Orthodoxy, Lutheranism ... and schism?

[Peter_J]

It seems, though, that the language of whole church is not only dependent on majority. In that case, in retrospect, Athanasius had to be wrong during his period of time since the majority of bishops were Arian. I think these are the inherent problems that arise when councils are proclaimed to be infallible. The claim alone opens them to far more scrutiny than they really need.

Well, on the one hand I’m not convinced that there was ever a time when a majority of bishops were Arian.

On the other hand, I can’t summarily rule out such a possibility. That is to say, I don’t believe that ‘more than 50%’ of the bishops automatically constitutes infallibility. Would it fix things if we change 50% to 60%? or 70%? Not really – like I said before, the question of “ecumenical council” can’t be legalistically reduced to just a percentage.

BTW, looking at the Catholic p.o.v. for a moment, the only official Catholic statement (that I know of) on this question is that a necessary condition for a council to be ecumenical is that it must be accepted as such by a pope. (Some Catholics, at least on the internet, have proposed that this is also a sufficient condition; but let’s not go there, shall we?)

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well, on the one hand I’m not convinced that there was ever a time when a majority of bishops were Arian.

On the other hand, I can’t summarily rule out such a possibility. That is to say, I don’t believe that ‘more than 50%’ of the bishops automatically constitutes infallibility. Would it fix things if we change 50% to 60%? or 70%? Not really – like I said before, the question of “ecumenical council” can’t be legalistically reduced to just a percentage.

That’s partly the problem though. There really is no concrete guideline for what constitutes an infallible council. The only criteria given is that it is accepted by the “whole church” but the whole church is never defined. The only criteria for the whole church is that it accepts the ecumenical councils. Do you see the circularity there?

BTW, looking at the Catholic p.o.v. for a moment, the only official Catholic statement (that I know of) on this question is that a necessary condition for a council to be ecumenical is that it must be accepted as such by a pope. (Some Catholics, at least on the internet, have proposed that this is also a sufficient condition; but let’s not go there, shall we?)

The problem being with this, of course, is that according to the definition of Rome of an ecumenical council, many of those which are considered ecumenical, wouldn’t be.

 

[Peter_J]

The problem being with this, of course, is that according to the definition of Rome of an ecumenical council, many of those which are considered ecumenical, wouldn’t be.

An ecumenical council must be accepted as such by a pope – either the pope at the time of the council or a later pope.

So your statement, like Ralphinal’s, stopped too soon: many of those which are considered ecumenical, wouldn’t be until many years afterward.

 

[Peter_J]

That’s partly the problem though. There really is no concrete guideline for what constitutes an infallible council. The only criteria given is that it is accepted by the “whole church” but the whole church is never defined.

Not a problem, it’s reality. Those who demand a legalistic (what you call “concrete”) definition of ecumenical councils, e.g. “If 60% of all bishops vote in favor of a council, then it’s ecumenical”, are refusing to accept reality.

So what do you think the criterion or criteria were for determining which books were part of the New Testament, seeing as you reject “acceptance by the church”?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Not a problem, it’s reality. Those who demand a legalistic (what you call “concrete”) definition of ecumenical councils, e.g. “If 60% of all bishops vote in favor of a council, then it’s ecumenical”, are refusing to accept reality.

It may be legalistic and against reality to demand such a concrete defintion. However, this must be the strain placed on it by its demands of infallibility. I have no problem that councils have been difficult, require a lot of study, etc., but I do not accept their decrees as infallible precisely because there is no objective assurance of it.

So what do you think the criterion or criteria were for determining which books were part of the New Testament, seeing as you reject “acceptance by the church”?

The church does have criteria by which they decided the canonization of those books.

Edit for clarification: I don’t consider “acceptance by the church” to be of no importance to our Bibles.

 

[Peter_J]

TU,

Would you accept that there have been at least 3 ecumenical councils – the First Council of Nicea (325), the First Council of Constantinople (381), and the Council of Ephesus (431)? (You can probably guess why I selected those 3 candidates: they are all accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church.)

 

[TriuneUnity]

TU,

Would you accept that there have been at least 3 ecumenical councils – the First Council of Nicea (325), the First Council of Constantinople (381), and the Council of Ephesus (431)? (You can probably guess why I selected those 3 candidates: they are all accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church.)

I would accept the first six, and I think I partly sympathize with the seventh. While I do not believe that veneration of images is biblical, or apostolic, I think iconoclasm is equally dangerous.

 

[Peter_J]

It may be legalistic and against reality to demand such a concrete defintion. However, this must be the strain placed on it by its demands of infallibility. I have no problem that councils have been difficult, require a lot of study, etc., but I do not accept their decrees as infallible precisely because there is no objective assurance of it.

The church does have criteria by which they decided the canonization of those books.

Edit for clarification: I don’t consider “acceptance by the church” to be of no importance to our Bibles.

It’s not that difficult to come up with workable criteria, in either case.

How about this: the books of the New Testament are the ones that have been accepted as such by the Pope. Likewise the ecumenical councils are the ones that have been accepted as such by the Pope.

 

[TriuneUnity]

It’s not that difficult to come up with workable criteria, in either case.

How about this: the books of the New Testament are the ones that have been accepted as such by the Pope. Likewise the ecumenical councils are the ones that have been accepted as such by the Pope.

Well, we were talking about Orthodoxy, so maybe that’s not the best criteria LOL

 

[Peter_J]

Well, we were talking about Orthodoxy, so maybe that’s not the best criteria LOL

Maybe so. But based on your objections to the Orthodox criteria, I’m wondering whether “acceptance by the Pope” is more in line with your preferences/expectations. (Keep in mind that you haven’t yet told me what you believe was the criterion/criteria for determining the canon of the New Testament.)

 

[TriuneUnity]

Maybe so. But based on your objections to the Orthodox criteria, I’m wondering whether “acceptance by the Pope” is more in line with your preferences/expectations. (Keep in mind that you haven’t yet told me what you believe was the criterion/criteria for determining the canon of the New Testament.)

Well, at least by saying acceptance by the Pope is a bit more objective than “the whole church.”

I’m no expert on the history of the canon, but it seems to me they based it on when the document was authored (within the lifetime of a disciple) and by whom, whether the doctrines taught in it harmonized with the other Scriptures, and whether the writing was in use by the Church. Either for doctrine or liturgy. There coule be some I am leaving out.

 

[Peter_J]

So you allow “whether the writing was in use by the Church” (either for doctrine or liturgy) to be one of the criteria, but you wouldn’t allow “acceptance by the Church” to be one?

 

[TriuneUnity]

So you allow “whether the writing was in use by the Church” (either for doctrine or liturgy) to be one of the criteria, but you wouldn’t allow “acceptance by the Church” to be one?

I never said I wouldn’t.

 

[Peter_J]

Should I have said that you question “acceptance by the Church” as a criteria, rather than you wouldn’t allow it?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Should I have said that you question “acceptance by the Church” as a criteria, rather than you wouldn’t allow it?

I don’t question whether acceptance by the church would be a criteria. The church recognized and accepted the canon because the Holy Spirit led them to. If the church did not recognize a particular book of Scripture one can surmise they were not led to do so. I don’t accept the infallibility of church decisions as a criteria. In other words, that the acceptance must be infallible in order to function.

Edit: or that the authority of the Scriptures are dependent upon the decision of a council.

 

[Peter_J]

Sorry for my slowness in responding

Well, at least by saying acceptance by the Pope is a bit more objective than “the whole church.”

I’m no expert on the history of the canon, but it seems to me they based it on when the document was authored (within the lifetime of a disciple) and by whom, whether the doctrines taught in it harmonized with the other Scriptures, and whether the writing was in use by the Church. Either for doctrine or liturgy. There coule be some I am leaving out.

I’m not seeing why it would make much of a difference when in the life of a disciple a document was written; but if you leave that one out, I think I can agree with your criteria – who the book was written by, whether the doctrines taught in it harmonized with the other Scriptures, and whether the writing was in use by the Church.

What’s more, I think I could accept those as criteria for an ecumenical council, accepting of course that “who the book was written by” would need to be replaced with something else, maybe just “who was present at the council”.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Sorry for my slowness in responding

I’m not seeing why it would make much of a difference when in the life of a disciple a document was written; but if you leave that one out, I think I can agree with your criteria – who the book was written by, whether the doctrines taught in it harmonized with the other Scriptures, and whether the writing was in use by the Church.

What’s more, I think I could accept those as criteria for an ecumenical council, accepting of course that “who the book was written by” would need to be replaced with something else, maybe just “who was present at the council”.

Well, I mainly mentioned within the timeframe of a disciple for the purposes of ruling out the later gnostic texts. Of course, they had much more inherently wrong with them than that, but the fathers certainly mentioned it. Especially the documents that were composed in the middle of the 2nd century. Irenaeus mentioned this a lot in his argumentation against them.

 

[Peter_J]

I was thinking about this again today, and I think I might possibly understand now what you been complaining about – this is just a hunch, mind you, I don’t want to start counting chickens.

Are you objecting to a, if I might borrow an advertising expression, “bait-and-switch”? I mean Catholics and Orthodox talking about having criteria for ecumenical councils, but then once they get you interested it turns out completely different from what you imagined? Something of that sort?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I was thinking about this again today, and I think I might possibly understand now what you been complaining about – this is just a hunch, mind you, I don’t want to start counting chickens.

Are you objecting to a, if I might borrow an advertising expression, “bait-and-switch”? I mean Catholics and Orthodox talking about having criteria for ecumenical councils, but then once they get you interested it turns out completely different from what you imagined? Something of that sort?

Not sure. I think it is more than Catholics and Orthodox define ecumenical councils and papal infallibility along circular lines. If I tell you that I am infallible based on a claim that I made twenty years ago saying I am infallible, and yet this is how both Rome and the East defines them. It is hopelessly circular aside from the biblical difficulties and doesn’t give me as an individual Christian any assurance that their decrees are infallible. Even according to Rome’s definition, which is not only that a Pope accept the council, but that the Pope call the council that would make most of the early councils non-ecumenical.

 

[buffgbob]

Not sure. I think it is more than Catholics and Orthodox define ecumenical councils and papal infallibility along circular lines. If I tell you that I am infallible based on a claim that I made twenty years ago saying I am infallible, and yet this is how both Rome and the East defines them. It is hopelessly circular aside from the biblical difficulties and doesn’t give me as an individual Christian any assurance that their decrees are infallible. Even according to Rome’s definition, which is not only that a Pope accept the council, but that the Pope call the council that would make most of the early councils non-ecumenical.

I have never seen that it is a neccesary condition that Rome calls the council, only that they ratify it (see Constantinople I.) I have seen:

the right to summon an ecumenical council belongs properly to the pope alone, though by his express or presumed consent given ante or post factum

but this is noticeably different from what you seem to imply. (It allows for “post factum” consent.) Coucils we (Catholics) consider infallible all follow these objective criteria.

Also, when it comes to proving infallibility of the Church, the argument isn’t circular. (I’m sure you’ve heard circular arguments but what I’m saying is that it is not necessarily circular.) I am sure you are aware of this article:
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
In which is stated:

In order to prevent misconception and thereby to anticipate a common popular objection which is wholly based on a misconception it should be premised that when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church’s infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration. Even considered as purely human documents they furnish us, we maintain, with a trustworthy report of Christ’s sayings and promises; and, taking it to be a fact that Christ said what is attributed to Him in the Gospels, we further maintain that Christ’s promises to the Apostles and their successors in the teaching office include the promise of such guidance and assistance as clearly implies infallibility. Having thus used the Scriptures as mere historical sources to prove that Christ endowed the Church with infallible teaching authority it is no vicious circle, but a perfectly legitimate iogical procedure, to rely on the Church’s authority for proof of what writings are inspired.

It’s a good read. I’ve read it a handful of times and I always find it interesting (as many of the same objections seem to crop up over and over again when practically discussing the issue.)

Honestly, I’ve only found the Orthodox and Protestant arguments ultimately rely on some “mystery”, which ultimately is just private judgement. Orthodox for which coucils are infallible, and Protestants on which books are infallible (and what they mean.) The Roman response, in contrast, seems objective and stable. (Of course, I realize my own biase.)