Murrin wrote:This post may veer slightly off the current topic.
I know you like to use the argument that the majority of Christianity these days is very far removed from the original faith and the teachings in the bible; I agree with you on that point, and indeed, I agree that Orthodox Christianity is most likely the closest that exists now to the religion as it was understood and practiced back in the 5th century or earlier.
However, while you hold up the reforms and changes that have caused other forms to deviate from the original church as evidence of how they do not represent true christianity, I do not think I've seen you address the same issues as regards Orthodoxy.
There are a number of fundamental tenets of Orthodoxy that were not dictated directly in scripture or through revelation, but were the result of voting by the early ecumenical councils, and subject to the very strong influence of the Byzantine Roman Emperors (sometimes directly, often through their selection of Patriarchs). The veneration of the Theotokos, and the specific nature of the relationships between father, son, and holy spirit, are among those things which came from this influence. Had the balance of power during certain periods of internal struggle in the Eastern Roman Empire been different, the Orthodox church could now hold wildly different opinions on the veneration of icons, to give another easy example. (Sainthood itself is a holdover from the pre-Christian Roman practice of deification of individuals.)
How do you see your faith aligning with these things? Did you consider and simply conclude that you agreed with the interpretation of scripture by the councils? Or do you accept the position of the early church that the voting of an ecumenical council is infallible and guided by god? The latter is a position I would consider difficult to defend, having no more evidence than the claim by the RCC that the decisions of the Pope are infallible.
[I fear I may just be exposing a deeper ignorance in myself with this line of questioning (I admit my own knowledge of the subject doesn't go far), but I hope that you can be provoked to give us a deeper understanding of how you see your own participation in the Orthodox faith.]
I apologize for the delay.
I have come to a place where I simply do not want to debate with people who are sure I am wrong. I'm feeling very tired, and feeling a huge sense of futility with most responses. Having tried for years, with the primary goal, not of absolutely proving, but of establishing that the Christian Tradition is no less reasonable than all of the others being offered for sale, and hitting a denial of even that - even though there is more than enough to establish both strong scholarship and a deep body of apologetics - I feel myself just drifting away and making only a few light posts here and there.
Still, this kind of question - that almost nobody poses - is really worth answering. So I'll do my best, and where there are holes in my knowledge - for I have never claimed to know, or to be able to know, everything about my own faith, and can see that it is quite impossible - there is far too much to know - I'll point to where the better answers may be found.
The first thing I have to do, I suppose, is to not take the assumptions made in your post for granted, Murrin. While it is true that clarity did come about in the wake of the Councils, the practices and understandings had their roots from the beginning, held by some, eventually disputed by others. So the idea that the ideas themselves appeared with Constantine, etc is false. Icons of the Theotokos (and subsequently her veneration) are to be found in underground churches predating Constantine;
www.antiochian.org/assets/word/MARCH2008WORD.pdf (an eye-witness story, pg 14)
Also, your idea of sainthood being a mere copy of Roman ideas is assertion, and I'd say the truth is rather the other way around. The assumption that they MUST have looked for pagan ideas to copy ignores the holistic view of what exactly salvation is. A saint is not some random idea cherry-picked from previous pagan ideas; a saint is the very thing that we are supposed to become. Anyone could become a saint in any age. Even
I could, although I sincerely doubt it.
But you ARE right that things could have been wildly different. But they are not. They are what they are. The 'balance of power' had other things besides the human forces arrayed on them. Logically, from the standpoint of earthly power, the Arians
should have won. They had the money and the people in power on their side. Yet they did not. The dogma established was that of the Trinitarian God - which, again, had been held from the beginning.
So as to your questions, I find that I can accept Orthodox teaching with my mind because I do find that in general I agree - but do not hold the authority to be valid
because I happen to agree. I have found my private opinions to be wrong before (on the nature of Confession, for example).
Were the Councils full of fallible humans? Of course. Could they nevertheless be divinely guided? Of course. That is the nature of the thing called the Church - a ship full of error-prone and sin-ridden humans (who at least realize that they are ill) that is divinely guided.
If you hold Papal infallibility on the same level, I can see why you would find the position of accepting the Councils difficult to defend. Yet they are not. Papal infallibility ex cathedra is an incredibly late doctrine, necessitated within the RCC by the logic of its theology, which eschews earthly collegiality in favor of a system where one man actually rules - a major difference from the Orthodox Church.
The most helpful book I can think of is Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Church" - written by a neophyte to Orthodoxy 50 years ago (who is now a metropolitan by the name of Kallistos) has shown itself to be a classic for English speakers, with a thorough and yet graspable layout of the Church's history and practices. Buy or borrow; abridged excerpts here:
www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/englis ... ware_1.htm
I realize that all of that "proves" nothing - but for a grasp of the POV, it would put you head and shoulders above everybody else. Any Orthodox Christian will probably tell you that in the end, the faith is not a mere intellectual proposition; that it must be experienced, and so nothing would beat actually going to a service (with a little advance 'heads-up':
www.frederica.com/12-things/ ). Still, for an intellectual understanding, it's a start (from there you'd have to do things like start wading through the ante-Nicene Church fathers to see how this stuff is historically supported and how the practices did not actually appear out of thin air in the 4th century.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." Bill Hingest ("That Hideous Strength" by C.S. Lewis)
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
)
).
)
