Sola Concilium and the Eastern Orthodox

[Novocastrian]

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?

I’d thoroughly recommend Fr. John A. McGuckin’s The Orthodox Church and Fr. Andrew Louth’s Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology. They’re both great because they try to present the layman with a view of both the lex orandi and the lex credendi of the Eastern Orthodox Church(es).

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is nothing more that should or can be added to the faith, that much is true,

Catholics say amen!

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.

When an old doctrine is applied to a new problem, doesn’t some development automatically occur? The doctrine hasn’t changed, but our understanding of it might. It becomes richer, fuller, more nuanced, etc.

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).

Well, on one level, we probably agree and may even be saying the same thing with different emphases. On another, however, it seems to me that Catholicism has a living magisterium that is able to speak NOW with authority whereas the Protestants have a book that cannot speak to modern questions and the Orthodox have councils and Fathers who are similarly silent on many matters.

 

[Novocastrian]

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

At the risk of sounding very Anglican, one can normally get a decent idea of what the Holy Spirit wants by comparing Scripture, the Fathers and reason (whilst not, of course, idolising Reason with a capital-R!). The problem is - again looking at the Anglicans - having the tools to discover the Truth does not necessarily equate to practicing and teaching it!

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

That is an interesting story, Fr. John.

Whenever I have quoted Luther to Lutherans, they have generally backpedaled from his words - especially regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary, Peter and the Keys, and many other “Catholic” doctrines that they now deny.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’d thoroughly recommend Fr. John A. McGuckin’s The Orthodox Church and Fr. Andrew Louth’s Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology. They’re both great because they try to present the layman with a view of both the lex orandi and the lex credendi of the Eastern Orthodox Church(es).

Thank you!

I was rummaging through the aisles at Amazon just the other day with no clue what to look for. I will look them up immediately!

As a Catholic, I always recommend folks begin with Theology for Beginners by Frank Sheed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

At the risk of sounding very Anglican, one can normally get a decent idea of what the Holy Spirit wants by comparing Scripture, the Fathers and reason (whilst not, of course, idolising Reason with a capital-R!). The problem is - again looking at the Anglicans - having the tools to discover the Truth does not necessarily equate to practicing and teaching it!

Newman did okay!

Oh, wait…

 

[Vadim244]

Of course no human is infallible. None of the Fathers were infallible. <…>

Fr. John, yes, he could err. But if Roman Catholics think that St. Vincent erred, than first of all I’d like to hear clear statement from Roman Catholics, that he erred. But I haven’t seen such statement from their Pope or Councils or even from some theologian.

 

[Novocastrian]

Newman did okay!

Oh, wait…

I’d say a few others have done as well

 

[frjohnmorris]

Catholics say amen!

When an old doctrine is applied to a new problem, doesn’t some development automatically occur? The doctrine hasn’t changed, but our understanding of it might. It becomes richer, fuller, more nuanced, etc.

Well, on one level, we probably agree and may even be saying the same thing with different emphases. On another, however, it seems to me that Catholicism has a living magisterium that is able to speak NOW with authority whereas the Protestants have a book that cannot speak to modern questions and the Orthodox have councils and Fathers who are similarly silent on many matters.

Most mainline liberal Protestant theologians do not really believe in the authority of the Bible. That is why Protestantism is constantly changing and why liberal Protestants ordain women and bless same sex union.
Orthodox Christians believe in eternal truth that does not change. Actually, there are very few modern issues that have not already been addressed. However, if something new comes along such as organ transplants, we have theologians who can study the issue and express opinions in the spirit of the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils. A consensus emerges that expresses the mind of the Church that can gain official approval by a Pan-Orthodox Council or through the approval of a document expressing the teaching of the Church by an autocephalous Church. For example, the Patriarchate of Moscow has published a very extensive set of documents that address contemporary issues that has gained a great deal of acceptance in the Orthodox world.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Randy_Carson]

Most mainline liberal Protestant theologians do not really believe in the authority of the Bible. That is why Protestantism is constantly changing and why liberal Protestants ordain women and bless same sex union.

Liberals? No. But try that with the LCMS or high-church Anglicans and see how far you get!

Orthodox Christians believe in eternal truth that does not change.

Amen.

Actually, there are very few modern issues that have not already been addressed. However, if something new comes along such as organ transplants, we have theologians who can study the issue and express opinions in the spirit of the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils. A consensus emerges that expresses the mind of the Church that can gain official approval by a Pan-Orthodox Council or through the approval of a document expressing the teaching of the Church by an autocephalous Church. For example, the Patriarchate of Moscow has published a very extensive set of documents that address contemporary issues that has gained a great deal of acceptance in the Orthodox world.

Archpriest John W. Morris

And this differs from the workings of Catholic theologians how?

 

[RyanBlack]

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?

Orthodox theologians, on the whole, do tend to be rather conservative, and certainly are concerned with maintaining preserving traditions. I would agree that you can find more Catholic theologians who have written works of a more speculative nature. One reason for that is there are more Catholic than Orthodox theologians. Another reason that needs to be taken into consideration is that for much of its history, most of Orthodoxy was under the yoke of either Islam or communism. In those circumstances, the primary concern of the Orthodox Churches as with survival. In the 20th and 21st centuries, there has been an increase in the amount of Orthodox scholarship of a more speculative nature.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Orthodox theologians, on the whole, do tend to be rather conservative, and certainly are concerned with maintaining preserving traditions. I would agree that you can find more Catholic theologians who have written works of a more speculative nature. One reason for that is there are more Catholic than Orthodox theologians. Another reason that needs to be taken into consideration is that for much of its history, most of Orthodox has been under the yoke of either Islam or communism. In those circumstances, the primary concern of the Orthodox Churches as with survival. In the 20th and 21st centuries, there has been an increase in the amount of Orthodox scholarship of a more speculative nature.

Cool.

See, we can agree from time to time!

:hug3:

 

[frjohnmorris]

Liberals? No. But try that with the LCMS or high-church Anglicans and see how far you get!

Amen.

And this differs from the workings of Catholic theologians how?

That may be true with LCMS because they have a strong commitment to Luther. However, High Church Anglicanism can be deceptive. Some Anglicans who seem to be High Church Anglicans are really interested in ritual for the sake of ritual and actually have little commitment to purity of doctrine or morals. There is a strong homosexual element among so called Anglo Catholics.
It differs in that decisions have to be made by consensus or by council. We do not have one man like the Pope who can unilaterally make decisions on morals or doctrine on his own authority.

Archpreist John W. Morris

 

[Novocastrian]

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?

Sadly only in print! His works on Athanasius and Cyril are excellent.

 

[Novocastrian]

However, High Church Anglicanism can be deceptive. Some Anglicans who seem to be High Church Anglicans are really interested in ritual for the sake of ritual and actually have little commitment to purity of doctrine or morals. There is a strong homosexual element among so called Anglo Catholics.

In other words, we’re human!

 

[frjohnmorris]

In other words, we’re human!

It is a little more than that. Anglo Catholics are deceiving themselves. Anglicanism is a Protestant Church. It is not really Catholic. There is a strong and growing Charisatic influence on continuing Anglicanism as well as a Calvinist element. Wearing traditional vestments, chanting and using incense does not make one a Catholic if your Bishop is in communion with a Bishop who is without doubt a Protestant.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[dzheremi]

While I’m very pleased to read that Roman Catholics would say that the Fathers would be more comfortable among Orthodox theologians than others (and I agree, of course), I would be sad if by that they really meant that they do not see how the Orthodox Church deals with modern problems.

I should point out that we may be operating under different definitions of who constitutes a “theologian”, and/or who may be considered qualified to write on doctrinal or other faith matters. Of course there is the famous maxim that a theologian is one who prays well (I have heard this from both OO and EO, so I assume there will be no argument on this point), but following from that I can think of several modern works on my shelf that have been sources of great spiritual benefit that were written by priest-monks, “ordinary” priests, and even laypeople of some theological background (in terms of having studied at seminary and whatnot). It is not uncommon, at least in the OO communion, to find these works offered for spiritual benefit alongside collections of the Fathers and others, as the criteria is that they all express the same faith, not that there is an arbitrary cut-off line in terms of date of publication beyond which we cannot go if we are to call ourselves Orthodox. That’d just be silly, if it were true. It’s not, but I get the feeling reading some replies in this thread that RCs may think that it is.

I suppose it could be said, as Randy has written, that we operate in similar ways but with different emphases. That’s fine, so far as it fits, but also there is a certain respect that must be paid to our ecclesiological differences and how these shape the idea of who can declare what, as we have no infallible bishop(s). Coming from the first Papal Church of the world ] it is something quite important to keep straight, as there are some people in the Coptic Orthodox Church who do seem to treat HH in a manner similar to how RCs think of the Roman Pope (maybe having been influenced by the Catholic education that many Coptic young people receive in the West? I don’t know), and that’s wrong of course. I do not think, for instance, that having one man with the ability to pronounce dogma, whose decisions are of themselves and not by consent of the Church irreformable is a matter of a different emphasis from that of a Church that has neither of these characteristics – it is more honest to say that this is a different model entirely, and from the Orthodox perspective, it is not a model that is acceptable or supportable with reference to the practices of the early Church, which we claim to be the unbroken continuation of not any less than the RCC does.

 

[steido01]

**That may be true with LCMS because they have a strong commitment to Luther. **However, High Church Anglicanism can be deceptive. Some Anglicans who seem to be High Church Anglicans are really interested in ritual for the sake of ritual and actually have little commitment to purity of doctrine or morals. There is a strong homosexual element among so called Anglo Catholics.
It differs in that decisions have to be made by consensus or by council. We do not have one man like the Pope who can unilaterally make decisions on morals or doctrine on his own authority.

Archpreist John W. Morris

Very Reverend Father, the gist of your point is well taken, and you are certainly an Orthodox expert when it comes Lutherans. Please excuse me for nitpicking just a bit, but we LCMS-ers would contend that we have a strong commitment to the Formula of Concord, not to Luther the man.:hey_bud:

Sorry to sidetrack. I’m enjoying reading this thread.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So later is better?

BTW, John Cardinal Newman says yes:

“Moreover, all this must be viewed in the light of the general probability, so much insisted on above, that doctrine cannot but develop as time proceeds and need arises, and that its developments are parts of the Divine system, and that therefore** it is lawful, or rather necessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later**.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

It is a little more than that. Anglo Catholics are deceiving themselves. Anglicanism is a Protestant Church. It is not really Catholic.

Gee, how many times have I said that?