There Are 7 Times 77 Eastern Sacraments

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1859434' date='May 6 2009, 05:27 AM']2. It seems that there is enough disagreement between the various Eastern churches on seemingly large matters (Latinization, what does and does not qualify as a mystery, probably more that I am unaware of) that they need to call a council to stamp these things out. Why don't they? In the meantime they bear a certain resemblance to Protestant sub-denominations, which cling to an umbrella title despite differences that seem striking.[/quote]
I suppose it depends upon what one believes to be "a large matter."

Eastern Christians agree on the fundamental revealed dogmas of the faith, which in Orthodoxy are held to be the Trinity and the Incarnation, for all the truths of the faith flow from these two mysteries.

As far as Latinization is concerned, it is not a "large matter" but rather a bump in the road, because all the Eastern Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) are agreed on this topic, and are pursuing a course that will expunge Latin theological formulas, which entered in to our Churches for various reasons over the course of the last few centuries, from our spiritual, liturgical, and doctrinal traditions. Obviously the Orthodox Churches have an easier time doing this, while the Eastern Catholic Churches, because of what can be called the [i]ghetto[/i] like existence we have experienced historically as a minority in communion with a much larger Church, have had more difficulties. Nevertheless, the process of de-Latinization is continuing for Eastern Catholics as we reassert the ancestral traditions that are proper to our own Churches.

Now when it comes to the mysteries of the faith, I -- as an Eastern Christian -- see no reason to try and enumerate them, because the ancient Fathers never saw their enumeration as important preferring a certain fluidity in such matters and holding that the invocation ([i]epiklesis[/i]) of the Spirit in the prayers of the Church is makes a mystery (i.e., sacrament) a living reality. In fact, the Ancient Fathers were reticent to decree anything about the faith, for they saw that kind of behavior as a Gnostic attempt to know the unknowable. St. Hilary expressed this viewpoint in his treatise on the Holy Trinity, when he pointed out that it was only the errors of heretics that caused the Church to decree certain matters of doctrine, and he then went on to lament the fact that the Church had to do this rather than leave the mystery unspoken, because as he put it: ". . . the errors of heretics and blasphemers force us to deal with unlawful matters, to scale perilous heights, to speak unutterable words, to trespass on forbidden ground. Faith [i]ought in silence[/i] to fulfill the commandments, worshipping the Father, reverencing with Him the Son, abounding in the Holy Spirit, but we must strain the poor resources of our language to express thoughts too great for words. [i]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[/i]."

Finally, Eastern Christianity is the furthest thing from Protestantism that one can find theologically, because in fact Protestantism has degenerated into a form of rationalism in which faith is replaced with slogans. Now what I find truly ironic in all of this is that the very thing that the Protestant Reformers criticized most about the Catholic Church of their time, i.e., the confusion of faith and reason in Scholastic theology, is the trap that they established fell into in the ecclesial communities that they established after separating from the Catholic Church, i.e., they established an even more rationalistic system and defined matters in even greater detail than the medieval Schoolmen had done. Eastern Christianity is not about rationally defining the faith, which St. Gregory of Nyssa in particular and the Eastern Fathers in general said was impossible to do; instead, it is about experiencing the divine in worship.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1859434' date='May 6 2009, 05:27 AM']3. Is there a majority opinion among Eastern churches regarding the possibility (inevitability?) of another ecumenical / infallible council? If I were an Orthodox Christian I would feel odd about the seeming indication that God saw the need to give the Church infallible guidance for the first 700 or so years and then left us for smooth sailing.[/quote]
My Eastern Orthodox friends believe that the Orthodox Church can hold an ecumenical council (there have been several pan-Orthodox councils since the schism), but that holding an ecumenical council is an extraordinary event. In other words, holding an ecumenical council is not simply about doing it because it can be done, but is instead about holding a council because there is a true and urgent reason for doing so. As I said in an earlier post, the Church Fathers were reticent to ever issued decrees ([i]horoi[/i]) in relation to the faith preferring instead the silence of worship that is appropriate in the presence of the divine majesty.

[abercius24]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1857595' date='May 4 2009, 01:49 PM']It is a claim without evidence. Papias may also be confusing, as several ancient authors did, the Ebionite "Gospel of the Hebrews" with the "Gospel of Matthew." Be that as it may, the only extant copies of Matthew's Gospel are in Greek, and the Church has always recognized it (i.e., the Greek text) as inspired and canonical.[/quote]

Greek is in fact the main biblical language. Paul quotes verbatim from the Septuagint as though it was the Bible of his day. But do we have all the original Greek copies of the Bible? Who knows! The best we can do is trust in the Church's guidance -- for us the Western Bishops and the Pope. And they have given us a compendium of the scriptural canon translated into Latin which they hold to be the official Bible of the Western Church -- the Latin Vulgate. For us in the West, the Latin Vulgate is enough.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1858948' date='May 5 2009, 08:33 PM']oh Scott...

er... I mean... what?[/quote]

Oh. Very interesting. In his defense, though, he references Eastern Fathers moreso than most Western theologians -- especially in the case of the doctrine of Theosis! But I don't know who I'm talking about, so I'm shutting up now.

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1859445' date='May 6 2009, 08:32 AM']Yikes... well, I thought there might be a good Orthodox/Eastern Catholic apologetics web site that wraps 'em up in a tidy little package [/quote]

Yeah, Eastern Christianity believes "little packages" to be insufficient to the mystery of the Faith. Good luck!

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1859668' date='May 6 2009, 02:06 PM']My Eastern Orthodox friends believe that the Orthodox Church can hold an ecumenical council (there have been several pan-Orthodox councils since the schism), but that holding an ecumenical council is an extraordinary event. In other words, holding an ecumenical council is not simply about doing it because it can be done, but is instead about holding a council because there is a true and urgent reason for doing so. As I said in an earlier post, the Church Fathers were reticent to ever issued decrees ([i]horoi[/i]) in relation to the faith preferring instead the silence of worship that is appropriate in the presence of the divine majesty.[/quote]

Well, reunion with the West sounds like a good reason for an ecumenical council to me! And if it takes 10 years for both sides to work things out, then so be it!

[RezaMikhaeil]

...to quote a columbian university..."Americans know less about Eastern Christianity then they know about Islam and they don't know anything about Islam".

Reza