Which Church??

[adf417]

I’ve been working on an idea for a few days that runs like this:

Protestants rejected Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church leaving them with sola scriptura. In the place of the Magisterium, they substituted private judgment.

The Orthodox also rejected the Magisterium of the Church (the infallibility of the pope particularly). In the place of the Magisterium, they, too, substituted private judgment.

A two-legged stool is only slightly more stable than a one-legged stool.

I wrote about this extensively in an Orthodox thread wherein I summarized my argument like this:

Many Orthodox believe that no Church council can be considered ecumenical until the “whole Church” has accepted it. This “receptionism” theory unwittingly encourages individual believers to pick and choose what he will or won’t accept from the hierarchy of his Church. Rather than the Church judging, guiding and correcting the individual on his journey through life, each Orthodox now exercises private judgment of the Church as it passes through history!

This problem is exacerbated by Orthodoxy’s rejection of the supremacy of the successor of Peter as head of the universal Church and its denial of papal infallibility. By separating its Patriarchs from their God-ordained head, the Bishop of Rome, Orthodoxy has undermined the authority of its own patriarchs to teach authoritatively and infallibly. Thus, in denying the Bishop of Rome anything more than an empty “primacy of honor”, Orthodoxy has relegated its patriarchs to that same empty “primacy of honor” amongst its other bishops.

Later, I discovered that Fr. Brian Harrison rejected Orthodoxy for almost the exact reason, and he wrote an article for Catholic Answers giving a lengthier explanation of the problem.

Needless to say, the thread got nasty pretty quickly as those discussion always do, but posts #1 & #96 of the thread were written not by me but by Orthodox, so some among them can honestly admit that they have a major problem. Like the fault lines in California that hidden just beneath the surface, it’s not a question of if but when the eruptions finally shake things up in the East.

We may even feel a few tremors in this thread now.

I think this is one of the ingredients in the “good stuff”!

 

[Randy_Carson]

OK. at a loss for words. Hopefully not too many are wrangling over it.

Pretty stunning admissions, huh?

Now, check out post #96 here to see just how the “wrangling” is playing out among individual Orthodox. I’ll reproduce it in full here, and as an FYI, the following was posted on not one but TWO Orthodox forums back in 2008. I think you will see why Seraphim, the poster, was so eager to find a solution to this vexing problem:

In recent debates with those of other faiths, I’ve come across a very interesting question to which I confess I have no distinct and authoritative answer:

By what criteria do we Orthodox authoritatively, objectively, and externally judge whether a given council was ecumenical or not?

If you sit down and think hard about it, it’s a much more difficult question than it appears at first blush. We can dismiss standards such as “convocation by the Emperor” or “lots of bishops” as immediately ludicrous on their face. Even the more reasonable alternatives, however, have severe problems:

1. Suppose we say, “ratification by a subsequent council.” This raises issues:

-I’m fairly sure there have been heretical councils subsequently ratified by other heretical councils. yet we don’t count those as ecumenical.
-Is this a question of “oomph,” or can any piddly local council basically create ecumenical councils by fiat? If it’s “oomph” that counts, how do we determine whether it’s sufficient, without running into the infinite causes dilemma?

1. Suppose we say, “participation by the Pentarchy.” This raises issues:

-Does this mean that, since the Great Schism, Orthodoxy has lost its ability to hold new Ecumenical Councils? This would have serious implications as to Orthodoxy’s catholicity.
-What of the First Ecumenical Council? Constantinople wasn’t even a big-name see at the time.
-What of the Second Ecumenical Council? The Bishop of Rome was not present.
-What of the Ignatian council of 869? What of the Council of Florence? Both had at least ostensible participation by all the Patriarchates.

1. Suppose we say, “ratification by the Pentarchy.” This raises issues:

-Again, does this mean Orthodoxy is stripped of the ability to hold new Ecumenical Councils?
-Again, what of the Ignatian council, and Florence, where the Pentarchy apparently ratified 'em, but we Orthodox reject them?
-More importantly, what of Chalcedon and the other councils we do accept that weren’t ratified by the whole Pentarchy?
-Especially, what of Chalceon canon 28, which was rejected by Pope St. Leo the Great, a move apparently accepted as legitimate by St. Anatolius?

1. Suppose we say, “ratification by the laity.” This raises issues:

-How many need to ratify a given council? 51%? 66%? 75%? 90%? How can we know what proportion is right? How can we measure whether this consensus exists? Within what length of time should it come to a proper degree of laity acceptance?
-What of all the times when heresy plagued the Church to such extent that probably a majority of the laity were in heresy? (I’m thinking specifically of Maximus the Confessor, and “Athanasius against the world.”)
-What makes an ecumenical council necessary at all, under this scheme? If majority rules, and Truth always wins out over the centuries, then why not just leave it to the body of the faithful?

1. Suppose we say, “ratification by the bishop of Rome.” This raises issues:

-Why are we still Orthodox, then?
-What of the Photian council of 879, which was apparently ratified by Rome and then deratified? Does this mean the foundations of the Faith are subject to repeal on the whim of one man?
-If true, why was the papacy’s vote so frequently ignored (Chalcedon canon 28) or outright opposed (St. Cyprian)?
-Again, it seems this would obviate the need for an ecumenical council except for informational and diplomatic purposes, if the papacy were able to decree authoritatively what was and wasn’t true doctrine.
-On the face, it does seem, however, that this rule is the easiest to fit into the majority of historical circumstances.

(My gut inclines me to say that it’s a combination of 2, 3, and 4, on something of a sliding scale, but while this answer seems to me the most logically tenable, it is by no means particularly satisfying.)

Finally, I would be extremely interested to see any authoritative documentation–that is, in the canons or Church Fathers–as to what constitutes a valid ecumenical council. It seems to me that 20/20 hindsight and subjective private judgment is not a wise or solid foundation for something so incredibly vital to Orthodox ecclesiology.

(In particular, Orthodox blogger Perry Robinson wrote: With 2nd nicea, the documents in question actually LIST the conditions for a legitimate council and it seems quite strange that they do not list papal ratification and even stranger that NO ONE IS MENTIONING THEM AT ALL, even though it is the one place in an ecumenical council recognised by ALL that discusses and lays down the criteria in question. After a fairly thorough reading of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, I am unable to determine where he gets this. But this’d be just what I’m looking for. Any thoughts?)

Christ is in our midst!

Pax,

–Seraphim

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

With all due respect Jon, that is not the whole story. You say that it has ‘always’ been the case that within Lutheranism the Church determines doctrine.” In fact, Martin Luther defied the Church and Her Doctrines and he did so from his personal interpretation of Scripture. In this he defied one of the most important rules of Lutheranism, and ironically, he did it in order to establish Lutheranism.

It seems rather silly to say that without Luther there would be no Lutheranism. When we see Luther breaking an important rule of Lutheranism to establish Lutheranism, we can only wonder whether what he founded is the eyes of Lutheranism.

Personally, to me, it doesn’t seem like the whole thing about how Lutherans follow the doctrines of theichurch and are not allowed to establish doctrine independently bears out very well in the real world not hundreds of competing and doctrinally conflicting communions. That would not be possible if Lutherans were actually looking to the Church for their doctrines rather than to themselves. The fact of all of those conflicting Lutheran denominations is proof that Lutherans DO take doctrinal matters into their hands, defying the church, the same way that Luther did. If Lutherans really followed the rule to allow the church to teach doctrine, there would still be only one Lutheran denomination. The fact that Luther rebelled doctrinally against the Catholic Church and that many Lutherans rebelled against him

Given that this is simply not allowed by the Lutheran Church, it would appear that Luther’s doctrinally independent move, breaking the rule of the Lutheran Church, would invalidate the modern Lutheran church,

God Bless You Jon, Topper

The vast majority of Lutherans worldwide are members of synods, national churches, or diocese that are themselves members of one of two worldwide Lutheran organization: The LWF, or the ILC.
Of the two, the LWF is significantly larger.

Where divisions exist, however, they are divisions among synods. It is the governing bodies of those synods that make those decisions, not individual members.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Why divide things up between Catholics and everyone else? Isn’t the Catholic Church just one Christian denomination out of 30,000 denominations, each with its own list of essential doctrines? Even Catholics have several different denominations (just like the Baptists). There is the Roman Catholic Church and the Old Catholic Church.

Actually, according to the organizations that come up with numbers such as 30,000, the Catholic Church is 200 some churches.

Seriously, however, Catholics will tell you that the CC is not a denomination. Many Lutherans will say the same about Lutheranism, that we are not a denomination, but a tradtiion within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The fact is that even one division, and that existed long before the Reformation, is one too many.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

The vast majority of Lutherans worldwide are members of synods, national churches, or diocese that are themselves members of one of two worldwide Lutheran organization: The LWF, or the ILC.
Of the two, the LWF is significantly larger.

Where divisions exist, however, they are divisions among synods. It is the governing bodies of those synods that make those decisions, not individual members.

Jon

How is this not exactly what Jimmy Akin described when he said that Protestants are simply recreating fallible versions of the infallible Catholic Magisterium?

 

[benhur]

Hi Topper,
With all due respect Jon, that is not the whole story. You say that it has ‘always’ been the case that within Lutheranism the Church determines doctrine.”

If I may butt in again, we all know of his stand on personal conviction about certain scriptural interpretations, but how did he get that ? Is personal conviction the same as private interpretation ? Do you not have a personal conviction that the CC is the right church ? Is that a “private” decision as apart from other influences ?

Again, are folks purposely missing* “the rest of the story”* behind Luther’s stand ? Was it really “private”, as apart from early fathers, early councils, even earlier tradition ? They gave him no grounds, even sanction for his thoughts ? It is pure interpretation of the facts or conjecture to say he was “alone” and privately interpreting scripture. But I understand that too many folks at that time and even today it sure seemed and seems like it. A few however, have made it a trademark in telling such folks “the rest of the story”.

 

[benhur]

Pretty stunning admissions, huh?

Now, check out post #96 here to see just how the “wrangling” is playing out among individual Orthodox. I’ll reproduce it in full here, and as an FYI, the following was posted on not one but TWO Orthodox forums back in 2008. I think you will see why Seraphim, the poster, was so eager to find a solution to this vexing problem:

In recent debates with those of other faiths, I’ve come across a very interesting question to which I confess I have no distinct and authoritative answer:

By what criteria do we Orthodox authoritatively, objectively, and externally judge whether a given council was ecumenical or not?

If you sit down and think hard about it, it’s a much more difficult question than it appears at first blush. We can dismiss standards such as “convocation by the Emperor” or “lots of bishops” as immediately ludicrous on their face. Even the more reasonable alternatives, however, have severe problems:

1. Suppose we say, “ratification by a subsequent council.” This raises issues:

-I’m fairly sure there have been heretical councils subsequently ratified by other heretical councils. yet we don’t count those as ecumenical.
-Is this a question of “oomph,” or can any piddly local council basically create ecumenical councils by fiat? If it’s “oomph” that counts, how do we determine whether it’s sufficient, without running into the infinite causes dilemma?

1. Suppose we say, “participation by the Pentarchy.” This raises issues:

-Does this mean that, since the Great Schism, Orthodoxy has lost its ability to hold new Ecumenical Councils? This would have serious implications as to Orthodoxy’s catholicity.
-What of the First Ecumenical Council? Constantinople wasn’t even a big-name see at the time.
-What of the Second Ecumenical Council? The Bishop of Rome was not present.
-What of the Ignatian council of 869? What of the Council of Florence? Both had at least ostensible participation by all the Patriarchates.

1. Suppose we say, “ratification by the Pentarchy.” This raises issues:

-Again, does this mean Orthodoxy is stripped of the ability to hold new Ecumenical Councils?
-Again, what of the Ignatian council, and Florence, where the Pentarchy apparently ratified 'em, but we Orthodox reject them?
-More importantly, what of Chalcedon and the other councils we do accept that weren’t ratified by the whole Pentarchy?
-Especially, what of Chalceon canon 28, which was rejected by Pope St. Leo the Great, a move apparently accepted as legitimate by St. Anatolius?

1. Suppose we say, “ratification by the laity.” This raises issues:

-How many need to ratify a given council? 51%? 66%? 75%? 90%? How can we know what proportion is right? How can we measure whether this consensus exists? Within what length of time should it come to a proper degree of laity acceptance?
-What of all the times when heresy plagued the Church to such extent that probably a majority of the laity were in heresy? (I’m thinking specifically of Maximus the Confessor, and “Athanasius against the world.”)
-What makes an ecumenical council necessary at all, under this scheme? If majority rules, and Truth always wins out over the centuries, then why not just leave it to the body of the faithful?

1. Suppose we say, “ratification by the bishop of Rome.” This raises issues:

-Why are we still Orthodox, then?
-What of the Photian council of 879, which was apparently ratified by Rome and then deratified? Does this mean the foundations of the Faith are subject to repeal on the whim of one man?
-If true, why was the papacy’s vote so frequently ignored (Chalcedon canon 28) or outright opposed (St. Cyprian)?
-Again, it seems this would obviate the need for an ecumenical council except for informational and diplomatic purposes, if the papacy were able to decree authoritatively what was and wasn’t true doctrine.
-On the face, it does seem, however, that this rule is the easiest to fit into the majority of historical circumstances.

(My gut inclines me to say that it’s a combination of 2, 3, and 4, on something of a sliding scale, but while this answer seems to me the most logically tenable, it is by no means particularly satisfying.)

Finally, I would be extremely interested to see any authoritative documentation–that is, in the canons or Church Fathers–as to what constitutes a valid ecumenical council. It seems to me that 20/20 hindsight and subjective private judgment is not a wise or solid foundation for something so incredibly vital to Orthodox ecclesiology.

(In particular, Orthodox blogger Perry Robinson wrote: With 2nd nicea, the documents in question actually LIST the conditions for a legitimate council and it seems quite strange that they do not list papal ratification and even stranger that NO ONE IS MENTIONING THEM AT ALL, even though it is the one place in an ecumenical council recognised by ALL that discusses and lays down the criteria in question. After a fairly thorough reading of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, I am unable to determine where he gets this. But this’d be just what I’m looking for. Any thoughts?)

Christ is in our midst!

Pax,

–Seraphim

Thanks. Not a big student of this . All I can say the O’s are in good company. The problems they have in this “authority” problem has been around a long time, as I think Augustine points out conflicting councils. We have also had some conflicting popes . Hey, the most perfect authoritative speaker of truth could be said to have the same problem, for when even God Himself speaks, His own once perfect creation(s) asks , “what have you really said?”. So forgive me if I seem leery of anyone suggesting a solution to this age old “problem” .

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks. Not a big student of this . All I can say the O’s are in good company. The problems they have in this “authority” problem has been around a long time, as I think Augustine points out conflicting councils. We have also had some conflicting popes . Hey, the most perfect authoritative speaker of truth could be said to have the same problem, for when even God Himself speaks, His own once perfect creation(s) asks , “what have you really said?”. So forgive me if I seem leery of anyone suggesting a solution to this age old “problem” .

Ben-

How do you know which books belong in the NT? Because the Catholic Church made the determination long ago.

How do you know which Church Councils are “ecumenical”? Because the Catholic Church made the determination long ago.

Now, the Catholic Church recognizes more Councils as Ecumenical than the seven you acknowledge, but you reject the Second Council of Ephesus which was actually held before Chalcedon. Why? Because the Catholic Church rejected it.

Today, everyone who split off from the Catholic Church (the Orthodox and the Protestant) recognizes both the canon and the Councils of the Catholic Church - up to a point.

Catholics have continued to hold councils that are legitimately ecumenical by virtue of the authority of the pope, but neither the Orthodox nor the Protestant groups recognize them.

Why not?

Because neither of you are willing to acknowledge the pope’s authority.

The Orthodox grapple with this issue because the importance of the councils is to them what sola scriptura is for Protestantism.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter whether the stool has one leg or two, it is still not as stable as the three-legged stool of Catholicism: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church.

Private judgment in the absence of infallibility is the root cause.

 

[JonNC]

How is this not exactly what Jimmy Akin described when he said that Protestants are simply recreating fallible versions of the infallible Catholic Magisterium?

While I wouldn’t consider the Catholic Magisterium infallible, I would say that the Evangelical Catholic churches did indeed see the need for Church authority. Remember the conclusion of Augsburg:

…in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.

For us at least, this isn’t something new. At least since the Augsburg Confession, its always been there. My sense from Akin is that he perceives this as a later add-on, a retrenchment, as it were, by some Reformation era communions, as well as the later ones. ISTM it is the later ones that have jettisoned most notions of Church authority

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

While I wouldn’t consider the Catholic Magisterium infallible, I would say that the Evangelical Catholic churches did indeed see the need for Church authority. Remember the conclusion of Augsburg:

For us at least, this isn’t something new. At least since the Augsburg Confession, its always been there. My sense from Akin is that he perceives this as a later add-on, a retrenchment, as it were, by some Reformation era communions, as well as the later ones. ISTM it is the later ones that have jettisoned most notions of Church authority

Jon

One other question then comes to mind: Does doctrine develop?

 

[JonNC]

One other question then comes to mind: Does doctrine develop?

Lutherans don’t view a type of polity as “doctrine”, which is why it varies between Lutheran synods. As for me, I’m almost counting on some development of the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. I think further Church unity is dependent on it.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Lutherans don’t view a type of polity as “doctrine”, which is why it varies between Lutheran synods. As for me, I’m almost counting on some development of the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. I think further Church unity is dependent on it.

Jon

Okay, but does doctrine develop? Don’t make me start a new thread!

 

[JonNC]

Okay, but does doctrine develop? Don’t make me start a new thread!

That which we’ve received from the apostles, from scripture, is what it is.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

That which we’ve received from the apostles, from scripture, is what it is.

Jon

Well, the reason I asked is because if you concede that we understand doctrine better today than did the theologians of centuries past, then I think I could make a pretty good case for universal jurisdiction by observing the evident planting of seeds in scripture, sprouting in the writings of the ECF’s and maturing in the Vatican Councils.

 

[JonNC]

Well, the reason I asked is because if you concede that we understand doctrine better today than did the theologians of centuries past, then I think I could make a pretty good case for universal jurisdiction by observing the evident planting of seeds in scripture, sprouting in the writings of the ECF’s and maturing in the Vatican Councils.

We might also have to consider the possibility that the EO understanding today is the correct modern observations of said seeds.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

We might also have to consider the possibility that the EO understanding today is the correct modern observations of said seeds.

Jon

Is that what you are considering?

Or is it that the Orthodox are suffering from the same types of problems caused by private judgment that we see rampant among Protestants?

My opinion is that although the EO broke off from the Church 500 years before you, they cling VERY tightly to Sacred Tradition whereas Protestants, generally, do not (present company excepted, of course). This has slowed their fragmentation somewhat.

IOW, having that second leg has helped them hold together, but the collapse of Orthodox unity is inevitable.

However, you haven’t actually addressed the point of my previous post. If doctrine does develop legitimately, validly, etc., then the development of the papacy is legitimate and valid, also.

Of course, I would argue that universal jurisdiction was evident very early on, and only the outright denial of that fact has enabled the Orthodox to continue on their present path.

IOW, like Luther, the Orthodox have to explain away both scripture and the writings of the ECF’s in order to justify schism which they actually desire for reasons of ethnic and national pride and NOT on the basis of a true desire to follow the apostolic faith.

 

[PRmerger]

A single “church(?)” building does not a denomination make!

Protector.

It does if this single church pastor answers to no one else, save his own (fallible), private interpretation of Scripture, and is able to preach without restraint and without management from any other authority, the this single church is indeed its own denomination.

 

[PRmerger]

The claim of the reformers was that it was not “historic” Christian teaching.

So the Lutheran synod would sanction an individual reforming Lutheran teaching today? He could be able to state that Lutheran Doctrine A is not historic Christian teaching and can depart from what Doctrine A professes?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

The vast majority of Lutherans worldwide are members of synods, national churches, or diocese that are themselves members of one of two worldwide Lutheran organization: The LWF, or the ILC.
Of the two, the LWF is significantly larger.

Where divisions exist, however, they are divisions among synods. It is the governing bodies of those synods that make those decisions, not individual members.

My post was responding to your comment that Lutheranism ‘always’ defers, for doctrine, to the Church and not to individual laity. That comment was as follows:

** It has always** been the case within Lutheranism that the Church determines doctrine, not individual laity.

What I took issue with Jon is the word ‘always’. In fact, Lutheranism was founded upon Luther’s individual, private, personal interpretation of Scripture. In addition, as you know, for several years after his excommunication, as he was building his church, the one that bears his name, he actually taught that the interpretation of Scripture IS up to the individual.

The very early history of the Reformation is extremely revealing and telling.

Lutheranism may NOW teach that doctrine is the responsibility of the Church, but that is not at all how Lutheranism began. In fact if it weren’t for Luther’s doctrinal rebellion against his Church, Lutheranism would not exist today. Lutheranism is in fact based on Luther’s Private Interpretation of Scripture.

What is more important for this particular thread is the fact that once Luther demanded his own personal right to Interpret Scripture, he was in a terrible position to demand that nobody else had the right to do the same. As such, Lutheranism today is fractured doctrinally and no Lutheran body has any authority to claim that their particular body is ‘more correctly’ teaching the Gospel, or that a body cannot break away doctrinally.

Luther’s demonstration of his ‘right’ to privately interpret Scripture, and defy his Church, set the precedent for defying ‘the church’, and as a result we now have something like 30,000 doctrinally independent denominations and that figure is doubling roughly every 27 years.

There is of course the issue of the ‘authority’ associated with the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord, but that is for another post.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Protector]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protector View Post
A single “church(?)” building does not a denomination make!

Protector.

PRmerger;12569572] It does if this single church pastor answers to no one else, save his own (fallible), private interpretation of Scripture, and is able to preach without restraint and without management from any other authority, the this single church is indeed its own denomination.

Ah! Dear PR - who made you the judge?
I am quite sure that there are many church pastors that fit your description, also many Roman Catholic priests I daresay. However, all of the pastors with whom I am acquainted (without exception) have had extensive training in Bible colleges, and the original languages, plus years of exposure to the INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD, to Which and to Whom they are answerable.

Protector.