To my Orthodox Brethren

[AveChristusRex]

People sometimes equate St. Gregory of Palamas and St. Thomas Aquinas as birds of a feather because they both made some use of Aristotle, but St. Gregory of Palamas was not a systematic theologian. Rather, he was writing, and arguing at a council convened in the Church of Constantinople, in order to defend the Hesychasts of Mount Athos, such as the 12th century St. Symeon the New Theologian, whose writings we find, along with some of St. Gregory I think, in the Philokalia, which is easy to access.

By the way, as far as I am aware most Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches do venerate St. Gregory of Palamas on the second Sunday of Lent, just like the Orthodox.

They were, all things considered, two peas in a pod

 

[The Liturgist]

They were, all things considered, two peas in a pod

I’ll happily agree with that sentiment if you can explain to me how your metaphor applies using direct quotes from their own writings showing a shared perspectives on shared topics and other elements of clear and obvious consistency of thought and vision. Objectively, this is the only possible respect in which they might be two peas in a pod, that is to say, if on examination their writings overlapped considerably.

Since otherwise it would be a pretty strange pair of peas in a pretty strange pod, considering St. Gregory and Thomas Aquinas beloning to different churches and different religious orders, professing different vocations, living in different places, speaking different languages, living in different eras (Thomas Aquinas died 22 years before St. Gregory Palamas was born), with different understandings of what constituted a theologian, different creeds (Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed modified with filioque contra canon 6 of Ephesus vs. unmodified Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed), different beliefs concerning the hierarchy, different vocations, different beliefs concerning the propriety of ecclesiastical violence, vis a vis the burning of heretics, different beliefs concerning whether or not grace is created or is an uncreated energy of God as the Orthodox Church has taught since at least the fourth century (we can see this doctrine in the writings of the Cappadocians), who were writing for different purposes, Aquinas endeavoring to create a systematic theology, which was at the time a novel idea, the standard of the era being dogmatic theology such as the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith in the Fount of Knowledge of St. John of Damascus, the Faith (which is somewhat of an epilogue to the Panarion*) by St. Epiphanios of Salamis in Cyprus, while St. Gregory Palamas was writing to defend the Hesychast monks on Mount Athos from false accusations by Barlaam that they were deluded heretics.

Thankfully, St. Gregory Palamas won, which is fortunate, because it led to the preservation of Hesychasm and the ancient traditions of Orthodox monasticism as documented in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, the Lausiac Paradise and the Philokalia. Barlaam, despite not having been excommunicated, left the Orthodox Church and converted to Roman Catholicism following his defeat at what we now refer to as the Palamist Synod.

*This work I highly reccommend; it translates to “Medicine Chest” in the sense of first aid kit, and rather delightfully likens all heresies to various noxious pests and venomous critters, making St. Epiphanios an exterminator of heresies rather than heretics, since one does not end a heresy by burning heretics at the stake in an auto da fe, something Thomas Aquinas expressed support for (and which ironically goes against the original mission of the Dominicans as set out by St. Dominic Guzman, which was to convert heretics, not kill them), but by exposing the heresy in all of its stupidity so as to discourage future people from falling victim to the cult**

** This process that has been demonstrated by the relative success of exposes against Scientology in drying up their pipeline of new victims, and has forced David Miscavige to result to aggressively soliciting donations from existing members to purchase high-value commercial real estate outright, ostensibly for the increased exposure, but really, these facilities, one of which is in my hometown and consists of two massive buildings sharing a large parking lot that never has more than a half dozen cars in it, are being purchased and improved with the funds of the members because they appreciate in value as a result of the improvements being performed on them, which would make them very attractive office space if ever the ”church” decided to sell them, and since the money is being raised for them through new donations, Miscavige can also liquidate the existing properties, some of which are in areas which have now become bustling retail districts and have appreciated considerably, and in this manner what he has actually done is secured a pipeline to keep the cult in business even with greatly reduced membership. Conversely, attempts by well-meaning governments in Europe and Australia to ban the cult have mostly backfired, by increasing interest and also allowing Scientologists to play the victim and set up front organizations ostensibly concerned with religious freedom.

 

[jas3]

I thought this thread would help with self reflection among christian groups to see that division is not in the will of God, but what has come is a hardening of those divisions along with a review of human history and not a review of the words of acts of God.

I'm not sure what your goal has been with this thread. The OP questioned whether the differences in Orthodox and Catholic theology were the result of language, and by post #14 you were starting to make inflammatory implications that the Orthodox were "like spoiled brats."

Some in the Orthodox faith say that the Catholic Church is not part of the Church.

And the official Catholic position is that the Orthodox Church is not part of the Church, even if it recognizes the validity of its sacraments and the existence of "ecclesial elements" in it and refers to the particular churches within Orthodoxy as "churches."

What do we get? Nothing but derision.

You've gotten some constructive suggestions where you could flesh out discussion of the problems in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, rather than going on and on about how the Orthodox are schismatics who need to stop being prideful and submit to Rome.

The only way that Orthodox and Protestant arguments work, is if the Pope is painted as heretic or antichrist.

Pope "all religions are ways to arrive at God" isn't doing you any favors on this one.

 

[zippy2006]

I thought this thread would help with self reflection among christian groups to see that division is not in the will of God

I will say that I found the article of the OP strongly biased in the Catholic direction. If Flanders is so strongly opposed to Bradshaw's book, then perhaps he should have reviewed something else alongside Williams' book. (Granted, I agree with him that Bradshaw's book is subpar. That isn't overly controversial.)

I think what happened is that you thought you had found a book that was well-balanced between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. What you actually had was an article, written by a Catholic, reviewing two books, one by a (Catholic?) theologian and the other by an Orthodox philosopher. And it wasn't so much a review of two books as a matter of defending the first book against the second book, and also proffering an ecumenical thesis about language differences.

So the ruffled feathers are understandable.

 

[zippy2006]

And the official Catholic position is that the Orthodox Church is not part of the Church

Do you actually have a source for that claim, or are you interpolating? Because I have never seen that claim substantiated.

...even if it recognizes the validity of its sacraments and the existence of "ecclesial elements" in it and refers to the particular churches within Orthodoxy as "churches."

In these sorts of discussions there are fundamental data points. Given Christian group X, in relation to Christian group Y, does it:

• Recognize that it worships the same God?
• Recognize it as Christian?
• Recognize its sacraments?
• Engage in intercommunion?
• How does it relate to its doctrinal claims?
• Does it see it as heretical?
• Does it see it as schismatic?

The predicate "____ is part of the Church" is not worth much at all if it is divorced from these fundamental data points.

If we want a better source, then even without reading it in its entirety, I can almost guarantee that Aiden Nichols' "A Catholic View of Orthodoxy" is going to be of higher quality than Flanders' article.

 

[concretecamper]

I thought this thread would help with self reflection among christian groups to see that division is not in the will of God, but what has come is a hardening of those divisions along with a review of human history and not a review of the words of acts of God.
I can only liken this to the attitude of the older brother in the parable of the prodigal son. The elder son refused to join the celebration called by his father.

Sort of shines a bright spot light on the useless ecumenism that many times goes on in this forum. You'll have people like your post, say it's a winner, compliment your input, but in the end of the day, you're outside the Church.

 

[jas3]

Do you actually have a source for that claim, or are you interpolating? Because I have never seen that claim substantiated.

Probably the most explicit source would be Unam Sanctam, but even Lumen Gentium could be considered a source for it if "subsists in" is understood to refer to the "substantial existence" of the Church.

In these sorts of discussions there are fundamental data points. Given Christian group X, in relation to Christian group Y, does it:

• Recognize that it worships the same God?
• Recognize it as Christian?
• Recognize its sacraments?
• Engage in intercommunion?
• How does it relate to its doctrinal claims?
• Does it see it as heretical?
• Does it see it as schismatic?

The predicate "____ is part of the Church" is not worth much at all if it is divorced from these fundamental data points.

I'm not sure how these are relevant to the question when I've said before that I'm talking about the normative, canonical sense of being in the Church. In that sense, I don't see how someone in an apostolic church could say that anyone outside his communion was in the Church unless he embraces branch theory. Could he affirm that in the more ecumenically-minded, "imperfect communion" and "invisibly united" sense? Sure, but I don't think that's what boughtwithaprice was talking about, which is why I only addressed the more clear-cut sense of the issue.

Effectively, all I was intending to say is that neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy embraces branch theory, so nobody here is saying we should be comfortable with a state of schism existing between us, as he was insinuating.

If we want a better source, then even without reading it in its entirety, I can almost guarantee that Aiden Nichols' "A Catholic View of Orthodoxy" is going to be of higher quality than Flanders' article.

Thanks, I'll take a look at this.

 

[zippy2006]

Probably the most explicit source would be Unam Sanctam

A 700 year old Papal Bull? That is a data point but it isn't the first place one would look, theologically speaking.

but even Lumen Gentium could be considered a source for it if "subsists in" is understood to refer to the "substantial existence" of the Church.

Lumen Gentium certainly outranks Unam Sanctam, but it simply doesn't say that the Orthodox are outside the Church, even on that reading. It certainly implies that the Church of Christ does not subsist in the Orthodox Church(es).

I'm not sure how these are relevant to the question when I've said before that I'm talking about the normative, canonical sense of being in the Church.

Canon law pertains to particular Churches. There is no canon law for the Church of Christ. That's why I pointed to the substantive theological fundamentals.

In that sense, I don't see how someone in an apostolic church could say that anyone outside his communion was in the Church unless he embraces branch theory.

Lumen Gentium 8 is more or less the idea that the fullness of Christianity is found in the Catholic Church, but it draws no line of exclusion for the East. In fact the Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council has this to say:

"If this cause is wholeheartedly promoted, the Council hopes that the barrier dividing the Eastern Church and Western Church will be removed, and that at last there may be but the one dwelling, firmly established on Christ Jesus, the cornerstone, who will make both one." (Unitatis Redintegratio 18).​

​

"Eastern Church and Western Church" is not an idiosyncratic or uncommon phrase, and it is naturally read as the idea that the Eastern Church is part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. That's not to say that it is in full communion or that it represents the fullness of Christianity, but Catholic theology does not say that a Church that is not in full communion is eo ipso outside the Church of Christ (as far as I'm aware). There may be Catholics who hold that opinion, but I don't believe it is a formal teaching.

Effectively, all I was intending to say is that neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy embraces branch theory, so nobody here is saying we should be comfortable with a state of schism existing between us, as he was insinuating.

I definitely agree with that.

 

[zippy2006]

Probably the most explicit source would be Unam Sanctam

A 700 year old Papal Bull? That is a data point but it isn't the first place one would look, theologically speaking.

but even Lumen Gentium could be considered a source for it if "subsists in" is understood to refer to the "substantial existence" of the Church.

Lumen Gentium certainly outranks Unam Sanctam, but it simply doesn't say that the Orthodox are outside the Church, even on that reading. It certainly implies that the Church of Christ does not subsist in the Orthodox Church(es).

I'm not sure how these are relevant to the question when I've said before that I'm talking about the normative, canonical sense of being in the Church.

Canon law pertains to particular Churches. There is no canon law for the Church of Christ. That's why I pointed to the substantive theological fundamentals.

In that sense, I don't see how someone in an apostolic church could say that anyone outside his communion was in the Church unless he embraces branch theory.

How does an Orthodox like @The Liturgist view Oriental Orthodoxy? Does he say they are outside the Church?

Lumen Gentium 8 is more or less the idea that the fullness of Christianity is found in the Catholic Church, but it draws no line of exclusion for the East. In fact the Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council has this to say:

"If this cause is wholeheartedly promoted, the Council hopes that the barrier dividing the Eastern Church and Western Church will be removed, and that at last there may be but the one dwelling, firmly established on Christ Jesus, the cornerstone, who will make both one." (Unitatis Redintegratio 18).​

​

"Eastern Church and Western Church" is not an idiosyncratic or uncommon phrase, and it is naturally read as the idea that the Eastern Church is part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. That's not to say that it is in full communion or that it represents the fullness of Christianity, but Catholic theology does not say that a Church that is not in full communion is eo ipso outside the Church of Christ (as far as I'm aware). There may be Catholics who hold that opinion, but I don't believe it is a formal teaching.

Effectively, all I was intending to say is that neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy embraces branch theory, so nobody here is saying we should be comfortable with a state of schism existing between us, as he was insinuating.

I definitely agree with that.

 

[prodromos]

That's not to say that it is in full communion or that it represents the fullness of Christianity, but Catholic theology does not say that a Church that is not in full communion is eo ipso outside the Church of Christ

"Not in full communion" sounds suspiciously like "slightly pregnant". Just as there are no grades of being pregnant, you either are pregnant or you are not, in terms of Church communion there either is or there isn't. Last I heard, Catholics are not permitted to receive sacraments in Orthodox Churches and I don't believe Orthodox are permitted to receive sacraments in Catholic Churches

 

[zippy2006]

"Not in full communion" sounds suspiciously like "slightly pregnant".

See:

For Catholicism Orthodoxy only lacks union with the Pope. Its Churches are real Churches, its sacraments are valid, etc.

In these sorts of discussions there are fundamental data points. Given Christian group X, in relation to Christian group Y, does it:

• Recognize that it worships the same God?
• Recognize it as Christian?
• Recognize its sacraments?
• Engage in intercommunion?
• How does it relate to its doctrinal claims?
• Does it see it as heretical?
• Does it see it as schismatic?

The predicate "____ is part of the Church" is not worth much at all if it is divorced from these fundamental data points.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Sort of shines a bright spot light on the useless ecumenism that many times goes on in this forum. You'll have people like your post, say it's a winner, compliment your input, but in the end of the day, you're outside the Church.

I am starting to think what started as a good idea has been taken by the spirit of indifferentism, which is the heresy of the Masonic lodge. That spirit places all religions on equal ground subject to the “grand architect of the universe”
It is a heresy because it puts God below the tastes of men, rather than calling men to repent before God. That is luciferisnism when taken to its logical conclusion

I had a soft spot for Christian Forums because I believed that the truth could stand on its own. When given the full light of day, we could shed our personal biases and adore God and His word.

It was my experience in the early days, that allowed me to see the arguments between Catholic and Protestant that showed me my error. It was here that I found that there was nothing unbiblical about the Catholic Church. I had hoped others would see the same.

What we have instead is Paul’s prophecy on steroids. “In the last days they will no longer endure sound doctrine, but heap up for themselves teachers who tell them what their itching ears want to hear.”

Christ’s words are ignored,” beware when they all speak well of you, for they spoke the same of the false prophets that were before you”. People chase their personal reputation and the moderators demand that we respect persons rather than the word of God.

We can only pray, concretecamper, and discern our position. Are we looking into the Masonic lodge mentality or is it looking into us? Maybe time to take a step back.

It’s funny when people say that they do not want their feathers ruffled, but have no problem plucking ours and setting them on fire.

Peace be with you

 

[The Liturgist]

"Not in full communion" sounds suspiciously like "slightly pregnant". Just as there are no grades of being pregnant, you either are pregnant or you are not, in terms of Church communion there either is or there isn't. Last I heard, Catholics are not permitted to receive sacraments in Orthodox Churches and I don't believe Orthodox are permitted to receive sacraments in Catholic Churches

Orthodox are allowed by the Catholics to partake, but most EO bishops frown on them doing this.

 

[zippy2006]

This is an important video from Gavin Ortlund. It is about the historic Orthodox view that there is no salvation outside the Orthodox Church. The very fact that he gets so much (Orthodox) pushback against this claim illustrates why the Orthodox Church needs to wrestle with the same issue that the Catholic Church wrestled with in Lumen Gentium 8 (and note that this wrestling also bears on doctrinal development). From what I have seen, Orthodox are not at all good at facing this issue squarely, despite the fact that there are some Orthodox who consistently hold to the traditional view and some Orthodox who consistently accept the logic of LG 8.

 

[jas3]

To be clear, Gavin makes that argument about Catholicism too, as well as the other non-Protestant traditions:

 

[prodromos]

This is an important video from Gavin Ortlund. It is about the historic Orthodox view that there is no salvation outside the Orthodox Church.

We know where salvation is found and we cannot compromise on that. We leave those who are outside to God's judgement. If there is salvation outside the Orthodox Church then that is up to God, it is not for us to say.

 

[RileyG]

We know where salvation is found and we cannot compromise on that. We leave those who are outside to God's judgement. If there is salvation outside the Orthodox Church then that is up to God, it is not for us to say.

Without rambling on, I am not orthodox, I know there are private prayers the EO Church uses for those who died outside the faith.

 

[RileyG]

Orthodox are allowed by the Catholics to partake, but most EO bishops frown on them doing this.

That is correct. Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are allowed to partake, but are “urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches” per the missal. The RC sees them as having valid sacraments despite being in schism.

 

[zippy2006]

We leave those who are outside to God's judgement.

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

 

[The Liturgist]

We know where salvation is found and we cannot compromise on that. We leave those who are outside to God's judgement. If there is salvation outside the Orthodox Church then that is up to God, it is not for us to say.

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.