Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism’s Infallibility Problem

[Peter_J]

Lol, I am slow. Did not get that. Absolutely at least twice then.

And thank you for your kind comment

Blessings

x 2

 

[Abu]

“You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY Church.” (Mt 16:18)

Jesus, having given His authority to St Peter, confirmed: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And, behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Mt 28: 18-20).

Jesus is not supporting the multitudinous errors of others, here, but guaranteeing His truths in His Church for all time.

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

 

[Duane1966]

Obviously it differs. That’s why it’s absurd to lump them all together, as the author does, simply because they don’t share communion with the Pope of Rome. Each group would have its own reasoning. It is illogical to expect, say, Jews and Hindus to agree on the nature of God simply because they are not Christians. Why demand something from a group that doesn’t exist? Or, more foolishly, expect me to answer for those I do not represent?

The question did not ask for one catchall reason. Just for what criteria is officially used by Orthodox, or by a Protestant communion (any of them) as to how they determine a council is ecumenical.

Perhaps he could have picked a given “Protestant” denomination or specific Orthodox communion, and engaged fairly with their actual beliefs. Instead, he fought windmills of his own invention. Always easier to debate a non-exists enemy. This ‘Intentional Quixotism’ would be comical, if it weren’t taken so seriously.

He wrote a question that has been on a lot of Orthodox and Catholic theologian’s minds for centuries. Hardly something to be considered a windmill.

Nor can I. Nor can anyone, for that matter – because the question is a lie predicated on a fabrication.

Soooooo, asking people what criteria is officially used by their denominations for determining what makes a council ecumenical, and stating that the Orthodox and Protestants don’t have any, is now a lie predicated on a fabrication? You can show this to be a fabrication by giving us the criteria your denomination uses for determining what makes a council ecumenical.

 

[Abu]

**CATHOLIC. **Its original meaning of “general” or “universal” has taken on a variety of applications in the course of Christian history. First used by St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-107) (Letter to the Smyrneans, 8, 2), it is now mainly used in five recognized senses: 1. the Catholic Church as distinct from Christian ecclesiastical bodies that do not recognize the papal primacy; 2. the Catholic faith as the belief of the universal body of the faithful, namely that which is believed “everywhere, always, and by all” (Vincentian Canon); 3. orthodoxy as distinguished from what is heretical or schismatical; 4. the undivided Church before the Eastern Schism of 1054; thereafter the Eastern Church has called itself orthodox, in contrast with those Christian bodies which did not accept the definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon on the divinity of Christ. [My emphasis].

In general, today the term “Catholic” refers to those Christians who profess a continued tradition of faith and worship and who hold to the Apostolic succession of bishops and priests since the time of Christ. (Etym. Latin catholicus, universal; Greek katholikos, universal.)
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

 

[Duane1966]

Hi RC,

OK. I will attempt to reply. OK the O and Ps are problematic in justifying their basis of authority (scripture and councils). I would only say C’s do also in that it is a bit circular and presumptuous with and by an infallible pope.

I mean let every man be called a liar, only God is true.

Of course the P’s have a problem. I would rather call it a ‘challenge’ to discern truth from error. Is that "problematic’’, or a sacred calling, a sacred responsibility, seeing that there are two kingdoms at war, even within the church, or so we are promised?

Circular because the C’s circumvent the challenge, eliminating any conditionality thru an infallible office. Of course the C church discerns and is challenged in that, like the P’s and O’s. Just that she claims an office to be infallible.That eliminates what we have had since the garden, the personal and corporate responsibility to weigh and discern in fear and trembling (because we can be wrong,deceived in ourselves) ,“what hath God really said?”

For sure from the CC point of view the O’s and P’s have a problem, as the article suggests.The presumption is on the CC’s part, that they are right with the missing link to the problem, the infallible papacy, which in turn justifies the very church that proclaimed the office in the first place. That is circular.

I would rather say we are all in the same boat. Lord help us in discerning the things of God (which books, which councils). Isn’t that what the earliest forefathers did ?

Blessings

You misunderstand the gist of the article. It really has nothing to due with the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome. Rather, it asks, what is the criteria in place for determining if a council is ecumenical or not. Catholics, and Orthodox believe the canons of an ecumenical council are infallible and binding on the faithful. Some Protestants also adhere to some of the councils. All the article really asked is: “what is the criteria in place that your religious community uses to recognize which councils are ecumenical?” For Catholics, it is the same as it has always been: that a council is not ecumenical until the Bishop of Rome confirms its canons, and makes them binding on the whole Church. We can look back at the history of the Church, and see this mechanism in place. Which is why we believe that there have been more than seven ecumenical councils.

Since the Great Schism, and since the Reformation, there have been various Orthodox, and Protestant theologians, who have stated that this is not how we determine a council is ecumenical. Now the article states that Orthodoxy, and the various Protestant denominations that may confess some of the councils as ecumenical, do not have any mechanism in place to make such a determination. So in reality, the article is implicitly asking, what mechanism does your communion use to make such a determination?

In reality, the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome, and whether he is or not, was never the issue of the article, and does not add or subtract from the thesis of the article. Bringing in the infallibility of the pope is just a smokescreen to get people to not think about the question that the article is asking.

 

[Duane1966]

Yes.

I want to make one thing clear. The pope can never declare some new doctrine (meaning something that has never been believed before and make it binding on the whole Church).

Rather, we should keep this in mind:

We must always bear in mind the following dogmatic teaching of the First Vatican Council: The office of the successors of Peter does not consist in making known some new doctrine, but in guarding and faithfully expounding the deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles (cf. Constitutio dogmatica Pastor aeternus, cap. 4).

In the case of the Marian dogmas, which many non-Catholics believe are innovations, we can show these beliefs were held at various points in the early Church, and by connecting the dots, we can show it from scripture.

 

[steido01]

The question did not ask for one catchall reason. Just for what criteria is officially used by Orthodox, or by a Protestant communion (any of them) as to how they determine a council is ecumenical.

The author launched into critiques on Calvin and Luther as if they require some sort of reconciliation to be taken seriously on their own. That’s precisely “asking for one catch all reason.” Why should he expect two very different traditions to share reasoning? Absurd.

Soooooo, asking people what criteria is officially used by their denominations for determining what makes a council ecumenical,

This was never asked; not of a single denomination. Instead, an assumption was made about an arbitrary grouping of religious traditions. Arbitrary grouping - that’s the fallacy.

and stating that the Orthodox and Protestants don’t have any,

There’s the lie. The only way this isn’t a lie is if the author expects all Orthodox and “Protestants” to share the same reason; in that case, of course he won’t find a common criteria - but that means he’s supporting a fallacy with a fallacy. Frankly, that’s not much better than a lie.

 

[steido01]

I want to make one thing clear. The pope can never declare some new doctrine (meaning something that has never been believed before and make it binding on the whole Church).

Rather, we should keep this in mind:

In the case of the Marian dogmas, which many non-Catholics believe are innovations, we can show these beliefs were held at various points in the early Church, and by connecting the dots, we can show it from scripture.

We can show some Gnostic beliefs were held [in error] in the early church, too. Do you really mean to suggest what you might be suggesting?

 

[Augustine]

For Catholics, it is the same as it has always been: that a council is not ecumenical until the Bishop of Rome confirms its canons, and makes them binding on the whole Church. We can look back at the history of the Church, and see this mechanism in place. Which is why we believe that there have been more than seven ecumenical councils.

Such a statement is rather anachronistic. Even if you look at history of councils from today, with the belief in papal supremacy, your case would be weak, for the facts do not support such a conclusion clearly all the time. Without the premise of papal supremacy, history leaves this question open and this is the perspective of the Orthodox Churches. From their understanding of the same historical facts, they conclude their eclesiology. It is not a matter of ill will on their part at all.

Pax Christi

 

[Augustine]

**CATHOLIC. **Its original meaning of “general” or “universal” has taken on a variety of applications in the course of Christian history…l

There is another meaning in the Greek word catholic: complete. Which, as we use to say nowadays, means that in the Catholic Church is found the fullness of faith.

Pax Christi

 

[Abu]

It’s interesting that Sir Arnold Lunn in Now I See, Sheed & Ward, 1955, could quote from the Anglican Vicar of Oddington, Rev S Herbert Scott, that St Peter and his successors were recognised as the supreme judges in matters of faith by a long succession of great Eastern saints, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Denys, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others.

Fr Brian Harrison, O.S.:
“After the East-West rupture that hardened as a result of the mutual excommunications of 1054 and the brutal sack of Constantinople itself by Latin crusaders in 1204, two ecumenical councils were convoked by Rome for the purpose of healing the breach. They were held, respectively, at Lyons in 1274 and at Florence in 1439, with Eastern Christendom being duly represented at both councils by bishops and theologians sent from Constantinople. And in both cases these representatives ended up fully accepting, on behalf of the Eastern Church, the decrees, promulgated by these councils, that professed the true, divinely ordained jurisdiction of the Successors of Peter over the universal Church of Christ – something much more than a mere primacy of honor. And these decrees were of course confirmed by the then reigning popes.”

"…many Orthodox theologians and bishops have now severely qualified or even surrendered any serious claim to infallibility on the part of their Church. Also, there is no longer any unity, any identifiable “official” position of Orthodoxy as such, in regard to unnatural methods of birth control. Some authorities continue to reprobate these practices, while others – probably the majority by now – condone them. Increasingly, Orthodox married couples are advised just to follow their own conscience on this issue.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt133.html

 

[Peter_J]

Such a statement is rather anachronistic. Even if you look at history of councils from today, with the belief in papal supremacy, your case would be weak, for the facts do not support such a conclusion clearly all the time. Without the premise of papal supremacy, history leaves this question open and this is the perspective of the Orthodox Churches. From their understanding of the same historical facts, they conclude their eclesiology. It is not a matter of ill will on their part at all.

Pax Christi

Well, I believe it’s clear in Catholic teaching that, in order for a council to be considered ecumenical, it needs to be recognized by the Pope. (I can provide a quote if necessary.)

But it should be noted – and I think this relates closely to your post – that the teaching does not say that** if** a council is recognized by the Pope then it is an ecumenical council.

 

[Duane1966]

The author launched into critiques on Calvin and Luther as if they require some sort of reconciliation to be taken seriously on their own. That’s precisely “asking for one catch all reason.” Why should he expect two very different traditions to share reasoning? Absurd.

And yet you prove one of the author’s points. Why is the bible considered infallible? If the councils that set the canon are not infallible, then the books they selected might not be infallible. It is the Church that said these books are inspired and God-breathed, but if the Church in her declarations is fallible, then I cannot know if the books they selected are infallible or not. If a denomination decides to throw out any books of the bible because they believe they are uninspired, you have know way, nor does your denomination, to cogently tell them they are wrong. I know you have heard this argument before. Nowhere does the bible say which books belong in the bible. I am going to ask you, the question that the author of that article is asking of all Protestants who hold to bible alone.

If councils have erred and are not binding on the consciences of the faithful, how is the bible binding when the books of the bible may not belong in the bible, as it were fallible Church councils that said those books do belong?

Asking me, or anyone else to be bound by a book that was put together by a Church you claim to be fallible is absurd.

There’s the lie. The only way this isn’t a lie is if the author expects all Orthodox and “Protestants” to share the same reason; in that case, of course he won’t find a common criteria - but that means he’s supporting a fallacy with a fallacy. Frankly, that’s not much better than a lie.

That is not a lie. He is not asking Orthodox or Protestants to have the same criteria, but to just state what the criteria is that their respective denominations officially use for determining what is an ecumenical council. It shouldn’t be hard.

 

[Duane1966]

We can show some Gnostic beliefs were held [in error] in the early church, too. Do you really mean to suggest what you might be suggesting?

Were those Gnostic beliefs held by the universal Church, and made dogma? If not, then I see infallibility at work right there.

 

[Duane1966]

Well, I believe it’s clear in Catholic teaching that, in order for a council to be considered ecumenical, it needs to be recognized by the Pope. (I can provide a quote if necessary.)

But it should be noted – and I think this relates closely to your post – that the teaching does not say that** if** a council is recognized by the Pope then it is an ecumenical council.

He has to confirm its canons, and then declare it ecumenical. Then its canons are binding on the whole Church.

 

[Abu]

Augustine #49
Without the premise of papal supremacy, history leaves this question open and this is the perspective of the Orthodox Churches.

Papal Supremacy was recognised.

Catholic Apologetics Online
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-2.php?t=139&n=1255

1256. Did the Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church at any stage after the death of Christ recognize the Pope as supreme and infallible head of the Church?
We cannot speak of the “Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church” prior to the Greek Schism commenced by Photius in 867 A.D. Until then there were simply Patriarchs of Constantinople, presiding there and subject to the Pope. Dr. Orchard, when a Congregationalist, wrote, **“An examination of the circumstances of the Great Schism shows that the Eastern Church did then repudiate a supremacy which it had previously been in the habit of conceding to the Roman Patriarchate.” **The First Council of Constantinople in 381, which only Eastern Bishops attended, demanded that the Bishop of Constantinople should rank next after the Bishop of Rome, and before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The Council of Chalcedon in 451, attended by the Eastern Bishops, ended its discussion with the unanimous cry, “Peter has spoken by Leo,” when the Pope’s decision was given. A century and a half later Pope Gregory I. could still write, “Who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?” No one then doubted it; and no one disputed it until Photius came along in 867 to plunge the East into schism. The Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Eastern Bishops signed the formula of Hormisdas, who was Pope from 514 to 523. That formula contained these words, “We follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. I hope to be in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See in which is the whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.” Dean Milman writes, “Before the end of the third century the lineal descent of Rome’s Bishops from St. Peter was unhesitatingly claimed and obsequiously admitted by the Christian world.” [My emphasis].

 

[Duane1966]

Such a statement is rather anachronistic. Even if you look at history of councils from today, with the belief in papal supremacy, your case would be weak, for the facts do not support such a conclusion clearly all the time. Without the premise of papal supremacy, history leaves this question open and this is the perspective of the Orthodox Churches. From their understanding of the same historical facts, they conclude their eclesiology. It is not a matter of ill will on their part at all.

Pax Christi

I never said their is ill will on their part. But history sure seems to favor what I stated. The first council of Constantinople held in 381 is considered an ecumenical council now, but not back then. When it was convened, it was not intended to be ecumenical. The council of Ephesus, held just a half century later, did not recognize it as ecumenical. It only became ecumenical after Gregory the Great elevated it to that status in the sixth century.

 

[Augustine]

I never said their is ill will on their part. But history sure seems to favor what I stated. The first council of Constantinople held in 381 is considered an ecumenical council now, but not back then. When it was convened, it was not intended to be ecumenical. The council of Ephesus, held just a half century later, did not recognize it as ecumenical. It only became ecumenical after Gregory the Great elevated it to that status in the sixth century.

No, the 2nd Ecumenical Council at Constantinople, whence we get the Creed we recite every Sunday, was thus elevated by the 4th Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon. St. Gregory the Great came along centuries later and abridged the approval by his predecessor, Damasus I.

The historical events do allow this interpretation and is how the Eastern Orthodox understand them.

Pax Christi

 

[Augustine]

Well, I believe it’s clear in Catholic teaching that, in order for a council to be considered ecumenical, it needs to be recognized by the Pope. (I can provide a quote if necessary.)

Indeed, but it was only formulated in the 2nd millennium, so it cannot be applied retroactively to condemn others in the 1st millennium. This would be a quite unjust anachronism.

Pax Christi

 

[prodromos]

He has to confirm its canons, and then declare it ecumenical. Then its canons are binding on the whole Church.

If that was the case, why did the Church in the East not bother waiting for the Pope’s rubber stamp on some occasions, and on others, completely ignored the Pope’s decision?