![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/03\/Frustration.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The following exchanges with an Orthodox apologist from ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia: a group that considers itself \u201ctraditionalist\u201d and non-ecumenical), took place on my public \u201cApologetics\/Ecumenism\u201d discussion list in 1998. It is edited somewhat (i.e., both sides of certain portions, equally) in order to eliminate extraneous or irrelevant material. My Orthodox friend\u2019s words will be in\u00a0<\/span>blue<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n There is a school in Orthodoxy which does not view \u2018heterodox\u2019 (I mean that kindly) as Christians in the visible sense of the term. It\u2019s an all or none issue with them. But even that view can be stated cordially.<\/span><\/p>\n So how do such people define the word\u00a0Christian<\/i>\u00a0then? Synonymous with\u00a0Orthodox<\/i>, and then only\u00a0some<\/i>\u00a0Orthodox?<\/p>\n Orthodox are Orthodox until they apostatize, simple. Regardless of \u201cjurisdiction.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n But this didn\u2019t answer my question. You must define \u201cChristian\u201d (and \u2014 preferably \u2014 tell me the source of your definition, and why you accept its authority) for that is central to the discussions of list purpose, and the nature of ecumenism.<\/p>\n We\u2019ve had Orthodox on this list say Meyendorff, Ware, Hopko, even Franky Schaeffer, for Pete\u2019s sake, were liberals.<\/p>\n Um, the first three\u00a0are<\/i>\u00a0liberals. In an Orthodox sense. Granted, compared to Call To Action they\u2019re reactionaries, but in Orthodoxy they\u2019re liberals. But Schaeffer? Well, he\u2019s moderate. :)<\/span><\/p>\n Please elaborate. Is this because they are ecumenical, or for broader reasons? What about Fr. Peter Gillquist too? And Frs. Schmemann, Florovsky, and Sparks? Is Jaroslav Pelikan (the new convert from Lutheranism, and prominent Church historian) a liberal, also?<\/p>\n We believe Orthodox are part of that One Church, whereas many of you wish to exclude us. Other Orthodox are ecumenical. Obviously, the latter group fit better into this list.<\/p>\n But why? Because their beliefs are closer to yours?<\/span><\/p>\n No, because this is an ecumenical list, and they are ecumenical. Isn\u2019t that obvious, my feisty friend? :-)<\/p>\n That destroys the point, doesn\u2019t it?<\/span><\/p>\n The point is unity and understanding and sharing and persuasion and mutual respect.<\/p>\n I hear \u201cThe age of Aquarius\u201d in the background. Sorry.<\/span><\/p>\n Very funny; however, none of these concepts are at all foreign to biblical and\/or traditional Christianity. I could easily produce several verses for each idea.<\/p>\n If one is not interested in such things, and cannot even regard another believer in the Nicene Creed and a host of other beliefs we all hold in common, as a Christian, then that is a big problem. The\u00a0point<\/i>\u00a0is that there is a bare minimum of assumptions and presuppositions that one must hold in order to even\u00a0do<\/i>\u00a0ecumenism. Otherwise, it reduces to evangelism, as the other guy is regarded as outside of the fold.<\/p>\n That\u2019s also irrelevant to a traditional Orthodox because a traditional Orthodox doesn\u2019t go out and try to convert people.<\/span><\/p>\n All Christians are called to evangelize. The fact remains that if you view me and other Protestants and Catholics on this list as non-Christians, then there is a very real sense in which you are evangelizing (however indirectly, subtly, or unintentionally), if you defend your views. If we accept what you say and join up, we are going from darkness to light; whereas if we are all Christians\u00a0already<\/i>, a switch is merely moving from one part of the Body of Christ to another.<\/p>\n But we defend and explain our faith, and learn from others, as politely as possible.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s fine, as far as it goes, but \u2014 as we have seen \u2014 there are more fundamental issues here, which are relevant to the List Constitution and our very purpose as a list.<\/p>\n Well, that\u2019s the ideal, but I\u2019m sure many on all sides fail.<\/span><\/p>\n Of course. Such is the Christian life. We all strive imperfectly . . .<\/p>\n Even the other \u201ctraditional\u201d Orthodox group, as you describe it, is most welcome here if they will simply acknowledge Catholics and Protestants as Christians, according to the Nicene Creed.<\/p>\n Umm\u2026the Nicene Creed lists \u201cone\u201d Church. Are you saying I have to believe we\u2019re all part of it to be on the list?!?<\/span><\/p>\n This is what the List Constitution says:<\/p>\n The A\/E List exists so that\u00a0Christians<\/i>\u00a0can learn, share, respectfully clarify differences, find common ground, have fun in dialogue, cultivate friendships and, of course, defend their own theological and ecclesiological beliefs (and change them if the evidence warrants it), and so that \u2013 hopefully \u2014 a pleasant, edifying, and educational experience can be had for all participants.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I am a catechumen in ROCOR. As you probably know, we condemn ecumenism as heretical. So, does this mean I don\u2019t \u201cbelong here in the first place\u201d either?<\/span><\/p>\n If you can\u2019t abide in good conscience by the list rules, what would\u00a0you<\/i>\u00a0say?<\/p>\n I\u2019d say without traditional voices, we have no link to our past. So I\u2019d say: change the rules.<\/span><\/p>\n So by this are you saying that you are not able to abide in conscience by present list rules? I assume you didn\u2019t understand them previously: I hope you weren\u2019t deliberately violating them.<\/p>\n How do you define ecumenism; why do you condemn it?<\/p>\n Because ecumenism is tearing apart a united Orthodoxy. How can we love \u201cChristian unity\u201d when Orthodox Christians are splitting?<\/span><\/p>\n That deals with the second question; now please answer the first . . . I won\u2019t get on a tangent about the adjective \u201cunited.\u201d<\/p>\n Ecumenism, in the traditional Orthodox view, involves compromise. It involves a recognition of something we never had to recognize before in others. It\u2019s very closely tied to the exclusive nature of Christianity as a whole.<\/span><\/p>\n The mainstream Orthodox position on validly baptized Catholic and Protestant converts (as I understand it) is that they need\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0be re-baptized. Stanley S. Harakas, in his book\u00a0The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers<\/i>\u00a0(Minneapolis: Light & Life Pub. Co., 1987, p. 243, #319) states that converts who have been baptized \u201cin the name of the Holy Trinity\u201d need not be baptized in order to become Orthodox. I myself witnessed the chrismation of a Presbyterian\/Baptist friend of mine with no baptism performed.<\/p>\n Metr. Kallistos Ware writes:<\/p>\n If Roman Catholics become Orthodox, the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Church of Greece usually receive them by Chrismation; but the Russian Church commonly receives them after a simple profession of faith, without chrismating them. Anglicans and other Protestants are always received by Chrismation. Sometimes converts are received by Baptism. (The Orthodox Church<\/i>, New York: Penguin Books, revised 1980 edition, pp. 285-286)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is a clear and unambiguous acknowledgement that baptized non-Orthodox Christians are in the fold (of Christianity) already, much as St. Augustine (and the Catholic Church) regarded Donatist baptism. You have said that all the different Orthodox \u201care Orthodox,\u201d But here you want to make distinctions, and your \u201cwe\u201d apparently excludes what you call \u201cliberal\u201d Orthodox. What gives? If you\u2019re out of step even with the majority of your Orthodox brethren, how is an outsider like me supposed to work through these issues as you present them to me? All I (we) require here is that you acknowledge non-Orthodox as\u00a0Christians<\/i>, pure and simple. An easy-enough \u201cdemand,\u201d it seems to me. But even that is apparently controversial amongst so-called \u201ctraditional\u201d Orthodox. You haven\u2019t answered me plainly on this matter of definition yet.<\/p>\n Would you allow a Mormon on this list? No, because he does not accept the creed.<\/span><\/p>\n You got it. Protestants and Catholics alike\u00a0do<\/i>\u00a0accept the Creed. So I don\u2019t get the analogy.<\/p>\n We almost view it as an all or none. Either everyone has the right to call themselves Christians or only we do.<\/span><\/p>\n This brings us back to the definition of\u00a0Christian<\/i>. I think you are creating enormous historical, theological, and ecclesiological problems for yourself, by adopting this line of thought. What you think is merely having integrity of definition and theology is, in my opinion, in actuality radical and unnecessary (and unbiblical) sectarianism.<\/p>\n If you read my quotes from\u00a0Leo the Great on the papacy<\/a>, there is plenty of\u00a0meaning<\/i>\u00a0indeed. Many of the quotes are more like mini-treatises.<\/p>\n See, there\u2019s my point. You\u2019re looking for meaning\u00a0in<\/i>\u00a0the quotes, and we assume the meaning and the quote backs it up. It\u2019s like John 6:53. We understand the discourse as a real presence argument. A Protestant does not, because there it doesn\u2019t directly speak to him as such. Orthodoxy\u2019s beliefs are so defined (and in this way the Romans\u00a0are<\/i>\u00a0like us) that Leo\u2019s quotes don\u2019t have independent meaning; they are part of the theology of the Church.<\/span><\/p>\n So then, every patristic statement we come up with which seems to back up our position, is simply defined away as not even possibly expressing anything different than the Orthodox understanding (I call that circular reasoning)? You don\u2019t even acknowledge that individual Fathers could be wrong on certain things? E.g., St. John Chrysostom believed Mary could sin . . . . .<\/p>\n Remember how I partially defined ecumenism. No compromise for a traditional Orthodox. But discussion? Why not?<\/span><\/p>\n But\u00a0rules\u00a0<\/i>for discussion? Why not? And what do you suggest I do if you deny that everyone here is a Christian except you and other members of ROCOR, and whomever else is a \u201ctraditional\u201d Orthodox? How can you somehow synthesize that with the List Constitution, if in fact that is what you believe? And if so, isn\u2019t that dishonest? It would be like me going onto a list which had in its guidelines the statement (I exaggerate for effect): \u201cWe regard Calvinism and Catholicism as both equally valid and true.\u201d Of course I could never\u00a0join<\/i>\u00a0such a list, because to do so would entail accepting what I believe to be a falsehood. Here we have a \u201cminimalist\u201d requirement (just regard the others as Nicene Christians). I never dreamt that\u00a0that<\/i>\u00a0tenet would itself be controversial, but truth is stranger than fiction . . .<\/p>\n A major reason why I didn\u2019t consider Orthodoxy as an option back in 1990, was because the first thing I changed my mind on was contraception [see the paper by William Klimon:\u00a0Contraception: Early Church Teaching<\/a>], and because I sought traditional Christian thinking, not faddism and modernism.<\/p>\n This coming from a member of a Church whose liturgy is five years older than I am (I\u2019m 23), . . .<\/span><\/p>\n That presupposes that the New Mass is a corruption of the Old, rather than a development; also that any such modifications of liturgy are wrong of their essence [see links which deny this on the\u00a0Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass\u00a0page<\/a>]. I find both propositions ludicrous.<\/p>\n . . . whose entire ritual underwent an overhaul (and a relaxation in almost all cases to accommodate; the liturgy of the hours being lengthened to four weeks).<\/span><\/p>\n Ditto. One has to show that all this is a corruption, which would have the result that the pope offers up an invalid Mass every day.<\/p>\n I never said I was demonstrating corruption. All I was doing was demonstrating that the ascetic ideal of Christianity and the fear of the sacred was slowly being thrown out the window.<\/span><\/p>\n How do you prove\u00a0this<\/i>\u00a0assertion? No one doubts that liberalism has made inroads in the\u00a0practice<\/i>\u00a0of the Mass, or the\u00a0application<\/i>\u00a0of Vatican II, but that is essentially different from the assertion that the liberals have\u00a0corrupted<\/i>\u00a0the Mass and the Council themselves, in their essence. This is your burden of proof.<\/p>\n This coming from a member of a Church whose attempts to eradicate tradition from it\u2019s vocabulary have brought it to the point where it has less than 15 fast days a year,<\/span><\/p>\n But we still require celibate priests! :-)<\/p>\n Strange, that \u201ctradition\u201d is only about eleven centuries old, and not fully codified for another two hundred. If anything, the tradition is that the priests\u00a0shouldn\u2019t<\/i>\u00a0be celibate.<\/span><\/p>\n You miss my point entirely; which was: why retain celibacy if we are supposedly so dead set against asceticism?<\/p>\n They\u2019re not even \u201cdisciplinary matters\u201d. They\u2019re part of what I view as the \u201cascetic ritual of the Church.\u201d They are not \u201cimposed\u201d in Orthodoxy, so they cannot be \u201crelaxed.\u201d Yet that\u2019s what I\u2019m getting at; no one spoke up, no one fought, no one wanted to keep abstinence on Fridays. Or Wednesdays. Or during Lent. To me,\u00a0that\u2019s<\/i>\u00a0modernism, if not in theory, in practice.<\/span><\/p>\n The Friday abstinence requirement is still in place (and during Lent, even the no-meat on Friday requirement remains). You should admire that, as we stopped \u201cimposing\u201d the fasting-from-meat requirement, and made it more general. But it seems we can never please you, no matter what we do (and why should we, anyway? :-). Some of the \u201ctraditionalist\u201d Catholics you so admire thought that the Mass in the vernacular was a \u201cliberal development\u201d too, but Orthodox like that, because they had it also (as well as the partaking of the Cup). So who am I to listen to (if I am skeptical of the authority in my own Church)?<\/p>\n These are disciplinary matters, and hence not immune to modification. None of this proves \u201cmodernism,\u201d although everyone knows that the liberals (self-described \u201cprogressives\u201d) have tried to co-opt Vatican II for their own insidious purposes. Their failure to do so becomes more evident with each passing day . . .<\/p>\n the prayers before and after communion have been shrunk,<\/span><\/p>\n Again, this presupposes that liturgy can never be changed in any fashion, which itself needs to be established. Like Bible translation,\u00a0some<\/i>\u00a0of that necessarily takes place whenever a liturgy is put into the vernacular.<\/p>\n new forms of liberal theology have taken over and been embraced,<\/span><\/p>\n But not promulgated officially, of course, and that is the bottom line. This is great sophistry, but short of fact and substance, I\u2019m afraid.<\/p>\n (the Pope has even spoken well of liberation theology, something that hits close to home because of my ethnicity),<\/span><\/p>\n I would have to see the comment. All errors and heresies have some truth. If indeed the pope did say something nice about it, I\u2019m sure it was in this sense. I can even say something nice about radical feminism, if I think long and hard enough. LOL It might take a few days, . . . :-)<\/p>\n and even says that how the Papacy is understood ecclesiologically is up for debate! (Ut Unum Sint<\/i>).<\/span><\/p>\n I thought Orthodox\u00a0liked<\/i>\u00a0that! You would prefer us to be \u201crigid\u201d and \u201ctriumphalist?\u201d :-)<\/p>\n None of the above are valid arguments in the least; nor does this rhetorical display deal with the matter at hand: that Orthodoxy caved on contraception. I can easily explain your counter-examples, and none of them entail an utter\u00a0reversal<\/i>\u00a0of Christian Tradition, or (as we and all the pre-1930 Christians would see it)\u00a0calling evil good<\/i>. That is what\u00a0you<\/i>\u00a0have to deal with, my friend. You like to regard all your Orthodox comrades as brothers \u2014 so I have seen on the list \u2014 yet you abstractly rail against the \u201cliberals\u201d in your ranks. So if an Orthodox accepts the moral permissibility of contraception, is he a \u201cliberal?\u201d And if so, then how could he be regarded as your \u201cbrother?,\u201d by the same reasoning you offer here against me calling [name] a \u201csister\u201d?:<\/p>\n And please explain as well why you refer to\u00a0<\/span>[a Calvinist woman]<\/span>\u00a0as a sister, but a traditionalist Catholic on your page as a \u201cschismatic.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s easy. Schismatic Catholics are in deliberate, wanton disobedience to the pope and clear conciliar teaching (such as the status of Protestants as \u201cseparated brethren\u201d). Briefly put: they should know better. Deliberate schism itself has been clearly defined by the magisterium. Individual Protestants, however, are not deemed guilty of\u00a0formal<\/i>\u00a0schism or heresy. A Protestant such as [name] has never been under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church (I am assuming). An individual decision in favor of schism is far different from simply having been born or initiated into a milieu which split off hundreds of years ago (like Orthodoxy :-). The individual is far less culpable in that scenario.<\/p>\n Would you call [name] a sister, by the way?<\/p>\n I would, but that\u2019s because I\u2019ve discussed the faith with her before. She\u2019s uncompromising in a number of areas when it comes to her Bible. So in a limited sense (because at root I can see where she comes from): yes. But I certainly would not do it in a public forum, for reason below.<\/span><\/p>\n Why make a distinction between public and private, unless the title doesn\u2019t really apply in the first place?<\/p>\n Would you call me a brother? Let\u2019s get down to the truly objectionable practice here, since you wish to make an issue of it.<\/p>\n On some days. Some days I find your words so far detached from the traditional Christian teaching (like the above on the Mass) that I can\u2019t.<\/span><\/p>\n Absolutely asinine. So I leave the faith and come back on certain \u201cgood days,\u201d according to you? I thank you that at least you think I am honest. That\u2019s worth something, when many anti-Catholic Protestants can\u2019t even grant us our sincerity or true commitment to Christ.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t have to call someone my brother to care for them. Nor to speak to them politely. Is it not enough of a responsibility that he is the \u201cneighbor\u201d Jesus speaks of?<\/span><\/p>\n I guess it boils down to: when does a person gain admission to the Kingdom; the Body of Christ? We say it is at baptism, and recognize all trinitarian baptism. What say ye? If they are in the Kingdom, they are my sisters or brothers in Christ. We serve the same Lord.<\/p>\n But on the surface, we are not brothers.<\/span><\/p>\n Are Catholics Christians, though? And if so, how can one be a Christian and not be part of the Body of Christ? If not, on what basis?<\/p>\n We are not united in communion and Orthodox simply cannot throw around the term without good reason. But that doesn\u2019t mean I hate my \u201cnon-brothers\u201d or even feel lukewarm. It\u2019s just a term\u2013 when you actually care about everybody.<\/span><\/p>\n This is not about hatred, but about commanded (and hopefully sought-after) unity and realizing what the requirement is to be a follower of Christ.<\/p>\n But you and\u00a0<\/span>[the Calvinist woman]<\/span>\u00a0don\u2019t agree on basic principles.<<\/span><\/p>\n She is \u201cin Christ\u201d by virtue of her baptism. She is trinitarian, and agrees on a host of doctrines which most thinking Christians consider essential (although we reject an approach which relegates somewhat lesser doctrines to relativism and insignificance). Therefore, she is my \u201csister in Christ,\u201d notwithstanding remaining serious disagreements. You are my brother on the same basis, as we have even more in common.<\/p>\n Please explain Teilhard De Chardin while you\u2019re at it.<\/span><\/p>\n I can\u2019t because I don\u2019t know anything about him, except that I understand that he tried to synthesize evolution and Catholic faith (an endeavor I would find ludicrous, as I reject macroevolution in the first place).<\/p>\n I saw Orthodoxy as curiously and strangely inconsistent on this issue [contraception], as they tended to be traditional on most others; indeed pride themselves (in the good sense) on that characteristic;<\/p>\n This line is ambiguous.<\/span><\/p>\n Orthodox pride themselves on being the \u201cTraditionalists\u201d par excellence, yet when it comes to contraception, they bowed to humanist approaches to sexuality and procreation. I find that strangely ironic.<\/p>\n Dave: I love responding to these letters. They always have a particular wit about them that makes them very readable.<\/span><\/p>\n Well, that\u2019s nice of you to say. I think readability and a little humor is very important in apologetic literature. Thank you very much.<\/p>\n If you are trying to make a consistent worldview based on the sanctity of life and the Holy Fathers, abstinence would be a far deeper way of dealing with spiritual goals than timing sex.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t see how. You appear to assume that:<\/p>\n None of these propositions are true. Unless you adopt a position that married couples \u201cleave it to nature\u201d (and ultimately God) entirely, and have sex at will, or conversely, that married couples should live in total and heroic abstinence, then I don\u2019t see how you have a case. NFP is the sensible way of combining both respect for natural law and new life, and the permissibility of couples planning their families with regard to economic, emotional, and health reasons. And it involves abstinence itself (generally about 8-10 days a month). Besides, Orthodox engage in \u201ctiming sex\u201d as well, if one considers that they fast certain days, and engage in sex on the others. NFP does no violence to the natural order, nor does it entail a \u201ccontraceptive mentality,\u201d as the natural functions are not deliberately impeded.<\/p>\n The New Mass is not a development in the normal sense of liturgical development; . . . To presuppose that the\u00a0Novus Ordo<\/i>\u00a0is a corruption of the old is, quite frankly, giving it too much credit to begin with. It was a complete rewriting of the liturgy.<\/span><\/p>\n So the pope offers up an invalid Mass? Or do you believe all Catholic priests do, anyway? Who\u2019s to say what is a development and what isn\u2019t? I\u2019m to believe you over an ecumenical Council? That becomes as individualist as Protestantism, my friend.<\/p>\n The liturgy is, in fact, 28 years old. Its promulgation occurred in 1970. It does not look like the Old Mass, not because of a \u201cchange\u201d or \u201cdevelopment\u201d, but because the Missal was completely rewritten. So I beg to differ. I do not have to accept either proposition of yours to see this, nor does any objective reader.<\/span><\/p>\n Why should I believe you, over against my Church? If the Mass is valid, it is a development, since the whole purpose of the Mass is to offer sacrifice to God in the form of re-presentation of Calvary, and to distribute the Holy Eucharist to Christian believers. If it is invalid, then please make that assertion. This is what your position amounts to. I\u2019m a bottom-line type \u2018o guy. Call a spade a spade; I always admire\u00a0that<\/i>.<\/p>\n A translation must keep fidelity to the original meaning or it becomes a cheap paraphrase. That seems to have been ignored in a number of cases in the ICEL translations. But again, that\u2019s not the issue. Changes in words occur for a reason. If there was a\u00a0change<\/i>\u00a0in the prayer I could see your point\u2014but a removal? Tsk.<\/span><\/p>\n Is it valid or not? If not, why? And if not, was the Tridentine Mass also invalid? Don\u2019t miss the forest for the trees. Within the parameters of validity, one can make legitimate criticisms of the current liturgy, as in fact Cardinal Ratzinger and many other orthodox Catholics have done. But I suspect you want to throw the baby out with the bath water.<\/p>\n By the way,\u00a0development of doctrine\u00a0<\/a>was another major factor in my conversion (the<\/i>\u00a0factor, if one is to be chosen). I noted that Orthodoxy developed for several centuries, and then stopped, for all intents and purposes. No more ecumenical Councils, no more primacy of honor of the bishop of Rome, etc. I find that implausible on its face.<\/p>\n And that\u2019s a completely fair reason to be a Roman Catholic-\u2014 on the surface. The nature of the development you speak of began to change as well. I guess we could call that \u201cdevelopment undergoing development\u201d. There was a communal nature to the development, a continuity with the past, that was completely lost,<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cCompletely?\u201d Don\u2019t overstate your arguments! They are insufficient enough as it is. :-)<\/p>\n beginning with the West\u2019s understanding of Trinitarian philosophy and its refusal to even listen to its brethren in the East (who had been warning that such a philosophy bordered on modalism).<\/span><\/p>\n How is \u201cwestern\u201d trinitarianism borderline \u201cmodalist,\u201d pray tell? This is a new one on me. Funny that you should lecture us about\u00a0our<\/i>\u00a0trinitarian views, when the East was bogged down by all sorts of Christological heresy for many years (Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism). It took Pope Leo the Great to straighten things out in the Council of Chalcedon in 451, after the East had formally almost completely apostatized in the\u00a0Robber Council of 449<\/a>. If someone requests it, I will post my\u00a0chart of the dozens of heretical patriarchs in the major sees of the East<\/a>.<\/p>\n The difference between the two forms of development was such that while the East underwent a careful development of its own understanding of dogma (the Hesychast Controversy, Palamism, et cetera),<\/span><\/p>\n Tell me how and in what areas the East has developed its theology in the last \u2014 say \u2014 300 years.<\/p>\n the West became more concerned with preserving its alleged authority.<\/span><\/p>\n That goes all the way back. And we had to be concerned because so many people didn\u2019t\u00a0get<\/i>\u00a0it. Jesus set it up; we merely preserve it.<\/p>\n Unlike yourself, I am not looking at Rome, I am looking at Roman Catholicism.<\/span><\/p>\n And what do you think that proves? That we have forsaken the apostolic line and Nicene Christianity? You tell me. If we are to judge by ignorance and heterodoxy among the masses, then the faith was lost many times throughout history, and much more so in the East.<\/p>\n I like consistency. In a sense, this is why I have so much respect for many traditionalists of the SSPX\u00a0<\/span>[a schismatic \u201cTraditionalist Catholic group]<\/span>, and so on: they are consistent with their past, even accept the ugly parts at times.<\/span><\/p>\n This is where you are dead wrong. They are radically inconsistent. They arrogantly claim Catholic Tradition as uniquely their own; all the while defying the authority of popes and Councils. They decry modernism; all the while adopting the relativistic individualism and disobedience which are the hallmarks of modernism. They despise nominal \u201ccafeteria\u201d Catholics, then turn around and arbitrarily pick and choose what they \u201clike\u201d in Vatican II. [see my section on these groups on my\u00a0Church page<\/a>] And these are the people you admire, eh? You are very confused, if I do say so.<\/p>\n I am against contraception. All of the Churches in my communion are against contraception. I haven\u2019t seen you produce an\u00a0official<\/i>\u00a0Orthodox statement on contraception yet (for all of you who don\u2019t know, Orthodox have encyclicals and official statements as do Catholics);<\/span><\/p>\n Then by all means produce one for us! Who can locate official Orthodox statements? And when we do, then we learn that the Russians or the Greeks or ROCOR don\u2019t accept them, anyway. Who can figure all that out? I won\u2019t even try. You are against contraception. Great. So you wish to deny that Orthodoxy as a whole has caved? Very well, then, if they haven\u2019t, then why did Metr. Kallistos Ware say they did? If they have, how do you account for that, and justify it?<\/p>\n Fr. Schmemann (for example) is, while a great thinker, not an official speaker).<\/span><\/p>\n Who is? Or are prominent Orthodox figures only authoritative for their own jurisdictions, as in Protestantism?<\/p>\n All we as Orthodox can do is \u201cabstractly rail.\u201d You see, until a council (or a clearly Pan-Orthodox synod) declares something heretical, the best we can do is declare something an innovation, and humbly avoid it. That\u2019s all. It\u2019s not our job to judge, but simply to go with what we know is truly Orthodox.<\/span><\/p>\n And you see this state of affairs as superior to what we have? More biblical? No way to authoritatively decide who is a heretic and who isn\u2019t? Just wait a hundred years or more? That\u2019s precisely what brought us the Robber Council of 449.<\/p>\n So if an Orthodox accepts the moral permissibility of contraception, is he a \u201cliberal?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Not necessarily. Remember, not all Orthodox in this day and age are aware of the traditional Orthodox view (mostly because a lot of it is unpopular, and so quietly ignored by hierarchs \u2014something you should understand because some of yours do it too) and so are a bit lost on the issue. I do feel lucky for my priest.<\/span><\/p>\n Is such a person guilty of serious sin, objectively speaking? And if so, what about Orthodox priests who should know better, yet promulgate the permissibility of contraception, which is (or was) a grave sin in both our communions? This is calling evil good. Many people rail against Anglicanism, e.g., for its compromises on issues such as women\u2019s ordination. Yet when it hits home in Orthodoxy, you don\u2019t see that this is a very serious objection to your system \u2013 every bit as bad as the compromises in Anglicanism and other denominations.<\/p>\n Both of the Orthodox Churches in question are Orthodox because Orthodoxy as a whole has decided in neither\u2019s favor concerning who is holding Orthodoxy on these issues. Both you and\u00a0<\/span>[the Calvinist woman]<\/span>\u00a0are clearly holding different beliefs from each other, while in the case of say, myself and\u00a0<\/span>[an Orthodox from another more ecumenical jurisdiction]<\/span>, it\u2019s not so clear\u2026.<\/span><\/p>\n You are the one who:<\/p>\n You were the one who made the distinctions in Orthodoxy. Now it seems that you want to run from them. Is that only discussed in private, so as to present the mythical front that Orthodoxy is a united entity?<\/p>\n Am I a \u201cschismatic,\u201d reawakening the hellbound apostasy of the avaricious Michael Kerularios?<\/span><\/p>\n If you in fact knew that the Catholic Church was the fullest expression of apostolic Christianity, and rejected it, that would make you an apostate in some sense, yes. But only God and you can determine that. I don\u2019t have access to your heart and deepest motivations. But since we regard Orthodox as the other lung in the Body of Christ, I think the question is much more complex.<\/p>\n What makes me less culpable than a \u201cschismatic\u201d who refuses to attend a\u00a0Novus Ordo\u00a0<\/i>Mass? Since my problems with Catholicism are far deeper ecclesiologically, wouldn\u2019t I be MORE guilty, and not LESS?<\/span><\/p>\n It depends on how much you knew before. For one thing, you are no longer under the pope\u2019s jurisdiction, by your own choice [he was a former Catholic]. The schismatic Catholic claims to be Catholic, which\u00a0by definition<\/i>\u00a0is under the pope, yet he refuses to submit to papal authority. That is both material and formal heresy, as well as schism.<\/p>\n I hold to the actual Orthodox view on the issue [contraception].<\/span><\/p>\n Who determines what the Orthodox view is? Is there an official Orthodox statement on this, which is binding on all? A simple \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d will suffice, with documentation desired but optional. Or do these \u201cofficial\u201d pronouncements only hold for the many jurisdictions only?<\/p>\n I don\u2019t make critiques of a Church based on its behavior. Remember: I\u2019m not the one that said: \u201c\u2026I sought traditional Christian thinking, not faddism and modernism.\u201d A discussion on behavior should stick with behavior. A discussion on doctrine must stick with doctrine. Consistent? I hope so.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes; that\u2019s why I made the comment I did. I was referring to the lack of a condemnation of contraception in Orthodox ranks, and the departure from Tradition, not to behavior. It was in the context of what Tradition to choose (back when I was still evangelical). Lord knows there are legions of ignoramuses (ignoramii?) and rebels and lukewarm hypocrites in all Christian communions. That\u2019s never been any sort of argument from me.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n I just skimmed your reply (on your website) to my\u00a0Orthodoxy paper\u00a0(it\u2019s blazing hot in my library as usual, and I wanna take a dip in my pool \u2014 I will read it more carefully soon). Despite all our controversies, I would like to think that we are friends.<\/p>\n But hey; I was skimming through, and getting all motivated and inspired to make a counter-reply (debate does that to me :-), until (to my dismay and disappointment) I came to the following section near the end:<\/p>\n An intelligent person like Dave Armstrong giving such a simple analysis of Orthodoxy demonstrates, yet again, that Orthodoxy is simply misunderstood by the outsider who just doesn\u2019t know what to do with her\u2014a failure garnered by intellectuals since the Gnostics. So I cannot, in conscience, give approbation to such an analysis of my Church.\u00a0Without the necessary submission<\/i>, no one can understand Orthodoxy, and Orthodox can\u2019t even understand themselves.\u00a0<\/span>[emphasis added]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If I understand correctly (being a lowly \u201coutsider\u201d), you are saying that no one can understand Orthodoxy unless they are Orthodox (and no doubt \u2014 knowing you \u2014 a \u201ctraditional\u201d one). I gratefully thank you, then, for your honesty and thoughtful consideration, as you have saved me much time and effort which would have been consumed in refuting your paper, when in fact it would obviously be a completely futile enterprise \u2013 doomed from the outset because I am not Orthodox!<\/p>\n And \u2014 assuming you have portrayed Orthodoxy correctly \u2014 this also goes to show that my observation of Orthodoxy having an inadequate view of reason is accurate, since if no one can understand Orthodoxy, except by becoming one, then of necessity, there can be no compelling reason to join up in the first place. :-) And that\u2019s one reason I am a Catholic, because I require a reasonable faith (\u201clove God with all your heart, soul,\u00a0mind,<\/i>\u00a0and strength\u201d), not one that itself requires a \u201cleap in the dark\u201d and allegiance before even rudimentary understanding can take place. I refuse to check my brain at the door of any religious faith which I am going to follow. All Christian views require faith; I am not arguing that point. I am discussing the place of reason and rational analysis within Christian faith.<\/p>\n Come to think of it, such an esotericism and \u201cspiritual elitism\u201d as you embrace, in which only the initiates can understand and enter into the mystery of Orthodoxy, itself smacks (in that respect) \u2014 ironically \u2014 of Gnosticism (as well as many heresies and cults which have indirectly spun off of Protestantism). Thus, you have conveniently created your own little world, which no one in the darkness of non-Orthodoxy can hope to penetrate \u2014 it is simply impossible, if we are to take you at your word. We must submit first, then it will come to us (is this similar to the Mormon \u201cburning in the bosom?\u201d).<\/p>\n Apparently, you feel that just by being around Orthodox such as yourself, us Catholics and Protestants might \u2013 given enough exposure \u2013 \u201cget it\u201d or receive Orthodoxy into our heart and soul by some sort of mystical osmosis, divorced from plain reason, Scripture, Tradition, and the usual apologetic arguments (since those must fail to persuade \u201coutsiders\u201d who can\u2019t hope to understand). I dare say that the ancient Eastern Fathers would not see it that way.<\/p>\n So forgive my ignorance and paltry understanding in my critique, but it appears that it was inevitable and that there was nothing I could do about that short of joining the fold. This explains a lot. Pro-abort women also tell me I can\u2019t understand (or even talk about) abortion, either, not being a woman. Well, I\u2019m just as glad that I am a man, as I am that I am a Catholic. :-)<\/p>\n If you take back this amazing assertion, perhaps I can muster up sufficient motivation to answer your critique. Until then, why should I waste my time, when you have already predicted the inevitable outcome?<\/p>\n On a related note, I still await the response from the more ecumenical Orthodox on the list, as to Orthodoxy\u2019s view of the validity of Catholic sacraments in and of themselves. You claimed I didn\u2019t know what I was talking about when I discussed that (and you were quite \u201coffended\u201d), so I am altogether willing to check with other Orthodox to determine how far off the mark I was. Do both \u201cecumenical\u201d and \u201ctraditional\u201d (in other words, all) Orthodox really agree that Catholic sacraments have no validity?<\/p>\n I said \u201csubmission\u201d, not \u201cright faith.\u201d A good number of Eastern Catholics (and even a couple of Western ones) understand Orthodoxy perfectly.<\/span><\/p>\n Submission to what? What does it entail? And then one can understand?<\/p>\n Tradition.<\/span><\/p>\n So I submit to \u201cTradition,\u201d which you of course define as Orthodox Tradition. Now, how is that different from becoming an Orthodox in the first place? This is the point I was making. You proceeded to say that I had completely misunderstood your meaning. Yet we seem to have come full circle. I must submit to \u201cTradition\u201d in order to understand Orthodoxy.<\/p>\n So I guess you don\u2019t believe in the resurrection in the sense of mainstream Christianity. To believe a man (a) is God (b) died and came back three days later requires a great failure of rational thought.<\/span><\/p>\n Not at all. A supernatural event does not involve a logical contradiction. It is simply a transcendence of the normal laws of nature. All that proves is that the laws of nature do not hold in absolutely every instance.<\/p>\n There is simply no beauty left in your description of this miracle.<\/span><\/p>\n Beauty was not at issue. You claimed that the Resurrection somehow violated logic (itself a \u201cphilosophical\u201d argument, and not particularly \u201cbeautiful\u201d at that). I disagreed and stated why; now you are confusing a philosophical response with a \u201cbeautiful\u201d description of Christian dogma, but those are two completely different things. If you want something mystical, romantic, \u201cright-brained\u201d from me, go read my paper,\u00a0\u00a0My \u201cRomantic \/ Imaginative\u201d Conversion to Christianity (\u201cRomanticism, Wagner, C. S. Lewis, Christianity, and Me\u201d)<\/a>. You might be surprised.<\/p>\n But \u2014 as a general point \u2014 reason and rationality is not at all intrinsically opposed to great devotionalism, adoration, the ascetic life, mysticism, prayer, the Christian walk, etc. St. Thomas Aquinas illustrated that very well. We observe people like C.S. Lewis who could be both rigidly philosophical and also engage in fantasy and imaginative portrayals of the Christian outlook. The fact that you attempt to create this dichotomy merely reinforces my original critique: viz., that Orthodox tend to undervalue and run down reason, where there is no need whatever to do so. Right reason is a great pillar of supernatural faith. It helps to bolster one\u2019s faith, because God made us rational creatures, and we can\u2019t deny that, as much as we try at times.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t condemn reason. I condemn rationalization\u2013 the attempt to explain that which should not be explained.<\/span><\/p>\n What shouldn\u2019t be explained? Every doctrine of Christianity? Or just the Orthodox distinctives?<\/p>\n Again, impossibility, Dave, is the\u00a0substance<\/i>\u00a0of Orthodoxy.<\/span><\/p>\n Then it is impossible to\u00a0become<\/i>\u00a0Orthodox!<\/p>\n No, perhaps just submission to Church Tradition.<\/span><\/p>\n How do I do that? Become an Orthodox? If so, this is a distinction without a difference.<\/p>\n But I guess that\u2019s ok\u00a0<\/span>[lack of \u201cbeauty\u201d in a philosophical argument]<\/span>, because it is \u201creasonable.\u201d Can\u2019t you see what I\u2019m getting at here?<\/span><\/p>\n Yes; another false dichotomy. You argue, in effect:\u00a0\u201cIf one uses their head, they must needs be minimize or reject the devotional, \u201cspiritual\u201d side of Christian faith.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s this worthless speculation!<\/span><\/p>\n You think it is worthless because you have rejected rational analysis (for the moment; however \u2014 as is totally expected \u2014 you immediately engage in it when it suits your purpose). This is a common trait of \u201cfideistic\u201d-oriented theological viewpoints.<\/p>\n What if I told you nature had no laws?<\/span><\/p>\n Then you would render science impossible, and we couldn\u2019t be writing back and forth by computer.<\/p>\n That God did not leave laws of nature, and that he designed everything to have it\u2019s own particular movement? That in so many cases they coincide?<\/span><\/p>\n All Christians believe that God upholds everything by the word of His power. That\u2019s beside the point, I would say.<\/p>\n Every doctrine of Christianity so long as it can be accepted with faith.<\/span><\/p>\n Then why does Scripture tell us that Paul constantly \u201cargued\u201d and \u201creasoned\u201d in his attempt to persuade the pagans and Jews of Christianity? Obviously, these hearers didn\u2019t believe first.<\/p>\n If a heresy comes into play, this is when the Church must clarify\u2013 and not before!<\/span><\/p>\n Paul was reasoning before there\u00a0were<\/i>\u00a0any heresies, e.g., on Mars Hill (Acts 17), with the Greeks in Athens.<\/p>\n It really was the first step I took when I came closer to Orthodoxy.<\/span><\/p>\n So the fact that something was \u201cimpossible\u201d in its essence appealed to you? This is a Kierkegaardian \u201cblind leap of faith in the dark\u201d at its best! Pure existentialism. Amazing . . .<\/p>\n Read the Holy Fathers and skip Andy Greeley.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t read any Catholic liberals.<\/p>\n All the time. Start with a book meant for a layman \u2014 a good one is\u00a0The Path to Salvation<\/i>\u00a0or in the Roman case, perhaps,\u00a0The Imitation of Christ.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n I love\u00a0The Imitation of Christ<\/i>. I thought that was more like Scripture than any book I have ever read. It did not make me inclined to become Orthodox, however.<\/p>\n Since that\u2019s clearly repulsive, I would just stick with A Kempis.<\/span><\/p>\n And what do you think that will achieve for me? Make me give up my \u201crationality?\u201d As if that would be a beneficial thing?<\/p>\n As for asceticism, I am a semi-vegetarian (only fish, and poultry occasionally). I have avoided sugar and white flour for now 14 years. You wanna be \u201cdisciplined,\u201d try that sometime . . .<\/p>\n Do you fast when you want to, Dave?<\/span><\/p>\n Yeah, and even when I don\u2019t want to.<\/p>\n Do you follow the old guidelines?<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t eat meat on Fridays! :-)<\/p>\n I\u2019ll take it back when you understand it and reject it.<\/span><\/p>\n What have I misunderstood? What must I submit to in order to gain the capacity to understand Orthodoxy? Don\u2019t talk in riddles. Try to think like a Catholic for the moment, just to explain this to me, if you could be so kind.<\/p>\n I can\u2019t force the Orthodox to respond on my behalf. But they know the Tradition. Every acceptance of a Roman sacrament was (and is) by economy\u2013 and not by its own merit.<\/span><\/p>\n I thought I heard at least one Orthodox list member say the opposite, so who can blame me for being \u201cconfused?\u201d It would be a loving act to correct my understanding if in fact I have gotten this wrong. But then again, perhaps\u00a0economia<\/i>\u00a0is no different than us declaring Protestant baptisms valid (since we regard them as implicitly \u201cCatholic\u201d). That may be another distinction without a difference.<\/p>\n I tried, but I seem to get nowhere. Apparently there is some sort of irreconcilable clash between Orthodoxy and Catholicism (i.e., when it comes to reason and epistemology), or just between me and my opponent (or some of both). Perhaps I\u2019m not making myself clear, or my arguments aren\u2019t understood. Whatever the problem is, it is extremely frustrating.<\/p>\n I am literally unable to respond any longer to your counter-replies (at least in this particular debate) because in my opinion you have descended into a blatant and willful irrationalism that makes it very difficult to engage in further discussion (as all discussion \u2014 beyond senseless babbling \u2014 necessarily presupposes acceptance of the laws of logic). You claim Catholics are overly-rational, or rationalistic, etc. Very well, I reiterate that many (not all) Orthodox tend towards irrationalism. Your last few letters are prime evidence, as far as I\u2019m concerned. As I said, I tried, but I can do no more \u2013 my powers (whatever they be) are exhausted, because you either dismiss out of hand, or don\u2019t comprehend my points, and you are making comments which I have not the slightest idea how to interpret myself. Or they are flat-out non sequiturs, from my perspective.<\/p>\n I\u2019m not trying to put you down or ridicule you (you\u2019ll just have to choose whether to believe my self-report or not); this is my sincere opinion at this time about your\u00a0ideas<\/i>\u00a0\u2014 not you personally. But in any event, you have made several direct comments to the effect that one must become \u201ccrazy\u201d or irrational, or somehow transcend reasoning processes (rather than utilize this God-given gift along with the obvious requirement of supernatural faith) to become Orthodox. That I cannot and will not ever do (if indeed \u2014 which I highly doubt \u2014 everyone wishing to convert to Orthodoxy must ditch the mind and reason in this fashion). Sorry. To me that is a prerequisite for the lunatic asylum or a Unitarian seminary (if there is such a thing), not the Christian Church, wherever it resides in its fullness.<\/p>\n I am so sorry you ceased from the \u201cdebate\u201d, Dave.<\/span><\/p>\n Me, too. It is a shame.<\/p>\n But I am confused\u2026 why can\u2019t you explain me?<\/span><\/p>\n Because you are spouting irrational utterances.<\/p>\n I was only trying to demonstrate a traditional mindset from whence to understand us.<\/span><\/p>\n Then obviously you have failed. I don\u2019t speak for anyone but myself in this.<\/p>\n It\u2019s obvious you don\u2019t want that.<\/span><\/p>\n No; it\u2019s true I don\u2019t want irrationalism. I am always eager to better understand Orthodoxy, however. You have simply failed in your task to achieve that end. I have shown in another paper how prominent 14th-century Orthodox theologians (and earlier Eastern Fathers and theologians, before the Schism) upheld the (supposedly so distinctively Catholic and \u201cnovel\u201d and shocking) notion of the\u00a0Mediatorship of Mary<\/a>\u00a0in spectacular (not to mention eloquent) fashion. Now\u00a0that\u2019s<\/i>\u00a0the sort of Orthodoxy I can relate to and really admire and respect.<\/p>\n So how can I argue with you about Orthodoxy when the cold reality of it is that you don\u2019t want to discuss it\u2013 you wish to discuss your version of it. No offense, it\u2019s a pale comparison.<\/span><\/p>\n I would rather have my \u201cpale\u201d version than your incomprehensible, logically absurd one. Let me make it clear again that I don\u2019t believe actual Orthodoxy is irrationalist in essence. I\u00a0have\u00a0<\/i>often stated that I think Orthodoxy undervalues reason, and places it lower in the scheme of things than it ought to be placed \u2014 just as we are accused of raising it higher than it ought to be. What\u2019s good for the goose . . .<\/p>\n I certainly don\u2019t see the massive problem you\u2019re making out of this. \u201cJurisdictions\u201d are simply national Churches trying to spread. Each of the national Churches remains in agreement, within their own bounds.<\/span><\/p>\n If there exist contradictions between jurisdictions in the larger world of Orthodoxy, then this is clearly troublesome, as error is necessarily being promulgated \u2014 as is much more rampant in Protestantism. If there are in fact no disagreements, then one wonders why it is not considered scandalous that Orthodox too often deny communion to other strands of Orthodoxy. If it is all so \u201cone,\u201d why is that? But if it is in fact not \u201cone,\u201d then it is not one \u201cChurch.\u201d I don\u2019t see that this is very difficult to comprehend.<\/p>\n Oneness is largely\u00a0defined<\/i>\u00a0as inter-communion, yet many factions within Orthodoxy deny this to other factions \u2013 sometimes seemingly on largely ethnic grounds (I speak as an outsider here on that\u00a0particular<\/i>\u00a0point, merely giving a relatively uninformed impression). Remember, this is\u00a0institutional<\/i>\u00a0division. Us Catholics have our liberals in our ranks \u2014 God help us \u2014 but their heterodox and immoral views are not institutionalized and made grounds for division. Our undivided teaching and the stance of the Church on the so-called \u201ccontroversial\u201d issues is clear.\u00a0That\u2019s<\/i>\u00a0the difference.<\/p>\n And we have witnessed the extreme and (I would say) petty rhetoric on this list (last fall) of Orthodox virtually reading other Orthodox out of the faith \u2014 let alone us Catholics. We have also seen, for example, almost every familiar figure and well-known theologian of Orthodoxy described as a \u201cliberal\u201d or \u2018heterodox.\u201d Yet I was told once by a friend who converted to Orthodoxy that there wasn\u2019t \u201cone\u201d liberal in the whole of Orthodoxy! <G> We\u2019ve seen massive, irreconcilable differences concerning ecumenism and the validity of Catholic sacraments. Catholics used to be historically despised by many Orthodox because our priests didn\u2019t have beards and used unleavened bread in the Mass (like Jesus did at the Last Supper). This was a\u00a0really<\/i>\u00a0big deal, much as it might be dismissed today. Yet, despite all, we are told that Orthodoxy is \u201cone.\u201d That\u2019s a bit hard to swallow, and I have laid out the reasons why I am skeptical of that assertion.<\/p>\n Oh, please discuss Chalcedon. Besides that, why not deal with each quote individually, as opposed to all of them at once?<\/span><\/p>\n If my Orthodox friends would ever\u00a0deal<\/i>\u00a0with them individually, and offer some semblance of a non-papal counter-interpretation (as I have been asking for ever since I\u2019ve come online, in March 1996), I would be delighted to. But lacking those responses (and somewhat out of exasperation), I collect quotes supporting our view (as there are so\u00a0many<\/i>\u00a0of them), in order to show the power of our case, especially for the observers who have not made their mind up one way or the other.<\/p>\n That line of argumentation is no better than a fundamentalist using the Scriptures for verse-slinging.<\/span><\/p>\n So if we can\u2019t produce the patristic evidence on any given topic, we catch misery as late-innovators, out of touch with true primitive and apostolic (\u201cOrthodox\u201d) Tradition. If we produce dozens of patristic evidences, we get\u00a0this<\/i>\u00a0foolishness. Very convenient for you . . . we do the work (over and over), and you come up with sophistical evasions like this. Now I have done the same for the\u00a0Mediatrix doctrine. Perhaps you will offer up this same excuse, so as to avoid the responsibility of explaining variously the quotes I have compiled? It will be very interesting to see. I do get frustrated (even angry at times) over the routine non-responses or broad, rhetorical, special pleading statements to the exclusion of hard evidence and plausible explanations to the contrary.<\/p>\n Of course, in such a case, I would dare say that he should view the Scriptures as an organic whole. To refuse to do the same with the Fathers is something I will not allow to pass.<\/span><\/p>\n Case in point. So I have to read all 38 volumes of the Fathers and master their thought in order to produce a collection of quotes on any given topic? I wish I had the time, but I don\u2019t, so regretfully I must concede this point. It will, I suppose, allow you to ignore my quotes once again. I continue to eagerly await an Orthodox who will honestly\u00a0deal<\/i>\u00a0with them \u2014 whether they have to do with the papacy or Mary or contraception \u2014 whatever the topic in dispute.<\/p>\n Has it ever occured to you that the council had absolute power and that a Pope didn\u2019t have the amazing \u201cveto power\u201d you discuss?<\/span><\/p>\n Yes; until I read the historical facts which prove otherwise.<\/p>\n This is precisely why I wrote what I did. There is no proof of this veto power you speak of. And so I have NO reason to assume it.<\/span><\/p>\n Well, now you do. Look what Pope Leo the Great wrote in 452, in protest of the 28th Canon, ambitiously passed at the Council of Chalcedon while the papal legates were not present (surely a coincidence), on October 31, 451. This Canon attempted to make Constantinople equal in power and prestige with Rome, as \u201cNew Rome.\u201d Leo vetoed this:<\/p>\n LETTER CIV: TO MARCIAN AUGUSTUS (EMPEROR)<\/p>\n III. The City of Constantinople, royal though it be, can never be raised to Apostolic rank.<\/p>\n Let the city of Constantinople have, as we desire, its high rank, and under the protection of God\u2019s right hand, long enjoy your clemency\u2019s rule. Yet things secular stand on a different basis from things divine: and there can be no sure building save on that rock which the Lord has laid for a foundation.<\/p>\n He that covets what is not his due, loses what is his own. Let it be enough for Anatolius that by the aid of your piety and by my favour and approval he has obtained the bishopric of so great a city. Let him not disdain a city which is royal, though he cannot make it an Apostolic See [3]; and let him on no account hope that he can rise by doing injury to others. For the privileges of the churches determined by the canons of the holy Fathers, and fixed by the decrees of the Nicene Synod, cannot be overthrown by any unscrupulous act, nor disturbed by any innovation. And in the faithful execution of this task by the aid of Christ I am bound to display an unflinching devotion; for it is a charge entrusted to me, and it tends to my condemnation if the rules sanctioned by the Fathers and drawn up under the guidance of God\u2019s Spirit at the Synod of Nicaea for the government of the whole Church are violated with my connivance (which God forbid), and if the wishes of a single brother have more weight with me than the common good of the Lord\u2019s whole house.<\/p>\n Dated the 22nd of May in the consulship of the illustrious Herculanus (452). (Letter 104:3, in Philip Schaff & Henry Wace, eds.,\u00a0Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers \u2013 Leo the Great, Gregory the Great<\/i>, 2nd series, vol. 12 (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1994), 75)<\/p>\n LETTER CVI: TO ANATOLIUS, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, IN REBUKE OF HIS SELF-SEEKING.<\/p>\n Leo, the bishop, to Anatolius, the bishop. III. The Synod of Chalcedon, which met for one purpose, ought never to have been used for another.<\/p>\n Accordingly these things which are found to be contrary to those most holy canons are exceedingly unprincipled and misguided. This haughty arrogance tends to the disturbance of the whole Church, which has purposed so to misuse a synodal council, as by wicked arguments to over-persuade, or by intimidation to compel, the brethren to agree with it, when they had been summoned simply on a matter of Faith, and had come to a decision on the subject which was to engage their care. For it was on this ground that our brothers sent by the Apostolic see, who presided in our stead at the synod with commendable firmness, withstood their illegal attempts, openly protesting against the introduction of any reprehensible innovation contrary to the enactments of the Council of Nicaea.<\/p>\n And there can be no doubt about their opposition, seeing that you yourself in your epistle complain of their wish to contravene your attempts. And therein indeed you greatly commend them to me by thus writing, whereas you accuse yourself in refusing to obey them concerning your unlawful designs, vainly seeking what cannot be granted, and craving what is bad for your soul\u2019s health, and can never win our consent. For may I never be guilty of assisting so wrong a desire, which ought rather to be subverted by my aid, and that of all who think not high things, but agree with the lowly . . .<\/p>\n V. The sanction alleged to have been accorded 60 years ago to the supremacy of Constantinople over Alexandria and Antioch is worthless . . .<\/p>\n Dated the 22nd of May in the consulship of the illustrious Herculanus (452). (Letter 106:3,5, in Philip Schaff & Henry Wace, eds.,\u00a0Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers \u2013 Leo the Great, Gregory the Great<\/i>, 2nd series, vol. 12 (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1994), 77-79)<\/p>\n LETTER TO EMPRESS PULCHERIA<\/p>\n We dismiss as without legal effect [acts done in contravention of the Nicaean rules] . . . By the authority of the blessed apostle Peter we quash it utterly by a general sentence.<\/p>\n Dated 22 May, 452 (From\u00a0The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325-1870<\/i>, Philip Hughes, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1961, pp. 100-101)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Pope Leo replied to the Council on March 21, 453, saying that the 28th Canon violated \u201cthe inviolable canons of Nicaea\u201d and thus pronounced this Canon of the ecumenical council null and void. Marcian the Emperor wrote to Rome (c. November 453), pleading on behalf of Patriarch Anatolius, and for reconciliation. Leo replied (unflinching) and Marcian read the letter to Anatolius, who made his submission to the pope (April 454). Anatolius writes to Leo the pope: \u201cWhatever was thus done, all its worth and the confirmation of it was reserved to the authority of your holiness.\u201d [information in Hughes,\u00a0ibid<\/i>., p. 101; Anatolius\u2019 letter to Leo is in the collection of Leo\u2019s letters, no. 132 (April 454) ]<\/p>\n So much for the denial of papal universal supremacy, jurisdiction, and \u201cveto power.\u201d And all this written and done by a pope who is revered by the Orthodox as a saint to this day.<\/p>\n Likewise, Lutheran [now Orthodox] historian Jaroslav Pelikan writes:<\/p>\n The churches of the Greek East, too, owed a special allegiance to Rome . . . One see after another had capitulated in this or that controversy with heresy. Constantinople had given rise to several heretics during the fourth and fifth centuries, notably Nestorius and Macedonius, and the other sees has also been known to stray from the true faith occasionally. But Rome had a special position.<\/p>\n The bishop of Rome had the right by his own authority to annul the acts of a synod.<\/i><\/p>\n In fact, when there was talk of a council to settle controversies, [Pope] Gregory [the Great] asserted the principle that<\/p>\n \u201cwithout the authority and the consent of the apostolic see, none of the matters transacted [by a council] have any binding force.\u201d <\/i>[The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)<\/i>, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, p. 354, emphasis added; cites Gregory\u2019s Epistle 9.156]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Note that the non-Catholic scholar Pelikan asserts that the popes had \u201cveto power,\u201d precisely what you denied above. Then he goes on to say that this was the explicit view of Gregory the Great. So \u2014 as always \u2014 the Catholic view is vindicated by Church history. There\u2019s little more I can do. The facts are clear . . .<\/p>\n Orthodox\u00a0must<\/i>\u00a0separate office from corrupt occupants, because they had so many heretical patriarchs in the East in the first eight centuries. I don\u2019t think the difference here is that great.<\/p>\n Again, this is\u00a0your<\/i>\u00a0version of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy seperates the faith from\u00a0any<\/i>\u00a0bishop, if he chooses to deviate from it. Rome can define the faith, and when it gets right down to the bottom of it, if the bishops do not agree, they lose. You claim the Pope won\u2019t, based on Matthew 16:18. But that\u2019s not even the\u00a0sense<\/i>\u00a0of the passage.<\/span><\/p>\n Why, then, was heresy tolerated in the East to such an incredible extent, back when you were still in communion with us? I already posted my infamous chart of heretical Eastern patriarchs recently. Here is what that chart meant, in concrete terms:<\/p>\n These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642. At least two out of three of the sees suffered under the yoke of a heterodox \u201cshepherd\u201d simultaneously for 112 years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for one-third of the time), and at least 248 of these same years saw one or more of the sees burdened with sub-orthodox ecclesiastical leaders: an astonishing 73% rate (277 years, or 53% from 190 to 715). Thus the East, as represented by its three greatest bishops, was at least one-third heretical for nearly three-quarters of the time over a 340-year span.<\/p>\n If we examine each city separately, we find, for example, that between 475 and 675, the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were outside the Catholic orthodox faith for 41%, 55%, and 58% of the time respectively. Furthermore, these deplorable conditions often manifested themselves for long, unbroken terms: Antioch and Alexandria were Monophysite for 49 and 63 straight years (542-91 and 475-538 respectively), while Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine Empire and the \u201cNew Rome,\u201d was embroiled in the Monothelite heresy for 54 consecutive years (610-64). There were at least 42 heretical Patriarchs of these sees between 190 and 711.<\/p>\n Yet you would have us believe that Eastern Christianity was the standard of orthodoxy in this period, over against Rome (which he claims later separated from it). The above facts are very telling against the non-ecumenical Orthodox viewpoint (not so much the \u201cecumenical\u201d Orthodox perspective. I always want to make that clear).<\/p>\n I took it\u00a0<\/span>[his polemical rhetoric]<\/span>\u00a0that far not to illustrate a hatred of reason, but a failure on your part and a lack of desire to understand the Orthodox position.<\/span><\/p>\n How does your (now apparently rhetorical and feigned) irrationality demonstrate any lack of desire to understand on my part? This gets more bizarre by the minute. I\u2019ve said before that I\u2019m not interested in playing mind games and engaging in sophistry. Apologetics is a very serious business. If I wanted to play intellectual games I would have gone into philosophy (of the wrong sort, that is).<\/p>\n In one of those experiences, he\u00a0<\/span>[St. Thomas Aquinas]<\/span>\u00a0viewed\u00a0his own<\/i>\u00a0work as worthless. I\u2019m just agreeing with the \u201cangelic doctor.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n I see. So tell me, do you also regard St. Paul\u2019s work as \u201crubbish?\u201d After all, he said:<\/p>\n . . . <\/i>I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ . . .\u00a0<\/i>(Phil 3:8; NRSV)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cAll things\u201d include Paul\u2019s ministry, so with your hyper-literal outlook, this would render Paul\u2019s ministry and missionary work, even his books in the Bible as \u201cworthless rubbish.\u201d<\/p>\n Do you also consider Paul the \u201cchief of sinners?\u201d After all, that is how he described himself (1 Tim 1:15)! Who are we to disagree?<\/p>\n St. Thomas was setting out for the Ecumenical Council of Lyons when he struck his head and died soon after. On his deathbed, he said:<\/p>\n I have taught and written much on this most holy Body and the other sacraments, according to my faith in Christ and in the holy Roman Church, to whose judgment I submit all my teaching. (in James A. Weiseipl,\u00a0Friar Thomas D\u2019Aquino; His Life, Thought, and Work<\/i>, New York: 1974, p. 326; cited in Warren H. Carroll,\u00a0The Glory of Christendom<\/i>, Front Royal, Virginia: Christendom Press, 1993, p. 298)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This hardly sounds like a man who has rejected his own work, let alone the Catholic Church. For surely this was the time to renounce his own writing, if in fact it was \u201cworthless,\u201d as you would have it. The Orthodox disdain of St. Thomas Aquinas (along with St. Augustine) is one of the most incredible aspects of Orthodoxy: absolutely displaced judgmentalism, and utterly wrongheaded. To routinely run down and slander such a brilliant, pious, thoroughly devoted saint (even Kallistos Ware falls into the trap) is nothing less than reprehensible. St. Thomas is considered the preeminent theologian in the history of the Catholic Church, so, in effect, one might opine that you think Catholic theology and speculation is worthless.<\/p>\n I am seriously questioning your understanding of Orthodoxy altogether.<\/span><\/p>\n What does that have to do with your low view of Aquinas, pray tell?<\/p>\n Well, in my humble opinion, Dave, your extreme \u201crationalist\u201d view destroys faith, but that\u2019s just my opinion.<\/span><\/p>\n This \u201copinion\u201d is quite revealing, and requires no comment (nor does it deserve the dignity of a response).<\/p>\n Numerical growth is not a good indicator. I don\u2019t think I said that. But the fact remains that you cannot explain why more people come to Orthodoxy than Catholicism here. You haven\u2019t explained why a church which, for the most part, does NOT evangelize (like your Church in some areas) gains converts. What is it, Dave? Explain the numerical growth? What? The whole \u201cChristian humility\u201d thing? Is that an act?<\/span><\/p>\n Tell me how you determine that Orthodoxy is gaining more converts. Where is \u201chere?\u201d And what??!! A Church that does not evangelize? What kind of Church is that, that refuses to do one of the primary tasks that God has called it to do?<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n See related reading on my Eastern Orthodoxy web page<\/a>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0Andrew McCluskey<\/a>\u00a0(3-6-10)<\/span> [Flickr<\/a> \/ CC BY 2.0 license<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The following exchanges with an Orthodox apologist from ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia: a group that considers itself \u201ctraditionalist\u201d and non-ecumenical), took place on my public \u201cApologetics\/Ecumenism\u201d discussion list in 1998. It is edited somewhat (i.e., both sides of certain portions, equally) in order to eliminate extraneous or irrelevant material. My Orthodox friend\u2019s words […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":45372,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[231,808],"tags":[1571,1570,3260,2364,308,1888,3261,570,6022,10341,10347,10335,10338,10344,10451,3259],"class_list":["post-45371","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-anti-catholicism","category-eastern-orthodoxy","tag-byzantine","tag-eastern-catholicism","tag-eastern-christianity","tag-eastern-orthodoxy","tag-ecumenism","tag-filioque","tag-greek-christianity","tag-orthodoxy","tag-orthodoxy-contraception","tag-orthodoxy-dissent","tag-orthodoxy-divorce","tag-orthodoxy-modernism","tag-orthodoxy-modernity","tag-orthodoxy-scandal","tag-rocor","tag-the-orthodox-church"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n