Eastern Orthodoxy - question about infallibilityDo the Do the

[Anthony_V]

…but we can never understand something that is completely not understood by our fathers.

As far as I know, the Church is a mystery, seated in a mystical union with Christ through the life of the Trinity. Either the mystery is passed down externally and we are somehow united from the outside, or we are united to the Church, becoming the mystery itself, and coming to understand it as we commit to metanoia.

We are all in agreement as part of our faith that no new revelation is happening. So why would we know more today than those in the past? They have as much revelation as we do right now.

Because there is a subjective as well as objective level to revelation. We had every bit of treasure from the beginning. We are just taking a gander at it, and recording it. There is no making of new treasure. But there is no way that the Apostles subjectively understood everything, had looked under every doubloon and diamond, and were secure that that is all there is to know. The Church is a mystery that, through doctrinal development, discerns her union with Christ as more and more mysterious. The Apostles simply understood it to the best of their understanding, which was sufficient for them, in the same way not considering how to articulate the dual-nature of Christ was sufficient for them. But the Apostles are not the Church itself. They participated in the Church, by passing on the Faith, though their personal understanding of it was secondary (although they do continue to pray for us in the presence of God). That is why, as you remarked, St. Paul didn’t doctrinize his encounter with Christ. Read a few pages into this. I think you will find it interesting.

You are equivocating, it seems to my feeble mind, the knowledge that the People of God actually (as opposed to potentially) have, and the mystery of Faith that they assent to, as if Faith is no mystery. St. Thomas Aquinas once said something along the lines of, “The blessed in heaven, witnessing the beatific vision, are seeing for the first time, not exactly who God is, but just how incomprehensible He is.” For the life of me I can’t remember where that is from…

Also, I am glad we can have dialogue on this level, my friend. Thank you for being open to talk about these things. I am learning much!

 

[ConstantineTG]

As far as I know, the Church is a mystery, seated in a mystical union with Christ through the life of the Trinity. Either the mystery is passed down externally and we are somehow united from the outside, or we are united to the Church, becoming the mystery itself, and coming to understand it as we commit to metanoia.

Because there is a subjective as well as objective level to revelation. We had every bit of treasure from the beginning. We are just taking a gander at it, and recording it. There is no making of new treasure. But there is no way that the Apostles subjectively understood everything, had looked under every doubloon and diamond, and were secure that that is all there is to know. The Church is a mystery that, through doctrinal development, discerns her union with Christ as more and more mysterious. The Apostles simply understood it to the best of their understanding, which was sufficient for them, in the same way not considering how to articulate the dual-nature of Christ was sufficient for them. But the Apostles are not the Church itself. They participated in the Church, by passing on the Faith, though their personal understanding of it was secondary (although they do continue to pray for us in the presence of God). That is why, as you remarked, St. Paul didn’t doctrinize his encounter with Christ. Read a few pages into this. I think you will find it interesting.

You are equivocating, it seems to my feeble mind, the knowledge that the People of God actually (as opposed to potentially) have, and the mystery of Faith that they assent to, as if Faith is no mystery. St. Thomas Aquinas once said something along the lines of, “The blessed in heaven, witnessing the beatific vision, are seeing for the first time, not exactly who God is, but just how incomprehensible He is.” For the life of me I can’t remember where that is from…

Also, I am glad we can have dialogue on this level, my friend. Thank you for being open to talk about these things. I am learning much!

Mystery doesn’t mean we completely do not know about it. Sacraments are mysteries, yet we perceive them to a certain extent. We were given a revelation, that we know and understand. This is where that energies/essence distinction come into play in the Orthodox understanding that God is not completely knowable, but through His energies we know Him based on what we experience about Him including the revelations from Christ.

So the Orthodox believe that God is not completely knowable, but also that He is not completely unknowable. I was reading some Christian writing a few years ago, modern, I believe this is from a creationist group, that is explaining how we know God. In a way this aligns with this Orthodox view of essence/energies. Think of us a 2D beings living in a 2D world. We’re flat. Now take a 3D object, that 3D object is God. Place the 2D plane to intersect with the 3D object. That space where the 2D object intersects with the 3D object is our understanding, our knowledge of God. But because we are 2D, we cannot perceive 3D. So if we exist only in width and height, we cannot perceive length and we can never understand length. But God has length, but we only perceive Him where He intersects with us.

 

[Anthony_V]

Mystery doesn’t mean we completely do not know about it. Sacraments are mysteries, yet we perceive them to a certain extent.

Yes, I agree with all of this. I am likening the Church as the sacrament of Christ, a sacred mystery. Or rather, equivocating sacred mystery with divine revelation, because they are two sides of the same coin.

This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.
Eph 5:32

You said, “yet we perceive them to a certain extent”. I am saying that our perception of them grows. Yet that increase in perception, seeing, is not an additive to the sacred mystery which is divine revelation. It is merely a greater participation in the revelation and mystery of the Church and, therefore, sacred Tradition (which is constituted by divine revelation/sacred mystery). Understood correctly, I guess we could say the Church is getting more “traditional”. That becoming “more traditional” is simply a nod to the dynamic/static intracommunication that the Church engages in, as it participates in the Trinitarian life. Look at what St. Paul talks about shortly before he talks about the Church and Christ as mystery:

[BIBLEDRB]Ephesians 5:25-27[/BIBLEDRB]

“Tradition” is becoming like Christ, theosis. And in that sense, it is not about the old, but the continually becoming new in Christ, as a new creation. Doctrinal development, in that paradigm, looks like this:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 13:12-13[/BIBLEDRB]

Doctrinal development can be safely equivocated with the Church’s continued sanctification. Of course, all of this presupposes an eschatological lens. But I don’t want to get into an epistemology of theology. That’s just insane.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, I agree with all of this. I am likening the Church as the sacrament of Christ, a sacred mystery. Or rather, equivocating sacred mystery with divine revelation, because they are two sides of the same coin.

Have you read “For the Life of the World” by Fr. Alexander Schmemann? What you said sounds like something from this book.

You said, “yet we perceive them to a certain extent”. I am saying that our perception of them grows. Yet that increase in perception, seeing, is not an additive to the sacred mystery which is divine revelation. It is merely a greater participation in the revelation and mystery of the Church and, therefore, sacred Tradition (which is constituted by divine revelation/sacred mystery). Understood correctly, I guess we could say the Church is getting more “traditional”. That becoming “more traditional” is simply a nod to the dynamic/static intracommunication that the Church engages in, as it participates in the Trinitarian life. Look at what St. Paul talks about shortly before he talks about the Church and Christ as mystery:

[BIBLEDRB]Ephesians 5:25-27[/BIBLEDRB]

“Tradition” is becoming like Christ, theosis. And in that sense, it is not about the old, but the continually becoming new in Christ, as a new creation. Doctrinal development, in that paradigm, looks like this:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 13:12-13[/BIBLEDRB]

Doctrinal development can be safely equivocated with the Church’s continued sanctification.

Definitely. But there are fine lines in doctrinal development. Remember there is a difference between “renew” and “new”. While we are renewed by Christ, we don’t become new. That is, something new means it’s beginning is rooted from that moment they are new. Being renewed is only being like new, but the origin of that thing is still from long ago, that thing is the same thing that was “old” and “crumbling”. Being renewed just means we get the traits, the benefits of being new, but not losing anything we are prior to that and certainly not anything added at the time of renewal. That is why at the end of the ages, it is wrong to thing that God will destroy the world and all of creation. The old will just pass away and all things will be renewed, that is all things including ourselves will be restored to the original glory God has given to creation in the beginning.

So doctrinal development shouldn’t be about knowing something that wasn’t known before. We may understand it in a different way, is it better? Well, that is subject to debate, given the difference of time and culture, are our ways today of explaining doctrine better than that of those influenced by the Greek Philosophers? Personally, I believe today our rationality, the way we think, is not at par with people from the past. I think we’ve spoiled ourselves with technology and we think we know more, but how we think is far inferior to those in the past. That is my take. So certainly in terms of doctrinal development, I don’t think we’re better, but surely we can still explain the same faith in a manner that is understandable today.

 

[Peter_J]

Again, how do you consider those councils that were initially called Ecumenical, only later on be condemned as heretical? If Ecumenical Councils are infallible, we cannot condemn them later on. And we should be stuck with heretical doctrine today.

This ^^ doesn’t really make sense to me. Certainly, if a council (or a letter, document, or whatever) is infallible, then it cannot be hereitical. But on the other hand, if it is heretical, then it obviously isn’t infallible.

But, on a positive note, the lack of emphasis on infallibility in Orthodoxy, seems to have worked out well for you guys. I’m reminded of Scott Hahn’s comment about how shocked he was (back when he was still protestant) to hear that the bible is “a fallible list of infallible books”.

 

[Anthony_V]

Have you read “For the Life of the World” by Fr. Alexander Schmemann? What you said sounds like something from this book.

I actually haven’t. My reading list consists of Fr. Robert Barron, Henri De Lubac, Hans Urs Von Balthasar, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Maximu[o]s the Confessor (I LOVE his Christology) some of St. Augustine (though some of the things he says irks me sometimes), and others. Things like that just come to me in this weird sort of way, like there are patterns everywhere. But would you recommend that book? I’d like to read some good solid material from you Orthodox folks. Eastern Catholic/Orthodox theology is just so beautifully laid out. I’ve also heard of Kallistos ware. This is so terribly off topic Just IM me, broski!

Definitely. But there are fine lines in doctrinal development. Remember there is a difference between “renew” and “new”. While we are renewed by Christ, we don’t become new. That is, something new means it’s beginning is rooted from that moment they are new. Being renewed is only being like new, but the origin of that thing is still from long ago, that thing is the same thing that was “old” and “crumbling”. Being renewed just means we get the traits, the benefits of being new, but not losing anything we are prior to that and certainly not anything added at the time of renewal. That is why at the end of the ages, it is wrong to thing that God will destroy the world and all of creation. The old will just pass away and all things will be renewed, that is all things including ourselves will be restored to the original glory God has given to creation in the beginning.

Hmm… I’ll have to look at the Greek in 2 Corinthians 5:17. Then I’ll get back to you on that. That is a convincing argument by way of its fittingness with 1 Corinthians 15:28 (in regards to the old world not passing away). I’m thinking about something along the lines of pura natura, De Lubac, Balthasar… . So I think there is a fundamental difference in the Orthodox and Catholic use of teleology. Tell me what you think of that pura natura proposition. It was held by neo-Thomists (which I am not). How would an Orthodox theologian reply to the proposition of pure nature? How would you get around that?

My reasoning is this: teleology would refer to the human element of the Church, and thus both its end and means of attaining that end (grace, obviously, but technicalities). Bringing the teleological background to the front would gives us more variables to work with in the discussion of infallibility.

So doctrinal development shouldn’t be about knowing something that wasn’t known before. We may understand it in a different way, is it better? Well, that is subject to debate, given the difference of time and culture, are our ways today of explaining doctrine better than that of those influenced by the Greek Philosophers? Personally, I believe today our rationality, the way we think, is not at par with people from the past. I think we’ve spoiled ourselves with technology and we think we know more, but how we think is far inferior to those in the past. That is my take. So certainly in terms of doctrinal development, I don’t think we’re better, but surely we can still explain the same faith in a manner that is understandable today.

I’ll have to dig more into this doctrinal development stuff. I have a book on Newman which I’ll look at. I agree with you insofar as the intellectual grade of society. The scope of modernist and post-modernist philosophy is rather pathetic. Throwing objective truth out the window in the name of subjective logic? What? But I digress.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Oh definitely they have a special ministry within the Church. But again, it is not about authority, its not about, “listen to me and do what I say or else…”

How can you teach without authority?

Matthew 28:
16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them int the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Acts 20:
28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

Titus 1:
5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife,t and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.7 For an overseer,t as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined.9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

How can the Council declare anathemas without authority?

The true authority is not ours but God’s, and one of the ways it is exercised is through the Church.

John 7:
16 So Jesus answered them,"My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.17 If anyone’s will is to do God’st will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.18 The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.

Without authority all we have left is Anarchy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

How can you teach without authority?

Without authority all we have left is Anarchy.

Not true. The truth is the truth regardless of who says it. Something is not more true because the Pope says it. If the Pope says the sky is pink, and I say it is blue, who would you believe? Or if Buzz Aldrin says the moon is made of cheese and I say it is made of rock, who would you believe?

It is not about the person, it is about the truth.

Overseers is an administrative function. God is a God of order so his flock would have an order. Episkopos means “the head slave”, that is in a household he is the “senior” slave of the master who has responsibility of organizing the other slaves. But he is a slave nonetheless like the others.

 

[joe370]

ConstantineTG;10732692]Not true. The truth is the truth regardless of who says it. Something is not more true because the Pope says it. If the Pope says the sky is pink, and I say it is blue, who would you believe?

What about when people call the Eucharist symbolic. Does the following apply: The truth is the truth regardless of who says it? They (e.g. my sister and many others) insist that that is the truth. You and I disagree. If no one has the authority, given to them by Jesus, to teach the truth about the Eucharist, then how can we know who is right and who is wrong about this very important teaching, unless of course they are right?

 

[Peter_J]

What about when people call the Eucharist symbolic. Does the following apply: The truth is the truth regardless of who says it?

Certainly. Does “The Eucharist is only symbolic” become true if the right people say it?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not true. The truth is the truth regardless of who says it. Something is not more true because the Pope says it. If the Pope says the sky is pink, and I say it is blue, who would you believe? Or if Buzz Aldrin says the moon is made of cheese and I say it is made of rock, who would you believe?

Did you really read my post? And if you did, Do you honestly think these analogies are proper?

Am I to understand then that, according to you, the Church has no authority?

What then do you understand by authority? and how does it relate to truth? and how is this truth is communicated and defended?

It is not about the person, it is about the truth.

It is about a person: Christ.

Overseers is an administrative function. God is a God of order so his flock would have an order. Episkopos means “the head slave”, that is in a household he is the “senior” slave of the master who has responsibility of organizing the other slaves. But he is a slave nonetheless like the others.

I see, so anyone can be an Episkopos if they want to be without any ruling authority to be so? In this case, all Protestants have valid ordinations since the Church has no authority to name one.

We are all slaves to one thing or another.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Certainly. Does “The Eucharist is only symbolic” become true if the right people say it?

Yes, if Christ says it is then it is. If Christ says it isn’t, then it isn’t. His Church, which is composed of the right people chosen by Christ to pass on His teachings say it is. Therefore, I believe the Church because it has the authority to defend the Truth.

How is truth revealed without an interpreting authority?

 

[Nine_Two]

Of course the Orthodox Church believes it teaches with the authority of Christ. Usually when people ask that question, phrased in that manner, they’re talking about the pope as The Authority.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
Certainly. Does “The Eucharist is only symbolic” become true if the right people say it?

Um … so Christ might say “The Eucharist is only symbolic”? Exactly what kind of Catholic are you (if you don’t mind my asking)?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Um … so Christ might say “The Eucharist is only symbolic”? Exactly what kind of Catholic are you (if you don’t mind my asking)?

You missed the if in my premise. It was a supposition used to demonstrate what is to be interpreted from a person with authority. Christ said, “This is my body”, because His person carries authority He is able to communicate truth, in that regard we believe the truth.

Besides, attack my response and not my person… childish ad hominem don’t contribute to the conversation.

And answer the question please.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This ^^ doesn’t really make sense to me. Certainly, if a council (or a letter, document, or whatever) is infallible, then it cannot be hereitical. But on the other hand, if it is heretical, then it obviously isn’t infallible.

But, on a positive note, the lack of emphasis on infallibility in Orthodoxy, seems to have worked out well for you guys. I’m reminded of Scott Hahn’s comment about how shocked he was (back when he was still protestant) to hear that the bible is “a fallible list of infallible books”.

Well they called a council Ecumenical before they realized it was Heretical. So how do you condemn an Ecumenical Council if an Ecumenical Council is infallible?

 

[ConstantineTG]

What about when people call the Eucharist symbolic. Does the following apply: The truth is the truth regardless of who says it? They (e.g. my sister and many others) insist that that is the truth. You and I disagree. If no one has the authority, given to them by Jesus, to teach the truth about the Eucharist, then how can we know who is right and who is wrong about this very important teaching, unless of course they are right?

Again, insisting on something is true doesn’t mean it is. You keep placing the qualification of truth on people, either by some perceived authority on a person (ie. infallibility, magisterial), or by a consensus such as a democracy. The truth is the truth regardless of who says it. Think about mathematics or the laws of physics. Could anyone alter it? Can someone who is infallible in math make 2+2 into 5000?

Why does Jesus need to give someone the authority to teach the truth when He already taught the truth? Authority has nothing to do with truth. Something doesn’t become the truth just because someone has authority. Jesus doesn’t speak the truth because he has authority as God, Jesus speaks the truth because it is His nature as God to be the truth as He says it Himself that He is the truth.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Again, insisting on something is true doesn’t mean it is. You keep placing the qualification of truth on people, either by some perceived authority on a person (ie. infallibility, magisterial), or by a consensus such as a democracy. The truth is the truth regardless of who says it. Think about mathematics or the laws of physics. Could anyone alter it? Can someone who is infallible in math make 2+2 into 5000?

Why does Jesus need to give someone the authority to teach the truth when He already taught the truth? Authority has nothing to do with truth. Something doesn’t become the truth just because someone has authority. Jesus doesn’t speak the truth because he has authority as God, Jesus speaks the truth because it is His nature as God to be the truth as He says it Himself that He is the truth.

Maybe you can consider the Bishop of Rome and the Magesterium as the caretakers of truth. The umpires of the Christian Faith.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Did you really read my post? And if you did, Do you honestly think these analogies are proper?

Of course they are. My entire point is that the truth is not dependent on the “who”.

Look, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, I am an apostate schismatic who is currently excommunicated for severing my communion with the Pope of Rome by joining the Orthodox Church. Would you not believe me, you as a Catholic, if I tell you that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who Himself is God? The truth is not dependent on the person.

Am I to understand then that, according to you, the Church has no authority?

I never said that. I said the truth does not need authority, it is the truth no matter what.

What then do you understand by authority? and how does it relate to truth? and how is this truth is communicated and defended?

The truth does not need authority. Like I said over and over, it doesn’t need one in authority to say the truth. Popes have been wrong, Popes have been heretics, and simple lay monks have become great saints for defending the true faith. Authority has nothing to do with it.

How is the truth communicated? By tradition and proper teaching. How is it defended? Again by tradition. Read the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. It wasn’t a bishop saying, “well I’m a bishop and I say this, so all of you should accept it.” Certainly it wasn’t the Pope saying that. The truth was defended by proving that a certain position is the Christian faith all along, that it is the same thing taught by earlier Fathers and the Apostles as revealed through Scripture.

It is about a person: Christ.

Read my previous post about Christ and Truth.

I see, so anyone can be an Episkopos if they want to be without any ruling authority to be so? In this case, all Protestants have valid ordinations since the Church has no authority to name one.

I never said that. Why are you making an assumption this way? Of course there is Ordination. But a bishop does not ordain because of authority. The Greek word for clergy means “set apart”, not “set over”. What they have is a ministry, not authority.

We are all slaves to one thing or another.

Hopefully not. The Truth sets us free.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Maybe you can consider the Bishop of Rome and the Magesterium as the caretakers of truth. The umpires of the Christian Faith.

Caretakers sounds fine. Umpires? Why do we need umpires? They can be wrong. The truth is not relative, it is not subjective, so why do we need someone to have authority to pronounce it. Like I said, think of math. 1+1 will always be 2 and no one anywhere can say anything else and be truthful.