Replies

Last evening you posted this:

"Have never felt particularly compelled to explain the vagaries of Orthodoxy at all.

But since pressed . . .

I think the indiosyncracies of individuals and social groups are more than sufficient to explain the vagaries of Orthodoxy."

What exactly do you see as the "vagaries" of Orthodoxy? The theology and praxis, liturgical and otherwise, haven't changed in any material respect in about 2000 years, so I am assuming you don't mean that. Orthodoxy spans a rather broad range of cultures and social groups, who all believe the exact same thing and while there are very small differences in praxis, differences that it is likely only an Orthodox would notice, nothing of any consequence. Perhaps I misunderstand your use of the term "vagaries"?

My question had to do with your apparent agreement with FK's assertion that the medieval Latin practice of keeping the scriptures out of the hands of the laity somehow affected the theology and praxis of the Latin Church. Since Orthodoxy never did that, how does one explain virtually the same theology and liturgical practice in Orthodoxy as one sees in the Roman Church. Is it possible that the old Latin practice, as lamentable as it may seem today and indeed may well have been then, really had absolutely nothing to do with the state of the theology or liturgical praxis of that church?

Is it possible that the old Latin practice, as lamentable as it may seem today and indeed may well have been then, really had absolutely nothing to do with the state of the theology or liturgical praxis of that church?

= = =

I can agree with that, I think, fairly wholesale.

By vagaries . . . maybe I should have said congregational distinctives.

I don't care how homogeneous a doctrine is . . . even rules and bylaws . . . each congregation will have it's own distintives of greater or lesser importance.

Freud's IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP stuff still functions in spite of all of us--far too often and far too much.

And those not exactly like us--and who is--especially group-wise-- are suspect in at least a few ways.

Perhaps the Orthodox have preserved more healthiness significantly than the Roman system. I believe that's true. Have always gotten on well with those Orthodox believers in my social network.

I just know that the older organizations are and the larger they are, the more deadly they tend to become--to individuals . . . and, imho, to The Gospel.

the old Latin practice, as lamentable as it may seem today and indeed may well have been then, really had absolutely nothing to do with the state of the theology or liturgical praxis of that church?

There was always some material in the vernacular present; however, the Church in the West operated amindst a variety of tongues and principalities and so faced challenges that Byzantium and later the Russian Empire did not have. In that, the liturgical Latin served a salutary role as a guarantee of proper doctrine being taught, and not some ethnic variations of it.

[Kolo to Quix:] My question had to do with your apparent agreement with FK's assertion that the medieval Latin practice of keeping the scriptures out of the hands of the laity somehow affected the theology and praxis of the Latin Church. Since Orthodoxy never did that, how does one explain virtually the same theology and liturgical practice in Orthodoxy as one sees in the Roman Church. Is it possible that the old Latin practice, as lamentable as it may seem today and indeed may well have been then, really had absolutely nothing to do with the state of the theology or liturgical praxis of that church?

I don't really remember this being my point, although my words may have implied it. What I remember focusing on was the idea that keeping scriptures away from the laity was evidence that a hierarchy believed that a "free" reading of the scriptures would lead to theology not in concert with that of the hierarchy. I was contrasting that to our position, which has always been to greatly encourage all people to read as much scripture as they can. Simple teaching can take care of questions, apparent Biblical contradictions, etc.

I realize that this does not make your point go away. LOL! So, perhaps in this light the RCs have a point that the Orthodox did not face the same "market competition" that they faced. (I don't know, I've just seen that said.) Anyway, if that is true, then Orthodoxy simply wouldn't qualify for the comparison. If it's true that the vast majority of Orthodox of that time were never even exposed to other interpretations, then the hierarchy could be confident of the laity taking an Orthodox interpretation.

So, my supposition was that the RCC of the time feared that, with Protestantism out there, people reading the Bible on their own would come to Protestant conclusions. The answer was apparently that the hierarchy greatly discouraged the reading of scripture. That says a lot to me because it implies a defenseless scripture. I, of course, hold the opposite view that scripture is invincible. :)