Thursday, October 14, 2004
"the Eastern blind spot in Protestant apologetics"
If you want to know who corrupts the Christian faith - Protestant or Catholics - take a look at other ancient churches. Ancient - all the way to the 5th century, and earlier. These churches have had independent existence, some for 1500 years, some for 1000 years.
Many Protestants are unware of these ancient churches.
I assure you, whatever "Roman" Catholic Church has, all these ancient churches also have, up to 90-95 % overlapping each other. And these "Roman" distinctives the Protestant churches do not have. They are their "blind spot" because they are invisible to most of them.
------
...John Paul has written of the Ancient Eastern Churches:
"Since, in fact, we believe that the venerable and ancient tradition of the Eastern Churches is an integral part of the heritage of Christ's Church, the first need for Catholics is to be familiar with that tradition, so as to be nourished by it and to encourage the process of unity in the best way possible for each." (This from Orientale Lumen.)
The Catholic position is that the ancient tradition of the Eastern Churches is part of the heritage of the Church. (In context, John Paul is writing about the various Orthodox Churches...both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian.)...
Most Protestant apologists never factor in the Eastern Churches when they go on the offense against Rome. Roman "distinctives" are sometimes attacked as later developments when many of these so-called "distinctives" have their parallel (or equal) in the theology of the various Eastern Churches. This tendency is what I call "the Eastern blind spot in Protestant apologetics."
If the various Churches which diverged in the early and mid-fifth centuries all maintain an extremely high Eucharistic theology (transformation of the elements and Eucharist as sacrifice), Apostolic Succession, a high view of Marian doctrines (intercession, Dormition/Assumption, purity of the Theotokos), intercession of saints, etc., doesn't that speak to what the historic catholic (note the small "c") faith holds?
Posted by: Dave Brown at June 14, 2004 01:20 AM---
...My point again is to get away from the polemical "Rome has corrupted the Catholic faith," by pointing out that much of what Rome teaches is also taught by these ancient Eastern Churches. For example, I still remember the surprise I had when an Eastern Orthodox friend (a member of the OCA) and I attended a Coptic Orthodox Liturgy. We were the only 2 non-Egyptian people there but the priest started chanting much of the Liturgy in English for our benefit. After the consecration with its extremely high view of the Eucharist (I've quoted some of this under the Sacramentology section of this blog in response to one of Kevin's posts), the priest commemorated several saints...Here was the continuation of that Church of Alexandria that did not accept Chalcedon (AD 451). It had a highly developed Marian devotion, high view of the Eucharist (Eucharist as sacrifice, bread and wine *changed* into the Body and Blood and worshipped by the people), intercession of saints, etc., etc. And this ancient Church of Alexandria was one that neither my OCA friend nor myself were in communion with...
I realized then that the version of Church history I'd been fed in my Protestant years (the so-called Roman "inventions") had no basis in reality.
Posted by: Dave Brown at June 14, 2004 07:25 AM
http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/archives/000141.htm
