Reading history of the Church, and it feels like the RCC flip flops a lot

[Ignatius21]

I've been listening recently to some podcasts from Fr. Hopko about the "tumultuous 9th century," including the horrible political mess between Rome and Constantinople, Ignatius and Photios, filioque, and the like. There was a council called in 869-870 that deposed Photios and reinstated Ignatius, that was fairly short lived. There was another council called a decade later that reversed that decision, undid the council of 869, and actually condemned the filioque. It was accepted by all parties, considered a "model council" according to Fr. Hopko, and was accepted also by the Papal legates. It effectively became the 8th ecumenical council. But after the schism, Rome retroactively endorsed 869 as the true ecumenical council and it remains so to this day.

This seems to fly in the face of their claim that you need the Pope to be sure of which councils are ecumenical. Does that mean you need the Pope to be sure which council is ecumenical, until a later Pope might reverse that

 

[ArmyMatt]

This seems to fly in the face of their claim that you need the Pope to be sure of which councils are ecumenical. Does that mean you need the Pope to be sure which council is ecumenical, until a later Pope might reverse that

yeah, I guess that is what they would say. there is a belief in progressive revelation as well, that God has slowly revealed more since Pentecost, so I guess that is where that would fit in.

it does make a mess of things, God forgive me for saying so.

 

[Typikon]

Again, I didn't say anything about dogmatic flip flopping. If they did that, their credibility as a church would be totally shot.

If it's not dogmatic then what is it? And why should it be of any concern then? Are you sure you are not blaming them being inconsistent in their ortho-"praxy" rather then -"doxy"?

Um, sorry. That isn't even close to flip flopping. That confirming what was always taught - St. Gregory's affirmations on hesychism (sp).

Precisely. Same as Catholics believe the new RCC dogmas were always taught. So what's the difference between them apart from that we disagree with their new dogmas?

If Palamism is an example of legitimate development of doctrine then so is Purgatory as far as methodology is concerned. The problem of RCC is not in giving new dogmatic definitions and not in some mysterious flip-flops but in the building of their new dogmas upon a non-catholic (i.e. not universal) theology, specifically on ideas of St.Augustine - Anselm - Aquinas.

The innovation of the adoration of the Eucharist. Ah, that isn't what the RCC meant by that, even though it shows through history, they developed that over the time. Anyway, now it's not really that. They are saying it's like venerating icons.

This is an example of orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. There is nothing wrong in developing practices and abandoning them as long as the underlying theology stays the same. Behind Eucharistic adoration they have Real Presence and Transubstantiation and they never flip-flopped.

Same applies to other examples given in this thread. For example changes in Indulgences policy only reflects the changes in practices; underlying beliefs like Treasury of Merit stayed unchanged.

An Orthodox example: during the Soviet era the Russian Church started practising so-called "Common Confession" so you end up before the Chalice without saying your sins. Then this practice was abandoned. Does it also count as a flip-flop?


But to be honest I don't understand what's the point of this thread? To bash the Catholics for their real and imaginary faults in a corner where they cannot defend themselves?

 

[Dorothea]

I've been listening recently to some podcasts from Fr. Hopko about the "tumultuous 9th century," including the horrible political mess between Rome and Constantinople, Ignatius and Photios, filioque, and the like. There was a council called in 869-870 that deposed Photios and reinstated Ignatius, that was fairly short lived. There was another council called a decade later that reversed that decision, undid the council of 869, and actually condemned the filioque. It was accepted by all parties, considered a "model council" according to Fr. Hopko, and was accepted also by the Papal legates. It effectively became the 8th ecumenical council. But after the schism, Rome retroactively endorsed 869 as the true ecumenical council and it remains so to this day.

This seems to fly in the face of their claim that you need the Pope to be sure of which councils are ecumenical. Does that mean you need the Pope to be sure which council is ecumenical, until a later Pope might reverse that

I've just read that bit of history, too. I also read the horrific history of how Rome's bishops and clergy treated Eastern married clergy. OMGosh, some of the things the Roman monks said about the Eastern married priests was disgraceful.

 

[Dorothea]

If it's not dogmatic then what is it? And why should it be of any concern then? Are you sure you are not blaming them being inconsistent in their ortho-"praxy" rather then -"doxy"?

It is me sharing my feelings from for the first time, from the beginning of Church history until eventually present times, from the book I'm reading, I'm getting the whole picture, and this is what I've noticed. Does it matter to me personally? No. It is just something that seemed to happen pretty often so far in the history of the Roman Church.

Precisely. Same as Catholics believe the new RCC dogmas were always taught. So what's the difference between them apart from that we disagree with their new dogmas?

If Palamism is an example of legitimate development of doctrine then so is Purgatory as far as methodology is concerned. The problem of RCC is not in giving new dogmatic definitions and not in some mysterious flip-flops but in the building of their new dogmas upon a non-catholic (i.e. not universal) theology, specifically on ideas of St.Augustine - Anselm - Aquinas.

Ugh. Do you not understand that St. Gregory was reaffirming WHAT HAD BEEN TAUGHT BY THE CHURCH FROM THE BEGINNING, not developing doctrine . In essence, he was doing the same as what the councils did in reaffirming who Christ was - His two natures, the Trinity, etc. This was known from the beginning. It was challenged, and that's why the councils came together to clarify and keep steadfast to what was taught to them by the Apostles and Christ through oral and written tradition.

This is an example of orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. There is nothing wrong in developing practices and abandoning them as long as the underlying theology stays the same. Behind Eucharistic adoration they have Real Presence and Transubstantiation and they never flip-flopped.

There's nothing besides the fact of how incredibly confusing this must be to the Roman Catholics. No, we don't do it like that, but like this now. Forget what you've been taught since you were a child. That doesn't apply anymore. That's what happened after Vatican II came about. I know this because Catholic friends told me how this happened, and it wasn't gradual. It was practically overnight. It WAS overnight for a Franciscan monk, who ended up leaving the church along with some other monks. This constant changing is not stable for people of any faith.

Same applies to other examples given in this thread. For example changes in Indulgences policy only reflects the changes in practices; underlying beliefs like Treasury of Merit stayed unchanged.

An Orthodox example: during the Soviet era the Russian Church started practising so-called "Common Confession" so you end up before the Chalice without saying your sins. Then this practice was abandoned. Does it also count as a flip-flop?


But to be honest I don't understand what's the point of this thread? To bash the Catholics for their real and imaginary faults in a corner where they cannot defend themselves?

No, it was some feelings I shared while reading the history of the Church. That's it.

 

[Dorothea]

Here, let's get the history on St. Gregory from the book:

St. Gregory Palamas was the greatest Orthodox theologian during the Middle Ages. Gregory Palamas was born in Constantinople in 1296. After education for service in the imperial bureaucracy, he chose instead to become a monk on Mt. Athos in 1316. At this center of Orthodox monasticism, he embraced the hesychast movement. Hesychism, which means holy stillness, is a form of mysticism that emphasizes the ancient Eastern doctrine of salvation as deification, becoming by grace what God is by nature. Frequent use of the Jesus Prayer, "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner," is one of the chief characteristics of the movement. The hesychists teach that one can experience the divine light of God, which is the light that shown on Christ at His Transfiguration.

St. Gregory entered into a very important controversy with a monk named Barlaam which illustrates the difference between Orthodox and Roman Catholic medieval theology. Barlaam arrived in Constantinople in about 1330 from his native Calabria, an area in southern Italy with a large Greek speaking population. Barlaam won the admiration of John Cantacuzene, the Great Domestic, a high official in the imperial government, and soon became something of a celebrity in the imperial city. Barlaam became the chief critic of the hesychast movement. This led to a long controversy with Gregory Palamas, who emerged as the chief defender of the hesychast method of prayer. Balaam, whose conecpt of God shows the influence of Latin Scholasticism, argued that everything that is visible is created. Therefore, Barlaam argued that the monks could not really experience the uncreated light of God because like Aquinas, Barlaam considered God "simple." However, following Eastern traditions, St. Gregory made a distinction between God's hidden essence and his energies. According to Palamas, God is "entirely present in each of the divine energies." Palamas taught that the divine energies flow from God's hidden essence as rays of light flow from the sun. The distinction between the essence and energy of God goes back to the ancient Fathers and can be found in the writings of St. Basil.

Palamas' teaching on the essence and energies of Christ has profound consequences for the meaning of salvation. According to Palamas, grace is a fully divine energy of God. Thus, grace is a direct and actual experience of God, not something created and infused as understood by Thomas Aquinas. For this reason St. Gregory wrote, "It is through grace that the entire Divinity comes to dwell in fullness in those deemed worthy." Therefore, salvation for Palamas and the Eastern Church is not a legalistic event. Salvation involves much more than the forgiveness of sins, the justification of Western theology. Salvation is the "transformation" and deification of human nature through the experience of God's deifying grace which is actually a direct personal experience of God Himself through His uncreated energies.

And so the rest is about Barlaam filing a formal complaint about Palamas, and he gets thrown in prison eventually because change in Patriarchs and government officials. Eventually, he gets released by Anne of Savoy, the widow of Emperor Andronicus III Palaeologus. A council in 1347 dposed of the Patriarch John Calecas. Then St. Gregory bacame Archbishop of Thessalonika.


The chapter ends with saying he reposed, and he was canonized, and that he is so important to the Orthodox Church, that he is commemorated on the Second Sunday of Great Lent every year. The condemnation of Barlaam and acceptance of Gregory Palamas was also the Orthodox rejection of many of the principles of Western Scholasticism.

 

[Dorothea]

Forgive me if I've gotten a bit over zealous in defending St. Gregory and such. In my personality is fierce loyalty to people I care about and love. I'm sorry if I've come off prideful or not nice.

 

[Blonde]

I'm not sure if limbo was dogma but that was, even recently, reversed.

 

[Typikon]

Ugh. Do you not understand that St. Gregory was reaffirming WHAT HAD BEEN TAUGHT BY THE CHURCH FROM THE BEGINNING, not developing doctrine . In essence, he was doing the same as what the councils did in reaffirming who Christ was - His two natures, the Trinity, etc. This was known from the beginning. It was challenged, and that's why the councils came together to clarify and keep steadfast to what was taught to them by the Apostles and Christ through oral and written tradition.

Do you not understand that for Catholics things like Purgatory or Papal Infallibility or Immaculate Conception are no different than Palamism for us: reaffirming what they think the Church believed from the very beginning?

As far as development of doctrine is concerned, I think you misunderstand the term. It does not imply that a new belief is created (both Orthodoxy and Catholicism are against such developments) but it means that a clear theological expression is given to something that has always been part of the faith. Capadocians Fathers developed the doctrine of Trinity by developing philosophical apparatus which allowed to describe the relations between the Father, he Son and the Spirit. Palamas further developed philosophy so the teaching about God's energies can be moved one level up: from economia to theologia. In Catholicism it's no different: for instance Trent defined Transubstantiation using scholastics but it does not mean Catholics did not believe at some point the the Eucharist is substantially Christ's Boby and Blood. Try to convince a Catholic that Purgatory, or Papal Infallibility, or Immaculate Conception was something that Early Church did not believe.

There's nothing besides the fact of how incredibly confusing this must be to the Roman Catholics. No, we don't do it like that, but like this now. Forget what you've been taught since you were a child. That doesn't apply anymore. That's what happened after Vatican II came about. I know this because Catholic friends told me how this happened, and it wasn't gradual. It was practically overnight. It WAS overnight for a Franciscan monk, who ended up leaving the church along with some other monks. This constant changing is not stable for people of any faith.

I'm still not sure what those back and forth changes are. I live among Catholics and none of them ever complained about such an aspect of Catholicism or ever mentioned any flip-flop (and they do complain about many other things in RCC). They generally don't like their liturgical changes that keep happening since Vatican II; some of the older gneration mentioned that a few hardline bits are now gone from the current edition of Catechism compared to the one they used at school back then. That's pretty much it what can remotely be considered as flip-flops.

I'm not sure if limbo was dogma

It was not.

 

[Dylan Michael]

I'm not sure if limbo was dogma but that was, even recently, reversed.

Unlike purgatory, it wasn't a dogma.

 

[Dorothea]

Do you not understand that for Catholics things like Purgatory or Papal Infallibility or Immaculate Conception are no different than Palamism for us: reaffirming what they think the Church believed from the very beginning?

As far as development of doctrine is concerned, I think you misunderstand the term. It does not imply that a new belief is created (both Orthodoxy and Catholicism are against such developments) but it means that a clear theological expression is given to something that has always been part of the faith. Capadocians Fathers developed the doctrine of Trinity by developing philosophical apparatus which allowed to describe the relations between the Father, he Son and the Spirit. Palamas further developed philosophy so the teaching about God's energies can be moved one level up: from economia to theologia. In Catholicism it's no different: for instance Trent defined Transubstantiation using scholastics but it does not mean Catholics did not believe at some point the the Eucharist is substantially Christ's Boby and Blood. Try to convince a Catholic that Purgatory, or Papal Infallibility, or Immaculate Conception was something that Early Church did not believe.

I'm still not sure what those back and forth changes are. I live among Catholics and none of them ever complained about such an aspect of Catholicism or ever mentioned any flip-flop (and they do complain about many other things in RCC). They generally don't like their liturgical changes that keep happening since Vatican II; some of the older gneration mentioned that a few hardline bits are now gone from the current edition of Catechism compared to the one they used at school back then. That's pretty much it what can remotely be considered as flip-flops.

Ok. I'm an idiot and cannot comprehend anything I've read. You know all about the RCC's history and doctrines. Fr. John hasn't studied enough, even though he's a scholar.

I'm only sorry this has brought out feelings that are not good in me and that my ego has stepped in. I'm done here.

 

[Typikon]

Ok. I'm an idiot and cannot comprehend anything I've read. You know all about the RCC's history and doctrines. Fr. John hasn't studied enough, even though he's a scholar.

So if someone disagrees he deserves that? OK.

 

[Dorothea]

So if someone disagrees he deserves that? OK.

No, he doesn't. I'm sorry, Typikon. I have overreacted and apologize for doing so. I shouldn't have started this thread, sharing my thoughts while reading. I would prefer to have the MODS close this thread. Writing on emotions doesn't help a discussion. It has brought about nastiness from me, and I need to be silent.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

MOD HAT ON​

Thread closed per OP request.​

MOD HAT OFF​