Eastern Christianity

[Ziggamafu]

I agree with the notion that if one wants to see what the Church looked like and believed prior to the great schism, one can visit an Orthodox church. I think it is fairly clear that the doctrines that initially divided East from West were gradual developments and that the papacy was not always understood in the way it is now. I also am enchanted by the devotion to the sacred mysteries one finds in the Orthodox. I have a healthy respect for the past. Nevertheless, I believe that the Church is only fixed or "full-grown" in its heavenly state (in the mind of Christ). I believe that the Church Militant is a dynamic organism that moves and grows and changes as it evolves; never violently or in contradiction to its past, yet truly changing as a seed to a sapling to a flowering tree. I do not believe that the need for dogma or the evolution of the Church has decreased over time, but rather that this need is vitally connected to the function and organic aspect of the Church Militant. Having said this, it seems to me that my primary reasons for choosing the views of the Roman See over the views of Orthodoxy are all connected to this issue of dynamism and dogma.

Is it accurate to say that the Orthodox episcopacy only taught universally (that is, authoritatively declared dogma as a universal body) while it was in communion with the bishop of Rome? Why has it not exercised universal dogmatic authority since the loss of the Roman See?

Is it accurate to say that the Orthodox accept development of doctrinal understanding only up to a certain point, then cut off any continuing development by sticking with a particular body of writings (the Fathers)?

I see a certain similarity between Protestantism and Orthodoxy. In both cases, the groups seem to ossify a living tradition by drawing a line at a certain point, after which there can only be reference to a specific body of writings. Both groups seem to have been founded on the principle that the Roman church had fallen into heresy by its doctrinal developments. Both groups seem to lack an objectively perceived and objectively understood (that is, living and human) center of authority, universally speaking; a hierarchical government without a prime minister (and thus, effectively, without the living, objectively perceived / understood rulership of our subjectively perceived / understood king). Both groups seem to isolate localized congregations into autonomous units, governed only by interpretations of a tradition confined to the past. The key difference seems to be that the Orthodox churches represent a fossilized remnant of the ancient Christian assembly while Protestantism is, far from frozen, an exponentially divisive virus, its only ossified aspect being some of the scriptures. I'm not comparing the two groups as if they are equal, I am only bringing up apparent similarities in regards to the treatment of divine revelation and Rome's idea of doctrinal development.

A passage from Karl Adam's The Spirit of Catholicism comes to mind:

[quote]The Church alone, says Cardinal Newman, "has succeeded in thus rejecting evil without sacrificing the good, and in holding together in one things which in all other schools are incompatible." It is the spirit of revelation living in the Church, the vitality and consistency of Catholic thought, that "active tradition," as the school men call it, which prevents any injury to the Catholic whole and ever restores its massive unity and inward harmony. It is the same living spirit of revelation, manifested in the teaching authority, which gives the Church its flexibility and power of expansion, and enables it to adapt itself to every age, to every civilization, and to every mental outlook. It is indeed the propelling and progressive principle in Catholicism. All other Christian bodies, in so far as they have maintained a positive belief, have attached themselves to a fixed and rigid principle. In Lutheranism and Calvinism it is the letter of the Bible; in the schismatical churches of the East it is the Bible and "passive" tradition, that is to say, the tradition of the ancient Fathers and most ancient Councils. Therefore these churches are in danger of treating revelation as so much dead capital, as a store of gold which must be passed on to future generations in a merely external fashion, and of overlooking the vital energies that lie in the revelation and work for the further development of its germinal content. To this danger of petrifaction and ossification the Orthodox Church has succumbed. [/quote]

I am nowhere near an expert on Eastern Christianity. Indeed, I am only just now beginning to study Eastern ecclesiology. Notice that my assessments above were either phrased as questions or qualified by the phrase "seem to". I don't think that I am able to debate the issues, but I do know that there are others on Phatmass who are able. I hope to learn more from this thread about why I believe what I do, and to purge myself of a bit more ignorance.

[Guest WhiskeyWalsh]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 January 2010 - 10:40 AM' timestamp='1262878828' post='2031749']
I agree with the notion that if one wants to see what the Church looked like and believed prior to the great schism, one can visit an Orthodox church. I think it is fairly clear that the doctrines that initially divided East from West were gradual developments and that the papacy was not always understood in the way it is now. I also am enchanted by the devotion to the sacred mysteries one finds in the Orthodox. I have a healthy respect for the past. Nevertheless, I believe that the Church is only fixed or "full-grown" in its heavenly state (in the mind of Christ). I believe that the Church Militant is a dynamic organism that moves and grows and changes as it evolves; never violently or in contradiction to its past, yet truly changing as a seed to a sapling to a flowering tree. I do not believe that the need for dogma or the evolution of the Church has decreased over time, but rather that this need is vitally connected to the function and organic aspect of the Church Militant. Having said this, it seems to me that my primary reasons for choosing the views of the Roman See over the views of Orthodoxy are all connected to this issue of dynamism and dogma.[/quote]

The problems with analogies and metaphors (especially in regards to theology) is that they are necessarily incomplete - they are useful pedagogical tools, but they can only talk around a subject, not directly describe it. This consideration, and how one responds to it, I think in many ways shows one of fundamental differences in the way the West and the East approach theology. I want to return to this topic later. For now, however, consider how you are using your analogy of growth with regards to the "evolution" of the Church. If we consent that the Church can, and indeed has changed, then we must then admit that the church was in some way incomplete in its beginning, otherwise I'm not sure how you're using the term "growth." Moreover, it does not matter whether the church changes violently or slowly over time, but if we admit that the church changes, then it would seem that the mystical body of Christ is incomplete. I'm not willing to say, either, that there's an essence of the church (its Creeds, dogma, etc...) that does not change and some accidental characteristics that do change. Such a position is not a straw man, as I've heard this advocated from a number of different voices, but such a Aristotelian distinction finds no basis in the Early Church, in the New Testament, or in traditional Second Temple Judaism. Christ tells us that, " There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known" (Lk. 12:2). What we can take from this statement, and what many Eastern fathers have taken from this passage, is that if anything [i]has appeared[/i] to change since the beginning of Church (which is a misnomer, since the Church, like Christ, has neither beginning nor end), it is only because the complete mystical body of Christ was and continues to be revealed through the Holy Spirit in the economy of theophantic events. Moreover, Orthodoxy has always understood such revelations in the spirit of economia, in that God provides revelation insofar as He offers it as a medicine to the faithful to encourage them towards theosis. Man comes to know God, directly, through such theophantic events (especially seen in the liturgy of the Holy Mysteries and in prayer), and any didatic or dogmatic theology - which makes use of analogies and metaphors to describe the indescribable - we find beyond this direct communion with God is in some sense a [i]loving[/i] concession to human weakness to make use of rational faculties to aid in the task of salvation and to root our heresies. The church is already full grown, but whether one can observe the church in its fully glory will depend upon the enlightening of one's heart, a process that occurs through the cultivation of constant prayer.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 January 2010 - 10:40 AM' timestamp='1262878828' post='2031749'] Is it accurate to say that the Orthodox episcopacy only taught universally (that is, authoritatively declared dogma as a universal body) while it was in communion with the bishop of Rome? Why has it not exercised universal dogmatic authority since the loss of the Roman See?[/quote]

The idea of authoritatively declared dogma, in the sense of some teachings being ex cathedra and others being ex pastoral, does not have a correspondence in Orthodoxy. Dogma, in the sense of the doctrines promulgated through the seven ecumenical councils and other local councils before and after the Schism, is (as stated before) a concession to human weakness that attempts to constrain the maximal quality and content of a life in Christ into a more finite form. However, when the dogma of the Church was revealed through various councils, the Church acts synodically in accepting such dogma ("its seemed good to us and and the Holy Spirit."), but how that dogma is implemented (again, in a spirit of economia or in a spirit of akrasia/strictness) will depend upon the various pastoral needs of a bishop's flock. Of course, there are certain tenants of the faith that will not and can not be omitted if a bishop wishes to remain in communion with the Church, but idea of exercising "universal dogmatic authority" makes no sense considering the diversity of spiritual illnesses and needs within the faithful. There is no episcopacy within the Orthodox church (although there is a hierarchy), because there is no sovereign of the church, save Christ, and no particular person carries the seal of faith lest they attempt to usurp the place of the Holy Spirit. Pentacost serves as an example of how the Holy Spirit acts synodically in the life of the Church: all the apostles are filled with the Holy Spirit, but their speech is heard in a diversity of languages.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 January 2010 - 10:40 AM' timestamp='1262878828' post='2031749']Is it accurate to say that the Orthodox accept development of doctrinal understanding only up to a certain point, then cut off any continuing development by sticking with a particular body of writings (the Fathers)?[/quote]

This is not accurate as the notion of doctrinal development has never been accepted by the Orthodox church. If it appears that the Orthodox church heavily refers to the pre-schism Fathers (both East and West) in forming its current phronema (midset), it is because Fathers lived in a state of extrodinary holiness and familiarity with God that is not as easily seen today. Yet, there are many modern saints that have enjoyed this depth of communion with God, and its no surprise that their life and writings (if they had any) are treated with the same weight and respect as that of the Fathers. Such modern saints and blessed elders include St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Tikon of Zandosk, St. Necatarios of Aegenia, St. Dionysius of Zachynthos, blessed elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain, Elder Joseph of the Holy Mountain, etc... Such men did not develop the understanding of the faith, but mystically particpated in the fuller revelation of the faith, which they reveal indirectly and incompletely through their writings and teachings.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 January 2010 - 10:40 AM' timestamp='1262878828' post='2031749']I see a certain similarity between Protestantism and Orthodoxy. In both cases, the groups seem to ossify a living tradition by drawing a line at a certain point, after which there can only be reference to a specific body of writings. Both groups seem to have been founded on the principle that the Roman church had fallen into heresy by its doctrinal developments. Both groups seem to lack an objectively perceived and objectively understood (that is, living and human) center of authority, universally speaking; a hierarchical government without a prime minister (and thus, effectively, without the living, objectively perceived / understood rulership of our subjectively perceived / understood king). Both groups seem to isolate localized congregations into autonomous units, governed only by interpretations of a tradition confined to the past. The key difference seems to be that the Orthodox churches represent a fossilized remnant of the ancient Christian assembly while Protestantism is, far from frozen, an exponentially divisive virus, its only ossified aspect being some of the scriptures. I'm not comparing the two groups as if they are equal, I am only bringing up apparent similarities in regards to the treatment of divine revelation and Rome's idea of doctrinal development.[/quote]

Too much to treat here briefly, but my above comments should begin to answer these comments. We should consider what we mean by objectivity, as if God or the church is something that we can stand apart from participation in them. What the Church shares in common is the particiaption in the uncreated energies of God as experienced through the Sacraments and prayer. Thanks for your patience and I'll get back to the posts as soon as I can

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='WhiskeyWalsh' date='07 January 2010 - 02:18 PM' timestamp='1262899100' post='2031969']
. . . The church is already full grown, but whether one can observe the church in its fully glory will depend upon the enlightening of one's heart, a process that occurs through the cultivation of constant prayer. [/quote]
Well said!

The revelation of the glory of Christ on Mt. Tabor is an example of this fullness, for there was no change in Christ when He was transfigured; rather, the eyes and hearts of the Apostles were changed so that they could finally see what was always there, i.e., the divine Light.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 January 2010 - 10:40 AM' timestamp='1262878828' post='2031749']
I agree with the notion that if one wants to see what the Church looked like and believed prior to the great schism, one can visit an Orthodox church.
[/quote]

Latin Christianity never looked the same as Eastern Christianity.

Also, I would disagree that Eastern Orthodoxy believes in the same way that the Church did prior to the schism. The Church, both before and after the schism, believed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (see the 5th century Athanasian Creed). Also, Eastern Orthodoxy has introduced the practice of permitting divorced persons to remarry, which is completely contrary to what the Church has always taught.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='07 January 2010 - 04:06 PM' timestamp='1262901982' post='2032011']
Latin Christianity never looked the same as Eastern Christianity.

Also, I would disagree that Eastern Orthodoxy believes in the same way that the Church did prior to the schism. The Church, both before and after the schism, believed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (see the 5th century Athanasian Creed). [b]Also, the Eastern Orthodoxy has introduced the practice of permitting divorced persons to remarry, which is completely contrary to what the Church has always taught.[/b]
[/quote]
I was unaware of this. How do they justify it?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='07 January 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1262903911' post='2032036']
I was unaware of this. How do they justify it?
[/quote]

They see it as an act of "mercy".

[Laudate_Dominum]

Ur so ecumenical rexi.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='07 January 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1262904427' post='2032045']
Ur so ecumenical rexi.
[/quote]

ikr?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='07 January 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1262904325' post='2032044']
They see it as an act of "mercy".
[/quote]
This is a rare case where it seems from my perspective that they're out and out wrong with no real justification.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='07 January 2010 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1262904622' post='2032050']
This is a rare case where it seems from my perspective that they're out and out wrong with no real justification.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure their position on papal primacy is out and out wrong with no real justification, too.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='07 January 2010 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1262904721' post='2032052']
I'm pretty sure their position on papal primacy is out and out wrong with no real justification, too.
[/quote]
I don't quite agree. They do justify it, scripturally, referencing the Fathers, etc.. We don't necessarily agree with their conclusions, but at least those are based in legitimate arguments, right?


Anyway, no more hijacking from me. This was an intellectual thread before I got involved.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='07 January 2010 - 05:06 PM' timestamp='1262901982' post='2032011']
Latin Christianity never looked the same as Eastern Christianity.

Also, I would disagree that Eastern Orthodoxy believes in the same way that the Church did prior to the schism. The Church, both before and after the schism, believed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (see the 5th century Athanasian Creed). Also, the Eastern Orthodoxy has introduced the practice of permitting divorced persons to remarry, which is completely contrary to what the Church has always taught.
[/quote]

I'm talking about doctrinal understandings regarding the papacy and episcopacy (basically, the nature of authority in the Church). I can see why what I said was misleading, as if the liturgies or minor traditions were the same. Apologies. I think that the case is strong that the idea of the bishop of Rome having supremacy (to say nothing of infallibility) was a progressive development in theology. When such ideas were employed on the East, the East rejected them. I do know that various historical passages may be pointed to as indications of occasional support in the East for Latin views, but I am under the impression that such quotations represent exceptions to a general rule. As I said in the OP, however, I am only just beginning to learn about these things. Hence this thread.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='07 January 2010 - 05:53 PM' timestamp='1262904808' post='2032054']
I don't quite agree. They do justify it, scripturally, referencing the Fathers, etc.. We don't necessarily agree with their conclusions, but at least those are based in legitimate arguments, right?
[/quote]

I would disagree that their arguments are legitimate.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 January 2010 - 05:55 PM' timestamp='1262904924' post='2032055']
I'm talking about doctrinal understandings regarding the papacy and episcopacy (basically, the nature of authority in the Church). I can see why what I said was misleading, as if the liturgies or minor traditions were the same. Apologies.
[/quote]

I still disagree that Eastern Orthodoxy's views today represent those of the Church before the schism. The Pope has always had primacy in the Church. He has no primacy in Eastern Orthodoxy today.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='07 January 2010 - 06:00 PM' timestamp='1262905208' post='2032062']
I still disagree that Eastern Orthodoxy's views today represent those of the Church before the schism. The Pope has always had primacy in the Church. He has no primacy in Eastern Orthodoxy today.
[/quote]

I was under the impression that Orthodox believed that Rome did have primacy (though not divine protection), only not supremacy (and certain not infallibility). I do think that some form of Rome's primacy is fairly easy to prove from the paper trail left by the early Church.