Letter exchange with a friend who is thinking of becoming Orthodox

Hi Rasha,

What's up man? I haven't talked to you in a long time. What are you doing these days? Still going to school?
So I've thought about you recently because I have some friends that became Orthodox. You met the girl one time, they used to go to XXXXXXXX Melkite Church. Well a little over a year ago they joined the Orthodox Church. They usually go to XXXXX Orthodox Church but they actually sometimes go XXXXX Orthodox Church by XXXXXXX. I've been reading up on the differences between the Churches and have started to struggle with a few points myself. I know that you have studied Eastern Catholic stuff a lot and figure that you picked up Orthodox stuff too. Most of my Catholic friends aren't well-enough read in this area and can't seem to help me.
I think the first point I had an issue with was their view of Original Sin and therefore the Immaculate Conception. It makes more sense to me and seems more consistent with Scripture to say that, yes, we do suffer from the effects of Adam's sin but we aren't guilty of Original Sin. We are only responsible for what sins we personally commit. If this is the case, then the Immaculate Conception doesn't make sense. Then as I've studied I've had questions regarding the Filioque and the papal claims. I've started to wonder if the papal claims were just a historical development. I feel like I've heard all of the arguments from the Catholic side regarding the scriptural texts and now that I've heard a different approach to them I'm not as convinced by Catholic arguments.
Are there any points that you have struggled with, wondering if the Orthodox Church has the better approach? I'm curious to hear if you have any thoughts.

ANONYMOUS

------------------------------------------------
MY RESPONSE:

Hey, what's up, ANONYMOUS. Good to hear from you.
This is a good question that you brought up. Honestly I have not researched the issue, but I am glad you did because now I have something to obsess about.
It's unfortunate that most Catholic conservatives and traditionalists are not interested in talking about substantial issues but they would rather talk about what chapel veil to wear or other superficial things such as that. The other approach they have is to go to their "experts" such as Fr. Corapi or some other EWTN celeb and then just parrot what they hear from them without going to the original sources.

The first question I would ask is what is the official position of the Orthodox Church on original sin. In other words, what official document do they cite to explain what they believe about this issue? If it is just a matter of Orthodox theologians saying this or that, or citing this or that Church Father, than that is a lot different then if they actually cite a council and especially an Ecumenical Council for their belief. The second question is how authoritative is this document in their belief system? Do all of the Orthodox Churches adhere to it?

For example if someone wants the answer to the Catholic view all they need to do is look at the dogmatic definitions, where can one go to find what the Orthodox Church official teaches on the matter?

The first place I would look is in the Denzinger.
If you don't have one, buy it!: http://www.amazon.com/Sources-Catholic-Dogma-Henry-Denzinger/dp/1930278225
It is also here online: but it is hard to navigate: http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php

I always found it ironic that the need to convoke Ecumenical Councils to clarify doctrinal issues ended the same time as the schism. If you ask an Orthodox what their view is on the Icons they will cite the Second Council of Nicea (infallible ecumenical council) but if you ask them what their view on grace is they will cite some work of Gregory Palamas which is not authoritative at all.

I would say that the problem in the Orthodox Church is that it really is not "One". The Orthodox themselves speak of the "undivided Church" of the first millenium. To call it that seems to me an admission on their part that they think the Church is divided. The Church cannot be divided, because one of the attributes of the Church is that it is "One"......

I think the first place to start is the question, "Did God leave an infallible means for us to know the Truth?" There must be some infallible source for us to know how to interpret scripture and in fact to know what scripture itself is. The Church is a "City on a Hill" therefore God must have given the world an infallible source so that the ordinary folk do not have to learn Latin and Greek and figure out every single doctrine. Once that issue is figured out then we will have an easier time going into other issues. There are even some Church Fathers that held wacky positions on some issues like re-baptism, but Church fathers are not infallible.

I think what illustrates this point is that one of my friends told me that when he first debated Jehovah's Witnesses on the Divinity of Christ from the scripture alone, it was very difficult. The idea that the Orthodox have of every bishop being equal is illogical. If every bishop is equal who convokes a council? And if every bishop is equal why do they have Patriarchs? I read some Orthodox works on Ecclesiology back in the day and their teaching on that is really fuzzy. Their theologians cannot agree on what the definition of the Church is.
Where a lot of Catholics go wrong is following Cardinal Newman's "development of doctrine". Those people will tell you that the Papacy was a development and that is OKAY because that is the way things work. Newman's ideas are very problematic and some of those ideas were actually condemned in the syllabus against the modernists. When St. John died, the whole deposit of the faith was there, there is no development of actual doctrine after that. Explanations of doctrine may develop, but not doctrine itself. I have read a lot of stuff on this issue, most of the problems in the Church today stem from Newman's development of doctrine theory (which by the way was written when he was Anglican). Newman taught that the deposit of faith did not end with St. John.
In my opinion, Newman's theory is heretical, althougth I don't believe he was a formal heretic. His "development of doctrine" theory comes up in discussions about Catholic vs. Orthodox and unfortunately Catholics use that to defend the Catholic view.
That is too bad that you friends became Orthodox. Unfortunately I have some problems with the fuzzy teaching in the Melkite Church. They seem (on the unofficial level) to hold the belief that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Chuch are equally the true Church or that the Church is divided and needs to be reconstructed. Since this position is illogical, it is no wonder that some Melkites go over to Orthodoxy.

Thanks for your email and I would like to dig deeper into this Original Sin issue. Do you have a link to what the Orthodox Church actually teaches in this regard?

Later,
RASHA

Here is an email to an EENS friend that I asked for advice on how to deal with this guy about:

Dear Rasha,

I think your answer is certainly a good start. The matter of ecumenical councils and their criteria is one I've not heard intelligently answered by an Orthodox.

Regarding resources, I can point to these articles on the SBC site. Mind you, the original sin material is defending the dogma against modern liberals, not Orthodox, who tend to hold a semi-pelagian view as part of their anti-Augustinianism.

http://catholicism.org/defense-original-sin.html

http://catholicism.org/pelagius-lives.html

On the filioque, we offer this small piece:

http://catholicism.org/filioque.html

I also call to your attention the work of Joe Gallegos. He has some good patristic stuff, which would help with someone reading Orthodox materials.

Original Sin
The Church Fathers with varying degress of recognition affirmed Original Sin. That is, Adam lost holiness and justice on account of his transgression. He fell out of communion with God. This one sin was propagated, not through imitation, so that it dwells in all and is proper to each.


(He thus introduces the subject. In case the words "Original Sin" were not hyperlinked, here is the URL:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/osin.htm

Gallegos' site has a gold mine of material on it.

Finally, I can recommend the book by Vladimir Soloviev, The Russian Church and the Papacy:

http://store.catholicism.org/the-russian-church-and-the-papacy.html

It's a fantastic read. I hope all this works!

Thanks,

ANONYMOUS EENS-er