Why not Eastern Orthodoxy?

Ten years ago or so I dreamed that I was an Orthodox priest. If you had asked me even three years ago what if I would become if I ever decided to leave the Episcopal Church, I would have replied “Eastern Orthodox.” Yet today I find myself becoming what I truly never seriously considered until the past two years.

Why did I not choose to become Orthodox? Who but God can answer? All such matters are a mystery, a mystery between the mystery of the human heart and the mystery of the Holy Trinity. Rational analysis takes one only so far. All I really know is that during the past two years, as I intently studied both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, I found myself increasingly drawn, against my will and desire, and certainly to my amazement, to Catholicism.

I love the liturgy and sacramental life of the Orthodox Church. It speaks to the depths of my heart. I long to pray the Divine Liturgy and be formed by its music, poetry, beaity, and ritual.

I love the integration of theology, dogma, spirituality, and asceticism within Orthodoxy. There is a wholeness to Orthodox experience that is compelling, powerful, and attractive on many different levels. This wholeness refuses any bifurcation between mind and heart and invites the believer into deeper reconciliation in Christ by the Spirit. This wholeness is something that Western Christians particularly need, as we confront and battle the corrosive powers of Western modernity and secularism.

I love the reverence and devotion Orthodoxy gives to the saints and church fathers, who are experienced in the Church as living witnesses to the gospel of Christ Jesus. I love the icons.

And I love the theological writings of many Orthodox writers, especially Alexander Schmemann and Georges Florovsky. For all these reasons and for many more, it would have been oh so very easy for me to become Orthodox.

First, I am troubled by Orthodoxy’s “Easternness.” The coherence and power of Orthodoxy is partially achieved by excluding the Western tradition from its spiritual and theological life. One is hard-pressed to find an Orthodox writer who speaks highly of the Western Church, of her saints, ascetics, and theologians, of her manifold contributions to Christian religion and Western civilization. According to Orthodox consensus, Western Christianity went off the tracks somewhere along the way and must now be judged as a heresy. Understandably, Eastern Christianity considers itself the touchstone and standard by which the Western tradition is to be judged.

To put it simply, Orthodoxy has no real place for St Augustine. He is commemorated as a saint, but the bulk of his theological work is rejected. The noted scholar, Fr John Romanides, has been particularly extreme. I raised my concern about Orthodoxy and the West a year ago in my blog article Bad, bad Augustine. In that article I cited one of the few Orthodox scholars, David B. Hart, who has been willing to address Orthodox caricature of Western theologians:

Ironically, the various contributions by Perry Robinson and Daniel Jones, here on Pontifications and elsewhere, have heightened my concern. Both have sought, in various ways, to demonstrate that Western theology is incompatible with the catholic faith. While I have neither the training nor wit to follow many of their arguments, I am convinced that their project is wrong. Both presume that one can know the catholic faith independent of ecclesial commitment and formation. If one insists, for example, that St Maximos the Confessor, read through a post-schism Eastern lens, is our authoritative guide to a proper reading of the sixth Ecumenical Council, then of course Augustinian Catholicism will come off looking badly, despite the fact that Maximos was himself a great supporter of the prerogatives of Rome and despite the fact that Rome was instrumental in the defeat of monotheletism. Yet Catholicism embraces both Augustine and Maximos as saints, even though it is clear that Maximos has had minimal influence upon Western reflection, at least until very recently. Clearly Rome did not, and does not, understand the dogmatic decrees of III Constantinople as contradicting Western christological and trinitarian commitments. As much as I respect Perry and Daniel and am grateful for both their erudition and civility and their stimulating articles on these matters, it seems to me that their conclusions are more determined by their theological and ecclesial starting points than by “neutral” scholarship. And one thing I do know: there is always a brighter guy somewhere who will contest one’s favorite thesis.

Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism, in my judgment, can be conclusively identified as the one and true Church by these kinds of rational arguments, as interesting and important as they may be in themselves. Arguments and reasons must be presented and considered as we seek to make the necessary choice between Rome and Constantinople, yet ultimately we are still confronted by mystery and the decision and risk of faith.

If the catholicity of Orthodoxy can only be purchased by the practical expulsion of Augustine and Aquinas, then, at least in my own mind, Orthodoxy’s claim to be the one and true Church is seriously undermined. A truly catholic Church will and must include St Augustine and St Maximos the Confessor, St Gregory Palamas and St Thomas Aquinas. A truly catholic Church will keep these great theologians in conversation with each other, and their differences and disagreements will invite the Church to a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the divine mysteries. To set one against the other is not catholic, but partisan.

Second, I am troubled by the absence of a final court of appeal in controversies of faith and morals. We Anglicans are now witnessing first-hand the disintegration of a world-wide communion partially because of the absence of a divinely instituted organ of central authority. In the first millenium the Church employed the Ecumenical Council to serve as this final authority; but for the past thirteen centuries Orthodoxy has been unable to convene such a council. Is it a matter of logistics, or is the matter perhaps more serious, a question of constitutional impotence? Or has God simply protected the Orthodox from serious church-dividing heresies during this time, thereby temporarily obviating the need for such a council? Regardless, it seems to me that if Orthodoxy truly is the one Church of Jesus Christ in the exclusive sense it claims to be, then not only would it be confident in its power and authority to convene an Ecumenical Council, but it would have done so by now.

Yet as Orthodoxy begins to seriously engage the worldview and values of modernity (and post-modernity), the need for a final tribunal will perhaps become more evident. Consider just one example—contraception. It used to be the case that all Orthodox theologians would have roundly denounced most (all?) forms of contraception. But over the past twenty years or so, we have seen a growing diversity on this issue amongst Orthodox thinkers. Some state that this is really a private matter that needs to be decided between the believer and his parish priest. Clearly this privatization of the issue accords with modern sensibilities; but I am fearful of the consequences. Given the absence of a final court of appeal, does Orthodoxy have any choice but to simply accept diversity on many of the burning ethical questions now confronting us? Can Orthodoxy speak authoritatively to any of them?

For the past two years I have struggled to discern whether to remain an Anglican (in some form or another) or to embrace either Orthodoxy or Catholicism. Both Orthodoxy and Catholicism make mutually exclusive claims to be the one and true Church of Jesus Christ. We are confronted by a stark either/or choice. An Anglican is tempted to retreat to a branch theory of the Church, and on that basis make a decision on which tradition appeals to him most; but both Orthodoxy and Catholicism emphatically reject all such branch theories. There is only one visible Church. To become either Orthodox or Catholic means accepting the claim of the respective communion to ecclesial exclusivity. How do we rightly judge between them?

One thing we cannot do. We cannot pretend that we can assume a neutral vantage point. Oh how much easier things would be for all of us if God would call us on our telephones right now and tell us what to do!

The Pope convenes the College of Cardinals in emergency session. “I’ve got some good news and some bad news,” he says. “The good news is this: I just received a phone call from God!” Everyone cheers. “But here’s the bad news: God lives in Salt Lake City.”

I cannot see the Church from God’s perspective. I am faced with a choice. Good arguments can be presented for both Orthodoxy and Catholicism; none appear to be absolutely decisive and coercive. Moreoever, considerations that seem important to me are probably irrelevant to the large majority of people. “The Church is a house with a hundred gates,” wrote Chesterton; “and no two men enter at exactly the same angle.” Finally, I can only rely upon my reason, my intuitions, my feelings, my faith, under the grace and mercy of God. May God forgive me if I have chosen wrongly.

"I want to add that I have looked up the three major post-schism Orthodox confessional statements of which I am aware....and they are all in complete agreement with us Catholics on the question of Original Sin. Unless I'm missing something, it looks like the Orthodox have basically reversed their formerly held position on this matter."

LOL! Which rather begs the question "Who can speak for what the Orthodox actually believe?"

Don't you think that this thread really proves the assertions made in the originally posted article by an Orthodox writer that in their controversialists' attempts to distance themselves from the West (Rome) they have lost touch with their own theology?:

"The most damaging consequence, however, of Orthodoxy’s twentieth-century pilgrimage ad fontes...has been an increase in the intensity of Eastern theology’s anti-Western polemic... Nor is this only a problem for ecumenism: the anti-Western passion (or, frankly, paranoia) of Lossky and his followers has on occasion led to rather SEVERE DISTORTIONS OF EASTERN THEOLOGY."

To recapitulate:

Scripture teaches original sin.

The Fathers of both East and West teach original sin.

The Catholic church has always taught original sin.

The Orthodox Church taught original sin up until the 17th century.

For all we know, some Orthodox Churches might still teach original sin.

So where is the novelty and the disconnect???

At the core of our differences is the impression (for us at least) that the West and the East appear at odds over +Augustine and his legacy, and that is an unhealable rift in mindsets.

It seems to me that many Orthodox make St. Augustine the be all and end all of western theology, the Alpha and Omega. Some Catholics do this to, but I think this is quite mistaken. He is by the words of the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople the "most excellent and blessed Augustine" who is "the most wise teacher." But he should not be placed above the faith of the Church itself, nor did he ever want to be in such a position.

Pope St. Celestine I notes that: "We have always held Augustine a man of holy memory because of his life and also of his services in our communion, nor has even report ever sullied him with unfavorable suspicion. We recall him as having once been a man of such great knowledge that even by my predecessors in the past he was always accounted among the best teachers." (Epistle 21, 5/15/431)

Pope St. Hormisdas I says: "Yet what the Roman, that is the Catholic, Church follows and preserves concerning free will and the grace of God can be abundantly recognized both in the various books of the blessed Augustine, and especially [in those] to Hilary and Prosper, but the prominent chapters are contained in the ecclesiastical archives and if these are lacking and you believe them necessary, we establish [them], although he who diligently considers the words of the Apostle, should know clearly what he ought to follow." (Epistle "Sicut rationi", 8/13/520)

And the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople: "We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith."

But also Pope Alexander VIII condemning the proposition: "When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding any bull of the Pope." (Errors of the Jansenists, 12/7/1690)

And Pope Pius XI condemning the idea that: "The authority of Augustine speaking be preferred even to the supreme authority of the Church teaching." (Encyclical "Ad salutem", 4/22/1930)

And St. Augustine himself: "I would not wish anyone so esteem my writings that he would follow me except in those matters in which he has clearly seen I do not err: for on this account I am now composing books in which I have undertaken to examine my works, so that I may show theat I myself have not conformed to myself in all things." (The Gift of Perseverance, c. 21)

The Roman Catholic Church is much more than St. Augustine and his works.

Thank you for your interesting and brotherly discussion.

The same to you brother Kosta.

"Hope this helps."

These writings based on the teaching of Fr. Romanides certainly seem to reflect the p.o.v.'s which the Orthodox have expressed on this thread. However, the puzzlement for us Latins is what degree of authority do they actually hold?

How do we know that they reflect the Orthodox position rather than these following passages from the Russian Orthodox catechism (which teach exactly what the Catholic Church teaches)?:

"166. What is the death which came from the sin of Adam?
It is twofold: bodily, when the body loses the soul which quickened it; and spiritual, when the soul loses the grace of God, which quickened it with the higher and spiritual life.

167. Can the soul, then, die as well as the body?
It can die, but not so as the body. The body, when it dies, loses sense, and is dissolved; the soul, when it dies by sin, loses spiritual light, joy, and happiness, but is not dissolved nor annihilated, but remains in a state of darkness, anguish, and suffering.

168. Why did not the first man only die, and not all, as now?
Because all have come of Adam since his infection by sin, and all sin themselves. As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal.

169. How is this spoken of in holy Scripture?
By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Rom. v. 12."

Are there in fact different competing theologies within the Orthodox Church with respect to the teaching on original/ancestral sin?

The other Orthodox sources which gbcdoj cites (St. Peter Mohila's "Orthodox Confession of the Faith", the Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem against Calvinism), also seem to have the authority of various Orthodox synods. St. Peter Mohila's Orthodox Confession of the Faith even uses the words "original sin"!:

"This sin is called original for these reasons: first, because before this time man was stained by no sin, although the devil sinned, through whose initiative the sin known as original arose in man. Adam, the perpetrator of the sin, is subject to it as also are we, his posterity. Secondly, it is called original because no man is conceived without it."

At what point did this all become unacceptable doctrine in the Orthodox Church, or do some indeed still hold it?

I wonder why it was taught to me, then, in gradeschool at St. Henry's, in Lincoln Park, Michigan, a Catholic school?

What Catechism was used to teach this?

The dogmatic teaching of the Roman Church, repeated at least three times, is that those who die in original sin only are deprived of the vision of God, based on the authority of St. John 3.5, and St. Matthew 5.8. This state of existence is properly called damnation. We commonly believe that they do not suffer at all, either by pain of loss or pain of sense, since there is no cause for their punishment. But neither is their any cause for a reward. The Baltimore Catechism No. 3, Q 632, says:

"Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven."

Limbo being understood as what the Orthodox would call Hades, which is the place understood by the phrase "He descended into Hell" in the Apostles Creed. The Baltimore Catechism No. 3 again, Q. 402:

"The hell into which Christ´s soul descended was not the hell of the dammed, but a place or state of rest called Limbo, where the souls of the just were waiting for Him."

This is sufficient for children to know. Theologians, if consulted, would tell you that Limbo may essentially be thought of as an antechamber to hell, rather as the Narthex is the Portico to the Nave of a Church, and can give you all manner of speculation of a more or less useful nature as to what the state of such souls will be.

The important point in all this is that we do not teach the salvation of infants. God in His mercy may have some mode of salvation for them, but He has revealed to us nothing but Baptism, therefore we cannot preach something He did nto reveal.

Maybe this will explain better why some Orthodox seem so "right" to the Latins. Who was Peter Mohila? Perhaps the best answer to that are the words of the 17th c. Ukrainian Catholic Bishop Joseph Rutsky:

"Mohila can serve the cause of union not only in Kiev-Rus but also in Moldavia and Wallachia; he gives the impression of being favorable to the Catholic Faith. He is educated, reads Latin and understands the Fathers."

Coincidentally (?), Mohila "authored or co-authored an 'Orthodox Confession of Faith' which would become regarded by many as a faithful expression of the faith of the Eastern Orthodox churches."

As for the Jerusalem Synod of 1672, was it not convened at the request of the French? Was it not written in Latin? Does it not contain such alien words to Orthodoxy as "man's complete depravity?" The fact that the Confessio Dosithei was accepted by the Russians of Peter the Great is no surprize, but it was, as far as I know, not accepted by other Patriarchs, including the Ecumenical Patriarch.

As for the authorty of individual fathers, the authority comes only from inspired works. All others are opinions. The Fathers are not infallible.

Is it the RC view then, that God revealed to you eternal damnation for them when they are without baptism?

"Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (St. John 3.5)

Please see the unanimous commentary of the Holy Fathers on this passage in #162 concerning the absolute necessity of Baptism.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1420888/posts?page=162#162

God has revealed that Baptism is the gate to salvation. God can certainly save people in other ways, since while He has bound us to the Sacraments, He Himself is not bound to the Sacraments, and He may very well do so with unbaptized children. But He did not choose to reveal this to us. We may theologically speculate on this all we wish, but we would then be missing the important point that God in His revelation is trying to make - God gave us a very easy method to set infants on the road to salvation - Holy Baptism. With so easy a means, why worry about His justice in dealing with those who do not receive it? He has the perfect solution. Are we to judge them, or Him? I think not.

However, the puzzlement for us Latins is what degree of authority do they actually hold?

We don't generally hold institutional authority itself in the highest esteem, but rather conciliarity.

the conciliar nature of the orthodox church

"Orthodoxy resists the vertical authority structure of the Roman Catholic church; “as a third way beyond the antithesis that had been set up during the Reformation era, Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology seemed to present a view of the church that hallowed its traditions as even Roman Catholicism did not and that nevertheless did not identify those traditions with an authoritarian and juridical institution.”2 Likewise, Orthodoxy resists the horizontal, individualistic pietism of the Protestant church. The Orthodox church is neither overly horizontal nor overly vertical in focus; rather, it is conciliar."

" conciliarity can not be defined by describing a council"

"conciliarity is, at the core, non-institutional"

"Conciliarity is not, as is sometimes assumed, an attribute of the episcopacy. It is a defining attribute of the entire Church, from patriarch to laity"

"The Orthodox understanding of authority through freedom and love takes shape in the concept of reception. A council is not authoritative in and of itself, but only as it is received. A council is the supreme authority in faith, not because it has juridical power, but because it has charismatic authority which has withstood the test of reception over time. Councils do not have automatic infallibility. It is the church which affirms the council."

" Reception is not expressed formally; it is lived."

An example of how we function may be found in the ancient city of Mskheta, Georgia, where I recently visited. A much-loved and deeply respected priest died and was buried in the yard of Samtavro monastery. Maybe 8, 10 years ago, I think. His grave site has become a place for pilgrimages, from all of Georgia and from Russia too. The church has not officially recognized this priest as a saint, but eventually I believe it will happen. Not because Patriarch Ilia will decree it from his position of authority, but because eventually it will become accepted by the church, composed of laity.

I think another writing also says well how we see doctrine and authority.
Theology was never intended to answer the unbeliever's questions. It was meant to lead the one with an open spirit into a meeting with God.

So you will see Orthodox Christians posting about representing "the mind of the church". I think the discussions here have often not been fruitful because of the very differences in our nature. RC posters tend to want to copy and paste some one or two writings and call it law. They are rightfully confused when we reject the writings.

The "mind" of the Orthodox Church, however, is expressed in the unity of the Orthodox posters here, from all over the country and world, from different jurisdictions. It is also expressed in the fact that I recently went to Georgia and found the same "mind of the church" there which I find in my parish here.

And finally I don't think it is something that can be well understood, if at all, from outside the Orthodox church. If I look back to my first few years in the church, I can see that I was still grasping at these ideas, without having lived them yet.

Orthodoxy is first of all, an orthodoxy of life and not an orthodoxy of indoctrination. For it, heretics are not so much those who confess a false doctrine but those who have a false spiritual life and go along a false spiritual path. Orthodoxy is before all else, not a doctrine, not an external organization, not an external norm of behavior but a spiritual life, a spiritual experience and a spiritual path. It sees the substance of Christianity in internal spiritual activity.

"The Orthodox Church is not defined in rational concepts, it is conceptualized only for those living within it, who are united to its spiritual experience.."

Dear MarMema,

"I would imagine there have been RC members who endured the agony of a stillborn child, or a child who died shortly after birth. What does the church say to them?"

The Catholic Church teaches that we can only know with certainty the fate of those children who were baptized (often, Catholics will attempt to baptize still-born children). The Catholic Church teaches that it is a matter of speculation what happens to unbaptized children. Some have speculated that they do not enjoy the Beatific Vision. Some have speculated that based on Jesus' words, "Suffer the little children to come to Me," and "Unless you become as little children...," that God must find some way for these to enjoy the Beatific Vision.

But that we know with certainty that they do not suffer the punishment reserved for those who commit actual sin.

As far as I know, that's pretty much what the Church teaches. I'll leave it to others to elucidate/correct/augment/detail what I've written.

sitetest

I would imagine there have been RC members who endured the agony of a stillborn child, or a child who died shortly after birth. What does the church say to them?

1) Conditionally baptize the child as soon as it is born (i.e. "If you are still alive, I baptize you in the name of ...")

2) Entrust the child to the mercy of God. The child is at peace and is happy and is not in pain.

3) Meditate upon the fragility and passing quickness of life and think of what we need to do in our own lives should death suddenly come to overtake us.

4) Realize the importance of Baptism and be thankful for our Baptism and the divine filiation it brought about.

Having suffered through a late miscarriage with my wife, wea are confident that God know's best what to do for the child, that he is happy even if he does not see God, that it was better for him and us to have but a brief life in the womb rather than a longer one upon earth, that he knows us and God at least on a natural level and prays for us and is thankful for us giving him life and existence.

I do not trouble myself with speculating fruitlessly on his eternal fate and the specifics of his condition, since I will never know these without a revelation.

Caveat! I am NOT getting back into this fruitless discussion, but...

"So you will see Orthodox Christians posting about representing "the mind of the church". I think the discussions here have often not been fruitful because of the very differences in our nature. RC posters tend to want to copy and paste some one or two writings and call it law. They are rightfully confused when we reject the writings.

The "mind" of the Orthodox Church, however, is expressed in the unity of the Orthodox posters here, from all over the country and world, from different jurisdictions. It is also expressed in the fact that I recently went to Georgia and found the same "mind of the church" there which I find in my parish here. "

Marmema, you have hit the nail precisely on the head! Your experience in Georgia is precisely the same one I have everytime I'm in the old country. This is the problem with any discussion among Romans and Orthodox. I often find it fascinating that when we speak with Eastern Rite Christians whose Churches are in communion with Rome, we often disagree, but we nearly always completely understand each other. Eastern Christianity is in phronema fundamentally different from that in the West. That difference in phronema lies at the base of virtually all of our more obvious and concrete differences. It has been remarked upon before here on FR, but it bears repeating, that in mindset, Orthodoxy has far more in common with Judaism than with any Western Christian Church or ecclesial community.

Who was Peter Mohila?

Ah, you forget that his "Orthodox Confession" was revised by the Council of Jassy to remove the "Latin errors" such as Purgatory - but obviously not original sin! Dr. Schaff says (Creeds of Christendom, Vol. II):

The Orthodox Confession of Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East (also called Catechism from its method) was drawn up by Peter Mogilas, Metropolitan of Kieff, the father of Russian theology (d. 1647), or under his direction, and was revised and adopted by the Græco-Russian Synod at Jassy, 1643, signed by the Eastern Patriarchs, and approved again by the Synod of Jerusalem, 1672. It sets forth the faith of the Eastern Church in distinction both from the Latin and Protestant Churches.

As for the Jerusalem Synod of 1672, was it not convened at the request of the French? Was it not written in Latin?

No, it was written in Greek. See for yourself. And it was called at the request of the French Ambassador, true - because the Calvinists were spreading about that Cyril Lukar's Calvinism (which included, incidentally, the Calvinist/Protestant errors on original sin) was the authentic faith of the Eastern Churches. Hormann, in the The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, says ("JERUSALEM, SYNOD OF, 1672"):

Thus the French Calvinist preacher, Jean Claude, in his controversy on the Eucharist with Nicole and Arnauld, appealed to the older Eastern writers, whose teaching seemed to have been revived by Cyril [Lukar] and his adherents; the Jansenists, supported by the French court, to the orthodox profession of the Greeks. Nectarius (q.v.), patriarch of Jerusalem, published a book against Claude; and his successor Dositheus (q.v.) considered it necessary to take still more formal action, not without pressure from the French ambassador, Olivier de Nointel, who influenced him to call a synod at Jerusalem to refute these accusations of Calvinism. This synod was attended by most of the prominent representatives of the Eastern Church, including six metropolitans besides Dositheus and his retired predecessor, and its decrees received so universal a sanction as to make them more truly an expression of the faith of the Greek Church than any later synod could claim for its own. ... Taken as a whole, the "Shield of Orthodoxy," as the entire pronouncement was entitled, is one of the most important expressions of the faith of the Eastern Church.

Dr. Schaff says:

The Confessio Dosithei presents, in eighteen decrees or articles,132 a positive statement of the orthodox faith. It follows the order of Cyril's Confession, which it is intended to refute. It is the most authoritative and complete doctrinal deliverance of the modern Greek Church on the controverted articles. It was formally transmitted by the Eastern Patriarchs to the Russian Church in 1721, and through it to certain Bishops of the Church of England, as an ultimatum to be received without further question or conference by all who would be in communion with the Orthodox Church.

Does it not contain such alien words to Orthodoxy as "man's complete depravity?"

No, it doesn't. Are you confusing it with Cyril Lukar's "Confession", to which the Synod responded? Total depravity, a heresy of the Calvinists, is rejected by the Synod's Confession: "For it is absurd to say that the nature which was created good by Him who is supremely good lacketh the power of doing good. For this would be to make that nature evil — than which what could be more impious? ... A man, therefore, before he is regenerated, is able by nature to incline to what is good, and to choose and work moral good."

As for the authorty of individual fathers, the authority comes only from inspired works. All others are opinions. The Fathers are not infallible.

Is not the consensus of the holy Fathers to be followed? To say "the authority comes only from inspired works" is practically to say that authority is found in Scripture alone. Nicaea II's Definition of the Faith states that the authority of the Holy Fathers is divinely inspired, and that "the teaching of our holy Fathers ... is the tradition of the Catholic Church".

It was my impression from the sources I found that the Confessio was written in Latin. I stand corrected. Thank you for the link.

"Orthodox Confession" was revised by the Council of Jassy to remove the "Latin errors" such as Purgatory - but obviously not original sin!

Why do Latins not understand that the Orthodox Church does not reject the original sin. The original sin is Adam's personal transgression, which we call "ancestral," to distinguish it from the Augustinian "original sin," which you profess, as guilt we are born with in need of "washing" away. What we inherit from Adam is not his sin, but death that resulted from his sin, and Baptism does not remove that.

Our propensity to sin is inherent in our free will. It was, after all, free will that made Adam's sin possible. And while free will makes us subject to sin, free will also makes us subject to repentence, and rejection of satan. The propensity to sin is in the nature of all rational beings, angels and men.

It was formally transmitted by the Eastern Patriarchs to the Russian Church in 1721

Whichs Patriarchs? All of them? But even if it were all, the calvinist threat made it a necessity. Given the sad state of Orthodoxy under Ottoman yoke, and under pressue from without by Jesuits in Eastern Europe and Uniates from within, and Peter the Great who thought everyting Western was better, and adding the charge that orthodoxy was becoming Calivinist, it is a miracle Orthodoxy survived -- as it is a miracle it survived communism. Historical perspective is always helpful.

The Synod had a duty to wash any suspicion spread by Calvinsits in Europe that the Orthodox were becoming Protestant! As Kolokotronis mentioned, if we find oursleves on a Protestant forum bashing HVM, we would be singing to the same tune! So perhaps in that light one can understand why the Confession appears more acceptable to Latins and why the Orthodox, generally speaking, tend to ignore it.

But, the totality of Orthodox teaching is not an isolated Synod of Metropolitans, in dire politcial and spiritual condition, but rather a continuum of all the pronouncements of the Church in its history. So, again, selective readings do not represent Orthodox "doctrine" just as selective quotes of individual Fathers do not represent what the Church stands for, and just -- as I am reminded -- there is more to the Roman catholic Church than +Augustine.

When we say we are not the same, it is not in the words, individual Fathers, pronouncements, etc. but in that totality which I think MarMema described superbly. We use the same words, but we do not understand them the same way. The word "gay" used to mean something different not so long ago, but it is the same word we use today with a different connotation.

Is not the consensus of the holy Fathers to be followed? In an Ecumenical Council, yes. Individually, Holy Fathers are not infallible.

Nicaea II's Definition of the Faith states that the authority of the Holy Fathers is divinely inspired, and that "the teaching of our holy Fathers ... is the tradition of the Catholic Church

Agree. Nicea II was an Ecumenical Council. And the teaching of the Fathers is a tradition of the Church! That's part of wat they do. :-)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.