Why not Orthodoxy?

[SFH]

Ahimsa:

One question: does the absence of a council, mean that Christ is no longer guiding a church? I’m thinking specifically of, say, the Council of Trent, which arose because of the Luther and Calvin reformations. The Orthodox had no need of a “Trent” council, because it never had such a large scale “protest” movement as you had in the Latin Church. So, maybe the lack of councils is actually a good thing.

The answer to your question is of course not, but as I indicated in my earlier post, the absence of a council suggests that there hasn’t been a need for one, and based on the past 1,000 plus years of history (Islam, Protestantism, Communism, Socialism, etc.), I just don’t find that a credible assertion.

P.S. The Orthodox also faced the same questions raised by Luther and Calvin and ultimately rejected their theology; the Orthodox just never rejected their theology in an ecumenical council that was binding on all the faithful like the Council of Trent.

 

[sjangelini]

As someone who used to be Orthodox, I can indeed attest to the anti-Catholic mentality that is deeply rooted at the core of Orthodoxy. As with Protestants, the first rule of Orthodoxy is that you are not Catholic. I wouldn’t advise you spend too much time with the Orthodox posters in the Eastern Christianity forum. In my experience they are very difficult to debate with charitably because of their own zeal which quickly degrades into polemics. I definitely get the sense that many of the Orthodox participants have an axe to grind over there.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Eden:

Even the Orthodox agree that Peter had a special role. Why would you want to go with any Church but the one with Peter; the one on whom Christ built His Church?

Well, to be fair, I think the Orthodox still claim Peter. The issue of Peter and his successors and their role in the leadership of the Church is an important one to me, and I assure you it features prominently in my considerations.

SFH:

If we believe that Christ will always provide for His Church, it follows that we should see ecumenical councils (or a church that takes the position that the council was ecumenical) whenever the need arose right down to the present day. Looking back at history, I can’t agree that the need for ecumenical councils stopped sometime in the 7th or 8th century…

Well, I’m not too sure how the Orthodox do things, as I’m just starting to look into these issues, but I haven’t seen anyone mention any great doctrinal crises in the East since the seventh council. I guess the big question is, are the doctrines defined by the newer councils the result of a greater understanding of previous doctrines, or are they the result of culturally influenced theological speculation?

In short, the Catholic Church appears to me as a living organism that has continued to develop doctrinally for 2,000 years. The Orthodox appear to have stopped developing doctrinally sometime around the 7th or 8th century, which incidentally is about the time that they split with Rome and the rest of the Catholic Church.

Alternatively, one could say, “The Catholic Church seems to have started developing new doctrines sometime around the 7th or 8th century, which incidentally is about the time they split with the rest of the Church.” I’m really not trying to be difficult. It does appear, though, that there are two ways of seeing the issue of doctrinal development. Is it possible to “develop” something so much that it doesn’t resemble what it once was?

LatinCat:

Iambicpen, you claim that the Orthodox have more of claim to being like the early Church…From my perspective, the different Branches of Catholicism function as follows: The Orthodox have become ossified because they have no way of functioning in a true teaching role to answer new questions or to explore the faith handed down by the Apostles…The Catholic Church never changes the deposit of faith but has the capabilities to define, explore, and clarify. the teachings handed down by the Apostles.

That may be so. Could it be said, then, from a Catholic perspective, that the Catholic doctrines the Orthodox find objectionable actually exist in Orthodoxy, though in an unclarified form?

For example, the Catholic Church has always held to the Apostolic teaching of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The thinking man asks the question: “How is that possible since the Eucharist looks like bread?” The Catholic Church answers by claifying its teaching: The substance of the Eucharist is transformed into the body and blood of Christ, while the accidentes (outward appearance and behavior) remain those of bread, i.e. transubstantiation. The Eastern Orthodox are horrified at this “innovation” but it is not really an innovation but a clarification.

The Orthodox don’t accept the Real Presence?

You see, had the Church behaved in an ossified manner as the Eastern Orthodox Churches do, such matters could not have been clarified. If the Church behaved as innovationists like the protestant Churches do, the Church may have become nestorian, or arian, or gnostic. However, since the early Church was neither the Eastern Orthodox Churches, nor the Protestant religion, but rather was the Catholic Church, the early Church was able to retain the faith handed down by the Apostles and clarify the meaning of that faith. Thus, really the Catholic Church has more of a claim on being like the early Church.

That is interesting. I wonder how the Orthodox Church would deal with a new heresy, if one should arise.

sjangelini:

I wouldn’t advise you spend too much time with the Orthodox posters in the Eastern Christianity forum. In my experience they are very difficult to debate with charitably because of their own zeal which quickly degrades into polemics. I definitely get the sense that many of the Orthodox participants have an axe to grind over there.

I don’t really see this difficulty when people on this forum debate with Protestants, many of whom are also very zealous. Not to be difficult (yet again ), but perhaps the reason debates with the Orthodox are so much more difficult to deal with charitably is that the Orthodox ask harder questions and offer up a better defense.

God bless!

 

[Mickey]

The Iambic Pen:

Not to be difficult (yet again ), but perhaps the reason debates with the Orthodox are so much more difficult to deal with charitably is that the Orthodox ask harder questions and offer up a better defense.

Here is an observation. I have noticed that the most vitriolic and vehemently anti-Catholic protestants, are those who were Catholic at one time. Perhaps the reason for this is that they are aggressively defending their decision to leave the Catholic Church. Most of the Orthodox on the Eastern forum were Catholic at one time. Just an observation.

 

[LatinCat]

SFH:

The answer to your question is of course not, but as I indicated in my earlier post, the absence of a council suggests that there hasn’t been a need for one, and based on the past 1,000 plus years of history (Islam, Protestantism, Communism, Socialism, etc.), I just don’t find that a credible assertion.

P.S. The Orthodox also faced the same questions raised by Luther and Calvin and ultimately rejected their theology; the Orthodox just never rejected their theology in an ecumenical council that was binding on all the faithful like the Council of Trent.

Actually the Orthodox do need a council since they are very divided on many issues: the theology of the sacraments, post death purification, ideas like transubstantiation, Church government. They funcition more like a conglomeration of Chruches, rather than as the unified body of Christ.

 

[LatinCat]

The Iambic Pen:

Well, to be fair, I think the Orthodox still claim Peter. The issue of Peter and his successors and their role in the leadership of the Church is an important one to me, and I assure you it features prominently in my considerations.

SFH:
Well, I’m not too sure how the Orthodox do things, as I’m just starting to look into these issues, but I haven’t seen anyone mention any great doctrinal crises in the East since the seventh council. I guess the big question is, are the doctrines defined by the newer councils the result of a greater understanding of previous doctrines, or are they the result of culturally influenced theological speculation?

Alternatively, one could say, “The Catholic Church seems to have started developing new doctrines sometime around the 7th or 8th century, which incidentally is about the time they split with the rest of the Church.” I’m really not trying to be difficult. It does appear, though, that there are two ways of seeing the issue of doctrinal development. Is it possible to “develop” something so much that it doesn’t resemble what it once was?

LatinCat:
That may be so. Could it be said, then, from a Catholic perspective, that the Catholic doctrines the Orthodox find objectionable actually exist in Orthodoxy, though in an unclarified form?

The Orthodox don’t accept the Real Presence?

That is interesting. I wonder how the Orthodox Church would deal with a new heresy, if one should arise.

sjangelini:
I don’t really see this difficulty when people on this forum debate with Protestants, many of whom are also very zealous. Not to be difficult (yet again ), but perhaps the reason debates with the Orthodox are so much more difficult to deal with charitably is that the Orthodox ask harder questions and offer up a better defense.

God bless!

I am not saying the Eastern Orthodox don’t believ in the real presence. What I am saying is they have no way of answering the thinking man’s questions about the real presence. You ask, how they can deal with heresy. I don’t really know since every bishop is equal in the Eastern Orthodox religion. Furthermore, I hardly find their answers or defenses any better than those of protestants.
P.S.

 

[sjangelini]

.

sjangelini:
I don’t really see this difficulty when people on this forum debate with Protestants, many of whom are also very zealous. Not to be difficult (yet again ), but perhaps the reason debates with the Orthodox are so much more difficult to deal with charitably is that the Orthodox ask harder questions and offer up a better defense.

God bless!

Maybe, but to be honest some of their arguments, such as for remarriage after divorce and their allowance of contraception, come off as similiar arguments that Protestants would use. For example, a defense I’ve heard countless times in that forum on the topic of contraception in Orthodoxy is that since the majority of Catholics use birth control then the Church has failed. I do think however that the Orthodox have a better overall defense of their beliefs than Protestants do simply because Protestants are not part of an apostolic Church and many of their arguments are almost too easy to correct and with ample amounts of evidence. However just because something is said with force doesn’t make it correct. I have to agree with Mickey in that much of this desire to make sure that Catholicism is wrong likely comes from the fact they are defending their reasons for leaving it. To be honest I think that many posters on this forum have stopped debating with them simply because it has become too tedious, not because they are intimidated by what they are saying.

 

[Mickey]

sjangelini:

.To be honest I think that many posters on this forum have stopped debating with them simply because it has become too tedious, not because they are intimidated by what they are saying.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Well, here are some of the objections/misunderstandings I currently have about Catholicism that make me more inclined to the Orthodox view. In my other thread in the Eastern Christianity forum, I’m giving a list of the objections/misunderstandings that make me more inclined to the Catholic view. So, I’m still a bit confused…

1. The Catholic (and Protestant, for that matter) belief about the Atonement. There seems to be this idea that God the Father is angry with man due to man’s sin, and the only way He can be satisfied is with man’s death. God the Son became man to satisfy the debt in man’s place. Our sin is an insult to God, and the payment is death (and damnation, for that matter). God’s ability to forgive us is conditional, in that justice absolutely must be satisfied. My problem with this is that it does not allow God to forgive us in the same unconditional way He asks us to forgive our fellow man. I find the Orthodox view, so far as I understand it, to be more logical and Scriptural. They say that Christ’s sacrifice freed man from death. The ransom, if any, was not paid to an angry God, but rather to death. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was not the Son’s attempt to spare humanity from the Father’s wrath (diving in front of the bullet, so to speak), but was rather part of God’s plan to defeat death and save His people. Christ’s death was not so much a tragic necessity, but rather a great victory over the Enemy. The Orthodox claim that the Divine Justice view is based on the eleventh century writings of St. Anselm and was not how the Early Church understood the atonement.
2. Original Sin. Catholics and Orthodox alike use the term, but, according to my limited understanding, they don’t mean the same thing by it. The Catholic view seems to be that we all have all inherited Adam and Eve’s guilt, and we are guilty until made innocent by baptism. This has led to the belief in limbo as a possible destination for unbaptized infants, and, according to the Orthodox, contributed greatly to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The Orthodox view, so far as I understand it, is that we have inherited more of a tendency to sin. Adam and Eve’s sin caused sin to enter the world, and we all bear the consequences of it. However, we do not bear any legal responsibility for their sin, but only for our own. The Catholic view seems to be that original sin alone can condemn someone to Hell, while I do not believe the Orthodox hold the same view. If I’m understanding these viewpoints properly, the Orthodox view seems more logical.
3. Development of Doctrine. The Catholic view seems to be that all doctrines pronounced throughout history, even those pronounced relatively recently (like the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility), were held in some form by the Early Church. The pronouncements only came about as the long-held beliefs were being challenged. As a Protestant, I had no trouble accepting this view, until I hit a bit of a snag. The Orthodox trace back to the same Early Church, yet do not have these doctrines (and some others). If these doctrines were present in the Early Church, why do they not exist in Orthodoxy (even in a less developed form)? The Orthodox view is that these post-Schism doctrines were not based on the teachings of the Apostles, but were rather the result of Western philosophy and the opinions of theologians. They do seem to have a bit of a case with this (this also applies to numbers 1 and 2 on this list).
4. Papal Supremacy. I have seen many quotes about all Bishops being equal, and the Bishop of Rome’s authority being based more on Rome’s political importance than on Peter’s apostolic authority. Of course, the reverse is also true, and that’s my number one question for the Orthodox. My main concern is that the role of the Pope grew far beyond where it should have been after the Patriarchate of Rome separated from the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. As the sole Patriarchate in the West, perhaps Rome began to see itself as having more authority than it was supposed to have?

I have no problem with the doctrines shared by the two Churches, and I have no desire to return to Protestantism. I see so much that the two Churches share, and it pains me to see the division between them. However, I must acknowledge that a choice between them must be made, at least at this time in history. Perhaps some of you could help me with some of these issues of mine. I’m not trying to mock Catholicism. After all, I also have similar serious questions about Orthodoxy. God bless and thanks to all of you for your help these past few months!

 

[JSmitty2005]

The Iambic Pen:

Is it possible to “develop” something so much that it doesn’t resemble what it once was?

Yes. No salvation outside the Church and capital punishment are just two examples of doctrines that have been “developed” so much that many people see the Church teaching pacifistic universalism.

 

[levi86]

The Iambic Pen:

1. Development of Doctrine. The Catholic view seems to be that all doctrines pronounced throughout history, even those pronounced relatively recently (like the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility), were held in some form by the Early Church. The pronouncements only came about as the long-held beliefs were being challenged. As a Protestant, I had no trouble accepting this view, until I hit a bit of a snag. The Orthodox trace back to the same Early Church, yet do not have these doctrines (and some others). If these doctrines were present in the Early Church, why do they not exist in Orthodoxy (even in a less developed form)? The Orthodox view is that these post-Schism doctrines were not based on the teachings of the Apostles, but were rather the result of Western philosophy and the opinions of theologians. They do seem to have a bit of a case with this (this also applies to numbers 1 and 2 on this list).

I think this is especially pertinent with respect to purgatory. This seems to be a much later development (5th century) all other references to life after death before this point are ambiguous at best, if anything they support the Orthodox view. All of the Apostolic Fathers namely Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus seemed to have an Orthodox view, in that the dead went to a “place of waiting” after death and that they would stay there until the resurrection

If the Earliest Church Fathers didn’t believe in Purgatory then why should we?

 

[DeFide]

The Iambic Pen:

1. The Catholic (and Protestant, for that matter) belief about the Atonement. There seems to be this idea that God the Father is angry with man due to man’s sin, and the only way He can be satisfied is with man’s death.
   …
2. Original Sin. … The Catholic view seems to be that original sin alone can condemn someone to Hell, …
3. Development of Doctrine. …
4. Papal Supremacy… My main concern is that the role of the Pope grew far beyond where it should have been …

Some of your ideas of what the “Catholic philosophy” is on subjects seems very flawed and even Protestant in some cases. Did an Eastern Orthodox person tell you this? You should look into different Catholic sources, and perhaps some books from Catholic Answers. The Catechism is an excellent starting point.

1. Christ is paying the infinite price for us poor beggars who smashed something we couldn’t pay for:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411fea1sb3.asp

(Angry God theory sounds like it came from a Protestant theologian)

1. Being unaffected by the real damage of original sin does not mean that our free will is thrown out the window. Mary could have rejected God’s graces (but didn’t). God pours out his expiation on the cross through his sacraments, including baptism. We cannot reject baptism without rejecting Christ’s sacrifice for us:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9201frs.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Grace_What_It_Is.asp

catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp

3 & 4. This is bit of a circular reasoning by just assuming that Eastern Orthodox beliefs are those of the Early Church, while Catholic beliefs are not. The reverse is more accurate. Just because Eastern Orthodox are in doctrinal paralysis, does not mean that they did not eject certain Catholic beliefs at the schism. All schismatics eject certain Catholic beliefs, otherwise they’d have no reason to remain separate. Papal supremacy, the canon of Scripture, and other beliefs have been continuously held both before and after the schism by the Catholic Church while they have been rejected or not recognized to various degrees by the various Eastern Orthodox churches. Maybe you could point out certain doctrines of interest that you think are inventions.

Futher, the historical Church founded by Christ has never been afflicted by the doctrinal paralysis and slow decay of the Eastern Orthodox, as can be seen for 2000 years in the condemnation of heretics by the Catholic Church AND its ability to develop more fully beliefs and creeds in response to heretics who would try to twist creeds out of their intended meaning or deny truths. In fact, that’s how the Nicene Creed came about… yes, even the version the Eastern Orthodox approve of. It was changed to combat heresy, a feat that would be impossible for the Eastern Orthodox today.

I’m perplexed a little by your fear of the role of the Papacy growing too far. What did it grow out from? Once you realize that it had even some form of supremacy (although the records indicate more), the case is closed. Either the Pope has a real, functional, purposeful primacy, as Catholics hold, or he has no real primacy, as the Eastern Orthodox hold.

Jimmy Akin’s article on this covers it well.

Keep on studying!

 

[JSmitty2005]

The Iambic Pen:

In my other thread in the Eastern Christianity forum, I’m giving a list of the objections/misunderstandings that make me more inclined to the Catholic view…After all, I also have similar serious questions about Orthodoxy.

I’m just curious, can I have the link to your other list?

 

[DeFide]

levi86:

If the Earliest Church Fathers didn’t believe in Purgatory then why should we?

Huh?

Try this:
catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp

 

[levi86]

DeFide:

Huh?

Try this:
catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp

Nice work, thanks for that

God bless.

 

[Aaron_I]

1. The Catholic (and Protestant, for that matter) belief about the Atonement. There seems to be this idea that God the Father is angry with man due to man’s sin, and the only way He can be satisfied is with man’s death. God the Son became man to satisfy the debt in man’s place. Our sin is an insult to God, and the payment is death (and damnation, for that matter). God’s ability to forgive us is conditional, in that justice absolutely must be satisfied. My problem with this is that it does not allow God to forgive us in the same unconditional way He asks us to forgive our fellow man. I find the Orthodox view, so far as I understand it, to be more logical and Scriptural. They say that Christ’s sacrifice freed man from death. The ransom, if any, was not paid to an angry God, but rather to death. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was not the Son’s attempt to spare humanity from the Father’s wrath (diving in front of the bullet, so to speak), but was rather part of God’s plan to defeat death and save His people. Christ’s death was not so much a tragic necessity, but rather a great victory over the Enemy. The Orthodox claim that the Divine Justice view is based on the eleventh century writings of St. Anselm and was not how the Early Church understood the atonement.

This seems like a false dichotomy. I definitely learned about the Divine Justice view at my Catholic high school, but I seriously doubt the Orthodox have a monopoly on the “victory over death” view. I don’t have my catechism with me at the moment, so I can’t reference it, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find this “Orthodox” view right there. It would probably be worthwhile for you to see what the CCC says about the crucifixion. Anyways, you should understand that it was fitting but not necessary that Christ make recompense for our sins. You find it ridiculous that God would have to receive some kind of satisfaction for our sins, but is it not equally ridiculous that God would have to die to defeat death? Of course it’s ridiculous because God isn’t bound by anything, but it certainly is fitting. One last note on this topic: being just does not make God angry. You can’t understand how God’s mercy could be conditional, but isn’t that the point of confession not to mention something as basic as having to believe in Jesus to be saved?

1. Original Sin. Catholics and Orthodox alike use the term, but, according to my limited understanding, they don’t mean the same thing by it. The Catholic view seems to be that we all have all inherited Adam and Eve’s guilt, and we are guilty until made innocent by baptism. This has led to the belief in limbo as a possible destination for unbaptized infants, and, according to the Orthodox, contributed greatly to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The Orthodox view, so far as I understand it, is that we have inherited more of a tendency to sin. Adam and Eve’s sin caused sin to enter the world, and we all bear the consequences of it. However, we do not bear any legal responsibility for their sin, but only for our own. The Catholic view seems to be that original sin alone can condemn someone to Hell, while I do not believe the Orthodox hold the same view. If I’m understanding these viewpoints properly, the Orthodox view seems more logical.

This seems like another false dichotomy. Catholics certainly believe that concupiscence comes from original sin. Again, for the full Catholic opinion on original sin you should check the catechism, but I don’t have mine with me at the moment. From what I understand, original sin leads to a fallen state in man. It is not some guilt laid upon man, but due to sin we no longer have the same state of grace that our first parents had. It’s not because of some offense or legal culpability that we Go to hell, but because of a loss in grace. I don’t particularly find this loss in grace to be in contention with the idea of inheriting guilt. And for the record, original sin carrying guilt comes from Augustine if not anyone sooner, so it’s from the 4th century at the very latest.

As far as purgatory goes, it is a perfectly logical idea that I’d imagine even the Orthodox would have to consider. One cannot be saved without baptism and the unborn do not have the chance even for baptism by desire. Therefore they are in hell, but since they have commited no personal sin, their time in hell is not painful by any means, but because they are still separate from the presence of God, it is a decidedly neutral existence. Limbo has recently fallen into disfavor, but not because of some brilliant burst of logic. Rather someone decided that a merciful God would have mercy on the unbaptized babies. Of course, this requires God to work outside of his sacraments. It’s not impossible, but not certain either.

 

[Aaron_I]

3. Development of Doctrine. The Catholic view seems to be that all doctrines pronounced throughout history, even those pronounced relatively recently (like the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility), were held in some form by the Early Church. The pronouncements only came about as the long-held beliefs were being challenged. As a Protestant, I had no trouble accepting this view, until I hit a bit of a snag. The Orthodox trace back to the same Early Church, yet do not have these doctrines (and some others). If these doctrines were present in the Early Church, why do they not exist in Orthodoxy (even in a less developed form)? The Orthodox view is that these post-Schism doctrines were not based on the teachings of the Apostles, but were rather the result of Western philosophy and the opinions of theologians. They do seem to have a bit of a case with this (this also applies to numbers 1 and 2 on this list).

Why aren’t these things found in Orthodoxy? The answer is found in Matthew 7:24-27. What I find interesting is that the Orthodox abhor development in doctrine and yet believe that heaven is a state during which we eternally get closer to God. Personally, I find it more logical that during this life we can grow in knowledge of God but that during heaven we will experience God to the fullness of our abilities.
*
If you really desire to understand theological development from a good Catholic source, I encourage you to read Cardinal Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. I haven’t read it, but it’s supposed to be excellent. I have found one Church Father quote you’ll be interested to here. This comes from St. Vincent of Lerins who died around 450. “Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly there is, and the greatest . . . But it is truly progress and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself; by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily . . . and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion. The progress of religion in souls is like the growth of bodies, which, in the course of years, evolve and develop, but still remain what they were . . . Although in the course of time something evolved from those first seeds and has now expanded under careful cultivation, nothing of the characteristics of the seeds is changed. Granted that appearance, beauty and distinction has been added, still, the same nature of each kind remains.” It seems that the Orthodox have made at least one change: denying the development of doctrine.*

1. Papal Supremacy. I have seen many quotes about all Bishops being equal, and the Bishop of Rome’s authority being based more on Rome’s political importance than on Peter’s apostolic authority. Of course, the reverse is also true, and that’s my number one question for the Orthodox. My main concern is that the role of the Pope grew far beyond where it should have been after the Patriarchate of Rome separated from the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. As the sole Patriarchate in the West, perhaps Rome began to see itself as having more authority than it was supposed to have?

The primacy of the Roman See has been held from the earliest times. Pope Gelasius in 494 referred to Rome as “that see which the Most High ordained to be above aill others.” There’s plenty of even earlier examples of the primacy of the Roman See. Of course the Orthodox will grant a certain primacy to Rome, but it is mostly ceremonial if not purely theoretical. They deny Rome any true authority, however. The Dictatus Papae, issued in 1075, contains many claims that we find common today including infallibility. It’s amazing how quickly after the schism that the Roman Church was citing scriptural proofs for papal authority. Clearly a gradual change is impossible. One of the sides broke sharply from the other. I see way too many examples of the primacy of Rome in the early church for it to be entirely some powerless title as the Orthodox would have us believe. Consider this quote from Iraneus in 189 “With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” Doesn’t sound like an empty title to me.

 

[Aaron_I]

I’d encourage you to read the CA tracts about the pope and about Eastern Orthodoxy in particular. I don’t know if you were aware of it, but most of the East including the patriarch of Constantinople had fallen prey to the arian heresy in the early Church. The patriarch was excommunicated by Pope Julian in 343 and Constantinople remained in schism until 398. THAT is what happens when the bishops have equal power. Remember, Satan desired all the apostles, but Jesus prayed for Peter that HIS faith may not fail (Luke 22:31-32). I’ll be clinging to him as hard as I can.

In one of your earlier posts, you mentioned this article. I sincerely hope you have better articles to defend your interest in Orthodoxy. To be honest, valid arguments can be made for Orthodoxy, but they’re not to be found in a short article that speaks of it’s opponent condescendingly. I particularly liked the part about icons versus statues. I couldn’t help but smile in remembering that the East was the home of the inconoclasts and that without the West, they wouldn’t have their precious icons today.

I would like to reinforce one last time that development of doctrine is okay. Consider the greatest commandment given by Jesus: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.” This of course is the Shema Yisrael found in Deuteronomy 6. Jesus quotes the prayer word for word (even including the “hear of israel”), with the exception that he adds the phrase “with all your mind.” Why would he do this? Because a change in philosophy among people. In the time during which the Old Testament was written, people viewed the human person as composed of two elements: the body and the soul. However, Aristotle used soul to refer to the life force of all things. To set apart the human soul from animal souls, a different vocabulary was needed. For this reason Jesus added the phrase with all your mind. After all, reason has always been regarded as the starkest difference between us and animals.

The Catholic Church does the same as this. We don’t change the truths we hold, but we better define them for the good of the faithful. In the above example, there would have been no reason for the Deuteronomy version to contain the phrase “with all your mind”. That would have been understood by them because they associated it with soul. In a later time when people associated soul with life force, the clarification was necessary.

Well, I spent a lot of time on this post, so I hope it helps.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

JSmitty2005:

Yes. No salvation outside the Church and capital punishment are just two examples of doctrines that have been “developed” so much that many people see the Church teaching pacifistic universalism.

The Catholic Church has changed its teaching on these issues? Or are people who see a new doctrine simply misinterpreting the “development?”

I’m just curious, can I have the link to your other list?

Sure! Go to Why Orthodoxy? posts 138-139.

DeFide:

Some of your ideas of what the “Catholic philosophy” is on subjects seems very flawed and even Protestant in some cases. Did an Eastern Orthodox person tell you this?

Well, Orthodox objections to Catholicism did cause me to give Catholic doctrines a second look, yes. Protestantism has no sufficient historical basis for its theology, but Orthodoxy does.

You should look into different Catholic sources, and perhaps some books from Catholic Answers. The Catechism is an excellent starting point.

I have been looking into Catholic resources for some time. The problem is, the apologetics are almost exclusively focused on Protestant objections. The Orthodox objections to Catholicism come from a different “angle” of sorts, and are not so easily refuted.

1. Christ is paying the infinite price for us poor beggars who smashed something we couldn’t pay for:
   catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411fea1sb3.asp

Thanks for the article! It certainly explains the Catholic perspective quite well. It’s actually what I’ve always thought. It’s only since I’ve discovered that the Orthodox look at it differently that I’ve had to re-examine this issue.

Angry God theory sounds like it came from a Protestant theologian

Jonathan Edwards, maybe? Actually, the Catholic/Protestant view of atonement seems to give different wills to the Father and the Son. Rather than the Trinity working as one to free humanity from sin and death, as the Orthodox see it (or so I think), the Father demands justice and the Son steps in to “take the bullet,” as I’ve said before.

1. Being unaffected by the real damage of original sin does not mean that our free will is thrown out the window. Mary could have rejected God’s graces (but didn’t). God pours out his expiation on the cross through his sacraments, including baptism. We cannot reject baptism without rejecting Christ’s sacrifice for us:

Very well. After all, Adam and Eve were created free of original sin, and they still were able to choose sin. I guess I have trouble with the idea that the damage of original sin is sufficient to damn someone apart from any actual sin on their part (especially since this very site, in one of the articles you mentioned, said that all who go to Hell go there purely because of their own choice).

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9201frs.asp

catholic.com/library/Grace_What_It_Is.asp

catholic.com/library/Ear…ant_Baptism.asp

Thanks for the links!

3 & 4. This is bit of a circular reasoning by just assuming that Eastern Orthodox beliefs are those of the Early Church, while Catholic beliefs are not. The reverse is more accurate. Just because Eastern Orthodox are in doctrinal paralysis, does not mean that they did not eject certain Catholic beliefs at the schism.

This is the problem I have, as no one has been able to point to a specific point where the Orthodox rejected Catholic doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, or Original Sin. The Orthodox claim that the Catholic Church developed these doctrines after the Schism, and I have yet to see anything contradicting this.

Continued…

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

…Continued

All schismatics eject certain Catholic beliefs, otherwise they’d have no reason to remain separate. Papal supremacy, the canon of Scripture, and other beliefs have been continuously held both before and after the schism by the Catholic Church while they have been rejected or not recognized to various degrees by the various Eastern Orthodox churches. Maybe you could point out certain doctrines of interest that you think are inventions.

Papal supremacy does not appear to have been fully recognized in the East before the Schism, so it’s hard to say they rejected a universal doctrine of the Church. You make a good point about the canon, and I should address that to the Orthodox in my other post. Thanks for the reminder! The doctrines of The Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility and Original Sin (as Augustine understood it, anyway) were not “developed” at the time of the Schism, so while they might not be considered “inventions,” the fact that they were not recognized as doctrines before the Schism at least suggests that the Orthodox are not idiots for not believing them.

Futher, the historical Church founded by Christ has never been afflicted by the doctrinal paralysis and slow decay of the Eastern Orthodox, as can be seen for 2000 years in the condemnation of heretics by the Catholic Church AND its ability to develop more fully beliefs and creeds in response to heretics who would try to twist creeds out of their intended meaning or deny truths.

The problem is I have not seen anyone mention specific heresies that attacked Orthodoxy after the Schism. By contrast, Catholicism was hit with the Protestant Reformation, probably the most successful heresy in history. As far as the slow decay of Orthodoxy goes, it seems to me that the Church has stayed strong in the face of long persecution by Islamic and Communist governments. Is Catholicism as strong in Western Europe as Orthodoxy is in Eastern Europe? That’s an honest question, as I really don’t know.

I’m perplexed a little by your fear of the role of the Papacy growing too far. What did it grow out from? Once you realize that it had even some form of supremacy (although the records indicate more), the case is closed. Either the Pope has a real, functional, purposeful primacy, as Catholics hold, or he has no real primacy, as the Eastern Orthodox hold.

I’m not afraid of the role of the Papacy growing too far. However, the fact that Papal authority has grown since the Schism at least makes me wonder if the Pope is really supposed to lead the whole Church. After all, it could be the case that the sole Western Patriarch started to claim that his jurisdiction was the whole world, rather than just Western Europe.

Jimmy Akin’s article on this covers it well.

Thanks! I’ve read it a few times during the course of this search.

Keep on studying!

Will do.

Aaron I:

I’d encourage you to read the CA tracts about the pope and about Eastern Orthodoxy in particular.

They have been helpful.

I don’t know if you were aware of it, but most of the East including the patriarch of Constantinople had fallen prey to the arian heresy in the early Church. The patriarch was excommunicated by Pope Julian in 343 and Constantinople remained in schism until 398. THAT is what happens when the bishops have equal power.

Definitely a point in Catholicism’s favor. Still, I have not seen any heresy since the Schism. Of course, I haven’t really looked into it yet.

In one of your earlier posts, you mentioned this article. I sincerely hope you have better articles to defend your interest in Orthodoxy.

Well, the article started me on the path of serious inquiry, but my search didn’t stop there. I do find the condescending tone inappropriate, but the information is interesting. What exactly do you find inaccurate about it?

The Catholic Church does the same as this. We don’t change the truths we hold, but we better define them for the good of the faithful. In the above example, there would have been no reason for the Deuteronomy version to contain the phrase “with all your mind”. That would have been understood by them because they associated it with soul. In a later time when people associated soul with life force, the clarification was necessary.

That makes sense. The issue about development of doctrine that I have is I wonder if the disputed doctrines were actually taught by Jesus and the Apostles, or if they were the result of theorizing.

Well, I spent a lot of time on this post, so I hope it helps.

It did. Thank you.

God bless!