Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the Assumption/Dormation of Mary...

[PaladinValer]

Nihil obstat and imprimateur refer to designations given by the Holy See to certain printed materials. There are English translations of the words, but that isn't how they are used - it is more like a brand name. So, a book that doesn't contain outright theological error according to Catholic teaching will be stamped with "nihil obstat" and that will be included on translations in other languages.

PV was suggesting that unless a source is stamped with these things, it is best not to take what it says about Catholic teaching too seriously. I would not go so far as that, but it is a good indication that there are not serious errors of certain kinds.

I merely think it is logical to look for it or is equivalence when it comes to things like this. Let's face it: anyone can claim "My religion/sect teaches X" or "that religion/sect teaches X", and, while they may be right, some sort of official stamp of approval gives a heck of a lot of credence to the claim.

And, with all due respect, I was looking for an official stamp of approval on a claim on Eastern Orthodox teaching. However, I think it is part of the spirit of TT that such proof be given when making claims, or at least provide it when asked. And if that cannot be done, then a retraction be issued. So long as that is given, I don't think people would bat an eyelash, unless it proved to be repetitive or done in malice.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Why am I puzzled? Why not? Because I communicate in the wonderful language of English, perhaps?

I have my suspicions about the appearance of the level of educatuon, but I hope I am wrong.

You will find that it is indeed common in theology and science to use both Latin and Classical Greek phrases. Why? Couple reasons; we almost always have, and they are generally well understood; Latin and Classical Greek are both dead languages, and as such, their meaning is fixed, it is not evolving. Read the Lutheran Confessions; full of Latin phrases and Greek too. Such is the theological norm.

Most of us have not had any formal education in Latin; but we read a bunch of theology. It's not uncommon for the Choirs in our Churches to belt out the odd ditty in Latin. J S Bach's Masses were truly Lutheran, but composed, sung Latin and still used in part or in their entirety in Lutheran Catholic and Anglican Churches.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Nihil obstat and imprimateur refer to designations given by the Holy See to certain printed materials. ...

Mostly it is a local bishop who issues the nihil obstat and imprimatur.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

I merely think it is logical to look for it or is equivalence when it comes to things like this. Let's face it: anyone can claim "My religion/sect teaches X" or "that religion/sect teaches X", and, while they may be right, some sort of official stamp of approval gives a heck of a lot of credence to the claim.

And, with all due respect, I was looking for an official stamp of approval on a claim on Eastern Orthodox teaching. However, I think it is part of the spirit of TT that such proof be given when making claims, or at least provide it when asked. And if that cannot be done, then a retraction be issued. So long as that is given, I don't think people would bat an eyelash, unless it proved to be repetitive or done in malice.

LoL, what would such an equivalence be?

 

[PaladinValer]

LoL, what would such an equivalence be?

Canon law would foot the bill.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

Canon law in Orthodoxy does not deal with beliefs but with practices. It's an organizational tool. Furthermore canons are implemented and interpreted by the local bishop. They're not 'law' in the sense of secular law, and there's no codified set as in the Roman church. Here's a brief overview:

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7071

I don't think canon law fits your request for an official, firm stance on issues. Canon law is a mess, and "What's your favorite weird canon" is a popular game for Orthodox to play and laugh over.

 

[PaladinValer]

Canon law in Orthodoxy does not deal with beliefs but with practices.

The point is, it is official; something sanctioned (or, if the case may be, condemned) in an affirmative sense. Even with the application of economy, which is only right and natural, it provides a baseline.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

in the same way your parish by-laws are indicative of your beliefs and are authoritative.

The closest thing we have to what you want to exist would be our hymns and prayers. Citing those as evidence of belief would be 'official' but I don't know if that would cover everything we believe. One is taught Orthodoxy person to person more than from documents.

 

[~Anastasia~]

in the same way your parish by-laws are indicative of your beliefs and are authoritative.

The closest thing we have to what you want to exist would be our hymns and prayers. Citing those as evidence of belief would be 'official' but I don't know if that would cover everything we believe. One is taught Orthodoxy person to person more than from documents.

That makes sense. There's a tremendous amount of the theology given through the hymns and prayers. The canons are not really something the laity knows much of, not interacts with much. I know of only a few points of theology that are covered in any canon, and for all I know, there may exist "contradictory" canons in some of those cases.

 

[MoreCoffee]

in the same way your parish by-laws are indicative of your beliefs and are authoritative.

The closest thing we have to what you want to exist would be our hymns and prayers. Citing those as evidence of belief would be 'official' but I don't know if that would cover everything we believe. One is taught Orthodoxy person to person more than from documents.

How does a potential convert to, say, the Greek Orthodox Church discover what is believed and taught by the church on matters about which they are interested?

 

[Joseph Hazen]

How does a potential convert to, say, the Greek Orthodox Church discover what is believed and taught by the church on matters about which they are interested?

You ask your priest, Godparents, friends, etc. They might recommend a book, or might ask someone they know. Orthodoxy is very communal.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You ask your priest, Godparents, friends, etc. They might recommend a book, or might ask someone they know. Orthodoxy is very communal.

This is one of the things I like about Orthodoxy, instead of being an "institution", it is more of a community.

 

[MKJ]

I merely think it is logical to look for it or is equivalence when it comes to things like this. Let's face it: anyone can claim "My religion/sect teaches X" or "that religion/sect teaches X", and, while they may be right, some sort of official stamp of approval gives a heck of a lot of credence to the claim.

And, with all due respect, I was looking for an official stamp of approval on a claim on Eastern Orthodox teaching. However, I think it is part of the spirit of TT that such proof be given when making claims, or at least provide it when asked. And if that cannot be done, then a retraction be issued. So long as that is given, I don't think people would bat an eyelash, unless it proved to be repetitive or done in malice.

Funnily I noticed you were talking about teh EO the first time I read it and not the second.

However, as people have pointed out, within Orthodoxy there is nothing that would do what you want, and even within Catholicism, those things don't really do that. They aren't going to be found on lots of good sources, and they will be found on things that aren't very good, so long as they are not bad in very particular ways.

It's more a matter of evaluating sources in the same way we do for other kinds of things - who produced them, whether they seem professional and consistent, reviews, and so on.

 

[PaladinValer]

Funnily I noticed you were talking about teh EO the first time I read it and not the second.

However, as people have pointed out, within Orthodoxy there is nothing that would do what you want, and even within Catholicism, those things don't really do that. They aren't going to be found on lots of good sources, and they will be found on things that aren't very good, so long as they are not bad in very particular ways.

It's more a matter of evaluating sources in the same way we do for other kinds of things - who produced them, whether they seem professional and consistent, reviews, and so on.

Fair enough, but some sort of official source is always best, be it one from a canon of the church, a source with an imprimatur, or a part of the actual official liturgical worship.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It actually is very complicated to learn, coming in, what the Orthodox Church teaches. You do learn to evaluate sources, because you do find conflicts. If you want to be SURE, it's probably best not to accept any single source if you are an outsider. Even (rarely, but sometimes) one that seems "official" in some way.

I learned a great deal from the hymns. Nothing contradictory there that I found, but some of it is "veiled" and they can be difficult to track down.

I read early writings, catechisms. (There is no "official" and complete catechism such as I think the Catholics have.) I read many recommended books. There are of course some contradictions within all of these sources, but there is largely consensus.

I asked laypeople in person and online. You learn to discern how "orthodox" each one is. Some are not.

I asked my priest, and attended classes. I listened to many, many podcasts by priests, professors, and monastics on Bible study, call-in questions, and theology lectures. A tiny bit of contradiction, but the overall consensus is pretty overwhelming, and most will admit where the grey areas are when they discuss it.

It was important to Father that each of us become proficient at finding and evaluating answers for ourselves as baptized Orthodox. I didn't understand even as recently as that how important it is that we be able to do so, but as time goes on, I more and more appreciate his position.

It IS very communal though. Both in the learning, and in the keeping the faith pure. The laity and the monastics and the priests and the higher leaderships ALL share a responsibility for that. The Church is the ENTIRE body of believers, living and reposed. There is a tremendous sense of community. Lived out in this, and so very many other ways.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

Fair enough, but some sort of official source is always best, be it one from a canon of the church, a source with an imprimatur, or a part of the actual official liturgical worship.

It's also important to remember however that, in Orthodoxy, the translation of what is being said in liturgical worship must also be explained, and that the translation isn't written in an official source. Sometimes the plain words of what is sung is not what is meant, as it is heard by contemporary ears that do not know Orthodoxy.

"Most Holy Theotokos, save us!" or calling her "our redemptrix" or "rational and bloodless worship" might mean one thing upon taking the words at face value, but we do not believe Mary can save us except by prayers, we do not mean by redemptrix what Roman Catholics mean, and 'rational' does not mean 'possessing logical faculties' generally in Orthodoxy.

 

[MKJ]

Fair enough, but some sort of official source is always best, be it one from a canon of the church, a source with an imprimatur, or a part of the actual official liturgical worship.

I think you will miss plenty of good sources though if you are looking at something like that, and you will end up telling people there is nothing.

Canons tend not to be about theology, and often don't ever really give a clear sense of principles, for example. If you wanted, say, to know the Catholic views on marriage, you might get some sense from the canons, but to really get a better sense you would have to tell people to look at how they have developed historically.

The Catholics with the CCC are probably the best off for a simple summary for beginners, but even that really just is a simple summary.

There isn't anything comparable in Orthodoxy or Anglicanism. People interested in Orthodoxy are often told to read Bishop Ware's books, which are pretty good and general and slanted to a reader who knows almost nothing, but they still manage to be controversial in places.

 

[PaladinValer]

I think you will miss plenty of good sources though if you are looking at something like that, and you will end up telling people there is nothing.

That depends on the source.

In a perfect world, the liturgy, a catechism, the canons, and in bishops can one find a "valid and authoritative source". That can often still be, even in this clearly imperfect world, but a standard to compare them to is a good idea.

That doesn't mean rigid inflexibility, as if some "black or white" dualism. As my early post suggested, economy and the spirit of the canons are more important. Legalism is something everyone should steer clear of.

Canons tend not to be about theology, and often don't ever really give a clear sense of principles, for example. If you wanted, say, to know the Catholic views on marriage, you might get some sense from the canons, but to really get a better sense you would have to tell people to look at how they have developed historically.

I wouldn't suggest otherwise. I agree with this.

The Catholics with the CCC are probably the best off for a simple summary for beginners, but even that really just is a simple summary.

I'm not sure about beginners; not everyone is as intelligent as you, I, or a lot of (if not all of) the regulars here, but the main idea is true here.

There isn't anything comparable in Orthodoxy or Anglicanism. People interested in Orthodoxy are often told to read Bishop Ware's books, which are pretty good and general and slanted to a reader who knows almost nothing, but they still manage to be controversial in places.

Which is why I advocate that churches have some sort of official standard that people can go to. I know that there exist some EO catechism, and a few of them appear to have official approval. Those are a great resource, even if not absolutely perfect, to go to. Orthodox Catechisms in English - OrthodoxWiki

 

[Joseph Hazen]

This obsession one encounters with many Westerners to have something 'official' - particularly certain strands of Anglican and almost all of Roman Catholicism, maybe a minority of Lutherans - almost warrants its own thread. Community vs. catechisms, beliefs vs. lists of doctrines, tradition vs. lectures, dare I suggest authenticity vs. authority? I don't know if I have the energy for it, but it might be very interesting.

I remember once a Roman Catholic demanding of me why, if Patriarch Bartholomew re-united with the Pope of Rome we wouldn't be obligated to follow him. I laughed and said if he got the monks of Mt. Athos to convert then he'd probably get all of Orthodoxy. Every other Orthodox I've said this too has agreed - but the Roman's response was "Who gave them that authority?!"

 

[PaladinValer]

This obsession one encounters with many Westerners to have something 'official' - particularly certain strands of Anglican and almost all of Roman Catholicism, maybe a minority of Lutherans - almost warrants its own thread. Community vs. catechisms, beliefs vs. lists of doctrines, tradition vs. lectures, dare I suggest authenticity vs. authority? I don't know if I have the energy for it, but it might be very interesting.

Anglicanism does have something official: we have the liturgy, because we adhere to lex orandi lex credendi.

And it isn't an obsession; it is about a baseline, which is quite useful when it comes to defending against detractors.

I remember once a Roman Catholic demanding of me why, if Patriarch Bartholomew re-united with the Pope of Rome we wouldn't be obligated to follow him. I laughed and said if he got the monks of Mt. Athos to convert then he'd probably get all of Orthodoxy. Every other Orthodox I've said this too has agreed - but the Roman's response was "Who gave them that authority?!"

Its a valid question.