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.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='WhiskeyWalsh' date='07 January 2010 - 02:18 PM' timestamp='1262899100' post='2031969']
. . .

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.

. . .[/quote]
I agree.

One of the things that helped me to get beyond the idea that I could form a mental conception of God and in so doing have a real grasp upon Him was to remember that the Holy Fathers never spoke about the dogmatic formulas of the councils as "definitions" but referred to them instead as "decrees," because - of course - it is impossible to define God. In fact, the purpose of the conciliar decrees is simply to protect the faith from heresy by decreeing certain ways of speaking about what the Church received from Christ the Lord (i.e., in connection with His incarnation, life, passion, death, resurrection, and ascension), and in the process establish - for lack of a better word - [i]fences[/i] around the mystery of God, which by its very nature always transcends human thought and language; and this approach to dogma is confirmed by what St. Hilary of Poitiers said in his treatise on the Holy Trinity, for as he put it: "The error of others compels us to err in daring to embody in human terms truths which ought to be hidden in the silent veneration of the heart."

[brightsadness]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='07 January 2010 - 03:45 PM' timestamp='1262904325' post='2032044']
They see it as an act of "mercy".
[/quote]


Having attended the second marriages of Orthodox relatives, both divorced and widowed, I am aware that the ceremony has some different prayers. Chief among them is a request for forgiveness for the "sin of a second marriage." It seemed both humble and kind to me. But I understand that it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

[Guest WhiskeyWalsh]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 January 2010 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1262905626' post='2032071']
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.
[/quote]

The idea of an ecumenical patriarch, a bishop of bishops, emerged in large part to Rome's (both the city and the Empire) pivotal role in spreading Christianity. Rome was hub of communication and of transportation, it was a place to petition the aid of or work with secular authorities, and almost every major city in the ancient world had contacts (both ecclesiastical and secular) in Rome. Thus, because of the bishop of Rome's unique set of resources, many bishops in the early church looked to the Roman bishop as being one of bulwarks of the church, as the bishop of Rome could easily communicate and (sometimes) represent the interests of other churches, especially those on the Western side of the continent and in North Africa. When Rome ceased to be the center of the Empire, the bishop of Constantinople assumed many of the same roles, and indeed (for better or worse) also assumed the title of ecumenical patriarch, which title the bishop of Rome also claimed. So, in terms of an administrative duties and due to his proximity to the Imperial throne, the Eastern churches did consider the Pope of Rome first among equals, a person who would defend and represent the interests of the Church to the secular authorities. However, the idea of the Pope of Rome assuming a greater ecclesiastical power than other bishops was an innovation that no other bishop in the ancient world claimed. Specifically, this power was embodied in the idea that the ecumenical patriarch had universal pastoral authority over the whole of Christendom, which is to say that the Pope of Rome was the only bishop with real ecclesiastical authorities, all other bishops deriving their authority from the authority of the Pope of Rome. Regardless of whether the Pope became directly involved in the administration and pastoral care of other metropolia in the West outside of Italy and its surround islands - which he didn't in a major way until the gradual reunification of Western Europe under the Franks - this new understanding of the ecumenical patriarch made the rest of the bishops in Christendom basically titular bishops.

What the Orthodox Church rejects regarding the office of the Papacy, amongst the most well know (universal jurisdiction), its that a bishop can exercise pastoral authority outside of a given geographical area, which is basis for our rejection of universal jurisdiction. The ancient cannons state very clearly that there is to be only one bishop per metropolitan area and that a bishop must have a specific flock for which to care; there can be no such thing as a "bishop at large" because such a bishop lacks the servants of God whom he is supposed to serve. The idea of a "universal" bishop falls under this definition, as it does not specify the bishop's geographical authority, but claims all authority under the palladium (or omiphorion, as we say in the East) of Rome. The cannons also state that one bishop may not interfer in the sacramental or pastoral life of another bishop's jurisdiction without the consent of the first bishop, and again, the office of an ecumencial patriarch would violate this cannon.

I think the Orthodox hobby horse that is worth listening to in regards to the Pope of Rome, outside of the various cries of the worldliness and temporal corruption in regards to Rome (because the Byzantine empire, of course, was not worldly and full of betryal, intrigue, and power plays), xenophobia, and papal infallibility (which as Brian rightly pointed out earlier was a much, much later doctrine in the Western church), is that if the traditional Roman Catholic thesis of the Pope of Rome is true, it cannot also be true that bishops of other jurisdicitions retain the Apostolic authority granted to them by Christ in his sending out of the Apostles and the manifestation of the Holy Spirit upon all of the Apostles during Pentecost. Its not enough that other jursidicitions would retain their local traditions of liturgy, prayer, liturgical arts, governing practicies, etc... even if all the ancient churches submitted to the authority of the Pope of Rome. It is that a bishop of an area would only be a bishop, the most important caretaker of Christ's flock, only via the proxy of the eccleastical authority of the Pope of Rome, and not by virtue of the bishop's ordination and the investitutre of his office through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, that outpouring being cannonically sanctioned by the laying on of hands by two other bishops of the Church.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='WhiskeyWalsh' date='07 January 2010 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1262899100' post='2031969']
...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]

Remember that when we speak of doctrinal evolution or the dynamism of a living Church that grows and changes, we speak not of the Church Triumphant - the glorified Church that transcends time and space - but rather of the Church Militant; the incomplete Church of our time and space. The two are one, yes, but the perfect and changeless Church Triumphant is only perceived by faith and mystical experience from our mortal perspective. "Our" Church, properly speaking, refers to the Church of our spatiotemporal world, which still marches toward the Eschaton. And this Church Militant is - as a matter of fact - limited and imperfect in many ways. For one, it is incomplete in that as I type this, there is (presumably!) yet more souls that in the coming hours that will enter into it. Second, it is imperfect in its understanding of the sacred mysteries, being limited by the weakness of human nature in this fallen world. Third, it depends on its growth in both numbers and doctrine in order to grow closer to the Truth.

Did God reveal the whole of Old Testament prophecy to Adam? Did any prophet have knowledge of what would be revealed to future prophets? Were the Scriptures given all at once? Were they canonized by God Himself in a manner that was objectively verifiable to men? Did the Blessed Apostles themselves know all that they needed to know when they received the Holy Spirit? Was the council of Jerusalem the last and only time that our leaders would wrestle with theological questions? Was the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity clearly preached before the first council of Nicaea? It is a matter of fact, not opinion, that the Church Militant has grown in her doctrine (unless, for example, the canon of Scriptures is not considered doctrinal). A small seed, growing slowly into a tree. Such seems to be God's way...taking time, and lots of it, to bring forth His many creations.


[quote]...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...exercising "universal dogmatic authority" makes no sense considering the diversity of spiritual illnesses and needs within the faithful.[/quote]

My point is that Eastern Christians acknowledge the need for the universally binding nature of the first seven councils. I merely find it peculiar that God would see the need to protect the clarity of the faith by means of universally binding decrees for only the first 700 years of Christianity. I find it just as peculiar as the Protestant notion that God protected the tradition of the Church only until the scriptural canon was known.

[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 extraordinary 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 men did not develop the understanding of the faith, but mystically participated in the fuller revelation of the faith, which they reveal indirectly and incompletely through their writings and teachings.[/quote]

And yet, unless I have some massive hole in my admittedly small knowledge of history, it is a simple matter of historic record that doctrines were (are) only gradually understood by the Church. It is interesting to rearrange the scriptures of the New Testament according to the chronological order in which they were written. You see a definite increase in both awareness and understanding of doctrine (and many scholars would say - not without good arguments - an increase in doctrine, period). The same may be done with the writings of the early Church. Do you disagree with this?

[quote]We should consider what we mean by objectivity...What the Church shares in common is the participation in the uncreated energies of God as experienced through the Sacraments and prayer.
[/quote]

Objectivity from the heavenly perspective must not be the same as objectivity from our perspective. From our spatiotemporal perspective as mortals in a fallen world, something objective is that which is verifiable by either certain logical proof or certain sensual experience. Our faith assures us that the Holy Spirit is an objective reality; yet the Holy Spirit is nevertheless perceived and understood only subjectively. The written text of Scripture is an objective reality, but the discernment of that text as divinely inspired and its interpretation are subjective in nature. This is why we need an objective teaching voice. Anything less would produce anarchy, like a nation with a constitution but no government by which it may be interpreted and applied.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful response and welcome to the forum. As one prominent Phatmasser would say: God grant you many joyful years!

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='WhiskeyWalsh' date='07 January 2010 - 08:13 PM' timestamp='1262913183' post='2032131']
The idea of an ecumenical patriarch, a bishop of bishops, emerged in large part to Rome's (both the city and the Empire) pivotal role in spreading Christianity. Rome was hub of communication and of transportation, it was a place to petition the aid of or work with secular authorities, and almost every major city in the ancient world had contacts (both ecclesiastical and secular) in Rome. Thus, because of the bishop of Rome's unique set of resources, many bishops in the early church looked to the Roman bishop as being one of bulwarks of the church, as the bishop of Rome could easily communicate and (sometimes) represent the interests of other churches, especially those on the Western side of the continent and in North Africa. When Rome ceased to be the center of the Empire, the bishop of Constantinople assumed many of the same roles, and indeed (for better or worse) also assumed the title of ecumenical patriarch, which title the bishop of Rome also claimed. So, in terms of an administrative duties and due to his proximity to the Imperial throne, the Eastern churches did consider the Pope of Rome first among equals, a person who would defend and represent the interests of the Church to the secular authorities. However, the idea of the Pope of Rome assuming a greater ecclesiastical power than other bishops was an innovation that no other bishop in the ancient world claimed. Specifically, this power was embodied in the idea that the ecumenical patriarch had universal pastoral authority over the whole of Christendom, [b]which is to say that the Pope of Rome was the only bishop with real ecclesiastical authorities, all other bishops deriving their authority from the authority of the Pope of Rome. [/b][/quote]

I was pretty much with you until that portion I put in bold. Perhaps some historian will correct me, but I do not believe that Rome ever claimed that the authority of bishops came from the pope (as if the pope were the source of sacramental efficacy).

Alas, it is late. I look forward to writing (and reading) more tomorrow.