Universal Jursidiction

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;11213114:

As has been amply demonstrated [with Cavardossi], any personal claims can only be universally accepted if they are conclusively substantiated by an objectively verifiable body of evidence, e.g., categorical statements unequivocally presenting the precise meaning in a theological point of contention

. Looks hardly unreasonable given legal advocates regularly present their cases along similar procedures in a court of law?
What evidence would convince you?

Seems the underlined phrase above has already answered this question?

Secondly: Do you honestly think the East approaches the Faith this way?

Appears non-applicable as one is not a member of the Orthodox Faith?

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Seems the underlined phrase above has already answered this question?
Appears non-applicable as one is not a member of the Orthodox Faith?

You are not even trying to understand the Eastern POV. If you were you would not have posted that.

Unequivocal? Objectively verifiable? This is not a court of law…

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Forgive the shortness of my last post, it was done on my phone.

What I mean to say, is that this:

“conclusively substantiated by an objectively verifiable body of evidence, e.g., categorical statements unequivocally presenting the precise meaning in a theological point of contention.”

Is an unreasonable standard, given that there is no “conclusively substantiated and verifiable body of evidence” on either the Roman Catholic or Orthodox side. These terms do not fit in with the discussion we are having. Precise meaning? Do you believe that the Trinity can be sifted with the eye of Perry Mason? My point is that there is no “Magic Bullet” and you are asking for exactly that.

This tangent demonstrates how wide the chasm is between Latin and Orthodox when it comes to approaches to the Faith. The Scholastic model was rejected by the East, and we certainly don’t approach the Faith using the language of “logic.”

 

[Fevronia]

You concede that Universal Jurisdiction was not found in the First Millenium, but believe it to be irrelevant…this right here is the sticking point. Orthodox cannot and will not dismiss the Apostolic Tradition…Universal Jurisdiction was foreign to the first Millenium Church. Some Latin Apologists will concede this point, but argue that it was a necessary innovation to protect the Church and guide it because the Collegial model became “unworkable” going into the second Millenium. We obviously do not believe this.

I would counter with another question: What basis do you accept Papal Doctrine?

You are still short circuiting the discussion because you keep stating that “It wasn’t there before, so it cannot be there now”.

1. The Orthodox have been in error before and was corrected by admittance of Orthodox themselves. So you have to show what certainty you or any Orthodox have that they are correct on the judgement of this matter. Can you present that to us?
2. The fact that the Papal office did not exist specifically as defined before is not an issue. That is the whole point of defining it. The fact that Patriarchate of Constantinople did not exist from the very beginning with the same jurisdiction is again not an issue for it to be given some jurisdiction later.
3. If the Scriptural passages cited in favor of the Papacy and the corresponding interpretation of them is correct, then it also means that the Papacy was always present in revelation but had not been explicitly pronounced. So the only logical way to OBJECT is if you can show
   a) The Papacy contradicts a prior TEACHING
   b) The Papacy contradicts evidence (a case where Rome was in error and other patriarchates were the one to bail Rome out)

So can you please reconsider what I am asking of you and present your objection with more detail so that my concerns above are satisfied?

 

[Fevronia]

This tangent demonstrates how wide the chasm is between Latin and Orthodox when it comes to approaches to the Faith. The Scholastic model was rejected by the East, and we certainly don’t approach the Faith using the language of “logic.”

This is an interesting point. The subject of approaching any matter first through reason (logic) is natural. Whether or not to do so is not a matter of faith. Why? Because without reason, there is no reason to even have faith in X as opposed to Y.

The issue here is that the Papal office cannot just be rejected on “gut feeling” of Orthodox patriarchs. Their track record doesn’t give them much support for that sort of judgement considering Rome was the one to settle most of their disputes than the other way around. So any Orthodox follower is illogical in assenting to their Patriarch on the ruling that Rome has erred in its declaration of the Papacy.

This is what you as an Orthodox must defend against. From where I stand and what I have heard the Orthodox cannot make a logical case against the Papacy apart from the idea that it has not been there before its declaration. But if someone were to press the Orthodox as to how exactly this absence contradicts its declaration, the answers are vague.

So I am throwing down the gauntlet here for you to take it up. Can you or any Orthodox that reads this post provide the logical breakdown for on how Rome’s declaration of the Papacy is contradicted by its explicit absence before its declaration? If you lay down the premises on which we judge the absence in history and premises on which we conclude that prior non-existence is a problem against its declaration, it will be easy for both sides to understand each other. So can you please do that?

From the Catholics perspective, it’s explicit absence does not contradict its declaration which is supported by implicit evidence that it existed (Rome being unwavering in its Orthodoxy and always the one who stepped in to correct the Orthodox patriarchs rather than other way around).

Unless the Orthodox can provide evidence of a historical event where Constantinople was the one to set the record straight when Rome was in error, I really don’t see any logical reason for the Orthodox to object against Rome.

 

[benjohnson]

Unequivocal? Objectively verifiable? This is not a court of law…

If I’m understanding you correctly, I think us Lutherans would concur… if God ran a court of law we creatures would deserve damnation. We would say that our justification comes from Christ, not form satisfying the law.

 

[Fevronia]

If I’m understanding you correctly, I think us Lutherans would concur… if God ran a court of law we creatures would deserve damnation. We would say that our justification comes from Christ, not form satisfying the law.

Is that an objectively verifiable statement or a subjective opinion ?

I think there is a hesitation in humans most of the time to be objective. Instead, there is a tendency to just follow ones gut. This is why we humans as a species engaged in false religions for so long. No one bothered to ask tough questions like “Why do I think religious leader ______ can tell me such things?” or “What objective reason do I have to think this is how the world is apart from my personal preference for the particular notion?”

So when one starts to see signs that ones position seems to be indefensible from an objective stand point, I think it can be taken as a sign or clue that there might be some serious problems with ones position. We cannot just escape it by giving a theological statement like yours because the entire basis for that theological framework is what is under question/attack in the discussion.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It is one thing to delve deeper into things which have been revealed and shared in the Faith…it is something else to have one See venture beyond its traditional role and assume a power for itself that was unknown to the Church at large, and undercut its Brother Sees and Bishops.

Universal Jurisdiction as formulated in the Middle Ages and Post Schism is utterly alien to the Church Catholic in the first Millenium. To Orthodox, it is an innovation, and an ecumenical deal breaker in any dialogue and circumstance.

I am aware that the Orthodox believe this, yes.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You concede that Universal Jurisdiction was not found in the First Millenium, but believe it to be irrelevant…this right here is the sticking point. Orthodox cannot and will not dismiss the Apostolic Tradition…Universal Jurisdiction was foreign to the first Millenium Church. Some Latin Apologists will concede this point, but argue that it was a necessary innovation to protect the Church and guide it because the Collegial model became “unworkable” going into the second Millenium. We obviously do not believe this.

I would counter with another question: What basis do you accept Papal Doctrine?

Was the Immaculate Conception foreign to the first millenium church?

How about the Assumption?

Thanks in advance.

 

[benjohnson]

Is that an objectively verifiable statement or a subjective opinion ?.

You make good observations!

…but Lutherans would tell you to be careful about using your own reasonging to hear and proclaim the Gospel. For example: On the face, and without faith, our good God seems a farse - It’s almost beond comprehention that our gratest Sacrment looks to be a sip of wine and a crumb of bread from the body of a man who claimed to be God yet was executed.

A complete trust on your own self-reasoning can be a trap to lead you out of faith - with Satan repeating his first trick: “This doesn’t mean what God says it means… it means so much more…let me reason with you.”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

…but Lutherans would tell you to be careful about using your own reasonging to hear and proclaim the Gospel.

I’ve tried singing like someone else but it doesn’t work

So I’m left to resinging on my own resources

 

[JonNC]

Was the Immaculate Conception foreign to the first millenium church?

How about the Assumption?

Thanks in advance.

In terms of having anathemas attached to them, binding the conscience of the believer, they were foreign to the first millennium.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by Randy Carson View Post
Was the Immaculate Conception foreign to the first millenium church?

Is there necessarily anything wrong with attaching anathemas, or making these formal beliefs…so as to have a universal belief in them and remove all doubts about them?

Is there anything necessarily wrong with having universality with these beliefs among all Christians? Instead of the hodgepodge of beliefs among those not Catholics (and orthodox for that matter)?

 

[JonNC]

Is there necessarily anything wrong with attaching anathemas, or making these formal beliefs…so as to have a universal belief in them and remove all doubts about them?

Is there anything necessarily wrong with having universality with these beliefs among all Christians? Instead of the hodgepodge of beliefs among those not Catholics (and orthodox for that matter)?

The question is should belief in them be an article of faith? Is belief in them necessary to the Gospel? I’m not convinced that requiring belief simply to streamline things is a good reason, if it isn’t specific to the Gospel.

Jon

 

[LionHeart777]

In terms of having anathemas attached to them, binding the conscience of the believer, they were foreign to the first millennium.

Jon

What are your thoughts on Iconoclasm being condemned close to A.D. 800?

 

[Fevronia]

You make good observations!

…but Lutherans would tell you to be careful about using your own reasonging to hear and proclaim the Gospel. For example: On the face, and without faith, our good God seems a farse - It’s almost beond comprehention that our gratest Sacrment looks to be a sip of wine and a crumb of bread from the body of a man who claimed to be God yet was executed.

A complete trust on your own self-reasoning can be a trap to lead you out of faith - with Satan repeating his first trick: “This doesn’t mean what God says it means… it means so much more…let me reason with you.”

Thanks, I assume you are speaking from Luther’s comments on reason?

Issue I see though is that the idea of using reason is not a matter of faith before assent. So what I mean to say is that Luther himself must give a reason to think he is authoritative to be trusted as revealing what God has taught.

One of the problems Lutherans share in common with Orthodox (though in a more problematic level) is a reason for Luther to validly separate from the Church. What I mean here is that Luther cannot present an objective basis for rejecting the Church.

To give you an example,

1. Every single objection he makes along the lines of doctrinal defilement in the Catholic Church for leaving is problematic because there is nothing stopping Luther’s new Church from having the same fate.
2. Luther has no standing in the Catholic Church as an authority capable of making such determinations. Luther was a priest. So Luther’s acts were equivalent to a University freshman revolting against the University itself. Its actually a bit worse because then this freshman went and established a separate Church :banghead:

So yes, what I want to say here is that before we assent to Catholicism, Orthodox, or Lutherans, we must first have logical reasons to do so. Then in the same way, we must have a logical basis for rejecting them. That is not an article of faith but something that one should know before faith.

 

[pablope]

The question is should belief in them be an article of faith? Is belief in them necessary to the Gospel? I’m not convinced that requiring belief simply to streamline things is a good reason, if it isn’t specific to the Gospel.

Jon

WEll…Jon…In the bishop’s exercise of his authority to bind and loose…is it the bishop’s call or not to make these articles of faith? Or is it the layman’s call?

If a bishop made the decision…are you to bind yourself to it or not?

I’m not convinced that requiring belief simply to streamline things is a good reason, if it isn’t specific to the Gospel.

Well…Jon…the gospels call for one belief, one faith. So how does streamlining things not fall under one belief and one faith?

And a bishop, in tending his sheep, is it not his duty to maintain universality of belief and faith?

And how is streamlining not beneficial?

Is the Lutheran (and protestant) hodgepodge of beliefs on these matters beneficial or not?

 

[benjohnson]

So what I mean to say is that Luther himself must give a reason to think he is authoritative to be trusted as revealing what God has taught.

Lutheran and Luther’s hermeneutics don’t work that way - Luther would constantly point to the Gospel to directly hear God’s proclamation of salvation.

For polemics, obviously, Luther engaged in a lot of interpretation but if you read our Confessions, you can see why we can say they reflect Scripture.

Frankly, the comparison of Luther to an unruly schoolboy discounts what was going on in the church - perhaps we Lutherans have made all sorts of mistakes, but our actions were in reaction to what was going on. Regardless of Luther’s take, it would be the rarest of persons who crosses the leadership of the most powerful institution in the world for their own idle amusement.

 

[Per_Crucem]

What are your thoughts on Iconoclasm being condemned close to A.D. 800?

Just as an observation, though you didn’t ask me, but Jon - I don’t think Jon was saying that any anathema was foreign to the first millennium, but specially an anathema for not believing in the immaculate conception and the assumption.

 

[LionHeart777]

Just as an observation, though you didn’t ask me, but Jon - I don’t think Jon was saying that any anathema was foreign to the first millennium, but specially an anathema for not believing in the immaculate conception and the assumption.

I guess I was responding to what I thought was a criticism of the anathemas and the beliefs being later in history–whereas Nicaea II is closer to the 2nd Millennium. I didn’t mean to imply that Jon thought anathemas were foreign to the first millennium.

But now that I’m at it, I think Jon clarified a bit so I’ll respond to that…

[Edit:] It doesn’t matter to me that I didn’t ask you, it’s an open forum Thanks for your politeness though.