ORthodox perspective of Traditionalist Catholics
#89
(05-14-2012, 08:25 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(05-14-2012, 03:10 PM)Parmandur Wrote: And they claim to not accept the Immaculate Conception, but listen to a hymn about the Theotokos sometime.  Or ask a Russian priest if Mary was guilty of sin, and see if you get punched in the face.  They are implicitly orthodox on these points.

In this regard, its the original sin aspect of that dogma. They began rejecting our understanding of original sin in the 19th century or so, during their period of intense purging of what they believed were Latin corruptions (since the doctrine on original sin was developed in the West in response to Pelagianism, out it went).  But it was not always so. For example, at the pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672, they teach original sin as we do (even citing St. Augustine).

As an aside, there's a similar phenomenon with indulgences, which they now deny.  At the pan-Orthodox Councils of Constantinople in 1727 and 1838 indulgences were affirmed. But now, they'll deny it. Same with Purgatory--it was affirmed in the strongest language by folks like their anti-Roman hero Mark of Ephesus (he only denied their being physical fire, but not the pain, etc.) and early explanations of toll-booths are consistent with our idea of purgatory (toll-booths merely being a symbol for the exacting of satisfaction; later explanations have generally gone too far, however making demons into judges instead of Our Lord).  

Even the primacy has been affirmed on and off--usually in a sedeprivationist way (ie, the Pope fell away from the Church by professing the Filioque, but if he returns to "orthodoxy" he will have the primacy again).  For example, Orthodox saint, Symeon of Thessalonica (a 15th century monk) said:

“One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If this is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff...Let the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Saviour Himself" (Meyendorff, J., ed., the Primacy of Peter, 1992, SVSP: Crestwood, p. 86).


And those teachings really aren't that problematic today except that they are considered dogmatic by the Latin Church. I don't think it's really accurate to say we "began" to reject your teachings on these things in the 19th century. We began to speak using western theological paradigms in the 17th century because of a number of factors such as Jesuit influence, the influence of western culture in Peter's Russia, our first encounters with Protestantism and the fact that many Orthodox nobles and clergy were educated in western institutions.

It was in the 19th century that we began to reject those recently acquired paradigms and move to a more traditional understanding.  :)
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: ORthodox perspective of Traditionalist Catholics - by Silouan - 05-14-2012, 10:59 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)