“Once we have found the truth with our minds, then all the passionate resolution of which we are capable should flow into action. But first we must consider the credentials of Christ and of the many churches claiming to be his. We must consider them with cold logic and the careful weighing of all the evidence.”
—Oliver Barres, One Shepherd, One Flock
BEFORE POSTING COMMENTS, PLEASE READ THE GUIDELINES.
Pontificator, over at Pontifications, says (here) that non-Orthodox are not permitted to avail themselves of Orthodox apologetical arguments until they become Orthodox. I'm not sure this flies, logically speaking. What do you all think? (However, I think that "Pontificator's First Rule" is logically sound.)
posted by Keith @ 5:46 PM
16 comments
"A convinced Catholic is easily the most hard-headed and logical person walking about the world to-day." —G.K. Chesterton
16 Comments:
like the link!
It does seem to me that if non-Orthodox are going to avail themselves of Orthodox apologetical arguments--esp. against the papacy--they should, then, deal with why they do not believe other Orthodox apologetical arguments, i.e. that the Orthodox churches are the true Church outside of which there is no salvation. (And they are much less liberal on this point than the Catholic Church.)
i couldn't agree more. it seems to be the common "Protestant" take on things: I will accept what I like and discard what is unacceptable to me. no matter what Scripture or Tradition support. The Holy Spirit will guide "me".
Hi Fish,
I realize this is an old post, but I will comment anyway. I think Orthodoxy is the last holdout for Protestants. That is, they become convinced of the ecclesiology of the Fathers and they admit that the Church must be one and infallible, but they refuse to become "papists". The Orthodox are attractive because you can make the claims to being truly Catholic without having to believe in Papal infallibility, purgatory, the immaculate conception, or a number of other things. If one looks at it from the Roman side, the Orthodox were, in a sense, the first Protestants. Not that they are on the same track as Protestants, but they were the first to mount a large "Protest" against the Holy Father. This, in my opinion, is the essence of Protestantism whether Protestants recognize it or not.
Hi Patrick,
The essence of Protestantism, or "the Protestant principle" as it is elswhere referred, is the exercise of private judgment (individual or corporate) in lieu of submission to the apostolic Church which Christ commissioned to teach in His name and with His very authority. So every man, ultimately, is his own pope because that system breaks down to his opinions on Scripture (as we see in traditional Protestantism), or both Scripture and Tradition (as we see in Anglicanism and independent catholicism). In Scripture, the early Church, and all throughout Tradition, the rule of faith we see for the individual man is the authoritative, teaching Church. She interprets Scripture and Tradition (indeed, her Scripture and her Tradition) for the individual man.
On this score, Orthodoxy cannot be called the first Protestants. The profess belief in the authoritative, teaching Church which is the rule of faith for the individual man. This, though, breaks down because the Orthodox churches are not one entity and, as such they cannot, and do not, speak finally and authoritatively.
As for Orthodoxy being the last holdout for Protestants, I agree; but I fail to comprehend why. It can only be through negligence of the facts. Does not the Orthodox churches claim, as the Catholic Church to be the one, true church outside of which there is no salvation? From my own experience in the ICCEC, I wonder if folks, upon seeing both churches claiming such things, instead of considering the very possible reality that one or the other is right, they opt for some muddled solution which says that somehow both are right and that, this somehow gives them license not only to join neither church but to form their own!
Also, I think that the Catholic Church's very generous language concerning Orthodoxy is confusing to such folks and aid such notions by them. Although JPII refers to the East as "the other lung", it remains that is a lung in schism.
I agree with you that Orthodoxy is far from Protestantism in its rather catholic view of the authority of the Church. As I said, they are not on the same track as Protestants. However, the element they hold in common is what you have aptly noted- namely autonomy. That is, there is a sense in which the Orthodox, like Protestants, want to retain a certain amount of control/authority when it comes to the issue of papal authority. That is why I think it has appeal to Protestants who walk the road to the ancient faith. I know this was the case for me. The thing that changed my mind was to see how much Scripture and the Fathers supported the role of the papacy. After that, things begin to fall into place.
I agree Patrick. I, too, looked into Orthodoxy before Catholicism. My wife and I visited an Orthodox church on a couple of occasions. I agree that there is a draw to the Orthodox because it is the last hold-out of autonomy. Have you read Fr. Ray Ryland's "Evangelicals Who Journey East" at the Catholic Answers website? It treats this issue exactly as you have described it.
Haven't read it yet, but since you mention it, I think I'll give it a read.
Here's a link to the article. The Catholic Answers search engine isn't the greatest.
For more info on Orthodoxy, check out James Likoudis' page. (Check out the links there; there's a lot of stuff.) He's a convert from Orthodoxy. He lists a couple of books about Orthodoxy on his website that he has written. (I recently ordered them all.) You can listen to his testimony on The Journey Home with Marcus Grodi here, or download it here.
Another book that I highly, highly recommend is The Russian Church and the Papacy by Vladimir Soloviev. Soloviev was a leading intellectual luminary in the Orthodoxy churches.
Whoops.
Let me try that link to Evanglicals Who Journey East again.
Yuk! I just read Ryland's article "Evangelicals Who Journey East" you mentioned. It is simplistic and trite, and slams the Orthodox Church for lacking "the living Voice of Christ their Head".
I am sorry, but that is such nonsense I can scarcely believe it. Last I checked, Christ Our Head speaks regularly to us in the words of Sacred Scripture, and encounters us in the Sacramental Mysteries and in our prayer life. Yes, He can speak through the pope as well, but that is not His ordinary mode of relating to us, His Body--unless your breakfast is not complete without reading your daily papal encyclical. Personally, I read my Bible for daily meditation.
If the above words sound harsh, they are not directed against you, dear Fish, but against what I can only see as a shallow article that does not do justice to Father Gillqist or his people. Others have also tried (unjustly) to so twist the words of Scott Hahn and make him sound foolish. He is not foolish, and neither is Fr. Gillquist.
And, I dont think the Filioque issue is as simple and obvious as Ryland makes it. Councils of the Church had solemnly warned against changing the holy Creed; men had died for its truths. It remained unaltered until a Western synod of Toledo, Spain unilaterally decided to alter the Creed (without even Rome's consent), and later under Charlemagne's insistence, Filioque became mandatory in his Empire (again without Rome's consent and against the words of Leo III and the Decisions of the Council of Constantinople in 880 A.D.).
Then in 1014, Filioque snuck into the Creed at the coronation of an Emperor in Rome. All this without any papal declaration or any ecumencial council to gather and discuss whether this was valid. All of this again, by the West without the East's knowledge or consent.
I find that a bit problematic. I grew up saying "and the Son", but I'm not convinced this is at all correct as far as the eternal procession of the Spirit is concerned, though of course in temporal mission He is sent by the Son from God's right hand.
Ha, I hope this doesn't sound like a rant! I just find the Ryland article less than I could desire. I'm sure Catholics can come up with better!
With affection to Fish,
Blessing in Christ our God.
Seraph, your tone bespeaks a person who has fallen prey to anti-papal polemics. As for the Filoque, I think the question of the Church precedes the matter of the Filoque. One does not consider the nature of the procession of the Holy Spirit by his private judgment and, then, based on that, decide where is the true Church.
Dearest Fish,
Fallen prey to anti-papal polemics? Who knows? But please read the interesting article on www.energeticprocession.com/archives/2006/06/constantinople.html, which quotes the words of the ecumenical council, Constantinople IV, in the year 880. Then remember that Rome didn't officially adopt "Filioque" until 1215 A.D., after the schism.
Anyway, the pope himself did not insert "Filioque" into the creed until the 13th century, which I think gives room for pause.
But Fish, given the two venerable and weighty Communions both claiming to be the fulness of Christ's Church on earth, how do you judge between them? Believe me, I am open to your thoughts, and open to instruction, and open to the Holy Spirit. My mind is not made up, and I want to know the Truth.
Blessings in Christ.
From another making the journey out of the CEC to...??? I am quite interested in this subject as well. How do we know which is the right one--East? West? How do we know?
I realize this blog is set up for discussing the CEC. However, since you are obviously Roman, I would appreciate your insights. And any resources you can offer to give direction.
East or West? It depends on who you ask. Orthodox believe the Pope created the schism. Romans, just the opposite. Anglicans, Prots, independents, etc. find fault with both and look at the Church as hopelessly divided.
For me the critical question centered around the papacy. If the papacy is right, then Rome is right, no matter what else we may not like about it. However, if the papacy is wrong, then we can eliminate Rome and look to the East, or perhaps even elsewhere.
The Fathers led the way for me throughout my long pilgrimage from Pentecostalism to the Catholic Church. In the end I went back to see what the consensus of patristic thought was re: primacy of Peter and the bishop of Rome I found lots of evidence that both East and West acknowledged the primacy of Peter and its unique succession in the bishop of Rome. These are the basic building blocks (in addition to Scripture) that undergird the doctrine of the papacy.
Every Protestant knows there can only be one pastor of any given church. That person speaks for the church. So it is, I believe, in the Universal Church. Christ left Peter to be His vicar- the one entrusted to speak for Him. Peter does not exercise this authority solo, but in conjunction with the apostles and the Church. Yet, when a decision needs to be made, Peter speaks for the Church.
If the papacy is wrong, then who speaks for the Church? History shows times of dispute, even between the great Patriarchates. Who settles it if they're all equal?
It is for these reasons that I believe the papacy is right, and therefore the Catholic Church is right. I believe, with the Church, that the Holy Spirit has protected the papacy from error and will continue to do so until our Lord's apprearing.
For whatever it's worth, I offer this in response to some of the previous questions.
I'm having ideas for a "Why I am not Orthodox" post, but I just don't have time right now to develop them. I'm working 55+ hours a week these days; there's not much time for anything extra. I'll shoot for putting something up next weekend.
<< Home