Eastern Orthodox and Infallibility

[Nine_Two]

Ah. Tradition.

Since doctrine cannot develop, the question I have concerning Tradition is this:

Is there a date before which everything that was known and taught as doctrine is considered Apostolic Tradition and after which everything is unacceptable development?

If so, what is the date?

If not, how do you know what Tradition is?

And how does something move from being theological speculation to sure Tradition? If this cannot occur, doesn’t that suggest that your theology is “frozen” after all?

There is no date, Tradition carries on to the present time. How we recognize Tradition is that it is all consistent with itself. Something that either contradicts Tradition, or comes out of left field and has no grounding in Tradition is not Tradition (in the former case it is certainly false, though not necessarily in the latter).

 

[Nine_Two]

I do not know…so how?

If you are content not knowing how the Holy Spirit worked at Nicaea - a watershed moment for all Christianity. Why can’t you be content not knowing how the Holy Spirit works elsewhere?

 

[steido01]

When you ask an Orthodox Christian these sorts of questions, you’ll often get vague answers. A favorite of many is “It’s a mystery”, an allusion to the Holy Mysteries (what Catholics call Sacraments).

The “how” isn’t very important in Orthodoxy, and the Church has always avoided getting into specifics. It is enough for us that it happens.

As a Lutheran, I couldn’t agree more.

A peculiarity to the Western Church is its tendency to “explain” more than is necessary or otherwise made clear in Scripture/Tradition, particularly in regards to the Sacraments (a cultural by-product of that Western scientific method-style of thinking?). It was something that bothered the Lutheran Reformers to no end - and why Lutherans care just as little for Reformed theology as Roman. In those rare cases where our LCMS clergy convert, they typically move Eastward for these very reasons.

:twocents: Neither here nor there, but just thought I’d admit my affinity for the East. Do carry on. It’s fun to watch the Western cogs turn.

 

[Rawb]

As NineTwo has been saying, you’re asking questions from an entirely different mindset…I’m not sure if I can explain an analogy…Orthodox don’t ask ‘how’ something happens, we ask whether or not we should do it. Our theological questions are not about how to work out this or that Mystery, but are about how to pray and how to become like Christ. We’re not capable of discussing Aristotelian metaphysics as it relates to the Eucharist (not that we aren’t smart enough, but that human logic is worthless here) but we can discuss the benefits of the Jesus Prayer. We’re not going to ask how the Holy Spirit does what He does, but we will praise Him for it. Maybe a helpful, practical guide to this approach is to point out that someone given the title “Theologian” in Orthodoxy is not someone who has studied a lot or who can reason, but someone who is devoted to prayer and love of God.

I’m not implying that one can’t do both, but the first, for us, is irrelevant as regards the title Theologian whereas the first is of primary importance in Roman Catholicism. Getting over my arrogance and trust in scholasticism so as to trust exclusively in God was one of the hardest parts of my conversion.

 

[Anglo_Trad]

I really do not know how an Orthodox can possibly answer this question. I do not intend to impy they lack the intelligence. An Orthodox does not even have the mindset capable of giving an answer that would satisfy the one asking the question.

In addition to the Eastern Orthodox, I expect that Eastern Catholics would have problems with this question even though they must affirm to the Catholic dogma.

As an Anglican it is not a question I would find easy to answer. I have tried but I cannot understand why Roman Catholics have to dissect everthing to the nth degree.

I have to agree with those Orthodox who have posted on this thread saying that no human is infallible. That is eminently true. We should accept that God through the Holy Spirit guides the Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is no date, Tradition carries on to the present time. How we recognize Tradition is that it is all consistent with itself. Something that either contradicts Tradition, or comes out of left field and has no grounding in Tradition is not Tradition (in the former case it is certainly false, though not necessarily in the latter).

I think I understand, but if a theologian were to say, “here is something worth considering and I think it is found in the writings of several Fathers in second, third and fourth centuries…”, would that meet the criteria? Or does Tradition taught today have to be EXPLICITLY found in the Tradition of earlier times?

For example, when did the Tradition regarding the theotokos first appear and would it have been considered a novelty at that time?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I do not know…so how?

Well I can tell you the pope didn’t resolve everything by his word.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have to agree with those Orthodox who have posted on this thread saying that no human is infallible. That is eminently true. We should accept that God through the Holy Spirit guides the Church.

Can God through the Holy Spirit guide the Church in such a way that the Church is prevented from formally teaching error in matters of faith and morals?

Is God able to do this?

 

[Randy_Carson]

As a Lutheran, I couldn’t agree more.

A peculiarity to the Western Church is its tendency to “explain” more than is necessary or otherwise made clear in Scripture/Tradition, particularly in regards to the Sacraments (a cultural by-product of that Western scientific method-style of thinking?). It was something that bothered the Lutheran Reformers to no end - and why Lutherans care just as little for Reformed theology as Roman. In those rare cases where our LCMS clergy convert, they typically move Eastward for these very reasons.

:twocents: Neither here nor there, but just thought I’d admit my affinity for the East. Do carry on. It’s fun to watch the Western cogs turn.

He says from his vantage point in the American mid-west as if he has NO connection with western thinking whatsoever…

 

[EvangelCatholic]

As a Lutheran, I couldn’t agree more.

A peculiarity to the Western Church is its tendency to “explain” more than is necessary or otherwise made clear in Scripture/Tradition, particularly in regards to the Sacraments (a cultural by-product of that Western scientific method-style of thinking?). It was something that bothered the Lutheran Reformers to no end - and why Lutherans care just as little for Reformed theology as Roman.** In those rare cases where our LCMS clergy convert, they typically move Eastward for these very reasons.**

:twocents: Neither here nor there, but just thought I’d admit my affinity for the East. Do carry on. It’s fun to watch the Western cogs turn.

Can you elaborate on the suggestion that Lutheran clergy are more likely to convert to Orthodoxy than Roman Catholic? It seems that Lutherans stay in the Western Church and the number of clergy leaving the Lutheran church seem to overwhelmingly enter the Roman Church. I know Lutherans don’t like to talk about what Catholics refer to as the “Lutheran Landslide” but it would be helpful if there is a study to track where pastors go when they leave Lutheranism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can you elaborate on the suggestion that Lutheran clergy are more likely to convert to Orthodoxy than Roman Catholic? It seems that Lutherans stay in the Western Church and the number of clergy leaving the Lutheran church seem to overwhelmingly enter the Roman Church. I know Lutherans don’t like to talk about what Catholics refer to as the “Lutheran Landslide” but it would be helpful if there is a study to track where pastors go when they leave Lutheranism.

More on this here:

ncregister.com/blog/tim-drake/the-lutheran-landslide

 

[Cavaradossi]

He says from his vantage point in the American mid-west as if he has NO connection with western thinking whatsoever…

You are right. Evidently then the conceptual framework behind what Latins call “infallibility” is even nonsensical to the Western mindset, existing only as a theory on paper with no basis in reality.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are right. Evidently then the conceptual framework behind what Latins call “infallibility” is even nonsensical to the Western mindset, existing only as a theory on paper with no basis in reality.

Right on cue…

 

[Cavaradossi]

Right on cue…

As are you with the rudeness.

 

[adf417]

Right on cue…

As are you with the rudeness.

Now, Now girls, you are both beautiful

 

[Randy_Carson]

As are you with the rudeness.

:tanning:

 

[steido01]

He says from his vantage point in the American mid-west as if he has NO connection with western thinking whatsoever…

Hey, I don’t deny it in my secular life! I’m sure I’m influenced a bit by culture, but the Lutherans Confessions make me feel as if “I’m but a stranger here” when I consciously think about what they demand.

Seriously, though… Lutheran thinking, while certainly a product of the Western Church, tends to be a little more “Eastern” in its dogmas than the church that defined itself at Trent - that is, Lutherans tend not to put a comma where they understand God to have put a period. For instance, as has already been mentioned, believing simply in the Real Presence without applying any Aristotelian explanation(s).

 

[pablope]

If you are content not knowing how the Holy Spirit worked at Nicaea - a watershed moment for all Christianity. Why can’t you be content not knowing how the Holy Spirit works elsewhere?

Is there any prohibition by God for us to stop learning? Is there a prohibition for us to grow in learning?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hey, I don’t deny it in my secular life! I’m sure I’m influenced a bit by culture, but the Lutherans Confessions make me feel as if “I’m but a stranger here” when I consciously think about what they demand.

Seriously, though… Lutheran thinking, while certainly a product of the Western Church, tends to be a little more “Eastern” in its dogmas than the church that defined itself at Trent - that is, Lutherans tend not to put a comma where they understand God to have put a period. For instance, as has already been mentioned, believing simply in the Real Presence without applying any Aristotelian explanation(s).

I understand. I was just joking because we Americans have our own slant on most world affairs.

I’ve actually been pretty encouraged by the documents I’ve been reading from the Lutheran and Catholic dialogue.

Not so much by my interaction with Orthodox, though.

 

[steido01]

Can you elaborate on the suggestion that Lutheran clergy are more likely to convert to Orthodoxy than Roman Catholic? It seems that Lutherans stay in the Western Church and the number of clergy leaving the Lutheran church seem to overwhelmingly enter the Roman Church. I know Lutherans don’t like to talk about what Catholics refer to as the “Lutheran Landslide” but it would be helpful if there is a study to track where pastors go when they leave Lutheranism.

You know, I’m not so convinced that “landslide” exists. At the rate we Lutherans are marry-verting Roman Catholics, I’m sure the numbers are a wash.

To answer your question, my experience (anecdotal, I know! ) is that Lutheran pastors move more often to Orthodoxy than to Roman Catholicism. I remember hearing my father, an LCMS pastor, lament that some of his fellow pastors had gone Eastward. I know the head of the OCA in Canada happens to be a former Lutheran (cue debate on whether OCA is Orthodox…). Perhaps the numbers would show something different. I’m sure that both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism rank among the most popular destinations for Lutheran pastors who abandon their calls. Google probably would show plenty of examples of both, though Rome seems to make its delight in converting protestants a bit more public.