Orthodoxy: Ecumenicity, Receptionism and the Councils

[Randy_Carson]

You have to admire this guy’s honesty, persistence and clarity of thought:

A Catholic will say the conscience of the Church, and thus the Truth, is that Constantinople 869 was the Eighth Ecumenical Council, which affirmed papal prerogatives and supremacy and deposed Photius. They’ll say that a majority of Christianity agrees that this is so, and that the East agreed to the same in 869 and also at Florence, only reneging because the Eastern laity heretically clung to nationalism over Christian unity.

An Orthodox will say the conscience of the Church, and thus the Truth, is that Constantinople 879 is the Eighth Ecumenical Council, which affirmed the non-Filioque Creed and Orthodox-style conciliarity, and reinstated Photius. They’ll point to the fact that all Orthodox believe this, commemorating St. Photius, and they’ll dismiss 869 and Florence on grounds that they didn’t represent the conscience of the Church, since the Eastern laity eventually rejected them.

An Assyrian will say the conscience of the Church, and thus the Truth, is that neither is a valid ecumenical council, and will point to the vast spread of the Assyrian Church at its height (all the way to China and beyond), the amount of persecution they’ve suffered, etc., as proof that they represent the conscience of the Church more than the Orthodox or Catholics.

So in the end, we have a swearing contest between the Catholics, the Orthodox, and the Assyrians. The Catholics say “we have the conscience of the Church,” and the Orthodox and Assyrians say “no, we do!” It’s one’s word against the other, and since the Catholics are a lot bigger and have a more visible and clearly consistent principle of unity (the Pope), they’re going to win that argument more often than not. The problem is that “conscience of the Church” is completely subjective, and requires you to presuppose a given doctrine as Truth before you can go follow it to its present-day form.

Compare this with, for example, “representation or ratification by the Pentarchy.” If one could make this view reasonably consistent with history (BIG if–ignore reality for a moment to let the hypothetical play out), it would be a measurable principle by which one could judge, internally consistent with the Eastern Orthodox doctrine, that 879 was the Eighth Council, and that the Catholics have had no valid ecumenical councils since the Schism. On the apologetics front, one could plausibly argue that, because the Catholics and the OO were one among five, they logically have the weaker case as to their retaining the Truth in the Schism. Of course, then the Catholics and OO could and would present their own principles of authority as being historically or logically more tenable, but the fact would remain that the Eastern Orthodox would have an internally consistent principle of absolute authority.

Then this gem:

“History is written by the victor” / “wait a few centuries, then poll the people” seems like an awfully cynical principle by which to judge doctrine, as well as a bit too ex post facto. Undecided

Not to mention it doesn’t give us any reason to accept Photius as legitimate Patriarch rather than an heretic.

Not to mention it doesn’t tell us why Eastern Orthodoxy has the stronger claim on the Truth vis a vis the Catholics or OO.

Not to mention it emasculates Eastern Orthodoxy as being a catholic Church.

BTW- In the end, he was accused of being argumentative. One poster wrote:

I must ask, are you here to learn or argue?

He stopped posting shortly thereafter.

 

[prodromos]

My difficulty is that I don’t even see that Orthodoxy has a remotely internally consistent criterion for ecumenicity. For example, Rome can simply point to the Pope and say “whatever he’s agreed with historically is okay, whatever he hasn’t is not.” Obviously, there are legitimate issues to raise with this approach, but it is definite, it is settled, and it is at least a prima facie acceptable epistemological basis.

Your argumentation lacks any credibility because you have the problem of Popes disagreeing as to which councils are valid. You have 50 Popes over 200 years accepting 879 as the 4th Council of Constantinople, then every Pope thereafter rejecting that and accepting 869 as the 4th Council, which those 50 Popes considered a robber council.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Your argumentation lacks any credibility

That wasn’t MY argument. It was made by an Orthodox on an Orthodox forum.

I just copied it here for some perspective.

 

[prodromos]

That wasn’t MY argument. It was made by an Orthodox on an Orthodox forum.

I just copied it here for some perspective.

How is your argument different and not subject to the same fatal flaw?

 

[Randy_Carson]

How is your argument different and not subject to the same fatal flaw?

It’s not. But that quote was not mine, and I just wanted to make sure you know that Orthodox are haunted by the same questions that I’m asking.

 

[LionHeart777]

…You ask how do I know where the Church is. Randy wants to know why I accept or reject what a hundred some odd people decided over 1,500 years ago. I am under a bishop who is in communion with all of the other Orthodox bishops based on their shared faith. That’s where the Church is. I accept that the Church is the true Church and I strive to accept all that the Church would have me believe. It’s really just that simple. On the most basic level I accept that because of the continuity. I don’t see any break in what the Church has taught from the 1st century to today. In the non-Orthodox churches I see a clear break in teachings. That’s why I accept the Orthodox Church as true and not the others.

Well I was wanting you to define what you mean when you say “the Church”, and then I wrote what I suspected you meant–but deleted it–but that seems to be the case anyway. So I assume when you say “the Church” as you have been using it, you mean the communion of 16 or so autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches who hold the Ecumenical Patriarch as their fist Bishop. And that’s what I would expect you to believe as an Eastern Orthodox Christian. So when you say that a Council’s validity depends on it’s reception by “the Church” you mean that a Council’s validity depends on it’s reception by the communion of 16 or so autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches who hold the Ecumenical Patriarch as their fist Bishop, if I understand correctly.

If I can ask a couple of more questions:

1.) Although I don’t think any Eastern Orthodox theologian would say or think it, would it be possible for “the Church” (as you mean that term) to one day decide that the Second Council of Nicaea is not a valid council? As I understand there is no strict time criteria that eastern Orthodox theologians put on the acceptance/ rejection of a council.

2.) Do Eastern Orthodox see the Ecumenical Patriarch as someone who fills the role of St. Peter in strengthening the brethren? (I know the Eastern Orthodox do not view the Ecumenical Patriarch as we view the Pope.) If not, who fills that role?

Thanks,

–Nick

 

[Seraphim73]

Well I was wanting you to define what you mean when you say “the Church”, and then I wrote what I suspected you meant–but deleted it–but that seems to be the case anyway. So I assume when you say “the Church” as you have been using it, you mean the communion of 16 or so autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches who hold the Ecumenical Patriarch as their fist Bishop. And that’s what I would expect you to believe as an Eastern Orthodox Christian. So when you say that a Council’s validity depends on it’s reception by “the Church” you mean that a Council’s validity depends on it’s reception of the communion of 16 or so autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches who hold the Ecumenical Patriarch as their fist Bishop, if I understand correctly.

Yes you are correct.

 

[LionHeart777]

Yes you are correct.

Thanks, I just edited again

 

[Randy_Carson]

If I can ask a couple of more questions:

1.) Although I don’t think any Eastern Orthodox theologian would say or think it, would it be possible for “the Church” (as you mean that term) to one day decide that the Second Council of Nicaea is not a valid council? As I understand there is no strict time criteria that eastern Orthodox theologians put on the acceptance/ rejection of a council.

Nick, perhaps this actually answers a question posed by both Cavaradossi and prodromos.

Prodromos wrote:

Your argumentation lacks any credibility because you have the problem of Popes disagreeing as to which councils are valid. You have 50 Popes over 200 years accepting 879 as the 4th Council of Constantinople, then every Pope thereafter rejecting that and accepting 869 as the 4th Council, which those 50 Popes considered a robber council.

And Cavaradossi said:

You cannot hold one to a standard which you yourself cannot uphold. If you cannot offer any systematic manner by which you can determine what teachings are irreformable, then you cannot claim that having such a system is part of the deposit of faith, lest you undercut your own church’s claim to truth. It is a logical contradiction on your part, more than anything, because while the theory of Magisterium in the Latin Church is still a hotly debated item, you yet demand that we have one unified theory of Magisterium as if it presented some problem for Orthodoxy that we do not.

But notice that both are actually trying to do the very thing that Cavaradossi said I could NOT do; namely, they want to hold me to a standard that they themselves cannot meet. For if it is true (according to their understanding) that there is no definite time frame for the determination of which councils are valid, then their insistence that I explain why some councils were or were not accepted by Rome at any particular point in time is a double-standard, is it not?

2.) Do Eastern Orthodox see the Ecumenical Patriarch as someone who fills the role of St. Peter in strengthening the brethren? (I know the Eastern Orthodox do not view the Ecumenical Patriarch as we view the Pope.) If not, who fills that role?

Excellent question.

 

[Seraphim73]

Well I was wanting you to define what you mean when you say “the Church”, and then I wrote what I suspected you meant–but deleted it–but that seems to be the case anyway. So I assume when you say “the Church” as you have been using it, you mean the communion of 16 or so autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches who hold the Ecumenical Patriarch as their fist Bishop. And that’s what I would expect you to believe as an Eastern Orthodox Christian. So when you say that a Council’s validity depends on it’s reception by “the Church” you mean that a Council’s validity depends on it’s reception by the communion of 16 or so autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches who hold the Ecumenical Patriarch as their fist Bishop, if I understand correctly.

If I can ask a couple of more questions:

1.) Although I don’t think any Eastern Orthodox theologian would say or think it, would it be possible for “the Church” (as you mean that term) to one day decide that the Second Council of Nicaea is not a valid council? As I understand there is no strict time criteria that eastern Orthodox theologians put on the acceptance/ rejection of a council.

2.) Do Eastern Orthodox see the Ecumenical Patriarch as someone who fills the role of St. Peter in strengthening the brethren? (I know the Eastern Orthodox do not view the Ecumenical Patriarch as we view the Pope.) If not, who fills that role?

Thanks,

–Nick

No it would not be possible to reject an ecumenical council. As for strengthening the brethren that would be the role of the pastors and archpastors.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No it would not be possible to reject an ecumenical council.

But according to the receptionism theory as discussed in the OP, there really is no definite time frame for judging councils. IOW, the jury is still out on all of them forever, because it merely appears that the currently accepted seven are okay for now. But, opinions change, and an ecumenical Council could, in theory, be rejected by “the Church” at some point in the future.

As for strengthening the brethren that would be the role of the pastors and archpastors.

Just to clarify, “strengthening the brothers” refers to Jesus’ prayer for Peter (cf. Lk. 22:32). IOW, Peter was to support the other apostles when their faith failed.

Now, if Peter is no longer present among “the Church” as you define it, who has that role within Orthodoxy?

 

[Cavaradossi]

But according to the receptionism theory as discussed in the OP, there really is no definite time frame for judging councils. IOW, the jury is still out on all of them forever, because it merely appears that the currently accepted seven are okay for now. But, opinions change, and an ecumenical Council could, in theory, be rejected by “the Church” at some point in the future.

Just to clarify, “strengthening the brothers” refers to Jesus’ prayer for Peter (cf. Lk. 22:32). IOW, Peter was to support the other apostles when their faith failed.

Now, if Peter is no longer present among “the Church” as you define it, who has that role within Orthodoxy?

Peter is always there wherever primacy and the power to bind and loose is exercised, wherever one fulfills Christ’s command to feed his sheep, etc.

 

[prodromos]

But according to the receptionism theory as discussed in the OP, there really is no definite time frame for judging councils. IOW, the jury is still out on all of them forever, because it merely appears that the currently accepted seven are okay for now. But, opinions change, and an ecumenical Council could, in theory, be rejected by “the Church” at some point in the future.

No. Obviously the receptionism theory as discussed n the OP does not represent the Orthodox position, as Seraphim has made plain in his earlier posts

Just to clarify, “strengthening the brothers” refers to Jesus’ prayer for Peter (cf. Lk. 22:32). IOW, Peter was to support the other apostles when their faith failed.

Now, if Peter is no longer present among “the Church” as you define it, who has that role within Orthodoxy?

As Seraphim has already posted, the pastors and archpastors, that is the Bishops and their clergy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No. Obviously the receptionism theory as discussed n the OP does not represent the Orthodox position, as Seraphim has made plain in his earlier posts

The material presented in posts #1 and #96 was taken from Orthodox websites and written by Orthodox authors. It expresses views from at least some Orthodox clergy, theologians and laity.

 

[LionHeart777]

Thanks for the responses on the Eastern Orthodox view on Lk. 22:32. A Catholic critique to what you have offered, you would probably know, is that among the Apostolic band one is set apart to strengthen the others. Likewise, in Catholic Ecclesiology, one Bishop among the Bishops has been set apart to strengthen the others (we believe by Divine Right, going back to the mouth of Christ, and in virtue of the Bishop of Rome being the successor to St. Peter, in his unique office.) Thus the argument by ohn de Fontibus, O.P. that I posted in another thread which has since been closed:

An excerpt* from a letter of John de Fontibus, O.P. to the Abbot and Monks of a Monastery in Constantinople (c. 1350 A.D.):

“However, if one should claim the Roman Pontiff with the entire Latin Church to be heretical, let such a person realize he is making Christ into a liar, for He promised never to let the faith of Peter fail; but in just this way it would have already failed, and thus Christ would have lied and deceived His Church. It follows also that Christ would shepherd His Church imprudently and in an extraordinarily weak fashion; for no one for the rest could know what Church to believe, whose faith to hold. For if the Roman Church, through whom the other churches have always been confirmed and brought back to the faith from which they have fallen, should abandon this faith, how could one believe the other churches who so many times have abandoned the faith? And if that Church is not be believed which has recalled other churches from heresy, how can the judgement of that church which has so many times deserted the faith not be suspect, something that has happened, especially it seems, in the church of Constantinople…”

(Source: Likoudis, James “Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism”, St. Martin de Porres Lay Dominican Community, New Hope KY: 1992. Copy from Catholics United for the Faith Inc. New Rochelle, NY. Pgs. 210-211.) *Entire letter found there. (Emphasis mine)

Writing before the East-West Schism, Thodore Abu Qurrah also sees a problem with no unique person in the Church fulfilling this role:

"'You should understand that the head of the Apostles was St. Peter, to whom Christ said, ‘You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.’ After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberius, ‘Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes.’ In another passage, he said to him, ‘Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.’ Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, ‘I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them’, we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome. Just as when he said to the apostles, ‘I am with you always, until the end of the age’, he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, ‘Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost’, he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat.

Yet another indication of this is the fact that among the apostles it was St. Peter alone who lost his faith and denied Christ, which Christ may have allowed to happen to Peter so as to teach us that it was not Peter that he meant by these words. Moreover, we know of no apostle who fell and needed St. Peter to strengthen him. If someone says that Christ meant by these words only St. Peter himself, this person causes the church to lack someone to strengthen it after the death of St. Peter. How could this happen, especially when we see all the sifting of the church that came from Satan after the apostles’ death? All of this indicates that Christ did not mean them by these words. Indeed, everyone knows that the heretics attacked the church only after the death of the apostles – Paul of Samosata, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Sabelllius, Apollinaris, Origen, and others. If he meant by these words in the gospel only St. Peter, the church would have been deprived of comfort and would have had no one to deliver her from those heretics, whose heresies are truly ‘the gates of hell’, which Christ said would not overcome the church. Accordingly, there is no doubt that he meant by these words nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, who have continually strengthened their brethren and will not cease to do so as long as this present age lasts.’ (pp. 68-69)"

Source: credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/theodore.htm (emphasis mine)

Continued…

 

[LionHeart777]

Continued…

And Sts. Maximos of Constantinople and Theodore of the Studium, while not arguing this point, I believe nevertheless recognized this principle.

St. Maximos the Confessor (Opuscula theologica et polemica):

“The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.”

Source: newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm

St. Theodore the Studite (and several other archimandrites) to Pope Paschal:

"'Your Supreme Blessedness has doubtless learnt what misfortune our sins have drawn upon our Church. We have become, to speak as the Scripture, the conversation and proverb of all nations, but maybe You have not yet been fully informed by letter. This is why we humble monks and the least among the members of Christ, since our chief is a prisoner, and the first among our fathers are scattered hither and thither, have been able, thanks to your vicinity and to our common agreement in mind and words, to write you this letter, though it be very bold. Listen to us, O Apostolic Leader, set over by God to be the guide of the sheep of Christ, Doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom, Rock of the faith, on which has been built the Catholic Church. For you are Peter, You are the successor of Peter, whose See You occupy with honour. Cruel wolves have broken into the fold of the Lord and Hell as before has risen up against it.

. . . Come to our assistance, arise and do not repulse us to the end. To You Christ our God said, ‘When thou art once converted, strengthen thy brethren.’ Now is the time and the place. Help us You who have been set by God for that purpose. Stretch out the hand as far as possible. Frighten, we beg You, the monsters of heresy with the flute of Your Divine speech. O Good Shepherd, we conjure You, give your life to your sheep…"

Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 305.

Certainly, the Popes themselves, many who are regarded as Saints by the Eastern Orthodox, understood this principle themselves.

 

[LionHeart777]

No it would not be possible to reject an ecumenical council…

But does there exist a mechanism, according to Eastern Orthodox theologians, that would prohibit “the Church” from declaring at a future date that Nicaea II was not an Ecumenical Council (however unlikely that would be)?

 

[LionHeart777]

No. Obviously the receptionism theory as discussed n the OP does not represent the Orthodox position, as Seraphim has made plain in his earlier posts…

Are there any sources you might recommend that would point to the Orthodox position (or positions)?

Also, prodromos, Randy had quoted you as saying that:

You have 50 Popes over 200 years accepting 879 as the 4th Council of Constantinople…

May I ask what you are basing that off of?

 

[Seraphim73]

Thanks for the responses on the Eastern Orthodox view on Lk. 22:32. A Catholic critique to what you have offered, you would probably know, is that among the Apostolic band one is set apart to strengthen the others. Likewise, in Catholic Ecclesiology, one Bishop among the Bishops has been set apart to strengthen the others (we believe by Divine Right, going back to the mouth of Christ, and in virtue of the Bishop of Rome being the successor to St. Peter, in his unique office.) Thus the argument by ohn de Fontibus, O.P. that I posted in another thread which has since been closed:

An excerpt* from a letter of John de Fontibus, O.P. to the Abbot and Monks of a Monastery in Constantinople (c. 1350 A.D.):

“However, if one should claim the Roman Pontiff with the entire Latin Church to be heretical, let such a person realize he is making Christ into a liar, for He promised never to let the faith of Peter fail; but in just this way it would have already failed, and thus Christ would have lied and deceived His Church. It follows also that Christ would shepherd His Church imprudently and in an extraordinarily weak fashion; for no one for the rest could know what Church to believe, whose faith to hold. For if the Roman Church, through whom the other churches have always been confirmed and brought back to the faith from which they have fallen, should abandon this faith, how could one believe the other churches who so many times have abandoned the faith? And if that Church is not be believed which has recalled other churches from heresy, how can the judgement of that church which has so many times deserted the faith not be suspect, something that has happened, especially it seems, in the church of Constantinople…”

(Source: Likoudis, James “Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism”, St. Martin de Porres Lay Dominican Community, New Hope KY: 1992. Copy from Catholics United for the Faith Inc. New Rochelle, NY. Pgs. 210-211.) *Entire letter found there. (Emphasis mine)

Writing before the East-West Schism, Thodore Abu Qurrah also sees a problem with no unique person in the Church fulfilling this role:

"'You should understand that the head of the Apostles was St. Peter, to whom Christ said, ‘You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.’ After his resurrection, he also said to him three times…

Source: credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/theodore.htm (emphasis mine)

Continued…

For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way. - Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs

As far as we are concerned this has to be the starting point of any discussion of the pope’s role. From our perspective how can he strengthen the brethren as Peter if he doesn’t hold the faith of Peter? In fact that probably is the best and easiest answer for the topic of this thread. You have to hold to the Apostolic faith. It’s the role of any bishop to take the faith he receives and pass it on whole and complete.

 

[LionHeart777]

For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way. - Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs

As far as we are concerned this has to be the starting point of any discussion of the pope’s role. From our perspective how can he strengthen the brethren as Peter if he doesn’t hold the faith of Peter? In fact that probably is the best and easiest answer for the topic of this thread. You have to hold to the Apostolic faith. It’s the role of any bishop to take the faith he receives and pass it on whole and complete.

Seraphim73,

I realize that that is an Eastern Orthodox response but I do not think that it address the argument made by John de Fontibus. Let me see if I can further it:

Upon what basis do you say that Rome doesn’t hold the faith of Peter?

P.S. I’m not trying to be annoying.