Private Judgment

[manualman]

SpiritMeadow,

I guess we see this forum rather differently. You seem to see it as a place where anyone can come and express their own opinion and have it valued the same as anyone else’s. You don’t seem to notice that that attitude is an expression of YOUR convictions about the reality of the world and the way God has chosen to reveal Himself to us.

I see this as a place where people come to learn and share about what the Catholic Church teaches on a variety of issues. Call me crazy, but we’re both guests in this living room and the host happens to be catholic. Does not decorum demand that a guest critcize his/her host rather politely?

This is a catholic discussion board. All are welcome and encouraged to participate, but the weirdness is not that you find people who believe in catholicism as truth here, but that anybody would expect that the catholics present would consider inherently incompatible positions to be of equal value to the catholic position. Sometimes catholic ideas may be presented rudely. Shame on us.

Episcopalians don’t believe there is a problem with their apostolic succession. I promise, when I’m discussing the matter in an Episcopalian group, I’m respectful of your opinion (you might even call it “bowing” to you.). I won’t agree, but I’m not going to be dismissive of the Anglican position either. Frankly, it’s not even pursuasive to behave that way. I offered the feedback on the off chance that you cared how you came off. Perhaps it is just a vagary of decorum translating to the internet properly. Or we just have personality quirks that irritate each other. In any case, good day.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

WoW I just read through most of the post and I can say that it is my PJ that there are some ( I include myself ) that need to think and pray before posting. Charity my brothers For the Catholics let us remember that His Holiness Pope Benedict is has stated that there is but one Church and we must work toward bring unity within it with those separated brethren

Now as to PJ, God has not granted me the wisdom to discern the deeper meaning of all scripture on my own therefore I am truly blessed that he gave us the Magisterium of the church to guide me. I would be reluctant to trust the voice in my head without it.

To my knowledge no main line denomination advocates PJ for the faithful for base their total salvation on. but in all there are small t traditions that we can use PJ on in observing.

 

[JonNC]

=oneGODoneCHURCH;5272585]WoW I just read through most of the post and I can say that it is my PJ that there are some ( I include myself ) that need to think and pray before posting. Charity my brothers For the Catholics let us remember that His Holiness Pope Benedict is has stated that there is but one Church and we must work toward bring unity within it with those separated brethren

Scott,
I hope none of what I said seemed uncharitable. If in your view it was, I trust that view and apologize.

Now as to PJ, God has not granted me the wisdom to discern the deeper meaning of all scripture on my own therefore I am truly blessed that he gave us the Magisterium of the church to guide me. I would be reluctant to trust the voice in my head without it.

This is an excellent statement. I try to listen to the leaders of my church, as well. It seems, Scott, that our respective leaders are often more charitable to each other than we the laity.

Jon

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Scott,
I hope none of what I said seemed uncharitable. If in your view it was, I trust that view and apologize.

This is an excellent statement. I try to listen to the leaders of my church, as well. It seems, Scott, that our respective leaders are often more charitable to each other than we the laity.

Jon

Jon,

I for some reason fell that if I fond something you said to be uncharitable I could call you out directly and I hope you feel the same.

Maybe that’s why the Holy Spirit has lead them into leadership roles?

 

[manualman]

Scott,
…
This is an excellent statement. I try to listen to the leaders of my church, as well. It seems, Scott, that our respective leaders are often more charitable to each other than we the laity.

Jon

Hey, maybe THAT’s why I’m just an engineer instead of a theologian! :blackeye:

Too true about me. Thanks for the dose of calmness and humility you guys…

(You GOTTA love a black eyed smilie!)

 

[pneuma07]

If we are to discuss PJ, I guess it is safe to say we all exercise it: you to stay in the Catholic Church, me to remain in the Lutheran Church. It is, at least in my view, an equality of PJ.

Jon

Dear JonNC,

Thanks for your charitable contributions.

Agreed that all of us exercise PJ. As a tool to discern the most reliable interpreter and guardian of Revelation (let’s say MRIGR ). The OP was just moving from this.

And it was specifically asking for an exploration of the case that the discerned MRIGR is one’s PJ itself. We may suppose this to be more or less the case for many churchless “simply christian” brothers, or in experiences of extreme denomination shopping.

You Jon helped to move focus on situations of clear stable affiliation within a denomination. We see PJ ( meaning the PJ of the individual member seen as MRIGR, or just RIGR, to him/herself) as not encouraged within these bodies, as it must be expected within any religious body.
Here the peculiar problem, IMHO, lies with the seeming identification as MRIGR of the founder’s PJ ( as interpreted and kept alive by the leadership of the specific body), to whose exercise of absolute PJ ( five centuries or five years ago) the body as such ows its very existence.
I’d like to explore together with all of you these situations.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow,

I guess we see this forum rather differently. You seem to see it as a place where anyone can come and express their own opinion and have it valued the same as anyone else’s. You don’t seem to notice that that attitude is an expression of YOUR convictions about the reality of the world and the way God has chosen to reveal Himself to us.

I see this as a place where people come to learn and share about what the Catholic Church teaches on a variety of issues. Call me crazy, but we’re both guests in this living room and the host happens to be catholic. Does not decorum demand that a guest critcize his/her host rather politely?

This is a catholic discussion board. All are welcome and encouraged to participate, but the weirdness is not that you find people who believe in catholicism as truth here, but that anybody would expect that the catholics present would consider inherently incompatible positions to be of equal value to the catholic position. Sometimes catholic ideas may be presented rudely. Shame on us.

Episcopalians don’t believe there is a problem with their apostolic succession. I promise, when I’m discussing the matter in an Episcopalian group, I’m respectful of your opinion (you might even call it “bowing” to you.). I won’t agree, but I’m not going to be dismissive of the Anglican position either. Frankly, it’s not even pursuasive to behave that way. I offered the feedback on the off chance that you cared how you came off. Perhaps it is just a vagary of decorum translating to the internet properly. Or we just have personality quirks that irritate each other. In any case, good day.

We see the forum differently. I would agree with your assessment as to the other subforums. They are all designed to promote Catholicism or to at least discuss the issue within the confines of the RC faith. They are about Catholic morality, and so on. But this subforum is for non-RC’s and as such, I consider we are all equals here, come to discuss our faith traditions and differences and agreements. As such I think everyone is required to be polite to the opinions of other faith traditions. Since RC’s don’t seem to agree with that, but routinely tell us that we are some “second” class Christians, I feel no especial problem with correcting their arrogance. I don’t come here to “learn about Catholicism.” If i did, I would be on another subforum, not this one, which is interfaith in nature.

You have a pleasant day as well. I’m sorry you find my behavior off putting.

 

[JonNC]

=oneGODoneCHURCH;5273036]Jon,

I for some reason fell that if I fond something you said to be uncharitable I could call you out directly and I hope you feel the same.

Yes, you could, Scott, I should have understood that. Thanks

Maybe that’s why the Holy Spirit has lead them into leadership roles?

Jon

 

[SSTeacher]

Many non catholic brothers observe from time to time, that the catholic does have to use his own private judgment (PV) . If only to accept the authority of the Church. Hence, they say, we’re after all on the same boat, everyone with one’s own PV, and the catholic less consistently so.

IMHO, this point is both true and fallacious. It is very true, in that it is upon personal examination that the convert, as well as the cradle catholic looking into his heritage, accepts the Church as the best interpreter and guardian of Revelation.
He then goes on studying Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium, by his own PV, while, in principle, ready to trustfully recognize, in a dialectical relationship, that Magisterium knows better. (A real risk for the catholic when in dialogue with a NC, is coming to identify his own voice with the Magisterium. This is IMHO the seed of much of the arrogance we see in our home. )
I’d say that the catholic as well as the protestant feels as right and duty studying Revelation, this being not where the attitudes/beliefs differ.

The fundamental divergence is IMHO that, in principle, the protestant mindset is shaped by a PV which comes to consider as the best interpreter of Revelation ( generally equated to Sacred Scriptures) … itself. In other words, rather than passing from PV to Church and PV, here the passage looks from PV to PV.
Which BTW could be seen either just subjectively ( “My self is the best interpreter for myself, yours for yourself” ), or objectively: ( “My self is the best interpreter, and that’s that, you’d just better listen to it” ), or in practice as any mix of the two. The former attitude appearing as against any real church building, the latter being IMHO the seed of the possible protestant type of arrogance, to be compared with the above mentioned catholic one.

My first question is then: is my impression on this fundamental watershed essentially wrong ?

Now, ( second question) if that is not the case, and if I hypothetically do accept personally the option that the best living interpreter of Revelation is my own self, and do not, as a matter of fact, follow my pastor, or my denomination’s leadership, or some smarter brother or anybody else ( and in this case what are their credentials to be seen by me as the de facto best interpreter of Revelation ? ), or profess agnosticism about whom or what to trust ( and in this case can I have any firm belief ?) , how can I present this option in the most plausible way and live it consistently ?

I’ve supposed for quite a long time that there is little room in Catholicism for private judgment i.e. personal subjective judgment of any kind and that for two reasons.

1. The mark of a good Catholic is to do as the Church teaches.
2. Catholics are required to practice auricular confession.

I was an Evangelical for some years during which time I declared the Bible of 66 books to be my Authority and guide for living but I reserved the right to interpret for myself what the contents of that Bible taught and implied. In practice I consulted commentaries, listened to my pastor, and sought the ideas and views of other Christians. But the final decision as to which interpretation was correct was mine alone. I guess that might be described as “using my private judgment.” It was, of course, always an entirely personal subjective judgment.

Judgmentally,
Mick

 

[manualman]

Mick,

how did you come to conclusion #1? There are certainly a select few concepts that have been defined in a “de fide” manner so as to exclude certain understandings which the apostles and their successors have determined to be false. But these are so exceedingly rare in the landscape of life that they are almost negligible in their impact on our everyday decisions. I’ve been catholic all my life and never had the impression you portray in your item #1. I’m sorry we come off that way.

SpiritMeadow, Thanks for the distinction on the non-catholic subforum. I comprehend your thinking now! That may not be the same as agreeing, but I rest better when I can at least understand where the other side is coming from.

 

[SSTeacher]

Mick,

how did you come to conclusion #1? There are certainly a select few concepts that have been defined in a “de fide” manner so as to exclude certain understandings which the apostles and their successors have determined to be false. But these are so exceedingly rare in the landscape of life that they are almost negligible in their impact on our everyday decisions. I’ve been catholic all my life and never had the impression you portray in your item #1. I’m sorry we come off that way.

Hi Manualman,

I imbibed the notion from a book titled, THEOLOGY AND SANITY authored by the late Catholic theologian, Frank Sheed. Here’s the third paragraph of Chapter 1 of that book (titled, RELIGION AND THE MIND) so you can get a feeling for the context:

For the soul’s full functioning, we need a Catholic intellect as well as a Catholic will. We have a Catholic will when we love God and obey God, love the church and obey the Church. We have a Catholic intellect when we live consciously in the presence of the realities that God through His Church has revealed. A good working test of a Catholic will is that we should do what the Church says. But for a Catholic intellect, we must also see what the Church sees. This means that when we look out upon the universe we see the same universe that the Church sees; and the enormous advantage of this is that the universe the Church sees is the real universe, because She is the Church of God. Seeing what She sees means seeing what is there. And just as loving what is good is sanctity, or the health of the will, so seeing what is there is sanity, or the health of the intellect.

Click here to check out the above paragraph.

Perhaps I might just add that there’s no need for you to apologize for anybody. What’s wrong with the Catholic Church expecting its members to adhere to Catholic doctrine and the commensurate Catholic lifestyle? I wasn’t attempting to portray Catholics badly – just correctly.

Cautiously,
Mick

 

[pneuma07]

I’ve supposed for quite a long time that there is little room in Catholicism for private judgment i.e. personal subjective judgment of any kind and that for two reasons.

1. The mark of a good Catholic is to do as the Church teaches.
2. Catholics are required to practice auricular confession.

I was an Evangelical for some years during which time I declared the Bible of 66 books to be my Authority and guide for living but I reserved the right to interpret for myself what the contents of that Bible taught and implied. In practice I consulted commentaries, listened to my pastor, and sought the ideas and views of other Christians. But the final decision as to which interpretation was correct was mine alone. I guess that might be described as “using my private judgment.” It was, of course, always an entirely personal subjective judgment.

Judgmentally,
Mick

Hi SSteacher.

on 1) we can agree
if we understand by that
“faith acting in love”, recognizing the magisterium as the most reliable
interpreter and guardian of Revelation

auricular confession can control your PJ about what is to be considered a sin and in what case.

The point, IMHO, is that within the Church there is a dialectic relation within PJ and Magisterium.

Thanks for describing your own experience in your evangelical period.
You would declare the 66 Books to be your decision making authority, but by that you would mean … your self. That can be considered IMHO as an example of one’s PJ seen as the most reliable interpreter of Revelation.
It seems to me that that exemplifies the “individualist” wing among Protestantisms, as well as JonNC showed us a voice of the most “communitarian/ecclesial” wing among them.

May I ask how you rejected that view ?

 

[SSTeacher]

Hi pneuma07,

Hi SSteacher.

on 1) we can agree
if we understand by that
“faith acting in love”, recognizing the magisterium as the most reliable
interpreter and guardian of Revelation

auricular confession can control your PJ about what is to be considered a sin and in what case.

The point, IMHO, is that within the Church there is a dialectic relation within PJ and Magisterium.

Sounds reasonable.

Thanks for describing your own experience in your evangelical period.
You would declare the 66 Books to be your decision making authority, but by that you would mean … your self. That can be considered IMHO as an example of one’s PJ seen as the most reliable interpreter of Revelation.

Yes, I certainly mean that I decided for myself. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I always looked for the easy option – not consciously, at any rate.

It seems to me that that exemplifies the “individualist” wing among Protestantisms, as well as JonNC showed us a voice of the most “communitarian/ecclesial” wing among them.

Right. Jon’s experience within Christendom is somewhat different from mine.

May I ask how you rejected that view ?

Sure. I converted to “Biblical” Christianity some nine years ago. Prior to that, my worldview hovered somewhere between agnosticism and deism. I was very content for the first five years but then the church I’d joined began to emphasize “performance” on Sunday morning and things got to the point where it actually depressed me going to the worship service since it had absolutely nothing to do with giving praise to Almighty God and everything to do with a bunch of showoffs doing their thing.

So I left that church and went looking for another one. But I kept having this nagging thought that there oughtn’t to be another church for me to go to – that there was something intrinsically wrong if I was forced out of one church and could find solace in another. With hindsight, I guess that thought was a natural one as some three years earlier I’d been introduced to a man who was a convert to Holy Orthodoxy and not so long after I met him he developed cancer and was given less than a year to live. He didn’t have many friends so I began to visit him. We were completely different and so we had some very interesting conversations about spiritual matters during which he defended Holy Orthodoxy. Toward the end he had difficulty talking and moving about and liked just to lie on his bed and listen to me reading the Bible to him. He preferred the KJV, describing it as “majestic.” He died a peaceful death.

His reason for becoming Orthodox was that when he discovered it, it seemed to him that "it was what he’d always believed.” At the time, I was quite satisfied with my understanding of salvation and although I enjoyed our conversations and arguments I felt no attraction to Orthodoxy as I thought Biblical Christianity was superior to all other versions of Christianity – even the ones of which I’d never heard. But when I became uneasy about what was happening in my church, everything changed. Then followed a slow and gradual process as I struggled to accept that I might not have gotten hold of the fullness of truth.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[manualman]

Mick,

Just for conversation, would you still object to Sheed’s quote if you substituted “God” everywhere where Sheed wrote “the Church?” As a catholic, I’m frequently amazed at how MUCH freedom I have. It would frankly be easier if God would give me some nice, clear orders once in a while! But that’s part of the challenge for us - learning to accept the grace to be truly ‘good’ without God having to be pulling the strings all the time.

I expect that you WOULD be OK with the passage if the substitution were made as I suggest. And that may reveal the gist of our actual difference. Catholics believe that those few true restrictions on our choices and behavior have been revealed by God THROUGH the church. Presumably you don’t have such a confidence. In your view, when and why did the authority granted to the apostles (and their direct successors as illustrated in Acts of the Apostles) cease? Surely not at the death of the apostles themselves or we would not know today what books are Scripture and what books aren’t? (since there is no small amount of uncertainty of authorship of some of those books - Hebrews for example).

 

[SSTeacher]

Hi manualman,

Mick,

Just for conversation, would you still object to Sheed’s quote if you substituted “God” everywhere where Sheed wrote “the Church?”

I don’t object to Sheed’s quote as it stands and I wouldn’t object if you made that substitution. Not in the least.

As a catholic, I’m frequently amazed at how MUCH freedom I have.

How are you using the word freedom? If you’re using it in the way hedonists use it, then I’d respectfully submit that you haven’t as much “freedom” as non–Catholic Western Christians who can decide on any particular Sunday that they will not attend church because they have another more pressing engagement e.g. a trip to the mountains, a family reunion, a date with a steam iron , whereas you are not free to make this choice. You must go to Mass on a Sunday. If you miss Mass on a Sunday without a good reason you’ll be in state of mortal sin, right?

It would frankly be easier if God would give me some nice, clear orders once in a while!

Fascinating. In view of my last comment, feel free to enlarge upon this assertion.

But that’s part of the challenge for us - learning to accept the grace to be truly ‘good’ without God having to be pulling the strings all the time.

In Holy Orthodoxy this is called theosis.

I expect that you WOULD be OK with the passage if the substitution were made as I suggest.

Indeed.

And that may reveal the gist of our actual difference.

Maybe.

Catholics believe that those few true restrictions on our choices and behavior have been revealed by God THROUGH the church.

You haven’t capitalized the word “church.” Don’t you mean Church i.e. the Catholic Church? And I’d really be interested in learning why you describe your “restrictions” as “few.”

Presumably you don’t have such a confidence.

I don’t believe that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth. It is my belief that the Orthodox Church possesses the fullness of truth.

In your view, when and why did the authority granted to the apostles (and their direct successors as illustrated in Acts of the Apostles) cease?] Surely not at the death of the apostles themselves or we would not know today what books are Scripture and what books aren’t? (since there is no small amount of uncertainty of authorship of some of those books - Hebrews for example).

When I was an Evangelical I would have argued against Apostolic Succession – but not now. However, just for conversation, let me think back to how I might have responded were I still in the Evangelical camp.



I’d probably have drawn a distinction between the “apostles” and the “disciples, arguing that the apostles were those personally commissioned by the Lord (the “twelve” plus Saint Paul) and the disciples were, well, everybody else. I’d probably have focused on Matthew 28:16–20 and then I think I could have argued quite effectively against the doctrine of Apostolic Succession.

Don’t you agree?

Hypothetically,
Mick

 

[manualman]

1. How are you using the word freedom? If you’re using it in the way hedonists use it, then I’d respectfully submit that you haven’t as much “freedom” as non–Catholic Western Christians who can decide on any particular Sunday that they will not attend church because they have another more pressing engagement e.g. a trip to the mountains, a family reunion, a date with a steam iron , whereas you are not free to make this choice. You must go to Mass on a Sunday. If you miss Mass on a Sunday without a good reason you’ll be in state of mortal sin, right?
2. Fascinating. In view of my last comment, feel free to enlarge upon this assertion.
3. You haven’t capitalized the word “church.” Don’t you mean Church i.e. the Catholic Church? And I’d really be interested in learning why you describe your “restrictions” as “few.”
4. I don’t believe that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth. It is my belief that the Orthodox Church possesses the fullness of truth.
5. When I was an Evangelical I would have argued against Apostolic Succession – but not now. However, just for conversation, let me think back to how I might have responded were I still in the Evangelical camp.
   I’d probably have drawn a distinction between the “apostles” and the “disciples, arguing that the apostles were those personally commissioned by the Lord (the “twelve” plus Saint Paul) and the disciples were, well, everybody else. I’d probably have focused on Matthew 28:16–20 and then I think I could have argued quite effectively against the doctrine of Apostolic Succession.

Don’t you agree?

Hypothetically,
Mick

Thanks for the dialogue, Mick. Here’s some responses (I took the liberty of numbering and abridging the above):

1. I guess I’d define what the hedonists call freedom as license. To me freedom is the ability to do what is truly good. Restrictions against things that AREN’T good aren’t really restrictions at all. More like highway guard rails. And by the way, as a catholic, I’m not obliged to avoid mountain trips if the trip spans a Sunday. I’m just obliged to attend mass if it is available where I am (not likely in the backcountry).
2. Many a time in life, I’d love to come across a burning bush and be given a clear mission. Instead, I’ve got to discern it all the hard way: discerning a vocation, choosing a career, finding a spouse, juggling family/work/service/hobbies… I’ve lived under discipline before (a year doing traveling youth ministry) where I had one partial free day a week in a strange town with no money and no transport while the rest of the week was spent living in community and witnessing to teenagers. In a contradictory way, that WAS a sort of freedom that I miss.
3. I’m not much on grammar! See post #2 above for why I don’t feel there are many restrictions on my freedom.
4. I suppose that’s why you are EO and I’m RC.
5. In typical catholic style, I have not the chapter or verse for you. But Acts clearly portrays the apostles selecting a replacement for Judas. Nowhere does Acts suggest that he is a lesser apostle for not having been selected directly by Jesus. I’m not a scholar by any means, but to me Acts clearly shows a church with a hierarchy that behaves in an authoritative manner (which replaces itself). Evangelicals prefer not to see that and argue that authority ended with the death of the last apostle and now lies in the Scriptures. Eastern Orthodox seem to have a fairly similar approach, but merely extend it a few centuries. Y’all seem to honor the authority of the Early Fathers, but in practice seem to draw a time line after which the teaching authority becomes much more limited. There is a lot to be said for simply preserving the deposit of faith and refusing to allow further accretions - on a human level. But I can’t help but think that if this practice had taken hold earlier we’d not have anything like the development of doctrine we have on the Trinity, for example. My perception is that EO condemn the RC predeliction for making definitions and trying to draw true inferences from defined revelation. To me, that just seems to be the unbroken approach taken from the very beginning. Please tell me your perspective, since most of what little I know of the EO theology I learned listening to EO posters here (which makes for sometimes contradictory testimony).

 

[SSTeacher]

Thanks for the dialogue, Mick. Here’s some responses (I took the liberty of numbering and abridging the above):

Hi manualman,

Thanks for responding. I’ve no objection to doing it by the numbers – although I’m probably going to have to make some further division using letters

1a. I guess I’d define what the hedonists call freedom as license. To me freedom is the ability to do what is truly good. Restrictions against things that AREN’T good aren’t really restrictions at all. More like highway guardrails.

I agree. Nicely put.

1b. And by the way, as a catholic, I’m not obliged to avoid mountain trips if the trip spans a Sunday. I’m just obliged to attend mass if it is available where I am (not likely in the backcountry).

That’s a telling point. It’s not as if Catholics are subject to the “Sabbath’s day walk” rule that the Jews devised.

2a. Many a time in life, I’d love to come across a burning bush and be given a clear mission. Instead, I’ve got to discern it all the hard way: discerning a vocation, choosing a career, finding a spouse, juggling family/work/service/hobbies…

I’ll settle for being amongst the rank and file unless and until the Lord extrudes me. It’s true that Moses had that definitive burning bush experience but he subsequently had to wander around in the wilderness for nigh on 40 years with a bunch of his countrymen who did nothing but cause him trouble and strife. And don’t forget, Moses was 80 years old at the time he was commissioned.

2b. I’ve lived under discipline before (a year doing traveling youth ministry) where I had one partial free day a week in a strange town with no money and no transport while the rest of the week was spent living in community and witnessing to teenagers. In a contradictory way, that WAS a sort of freedom that I miss.

Thanks for sharing that.

1. I’m not much on grammar! See post #2 above for why I don’t feel there are many restrictions on my freedom.

Duly noted.

1. I suppose that’s why you are EO and I’m RC.

I should emphasize at this point that I become an Orthodox catechumen only recently and I’m still working on my modus vivendi.

5a. In typical catholic style, I have not the chapter or verse for you. But Acts clearly portrays the apostles selecting a replacement for Judas. Nowhere does Acts suggest that he is a lesser apostle for not having been selected directly by Jesus. I’m not a scholar by any means, but to me Acts clearly shows a church with a hierarchy that behaves in an authoritative manner (which replaces itself).

I concur.

5b. Evangelicals prefer not to see that and argue that authority ended with the death of the last apostle and now lies in the Scriptures.

Indeed.

5c. Eastern Orthodox seems to have a fairly similar approach, but merely extend it a few centuries. Y’all seem to honor the authority of the Early Fathers, but in practice seem to draw a time line after which the teaching authority becomes much more limited. There is a lot to be said for simply preserving the deposit of faith and refusing to allow further accretions – on a human level. But I can’t help but think that if this practice had taken hold earlier we’d not have anything like the development of doctrine we have on the Trinity, for example.

As I’m a catechumen, I’ll defer to any Orthodox Christian who seeks to correct me but my understanding is that with the close of the Seventh Ecumenical Council in Nicea in 787 the Eastern Church views Christian doctrine to have been developed as far as is necessary. That’s why the Orthodox Church is sometimes referred to as “The Church of the Seven Councils.” So, from an Orthodox perspective, the development of doctrine in the West during the second millennium is viewed not as “development” but as superfluous addition or even invention.

5d. My perception is that EO condemns the RC predilection for making definitions and trying to draw true inferences from defined revelation. To me, that just seems to be the unbroken approach taken from the very beginning. Please tell me your perspective, since most of what little I know of the EO theology I learned listening to EO posters here (which makes for sometimes contradictory testimony).

I follow your thinking and I can’t refute your argument because what you are arguing makes perfect sense if one approaches with Catholic presuppositions – and I don’t see how I could expect you to have any others. But let me make this point in order that we might agree that this is where we disagree. It is this. The great difference between Ecumenical Councils 1 thru 7 and Ecumenical Councils 8 thru 21 is that the doctrine that was “developed” within Councils 8 thru 21 was developed without (name removed by moderator)ut from the Christian East. I think that puts a lot of weight upon your assertion concerning what “seems to be the unbroken approach taken from the beginning.” I applaud your cautious terminology, by the way. So, my conclusion ought to be equally cautious. Will you concede that it is not unreasonable (don’t ya just love the double negative? ) for me to perceive a pivotal difference between the first Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Christian Church and the last Fourteen Councils of the Christian Church? In fact, from an Orthodox perspective and analyzing the matter within the Orthodox presuppositions that I’m slowly developing, might I be justified in (respectfully) suggesting that the last Fourteen Councils weren’t truly Ecumenical Councils?

I look forward to reading your response.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[BWNM]

This is just my humble opinion -PJ is base on reasoning of observation, and can also progress person/persons understanding if apply in proper way, or it can create chaos if apply in wrong way.

Thus PJ is instinctive part of human nature, for by applying correctly, either to grown in wisdom or to act against it; it has its merits that in some how allows people to understand each other, though same time disagree with each other on many factors of life, either be faith, traditions etc, and in this I would like to emphasize - respectfully matter of each individual or group or nation/nations. If goes wrong then we have on absolute disconnect what PJ is and therefore, PJ base on observations becomes a tool to unjustly provoke or attack opponents with agreement that I am right and basta.

In case of faith PJ must be really hard to be understood by many for sometimes comes in serious conflict of self ego, which always put I before we, though question- maybe - always lingers though, but is not fully exercise for self is not allowing to see things from other point of view.

And there is PJ based on observation of Truth in life of many who don’t like debates but rather apply best of the best - Love

God Bless

 

[manualman]

Mick,

Your catechists are doing a very good job! Your argument is a good one from the Orthodox perspective on the councils after the 7th not being ecumenical.

The catholic response would, of course, be that while the latter councils certainly suffered from the lack of the eastern contribution, the church is not a democracy that requires a certain quorum in order to be valid. I don’t see Peter counting apostles in the room in Acts before he tells of the vision God gave him in which it was revealed that believers were no longer restricted by the Mosaic dietary laws (such as eating pork).

Infallibility is only a negative protection. It doesn’t guarantee that you’ll get the right answer to a question, it only prevents you from answering wrongly. I have no doubt that we’d have a richer joint tradition today had the great schism between east and west never occurred. Perhaps we’d have more quickly discerned the inherent impossibility of chattel slavery, perhaps we’d not have had the uneven emphases that lead to the protestant revolt, perhaps we’d have been there to help prevent the muslim conquest of most of the east. Recent popes have made similar statements about what we lost, including John Paul II’s sentiment that it is high time the church breathed with two lungs once again.

But that’s still a different thing than suggesting that some sort of quorum is needed to make a council valid. Obviously, I’m a catholic, so I’m going to point to Peter and say that any council in which all the bishops that are in union with the apostolic office of Peter are invited to attend and participate is a valid and ecumenical one. The Orthodox have a point in objecting to the idea of the pope as an absolute and utter monarch, but most popes have never tried to assert such a position. Even most catholics don’t understand that the pope is not the universal bishop, but first among bishops. His role is one intended to resolve disputes, bring order ad clarity to the church’s witness to the world - the same way Peter was in the Scriptures. The role described by the EO for the Petrine office strikes me as a symbolic figurehead with no meaning outside his own diocese/patriarchate. That’s just not what I see in the scriptures. Forgive me a certain cynicism, but doesn’t it strike you as a strange coincidence that the EO consider doctrinal development “done” right at the same time that large secular political differences developed between the apostolic offices of Peter and that of Andrew? I don’t like such coincidences especially when I’ve never heard a particularly compelling argument on Scriptural or Tradition grounds as to why the model for doctrinal development should so drastically change at the same time. Sadly, much behavior of the popes of the time and since then contributed to the acrimony rather than moving things towards reconcilliation. But that fact still doesn’t change the model Christ would seem to have established for the Church for all time.

In any case, it’s been a pleasure to discuss our differences civilly! Some times I think I’m not capable of disagreeing without taking it personally.

 

[SSTeacher]

Hello again, manualman,

Mick,

Your catechists are doing a very good job! Your argument is a good one from the Orthodox perspective on the councils after the 7th not being ecumenical.

The catholic response would, of course, be that while the latter councils certainly suffered from the lack of the eastern contribution, the church is not a democracy that requires a certain quorum in order to be valid. I don’t see Peter counting apostles in the room in Acts before he tells of the vision God gave him in which it was revealed that believers were no longer restricted by the Mosaic dietary laws (such as eating pork).

Infallibility is only a negative protection. It doesn’t guarantee that you’ll get the right answer to a question, it only prevents you from answering wrongly. I have no doubt that we’d have a richer joint tradition today had the great schism between east and west never occurred. Perhaps we’d have more quickly discerned the inherent impossibility of chattel slavery, perhaps we’d not have had the uneven emphases that lead to the protestant revolt, perhaps we’d have been there to help prevent the Muslim conquest of most of the east. Recent popes have made similar statements about what we lost, including John Paul II’s sentiment that it is high time the church breathed with two lungs once again.

But that’s still a different thing than suggesting that some sort of quorum is needed to make a council valid. Obviously, I’m a catholic, so I’m going to point to Peter and say that any council in which all the bishops that are in union with the apostolic office of Peter are invited to attend and participate is a valid and ecumenical one. The Orthodox have a point in objecting to the idea of the pope as an absolute and utter monarch, but most popes have never tried to assert such a position. Even most Catholics don’t understand that the pope is not the universal bishop, but first among bishops. His role is one intended to resolve disputes, bring order ad clarity to the church’s witness to the world - the same way Peter was in the Scriptures. The role described by the EO for the Petrine office strikes me as a symbolic figurehead with no meaning outside his own diocese/patriarchate. That’s just not what I see in the scriptures. Forgive me a certain cynicism, but doesn’t it strike you as a strange coincidence that the EO consider doctrinal development “done” right at the same time that large secular political differences developed between the apostolic offices of Peter and that of Andrew? I don’t like such coincidences especially when I’ve never heard a particularly compelling argument on Scriptural or Tradition grounds as to why the model for doctrinal development should so drastically change at the same time. Sadly, much behavior of the popes of the time and since then contributed to the acrimony rather than moving things towards reconciliation. But that fact still doesn’t change the model Christ would seem to have established for the Church for all time.

Eloquently stated. I don’t agree, of course, because my presuppositions aren’t the same as yours. It’s always down to the presuppositions or assumptions.

In any case, it’s been a pleasure to discuss our differences civilly!

Yes, it’s been a pleasure for me, also. Thanks for taking the time to post and for causing me to pause and reflect.

Some times I think I’m not capable of disagreeing without taking it personally.

Please don’t think along those lines. We have disagreed, here, but you have worded your posts most courteously and have been respectful and friendly. I’m impressed. You’re a credit to the Catholic Church. Well done!

In Christ,
Mick