Orthodoxy: Ecumenicity, Receptionism and the Councils

[Cavaradossi]

My apologies. I was asking about the Lateran Council of 649.

This I gathered from the brief account I read which referred to it as a “Byzantine affair”. So, in your opinion, what was the reason why this council was never received as Ecumenical?

Because it was too revolutionary, in a sense. It meant that the emperor would not have been the sole authority with the power to call an ecumenical council (all of the first seven ecumenical councils were called by an emperor). Furthermore popes after Pope St. Martin were in an uncomfortable position. They owed their election either to the Emperor or to the Exarch of Ravenna, and this being the case, they could not incite too much controversy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I decided to contact Bryan Cross, a contributor at Called to Communion, regarding my thoughts on Orthodoxy’s receptionism theory and the role of private judgment. After all, I’m just a munchkin, and I wanted his opinion on what I have been saying in this thread.

Turns out, this munchkin has been on the right track all along.

Mr. Cross directed me to his responses #45, #76, #78 & #79 to comments below the article:

Kallistos Ware: Orthodox & Catholic Union
by Bryan Cross
June 30, 2011
calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/kallistos-ware-orthodox-catholic-union/

Post #45:

The circularity problem discussed above isn’t solved by identifying the “whole Church” as “the whole Church.” The problem, again, is this: if a council must be accepted by “the whole Church” in order to be an ecumenical council, then what counts as “the whole Church” cannot be defined as “those who accept the ecumenical councils.” Such an answer is circular because it defines ecumenical councils in terms of acceptance by “the whole Church,” and then defines “the whole Church” in terms of acceptance of the ecumenical councils. To try to justify such circularity by attributing it to “the Eastern mind” would be to insult all Easterners, as though they don’t know basic logic.

Take the Council of Ephesus as an example. The Nestorians did not accept the Council of Ephesus. But unless one already knows that the Council of Ephesus was ecumenical, one does not know whether Nestorianism is heretical (otherwise there would be no point in having ecumenical councils). And unless one already knows that Nestorianism is a heresy, one does not know that the Nestorians do not count as part of the whole Church. And unless one already knows that the Nestorians do not count as part of the whole Church, one cannot say that the Council of Ephesus was accepted by “the whole Church,” because the Nestorians rejected it. Likewise, the same can be said of the councils of Nicea and Chalcedon, because the Arians rejected the former, and the monophysites rejected the latter. For this reason, defining ecumenical councils in terms of acceptance by “the whole Church,” and then defining “the whole Church” in terms of acceptance of ecumenical councils, is essentially to have said nothing at all, while prima facie seeming to have said something substantive.

If, however, “the whole Church” is not defined by acceptance of the ecumenical councils, but by sharing one’s phronema, this definition is very much like that of those Protestants who define “the whole Church” as those who share their general interpretation of Scripture (see my response to Mathison in the first link in comment #19), and is subject to the same problems. It doesn’t matter that, for example, Reformed Christians can recognize each other as fellow Reformed Christians, and Pentecostal Christians can recognize each other as fellow Pentecostal Christians, as though that solves the problem, because we would fully expect that those in a heresy or schism, upon hearing someone else in that same heresy or schism, would recognize him or her to be in their own [heretical or schismatic] sect. This shows that as a method, picking out others on the basis of a shared phronema is not a principled, non-question-begging way to distinguish what is the Church from what is not the Church. It merely pushes back the question to which φρόνημα is the divinely authorized one, and how do we know.

In the peace of Christ,

– Bryan

Post #76:

On the one hand, you say that “it is impossible to have an infallible individual or group because this would deny true human freedom in the synergy ….” Later in the paragraph, you say, “The Church is infallible ….” But the Church is a group, so there is a contradiction in your position. To resolve the contradiction, you either have to hold that only Jesus is the Church, or you have to retract your claim that it is impossible to have an infallible individual or group. Which is it?

So, to seek an intermediary is to fail to recognise the real presence of Christ in the Church

So, how do you avoid the circularity problem I explained in comment #45? I mean, if you think pentarchial ratification is not sufficient for a council to be both ecumenical and infallible, and you think that acceptance by “the whole Church” is a necessary and sufficient condition for a council to be both ecumenical and infallible, then how do you avoid the circularity problem?

On the one hand, if you think that acceptance by “the whole Church” is a necessary and sufficient condition for a council to be both ecumenical and infallible, then, according to Perry (in his “Against Khomiakov” post linked in #41), ” you have likely been relying on “pop-Orthodox works or some distinctly Russian theological works.” On the other hand, if you think pentarchial ratification is sufficient for a council to be both ecumenical and infallible, then this contradicts your earlier statement that “it is impossible to have an infallible individual or group,” for in that case it follows that [at least when ratifying councils] the pentarchy is infallible. And of course the pentarchy is a group.

In the peace of Christ,

– Bryan

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Mr. Cross continued in post #78

If you believe that pentarchial ratification is a necessary and sufficient condition for a council to be both ecumenical and infallible, then from your position it follows that the pentarchy has the right/authority to bind the conscience (and then this pentarchial authority is the prototype of what would later become Protestantism, in which each man is his own pentarchy). But if you believe that acceptance by “the whole Church” is a necessary and sufficient condition for a council to be both ecumenical and infallible, then not only have you (according to Perry) been relying on “pop-Orthodox works or some distinctly Russian theological works,” but you are faced with the circularity problem I explained in comment #45.

In the peace of Christ,

– Bryan

and post #79:

It sounds like you want to give objective criteria, but you recognize that the criteria you offer are not objective or clear, and so ultimately you leave the individual either with a fideistic choice (i.e. a “choice of faith”), or with some sort of bosom-burning. (I have written here against fideism.) For example, if ‘durability’ is a criterion for an ecumenical council, then for a hundred years or more (??), no one would be able to know whether a council is ecumenical. We would all have to withhold assent to any council for generations after it had occurred. And durability’ consists of chronic retention by whom? The whole Church? That just pushes us back to the circularity problem I described in #45. Yet, if a group of persons still to this day believed that 2nd Ephesus was ecumenical, then apparently it would be durable.

Likewise, if “consistency in Scripture” is a criterion, this reduces to “consistency with Scripture as determined by the individual” and this is very much the Protestant position, according to which the interpretive ‘authority’ of the individual trumps that of any council. And if concordance with “the opinion of those who know the Spirit such as elders” is a criterion, then this requires that the individual already know which elders have the Spirit (by bosom-burning?), and it just pushes the problem back. How do they (i.e. the elders) know whether the council is ecumenical? Again, if it is agreement with their own interpretation of Scripture and tradition, and/or bosom-burning, we’re left with the reign of private judgment at the level of those presbyters judged by the laity to have the Spirit. But even so, if approval by the elders [at least the ones with the Spirit] is a necessary condition for a council to be ecumenical, this is a form of Presbyterianism, in which the presbyters have veto authority over the bishops.

There is no point in holding a general council if it has no authority. It is then merely a time to share ideas, opinions, and maybe even recipes. But that’s what you’re left with if, after each council, whether it is ecumenical and infallible comes down to a fideistic choice on the part of each individual whether to accept the council or reject it, whether to join this group that accepts the council, or that group that doesn’t accept the council, etc. It is merely a suggestion. And it comes to have ‘authority’ only if the persons who agree with one’s own interpretation come to accept it as authoritative. Hello Derrida.

This idea that “we have to decide to which group we will belong,” where there are no objective criteria for determining where is the Church that Christ founded, reduces to ecclesial consumerism, which is Protestantism’s bane. Likewise, if each individual is supposed to follow the Spirit by way of an internal bosom-burning (as opposed to following the Spirit by following the Magisterium of the Church Christ founded), this too reduces to the Protestant reign of private judgment, as I explained in my response to Protestant pastor Rick Phillips.

The “acceptance by the whole Church” criterion for a council to be ecumenical and infallible, where “whole Church” consists of approval by each individual according to subjective standards of private judgment, fideistic choice, and/or bosom-burning, reduces to Protestantism, if what essentially defines Protestantism is belief in the authority of private judgment, and denial of the conscience-binding authority of the Church. And, as I explained earlier, this “acceptance by the whole Church” criterion is also subject to the circularity problem I described in comment #45. This circularity problem sets up the ecclesial consumerism in which each individual ‘makes church’ in his own image, according to his own interpretation of Scripture.

In the peace of Christ,

– Bryan

 

[Cavaradossi]

The appeal to the authority to bind the conscience of the believer is a weak one if we are concerned with finding a sort of epistemological ground for claiming to know that something is true. According to the theories of magisterium which I have encountered, even fallible judgments made by a pope can still bind the conscience of the believer to submit to it. Even under this system, the believer is still left with no good ground upon which he may claim that he knows something to be true, as he cannot ascertain the truth of a certain opinion from the fact that he must submit to that opinion.

 

[Seraphim73]

I will say this entire thread feels like an episode of the Twilight Zone. Randy keeps laying out theoretical constructs as to why Orthodoxy won’t work as though there is no actual evidence. He says we can’t know how an council is true, but yet we do know. He says we can’t ensure unity but yet we are united. It’s been almost a thousand years since the supposed guarantor of unity left the Church but yet here we are more united than the Roman Catholic Church probably has ever been. Since the Western Church broke away they’ve suffered the Western Schism, the breakaway of the Church of England, the Protestant Reformation that tore whole nations away from Rome, the breakaway of the Old Catholics after Vatican I and the SSPX after Vatican II.

But yet Randy completely ignores actual reality in favor of his own fantasies, fantasies that he apparently shares with other Catholics. The reason they do this I think is the reality is too much to bear as it completely erodes the foundations of everything they believe about their Church. That is why they feel the need to attack Orthodoxy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The appeal to the authority to bind the conscience of the believer is a weak one if we are concerned with finding a sort of epistemological ground for claiming to know that something is true. According to the theories of magisterium which I have encountered, even fallible judgments made by a pope can still bind the conscience of the believer to submit to it. Even under this system, the believer is still left with no good ground upon which he may claim that he knows something to be true, as he cannot ascertain the truth of a certain opinion from the fact that he must submit to that opinion.

Cav-

In the past, we have gotten pretty upset with one another, and the discussion has suffered as a result. I repent to you, and I ask your forgiveness. I hope that we can move forward in a more civil manner. Sound good?

Now, I understand the reason why you want to point out that, in your opinion, Catholics have the same problem; however, Bryan Cross deals with the tu quoque fallacy at length at Called to Communion (CTC), and the site hosts a follow-up article “Son of a Tu Quoque” which specifically addresses the “no infallible list of infallible doctrines” argument. Needless to say, Catholics would argue that having an infallible Pope and Magisterium puts us in a very different position than that of our Protestant brothers and sisters. That would make for an interesting discussion - in another thread. This thread, however, is about Orthodoxy, Ecumenicity, Receptionism and how the Councils are recognized as Ecumenical.

Like Fr. Harrison, Mr. Cross finds a circularity in the Orthodox approach to recognizing the Councils; namely, the Councils are not deemed accepted until the “whole church” has weighed in. Seraphim73 uses that phrase often, so I guess it must be a common enough concept in EO circles. It’s not just Catholics, either; posts #1 & #96 came from Orthodox websites, so the problem we’re discussing is obvious to all or the many.

The combox at CTC was full of questions that I had not even considered:

• Do women get to “vote” (my word) to reject what their bishops have produced in council?
• What about children who have been baptized? Are they part of the Church?
• And the Church includes those in Purgatory (for Catholics) as well as in Heaven, so how are their votes assessed?

And some of my questions were asked by posters there:

• How long does this process take?
• How do we know when the majority has been reached?
• etc.

Rather than exchange bitter posts tit-for-tat, can we discuss these things?

And perhaps the question that is in the forefront of my mind is: How is the requisite private judgment of Orthodoxy NOT akin to the private judgment of Protestantism?

Let me promise you and every one else that I am not looking to be the focal point of this discussion, because frankly, I think this is a discussion that you Orthodox really ought to be having amongst yourselves, but I’m hoping for some discussion here.

 

[Seraphim73]

Cav-

In the past, we have gotten pretty upset with one another, and the discussion has suffered as a result. I repent to you, and I ask your forgiveness. I hope that we can move forward in a more civil manner. Sound good?

Now, I understand the reason why you want to point out that Catholics have the same problem; however, Bryan Cross deals with the tu quoque fallacy at length at Called to Communion (CTC), and the site hosts a follow-up article “Son of a Tu Quoque” which specifically addresses the “no infallible list of infallible doctrines” argument. Needless to say, Catholics would argue that having an infallible Pope and Magisterium puts us in a very different position than that of our Protestant brothers and sisters. That would make for an interesting discussion - in another thread. This thread, however, is about Orthodoxy, Ecumenicity, Receptionism and how the Councils are recognized as Ecumenical.

Like Fr. Harrison, Mr. Cross finds a circularity in the Orthodox approach to recognizing the Councils; namely, the Councils are not deemed accepted until the “whole church” has weighed in. Seraphim73 uses that phrase often, so I guess it must be a common enough concept in EO circles.

The combox at CTC was full of questions that I had not even considered:

• Do women get to “vote” (my word) to reject what their bishops have produced in council?
• What about children who have been baptized? Are they part of the Church?
• And the Church includes those in Purgatory (for Catholics) as well as in Heaven, so how are their votes assessed?

And some of my questions were asked by posters there:

• How long does this process take?
• How do we know when the majority has been reached?
• etc.

Rather than exchange bitter posts tit-for-tat, can we discuss these things?

And perhaps the question that is in the forefront of my mind is: How is the requisite private judgment of Orthodoxy NOT akin to the private judgment of Protestantism?

Let me promise you and every one else that I am not looking to be the focal point of this discussion, because frankly, I think this is a discussion that you Orthodox really ought to be having amongst yourselves, but I’m hoping for some discussion here.

If you want to repent you have to change. So stop misquoting, stop misrepresenting and start actually paying attention to what other people say.

 

[Cavaradossi]

A fresh start is always desirable. Let’s let bygones be bygones.

My argument is not meant to be a tu quoque argument. I am attempting to say that the quest for having some sort of empirically verifiable claim to knowledge based on some set of objectively verifiable criteria is a fool’s errand. The question itself requires some degree of adherence to positivism, in my opinion, and my own scepticism of positivism aside, I’m just not sure how a faith based on divine revelation is anywhere near consistent with logical positivism, as one’s claim to knowing that divine revelation in a Christian context is true is itself not an empirically verifiable claim.

 

[Randy_Carson]

A fresh start is always desirable. Let’s let bygones be bygones.

My argument is not meant to be a tu quoque argument. I am attempting to say that the quest for having some sort of empirically verifiable claim to knowledge based on some set of objectively verifiable criteria is a fool’s errand. The question itself requires some degree of adherence to positivism, in my opinion, and my own scepticism of positivism aside, I’m just not sure how a faith based on divine revelation is anywhere near consistent with logical positivism, as one’s claim to knowing that divine revelation in a Christian context is true is itself not an empirically verifiable claim.

Geez, Cav, can you say this in plain English?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Cav-

Let’s say that you’re on campus one day, killing some time between classes, and reviewing some of the passages you had previously highlighted in Fr. Meyendorff’s Orthodoxy and Catholicity in response to some online interaction you’ve had with a certain Catholic antagonist who shall remain nameless.

You happen to look up to see a cute girl staring at you intently. “Whatcha reading?”, she asks innocently. After listening to your answer which is completely unintelligible to her, she says, “I never understood all that stuff. I mean, how do you even know the Bible is true?”

Cav, how would you explain to this sweet young thing (with gorgeous brown eyes) why Christians can know with certainty that the Bible is reliable in an “empirically verifiable” manner?

And how would you get her phone number so that you can talk more later?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Geez, Cav, can you say this in plain English?

To boil it down, I find the question baffling. How is it that one can accept the content of divine revelation on the one hand (which cannot be shown to be true by empirical methods) but on the other hand demand to know how one can empirically (and objectively) ascertain whether some teaching of the Church is guaranteed to be true?

Furthermore, It seems to me that pointing to some authority figure (whether it be the Papacy, the Pentarchy, the episcopate as a whole, etc.), which has the power to verify such teachings is itself a non-solution to the question because such an authority naturally cannot verify itself by its own authority (that would be circular), so the believer first must have subjective (and thus not objectively verifiable) faith that this authority figure is truly invested with the authority to verify teachings.

 

[Kosta]

Cav-

Let’s say that you’re on campus one day, killing some time between classes, and reviewing some of the passages you had previously highlighted in Fr. Meyendorff’s Orthodoxy and Catholicity in response to some online interaction you’ve had with a certain Catholic antagonist who shall remain nameless.

You happen to look up to see a cute girl staring at you intently. “Whatcha reading?”, she asks innocently. After listening to your answer which is completely unintelligible to her, she says, “I never understood all that stuff. I mean, how do you even know the Bible is true?”

Cav, how would you explain to this sweet young thing (with gorgeous brown eyes) why Christians can know with certainty that the Bible is reliable in an “empirically verifiable” manner?

And how would you get her phone number so that you can talk more later?

Here, I’ll put it into plain English for you.

Telling her the answer “because the Pope said so” or “because I trust the Pope” is even harder to prove than saying “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth.”

We have to take things on a leap of faith, whether some guy in Italy with a funny hat told us one thing or the other.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Cav-

Let’s say that you’re on campus one day, killing some time between classes, and reviewing some of the passages you had previously highlighted in Fr. Meyendorff’s Orthodoxy and Catholicity in response to some online interaction you’ve had with a certain Catholic antagonist who shall remain nameless.

You happen to look up to see a cute girl staring at you intently. “Whatcha reading?”, she asks innocently. After listening to your answer which is completely unintelligible to her, she says, “I never understood all that stuff. I mean, how do you even know the Bible is true?”

Cav, how would you explain to this sweet young thing (with gorgeous brown eyes) why Christians can know with certainty that the Bible is reliable in an “empirically verifiable” manner?

And how would you get her phone number so that you can talk more later?

Well, I couldn’t explain that, because I don’t think Christians can reasonably believe that the Scriptures are empirically verifiable as being the Word of God. I didn’t ever see God inspiring the prophets, the evangelists, and the apostles to write scripture, so my own experience cannot verify the truth of the claim that the scriptures are inspired. That is what the gift of faith is for. I can (as many Christians have done in the past) attempt to demonstrate the reasonableness of believing that the scriptures are inspired (that is, to demonstrate that faith need not be contrary to reason), but I don’t think I could give either a rational account or an empirical account for how one can know that the Scriptures are true.

As for the phone number, I feel that asking is the only polite and socially acceptable method. The catch, of course, is that one must find the right time and manner in which to ask.

 

[Randy_Carson]

To boil it down, I find the question baffling. How is it that one can accept the content of divine revelation on the one hand (which cannot be shown to be true by empirical methods) but on the other hand demand to know how one can empirically (and objectively) ascertain whether some teaching of the Church is guaranteed to be true?

Furthermore, It seems to me that pointing to some authority figure (whether it be the Papacy, the Pentarchy, the episcopate as a whole, etc.), which has the power to verify such teachings is itself a non-solution to the question because such an authority naturally cannot verify itself by its own authority (that would be circular), so the believer first must have subjective (and thus not objectively verifiable) faith that this authority figure is truly invested with the authority to verify teachings.

Ah. So, for you personally, and I say that because I do not know whether this is an Orthodox issue or a Cav issue, but I do think that both of us can make a really solid case for both the Bible and the Church (regardless of its longitudinal location).

To make the case, I’m going to present an argument which you have no doubt seen me (and others) post in this forum many times before, but I think we should look at it because it will help you…and give you something to say to that brown-eyed girl about the Bible and the Church.

You’ll have some objections, but it won’t be the first time, right?

Proving Inspiration
catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen, his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

A Spiral Argument

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is really proved, not just “felt.” Second, the main fact behind the proof—the reality of an infallible, teaching Church—leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31): How is one to know which interpretations are correct? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority established by Christ to interpret his word.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Randy, I am afraid I must disagree. Traditionally, Christians have believed that that the contents of revelation can only be known and accepted through the gift of faith (this is often opposed to what can be known by the use of reason alone, such as the existence of God). The First Vatican Council sums this up in session III, iii, where it is stated that the truth of revelation is not intrinsically self evident as it is perceived by the light of reason. It is true that God has left evidence in the world to help confirm our acceptance of revelation and show the consistency of faith with reason (and that is really all the above ‘proof’ is able to demonstrate, the reasonableness of divine revelation), but this in itself cannot bring one to accept divine revelation without faith, which is a gift from God, the operation of which is in the order of salvation. One can, as I wrote in my previous post, make a case for the reasonableness of divine revelation, but one cannot know and accept what is revealed by the use of reason; that properly is the operation of the gift of faith.

 

[prodromos]

Ah. So, for you personally, and I say that because I do not know whether this is an Orthodox issue or a Cav issue, but I do think that both of us can make a really solid case for both the Bible and the Church (regardless of its longitudinal location).

To make the case, I’m going to present an argument which you have no doubt seen me (and others) post in this forum many times before, but I think we should look at it because it will help you…and give you something to say to that brown-eyed girl about the Bible and the Church.

For your homework Randy, spend as much effort as you do trying to find flaws in Orthodox arguments, picking apart the flaws in the above quoted article. If you had done this earlier, you could have saved yourself the effort of posting it now.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, I am afraid I must disagree.

Okay, but I was right at the 6,000 character mark with that post, so I didn’t get to tell you that I would like to discuss it in two stages:

Stage 1: As if we were both Catholic
Stage 2: As ourselves: an EO and a Catholic

The purpose of Stage 1 is simply to discuss the validity of the argument…which you may have covered below.

Traditionally, Christians have believed that that the contents of revelation can only be known and accepted through the gift of faith (this is often opposed to what can be known by the use of reason alone, such as the existence of God). The First Vatican Council sums this up in session III, iii, where it is stated that the truth of revelation is not intrinsically self evident as it is perceived by the light of reason. It is true that God has left evidence in the world to help confirm our acceptance of revelation and show the consistency of faith with reason (and that is really all the above ‘proof’ is able to demonstrate, the reasonableness of divine revelation), but this in itself cannot bring one to accept divine revelation without faith, which is a gift from God, the operation of which is in the order of salvation. One can, as I wrote in my previous post, make a case for the reasonableness of divine revelation, but one cannot know and accept what is revealed by the use of reason; that properly is the operation of the gift of faith.

I think I want to stick with the logic of the argument I posted. So, pretend you’re a typical Catholic. Okay, scratch that…pretend you’re a faithful Catholic.

Here is the argument:

1. 
   *]Based on textual criticism, archaeology and extra-biblical sources, we conclude that the Bible is a historically accurate text; IOW, we know what the original manuscripts said, and that what it says accurately reflects historical events of that period.
   *]Jesus was either legend, lunatic, liar or Lord. Based on the Bible as a history text (not proven inspired yet), extra-biblical accounts, the course of history and logic, we conclude that he rose from the dead and that He is Lord.
   *]The historically accurate book tells us Jesus promised to build a Church.
   *]The same book tells us that the Church would be led by a group of trusted disciples under the leadership of Peter and characterized by a priesthood, sacraments.
   *]Further, this Church would teach in Jesus’ name and with His authority, and since it would not be possible to teach error in the name of Jesus, this Church must be protected from teaching error.
   *]The Church teaches infallibly that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.
   
   Which of these steps do you, Catholic Cavaradossi, disagree with?

 

[Randy_Carson]

For your homework Randy, spend as much effort as you do trying to find flaws in Orthodox arguments, picking apart the flaws in the above quoted article. If you had done this earlier, you could have saved yourself the effort of posting it now.

Ah, prodromos…just the chap I was hoping to see.

There is a Protestant named thetazlord who is denying the perpetual virginity of Mary and claiming all sorts of Greek words back up his claims.

He also rejects any presence of Christ in the Eucharist and that John 6 supports our common understanding of the Real Presence.

Further, he has been asserting that water baptism is unnecessary.

Full disclosure: he is a fallen away Catholic and quite insistent upon the idea that Catholicism got all these things wrong.

Would you be able to help in those threads? I would be very grateful for your assistance…especially with the Perpetual Virginity discussion.

Thanks.

 

[prodromos]

Ah, prodromos…just the chap I was hoping to see.

There is a Protestant named thetazlord who is denying the perpetual virginity of Mary and claiming all sorts of Greek words back up his claims.

I thought I made it clear that I was only here to keep Catholics honest when they post about Orthodoxy. This is Catholic Answers forum is it not? Are not the many Catholic members of this forum up to the task of dissecting thetazlord’s arguments?
Anyway, I’ve said my piece in that thread already. He’s not listening. Arguing with thetazlord is a waste of time.

Back to your homework Randy.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Okay, but I was right at the 6,000 character mark with that post, so I didn’t get to tell you that I would like to discuss it in two stages:

Stage 1: As if we were both Catholic
Stage 2: As ourselves: an EO and a Catholic

The purpose of Stage 1 is simply to discuss the validity of the argument…which you may have covered below.



I think I want to stick with the logic of the argument I posted. So, pretend you’re a typical Catholic. Okay, scratch that…pretend you’re a faithful Catholic.

Here is the argument:

1. 
   *]Based on textual criticism, archaeology and extra-biblical sources, we conclude that the Bible is a historically accurate text; IOW, we know what the original manuscripts said, and that what it says accurately reflects historical events of that period.
   *]Jesus was either legend, lunatic, liar or Lord. Based on the Bible as a history text (not proven inspired yet), extra-biblical accounts, the course of history and logic, we conclude that he rose from the dead and that He is Lord.
   *]The historically accurate book tells us Jesus promised to build a Church.
   *]The same book tells us that the Church would be led by a group of trusted disciples under the leadership of Peter and characterized by a priesthood, sacraments.
   *]Further, this Church would teach in Jesus’ name and with His authority, and since it would not be possible to teach error in the name of Jesus, this Church must be protected from teaching error.
   *]The Church teaches infallibly that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.
   
   Which of these steps do you, Catholic Cavaradossi, disagree with?

1. 
   Were I Roman Catholic, I would have to reject the final syllogistic step (that is, the unlisted step 7) where one claims that this proves the inspired nature of scripture. The truths of revelation can only be known and accepted by faith. To assert otherwise falls into a kind of pelagianism, where man can initiate his salvation by coming to accept revelation by his natural faculty of reason (accepting and submitting to revelation is a salvific act) without first receiving the gift of faith. The object of faith is divine revelation (whereas reason does not properly have divine revelation as its object), and to know revelation is something that can only be accomplished through faith. So I would therefore reject this as a syllogistic proof for the inspiration of the scriptures, on the grounds that it seems to me that to create such a proof would contradict the First Vatican Council’s teachings on faith, revelation, and reason, and would lead to a form of pelagianism. I could also recognize, however, that such arguments could possibly help establish the reasonableness of divine revelation.
   
   Now on a logical note, I would have to reject the syllogism in step two as valid but unsound. It is a version of the fallacy of the excluded middle, albeit with four alternatives instead of C.S. Lewis’ original trichotomy (which if I recall, in its original context was not meant to demonstrate the truth of revelation but only to demonstrate the Jesus could not simply have been a good man).