Western philosophical thought

[Robbie_James_Francis]

First of all, let me apologize wholeheartedly for starting this topic. I have been thinking about this for a while and I would really appreciate any answers you guys can offer, but if you wish to ignore this thread until such a time when 3 out of 4 active topics on the Eastern Orthodox board are not-as is currently the case-about Catholicism I understand completely!

Feel free to come over to OBOB and bombard us with questions and info about Eastern Orthodoxy if you want to get your own back.

But here goes anyway...

Many Catholics accept the possibility that dogmas of the Faith can be understood in different ways without this constituting some degree of heterodoxy in one understanding. Within Catholicism, for example, there are at least three differing views that Catholics are able to hold about predestination provided that they hold the certain teachings (such as the teaching that God does predestine in some form but doesn't actively damn people arbitrarily).

So, for example, someone said that the Eastern Orthodox think of God in less of a "legalistic" way than they see the Latin Rite Catholics and the Protestants as doing. I, for one, would accept both the Latin Rite Catholic way of thinking and the Eastern Rite Catholic way of thinking on the matter as being acceptable, orthodox interpretations of doctrines about the existence of God, His actions and His Nature.

I assume that Eastern Catholics have much the same cultural, theological and philosophical understandings of the revealed Truth that the Eastern Orthodox do in many respects.

So, whilst the Eastern Catholics do accept the filioque as true they do not profess it since their tradition's understanding of the Trinity does not involve the filioque. I'm aware this is not the same as the EO belief for many but it's just an example of what I mean by differing understandings and professions.

Basically my question is this:-Do you consider that certain Western philosophical and theological understandings of the Faith are acceptable within the bounds of Orthodoxy? Can one, for example, hold to the Western concept of original sin but remain Orthodox? Or hold to the Western concept of Apostolic Succession (i.e. that it is not lost by heterodox professions)?

Thanks!

Your brother in Christ,
Rob

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Practically speaking, one can be an Orthodox in good standing and hold bad doctrine as long as they are not aware of it. If they are aware that what the hold is bad doctrine (say Original Sin per the explanation of the RCC) then this is a problem they need to recognize and work through. That is not to say that holding bad doctrine has no effect on you. If someone unwittingly hold bad doctrine as an Orthodox while they are not guilty of anything hostile or dishonest, this bad doctrine may have an adverse effect on their other beliefs and therfore concievably their salvation.

From the Orthodox perspective: OS, IC, certain aspects of purgatory etc are bad doctrine as they go against the grain of Orthodox theology and the Church's mindset and understanding of Salvation.

I would say that (at the risk of oversimplifying the issue) while the RCC tends to define what CAN be believed (A, B or C) the Orthodox Church prefers to guide Her faithful by stating what CANNOT be believed. This of course does not apply to the precepts that have been define and layed out in the Ecumenical Councils but all of this has to do with defending who God is and what Salvation is.

John

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Thanks, John!

But is there an extent to which one can understand certain issues of the faith in different ways and still remain orthodox?

Rob

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Yes, but if it goes against the grain of the Orthodox Church's mindset and belief then you cannot believe in such a way. Remember, dogmas are reserved only for that which is affects our salvation. But that does not mean that we can hold whatever belief we want on other "lesser" theological issues. For example, there are many things one can believe about what happens after death. Tollhouses and other ideas. But one cannot believe in what is called "soul sleep" meaning that we fall into an unconscious state until judgement day. This is condemned by the Church. So, what happens after death falls under the area of theologumen (theological opinion that does not corrode the Truth as expounded by the Church), but theologumen does not mean virtual free-for-all. And, I would venture to say that as none of us are probably very holy, it would be most wise to choose from the theologumen as offered by past saints and not making up your own. it is too easy to fall into heresy otherwise.

Does that make sense?

John

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Yes, I think so. Thanks again. Rob

 

[Marjorie]

Robbie,

Look for a thread a while back started by King of the Nations about Purgatory and the IC. He and I debated for pages and pages about this issue-- the Western and Eastern mindset and so on.

There are different schools of Orthodox thought-- within Orthodoxy. But there is a point where it loses "the mind of Christ."

In IC XC,
Marjorie

 

[Montalban]

Basically my question is this:-Do you consider that certain Western philosophical and theological understandings of the Faith are acceptable within the bounds of Orthodoxy? Can one, for example, hold to the Western concept of original sin but remain Orthodox? Or hold to the Western concept of Apostolic Succession (i.e. that it is not lost by heterodox professions)?

Thanks!

Your brother in Christ,
Rob

If you mean Apostolic Succession with regards to the Papacy and the structure of the Church you must know that the mystery of the unity of the church is one that reflects the Trinitarian mystery; that is unity in diversity.


What does it mean, by the term ‘catholic’? Prior to Augustine, it used to mean ‘complete’ or ‘whole’. Each person is completely ‘catholic’. Each church, headed by a bishop is completely ‘catholic’ and the whole church is ‘catholic’. This unity in diversity reflects the triune nature of God. St. Cyprian wrote on this, but is oft misused.[1]



The term itself first appears in a work of St. Ignatius of Antioch; The Epistle to the Smyrnaeans "Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.



See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid"[2]



This is a reflection of the Biblical statement of the nature of the church; diverse, but one, all equal...

1 Corinthians 12:12 The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by[c] one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

14 Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15 If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But eagerly desire the greater gifts.



Further to this the Apostles went from place to place establishing the first churches. There is a clear disctinction between Apostle and bishop and thus several bishops can have traced their 'succession' from the same Apostle; such for instance my church, the Antiochian was founded by St. Peter, and so was the Roman church. Thus also, several writers do not count Peter as the first 'bishop' of Rome.[3]

"Thus, in the early Church - even in Rome - it would have been impossible to base a theory of primacy ont eh idea of scuession from a particular Apostle, because bishops were not considered to be the successors of particular Apostles"[4]



Notes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]The term Catholic is seen in it's proper meaning at in light of mission work to the Slavs http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/soborny.aspx

[2] http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-21.htm#P2123_357530

[3] Ireneaus Against Heresies. Book III.3.2-3 (quoted at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859)

[4] Carlton, C, (1999), "The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know about the Orthodox Church, (Regina Press), p123

 

[Maximus]

Or hold to the Western concept of Apostolic Succession (i.e. that it is not lost by heterodox professions)?

The sentence above struck me when I saw it.

I wonder how there can be any notion of true Apostolic Succession that is not absolutely linked to truth, the preservation of the faith once delivered to the saints.

How can succession from the Apostles matter if the supposed successor has departed from the teaching of the Apostles?

It is my own belief that the Antichrist could kill every last bishop on earth, yet God could still raise up bishops to lead His Church who would be - because of their adherence to the true faith - legitimate successors to the Apostles.

Just as Gentiles can, through faith, be grafted onto the One Olive Tree (Romans 11) and are true sons and daughters of Abraham (Gal. 3:7), so true Apostolic succession is not dependent upon the flesh but upon the Spirit and is based upon the faith of the Apostles, not upon juridical principles and lists that read like the genealogies of kings.

God can raise up a successor to the Apostles from among the very stones.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Thank you all, guys.

I do see the point about Apostolic Succession and I'd be tempted to agree, but since we believe in, "once a priest, always a priest," the argument is that one cannot lose the mark of Holy Orders and cannot, by heterodoxy or any personal fault, lose the ability to confer valid Holy Orders.

Rob

 

[Montalban]

Thank you all, guys.

I do see the point about Apostolic Succession and I'd be tempted to agree, but since we believe in, "once a priest, always a priest," the argument is that one cannot lose the mark of Holy Orders and cannot, by heterodoxy or any personal fault, lose the ability to confer valid Holy Orders.

Rob

So even an ex-communicated priest can still have valid Holy Orders?

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

So even an ex-communicated priest can still have valid Holy Orders?

Do you mean does he still have valid Orders himself? Yes-absolutely. I hope this isn't considered debate, mods, I'm just trying to explain the position. :o I'm really not arguing for or against it...So, assuming I'm allowed to explain...

The Sacrament of Holy Orders (in Catholic thought) leaves an "indelible mark" on the soul. Even if excommunicated the priest is still a priest. As regards his celebration of Sacraments after excommunication:-
-Baptism--anyone can baptise anyway, so he still can baptise validly. However, whilst he was a priest in Communion, the baptism was licit. Now, though he is still a priest, his performance of baptism (like that of a lay person in ordinary circumstances) in anything but an emergency is illicit.
-Reconciliation and Absolution--invalid. This requires permission of the local Ordinary and if the priest is excommunicated then he can no longer absolve sins.*
-Eucharist--valid but illicit.
-Confirmation--a priest can always confirm validly, and still can. However, it is always illicit for a priest who is not bishop to confirm unless it is an emergency. Valid but illicit.
-Marriage--same as Reconciliation.* Invalid.**
-Holy Orders--only (Arch?)Bishops can validly ordain.* So if he was a (arch?)bishop who is ecommunicated then he can still validly but illicitly ordain. If he was a priest and not a bishop then he cannot confer Holy Orders anyway.*
-Extreme Unction--valid but possibly illicit. However, this is usually an emergency anyway, so I guess it may be licit.

*I may be wrong on these. Actually I may be wrong on all of them...it's more likely that I may be wrong on these.
** May depend on the Rite to which the priest belonged.

Rob

 

[pilgrimtim]

"It is my own belief that the Antichrist could kill every last bishop on earth, yet God could still raise up bishops to lead His Church who would be - because of their adherence to the true faith - legitimate successors to the Apostles."
The is an arguement used in protestant churches to claim legitimacy being part of the one church united by Faith and practice but not by lineage.
True apostolic Succession requires two things first True Faith and Laying on Hand by hierarchs of true faith.
Saint Clement made it clear that in light of pretenders to the faith appearing the Church already established the idea of sucession as a tool to protect the faith from usurpers.
According to GOD's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. Satan couldnot kill all the Bishops of the church. A remnant would remain, albeit hidden, to continue and preserve the faith.
If a group of believers with their bishop cuts themselves off from the Church the group will die because it requires two or three bishops to raise someone to the episcopal throne. With out a connection to the Church and it supply of bishops the schism dies, as so many in the past have. The only way to change the church or reform it is from the inside, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, armed with knowledge of the true faith, in a spirit of humilty.

 

[Theophorus]

My spiritual Father and I were discussing Orthodox theology last week. He used a greek word to describe it which basically in english means "blameless", almost akin to being without fault but the implication is deeper than that.
As has been stated, there are parts of Orthodox theology that extends past the bounds of dogma, but if it is true theology, it will be blameless with its harmony to the fullness of faith and truth. Also remember that in Orthodoxy theology comes directly from God, in partaking in his uncreated energies. Reason, and philosophy are not the eastern means of arriving at truth. Truth has always been seen as revelatory. Ascetic practice/monasticism has been described as the "science of sciences", and monasteries have been compared to "laboratories for the soul".

 

[Maximus]

"It is my own belief that the Antichrist could kill every last bishop on earth, yet God could still raise up bishops to lead His Church who would be - because of their adherence to the true faith - legitimate successors to the Apostles."
The is an arguement used in protestant churches to claim legitimacy being part of the one church united by Faith and practice but not by lineage.
True apostolic Succession requires two things first True Faith and Laying on Hand by hierarchs of true faith.
Saint Clement made it clear that in light of pretenders to the faith appearing the Church already established the idea of sucession as a tool to protect the faith from usurpers.
According to GOD's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. Satan couldnot kill all the Bishops of the church. A remnant would remain, albeit hidden, to continue and preserve the faith.
If a group of believers with their bishop cuts themselves off from the Church the group will die because it requires two or three bishops to raise someone to the episcopal throne. With out a connection to the Church and it supply of bishops the schism dies, as so many in the past have. The only way to change the church or reform it is from the inside, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, armed with knowledge of the true faith, in a spirit of humilty.

I strongly disagree.

A physical Apostolic Succession is important, but it is not the be-all and end-all of the Church.

The continued existence of the true Church cannot be dependent upon something as physical or fleshly as a link in the chain of laying on of hands from the Apostles. Where is such a doctrine taught explicitly - or even implicitly - in the Fathers?

Such arguments seem to me to be akin to the Jewish idea that only natural descendants of Abraham are truly a part of God's Israel.

Apostolic Succession is great, but it is absolutely secondary and subservient to the truth. That it - in and of itself - is no guarantee of Orthodoxy is plain from the evidence of history and of common sense.

A successor to the Apostles who preaches falsehood is less than worthless.

Our Lord's promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church contains no guarantee that a physical Apostolic Succession will be maintained or that it is necessary that it be maintained.

St. Clement and St. Irenaeus cited succession from the Apostles as evidence of continuity in the true Church. Such it is, but physical succession is no guarantee of doctrine, that much is clear beyond all dispute.

The laying on of hands from the Apostles and succeeding generations of Church leadership was supposed to be a spiritual form of succession, not a physical, fleshly, juridical form.

Anyway, perhaps the Lord will preserve the physical succession until the end of time, but it is not necessary to the existence of the Church that He do so.

Protestant sects are not outside the Church because they lack Apostolic Succession, nor are all those who can lay claim to physical Apostolic Succession inside the Church.