Sola Concilium and the Eastern Orthodox

[Randy_Carson]

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.

I was sticking up for you guys, steido!

 

[steido01]

I was sticking up for you guys, steido!

:tiphat: And it did not go unnoticed, Randy. Much appreciated.

I’m willing to bet our Anglican friends appreciated the gesture too - well, insofar as they could represent a crew we all know to be a bit… motley.

 

[Randy_Carson]

:tiphat: And it did not go unnoticed, Randy. Much appreciated.

I’m willing to bet our Anglican friends appreciated the gesture too - well, insofar as they could represent a crew we all know to be a bit… motley.

New Avatar, I see.

Your boys are playing well…unless that’s a Grambling “G” then not so much.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by frjohnmorris
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.

I was wondering if someone would say that.

 

[Peter_J]

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?

I was looking for something a little more definitive than that…

I’m just speaking off-the-cuff here, but I believe it’s not so much that that one Father said it, but the way it has been received by the Church through the ages, that’s important.

 

[Peter_J]

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

I personally call them “catholic”, not “Catholic”, but I can see how some people call them the latter.

P.S. Of course, as a lot of modern Anglicans grow more and more liberal, I’m finding it harder to call them either “catholic” or “Catholic”.

 

[Novocastrian]

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

Father (bless!),

I do agree with you. I would classify myself as broadly orthodox, but I really do find it hard to fully sign up to Eastern theology, or to Roman, or to Calvinist. In that sense I understand that Anglicanism can in itself - in practical terms, as opposed to theory, at least - be unsatisfying. But at the same time, while I place the highest value on doctrinal orthodoxy, I am too aware of my own sins and shortcomings. As much as I would like to commune with you and Randy and all other serious Christians, and agree with you in doctrine, I have a more pressing matter: I am a sinner and need your prayers. Please see me, while disagreeing with some things you both (and others) write, as a penitent Christian in need of your help. In your charity pray for me - I hope that my faith and repentance my be sure even if my orthodoxy isn’t.

 

[andrewstx]

Gee, how many times have I said that?

And yet as a former Episcopalian I know that there are Episcopalians who accept Transubstantiation and the Holy Father. They are quite diverse.

 

[frjohnmorris]

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. I was wondering if someone would say that.

The reason that I did not mention the Formula or more correctly Book of Concord, was that I was not sure that this particular group of readers would know what the Formula of Concord is. For those that do not know the Book of Concord is a collection of Lutheran doctrinal documents such as the Augsburg Confession, Luther’s Small Catechism, and the Formula of Concord published originally in 1580. It would be to orthodox Lutherans what the canons and decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils are to Eastern Orthodox.
The Formula of Concord is a statement of Lutheran doctrine written by a group of Lutheran theologians and approved by Elector August of Saxony and the Lutheran princes and nobility in 1577. It affirmed the doctrine in inherited guilt, total depravity, salvation by grace alone and predestination to salvation, but not damnation.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

Is salvation by grace alone an issue?

 

[spina1953]

Hi i am new to this forum. My comment about if the Pope has any authority above the Councils, I think the Pope does as in Matt. chapter 15 Council of Jerusalem---- that when Peter stood up and spoke it was then that the whole assembly fell quiet and afterword agreed with Peter and so Paul an Barnabas was able to speak about what he and Barnabas had been doing. I would have thought that if Peter did not have authority above the council or assembly then the assembly would have over ruled Peter and Paul and Barnabas would not have able to speak to the whole assemly about what they had been doing and the signs and wonders God had worked amoung the Gentiles through them ( Paul & Barnabas).

 

[frjohnmorris]

Hi i am new to this forum. My comment about if the Pope has any authority above the Councils, I think the Pope does as in Matt. chapter 15 Council of Jerusalem---- that when Peter stood up and spoke it was then that the whole assembly fell quiet and afterword agreed with Peter and so Paul an Barnabas was able to speak about what he and Barnabas had been doing. I would have thought that if Peter did not have authority above the council or assembly then the assembly would have over ruled Peter and Paul and Barnabas would not have able to speak to the whole assemly about what they had been doing and the signs and wonders God had worked amoung the Gentiles through them ( Paul & Barnabas).

You mean Acts 15.
I do not read it that way. St. Peter spoke first because he was the leader of the Apostles, but he did not make the decision, after Sts. Paul and Barnabas St. James as the local Bishop gave the decision of the council. I do not see how you can read the Biblical text any other way. The letter was not written in the name of St. Peter, but was written in the name of the Apostolic Council. This council set the pattern for making decisions on all important matters by councils that was followed during the first 1,000 years of Church history. Every important matter, especially matters of doctrine, was decided by a council. If you read the acts and decisions of the Ecumenical Councils and the local Councils recognized by Trullo and ratified by the 7th Council, Nicaea II in 787, made all important decisions by council, not papal decree. You will also see that the Ecumenical Councils assumed authority over the Pope. During the 5th Council, Constantinople II in 553, the council threatened to excommunicate Pope Vigilius if he refused to sign the decree of the council. If an Ecumenical Council did not have the authority over the Pope, one could not threaten to excommunicate a Pope. You can read the canons, acts and other decisions of the Ecumenical and Local Councils at ccel.org/fathers.html download the last vol. You will find that the canons mandate local self-rule, not universal jurisdiction by the Bishop of Rome, who only held a primacy of honor.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

To Randy Carson your post #72 thanks as this was I was saying about the authority of Peter over the whole assembly or Council. He spoke and all listened and James agreed with Peter.My point is that the Council did not disagree with Peter as they could have if it was the Council that had authority and not Peter. I would add also that Peter was considered the leader of the Apostles and often spoke for them as the Apostles asked Peter as I understabnd Scripture that they wanted Peter to speak for them. am I wrong about that?

 

[frjohnmorris]

To Randy Carson your post #72 thanks as this was I was saying about the authority of Peter over the whole assembly or Council. He spoke and all listened and James agreed with Peter.My point is that the Council did not disagree with Peter as they could have if it was the Council that had authority and not Peter. I would add also that Peter was considered the leader of the Apostles and often spoke for them as the Apostles asked Peter as I understabnd Scripture that they wanted Peter to speak for them. am I wrong about that?

You are right St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles. However, he did not unilaterally make the decision on the matter of what parts of the Jewish law Gentile converts had to follow. Just because the Apostolic Council agreed with St. Peter does not mean that it had to agree with him. The point is that St. Peter did not have the authority to unilaterally make the decision, but submitted the matter to a council of the Apostles and Priests in Jerusalem for a decision and that the letter conveying the decision of the Council was not written in the name of St. Peter but in the name of the Council. All major decisions of the pre-schism Church was made by a council. Take the Tome of Leo. Pope St. Leo submitted the statement to the Council of Chalcedon which heard it and agreed. He did not make a unilateral decision on the matter of Monophysitism.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Misplaced_Book]

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**.”

Develop? I wonder what Newman would think about the “Developments” that have taken place today.

He too opposed dogmatizing Papal Infallibility, he wanted it to remain a theologoumenon.

But, he like many other dissenting Latin Bishops got cracked in the jaw by Pius IX, Cardinal Manning and the Ultramontanists.

The idea that Pope John Paul II knows more about God than St. John Chrysostom because he lived centuries later is absurd and makes one want to rend their garments like the Jews of Old.

 

[Peter_J]

Develop? I wonder what Newman would think about the “Developments” that have taken place today.

He too opposed dogmatizing Papal Infallibility, he wanted it to remain a theologoumenon.

True. But on the other hand, Newman was relieved to see the way it was worded.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Develop? I wonder what Newman would think about the “Developments” that have taken place today.

He too opposed dogmatizing Papal Infallibility, he wanted it to remain a theologoumenon.

But, he like many other dissenting Latin Bishops got cracked in the jaw by Pius IX, Cardinal Manning and the Ultramontanists.

The idea that Pope John Paul II knows more about God than St. John Chrysostom because he lived centuries later is absurd and makes one want to rend their garments like the Jews of Old.

Since JPII will soon have “St.” in front of his name, too, I think your gnashing of teeth is a bit overly dramatic. But, yes, theology books are thicker today than they were in Chrysostom’s time. Doctrine develops.

 

[spina1953]

I guess I want to put my two cents in on the dicussions on the recent posts I have been reading. Luther as I understand from reading some bio’s many years ago while studying the many different religions and beliefs, I understand that Luther once said that “Everything we have and everything we got, we recieved from the Catholic Church.” At least that is the way I remember the quote he said. With all due respect to Lutherans, Luther was not the theologian he thought he as or claimed to be. It seems to me that he was unwilling to try and resolve the issues he felt were needed to be chnged in the Catholic Church. Instead he broke away from the Church. this of course led to others breaking away but by on means not solely because of him but because others were wanting to go their own way as to what they wanted to believe and not have the Cathoic Church tell what to believe or not. As to homosexual elements, it seems to me there is and will be some homesexual element in every religion. while it is not a sin to be a homosexual, it is a very grave sin to practice homosexual acts. As to doctrines or dogma’s of the Councils and to my understanding within the Catholic Church, it is by a clearer understanding of the doctrines and or dogma’s as I unerstand it. It seems to me we need to look at it from t Eary Church Fathers point of view and why they saw a need to address questions and issues brought up at those Councils. I seems to me that they were trying to make clear or clearer what the Apostles and Pre-Niceine Fathers taught. As the teaching of the faith grew further and further away from the time of the Apostles and Pre-Nicine Fathers, there was a need to clarify what was taught by them in addressing the issues at hand. Sacred Scripture is a living Scripture in that it speaks to us from one generaltion to the next. Since all the truths that have been revealed to us for our salvation has ben revealed it is by a more clarer understanding of those revealed truths that we come to a better understanding of them. it is not new interpreptations, but clearer understanding from one generation to the next.

 

[steido01]

New Avatar, I see.

Your boys are playing well…unless that’s a Grambling “G” then not so much.

I figured the LCMS logo could be taken to be a bit presumptuous. I didn’t want people to think that a little layman like me was attempting to represent the Synod or something

Oh, it’s a Packers’ “G,” 100%. I was born at St. Vincent [Lombardi ] Hospital in the “holy city,” own a joint stock with my wife, and we try to make our “pilgrimage” yearly. Even used to select Line 61-b on the Wisconsin EZ tax form (the “Packers Football Stadium” option). But that was when I lived in the state. Great organization for the community. The Bishop’s Charities Game always raises a significant amount for the Diocese of Green Bay, and proceeds from regular season game concessions are still donated (at least, in part) to the local volunteer groups who staff them - typically the local churches. That was how I got interested in the game. And would ya look at how I’ve derailed this thread… Sorry all!

 

[steido01]

You are right St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles. However, he did not unilaterally make the decision on the matter of what parts of the Jewish law Gentile converts had to follow. Just because the Apostolic Council agreed with St. Peter does not mean that it had to agree with him. The point is that St. Peter did not have the authority to unilaterally make the decision, but submitted the matter to a council of the Apostles and Priests in Jerusalem for a decision and that the letter conveying the decision of the Council was not written in the name of St. Peter but in the name of the Council. All major decisions of the pre-schism Church was made by a council. Take the Tome of Leo. Pope St. Leo submitted the statement to the Council of Chalcedon which heard it and agreed. He did not make a unilateral decision on the matter of Monophysitism.

Archpriest John W. Morris

A point that the Church in Rome often glosses over. Thank you for pointing that out, Father.