Orthodoxy: Ecumenicity, Receptionism and the Councils

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seraphim73 said:
Yes of course I read it. I was simply asking you to clarify where you thought my statements disagree with it because I don’t see it.
Click to expand...
Your words in reference to the article.
We simply don’t look at things as “fallible” vs “infallible.”
Click to expand...
The article
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.
Click to expand...
 
GaryTaylor said:
Your words in reference to the article.

The article
Click to expand...
Ok now I understand. Perhaps I should have said we generally don’t see things as fallible vs infallible. Of course it’s not unusual for English speakers to use the typical theological language when discussing things. Also there was a period of time in the 17th through 19th century that the Orthodox pretty much completely adopted Roman Catholic scholastic formulations and just altered them to fit Orthodox teaching. For example if you read the Confession of Petr Moghila it reads just like a Roman Catholic catechism. But those formulations themselves were not native to Orthodoxy. I would even say that infallibility in the way it’s debated today isn’t really an Orthodox concept. But either way I’ll expand a little to make myself more clear. There isn’t the clear dichotomy that “ecumenical” councils are infallible and other teachings are not infallible and therefore optional or up for discussion. That’s why it’s not a big deal if a council is given the title ecumenical or not.
 
Seraphim73 said:
Ok now I understand. Perhaps I should have said we generally don’t see things as fallible vs infallible. Of course it’s not unusual for English speakers to use the typical theological language when discussing things. Also there was a period of time in the 17th through 19th century that the Orthodox pretty much completely adopted Roman Catholic scholastic formulations and just altered them to fit Orthodox teaching. For example if you read the Confession of Petr Moghila it reads just like a Roman Catholic catechism. But those formulations themselves were not native to Orthodoxy. I would even say that infallibility in the way it’s debated today isn’t really an Orthodox concept. But either way I’ll expand a little to make myself more clear. There isn’t the clear dichotomy that “ecumenical” councils are infallible and other teachings are not infallible and therefore optional or up for discussion. That’s why it’s not a big deal if a council is given the title ecumenical or not.
Click to expand...
Catholicism may distinguish between infallible and fallible teachings but we are still bound by fallible teachings…we need to give intellectual assent to ALL that the Church teaches.
 
Randy_Carson said:
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.)
Click to expand...
Have you even read the work to which you are referring? I highly doubt it, as you seem to have demonstrated no interest ever in learning anything about Orthodoxy (rather than furthering your laughably polemical strawman version of Orthodoxy). The quote, like most of your proof texts, is entirely and dishonestly ripped out of context. Though I must admit that it takes a certain amount of boldness to do that with a text which, unlike many patristic texts, is available in plain English.
 
Scmemann, I migh add, is in fact arguing against the premise that the local churches are merely parts of a whole. This false premise, in his mind, logically leads to the Roman primacy (in other words, the Roman primacy in Scmemann’s thinking is built upon a false premise), as opposed to building upon the premise of a well-balanced Eucharistic ecclesiology, which leads to a sound and orthodox understanding of primacy. I know that reading dense scholarly works like this can be difficult, but doesn’t that just show that apologists should keep their hands off of that which they cannot understand, lest they should unknowingly deceive people?
 
Seraphim73 said:
There isn’t the clear dichotomy that “ecumenical” councils are infallible and other teachings are not infallible and therefore optional or up for discussion. That’s why it’s not a big deal if a council is given the title ecumenical or not.
Click to expand...
Thanks we are talking about the teachings in the Council which exist in or out of the Council if they are the truth of the Fathers, we have yet to arrive at what makes a council ecumenical, the article clearly states the EO does not know.

So for example the Canons and Creed are up for discussion according to above. Interesting, and, well I’ll just use your language from the discussion yesterday.
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
Click to expand...
The Creed isn’t binding then perhaps you’ll inform us why we have such issues about it in relation to the Councils?

BTW I never bought up binding [you’ll have to explain what you mean] its Biblical with binding and loosing would you say thats an infallible teaching?

So I have to conclude from the above statement if its a true council nothing is binding and if the Church already believes it, its not binding according to above? And in relation to binding which is “generally” not a big deal. I guess the Council Canons have generally the same value. The dogmatic decisions of the Councils need not be adhered to then generally speaking?. Which also leads to…
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.
Click to expand...
Read that carefully, and thanks for the clarification on what you do believe “generally speaking”. .
 
Cavaradossi said:
Have you even read the work to which you are referring? I highly doubt it, as you seem to have demonstrated no interest ever in learning anything about Orthodoxy (rather than furthering your laughably polemical strawman version of Orthodoxy). The quote, like most of your proof texts, is entirely and dishonestly ripped out of context. Though I must admit that it takes a certain amount of boldness to do that with a text which, unlike many patristic texts, is available in plain English.
Click to expand...
Of course not, Cav. Like I have the time to go wading through millions of pages of spilled ink regarding Orthodox controversies to find gems like this. :rolleyes:

HOWEVER, other people have read the book, and I can read their summaries.

One other thought, as the quotes stack up (and they will), at some point the intellectually honest person has to stop and ask: “Is it really possible that I’m right, and all these others folks who have advanced degrees and have dedicated their lives to studying this stuff are wrong?”

Have a nice day! 🙂
 
Cavaradossi said:
Scmemann, I migh add, is in fact arguing against the premise that the local churches are merely parts of a whole. This false premise, in his mind, logically leads to the Roman primacy (in other words, the Roman primacy in Scmemann’s thinking is built upon a false premise), as opposed to building upon the premise of a well-balanced Eucharistic ecclesiology, which leads to a sound and orthodox understanding of primacy. I know that reading dense scholarly works like this can be difficult, but doesn’t that just show that apologists should keep their hands off of that which they cannot understand, lest they should unknowingly deceive people?
Click to expand...
I didn’t argue that Schmemann agrees with Catholicism; merely that he admits that it is logically consistent.

But hey, you’ve read the book, right? Start a thread and tell us all about it.

Or am I to merely rely on YOUR summary of it? 😃
 
Randy_Carson said:
I didn’t argue that Schmemann agrees with Catholicism; merely that he admits that it is logically consistent.

But hey, you’ve read the book, right? Start a thread and tell us all about it.

Or am I to merely rely on YOUR summary of it? 😃
Click to expand...
Your response is even more disgraceful than your original post. Having been challenged, why haven’t you checked back? It is clear even from a skim-read from even such an untutored soul as me, that quoting that passage out of context is to totally invert the meaning of the author. What would be appropriate from you would be an apology, and then the thread could move on.
 
It could be, could just be a lot of misunderstanding also, I find the entire conversation illusive, but I blame myself before anyone else.

For example it behooves me to understand how the truth of the Fathers could have existed in Rome then vanished at Vatican I. And as you see by the on-going dialogue I don’t see that answer coming anytime soon.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Your response is even more disgraceful than your original post. Having been challenged, why haven’t you checked back? It is clear even from a skim-read from even such an untutored soul as me, that quoting that passage out of context is to totally invert the meaning of the author. What would be appropriate from you would be an apology, and then the thread could move on.
Click to expand...
Schmemann wrote:
  1. Thus, the efforts of Roman Catholic theologians to justify Roman primacy not by mere historical contingencies but by divine institution appear as logical.
  2. 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.”
Which of these two sentences do you disagree with? 🤷

Schmemann may not agree with the Catholic position (otherwise, why be Orthodox?); however, he points out that Catholic efforts are logical and consistent with the necessity of a divinely instituted power. But he does state the following:

“The important point here is for us to see that in the light of this doctrine [of universal organic Church unity] the need for and the reality of a universal head, i.e. the Bishop of Rome, can no longer be termed an exaggeration. It becomes not only acceptable but necessary. If the Church is a universal organism, she must have at her head a universal bishop as the focus of her unity and the organ of supreme power. The idea, popular in Orthodox apologetics, that the Church can have no visible head, because Christ is her *invisible *head, is theological nonsense.” (J. Meyendorff, A. Schmemann, N. Afanassieff, and N. Koulomzine, The Primacy of Peter, [Aylesbury, Bucks, UK: The Faith Press, 1973], 36.)
 
Randy_Carson said:
Schmemann wrote:
  1. Thus, the efforts of Roman Catholic theologians to justify Roman primacy not by mere historical contingencies but by divine institution appear as logical.
  2. 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.”
Which of these two sentences do you disagree with? 🤷

Schmemann may not agree with the Catholic position (otherwise, why be Orthodox?); however, he points out that Catholic efforts are logical and consistent with the necessity of a divinely instituted power. But he does state the following:

“The important point here is for us to see that in the light of this doctrine [of universal organic Church unity] the need for and the reality of a universal head, i.e. the Bishop of Rome, can no longer be termed an exaggeration. It becomes not only acceptable but necessary. If the Church is a universal organism, she must have at her head a universal bishop as the focus of her unity and the organ of supreme power. **The idea, popular in Orthodox apologetics, that the Church can have no visible head, because Christ is her *invisible ***head, is theological nonsense.” (J. Meyendorff, A. Schmemann, N. Afanassieff, and N. Koulomzine, The Primacy of Peter, [Aylesbury, Bucks, UK: The Faith Press, 1973], 36.)
Click to expand...
You persist. I am not sure how much credibility you have on this site, but such as you have you are undermining it. Go back. Read the original. Apologise.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Of course not, Cav. Like I have the time to go wading through millions of pages of spilled ink regarding Orthodox controversies to find gems like this. :rolleyes:

HOWEVER, other people have read the book, and I can read their summaries.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Mr Carson will have the integrity to at the very least cite his source, since he admits he has no time to read actual scholars.
 
Eric_Hilbert said:
The topic, not each other
Click to expand...
You are quite right to insist that the subject should be the topic, not each other. But if a poster makes a flagrantly out-of-context misleading quote, and then refuses to withdraw it, how is one to query that other than by pointing out what it is: a flagrantly misleading out-of-context quote? Would it be more appropriate for me to bring it to your attention as a breach of normal discourse?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top