EO and RCC.

[GreekOrthodox]

The other thing is that Orthodox do not have the tendency to define every single point of theology. We rely on negative theology, e.g. "X is NOT Y" more than we do positive theology. This drives everyone else insane

 

[Mountainmike]

yes, patriarchs should have some authority over local bishops.

Yes, it's fine to have one of the patriarchs being the first among equals, make decisions after consulting with the others, and have councils councils called if there are serious disagreements.

a central authority in the sense of a monarchy type structure is NOT necessary

Central IS needed on doctrine.
It is also the history of the church, see Iraneus.

Anyway, It is not for us to judge:
Christ decided one leader. Successors of Peter.

When others disagree or assume that right, it never ends well. If others claim the right, you end with Calvin disagreeing with Luther on basic fundamentals. Now lutherans even disagree with luther! So lack of authority does not work.

 

[Mountainmike]

The other thing is that Orthodox do not have the tendency to define every single point of theology. We rely on negative theology, e.g. "X is NOT Y" more than we do positive theology. This drives everyone else insane

Agree.

One of our differences is orthodox leave some mysteries undefined , where Catholicism attempts to define them generally broadly. Orthodox sonetimes disagree without substituting alternatives.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Orthodox sometimes disagree without substituting alternatives.

No we don't! (drops mic and walks off)

I think that is the ontological difference that someone had mentioned in an earlier post. I'm not sure how the West and East ended up with this different approach to theology. The best illustration I have is from Fr. Stephen Freeman's quote from a Lutheran pastor

“I once tried to explain ‘systematic theology’ to a Russian pastor of the Underground Church, who had never seen a whole New Testament. Systematically, I began to explain to him the teaching about the Godhead, about its unity in three Persons, the teaching about original sin, about the Fall, about salvation, about the Church, about the sacraments, about the Bible as infallible revelation.

“He listened attentively. When I had finished, he asked me a most surprising question: ‘Have those who thought out these theological systems and wrote them down in such perfect order ever carried a cross?’ He went on. ‘A man cannot think systematically even when he has a bad toothache. How can a man who is carrying a cross think systematically? But a Christian has to be more than the bearer of a heavy cross; he shares Christ’s crucifixion. The pains of Christ are his, and the pains of all creation. There is no grief and no suffering in the whole world which should not grieve him also. If a man is crucified with Christ, how can he think systematically? Can there be that kind of thought on a cross?

“’Jesus Himself thought unsystematically on the cross. He began with forgiveness; He spoke of a paradise in which even a robber had a place; then he despaired that perhaps there might be no place in paradise even for Him, the Son of God. He felt Himself forsaken. His thirst was so unbearable that He asked for water. Then He surrendered His spirit into His Father’s hand. But there followed no serenity, only a loud cry. Thank you for what you have been trying to teach me. I have the impression that you were only repeating, without much conviction, what others have taught you.’

The Systematic Theology of the Cross - Glory to God for All Things

 

[Albion]

The difference certainly isn't that the RC defines but "broadly." It's more that they define elaborately and with innumerable details, and it's there that they usually get into trouble.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The difference certainly isn't that the RC define but "broadly." It's more that they define elaborately and with innumerable details, and it's there that they usually get into trouble.

Which is why the dustbin at the Vatican is overflowing now.

 

[Mountainmike]

A marvellous answer to a question not begged.


Take eucharist, orthodox are certain the catholic description is false, but in rejecting the idea of matter and substance there is no conceptual frame to replace it.

I’m a simple soul.
When our Lord says “ this IS my body” I believe him.
Transubstantiation says no more and no less than Athanasius said so eloquently.

“So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ….When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.”

I do not think it is useful to play deep philosophical games on “IS”
We must become like children, so accept as they do. it should not need a philosophy PHd to understand what it means, or ontological differences. It IS the body in any relevant meaning, having once had a mundane nature.

but orthodox will argue that toss, in never less than 2000 words. If others follow the first hundred they are doing well.

And at the end of it all, it “is the flesh of Jesus” we are told by Justin martyr! .

As a scientist I have to play such similar games on the nature of reality.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics says nothing exists until it is observed, leading to Einstein’s statement “ I refuse to believe the moon does not exist, till I look at it” He was forced to concede it does not, because Behaviour can’t be modelled correctly without that assumption. The idea the moon exists subjectively is an illusion, apparently!to me It’s a game I have to play. It’s not the world I live in.

It is also ridiculous to argue what that means about the state “ IS”

I’m with Demetrios Kidones. Much of our difference is language and means of description, not meaning.

I’m often told orthodox don’t accept purgatory because they think of sin as a sickness needing healing, not a crime needing justice. All I can do is point out for us the sacrament of reconciliation is called a “ sacrament of healing”. For us it is healing and purification.

When coming to Filioque it is even more obscure. Saying proceed has little meaning because we can have so little concept of the mystery of God, and “ the father and I are one” so why fall out about something we cannot truly know?

I’m too busy surviving, falling every day, dusting myself down and trying to do better tomorrow, to find such arcane discussions valuable!

If Jesus says what was bread is now Him, that’s good enough for me.

No we don't! (drops mic and walks off)

I think that is the ontological difference that someone had mentioned in an earlier post. I'm not sure how the West and East ended up with this different approach to theology. The best illustration I have is from Fr. Stephen Freeman's quote from a Lutheran pastor

“I once tried to explain ‘systematic theology’ to a Russian pastor of the Underground Church, who had never seen a whole New Testament. Systematically, I began to explain to him the teaching about the Godhead, about its unity in three Persons, the teaching about original sin, about the Fall, about salvation, about the Church, about the sacraments, about the Bible as infallible revelation.

“He listened attentively. When I had finished, he asked me a most surprising question: ‘Have those who thought out these theological systems and wrote them down in such perfect order ever carried a cross?’ He went on. ‘A man cannot think systematically even when he has a bad toothache. How can a man who is carrying a cross think systematically? But a Christian has to be more than the bearer of a heavy cross; he shares Christ’s crucifixion. The pains of Christ are his, and the pains of all creation. There is no grief and no suffering in the whole world which should not grieve him also. If a man is crucified with Christ, how can he think systematically? Can there be that kind of thought on a cross?

“’Jesus Himself thought unsystematically on the cross. He began with forgiveness; He spoke of a paradise in which even a robber had a place; then he despaired that perhaps there might be no place in paradise even for Him, the Son of God. He felt Himself forsaken. His thirst was so unbearable that He asked for water. Then He surrendered His spirit into His Father’s hand. But there followed no serenity, only a loud cry. Thank you for what you have been trying to teach me. I have the impression that you were only repeating, without much conviction, what others have taught you.’

The Systematic Theology of the Cross - Glory to God for All Things

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

But you still fail to answer the fundamental.

Truth is truth. It cannot just be Gods truth in orthodox world, or patriarchy world, that stops at the border. There is only one truth. So patriarchal authority to bind and loose makes no sense.
There can only be one, that "my church is one"

So I come back to see how disputes are resolved in the bible. The power to bind and loose, is when we know the spirit is involved. Given to Peter alone , or all apostles acting jointly. The pillar and foundation of truth is the church. So somewhere is A church, that can be relied, with a successor of peter at the helm.

I didn't fail to answer, you failed to accept or understand the truth. BTW, the THREE pillars mentioned were James, Peter and John. One as in "Echad" like He and the Father are...

 

[Mountainmike]

The orthodox answer to all questions: you don’t understand!

Meanwhile you failed to address how it is that patriarchs can separately bind and loose, if truth does not stop at each of the their borders. But truth transcends them and so must authority.

So where is authority in a dispute?
1/ Jesus gave the keys , the role of pastor and leader to Peter.
To believe otherwise is to disregard the literal.
So There is also a dispute how is it resolved?
Look in the bible so go back to 1/ which therefore self validates.


As I said, I see all other differences bridgeable except for that.

I didn't fail to answer, you failed to accept or understand the truth. BTW, the THREE pillars mentioned were James, Peter and John. One as in "Echad" like He and the Father are...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The orthodox answer to all questions: you don’t understand!

Meanwhile you failed to address how it is that patriarchs can separately bind and loose, if truth does not stop at each of the their borders. But truth transcends them and so must authority.

So where is authority in a dispute?
1/ Jesus gave the keys , the role of pastor and leader to Peter.
To believe otherwise is to disregard the literal.
So There is also a dispute how is it resolved?
Look in the bible so go back to 1/ which therefore self validates.


As I said, I see all other differences bridgeable except for that.

So that justifies the RCC coopting Peter to try and prove its made up claims? Were you there? Did you see who He was saying that to? I say He was telling ALL the apostles that, not just Peter. Other passages prove that out just like the passages regarding the meaning of the "rock".

If your brother sins against you, go and confront him privately. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, regard him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, I tell you truly that if two of you on the earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven.

Again Jesus said to them, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so also I am sending you.” If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.

Where is authority...within the Councils. We all see how much you know about Moses seat...

 

[Mountainmike]

I’m aware that’s what you think.

I’m also aware that’s not what those who now identify as orthodox thought in the early days , take Chalcedon. The question then was how far primacy extended. Not to deny it exists.

Those who want to usurp authority , first must deny authority exists.

If Jesus had wanted us to know he was speaking to all not just Peter he would have told us so.

Occam’s razor.

So that justifies the RCC coopting Peter to try and prove its made up claims? Were you there? Did you see who He was saying that to? I say He was telling ALL the apostles that, not just Peter. Other passages prove that out just like the passages regarding the meaning of the "rock".

If your brother sins against you, go and confront him privately. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, regard him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, I tell you truly that if two of you on the earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven.

Again Jesus said to them, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so also I am sending you.” If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.

Where is authority...within the Councils. We all see how much you know about Moses seat...

 

[prodromos]

Central IS needed on doctrine.
It is also the history of the church, see Iraneus.

That is not the understanding of Irenaeus. I recommend you read Abbe Guettée on this .

Anyway, It is not for us to judge:
Christ decided one leader. Successors of Peter.

Which is what every bishop is.

When others disagree or assume that right, it never ends well. If others claim the right, you end with Calvin disagreeing with Luther on basic fundamentals. Now lutherans even disagree with luther! So lack of authority does not work.

We are all seeing the results of claiming that authority belongs to one man.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

If Jesus had wanted us to know he was speaking to all not just Peter he would have told us so.

Occam’s razor.

He did in the other passages I gave. As I said, primacy was a position of honor, not of authority. It was not a dictatorship then nor now. There is only one High Priest and it isn't Peter...yes, occam's razor indeed!!!

 

[Mountainmike]

I prefer reading irenaeus!
Who said speaking of the church at Rome:

“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority”

in the next para he lists those bishops till his time.

That is not the understanding of Irenaeus. I recommend you read Abbe Guettée on this .

Which is what every bishop is.

We are all seeing the results of claiming that authority belongs to one man.

 

[Mountainmike]

Which roundly illustrates the problem of discussion with orthodox.
It’s a moving target of mutually exclusive arguments,

1/ Peter had primacy, but we dispute the nature of primacy.
2/ Peter or successors never had it, all bishops are equal, the keys given to all.
3/ he had it but relinquished it at a date somewhere around the Millenium.

Occam’s razor says the simplest is best. Our Lord Speaking to Peter was to Peter making him chief pastor and giving him keys.

Stay well, we are brothers!
I doubt we will agree.

orthopractice not orthodoxy matters more.

He did in the other passages I gave. As I said, primacy was a position of honor, not of authority. It was not a dictatorship then nor now. There is only one High Priest and it isn't Peter...yes, occam's razor indeed!!!

 

[Mountainmike]

The difference certainly isn't that the RC defines but "broadly." It's more that they define elaborately and with innumerable details, and it's there that they usually get into trouble.

Actually we define broadly, then someone else tells us details that aren’t there in the catechism: then uses the details to attack us. It is called a straw man argument.

 

[Albion]

Actually we define broadly, then someone else tells us details that aren’t there in the catechism: then uses the details to attack us. It is called a straw man argument.

You're scrambling for a reply, Mike, but there isn't any doubt about the way the church itself goes about defining its doctrines. It is done with the most extensive detail.

Look at Purgatory, for instance, which the church itself invented. The idea that it's just a transitional period after death in which the person/soul is prepared for heaven is the way it's described when the idea is to make light of the specifics, but it was the church herself which added all the details--the Treasury of Merit as being necessary to justify any reduction in the Purgatorial penalty...and, oh yes, Indulgences, which of course don't have any meaning unless we have Purgatory.

And who it is that goes to Purgatory? It's anyone who needs to 'pay' for unforgiven venial sins, not mortal sins (because dying with unforgiven mortal sins means Hell instead of Purgatory), and also for having committed certain sins in the first place, even if later forgiven by the sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation while the person was still alive.

And that's just the start of it. No Protestant ever concocted any of that business just to attack the RCC. It's all the RCC's doing. And so it goes with all the canon lawyers and their doctrines.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Which roundly illustrates the problem of discussion with orthodox.
It’s a moving target of mutually exclusive arguments,

1/ Peter had primacy, but we dispute the nature of primacy.
2/ Peter or successors never had it, all bishops are equal, the keys given to all.
3/ he had it but relinquished it at a date somewhere around the Millenium.

Occam’s razor says the simplest is best. Our Lord Speaking to Peter was to Peter making him chief pastor and giving him keys.

Stay well, we are brothers!
I doubt we will agree.

orthopractice not orthodoxy matters more.

It is not a problem to me because I understand it...it is obvious you can't or won't...1, 2 and 3 are YOUR arguments, not mine. It is because you need to have things YOUR way or you say they are not true. You have to have it defined YOUR way because any other way disproves it. So you make that argument and inflict it on others...

 

[Mountainmike]

It is not a problem to me because I understand it...it is obvious you can't or won't...1, 2 and 3 are YOUR arguments, not mine. It is because you need to have things YOUR way or you say they are not true. You have to have it defined YOUR way because any other way disproves it. So you make that argument and inflict it on others...

So you disagree with 1, 2 and 3 despite having used all of them?
It’s The problem discussing with orthodox : they refuse to define a position.

 

[bpd_stl]

The difference certainly isn't that the RC defines but "broadly." It's more that they define elaborately and with innumerable details, and it's there that they usually get into trouble.

I have to admit that you are spot-on in this regard. It's no so much as leaving "some wiggle room" or "backdoors"...but exhaustively defining even the minutia...leaving no space for discussion or fraternal debate. A certain put-off if I were on the receiving end.