OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 01:10:28 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Differences between the eastern and roman church  (Read 3954 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TruthSeeker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


OC.net


« on: September 03, 2005, 01:22:01 AM »

I am amazed at the number and degree of differences.
Here is a great link to a great article.
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

Feel free to add anything...
Logged

NULL
Philokalia
Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 173


Hail Mary Full of Grace


WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2005, 06:09:02 PM »

You could try http://www.catholic-church.org/church-unity/ecu_th_e.htm  or http://tcrnews2.com/Orthodox_Catholic.html  or http://www.scoba.us/resources/filioque-p02.asp. And of course the Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_02051995_orientale-lumen_en.html

Quote
listen to the Churches of the East, which I know are living interpreters of the treasure of tradition they preserve. In contemplating it, before my eyes appear elements of great significance for fuller and more thorough understanding of the Christian experience. These elements are capable of giving a more complete Christian response to the expectations of the men and women of today. Indeed, in comparison to any other culture, the Christian East has a unique and privileged role as the original setting where the Church was born. The Christian tradition of the East implies a way of accepting, understanding and living faith in the Lord Jesus. In this sense it is extremely close to the Christian tradition of the West, which is born of and nourished by the same faith. Yet it is legitimately and admirably distinguished from the latter, since Eastern Christians have their own way of perceiving and understanding, and thus an original way of living their relationship with the Savior.
Logged

Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings. Violence is a crime against humanity, for it destroys the very fabric of society.
drewmeister2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America
Posts: 415


Christmas at St Markella's Cathedral, Astoria, NY


« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2005, 06:17:36 PM »

The article is horrible, it doesn't provide dates or historical fact.  It just says, here is what the Catholics do, here is what the Orthodox do.  It doesn't seem to prove anything.  It was poorly supported with facts, I find.
Logged

Orthodoxia i Thanatos

IC    XC      ...and in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
    +                   and APOSTOLIC CHURCH...
NI    KA

www.hotca.org | www.YouTube.com/GreekOrthodoxTV
drewmeister2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America
Posts: 415


Christmas at St Markella's Cathedral, Astoria, NY


« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2005, 06:49:04 PM »

Wow, as I continued reading, there are some flaws.  In the RCC, we teach that we receive His Body and Blood, whereas the article said we only receive "bread".  Now, according to a EO perspective, we may only be receiving bread, but that's not the point, the point is to compare EO and RC teaching, and on this aspect, both teach that we receive His Body.


"Orthodox presbyters and deacons may marry before ordination; Roman Catholic clergy are celibate."  Wrong once again.  Deacons in the RCC may marry before ordination.  And there are some RC clergy that have converted from other faiths that are married. 

"Ecumenism has brought great confusion, so that it is not always easy to say with any precision what Roman Catholics believe, while so-called Orthodox have abandoned the traditional teachings of the Church."

Actually, it's very easy to see what the RCC believes, go to a Catholic bookstore and pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  That tells you everything we believe.  Is what is taught in the CCC believed by everyone?  Not necessarily, we have heretics in our church too, just like there are EO who don't accept all EO teachings. 








 
Logged

Orthodoxia i Thanatos

IC    XC      ...and in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
    +                   and APOSTOLIC CHURCH...
NI    KA

www.hotca.org | www.YouTube.com/GreekOrthodoxTV
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2005, 07:01:51 PM »

Yes, but the modern Cathechism leads to much confusion.  For example ask twenty Catholics on what the CCC means where it states that capital punishment is probably never to be used.  You'll get many different answers on what that means.   Ask, what they mean on infallibility.  Very few can say exactly what the pope has said that's infallible.  What about Thomism compared to modern Catholic theology.  Most Catholics are really not sure what they believe, theologians and laity.
Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
StGeorge
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 707


St. George


« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2005, 02:54:26 PM »

Quote
Originally Quoted by dantxny:

Yes, but the modern Cathechism leads to much confusion.  For example ask twenty Catholics on what the CCC means where it states that capital punishment is probably never to be used.  You'll get many different answers on what that means.  ÃƒÆ’‚ Ask, what they mean on infallibility.  Very few can say exactly what the pope has said that's infallible.  What about Thomism compared to modern Catholic theology.  Most Catholics are really not sure what they believe, theologians and laity.

I personally don't think that the CCC leads to as much confusion as you imply.  There will always be Catholics who do not understand their faith as well as they should, much less the foundations of their faith.  The same is most likely true with Orthodoxy.  Ask twenty Orthodox Christians what the difference is between ousia, hypostases; essence, energy, why the Church uses leavened bread as opposed to unleavened bread, and you will be sure to get a lot of confused faces, mixed in with a few well-informed responses, of course.  I am sure that there are many Christians, both Orthodox and Catholic, who do not understand why and how the other "Church" became broken from the other.  If you want real confusion, ask numerous Orthodox if it is ever wrong to use artificial birth control.  No offense, but I think that the ignorance factor runs on both sides.  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚Â

In regard to the Eucharist, most Catholics, if they actually attend liturgy, should know that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ.ÂÂ  In the Novus Ordo Mass, the priest specifically raises the host and says, "Take this all of you and eat of it.ÂÂ  This is my Body which will be given up for you."ÂÂ  Furthermore, when receiving communion, the priest, before giving the consecrated host to the communicant, says, "The Body of Christ," to which the communicant affirms with "Amen" before receiving it.ÂÂ  Catholics understand that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ.ÂÂ  Perhaps some younger children do not understand it completely, since they believe mostly what they see, and they see bread.ÂÂ  But I think that most adolescent and adult Catholics, if they reguarly attend church, make a real connection with the Body and Blood of Christ and the Eucharist.ÂÂ  
« Last Edit: September 10, 2005, 03:03:48 PM by StGeorge » Logged
Kosmas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2005, 03:15:24 PM »

We also have a book of Catechism. All you have to do is read St John of Damascus, "Exposition of the Correct Orthodox Faith". It's much older and was in fact later copied by Thomas Aquinas who changed a few things in it and tried to create a Roman Catholic version called Summa Theologica. I would guess that the CCC is simply a mix between Vativcan I and II and Thomas Aquinas with special attention on the council of Trent?
Logged

«Ουδείς εκών κακός» Σωκράτης
Krysostomos
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: catholic christian
Jurisdiction: Roman patriarchate
Posts: 72

very eastern minded ...


« Reply #7 on: October 17, 2005, 09:21:56 AM »

Isn´t the main difference simply the guestion about the situation of the bishop of Rome as the primate of the universal church?!?
All the other differences are secundary.
Logged

"You may say I am a dreamer. But I am not the only one." John Lennon
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,973


black metal cat


« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2005, 09:57:17 AM »

Quote
We also have a book of Catechism. All you have to do is read St John of Damascus

Well I don't know if I'd go that far, seeing as how St. John also teaches some things that are definately not held to by the Orthodox Church (e.g., he lists the Apostolic Canons as part of his New Testament canon; Exact Exposition, 4, 17) Wink Personally, I like our not having one, final, written textbook-like authority on matters of faith. I mean, as a bookworm it bugs me sometimes, but overall I think it is for the best as it helps combat a couple bad tendencies that we have as humans.

Fwiw, here's a page on some Catholic-Orthodox differences, though I really need to update it.

Quote
Isn´t the main difference simply the guestion about the situation of the bishop of Rome as the primate of the universal church?!?

I would say that the claims to primacy are simply the most obvious (and problematic) manifestation of a deeper problem. It's the deeper issue that must be resolved, not the primacy issue compromised away. That's why the current talks between the two Churches are destined to fail, the real problems (on both sides) are being passed over, and our differences are being treated as though they are merely a list of intellectual puzzles to solve.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2005, 10:02:35 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,077


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2005, 11:06:45 AM »

Isn´t the main difference simply the guestion about the situation of the bishop of Rome as the primate of the universal church?!?
All the other differences are secundary. 

I tend disagree with this... the differences in mindset/lifestyle expectations (greek fronima), in ecclesiology, in eucharistic theology (in sacramental theology in general), in eschatology - these can't be passed over, some are quite major...

But now - I need to prep for class in 35 min...
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #10 on: October 17, 2005, 11:30:35 AM »

  I think our greatest differences aren't in our rules and beliefs, they are in our whole approach to Christianity.
Logged

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,077


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #11 on: October 17, 2005, 06:24:04 PM »

I think our greatest differences aren't in our rules and beliefs, they are in our whole approach to Christianity.

I would argue that its both - remember that our "rules" and beliefs are all completely intertwined in our approach to Christianity - and in fact I would put our beliefs at the top of that triangle.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Sabbas
Drink from your own wells
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 503

St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania


« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2005, 02:21:21 PM »

Quote
- Latin Catholicism has historically focused on Christ's death, redemption, and the individual forgiveness of sins. Orthodoxy focuses on Christ's victory (through death), His transformation of mankind through his birth, life, and death, and the potential deification of each individual person. The horror of the crucifixion held the attention of the mind in Latin Catholicism, while the victory on the tree held the attention of the mind of Orthodoxy.

- Latin Catholicism, misunderstanding the pertinent Scriptural passages, overemphasises the notion that divine justice required some type of punishment or payment. Orthodoxy, while retaining the numerous ways of viewing salvation which are all necessary to understand the salvific mystery, stresses the healing of the soul through the incarnation, life, and death of Christ, and finds the overemphasis regarding a "payment for sin" to betray the humanistic, and through this humanism legalistic, tendencies.

Quote
Following the holy Fathers, Orthodoxy teaches that Christ, on the Cross, gave "His life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28). "For even the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). The "ransom" is paid to the grave. As the Lord revealed to the Prophet Hosea (Hosea 13:14), "I will ransom them (us) from the power of the grave, I will redeem them from death." In a sense, He pays the ransom to the devil who has the keeper of the grave and holds the power of death (Heb. 2:14).

The man Christ voluntarily gave Himself on the Cross. He died for all ("a ransom for many" or "the many"). But He rose from the dead in His crucified body. Death had no power to hold Him. It has no power over anyone. The human race is redeemed from the grave, from the devil. Free of the devil is to be free of death and sin. To be free of these, we become like God (deification) and may live with Him forever.

According to Roman Catholic theology, God became man in order to satisfy the divine Justice which was offended by the sin of Adam. In other words, by his sin Adam offended the infinite God and, therefore, his sin had infinite consequences. It was not within the power of sinful and finite man to make amends, for the sin of Adam ("original sin") passed to us; but it is our obligation to do so. Only Christ, Who was God and man, could pay this "debt of honor."

He pays the debt by dying on the Cross. His death makes up for what Adam had done; the offense is removed. God is no longer angry with man. Christ rises from the dead, the promise or "earnest" of the believing man's future. For a long time, the Latins, whether among ordinary Catholics or intellectuals, little attention was given to the idea of deification. Not much attention was devoted to the concepts necessary to understanding this doctrine.

I have never understood why so many Orthodox view these understandings as mutually exclusive or that Orthodoxy has no juridicial understanding of redemption. If we truly believe that the Pentateuch was given by God than we must believe that Christ's death on the Cross was propitiatory and that it was through his death as the unblemished Lamb, the perfect Victim, that all transgressions of the Law are forgiven and Divine Justice (the proper ordering of Creation according to St.Augustine) is restored, though full restoration of Justice must wait until the Final Judgment.

The problem with Michael Azkoul is that though he is generally accurate he allows his hatred for St.Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Roman Catholicism heavily influence his arguments. You also have to take into account his being a member of the heretical HOCNA group which suscribes to the "New Dogma of Redemption" which it presents as if had always been taught by Orthodoxy when it is in fact a gross distortion of Orthodoxy and shows a complete misunderstanding of Orthodoxy which, in my opinion, stems from not reading or not taking the Old Testament seriously and not reading the Passion narrative with discernment.
Here are two passages I find striking that St.John mentions to show us that Christ was the High Priest and the Victim.
Quote
23When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.

St.John 19
Only the High Priests wore such seamless garments!
Again from St.John 19
Quote
35The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken,"
Of course this is referring to Old Testament passages that specify that the Passover Lamb was not to have any of it's bones broken.
I could go on but I think you get the idea.

For a proper understanding of Redemption read this collection of homilies http://www.stherman.com/catalog/chapter_eight/FCM_book.htm
It is quite a sobering read for those who buy all the Novus Ordo Roman Catholic theologicans who spout nonsense about St.Symeon being some ethereal, neoplatonic mystic.
Logged

www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2005, 03:19:38 PM »

Putting on my Canterbury cap for a bit:

The problem with looking at lists of differences put out by one side or the other is that they are political postures. Insofar as there are differences, it should be possible to agree objectively as to what they are. For instance, we can definitely point at the role of the pope and the filioque as objectively indetifable differences.

The differences listed in the original article as a rule do not meet this standard. For instance, on the very first one: one could argue that Catholics believe that natural theology is possible, while Orthodox believe that it is impossible. As far as the use of reason in theology in general, however, officially they are very similar (and fairly different from Protestants); in practice they commit the same "sins" as the Catholics do-- or so outsiders perceive.

As far as development of doctrine is concerned, again objective consideration sees in the councils a clear development of doctrine. The real problem (at least as Protestants see it) is that Catholic doctrine has continued to develop in speculative directions which neither reason nor the materials at hand support. (And we also say that of some Orthodox theology; the extent of error is not as great, however.)

And then we get to Gregory Palamas. We in the West don't use the terminology of "uncreated energies". And I at least wouldn't use the term because it seems to me to be misleading; "energy" in modern discourse has an entirely different significance which leads me to prefer other words. And in considering this I don't think it is true that we in the West consider the vehicles of God's acts to be identical to his essence. Indeed, in the Aristotlean paradigm that in fact permeates both theologies, the distinction between the substance (essence) of God and His accidents is natural; and the "energies" clearly would be consigned to the latter. In this paradigm one can never perceive God "in his essence" because by definition perception is through the accidents. Now I say all of this not because I believe any of it, but rather because (a) I think that the distinction is an act of controversialism, and (b) it's all more or less groundless speculation anyway.

Note that I'm not trying to say that there aren't differences. But I am saying that more is made of them than is really justified. And one could make the argument that Orthodoxy as we have it now is, to some degree, Catholicism arrested at an earlier stage of development.

Far more important at the moment is the icon of Orthodoxy as an image of changelessness, with the Catholics in contrast being simply slower moving Epsicopalians. (And therefore, traditionalist Orthodox are an even better image because they presume to be more changeless.) But both Orthodoxy and Catholicism as we have them now are the products of change leading up through the medieval period; it is modern technology that allows "changelessness", by appearing to preserve the past more immediately and fixedly. It is not any big surprise that traditionalists tend to look back into the medieval period for their praxis, what revisionists look in patristic or even apostolic times to justify their changes.

Ultimately, though, one cannot get a grip upon the differences unless they are cast in a commonly agree upon language.
Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #14 on: October 21, 2005, 10:03:35 PM »

Quote
And then we get to Gregory Palamas. We in the West don't use the terminology of "uncreated energies". And I at least wouldn't use the term because it seems to me to be misleading; "energy" in modern discourse has an entirely different significance which leads me to prefer other words.

Words arn't the problem in the Palamite controversy.  The Orthodox are much more open minded and (dare I say it?!) progressive than they are given credit for.  If Fr. Seraphim Rose could emphatically say that the De in the Dao de jing are synomous to the Orthodox "uncreated energies" we can also deal with different terminology that Western Christians use.  The issue is too central though to brush off as a semantics debate.  The issue is Christiani soteriology - whether we are simply saved from hell in a strange sort of legal system or whether we become sanctified throuth grace/energies/de.  The Orthodox never rejected the legal analogy of understand the Cross.  We also never made it the sole analogy.

So while you see this littler differences are political mostly that is not true.  One of the biggest reasons for these differences is in how the Orthodox and how the West view the fathers and tadition.  The Catholics took Saint Augustine and made him the Catholic Father.  While most of what he said is Orthodox as an opinion - it isn't Orthodox to make such dogmatic.  The Orthodox have far less often fallen into the trap of making any one many the Church and instead focused on the consensus of the fathers.  Saint Gregory the Great - among other Western fathers - warned clearly of the dangers of focusing the faith on any one person or bishop.  But it is obvious to see exagerated Papal powers coming from the mindset of codifying the entire church into one person's theology.   

Of course many on the Orthodox side whine about any little difference in approach between the West and the Orthodox and some of it I will agree with you, Keble is non-sense.  Orthodoxy has produced plenty of academic works on Theology (from St. Justin's apologies, to Saint John of Damascus, to a slew of more recent  ones from Russia).  Many of the best Orthodox bishops in the world today were educated at German Universities studying philosophy there (Metr. Amfilohije of Montrenegro and Archbishop Mark of Berlin come to mind immediantly, but I know there are few more Greeks too).  Liturgical reforms have occured (especially in the Ecumencial Patriarchate during the 1800s).  And despite claims to the contrary the Orthodox have remained very theologically active since the 1054 schism.  The Hesychast controversies, Kollyvades movement, Optina in Russia, the Slavophiles etc. 

About the develpment of doctrine - to say the seven councils are an example of this is to not understand their historical context.  They were called to resolve a critical debate over Christology that had divided the Church.  What Christological controversy did Vatican I resolve?  What need was there to dogmatize purgatory, indulgences and the like?  And when the West did try to respond to heresy they went overboard and created a new heresy.  Hence to fight Arianism they came up with Filioque rather than Per Filium.  I don't think the Orthodox would have objected to the latters use in the Creed among  Western Churches.  To claim misunderstanding in this case is also an outright lie.  Aquinas and other Western Theologians emphatically stated that Rome believed the source of the Spirit was both the Father AND the Son. 

Quote
Far more important at the moment is the icon of Orthodoxy as an image of changelessness

Which is a somewhat false notion.  Orthodox missionaries were able to express Orthodoxy within both Chinese and Japanese culture and language.  Saints such as St. John Maximovitch were very supportive of the litrugical experimentation of Western Rite Orthodoxy.  The blessed Father Kosmas of Grigoriou adapted Orthodoxy to the various cultures he encountered in Africa. 

What you are doing is very misleading.  You are lumping groups such as ROAC or the GOC into the Orthodox Church (i.e the "official" or "World Orthodoxy" Church).  ROAC has what - two function parishes and a mission of two people - plus some senile priest monks?  The GOC's American roster isn't much better.  I don't know the situation in Russia or other lands - but in Greece the Old Calendarist are not taken seriously in their claims.  With the exception of the small ring of Esfigmenou every Athonite monk I spoke with on this matter emphatically stated that they do not believe the Old Calendarist to be a part of the church at all.  Personally I am willing to believe there is some gray area, but that doesn't mean the Church accepts their views. 

You would be surprised just how dynamic real Orthodox theologians are.  For instance, how many works of Metr. Hierotheos Vlachos, St. Justin Popovich or Elder Sophrony have you read Keble? 
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,973


black metal cat


« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2005, 12:13:29 AM »

Sabbas

Greetings. Since you quoted something on my page, I thought I'd add my two cents. Smiley As I said in the one post, a lot needs edited on that page; I wrote it about 3 years ago, and realise that some of the comments (and the tone for that matter) could use some fixing. However, on this point that you are making, I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. You quoted these words:

Quote
- Latin Catholicism has historically focused on Christ's death, redemption, and the individual forgiveness of sins. Orthodoxy focuses on Christ's victory (through death), His transformation of mankind through his birth, life, and death, and the potential deification of each individual person. The horror of the crucifixion held the attention of the mind in Latin Catholicism, while the victory on the tree held the attention of the mind of Orthodoxy.

- Latin Catholicism, misunderstanding the pertinent Scriptural passages, overemphasises the notion that divine justice required some type of punishment or payment. Orthodoxy, while retaining the numerous ways of viewing salvation which are all necessary to understand the salvific mystery, stresses the healing of the soul through the incarnation, life, and death of Christ, and finds the overemphasis regarding a "payment for sin" to betray the humanistic, and through this humanism legalistic, tendencies.

To which you responded with:

Quote
I have never understood why so many Orthodox view these understandings as mutually exclusive or that Orthodoxy has no juridicial understanding of redemption...

But the fact of the matter is that I have probably been one of the most vocal supporters on this forum of exactly what you are talking about (I can recall at least twice where Augustine, I, and others defended not making such a sharp East vs. West distinction on this point). I think it is nothing more than bad apologetics that would totally cut out the understanding that you are speaking of.  What I spoke of was merely the place that such juridicial doctrines play in one's understanding of salvation. Thus I used words like "focused," "attention," and "overemphasis". My problem is not with the ideas being expressed per se, but rather with the extent that most of western theology emphasises these doctrines. Indeed, I would include the whole juridical aspect of it in the sentence where I said that Orthodoxy: "[retained] the numerous ways of viewing salvation which are all necessary to understand the salvific mystery". So I am not just saying that it's ok (I'm not just throwing people a bone here), but I'm affirming that this stuff really is important and helpful in understanding salvation, even "necessary" if one wants to get the complete picture (certain St. Paul did not shy away from the idea)


Silouan

I think you are being too rough on the old calendarists here. I have read (admittedly, I think it was in V. Moss) that St. Nikolai of Serbia once offered to help the Florinites reestablish a hierarchy. Whether it's true or not, I don't know, but I wouldn't doubt it (I've also read that St. Nikolai wouldn't concelebrate/commune new calendarists when it was first introduced). But in any event, eventually ROCOR bishops did help provide the GOC with a hierarchy. So, since ROCOR's validity is not questioned, I think that one is hard-pressed to attack the GOC as illegit unless one can either show that 1) the GOC has gone into schism/heresy since the time of those consecrations, or 2) the GOC of today is not the same GOC that ROCOR helped. While the history is mirky, I don't really think either of those marks of illegitimacy are present. I don't agree with the GOC's official party line that the new calendarists are without grace... but then I know that not all GOCers believe that either.
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2005, 12:27:39 AM »



... But in any event, eventually ROCOR bishops did help provide the GOC with a hierarchy. So, since ROCOR's validity is not questioned, I think that one is hard-pressed to attack the GOC as illegit unless one can either show that 1) the GOC has gone into schism/heresy since the time of those consecrations, or 2) the GOC of today is not the same GOC that ROCOR helped. While the history is mirky, I don't really think either of those marks of illegitimacy are present. I don't agree with the GOC's official party line that the new calendarists are without grace... but then I know that not all GOCers believe that either.

I do, however, very much question the validity (dare I say canonical status?) of ROCOR's actions in providing this hierarchy where they never should have acted..
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,973


black metal cat


« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2005, 12:41:07 AM »

Well I understand that. Though I brought the same canonical question up on another forum last week (not for discussion, but merely for thoughtfulness' sake), I excluded it here because, like the canonicity of the OCA's autocephaly and the MP's Patriarchy, I think these are things that we are just going to have to accept. Obviously if you begin from the position that the old calendarists were schismatics, you must view the consecrations as (at the very least) violating the letter of canonical law concerning interfering in other dioceses/bishops lands. You know what, every year I come to agree more and more with your view that ROCOR acted where they shouldn't have*ÂÂ  Nonetheless, as in the case of the OCA and MP, I think it would be better (and even more Orthodox) to stand up and work with what we have, rather than quibble over whether the first action was canonical.

Somewhere in St. Basil's works there is a principle where he says that if someone in a quasi-Christian group being baptized would make them turn from the faith, because it would make him feel like he had been a completely un-Christian heathen his whole life--then the Church should allow him to enter her without baptism. Basically, in a very pastorally-moderate way, St. Basil was saying that we live in a sinful world, and need to deal with things as they are, not as they should be. It would have been easy to say "well the rules say you get baptized, so that's that". But then we have the principle of economia. Why can't we apply economia to entire churches? Hasn't this been done before?

I'm not sure if you've ever been to a GOC parish. I can't claim that I have, but I have talked with some GOC people over the years (including an American bishop), and have found them to be Orthodox. They are not Greek versions of Gregory-of-Colorado, they are more like Greek versions of ROCOR. They make mistakes, and maybe their entire existence was a mistake of fate or history, but I do not think that we can deny their Orthodoxy. Ok, well maybe you can, and if you do I wouldn't think bad of it (it IS a mirky subject). Personally, I can't.

Justin

*Actually I think it fits in with a larger, more problematic tendency to help anyone and everyone who tells them a sad story. The problem is just that ROCOR wants to help people but hasn't always used their best judgment in how and when and to whom to give that help.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2005, 12:43:28 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2005, 12:47:55 AM »

I'm not sure if you've ever been to a GOC parish. I can't claim that I have, but I have talked with some GOC people over the years (including an American bishop), and have found them to be Orthodox. They are not Greek versions of Gregory-of-Colorado, they are more like Greek versions of ROCOR. They make mistakes, and maybe their entire existence was a mistake of fate or history, but I do not think that we can deny their Orthodoxy. Ok, well maybe you can, and if you do I wouldn't think bad of it (it IS a mirky subject). Personally, I can't.

Actually, I agree with most of this and posted as much on another forum earlier this week. I do not often, if ever, question the faith of another Orthodox despite what I may feel is not exactly correct in their church's status

Quote
*Actually I think it fits in with a larger, more problematic tendency to help anyone and everyone who tells them a sad story. The problem is just that ROCOR wants to help people but hasn't always used their best judgment in how and when and to whom to give that help.

Probably true.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2005, 01:38:31 AM »

Justin,

The time of the calendar change was a huge gray area as people all around did not where things would settle.  For the first years in Greece the old calendarists thought of themselves as a traditionalist movement within the Church of Greece.  Metr. Chrysostomos would never have been so audacious to title himself the Archbishop of Athens.  BTW the bit about St. Nikolaj is true from all of my sources - which are much better than Vladimir Moss.  The idealogy that many of the renowned supporters for old calendarism in Greece supported was resistance, patristic revival and traditionalism that Metr. Chrysostomos believed in.  But even towards the end of his life Metr. Chrysostomos realized his movement had spiraled out of control with the Matthewite idealogy taking over.  Hence why he sacrificed principles for forced unity with the Matthewites in the 1951 argreement - ironicly making a far greater compromise at the cost of truth than most modern ecumenists are even willing to make. ÂÂ

Alas ROCOR supplying the GOC with bishops is the ROCOR's great sin that they will always be remembered for.  To be honest I think ROCOR was in over their head and did not grasp fully what they were doing nor what the GOC stood for.  ROCOR never held as an official view that other synods were graceless.  Metr. Philaret blessed the St. Herman's brotherhood to publish the life of Elder Tavarion - and elder that left the catacomb church to join the Patriarchate.  While I don't think ROCOR will ever codemn its own actions, they have quietly backed away from the Greek Old Calendarist - mataining only a very tenuous relationship with Metr. Cyprian of Oropos. ÂÂ

Then you have the witness of the plethora of Elders and Saints of Greece.  Why did so many saints and elders of both Greece and Romania consider the Old Calandarists to be schismatics?

But my main point in this is that Keble is being very dishonest to imply such groups are a real voice in Orthodoxy.  They are incredibly small.  Does ROAC even have a dozen members in America?  The GOC (Archbishop Chrysostomos II) lists 7 parishes in America on their directory.  While that GOC has I think around 90% of the Old Calendarist population in Greece in their synod there are something like 13 GOC synods in Greece.  The old calendarists in Romania and Bulgaria aren't in communion with the Archbishop Chrysostomos GOC either.  They are in union with the second largest GOC under Metr. Cyprian - which is so small that they don't even have a weekly Sunday liturgy in their largest church in Thessaloniki.  Even to assume that the synod of Archbishop Chrysostomos II is the legitimate continuation of those ordained by the ROCOR is a leap of faith - the 1980s proved to be an interesting decade in the internal affairs of the GOC.

As for me being too hard on them?  I take an agnostic approach.  Either time will vindicate them or turn them into having as much relevance as Russian old ritualists.  But I do take issue with anyone saying that some extreme old calendarist's views are Orthodox.  Father Seraphim Rose was right.
Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2005, 01:54:48 AM »

And to follow up with a very pragmatic question -

How many ROCOR bishops fluently spoke modern Greek and how many GOC bishops spoke fluent Russian at the time of the ordinations?  While it sounds a bit far fetched there is a lot of difference between the moderate traditionalist and the Mathewite extremist packed into some sutble nuances easily lost in translation...
Logged
Sabbas
Drink from your own wells
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 503

St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania


« Reply #21 on: October 22, 2005, 01:59:14 AM »

Sabbas

Greetings. Since you quoted something on my page, I thought I'd add my two cents. Smiley As I said in the one post, a lot needs edited on that page; I wrote it about 3 years ago, and realise that some of the comments (and the tone for that matter) could use some fixing. However, on this point that you are making, I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. You quoted these words:

To which you responded with:

But the fact of the matter is that I have probably been one of the most vocal supporters on this forum of exactly what you are talking about (I can recall at least twice where Augustine, I, and others defended not making such a sharp East vs. West distinction on this point). I think it is nothing more than bad apologetics that would totally cut out the understanding that you are speaking of. What I spoke of was merely the place that such juridicial doctrines play in one's understanding of salvation. Thus I used words like "focused," "attention," and "overemphasis". My problem is not with the ideas being expressed per se, but rather with the extent that most of western theology emphasises these doctrines. Indeed, I would include the whole juridical aspect of it in the sentence where I said that Orthodoxy: "[retained] the numerous ways of viewing salvation which are all necessary to understand the salvific mystery". So I am not just saying that it's ok (I'm not just throwing people a bone here), but I'm affirming that this stuff really is important and helpful in understanding salvation, even "necessary" if one wants to get the complete picture (certain St. Paul did not shy away from the idea)

Oh I have not forgotten the sound input you gave in the discussion on Penal Substitution http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=5262.0
Rather I just selected a quote from your website, though I know you said you need to edit it, because it so well expresses what I am constantly hearing rehashed by other Orthodox. Though the quote from your page was more balanced than most I still feel, as you also now seem to? that when you look closer at classic Roman Catholic Theology there really is only a slight over-emphasis on justice and use of juridicial language. While I agree that this needs to be pointed out I think it is always necessary to be extra-careful how we point this out lest people buy into the stereotype that the RC's are the church of the Cross while the EO are the church of the Resurrection. Really I think the main difference is that the Roman Catholics generally don't mention the fruits of Christ's Sacrifice enough.
Of course post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Theologians have created an entirely new and heretical understanding of Redemption often referred to as the "Paschal Mystery" that claims to be influenced by the "Eastern Fathers" when in fact it is a largely modernist concoction that just utilizes a few Greek words. I have been reading a lot of literature by the SSPX bishops and priests and believe me we have far more in common with them than those in the Novus Ordo church.
Logged

www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,460


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 22, 2005, 12:22:27 PM »

And to follow up with a very pragmatic question -

How many ROCOR bishops fluently spoke modern Greek and how many GOC bishops spoke fluent Russian at the time of the ordinations?ÂÂ  While it sounds a bit far fetched there is a lot of difference between the moderate traditionalist and the Mathewite extremist packed into some sutble nuances easily lost in translation...

I'm not going to delve into the Calendar issue and Old Calendarists but to answer this specific question, in the ROCOR archives all documents sent to ROCOR were sent in Greek and English, the English either being somewhat poor translations by people not totally fluent in the language, but whose point was nevertheless communicated, or being English translations by a Greek-Russian priest in Washington, DC from Cherson (the Greek community in Ukraine), and the ROCOR usually sent English translations of its synodal decisions with the Russian original.  Met Petros of Astoria had a priest who spoke Russian who could verify the veracity of the English translations they received and who would translate Geronda Petros's communications into Russian to be sent back to ROCOR.  So there was not a problem with communication.  Also, through then-Fr Petros of Astoria, Arch Leonty of Chile and Seraphim of Caracas were able to meet several times with the Greek Old Calendarist clergy and then after Fr Akakios was consecrated Archbishop of Athens by Leonty and Seraphim, Leonty went to Greece and consecrated with Akakios, having met and at least become familiar with the candidates.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,973


black metal cat


« Reply #23 on: October 22, 2005, 03:33:00 PM »

Sabbas,

Quote
Though the quote from your page was more balanced than most I still feel, as you also now seem to? that when you look closer at classic Roman Catholic Theology there really is only a slight over-emphasis on justice and use of juridicial language...

Yes, I agree with you here, and I also apologize if my post was defensive; I think that what you are saying is a point that needs to be expressed. Smiley
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #24 on: October 24, 2005, 01:46:47 PM »

A comprenhensive response here is clearly not going to happen, so I'm picking out a few points along the way.

Words arn't the problem in the Palamite controversy.ÂÂ  The Orthodox are much more open minded and (dare I say it?!) progressive than they are given credit for.ÂÂ  If Fr. Seraphim Rose could emphatically say that the De in the Dao de jing are synomous to the Orthodox "uncreated energies" we can also deal with different terminology that Western Christians use.

I have to wonder, personally, whether he is typical in his approach-- or whether he is in effect evidence that West and East are really quite close together in some modes of argument. I look at his books on creationism and eschatology, for instance, and he is not at all averse to using fundamentalist sources, even though he surely rejects some of The Fundamentals. Is this because these materials are like Orthodox materials, or simply because he is familiar with them from his previous life?

And I'm not interested in the whole Palamite controvery, but rather the explanations of Western positions that seem an inevitable part of it. For maximal legitimacy one must go to a Westerner to get those explanations.

Quote
The issue is too central though to brush off as a semantics debate.ÂÂ  The issue is Christiani soteriology - whether we are simply saved from hell in a strange sort of legal system or whether we become sanctified throuth grace/energies/de.

Actually, as an Anglican I'll say it is entirely peripheral! And it is so because the answer doesn't really do anything. The important issue is the recognition that grace isn't a sort of sacramental fluid, but is rather Godly action. The legalistic explanation is about how those actions accomplish salvation, but they are still about the same thing.

That's exactly what's wrong with the semantic argument. Bad theology, of any kind, tends to reify grace/energies into this sacramental fluid-- and it does so because the language encourages that error. We are stuck with the word "grace", for better or worse, because Paul uses it at length. The legalistic theory: well, perhaps that is a difference in detail. But the "energies" thing is a complete red herring. Everyone in the West makes the distinction between God and Godly action.

Quote
But it is obvious to see exagerated Papal powers coming from the mindset of codifying the entire church into one person's theology.
It may be obvious, but it's also incorrect. Papal power arose out of the fact that Rome evangelized the pagan west, and then never cast the resulting churches off.
  ÃƒÆ’‚Â

Quote
About the develpment of doctrine - to say the seven councils are an example of this is to not understand their historical context.ÂÂ  They were called to resolve a critical debate over Christology that had divided the Church.ÂÂ  What Christological controversy did Vatican I resolve?ÂÂ  What need was there to dogmatize purgatory, indulgences and the like?

Well, obviously to combat those DPs!  Wink

But seriously, this isn't development and non-development; it's simply good development and bad development. The Nicene formula is neither in scripture, nor in the oldest fathers; the Chalcedonian formula is even more remote from the same sources. By the same token, none of the positions dogmatized at Vatican I were novel; most dated well back into the middle ages. The chief offender, the Immaculate Conception, can be traced back to numerous patristic citations.

The filioque is undeniably an exceptional case, though again it's hard as heck to get through the thickets of each side explaining the other. For example, the inverted triangle diagram I've occaisionally seen in Orthodox explanations is bogonic. But it's clear that the Western insistence on the doctrine brought on the great schism.

I think there is something to be said re ROAC and other traditionalists, but I don't have time to try to fit it back into the current discussion.
Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,732


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 24, 2005, 03:19:15 PM »

I have to wonder, personally, whether he (Fr Seraphim (Rose)) is typical in his approach-- or whether he is in effect evidence that West and East are really quite close together in some modes of argument. I look at his books on creationism and eschatology, for instance, and he is not at all averse to using fundamentalist sources, even though he surely rejects some of The Fundamentals. Is this because these materials are like Orthodox materials, or simply because he is familiar with them from his previous life?

Eugene Rose never was a fundygelical AFAIK though he may have been exposed to some fundamentalist writings about these topics during his brief time in church after being baptised by the Methodists when he was 14 (he wasn't brought up in a church). My guess is he found those materials later on and found them to be like the Orthodox ones.
Logged

Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2005, 01:52:25 AM »

About Fr. Seraphim and Fundamentalist Protestant sources.  He was much more of a scholarly minded person than he is given credit for, he used sources from everywhere (being an Alumnus of Berkeley he was able to use their library throughout his entire life).  He said that the main creation science group (I think in San Diego)put out good literature disputing some of the scientific points of evolutionary theory.  I would think that today he would just as eagerly endorse books like Darwin on Trial that aren't written from a religious perspective.  But Fr. Seraphim did caution people not to get caught up in evolution but to focus on the more important parts of early Genesis - i.e the theological meaning of the fall, the promise for a redeemer, the revalation of the entire Trinity's work in creation.

Quote
I have to wonder, personally, whether he is typical in his approach-- or whether he is in effect evidence that West and East are really quite close together in some modes of argument.

Among those engaged in active missionary work, I would see his approach is typical.  Among those not, most I don't think have honestly thought about it.  Then there are a few stubborn Greeks that think anything non Greek is suspect, so are horrified at the idea of Chinese philosopher understanding the ancient Greek concept of the Logos, entirely independent of the Greeks - such are hardly among the elites of the Orthodox theological world.

Quote
Actually, as an Anglican I'll say it is entirely peripheral! And it is so because the answer doesn't really do anything. The important issue is the recognition that grace isn't a sort of sacramental fluid, but is rather Godly action. The legalistic explanation is about how those actions accomplish salvation, but they are still about the same thing.

I think that is the Orthodox position.  We can have models and analogies of salvation, but it is still ultimately a mystery.  The problem arises when Western theologians insist on only the legal model and seeing it in a black and white matter.  That caueses the spinoffs of purgatory, indulgences etc.

Quote
It may be obvious, but it's also incorrect. Papal power arose out of the fact that Rome evangelized the pagan west, and then never cast the resulting churches off.

A large territory doesn't equal Papal like powers.  The MP absorbed churches far more ancient than her at times (i.e Georgia) and if it weren't for the revolution I doutb it would have cut the OCA loose, but the Patriarch never became infallible in the eyes of the people.  Of course Church-state relatiosn were far different in Moscow than in Rome.  I think though that there are a lot of contributing factors that lead to Rome's percieved infallibility, not just its refusal to grant daughter churches autonomy. 

Quote
But seriously, this isn't development and non-development; it's simply good development and bad development. The Nicene formula is neither in scripture, nor in the oldest fathers; the Chalcedonian formula is even more remote from the same sources.

The Nicene Creed is only not found in scriptures if you are a believer in sola scriptura.  Every point of the creed is found in the scriptures.  To claim the declaration of the infallible pope and the true divinity of Christ are equally develepments is both absurd and blasphemous. 

Quote
I think there is something to be said re ROAC and other traditionalists, but I don't have time to try to fit it back into the current discussion.

Well yes, much could be said of the so called traditionalist groups.  But they (officially at least) believe the churches in communion with the EP are graceless.  Apparently even ROAC thinks this of ROCOR.  My only objections is to lumping the views of they groups with the mainstream of the Orthodox church, when obviously the traditionalists have deep enminity towards the mainstream of the Church.  It really wouldn't be much different than lumping you as a protestant together with snakehandlers (or whatever they are called).

And I am still very curious about this question I previously asked, "You would be surprised just how dynamic real Orthodox theologians are.  For instance, how many works of Metr. Hierotheos Vlachos, St. Justin Popovich or Elder Sophrony have you read Keble?"  Of course that list is rather short, but there are many of the same variety. 
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #27 on: October 25, 2005, 09:21:29 AM »

I think that is the Orthodox position.  We can have models and analogies of salvation, but it is still ultimately a mystery.  The problem arises when Western theologians insist on only the legal model and seeing it in a black and white matter.  That caueses the spinoffs of purgatory, indulgences etc.

Um, no. Purgatory itself is a not particularly difficult idea and I don't think it would really be a problem for the Orthodox to endorse it. Indulgences and the like represent a perversion of the idea, and I think it could be argued at great length how they got started. It's an aspect of Roman theology which I've never really pursued (because as a card-carrying Protestant I've been immunized against the idea Smiley ). But be careful-- "toll houses" sound awfully close (even if they aren't really).

Quote
A large territory doesn't equal Papal like powers.  The MP absorbed churches far more ancient than her at times (i.e Georgia) and if it weren't for the revolution I doutb it would have cut the OCA loose, but the Patriarch never became infallible in the eyes of the people.

Ah, but in the east there were always multiple patriachates. In the West there was always only Rome. And you should understand that, from my perspective, infallibility is all of a kind. The distinction between how it is obtained is beside the point, as long as anyone is attempting to use it. If the church is infallible, and there is but a single patriachate, it is a natural development for infalliblity to take up residence in his person.

Quote
The Nicene Creed is only not found in scriptures if you are a believer in sola scriptura.  Every point of the creed is found in the scriptures.  To claim the declaration of the infallible pope and the true divinity of Christ are equally develepments is both absurd and blasphemous.

Please. The Nicene Creed is assembled from scripture, mostly: is "homoousios" a scriptural word? Whether it is or is not, it took thought and work to make the construction. You are trying very hard here to make a disagreement at a point where we essentially agree. The breadth of the consensus around this creed is a product of the fact that it is of scripture and can be so easily argued from scripture-- and that the Arian position cannot be so easily argued. "Sola Scriptura" is an utter red herring in this case; the vast majority of churches that adhere to the principle accept the creed.


My reading of Orthodox theologians is, necessarily, somewhat limited. Right now, I am more focused theologically on the problems in my own church. But doesn't that take us back to where we started? If I am to learn of Orthodox theology from the Orthodox, shouldn't I learn of Roman theology from Romans-- and not from some Orthodox point-by-point comparison?
Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #28 on: October 25, 2005, 02:43:08 PM »

Quote
Um, no. Purgatory itself is a not particularly difficult idea and I don't think it would really be a problem for the Orthodox to endorse it.

Depends on which purgatory you are speaking of - the old school purgatory that my Dad learned in his parochial school or the new purgatory "lite" of the post Vatican II era?  Eitherway both are trapped in the legal language of having to pay a debt to God (and an angered one at that, at least in the former version of purgatory). 

Quote
But be careful-- "toll houses" sound awfully close (even if they aren't really).

Taken to its simplest form this is the entire toll house thing: there is a struggle up until the very end within the soul towards trusting in Christ or not.  Angels will either then escort the soul to heaven (or a pre-tast thereof) or demons will escort the soul to hell (or a pre-taste thereof).  Hence the wheat and the tares.

Quote
If the church is infallible, and there is but a single patriachate, it is a natural development for infalliblity to take up residence in his person.

Which is more or less what I was getting at.  Historical circumstances had a hand in creating the Western mindset of looking past nuances and simply creating a single infallible source. 

Quote
is "homoousios" a scriptural word? Whether it is or is not, it took thought and work to make the construction.

When St. John wrote his Gospel he borrowed a Greek philosophical term (λογος) to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son.  That is precisely what the Nicene fathers did - borrow philsophical jargon to clarify precisely what the Church believed when it was under dispute. 

Quote
My reading of Orthodox theologians is, necessarily, somewhat limited.

Then how do you make the claims that you do about the Orthodox Church?  From reading internet polemics, discussion fora and the rantings of extremist groups (that use the internet much to their advatage - and to cover their own lack of a flock)?  Many of your implications that the Orthodox are helplessly in a state of theological backwardsness or stuck on an image of changelessness would be shattered by our most brilliant and dynamic writters. 

Quote
But doesn't that take us back to where we started? If I am to learn of Orthodox theology from the Orthodox, shouldn't I learn of Roman theology from Romans-- and not from some Orthodox point-by-point comparison?

You are preaching to the choir.  I know Latin.  I routinely read (Roman) Catholic sources.  I've never advocated against that. 
Logged
arjuna3110
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


« Reply #29 on: October 26, 2005, 10:08:30 AM »

Silouan wrote:
"Depends on which purgatory you are speaking of - the old school purgatory that my Dad learned in his parochial school or the new purgatory "lite" of the post Vatican II era?ÂÂ  Eitherway both are trapped in the legal language of having to pay a debt to God (and an angered one at that, at least in the former version of purgatory).ÂÂ "


My dad (who was RC) also learned the of the Purgatory of paying one's debt to God (pre-Vatican II).  However, the idea I was raised with (as an RC) is Purgatory as purification.  It wasn't a legalistic notion I was raised with.  Instead, it was the idea that a soul must get clean / pure one could enter the all-holy and all-loving presence of God.  Purgatory might be painful but it is always a mercy.  So, when I read about Orthodox views of purification after death, I felt like I was reading something I had been thinking my whole life. 

Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.171 seconds with 57 queries.