To my Orthodox Brethren

[prodromos]

Ortlund shows convincingly that this is not the case, historically speaking.

I've seen a couple of his other videos. I'm not impressed, so I'm not going to watch this one.

 

[zippy2006]

Indeed, in the 19th century St. Theophan the Recluse provided a much better answer to the issue than the approach or Lumen Gentium, which was to say of the non-Orthodox "Why do you worry about them? They have a Savior, Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your sins.... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox, and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

And when one of the spiritual children of St. Nektary of Optina asked: "But what about the millions of Chinese, Indians, Turks and other non-Christians?" he replied: "God desires not only that the nations be saved, but each individual soul. A simple Indian, believing in his own way in the Creator and fulfilling His will as best he can, will be saved; but he who, knowing about Christianity, follows the Indian mystical path, will not." He reposed in 1928, decades before Vatican II.

The question concerns Christians, and these quotes do not seem to address that question at all.

My earlier point is that when an Orthodox priest or bishop decides to baptize a Christian convert or not; to ordain a priest convert or not; they are already being guided by a theology very similar to Lumen Gentium (or not). Either way, they are not able to detach from the issue. Orthodox who say, "Ah, we don't have to worry about that question," are nevertheless constantly making decisions on the basis of an answer to the question.

 

[prodromos]

The question concerns Christians, and these quotes do not seem to address that question at all.

My earlier point is that when an Orthodox priest or bishop decides to baptize a Christian convert or not; to ordain a priest convert or not; they are already being guided by a theology very similar to Lumen Gentium (or not). Either way, they are not able to detach from the issue. Orthodox who say, "Ah, we don't have to worry about that question," are nevertheless constantly making decisions on the basis of an answer to the question.

The buck stops with the bishop. He has the authority to bind and loose.

 

[zippy2006]

The buck stops with the bishop. He has the authority to bind and loose.

Sure, and he is involved in the theological question more than the layman, just as Lumen Gentium was a product of a Council representing episcopal and papal authority. But the point is that the theological question is in no way avoidable.

 

[prodromos]

Sure, and he is involved in the theological question more than the layman, just as Lumen Gentium was a product of a Council representing episcopal and papal authority. But the point is that the theological question is in no way avoidable.

And each bishop deals with it as he sees fit. He can apply the Canons strictly or leniently but he has Christ's authority to do so.

 

[zippy2006]

And each bishop deals with it as he sees fit. He can apply the Canons strictly or leniently but he has Christ's authority to do so.

It seems to me that the Orthodox must leave everything up to individual bishops because they do not possess the unity to convene a Council. There are church-wide theological issues that need attending to, but which nevertheless cannot be attended to. Questions of pluralism are at the top of that list.

 

[prodromos]

It seems to me that the Orthodox must leave everything up to individual bishops because they do not possess the unity to convene a Council. There are church-wide theological issues that need attending to, but which nevertheless cannot be attended to. Questions of pluralism are at the top of that list.

We already have canons for the situations you describe. You just want to find fault.

 

[The Liturgist]

It seems to me that the Orthodox must leave everything up to individual bishops because they do not possess the unity to convene a Council.

A a strength of the Orthodox church is that all diocesan bishops are equal in power in their own dioceses, while being accountable to the Holy Synod of the church in which they are consecrated. The primate of that church (whether merely autonomous or fully autocephalous) as primus inter pares presides over the Holy Synod.*

This is how Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches work, and it is also how the Roman church used to work up until the development of the strong papacy in the late first century in response to inappropriate interference by Charlemagne in the functioning of the Roman church, but this opened up a host of problems with your church such as the divergent phenomena of Scholastic Theology which caused your church to estrange itself from the East.

Also in the Orthodox Church, the laity can reject a council, denying it ecumenical status, as happened in the case of the Council of Florence, which they can’t do with the councils of the Roman church such as Tridentine or Vatican II. And this is a good

* Except in the Russian Orthodox Church when Czar Peter “the Great” uncaonically seized all church property and control of the church and reduced the Holy Synod to the three most important metropolitans, and made the effective head of the Russian Orthodox Church the Procurator, a layman appointed to the council and given control of the finances, and this caused a disastrous period of stagnation in much of the Russian church, but even here, the individual diocesan bishops still retained the bulk of their authority, and the Russian church compensated for the disruption through a series of dynamic individuals who maintained the spiritual vitality of the Church during that era, such as St. Herman of Alaska, St. Innocent of Alaska, St. Peter the Aleutian Martyr (who was martyred by the RCC missions St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, St. Theophan the Recluse, St. John of Kronstadt, and St. Neltary of Optina, as well as Russian Athonite monks such as St. Silouan. They prepared the Russian church to endure the glorious maryrdoms of the 20th century in which Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Poles, Finns and other Orthodox people were killed by the Communists.

 

[The Liturgist]

I feel this thread has changed substantially from the premise of the OP and has degenerated into generic fault-finding with the Orthodox Church by Roman Catholics, which is distressing considering how frequently Eastern and Oriental Orthodox members (and also our Confessional Lutheran friends like @MarkRohfrietsch ) have defended the Roman Catholic Church against unfair criticism from members of groups that dogmatically oppose the Roman Church. As such it has the effect of promoting alienation between our Roman Catholic friends and the Orthodox, and I am tired of it. I will therefore conclude by making a post requesting the prayers of St. Peter the Aleut for our Roman Catholic friends: