3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerLet'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'.*
I'll get back to 1 Tim ch 3 later. But first a couple of points:
[quote](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 tyr ...[text shortened]... me no choice.
† if not murder. See
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7101.asp
I did not intend it as emotional, nor as rhetoric. If I start out with the presumption (your word) that I am correct, and if I also think that such presumptive correctness gives me the right to silence the opposition, then I think that is a kind of tyranny (whether that silencing is done in relatively benign ways or not). If there is a better word that relieves any emotional tension, then I’m happy to use it. My argument was that the Orthodox view of the “Conscience of the Church” is a kind of check on any such “tyranny by synods.” Because it is such a conservative check, in that it is not likely to prevent at least interim silencing of the opposition, I don’t find it a particularly strong one (but, then, I was a Protestant, after all).
(BTW, I did not find your example emotional or "crude," just an attempt to put your point in sharp relief.)
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.
Okay. But you were the one that raised the historical viewpoint on it with these words: “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. (italics mine.) Now, to the extent that (I thought) you were also arguing in your posts for the presumptive correctness of the council and (as I think you have elsewhere) for the church’s right to silence heretical opposition (though you condemn the means that have been sometimes used), then it seems pretty circular to me. Maybe I was pulling in too much from other context…
I do have a question, though, about “whether some or all humanity accepts it or not”: As I understand it, there is at least one person among humanity that needs to accept it, if it is to be considered the truth (speaking of doctrines and morals here), and that is the Pope. It might be more complicated than that. But both Rome and the Orthodox specify that someone needs to accept it; they differ on whom (ultimately) and under what conditions.
The example you give is not one of circular reasoning, but of potential circularity in history (a “here we go again!” kind of situation) that Catholicism seeks to avoid. Now, I think you misunderstand the Orthodox position. Just as you hold the view that the Holy Spirit would prevent the Pope from speaking in error ex cathedra, the Orthodox hold—in a much looser and less definitive way—that the Holy Spirit will not allow the whole body of the Church to hold to error. You may object to the looseness of that, but it is what they hold. (Just as, for similar reasons, you no doubt object to the Protestant principle of individual freedom of conscience in such matters—i.e., it offers no sure moral guidance—as you once warned me on here of the risks of following my conscience on just the issue you used in your example.)
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"?
The Orthodox hold that their decrees were, in fact, tested in the “marketplace” (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit). Just as, from your point of view, their decrees are tested by papal examination (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit). They didn’t simply write recommendations to the Pope either, and then wait for an assignment to rewrite them as decisions and decrees.
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.
Understood. I disagree. A person’s position, experience, knowledge, etc. may lend authority to their statements. (I give a good deal of weight to Pelikan, for example, because of his scholarly reputation as an expert in the history of Church doctrine; I give your statements about Catholicism more weight than I’d give a Lutheran pastor, unless he was also a scholar.) But I make no presumption of the "certainty of truth" of a statement simply on the basis of who is speaking. I take the same position in matters spiritual. This is, of course, somewhat different from the Orthodox position, which seems to be something more like: “We know it is the truth because the Church keeps affirming (saying) it.”
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?
Okay, I understand the clarification.
Again, the Orthodox view is not that the Church needs Bishops because the Holy Spirit acts through them infallibly, but because the organization of the Church needs representatives and spokespersons (just as it needs theologians and scholars). Anglicans, too, have Bishops, so do Lutherans. I think their role is viewed somewhat differently in all of them, but infallibility is not part of that role in any of them.
”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.”
I stand corrected. I went back to look for it before I posted, and missed it. Sloppy language on the part of Ware (perhaps because Ware is particularly sensitive about ecumenism, whereas some Orthodox view it as “anathema” ). Nevertheless, I think I have provided sufficient quotes to distinguish the Orthodox position from both that of the RCC and the Protestants.
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."
Again, understood. However, I think we are agreed that a Council is not per se, presumptively infallible. Both the condition of Papal examination and confirmation, and the Orthodox validation through the Conscience of the Church, are conditions—or validations—rendered ex post facto, and determine that a Council’s decisions and decrees were or were not without error. It appears, however, that the members of the Council assume that their decisions will be so validated, and act accordingly. So, avoiding the term a priori, no Council is in fact presumptively per se infallible. If either Church viewed them that way, there would be no talk of confirmation or validation.
Once again, let's avoid emotional rhetoric ("degrees of freedom" etc.).
“Degrees of freedom” is a technical term that I borrowed from statistics, referring to statistically independent variables. I was not employing the word strictly correctly, but in an analogous sense (which is why I put the phrase in quotes). Since I used it to acknowledge Orthodoxy’s apparent comfort with the “degree of play” that their position allows (which you have pointed out using such terms as “vague” and “ineffective,” and which I rolled into the term “sloppy” )—i.e., I in no way employed it argumentatively—I really don’t see how it could be construed as emotional rhetoric. (I did not italicize “freedom.” )
_______________________________________________
I want to return to the premises, from my side, of this debate (from where I entered into it in my first post on page 3):
1) I am not arguing for the Orthodox position per se (though it is clearly somewhat more congenial to me than the RCC one; it does not, however, satisfy my leftover Protestant principles).
2) I am arguing that the Orthodox do not and have not recognized papal infallibility (and that, I think, links with the Orthodox view on papal primacy).
3) I am also using the Orthodox position as a challenge to papal infallibility, because it is (a) an intra-church challenge, rather than a purely rational challenge that others here can make; and (b) it is not historically “late,” as a Protestant challenge might be (and that’s part of the reason why, in order to ground the Orthodox argument re papal infallibility, I believe I have to go back beyond 1054). In other words, the Orthodox are uniquely situated to challenge papal infallibility from the perspective of the ancient church—and that is not a challenge that anyone else is making here. And I think it is an important challenge, because both Rome and Orthodoxy claim a rootedness in the traditions of the ancient church in ways that the Protestants really do not.
(continued next post....)
1 edit
(…continued from prior post)
The debate, quite naturally and appropriately steered into the question of conciliar infallibility. Removing the term a priori because of our differing understandings of it, I think the matter of the Councils being per se infallible is settled. Under either schema (Rome’s or Orthodoxy’s), whether or not a Councils actions were in fact without error, is determined after the fact—whether the Council members acted as if they were without error or not. Both churches claim that their validation requirements are longstanding (prior to 1054), de facto if not de jure. And this is not changed by the fact that each Church can articulate the validation process necessary for any future councils.
The Orthodox position is, just as infallibility is not vested ultimately in the councils, that it is not vested ultimately in any ecclesial office either, including that of the Pope. The Orthodox view is one of “Council confirmed by Conscience of the Church.” The RCC view seems to be twofold: (1) “Council confirmed by the Pope” and (2) “the Pope, ex cathedra, even without a Council.” I have presented the Orthodox case for it not being “just Council.” I have not yet presented their historical case for “why not the Pope.”
Originally posted by vistesdHere's a question to ponder while you go into your research - how orthodox is the Orthodox teaching on "Council confirmed by Conscience of the Church"? I think I have provided sufficient evidence to suggest that the Church Fathers themselves would not have assented to this teaching. Re: Papal Infallibility as well, I have provided evidence that at least some Church Fathers held to a primitive version of the teaching (not to mention the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15). Is there any evidence that the theology of popular consent presented by writers such as Yannaras was actually taught prior to the 19th century (when the Catholic Church articulated its own teachings on conciliar infallibility) if not the Schism?
(…continued from prior post)
The debate, quite naturally and appropriately steered into the question of conciliar infallibility. Removing the term a priori because of our differing understandings of it, I think the matter of the Councils being per se infallible is settled. Under either schema (Rome’s or Orthodoxy’s), whether or not a Counc ...[text shortened]... ot being “just Council.” I have not yet presented their historical case for “why not the Pope.”
In other words, is this doctrine a "Protestant" response to the Catholic Church?
Originally posted by vistesdJust saw this old post. I often use the terms inter-changeably; but I think 'dogma' is an official Church teaching whereas 'doctrine' is just any teaching (think of it as a candidate for 'dogma'😉.
LH,
Can you give me a concise definitional distinction between "dogma" and "doctrine," in terms of the church, offhand?
Originally posted by vistesdJust had to respond to this one:
[b]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.
By this logic, no one could accept or reject Papal infallibility on any doctrine until it became “dogmatically defined.” When wa ...[text shortened]... s from Roman Catholic teaching in an important way.”
I now have to give this up for tonight….[/b]
“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.”
However the Orthodox Church now understands 'successors of Peter', it should be evident that the Church Fathers themselves recognised the Bishop of Rome alone as the successor of Peter. This is evident from the quotes taken from Chalcedon. For more Church Fathers on the subject:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt seems to me that your strategy, whether conscious or not, is to scurry for cover amid mounds of detail, rather than face the case against your beliefs squarely. I claim your car isn't working because it doesn't start, and you ask me to provide an exhaustive detailed mechanic's report. Well, I could. But who wants to spend the time working through the minutae?
[quote] (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 ...[text shortened]... /quote]
How does anyone know that GWB is the legitimate successor to George Washington?
LH
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeHe's got your number, LH. Take heed...
It seems to me that your strategy, whether conscious or not, is to scurry for cover amid mounds of detail, rather than face the case against your beliefs squarely. I claim your car isn't working because it doesn't start, and you ask me to provide an exhaustive detailed mechanic's report. Well, I could. But who wants to spend the time working through the minutae?
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerIs there any evidence that the theology of popular consent presented by writers such as Yannaras was actually taught prior to the 19th century (when the Catholic Church articulated its own teachings on conciliar infallibility) if not the Schism?
Just had to respond to this one:
[quote]“Professor John Erickson points out that [b]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 ecclesi ...[text shortened]... For more Church Fathers on the subject:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp[/b]
I frankly don’t know—especially since, as you pointed out, papal infallibility was not formal church dogma until when, 1870? That is why I made reference to “de facto if not de jure.” The history of the Church Councils (at least the early ones), as Pelikan points out, is in some ways “reactive”—i.e., doctrines became more and more sharply defined in response to disagreements in the “marketplace” of church thought, and perceived heresies. The Definition of Chalcedon, for example: the Fathers had to reach back to Scripture and older Apostolic writings to determine a proper understanding (the opponents did the same), since there was no clear “de jure” statement prior to the one made at Chalcedon.
The Orthodox do not have a strong history of “pre-emptive” decrees regarding doctrinal issues. I suspect that, with papal infallibility becoming “official,” both sides had to reach back to find support for their positions. (Pelikan has a long section on this in vol. 5 of his opus.) I suspect they can both be charged with reading back into history (and both, of course, will deny that while charging the other with doing exactly that).
Just saw this old post. I often use the terms inter-changeably; but I think 'dogma' is an official Church teaching whereas 'doctrine' is just any teaching (think of it as a candidate for 'dogma'😉.
Thank you. Pelikan seemed to be using both terms to cover very similar things. I get it.
However the Orthodox Church now understands 'successors of Peter', it should be evident that the Church Fathers themselves recognized the Bishop of Rome alone as the successor of Peter. This is evident from the quotes taken from Chalcedon. For more Church Fathers on the subject:
I don’t yet see it is evident that all the Church Fathers recognized that only the Bishop of Rome was Peter’s successor. For example, the following from an article which I have not posted en toto because it is quite polemical:
“But were not the Apostles equal? If Peter was superior to the others, why did Paul point out Peter’s mistakes in his epistle to the Galatians? (Galatians: 3-11, 12). If Peter was superior, why didn’t the bishops of the entire Church subject themselves to the Bishop of Rome? And why should[n’t] the Bishop of Rome alone consider himself the successor of Peter? According to history, Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch. St. Jerome is one of the historical sources proving the Episcopacy of St. Peter in Antioch. Which of the two shall we recognize as successor of Peter? History shows that the Bishop of Antioch has precedence in this claim.” (Bishop Athenagoras.) [Note: I think the letters I placed in brackets in the post might be a grammatical error, but I didn’t want to edit them out; the point is clear.]
(http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/athenagoras_romancatholicism.htm)
Now, the above is just one link in the Orthodox argument.
The site you provided is helpful, and I will reply to some of it when I have time. There are two kinds of statements, however, that I will probably not respond to: (1) Statements simply stating that Peter was Bishop of Rome and had episcopal successors there; I’ll simply take that for granted (although there does seem to a question about Peter being the first bishop of Rome, which I’ll try to look into). (2) Statements that appear to be simple assertions of Rome’s position on the subject. There are obviously meatier statements than that, though, among those on the site.
EDIT to my last post: Of course, I am producing assertions by Orthodox folks too; what I meant was, I'm going to work with the ones that have some "meat" to them that helps to lead behind just the assertion itself (the reference to Jerome in the passage by Athenagoras that I cited, for example). On the other hand, I don't think it's a bad thing to simply get the assertions out there...
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
It seems to me that your strategy, whether conscious or not, is to scurry for cover amid mounds of detail, rather than face the case against your beliefs squarely. I claim your car isn't working because it doesn't start, and you ask me to provide an exhaustive detailed mechanic's report. Well, I could. But who wants to spend the time working through the minutae?
Well, I could. But who wants to spend the time working through the minutae?
And that seems to be your strategy. When you're ready to get off the couch, we'll dance.
LH
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdI just had to do a quick response to this one:
[b]Is there any evidence that the theology of popular consent presented by writers such as Yannaras was actually taught prior to the 19th century (when the Catholic Church articulated its own teachings on conciliar infallibility) if not the Schism?
I frankly don’t know—especially since, as you pointed out, papal infallibility was not formal church dog ...[text shortened]... the subject. There are obviously meatier statements than that, though, among those on the site.[/b]
“But were not the Apostles equal?
Were they?
If Peter was superior to the others, why did Paul point out Peter’s mistakes in his epistle to the Galatians? (Galatians: 3-11, 12).
It's Galatians ch.2 btw. Paul is not criticising Peter's teaching in Gal 2; but his personal behaviour. In fact, keeping in mind the context of Acts 15, he is berating Peter for not adhering to his own teaching at the Council of Jerusalem.
If Peter was superior, why didn’t the bishops of the entire Church subject themselves to the Bishop of Rome?
De facto or de jure? Keep in mind the "obsequious formality" of the Chalcedon Fathers.
According to history, Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch. St. Jerome is one of the historical sources proving the Episcopacy of St. Peter in Antioch. Which of the two shall we recognize as successor of Peter? History shows that the Bishop of Antioch has precedence in this claim.”
B. Athenagoras is right that St. Jerome places Peter as the first Bishop of Antioch in his Illustrious Lives (with Ignatius the third Bishop of Antioch after Peter). However, in the earlier history of Eusebius, Peter is mentioned as simply founding the Antiochene Church with Ignatius as second Bishop. So it is not clear that Peter was, in fact, Bishop at Antioch.
In any case, let's assume he was. Does the office of the "keys" (Mt 16) automatically go to all his successors in every position? You might be better placed than me to explain this in light of Isaiah 22. For my part, I think the office of the keys would only be transferred by the death of Peter or if he voluntarily relinquished it (the assumption here that only one person can be the master of keys - again, maybe you can tell us better with respect to Jewish custom and Isa 22). In which case, only the Bishop of Rome (Peter's final episcopacy) would qualify.
Nevertheless, nowhere in the Church Fathers have I seen someone identify the Bishop of Antioch with Peter in the same way as the Bishop of Rome ("Peter hath spoken" at Chalcedon).
Originally posted by vistesdI think that, so far, I've been attempting to present both the Catholic view and the arguments that goes behind it (e.g. with Scripture and the Church Fathers). I would like to see the corresponding arguments for the Orthodox view.
EDIT to my last post: Of course, I am producing assertions by Orthodox folks too; what I meant was, I'm going to work with the ones that have some "meat" to them that helps to lead behind just the assertion itself (the reference to Jerome in the passage by Athenagoras that I cited, for example). On the other hand, I don't think it's a bad thing to simply get the assertions out there...