Orthodoxy, Lutheranism ... and schism?

[Peter_J]

A Lutheran blog that was recently discussed (this one) contains a tailpiece “Why Separation from Rome is Still a Tragic Necessity” – arguments for which can be found throughout the article.

Although, naturally, I disagree with this claim, I would not call the arguments for it unreasonable, in and of themselves. In particular, the Lutheran decision not to be in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church isn’t a decision based on e.g. stubbornness or “independence for independence’s sake”.

… at least that’s the conclusion one could reach just taking the arguments in a vacuum.

The truth is that the arguments rang hollow to me in view of the fact that “Why Separation from Rome is Still a Tragic Necessity” wasn’t accompanied by a corresponding “Why Separation from Eastern Orthodoxy is Still a Tragic Necessity” – which, in my experience, is generally the case in such articles.

In other words, the Lutheran reasons for staying out-of-communion with Rome might be reasonable in and of themselves, but one has to wonder whether Lutherans wouldn’t still stay out-of-communion even if those reasons didn’t exist. Otherwise, wouldn’t the Lutherans now be seeking full communion with Orthodoxy, or alternatively be able to present reasons why they don’t?

 

[JonNC]

A Lutheran blog that was recently discussed (this one) contains a tailpiece “Why Separation from Rome is Still a Tragic Necessity” – arguments for which can be found throughout the article.

Although, naturally, I disagree with this claim, I would not call the arguments for it unreasonable, in and of themselves. In particular, the Lutheran decision not to be in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church isn’t a decision based on e.g. stubbornness or “independence for independence’s sake”.

… at least that’s the conclusion one could reach just taking the arguments in a vacuum.

The truth is that the arguments rang hollow to me in view of the fact that “Why Separation from Rome is Still a Tragic Necessity” wasn’t accompanied by a corresponding “Why Separation from Eastern Orthodoxy is Still a Tragic Necessity” – which, in my experience, is generally the case in such articles.

In other words, the Lutheran reasons for staying out-of-communion with Rome might be reasonable in and of themselves, but one has to wonder whether Lutherans wouldn’t still stay out-of-communion even if those reasons didn’t exist. Otherwise, wouldn’t the Lutherans now be seeking full communion with Orthodoxy, or alternatively be able to present reasons why they don’t?

Peter,
I’m no expert, but I do know that following the reformation, Lutheran leaders - a believe Melanchton in particular, did dialogue with the Orthodox in the hopes of developing mutually recognised communions. In short, that didn’t work out. And while there is ongoing dialogue between Lutherans and the EO, I am not aware of their progress. We have doctrinal differences with them, though they are, at least in part, different than those with Rome.

As to you wonderings whether Lutherans would remain separate even without the reasons for separation, I would say, without a doubt, maybe. What I mean is that there are some of my fellow Lutherans so entrenched in Lutheranism that the would not change. But I also believe that many confessional Lutherans, faced with no reason to be separate, would gladly accept unity, or at least full communion.
It will take, in my view, continued prayerful dialogue, and the Holy Spirit.
Jon

 

[TriuneUnity]

A Lutheran blog that was recently discussed (this one) contains a tailpiece “Why Separation from Rome is Still a Tragic Necessity” – arguments for which can be found throughout the article.

Although, naturally, I disagree with this claim, I would not call the arguments for it unreasonable, in and of themselves. In particular, the Lutheran decision not to be in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church isn’t a decision based on e.g. stubbornness or “independence for independence’s sake”.

… at least that’s the conclusion one could reach just taking the arguments in a vacuum.

The truth is that the arguments rang hollow to me in view of the fact that “Why Separation from Rome is Still a Tragic Necessity” wasn’t accompanied by a corresponding “Why Separation from Eastern Orthodoxy is Still a Tragic Necessity” – which, in my experience, is generally the case in such articles.

In other words, the Lutheran reasons for staying out-of-communion with Rome might be reasonable in and of themselves, but one has to wonder whether Lutherans wouldn’t still stay out-of-communion even if those reasons didn’t exist. Otherwise, wouldn’t the Lutherans now be seeking full communion with Orthodoxy, or alternatively be able to present reasons why they don’t?

Good question vis a vie Orthodoxy. However, I believe it would have to do with, with the exception of the papacy, our disagreements regarding justification and the infallibility of Councils is present with the EO, and also on issues that we don’t have with Rome, such as the Augustinian understanding of original sin. Having said that, I do believe EO church polity is probably the way to go.

 

[Peter_J]

As to you wonderings whether Lutherans would remain separate even without the reasons for separation, I would say, without a doubt, maybe.

freesmileys.org/sigs/sigs-cartoon-008.gif

 

[Peter_J]

Good question vis a vie Orthodoxy. However, I believe it would have to do with, with the exception of the papacy, our disagreements regarding justification and the infallibility of Councils is present with the EO, and also on issues that we don’t have with Rome, such as the Augustinian understanding of original sin. Having said that, I do believe EO church polity is probably the way to go.

You may have read this before, but I’ll put it here for anyone who hasn’t. It’s from The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware, and I think it’s a very good explanation of the Orthodox view of ecumenical councils:

The Church is infallible. This again follows from the indissoluble unity between God and His Church. Christ and the Holy Spirit cannot err, and since the Church is Christ’s body, since it is a continued Pentecost, it is therefore infallible. It is " the pillar and the ground of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). " When he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). So Christ promised at the Last Supper; and Orthodoxy believes that Christ’s promise cannot fail. In the words of Dositheus: ‘We believe the Catholic Church to be taught by the Holy Spirit … and therefore we both believe and profess as true and undoubtedly certain, that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to err, or to be at all deceived, or ever to choose falsehood instead of truth (Confession , Decree 12).

The Church’s infallibility is expressed chiefly through Ecumenical Councils. But before we can understand what makes a Council Ecumenical, we must consider the place of bishops and of the laity in the Orthodox communion.

**Bishops, Laity, Councils **

The Orthodox Church is a hierarchical Church. An essential element in its structure is the Apostolic Succession of bishops. ‘The dignity of the bishop is so necessary in the Church,’ wrote Dositheus, ‘that without him neither the Church nor the name Christian could exist or be spoken of at all … He is a living image of God upon earth … and a fountain of all the sacraments of the Catholic Church, through which we obtain salvation’ (Confession , Decree 10). ‘If any are not with the bishop,’ said Cyprian, ‘they are not in the Church’ (Letter 66, 8).

At his election and consecration an Orthodox bishop is endowed with the threefold power of 1) ruling, 2) teaching, and 3) celebrating the sacraments.

1. A bishop is appointed by God to guide and to rule the flock committed to his charge; he is a ‘monarch’ in his own diocese.

1. At his consecration a bishop receives a special gift or charisma from the Holy Spirit, in virtue of which he acts as a teacher of the faith. This ministry of teaching the bishop performs above all at the Eucharist, when he preaches the sermon to the people; when other members of the Church — priests or laymen — preach sermons, strictly speaking they act as the bishop’s delegates. But although the bishop has a special charisma , it is always possible that he may fall into error and give false teaching: here as elsewhere the principle of synergy applies, and the divine element does not expel the human. The bishop remains a man, and as such he may make mistakes. The Church is infallible, but there is no such thing as personal infallibility.

1. The bishop, as Dositheus put it, is ‘the fountain of all the sacraments.’ In the primitive Church the celebrant at the Eucharist was normally the bishop, and even today a priest, when he celebrates Mass, is really acting as the bishop’s deputy.

But the Church is not only hierarchical, it is charismatic and Pentecostal. " Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings" (1 Thes. 5:19-20). The Holy Spirit is poured out upon all God’s people. There is a special ordained ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons; yet at the same time the whole people of God are prophets and priests. In the Apostolic Church, besides the institutional ministry conferred by the laying on of hands, there were other charismata or gifts conferred directly by the Spirit: Paul mentions ‘gifts of healing,’ the working of miracles, " speaking with tongues," and the like (1 Cor. 12:28-30). In the Church of later days, these charismatic ministries have been less in evidence, but they have never been wholly extinguished. One thinks, for example, of the ministry of ‘eldership,’ so prominent in nineteenth-century Russia; this is not imparted by a special act of ordination, but can be exercised by the layman as well as by priest or bishop. Seraphim of Sarov and the startsi of Optino exercised an influence far greater than any hierarch.

This ‘spiritual,’ non-institutional aspect of the Church’s life has been particularly emphasized by certain recent theologians in the Russian emigration; but it is also stressed by Byzantine writers, most notably Symeon the New Theologian. More than once in Orthodox history the ‘charismatics’ have come into conflict with the hierarchy, but in the end there is no contradiction between the two elements in the Church’s life: it is the same Spirit who is active in both.

We have called the bishop a ruler and monarch, but these terms are not to be understood in a harsh and impersonal sense; for in exercising his powers the bishop is guided by the Christian law of love. He is not a tyrant but a father to his flock. The Orthodox attitude to the episcopal office is well expressed in the prayer used at a consecration: ‘Grant, O Christ, that this man, who has been appointed a steward of the Episcopal grace, may become an imitator of thee, the True Shepherd, by laying down his life for thy sheep. Make him a guide to the blind, a light to those in darkness, a teacher to the unreasonable, an instructor to the foolish, a flaming torch in the world; so that having brought to perfection the souls entrusted to him in this present life, he may stand without confusion before thy judgment seat, and receive the great reward which thou hast prepared for those who have suffered for the preaching of thy Gospel.’

to be continued …

 

[Peter_J]

Continuing:

The authority of the bishop is fundamentally the authority of the Church. However great the prerogatives of the bishop may be, he is not someone set up over the Church, but the holder of an office in the Church. Bishop and people are joined in an organic unity, and neither can properly be thought of apart from the other. Without bishops there can be no Orthodox people, but without Orthodox people there can be no true bishop. ‘The Church,’ said Cyprian, ‘is the people united to the bishop, the flock clinging to its shepherd. The bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop’ (Letter 66, 8).

The relation between the bishop and his flock is a mutual one. The bishop is the divinely appointed teacher of the faith, but the guardian of the faith is not the episcopate alone, but the whole people of God, bishops, clergy, and laity together. The proclamation of the truth is not the same as the possession of the truth: all the people possess the truth, but it is the bishop’s particular office to proclaim it. Infallibility belongs to the whole Church, not just to the episcopate in isolation. As the Orthodox Patriarchs said in their Letter of 1848 to Pope Pius the Ninth: ‘Among us, neither Patriarchs nor Councils could ever introduce new teaching, for the guardian of religion is the very body of the Church, that is, the people ( laos ) itself.’

Commenting on this statement, Khomiakov wrote: ‘The Pope is greatly mistaken in supposing that we consider the ecclesiastical hierarchy to be the guardian of dogma. The case is quite different. The unvarying constancy and the unerring truth of Christian dogma does not depend upon any hierarchical order; it is guarded by the totality, by the whole people of the Church, which is the Body of Christ’ (Letter in W. J. Birkbeck, Russia and the English Church , p. 94).

This conception of the laity and their place in the Church must be kept in mind when considering the nature of an Ecumenical Council. The laity are guardians and not teachers; therefore, although they may attend a council and take an active part in the proceedings (as Constantine and other Byzantine Emperors did), yet when the moment comes for the council to make a formal proclamation of the faith, it is the bishops alone who, in virtue of their teaching charisma , take the final decision.

But councils of bishops can err and be deceived. How then can one be certain that a particular gathering is truly an Ecumenical Council and therefore that its decrees are infallible? Many councils have considered themselves ecumenical and have claimed to speak in the name of the whole Church, and yet the Church has rejected them as heretical: Ephesus in 449, for example, or the Iconoclast Council of Hieria in 754, or Florence in 1438-9. Yet these councils seem in no way different in outward appearance from the Ecumenical Councils. What, then, is the criterion for determining whether a council is ecumenical?

This is a more difficult question to answer than might at first appear, and though it has been much discussed by Orthodox during the past hundred years, it cannot be said that the solutions suggested are entirely satisfactory. All Orthodox know which are the seven Councils that their Church accepts as ecumenical, but precisely what it is that makes a council ecumenical is not so clear. There are, so it must be admitted, certain points in the Orthodox theology of Councils which remain obscure and which call for further thinking on the part of theologians. With this caution in mind, let us briefly consider the present trend of Orthodox thought on this subject.

To the question how one can know whether a council is ecumenical, Khomiakov and his school gave an answer which at first sight appears clear and straightforward: a council cannot be considered ecumenical unless its decrees are accepted by the whole Church. Florence, Hieria, and the rest, while ecumenical in outward appearance, are not truly so, precisely because they failed to secure this acceptance by the Church at large. (One might object: What about Chalcedon? It was rejected by Syria and Egypt — can we say, then, that it was ‘accepted by the Church at large’?) The bishops, so Khomiakov argued, because they are the teachers of the faith, define and proclaim the truth in council; but these definitions must then be acclaimed by the whole people of God, including the laity, because it is the whole people of God that constitutes the guardian of Tradition. This emphasis on the need for councils to be received by the Church at large has been viewed with suspicion by some Orthodox theologians, both Greek and Russian, who fear that Khomiakov and his followers have endangered the prerogatives of the episcopate and ‘democratized’ the idea of the Church. But in a qualified and carefully guarded form, Khomiakov’s view is now fairly widely accepted in contemporary Orthodox thought.

This act of acceptance, this reception of councils by the Church as a whole, must not be understood in a juridical sense: ‘It does not mean that the decisions of the councils should be confirmed by a general plebiscite and that without such a plebiscite they have no force. There is no such plebiscite. But from historical experience it clearly appears that the voice of a given council has truly been the voice of the Church or that it has not: that is all’ (S. Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church , p. 89).

At a true Ecumenical Council the bishops recognize what the truth is and proclaim it; this proclamation is then verified by the assent of the whole Christian people, an assent which is not, a rule, expressed formally and explicitly, but lived .

It is not merely the numbers or the distribution of its members which determines the ecumenicity of a council: ‘An ‘Ecumenical’ Council is such, not because accredited representatives of all the Autocephalous Churches have taken part in it, but because it has borne witness to the faith of the Ecumenical Church’ (Metropolitan Seraphim, L’Église orthodoxe , p. 51).

The ecumenicity of a council cannot be decided by outward criteria alone: ‘Truth can have no external criterion, for it is manifest of itself and made inwardly plain’ (V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church , p. 188). The infallibility of the Church must not be ‘exteriorized,’ nor understood in too ‘material’ a sense: ‘It is not the ‘ecumenicity’ but the truth of the councils which makes their decisions obligatory for us. We touch here upon the fundamental mystery of the Orthodox doctrine of the Church: the Church is the miracle of the presence of God among men, beyond all formal ‘criteria,’ all formal ‘infallibility.’ It is not enough to summon an ‘Ecumenical Council’ … it is also necessary that in the midst of those so assembled there should be present He who said: " I am the Way, the Truth, the Life." Without this presence, however numerous and representative the assembly may be, it will not be in the truth. Protestants and Catholics usually fail to understand this fundamental truth of Orthodoxy: both materialize the presence of God in the Church — the one party in the letter of Scripture, the other in the person of the Pope — though they do not thereby avoid the miracle, but clothe it in a concrete form. For Orthodoxy, the sole ‘criterion of truth’ remains God Himself, living mysteriously in the Church, leading it in the way of the Truth’ (J. Meyendorff, quoted by M. J. le Guillou, Missio et Unité, Paris, 1960, vol. 2, p. 313).

 

[Peter_J]

Good question vis a vie Orthodoxy. However, I believe it would have to do with, with the exception of the papacy, our disagreements regarding justification and the infallibility of Councils is present with the EO, and also on issues that we don’t have with Rome, such as the Augustinian understanding of original sin. Having said that, I do believe EO church polity is probably the way to go.

Here’s how the LCMS website describes it:

Q. What are the differences between Eastern Orthodox and the Missouri Synod?

A. The booklet “Our Church and Others” by sainted LCMS professor Lewis Spitz (which is out of print) discusses the differences between the LCMS and the Eastern Orthodox Church, including:

• Like the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church puts some traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, while the LCMS regards Scripture alone as the final authority for faith and life;

• The Eastern Orthodox Church views salvation as a process by which the Christian becomes more and more like God through a combination of faith and love, while the LCMS believes that a person is saved by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Justification is a declaration of God’s grace, not a “process” involving a person’s sanctification.

• Differences exist regarding the number and nature of the sacraments. It teaches that no sacrament is valid unless administered by a properly ordained priest.

• The Eastern Orthodox Church believes itself to be the true visible church on earth.

• Differences exist regarding the nature and practice of the liturgy as “divine service.” The Eastern Orthodox church practices veneration of and intercession to certain saints and angels, and encourages the veneration of “sacred” images and icons.

Would you both (and any other Lutherans who care to respond) agree with that assessment?

(Also, for any Orthodox posters reading this, does the quotation misrepresent your church in any way?)

 

[TriuneUnity]

Here’s how the LCMS website describes it:

Would you both (and any other Lutherans who care to respond) agree with that assessment?

(Also, for any Orthodox posters reading this, does the quotation misrepresent your church in any way?)

I would agree with the above assessment. I will try to look into the bishop’s statement that you posted and form a response to our critique of Orthodox ecumenical councils.

 

[mark_a]

I’m no expert, but I do know that following the reformation, Lutheran leaders - a believe Melanchton in particular, did dialogue with the Orthodox in the hopes of developing mutually recognised communions.

I’m no expert either, but here’s an interesting link about the matter:

stpaulsirvine.org/html/lutheran.htm

 

[TriuneUnity]

Here’s how the LCMS website describes it:

Would you both (and any other Lutherans who care to respond) agree with that assessment?

The first major problem with the Orthodox concept of ecumenical councils is recognizing them. As Bishop Ware’s quote you provided above demonstrates. (By the way, Peter, which work of his were you taking that quote from?) Bishop Ware, in his work *The Orthodox Church *asks,

How then can one be certain that a particular gathering is truly an Ecumenical Council and therefore that its decrees are infallible? Many councils have considered themselves ecumenical and have claimed to speak in the name of the whole Church, and yet the Church has rejected them as heretical: Ephesus in 449, for example, or the Iconoclast Council of Hieria in 754, or Florence in 1438-9. Yet these councils seem in no way different in outward appearance from the Ecumenical Councils. What, then, is the criterion for determining whether a council is ecumenical?

He answers,

This is a more difficult question to answer than might at first appear, and though it has been much discussed by Orthodox during the past hundred years, it cannot be said that the solutions suggested are entirely satisfactory. All Orthodox know which are the seven councils that their Church accepts as ecumenical, but precisely what it is that makes a council ecumenical is not so clear.

This is extremely important because if the Church does not know what it is that makes a council ecumenical, how can the Church say that any council is ecumenical? Ware tends to lean toward an answer proposed by Alexis Khomiakov, which has become widely accepted within the Orthodox church (as Ware agrees with, as you previously cited). According to this theory, “a council cannot be considered ecumenical unless its decrees are accepted by the whole Church.” Of course, this answer raises almost as many problems as the original question. Chalcedon was rejected by Syria and Egypt. Does this mean that Chalcedon is not ecumenical? Khomiakov’s answer to the problem is circular. An ecumenical council is defined as a council accepted by the whole Church, yet the Church is defined as those who accept the councils. Those who do not accept the council are defined out of the Church in order to maintain the idea that the “whole Church” accepts the council.

In addition, no time frame is mentioned. The whole Church didn’t accept Nicea immediately. How long is the whole Church allowed to wrestle over the decisions of a council? The fundamental problem here is that Khomiakov’s answer nullifies the whole point of ecumenical councils. The councils were called in order to solve particular problems facing the Church. What the Orthodox concept of councils fails to explain is how Nicea could have dealt with the Arian controversy given the current Orthodox understanding of these councils.

continued…

 

[TriuneUnity]

continued…

This impossibility results in the added difficulty, if not impossibility, of explaining how Arianism could have been anathematized by a council. Was it unneccessary for the Arian party to accept the council? Or is the “whole Church” only those who agree with the majority decision at the council? Is the majority right? At one point, Athanasius stood virtually alone in the battle against the Arians.

The Orthodox understanding is based on the belief that eventually the truth will prevail. We know Athanasius was orthodox and that the Arians were heretics in retrospect because Athanasius’ position ultimately prevailed. Unfortunately, this belief does not help those living at the time of an actual controversy. The only way to determine who is teaching the orthodox position is to check back five hundred or a thousand years later and see which view prevailed. Suppose, however, that you are alive during a time of intense controversy within the Church over a doctrine that all agree is essential to the Christian faith. Suppose you desire with all of your heart, soul, and mind to teach the true doctrine, the apostolic doctrine. How can you know which position is truth and which is damnable heresy if you rely on the Orthodox concept of ecumenical councils? There is no way to know during your lifetime. Suppose an ecumenical council is called. The heretical position might gain the upper hand and carry the council. Do you stand alone against the council in the hope that you are another Athanasius. How do you know if this council is a true ecumenical council or a counterfeit? It is simply pointless to claim that ecumenical councils are infallible and binding is there is no way to identify an ecumenical council.

 

[panoikei]

Here’s how the LCMS website describes it:

Would you both (and any other Lutherans who care to respond) agree with that assessment?

(Also, for any Orthodox posters reading this, does the quotation misrepresent your -]church/-] Church in any way?)

Sorry, I had to be a stickler for it. The Orhtodox are a Church with all valid 7 sacraments. That has already been clarified by our Holy Father.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi TU,

For now, I’ll just make a couple of brief comments.

All Bishop Kallistos quotes I’ve given are from his book The Orthodox Church (much of which can be found online, here and here).

As far as your saying that acceptance by the Church = 100% unanimous acceptance (and that therefore a council can only be considered ecumenical if you throw out anybody who opposes it), well … I definitely have heard this from Protestants before, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard it from an Orthodox.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Hi TU,

I definitely have heard this from Protestants before, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard it from an Orthodox.

Well, I know that the Orthodox won’t say that this is done in order to make the council ecumenical. But in practical purpose, this is what would have to happen in order for the whole Church to accept it considering the numerous examples of ecumenical councils where the entire Church did not accept the decision.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, I know that the Orthodox won’t say that this is done in order to make the council ecumenical. But in practical purpose, this is what would have to happen in order for the whole Church to accept it considering the numerous examples of ecumenical councils where the entire Church did not accept the decision.

Only if one accepts your premise that “acceptance by the Church” means 100% unanimous acceptance.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Only if one accepts your premise that “acceptance by the Church” means 100% unanimous acceptance.

Then what does acceptance by the church mean? The majority? Who decides the percentage of the church, etc? These are just natural questions if the “whole church” doesn’t really mean the “whole church.”

 

[Peter_J]

Then what does acceptance by the church mean? The majority? Who decides the percentage of the church, etc? These are just natural questions if the “whole church” doesn’t really mean the “whole church.”

Bearing in mind that I may not be the best person to ask (I’m not Orthodox), I would say yes, “the majority”, loosely speaking. But I don’t believe we will ever be able to say definitively “what percentage is necessary”. I think that would be legalistic.

The last two paragraphs of what I quoted (which are, btw, one my main reasons that I posted the quote) address this:

It is not merely the numbers or the distribution of its members which determines the ecumenicity of a council: ‘An ‘Ecumenical’ Council is such, not because accredited representatives of all the Autocephalous Churches have taken part in it, but because it has borne witness to the faith of the Ecumenical Church’ (Metropolitan Seraphim, L’Église orthodoxe , p. 51).

The ecumenicity of a council cannot be decided by outward criteria alone: ‘Truth can have no external criterion, for it is manifest of itself and made inwardly plain’ (V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church , p. 188). The infallibility of the Church must not be ‘exteriorized,’ nor understood in too ‘material’ a sense: ‘It is not the ‘ecumenicity’ but the truth of the councils which makes their decisions obligatory for us. We touch here upon the fundamental mystery of the Orthodox doctrine of the Church: the Church is the miracle of the presence of God among men, beyond all formal ‘criteria,’ all formal ‘infallibility.’ It is not enough to summon an ‘Ecumenical Council’ … it is also necessary that in the midst of those so assembled there should be present He who said: " I am the Way, the Truth, the Life." Without this presence, however numerous and representative the assembly may be, it will not be in the truth. Protestants and Catholics usually fail to understand this fundamental truth of Orthodoxy: both materialize the presence of God in the Church — the one party in the letter of Scripture, the other in the person of the Pope — though they do not thereby avoid the miracle, but clothe it in a concrete form. For Orthodoxy, the sole ‘criterion of truth’ remains God Himself, living mysteriously in the Church, leading it in the way of the Truth’ (J. Meyendorff, quoted by M. J. le Guillou, Missio et Unité, Paris, 1960, vol. 2, p. 313).

BTW, was the canon of the New Testament agreed upon with 100% unanimity? (Or did they have to “throw out” everyone who opposed it? )

 

[TriuneUnity]

Bearing in mind that I may not be the best person to ask (I’m not Orthodox), I would say yes, “the majority”, loosely speaking. But I don’t believe we will ever be able to say definitively “what percentage is necessary”. I think that would be legalistic.

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.

 

[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.

I have a couple questions about that, but I think they’d better wait till I come back.

Blessings,
Peter.

 

[josephdaniel29]

The claim alone opens them to far more scrutiny than they really need.

Scrutiny by whom? Quite frankly we could care less what Lutherans or Catholics or anyone else thinks about the Church. You are outside of the Church therefore you can’t expect to understand what happens within the Church. I’ll give you a quick analogy. You may know your neighbors the Smiths who live down the street. You may know where they are from, where they grew up, went to college even some of their likes and dislikes. You may enjoy visiting them from time to time but with all of that do you really know the Smiths the way you would if you lived with them, were part of their family? Knowledge about the Smiths that you gain from talking with them or visiting them is qualitatively different than knowledge of the Smiths.

You may learn something about Orthodoxy by reading about it and maybe visiting an Orthodox church but you can only gain knowledge of Orthodoxy if you are within Her loving bosom.

What constitutes an Ecumenical Council? That can only be expressed by the consciousness of the Church. It can’t be fully explained, defined or predicted but trust me if you were Orthodox you would know.

We’ve managed just fine for almost 2,000 years.

Yours in Christ
Joe