Apologetics, The Papacy, And Eastern Orthodoxy

Homiletic and Pastoral Review ^ | James Likoudis

[Polycarp]

 

Apologetics, The Papacy, And Eastern Orthodoxy

By James Likoudis

A sizeable religious literature in Apologetics has grown in past decades as the Catholic Church has continued to be attacked by those Protestants (Fundamentalists, evangelicals, and those belonging to minor sects) who remain influenced by the older Protestant polemics of the Reformation period filled with gross misunderstandings of Catholic doctrines. In an age which in large measure has appeared to have abandoned reason, it is desirable that Catholics restore the proper role of reason and to appeal to reason to establish the credibility of Christianity and the claims of the Catholic Church to be the visible embodiment in this world of the Church Christ Himself founded to be the "Pillar and Ground of the truth" (1Tim. 3:15).

In the opinion of this writer, much of the force of Catholic doctrinal debate with Protestants is rendered ineffective unless a major premise is established first - namely that the Church mentioned throughout the pages of the New Testament is a visible entity, a visible society, a visible body which can be clearly and without difficulty identified as the true Church established by the Savior. Most Protestants do not, in fact, hold the "one Church and one Church only" (Vatican II's Decree on Ecumenism, 1) to be a visible body at all but to be invisible in nature- a Church of the elect, or of the predestined, or of the "saved" who are known only to God, or perhaps- according to some modern ecumenists- are made up of all the baptized who possess a sort of vague spiritual unity sufficient to identify them all as members of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Consequently, unless the grace of God intervenes to make a Protestant realize that a visible authority (in the form of an authoritative Church) actually exists in this world to teach unerringly and to judge and settle religious disputes, there is no way to avoid the kind of religious anarchy we see manifested among the 28,000 Protestant denominations listed in religious encyclopedias. Protestantism ends in absolute religious subjectivism and in the tragic spread of religious indifferentism and skepticism. The great Catholic Counter-Reformation Apologists were quite perceptive in judging that Protestantism logically led to infidelity or unbelief.

The teaching of the 2^nd Vatican Council with regards to the nature of the Church constitutes the most magnificent Magisterial expression of ecclesiology in the 2,000 years of Catholic Christianity. The central document of Vatican II, its "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" (Lumen Gentium), set forth Catholic teaching on the nature of the Catholic Church as a visible social body built on the Rock of Peter which was at the same time the mysterious Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Its "Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches" noted that "The holy Catholic Church, which IS the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government." And "Lumen Gentium" had indeed much to say concerning "the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one (visible) head"(L.G. 22) — namely the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Peter. Concerning that "supreme authority" in the College of Bishops which was established by the historical Christ for His "one and only Church" , Lumen Gentium noted, "The Holy Spirit preserves unfailingly that form of government which was set up by Christ the Lord in His Church." (L.G. 27)

The Primacy of supreme authority and universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff in the Church and the authority of the other Bishops who make up the College of Bishops are therefore both essential elements in the divine constitution of the Church, and this has been the verdict of ecclesiastical history during the Church's 2,000 years. The teaching on Catholic Unity found in Vatican I's "First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ" and Vatican II's "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" bear ample witness to this verdict.

It is to be emphasized that the position of the Eastern Orthodox churches (whose called- for- Unity with the Catholic Church is one of the highest priorities in Pope John Paul II's pontificate) is quite different than that of most Protestants. They believe that the Church is indeed visible and that their communion is, in fact, the "one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church" noted in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Primacy of the Pope as defined by the Councils of Florence, Vatican I and Vatican II is the "rock of contradiction" that now clearly serves as the biggest obstacle to the union of the Churches, though in the Middle Ages, curiously enough, it was the dogmatic issue of the Procession of the Holy Spirit and the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist which identified for Byzantine dissidents the Pope and those in communion with him as "heretical".

The inability of Eastern Orthodox theologians and hierarchs to understand the proper relationship between Primacy and Collegiality (or Conciliarity) lies at the heart of their doctrinal resistance to the Papacy's Petrine Ministry. As some of them have said- in tune, interestingly enough, with some Protestants- the only Vicar of Christ is the Holy Spirit. In this statement lies the profound error concerning the visible government of the Church that has resulted in what we see among the 16 or so autocephalous (i.e., independent) churches making up the Eastern Orthodox communion - namely, a truncated hierarchy that cannot speak with one voice on doctrinal issues. A Catholic writer some years ago wrote beautifully that "From Christ the Apostles received the Holy Spirit who made them One". Concerning the episcopate in the Church (i.e., the corporate body of Bishops ruling the Church), he noted further :

"The Spirit of Christ present in the episcopal body is the source of its unity. It is He who assists the college in its teaching and prevents it from any substantial error in the matter of faith. He inspires, moves and helps the college in its activity. The one Holy Spirit is holding together the many members of the episcopal body.

The supernatural power of the Spirit is the common possession of the episcopal body, although the head and members do not share it in the same degree. The Successor of Peter posseses it in a way that makes him the principle of unity for the many members. The members possess it in a way that makes them able to act in a corporate manner when the head calls upon them to do so. The Spirit of Christ, says Lumen Gentium 'strengthens the organic structure of the college and its harmony'. The body, of course remains one : one theological subject of this mysterious power, of which the practical or legal manifestation is twofold- either through an act of the head of the college of bishops or through the action of the whole college [as in an Ecumenical Council]." (Fr. Ladislas M. Orsy, S.J., "Collegiality: Its Meaning" in America, May 15, 1965)

Clarifying further the relation between the Pope and the Bishops of the Church, he observed :

"Peter remains the Rock on which the Church is built. On this Rock rests even the college of bishops- not as a foreign body added to it, but as a structure that God has united to the Rock to help carry the weight of the whole edifice of the Universal Church."

And what a weight and burden the Bishop of Rome as the Successor of the Rock-man carries in his Petrine Office as Primate of the Universal Church. This was noted by John of Salisbury in the 12^th century writing in his famous political treatise "Policraticus" of Pope Hadrian IV :

"The cathedra of the Roman Pontiff is a bed of thorns, his mantle, trimmed with the sharpest points all over, is so heavy that it weighs down, bruises, and crushes the strongest shoulders, and the tiara with its crown may well seem bright because it is made of fire."(VI, 24)

Though the Pope no longer wears a tiara, he, as the Chief Bishop of the Church, continues to image his Crucified Master in that Way of the Cross which constitutes the Church's pilgrimage through history. G.K.Chesterton once referred to "the halo of hatred that surrounds the Church of God" in that pilgrimage. In the past centuries of violent Protestant and Eastern Orthodox polemics directed against the Papacy as a, if not the, "Antichrist", we can see, in fact, that "halo of hatred" most glaringly manifested. We may recall the words of that astute 19^th c. Catholic thinker Joseph de Maistre who observed that "the hatred of Rome is the only but universal tie between all the separated Churches." (Du Pape, Book IV, Chapter I)

Though ecumenical dialogue and contacts have greatly softened the polemics of the past regarding the role of the Pope in the Church- and God is to be thanked for that-, serious difficulties remain with regards to both Protestants and Eastern Orthodox coming to a better understanding and appreciation of the role of the Pope in the Church. Moreover, with some Catholics defecting to the Eastern Orthodox communion because of the doctrinal and liturgical disorders of the post-conciliar period, Catholic Apologists can not ignore the renewed intransigence of some Eastern Orthodox towards the "heresy" of the Papacy.

The Eastern Orthodox continue to profess the ancient belief of the "undivided Church" that the Episcopacy continues the apostolic mission of the original Apostolic College. They fail to acknowledge, however, the illogicality of rejecting the communion of the one Bishop, who is the heir of the one Apostle chosen by Christ to be the Rock-foundation, Holder of the Keys of the Kingdom, Confirmer of the brethren, and Chief Pastor of the entire flock (cf. Matt. 16:18ff; Lk. 22:31; Jn. 21:15-17), and thereby given the awesome responsibility to safeguard the visible unity of the one Church Christ had founded for the salvation of all men. As Vatican I and Vatican II have insisted :

"In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one and undivided, Christ put Peter at the head of the other Apostles, and in him He set up a lasting and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith and of communion." (Lumen Gentium, 18)

Catholic tradition has always seen clearly that if the Gates of Hell ( heresies, schisms, and persecutions, etc.) are not to prevail against the Church built on the Rock-foundation of Peter, Christ's authoritative Invisible headship of the Church must be reflected in the hierarchical order of the Church itself. It is the Primacy of Christ (1 Coloss.1:18) that is manifested in the Primacy of Peter's Successor in the hierarchy of the Church. It is Christ's headship that is reflected in the Bishop of Rome being constituted the. visible head and indivisible center of unity for all the local churches (East and West) making up the Catholic communion.

A recent polemic that is worth the atttention of Catholic Apologists is that of Mr. Clark Carlton, a former Southern Baptist minister who has converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. In his "The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church" (Regina Orthodox Press, 1999; 270 pp.), he purports to give a "theological analysis of the differences between Rome and Orthodoxy, not a critique of the reforms of Vatican II". This does not keep him from alleging that "the Roman Catholic Church has become highly protestantized in the wake of Vatican II" and from attempting to dissuade "Evangelical Protestants who are considering converting to the Roman Catholic Church" (pages 8-9). He devotes an entire Chapter to criticize especially Catholic convert Scott Hahn for his "appalling ignorance of history", particularly with regards to the crippling influence of the Byzantine Greek and Russian Emperors who dominated the life of the dissident Greco-Slav churches for centuries. Following the lead of the Russian Orthodox Jean Meyendorff, Clark's attempt to discount a "caesaropapism which did not in fact exist" is not convincing.

Interestingly, Mr. Carlton earned an M.A. in Early Christian Studies from the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. His recent book attacking the Catholic Church and the Papacy represents the sorry revival of the worst kind of polemics launched by dissident Byzantines before and after the Reunion Council of Florence (1439). This is evidenced by the author's inclusion of documents expressive of the bitterness and violent invective often hurled against "heretical Rome":

• the 1285 Tome against the "Filioque" of the Council of Blachernae;
• the 1848 Encyclical Reply by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem to Pius IX's invitation to them to attend Vatican I;
• the 1993 Letter of Mt. Athos Monks taking to task the Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, for his ecumenical overtures to "the Pope, the man-god and idol of Western humanism".

Mr. Carlton will have no part of Eastern Orthodox ecumenical efforts. [To him] Ecumenism is simply another "heresy". In fact, [he states that:]

• "the Orthodox Church considers the Roman Catholic Church to be in heresy" (page 9)...
• The doctrine of the papacy...is heresy", as representing a radical departure from the ecclesiology of the early Church (page 18).
• "The Orthodox [have] rejected the 'Filioque' [i.e., the words "and the Son" added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in the Latin Church] because it was heretical" (page 62).
• "It must be recognized as a heresy and formally repudiated" (page 75).
• "Orthodoxy" rejects Roman Catholic doctrines such as: "Papal supremacy and infallibility"; "changing the Creed (the 'Filioque')"; "worrying about going to a non-existent place (purgatory), paying money to stay out of said non-existent place (indulgences)"; and "the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception".

This last doctrine is accused of "turning the Virgin Mary into some sort of super-human" (an immaculately conceived Co-redemptrix).

For Mr. Carlton, "Orthodoxy" also rejects the Catholic doctrine of salvation based upon concepts of satisfaction and merit. "To put it bluntly", he pontificates, Eastern Orthodoxy "knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church" (page 187). "We simply do not confess the same faith".

Space does not permit here to deal adequately with the many doctrinal misconceptions, erroneous theological arguments, and distortions of historical fact found in this anti-ecumenical work. Its familiar charges and allegations have often been refuted by Catholic scholars, and are very similar in nature and import to another recent book published by the same Press (Michael Whelton's "Two Paths: Papal Monarchy or Collegiality" ) which is similarly directed against the "heretical" Papacy. Not surprisingly, both of these books clearly evidence the results of schism from the See of Peter, namely, doctrinal variations and contradictions among the Eastern Orthodox and consequent confusion as to what (in the absence of any Ecumenical Council since the 8^th c.) constitutes their "official teaching".

Mr. Carlton says he converted to Eastern Orthodoxy rather than to the Catholic Church because he saw in the former's theology and life " a pure witness" to the religion of the early Church. Yet he is forced to acknowledge with the monks of Mt. Athos an "already disunited body of Orthodoxy"- one racked with the heresy of "phyletism" (a heresy condemned as such in an l872 Council at Constantinople). Phyletism is defined as "the theory that the Church should be organized according to ethnic make-up rather than according to territorial dioceses"- an innovation quite contrary to the ancient canons. The sorry result has been - in the words of the Mt. Athos monks- "ensuing chaos", now strikingly manifest in multiple Orthodox jurisdictions, a number of which are declared "uncanonical" by some and "schismatical" or "heretical" by others. Whereas Carlton insists that each of his "national churches" professes "one and the same Orthodox faith", he fails to see the flagrant contradictions into which he falls. The Church's ecclesiology, he declares, is "not subject to change". Yet he admits that Rome's claims to a primacy of universal jurisdiction is already found in the 5^th century when the orthodox Eastern churches were in full communion with Rome. The 'Filioque", he charges 'ad nauseam' is "heretical", but he admits the doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from (or through) the Son was already widespread in the Western Church since the 5^th century (and when the orthodox Eastern churches were in full communion with it). In claiming that the Eastern Orthodox profess "one and the same Orthodox faith", he ignores the brute fact that theologians (both past and present) are found who believe that the 'Filioque' is not heretical; who have expressed belief in the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God so venerated among them; who believe in a "purification or cleansing of the soul "in the after-life (with its pains and torments)- a teaching practically indistinguishable from our Catholic doctrine of purgatory ; and who believe that Papal supremacy has deep historical roots in the early Church being clearly admitted in the East long before the 11^th century estrangement between Rome and Constantinople.

Fortunately, Mr. Carlton does not speak for all Eastern Orthodox bishops, theologians, and Laity; some will surely find his views quite extremist and strident, and will be embarrassed by his and fellow zealots' denunciation of ecumenism as "heresy". Also, readers of his book may find quite questionable his elevating the 14^th century theologian Gregory Palamas' controversial teaching on the essence and energies of God to the status of dogma (and this without benefit of an Ecumenical Council !). Nor do his views on the nature of the Church find approval with a writer of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.
Reviewing an earlier book by Mr. Carlton ("The Faith : Understanding Orthodox Christianity- An Orthodox Catechism", 1997), Fr.Alexey Young (himself a former Catholic) observed:

"The author says that 'the Orthodox Church has faithfully maintained the apostolic faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3), neither adding to nor subtracting from it.' A fine statement, but one which is, in this context, at best an optimistic generalization, for some Orthodox jurisdictions have in fact departed significantly from the Faith 'once delivered to the saints', as even a cursory study will reveal."("Orthodox America", 1997)

Mr. Carlton must also be said to live in quite another theological world than that of the late Panteleimon, Metropolitan of Chios, who observed many years ago (in words that have been echoed by other Eastern Orthodox prelates) that:

"Between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, it is fanaticism alone, that has emphasized the insignificant differences, differences that were never serious, that existed in former times without bringing on a schism." (Le Monde, January 26,1952)

Then, too, it can be perceived that behind many of the author's erroneous statements lies a residue of centuries of old Protestant prejudices and fanatical animus against "Romanism" and "Mariolatry". A number of Eastern Orthodox theologians he quotes (such as the 19^th c. lay theologian Khomjakov) were undeniably influenced by Protestant negations of Catholic doctrines.

In conclusion, Mr. Carlton has rehashed old doctrinal grievances and complaints against the Catholic Church by Byzantine dissidents who have misunderstood and misinterpreted the Tradition of their own Eastern Fathers on those dogmatic matters where they choose to find themselves at odds with Catholic teaching. Ironically, his book has served to highlight the irreconcilable doctrinal divisions, disputes, and schisms currently found in the 16 or so autocephalous (jurisdictionally independent) churches making up the Eastern Orthodox communion.

Though by the grace of God, the Eastern Orthodox have kept in almost complete measure the Catholic faith as defined in the first seven Ecumenical Councils, they have departed from the fullness of that faith in sadly separating themselves from the communion of the Rock-foundation of the Church, Peter and his successors, the Roman Pontiffs. Readers will recall Cardinal Newman's famous aphorism : "To go deep into history is to cease to be a Protestant". It is also true that for those who seek integral orthodoxy, love the Catholic unity of the Church, and meditate seriously upon the role of the Papacy in the First Millenium, "To go deep into history is to cease to be Eastern Orthodox."

(c) James Likoudis. All Rights Reserved. This article was originally published in "Homiletic and Pastoral Review" issue of January 2001

_________________

Today's Catholic Reflections (c)

www.tcrnews.com

TCR Home</center

[RobbyS]

Baptism fills the child with the Holy Ghost and makes him an adopted child of God. The Orthodox may have a different way of staying it, but I think we Catholics and they agree with St. Cyprian that baptism is a kind of vaccination of the child against "the contagion of death by reason of his first birth from Adam."

[FormerLib]

I see an opening to praise others instead of God when we venerate these saints.

Actually, we see it the other way around! By celebrating the saints, we give glory to God. The light that shown from the saints is the merest flicker of His grace.

What does infant baptism do for the infant?

It begins the child's life in Christ. Jesus said to bring the children to Him. Why a Christian would step in and say "You can't have him 'til we say he's ready!" is just beyond me!

[don-o]

The 12 apostles are the ONLY authorized agents of Christ. When all the eyewitnesses had died, the canon of revelation about Christ ceased. And since Christ is the full and final revelation of God, we must conclude that the collection of books authorized by the 12 apostles is the full and final revelation of God to men.

What a shame.

The poster does not even know the history of his own sola scriptura dogma.

Centuries passed between the death of the Holy Apostle St John, and the "collection of books."

There is not a word in Holy Scripture that speaks to what writings are to be received and what are not to be received. That came later.

[sitetest]

Dear don-o,

Of course, there are other books that didn't make it into the Bible. The Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of James. The Gospel of Peter. The Acts of Peter. The Acts of Paul. The Acts of Philip. A whole bunch of others.

Who is it precisely who determined that these books oughtn't be included in the Bible? ;-)

sitetest

[don-o]

I reread my #262 and, a day later, it seems pretty good for discussion.

It's easy (and probably fruitless) to engage the Prottie head bangers. The board is replete with such. 99% of all the religion threads devolve to that.

But the original post was a pretty thought provoking article. Can Orthodox and Roman Catholics ever have a conversation, and ignore the static?

[don-o]

Who is it precisely who determined that these books oughtn't be included in the Bible? ;-)

That reminds me of kids who post here, asking for help on term papers.

Or my kids who ask simple questions.

Answer is "Look it up."

Thing about this question, it takes a little digging to go past secondary sources; or at least compare what authority and reference is cited for a claim.

I did the work, and the canon of Holy Scripture was not a project of the Apostles.

There may be an eager beaver who will post links, but my opinion is that folks need to learn how to learn.

[Conservative til I die]

Queens? Thanks for exposing yourself as a jerk. Grow up.

[The_Reader_David]

You are sorely deluded. The Church was never Calvinist. The Latin church did not "revert" to "Arminianism"--indeed it trod the path toward Calvinism by embracing Blessed Augustine as the Father among Fathers, accepting his notion of Original Sin as inherited guilt and rejecting the Orthodox teaching of Ancestral Sin, which doubtless you will lable as "Arminian". It is only Calvin in leading his followers deeper into heresy rather than back to the original teachings of Christ and His Holy Apostles who ceased to be "Arminian".

[RobbyS]

And "Bibles," complete collections of the Scriptures were rare in antiquity. Since it is an anthology of many different books, probably most Christians never saw the complete works. Not until the 13th Century were Larin Bibles compressed into the size of a book that could be carried around. They were hand-written on very thin parchment. Franciscans and Dominicans carried it around in their pockets and preached from them.

[Polycarp]

Can Orthodox and Roman Catholics ever have a conversation, and ignore the static?

It appears that the anti-traditionalist "Christian" bigots have no intention whatsoever of allowing such a discussion on this forum.

Its a great thought, and this article was a good starting point indeed...

...but once again the bigots have taken over the field along with their usual pathetic Arminian Versus Calvinistic drivel.

Personally I have no patience for it, and being a natural born fighter, I have a hard time ignoring the static. If you know of any way to start a thread that from the outset defines the debate as "no non-traditionalist Christians welcome" please let me know, and I'll be happy to join you.

Until then, I can only conclude that this forum is worthless for true discussions between the sole remaining branches of real Christianity, Orthodox and Catholic.

Sorry if I offend my non-Catholic, non-Orthodox brethren, but frankly I'm fed up with some of the hardened, idiotic bigots on this forum.

[The_Reader_David]

I hope and pray that your are incorrect in your assertion that there are no theological issues separating Constantinople and Rome--unless, of course, there has been a sudden change in Rome, news of which has not reached me, on the list of theological issues which have separated Rome from Orthodoxy for centuries, a sudden change for which the Orthodox fervently hope. If Rome has not suddenly changed its positions on the issues in which it has departed from the Faith, then a lack of difference between Constantinople and Rome would indicated the apostacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch (a circumstance we have dealt with in the past, but which I do not think applies presently).

It is simply maddening to any well-educated pious Orthodox Christian to hear Latins and Uniates assert that there is no doctrinal difference between Rome and Holy Orthodoxy. The Orthodox regard unity of faith as the test of communion: if there were no difference in faith, we would be in communion with Rome.

It is also quite annoying to hear the North American and Western European condition of adminstrative disunity in violation of the Holy Canons--an affliction which resulted from the Bolshevik Revolution destroying the links to our mother patriarchate--universalized. In most countries of the world, there is administrative unity under a single hierarchy (in Africa, for instance, the Patiarchate of Alexandria and All Africa, in Russia, the Patriarchate of Moscow, in Japan the Autonomous Church of Japan,...).

I will lay out the doctrinal differences which separate your communion from the Church briefly, indicating what I view to be the import of each:

• The filioque: I realize that your current Pope has tried to finess this, and pass it off as a mere misunderstanding. It is, however, at the root of most of the other differences, as I will point out.

  
  The insertion of the additional clause in the Creed is baleful in two ways. First it is theologically unsound, representing a confounding of the eternal and temporal, the created and Uncreated. The Latins' explanation that the second procession refers to the temporal mission of the Spirit, which takes place through the Son, does not undo the conceptual imprecision of using the same verb--not even two occurrences of the same word, but a single word--in the Symbol of Faith to refer both to the Eternal and Uncreated Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, spoken of by Our Lord, and to the temporal mission of the Spirit in coming upon the Holy Apostles and dwelling in the Church to "lead [us] into all truth". This confusion is then the root of other errors, both ecclesiological and soteriological.

  Second, the acceptance of a modified Symbol of Faith, in defiance of the decree of the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, and the definition of the change to be no change represents the decisive departure of the See of Rome from the mind of the Church, both ecclesiologically and theologically. Once the Symbol of the Faith had been accepted and the Arians and pneumatomachians defeated, even heretics like Nestorius and Dioscorus did not presume to tamper with it. It is only by holding a theory unknown to the ancient and undivided Church--the theory that the Pope of Rome in his office and person is superior to the Holy Ecumenical Councils--that the Latins can claim that this is not a departure fromt the Faith. It seems to be generally forgotten in the Western use of 1054 as the date of the Schism, that Rome and Constantinople were out of communion over precisely this issue since either 1009 or 1014 (depending on whether the acceptance by the Popes of Rome of the heretical clause became known through the publication of the still extant coronation rite of the German Emperor Henry II, or the no longer extant election encyclical of Pope Sergius IV) at which time the Popes of Rome were removed from the Diptychs of the Great Church of Constantinople because they had cease to confess the Orthodox Faith.

• The papacy: This is well-known, and seem to be the only difference generally understood by the Latins, who see the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church as "schismatics but not heretics". However, the depth of the problem with the Latin position, and its connection to the filioque are not generally understood in the West, even by the most vociferous protestant critics of the Roman papacy.

  It is only in the context of the confused pneumatology of the filioque that the Latin insistence on having a human "Vicar of Christ" become understandable. The demotion of the Holy Spirit represented by both subordination to the Son and the confounding of the Spirit's activity with created things leads to the desire to have an intelligible principle for the unity of the Church other than the indwelling of the Spirit--hence the Latin shift from the conception of unity of faith to communion with the Roman Pontiff.

  That the modern Latin conception of the Papacy is an innovation unknown to the ancient Church is well-attested by the canons of the Holy Ecumenical Councils, which attibute a primacy of honor to the See of Rome on the basis of its position as Imperial capital (the basis for precedence among sees on the basis of the status of the city is also demonstrated by the fact that the Jerusalem was suffregan to the Ceasarea for centuries, despite its undoubted Apostolic foundation, and the fact the Alexandria ranked ahead of Antioch, even thought Antioch was founded by St. Peter himself, while Alexandria was founded by his disciple St. Mark the Evangelist), and provide certain narrow appelate jurisdictions to the Pope of Rome--narrowly drawn powers which would make no sense at all if the Church had regarded the office in the way the Latins do since the Schism. (The schism between Pope Nicholas and St. Photius the Great resulted from the Pope overstepping his authority: while Patriarch Ignatius has a right to appeal to Rome, the Pope had no right to judge the case personally--the Holy Canons provided for the Pope of Rome to appoint a commission of metropolitan bishops from neighboring provinces to judge disputes between bishop, not judge the case himself.)

  The innovation of papal "infallibility" only widened the gap between the Latin understanding of the Church and the ancient and catholic understanding preserved in the Holy Orthodox Church.

• Created grace: If one asks an Orthodox monastic what the biggest issue separating the Latins from the Church is, he will likely refer to the Latin notion of created grace. I refer to the definition of grace given in the current "Catechism of the Catholic [sic] Church". It refers to the Holy Spirit and "created spiritual gifts".

  Created spiritual gifts are unknown to the Orthodox. Grace is the Uncreated Energies of God--God Himself acting--or it is powerless to save. Again the Latin notion confuses the created and the Uncreated as regards the activity of the Holy Spirit.

  This confusion is also evident in the Latin conception of purgatory: a temporal fire (or state--they downplay the fire aspect now) which is part of salvation, cleansing those passing through it of their sins. The Fathers knew of no such state--the Holy Scriptures speak only of Paradise and Hades, while the Fifth Ecumenical Council, in condemning the vain opinion of Origen, Didymus the Blind and Evagarius Ponticus that the torments of Hell are temporal, not eternal, did not mention in contrast any temporal purgative torment. There is only one fire--the Eternal Fire--which the Fathers tell us is the love of God. Again purgatory, with its temporal fire, confounds the created and Uncreated, the temporal and the eternal. It is, of course, well-known that abuses connected with this error--the sale of 'indulgences'--were the occasion for further schisms and heresies to arise in the West.

• The Marian dogmas: these are the only devisive doctrinal issue which do not have roots in the filioque. Rather, they are expressions of a fundamentally different understanding of the Fall. The West (Latin and protestant alike) follow Blessed Augustine's conception of Orginal Sin as a sort of inheritted guilt, in contrast to the Orthodox teaching of Ancestral Sin. The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a kind of patch needed by the Latins to reconcile the Augustinian conception with the conception of Mary's purity and of the honor due her which they inheritted from the Church. It is more superfluous than false in itself, but has potential to do spiritual harm as we shall see.

  The second Marian dogma--her Bodily Assumption--is a matter not domatized about by the Orthodox, although we believe on the testimony of Holy Tradition that after her death the Theotokos was bodily assumed into heaven. The mischief of the Latin dogma comes from its "legislative history": those who advocated it includes a fair party who held (and still hold) that Mary was bodily assumed before death. The papal proclaimation of the "dogma" was deliberately worded so as to allow this position--quite contary to Holy Tradition--to continue among the Latins.

  Coupled with the IC, a bodily assumption before death becomes a stumbling block to sound understanding of our salvation: without "Original Sin" and deathless, Mary would have a pre-lapsarian Adamic nature, not the human nature common to us all. A Christ born of such a "pure vessel" would not assume our nature, and as the cry against the monothelites said "not assumed, not redeemed." Mary's nature must be like ours completely for Christ to redeem our nature by assuming it, so too, her will and her activity or energies must be identical to our own. The failure to exclude the "assumption before death" position in the papal proclaimation must, thus, be seen as a modern day return to the position of the heretical Pope Honorius--a blank incomprehension of the basis of our salvation.

livius also does wrong to separate practice from doctrine, thinking that the Faith is doctrine alone. There are serious issues in the understanding and practice of prayer which cannot be overlooked in an approach to reunion: much Latin piety involves the exercise of contemplative imagination--the rosary, Thomas a Kempis's writings,... The use of imagination in prayer is strictly forbidden in Orthodox practice--forbidden because it is dangerous. Orthodox writers have described "The Imitiation of Christ" as a "manual for prelest" (prelest being a slavonic word for the sin of spiritual delusion), and have on the same basis drawn into question both the sanctity and sanity of many Latin "saints"--St. Ignatius Brianchaninov even went so far as to call Francis of Asissi a "lunatic". This difference also has roots in the Latin confounding of the created and Uncreated--true prayer does not involve 'logismoi', conceptual images which are necessarily bound in the realm of the created, but transcending the created through the Uncreated activity of the Spirit who, as the Holy Apostle tells us 'prays in us'.

I will not go into the symbolic critique of azymes, nor set forth the myriad other divergences in practice which have accumulated on the Latin side--from laxity in fasting to "lay Eucharistic ministers"--which would impede reunion. The divergence in the practice of prayer, however, seems rather important, since as Evagarius Ponticus told us before he wandered off into error "the true theologian is he who truely prays, and he who truely prays is a theologian." (Another divergence--in the West, theology seems to be synthetic science, for the Orthodox it is a positive science.)

[Starwind]

Well, actually it's 444 lines and I for one read it, but then again I read the bible also, so go figure.

[Starwind]

(omitted your post to which I was responding)

You know how many folks will read a 25000 line post

Answer: None.

Well, actually it's 444 lines and I for one read it, but then again I read the bible also, so go figure.

[Starwind]

Exerpts from Eric Svendsen's previous article here:

According to Barrett’s calculations, there are 8,196 denominations within Protestantism—not 25,000 as Roman Catholic apologists so cavalierly and carelessly claim. Barrett is also quick to point out that one cannot simply assume that this number will continue to grow each year; hence, the typical Roman Catholic projection of an annual increase in this number is simply not a given. Yet even this figure is misleading; for it is clear that Barrett defines “distinct denominations” as any group that might have a slightly different emphasis than another group (such as the difference between a Baptist church that emphasizes hymns, and another Baptist church that emphasizes praise music).

No doubt the same Roman Catholic apologists who so gleefully cite the erroneous 25,000-denominations figure, and who might with just as much glee cite the revised 8,196-denominations figure, would reel at the notion that there might actually be 223 distinct denominations within Roman Catholicism! Yet that is precisely the number that Barrett cites for Roman Catholicism. Moreover, Barrett indicates in the case of Roman Catholicism that even this number can be broken down further to produce 2,942 separate “denominations”—and that was only in 1970! In that same year there were only 3,294 Protestant denominations; a difference of only 352 denominations.

[Matchett-PI]

"... frankly I'm fed up with some of the hardened, idiotic bigots on this forum."

Now is that a nice attitude to take with people who are just trying to imitate those whom the apostle Paul commended?

The Bereans were commended by the apostle Paul for not allowing him and Silas to interpret the Scriptures for them.

They were commended for having a positive attitude like Reagan ("trust but verify") because they searched the Scriptures daily [for themselves] to find out whether the things that Paul and Silas were telling them were so. [Acts 17:10-11].

Now if God's apostles themselves didn't become fed up when those they were preaching to wanted to verify what they were saying by checking them out against the infallible Word of God (Scripture) -- why should you be?

[sitetest]

Dear M-PI,

Please don't ping me again.

Thank you.

sitetest

[Polycarp]

This thread was to be a discussion between Orthodox and Catholics. Your branch of Christianity is inconsequential, except that it pulls folks away from the real Christian Churches.

Take it elsewhere. Don't you comprehend that we simply do not buy your bigoted interpretations? To me, your words here are deceit at best, demonic at worst. I fly from your lies just as much as you perceive my Church to be in grave error.

Thus we are at an impass. So kindly let this thread return to its original discussion. I do not care to hear your personal erroneous interpretations of scripture. And we've had enough of your spamming this thread with your protestant crap.

[FormerLib]

The Bereans were commended by the apostle Paul for not allowing him and Silas to interpret the Scriptures for them.

I'm sure Paul would have had a different reaction if the Bereans were interpreting them as badly as this guy! ;-)

[FormerLib]

...but once again the bigots have taken over the field along with their usual pathetic Arminian Versus Calvinistic drivel.

Maybe the best thing to do is just ignore them. Post no responses to their drivel.

[FormerLib]

Matchett-PI

I've heard quite enough of your attacks on my faith.

Do not ping me again. Remove me from all of your ping and bump lists.

Thank you,
FormerLib