www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Western doctrine as acceptable "theologumenon?"

I don't post much here, mostly lurking in the shadows, reading what people smarter than I have to say about the interesting stuff you guys talk about.

Anyway, it seems to me that the Christian East has rarely, if ever, condemned out-and-out the vast body of distinctively "Roman" doctrines. With that in mind, can a good and faithful Orthodox Christian believe in some of the West's doctrines on which his Church has no formal teaching? And if so, how much of the body of Western teaching may he accept? Lastly, is "it's not Patristic" a good enough reason to force the faithful to deny something?

Along this line, maybe helping answer the above question, is this thought experiment: Suppose a Roman Catholic who believes in all the doctrines of the Catholic Church decides to become Eastern Orthodox. What is the bare minimum of the teachings he would have to renounce?

Thanks in advance. I've been curious about this for awhile. Also, sorry if this is in the wrong category; I wasn't really sure where to put this.

And by what ecumenically binding canonical authority would such a person be forced to renounce anything?

"And by what ecumenically binding canonical authority would such a person be forced to renounce anything?"

Good question, but let's be real here.

Mr. Smith's questions are not lightweight. I personally have been told by clerics and others that my Church has fallen to apostasy and heresy.

I tend not to listen to those clerics, as usually they know not whereof they speak.

I am being "real" here and never said his questions were "lightweight." To my mind, this is a fundamental issue related to his question. By what ecumenically binding canonical authority could any Orthodox priest assert that Catholics are in heresy and thus in need of abjuring heresy before being received into an Orthodox jurisdiction?

"By what ecumenically binding canonical authority could any Orthodox priest assert that Catholics are in heresy and thus in need of abjuring heresy before being received into an Orthodox jurisdiction?"

None, so far as I know.

That's really the question. I can't think of any such authority. So what's to prevent Orthodox Christians from holding the doctrine of, let's say, papal infallibility? If there really is no binding authority opposing the doctrine of papal infallibility, wouldn't Orthodox be able to believe in it?

One might conceivably argue that since papal infallibility is generally foreign to Orthodox tradition, it shouldn't be held by Orthodox believers. But, to this I would answer that tradition is prescriptive, not proscriptive; in other words, tradition tells us what to believe, not what not to believe.

Anyone have any thoughts?

If it's any consolation, there does not seem to exist any Church in Christendom which some other Church in Christendom does not term heretical!

Fr. Serge

"So what's to prevent Orthodox Christians from holding the doctrine of, let's say, papal infallibility? "

Nothing, actually, as long as it is a personal belief and he does not try to "dogmatize" it. After all, there is nothing in the doctrine which is contrary to any canon, but the sense of the doctrine does run contrary to Orthodox sensibilities and ecclesiological understanding.

Dear Deacon,

I agree with your question and what you have written but I have heard and read time and again from Orthodox sources of the errors of the Catholic Church.

If there is nothing we must renounce or change then why aren't we all one big happy united church? Why Chrismation? Why re-baptism in some cases? I don't mean to offend anyone or start an argument here but there are issues that need to be dealt with and resolved on both sides.

I am one who believes it is more politics than theology that keeps the Catholic and Orthodox Churches from unity, but there is a wealth of naysayers out there who don't agree with me.

"By what ecumenically binding canonical authority could any Orthodox priest assert that Catholics are in heresy and thus in need of abjuring heresy before being received into an Orthodox jurisdiction?"

This ball drops into the Orthodox court.

God Bless,
Bill

Christ is in our midst!!

If it's any consolation to any and all here on the board, this question doesn't seem to register with Catholics I seem to run into regularly.

I belong to a men's study group. The question of the authority of the Church came up one night as we were studying the passages in the Gospel in which Christ gives the Keys to Peter. I had expected to hear some support for this in the same vein I hear it from Catholic posters here.

Well, to make it short, not even one other man in the group believed that Christ really meant to give the kind of authority usually ascribed to St. Peter by Catholics or to the Church by many Orthodox Christians in this passage. From the tone and tenor of the group's reactions and the ensuing discussion, no one seems to believe that a priest or bishop can bind anyone in conscience to anything at any time or for any reason. They ridiculed me for putting on arguments from the Catechism and Scripture. In other words, it's all opinion and everyone can find his own. And we'll all get to Heaven anyway.

So apart from people who have a bit more education than the average man in the pew--like those of you who post here passionately on both sides--I came away wondering what it is we are arguing about. Unless I've completely taken the wrong conclusion--that this issue doesn't register since the advent of "conscience above all" (sola scriptura in a new garb)--we've got a lot more to be concerned about than this. Please understand that I do not advocate this idea or this stance. I came away really stunned. (Which is why I usually avoid lay-run "study" groups or "spiritual" groups or whatever. It feels like what I term "trading ignorance" at the end of the time spent.)

Now before both sides of this issue--papal authority, papal infallibility; Church authority, clergy authority--get moving along on their keyboards, let me say I'm just reporting what I see and hear. And I'm still letting the implications sink into me.

Is it any wonder so many clergy are afraid to preach the tough sermons and call people to the tough stances that the Gospel calls for?

In Christ,

BOB

I'm sure there are more qualified people who could answer this but here goes...

The Office for the Reception of Converts as taken from "Hapgood" which is utilized for those who are converting to Orthodoxy having already received "valid" baptism which is a pretty standard text in English has the following renouncements for those of the Roman-Latin Church...



I would think this would be the minimum...

All the questions involved are tendentious, insofar as they do not accurately reflect anything believed by the Catholic Church today. I could profess everything there, and still remain Catholic.

Thanks, Job, for posting them.

Out of curiosity, when were these created? Who authorized them? Are they used universally?

Again I would say there are others more qualified to answer but my understanding is:

This specific form is used pretty universally in the english speaking world. And a reception into Orthodoxy via this confession of faith and the sacrament of confession is and has been common for several hundred years. As I understand it, receiving Roman Catholic converts via "baptism" is actually a more recent innovation. I can understand why it has been done, and why some insist that it be done, but that is not the "norm". For more specifics I would need to go back into materials that are not readily available to me at the moment.