Orthodoxy: Ecumenicity, Receptionism and the Councils

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Pope Leo I

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Letters 10:1 A.D. 445).

 

[Seraphim73]

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.

You are never annoying. And I would add, just to be completely clear, that it is the Orthodox Church that believes that, I’m just repeating it. But for me personally there are some clear departures from the faith we used to share that just continued to escalate over the centuries. That process really culminated at Vatican I and papal infallibility. We could go into some of them but I’m sure you are already aware.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You are never annoying. And I would add, just to be completely clear, that it is the Orthodox Church that believes that, I’m just repeating it. But for me personally there are some clear departures from the faith we used to share that just continued to escalate over the centuries. That process really culminated at Vatican I and papal infallibility. We could go into some of them but I’m sure you are already aware.

I don’t get it the web sight about the Orthodox and receptionism also states many believe in infallibility of the Councils. But debate how they arrive at what is an ecumenical council. If its infallible and you don’t know how its arrived at, where does infallible come from?

At the current time, the episcopacy of the Church has not as yet put forward a universal definition as to what precisely lends a council its ecumenicity. What is generally held is that councils may be regarded as ecumenical and infallible because they accurately teach the truth handed down in tradition from the Church Fathers.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Forthodoxwiki.org%2FEcumenical_Councils&ei=DgZ1VOPLHsmmgwSA9oH4Bg&usg=AFQjCNGWoKUHnrK8zm-L-BYM0nWXXwGATQ

 

[GaryTaylor]

accurately teach the truth handed down in tradition from the Church Fathers.

The Bishop of Rome must be in this equation. Perhaps this unresolved Orthodox issue resides right there. Always been there.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scborromeo.org%2Fccc%2Fp123a9p4.htm&ei=uAl1VMOfLIuYNsnNg-gG&usg=AFQjCNFPEWxQo1GaS352OGrpQMEuHJGSpw&bvm=bv.80185997,d.eXY

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

 

[Seraphim73]

I don’t get it the web sight about the Orthodox and receptionism also states many believe in infallibility of the Councils. But debate how they arrive at what is an ecumenical council. If its infallible and you don’t know how its arrived at, where does infallible come from?

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Forthodoxwiki.org%2FEcumenical_Councils&ei=DgZ1VOPLHsmmgwSA9oH4Bg&usg=AFQjCNGWoKUHnrK8zm-L-BYM0nWXXwGATQ

Again, you are approaching this question from mindset we don’t share. Whether a council gets the title “ecumenical” or not is of very little significance. We simply don’t look at things as “fallible” vs “infallible.” It’s not the case that if a council meets a predetermined set of criteria then what it says is “infallible” and “binding” and a council that doesn’t meet those criteria is not binding and optional. A council doesn’t “bind” anything. A council should reflect what the Church already believes. If it does it’s a true council, if not then it’s not. So you are presenting a dilemma we simply do not share.

 

[Seraphim73]

The Bishop of Rome must be in this equation. Perhaps this unresolved Orthodox issue resides right there. Always been there.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scborromeo.org%2Fccc%2Fp123a9p4.htm&ei=uAl1VMOfLIuYNsnNg-gG&usg=AFQjCNFPEWxQo1GaS352OGrpQMEuHJGSpw&bvm=bv.80185997,d.eXY

He is welcome to be part of our equation as soon as we share the same faith.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Again, you are approaching this question from mindset we don’t share. Whether a council gets the title “ecumenical” or not is of very little significance. We simply don’t look at things as “fallible” vs “infallible.” It’s not the case that if a council meets a predetermined set of criteria then what it says is “infallible” and “binding” and a council that doesn’t meet those criteria is not binding and optional. A council doesn’t “bind” anything. A council should reflect what the Church already believes. If it does it’s a true council, if not then it’s not. So you are presenting a dilemma we simply do not share.

The article presented questions which do appear problematic. Are you saying I’m understanding the article incorrectly?

And I’d say its of great significance and not only to the EO and CC but with the OO who seem to place a good deal of significance on their understanding of ecumenical. When you say “we” then that means who? So the “we” in relation to what is “generally held” is who?

At the current time, the episcopacy of the Church has not as yet put forward a universal definition as to what precisely lends a council its ecumenicity. What is generally held is that councils may be regarded as ecumenical and infallible because they accurately teach the truth handed down in tradition from the Church Fathers.

And the article claims it does meet a predetermined set of criteria, but its seem to indicate it “may be regarded”

because they accurately teach the truth handed down in tradition from the Church Fathers.

This here I’m not sure how this applies to what we are talking about.

It’s not the case that if a council meets a predetermined set of criteria then what it says is “infallible” and “binding” and a council that doesn’t meet those criteria is not binding and optional. A council doesn’t “bind” anything. A council should reflect what the Church already believes. If it does it’s a true council, if not then it’s not

So if its a true council nothing is binding, and if the Church already believes it its not binding?

 

[Seraphim73]

The article presented questions which do appear problematic. Are you saying I’m understanding the article incorrectly?

And I’d say its of great significance and not only to the EO and CC but with the OO who seem to place a good deal of significance on their understanding of ecumenical. When you say “we” then that means who? So the “we” in relation to what is “generally held” is who?

Anytime I say “we” in the context of these discussions I’m referring to the Orthodox in general. And no it’s not a problem. I’d be willing to bet you can’t find a single instance of a currently disputed council.

And the article claims it does meet a predetermined set of criteria, but its seem to indicate it “may be regarded”

There is no predetermined criteria. There can’t be. History has shown there have been false councils and true councils.

This here I’m not sre how this applies to what we are talking about.

On the contrary it is the very heart of what we are talking about. It is the measure we compare all teachings to.

So if its a true council nothing is binding.and if the Church already believes it its not binding?

No you’re still misunderstanding. Forget binding and not binding. That’s not the lens we view the faith through. It’s not that a teaching is optional before the council and not optional after. It’s that the council must accurately reflect what is already believed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Again, you are approaching this question from mindset we don’t share. Whether a council gets the title “ecumenical” or not is of very little significance. We simply don’t look at things as “fallible” vs “infallible.” It’s not the case that if a council meets a predetermined set of criteria then what it says is “infallible” and “binding” and a council that doesn’t meet those criteria is not binding and optional. A council doesn’t “bind” anything. A council should reflect what the Church already believes. If it does it’s a true council, if not then it’s not. So you are presenting a dilemma we simply do not share.

But aren’t councils called to settle disputes? So, there would be two sides that claim that their views reflect what the Church already believes. Either way, one side is going to be happy and accept the Council, and the other side is going to be unhappy and reject the Council.

The OO rejected Chalcedon for this very reason, right?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Anytime I say “we” in the context of these discussions I’m referring to the Orthodox in general. And no it’s not a problem. I’d be willing to bet you can’t find a single instance of a currently disputed council.

Here its stated…

We simply don’t look at things as “fallible” vs “infallible.”

But the “we” here is the Orthodox…

What is generally held is that councils may be regarded as ecumenical and infallible because they accurately teach the truth handed down in tradition from the Church Fathers.

Perhaps you see the confusion?

There is no predetermined criteria. There can’t be. History has shown there have been false councils and true councils.

Thats at odds with this statement …

accurately teach the truth handed down in tradition from the Church Fathers

There are many and infallible.

On the contrary it is the very heart of what we are talking about. It is the measure we compare all teachings to.

What measure? Your injecting words left and right as if the world is understanding your thinking behind them?

No you’re still misunderstanding. Forget binding and not binding. That’s not the lens we view the faith through. It’s not that a teaching is optional before the council and not optional after. It’s that the council must accurately reflect what is already believed.

Didn’t you bring this up, “Forget binding and not binding” and yes we’ll forget that paragraph above But what is already believed in many cases is infallible and what is stated at a council may indeed be…

generally held is that councils may be regarded as ecumenical and infallible because they accurately teach the truth handed down in tradition from the Church Fathers.

So then what is “infallible” by your words, same as the quoted article in this post …

It’s that the council must accurately reflect what is already believed

Same as here…

they accurately teach the truth handed down in tradition from the Church Fathers

 

[GaryTaylor]

When we start talking about measures I am only reminded of the one all the Fathers spoke of…

Cyprian of Carthage (251 A.D.)

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

We all agree the first 300 years are repetitive in this regard. And I think if my memory serves me right that the infallible teaching of “No salvation outside the Church” was pretty much penned above. Case in point with infallible.

 

[Seraphim73]

Here its stated…

But the “we” here is the Orthodox…

Perhaps you see the confusion?

Thats at odds with this statement …

There are many and infallible.

What measure? Your injecting words left and right as if the world is understanding your thinking behind them?

Didn’t you bring this up, “Forget binding and not binding” and yes we’ll forget that paragraph above But what is already believed in many cases is infallible and what is stated at a council may indeed be…

So then what is “infallible” by your words, same as the quoted article in this post …

Same as here…

Honestly I don’t understand what is confusing or what you are asking. Could you summarize for me?

 

[Seraphim73]

When we start talking about measures I am only reminded of the one all the Fathers spoke of…

We all agree the first 300 years are repetitive in this regard. And I think if my memory serves me right that the infallible teaching of “No salvation outside the Church” was pretty much penned above. Case in point with infallible.

Again, I’m not understanding your point.

 

[LionHeart777]

You are never annoying.

Thanks for reassuring me

And I would add, just to be completely clear, that it is the Orthodox Church that believes that, I’m just repeating it.

And I get that, and can relate to that (but from the Catholic side.)

But for me personally there are some clear departures from the faith we used to share that just continued to escalate over the centuries. That process really culminated at Vatican I and papal infallibility.

And if you felt otherwise I am sure we would have a better chance of running into each other on a Sunday.

We could go into some of them but I’m sure you are already aware.

I am either aware of them… or have enough of them to preoccupy me for now. I don’t see it as necessary to debate them. If you want to discuss any of them feel free I’ll just continue following along and participating here and there.

-Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

Again, I’m not understanding your point.

Your saying one thing and the article another in regards to infallibility. Its always existed in the Church. And for the very reason the article mentions which as I quoted you, you do agree with here, but not with infallibility?

It’s that the council must accurately reflect what is already believed.

Same as here…

they accurately teach the truth handed down in tradition from the Church Fathers

So in this regard Im a little confused what is being said by you.

Further the first 300 years is the tradition handed down from the Fathers and as St Cyprian expressed, and I am positive no salvation outside the Church is alive and well in Orthodoxy?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Fr. Alexander Schmemann – Orthodox Priest

“We must simply admit that if the categories of organism and organic unity are to be applied primarily to the Church universal as the sum of all it component parts (i.e., local churches), then the one, supreme, and universal power as well as its bearer become a self-evident necessity because the unique visible organism must have a unique visible head. Thus, the efforts of Roman Catholic theologians to justify Roman primacy not by mere historical contingencies but by divine institution appear as logical. Within universal ecclesiology primacy is of necessity power and, by the same necessity, a divinely instituted power; we have all this in a consistent form in the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Church.” (J. Meyendorff, A. Schmemann, N. Afanassieff, and N. Koulomzine, The Primacy of Peter, (Aylesbury, Bucks, UK: The Faith Press, 1973), 36.)

 

[Seraphim73]

Your saying one thing and the article another in regards to infallibility. Its always existed in the Church. And for the very reason the article mentions which as I quoted you, you do agree with here, but not with infallibility?

Can you show me where I disagree with the article? You have posted quite a few links. None of them are hyperlinked and a lot of your quotes are not referenced so I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to.

So in this regard Im a little confused what is being said by you.

Are those both my quotes? They seem to be saying the same thing.

Further the first 300 years is the tradition handed down from the Fathers and as St Cyprian expressed, and I am positive no salvation outside the Church is alive and well in Orthodoxy?

Are you asking if the Orthodox teach there is no salvation outside the Church? Generally speaking the Orthodox do not make that kind of judgement. If God chooses to save people outside the Church that is His business. What could be affirmed is that the Orthodox Church alone is the Church Christ established and that it alone is the ark of salvation. Any salvation outside of the Church would be extraordinary according to God’s plan.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Can you show me where I disagree with the article? You have posted quite a few links. None of them are hyperlinked and a lot of your quotes are not referenced so I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to.

Are those both my quotes? They seem to be saying the same thing.

Are you asking if the Orthodox teach there is no salvation outside the Church? Generally speaking the Orthodox do not make that kind of judgement. If God chooses to save people outside the Church that is His business. What could be affirmed is that the Orthodox Church alone is the Church Christ established and that it alone is the ark of salvation. Any salvation outside of the Church would be extraordinary according to God’s plan.

There’s only one article and the quotes for sure are from it. You can go back and re-read what was in fact stated. I don’t feel the need to repeat. The last paragraph explains itself. Thats an infallible teaching generally speaking. Which as the article states is a fact in Orthodoxy.

What is generally held is that councils may be regarded as ecumenical and infallible

Your quote is at the top of the page. Which claims “we” don’t speak in terms of fallible and infallible. Obviously thats not all together true generally speaking.

 

[Seraphim73]

There’s only one article and the quotes for sure are from it. You can go back and re-read what was in fact stated. I don’t feel the need to repeat. The last paragraph explains itself. Thats an infallible teaching generally speaking. Which as the article states is a fact in Orthodoxy.

Gary there are 172 posts on this thread. Also every link you post you must do it directly from google because none of them show any clue as to their content. I would recommend posting the actual URL instead of just copying the address directly from google. Here is the difference.

This

goodreads.com/tag/popular/quotes

Versus this

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.goodreads.com%2Ftag%2Fpopular%2Fquotes&ei=DEJ1VKr7CsWeggTQwIOwBw&usg=AFQjCNG0pApYBu6h_xIwOMnDSTKf_hfskQ&bvm=bv.80642063,d.eXY

Do you see how difficult it makes to know what you are talking about?

Also when you use the quote tags without a link or reference it’s confusing.

I can’t tell if you are quoting a poster or one of the obscure links you post

I’m all for having a discussion but you can’t make it unnecessarily difficult for people to understand you and then when asked to clarify say you won’t repeat yourself.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Gary there are 172 posts on this thread. Also every link you post you must do it directly from google because none of them show any clue as to their content. I would recommend posting the actual URL instead of just copying the address directly from google. Here is the difference.

This

goodreads.com/tag/popular/quotes

Versus this

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.goodreads.com%2Ftag%2Fpopular%2Fquotes&ei=DEJ1VKr7CsWeggTQwIOwBw&usg=AFQjCNG0pApYBu6h_xIwOMnDSTKf_hfskQ&bvm=bv.80642063,d.eXY

Do you see how difficult it makes to know what you are talking about?

Also when you use the quote tags without a link or reference it’s confusing.

I’m all for having a discussion but you can’t make it unnecessarily difficult for people to understand you and then when asked to clarify say you won’t repeat yourself.

I agree. :yup: