I've been active at Christian discussion forums for about 20 years.... and I've noticed, that there tend to be precious few
Eastern Orthodox posters (significantly under-represented) and those that do participate, they tend to avoid issues of doctrine and they tend to follow the
Catholics around mostly posting "me, too." They decry that Protestants think that the
EOC is just the
RCC but worshiping in foreign tongues we can't understand. Just
Catholicism in a different language. How do Protestants get that impression???? Do those Orthodox ever ask themselves that question? And if Protestants (and most Catholics) know about 1054 at all, they are very puzzled - especially if they learn that by far the biggest split in all Christian history happened over the words "... and the Son." But, of course, that was just the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. But since neither Orthodox or Catholics will talk about their disagreements.... and the Orthodox just follow Catholics around saying "me, too" well.... none of that comes out.
It's HARD to learn about the
Eastern Orthodox Church since they just don't seem to teach much... they seem to be a very shy bunch, lol. And since the early 60's, a lot of "Mr. Rogers-sim" and "kumbyah-ism" and uber-relativism seems to have infected both the RCC and EOC (and heaven knows, a lot of Protestantism). Why speak of what isn't regarded as Truth or important? Why not just hug each other and disregard everything but nice feelings? We see a LOT of that.... You CAN find SOME things about the EOC online but boy, you sure have to dig.
MOST of what I know about the EOC comes from a Greek Orthodox friend I met as an undergrad. We continued to email until just a few years ago. And since I left the RCC over pretty much the same issues that she disagrees with the RCC, those were frequent topics for us. IMO, the Eastern Orthodox Churches seem to be a far better in terms of doctrine than the RCC, and I'm left very disappointed that the EOC is very shy and non-evangelistic because I think most of the 30 million ex-Catholics in the USA right now would probably go East rather than Pentecostal/Evangelical or Mega Church Lite - a vastly better option. The EOC has all the Marian piety of the RCC without the Marian dogma.... it has Apostolic Succession without all the POWER-GRABBING reason and application and the desire to lord it over others as the Gentiles do. They embrace Tradition without insisting it be only of itself. They accept there is a mysterious "change" in the Eucharist without getting into all the pagan Aristotelian nonsense and wrong pre-science ideas of alchemy. There is a strong sense of MYSTERY that is largely shared by the EOC and Lutheranism that I deeply appreciate. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the EOC (on occasion, I agree with the RCC rather than the EOC) but I find much of value and esteem... and generally a better alternative than the RCC. I just wish they'd not be so pathologically shy - especially when it comes to the RCC (with which it has a lot of experience - nearly all of it bad, lol).
Now, back to the topic....
"Catholic Answers" total evasion of saying what Luther's "HERESY" was/is.... its emphasis that the key teaching of Christianity is not Christ or the Cross or salvation or mercy or forgiveness, but that there are EXACTLY
SEVEN Sacraments (such defined only as the current RC denomination does).... and that the RCC must be correct and infallible because it has unity with none.
Several observations about this "answer"....
1. There's no mention of what Luther taught that was heresy.... What the RCC condemned was his teaching that Jesus is the Savior (not self, not now or ever, not in full or in part) - and he made it clear that he we speaking of narrow justiication (what in post Vatican II Catholicism is called "initial grace") and the RCC made it clear it understood how Luther meant it. THAT is what Luther said that the RCC was so horrified over that it split itself in the third largest split in Christian history. But (as is nearly always the case with Catholic Answers), it never says what the "heresy" is. IMO, the reason for this very obvious evasion is that the audience they are (in part) trying to reach would be horrified by the RCC 's condemnation of that.
2. A huge point is made that sound theology is defined by having exactly SEVEN Sacraments - not 6 or 8 but 7. A denomination MUST define "Sacrament" as the post-Trent RCC does and MUST number such as exactly SEVEN. This is given as the keystone of theology. Not Christ. Not the Cross. Not the Resurrection. Not salvation. Not mercy. Having exactly SEVEN Sacraments - and defining the word "Sacrament" exactly as the RCC now does. Hum..... Tim goes on to say THIS is why the RCC
is closer to the EOC than to Luther (although Lutherans don't dogmatically number them AT ALL, and the only one of the "seven" Luther personally indicated is not a "Sacrament" is marriage). So, the number SEVEN is the key, the singular most important thing in Christianity, the unifying point. Not Christ. Not the Cross. Not the Savior. Hum.... Sometimes when you read or listen to "Catholic Answers" - THE esteemed Catholic apologetics site - you learn far more than you'd expect.
3. Once again, we get the point perpetually made and very central to all Catholic apologetics, "The singular, individual RCC is in unity with just itself" point - and this PROVES it must be right and the singular denomination of God. This point that the RCC is in unity with ITSELF but no other is a constant at Catholic Answers, the "proof" pretty much for every point. Here Tim specifically rebukes the EOC because "it lacks the unity of the RCC" since there are minor (non - dogmatic) differences between the various national churches (no more than among the various rites in the RCC but never mind...). Because the Episcopal Church in the USA is ONLY in full unity with about 50 other denominations PROVES its wrong and the the RCC which is in full unity with NO OTHER, not ONE other - proves it HAS to be authentic, true, authoritative and correct. It has to be one of the most absurd, most laughable apologetics ever made but a constant at CA.
IMO, Luther's "heresy" that Jesus is the Savior has persisted because it's true and the Holy Spirit has empowered it. The RCC attempts to muddy that up with a lot of semi-Pelagianism and synergism, a lot of mixing of Law and Gospel, a lot of confusing and entangling, a lot of ignoring the Council of Orange, is perhaps the problem. I rejoice that the RCC has not lost the Gospel (even if it calls it "persisting heresy") just turned what should be the clearest of all teachings into its most confusing, and has displaced it with a doctrine it considers more important - that the denomination dogmatically states there are exactly SEVEN Sacraments, and the "evidence" of being correct not Scripture but that the denomination has zero unity, is in full unity with NONE, agreeing only with the one self sees in the mirror (even that only in those areas where self alone currently states that self should agree with self concerning).
.
.
