04 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't take cracks at Christianity. I'm not averse, however, to taking cracks at claims of infallibility, so here it goes:
What, Doctor - finding the discussion a little too intellectual for your taste?
Perhaps you'd like to entertain us with another crack at Christianity. A limerick, perhaps?
The pope once sat in his chair
Cleared his throat and said, "I do declare,
There's been a mistake!
Give me a break!
God knows that all people err."
04 Nov 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesTaking a crack at infallibility is to take a crack at idolatry. I do not understand how that can be seen as taking a crack at Christianity.
I don't take cracks at Christianity. I'm not averse, however, to taking cracks at claims of infallibility, so here it goes:
The pope once sat in his chair
Cleared his throat and said, "I do declare,
There's been a mistake!
Give me a break!
God knows that [b]all people err."[/b]
04 Nov 05
Originally posted by vistesd
I wonder if we’re going to get into a “Rome says—Orthodoxy says” kind of situation here. That’s not a bad thing. I’m going to spend some research time before responding to you fully (or else agreeing). Just a couple notes in the meantime:
First, here are the quotes from the letter from Chalcedon to Leo that are the most affirming of the Pope’s place— ...[text shortened]... at Pelikan’s opus is still considered to be [b]the pre-eminent scholarly work in this area.)[/b]
(vistesd) The filioque goes to both canonical jurisdiction and doctrine. Orthodoxy has, based on my reading, never declared the filioque to be heresy. They do deem it to be bad theology (which is a whole other argument). But, since this is a doctrinal issue—and if the Patriarch of Rome possesses the charism of infallibility in matters of doctrine—how could they refuse to follow the Pope in this matter of doctrine if they accepted that infallibility?
First, the doctrine of the filioque wasn't actually dogmatically defined till Lateran IV (1215)* - so it is incorrect to say that Photius et. al. actually rejected an infallible papal teaching at the time of the Schism.
Second, the Greek representatives (including the Archbishop of Constantinople) actually assented to the filioque doctrine (which required a long clarification to show that the Latin and Greek beliefs on the matter were not in opposition and was really a translation issue) at the Council of Florence in 1439†.
Third, the doctrine of the filioque was originally Eastern in origin:
It is useful to note that a regional council in Persia in 410 introduced one of the earliest forms of the filioque in the Creed; the council specified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father "and from the Son." Coming from the rich theology of early East Syrian Christianity, this expression in this context is authentically Eastern. Therefore, the filioque cannot be attacked as a solely Western innovation, nor as something created by the Pope.‡
Peace,
LH
---
* http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm
† Session 6
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm
‡ http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque
(An Orthodox site!)
04 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerFirst, the doctrine of the filioque wasn't actually dogmatically defined till Lateran IV (1215)* - so it is incorrect to say that Photius et. al. actually rejected an infallible papal teaching at the time of the Schism.
[quote](vistesd) The filioque goes to both canonical jurisdiction and doctrine. Orthodoxy has, based on my reading, never declared the filioque to be heresy. They do deem it to be bad theology (which is a whole other argument). But, since this is a doctrinal issue—and if the Patriarch of Rome possesses the charism of infallibility in matters of doctri ...[text shortened]... p://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm
‡ http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque
(An Orthodox site!)
By this logic, no one could accept or reject Papal infallibility on any doctrine until it became “dogmatically defined.” When was Papal infallibility dogmatically defined? Until that point, you could argue that no one actually rejected it, even if the Eastern Churches had never accepted it.
Second, the Greek representatives (including the Archbishop of Constantinople) actually assented to the filioque doctrine (which required a long clarification to show that the Latin and Greek beliefs on the matter were not in opposition and was really a translation issue) at the Council of Florence in 1439†.
Three points:
(1) Quoting from the site you provided (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque):
“At the Council of Florence in 1439, Emperor John VIII Palaeologus, Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople, and other bishops from the East travelled to northern Italy in hope of reconciliation with the West, mainly in order to solicit military assistance to fend off the encroaching Turkish invaders. After extensive discussion, in Ferrara, then in Florence, they acknowledged that some Latin Fathers spoke of the procession of the Spirit differently from the Greek Fathers. Since the general consensus of the Fathers was held to be reliable, as a witness to common faith, the Western usage was held not to be a heresy and not a barrier to restoration of full communion. All but one of the Orthodox bishops present agreed and signed a decree of union between East and West, Laetentur Coeli in 1439. The one bishop who refused to sign and was later heralded as a Pillar of Orthodoxy by the Church was St. Mark of Ephesus, who followed in the footsteps of the previous Pillar of Orthodoxy, St. Photius the Great.
Officially and publicly, Rome and the Orthodox Church were back in communion. However, the reconciliation achieved at Florence was soon destroyed, founded as it was on a compromise of faith. Numerous Orthodox faithful and bishops rejected the union. Moreover, after the Turks conquered Constantinople in 1453, they fostered separation from the West, which remained an adversary to Islamic political and military dominance. Furthermore, the patriarch, Gennadius, was also one of the bishops who had repudiated the reunion of Florence on his own initiative.”[/b]
(2) The Greek Orthodox Church does not today—and by its accounts really never has—recognized the filioque as legitimate. It is not in the Nicene Creed as used in the Orthodox Church. (Although there are discussion about whether or not a revised statement of the filioque might come to be accepted.)
(3) There seems to be a fundamental theological issue, beyond translation problems. For Orthodoxy, the Father is the Godhead. Pelikan (quotes from Photius, except for the one from Dionysius):
[/i]The Trinity was a unity only if “both the Son and the Spirit are led forth from one cause, the father;” any other theory was “blasphemy” and a “resurgence of the godlessness of polytheism…in the guise of Christianity.” Although the Son and the Spirit, as well as the Father, were without beginning, they did nevertheless have a single cause within the Godhead, namely, the Father, who had no cause distinct from himself. Dionysius the Aeropagite had taught that “the father is the only source of the spuersubstantial Godhead.”[/i]
To expand on my earlier statement about the filioque not being regarded as heresy by the East (from the same Orthodox article):
“There has never been a specific conciliar statement in the Orthodox Church which defined the filioque as heresy. That being said, however, it has been regarded as heretical by multiple Orthodox saints, including Ss. Photius the Great, Mark of Ephesus, and Gregory Palamas (the three Pillars of Orthodoxy). At the Third Ecumenical Council and the "Photian" council of 879-880 (both councils Rome signed onto), all changes to the Creed are anathematized. Further, it is explicitly denounced as heretical by the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs. “
Additional quotes from the same Orthodox.wiki site under Primacy (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Primacy):
“Papal primacy is often recognized as the greatest single issue dividing the Eastern and Western churches. Fr. John Meyendorff wrote that “The whole ecclesiological debate between East and West is thus reducible to the issue of whether the faith depends on Peter, or Peter on the faith.””
“Professor John Erickson points out that the Orthodox understand all bishops, not just the bishop of Rome, to be the successors of Peter, and mentions that Patriarch Bartholomew has recently reiterated his explicit rejection of the Catholic interpretation of the “keys of Peter.”[25] In Orthodox ecclesiology, all bishops possess a fundamental equality, even if, because of practical reasons, some are given a higher position than others. This is an example of where Orthodox ecclesiology differs from Roman Catholic teaching in an important way.”
I now have to give this up for tonight….
04 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesd
The following quotes, dealing with the question of infallibility are from Christos Yannaras, The Elements of Faith: An Introduction to Orthodox Theology, pp. 105-107. Yannaras is a Greek Orthodox theologian.
Whether the Scripture alone or the Scripture together with the Tradition, it is still a matter of the source or the sources by which the ...[text shortened]... ty in general—seems to be just that in Orthodoxy: a question that is debated and disputed.]
(vistesd) In sum, Yannaras makes two points about the notion of infallibility in general:
(1) He critiques the Western quest for some infallible authority to which to submit, in an attempt to acquire “individual security, the protection of individual certainty about the truth to be believed.” He places both the Protestant sola scriptura and the Roman Catholic assertion of Papal authority in this category.
(2) He moves the question to the existential viewpoint of Orthodoxy, dropping the concept of infallibility for one of existential (and perhaps mystical—in the old sense of the word; simply an experience of the ineffable reality grounding our existence, which in Orthodoxy is Trinitarian in nature) “verification” within the communion of the Church. [Note: The question of salvation outside the Orthodox Church—and outside Christianity in general—seems to be just that in Orthodoxy: a question that is debated and disputed.]
My response to Yannaras would be simply this - exactly what were the Church Fathers of Nicaea up to? What were they doing when they laid out the faith they had received through the Apostolic Tradition in the Nicene Creed? What were they doing when they anathematized those who held to Arian beliefs*?
Either I'm seriously misreading Yannaras, or Yannaras is seriously misreading history.
---
* http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-10.htm#P522_112870
04 Nov 05
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammer[/i]My response to Yannaras would be simply this - exactly what were the Church Fathers of Nicaea up to? What were they doing when they laid out the faith they had received through the Apostolic Tradition in the Nicene Creed? What were they doing when they anathematized those who held to Arian beliefs*?
[quote](vistesd) In sum, Yannaras makes two points about the notion of infallibility in general:
(1) He critiques the Western quest for some infallible authority to which to submit, in an attempt to acquire “individual security, the protection of individual certainty about the truth to be believed.” He places both the Protestant [i]sola scriptura[ ...[text shortened]... misreading history.
---
* http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-10.htm#P522_112870
The point Yannaras is making is about what the Fathers at Nicea (or other councils) were not up to. They were not declaring themselves infallible based on their ecclesial authority as an Ecumenical Council. The Councils are not considered to be a priori infallible in their decisions, so that whatever they decide must then be accepted by the Church. The seven ecumenical councils recognized by Orthodoxy are held to be correct in their decisions because they have been deemed ex post facto to have been true to Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition. Rather like a scientific theory that continually stands up to empirical testing to the point where it is called a “law.” When Orthodox refer to the “infallibility” of the Ecumenical Councils, they are speaking in that sense—not in the sense that if a Council were convened tomorrow it’s decisions would automatically be considered infallible.
A relevant quote:
The Fundamental Teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church, by Rev. George Mastrantonis
The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7063.asp
“In such instances, the Fathers of the Church assembled in synods to discuss the disputed points and to decree and interpret the correct meaning of those truths. In doing so, the synods of the Fathers, as a whole and as individuals, believe that their decisions are infallible. Their decisions, however, remain pending for acceptance by the "Conscience of the Church", which is the consent of all the faithful, clergy and laity. (my bold)”
Also from an article on Papal Primacy by Emmanuel Clapsis, from the Creek Orthodox Archdiocese of America(http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp)
"It is possible, however, for the bishops to be intolerant, fallible in judgment, and distorting of the truth. But since Christ will never desert his Church, we remain confident that ultimately the Holy Spirit will lead Christ's Church to all truths and unity. By the grace of the Holy Spirit the Church is infallible when it meets in synods to clarify the Church's understanding of the central truths of salvation once these synods have been recognized by the people of God as true and catholic expressions of the apostolic faith." (my bold)
And, Yannaras again:
We have seen in the preceding pages that the synods formulate the boundaries or limits of the truth of the Church, that is the borders or the circumference of a truth which is not exhausted in its formulation, because it is not a theoretical “system” or “transcendental ideology”, but is experienced and realized existentially in the dynamic of the life of the eucharistic body.
If, then, in a synod certain Bishops or even the whole of the Bishops express opinions, views and finally decisions unrelated to the experience of the eucharistic body, then the synod is annuled and the Bishops fall from their status—because finally the people are the judge and custodian of the ecclesial truth, the people are the bearer of the ecclesial experience of “true life.”
Thus, within history, synods which aspired to have a general authority for the whole of Christendom—they were convoked as “ecumenical” and wanted to assert themselves as “ecumenical”—were rejected by the people, they were characterized as “robber” and “pseudo-synods.” While others, much more temperate in their intentions, were recognized by the people as ecumenical, because the truth which they expressed and formulated was ecumenical and catholic.
This historical data, the denial of every institutionalized authority and the rejection of every infallible ruling principle within the Church, remains nevertheless unintelligible and inexplicable today, where our entire culture—our way of life—presupposes the subordination to the given authority of institutions and structures and ideologies and programmes and the exclusion of the people from the management of the essentials of life…
So, for western European Christianity, it seems inconceivable to subject an ecumenical synod of Bishops to the judgment of the lay body…. (Yannaras, op cit, pp. 142-43)
This “consent of all the faithful, clergy and laity,” is not formal. Another “synod” of the faithful is not convened. It is organic. It is also slow. So, if today, an Orthodox declares that the first seven ecumenical councils were “infallible,” s/he means that they have proven to be without error regarding the issues they addressed, insofar as they addressed them.
04 Nov 05
3 edits
This is just an addendum to my previous post re infallibility of Ecumenical Councils--
Excerpts from Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htm)
Infallibility belongs to the whole Church, not just to the episcopate in isolation. As the Orthodox Patriarchs said in their Letter of 1848 to Pope Pius the Ninth: ‘Among us, neither Patriarchs nor Councils could ever introduce new teaching, for the guardian of religion is the very body of the Church, that is, the people (laos) itself.’
But councils of bishops can err and be deceived. How then can one be certain that a particular gathering is truly an Ecumenical Council and therefore that its decrees are infallible? Many councils have considered themselves ecumenical and have claimed to speak in the name of the whole Church, and yet the Church has rejected them as heretical: Ephesus in 449, for example, or the Iconoclast Council of Hieria in 754, or Florence in 1438-9. Yet these councils seem in no way different in outward appearance from the Ecumenical Councils. What, then, is the criterion for determining whether a council is ecumenical?
This act of acceptance, this reception of councils by the Church as a whole, must not be understood in a juridical sense: ‘It does not mean that the decisions of the councils should be confirmed by a general plebiscite and that without such a plebiscite they have no force. There is no such plebiscite. But from historical experience it clearly appears that the voice of a given council has truly been the voice of the Church or that it has not: that is all’ (S. Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, p. 89).
At a true Ecumenical Council the bishops recognize what the truth is and proclaim it; this proclamation is then verified by the assent of the whole Christian people, an assent which is not, a rule, expressed formally and explicitly, but lived.
The ecumenicity of a council cannot be decided by outward criteria alone: ‘Truth can have no external criterion, for it is manifest of itself and made inwardly plain’ (V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 188). The infallibility of the Church must not be ‘exteriorized,’ nor understood in too ‘material’ a sense: ‘It is not the ‘ecumenicity’ but the truth of the councils which makes their decisions obligatory for us. We touch here upon the fundamental mystery of the Orthodox doctrine of the Church: the Church is the miracle of the presence of God among men, beyond all formal ‘criteria,’ all formal ‘infallibility.’ It is not enough to summon an ‘Ecumenical Council’ ... it is also necessary that in the midst of those so assembled there should be present He who said: "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life." Without this presence, however numerous and representative the assembly may be, it will not be in the truth. Protestants and Catholics usually fail to understand this fundamental truth of Orthodoxy: both materialize the presence of God in the Church — the one party in the letter of Scripture, the other in the person of the Pope — though they do not thereby avoid the miracle, but clothe it in a concrete form. For Orthodoxy, the sole ‘criterion of truth’ remains God Himself, living mysteriously in the Church, leading it in the way of the Truth’ (J. Meyendorff, quoted by M. J. le Guillou, Missio et Unité, Paris, 1960, vol. 2, p. 313).
NOTE on the whole: Yannaras obviously prefers to eschew the term "infallibility" altogether. Other Orthodox authors use the term, but only under the Orthdox understanding outlined above. They are not in disagreement. Yannaras' "rejection of every infallible ruling principle" does not, clearly from his context, exclude verifcation of the Councils by the whole body of the church (in fact, he affirms it); he is basically saying the same things as Lossky's "truth can have no external criterion." (Lossky and Meyendorff are two of Orthodxy's "premier" theologians.)
04 Nov 05
Originally posted by vistesd
[/i][b]My response to Yannaras would be simply this - exactly what were the Church Fathers of Nicaea up to? What were they doing when they laid out the faith they had received through the Apostolic Tradition in the Nicene Creed? What were they doing when they anathematized those who held to Arian beliefs*?
The point Yannaras is making is about what th ...[text shortened]... proven to be without error regarding the issues they addressed, insofar as they addressed them.[/b]
(vistesd) They were not declaring themselves infallible based on their ecclesial authority as an Ecumenical Council. The Councils are not considered to be a priori infallible in their decisions, so that whatever they decide must then be accepted by the Church.
But this was exactly what the Nicene Fathers (and the Fathers of subsequent Councils) were up to!
The main purpose of the council was to attempt to heal the schism in the church provoked by Arianism. This it proceeded to do theologically and politically by the almost unanimous production of a theological confession (the Nicene Creed) by over three hundred bishops representing almost all the eastern provinces of the empire (where the heresy was chiefly centered) and by a token representation from the West. The creed thus produced was the first that could legally claim universal authority as it was sent throughout the empire to receive the agreement of the churches (with the alternative consequences of excommunication and imperial banishment).*
(vistesd) The seven ecumenical councils recognized by Orthodoxy are held to be correct in their decisions because they have been deemed ex post facto to have been true to Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition.
If I summarise Yannaras's view accurately:
1. Catholics believe that properly convened Ecumenical Councils are infallible a priori.
2. Orthodox Christians believe that whether an Ecumenical Council was 'infallible' or not can only be determined a posteriori - by verifying its decrees against Scripture and Tradition.
The problem with the second view is that it is seriously ahistorical. There was nothing tentative about Nicaea. Essentially, the Nicene Fathers said, "This is what we believe. This is the truth. If you don't believe this, you're anathema". Emperor Constantine convened the First Council of Nicaea to authoritatively lay out the Christian Faith - and proceeded to root out Arianism from the Empire based on the decrees of that Council. There was no "verifying" the decrees of Nicaea - anyone who dissented was ejected from Church and Empire.
---
* http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/nicaea.htm
04 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI think there are two misunderstandings here, the first one clearly my fault:(vistesd) They were not declaring themselves infallible based on their ecclesial authority as an Ecumenical Council. The Councils are not considered to be a priori infallible in their decisions, so that whatever they decide must then be accepted by the Church.
But this was [b]exactly what the Nicene Fathers (and the Fath ...[text shortened]... issented was ejected from Church and Empire.
---
* http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/nicaea.htm[/b]
(1) I will stand corrected on the question of what the Councils were “up to.” I mis-construed Yannaras by not reading him in light of the other references (hence my “Note on the whole” in my last post; but I did not go back and correct myself).
(2) Nevertheless, the Orthodox viewpoint seems to be this:
(a) A Council (synod) may believe itself to be a priori infallible;
(b) A Council is certainly likely to believe that its decisions are without error, with or without a belief in a prior infallibility (the Council members certainly want to believe they were guided by the Holy Spirit);
(c) Because the Church is also an institutional organ, there is going to be the attempt to enforce the decisions of the Council (as you have noted in the past, there was no real Church-State separation, as we understand it, at the time—so there could also be “civil” enforcement of Church decrees);
BUT—
(d) Whether or not those decisions and decrees are ultimately deemed to be without error (and the Councils “infallible” )—and whether or not their enforcement was proper—will be decided by the “’Conscience of the Church’”, which is the consent of all the faithful, clergy and laity.” Thus, despite the beliefs of the Council members, or others, at the time, the “surety” of the Council’s decisions comes from acceptance by the Church as a whole. As Ware said: ‘It is not the ‘ecumenicity’ but the truth of the councils which makes their decisions obligatory for us. We touch here upon the fundamental mystery of the Orthodox doctrine of the Church: the Church is the miracle of the presence of God among men, beyond all formal ‘criteria,’ all formal ‘infallibility.’
Clearly, this is not just Yannaras’ view, but the Orthodox view. That is, it is rooted in the Orthodox view that, despite hopes and beliefs and declarations at the time, a Council cannot be assumed to be a priori infallible, in that it may be subsequently “annulled.” I need to check out the Councils of Ephesus in 449 and Hieria in 754, to see the criteria by which, and the manner in which, those Councils were rejected.
I have found several on-line articles about the filioque, from the Orthodox side, but I have to go do some other things right now, so I’ll post them later.
Peace.
05 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdThis "consent of conscience" view has several problems IMO:
I think there are two misunderstandings here, the first one clearly my fault:
(1) I will stand corrected on the question of what the Councils were “up to.” I mis-construed Yannaras by not reading him in light of the other references (hence my “Note on the whole” in my last post; but I did not go back and correct myself).
(2) Nevertheless, the Ortho ...[text shortened]... thodox side, but I have to go do some other things right now, so I’ll post them later.
Peace.
1. It is not consistent with Scripture - refer back to my note on 1 Tim 3:15 on page 2.
2. It leads to circular reasoning. For instance, with the Council of Nicaea, the theologians you've quoted suggest that Nicaea is to be treated as correct solely because history shows it to be "the voice of the Church". But the Nicean view is the historical voice of the Church because all other voices were silenced. And the other voices were silenced on the presumption that Nicaea was correct.
NOTE: The real problem is that the ecclesiology you're presenting assumes that "real life" in the Church flows on, untouched by the Councils - providing us a benchmark against which to evaluate the correctness of the Councils. Yes, there is a constant flow in the living faith - but that living faith has been protected from grave error many times through the Councils (pick virtually any early heresy the early Councils dealt with - Arianism, Monophysitism, Monothelism - all of them threatened to rupture the Church). This Tradition inspired the Church Fathers to make their decrees at the Councils but, once made, the decrees were binding on the Church.
3. This is very clearly not the understanding of the Church Fathers (even the ones who participated in the false or disputed councils). They did not think an acceptance of the people was necessary or sufficient for the Holy Spirit to guide their actions in the Councils.
4. If "recognition by the people of God" is what verifies the ecumenicity/correctness/infallibility of a Council - then exactly which Councils were ecumenical/correct/infallible? All 21 Councils accepted by the Catholics - who number more than the rest of Christianity put together? Just the first seven - as the Eastern Orthodox Churches claim? Just the first three - as the Oriental Orthodox Churches claim?
NOTE: B. Ware argues that a plebiscite is not needed - what is sufficient is the living assent of the "whole Christian people". But what does "whole" mean?
All of the Churches mentioned above fully 'live' the Councils they uphold - in their traditions, theology, liturgy, worship, spirituality etc.
My objection here is well expressed in The Catholic Encyclopedia:
It remains to be observed, in opposition to the theory of conciliar infallibility usually defended by High Church Anglicans that once the requisite papal confirmation has been given the doctrinal decisions of an ecumenical council become infallible and irreformable; there is no need to wait perhaps hundreds of years for the unanimous acceptance and approbation of the whole Christian world. Such a theory really amounts to a denial of conciliar infallibility, and sets up in the final court of appeal an altogether vague and ineffective tribunal. If the theory be true, were not the Arians perfectly justified in their prolonged struggle to reverse Nicaea, and has not the persistent refusal of the Nestorians down to our own day to accept Ephesus and of the Monophysites to accept Chalcedon been sufficient to defeat the ratification of those councils? No workable rule can be given for deciding when such subsequent ratification as this theory requires becomes effective and even if this could be done in the case of some of the earlier councils whose definitions are received by the Anglicans, it would still be true that since the Photian schism it has been practically impossible to secure any such consensus as is required -- in other words that the working of infallible authority, the purpose of which is to teach every generation, has been suspended since the ninth century, and that Christ's promises to His Church have been falsified.*
Yannaras may argue here that a "workable rule" is a sign of the Western obsession with infallible authorities. First, this is not a Western obsession - witness how the Church Fathers (Western and Eastern) put such a great emphasis on which councils were true and which ones were not. Second, without such a "workable rule", every Christian would be free to accept or reject the teachings of the Councils as he pleases. Virtually none of the Councils is accepted by the whole of the Christian faithful (not even Nicaea - which is rejected by such "Christian" sects as the Unitarians, the JW and the LDS).
EDIT: Regarding the "Robber" Council (Latrocinium) of Ephesus (449) and the "Iconoclast" Council of Hieria (754), the Catholic position is very clear - both these Councils were rejected by the Pope. The Council of Florence (actually, Basel-Ferrera-Florence) is very much considered to be an Ecumenical Council by the Catholic Church.
---
* http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#III
05 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerI couldn’t sleep for thinking about this, so I’m up at 2:00 AM—
This "consent of conscience" view has several problems IMO:
1. It is not consistent with Scripture - refer back to my note on 1 Tim 3:15 on page 2.
2. It leads to circular reasoning. For instance, with the Council of Nicaea, the theologians you've quoted suggest that Nicaea is to be treated as correct solely because history shows it to be "t ...[text shortened]... menical Council by the Catholic Church.
---
* http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#III
1. It is not consistent with Scripture - refer back to my note on 1 Tim 3:15 on page 2.
I see nothing inconsistent here. Paul is advising Timothy on how to behave “in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” Note that it is the Church—not Timothy, not Paul, not the Apostles—which is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.” That is exactly what the Orthodox Church is saying.
2. It leads to circular reasoning. For instance, with the Council of Nicaea, the theologians you've quoted suggest that Nicaea is to be treated as correct solely because history shows it to be "the voice of the Church". But the Nicean view is the historical voice of the Church because all other voices were silenced. And the other voices were silenced on the presumption that Nicaea was correct.
Unless I’m misreading you, I think you are being circular. Something like this: “History shows we were right because we shut everybody else up; and we had a right to shut everybody else up because of our presumption that we were right.” It is exactly that kind of tyranny that the Orthodox “Conscience of the Church” is supposed to be the ultimate safeguard against. [NOTE: A few of your comments seemed to be directed at individual freedom of conscience in such matters. That is a Protestant position, not the Orthodox one.]
This Tradition inspired the Church Fathers to make their decrees at the Councils but, once made, the decrees were binding on the Church.
This is exactly what the Orthodox are saying is not the case. The Orthodox view is exactly that the decrees are binding because they were right, not that they were automatically right because they were the decrees of the Council. Your position seems to be that the truth is the truth because of who declares it so, and is not to be “tested in the marketplace” so to speak.
3. This is very clearly not the understanding of the Church Fathers (even the ones who participated in the false or disputed councils). They did not think an acceptance of the people was necessary or sufficient for the Holy Spirit to guide their actions in the Councils.
The implication here seems to be that the Holy Spirit works only through “designees” rather than through the whole body of the Church, liturgically, sacramentally and “mystically” constituted—which is the Orthodox view.
NOTE: B. Ware argues that a plebiscite is not needed - what is sufficient is the living assent of the "whole Christian people". But what does "whole" mean?
Ware did not say the “whole Christian people.” He said the whole Church, by which he obviously means the Orthodox Church. (Note: The Orthodox do not in general claim that there are no Christians outside the Orthodox Church “physical” body, nor that salvation is precluded for those outside. That is a whole other topic, however.) As Mastrantonis put it, “all the faithful, clergy and laity.”
…once the requisite papal confirmation has been given the doctrinal decisions of an ecumenical council become infallible and irreformable; there is no need to wait perhaps hundreds of years for the unanimous acceptance and approbation of the whole Christian world.
I think we can wipe a priori conciliar infallibility off the boards here without further ado.
Whether the 449 Council at Ephesus, for example, was determined to have been in error (a) by Papal examination and rejection, or (b) because it “offended” the Conscience of the Church—it was determined to have been fallible. The same goes for the accepted Councils: If they are determined to have been infallible by virtue of papal examination and confirmation, or the general acceptance by “all the faithful, clergy and laity”—that determination comes ex post facto. Whether those participating in the Councils presumed their decisions were infallible or not.
With regard to all the criticisms about the “sloppiness” (my word, not yours) of the Orthodox understanding, it has become clear to me that the Orthodox are comfortable with more “degrees of freedom” in such areas than the RCC. And even if they were not comfortable, they are committed to the principle that the Spirit is not confined to guiding “designees,” who must then simply be obeyed, but guides rather the Church as a whole—and it is ultimately only in the Church liturgically, sacramentally and mystically constituted that “infallibility” can be vested.
_____________________________________________
At this nexus I think we come to the issue of Papal infallibility, and the linked issue of papal primacy. The question is whether, and to what extent, the Orthodox have ever affirmed these—and on what basis. I am gathering some information going back before 1054, since even if papal infallibility was not an explicit issue that far back, papal primacy certainly was.
Shalom.
05 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammer=============startBut isn't the presumption fairly obvious here, Lucifershammer?
My argument rests on two assumptions:
(1) Christ really was the only begotten Son of God; he was omniscient.
(2) Christ really did say the things ascribed to Him in these verses to the audience mentioned.*
If you dispute (1), then the point of infallibility is moo ...[text shortened]... hen but not now. This is a variation of moral relativism. Is this the position you wish to take?
LUCIHAM...
My argument rests on two assumptions:
(1) Christ really was the only begotten Son of God; he was omniscient.
(2) Christ really did say the things ascribed to Him in these verses to the audience mentioned.*
If you dispute (1), then the point of infallibility is moot - neither Christian laity nor clergy are infallible.
If you dispute (2), then the point of interpreting these verses is moot - Christ never said them so there's no point arguing over what he meant by them.
The point of this debate is to see whether the infallibility of the Pope and the episcopal college follows given (1) and (2) above.
==============end
That is not the point of our debate. The point of our debate is to discuss how rational it is to regard the pope and the episcopal college as infallible. To the extent that the thesis of infallibility relies upon (1) and (2), the credibility of (1) and (2) is relevant. (1) and (2) cannot be assumed for the purposes of the debate just because you regard them as true, any more than they can be assumed false for the purposes of the debate because I regard them as false.
Let's take (2). As I pointed out earlier, Jesus seems mispredict the timing of His Second Coming. The scriptural basis for concluding this is surely *at least* as secure as the scriptural basis for concluding that Jesus conferred infallibility upon his apostles. Of course, there is always some alternative interpretation you could make of supportive passages for either. But my point is that, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: if one is prepared to accept the claim that Jesus conferred infallibility, then one should also be prepared to accept the claim that his mispredicted his Second Coming.
Obviously, this counterindicates omniscience (or, alternatively, honesty).
============start
PAWNO...
Retrospectively, you can interpret the apostles and Peter as analogues for the bishops and the Pope. However, prospectively this interpretation is far less plausible. Isn't it stretching it just a bit to claim that Jesus specifically had the bishops and Pope in mind when addressing his apostles?
LUCIHAM...
Not really. Given the omniscience of Christ, He would've known full well that his Apostles would die long before they had a chance to "teach all nations" and that they wouldn't last "all days, even to the consummation of the world". What's more, He would've known that the Apostles would interpret their "mission statement" to be one that would be executed by themselves and their successors - note that the very first action of the Apostles after Christ's Ascension was to select Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot in the "apostolic ministry"†.
So Christ knew His Apostles would interpret His statements to refer to their office rather than their persons; if He didn't want them to interpret it thus, He wouldn't have said them.
[CONT....]
What is more relevant, however, is the fact that the charism of infallibility was given to the episcopal college as a body, whereas the Pope has it individually. Since the Pope is himself a member of the episcopal college (as Bishop of Rome) as Peter was a member of the Apostles, the charism of infallibility applies only when the episcopal college teaches as a body in communion with the Pope.
So, that rules out the Anglican Bishops.
=================end
You are not dealing with the key difficulty here.
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Jesus meant that his apostles were infallible.
Now, the Pope and bishops *claim* that they are the successors of Peter and the Apostles. But how do they *know* this; indeed, how does anyone know? How does anyone know, for example, that Jesus had the Catholic hierarchy in mind, even if He was omniscient and did have some successors in mind? The superficial similarity -- Peter + apostles :: Pope + episcopal college -- is wholly insufficient to make the case. Quite simply, the successional link is *entirely* matter of retrospective interpretation.
There is another critical fact that needs to be stated. It is immensely tempting, flattering, and reassuring to believe that one is in possession of objective Truth in matters moral. There is therefore a strong motivation for people to believe it, which is liable to bias their thinking. I trust I don't need to point out that many different religions and sects claim to provide this, and that most of them must be wrong, since they teach contradictory truths.
It follows that it is incumbent on anyone claiming to infallibility in matters moral to have excellent rather than wishy-washy grounds for their claim, let they be in danger of pleasantly fooling themselves.
05 Nov 05
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
=============start
LUCIHAM...
My argument rests on two assumptions:
(1) Christ really was the only begotten Son of God; he was omniscient.
(2) Christ really did say the things ascribed to Him in these verses to the audience mentioned.*
If you dispute (1), then the point of infallibility is moot - neither Christian laity nor clergy are ...[text shortened]... han wishy-washy grounds for their claim, let they be in danger of pleasantly fooling themselves.
(pawno) Let's take (2). As I pointed out earlier, Jesus seems mispredict the timing of His Second Coming. The scriptural basis for concluding this is surely *at least* as secure as the scriptural basis for concluding that Jesus conferred infallibility upon his apostles. Of course, there is always some alternative interpretation you could make of supportive passages for either. But my point is that, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: if one is prepared to accept the claim that Jesus conferred infallibility, then one should also be prepared to accept the claim that his mispredicted his Second Coming.
This is what I meant when I said your original objections were vague. You claim that Jesus mispredicted his Second Coming. Should I just take your word (or Kung's word) for it or are you going to provide us Scriptural evidence for such a view?
If we're going to have a meaningful discussion, you'll have to back your assertions with at least as much evidence as you're asking me to back mine with.
(pawno) Now, the Pope and bishops *claim* that they are the successors of Peter and the Apostles. But how do they *know* this; indeed, how does anyone know?
How does anyone know that GWB is the legitimate successor to George Washington?
LH
05 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdI'll get back to 1 Tim ch 3 later. But first a couple of points:
I couldn’t sleep for thinking about this, so I’m up at 2:00 AM—
[b]1. It is not consistent with Scripture - refer back to my note on 1 Tim 3:15 on page 2.
I see nothing inconsistent here. Paul is advising Timothy on how to behave “in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” Note that it is ...[text shortened]... l infallibility was not an explicit issue that far back, papal primacy certainly was.
Shalom.[/b]
(vistesd) Unless I’m misreading you, I think you are being circular. Something like this: “History shows we were right because we shut everybody else up; and we had a right to shut everybody else up because of our presumption that we were right.” It is exactly that kind of tyranny that the Orthodox “Conscience of the Church” is supposed to be the ultimate safeguard against.
Let's not get caught in emotional rhetoric ("tyranny" etc.). I can just as easily argue that the Orthodox view supports tyranny. After all, all the Orthodox Churches need to do is to wipe out every Catholic off the face of the earth and then "history" will show that only the first seven Councils were 'correct'.*
The point is that the Catholic Church never argues a "History shows we/Nicaea were right" position. In the Catholic view, what is true is true independent of whether some or all of humanity accepts it or not. Truth is not a function of the zeitgeist. The Catholic view avoids the circular reasoning I mentioned in my post.
Here's a hypothetical case - currently the Orthodox Churches hold that abortion is a grave sin†. Suppose a Council were held tomorrow that determined that abortion was not, in fact, a sin. A hundred years hence, let's say, the vast majority of Orthodox Christians believe that abortion is not sinful.
So, the question - is abortion a grave sin or not? Is it the case that a person who had an abortion before the 21st cent. was committing a sin in the eyes of God while someone who has an abortion in the 22nd cent. is not committing a sin in the eyes of God? Or is it that abortion was not a sin all along and Orthodox Christians till the 21st cent. were simply mistaken? How do 22nd cent. Orthodox Christians know that 23rd cent. Orthodox Christians will not revert back to the traditional view of abortion?
(vistesd) This is exactly what the Orthodox are saying is not the case. The Orthodox view is exactly that the decrees are binding because they were right, not that they were automatically right because they were the decrees of the Council. Your position seems to be that the truth is the truth because of who declares it so, and is not to be “tested in the marketplace” so to speak.
Read the wording of any decree from the early Church Councils. They are not 'recommendations' to the faithful - they are authoritative decrees intended to be binding. Think about it - if the Fathers of those Councils believed that their decrees were not binding unless accepted by the faithful, why would they anathematize dissenters? Why did they not test their decrees "in the marketplace"?
My view is not that the truth is the truth because of who says it, but that we know it's the truth because of who says it.
(vistesd) The implication here seems to be that the Holy Spirit works only through “designees” rather than through the whole body of the Church, liturgically, sacramentally and “mystically” constituted—which is the Orthodox view.
No - that is not implied in what I wrote. I hold that the Holy Spirit does act through the body of the Church - but not infallibly so. If the latter were the case, then why would we need Bishops?
(vistesd) Ware did not say the “whole Christian people.” He said the whole Church, by which he obviously means the Orthodox Church.
From the link you gave (in fact, you cite this paragraph in your earlier post):
At a true Ecumenical Council the bishops recognize what the truth is and proclaim it; this proclamation is then verified by the assent of the whole Christian people, an assent which is not, a rule, expressed formally and explicitly, but lived.
(vistesd) I think we can wipe a priori conciliar infallibility off the boards here without further ado.
I think we are using the terms a priori in slightly different senses. You seem to be using it in the sense of "This particular Council is going to be infallible". I'm using it more in the sense of "Any future Council that satisfies these conditions will be infallible".
With regard to all the criticisms about the “sloppiness” (my word, not yours) of the Orthodox understanding, it has become clear to me that the Orthodox are comfortable with more “degrees of freedom” in such areas than the RCC. And even if they were not comfortable, they are committed to the principle that the Spirit is not confined to guiding “designees,” who must then simply be obeyed, but guides rather the Church as a whole—and it is ultimately only in the Church liturgically, sacramentally and mystically constituted that “infallibility” can be vested.
Once again, let's avoid emotional rhetoric ("degrees of freedom" etc.). As I said before, the Catholic view is not that the Holy Spirit is "confined" to guiding "designees". Rather, it is the affirmation that the Holy Spirit has left us infallible guides that we can have certitude in and against which we can judge whether it is the Spirit working in us or not.
Peace,
LH
---
* I didn't want to express my point in such crude terms, but your strong wording left me no choice.
† if not murder. See
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7101.asp