www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology What Separates Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

Well, dear Subdeacon, you seem to have placed all the blame on one side - and emphasized this by repeating the identical two-word phrase three times.

Nevertheless, I did not accuse you of ignorance.

I must be excused from giving you English lessons - you don't seem all that docile!

Fr. Serge

Dear Zenovia,

Certainly, I've learned my lesson on that!

Both Orthodox and Catholics reject doctrines they perceive in one another that simply do not exist!

My aunt who is staunchly RC says that since the Orthodox don't accept the Immaculate Conception, the obviously believe that Mary was conceived with the stain of Original Sin!

Or that if they deny Purgatory, they shouldn't be praying for the dead . . . because where are those dead who need praying for if not in Purgatory?

And the reverse is true of Orthodoxy.

Always happy to read your deeply Christian and at once ecumenical words!

They have such a healing effect, you know . . .

Alex

I'm sorry, but I cannot believe this "doctrine."

The laity in the Apostolic Churches are almost completely divided on every single issue.

Was it the laity or the bishops who fought against Arianism, etc...?

(I just had to write that even though I see that Alex has already written almost my exact response. I respond as I read these posts.)

The issues surrounding Arianism and Monotheletism actually prove the point.

Yes indeed, and the iconoclast controversy as well. On a number of occasions it was the laity and the monastics who defended Orthodoxy while most of the hierarchy submitted to heresy (even Patriarchs). This is also why the idea of a consensus of the hierarchy is problematic. My understanding is that most hierarchs at the time of the Arian controversy supported the Arians. Hierarchs supporting what would be deemed heretical positions held their own "robber synods." What distinguished some councils as being Ecumenical against some being "robber councils?" Well, from one point of view (albeit a cynical one) history is written by the victors. So, without considering what is intrinsically true, one can say that those councils, such as Nicea, that won out in the Church over the long run became the Ecumenical councils. Those councils that advocated a position that lost were not. If Arius had managed to persuade the majority at Nicea, we perhaps would all be Arians today.

Now, I am not a historical positivist, so I am not advocating wholeheartedly such a cynical view. But there is a grain of truth in it and this supports what Andrew has been arguing; namely, that there are no a priori criteria for determining what is infallible truth. I don't know that this means we jettison the idea of the infallibility of the Church, but it does seem to make the notion rather murky. I don't think that we can ever attain certitude on any of these things and so I do advocate a mitigated skepticism when it comes to knowledge claims (all knowledge claims actually, including scientific knowledge claims).

Joe

Dear AMM,

Arius was a priest who espoused what developed into three brands of Arianism.

Monothelitism was opposed by St Maximus the Confessor - who nevertheless defended Rome and its Pope in the conflict to the end.

Again, the Church is what defines the truth and the Spirit of Christ guards it against error. The 7 Ec. Councils, approved by the entire Church, upholds the true doctrine and the true interpretation of the Gospel and the salvific events etc.

By affirming the true doctrine of Christ, we are, at once, affirming obedience to the Church and to her teaching in the person of her Hierarchs, successors to the Apostles.

Not all of her Hierarchs taught error and when they did, they paid the price for it. Councils, like the Robber Council, were later condemned and overturned by the Church. Indefectibility is a process and there are bumps along the road, to be sure.

The idea of truth as being something outside the authority of the Church to expound upon is not only not Orthodoxy, but a recent development that justifies certain individuals and groups to oppose the Church when they don't agree with what the Patriarchs or a certain Patriarch says about ecumenism and the like.

It is simply a license to justify an "I know best" attitude.

To be fair to mainstream Orthodoxy, I, for one, don't believe that is what the Orthodox Church believes and, as for the cited article above, to quote St John Damascene, "Just because one sparrow has sung, does not mean that spring is here."

In addition, whenever individuals opposed hierarchs on matters involving doctrine, their opposition was only "canonized" when it was affirmed later by the Church authorities themselves.

St Maximus the Confessor is a Saint because the Church said he is and it also confirmed his defence of Orthodoxy.

Without that confirmation by the Church of Christ, thinking that one is enabled to perceive the truth and knows what it is independently of the Church etc. is surely a form of prelest.

Alex

Dear Joe,

Well, I don't think that Orthodoxy is about "murkiness" and, if so, I've yet to come across an Orthodox who would be preaching a murky ecclesiology!

That's just not in the nature of Orthodoxy. The laity or people of God have historically opposed both Patriarchs and Emperors when these were deemed heretical (e.g. Nestorius). I would suggest that such opposition was not about questioning the role that the Hierarchy plays in the Church with respect to doctrine - I would respectfully suggest that the laity themselves, in opposing Nestorianism et al., were telling these incumbents that they were unworthy of their posts given their heresies.

Alex

Alex,

I think that what you say is basically correct. But, "agreement by the whole Church" is never something that happens all at once but only after a long period of time, and hierarchs, even large groups of them, can be wrong and this will be shown over time if their positions get overturned. So, in terms of what the Church considers to be the truth, it is the long term view that matters. Though this still doesn't have anything to do with the intrinsic truthfulness of a claim. Iconoclasm is either right or wrong. It is not right during the time that hierarchs support it and wrong during the time that they oppose it. So, we laity still have a responsibility to follow our conscience as best as we can, and form our conscience according to the mind of the Church. But, it means that if we conscientiously must oppose something proposed by some in the hierarchy (including Popes), then we better have good reason to think that we are right and we better do so in good faith. One can fool the people around himself, but one cannot fool God. There is a big difference between striving with all your might to follow the mind of the Church and then dissenting and the idea that I can just disagree with the Church whenever I want and just claim the right to dissent. The former is intellectually honest, while the latter is not.

Joe

Dear Joe,

Excellent! I agree and anyone that does not agree with you - ANATHEMA!

Bravo!

Alex

basic and simple, one word

PRIDE!

Alex,

I agree with you. But, that the laity would oppose hierarchs who fell into Nestorianism and other errors shows that there was no a priori understanding of the hierarchs as being infallible. I do think that the notion of the infallibility of the Church is serviceable if it is understood to be indefectability over the long term. But I don't think we can state the a priori requirements for a synod or individual to make an "infallible" pronouncement.

Joe

Dear Pani,

You are right!

I for one am proud of my deep humility!!

Alex

Friends,

I'm not sure, in the last few brief responses, what is meant seriously, as a joke, or as sarcastic. Perhaps, I'm just trying to take too much in at once. Anyway, this is another stimulating discussion. I must be off for a bit but will check back in a little while. Also, I am not sure that I really formulated well what I was trying to say, so I will have to think some more about it.

Joe

Dear Joe,

Well, I do think that you and I are on the right track here . . .

And don't forget about MARY!!!

Well, we must also remember that when Ecumenical Councils were called, it was not only Bishops and other Hierarchs who were in attendance - laity were also invited to take active part in the theological discussions. The Ecumenical Council represented the entire Church, including the laity etc.

So if such a Council that meets the criteria of being an Ecumenical Council fails - and apart from local Councils that pretended to be Ecumenical, that hasn't happened yet and won't - the Church is in trouble indeed.

In addition, the Truth is one - but our perception of it is always blocked by our own moral/spiritual imperfections. That is why we are more inclined to obey Councils and Patriarchs and Bishops, as a regular part of daily Church life, than anyone else.

Alex

We look at the dogma from some councils because they have stood the test of time and have been accepted in to the consciousness of the church. Just as we canonize after someone's death. In retrospect we are better able to perceive truth. Councils have been convened that have said they were ecumenical at the time, but the church over time came to say they weren't. When it was said "Indefectibility is a process and there are bumps along the road, to be sure." The "bumps" to me break every model of infallibility I've seen, other than the one I've outlined. Messy, inconsistent, defies definition; apply whatever tag you will, it's the reality in my estimation.

Lay people along with the hierarchs bear responsibility for maintaining the dogma of the church. No person is any more "infallible" than another. Thankfully I would say the amount of dogma Orthodoxy has defined is actually quite small, and I see no reason why there will actually ever be any more added. We still however have to be on guard that the church does not become clericalized.

When I said on the first page "Different modes of being, different priorities, different outlooks, infallibility, UOJ, theology, the status of post schism councils, politics, history, ethnic rivalries, etc." Everything I have read so far has re-affirmed my belief.