Why not Eastern Orthodoxy?

Pontifications ^ | 6/09/2005 | Al Kimel? uncertain

[sionnsar]

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.

But two features in particular gave me pause.

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:

The most damaging consequence, however, of Orthodoxy’s twentieth-century pilgrimage ad fontes—and this is no small irony, given the ecumenical possibilities that opened up all along the way—has been an increase in the intensity of Eastern theology’s anti-Western polemic. Or, rather, an increase in the confidence with which such polemic is uttered. 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. More to the point here, though, it has made intelligent interpretations of Western Christian theology (which are so very necessary) apparently almost impossible for Orthodox thinkers. Neo-patristic Orthodox scholarship has usually gone hand in hand with some of the most excruciatingly inaccurate treatments of Western theologians that one could imagine—which, quite apart form the harm they do to the collective acuity of Orthodox Christians, can become a source of considerable embarrassment when they fall into the hands of Western scholars who actually know something of the figures that Orthodox scholars choose to caluminiate. When one repairs to modern Orthodox texts, one is almost certain to encounter some wild mischaracterization of one or another Western author; and four figures enjoy a special eminence in Orthodox polemics: Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and John of the Cross.

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.

(cont)

[kosta50]

Interesting indeed, since this is what I was taught in RC schools while growing up

If we are born deprived of Grace as the RCC teaches, then the absence of Grace must be God's will, or otherwise the Immaculate Conception was an accident.

[kosta50]

Do you honestly think an average member of your Church really understands that? Saying that she is the cause of all blessings is different from saying that all blessings were made possible through her bearing God as a Man. This kind of language does not favor serious involvement of laity in ecclesiastical issues.

[kosta50]

No, there were no legates

How could Rome recognize it as Ecumenical then?

In other words, there must be another formula. Constantinople I was followed by the Council of Ephesus (papal legates arrived late), which confirmed the statements of Constantinople I.

Could it be that the Pope or his legate was invited to Constantinople I but never made it? The Latins seem to think that just inviting the Orthodox is sufficient to make a council "ecumenical." Or, simply declare the Orthodox as schismatics and don't bother calling them!

[Agrarian]

Goodness, Kosta, the Orthdox services are positively chock-full of that kind of language, and not just about the Theotokos, but of all the saints. One can choose to take them the wrong way, but only if one is a Sola Scriptura Protestant. And to scrub our services to make them unoffensive to Sola Scriptura Protestants would require something far more radical than Vatican II.

Consider the feast for tomorrow, of the Martyr Aquilina. I went straight to the first troparion of the first Ode of her canon, written in the 800's by St. Joseph the hymnographer. It is as follows:

Thou, O all-glorious one,
dost truly stand in the heavens before Christ, thy Bridegroom.
Wherefore, by thy supplications, O honored one,
do thou glorify those on earth who piously glorify thee,
and with thee make them partakers of glory who chant:
For gloriously is He glorified!

You ask if our average parishioner would understand this hymn correctly. I most absolutely do. Our parishioners are constantly attending the services of the Church. They love them: cradle and convert alike.

It frankly is impossible to regularly attend the services, hear the hymns and prayers in their full context, and come away with the idea that the Theotokos and the other saints are being worshipped and put on a level with God.

I seriously doubt that our churches would be filling with converts from conservative Protestantism if they believed that the Orthodox Church was saying by this hymn that St. Aquilina is "all-glorious" in the sense that she is as glorious as God, that she personally "glorifies us on earth" by her own power, and that she personally "makes us partakers in glory."

And as to the cradle Orthodox -- well, we converts learned our understanding of these things from them... I think that the most simple Russian or Greek peasant hearing the words of these hymns knew that Jesus is God and the Theotokos isn't, and interpreted the hymns in that light, just as we do today.

There have been a few converts, particularly some of the early Evangelical Orthodox, who wanted to change the ancient language of the Church in this regard to make it more acceptable to Protestant ears, but fortunately, they have been roundly ignored.

[kosta50]

Agrarian, I don't propose making anything in Orthodoxy Protestant-friendly. I am interested in objective knowledge of the Church, separating the art, the faith, the tradition, the trend...

I don't for a moment believe that any even "marginally" Orthodox believer would for a moment think -- based on the teaching of the Church -- that Theotokos is anything even close to God, but rather a model human being.

But the extent of veneration that sometimes borders on worship, at least in the language if not in the intent, and the whole Marian devotion -- even her assumption -- is not something that can be easily glazed over and not detect that Mary's sainthood and veneration were neither part of the primitive Church's phronema, nor internal or external teaching.

Saints in the early Church were only martyrs. To the best of my knowledge none of the 2nd and 3rd century Fathers called her a Saint, nor did any one of them mention her assumption. Jesus Himself never called her His "Mother" but simply a "woman." One can speculate as to the cultural and social makeup of the male-dominated patriarchal Jewish society, but shouldn't we -- in the fashion of our Lord -- call our mothers "woman?" Rather this custom, revealed in the Scriptures, is ignored in our society, thus one begins to wonder which custom was selectively retained and which selectively discarded.

Customs in themselves do not have a significant effect on the faith, but customs that actually morph into faith are in themselves dangerous corruptions. Unfortunately, human memory is short so we do not have a clear idea as to when and where each custom developed.

To the contrary, we call ourselves 'ancient' and 'unchanging.' But the fact is we have changed -- anywhere from our Liturgy (5th century) to Palamite organization of the Church (13th century). We have gone through numerous heresies as well.

The Symbol of Faith calls Mary Theotokos. The words chosen are not accidental, because -- although the implication of motherhood is there -- the Fathers wisely realized that eternal God does not have a mother, but that the pristine vessel of Mary's womb served to Incarnate God as man. So, she was wisely named the "Bearer of God" -- and not the Mother of God, as the Latins translate.

I am curious as to who was the first to call her a saint and who and when was the first to say that she was assumed into heaven body and soul. Surely, the Epistles of the NT -- most if not all written after her death (some estimates are 48 AD) -- do not, and there seems to be no clear consensus of the Church on this issue at all for a few hundred years.

Don't get me wrong: I would like to be able to see that what the early Church professed and confessed was the same with regard to Mary as we do today, but our memories are short and simply because something is "ancient" in our eyes (don't you know -- grandparents were always old!) does not mean it was there from the beginning and was not invented or added as the memories faded and legends survived.

[Kolokotronis]

I was taught the same thing in Catholic School, though the classrooms were lit with oil lamps so it was a long time ago! :)

[Kolokotronis]

"I think that the most simple Russian or Greek peasant hearing the words of these hymns knew that Jesus is God and the Theotokos isn't, and interpreted the hymns in that light, just as we do today."

We peasants, or their children and grandchildren, still do! I, personally, even as a child, was never confused about this, and I doubt, Kosta, that you were either. :)

[kosta50]

I, personally, even as a child, was never confused about this, and I doubt, Kosta, that you were either

I made sure, lest I be misunderstood, to insert second paragraph in my post #64

I don't for a moment believe that any even "marginally" Orthodox believer would for a moment think -- based on the teaching of the Church -- that Theotokos is anything even close to God, but rather a model human being.

But others reading our words are difficult to convince we are not practicing idolatry. We could of course dismiss it and go about our way, but that's not the purpose of the believers, is it?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

"O cause of all blessings" is supplication? One wonders indeed at which point does veneration morph into worship! And all along I though God was the cause and source of everything and all, especially all blessings.

I can see why the Protestants cringe, and I must say so do I, at the words of such supplications.

The words mean that Christ has willed that no blessings come to us except through the intercession of Blessed Mary.

Mary is the proximate cause of all blessings, while Christ is the source and remote cause.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

You also deny that the RCC teaches that in the Purgatory the unrepented sins are "paid off" with indulgencies,

Yes. Indulgences "pay" for unperformed penances. They have nothing to do with the remission of sins. No indulgence can remit even the slightest sin.

The Baltimore Catechims No. 4:

232 Q. Is an indulgence a pardon of sin, or a license to commit sin?
A. An indulgence is not a pardon of sin, nor a license to commit sin, and one who is in a state of mortal sin cannot gain an indulgence.

and that deprated souls are in physical and spiritual torment until God is satisfied?

It is not a matter of satisfying God, as if He is in need, but perfecting us. We cannot fuly enter into bliss while the remains of venial sin or penances remain upon us, while such things also do not merit damnation. To look at it as satisfaction, look at it as satisfying God's desire for us to be perfect (St. Matthew 5.48) and follow His Holy Will (St. Matthew 6.10).

The Baltimore Catechism No. 4:

414. Q. What is Purgatory?
A. Purgatory is the state in which those suffer for a time who die guilty of venial sins, or without having satisfied for the punishment due to their sins.

"Punishment,"--that is, temporal punishment, already explained to you. ... Those in Purgatory are the friends of God; and knowing Him as they do now, they would not go into His holy presence with the slightest stain upon their souls; still they are anxious for their Purgatory to be ended that they may be with God. They suffer, we are told, the same pains of sense as the damned; but they suffer willingly, for they know that it is making them more pleasing to God, and that one day it will all be over and He will receive them into Heaven. Their salvation is sure, and that thought makes them happy.

As to Temporal Punishment, the Baltimore Catechism No. 4 also cogently explains:

218. Q. Why does the priest give us a penance after confession?
A. The priest gives us a penance after confession, that we may satisfy God for the temporal punishment due to our sins.

"Temporal Punishment," Every sin has two punishments attached to it. one called the eternal and the other the temporal. Let me explain by an example. If I, turning highway robber, waylay a man, beat him and steal his watch, I do him, as you see, a double injury, and deserve a double punishment for the twofold crime of beating and robbing him. He might pardon me for the injuries caused by the beating, but that would not free me from the obligation of restoring to him his watch or its value, for the fact that he forgives me for the act of stealing does not give me the right to keep what justly belongs to him. Now, when we sin against God we in the first place insult Him, and secondly rob Him of what is deservedly His due; namely, the worship, respect, obedience, love, etc., that we owe Him as our Creator, Preserver, and Redeemer.

In the Sacrament of Penance God forgives the insult offered by sinning, but requires us to make restitution for that of which the sin has deprived Him. ... after performing the penance the priest gives you in the confessional, it is wise to impose upon yourself other light penances in keeping with your age and condition, but never undertake severe penances or make religious vows and promises without consulting your confessor. In every case be careful first of all to perform the penance imposed upon you in the reception of the Sacrament.

220. Q. Why does God require a temporal punishment as a satisfaction for sin?
A. God requires a temporal punishment as a satisfaction for sin to teach us the great evil of sin, and to prevent us from failing again.

221. Q. Which are the chief means by which we satisfy God for the temporal punishment due to sin?
A. The chief means by which we satisfy God for the temporal punishment due to sin are: prayer, fasting, almsgiving, all spiritual and corporal works of mercy, and the patient suffering of the ills of life.

"Chief," but not the only means. "Fasting," especially the fasts imposed by the Church-in Lent for instance. Lent is the forty days before Easter Sunday during which we fast and pray to prepare ourselves for the resurrection of Our Lord, and also to remind us of His own fast of forty days before His Passion. "Almsgiving"--that is, money or goods given to the poor. "Spiritual" works of mercy are those good works we do for persons' souls. "Corporal" works of mercy are those we do for their bodies. "Ills of life"--sickness or poverty or misfortune, especially when we have not brought them upon ourselves by sin.

Temporal Punishment is not some superaddatory punishment because Christ's death on the Cross was not fully sufficient to atone for sin. Nor is it a means of slacking God's "anger" at our sin. Our own confession does that, by turning us from the creature and to God, so that we are no longer projecting our wrath at the demands of His Holy Law upon Him. Temporal Punishment gives back to God that which is His due in our lives - "love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with all thy strength and with all thy mind" (St. Luke 10.27, Deuteronomy 6.5), and which we stole from him by imparting some of it to wickedness.

Temporal Punishment is a means of perfection by turning us back to God after sin, and warding us away from sinning again.

Its dissapointing to hear that Catholic Schools are not able to inculcate such basic lessons from the Catechism, and that instead children are learning typical Protestant calumnies about paying off sins with indulgences, and heresies like God the torturer.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

In other words, there must be another formula. Constantinople I was followed by the Council of Ephesus (papal legates arrived late), which confirmed the statements of Constantinople I.

The Council of Ephesus clearly did not recognize Constantinople I. This is readily seen by reading the definition of Faith, which knows only the Council of Nicaea:

Definition of the faith at Nicaea [6th session 22 July 431]

The synod of Nicaea produced this creed:

We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the holy Spirit.

And those who say "there once was when he was not", and "before he was begotten he was not", and that he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis or substance, affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematises.

It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way.

When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.

1. It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.

2. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.

3. In the same way if any should be discovered, whether bishops, clergy or laity, thinking or teaching the views expressed in his statement by the priest Charisius about the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God or the disgusting, perverted views of Nestorius, which underlie them, these should be subject to the condemnation of this holy and ecumenical synod. A bishop clearly is to be stripped of his bishopric and deposed, a cleric to be deposed from the clergy, and a lay person is to be anathematised, as was said before.

How could Rome recognize it as Ecumenical then?

Well, first, because the Council of Chalcedon and subsequent Councils recognized its creed as the authoritative enlargement of the Nicene Creed quote above. Second, for reasons of peace between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, Rome gave full recognition to this Council and its Canons, including Canon 3: "Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome" at what we style the 8th Ecumenical Council, or the Ignatian Synod.

The Roman Catholic position is that Rome determines what is or is not an Ecumenical Council either by acceptance of its acts and definitions by the Pope or His Legates on the spot, or by subsequent recognition. This is why the Latrocinium is not an Ecumenical Synod, while the Council of Chalcedon is - the Legates voided the former with their famous "Non possumus!" and Pope Leo rejected it by branding it the "Latrocinium" and accepted the later upon the acclaim of the Holy Fathers "Peter has spoken through Leo, anathema to those who think otherwise!"

[MarMema]

The words mean that Christ has willed that no blessings come to us except through the intercession of Blessed Mary.

Not to me.

[MarMema]

but that's not the purpose of the believers, is it?

Kosta, I found it interesting that you used the word "believers" in your post. This is the word used in Georgia by most Orthodox. And there it means "Orthodox" and is synonomous with being actively involved in the church. Is this a word you have found in use elsewhere?

Pardon my ignorance. I had not encountered it prior to visiting Georgia.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Saints in the early Church were only martyrs.

St. John was not a martyr.

To the best of my knowledge none of the 2nd and 3rd century Fathers called her a Saint, nor did any one of them mention her assumption.

As I noted in #50, "At the end of [the third] century, Patriarch Theonas of Alexandria built the first real church for local Christians (who prior to that time were accustomed to assemble in homes and cemeteries) and called it the Church of St Mary Virgin and Mother of God".

Jesus Himself never called her His "Mother" but simply a "woman."

"After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother." (St. John 19.27)

The Symbol of Faith calls Mary Theotokos. The words chosen are not accidental, because -- although the implication of motherhood is there -- the Fathers wisely realized that eternal God does not have a mother, but that the pristine vessel of Mary's womb served to Incarnate God as man. So, she was wisely named the "Bearer of God" -- and not the Mother of God, as the Latins translate.

The Slavs also so translate, saying "Mater Boha" for "Mother of God" and "Bohorodytsa" for "Theotokos". Aren't there also instances of the words "Mater Theou" in the Greek Liturgy? The Hymn to the Theotokos in the Liturgy reads: "It is truly meet to bless you, O Theotokos. Ever blessed, and most pure, and the Mother of our God." Its unclear what sort of point you are trying to draw out of this meaningless distinction except perhaps some sly Nestorianism.

In any case, we do have a functionally equivalent translation we also use - Deipara.

[MarMema]

simply because something is "ancient" in our eyes (don't you know -- grandparents were always old!) does not mean it was there from the beginning and was not invented or added as the memories faded and legends survived.

I tend to disagree when the focus is eastern orthodoxy.

"Ancient" is usually going to be more credible than anything in this century. Look at Kolokotronis - he's pretty darn credible.

[katnip]

The words mean that Christ has willed that no blessings come to us except through the intercession of Blessed Mary.

I was raised RC, 12 years of Catholic school, Baltimore Catechism and I was NEVER taught such a thing. Nor have I been taught that in the EO church.

[jb6]

The most damaging consequence, however, of Orthodoxy’s twentieth-century pilgrimage ad fontes—and this is no small irony, given the ecumenical possibilities that opened up all along the way—has been an increase in the intensity of Eastern theology’s anti-Western polemic. Or, rather, an increase in the confidence with which such polemic is uttered

I imagine it has a lot to do with the present state of perversion in the Western churches and the spiritual rebirth in the Eastern Church.

[jb6]

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?

And yet even without one conviened the Orthodox Church has survived 4 times as long since the last Ecomunical Council then the Anglicans as a whole. Conservatism vs the spirit of the day has prevailed and will continue to do just that until the Second Coming.

[jb6]

Don't forget the Just War Augstine concept, something that our Church has always rejected.

[gbcdoj]

If we are born deprived of Grace as the RCC teaches

And don't the Orthodox teach that too? At any rate, St. John Chrysostom seemed to think so:

Speak now, speak, let us listen. In the end of your work about which we now think upon, that is, in the newest part of the fourth book, "Saint John" - you say - "of Constantinople denies that original sin is in infants. As you see in this homily, he holds this about the baptized: 'Blessed' - he says - 'God who alone made miracles, who alone made the universe, and converts the universe. Behold how they are brought home to the serenity of liberty who were held a short time before as captives, and that they are citizens of the Church who were in the error of wandering, and that they are made just in lot who were in the confusion of sin. For they are not only free, but also holy, not only holy, but also just, not only just, but also sons, not only sons, but also heirs, not only heirs, but also brothers of Christ, not only brothers of Christ, but also co-heirs, not only co-heirs, but also members, not only members, but also a temple, not only a temple, but also organs of the Spirit. You see how many are the benefits of Baptism: and let no one think that the celestial grace consists only in the remission of sins: we however have computed ten honors. For this reason we also baptize infants; although they are not contaminated by sin, in order that holiness, justice, adoption, heredity, and the brotherhood of Christ may be added to them, and so that they may be his members'". ... I put the very Greek words themselves which were said by John: Dia touto kai ta paidia baptizomen kai toi amartemata ouk ekonta which is in Latin: "And therefore, we baptize infants, altough not having sins". You certainly see that "infants are not polluted by sin" is not said by him, but rather "sins" or that "they do not have sins": Understand rightly, and there is no contention. (St. Augustine, Against Julian, Defender of the Pelagian Heresy, Book I, 6, 21-22)