Jay Dyer is probably one of the most visible Eastern Orthodox apologists on the internet. But that wasn't always the case. Once he was Reformed. Then he was Roman Catholic. Jay's theological biography is well known to all who have listened to his podcasts or read his articles.
The article below is from Jay's old website Nicene Truth. Published in 2008 it gives insight into the questions he was asking while searching into Orthodoxy. Likely these are questions many inquirers into Orthodoxy are asking themselves. I republish it here because it is of great interest. What's interesting is that somehow Jay overcame every single one of these objections and entered the Orthodox Church.
Jay calls the mind of Orthodoxy semi-pelagian. So how did he overcome all these objections and now confess what he once called heresy? Only Jay can tell us that.
I have read Vladimir Guttee, who is largely regarded as the best Eastern writer against the papal arguments. However, while Guettee nullifies many of the “papal” patristic quotes, I have come across others that he fails to account for that cannot be denied as Eastern acceptance of “papism.” For example, we see in Session III of Ephesus the following quote from the legates of the Apostolic See ( Rome ):
“There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down to this day and forever lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic Faith.
“Arcadius the legate of the Apostolic See said: “Nestorius hath brought us great sorrow…Celestine, most holy pope of the Apostolic See hath condescended to send us as his executors of this business, and also following the decrees of the holy synod we give this as our conclusion: Let Nestorius know that he is deprived of all Episcopal dignity, and is alien from the whole church and from the communion of all its priests” (NPNF: The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pg. 223).
It is very difficult to read this as a reference to mere “place of honor.” In response to my aforementioned argument from Canon 6 of Nicea, where we read that the jurisdiction of Alexandria is compared to that of Rome , it may be responded that this refers to his jurisdiction as Bishop and Patriarch, and isn’t even concerned with universality, and therefore doesn’t amount to a denial. In other words, the Bishop of Rome is the Bishop of an actual diocese and a western “Patriarch,” like that of Alexandria , but he is also the head and, when necessary, exercises universal jurisdiction. As Vatican I says, the intention of papal supremacy is not to make the Pope the sole Bishop of all the church with all others as his assistants, but rather that, when necessary, he may exercise his office of supreme head of the Church, while others are true bishops—successors of the Apostles. This supreme office, however, does not dissolve his duties and jurisdiction as Bishop of the diocese of Rome and “patriarch” of the West.
Also, as most opponents of the papacy do, I argued from Constantinople III and the excommunication of Pope Honorius. However, it’s also the case that Constantinople III unanimously received Pope St. Agatho’s Letter (linked below in entirety) which undeniably claims papal infallibility:
"This is the pure expression of piety. This is the true and immaculate profession of the Christian religion, not invented by human cunning, but which was taught by the Holy Ghost through the princes of the Apostles. This is the firm and irreprehensible doctrine of the holy Apostles, the integrity of the sincere piety of which, so long as it is preached freely, defends the empire of your Tranquillity in the Christian commonwealth, and exults [will defend it, will render it stable; and exulting], and (as we firmly trust) will demonstrate it full of happiness. Believe your most humble [servant], my most Christian lords and sons, that I am pouring forth these prayers with my tears, or its stability and exultation [in Greek exaltation]. And these things I (although unworthy and insignificant) dare advise through my sincere love, because your God-granted victory is our salvation, the happiness of your Tranquillity is our joy, the harmlessness of your kindness is the security of our littleness. And therefore I beseech you with a contrite heart and rivers of tears, with prostrated mind, deign to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the Apostolic doctrine which the co-worker of your pious labours, the blessed apostle Peter, has delivered, that it be not hidden under a bushel, but that it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bugle: because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred. This is the living tradition of the Apostles of Christ, which his Church holds everywhere, which is chiefly to be loved and fostered, and is to be preached with confidence, which conciliates with God through its truthful confession, which also renders one commendable to Christ the Lord, which keeps the Christian empire of your Clemency, which gives far-reaching victories to your most pious Fortitude from the Lord of heaven, which accompanies you in battle, and defeats your foes; which protects on every side as an impregnable wall your God-sprung empire, which throws terror into opposing nations, and smites them with the divine wrath, which also in wars celestially gives triumphal palms over the downfall and subjection of the enemy, and ever guards your most faithful sovereignty secure and joyful in peace. For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, “Peter, Peter, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift 332you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that (thy) faith fail not. And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all. For woe is me, if I neglect to preach the truth of my Lord, which they have sincerely preached. Woe is me, if I cover over with silence the truth which I am bidden to give to the exchangers, i.e., to teach to the Christian people and imbue it therewith. What shall I say in the future examination by Christ himself, if I blush (which God forbid!) to preach here the truth of his words? What satisfaction shall I be able to give for myself, what for the souls committed to me, when he demands a strict account of the office I have received?"
If the council was opposed to infallibility, and surely this council would have been if any, it could not have accepted this letter. Further, it’s also an interesting fact that St. Maximos the Confessor defended Pope Honorius from the charge of monothelitism (Delaney, Pocket Dictionary of Saints, 349). If the “papal” view of itself was always wrong, then why did the East unanimously receive these undeniably papal claims at Ephesus , Chalcedon , and Constantinople III? “Orthodox apologetics” should have immediately “kicked in,” and the “Latin heretics” been denounced.
It’s well known that Pope St. Leo made the same claim, and while Guettee attempts to deal with it, the Letter of the Council clearly calls Pope St. Leo the “chief and head of all members” and “mouthpiece of St. Peter,” asking St. Leo to “ratify and establish” the council-keep in mind-as head of the entire body. The Letter (linked below) of all 520 priests and bishops of Chalcedon to Pope St. Leo states:
"Our mouth was filled with joy and our tongue with exultation . This prophecy grace has fitly appropriated to us for whom the security of religion is ensured. For what is a greater incentive to cheerfulness than the Faith? what better inducement to exultation than the Divine knowledge which the Saviour Himself gave us from above for salvation, saying, go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things that I have enjoined you Matthew 28:19-20 . And this golden chain leading down from the Author of the command to us, you yourself have steadfastly preserved, being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all. Whence we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of Truth, not giving our instruction each singly and in secret, but making known our confession of the Faith in conceit, with one consent and agreement. And we were all delighted, revelling, as at an imperial banquet, in the spiritual food, which Christ supplied to us through your letter: and we seemed to see the Heavenly Bridegroom actually present with us. For if where two or three are gathered together in His name, He has said that there He is in the midst of them , must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him to their country and their ease? Of whom you were chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you [the papal legates]; while our religious Emperors presided to the furtherance of due order, inviting us to restore the doctrinal fabric of the Church, even as Zerubbabel invited Joshua to rebuild Jerusalem ."
This is very difficult, I think, to construe in a "first-among equals" fashion.
Many other quotes could be given, but the question remains as to why the East for so long tolerated all this “papistry”? A reading of the first hundred or so pages of Denzinger shows many popes making the strongest of papal statements and claims, and while we may argue that many in the East at the time did not know of these facts, why are they all regarded as “saints” and not heretics or anti-christ, as the famed 19th century Patriarchal Encyclicals call the pope? How can St. Gregory the Diaologist (Pope St. Gregory the Great) be honored as a great saint, when he very clearly made all the papal claims as the modern papacy, in his Letters? And I already know about the situation of him and John. Again, everyone knows of Pope St. Victor’s attempt to excommunicate all the Eastern Quartodecimians , and while St. Irenaeus asks him not to, it must be admitted that he doesn’t deny St. Victors’ power to do so. And everyone knows also of St. Irenaeus’ famous statement about all churches needing to be in communion with Rome :
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Or consider the statement of Eusebius in his history of the Church concerning the Quartodecimian controversy mentioned above:
"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).
Many, many more quotes could be given, but the point is, I think, clear. Kelly remarks that Photios never intended to deny the Roman primacy, and he, in fact, died in communion with Rome in the Oxford Dictionary of the Popes. There are, in Pelikan’s Volume II of his history of the Christian Tradition, dozens of undeniably strong papal admissions on the part of many of the Easterns. And, as Fr. Dvornik shows in his learned Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, the schism of Acacius is a strong admission of papal supremacy by the Easterns. What are we to make of the famous statement of St. Maximos the Confessor?:
"How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firmand immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome." (in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)
I also recommend on this issue Vladimir Solovyev’s The Russian Church and the Papacy, which provides other supplementary arguments along the same lines I listed above, along with Butler, Dahlgren and Hess’ Jesus, Peter and the Keys, which, although some of the quotes are do not go as far to prove the papacy as they would like (a la William Webster’s Matthew 16), overall, the evidence is hard to deny. What is the Orthodox person to think of Fr. Schmemann’s admission of the need for the office of the papacy?
In terms of “Augustinianism,” I confess that, by God’s grace, I can never leave this basic theological milieu of my master and patron. I am well aware of the Eastern case against St. Augustine and the “west.” I have tried to immerse myself in all their polemicists as well as I can. I fully admit his failings in aspects of his Trinitarian theology. However, his own attitude was one of humility before the Catholic Church, as he says in the beginning of Book III. It’s a fact that many Easterns are now willing to deal with the possibility of a genuine reconciliation, with some, such as Metropolitan Zizioulas, admitting even the possibility of a kind of filioque at the level of ousia, but not of hypostasis. These thinkers have also corrected Lossky’s error that the Spirit lacks an eternal relation to the Son, as Fr. Behr explains in his The Trinitarian Being of the Church article. If that’s the case, then its true that the Father remains the sole source of the godhead, while the Son becomes a kind of mediating principle (St. Gregory of Nyssa), communicating to the Spirit the common essence. According to Zizioulas, this was St. Maximus’ view. Zizioulas writes in his article, One Single Source:
“Closely related to the question of the single cause is the problem of the exact meaning of the Son's involvement in the procession of the Spirit. Saint Gregory of Nyssa explicitly admits a mediating role of the Son in the procession of the Spirit from the Father. Is this role to be expressed with the help of the preposition δία (through) the Son (εκ Πατρός δι 'Υιού), as Saint Maximus and other Patristic sources seem to suggest? The Vatican statement notes that this is the basis that must serve for the continuation of the current theological dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox. I would agree with this, adding that the discussion should take place in the light of the single cause principle to which I have just referred.
Another important point in the Vatican document is the emphasis it lays on the distinction between ἐκπόρευσις and processio. It is historically true that in the Greek tradition a clear distinction was always made between ἐκπορεύσθαι and προϊέναι, the first of these two terms denoting exclusively the Spirit's derivation from the Father alone, whereas προϊέναι was used to denote the Holy Spirit's dependence on the Son owing to the common essence or ουσία which the Spirit in deriving from the Father alone as Person or υπόστασις receives from the Son, too, as ουσιωδώς that is, with regard to the one ουσία common to all three persons (Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor et al). On the basis of this distinction one might argue that there is a kind of Filioque on the level of ουσία, but not of υπόστασις.
However, as the document points out, the distinction between ἐκπορεύσθαι and προϊέναι was not made in Latin theology,which used the same term, procedere to denote both realities. Is this enough to explain the insistence of the Latin tradition on the Filioque? Saint Maximus the Confessor seems to think so. For him the Filioque was not heretical because its intention was to denote not the ἐκπορεύσθαι but the προϊέναι of the Spirit.”
Thus, the eternal procession from a “single principle” as stated by the councils of Lyons and Florence, can be read in this manner. This appears to be the direction the Vatican Clarification on the Filioque takes. In short, as well as I can understand, I find this Vatican statement to be good enough. Besides, Bulgakov and others admit that the Spirit can be understood as the love of the Father and the Son (The Orthodox Church, pg. 2). But apart from several books and tons of articles, its evident that this cannot be the determining factor between East and West, since it becomes so obscure and drowned in questions of Liturgy, Greek and Latin, biblical texts, dogmatic decrees of councils and the writings of the Church Fathers only the best of theologians are able to sift through the masses of data (and I don’t mean myself). Fr. Stylianopoulos admits this.
In terms of grace and nature, I don’t get Fr. Meyendorff and others’ rejection of the “Western” idea of the so-called nature/grace “dialectic.” Even in St. Augustine they are not in “tension.” It’s from the wellspring of Augustinianism that the classical Catholic idea of grace building on nature originates. Is this entirely a western phenomenon? No, inasmuch as St. Maximos clearly speaks of grace building on nature in Ambiguum 42. We are told by the SVS Press editor in the footnote that “this is not to be confused with the western dialectic,” who is, I suppose, Fr. John Behr. Well, how is this so different? For example, we see the same imagery and usage in St. Cyril’s On the Unity of Christ (SVS Press edition), where over and over (pgs. 81-96 or so) he speaks of “nature” and “grace” in reference to both the Incarnation and soteriology, which are obviously linked. In other words, if you hold to “two natures,” it follows that in salvation/deification there remain two natures, or, grace raising nature, as St. Cyril argues. Further, Pelikan’s Christianity and Classical Culture is all about the idea of grace and natural law in the Cappadocians. Yes, I’m sure there are subtle distinctions, but what exactly does the Eastern statement that “all nature is graced” mean?
For that matter, what is “Ancestral Sin”? I just don’t get it. I know what original sin is. And, I know what Fr. Romanides says, and his book has been one of the major hang ups for me in not becoming Orthodox. While I agree with some of his criticisms of overly-Latin thinking, some of my problems with his ‘seminal’ The Ancestral Sin are as follows:
1. Augustine is not a saint (pg. 11).
2. Romanides says many times that the parasite of death is the cause of our sins. What is more correct is that there is a sense in which we sin because of death and that death is also the result of sin.
3. Romanides accuses all the west of teaching that man is by nature “immortal,” yet this is not true. The Catechism of the Church states that “man is by nature mortal,” Par. 1008.
4. Romanides says that human free will is outside God’s jurisdiction (pg. 33). But the Holy Spirit says otherwise in Prov. 21:1. How can anything be outside God’s sovereignty? Romanides says God willed it to be so. Now I’m reminded of my former Orthodox priest’s statement in agreement with his former Bishop: “God has chosen not to know all things.” Supposedly this is a paradox. No, this is a contradiction. Scripture says that God knows the number of the hairs on our head. Androutsos proposes this same silly idea of God knowing all things only in a general sense. All of this to get away from sovereignty!
5. Romanides claims that the westerns fail in explaining evil as “lack of being,” yet this same idea is frequent in Eastern Fathers (pg. 34, fn. 65)!
6. Romanides follows the Synodikon of Orthodoxy in reference to condemning the analogia entis and the analogia fide, since “there is no similarity between the created and the Uncreated” in reference to God and Scripture. Then we have no true knowledge of God and Scripture does not truly reveal Him. If there is no true union or connection, then we fail to know Christ as truly divine. Romanides even says sarcastically that it is “supposed that God is revealed there [in Scripture].” How can we then have any knowledge of the ontological Trinity, since this comes only through Scripture? It follows that we do not. The energies that reveal God must then also be disconnected from the “hidden energies,” and even negative knowledge fails to obtain. For example, that I know that the Son is eternally generated from the Father comes to me through the words and images of Scripture. If there is no similarity, then I do not know that fact to be true of God, in terms of theology. How does economy teach anything about God, theologically?
7. Romanides claims that evil is not non-being and that this is nonsense, yet this is what St. Athanasius teaches very clearly in “Contra Gentes,” along with using many juridical concepts in “On the Incarnation of the Logos,” which Romanides hates so much.
8. Romanides says that God can never remove the “freedom of evil” (pg. 75),
and that Satan’s will is completely free and outside God’s jurisdiction (pg. 74)! If this is true, then it follows that Satan and Redeemed men in the eternal state can be saved and fall again, ad infinitum. This is pure Origenism.
9. Romanides derides the idea that angels govern men and nations and that fallen angels desired women as mates. If he were merely rejecting the idea of angels mating, it would be one thing, but Romanides implies that this is an error in Old Testament Scripture, quoting the liberal Abingdon Bible Commentary.
Romanides comes close to open theism in his chapter on the war between God and the Devil, since Satan’s fall really did mess up God’s plans in a sense, and as we said, God cannot touch the wills of men and angels (pg. 86). In this he sounds like “open theist” Greg Boyd.
10. Romanides engages in a zealous attempt to eradicate the idea that death is a punishment from God, and he says this ad nauseam. Romanides should have read more St. John Chrysostom, or been more honest with him. But worse, he quotes Romans 8:20 , arguing that God didn’t subject the creation to death and futility, when St. Paul ’s text itself says the very opposite! Using the flood or Sodom as examples of God’s punishment don’t work, since Romanides probably believed it never happened.
11. Romanides seriously tries to argue that God doesn’t curse Adam and Eve, but only the ground and the serpent (pg. 95), quoting St. Irenaeus. This is because, he imagines, God has no wrath or desire for vengeance or need for propitiation. All of these concepts are western heresies. Yet they are undoubtedly Pauline! This just goes to show that the Orthodox writers can’t deal with St. Paul . The one’s who do, like those summarized in Gavin’s Greek Orthodox Thought must apparently be castigated as “Latinized” Greeks, since so much in their writings is “western” and juridical!
12. He claims that the fall was “not at all juridical” for the New Testament writers (pg. 112). Can he be serious?
13. Romanides argues that we should not be motivated by pleasures to be saved or by fear of hell, but rather that we should obtain apatheia. How stoic. Scripture says that in God’s hands and pleasures evermore (Ps.16). He admits on pg. 123 that he wants to return to Jewish conceptions as opposed to Augustinian ones, since “Jews didn’t believe in God’s retributive justice.” The prophets certainly did, and they were true Jews. Who does he think brought about AD 70?
14. Romanides claims that monasticism declined in the west when Augustinianism prevailed (pg. 174). Is this for real? Is he not aware that monasticism prevailed in the medieval Augustinian West?
What is the point of all this railing against St. Augustine and the western errors? It’s that Romanides hates the idea of a God who punishes sin: the God revealed in Scripture. So he was forced to run to the post-Apostolic fathers as a supposedly more faithful presentation of the Apostolic Faith. These facts are all related to the strands in all the Orthodox: there is no predestination or unconditional election, God is not fully sovereign—maybe not even omniscient, and doesn’t eternally damn people as a punishment. And of course, this goes hand in hand with the numerous Orthodox writers and priests I’ve met who refuse to take Scripture seriously on these points, and often impute errors to it, rather than impute errors to their own intellect! In this regard, I feel just like St. Augustine combating the very same errors of his day (not that I am a great saint). Why the zeal for errors in Scripture? Because, if Scripture has manifest errors, one need not take its threats of damnation seriously, of course. This stuff clearly borders on Origenism and in some cases is Origenism (think Kalomiros’ awful River of Fire article), and I just can’t confess this semi-pelagian nonsense, which appears to be the “mind of Orthodoxy,” since most all of them hold this, or tend in this direction.
Concerning predestination, I have never doubted its absolute gratuity. I have always affirmed unconditional election, and remained within this Augustinian/Thomistic framework. I believe this to be biblical, and my conscience is bound to it. I could not bring myself to explicitly repudiate unconditional election as the older Greek Rite of Reception of Converts, based on the Confession of Dositheos mandates. Since no Orthodox theologian has ever affirmed any election other than that based on foreknowledge of human actions, I would obviously be out of step with the “mind of Orthodoxy.” And I’ve read the Eastern Fathers, Symeon the New Theologian, St. John of Damascus, John Cassian, Nicholas of Cabasilas, the elders, and others on the issue, and I do not believe them to be in line with St. Paul ’s teaching in Romans 9 of election’s pure gratuity.
I also find St. Thomas ’ teaching on predilection as an equally convincing case for predestination in this sense. In short, the best text on this is the great Dominican theologian Fr. Reginald Lagrange’s book Predestination, available from TAN Books. I would also recommend reading St. Augustine ’s works on predestination that will be linked below. In fact, I stayed up all night last night reviewing much of this Augustinian material in the Fathers Set and feel ever more convinced of its truth. When one compares St. Augustine with the responses of John Cassian (so admired in the East, and the well-known exponent of semi-pelagianism), it’s like comparing a mountains and mole-hills. Imagine Benny Hinn debating Jaroslav Pelikan (though certainly Cassian wasn’t as bad as Benny Hinn.
Much more could be said about the problems of national churches and “catholicity,” as well as widespread Orthodox ambiguity on numerous points, but this is sufficient for the present. As I said above, please don’t waste my time with emails of “heresy” and “apostasy” attacks. I already know many of you will think this, so it’s really quite unnecessary to blast me. I am doing what my (hopefully) informed conscience leads me to. St. Thomas teaches that even erring reason, if not attended with an evil will, still binds (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2019.htm#article5).
Many of my friends have opined (rightly) to me that eventually, one must rest. Christianity is practical, and a lifetime of changing positions is very distressing and impractical, often leading to despair. I have explored the world outside Catholicism in both Protestantism and Orthodoxy and have tasted enough different flavors. Many of my objections to Vatican II could have been cleared up earlier, had I read more of the Eastern Fathers and councils. Are there problems? Sure, there will always be another book, another debate, another challenge, another issue, etc. It will never end, because, as the Eastern Fathers teach, we will be forever learning God (not that there will be difficulties in heaven, but we will always be coming to know God more and more, inasmuch as He is infinite). I am not at all convinced of the Apocalypticism that the trads in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism fall into. All too often this is the excuse of radical groups to hole up in some obscure basement somewhere, certain that they are the last 5 Catholics left in the world. Usually this leads to ridiculous, half-mad wandering bishops, "election" of numerous home-made "popes," false visionaries, or the ultra-splintering of traditional Orthodox groups, such as Cyprianites, Matthewites, etc. And, all of these sects are rabid with wild apocalypticism. All groups have their masonic infiltrators, gays, and liberals. It is, in this fallen world, inescapable. I don't know if we are in the last days, but I know that all the little sects that are grounded on this are also the most dubious. Honestly, how different is this than the Montanists or the Donatists or the Circumcelliones? Rad Trads of every flavor would do well to consider that Christ visited with the Samaritan woman at the well--a jewish schismatic of that day, along with telling the "scandalous" parable of the "good Samaritan." Rad Trads would do well to consider whether they might be more like Christ or the Pharisees & Essenes.
If Catholicism was good enough for St. Augustine, its good enough for me, and consequently, if St. Augustine didn’t make the cut, who of us will?! I’ve learned that the act of faith in the Scriptures is the same as the act of faith in the Church herself: I don’t know the answer to every apparent textual problem, nor do I know the answer to every “problem” of liturgics, Church History, canon law, dogma, etc. Who can? So, I’ll rest in communion with Rome. I trust that in God's providence it will work out. As St. Augustine says in the beginning of On the Predestination of the Saints, to the degree that we have attained, we must walk therein, and if I am wrong, may God correct me (Phil. 3:15-16).
Links to important articles and documents referenced:
Vatican Clarification on the Filioque: http://www.nicenetruth.com/home/2008/06/the-vatican-cla.html
Metropolitan Zisioulas' article One Single Source: http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/zizioulis_onesource.html
Pope St. Agatho's Letter to the Sixth Council: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.v.html
The Letter of Chalcedon to Pope St. Leo: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604098.htm
Session III of Ephesus: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xv.html
The Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
St. Augustine's works against the Pelagians & on predestination: http://newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm,
http://newadvent.org/fathers/1509.htm, http://newadvent.org/fathers/1512.htm,
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1513.htm, http://newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm,
http://newadvent.org/fathers/1502.htm
Questions 23 and 24 of Part 1 of the Summa on predestination and the Book of Life: http://newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm, http://newadvent.org/summa/1024.htm
A Catholic-Thomist Vs. Calvinist Debate on predestination: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/LOSS.htm
See also Jimmy Akin's article on the issue of predestination: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp
And Akin's The Salvaion Controversy on a Thomistic version of the "five points": http://www.amazon.com/Salvation-Controversy-James-Akin/dp/1888992182/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214424973&sr=8-1
