Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism’s Infallibility Problem

[Augustine]

“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?”

Such statements did not mean to the world wide Church then what means to you or I. Then, they meant the primacy of the Pope of Rome and of his see. Reading papal supremacy in them is possible, but is not substantiated by them.

Pax Christi

 

[Augustine]

… 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.

This is not accurate. Both councils were convoked by Byzantine emperors who offered ecclesiastical reunion in exchange for the pope to command kings and princes to send military help to the empire to fend off the Saracen incursions. To call such councils as ecumenical, when the Eastern bishops were coerced to be there and not free to vote according to their consciences offends charity and common sense.

Pax Christi

 

[Peter_J]

Indeed, but it was only formulated in the 2nd millennium,

True. But I would reiterate my earlier point: whenever it was formulated, it doesn’t say that if a council is recognized by the Pope then it is an ecumenical council. So I don’t believe it is as much of an issue as it is sometimes made out to be.

 

[Peter_J]

This is not accurate. Both councils were convoked by Byzantine emperors who offered ecclesiastical reunion in exchange for the pope to command kings and princes to send military help to the empire to fend off the Saracen incursions. To call such councils as ecumenical, when the Eastern bishops were coerced to be there and not free to vote according to their consciences offends charity and common sense.

Pax Christi

ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=329700

 

[Augustine]

ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=329700

QED

 

[Duane1966]

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

Already from 382 onwards, in the synodical letter of the synod which met at Constantinople, the council of Constantinople was given the title of “ecumenical”. The word denotes a general and plenary council. But the council of Constantinople was criticised and censured by Gregory of Nazianzus. In subsequent years it was hardly ever mentioned. In the end it achieved its special status when the council of Chalcedon, at its second session and in its definition of the faith, linked the form of the creed read out at Constantinople with the Nicene form, as being a completely reliable witness of the authentic faith. The fathers of Chalcedon acknowledged the authority of the canons — at least as far as the eastern church was concerned — at their sixteenth session. The council’s dogmatic authority in the western church was made clear by words of Pope Gregory I: “I confess that I accept and venerate the four councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon) in the same way as I do the four books of the holy Gospel…”

The bishop of Rome’s approval was not extended to the canons, because they were never brought "to the knowledge of the apostolic see’’. Dionysius Exiguus knew only of the first four — the ones to be found in the western collections. Pope Nicholas I wrote of the sixth canon to Emperor Michael III: "It is not found among us, but is said to be in force among you’’.

The above was taken from Catholic.com, though many other sources basically said the same thing.

 

[Augustine]

Pope Nicholas I wrote of the sixth canon to Emperor Michael III: "It is not found among us, but is said to be in force among you’’.

See, how could it be in force in the East if the pope hadn’t approved it? Because his approval was not deemed necessary. Not to the Easterners, not to the pope himself.

Pax Christi

 

[Duane1966]

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?

Even if I accept what you say as true, it does not alter my statement in any way. Let’s say no papal primacy, he is equal to the patriarchs of the East. Just acting as the Bishop of Rome, if he rejects a council, how would it’s canons be binding on the West? And if the canons are not binding on all the faithful, how is it ecumenical?

 

[steido01]

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.

Another straw man. YOUR denomination is the one that bound itself to an infallible table of contents. Indeed, the debate is often framed by Roman Catholics to be that you either support a 73-book canon because the pope said so, or you support a 66-book canon because the books magically support each other (for which there is some merit). If you would have actually read the link I posted, you would understand that Lutheranism intentionally has never defined a canon. It’s not necessary to do so. You’re going to need to find another example; the canon is a separate issue here. Read the link.

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.

Who said the church had to act solely through councils and popes? Are you seriously willing to limit the scope and power of the Spirit?

If a denomination decides to throw out any books of the bible because they believe they are uninspired, you have know [sic] way, nor does your denomination, to cogently tell them they are wrong.

Is this what it’s all about? Having an infallible table of contents so you can call everyone else anathema? How medieval.

I know you have heard this argument before.

Yup. From Catholics who don’t understand that their tired polemics don’t work on Lutherans like they do other “Protestants.”

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.

You’ll have to find one so I can ask.

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?

You’ll have to show me a truly Ecumenical Council that’s erred. Or a truly Ecumenical Council that’s ever ruled on the canon. Local and heterodox councils err.

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.

That would be absurd. Good thing that’s not what Lutherans teach. Care to actually read the article and try again?

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.

They have their own criteria. It’s a blatant lie to say that they (at least Orthodox and Lutherans) “don’t have one.” Don’t have one that supports a single bishop’s consolidation of power over an Ecumenical Council? Of course they wouldn’t!

 

[steido01]

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

Amen. Thank you for your presence here.

Those of us brothers who do not yet share full fellowship greatly appreciate it when our Roman siblings recognize that our beliefs are not unfounded, ahistorical, or otherwise anti-Catholic. We are also thankful that the recent popes have recognized these facts. It gives us hope that our eventual reunion with the First Among Equals is possible.

In Christ,

 

[Augustine]

Even if I accept what you say as true, it does not alter my statement in any way. Let’s say no papal primacy, he is equal to the patriarchs of the East. Just acting as the Bishop of Rome, if he rejects a council, how would it’s canons be binding on the West? And if the canons are not binding on all the faithful, how is it ecumenical?

Do not confuse primacy with supremacy. The primacy of Rome has always been accepted by the whole Church, East and West. However, this does not translate as the particular Churches of the East being under the Patriarch of Rome rather than under their respective patriarchs. This is the contention that separates the Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

To your question, keep in mind that pope Damasus approved of the canons. If pope Nicholas lost the paperwork, it’s not so much a statement of his supremacy as of his sloppiness. Additionally, the Council of Chalcedon, including the delegates of Rome, approved the Council of Constantinople II, making it ecumenical.

History is more complicated than what fits a 3x5 card. If you desire to foster reunion of the East and the West, if I may suggest it, acknowledge that neither history, neither the most brilliant theologians, neither the most saintly saints, of either side can reasonably buttress its arguments to persuade the other side. Only charity in the Truth will.

Pax Christi

 

[Duane1966]

See, how could it be in force in the East if the pope hadn’t approved it? Because his approval was not deemed necessary. Not to the Easterners, not to the pope himself.

Pax Christi

How can a council be ecumenical, if the canons are not binding on all the faithful? That is part of the definition of an ecumenical council. And if its canons are not known, how can said canons be binding?

 

[Augustine]

I’ll just leave this here…

Recently, at my Maronite parish, the Latin bishop came to celebrate the Roman Mass in honor of St. Sharbel on the occasion of the visit of his relics. An OCA bishop was present at the parish to venerate the relics too.

Both bishops met for the first time an hour or so before Mass. As Mass was starting, I was moved to see both bishops, one Latin Catholic and the other Orthodox, processing together side by side. Both bishops took places of honor relative to the other clergy on the bilmah and were incensed together.

The Latin bishop presided the liturgy, but the Orthodox bishop didn’t perform any function. However, at the liturgy of the Eucharist, the chasm between East and West opened before my eyes, for the Orthodox bishop not only merely watched as he was not invited to partake at the Eucharistic table.

I understand that the Latin bishop couldn’t have done differently, but my heart sank at this wound in the Body of Christ suppurating right before me. Two successors of the Apostles, equal in the charism of their Holy Orders, heads of local Churches, could not join around what was the one and same central fulcrum of the lives of both and their Churches: the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus.

It is a tragedy of a thousand years that is a scandal to the world! I study, converse, hope and pray that the Great Schism, by the grace of God, may be healed.

Pax Christi

 

[Augustine]

How can a council be ecumenical, if the canons are not binding on all the faithful? That is part of the definition of an ecumenical council. And if its canons are not known, how can said canons be binding?

Don’t let yourself be carried away by your analogy. Sticking to reality, the council was ecumenical because all the patriarchs, including pope Damasus, approved of it. Why his successors hemmed and hawed about it later escapes me, but methinks that, whatever their actions and motivations were, they are lost in the fog of time.

Pax Christi

 

[Abu]

Augustine #62
This is not accurate. Both councils were convoked by Byzantine emperors who offered ecclesiastical reunion in exchange for the pope to command kings and princes to send military help to the empire to fend off the Saracen incursions. To call such councils as ecumenical, when the Eastern bishops were coerced to be there and not free to vote according to their consciences offends charity and common sense.

**PAPAL AUTHORITY IN THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCILS **
‘(a) later tradition (including Eastern tradition) accorded to Bishop Sylvester of Rome a leading, though indirect, role at Nicaea, and its sixth canon suggests that Roman “custom” is normative an some way for the whole Church; (b) Theodosius’ decree of 380 views the Petrine faith of Rome as similarly normative, and we find no widespread objection to this from the Eastern Bishops at the time; (c) the admittedly small part played by the papacy in Constantinople I could quite well be explained by the fact that it was not at the time seen as a convocation representing the entire Church, on a par with Nicaea; and finally (d) at the first two Ecumenical Councils of which we have ample documentation - Ephesus and Chalcedon - we find a real authority being exerted by Rome and accepted by most of the Eastern Bishops. In view of the obvious conservatism of all Christian groups at this time - that is, the vehement claims of all parties to be resisting innovation and remaining faithful to the original revelation - the burden of proof would seem to lie very much with the historian who wishes to maintain that the idea of papal jurisdiction over the whole Church, recognized so widely by the fifth-century conciliar Fathers, was a novelty which would have been repudiated by their predecessors at Nicaea and Constantinople. Such a historian, we submit, would find it very difficult to discharge this burden of proof successfully.’ [My emphasis].
rtforum.org/lt/lt29.html

 

[Duane1966]

Do not confuse primacy with supremacy. The primacy of Rome has always been accepted by the whole Church, East and West. However, this does not translate as the particular Churches of the East being under the Patriarch of Rome rather than under their respective patriarchs. This is the contention that separates the Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

I understand the difference, and have understood the difference since I was in grade school back in the 70’s.

To your question, keep in mind that pope Damasus approved of the canons. If pope Nicholas lost the paperwork, it’s not so much a statement of his supremacy as of his sloppiness. Additionally, the Council of Chalcedon, including the delegates of Rome, approved the Council of Constantinople II, making it ecumenical.

The bishop of Rome’s approval was not extended to the canons, because they were never brought "to the knowledge of the apostolic see’’. Dionysius Exiguus knew only of the first four – the ones to be found in the western collections. Pope Nicholas I wrote of the sixth canon to Emperor Michael III: "It is not found among us, but is said to be in force among you’’.

Read what is in bold carefully. Damasus did not approve of the canons, and could not approve of them, because they were unknown to him. The fact that it was not found among us, means that it was not in force among us.

History is more complicated than what fits a 3x5 card. If you desire to foster reunion of the East and the West, if I may suggest it, acknowledge that neither history, neither the most brilliant theologians, neither the most saintly saints, of either side can reasonably buttress its arguments to persuade the other side. Only charity in the Truth will.

Pax Christi

Agreed

 

[Augustine]

[My emphasis].
rtforum.org/lt/lt29.html

Yes, your emphasis and the author’s are projective. The primacy of the Pope of Rome has never been an issue in the universal Church. And it is all that one can conclude from these events and how they were understood by all the conciliar fathers of the V century. Hamfisting papal supremacy in them is a crass slight of hand.

Pax Christi

 

[Duane1966]

This is not accurate. Both councils were convoked by Byzantine emperors who offered ecclesiastical reunion in exchange for the pope to command kings and princes to send military help to the empire to fend off the Saracen incursions. To call such councils as ecumenical, when the Eastern bishops were coerced to be there and not free to vote according to their consciences offends charity and common sense.

Pax Christi

In moving on to his second point, Bulgakov’s critique of the Orthodox historiography of the Council of Florence, Dr. Arjakovsky noted that, although Bulgakov later rejected “the temptation to accept papal infallibility,” he never went back on his acceptance of the ecumenicity of the Council of Florence, an acceptance first stated in 1922; even in his memoir, Quiet Thoughts, written late in his life, he still maintains this point. Bulgakov thinks that many of the problems faced by the Russian Church in its history could have been avoided if the Council of Florence had been accepted by the Orthodox people. (Among these problems: its paralysis, its support for Caesaropapism, its incapacity to set up a doctrinal authority that protects the truth of the faith….) He throws out the historiography that rejects Florence as a “pseudo-council.” All the local Churches participated in this council; all approved it. The Patriarch, the Emperor, sixteen metropolitans, signed the Decree of Union. True, Mark of Ephesus refused to sign. But never, at any previous ecumenical council, had there been total unanimity. Bulgakov did not accept the claim that “pressures” on the Greek delgation to accept union constitute sufficient grounds for rejecting the council as invalid. No previous council had allowed its delegates so much time to make up their minds (that they were not forced to stay is shown by the fact that some of the Greeks left of their own free will). No previous council had occasioned greater expenses than the pope had incurred at this council to maintain the large Greek delegation. Bulgakov questions whether a local council (Constantinople 1484) has the right to revoke the decisions of what he calls “the Eighth Ecumenical Council.” Only a new ecumenical council would possess such a right, and a new ecumenical council hasn’t occurred.

It is not only Bulgakov, among Orthodox theologians, who saw Florence as a true and canonically-valid council. Arjakovsky notes that Olivier Clément also shared this view.

Bulgakov also pointed to the fact, that in just about every ecumenical council, and many regional councils, there was tremendous pressure exerted by the secular powers at those also, and that some bishops at those councils felt forced to be there.

 

[Augustine]

Damasus did not approve of the canons, and could not approve of them, because they were unknown to him. The fact that it was not found among us, means that it was not in force among us.

That’s not what Damasus said, but what Nicholas said.

Enough said.

Pax Christi

 

[Duane1966]

That’s not what Damasus said, but what Nicholas said.

Enough said.

Pax Christi

The bishop of Rome’s approval was not extended to the canons, because they were never brought "to the knowledge of the apostolic see’’.

So never does not mean never here?