Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Teófilo; Destro; kosta50

Theofilo:

What exactly, at least in a theological or ecclesiological sense are we to be introspective about? I ask this sincerely and the very fact that I need to ask this question may be all the proof you need to back up your assertion that we Orthodox are ill equipped to be introspective in this area. In theology and ecclesiology, except for the jurisdictional confusion in the diaspora and the recent understanding with the Monophysites, we haven't changed anything since the last Ecumenical Council which purports to be anything beyond disciplinary matters.


66 posted on 05/30/2005 6:07:56 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Kolokotronis
What exactly, at least in a theological or ecclesiological sense are we to be introspective about? I ask this sincerely and the very fact that I need to ask this question may be all the proof you need to back up your assertion that we Orthodox are ill equipped to be introspective in this area. In theology and ecclesiology, except for the jurisdictional confusion in the diaspora and the recent understanding with the Monophysites, we haven't changed anything since the last Ecumenical Council which purports to be anything beyond disciplinary matters.

Fascinating question! I can only sketch a very brief answer to it at this time. We should start by saying that there has been profound change in the Orthodox Church and that we can dispense from the myth of its supposed immutability.

Take the Liturgy, for example. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is itself a development, codified in the 5th century during the time of that great Saint. Since then, it has slowly acreeted new developments, in its externals as well as in its internals. We may readily see this in Dom Gregory Dix's masterful study, The Shape of the Liturgy. Change is possible in the Orthodox Church and therefore, change has happened.

Take the change of attitudes toward the Ecumenical Patriarchate, for example, historically taken by the Muscovite Patriarchate. It declared itself "the Third Rome" after the first one fell into "schism" and the second one "into heresy." This suspicion of Constantinople by Moscow continues in our time. Consider the near-excommunication of the First See of Orthodoxy by its Muscovite counterpart back in 1999, when Constantinople recognized the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Latvia, in contravention to Moscow's pretentions in the Baltics. "Organizational confusion" is not restricted to North America, but extends to the Old World, because it is intrinsic to Orthodox ecclessiology itself, which in its attempt to make all bishops equal, it has in turn created a Church in which no bishop knows his place. As a consequence, the Orthodox Church has no one pope, it has many.

I'm going to stop now.

In Christ,
-Theo

86 posted on 05/30/2005 9:51:47 AM PDT by Teófilo (Visit Vivificat! - http://www.vivificat.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson