East/West Reunification- a consideration

[Tomdstone]

I say there will be no communion with the Orthodox Churches until the Orthodox are on-board with Papal Infallibility.

Since that is the case and since it appears that the Roman Catholic Church does not want to make any concessions on this point, I don’t see how any reunion of the two Churches is possible.

 

[Surnaturel]

If the pope and his bishops voted in an ecumenical council that infallibility is only exercisable in times of schism with the Other ancient churches then I believe that would be dogmatically binding, though this area is not my strong suit.

 

[Surnaturel]

Doesn’t this means that you guys are just making stuff up?

No, because the HS guides the Church on matters of faith and dogma so that she will never err on essential doctrines of the faith and salvation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, because the HS guides the Church on matters of faith and dogma so that she will never err on essential doctrines of the faith and salvation.

But that is the same thing that Protestants say. They have the Holy Spirit and therefore whatever they say is true.

If you don’t stick to tradition and what has been the established teaching of the Apostles, everything else is made up. We do both agree that Revelation is done once and for all by Christ through the Apostles, right? So if they didn’t understand something doctrinal or dogmatic, then something isn’t right.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Surnaturel
No, because the HS guides the Church on matters of faith and dogma so that she will never err on essential doctrines of the faith and salvation.

Outrageous! We should sue!

(Well, okay, maybe we don’t have to go that far.)

If you don’t stick to tradition and what has been the established teaching of the Apostles, everything else is made up. We do both agree that Revelation is done once and for all by Christ through the Apostles, right?

I agree, we should stick with tradition.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Outrageous! We should sue!

(Well, okay, maybe we don’t have to go that far.)

I think the Churches need to do a better job of registering stuff with the patent office.

I agree, we should stick with tradition.

That is our only gauge. If it is not consistent with what the Church Fathers were themselves taught and which they teach as well, what other proof do we have that we are not making stuff up?

 

[GaryTaylor]

That is our only gauge. If it is not consistent with what the Church Fathers were themselves taught and which they teach as well, what other proof do we have that we are not making stuff up?

For sure we see there is plenty of extenuated scripture reading. This comes at the cost of the apostolic church’s division. Joint agreement in thinking itself would suppress much of this. The opposite is that it gives it life. Look at the last 200 years alone. Also its indicative of reading into the Church Fathers what was not intended. Add to this how society then views the apostolic church’s and Tradition and the chaos grows.

If we are not in agreement on the proven path, then why would we as a whole expect others to take it serious and follow it without hesitation. How many times have we heard from other Christians here they do want to involve themselves in the apostolic Church but are confused as to where. This step of confusion would be eliminated.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Doesn’t this means that you guys are just making stuff up?

I would agree that any further nuancing of Pastor Aeternus would have to be fully consonant with scripture and tradition. I don’t think any Catholic is in favor of ‘just making stuff up.’

But infallibility does not guarantee that any statement is ideally formulated (or even well formulated), that it perfectly represents the fullness of tradition, or that it exhaustively says everything possible on the subject. It only means that it is objectively free from error.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would agree that any further nuancing of Pastor Aeternus would have to be fully consonant with scripture and tradition. I don’t think any Catholic is in favor of ‘just making stuff up.’

But infallibility does not guarantee that any statement is ideally formulated (or even well formulated), that it perfectly represents the fullness of tradition, or that it exhaustively says everything possible on the subject. It only means that it is objectively free from error.

If we know something that the Church Fathers didn’t know, then we’re just making stuff up

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

If we know something that the Church Fathers didn’t know, then we’re just making stuff up

I don’t want to get too far off the original topic, but Catholics don’t believe they’re articulating anything that wasn’t implicit in the original deposit of faith, which Christ entrusted to the apostles. The two natures of Christ, the legitimacy of venerating sacred images, the ability of the college of bishops to speak definitively through their president-- all of these are articulations of the one apostolic faith, which has not changed since the beginning.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t want to get too far off the original topic, but Catholics don’t believe they’re articulating anything that wasn’t implicit in the original deposit of faith, which Christ entrusted to the apostles. The two natures of Christ, the legitimacy of venerating sacred images, the ability of the college of bishops to speak definitively through their president-- all of these are articulations of the one apostolic faith, which has not changed since the beginning.

But the problem is the concept of doctrinal development only came about to justify Papal Infallibility. Before that, there was no such concept. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils never believed they developed anything. They articulated what was already there. The terminologies they introduced was just a way of explaining what is already there.

This is not far from the original topic. If there is indeed a reunification, we really need to agree on everything. If we can’t agree what is Patristic and what is not, then there is no reunification.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

But the problem is the concept of doctrinal development only came about to justify Papal Infallibility. Before that, there was no such concept. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils never believed they developed anything. They articulated what was already there. The terminologies they introduced was just a way of explaining what is already there.

I’m arguing that this is precisely the same thing that the Catholic Church has done: ‘articulate what was already there.’ Using different terminology, to be sure.

I don’t think the concept of ‘development’ arose due to any difference between the dogma of the pope’s capacity to speak infallibly on behalf of the episcopal college on the one hand, and the two natures of Christ or the legitimacy of venerating images on the other (to take two examples off the top of my head).

I think the idea of ‘development’ arose in the nineteenth century due to a new attention to the historical method and the protestant insistence on the need to return to the primitive church. ‘Development of doctrine’ was just a way of explaining that the Catholic Church was the primitive church, with everything already there, expressed less precisely and in different language.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m arguing that this is precisely the same thing that the Catholic Church has done: ‘articulate what was already there.’ Using different terminology, to be sure.

I don’t think the concept of ‘development’ arose due to any difference between the dogma of the pope’s capacity to speak infallibly on behalf of the episcopal college on the one hand, and the two natures of Christ or the legitimacy of venerating images on the other (to take two examples off the top of my head).

I think the idea of ‘development’ arose in the nineteenth century due to a new attention to the historical method and the protestant insistence on the need to return to the primitive church. ‘Development of doctrine’ was just a way of explaining that the Catholic Church was the primitive church, with everything already there, expressed less precisely and in different language.

Doctrinal development is directly related to the Deposit of Faith, that is there was a “deposit” given by the Apostles of an immature faith, sort of a seed planted. And that things we know today are a result of this seed maturing into a plant or a tree, that we know more than the Apostles know.

That is completely opposite to the Orthodox faith. At least doctrinal and dogmatic matters cannot be inconsistent with the Apostolic faith. We can introduce theological theories, such as purgatory or aerial tollhouses, but never dogmatize them as the Apostles themselves never taught them.

The Orthodox too insist on a return to Patristic teaching, a return to the First Century Church. But our context is different, it is not to remove what we have today, but rather appreciate that what we have today is consistent with what the early Christians have. Note that the Protestants were faced with many things that the Orthodox themselves “protest” as non-Patristic, purgatory, Papal Supremacy, indulgences, etc.

 

[Peter_J]

But the problem is the concept of doctrinal development only came about to justify Papal Infallibility. Before that, there was no such concept.

If that’s so, how do you explain “doctrinal development” in Protestantism?

(Possibly you’ll respond with “They stole the idea from Catholics”, which I certainly agree with. But doesn’t that show that the idea of “doctrinal development” has been around at least since the 16th century?)

 

[Nine_Two]

If that’s so, how do you explain “doctrinal development” in Protestantism?

(Possibly you’ll respond with “They stole the idea from Catholics”, which I certainly agree with. But doesn’t that show that the idea of “doctrinal development” has been around at least since the 16th century?)

Protestants only really took on “doctrinal development” in the '60s. Before that it was just reinterpreting the bible from scratch.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Doctrinal development is directly related to the Deposit of Faith, that is there was a “deposit” given by the Apostles of an immature faith, sort of a seed planted. And that things we know today are a result of this seed maturing into a plant or a tree, that we know more than the Apostles know.

This is more or less the theory presented by Newman, though Newman distinguished between the revelation and the reception of the revelation. Thus, though the apostles received the whole truth, after their death we have to assemble the pieces, as it were. The problem isn’t that the apostles didn’t know enough, but that we can only receive partially.

Newman’s ‘development of doctrine’ is only a theory, which Catholics are perfectly welcome to accept, modify, or reject.

That is completely opposite to the Orthodox faith. At least doctrinal and dogmatic matters cannot be inconsistent with the Apostolic faith.

Catholics don’t believe that doctrine or dogma can be inconsistent with the Apostolic faith.

We can introduce theological theories, such as purgatory or aerial tollhouses, but never dogmatize them as the Apostles themselves never taught them.

The early Church, under the pressures of heresy, often seem to dogmatize truths that the apostles seem to have never directly taught. Before the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father was defined, there are only the slightest hints of Trinitarian doctrine. Infant baptism. Theotokos. The Scriptural Canon. The Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. There are hints of all of these in the Ante-Nicene fathers, but the fuller truth was articulated in the Councils.

I’m very sympathetic to the argument that the apostles were given everything necessary to salvation, that they intuitively ‘saw’ the Truth, felt it with their hands, as it were. But it does seem to me that the logical exposition of that original intuition happened over time.

The Orthodox too insist on a return to Patristic teaching, a return to the First Century Church. But our context is different, it is not to remove what we have today, but rather appreciate that what we have today is consistent with what the early Christians have. Note that the Protestants were faced with many things that the Orthodox themselves “protest” as non-Patristic, purgatory, Papal Supremacy, indulgences, etc.

I’m a great lover of the Church Fathers. But, realistically, there are some 250 volumes of Migne’s Patrologia Latina and 150 of the Patrologia Graeca. And this is the tip of the iceberg. It doesn’t include the Syriac fathers, much less uncollected Latin and Greek fathers. And none of it systematizes itself.

As a Catholic, I am sometimes suspicious of Orthodox appeals to the Fathers instead of to the Episcopate, to whom Christ entrusted the ministry of preserving, articulating, preaching and handing on the Gospel. I’m part of an apostolic Church precisely because of the communion of the saints. But I should be looking primarily to my bishop for doctrinal instruction in the contemporary world, not to the Fathers.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is more or less the theory presented by Newman, though Newman distinguished between the revelation and the reception of the revelation. Thus, though the apostles received the whole truth, after their death we have to assemble the pieces, as it were. The problem isn’t that the apostles didn’t know enough, but that we can only receive partially.

Why? Didn’t St. Paul say that we should hold fast to the traditions they handed down to us? If we didn’t get all the stuff they handed down, WE are in serious trouble. And I still don’t get how we can suddenly realize something the Church Fathers didn’t when the Apostles themselves taught them. Where did we get this from?

Newman’s ‘development of doctrine’ is only a theory, which Catholics are perfectly welcome to accept, modify, or reject.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but acceptance is pretty much universal. Sort of like the private revelations which supposedly isn’t driving doctrines, but has Liturgical days assigned to them anyway.

Catholics don’t believe that doctrine or dogma can be inconsistent with the Apostolic faith.

So do Protestants. But how we reconcile our faith today with the faith of the Apostles will show who truly is living in Truth.

The early Church, under the pressures of heresy, often seem to dogmatize truths that the apostles seem to have never directly taught. Before the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father was defined, there are only the slightest hints of Trinitarian doctrine. Infant baptism. Theotokos. The Scriptural Canon. The Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. There are hints of all of these in the Ante-Nicene fathers, but the fuller truth was articulated in the Councils.

All those are clearly taught by the Apostles. Remember, the First Seven Ecumenical Councils only came up with the terms to articulate what is already there. For example, calling Mary as “Theotokos” is only a way to affirm that the infant in her womb whom she gave birth to is truly God the Word. That has already been the belief even before the word “Theotokos” entered the Christian vocabulary. The talking point of every Ecumenical Council was to prove that one side is the orthodox faith by demonstrating that it is the belief that has always been held. For example, in the 6th Ecumenical Council, St. Maximos the Confessor used the tachings of St. Athanasius the Great to prove that dyothelitism is orthodox.

I’m very sympathetic to the argument that the apostles were given everything necessary to salvation, that they intuitively ‘saw’ the Truth, felt it with their hands, as it were. But it does seem to me that the logical exposition of that original intuition happened over time.

I’m a great lover of the Church Fathers. But, realistically, there are some 250 volumes of Migne’s Patrologia Latina and 150 of the Patrologia Graeca. And this is the tip of the iceberg. It doesn’t include the Syriac fathers, much less uncollected Latin and Greek fathers. And none of it systematizes itself.

As a Catholic, I am sometimes suspicious of Orthodox appeals to the Fathers instead of to the Episcopate, to whom Christ entrusted the ministry of preserving, articulating, preaching and handing on the Gospel. I’m part of an apostolic Church precisely because of the communion of the saints. But I should be looking primarily to my bishop for doctrinal instruction in the contemporary world, not to the Fathers.

You do realize that most of the Fathers are bishops. If you look at icons of the Fathers, most of them are in Episcopal “garb”. Although we also do not discount the lay people (like St. Maximos) who taught orthodoxy against the bishops who were at the time holding heretical views.

The appeal to the Fathers appeals to consistencies. How do you know if your bishop today is telling the truth if you do not compare what he is saying to what St. John Chrysostom is saying 1600 years ago? Since the truth is unchanging, there should be no discrepancy.

 

[guanophore]

Except the Pope will never give up his claim to power.

I think it is more a matter of claim to authority. One can have authority without throwing power around, as many popes have done in the past. We have been blessed to have Holy Popes through the last century, who see themselves as the servants of the servants of God.

The early Christians, both East and West recognized the authority of the see of Peter. This was not a matter of "power’ but a reflection of orthodoxy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The early Christians, both East and West recognized the authority of the see of Peter. This was not a matter of "power’ but a reflection of orthodoxy.

We disagree. There is a primacy but not necessarily an authority.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

If we didn’t get all the stuff they handed down, WE are in serious trouble. And I still don’t get how we can suddenly realize something the Church Fathers didn’t when the Apostles themselves taught them. Where did we get this from?

I do trust that we got it all from the apostles, although I think it has required looking at different streams of the tradition and comparing them with mature theological reflection, prayer, and reason. I admit that life would be easier if the apostles had already explicitly made all of the connections, but the historical record seems to indicate that that’s not the case.
":

I said: Newman’s ‘development of doctrine’ is only a theory, which Catholics are perfectly welcome to accept, modify, or reject.
**Constantine said:**Correct me if I’m wrong, but acceptance (of development of doctrine) is pretty much universal.

If it’s (doctrinal development) accepted, it’s purely on historical/scientific grounds. It seems to make sense of the historical record. If another theory better explains the historical record, I will accept that theory. I have no doctrinal commitment to the ‘development of doctrine’, and, as far as I’m aware, no Catholic does.

All those are clearly taught by the Apostles. Remember, the First Seven Ecumenical Councils only came up with the terms to articulate what is already there. For example, calling Mary as “Theotokos” is only a way to affirm that the infant in her womb whom she gave birth to is truly God the Word. That has already been the belief even before the word “Theotokos” entered the Christian vocabulary.

The Theotokos may have been clearly taught by the apostles, but it wasn’t clearly apprehended by those who followed them. If it had been, the massive Arian and Nestorian controversies wouldn’t have arisen.

May I quote Newman briefly?: 'First then, that the language of the Ante-nicene Fathers, on the subject of our Lord’s Divinity, may be far more easily accommodated to the Arian hypothesis than can the language of the Post-nicene, is agreed on all hands. Thus St. Justin speaks of the Son as subservient to the Father in the creation of the world, Again, the Council of Antioch says that, while “it is impious to think that the God of all is called an Angel, the Son is the Angel of the Father.”

If the Ante-nicene Fathers were vague, unclear or inconsistent on the subject of our Lord’s consubstantiality with the Father, then the doctrine of Theotokos would’ve been inexplicable.

The talking point of every Ecumenical Council was to prove that one side is the orthodox faith by demonstrating that it is the belief that has always been held. For example, in the 6th Ecumenical Council, St. Maximos the Confessor used the tachings of St. Athanasius the Great to prove that dyothelitism is orthodox.

I think Newman would agree that every ‘development’ has been present from the beginning, and expressed in tentative forms.

The appeal to the Fathers appeals to consistencies. How do you know if your bishop today is telling the truth if you do not compare what he is saying to what St. John Chrysostom is saying 1600 years ago? Since the truth is unchanging, there should be no discrepancy.

Because my bishop, as a successor to the apostles, has the teaching office in the Church and is thus deserving of my confidence.

If I have reason to believe my bishop is mistaken, I can compare his statements to those of the Episcopal College speaking through its president. This is the living magisterium of the Church.

To Catholics, it sometimes seems that the Orthodox have lost their confidence in the episcopacy. This may be because, without emperor or pope, there are few organs that allow the Orthodox bishops to speak in unison as a college.

But to turn to the Fathers as a substitute for the living episcopate is mistaken. It is to introduce non-systematic documents, several hundred times longer than the bible, as the principle for interpreting the faith. ‘Soli patres’ is a considerably worse principle than ‘sola scriptura’.

I don’t accuse all Orthodox of this, but it seems not uncommon (at least on the internet).