By What Criteria ?
Sources of Information about the Eastern Orthodox Church
The Basis for Discussions about History, the Historical Record, Sources and the Eastern Orthodox Church
You
should know that when we refer to what the EOC believes, we are
not referring
to:
1.
What books any individual
EOC [Eastern
Orthodox
Church]
member has access to
2.
How a particular individual
EOC
[Eastern
Orthodox
Church] member was trained or catechized
3.
What a particular individual
EOC
[Eastern
Orthodox
Church] member thinks that EOC theology truly is.
For
our basis in our assertions of what the EOC believes, we refer almost always
only to primary sources that are official EOC sources.
If a person wishes to write to us and say "it is my opinion that the EOC believes...", that is fine with us. Please write to us. We welcome your opinion(s). But if a person writes to us and insists to us - for a fact - what the EOC believes, don't be surprised if we ask for the sources of the information.
If a person who is EOC writes to us - and then also quotes Official sources within the EOC, and then Cites those (with citations and/or reference), we encourage this, and that usually makes a positive difference to us.
Therefore when discussing the EOC, for us to accept the statements of those who email us (as a rule), - especially in matters of doctrine - we require that they cite OFFICIAL EOC sources, especially when attempting to inform us...about what they claim the EOC affirms.
We
require this for 4 reasons:
1.
We want the person who is attempting to inform us (usually on the supposition
that we are mistaken) to do their own research, and not take the
word of anyone else for their assertions about the EOC.
2.
We want the person who is attempting to inform us to
conduct a survey of their own, and find out just how much (or how
little) EOC OFFICIAL sources Do exist - concerning what EOC theology is. IF what
the EOC person believes is actually based on Official EOC sources, then
finding that documentation to send or enclose or reference for us, should not be
a difficult task.
3.
On the other hand, if an EOC person cannot find the basic EOC theological
doctrines stated within official EOC sources, it means that those EOC laymen are
getting their information from somewhere else, and not official sources. That
leads us to the following point: If EOC laymen are not receiving their
information from official EOC sources, then maybe they are Not receiving
ACCURATE information about what the EOC actually believes. It is easy for any
priest to come along and simply say that the EOC believes this or that. But the
serious mind based on reason - depends on Sources - in order to understand what to
accept and what to reject. If the sources cited about what the EOC believes are
Not officially from the Eastern Orthodox Church, then EOC laymen should be told
this UP FRONT. But most of the time, they are Not told this. They simply blindly
accept what EOC priests tell them are the facts, and the problem is that many of
the statements made - to them - are not factually correct.
For
example, there is a brochure about the EOC called "12 thinks I wish I had
known about the Eastern Orthodox Church". That brochure states that the
Eastern Orthodox Church was founded and existed
in Harmony 1) within its own
organizational structure and 2) with the other parts of the Church at that time.
Those statements are just plain false. The Early Orthodox Church had a GREAT
amount of schisms, within itself.
But
failing to understand that point...about schisms...can lead people to mistakenly conclude that
they should be putting their faith in the EOC of today, because of the
presumptions that the Eastern Orthodox Church MUST have been legitimate in the 4th
century...because it was a church internally at peace and without schism.
4. We want people who claim to be EOC, to be able to explain their own doctrines, without appealing or relying on Roman Catholic books or sources.
If they can do this, then the authenticity of what they affirm - to us about the EOC - can be given and cited for us - WITHOUT reference to Roman Catholic Sources, Books, etc. After all, one of the greatest Myths - within the EOC - is that its theology - in Major Points - is different from the Roman Catholic Church. And one of our contentions, is that the EOC is at least 90% Roman Catholic in its Theology, and that EOC members need to be informed of the sources that they are being asked to rely upon. If our contention that the EOC is essentially Roman Catholic - is wrong, then we should not be seeing EOC members write to us explaining the "beliefs of the EOC" but using Roman Catholic sources, publishing houses, theological works,... to demonstrate the "authenticity" of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
On
the other hand, if EOC members can only cite Roman Catholic sources...in order
to explain EOC theology, then maybe what we are saying...about EOC theology -
being actually Roman Catholic and Rooted within Roman Catholicism, is rather
demonstrated (though the example of the books that EOC laymen cite to us) to
have been correct.
Same
Standards for all Denominations (of which the EOC is one)
If someone contacts us to share with us what the RCC believes, or what the Protestant Reformed believe, or what the Lutherans believe, we also ask that they cite their sources also. There is no reason why EOC laymen should think that they are exempt from this. Several EOC laymen have written to us to share their views - that any Official EOC view cannot be defined, because the EOC has no official sources. That is a sure-fire formula for deception, that anyone within the EOC can claim anything about "Church History of the EOC", and there is no objective basis for proof or confirmation. The fact is that the EOC has many Official sources over the centuries. If EOC laymen are NOT aware of this, this begs the question: Why Not ?
Lets not Skip over this too fast. It's worth stating againg
The fact is that the EOC has many Official sources over the centuries.
If EOC laymen are NOT aware of this, this begs the question: Why Not ?
Do you consider Any Sources on the Internet to be Valid ?
If someone cites sources, books or documentation that existed in real printed books & documents prior to 1900, we usually accept those sources as authentic. They are certainly more authentic than many of the supposed translations of Greek Texts of EOC documents that abound on the Net.
Most of the internet sources & documents do not cite the sources nor the translator, nor the date of translation. We do not always cite sources, but we often cite many of them. Those who wish to learn from where we obtain our material are welcome to look at our book sections about the Early Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Obviously, if the books we cite are referring to the Roman Catholic Church prior to the year 1054, then that would include the Eastern Orthodox Church - since it was officially Roman Catholic for its first 1000 years, at least according both to RCC and EOC sources.
We cite our own sources for almost all news articles, and for most information. We will be posting documents about the EOC later on this year. When we do, we will cite the sources in most cases, and we will also post either the Latin or Greek text, so that those who visit us can compare for themselves. If you are using internet sources, they should be able and willing to do this, or to cite the Original source from where the information was derived.
Do you consider Bishop Ware's to be a valid source ?
Its ok about 50% of the time. Its first problem is that it is NOT an official EOC book. It leaves out and omits a great deal of information about the roots of the Eastern Orthodox Church, no - not the Denomination of the EOC which exists today, but the roots of the original Eastern Churches that existed prior to 400 A.D.
Ware does quote from some official sources of the EOC. To the extent that he does this, to the extent that the quotes are footnoted or referenced, and to the extent that the translation(s) into English are accurate, then we can accept that. It is however, a poor substitute for sources prior to 1900.
Do you consider - J. Pelikan - to be a valid source ?
Its first problem - like Ware's book - is that it is NOT an official EOC source. But, to the extent that he does this, to the extent that the quotes are footnoted or referenced, and to the extent that the translation(s) into English are accurate, then we can accept some of the points or assertions. It is however, also a poor substitute for sources prior to 1900. And you have to remember where he was teaching (Yale). That is a "catholic" place to teach, and an extremely "inclusionary" place as well. Just because a source is "academic" does not mean that there is not a bias, that needs to be accounted for.
Do you consider ccel.org about ECF (Early Church Fathers) to be a valid source ?
No, we do not. First because it is based on the work of Philip Schaff. While others are welcome to their own views, we know that Schaff worked very closely with 2 corrupt Textual Critics named Westcott & Hort. We do not accept as authentic most of the work of Schaff, since it is often hard to determine where translation is accurate and where it is not, especially for laymen, and especially without sources or annotation, which is absent from most of the Eerdman Series on ECF. [And if you want a Refutation of the Bad Greek Work of Westcott & Hort, please consult the LINE BY LINE refutation of the work of W & H - by the Great Scholar Herman Hoskier, who also incidentally also refutes LINE BY LINE the Greek Text upon which the N.K.J.V. is based].
Further ccel.org is based at CALVIN College. You might think that this would predispose us to favor this source. Unfortunately, Calvin college has a history of involvement with the NIV, and with the head of the Old Testament Translation Cttee of the NIV Bible Version, which is a notoriously corrupt and unreliable version. (The head of the O.T. Cttee was Dr. Woudstra, who had many personal issues which affected his judgement in matters of translation work. The fact that the community at Calvin College left him in his position speaks very poorly about Calvin College). (several evangelical colleges pretend to be theologically conservative, while they are actually liberal). Therefore, where ccel.org is based at Calvin College, it serves as a basis to undermine the translations of the ECF presented, that is - had not Dr. Schaff done so himself prior to that.
The Other problem with Schaff's series on the Early Church Fathers is that he never explained the true historical context of the ECF books that he and some translators provided...through his series (which is now republished and available through Eerdmans - which is the source used 99% of the time by EOC persons [either on the Internet or in the Actual Hardbound copies] ).
The reader never knows whether or not certain writings and authors were
1. Accepted or 2. Rejected by the Early Church. Schaff mixes both accepted and Rejected sources in together - in his ECF Series of Volumes.
Many of the writers in the ECF Books by Schaff were REJECTED by the Early Church and the Church Councils as False Teachers. But Schaff does not explain this.
The result is that many of those authors in fact contradict each other, and many people who read those works of the ECF (either online or in paper) are learning theological positions which are directly contradictory to the Early Church Fathers - the real ones.
And - the sad part is that many people read this page (which you are now reading) and think that we are talking about a Different set of ECF books, because they do not know that Philip Schaff was the one who translated the ECF Eerdman's Series. In most editions, this information is left out. The Fact of leaving out 1) who selected the passages for translation and 2) who supervised the work & hired the translators [Schaff], was omitted. [The reason for doing this today is that Eerdmans simply does not know who did this. The reason for the original omission of Schaff's name from the original editions is that Schaff was too closely associated with Westcott & Hort and Schaff's work would have been rejected...if his name was listed as the Main translator & Project Coordinator].
And most Eastern Orthodox laymen would still be very surprised to learn that there is 3 times the material that Eerdman has published - that is Still awaiting translation into English. Why do you think that we keep asking those of you in the EOC to start citing your sources ?
Because we do not want to see EOC laymen believing that Schaff & Eerdmans [referring to Eerdmans in this one case] has done an adequate job - at all - of conveying what the Early Church Councils (the First 3 especially) affirmed. And certainly the RCC has not usually done a good job either, since even when they occasionally do, the work of competent scholarship is censored through the Vatican.
Somebody wrote to us about historical material translated into English that "No, I don't know who translated. And no, I don't care." . Needless to say, that was an example of a person who WANTED something to be true, but did not have the necessary rigor to do real research and find out IF the translation that he/she trusted...was Worth trusting. This seems to show that They were not really interested in truth.
It is very easy for Former Protestants to go into the EOC and not do much work. Most of them take their lack of knowledge from protestantism, and transpose this into their new membership in the EOC. Then, when they write to us, and we point out their lack of diligence in being ready to answer of the reason for the hope that lies within them, they are mad at us, as though we had created the problem for them.
Saying that you are a "Faithful Christian" is easy. Actually learning about sources and documentation and how to study the Bible in depth, that takes a lot more investment in oneself and in the Christianity we claim to want to learn and know.
Anything that doesn't agree with your pre-made suppositions is going to be labeled as "faulty research"
No, that is just a cop-out used by people who want an excuse not to confront the facts of History. Usually, those who believe this - about us - simply are looking for an excuse not to have to look at the source we cite, to find out IF they are factual or not. If you are not willing to give our sources the benefit of the doubt to the point of finding out IF they are accurate or not, then don't waste your time writing to us: After all, you will have already made up your mind and dismissed anything that disagrees with you.
We obviously favor the sources that we use, not because they justify our conclusions, but because we have found them to be accurate. People can obtain those same sources and look at these for themselves and decide. 98% of the time, People can still have good discussions and also disagree or agree about sources and/or conclusions. We know: we have discussions with many EOC members each week, some of whom agree with us and some who disagree. The idea that there can never be common ground, or that objective truth cannot be found, are beliefs which are 1) innacurate and 2) held by those who are not willing to be intellectually honest. A great majority of the time, that does NOT apply to many who are Eastern Orthodox.
Some Eastern Orthodox (just like some Lutherans or Reformed, etc...) are afraid to think. But for the most part, we get along rather well with most Eastern orthodox.
Are you Impatient with those you discuss EOC matters with ?
No, not usually. But it depends. What we are sometimes impatient with, are those (in whatever intellectual camp) who think that they have "searched really Hard" and "read a whole lot", and then we can obviously see that they are unfamiliar with EOC history. Who knows ? Maybe those people really DO think that they have "searched really Hard", by reading about 6 to 8 books on the Eastern Orthodox Church. Probably these people think that they deserve credit for simply being able to read.
That's rather funny (no offense). Here you have Moslem preachers (Imams) who will study either on the SEVEN YEARS plan in their seminaries, or TWELVE YEARS before they become religious leaders. Many moslems - LAYMEN - memorize the ENTIRE Koran, each and every last Verse. Or look at the Nuns in a monastery, who study years and years.
Suddenly, we meet people who write to us, and some get insulted because we question their sources or their assertion that they have "searched really Hard". Well - reading a few books IS harder, harder than just sitting there and watching Television or Cable.
We are not always easy-going on Protestants, whether they are Still Protestants or whether they are "former" Protestants who are now EOC. Too many protestants have very little practice in Thinking, or reading for the sake of learning. And to those who are Lazy, we have no trouble saying that there are many places to go and be lazy. If we can help, we are glad to, but we are concerned that in many cases, (notice we said MANY - not ALL) Some Protestants bring their same sense of Lazy Sloppiness and Lack of Intellectual Rigor with them. (this is very different from Historic Protestantism). Today, the knowledge of many "Protestants" is very small. Before converting - they were lazy in a Protestant church, and now they are lazy in an Eastern Orthodox church. What's the difference ? They remain unaquainted with Truth and Historic knowledge in both cases, and unwilling to find it.
Obviously, for those who are serious or for those who are trying to find truth, we attempt to dialogue. We try to work with those who wish to work with us or converse with us. And for the people who admit where they are at, we try to do the same. We do admit that there is such a thing as a valid search for answers, and we don't expect all those that we talk with to have all the answers. (We don't have all the answers either). And we are learning new things also.
What are examples of Valid Sources ?
Books / works /decrees published by any Eastern Orthodox Monastery
Books / works /decrees published by any Council prior to 1900/1917
Books / works /decrees published by any Regional Gathering prior to 1900/1917
Books / works /decrees published by any Seminary prior to 1900/1917
Books / works /decrees published by any School prior to 1900/1917
This means that there are 1900 years by EOC standards (1500 years by our count) of EOC History that can be used. Surely sincere and truth-seeking Eastern Orthodox members would have no trouble finding this material, and thereby also demonstrate (to themselves) - that 1. what they have been told are the Historic EOC beliefs, are consistent with 2. what the EOC teaches today. (If you are afraid of losing your faith, or if you are a weak person then please do not undertake this research) (If you are a person who has internal strength, or if you are seeking to find out the facts about either the EOC or the RCC, then there is nothing to fear). God is not the author of ficticious history.
What is your point ?
Well think about real information for a moment. If anyone meets someone from a cult or something of that nature, we attempt to establish what they believe. We ask them to 1) demonstrate what they believe and 2) document what they believe. One of the ways that we would ask them to do this, is in writing, so that there is a record of it .
Almost everyone would agree that this is a basic standard of minimum credibility. Yet, a church such as the Eastern Orthodox Church has had millions of dollars, and hundreds of churches all over the world. Their followers insist that the EOC leadership is 1) sincere 2) honest and 3) historical.
But when it comes time to being able to document just what the EOC believes, the members suddenly become very vague. It seems very unclear. One person recently wrote to us to say that this was not the fault of the EOC - since the EOC has no written creeds. REALLY ?
That is not what OTHER Eastern Orthodox members are telling us.
Hmmm...lets do the math...1900 years of history...a lot of "claims" to sincerity, and very very little proof of anything. We think that the Eastern Orthodox Church really does have the proof about what it believes, and that it has it in books that are very old. It just does not want to release or distribute them, because if it did this, most of its own members - laymen - would be able to see that the Eastern Orthodox Leadership is Departing from what it historically first believed.
The fact is that the EOC has many Official Non-RCC sources over the centuries.
If EOC laymen are NOT aware of this, this begs the question: Why Not ?
IMAGE ICON
IKON WORSHIP and the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
Free PDF - INSTANT DOWNLOAD - Registration NOT Required
For Adobe 5.1 or Later:
READY FOR DOWNLOAD : COMPLETE
EDITION
CLICK HERE to be taken to Easy Download Page
for This Free Ebook-
IMAGE WORSHIP EARLY CHURCH FATHERS - PDF
- COMPLETE
PDF Ebook Instant Download - [16.8 MB]
READY FOR DOWNLOAD :
PART A
RIGHT CLICK HERE to be taken to Easy Download Page
-
THIS FREE EBOOK - IMAGE WORSHIP EARLY CHURCH FATHERS -
PART A
Part A -
Alternate
Download
PDF Ebook Instant Download - [10.1 MB]
READY FOR DOWNLOAD : PART A (REDUCED
SIZE - Under 10 MB)
PDF Ebook Instant Download - [9.7 MB]
CLICK HERE to be taken to Easy Download Page - REDUCED
SIZE - IMAGE WORSHIP EARLY
CHURCH FATHERS - PART A(Red)
READY FOR DOWNLOAD :
PART
What we think of the Eastern Orthodox
Please
Note: We do try to be accurate. If you see anything which you believe
Is not
correct on our website, please do bring it to our attention.
Thank you
(XOFC Staff)