theological debates in roman catholic and eastern orthodox

[GreekOrthodox]

The preeminent debates on predestination and grace were held in the Catholic Church in the Congregatio de Auxiliis, which lasted for about 20 years. One of our closest parallels to irresistible grace would be what Bañezians call "efficacious grace".

Orthodox view: God has predestined me to choose freely!

 

[fhansen]

Orthodox view: God has predestined me to choose freely!

I'd say that pretty much sums up the Catholic view as well-and rather nicely.

 

[Albion]

Well, I certainly didn't suggest that the Catholic Church puts man's opinions above the word of God. The problem with SS becomes, which or whose door does one walk through?

Okay, and there are answers to that. The same may also be said of the Catholic alternative, Sacred Tradition.

But it is noteworthy that, of all the "Catholic" churches (RC, EO, OO, etc.), there are no two of them which interpret Sacred Tradition in the same way.

There are, however, many Protestant denominations which agree completely on the meaning of Scripture.

So, if we compare approaches to God's truth, Scripture looks a lot more reliable than the alternative.

 

[zippy2006]

Orthodox view: God has predestined me to choose freely!

Yes. In Catholicism this would basically be the Thomist view* and it is the view that I adhere to. I do think the Thomist and Orthodox views are very similar, though I do not pretend to speak for the Orthodox.

As an overview, I believe that the issue can be divided on the basis of this question:

Can God cause (or predestine) free choices and events?

"No" - Jesuits (Molinists) and most Protestants (both Calvinists and Arminians)
"Yes" - Thomists, Orthodox, and some Lutherans
​

*(I'm not entirely convinced that Banezianism is fully Thomistic, but it may be.)

 

[fhansen]

Okay, and there are answers to that. The same may also be said of the Catholic alternative, Sacred Tradition.

But it is noteworthy that, of all the "Catholic" churches (RC, EO, OO, etc.), there are no two of them which interpret Sacred Tradition in the same way.

There are, however, many Protestant denominations which agree completely on the meaning of Scripture.

So, if we compare approaches to God's truth, Scripture looks a lot more reliable than the alternative.

I can agree with that to some extent. But isn't it interesting that when it comes to the basic idea or concept behind the Catholic teaching on the Real Presence that none of those older churches should disagree? Or on baptismal regeneration, a direct matter of soteriology? Or, on basic justification, that man's will is necessarily involved to one degree or another and that man can lose and forfeit his state of justice and therefore his salvation. That predestination involves God's sovereign determination to involve man's choices-and that none are predestined to hell. That God wants all to be saved. And that we cannot have 100% assurance of salvation. I'd be willing to wager that all of the churches you named agree on those items while Scriptural interpretations can vary widely, and often quite plausibly so. And the primary reason for the agreement here is Tradition, which the Catholic church considers to be God's word also.

 

[Tigger45]

I can agree with that to some extent. But isn't it interesting that when it comes to the basic idea or concept behind the Catholic teaching on the Real Presence that none of those older churches should disagree? Or on baptismal regeneration, a direct matter of soteriology? Or, on basic justification, that man's will is necessarily involved to one degree or another and that man can lose and forfeit his state of justice and therefore his salvation. That predestination involves God's sovereign determination to involve man's choices-and that none are predestined to hell. That God wants all to be saved. And that we cannot have 100% assurance of salvation. I'd be willing to wager that all of the churches you named agree on those items while Scriptural interpretations can vary widely, and often quite plausibly so. And the primary reason for the agreement here is Tradition, which the Catholic church considers to be God's word also.

I would agree see below;

St. Vincent of Lérins
(That Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all).

Most would agree that this perspective is true, the question then becomes what about the differences in doctrines and traditions between Catholic & Orthodox?

I have found by reading the ECFs that they ultimately resorted to scripture to defend their positions as being the norming norm ultimately coined Sola Scriptura (not to be confused with (Nuda scriptura) as the ‘common’ sense approach that’s always been employed from the beginning.

 

[Albion]

I can agree with that to some extent. But isn't it interesting that when it comes to the basic idea or concept behind the Catholic teaching on the Real Presence that none of those older churches should disagree?

They certainly do disagree. The Eastern Orthodox do not accept the Roman Catholic definition we call Transubstantiation, for instance.

And you picked a single doctrine. Consider Purgatory, the Papacy, some of the Marian doctrines, Indulgences, etc. and it's a different picture.

 

[fhansen]

They certainly do disagree. The Eastern Orthodox do not accept the Roman Catholic definition we call Transubstantiation, for instance.

That's really quite irrelevant, because the doctrine of transubstantiation is nothing more than a further attempt to explain how Jesus becomes really present in the Eucharist while the EO simply don't bother traveling down that particular road to begin with. The crucial and relevant difference is between believing in the Real Presence at all, vs not.

And you picked a single doctrine. Consider Purgatory, the Papacy, some of the Marian doctrines, Indulgences, etc. and it's a different picture.

No, I picked about 5 or 6 doctrines. But some concept of afterlife purification before heaven is more often than not taught in the east and Mary is venerated as Theotokos on both sides which is anathema to some Protestants and most Protestants hardly pay her lip-service while Scripture says that all generations will call her blessed, and Catholics believe she was assumed into heaven while both speak of dormition. Either way there is much more attention paid to Mary in the practices and theology of the churches in both the east and west. I honestly don't know about teachings on indulgences in the east or if there's any correlation to it in their teachings on grace. The papacy or infallibility of the magisterium will always be the most important bone of contention, naturally, because it involves authority.

 

[Cis.jd]

In this forum, I don't recall seeing much debating. I've never actually debated apologetics or theology with any of the Orthodox here. We seem to respect each others views because they are not as different, it's just more of a different perspective than what someone said over here. Personally, I just never saw anything wrong with any of their posts and in some cases I do like how practical some of their views are on some issues comparison to Roman Catholic views (Purgatory for example).

We disagree heavily on Filioque.

 

[fhansen]

I would agree see below;

St. Vincent of Lérins
(That Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all).

Most would agree that this perspective is true, the question then becomes what about the differences in doctrines and traditions between Catholic & Orthodox?

I have found by reading the ECFs that they ultimately resorted to scripture to defend their positions as being the norming norm ultimately coined Sola Scriptura (not to be confused with (Nuda scriptura) as the ‘common’ sense approach that’s always been employed from the beginning.

Everyone refers to Scripture because it's most conveniently at hand or readily accessible compared to Tradition even if not everyone agrees on their interpretation of Scripture. But the church today as well as the church of the fathers back then also refers to teachings of others along with the continuous practice and beliefs...of the Church

 

[Albion]

That's really quite irrelevant, because the doctrine of transubstantiation is nothing more than a further attempt to explain how Jesus becomes really present in the Eucharist while the EO simply don't bother traveling down that particular road to begin with.

You're saying that it's irrelevant to a discussion about churches either agreeing or disagreeing to note that the RC and the EO disagree...after you'd told me that they do not??

The crucial and relevant difference is between believing in the Real Presence at all, vs not.

LOL. Well then, the differences between Protestant churches are even less, and the claim that they are doctrinally all over the place because of Sola Scriptura is refuted.

 

[Cis.jd]

LOL. Well then, the differences between Protestant churches are even less, and the claim that they are all over the place because of Sola Scriptura is dismissed.

The difference between two apostolic churches isn't as bad as you want to make it out to be, it's just as comparable to Peter and Paul, and it's nothing compared to the disagreements of thousands 16th-20th century born denominations all claiming xyz isn't following the scriptures.

 

[Albion]

The difference between two apostolic churches isn't as bad as you want to make it out to be, it's just as comparable to Peter and Paul, and it's nothing compared to the disagreements of thousands 16th-20th century born denominations all claiming xyz isn't following the scriptures.

Well, I didn't say it was "that bad." My point was that there IS a theological disagreement on that matter existing (which is well-known) between the RC and EO, therefore fhansen's contention is disproved.

For that matter, it could be argued that the Lutheran churches' view and the EO's view are more similar than the difference between the EO and the RC. And of course, that is only one example. As was noted also, there are all sorts of doctrinal disagreements between the "Catholic" church bodies, not just this one.

 

[fhansen]

It's irrelevant to a discussion of churches either agreeing or disagreeing to note that the RC and the EO disagree...after you'd told me that they do not??

I never said they didn't disagree-only that the agreements are way more impressive than otherwise on matters that Protestants can't come to agree on to begin with-especially considering centuries of isolation. Anyone would have to purposely and consciously bury their heads in the sand to miss that objective truth. And to argue that simply because Aquinas went a bit further than the EO were willing to go (who still speak of change but usually with little more commentary than that) is a strawman diversion at best.

 

[Tigger45]

Everyone refers to Scripture because it's most conveniently at hand or readily accessible compared to Tradition even if not everyone agrees on their interpretation of Scripture. But the church today as well as the church of the fathers back then also refers to teachings of others along with the continuous practice and beliefs...of the Church

I absolutely agree but the RC & EO were in full communion in the beginning and we can’t forget the Lord praying that they remain one.

John 17:21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

So to pin point the problem with scripture interpretation’, which affects doctrines and ‘T’radition is by removing the ego and distinguishing between man made traditions and Apostolic Traditions as required in...

Jude 3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

 

[fhansen]

I absolutely agree but the RC & EO were in full communion in the beginning and we can’t forget the Lord praying that they remain one.

John 17:21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

So to pin point the problem with scripture interpretation’, which affects doctrines and ‘T’radition is by removing the ego and distinguishing between man made traditions and Apostolic Traditions as required in...

Jude 3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

And I'm telling you that Scripture serving as the sole rule of faith cannot come anywhere near as close to assuring the unity that even the EO & RCC possess now in their disunity.

So to pin point the problem with scripture interpretation’, which affects doctrines and ‘T’radition is by removing the ego and distinguishing between man made traditions and Apostolic Traditions as required in...

Ego along with human limitations to begin with are-unavoidably- part of the problem but another is that there's simply no mechanism in general within the doctrine of Sola Scriptura that can guarantee that someone can just come along and pick up the bible (centuries after the fact now), read it, and get it sufficiently right in all the matters that God wishes to be understood. Scripture was simply never intended to serve as some kind of clear and exhaustive catechism for one thing-and the interpretation and application of it certainly isn't a matter of best-guess theology: may the better exegete win-or something to that effect.

 

[Tigger45]

And I'm telling you that Scripture serving as the sole rule of faith cannot come anywhere near as close to assuring the unity that even the EO & RCC possess now in their disunity.

But I addressed that in my 1st post that you ‘must’ not conflate Sola Scriptura with Nuda Scriptura or you will come up with the response you just did. Nuda Scriptura is the ‘only’ rule of faith where Sola Scriptura is the ‘final’ rule of faith. Unless you start there which the ECFs did then discussing what are Apostolic Traditions gets convoluted.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Sola Scriptura opens the door, you say. But is THAT a reason for putting man's opinions above the revealed word of God in Scripture--because it's easier to do or more orderly?

When you have two contradictory groups that claim they follow Sola Scriptura at least one of them, if not both, have put man's opinions above the revealed word of God in Scripture. And they think they are being very orderly. Add a third contradictory group and at least two of the three have put man's opinions above the revealed word of God in Scripture.

If so, there are all sorts of cults which have a stated set of doctrines and a leader to enforce them on the membership. Of course, the doctrines there are not correct, but they are easily understood, there us unanimity, and the membership is in order!

And they would teach to the cult followers that everything they believe is straight from God and the Bible alone? Yup. But they put man's opinions first. Of the many varieties of Protestants, almost every one by definition has put man's opinions first. And they'd all be the first to tell you they follow the word of God alone and the other guys are wrong.

 

[fhansen]

But I addressed that in my 1st post that you ‘must’ not conflate Sola Scriptura with Nuda Scriptura or you will come up with the response you just did. Nuda Scriptura is the ‘only’ rule of faith where Sola Scriptura is the ‘final’ rule of faith. Unless you start there which the ECFs did then discussing what are Apostolic Traditions gets convoluted.

Alright, and who can enforce that 'must'; most just keep referring to their interpretation of Scripture. And Tradition, as well, must be correctly understood and interpreted.

 

[fhansen]

And they'd all be the first to tell you they follow the word of God alone and the other guys are wrong..

Right, while denying that they exclusively possess infallibility for that purpose-as if infallibility were a bad thing anyway.