Orthodoxy: Ecumenicity, Receptionism and the Councils

[Seraphim73]

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.

The point I’m making is you are placing too much importance on a title. 5th Constantinople is no less important or no less true than Chalcedon just because it doesn’t have the “ecumenical” title. Make sense?

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.

No I never said they were up for discussion. The point I’m making is the teachings are true totally apart from a council. In other words, it’s not a council standing above the Church and issuing binding teachings, it’s the Church judging the council. The cause and effect are reversed.

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…

Gary I’m trying to get you to drop your preconceived notions of what binding and loosing means. Or more specifically how it’s to be understood in the context of what the Church believes. In a sense of course the teachings of the ecumenical councils are “binding” in that they are not optional. But the teachings of the councils were the beliefs of the Church before the council ever happened. The Church believed Jesus was divine before Nicea just as much as after. It was not optional, before or after. It’s not until someone starts to teach something different from what the Church has always believed and then hold that new teaching up as orthodox that a council is convened to formally state what the Church has always taught. Understand my point?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Perhaps you will read post #175 where the source was cited.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

Post #194 explains my use of Schmemann’s quote.

 

[KnitNut]

Perhaps you will read post #175 where the source was cited.

The eyeroll is so unbecoming a self-proclaimed Christian. Did you actually read his work? Because earlier you indicated you didn’t have time for such drivel, and only choose to prooftext out of other peoples’ summaries of these works. I’m asking what summary you’re using this time?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The eyeroll is so unbecoming a self-proclaimed Christian. Did you actually read his work? Because earlier you indicated you didn’t have time for such drivel, and only choose to prooftext out of other peoples’ summaries of these works. I’m asking what summary you’re using this time?

Ah.

Jesus, Peter & the Keys
A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy
Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, Rev. Mr. David Hess
pages 134 & 139.

BTW- the same quotes are quoted at length in a single passage found in:

Upon This Rock
St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church
Stephen K. Ray
pp. 147-148

I own both of these books, and I heartily recommend that you read them.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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.)

Oh brother, since you admit to not having read the original, and apparently have no interest in doing so (that sure does seem like an aversion to discovering the truth), allow me to give you a passage from Schmemann’s conclusion.

Schmemann in the very same article writes on the concept of a universal ecclesiology:
“This concept of primacy, as has been said already, is rooted in the “eucharistic ecclesiology” which we believe to be the source of Orthodox canonical and liturgical tradition. As result of its distortion or, at least, “metamorphosis” there appeared another type of ecclesiology which we have termed “universal.” It leads necessarily to the understanding and practice of primacy as “supreme power” and therefore, to an universal bishop as source and foundation of jurisdiction in the whole ecclesiastical structure. The Orthodox Church has condemned this distortion in its pure and explicit Roman Catholic form. This does not mean, however, that our church life is free from its poison. The universal ecclesiology is a permanent temptation because in the last analysis it is a natural one, being the product of “naturalization” of Christianity, its adaptation to the life “after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ”.”

Do you not see that he calls Latin ecclesiology a “distortion” and that he calls universal ecclesiology a “poison”? Would it truly be so much trouble simply to concede that Schmemann is being taken ridiculously out of context in the excerpts you posted?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Post #194 explains my use of Schmemann’s quote.

Well, no it doesn’t, it attempts a gloss on it.

You would do well to read the original. Not only would that explain why your use of the quote is so utterly out of court, but it supplies an Orthodox understanding of the difference between primacy and supremacy, which topic is so often chewed over hereabouts.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oh brother, since you admit to not having read the original, and apparently have no interest in doing so (that sure does seem like an aversion to discovering the truth), allow me to give you a passage from Schmemann’s conclusion.

Schmemann in the very same article writes on the concept of a universal ecclesiology:
“This concept of primacy, as has been said already, is rooted in the “eucharistic ecclesiology” which we believe to be the source of Orthodox canonical and liturgical tradition. As result of its distortion or, at least, “metamorphosis” there appeared another type of ecclesiology which we have termed “universal.” It leads necessarily to the understanding and practice of primacy as “supreme power” and therefore, to an universal bishop as source and foundation of jurisdiction in the whole ecclesiastical structure. The Orthodox Church has condemned this distortion in its pure and explicit Roman Catholic form. This does not mean, however, that our church life is free from its poison. The universal ecclesiology is a permanent temptation because in the last analysis it is a natural one, being the product of “naturalization” of Christianity, its adaptation to the life “after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ”.”

Do you not see that he calls Latin ecclesiology a “distortion” and that he calls universal ecclesiology a “poison”? Would it truly be so much trouble simply to concede that Schmemann is being taken ridiculously out of context in the excerpts you posted?

No, not too much trouble at all. In fact, I knew before posting and have readily conceded since that it was not Schmemann’s position that Catholicism is true. If it was, he would be Catholic. Did you not see that?

Instead, ALL that I said was that Schmemann recognizes that the Catholic approach is logical and internally consistent.

Coming from an EO, that’s high praise!

So, why post it at all? Because, Cav, we both know that there are lurkers following this thread, and one of them just might say, “Wow. Schmemann is right…the Catholic view of the papacy IS logical.”

Plantin’ seeds, baby, plantin’ seeds.

 

[Cavaradossi]

No, not too much trouble at all. In fact, I knew before posting and have readily conceded since that it was not Schmemann’s position that Catholicism is true. If it was, he would be Catholic. Did you not see that?

Instead, ALL that I said was that Schmemann recognizes that the Catholic approach is logical and internally consistent.

Coming from an EO, that’s high praise!

So, why post it at all? Because, Cav, we both know that there are lurkers following this thread, and one of them just might say, “Wow. Schmemann is right…the Catholic view of the papacy IS logical.”

Plantin’ seeds, baby, plantin’ seeds.

An ecclesiological distortion (according to Schmemann) which is logically consistent with the poisonous premise of universal ecclesiology. What are you planting, a garden of belladonna and hemlock?

 

[twf]

The point I’m making is you are placing too much importance on a title. 5th Constantinople is no less important or no less true than Chalcedon just because it doesn’t have the “ecumenical” title. Make sense?

No I never said they were up for discussion. The point I’m making is the teachings are true totally apart from a council. In other words, it’s not a council standing above the Church and issuing binding teachings, it’s the Church judging the council. The cause and effect are reversed.

Gary I’m trying to get you to drop your preconceived notions of what binding and loosing means. Or more specifically how it’s to be understood in the context of what the Church believes. In a sense of course the teachings of the ecumenical councils are “binding” in that they are not optional. But the teachings of the councils were the beliefs of the Church before the council ever happened. The Church believed Jesus was divine before Nicea just as much as after. It was not optional, before or after. It’s not until someone starts to teach something different from what the Church has always believed and then hold that new teaching up as orthodox that a council is convened to formally state what the Church has always taught. Understand my point?

This is more or less the Catholic understanding…in a sense. A dogma doesn’t make something true. Truth is truth. The deposit of faith entrusted to the Apostles doesn’t change. Dogmas are simply binding clarifications by the Church that yes such and such is and always was part of the deposit of truth. The idea that Our Lady fell asleep, shared in Her Son’s resurrection, and was bodily assumed into heavenly glory was always believed by the Church even before it was dogmatically defined (the assumption part anyway). That being said, prior to dogmatic clarifications, the Church may know what she believes, but individual members can be confused…that’s why dogmas and councils are required. Take the example of the Assumption. It seems very clear to me, as a Catholic Christian, that the Church has always believed in Our Lady’s dormition. There is a very prominent depiction of the Dormition at St. Mary’s Major in Rome - the most important church dedicated to Our Lady in all of Latin Christendom. It is part of our faith. Yet there is some confusion on the ground among individual Latin Catholics as the dogmatic clarification did not touch upon this point. (Even though Pope Pius clearly taught the Dormition in the very same encyclical… but I digress).
Do you contest that there is sometimes confusion among individual Orthodox Christians prior to Councils clarifying what the Church believes?

 

[Picky_Picky]

No, not too much trouble at all. In fact, I knew before posting and have readily conceded since that it was not Schmemann’s position that Catholicism is true. If it was, he would be Catholic. Did you not see that?

Instead, ALL that I said was that Schmemann recognizes that the Catholic approach is logical and internally consistent.

Coming from an EO, that’s high praise!

So, why post it at all? Because, Cav, we both know that there are lurkers following this thread, and one of them just might say, “Wow. Schmemann is right…the Catholic view of the papacy IS logical.”

Plantin’ seeds, baby, plantin’ seeds.

Not very reassuring. What you are conceding is that you knew the quote did not represent the viewpoint of the author — and therefore, implicitly, that you were wrong to present it the way you did. Come on! Better to be explicit about your wrongdoing,

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not very reassuring. What you are conceding is that you knew the quote did not represent the viewpoint of the author — and therefore, implicitly, that you were wrong to present it the way you did. Come on! Better to be explicit about your wrongdoing,

If it’s not the viewpoint of the author, then why did he write it and submit it for publication in a book that has become fairly well-known (at least in some circles)?

I may be wrong, but it appears that the author’s viewpoint is that Catholicism is logical and consistent. He disagrees with Catholic conclusions (maybe even Catholic premises), but I think it’s fair to say that Schmemann is giving Catholics credit for having a decent case based upon their own understandings and starting points, etc.

Now, just out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts on the OP of this thread or post #96 (which was originally written by an Orthodox)?

Thanks.

 

[Picky_Picky]

If it’s not the viewpoint of the author, then why did he write it and submit it for publication in a book that has become fairly well-known (at least in some circles)?

I may be wrong, but it appears that the author’s viewpoint is that Catholicism is logical and consistent. He disagrees with Catholic conclusions (maybe even Catholic premises), but I think it’s fair to say that Schmemann is giving Catholics credit for having a decent case based upon their own understandings and starting points, etc.

Now, just out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts on the OP of this thread or post #96 (which was originally written by an Orthodox)?

Thanks.

My ears and whiskers, you still haven’t read it, have you? He states the Roman view in order to establish what he is arguing against! Try reading it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

No I never said they were up for discussion. The point I’m making is the teachings are true totally apart from a council. In other words, it’s not a council standing above the Church and issuing binding teachings, it’s the Church judging the council. The cause and effect are reversed.

Ok so the Church has the authority over the Council, which one? Or would that be all of them together? Or for example how you decide since there seems to be controversy over which is ecumenical from the Orthodox perspective. So they are legally convened assemblies of ecclesiastical dignitaries and theologians assembled in regard to matters of church doctrine. And the Canon law and confirmed teachings arise as a result of consensus of everyone. And when a decision is reached its through the authority of the consensus. In which case many Canons are bought forward and past decisions re-affirmed.

The point is there always was and always will be teachings which are are infallible. Now we can debate the word in history but the reality is it has been intact, and for the very reason mentioned below because Jesus is Divine and established the Church. Had that not been the case the then binding and loosing would be fallible. And as you say these are words and as mentioned injected for western readers? But the reality stands in which your Church obviously agrees. So what the problem then with the language of the Creed, it changed nothing ecclesiastical or theological and arguments, distance, language, and so forth simply don’t change that.

Gary I’m trying to get you to drop your preconceived notions of what binding and loosing means. Or more specifically how it’s to be understood in the context of what the Church believes. In a sense of course the teachings of the ecumenical councils are “binding” in that they are not optional.

Right not optional when all are in agreement and there is consensus. Binding and loosing is biblical there is no confusion, and the Council is bound by whom, the head of the whole Church or the faith of the fathers and Gods will? So if the head of the Church doesn’t agree, which he has the right to, and there is nothing but an accusation rooted in language and culture, then what makes one think its a Ecumenical Council? God never changed His will, and the teaching of the Fathers never changed.

But the teachings of the councils were the beliefs of the Church before the council ever happened.

Absolutely just as no-salvation, be it its been defined which they have every right to do as revelation indicates. And language issues and cultural difference doesn’t change that as we see with the Creed and other defined dogmas.

The Lord divinely instituted a Church, and through the Apostles that still is factual. But there is no-where that He changed what He already blessed. in fact He only blesses his own gifts. Such was the case with St Peter. It’s not until someone starts to teach something different from what the Church has always believed and they hold that a new council is convened to formally state what the Church has always taught.

 

[Randy_Carson]

My ears and whiskers, you still haven’t read it, have you? He states the Roman view in order to establish what he is arguing against! Try reading it.

And, my stars, you have not read my posts, apparently.

He states the “Roman” view.

He is arguing against the “Roman” view.

He disagrees with the “Roman” view completely.

However, he admits that the Catholic perspective is “consistent” and efforts to justify it “appear as logical”.

Do you have any thoughts on the OP of this thread or post #96 (which was originally written by an Orthodox)?

Thanks.

 

[Picky_Picky]

And, my stars, you have not read my posts, apparently.

He states the “Roman” view.

He is arguing against the “Roman” view.

He disagrees with the “Roman” view completely.

However, he admits that the Catholic perspective is “consistent” and efforts to justify it “appear as logical”.

Do you have any thoughts on the OP of this thread or post #96 (which was originally written by an Orthodox)?

Thanks.

That is, unsurprisingly, incoherent. Read he original.

 

[prodromos]

I may be wrong, but it appears that the author’s viewpoint is that Catholicism is logical and consistent.

Yes, you are wrong, but that is only to be expected when all you read is other people’s summaries.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is, unsurprisingly, incoherent. Read he original.

Yes, you are wrong, but that is only to be expected when all you read is other people’s summaries.

Okay. Prove it.

Take out your copies of The Primacy of Peter and quote a larger context of that passage which will demonstrate that I am wrong.

I actually have a sizeable (meaning at least a page, not a paragraph) portion of Schmemann as quoted by Stephen Ray. I don’t think you’re going to be able to show that a larger passage reveals anything more than what has already been said, but I’ll be waiting to see what you post.

This should only take a few minutes of your time. Thanks.

 

[prodromos]

Okay. Prove it.

Take out your copies of The Primacy of Peter and quote a larger context of that passage which will demonstrate that I am wrong.

I actually have a sizeable (meaning at least a page, not a paragraph) portion of Schmemann as quoted by Stephen Ray. I don’t think you’re going to be able to show that a larger passage reveals anything more than what has already been said, but I’ll be waiting to see what you post.

This should only take a few minutes of your time. Thanks.

Cavaradossi has already done so

 

[Randy_Carson]

Cavaradossi has already done so

Cav points out that Schmemann explains the Catholic view in order to disagree with it. Okay. But that was never in question.

My contention is simply that Schmemann admits that the Catholic approach is logical and consistent, and it is worth noting that fact as others have obviously agreed.