have tried to stay away from here during Lent (didn’t get too far!), but I’m going to try again.
-Tamara

 

[vern_humphrey]

The Iambic Pen:

Oh yeah, and what’s with the whole filioque debate?

The filioque debate is a lingering relic of Arianism. The Arians denied the divinity of Christ. The Nicene Creed defines the Son as “begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father.” The Holy Spirit, the third member of the Trinity “proceeds” from the Father and the Son. The Orthodox Christians would rather see both the Son and the Holy Spirit “proceed” from the Father alone.

The filioque debate really no longer exists – the Catholic Church does not insist the Orthodox accept the precise wording to achieve union.