1st Paragraph in quote: On other points I think they support the Catholic Church as well, but I suppose it depends on what ECF you look at.
Of course, as you can tell, I don’t want to be.Sort of. Jerusalem didn’t really define anything doctrinally. It was really just an answer to the reformation and counter-reformation going on in Western Europe. Its status as a local synod and some perceived Westernizations in the council has caused many bishops and other clergy to hold it as not being authoritative. Therefore, while it is ok to have the opinion that it is authoritative, the de facto assumption seems to be that it is not. It is rather infrequently referenced, unlike the hesychast councils, or the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Timer will likely tell if the Orthodox Church accepts or rejects it as being authoritative on the level of the whole Church.
But if it is up to each individual, then I suppose it’s really not authoritative, is it? Because “authoritative” implies exactly that, no?- it’s not optional.
You do realize Constantine is considered a saint don’t you? There are many icons of him, and his mother St. Helen…
Of course. That he was baptized by Arians doesn’t undo the tremendous things he did for the Church.
That’s why I said that the de facto assumption is that it’s not authoritative. Some people personally believe so, but unless the whole Church comes to believe so, its authority is effectively nothing. That may sound like a scary way to do things, but it certainly worked with the hesychast councils and also with the issue of iconoclasm, which wasn’t solved for a century or so after Nicaea II (because of the second iconoclasm).
It does sound scary, considering virtually every council has been rejected by some in the church, indeed at times even leading to schism, yet the authoritativeness of the councils did not lie in wait, pending the acceptance of everyone. Indeed, had that been the case, it would be hard to imagine how/why any schism should result from the teaching of an ecumenical council at all. Afterall, wouldn’t the teaching be non-binding and lack any authority until everyone accepted it, even if it took 1,500 years?
Interesting. A few questions:
But should ordinary laity unprotected by Christ’s promises to his church of infallibility be allowed to determine the veracity of a council’s teachings?
I believe he says that it would have to be accepted by the whole church to be binding and authoritative, so in the scenario you presented, then that teaching of the hypothetical Massachusetts Council would not be authoritative…At least if I follow your scenario properly that’s the answer.
I like how you suggest steps I’ve already taken–great minds think alike.You and your kin (those stuck between Judah and Israel) should storm heaven with prayers for union- Tell the Theotokos that you can’t bear to be away from the church- or to be forced to decide who is right (in order to choose) when the two giants seem unable to resolve the issues themselves!
Clearly we haven’t seen this great miracle take place yet. If it ever materializes, perhaps even Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris could conceivably be converted (that would be one thing I’d want to still be around for!).Being away from the sacraments is a thoroughly unpleasant experience: I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. What complicates things even further is that, if the Eastern Orthodox are right, Catholic sacraments are defective: the communion elements remain bread and wine, and sins won’t be duly absolved by the priest after the penitant’s confession. Heaven help us.Though I should say, my friend- you need the sacraments- so at some point you’ll have to make a decision, even if a best guess one.
You make good points. What has led you to believe that the Eastern Orthodox view of history is the most plausible?I am not saying to ignore the intellectual component. I am saying that you can not rely on it entirely here. The historical debate and polemic between both sides can be very convincing depending on what source or what person you talk to (though admittedly I think the Orthodox conception of history on the issue is more correct but that is my personal bias). This sort of life decision has to be made on the basis of Grace and discernment, not polemical arguments or even on the basis of the delicious potlucks (which would be an even harder way of deciding then the historical arguments). You have to read, pray, visit, and discern. Trust in God, avoid approaching it from an uncharitable or legalistic manner, and I am certain you will find where God wants you to go.
But the idea that councils are immediately authoritative doesn’t match too well with history. There is absolutely no set of criteria which guarantees that a council will be authoritative. Some Orthodox have (incorrectly) put forth the idea that an Ecumenical Council must be called by the Emperor and approved by the patriarchs of all of the Churches. Catholics like to say that an Ecumenical Council must be universal amongst the Church and approved by a pope.
No, it’s not like that at all. The Church is not a democracy (not even at the conciliar level), and the laity do not have that sort of authority. I did not mean to say that the laity have the ability to determine the authority of a council. It is a more of a mysterious thing than that. At times, the Church acts with one mind, and such events are seen to be a sign that the Spirit is guiding the Church.
And clearly acceptance by the whole church is the foremost of those “criteria” that simply must not be true. Otherwise, we’d be forced to say that only about two councils have any shot at the binding and authoritative claim.
But if they have not that authority then they should not exercise it, and surely, the authoritativeness or lack thereof of a council should never be allowed to swing on the acceptance/non-acceptance of those that have no authority to determine that authoritativeness in the first place.
This sounds eerily close to sola-scriptura arguments. You say that it’s true teaching that confers infallibilty, not divinely instituted and protected authority. I guess the question then is, who determines whether the council has agreed with the deposit of faith in its pronouncements, proclamations or teachings?
True. But all Heretics cited the fathers and scripture and claimed to be teaching in accordance with the deposit of faith. The citing of previous teaching does not mean that the Council’s authority is not infallible on the question of doctrine it determines on the sole basis of divine protection from teaching error. After all, any two people can read the same sources and conclude very different things, or we would not have the early Heresies regarding the very nature of God.
So the issues themselves decide the authoritativeness?
And clearly acceptance by the whole church is the foremost of those “criteria” that are simply not true. If not then I’d say only about two councils have any shot at the binding and authoritative claim.
But if they have not that authority then they should not exercise it, and surely, the authoritativeness or lack thereof of a council should never be allowed to swing on the acceptance/non-acceptance of those that have no authority to determine that authoritativeness in the first place.
Basically, it’s true teaching that confers infallibilty, not divinely instituted and protected authority. I guess the question then is, who determines whether the council has agreed with the deposit of faith in its pronouncements, proclamations or teachings?
True. But all Heretics cited the fathers and scripture and claimed to be teaching in accordance with the deposit of faith. The citing of previous teaching does not mean that the Council’s authority is not infallible on the question of doctrine it determines on the sole basis of divine protection from teaching error. After all, any two people can read the same sources and conclude very different things, or we would not have the early Heresies regarding the very nature of God.
Yes, so even worse still, aside from the Holy Spirit, there is nothing to guarantee that councils are authoritative.
The laity doesn’t do that, I even said that in what you quoted.
No, the insistence on infallible councils is like a sola scriptura argument. What protestants do with scripture, Catholics have a tendency to do with councils. If councils are immediately authoritative upon being accepted by a pope, why was the Council of Constantinople of 879 repudiated two centuries later, after the reconciliation of Photius to the Church was accepted (this is where the impious myth of Photios as being some sort of deposed schismatic comes from; he died within the Church).
No. The Holy Spirit does.
The Holy Spirit must communicate his truth on the authoritativeness of a council to the Church somehow.
Alright- so what constitutes “the whole church” that must accept the Councils?
I beg to differ. Insisting that everyone must accept a Council for it to be binding and authoritative, is placing the authority to decide truth on individual Christians and makes nonsense of any teaching office in the Church at all- That is exactly what Sola scriptura does.
I wonder who you mean when you speak of “the Orthodox” in this regard. You’ll certainly find many Trad Caths who would happily stick to this exact opinion of the Orthodox (and some must, still) but for the clarity in Catholicism on who exactly speaks for the Church. This view on catholic sacraments is not something you can properly attribute to the orthodox as a whole.
.How it does so is a mystery, just like salvation and the sacraments are great mysteries.
You’ve heard of the concept of consensus patrem, have you not? It’s similar; there becomes a clear consensus over time (like what happened with the trinitarians, even though Arians and semi-Arians outnumbered them at first). Again, this is a great mystery of the Holy Spirit how the body of Christ is guided into consensus.
Then the Catholic system is nothing but magisterial and papal sola scriptura. Authority rests not in man but in the one Godhead which guides the Church through the actions of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps that answer is unsatisfactory to you, but then there is no such thing as certainty in faith.
This is correct. We do consider ourselves Catholic, but not under the Pope. Why would we not call ourselves catholic when we use the Nicene-constantinopolitan Creed? The Creed clearly states that we “believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Katholiki is the greek word that we get the english word Catholic from. It is kind of offensive to us that the Roman Catholic Church/ECC thinks that they are THE Catholic Church just because your Church took that as its name. We are in fact Catholic, and Catholic is not synonymous with (I will try to be as accurate as possible here) the Papal Catholic Churches. Hence why we would refer to you as Roman Catholic whether you’re eastern or not. Its just our way of defining our identity from your’s, since we are in fact Catholic (ie universal).I’ve heard them call themselves Eastern Orthodox, and Orthodox Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Catholic and I don’t know the technicalities of those names, but they all seem to be separate from the Roman Catholics for the same reasons, and they don’t consider themselves under the authority of the Pope as anything more than a leader among equals.