Orthodoxy: Ecumenicity, Receptionism and the Councils

[Cavaradossi]

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.

Big deal, even Islam and Calvinism are logically consistent.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m going to disengage from these Orthodox debates for awhile. Consider this my swan song.

Russian Orthodox author Nicholas Lossky published an article entitled, “Conciliarity-Primacy in a Russian Orthodox Perspective” (in James F. Puglisi’s Petrine Ministry and the Unity of the Church, Liturgical Press, 1999). Reviewing this article, James Likoudis observes:

"[Nicholas Lossky] admits…that Peter is the Rock because of his confession of faith! Secondly, [Lossky] is quite correct in suggesting that ‘the total rejection of primacy by some Orthodox proceeds from an excessive anti-Romanism’…and that it is possible to ‘envisage primacy as an exercise of presidency in love and over love, as a service, a ministry’ (thereby echoing something of the thought of Pope John Paul II in Unum Sint). Thirdly, however, to make every bishop a successor or Peter or every faithful Christian a successor of Peter – in the rather loose sense [Lossky] sanctions – results in making every bishop and every Christian a Pope who can thereby claim to be the ‘Rock’ representing the ‘catholic consciousness of the Church’ amidst the inevitable doctrinal disputes sure to occur. This is to collapse the Church into sheer Protestantism and to utterly nullify the meaning of a universal primacy in the Church as a fixed center of unity. The Primatial Rock of the Church is no longer a recognizable Rock, having been shattered into countless fragments." (James Likoudis, The Divine Primacy, p. 50.)

I’ll continue to read all of the threads, but I will not respond or contribute additional material. You may have the last word.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

 

[Randy_Carson]

You’re opening an epistemological can of worms **which your own church has not solved **(unless one subscribes to magisterial positivism). Ecumenical councils even in the eyes of Westerners are so largely by convention, as even in the Latin theory, the assent of the Pope is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a council to be ecumenical. This is why it is possible that the council of the Lateran of 649 is not regarded as ecumenical, even though it was called by a pope and was intended to be ecumenical, or that the first few Councils of the Lateran held during the beginning of the second millennium were originally not listed as ecumenical by canonists only to have their designation slowly changed to ecumenical by the 16th century. There are also, I might add, similar issues with how one is to know whether a papal document was proclaimed infallibly (the relatio leads to such a conclusion, because the official relatio teaches that one cannot restrict or define the form of an ex-Cathedra statement).

There is no predicament except for the one of your own making in this case. Given that no Christian body (not even your own) has a definite and systematic way of determining with complete certitude whether a council was ecumenical, I can only conclude that knowledge of such a thing (if such a thing can be known) cannot actually be part of the deposit of faith, as this would imply precisely that all forms of Christianity are deficient.

Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium:

1. Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops duly established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace,(23*) and also the councils assembled together,(24*) in which more profound issues were settled in common, (25*) the opinion of the many having been prudently considered,(26*) both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order; and the ecumenical councils held in the course of centuries are also manifest proof of that same character. And it is intimated also in the practice, introduced in ancient times, of summoning several bishops to take part in the elevation of the newly elected to the ministry of the high priesthood. Hence, one is constituted a member of the Episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body.

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. ]The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29)* This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium:

1. Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops duly established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace,(23*) and also the councils assembled together,(24*) in which more profound issues were settled in common, (25*) the opinion of the many having been prudently considered,(26*) both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order; and the ecumenical councils held in the course of centuries are also manifest proof of that same character. And it is intimated also in the practice, introduced in ancient times, of summoning several bishops to take part in the elevation of the newly elected to the ministry of the high priesthood. Hence, one is constituted a member of the Episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body.

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. ]The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.

That doesn’t contradic me at all. The part in red is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Like you, we would argue that there are certain necessary conditions for an ecumenical council, but as for what is sufficient, as I have remarked before, the Latins themselves have not solved the problem of what conditions are sufficient to make a council ecumenical or what conditions one may use to determine if a papal statement is infallible (indeed if one reads the official relatio of the First Vatican Council, it makes it rather clear that no form can be imposed upon an ex cathedra ruling, making them functionally formless and dependent on the vague criterion of the Pope acting in his capacity of supreme pastor).

In other words, if you would like to demonstrate that this epistemological problem has been solved, you first have to show evidence that there exist objectively knowable conditions which if met are sufficient to show forth a papal judgment to be infallible or a council to be ecumenical.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That doesn’t contradic me at all. The part in red is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Like you, we would argue that there are certain necessary conditions for an ecumenical council, but as for what is sufficient, as I have remarked before, the Latins themselves have not solved the problem of what conditions are sufficient to make a council ecumenical or what conditions one may use to determine if a papal statement is infallible (indeed if one reads the official relatio of the First Vatican Council, it makes it rather clear that no form can be imposed upon an ex cathedra ruling, making them functionally formless and dependent on the vague criterion of the Pope acting in his capacity of supreme pastor).

In other words, if you would like to demonstrate that this epistemological problem has been solved, you first have to show evidence that there exist objectively knowable conditions which if met are sufficient to show forth a papal judgment to be infallible or a council to be ecumenical.

Cav-

I just spent the last half hour reading the statements from Pope Francis and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. In one of them, the two Church leaders expressed their “sincere and firm resolution, in obedience to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, to intensify our efforts to promote the full unity of all Christians, and above all between Catholics and Orthodox.” (ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-and-patriarchs-declaration-renews-joint-desire-for-unity-and-peace/#ixzz3KbiZHuOS)

How do you feel about the prospects of re-union with the Catholic Church?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Cav-

I just spent the last half hour reading the statements from Pope Francis and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. In one of them, the two Church leaders expressed their “sincere and firm resolution, in obedience to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, to intensify our efforts to promote the full unity of all Christians, and above all between Catholics and Orthodox.” (ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-and-patriarchs-declaration-renews-joint-desire-for-unity-and-peace/#ixzz3KbiZHuOS)

How do you feel about the prospects of re-union with the Catholic Church?

From our perspective, we are already united to the Catholic Church, as the Church cannot be but Catholic. I take the same attitude that the three Eastern Patriarchs took towards Florence. If such a union were ever to come about (and I definitely do not believe we are presently anywhere near close enough to consider this as anything more than a hypothetical), then if it should be a union on the grounds of fidelity to the doctrines of the Church, then I would gladly accept it, but if it should be a false union, then may it be condemned. I am worried, however, given how these two men have said and done very questionable things concerning Islam, that their zeal for ecumenism comes not from a zeal to lead all people into truth but from a different source.

 

[GaryTaylor]

From our perspective, we are already united to the Catholic Church, as the Church cannot be but Catholic. I take the same attitude that the three Eastern Patriarchs took towards Florence. If such a union were ever to come about (and I definitely do not believe we are presently anywhere near close enough to consider this as anything more than a hypothetical), then if it should be a union on the grounds of fidelity to the doctrines of the Church, then I would gladly accept it, but if it should be a false union, then may it be condemned. I am worried, however, given how these two men have said and done very questionable things concerning Islam, that their zeal for ecumenism comes not from a zeal to lead all people into truth but from a different source.

Right, for 50 years there has been slow progress more indicative of social transition in this period. This won’t change overnight and perhaps not in our lifetime.

That said, Islam, and the teachings applied to the universal Church are subject to dialogue. The teachings are understood in levels of their belief. The Church used what is de-fide by Council as the premise for the teaching from there what is de-fide extends to believed teachings. Little difficult to see, and as written has caused a stir. Needless to say I think many see the concern as it depends on the understanding of Romes Dogma and Doctrines. The Dogma injected begins with the Creed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As seen in my signature (temporarily):

Many Orthodox believe that no Church council can be considered ecumenical until the “whole Church” has accepted it. This “receptionism” theory unwittingly encourages individual believers to pick and choose what he will or won’t accept from the hierarchy of his Church. Rather than the Church judging, guiding and correcting the individual on his journey through life, each Orthodox now exercises private judgment of the Church as it passes through history!

This problem is exacerbated by Orthodoxy’s rejection of the supremacy of the successor of Peter as head of the universal Church and its denial of papal infallibility. By separating its Patriarchs from their God-ordained head, the Bishop of Rome, Orthodoxy has undermined the authority of its own patriarchs to teach authoritatively and infallibly. Thus, in denying the Bishop of Rome anything more than an empty “primacy of honor”, Orthodoxy has relegated its patriarchs to that same empty “primacy of honor” amongst its other bishops.

Will no one attempt an answer?

 

[Seraphim73]

As seen in my signature (temporarily):

Many Orthodox believe that no Church council can be considered ecumenical until the “whole Church” has accepted it. This “receptionism” theory unwittingly encourages individual believers to pick and choose what he will or won’t accept from the hierarchy of his Church. Rather than the Church judging, guiding and correcting the individual on his journey through life, each Orthodox now exercises private judgment of the Church as it passes through history!

This problem is exacerbated by Orthodoxy’s rejection of the supremacy of the successor of Peter as head of the universal Church and its denial of papal infallibility. By separating its Patriarchs from their God-ordained head, the Bishop of Rome, Orthodoxy has undermined the authority of its own patriarchs to teach authoritatively and infallibly. Thus, in denying the Bishop of Rome anything more than an empty “primacy of honor”, Orthodoxy has relegated its patriarchs to that same empty “primacy of honor” amongst its other bishops.

Will no one attempt an answer?

Cool story. Doesn’t have any basis in actual reality.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Cool story. Doesn’t have any basis in actual reality.

Wow, that says nothing that needs to be said.

 

[Seraphim73]

Wow, that says nothing that needs to be said.

Well we could give a dissertation on Jack and the Beanstalk. It would be about as useful as responding to the fairy tale presented above.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well we could give a dissertation on Jack and the Beanstalk. It would be about as useful as responding to the fairy tale presented above.

Because signatures are limited to 999 characters, I worked at condensing that posts carefully.

There are six sentences. Since you have espoused receptionism in your own posts and have rejected the infallibility of the papacy, there are two of the six sentences that you should agree with.Therefore, you only have to explain why four sentences of my post are incorrect.

Given the hundreds of comments you have posted in response to other things that I and others have said, it doesn’t seem to be too much to ask.

 

[Seraphim73]

Because signatures are limited to 999 characters, I worked at getting that under 999 characters. There are six sentences.

Since you have espoused receptionism in your own posts and have rejected the infallibility of the papacy, there are two of the six sentences that you must agree with.

Therefore, you only have to explain why four sentences of my post are incorrect. Given the hundreds of comments you have posted in response to other things that I and others have said, I’m surprised that these four sentences represent such a problem.

Randy everything in your signature has been addressed already, multiple times. But you just keep repeating the same arguments over and over even after you’ve been corrected. It’s like a politician doing a interview where they just keep saying what they want regardless of the question asked.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy everything in your signature has been addressed already, multiple times. But you just keep repeating the same arguments over and over even after you’ve been corrected. It’s like a politician doing a interview where they just keep saying what they want regardless of the question asked.

If what you say is true, then your job is even easier. All you have to do is cut and paste from other posts. I’ll get you started by separating the sentences so you can fill in the spaces between them with previously prepared material.

1. Many Orthodox believe that no Church council can be considered ecumenical until the “whole Church” has accepted it.
2. This “receptionism” theory unwittingly encourages individual believers to pick and choose what he will or won’t accept from the hierarchy of his Church.
3. Rather than the Church judging, guiding and correcting the individual on his journey through life, each Orthodox now exercises private judgment of the Church as it passes through history!
4. This problem is exacerbated by Orthodoxy’s rejection of the supremacy of the successor of Peter as head of the universal Church and its denial of papal infallibility.
5. By separating its Patriarchs from their God-ordained head, the Bishop of Rome, Orthodoxy has undermined the authority of its own patriarchs to teach authoritatively and infallibly.
6. Thus, in denying the Bishop of Rome anything more than an empty “primacy of honor”, Orthodoxy has relegated its patriarchs to that same empty “primacy of honor” amongst its other bishops.

 

[Seraphim73]

If what you say is true, then your job is even easier. All you have to do is cut and paste from other posts. I’ll get you started by separating the sentences so you can fill in the spaces between them with previously prepared material.

1. Many Orthodox believe that no Church council can be considered ecumenical until the “whole Church” has accepted it.

I can’t speak for “many Orthodox.”

1. This “receptionism” theory unwittingly encourages individual believers to pick and choose what he will or won’t accept from the hierarchy of his Church.

False.

1. Rather than the Church judging, guiding and correcting the individual on his journey through life, each Orthodox now exercises private judgment of the Church as it passes through history!

False.

1. This problem is exacerbated by Orthodoxy’s rejection of the supremacy of the successor of Peter as head of the universal Church and its denial of papal infallibility.

False.

1. By separating its Patriarchs from their God-ordained head, the Bishop of Rome, Orthodoxy has undermined the authority of its own patriarchs to teach authoritatively and infallibly.

False.

1. Thus, in denying the Bishop of Rome anything more than an empty “primacy of honor”, Orthodoxy has relegated its patriarchs to that same empty “primacy of honor” amongst its other bishops.

I’ll mix this one up. Not true.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Let’s take this slowly.

I can’t speak for “many Orthodox.”

Indeed. Apparently, no one can. However, this IS your personal view, correct? You went on and on for days about Councils being accepted by “the Church”.

To review, the idea that the ecumenicity of a council is determined by the reception of the whole body of the Church was espoused by philosopher Alexis Khomiakov, and it represents the view of many Orthodox today.

Do you accept or reject this theory?

If this is not your view, what is?

 

[Seraphim73]

Let’s take this slowly.

Drop the patronizing attitude.

Indeed. Apparently, no one can. However, this IS your personal view, correct? You went on and on for days about Councils being accepted by “the Church”.

To review, the idea that the ecumenicity of a council is determined by the reception of the whole body of the Church was espoused by philosopher Alexis Khomiakov, and it represents the view of many Orthodox today.

Do you accept or reject this theory?

If this is not your view, what is?

Yes a council has to be accepted by the Church. That doesn’t mean every single person on Earth who is Orthodox has to accept it. But this has been explained to you multiple times. If you want to understand go back and read the thread again. I’m done with it. Or more specifically done responding to you in regards to this.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Drop the patronizing attitude.

I was simply saying that if you want to try to address six sentences with six one word responses, we’re gonna have to break it down and go one sentence at a time.

Yes a council has to be accepted by the Church.

Okay. Great. You are remaining consistent with what you have said before. Just to be sure we’re on the same page, acceptance by the Church is the ONLY way that a council is deemed valid and ecumenical, correct?

That doesn’t mean every single person on Earth who is Orthodox has to accept it.

Of course not. But presumably, there must be some general sense that a majority of the Church has accepted it, correct?

And this brings up another crucial question: When exactly may one say that the Church has received or rejected a council?

 

[MonsterOfThomas]

I should have posted this here.
I would like to point out glaring inconsistencies in the defense of the various autocephalous communions, and the frank inability (and consistent circularity) of the claims to evidence that any oneof the autocephalous groups are either a true part of the One True Church; or, if they just impartially participate in it as a real thing in the world; can capably (that is, consistently) relay its pedigree. That is: its Divine-bestowed witness to the essential Christian faith that Christ appointed its mission to provide all persons.

It was the said that local/regional and patriarchal jurisdiction is a non-negotiable form the division of Church authority to cleric, while all-the-while inherited independently from individual clerics back, to the apostles without being headed by Peter (among other assertions as to why he nor his successor, nor any cleric might have a universal jurisdiction, as it would be inconsistent with the others). But, case after case has obliterated this requirement in the Fathers, Councils and even the makeup of the so-called ‘true orthodox[ies]’ where doctrinally-equal jurisdictions do in fact contradict, where authoritatively-equal patriarchs at the source.

Then it was said that, ultimately it is only problematic because the claims of ecclesiology ultimately can’t be based on dogmatic teaching or de fide clearity. But is that a dogma (i.e. a true, orthodox doctrine)? We are told so–once again without any means to ascertain why this or that orthodoxy, or this or that cleric, ultimately is within such a unity, and so as to speak for, the True Church. Instead we are told we ought to focus on ‘oikonomia’ (dogmatically . . it seems,) over dogma–and dare I ask the further question of how this dogma be rooted and proved as the orthodox one? The same error occurs when unwittingly attacking belief that the Church is “infallible” so as to hold pure, true doctrines–and so while attacking infallibility, it does no good whatever to blindly assert that while not having an infallible faith, the autocephalous communion nevertheless holds the pure, true doctrines. Unless of course it is realized by the non-Catholic that the non-Catholic communion actually does not hold all the pure, true doctrines.

Next we are told to ignore actual issues of the conflicting nature of discerned-as-ultimate oikonomia itself within different claimed-to-be-orthodoxies-of-equally-authoritative-apostolic-pedigree, even where universal councils require to be the content of the Apostolic faith that the true Church proclaim and assent to (e.g. the Holy Spirit, the Creed, etc etc) while still having to assume that ‘oikonomia’ is supremely relevant and can be shown and interpreted by someone (?) to be a pure and true doctrine, a de fide element that is somehow capably discerned by the non-Catholic in all of this.

Finally we are assured that so long as all have (this is the criterion? it is the ultimate de fide test? where is it absolutely incorporated as the final, ultimate criterion of ecclesial unity without other conditions of equal importance?–I submit to you: NOWHERE) Eucharistic communion with all the others of equal claims to pedigree within the spheres. And so, this ecclesial communion, if had, suffices to possibly be “One” (and so a candidate for the One True Church). But then when immediately pressed with counter examples (one easily could enumerate others if you but honestly true) where this ISN’T the case in separate-communions-of-equal-claim-and-pedigree-of-pure-orthodoxy – then we are given a litany of excuses that don’t acknowledge that this is literally impossible if any one of the orthodoxies are a monolith.

The TRUE Church is NOT the
[Dis-unified, ultimately-ungatherable-to-single-consistent-body-of-essential-faith] - [Unfollowable, ultimately-impracticable-consistently-and-piously-as-to-the-practice-of-the-essential-faith] -
[Conciliaristic/Donastic, ultimately-democratic-representationally-congregationed-nationally-differentiated-geographically-isolated] -
[Gnostic - claims-to-authoritative-succession-to-ultimate-essential-authority-in-the-faith-mysteriously-hidden-by-fallacy-or-cyclically-scapegoated-pedigree]

CHURCH.

Ladies and Gentleman: we are talking about the
-[ONE]-
[HOLY]-
[CATHOLIC] and
-[APOSTOLIC]- . . . -the TRUE
[CHURCH].

Something is not revealed to be the true Church so as to interestingly be ANYTHING if its truth-claims reduce to contradictory, circular fallacy–or cannot be said to be pure and true. Something is not one if it is broken into inconsistent, ultimately contrary parts in its (de fide) faith (that’s not one church, that’s not even one body of faith!). Something is not a Church if it can’t teach de fide things about the God who created it to reveal His Faith(!) uniformly and consistently to the faithful that it serves. Something is not holy if holiness is itself an unpracticable gnostic idium disconnected from any means to de fide preach it. Something is not Catholic (universal to the whole), if is ultimately defined by local, regional, political, national, democratic, less-than whole and universal standards.

The One True Church is the Catholic Church.

 

[prodromos]

Wee!
Now we’ve got more people spamming threads with the same posts.