Lutheran critique of Eastern Orthodoxy and Authority

[TriuneUnity]

In the spirit of discussion, I wanted to address, in a few threads, the problems that traditional Protestants have with Eastern Orthodoxy. I realize, of course, that the forum is heavily Catholic and those are usually the things that are discussed here; but for the sake of dialogue I wanted to touch on some of the teachings of Orthodoxy (many of them are related to the disagreements we would have with Rome). I am not as well versed in Orthodox teachings, so if I do not characterize your positions fairly, please forgive and feel free to correct me.

Firstly, and this goes along the lines of the same problems we would have with Roman Catholicism, is the source and norm of authority in Orthodoxy.

The concept of Scripture, Tradition, and the Church within Orthodoxy does not seem to conform to many of the patterns we in the Western Church are familiar with. In Protestantism, you have sola scriptura and solo scriptura; in Rome you have Scripture and Tradition. However, the EO concept of Scripture and Tradition is not parallel to the RC concept of Scripture and Tradition. If I am right on this, EO views tradition as being the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The RC concept of Scripture and Tradition may be seen as part of the larger concept, as opposed to two separate sources of revelation. This tradition as presence does have external forms, however. These would be the Bible, the 7 ecumenical councils (the Nicene-Constantinopolitan being the most important), the fathers, the divine liturgy, the canon law, and the icons.
The EO views the Bible as God’s supreme form of revelation to man, but it cannot be separated from the Church. Ware states that Scripture cannot be set over the Church, but is something within the Church. In addition, the EO sees the 7 ecumenical councils to have been infallible. They have an abiding and irrevocable authority in the Church alongside Scripture.
The ECF’s provide the broader context within which the conciliar decisions and decrees must be interpreted. Although not indiscriminately infallible, the “mind of the fathers” is an important part of authority. According to Bishop Ware, the mind of the fathers is the very canon or criterion of Orthodoxy. Particular emphasis is placed on Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus and Chrysostom.
In a very real sense, the Church is what embodies the authority of tradition. It is the Church from which the Bible derives its authority since the Church decided which books were Scripture and the Church is the only source of its true interpretation. According to Georges Florovsky, the authority of the Church is a “charismatic authority” given to the Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth. Because of this, Orthodoxy sees itself as the standard, or criterion, of Christianity.

Before going any further, may I ask the Orthodox members of the forum if this would basically be an accurate description, and is there anything you would add?

 

[JonNC]

In the spirit of discussion, I wanted to address, in a few threads, the problems that traditional Protestants have with Eastern Orthodoxy. I realize, of course, that the forum is heavily Catholic and those are usually the things that are discussed here; but for the sake of dialogue I wanted to touch on some of the teachings of Orthodoxy (many of them are related to the disagreements we would have with Rome). I am not as well versed in Orthodox teachings, so if I do not characterize your positions fairly, please forgive and feel free to correct me.

Firstly, and this goes along the lines of the same problems we would have with Roman Catholicism, is the source and norm of authority in Orthodoxy.

The concept of Scripture, Tradition, and the Church within Orthodoxy does not seem to conform to many of the patterns we in the Western Church are familiar with. In Protestantism, you have sola scriptura and solo scriptura; in Rome you have Scripture and Tradition. However, the EO concept of Scripture and Tradition is not parallel to the RC concept of Scripture and Tradition. If I am right on this, EO views tradition as being the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The RC concept of Scripture and Tradition may be seen as part of the larger concept, as opposed to two separate sources of revelation. This tradition as presence does have external forms, however. These would be the Bible, the 7 ecumenical councils (the Nicene-Constantinopolitan being the most important), the fathers, the divine liturgy, the canon law, and the icons.
The EO views the Bible as God’s supreme form of revelation to man, but it cannot be separated from the Church. Ware states that Scripture cannot be set over the Church, but is something within the Church. In addition, the EO sees the 7 ecumenical councils to have been infallible. They have an abiding and irrevocable authority in the Church alongside Scripture.
The ECF’s provide the broader context within which the conciliar decisions and decrees must be interpreted. Although not indiscriminately infallible, the “mind of the fathers” is an important part of authority. According to Bishop Ware, the mind of the fathers is the very canon or criterion of Orthodoxy. Particular emphasis is placed on Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus and Chrysostom.
In a very real sense, the Church is what embodies the authority of tradition. It is the Church from which the Bible derives its authority since the Church decided which books were Scripture and the Church is the only source of its true interpretation. According to Georges Florovsky, the authority of the Church is a “charismatic authority” given to the Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth. Because of this, Orthodoxy sees itself as the standard, or criterion, of Christianity.

Before going any further, may I ask the Orthodox members of the forum if this would basically be an accurate description, and is there anything you would add?

If it is, Matthew, it seems this would be more palatable to Lutheran style sola scripturists that the Catholic model of scripture and tradition.

Hoping to hear from some of our very good Orthodox posters on this.

Jon

 

[Nine_Two]

Both scripture and the Ecumenical Councils are part of Holy Tradition (which must be distinguished from small-t tradition for the sake of semantics, although it is clear it wasn’t small-t tradition you were talking about).

I’m not sure I’d say Holy Tradition is the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, although it is certainly guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[prodromos]

I’m not sure I’d say Holy Tradition is the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, although it is certainly guided by the Holy Spirit.

Tradition is considered to be the Life of the Holy Spirit in the Church.
Scripture is the pinnacle of Tradition, and the Gospels are the peak of that pinnacle

John

 

[SteveVH]

I hope you don’t mind if a Catholic steps in. Just a few things on which I would like to comment.

The concept of Scripture, Tradition, and the Church within Orthodoxy does not seem to conform to many of the patterns we in the Western Church are familiar with. In Protestantism, you have sola scriptura and solo scriptura; in Rome you have Scripture and Tradition. However, the EO concept of Scripture and Tradition is not parallel to the RC concept of Scripture and Tradition. If I am right on this, EO views tradition as being the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The RC concept of Scripture and Tradition may be seen as part of the larger concept, as opposed to two separate sources of revelation. This tradition as presence does have external forms, however. These would be the Bible, the 7 ecumenical councils (the Nicene-Constantinopolitan being the most important), the fathers, the divine liturgy, the canon law, and the icons.

While I will not pretend for a moment to be even close to an authority on EO, I think you may be misreading or misunderstanding both the RC and EO views of Scripture and Tradition. In my opinion, I see little or no difference between the two.

I believe that the RC and EO would agree that there is one Source of revelation and that is Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, Who are one. I believe that we would both agree that Tradition lives within and cannot be separated from the Church.

“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own ‘always, to the close of the age.’” (CCC par 80)

The measuring stick used in determining the canon of Sacred Scripture was the truth already living within the Church through Sacred Tradition. They both speak of one and the same Truth, the person of Jesus Christ.

“Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Holy Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.” (CCC par. 81)

“…Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” (CCC par 82)

I would be surprised if the EO would find any difference between their view of Scripture and Tradition and the above quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If there is, I too would be interested in learning.

The EO views the Bible as God’s supreme form of revelation to man, but it cannot be separated from the Church. Ware states that Scripture cannot be set over the Church, but is something within the Church. In addition, the EO sees the 7 ecumenical councils to have been infallible. They have an abiding and irrevocable authority in the Church alongside Scripture.

The ECF’s provide the broader context within which the conciliar decisions and decrees must be interpreted. Although not indiscriminately infallible, the “mind of the fathers” is an important part of authority. According to Bishop Ware, the mind of the fathers is the very canon or criterion of Orthodoxy. Particular emphasis is placed on Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus and Chrysostom.
In a very real sense, the Church is what embodies the authority of tradition. It is the Church from which the Bible derives its authority since the Church decided which books were Scripture and the Church is the only source of its true interpretation. According to Georges Florovsky, the authority of the Church is a “charismatic authority” given to the Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth. Because of this, Orthodoxy sees itself as the standard, or criterion, of Christianity.

Again, you could very well be describing the Catholic Church. It is possible that I have missed some nuance in your differentiation. If so, maybe you could explain.

God bless.

Steve

 

[Bluegoat]

I hope you don’t mind if a Catholic steps in. Just a few things on which I would like to comment.

While I will not pretend for a moment to be even close to an authority on EO, I think you may be misreading or misunderstanding both the RC and EO views of Scripture and Tradition. In my opinion, I see little or no difference between the two.

I believe that the RC and EO would agree that there is one Source of revelation and that is Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, Who are one. I believe that we would both agree that Tradition lives within and cannot be separated from the Church.

“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own ‘always, to the close of the age.’” (CCC par 80)

The measuring stick used in determining the canon of Sacred Scripture was the truth already living within the Church through Sacred Tradition. They both speak of one and the same Truth, the person of Jesus Christ.

“Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Holy Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.” (CCC par. 81)

“…Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” (CCC par 82)

I would be surprised if the EO would find any difference between their view of Scripture and Tradition and the above quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If there is, I too would be interested in learning.

Again, you could very well be describing the Catholic Church. It is possible that I have missed some nuance in your differentiation. If so, maybe you could explain.

God bless.

Steve

I can’t comment here with a lot of authority, but my gut feeling from my research on Catholicism and Orthodoxy is that they do understand Tradition rather differently. I think though that the difference can be rather subtle. I would be very interested if some Orthodox could confirm, and expand, or deny my intuitions.

One difference I think is that the EO churches do not seem to understand what Catholics call the “development of doctrine” the same way, or at least in the same degree.

Also, the Catholic understanding of the role of the Pope and the hierarchy also seems to impact on the understanding of Tradition. In Catholicism, what is Tradition is defined from the top down. In the EO, this does not seem to be so much the case, and there even seem to be examples of it being defined from the bottom up - of the laity refusing to follow the lead of the Bishops.

 

[SteveVH]

I can’t comment here with a lot of authority, but my gut feeling from my research on Catholicism and Orthodoxy is that they do understand Tradition rather differently. I think though that the difference can be rather subtle. I would be very interested if some Orthodox could confirm, and expand, or deny my intuitions.

One difference I think is that the EO churches do not seem to understand what Catholics call the “development of doctrine” the same way, or at least in the same degree.

Also, the Catholic understanding of the role of the Pope and the hierarchy also seems to impact on the understanding of Tradition. In Catholicism, what is Tradition is defined from the top down. In the EO, this does not seem to be so much the case, and there even seem to be examples of it being defined from the bottom up - of the laity refusing to follow the lead of the Bishops.

Interesting. I know more than a few Catholics who refuse to follow the lead of the Bishops as well. Their views, however, do not define anything but their ignorance. Are you saying that the views of the laity make their way into EO doctrine? I’d really like to hear the Orthodox take on this.

 

[Bluegoat]

Interesting. I know more than a few Catholics who refuse to follow the lead of the Bishops as well. Their views, however, do not define anything but their ignorance. Are you saying that the views of the laity make their way into EO doctrine? I’d really like to hear the Orthodox take on this.

This isn’t quite what was thinking of - more the laity simply refusing to follow their leadership in what they felt was an innovation, and so it simply was never adopted in practice. I think in fact it would be fair to say this sort of thing happened in the Early Church as well, so perhaps it isn’t totally foreign to Catholicism. But today the attitude is more what you have expressed, and the Magisterium has a kind of authority that is I think qualitatively different than what is found in Orthodoxy.

 

[SteveVH]

This isn’t quite what was thinking of - more the laity simply refusing to follow their leadership in what they felt was an innovation, and so it simply was never adopted in practice. I think in fact it would be fair to say this sort of thing happened in the Early Church as well, so perhaps it isn’t totally foreign to Catholicism. But today the attitude is more what you have expressed, and the Magisterium has a kind of authority that is I think qualitatively different than what is found in Orthodoxy.

I don’t want to get off on a tangent here, but I’m still a little confused. When you say that this happend in the Early Church, are you speaking of heresies or some other type of dissension? As early as Paul’s epistles the Church had to keep things in line, but I know of no widespread dissension due to the laity thinking that some doctrine was an innovation. The early Church certainly never acquiesced to the laity’s protests if they were not in line with the Church’s teaching. As to the difference in authority between the Magesterium and the hierarchy of the EO I have to plead ignorance.

Blessings.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Tradition is considered to be the Life of the Holy Spirit in the Church.
Scripture is the pinnacle of Tradition, and the Gospels are the peak of that pinnacle

John

Thanks for confirming that, prodromos. I wanted to make sure I was reading Bishop Ware correctly when he made that point.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I hope you don’t mind if a Catholic steps in. Just a few things on which I would like to comment.

Not at all

Again, you could very well be describing the Catholic Church. It is possible that I have missed some nuance in your differentiation. If so, maybe you could explain.

God bless.

Steve

I am sure that there is probably going to be a lot of overlap. My sense, however, is that Roman Catholicism sees more of a…hmm I don’t want to say difference because I think Catholicism views Scripture as part of Tradition; but I seem to have observed that Orthodoxy views Scripture, the councils, the fathers, etc. as one unit called Tradition and tend not to differentiate as this being sacred tradition, this being sacred scripture.

Bear in mind, my above points on defining Orthodox authority was not the critique. I just wanted to make sure I had the basics right before offering one.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Okay, so let me start with two critiques of the position of Orthodoxy on authority. Bear with me if this happens to cover a couple of different posts. Word limits and all bleh.

The canon: One of the first problems encountered is an inaccurate understanding of the process and relevance of the creation of the canon. Archimandrite Chrysostomos states, “By setting the canon of Scripture, the Church, in turn, established the Scriptures as the canon. In defining the rule of faith, the Church created the rule of faith.” This is simply not true. The Church received the Old Testament from Israel. She received the New Testament from the Apostles of Christ. It is true that there were spurious books being circulated at the same time as the apostolic books. But the fact that Christ’s Church, His sheep, heard His voice amidst the clamoring voices of strangers does not mean that the Church “created” the rule of faith. God created the rule of faith, and the Church heard it, received it and obeys it. Definition does not entail creation. Scientists have defined the God-given laws of physics, but scientists did not create those laws. God created them, and man discovered and defined them.

Of course, another point here, and this applies equally to Roman Catholicism, is that the recognition of the Scriptures by the Church does not entail her infallibility. She made an inerrant recognition of the Scriptures, but an inerrant decision does not entail an infallible decision. Everyone would agree, for example, that Old Testament Israel was fallible; her repeated apostasy, exile, punishment, and eventual rejection of the Messiah all well-attest to that fact. Yet, despite the fallibility of the Old Testament Israelites, they managed to preserve the Old Testament Scriptures. There is no mention in the New Testament that they failed to accomplish this. While it does not, in itself, demonstrate that the Church was not infallible, it does demonstrate that it was not required for the Church to be so, in order to preserve and recognize Scripture. This is even more true of Orthodoxy than it is of Catholicism. In Catholicism, local councils discussed the issue of the canon in 393, 397, and 418, yet an infallible ecumenical council did not list any canon until Trent. Orthodoxy also would not recognize the councils at Hippo or Carthage as infallible ecumenical councils, yet they would also not recognize Trent as an ecumenical council, either. So, therefore, Orthodoxy has no ecumenical council to definitively list the canon of Scripture.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Lutherans tend to follow the Augustinian view of Original Sin and its relationship to the Atonement. I’d be interested in Triune’s view of the Orthodox view of Original Sin with relationship to the atonement.

 

[SteveVH]

Okay, so let me start with two critiques of the position of Orthodoxy on authority. Bear with me if this happens to cover a couple of different posts. Word limits and all bleh.

The canon: One of the first problems encountered is an inaccurate understanding of the process and relevance of the creation of the canon. Archimandrite Chrysostomos states, “By setting the canon of Scripture, the Church, in turn, established the Scriptures as the canon. In defining the rule of faith, the Church created the rule of faith.” This is simply not true. The Church received the Old Testament from Israel. She received the New Testament from the Apostles of Christ. It is true that there were spurious books being circulated at the same time as the apostolic books. But the fact that Christ’s Church, His sheep, heard His voice amidst the clamoring voices of strangers does not mean that the Church “created” the rule of faith. God created the rule of faith, and the Church heard it, received it and obeys it. Definition does not entail creation. Scientists have defined the God-given laws of physics, but scientists did not create those laws. God created them, and man discovered and defined them.

Of course, another point here, and this applies equally to Roman Catholicism, is that the recognition of the Scriptures by the Church does not entail her infallibility. She made an inerrant recognition of the Scriptures, but an inerrant decision does not entail an infallible decision. Everyone would agree, for example, that Old Testament Israel was fallible; her repeated apostasy, exile, punishment, and eventual rejection of the Messiah all well-attest to that fact. Yet, despite the fallibility of the Old Testament Israelites, they managed to preserve the Old Testament Scriptures. There is no mention in the New Testament that they failed to accomplish this. While it does not, in itself, demonstrate that the Church was not infallible, it does demonstrate that it was not required for the Church to be so, in order to preserve and recognize Scripture. This is even more true of Orthodoxy than it is of Catholicism. In Catholicism, local councils discussed the issue of the canon in 393, 397, and 418, yet an infallible ecumenical council did not list any canon until Trent. Orthodoxy also would not recognize the councils at Hippo or Carthage as infallible ecumenical councils, yet they would also not recognize Trent as an ecumenical council, either. So, therefore, Orthodoxy has no ecumenical council to definitively list the canon of Scripture.

Sorry, but you are not accurate in your assessment that “an infallible ecumenical council did not list any canon until Trent”. Trent, faced with the Reformation and the throwing out of the seven books by Luther, et al, restated what the Church had already done and finalized at the Council of Carthage. As for the Orthodox, we were one Church at the time of the Council of Carthage and they have accepted the canon chosen at that council.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Lutherans tend to follow the Augustinian view of Original Sin and its relationship to the Atonement. I’d be interested in Triune’s view of the Orthodox view of Original Sin with relationship to the atonement.

I will Separate thread, home skillabiscuit!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

As the possessed Regan said in the Exorcist…“In time…in time…”

I will Separate thread, home skillabiscuit!

 

[Nine_Two]

The canon: One of the first problems encountered is an inaccurate understanding of the process and relevance of the creation of the canon. Archimandrite Chrysostomos states, “By setting the canon of Scripture, the Church, in turn, established the Scriptures as the canon. In defining the rule of faith, the Church created the rule of faith.” This is simply not true. The Church received the Old Testament from Israel. She received the New Testament from the Apostles of Christ. It is true that there were spurious books being circulated at the same time as the apostolic books. But the fact that Christ’s Church, His sheep, heard His voice amidst the clamoring voices of strangers does not mean that the Church “created” the rule of faith. God created the rule of faith, and the Church heard it, received it and obeys it. Definition does not entail creation. Scientists have defined the God-given laws of physics, but scientists did not create those laws. God created them, and man discovered and defined them.

In answer to the first concern raised in this you have to look at the word “established”, yes the books which eventually became canon came from either Israel or the Apostles but they were never established as canon. Even the Jews didn’t establish their own canon, which is different than our OT canon, until after Christ. So the Church did indeed establish the canon, but no, she did not create it.
To your second point there, the Church is the Bride of Christ, and in this capacity she defined the rule of faith. Yes it was originally from God, but created on earth by the Church. At any rate, this point is largely hinged on minor semantics.

Of course, another point here, and this applies equally to Roman Catholicism, is that the recognition of the Scriptures by the Church does not entail her infallibility. She made an inerrant recognition of the Scriptures, but an inerrant decision does not entail an infallible decision. Everyone would agree, for example, that Old Testament Israel was fallible; her repeated apostasy, exile, punishment, and eventual rejection of the Messiah all well-attest to that fact. Yet, despite the fallibility of the Old Testament Israelites, they managed to preserve the Old Testament Scriptures. There is no mention in the New Testament that they failed to accomplish this. While it does not, in itself, demonstrate that the Church was not infallible, it does demonstrate that it was not required for the Church to be so, in order to preserve and recognize Scripture. This is even more true of Orthodoxy than it is of Catholicism. In Catholicism, local councils discussed the issue of the canon in 393, 397, and 418, yet an infallible ecumenical council did not list any canon until Trent. Orthodoxy also would not recognize the councils at Hippo or Carthage as infallible ecumenical councils, yet they would also not recognize Trent as an ecumenical council, either. So, therefore, Orthodoxy has no ecumenical council to definitively list the canon of Scripture.

No the recognition of scripture doesn’t entail infallibility, something that can be said against any group which claims to be Christian. However Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church, thus acting as a whole it is infallible. Any individual, or group of individuals on their own do not hold this infallibility.
As for the Canon, you are correct that the Orthodox have never confirmed the canon directly, in fact you’ll find minor variations in canon between the Orthodox churches, however I believe it was at the 7th council that the Canon listed at Carthage is correct (making it the basic canon, as decided by an ecumenical council).

The one thing your critiques seem to be missing is the Orthodox view that we don’t make things official unless we have to, if tradition is good enough there is no point in codifying anything any further.

 

[StillWondering]

I want to praise you for reaching out and hoping to have dialogue to understand and learn about the EO.

I also want to speak from a Catholic perspective, the general mentality you mentioned in your OP sounds also Catholic-ish. I’m no authority on anything nor a scholar, but if I may can I give you the image I immediate saw while reading your post.

Image: Let’s say God wanted to make an inkblot. He first puts down a large amount of ink that cannot be absorbed immediately and floats above the paper. He already has an image in mind that He will make because He is just that wonderful. As the paper absorbs the ink and the ink spreads out, the Holy Spirit guides it to fulfillment. The 7 Councils, ECF, and Scriptures are big indentations or sub-images within this larger ink bloat that is growing. You can tell some parts of the images are intentionally darker and thinker than others. In the Catholic Church, this same ink bloat has continued to develop and sometimes very rapidly due to scandals, heresies, and promptings of the Holy Spirit.

So the Catholic ink bloat is larger. But as it gets larger you can see more rigidity and crispness on the edges as the ink thins out finely into veins on the images. Because the ink was place down at one time in the culmination of history: Old Testament Prophets, Laws, and Covenants foreshadowing and culminating into the Incarnation and Church in the New Testament. The Church is that continued work of Incarnation as Christ’s Body (One Lord, One Baptism, One Church).

The past binds the present because the ink cannot suddenly appear away from the growing ink bloat. This makes the Catholic Church seemingly more rigid or authoritative than the EO or the ecclesiastical communities; however it only looks rigid when you miss the big picture. If we zoom out and look at the image from a Catholic perspective, it’s grand and its’ beautiful. I am not God so I do not know what the picture is. To make it easier for myself, I imagine it is the growing Church: we are seeing at the same time the visual body of Christ here on earth in the Church and the truth it points to, Christ.

Then you might ask me what do I think heresies fall into this visual metaphor. Well heresies are man trying to add in their own signature against the Will of God. If God uses black, you can imagine red, blue, pink, etc ink lines trying to be added in. To some people who are caught in heresies they see black and white and cannot distinguish between what is God’s and what is man’s.

You may also ask me where I see the EO would be in this visual metaphor. I do not know much about the EO. And since the Eastern Orthodox Churches seems to vary a bit. I would say when an EO looks at the ink bloat they see a much smaller picture. One that is really beautiful and seems to be complete in itself. However the image is only the center of the same image by the Catholic view. In fact we would be all looking at the same ink bloat and seeing our own version of it. And in the end, I think the image the EO sees is still very beautiful and so I have encourage non-Catholic, non-EO, and non-OO to look into EO/OO if that is where they are being drawn to. However, as a Catholic, I would encourage anyone who is interested in Catholicism to see the rest of the image here and now. While this image the EO seems is magnificent, it gets even better~!

 

[Non_Serviam]

Tradition is considered to be the Life of the Holy Spirit in the Church.
Scripture is the pinnacle of Tradition, and the Gospels are the peak of that pinnacle

John

There are some awesome thoughts in this thread, and the one above really expresses how I feel about things-do the Orthodox have a copyright on this idea or can others use it as well?

Okay, so let me start with two critiques of the position of Orthodoxy on authority. Bear with me if this happens to cover a couple of different posts.

Of course, another point here, and this applies equally to Roman Catholicism, is that the recognition of the Scriptures by the Church does not entail her infallibility. She made an inerrant recognition of the Scriptures, but an inerrant decision does not entail an infallible decision.

While it does not, in itself, demonstrate that the Church was not infallible, it does demonstrate that it was not required for the Church to be so, in order to preserve and recognize Scripture.

TU, please don’t let my snipping imply that I think any less of what you’ve posted-I’ve made the same arguments a number of times. One small correction to the second part above “an inerrant decision doesn’t entail an infallible decision*-maker*”.

Just as a student can get their math test all correct, it doesn’t mean that they are preserved from future errors.

One other point that those who equate the defining canon with an exercise of infallibility miss-by taking the approach they do, they are implicitly stating that God was allowing the church to be in error regarding the selection of texts in the time between the Apostles and the definition of the canon since no defined canon existed.

This dilemma can only be resolved if one accepts that the acceptance of the OT by the early Christians was the leading of God as was the reading of the Gospels and Epistles. And if one accepts this then the definition of the canon becomes more an act of God-guided consensus (as suggested by F.F. Bruce) than an infallibly exercised proclamation.

 

[TriuneUnity]

The ecumenical councils: A second problem with the Orthodox concept of tradition is the understanding of the ecumenical councils. Doctrinal definitions put forward by the ecumenical councils are considered infallible. The problem arises when we ask how do we recognize an ecumenical council. Bishop Ware asks, “How then can one be certain that a particular gathering is truly an Ecumenical Council and therefore that its decrees are infallible? Many councils have considered themselves ecumenical and have claimed to speak in the name of the whole Church, and yet the Church has rejected them as heretical: Ephesus in 449, for example, or the Iconoclast Council of Hieria in 754, or Florence in 1438-9. Yet these councils seem in no way different in outward appearance from the Ecumenical Councils. What, then, is the criterion for determining whether a council is ecumenical?” He answers, “This is a more difficult question to answer than might at first appear, and though it has been much discussed by Orthodox during the past hundred years, it cannot be said that the solutions suggested are entirely satisfactory.”

This is extremely important because if the Church does not know what it is that makes a council ecumenical, how can the Church say that any council is ecumenical? Ware tends to lean toward an answer proposed by Alexis Khomiakov which has become widely accepted in the Orthodox Church. According to this theory, “a council cannot be considered ecumenical unless its decrees are accepted by the whole Church.” Of course, this answer raises more problems than the original question. Chalcedon was rejected by Syria and Egypt. Does this mean that Chalcedon is not ecumenical? Khomiakov’s answer to the question is circular. An ecumenical council is defined as a council accepted by the whole Church, yet the Church is defined as those who accept the councils. Those who do not accept the council are defined out of the Church in order to maintain the idea that “the whole Church” accepts the council.

In addition, no time frame is mentioned. The whole Church did not accept Nicea immediately. How long is the whole Church allowed to wrestle over the decisions of a council? Khomiakov’s answer nullifies the whole purpose for having a council. The councils were called to address problems facing the Church. What is failed to be explained is how Nicea could have dealt with the Arian controversy given the Orthodox understanding of ecumenical councils. How could Arianism be anathematized by a council? Was it necessary for the Arian party to accept the council? Or is the “whole Church” only those who agree with the majority decision of a council? Is the majority right? At one point, Athanasius stood virtually alone in the battle against the Arians.

The Orthodox belief is founded on the idea that the truth will always prevail. We know the Arians were heretics and Athanasius was correct because, ultimately, Athanasius’ opinion prevailed. Unfortunately, this belief doesn’t help anyone actually living at the time of a controversy. The only way to determine whose opinion was orthodox is to check back five hundred or a thousand years later and see which opinion prevailed. Suppose, however, that you are alive at the time of an intense controversy. You desire with all of your mind, heart, and soul, to maintain and teach apostolic doctrine. How can you determine which position in a controversy is truth and which is heresy if you rely on the Orthodox concept of ecumenical councils? Suppose an ecumenical council is called. The heretical position might gain the upper hand and carry the council (a la Ephesus, 449). Do you stand alone against the council in the hopes that you are another Athanasius? How do you know if this a true ecumenical council or a counterfeit? It is simply pointless to declare that ecumenical councils are infallible and binding if you cannot identify an ecumenical council.