R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Oh. Okay.
- Status
V
Vadim244
Guest
Randy, St. Vincent of Lerins (although he is not an ecumenical council
) gives direct answer to your question in his “Commonitorium”, which is completely devoted to your question. It’s English translation is available online in the Internet, and it is quite short, so it would be good if you read this “Commonitorium” completely. St. Vincent lists there three sources, as far as I remember: Bible, writings of Church Fathers (in case that they agree with each other), and Councils. But he doesn’t say that we should read any Popes’ writings.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
So, an Early Church Father, who is fallible and had not the benefit of 1,000+ years of reflection on doctrine, says says nothing regarding the writings of the popes?Randy, St. Vincent of Lerins (although he is not an ecumenical council
I was looking for something a little more definitive than that…
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Actually, you should read the Commonitorium, because it shows exactly what is wrong with the way you understand the Church and authority as it relates to doctrine.
D
dzheremi
Guest
It’s available in translation via New Advent. Enjoy.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
So later is better?
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
In the pre-schism period of church history, the Ecumenical Councils passed canons and made decisions on doctrine binding on the whole Church. Every major doctrinal and canonical question was resolved by an Ecumenical Council before the schism. Before 1054, the Bishop of Rome never resolved any doctrinal dispute by speaking “ex cathedra” or exercised authority outside of his own Patriarchate of the West. Therefore it is historical precedence that shows Eastern Orthodox that conciliarism is the appropriate form of church structure. We can also point to the Apostolic Council, where St. Peter did not speak “ex cathedra” but submitted his opinion on the controversy with the Judaizers to the Apostolic Council which made the decision. From this example, we administer our Church with councils at every level. The people of the parish have an annual meeting which approves the budget for the parish and elects a parish council to administered the financial and temporal affairs of the parish. The Pastor presides over the parish meeting and has authority over the spiritual affairs of the parish subject, of course, to his instructions from his Bishop or the Metropolitan. The Archdiocese is administered by the the clergy and representatives of the parishes at our Archdiocesan Convention, which acts as the final authority over financial and the temporal affairs of the Archdiocese and elects a Board of Trustees to administer the financial and temporal affairs of the Archdiocese between meetings of the Archdiocesan Convention. The Metropolitan presides over the Archdiocesan Convention. The Archdiocesan Convention also nominates 3 candidates for local Bishops. The local Synod of Bishops governs the spiritual affairs of the Archdiocese with the Metropolitan and elects local Bishops from the list of candidates chosen by the Archdiocesan convention. The Archdiocese Convention also nominates three candidates for the office of Metropolitan. The Metropolitans of the Patriarchate act as a council called the Holy Synod to make all important decisions concerning the Patriarchate, elects a Metropolitan from the list of candidates submitted by the Archdiocesan Convention and also elects a new Patriarch when necessary. Matters of international importance are resolved by Pan-Orthodox Councils. No person or council has the authority to change the doctrine of the Orthodox Church. Therefore, the concilliar method administration is the historical way that we administer the Eastern Orthodox Church.
As a Pastor, I prefer this system. It means that I do not have to worry about the parish finances, or fixing the roof or other such matters. Instead, I attend to the spiritual affairs of the parish. I conduct the services, visit the sick, teach Bible studies, counsel people, her Confessions, and am not bothered with non spiritual matters.
Archpriest John W. Morris
N
Novocastrian
Guest
I’m not sure that’s 100% true. After all, Leo’s Tome to Flavian was definitely not written as a piece of friendly advice to a brother bishop; it is magisterial in its pretentions (whether justified or not). Granted, the Council of 451 did not treat it as an “ex cathedra” pronouncement, but that’s not to say that Leo didn’t see it that way!
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
Regardless of Leo’s intentions the Council of Chalcedon had to approve it for it to have any authority. I do not dispute the fact that some early Popes made claims of universal jurisdiction. However, the rest of the Church did not recognize them. I do not know how much the Eastern Patriarchs knew about the growing papal claims. I frankly doubt that they knew that much about what was taking place in the Western Patriarchate. This was an age of very slow and inaccurate communications. The clash came when the Popes tried to extend their authority over the East, first in the case of St. Photius, during Cardinal Humbert’s disastrous mission to Constantinople in 1054, and finally during the Crusades when Western Crusaders captured Antioch and Jerusalem and threw out the Greek Orthodox Bishops and put Latin Bishops in their place. Some people have claimed during these discussions that Antioch and Jerusalem remained in Communion with Rome. It was the case why did the Roman Catholic authorities remove the legitimate Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem? Obviously the Latin authorities considered them heretics or schismatics or they would not have removed them.
Archpriest John W. Morris
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Father, bless.
Just to be clear, I’m not disagreeing with you, just adding some nuance so that Roman Catholics can see that we’re trying to be fair to them. They are wrong to claim that Leo had universal jurisdiction, but they are right to claim that he tried to exercise it!
With regard to the Latin ecclesiastical colonialism in the Holy Land, it should perhaps be pointed out that this was somewhat delayed after the schism and indeed the first crusade. It seems that initially the crusaders saw the Orthodox patriarchs and hierarchy as legitimate, although perhaps inferior to their own Latin tradition. It was a gradual process of turning more hostile to the native Christians over a few decades that led to the removal of the melkite episcopate.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The question is intentionally divisive and suggests a dichotomy where none exists. It’s not either/or…it’s both/and. There are times when we look to the Fathers to understand what the Church knew and when and what is apostolic, and there are times when we realize that later theology has seen more for having stood on the shoulders of the Apostles and Fathers.
I’m gathering from my discussion with folks here that there may be in some minds a cut-off point, somewhere around the middle of the eighth century or so, when all theology was completed and nothing more could (or should) be added. If I am incorrect in this, please help to understand otherwise.
I can’t help feeling that if Ignatius or Chrysostom or Augustine or even St. Paul himself were to visit an Orthodox theologian, they would all feel right at home…everything would be just as they left it,
But if they visited with Catholic theologian (such as a Benedict, for example), they would be amazed at what we have learned. And here is the thing: I don’t think they would be uncomfortable in either meeting.
Do you?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The Judaizers who were led by James, you mean?
I have provided exegesis of Acts 15 before, but I don’t recall that you interacted with it, so I will do so again** in the hopes that you will provide some commentary of your own**. I think it is really important, because misunderstanding the Jerusalem Council seems common to both Orthodox and Protestants.
Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem
Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.
Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:
“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).
Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
**It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles *(Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12). Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).
*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)
Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
**It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles *(Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12). Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).
*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)
In addition to Bonocore’s comments, I would point out that as leader of the church in Jerusalem, James was the head of a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:
Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.
“11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.” (Galatians 2:11-14)
From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:
“Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)
James addresses them, also:
“Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)
Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
I’d say it depends on what we think we’ve learned. I don’t think that all innovation and development is bad; far from it! I do think we should be very careful of falling into a kind of Hegelian view of the development of doctrine whereby we’re constantly progressing to deeper and better understanding of God and His mysteries.
I also think it’s quite unfair to think that the Orthodox theologians of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are simply parroting the theology of the eighth century as if nothing had happened in the intellectual life of the church since. That’s just not true.
As an aside, I read a review yesterday by Thomas Weinandy OFM (for whom I have the greatest respect!) of Marcus Plested’s new book on Orthodox readings of Aquinas; it sounds like something that we all ought to read.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
How many 20th century Orthodox theologians have you actually read?
V
Vadim244
Guest
So you think that St. Vincent erred in his “Commonitorium”?
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
There was not much gradual about it. The Crusaders took Antioch in 1098 and immediately removed the Greek Orthodox Patriarch and put a Latin Bishop in his place. Rome appointed a Latin Patriarch of Antioch until 1964. When the Crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099 they did the same thing and appointed a Latin Patriarch, an office that still exists. These acts are considered by many historians to be the cause of the lasting schism. between East and West. Before then, it could be argued that it was just a quarrel between the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Rome, but after the exile of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, it became clear to the East that the Latins considered them schismatics or heretics.
Archpriest John W Morris
D
dzheremi
Guest
There is nothing more that should or can be added to the faith, that much is true, but that doesn’t mean that there are not modern theologians in the Orthodox Church dealing with modern problems. Remember that every problem of old was a modern problem in the days of our Fathers who dealt with those issues. Just because the issues may have changed doesn’t require any new doctrinal development. While I in no way consider them to be on the same level as their predecessors (such a recognition requires time that has not yet passed enough to declare them this or that), I can listen to a weekly audience of HH Pope Shenouda III, or read something by Matta el-Meskeen or Viguen Guroian and feel not only that their words address the problems of modern man and modern society, but also that they are teaching of the same faith that was delivered to the Church by the apostles, without alteration or development. If you really think about it, all modern problems are but iterations of the same things faced by earlier generations, so whatever Abba Anthony said works just as well today as it did in the third century. Rather than developing some new thing, we can and do develop new ways to apply the same wisdom to our current circumstances (e.g., St. Anthony could not have foreseen us typing these messages back and forth to each other, but the problems of modern society demands that we do not keep the Desert Fathers for pilgrims alone, so now you have all the wisdom you could ever need at your fingertips…all the more reason to not bother with anything else, I say).
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
That sounds encouraging.
I lived in community for many years with Fr. Tom, and he was at my mother-in-law’s home in July when I last saw him. How have you come to know him?
I will track down this book.
Thanks.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
None.
And that ties into my point from another thread where I took a LOT of grief from you, so I won’t bother to repeat that experience here.
However, as someone who by now should have demonstrated himself to be at least a little bit interested in religion in general and Catholicism specifically, I would be very interested to read a good book written by an Orthodox theologian with the lay person in mind. No sense getting too technical with the masses if you want to write a book that actually gets read by them.
That said, my impressions from these threads and the outside reading required to keep up with the discussions is that the Orthodox are conservative and primarily concerned with the preservation or “conserving” of the “faith handed on” while Catholics are not afraid to adventure out into speculative waters. If this characterization is true, then what I have said previously is correct, the Fathers would still feel right at home over coffee with an Orthodox theologian.
Am I wrong?
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
Of course no human is infallible. None of the Fathers were infallible. That is why we consider the consensus of the Fathers the standard, not the writings of one Father. I remember one time sitting next to a Serbian Archbishop during a dialogue with Lutherans. The Lutherans kept quoting Luther again and again. Finally, he whispered to me, “don’t these people have anyone else but Luther, we have all the Fathers.” St. Vincent actually wrote his statement in response to what he considered the errors of some of Augustine’s writings which contradicted the teachings of the accepted Fathers of the Church, especially on free will. He basically said the standard is not what one man wrote, but the consensus of the Fathers.
Archpriest John W. Morris
- Status