Why not Orthodoxy?

[havemercy]

I’m Ortho-Catholic? Both? haha Maybe.

I was baptized Greek Orthodox, I turned to Protestantism earlier in my teens, and now I’m Catholic. I don’t reject Eastern Orthodoxy, but I do believe in the Papacy. So I guess that makes me the supreme heretic? Swweeeeeet.

I don’t care too much for the ‘filoque’ issue. Ultimately, it seems trivial. The Trinity is a mystery. One of my favorites…

One day, after spending many fruitless nights trying to fully comprehend the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, St. Augustine was walking along the beach as an attempt to clear and sooth his mind. As he was wandering, he came across a young boy playing on the beach. The boy had dug a hole in the sand, and was racing back and forth between the ocean and his hole filling his bucket from the sea and emptying it into his hole.

St. Augustine watched the boy for a few minutes, then approached, asking:“My son, what is it you are trying to accomplish?”.
The boy looked up and said, “I’m going to empty the ocean into this hole”.
St. Augustine laughed, saying, “My dear child, you cannot possibly empty the ocean into that small hole!”.
The boy stopped, looked the saint straight in the eye, and said in a voice that struck St. Augustine straight to his soul, “I have a far better chance of emptying the oceans of the world into this tiny hole, than you have of completely understanding the mystery of the Trinity, Augustine.”

With that, the boy vanished, leaving St. Augustine alone on the beach. The saint realized that he had been visited by an angel, and realized that he had reached the limits of his comprehension of the Mystery.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

In my other thread, there were a couple posts made (by Fr. Ambrose and Palamite) about how the united Church did approve of divorce and remarriage at one time. Therefore, the Catholic Church cannnot accuse the Orthodox Church of bowing to modern pressure by allowing it. Here are the posts:

1. The consistent claim is made by Rome that up until the Schism of 1054 the bishops of the Catholic East accepted the Pope of Rome as the full and supreme authority in the Catholic Church (of which they were a part) and they were under his authority, even if there were niggles from time to time.

1. But, when the canons on marriage are discussed, the claim is then made that these Eastern Catholic bishops from the 6th century onwards (the time of the first canonical formulation of divorce and remarriage laws) somehow formed a part of an already independent “Orthodox” Church which was separate from Rome and formulated its own canon law over which Rome had no control.

If Rome had no control over the Eastern Catholic Church in the 6th centry and onwards (Hardon is already labelling this 6th century Church as the “Orthodox Church”), it kind of blows apart many Roman Catholic arguments of papal authority in other spheres!! It even means that the Ecumenical Councils (Constantinople II and III, Nicea II) which took place in the East in the 6th-8th centuries were not in fact Catholic Councils but those of an already independent and dissident “Orthodox Church.”

So, either you have to accept responsibility for the canons concerning divorce and remarriage accepting them as part of the canon law of the Catholic Church under the Pope or you have to admit that the Eastern Church had already passed out of the authority of the Pope by the 6th century.

The argument that the Pope had no choice holds no water - he had 500 years until the Schism to express his disagreement and he never did.

(continued below)

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

(continued from above)

Palamite:

The subject of what is tolerable in relation to marriage is a complicated one - you will find disagreements amongst the Fathers on this. Interestingly, what you won’t find are significant disagreements about what the “ideal” is, what the “goods” are in this area. I think this is telling - namely, that what we are discussing here is more a pastoral matter than a dogmatic one. Yes, it has dogmatic foundations, but ultimatly is a question of what “binding and loosing” hierarchs believed was beneficial to the flock in terms of “spiritual medicine”.

For example, it is the ideal that one only ever have one spouse if one is to be married at all. This is in fact the root of the ancient prohibition of Priests having a second wife under any circumstances - this doesn’t simply refer to men who have been widowed after their ordination, but also to men who were widowed and remarried; they’re not, according to the letter of the canons, eligable for ordination.

Here is what St.Basil the Great, in his “fourth canon” writes…

As regards trigamy and polygamy we have decreed the same canon as in the case of digamy, analogously. For it is a year in the case of digamy, but two for the others. As for those who are guilty of trigamy, they are excommunicated for the space of three years and often four years. For such a marriage is no longer to be called a marriage, but polygamy, or rather mitigated fornication. Wherefore the Lord told the Samaritaness who had had five husbands in succession, " and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband," as being no longer themselves wothy when they have exceeded the measure of digamy to be called by the appellation of husband or wife. We have taken to the custom of condemning trigamists to five years’ excommunication not on the ground of any canon but only on the ground of usage followed by those who have preceded us. But it behooves us not to exclude them entirely from the Church, but instead to entitle them to listening in some two years or three, and thereafter to permit them to co-standers, though obliged to abstain from communion with that which is good, and then after exhibiting some fruit of repentance, let them be restored to the status of persons entitled to communion.

While the above would apply just as much to being widowed as it would to being divorced, St.Basil also elsewhere clearly recognized that divorce and remarriage, while sinful, could be tolerated by the Church. In his ninth canon, he writes…

“a woman who deserts her husband becomes an adulteress in case she comes to another man. The man, on the other hand, whom she left is pardonable, and a woman who cohabits with him is not to be condemned. If however, a man deserts his wife and comes to another woman, he too becomes an
adulterer because he is making her to be an adulteress; and the woman cohabiting with him is an adulteress because she has taken another woman’s husband for herself.”

Interestingly, St.Basil conceeds that in theory if not in practice, the situation of a wife betrayed by adultery or otherwise abandoned also (in justice) could be allowed to divorce and remarry - however he recognized that Roman Law would (unfairly) not allow this. Again, from the 9th canon…

“The sentence of the Lord that it is unlawful to withdraw from wedlock, save on account of fornication, applies, according to the argument, to men and women alike. Custom, however, does not so obtain. Yet, in relation”

…and from his 21st canon…

“The reason for these inconsistancies is not easily to be found, but at any rate a custom (The Roman Custom) to this effect has obtained pevalence.”

It is important to note that the Canons of St.Basil were approved by the 4th, 6th, and 7th Ecumenical Councils. While it is true that the specific canons of individual Hierarchs (like those of St.Basil the Great) and local Councils which were approved by Ecumenical Councils were not in all of their details universally applied, what is true is that this approval does reflect well upon their doctrinal content. That the Latin Church toward the end of the first millenia had a nasty habit of not really taking to heart many of the canons it willingly signed on to (ex. those relating to iconography, married clerics, toleration of divorce under certain circumstances, etc) says more about the decline of the Western Church than it does about the uprightness of the Councils and their canons.

Any thoughts? They key Orthodox argument against Catholicism seems to be that the Catholic Church has been inventing new doctrines ever since the Schism (and then, oddly enough, accusing Orthodoxy of rejecting them), while Orthodoxy has been teaching the same thing since the time of the Apostles.

God bless!

 

[WBB]

AJV:

Not so! I dont know much theology, but the Father is considered the ‘source’ of the Trinity. So the Orthodox argue as to whether the statement dimishes that role.

Speaking of which, I thought that both Catholics and Orthodox agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

I don’t particularly care for the use of the term “source” when describing the Blessed Trinity. It would seem to say that at some point the Son and the Holy Spirit did not exist which is heretical.

 

[WBB]

The Iambic Pen:

Any thoughts? They key Orthodox argument against Catholicism seems to be that the Catholic Church has been inventing new doctrines ever since the Schism (and then, oddly enough, accusing Orthodoxy of rejecting them), while Orthodoxy has been teaching the same thing since the time of the Apostles.

God bless!

The Catholic understanding is that no new doctrine can be “invented”, however, Sacred Tradition can be used to clarify the faith and when the need arises.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

WBB:

The Catholic understanding is that no new doctrine can be “invented”, however, Sacred Tradition can be used to clarify the faith and when the need arises.

I may have asked a similar question earlier in the thread, but could it be said, then, that the doctrines Catholics have developed exist in Orthodoxy too, but that the Orthodox don’t have the mechanism in place to develop them fully?

God bless!

 

[JSmitty2005]

The Iambic Pen:

Yes, but they also reject post-Schism doctrines like the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Original Sin and the Atonement (as Anselsm understood it). Does this make them in any way heretical, or is a heretic one who rejects a previously held belief? To continue along that line of thinking, are modern Protestants heretics? After all, the vast majority of them didn’t reject Catholicism. They weren’t part of it to begin with.

Eden, thanks for the link. It certainly sheds a new light on Photius. I’ll have to see what the Orthodox have to say about it.

God bless!

I don’t think that the Orthodox totally reject the doctrines above, but they have different understandings of them. For example, they still believe Mary was sinless, but our understanding of Original Sin necessitated the Immaculate Conception in order for that to be true. They understand Original Sin differently.

Yes, Protestants are heretics. They are following a heretical religion whether or not they made a conscious decision to. However, they are not to be held guilty of this. That is why the Church distinguishes between formal heresy (guys like Luther and Calvin or Catholics that leave the Church today) and material heresy (modern Protestants that were born into it).

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

JSmitty2005:

The Iambic Pen:

Yes, but they also reject post-Schism doctrines like the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Original Sin and the Atonement (as Anselsm understood it). Does this make them in any way heretical, or is a heretic one who rejects a previously held belief? To continue along that line of thinking, are modern Protestants heretics? After all, the vast majority of them didn’t reject Catholicism. They weren’t part of it to begin with.

I don’t think that the Orthodox totally reject the doctrines above, but they have different understandings of them. For example, they still believe Mary was sinless, but our understanding of Original Sin necessitated the Immaculate Conception in order for that to be true. They understand Original Sin differently.

I think the Orthodox would see the phrase, “our understanding of Original Sin necessitated the Immaculate Conception…” to be very telling. They would probably say that they don’t accept the Immaculate Conception because they still have the understanding of Original Sin (I don’t think they even use the term) held by the Early Church. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has come up with a new understanding, which, in turn, required other new doctrines to be developed. The Orthodox are very wary of “new understandings” and “developments,” because they believe the faith was handed down by the Apostles, and that God doesn’t expect the Church to “discover” the truth through speculation centuries later.

Yes, Protestants are heretics. They are following a heretical religion whether or not they made a conscious decision to. However, they are not to be held guilty of this. That is why the Church distinguishes between formal heresy (guys like Luther and Calvin or Catholics that leave the Church today) and material heresy (modern Protestants that were born into it).

Thanks for explaining the distinction! So, would an accurate definition of a heretic be “one who knows the truth about something, but then rejects it?” If that’s the case, then is it true that the Catholic Church does not accuse the Orthodox of heresy for not accepting doctrines developed after the Schism?

Thanks for your post!

God bless!

 

[Mickey]

The Iambic Pen:

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has come up with a new understanding, which, in turn, required other **new **doctrines to be developed.

Is this your opinion, or are you regurgitating something you read on the Eastern forum? Here is a perspective offered by by an Eastern Catholic who answers questions for EWTN’s website. It may offer you a more well-rounded and less biased understanding.

**Immaculate Conception:
**
Concerning the Eastern Catholic understanding of the Immaculate Conception, I will offer a very brief summary of the issue. First, the theological seeds of the Immaculate Conception originated in the East, and were later spread to the West. Since the earliest centuries the Eastern Churches have celebrated “St. Anne’s Conception of the Theotokos,” on December 9. Only later was this feast transplanted to the West, where it is celebrated on December 8.

In the Eastern Catholic Churches we have maintained much of the theological heritage of the Eastern Church Fathers. We try to be very Patristic in our theology, and generally model our theological approach after the great Eastern Fathers. In the West, theology has developed somewhat differently. Beginning in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries a whole new style of theology developed, known as Scholasticism. Scholasticism utilized a great deal of philosophical terminology from the writings of Aristotle. It essentially created a whole new way to approach theological questions, and answered them with very specific philosophical terminology. Scholasticism was the dominant theological system in the Western Church until the beginning of the 20th century.

In 1854 Pope Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Being a good Western theologian, he used a great deal of scholastic terminology in the definition. Here it is, with the specifically scholastic terms emphasized by me:

“We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the MERITS of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every STAIN of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful.”

There are two terms used in the definition that are completely foreign to Eastern Christian theology: “merits” and “stain.” Both of these terms are of very late origin, and came to mean very specific things in the scholastic system. But to us Eastern Christians, who still use only the theological expressions of the Church Fathers, these terms are completely alien. So is this a problem, or isn’t it?

I don’t believe that this a problem at all. If something is written in a language that you can’t understand, you simply TRANSLATE it! With some very basic knowledge of scholastic theological terminology, what Pope Pius IX is saying becomes very obvious: From the very first moment of her existence, Mary was miraculously preserved from all sin. We Easterns would go even a step further: she wasn’t just preserved from sin, but was graced with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Also, the definition speaks of Mary being “free from every stain of original sin.” In the East we have always spoken of Mary’s perfect holiness. The language “free from every stain of original sin” is really a somewhat negative formulation in comparison. In fact, this definition speaks of Mary as being “absent of something (the stain of sin),” while we would prefer to speak of her as being “full of something (the Holy Spirit).” In this regard I think that the Eastern approach makes a marvelous contribution to the understanding of this dogma. So does Pope John Paul II:

“In fact, the negative formulation of the Marian privilege, which resulted from the earlier controversies about original sin that arose in the West, must always be complemented by the positive expression of Mary’s holiness more explicitly stressed in the Eastern tradition.” (Pope John Paul II, General Audience June 12, 1996)

So, the Holy Father agrees that the Eastern understanding of the Immaculate Conception actually helps to elucidate the meaning behind the definition.

**Anthony **

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Mickey:

Is this your opinion, or are you regurgitating something you read on the Eastern forum?

Nah, just expressing my interpretation of the Orthodox viewpoint. I’m still not sure how I personally feel about all of this. Thank you very much for your explanation, as it really helped a great deal. Perhaps East and West really can be fully united someday!

God bless!

 

[scylla]

The Iambic Pen:

Nah, just expressing my interpretation of the Orthodox viewpoint. I’m still not sure how I personally feel about all of this. Thank you very much for your explanation, as it really helped a great deal. Perhaps East and West really can be fully united someday!

God bless!

If you live to see it, then you would be Catholic anyways!

I see most of this is ultimately going to centered on the Papacy. I never really had to go through the struggles you are going to, in regards to Orthodoxy and Catholicism, mine were more on the line of Non-denominationalism(Protestantism) and Catholicism since I am a revert. I was ultimately led to Catholicism since truth is definite and matters. (this is a huge issue and can take up a thread).
The point is Christian faith demands ultimate truth, and for some it takes a while to really clarify, which is why infallibility is so necessary for my faith to exist, or else I can believe whatever I want. I think I wrote more about this in a previous infallibility thread with you.
I just wanted to include more than just a quick little sentence with a smiley face.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Mickey]

The Iambic Pen:

Perhaps East and West really can be fully united someday!

God bless!

It is my dream come true!

Peace and blessings to you.

 

[Eden]

The Iambic Pen:

Perhaps East and West really can be fully united someday!

God bless!

May it be so! With God all things are possible.

 

[JSmitty2005]

The Iambic Pen:

The Orthodox are very wary of “new understandings” and “developments,” because they believe the faith was handed down by the Apostles, and that God doesn’t expect the Church to “discover” the truth through speculation centuries later.

I actually agree with this very strongly. Sadly, Vatican II has caused me to lose MUCH faith in the Church because of it’s “development.” And, yeah yeah, I’ve heard 100,000 times that the Church can’t err, blah, blah, blah, “the gates cannot prevail.” Uh huh, well I’m beginning to wonder. Some of the attempts that apologists make to reconcile pre-Vat 2 teachings w/ post-Vat 2 teachings seem like quite a stretch. In my opinion, doctrines can’t develop and even if they could, V2 did much more than “develop” anything…it abandoned Tradition. I wouldn’t be surprised if I make my way into Orthodoxy someday. Sorry guys, it’s either that or SSPX. Where has the Church gone?

 

[Eden]

JSmitty2005:

I wouldn’t be surprised if I make my way into Orthodoxy someday. Sorry guys, it’s either that or SSPX. Where has the Church gone?

Say it isn’t so! Maybe you should talk to Mickey about being Byzantine Catholic.

 

[Mickey]

JSmitty2005:

I Where has the Church gone?

Do not be sifted as wheat. Your line of thinking could also lead you into protestantism.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Mickey:

Do not be sifted as wheat. Your line of thinking could also lead you into protestantism.

No, not I. The Church has protested against itself. Pius X would have condemned/excommunicated/anathematized many of the bishops (including the Roman one) in the “Church” over the past 40 years. He warned us. We didn’t listen. Look where we are. Although the destruction of the Liturgy was a tragedy, the change in direction of the Church with regard to false religions is irreconcilable with the Church’s previous teachings. Ecumenism, religious liberty, and freedom of speech are evil; there is NO salvation outside of the Church; and relativism and indifference are a result of all of these teachings that the Church has strayed from. She is a traitor and has betrayed Herself. I think I’m leaving the forums. Goodbye, guys.

 

[DeFide]

JSmitty2005:

…it abandoned Tradition.

Could you be specific? Maybe you could start a new topic about what you think is “the worst abandonment”, so that it can be addressed.

 

[Mickey]

JSmitty2005:

No, not I. The Church has protested against itself. Pius X would have condemned/excommunicated/anathematized many of the bishops (including the Roman one) in the “Church” over the past 40 years. He warned us. We didn’t listen. Look where we are. Although the destruction of the Liturgy was a tragedy, the change in direction of the Church with regard to false religions is irreconcilable with the Church’s previous teachings. Ecumenism, religious liberty, and freedom of speech are evil; there is NO salvation outside of the Church; and relativism and indifference are a result of all of these teachings that the Church has strayed from. She is a traitor and has betrayed Herself. I think I’m leaving the forums. Goodbye, guys.

I can only say that I agree with little of what you have said. Although I am now Byzantine Catholic, I was born and raised Latin Catholic for the first 40 years of my life. I love, respect, and appreciate the grace and unity found within the Catholic Church and I trust the protection of the Holy Spirit. Did satan’s smoke enter the Church? Yep. Look at the dissenting groups–radical feminism–new age practices. Does this mean the Church has fallen into apostacy? Nope. My faith (and multitudes of others) has been strengthened by these dissentions. God can take satan’s smoke and turn it around 180 degrees. Pray for discernment Smitty. And I will pray for you also.

Peace and blessings,
Mickey

 

[Church_Militant]

JSmitty2005:

No, not I. The Church has protested against itself. Pius X would have condemned/excommunicated/anathematized many of the bishops (including the Roman one) in the “Church” over the past 40 years. He warned us. We didn’t listen. Look where we are. Although the destruction of the Liturgy was a tragedy, the change in direction of the Church with regard to false religions is irreconcilable with the Church’s previous teachings. Ecumenism, religious liberty, and freedom of speech are evil; there is NO salvation outside of the Church; and relativism and indifference are a result of all of these teachings that the Church has strayed from. She is a traitor and has betrayed Herself. I think I’m leaving the forums. Goodbye, guys.

I have watched you on here for many months Smitty and you have a serious problem. If this is the stuff you believe then you have been very very badly decieved. Sayonara.