Responding to comments on the April 16th blog
I agree with what Wayne said in his comments concerning the unity of Orthodoxy-- indeed, it was well said.
What makes Orthodoxy unified is that all of these churches share the same faith and are in full communion with each other. Of course there are differences of opinion regarding a number of issues, but to say that this constitutes the same sort of disunity that characterizes Protestantism is simply false and a gross mischaracterization.I merely want to say to Tim, with the fear of oversimplifiying, that, on the subject of unity, to criticize Rome is one thing; to criticize Orthodoxy is entirely another. Tim's comments seem focused on Rome alone, and as such, are quite simply irrelevant to the dicussion of Orthodoxy's unity. (Unless of course the subject is dealing with the Great Schism, or the relation of dogma between Rome and Orthodoxy, etc.)
Rome has fettered itself with many, what I would call, lead-weights, some starting even before 1054 A.D. Some "lead weights": *Adding the Filioque *the Papacy *Dogmatizing certain Aristotelian metaphysics *The Crusades *radical Mariology *Trent *Vatican II
Praise be to God that Orthodoxy has not fell prey to such movements and ideas. However, the point is not to say that Orthodoxy is free from problems, but just to point out that when one fights Orthodoxy by beating up on Rome, one is certainly taking on the weaker opponent.
Posted by jeremy stock at April 17, 2002 06:33 PMI merely want to say to Tim, with the fear of oversimplifiying, that, on the subject of unity, to criticize Rome is one thing; to criticize Orthodoxy is entirely another.Too true. I am not very familiar with Orthodoxy but I am an ex-Roman Catholic so I speak from what I know. Posted by: Tim Etherington at April 18, 2002 03:01 PM
Orthodoxy hasn't fallen prey to error?
Gnosticism, Arianism, monophysitism, duophysitism, etc. didn't originate in Rome or the Latin church. One of the primary reasons Rome gained ascendancy among the five patriarchates was because it was the only one that was consistently orthodox in its theology through all the theological controversies of the early church.
The Orthodox ought the thank God daily that there were (and are) theologians in the West willing to positively define doctrine so that the errors that originated in the East could be put down.
Posted by: Martin at April 18, 2002 11:16 PMMartin,
For the record, I did not say that Orthodoxy was "free from error." I did say:
Praise be to God that Orthodoxy has not fell prey to such movements and ideas. However, the point is not to say that Orthodoxy is free from problems, but just to point out that when one fights Orthodoxy by beating up on Rome, one is certainly taking on the weaker opponent.By "such movements and ideas," I was referring to the "lead weights" of Romanism.
I find it curious that you chose Arianism, Monophysitism, Gnosticism, et cetera as examples of Orthodoxy falling prey to error. It does not seem to follow that because the East had to deal with the inception of numerous heretical sects that that was a result of Orthodoxy falling into error.
Furthermore, you'll note that the first 5 (at least four; I don't recall exactly) of the 7 Ecumenical Councils were prodominantly comprised of Eastern Fathers (in some cases by wide margins). So I would argue that even if what you say is true concerning the inception of these heresies, they were dealt with appropriately and, it seems, by the Eastern Fathers who saw their inception.
One quick further note. My position is not, nor has it been that Orthodoxy is free from errors. I do agree, as do Orthodox, that where there is human involvement, there will be sin and error. This fact does not preclude however the possibility of the Holy Spirit preserving His faith through the Apostolic line of Orthodoxy.
Posted by: jeremy at April 19, 2002 06:34 AMTim,
It's funny in one sense because in certain ways Rome and the East are very similar. In other ways, very dissimilar.
But doesn't this just make it all more fun and interesting? ;)
Posted by: jeremy at April 19, 2002 06:43 AMIt's funny in one sense because in certain ways Rome and the East are very similar. In other ways, very dissimilar.Yea, you guys always trip me up. I want to stuff you into my Roman Catholic theological box, but you won't fit. Maybe if I just folded your ears back, applied a bit of duct tape, used a plainer to get some of the edges squared up.... Posted by: Tim Etherington at April 20, 2002 10:28 PMBut doesn't this just make it all more fun and interesting? ;)