I'm gonna start this thread by replying to what TER said on the other thread, but I consider this thread fair game for discussion on Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the various differences between them.
I confess I have not studied RC ecclesiology at depth and most of what I have read have come from Orthodox authors. I do understand that Papal Infallability is in regards to the pope speaking ex cathedra. I don’t exactly know how that works. It seems like a legalistic safety clause which I find in other RC practices.
I'm willing to grant that I struggle with this doctrine. Had I lived before 1870, I certainly would have sympathized with the conciliarists who did not believe in papal infallibility. I accept it because I believe the Bishop of Rome is the principle of unity in the Christian Church, and thus I do believe that a valid ecunemical council ruled in favor of this doctrine. I guess I don't see it so much as a "safety clause" so much as I see it a kind of spiritual version of the referee or umpire. His word is the final word in specific circumstances, but that doesn't mean he's a perfect person or that everything he says is perfect. There are problems with this analogy, but I think you can see where I'm going with it. The Magisterium exists to clarify tradition, not to overturn it and certainly not to make every off the cuff opinion of the Pope infallible.
For example, when it comes to the Holy Sacrament of Marriage, the Orthodox do allow for divorce. It is seen as a sad consequence of the fall, of broken people who tragically can no longer live together after all efforts have been exhausted to save the marriage. Out of mercy and compassion, the Church allows for divorce. Again, the Church is a spiritual hospital whose goal is to provide assistance for the salvation of souls. It acknowledges the weakness of men and prays to God for mercy on their behalf. The Catholic Church does not allow for divorce. It maintains that the bond is irrevocably created and thus divorce is forbidden. So how do they go around the reality of married people falling out and requiring separation in order to further prevent damage to their eternal souls? They create an annulment, in other words, a legal excuse, or safety clause, to say that the marriage never occurred in the first place. Why make up such stories? Instead, accept that men are weak, that we fail in living up to standards we should live up to, and pray to the ever-loving and compassionate God for mercy.
Annulments were much more rare before Vatican II. I don't have a problem with the concept in and of itself. Certain marriages just are not possible. To give an extreme example, consider for instance a man who "married" a woman that he later learned was his sister. Or perhaps a woman who already had a spouse, but lied to him. Say a man lied and claimed to be a layman, but in actuality he was already an ordained priest, bound to celibacy. Or consider perhaps the case of an Islamic child bride who is too young to really consent to marriage in the first place. These are among the conceivable situations where we could imagine an annulment being sensible.
I agree that, especially post Vatican II, often annulments have basically become a cover for divorce, but that's not the way its supposed to work.
While I do admit that certain polemic arguments made by the Orthodox against RC can be exaggerated (myself being such an offender), it is not however without good reason. For history demontrates times when the RC has taken liberty to make illicit changes in doctrine, the most notable being the Filioque (the very Symbol of Faith - the Creed, was unilaterally and uncanoncially (read: illegally) changed!). I assure you, theologically speaking, this has major implications into the Monarchial understanding of the God-head as well as the understanding of grace and the workings and Person of the Holy Spirit.
I'm trying to gain a better understanding of the Trinity, and where the Catholic and EO views differ on it, still. I don't see how any of this is a justification for strawmen
The other changes, such as papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, the understandings of original sin, the juridical overemphasis of penal substitutionary theory, were all developed through time and mostly apart from the Eastern Church. These doctrinal changes and developments, which in some cases are novel and in certain cases completely without patristic support, have led to the widened rift.
I don't understand how its reasonable to affirm Mary as the New Eve and yet deny the immaculate conception. Keep in mind that Catholics do not accept original sin *the way the Reformed do*. We do believe that because of original sin, infants are born in need of salvation, but we don't hold, like many Protestants do, the notion of imputed guilt. Sometimes the Orthodox confuse Rome for Protestantism here.
Considering that understanding, given that the 1st Adam and the 1st Eve both came into the world without sin, and given that Jesus the 2nd Adam comes into the world without sin, it doesn't seem fitting or sensible that Mary would've come into the world with sin, even if she never chose to sin. If I recall correctly, Fr. Damick (EO priest, for anyone who doesn't know) says that the Orthodox hold that Mary was sinless from the time of the annunciation, or something like that. But that seems inconsistent with the New Eve parallelism that's held to by Ireaneus and Justin Martyr.
Note, I am not saying that these RC doctrines are heretical or wrong (though I would say it, but again in the end, God knows better than me).
On what basis does EO distinguish that which is heretical from that which isn't? Leaving aside the fact that we both accept that judgment of persons is ultimately up to God, I'm wondering how these doctrines could be heretical when they aren't condemned in any of the ecunemical councils. Unless EO has an equivalent to the ordinary magisterium?
Rather, they have developed apart from the EO Church which is more keen to hold onto the apostolic faith and teachings which have been handed down from the early Church Fathers (who were mostly from the East and were Greek speaking). It was in fact in the East where every early Ecumenical Council was held in order to defend the orthodox, catholic teachings from the many encroaching heresies which popped up (note, not one of the eight Holy Ecumenical Council was held in Rome or presided over by the Roman Pope) and it was in the East where the greatest number of defenders of the Christian Faith and theologians lived and taught in those formative first centuries. The distancing between the Latin speaking and Greek speaking halves of the Church had real and lasting effects. One can only wonder what the Church would look like now had St. Augustine read more of the earlier Church Fathers! Nevertheless, he is regarded as a great Saint in both Churches as he should be. After all, what the RC and EO share is great compared to what separates them. But these differences are meaningful, and for that reason I urge you to take your time in your catechism and do not rush. In the early Church, the catechism would last three years. Now, most catechumens wait one year. I don’t know what your plans are, but there is no reason to rush, and I say this regardless if you were to join the RC or the EO. In the end, it is God Who will lead you if you allow Him to. But that means we have to be patient and allow Him to lead. God is not our co-pilot. He is our pilot! We, as servant, simply need to listen, be humbly obedient, and first of all, be patient!
I wish you a blessed Sunday and hope to speak again soon!
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Christian Liberty
Connect With Us