Eastern Christianity

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='WhiskeyWalsh' date='07 January 2010 - 08:13 PM' timestamp='1262913183' post='2032131']
...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...this new understanding of the ecumenical patriarch made the rest of the bishops in Christendom basically titular bishops.[/quote]

This part of your post relates directly to the last part, so my response is provided in my concluding thoughts, below.

[quote]What the Orthodox Church rejects regarding the office of the Papacy...is 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.[/quote]

The bishop of Rome has a specific flock to care for; the diocese of Rome. In this respect he is like every other bishop. Western Catholics believe that the bishop of Rome has a special duty, as uniquely being successor to a specific apostle (rather than successor to the apostolic office in general, as is the case with other bishops), to strengthen his brethren (the rest of the bishops), feed Christ's flock (the universal Church), and use the keys of Christ's kingdom. This unique duty, progressively understood by the Church Militant throughout history, does not remove the bishop's obligations to his own diocese; it merely adds an extra burden and makes him servant of all servants.

[quote]I think the Orthodox hobby horse that is worth listening to in regards to the Pope of Rome...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...a bishop of an area would only be a bishop...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...
[/quote]

Why? If what you say is truly representative of Rome's teaching, Rome would not recognize the Orthodox as having the Eucharist. But Rome does recognize the validity of the Orthodox sacraments.

[Ziggamafu]

As my OP was meant to indicate, it seems to me that the core issue is whether or not it is proper to the Church Militant to grow and evolve in its awareness and clarification of the doctrines of the Church Triumphant. I think that this evolution of the Church by means of its increasing awareness of its "Triumphant" identity is clearly testified to in history. It is not as if gradually accepted doctrines are truly "new" - as if invented and tacked on to the apostolic faith - but only uncovered, as the implications of history and the apostolic kerygma are progressively understood. I think that the progressive authorship of Scripture and the lengthy discernment process regarding discernment of it as such is a clear example.

The East seems to tacitly acknowledge certain ecclesiological needs by recognizing the infallible nature of decrees in the first seven ecumenical councils, as well as the necessity / importance of those councils (if I understand correctly). I doubt - though I'm not certain - that Orthodox scholars deny the progressive awareness of doctrine as evidence by the chronology of biblical authorship and the subsequent "ironing out" of what the apostolic kerygma means / implies during the first few centuries of Church history. I do not think that the Church Militant was born "full-grown" anymore than I believe Christ descended full-grown from the Heavens. Just as the spatiotemporal Incarnation of Christ needed to breast-feed, then crawl, then walk (etc.), the same is true, doctrinally speaking, of the spatiotemporal Church (Militant).

And if this Western position is true, then it is fairly easy to see the current doctrines regarding the papacy as natural, organic, blossoms, which slowly flowered from the role Peter played in apostolic history and, more importantly, the Church's reflection on the famous passage in Matthew's gospel. Christ gave Peter the keys of the kingdom, and the scripture clearly recalls Isaiah 22:22, thus signaling a very plausible institution of the office of prime minister. To say that Peter was representing all of the apostles in his reception of the keys seems to ignore the context of the passage, to say nothing of historical context.

[Apotheoun]

The threads linked below give background information on the theological differences between the East and the West, and so they might help to advance the discussion in this present thread (n.b., some of the threads are quite long):

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=9772"]Should We Proselytize the Eastern Orthodox?[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95027"]Another Reason We Should Convert the Orthodox[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95012"]Melkites[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=90683"]The Greek Orthodox Churches[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=52356"]Greek Orthodox Relations Question[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=94337"]The Creed[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=72774"]Why Does the Filioque Debate Matter?[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81541"]God as Unknowable[/url]

[Ziggamafu]

Apo,

Do any of those threads provide Eastern responses to the specific issues I've raised here? I remember saying something similar in a previous thread awhile back, but I don't think it was given much attention. What are your thoughts?

Thanks!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='08 January 2010 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1262982484' post='2032588']
Apo,

Do any of those threads provide Eastern responses to the specific issues I've raised here? I remember saying something similar in a previous thread awhile back, but I don't think it was given much attention. What are your thoughts?

Thanks!
[/quote]
I think the Eastern understanding of primacy and the synodical nature of the Church is discussed in several of the threads (e.g., the "[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95012"]Melkites[/url]" thread begins with that topic), but it is only one issue among many discussed in those threads.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='08 January 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1262980366' post='2032566']
The threads linked below give background information on the theological differences between the East and the West, and so they might help to advance the discussion in this present thread (n.b., some of the threads are quite long):

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=9772"]Should We Proselytize the Eastern Orthodox?[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95027"]Another Reason We Should Convert the Orthodox[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95012"]Melkites[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=90683"]The Greek Orthodox Churches[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=52356"]Greek Orthodox Relations Question[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=94337"]The Creed[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=72774"]Why Does the Filioque Debate Matter?[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81541"]God as Unknowable[/url]
[/quote]
Dude, I remember a couple of those thread.

[i]Greek Orthodox Relations Question[/i] and [i]Why Does the Filioque Debate Matter?[/i] = Classic Revprodeji discussions. Win.

Those were fun times... *sigh*

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='08 January 2010 - 06:21 PM' timestamp='1263000067' post='2032746']
Dude, I remember a couple of those thread.

[i]Greek Orthodox Relations Question[/i] and [i]Why Does the Filioque Debate Matter?[/i] = Classic Revprodeji discussions. Win.

Those were fun times... *sigh*
[/quote]
They were pretty fun. Why aren't there any good theological discussion at Phatmass anymore?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='08 January 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1263001630' post='2032767']
They were pretty fun. Why aren't there any good theological discussion at Phatmass anymore?
[/quote]
I'm finding these frequent anarchy discussions fascinating, personally. Very informative.

[Guest WhiskeyWalsh]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 January 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1262925322' post='2032254']
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.[/quote]



[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 January 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1262925322' post='2032254']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]




[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 January 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1262925322' post='2032254']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]

Ok, I think I can respond to your question properly now. The Seven Ecumenical Councils, and all of dogmatic and didactic theology, is done for the enlightenment and correction of the faithful. However, even if the Seven Ecumenical Councils never occurred and no didactic theology was ever written, the clarity and integrity of the faith would have still been perfect, because as we have said, the Church IS the body of Christ. Such dispensations or occurances of economia are meant to strengthen the faith of individual believers and to expose the errors of heretics, not to strengthen the church: the church is complete, otherwise Christ would have no reason to warn faithful to not change even an "iota" of his teaching. This command was not given as a warning to safeguard the church, but as a warning to the faithful not to fall away from the church, as the church will persist even if an individual does not.


[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 January 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1262925322' post='2032254']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]



[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 January 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1262925322' post='2032254']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.[/quote]

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!
[/quote]

sorry its taken me so long to respond, I'll have more to say on these quotes in the near future

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='08 January 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1262980366' post='2032566']
The threads linked below give background information on the theological differences between the East and the West, and so they might help to advance the discussion in this present thread (n.b., some of the threads are quite long):

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=9772"]Should We Proselytize the Eastern Orthodox?[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95027"]Another Reason We Should Convert the Orthodox[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95012"]Melkites[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=90683"]The Greek Orthodox Churches[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=52356"]Greek Orthodox Relations Question[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=94337"]The Creed[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=72774"]Why Does the Filioque Debate Matter?[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81541"]God as Unknowable[/url]
[/quote]
Awesome Threads


WhiskeyWalsh -- Welcome to Phatmass!

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='brightsadness' date='07 January 2010 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1262909033' post='2032106']
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.
[/quote]

Nor was it the teaching of Jesus, who said if a man divorces and remarries he commits a sin.... etc.

ed

[Apotheoun]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etxMPk4lphM[/media]

[brightsadness]

[url="http://www.easternchristianmedia.com/imv1.html"]http://www.easternchristianmedia.com/imv1.html[/url] This series on the Invisible made Visible (by my pastor[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img] ) is on Eastern Catholicism. I think it's good but am certainly not objective.

[Skinzo]

I think this thread might make more sense if we had more Orthodox members. Failing that, it might be a better idea to post it at an Orthodox forum. Or invite them to join us!


S.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Skinzo

[Saecula]

I agree, awesome thread!

[Guest WhiskeyWalsh]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='23 January 2010 - 09:22 AM' timestamp='1264256570' post='2042800']
I think this thread might make more sense if we had more Orthodox members. Failing that, it might be a better idea to post it at an Orthodox forum. Or invite them to join us!


S.
[/quote]

Actually, if you're looking for a good Orthodox forum, you might want to try Monachos.net. Its a place for some pretty rigorous and involved discussions.

[jeffpugh]

[mortify]

When people speak of "Eastern Christianity" they're usually referring to the Byzantine Church and those under her influence (i.e. Russians, Serbs, etc) and so we talk of Christendom being broken in 1054 A.D. The reality is Christendom was broken much earlier, in the year 451 AD when the Oriental Churches rejected the Council of Chalcedon. I think this is important to remember because not all Churches of the East share the same theological views. So for example Copts believe as the Latins do, that the Just in heaven see the Essence of God where as the Greeks maintain it's impossibility. Just some food for thought.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='mortify' date='28 February 2010 - 09:25 AM' timestamp='1267374347' post='2064245']
When people speak of "Eastern Christianity" they're usually referring to the Byzantine Church and those under her influence (i.e. Russians, Serbs, etc) and so we talk of Christendom being broken in 1054 A.D. The reality is Christendom was broken much earlier, in the year 451 AD when the Oriental Churches rejected the Council of Chalcedon. I think this is important to remember because not all Churches of the East share the same theological views. So for example Copts believe as the Latins do, that the Just in heaven see the Essence of God where as the Greeks maintain it's impossibility. Just some food for thought.
[/quote]
None of the Oriental Orthodox that I know believe that man can see the essence of God. Moreover, if they were to believe such a thing they would be contradicting the teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who in his writings, made the distinction between essence and energy in God. Even Severus of Antioch, who in many ways is the "Father" of Oriental Orthodoxy, distinguishes between essence and energy, while also accepting the authority of the writings of Pseudo-Dionysios, who himself distinguish between "ousia" and "dynamis / energeia", but where Severus is confused is in his Christology, for in that branch of theology he holds that Christ incarnate has one theandric nature and energy, and by this implying a "blending" of His natures rather than a union of natures and energies in His one hypostasis, which is contrary to the teaching of both Chalcedon and the much later Council of Constantinople III.

Links on [i]theosis[/i] from the Coptic Oriental Orthodox website of the Diocese of the Southern United States:

[url="http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1246&catid=383"]Thesosis 01[/url]

[url="http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1247&catid=383"]Theosis 02[/url]

[url="http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=649&catid=383"]Theosis 03[/url]

The only Copts or other Orientals that I have run into that accept various Latin theological theories are Coptic and other Oriental Catholics, but not Coptic Oriental Orthodox or other members of Oriental Orthodox Churches.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

It is important for Roman Catholics to remember that the Oriental Orthodox believe that Pope Leo's Tome, i.e., from the Council of Chalcedon is heretical, while the same treatise is accepted as orthodox by the Churches of the Byzantine tradition (i.e., both Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox).

Edited February 28, 2010 by Apotheoun