P
Peter_J
Guest
If something (an council, a book, a document, or whatever) is infallible, then I wouldn’t want to condemn it.
(Note the “If it is infallible” part.)
- Status
(Note the “If it is infallible” part.)
P
Peter_J
Guest
P.S. I feel like we’ve stumbled into some kind of “calling it” mentality … only instead of kids saying “I call front seat!”, we have grown-ups saying “I call infallible council!” and then someone saying “Oh bloody 'ell. I can’t call heresy now because they already called infallibility!”
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Returning to the original topic, I think what the Ecumenical Councils were (at least those from imperial times) is widely misunderstood these days. The first seven, at the very least, were not so much concerned with this idea of meeting some certain criteria for teaching infallibly (it would seem that they were ignorant of the existence of any such criteria), but whether their assembly was legal. This is why it was considered necessary that the Imperial Sacra be read before a council could be Ecumenical, because without it, the council would technically be an illegal gathering.
The reading of a letter from Rome (at least according to the Imperial Sacra read at the Seventh Ecumenical Council) was done by custom, along with reading documents from the bishops of major sees in the East, in order to determine the mind of the Church on certain affairs. This, however, did not seem to be, in the mind of the East, an absolute necessity. The Second Council of Ephesus as well as the Iconoclastic Council of Hieria, for example, point to this being the case. These synods were convened legally, and hence they claimed to have the authority of an Ecumenical Council. When these synods were overturned, there was no real concern as to whether these councils taught infallibly or not. In the case of Second Ephesus, the acts were investigated, and it was determined at the Council of Chalcedon that the council was conducted improperly. Hence, the council was annulled, and Chalcedon superseded it. In the case of Hieria, the Second Council of Nicaea actually read through its theological arguments for iconoclasm, and refuted them one by one.
On this matter of infallibility, I do not think that there is a significant divergence in terms of the ‘what’ of the matter. That is to say, we all can agree that the Church is indefectible, which means that by virtue of this, teachings which become part of the received tradition are inerrant, and that the fathers who taught them were god-inspired and therefore infallible. But there is a significant divergence as far as the epistemology of the matter is concerned. The Roman Catholic belief that one can know for certain, based on certain criteria whether or not the Church teaches infallibly on some disputed matter is absolutely absent from Orthodox thought, and I frankly wonder if this does not pose a more significant difference than most are willing to admit.
The reading of a letter from Rome (at least according to the Imperial Sacra read at the Seventh Ecumenical Council) was done by custom, along with reading documents from the bishops of major sees in the East, in order to determine the mind of the Church on certain affairs. This, however, did not seem to be, in the mind of the East, an absolute necessity. The Second Council of Ephesus as well as the Iconoclastic Council of Hieria, for example, point to this being the case. These synods were convened legally, and hence they claimed to have the authority of an Ecumenical Council. When these synods were overturned, there was no real concern as to whether these councils taught infallibly or not. In the case of Second Ephesus, the acts were investigated, and it was determined at the Council of Chalcedon that the council was conducted improperly. Hence, the council was annulled, and Chalcedon superseded it. In the case of Hieria, the Second Council of Nicaea actually read through its theological arguments for iconoclasm, and refuted them one by one.
On this matter of infallibility, I do not think that there is a significant divergence in terms of the ‘what’ of the matter. That is to say, we all can agree that the Church is indefectible, which means that by virtue of this, teachings which become part of the received tradition are inerrant, and that the fathers who taught them were god-inspired and therefore infallible. But there is a significant divergence as far as the epistemology of the matter is concerned. The Roman Catholic belief that one can know for certain, based on certain criteria whether or not the Church teaches infallibly on some disputed matter is absolutely absent from Orthodox thought, and I frankly wonder if this does not pose a more significant difference than most are willing to admit.
C
chimo
Guest
I believe Joe that both sides are protected by God. The Office of St. Peter is protected as is the office which holds the Eastern Churches together. The Catholic in my opinion must recognize what holds the East together and the Orthodox must recognize what holds Rome together which is the Office of the Papacy. This acknowledgement on both sides is what this debate is all about. Whenever a Catholic refuses to acknowledge the authority of the East how then do you expect an Easterner to respond? And likewise how is the Catholic to respond to an Easterner that does not see the Pope as an authoritive figure. It is in my eyes of faith that both East and West have their authority given to them by the same God. Then it is up to us to acknowledge this as well. The Orthodox then must see the Papacy as one of those authorities God has placed for the Church. And it must also for the Catholic to see the Eastern Church as another authority. These two authorities sums up what God has said when He says when two or three are gathered in my Name. East and West are God’s two great witnesses. It is said in Scripture that two witnesses are necessary to confirm the truth. We have these two witnesses today.
I must say that the doctrine of the Church was not further developed until heresies crept into the Church. If it wasn’t for these false teachings would we have the same doctrine today? The heresies of the past brought men together to give more clarity to the establish teachings of the day and gave us a better picture. Too many misunderstandings and lack of clarity is what brought these heresies out in the open. With these misunderstandings out of the way we should be thankful we have inherited a more disciplined and refined doctrine.
I must say that the doctrine of the Church was not further developed until heresies crept into the Church. If it wasn’t for these false teachings would we have the same doctrine today? The heresies of the past brought men together to give more clarity to the establish teachings of the day and gave us a better picture. Too many misunderstandings and lack of clarity is what brought these heresies out in the open. With these misunderstandings out of the way we should be thankful we have inherited a more disciplined and refined doctrine.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Constantine,
It feels we are having 2 different conversations… so I will not reply to your responses because of this.
God is Truth. Would you agree that the best way to understand truth is through wisdom? I’m saying the best way, truth is also revealed. However, revealed truth must be discern by the use of reason. And we must be wise in our use of reason.
There are all these exercises we go through in order to understand truth.
I understand how you would not want to make truth dependent on authority. Since authority is not always correct and is not always benevolent. But that would be an extreme side of authority. Authority can also be correct and also be benevolent and act in charity. That would be the other extreme of authority.
Again, authority is exercised in different ways and it is not tied up to a one, single definite way of action.
God has all authority, we know that God is good and that any good can only come from Him.
Before the Apostles being given the great commission, Jesus makes something very clear:
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
After He establishes authority, He delegates His teachings to the Apostles.
These Apostles go and teach others. It is about persons exercising authority to communicate truth. Only those teaching given by the Apostles are recognized as authoritative by others. Now I can believe the truth from someone different than the Apostles. But if I have a misconception about the truth, Who is going to correct me outside authority?
What happened to the Arian heresy? Did individual people on the streets make a decree about how they were wrong? or Did the leadership of the Church make that decree?
And how can you make a decree regarding the truth without authority?
Truth is exercised through tradition. Whose tradition? The Arians? The Nestorians? Or the One Church?
The Apostles taught other men, and these men were put in charge of the Church. How can you be in charge without authority?
Truth doesn’t need authority to remain truth.
But it needs authority to stand against lies. Not all authority is true. But all truth is exercised through authority.
J
joe370
Guest
For example?
Nice post chimo…
C
chimo
Guest
Thanks Joe. I appreciate your words as well. Some of these examples is how our Nicene Creed was put together. It happens that the Church had engaged into many false teachings for instance the Arian and the Nestorius heresies which brought the whole Church together to iron out the truth. The Seventh Ecumenical Council was convened because people in those days were destroying Icons because they thought these Icons were going against the Commandment of God to have images. Two saints came forth in that era, St. John of Damascus and St. Theodore the Studite who claim they knew the truth regarding images and the use of Icons. Simply stated the saints said He who was immaterial (Jesus) became material for us. He who was Spirit became Man. Therefore an attack on these images and icons were an attack on the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Since Jesus is the image of the Father then it is Ok to have Him in images and Icons. (I wish our Protestant brethren will study more this Seventh council).
P
Peter_J
Guest
Hi chimo (and Joe). So, are you saying you believe that both sides are protected from error? If so, I find that pretty scandalous.
C
chimo
Guest
No Peter you are wrong in interpreting what we are saying. The Church can enter into error but God protects it to bring more light and truth into it. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches are guided by the same God who can help her when parts of her can enter into error. This is what I was saying. Parts of the Church can be misled into error. However this may be the rest of the Church can help lead her back and this is what I mean and I think what Joe means. By the way you are listed as a Melkite. What exactly is a Melkite?
J
joe370
Guest
Speaking as a former non-Catholic, I wish the same. Many do though, such as JonNC.
Scripture too could be a good example. Man, there were a lot of heresies the church had to contend with, long ago. 
D
dzheremi
Guest
P
Peter_J
Guest
Alright that’s fair enough – but could you explain what you meant by “that both sides are protected by God”? I realize that you didn’t say “protected from error”, but I’m not sure what you are saying, you know?
I’m about to go to bed, but I’ll check here first thing in the morning.
C
chimo
Guest
When a cleric is teaching error or when a large part of the Church is been led by that error then what can God do to correct it? Will God correct it on His own? No He will not. It is through His Church that He will guide it into truth. With this understanding it seems God will guide who is in the Church to a better understanding of His truth so that those in error would have someone point out to them this truth. In the age of the Church many parts of her did enter into teachings that were not acceptable to the true doctrine of God. As I pointed out earlier Arian was one of those clerics whose teachings had to be stamped out or at least handled by more definite truths that would have disarmed him or at least to his teachings. Sometimes Arianism would find its face again and again throughout the history of the Church. But God would silence it again and again by the truth contained in His Church.
False teachings today are everywhere but so is the truth. There is an ongoing battle for the truth and depending on where you are and how you are taught some of this truth is mixed in with some of the falsehood as well. What we need to do is to defend the truth of God so that we can be better witnesses to that truth. There are two great witnesses to that truth. It is Rome and the East. God safeguards both as a parent who safeguards both of his children. It may be that parts of her whether it is in Rome or it is in the East that can be led into teachings that are not good but there is parts of her in Rome and the East that can defend it! It is up to these authorities to speak. They have by the authority given to them by God to correct and discipline when it is necessary.
An example of a saint who went to the Church to say what you are doing was wrong is the youthful and energetic saint from Assisi called Francis. He challenged the Church of his day to change and many listened to him including the Pope. St. Francis was a great example how God can call us back to the simple message of His Gospel. We need reminding and reminding and it is the saints of God who can do this for us. They help point us in the right direction. If you need proof of what authority God protects us with then look also to the Church’s saints. The saints of both East and West have left us this great testimony and so too the saints of this present era. I have often seen the Popes of recent memory and the Popes today as very holy and learned men, saints that we need today to give testimony to the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The religious leaders of all of God’s Churches today including our Patriarchs and the Pope of the Coptic Church are very saintly men. We need to be thankful for this great company of witnesses. We have many brothers (and sisters) to lean on.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
It makes no sense that certain parts of the Church can fall into error. Jesus is the Truth and the Church is His body, so how can Truth himself have parts of His body fall into error?
Also, the Orthodox Church does not believe in “offices”. What holds us together is Orthodoxy, that is the full and true faith handed down by Christ to His Apostles, and of course the Eucharist.
Also, the Orthodox Church does not believe in “offices”. What holds us together is Orthodoxy, that is the full and true faith handed down by Christ to His Apostles, and of course the Eucharist.
J
joe370
Guest
Which church are we talking about? There are the Eastern/Oriental churches, Protestant churches and the Catholic church…
C
chimo
Guest
D
dzheremi
Guest
There is some weird, weird ecclesiology going on in this thread. Chimo, I don’t know where you’re getting these ideas, but they don’t sound like anything I’ve heard in either the OO communion or the occasions I have had to interact with EO.
There is one Church – not two or three or more. Only one. And it cannot fall into error. And you cannot reasonably equate sin with doctrinal error such as is embraced by heretics. Saying we all sin is in no way like saying we are all in doctrinal error. If I commit some sin, I have fallen short of what is required of me by my faith in some way, but that need not entail embracing doctrinal error. I could (hypothetically, of course) steal or cheat or lie or do all kinds of bad things without, say, denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit or introducing some new Christological formula which obliterates either Christ’s divinity or His humanity. Granted, such ideas and stances are sinful, as they challenge and rebel against the true faith of God, but it is too simplistic and frankly weird to say “since we all sin, the Church can err”. The Church does not err when I sin; I do.
There is one Church – not two or three or more. Only one. And it cannot fall into error. And you cannot reasonably equate sin with doctrinal error such as is embraced by heretics. Saying we all sin is in no way like saying we are all in doctrinal error. If I commit some sin, I have fallen short of what is required of me by my faith in some way, but that need not entail embracing doctrinal error. I could (hypothetically, of course) steal or cheat or lie or do all kinds of bad things without, say, denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit or introducing some new Christological formula which obliterates either Christ’s divinity or His humanity. Granted, such ideas and stances are sinful, as they challenge and rebel against the true faith of God, but it is too simplistic and frankly weird to say “since we all sin, the Church can err”. The Church does not err when I sin; I do.
J
joe370
Guest
Do you believe that the catholic church fell into error, or can fall into error, since it is not the connected with the eastern orthodox church?
D
dzheremi
Guest
You mean the Roman Catholic communion? Yes, I believe it can and has fallen into error. If I did not believe that, I wold never have left it in the first place. I do not believe that this is necessarily connected to whether or not it is in union with the Eastern Orthodox, however.
J
joe370
Guest
OK. What are the implications… i.e. are Catholic-church sacraments rendered invalid? Does the Holy Spirit still guide the CC?
- Status