Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[Evlogitos]

I think it is also resonable to say based on this section of the letter

• that the Apostolic Tradition and the Faith proclaimed to mankind were preserved in the Church of Rome more fully.

Why is this a reasonable inference from the text? Irenaeus cites the tedium of going through every church’s succession, and mentions that Rome is great, ancient, universally known. Where does Irenaeus state that Rome has any fuller a share of Tradition than another church? I suppose you could make an argument that this is what he means by “preeminent” (potentiorum principalitatem), but such a conclusion is eisegetical and speculative–again, begging the question.

• As you point out, Irenaeus points to this Church – Rome – as the one to which all other churches must -convenire-

Quite right. But what does convenire mean in this context? As the link I provided points out, convenire cum is the normal rendition of “agree with,” while what Irenaeus says–convenire ad–typically means “assemble at.” This rendition is backed by the Vulgate:

viz., Judg 20:11; 1Sa 22:2; 3Ki 8:2,5; Ezr 9:4; Dan 3:2; 1Ma 5:38,64; 7:12,22; 11:47; 15:10; 2Ma 14:16; Mt 27:62; Mk 1:45; 5:21; 6:30; 7:1; 10:1; Lk 8:4 (?); Ac 20:7; and 1Co 11:33. The reader can readily verify for himself that in every one of these passages, CONVENIRE refers to a physical coming together, not to an agreement.

And continuing:

*Note that Irenaeus, having said that every church must CONVENIRE AD Rome, goes on to explain that he is referring to the faithful Christians who travel to Rome from everywhere. If he meant that every local church must agree with Rome in doctrine, it would not be necessary to explain the phrase; but since he has said that every local congregation will travel to Rome, he explains that he means that individual Christians from every local congregation will be visiting Rome. Note also that he speaks, not of the faithful IN every place (UBIQUE), but of the faithful FROM every place (UNDIQUE). If they were agreeing with Rome, they could do that without leaving home, and so he would speak of the faithful UBIQUE. But his point is that by regularly visiting Rome, the faithful contribute to the stability of doctrine there, and so he speaks twice of the faithful UNDIQUE. He has already made the point that in each individual congregation, the continuity of the bishops and of their council of presbyters preserves the faith (an argument that applies with equal force to all local congregations founded by apostles). Here he is pointing out the additional importance of the intercommunication among congregations as a bulwark against innovation.

Irenaeus’ plain point is that bishops and presbyters are kept true to the faith they have received from the Apostles not only by continuity with their predecessors, but also by the continual cross-fertilization and cross-checking provided by the network of travel and correspondence among congregations.*

Why is this not an accurate possible rendition of the text’s sense?

[continued]

 

[Evlogitos]

Given the context of the letter, Irenaeus is also saying if differences arise, all Churches have recourse to the Church of Rome, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches that intend on keeping the apostolic tradition

This also seems at least slightly eisegetical, and it doesn’t prove your point. Certainly the Tradition is preserved at Rome, but where does Irenaeus suggest that this preservation, and the recourse of other churches thereunto, is exclusive to Rome?

Remember that the burden is yours to prove that the Bishop of Rome uniquely is guaranteed the deposit of faith in unbreakable fullness, such that if a church lacks communion with Rome, it lacks the communion of the true Faith. Irenaeus is certainly unsparing in his praise of the Roman Church, but this does not necessarily rise to the level of RCC papal prerogatives.

As stated, I disagree with what I think you’re saying in your if/then statement

1. 
   *]Irenaeus defines clearly where the authority of the Church of Rome comes from.
   *]Irenaeus clearly defines why all must be in harmony with the Church of Rome.

1. 
   Irenaeus appears to define any authority of the Roman Church in light of, and inasmuch as it has participated in, continuous preservation of the Apostolic Tradition, rather than the other way around.
   
   Let us presume that convenire means “agree with.” So every church must agree with Rome. Why?
   
   Ad hanc enim ecclesiam
   
   For to this Church,
   
   propter potentiorem principalitatem
   
   Because of its more powerful chiefness,
   
   {principalitas is a hard rendering to make}
   
   necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam,
   
   It is necessary that every Church agree [with],
   
   hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles,
   
   (That is, those who are the faithful, from everywhere)
   
   in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique,
   
   In which always, by those who are from everywhere,
   
   conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio.
   
   Are preserved that which is traditioned from the Apostles.
   
   To render it in paraphrase:
   
   For, because of its more powerful chiefness, it is necessary that every Church–that is, the faithful from everywhere–agree with this Church [Rome], in which the Apostolic Tradition has always been preserved by the faithful from everywhere.
   
   Thus we see that it is necessary to convenire to Rome, because at Rome, the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved to Irenaeus’ day. But nobody argues this. The issue is
   
   -Whether Rome’s principalitas stems from the fact that it has preserved the Tradition, or
   
   -Whether Rome’s preservation of the Tradition stems from its principalitas.
   
   The latter leans toward papal supremacy; the former does not.
   
   The text is not definitive either way–which, BTW, thus causes the Catholic burden of proof to be unmet–and I submit that the more plausible interpretation goes against papal supremacy. Note that semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio; the flow of Tradition is preserved by those who are from everywhere. Irenaeus does not credit the papacy as the sine qua non of communion with the Tradition, but rather seems to indicate that communion with Tradition consists in communion with the faithful in all parts of the world, while citing Rome as a locus, nexus, and example.
   
   Thus, it’s implied that as long as you have the Faith, which subsists in the doctrine, the Apostolic succession, and the intercommunion, you’re good. This is perfectly consonant with Orthodoxy, which does not localize the fullness of the Faith as stemming from any particular office or location.

 

[tdgesq]

Remember that the burden is yours to prove that the Bishop of Rome uniquely is guaranteed the deposit of faith in unbreakable fullness, such that if a church lacks communion with Rome, it lacks the communion of the true Faith.

Hi Evlogitos,

I couldn’t help but comment on this. Why is the burden of proof his? It is fascinating to me (genuinely) how people determine who has the burden of proof, what the standard of proof will be, what constitutes legitimate evidence to fulfill the burden, and who determines when the burden has been met.

I guess I can understand why in certain debate formats the person who sets forth the positive claim is required to carry the burden, but here we are talking about divine truth. It seems to me that both parties are claiming they they know what it is when it comes to Church authority. I’m not sure in such a case why it makes sense for the burden to be on one party.

I take it that the standard of proof is supposed to be whether the positive assertion is more likely than not, but what if your position and his position are equally likely? Does that mean he “loses”?

Finally, who is it that judges whether sufficient and competent evidence has been provided to meet the burden? You kind of make it sound like it’s you who is making the determination, which doesn’t work since you are an advocate. I suppose the folks watching at home ultimately have to make that call.

Anyway, these are some of the reasons why speaking of burdens in this context seems more of a polemical device than a helpful way to discover the truth. Okay, I’m done being off topic now. If I get the opportunity I might actually address the substantive issue.

 

[Evlogitos]

Hi Evlogitos,

I couldn’t help but comment on this. Why is the burden of proof his? It is fascinating to me (genuinely) how people determine who has the burden of proof, what the standard of proof will be, what constitutes legitimate evidence to fulfill the burden, and who determines when the burden has been met.

I guess I can understand why in certain debate formats the person who sets forth the positive claim is required to carry the burden, but here we are talking about divine truth. It seems to me that both parties are claiming they they know what it is when it comes to Church authority. I’m not sure in such a case why it makes sense for the burden to be on one party.

I take it that the standard of proof is supposed to be whether the positive assertion is more likely than not, but what if your position and his position are equally likely? Does that mean he “loses”?

Thanks for the comments. The burden of proof rests upon someone claiming something exists; hence the maxim, “he who asserts must prove.”

Here, we both agree on several fundamental premises, such as that the Apostolic Tradition exists, that ecclesiology is sacramental with its highest manifestation in the form of the episkopos or bishop; that such authority is passed down via the laying on of hands; that Rome has a legitimately Apostolic lineage, and that (all post-Schism questions aside) the Bishop of Rome was a legitimate bishop with a legitimate office pre-Schism.

The Roman Catholics, however, are asserting that the Pope is something more than a bishop (even a bishop possibly possessing certain unique prerogatives, as I will not unwillingly admit); they assert that (1) the See of Rome possesses absolute universal jurisdiction over every other Church, and (2) is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, and (3) that acceptance of (1) and (2), and full communion with the See of Rome, is an absolute requirement to fullness of Christianity. These are all made over against the fundamentals upon which both Orthodox and Catholics agree. Catholics assert these; therefore, the burden is theirs to prove them. Orthodox assert that these are not the case, but by logical extension, failure of Catholics to carry their burden of proof is sufficient to establish the Orthodox counterclaim as accurate.

In a case where there is equal evidence supporting both sides, the default presumption would be where both sides are in agreement, following Occam’s Razor. With the issue of papacy, equal evidence on both sides would thus come down in the Orthodox camp.

Finally, who is it that judges whether sufficient and competent evidence has been provided to meet the burden? You kind of make it sound like it’s you who is making the determination, which doesn’t work since you are an advocate. I suppose the folks watching at home ultimately have to make that call.

The judge is ultimately the individual. I am not here strictly as an advocate; in my mind, debate is absolutely useless if one does not sincerely commit to the possibility of being persuaded by the other “side’s” argument. As such, while everyone is presenting perspectives and evidence, hopefully everyone is also fairly examining everything that’s being said.

However, in many cases it will be fairly obvious when an individual’s evidence fails to meet its burden of proof. Logic is objective at its core. e.g.:

-I will prove to you that 2+2=4:

1. 2 is a number.
2. 2, combined with itself, results in a different number.
3. It is my inner belief that the result of 2 combined with itself is equal to the number 4.
4. Therefore, 2+2=4.

Here we can easily see, even though we know (by other means) that my conclusion is correct, I have not met my burden of proof by any reasonable standard. Nobody should take my evidence seriously, and as such my conclusion remains unproven until my ducks are all in a row, if you will. Obviously, there will be cases where the line is much fuzzier. In such cases, however, I think you’ll hear me shut up pretty quickly over the issue of burden of proof.

My apologies, btw, if this was a bit long-winded. I just want to assure you that I’m being absolutely as fair as it is in my power to be, and that “burden of proof not met,” coming from me, represents an honest logical evaluation rather than any sort of polemic.

 

[tdgesq]

Thanks for the comments. The burden of proof rests upon someone claiming something exists; hence the maxim, “he who asserts must prove.”

It’s a nice maxim but hardly informative. Especially in these situations where, as in most debates, each side is making their own assertions.

Here, we both agree on several fundamental premises, such as that the Apostolic Tradition exists, that ecclesiology is sacramental with its highest manifestation in the form of the episkopos or bishop;

I don’t agree. This is an interesting way of trying to at the outset define all bishops as holding equal authority, but historically it simply isn’t the case, not even among the Orthodox, although I understand today that it is no longer in vogue to ascribe any greater authority to a patriarch.

that such authority is passed down via the laying on of hands; that Rome has a legitimately Apostolic lineage, and that (all post-Schism questions aside) the Bishop of Rome was a legitimate bishop with a legitimate office pre-Schism.

I largely agree with this. Catholics who don’t know should understand that under the Cyprianic view of Apostolic succession, the vast majority of Orthodox believe we do not have valid Apostolic orders. In other words, we don’t have any bishops - just heretics who are incapable of administering valid sacraments. There are have been no valid baptisms for nearly a thousand years within the RCC for instance.

The Roman Catholics, however, are asserting that the Pope is something more than a bishop (even a bishop possibly possessing certain unique prerogatives, as I will not unwillingly admit);

Well, then you also admit he is “more” than just a bishop I suppose. He is what he is, the successor of St. Peter who was given a specific Petrine ministry by Christ over the entire Church that other bishops do not have. I realize you don’t agree with that, but the fact that you admit he possesses certain unique prerogatives demonstrates that all bishops aren’t required to posses equal authority.

they assert that (1) the See of Rome possesses absolute universal jurisdiction over every other Church,

I don’t agree with this.

and (2) is infallible when speaking ex cathedra,

I agree.

and (3) that acceptance of (1) and (2), and full communion with the See of Rome, is an absolute requirement to fullness of Christianity.

I disagree because of #1.

These are all made over against the fundamentals upon which both Orthodox and Catholics agree. Catholics assert these; therefore, the burden is theirs to prove them. Orthodox assert that these are not the case, but by logical extension, failure of Catholics to carry their burden of proof is sufficient to establish the Orthodox counterclaim as accurate.

1. Catholics do not accept all the fundamentals as you have described them, nor do they make all the assertions you have described.
2. The Orthodox are the ones making the positive assertion: that all bishops hold equal authority. Therefore, according to your maxim, it is you who bear the burden of proof. As you can see, it all depends upon how the issue is framed.
3. Even if everything else you’ve written were correct, it still does not follow as a matter of formal logic that if Catholics cannot carry their theoretical burden then the Orthodox claim must be correct.

In a case where there is equal evidence supporting both sides, the default presumption would be where both sides are in agreement, following Occam’s Razor. With the issue of papacy, equal evidence on both sides would thus come down in the Orthodox camp.

I have seen Occam’s Razor used to disprove the existence of God, the reality of the hypostatic union and the Trinity. It all depends upon who’s wielding the razor. If it were in my hand, I would say that a system that posits thousands of different bishops without a leader, as opposed to thousands of different bishops with one who has the authority to maintain unity amongst them, should be pruned away. Your view would make identifying an ecumenical council practically impossible.

In fact, I will as a matter of course compare the evidence you demand for the RCC understanding of the papacy with that available for the authority of an undefined number of bishops in council to bind the consciences of all Christians. At least if I have time. As always, I regret engaging you in this because there never seems to be a way out.

 

[John214]

tdgesq,

I will attempt to address a few points in the hope of clarifying burdens of proof and what not. You are partially right when you say that the Orthodox side bears the burden of proof for their position as well. This is because they are asserting something, as you have said, namely that all bishops are equal (in some sense). However, for the purpose of this thread, those asserting the Roman Catholic position bear the burdon of proof. The reason is simple, the question posed is, “Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church “false”?” If I were to go onto an EO discussion board, and ask, “Why is the Roman Catholic Church “false”?” Then they would hold the burden of proof, or more specifically, “Why is Papal infallibility/supremacy false?” Also, should I have gone onto a general Christian board, and asked, “Which is correct, RCC or EO?” then the burden of proof would have been somewhat equal, however in formal debate, usually the RCC would have to state his position first, due to the fact that the points of disagreement really are what the RCC has decided in issues of Papal Supremacy/infallibility and what they say the Orthodox “lack”.

Also,

tdgesq:

Even if everything else you’ve written were correct, it still does not follow as a matter of formal logic that if Catholics cannot carry their theoretical burden then the Orthodox claim must be correct.

Evlogitos was referring to the Ockham’s razor principle that if evidence does not suggest an answer, then the simplest answer should be the one chosen. As a matter of principle, this usually is true.

For instance, if I say,

“John is late.” And I know that the reason for John’s lateness was either a car accident or that the prime minister of Japan came to his company and asked him to have tea with him, and if the evidence does not support either reason, then I would guess a car accident.

Nonetheless, it is not clear that Papal Supremacy is more complex, it may just be that Papal Supremacy gives a more direct and simple answer to questions such as, “How does the Church stay unified?”, “In times of ecumenical confusion, which side is right?” and, “What makes an ecumenical council valid?”

These questions might recieve a more simple answer from Papal Supremacy, and thus we may “cut off” the Orthodox position.

In either case, we will let Evlogitos answer.

One final question, you said you do not agree that the Catholic Church has universal jurisdiction, but you gave no explanation. I was under the impression that this was Catholic Doctrine, and Steve B has been pushing to show this for quite some time now. Indeed if you do not agree with Universal Jurisdiction, I might ask how you consider yourself Catholic? Certainly both the Byzantine and Latin rights of the RCC are under the Jurisdiction of the Pope, thus for all intents and purposes the entire Catholic Church is under his jurisdiction. The only ones who are not, are the Eastern Orthodox, but they are in schism. Should the Eastern Orthodox decide to join the RCC, then would we call them “The Most Easterly Eastern Right Church, who is not under the jurisdiction of the Vatican, yet still is in communion with them”? Or would they simply follow under the “Eastern Right” Churches? If so, then practically speaking the RCC would hold universal jurisdiction. Please clarify your position or correct me if I am wrong.

 

[John214]

Evlogitos,

Thanks for joining the discussion, I was afraid it was getting a little unbalanced before with me and Steve B only, but now we have you tdgesq, and Galdre, that is pretty healthy.

Interesting perspectives, I look forward to seeing your responses to tdgesq as well as further posts.

I would like to know if you have read any of William Lane Craig’s works though? I personally enjoy them very much.

Steve B,

Thank you for your response, and for the links. I would like to comment on the part of the Council of Florence that you posted.

To begin with, while it is interesting and beneficial to see what was said there, two things must be acknowledged. 1) The council was held largely, if not entirely on Western terms. And the entire council was born out of extreme circumstances which put the East at a disadvantage. 2) The council was over 400 years after the initial conflict.

With these two points in mind,

All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son

I am not exactly sure what is mean by this, it seems to me that the argument of the filioque was centered on whether or not the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Or whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from only the Father, but then through the Son. The emphasis being on the “source” of the proceeding.

My understanding of Orthodox position is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father and is “sent” through the Son. I would like to know what Catholic perspective was in say the 11th and 12th centuries on the issue, and what the Popes of these times said.

 

[Evlogitos]

I don’t agree. This is an interesting way of trying to at the outset define all bishops as holding equal authority, but historically it simply isn’t the case, not even among the Orthodox, although I understand today that it is no longer in vogue to ascribe any greater authority to a patriarch.

This depends on how one defines “authority.” If one defines it in a political or temporal sense, then sure, a metropolitan, or a patriarch, or an archbishop possesses more “authority” than an “ordinary” bishop, and various bishops have their opinion carry a lot more weight than others (i.e., even today, a lot more people perk up their ears and listen when the Ecumenical Patriarch speaks than when, say, the Archbishop of Athens).

From a sacramental perspective, of course, each bishop may celebrate the Eucharist, ordain priests, participate in the ordination of bishops, get a vote at synods and ecumenical councils, etc. In all the Tradition, there is no office of ministry higher than the bishop. Even the Pope himself is bishop of bishops (and from the RCC perspective, uniquely situated thereamongst), but at core a bishop, for all that. On that we’ll all agree, I hope.

Perhaps you could start by indicating what you mean by not all bishops being equal. In a sense, I would agree, but at the same time, the ecclesiological buck stops with the episkopos, no matter how finely you try to splice it. To go beyond that, you’d have to adopt an ecclesiology like that of the (Protestant) New Apostolic Church or some such.

I largely agree with this. Catholics who don’t know should understand that under the Cyprianic view of Apostolic succession, the vast majority of Orthodox believe we do not have valid Apostolic orders. In other words, we don’t have any bishops - just heretics who are incapable of administering valid sacraments. There are have been no valid baptisms for nearly a thousand years within the RCC for instance.

I would vigorously dispute particularly the last bit of this assertion. While I agree that many more conservative Orthodox are leery of whether the RCC has maintained Apostolic Succession, I am aware of only a few rather fundamentalistic types who would even consider rebaptizing a Catholic convert to Orthodoxy. Both the priest and the deacon at my home parish are ex-Catholic, and take a keen interest in Orthodox-Catholic relations, so I consider myself fairly well-informed on the subject.

Well, then you also admit he is “more” than just a bishop I suppose. He is what he is, the successor of St. Peter who was given a specific Petrine ministry by Christ over the entire Church that other bishops do not have. I realize you don’t agree with that, but the fact that you admit he possesses certain unique prerogatives demonstrates that all bishops aren’t required to posses equal authority.

Again, we must make the distinction between what makes a bishop a bishop, and what makes a bishop an archbishop or a metropolitan or a partriarch. These are not super-bishops; they’re ordinary bishops who have been accorded certain canonical or traditional responsibilities within the divine economy. Perhaps the Pope does have a specific Petrine ministry given by Christ, that may extend to the entire church. That’s well and good and possible. The two questions truly at issue are the nature of this ministry, and within that question, most specifically, whether its presence is required for a valid orthodox catholic Church.

they assert that (1) the See of Rome possesses absolute universal jurisdiction over every other Church,

I don’t agree with this.

From the acts of Vatican I:

If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema. (emphases mine)

I don’t know how you can read into this that the Pope doesn’t have supreme jurisdiction over every church in communion with Rome.

[cont’d]

 

[Evlogitos]

1. Catholics do not accept all the fundamentals as you have described them, nor do they make all the assertions you have described.

I believe I may not have communicated the above in a form which you completely understood. I assure you, however, that everything I mentioned is verifiably accurate.

1. The Orthodox are the ones making the positive assertion: that all bishops hold equal authority. Therefore, according to your maxim, it is you who bear the burden of proof. As you can see, it all depends upon how the issue is framed.

Depending on how you define “authority,” the Orthodox make no such assertion. The Orthodox believe that the Pope does not possess ordinary and immediate supreme jurisdiction over every faithful orthodox catholic Christian, do not believe he is infallible, and do not believe that one must be in communion with Rome to possess the full Faith. If Rome does not affirmatively establish these three things, then Orthodoxy’s “assertion” is proven by default. If the Pope does not possess universal ordinary jurisdiction, then no bishop possesses universal ordinary jurisdiction. If the Pope is not infallible ex cathedra, then he is just as fallible as any other hierarch. If communion with Rome is not a prerequisite for the fullness of the Faith, then the Orthodox are not per se excluded from true fullness. The negation would be all in the RCC’s non-affirmation. We Orthodox are very apophatic, you see.

1. Even if everything else you’ve written were correct, it still does not follow as a matter of formal logic that if Catholics cannot carry their theoretical burden then the Orthodox claim must be correct.

Obviously we are making a great many presuppositions, e.g., that the Copts, the Assyrians, the Protestants, Buddhism, Islam, atheism, et al., are not viable options for whatever reason. We are paring the issue narrowly as between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Thus, if the Catholics do not carry their burden, Orthodoxy emerges as probabilistically stronger as between the two of them. This doesn’t make Orthodoxy automatically right about everything in every possible metaphysical sense, of course; but this would be a red herring and a straw man, and you’re smart enough to know it.

I have seen Occam’s Razor used to disprove the existence of God, the reality of the hypostatic union and the Trinity. It all depends upon who’s wielding the razor. If it were in my hand, I would say that a system that posits thousands of different bishops without a leader, as opposed to thousands of different bishops with one who has the authority to maintain unity amongst them, should be pruned away. Your view would make identifying an ecumenical council practically impossible.

This begs the question and assumes facts not in evidence. By simple process of elimination, for purposes of this thread, if the Roman view is incorrect, then the Orthodox view, however unlikely or seemingly impracticable, must obtain.

More directly to the point, however, given your obvious contempt for a Church with no monarchial head, aren’t you in the least surprised to discover how astoundingly unified and uniform the practice of the Orthodox Faith remains after a thousand years? Oh, sure, we’ve had our little snits here and there (Old Believers and Old Calendarists, mainly), and our wonky uberliberal or uberconservative theologumena (tollhouses, anyone?), but nothing remotely resembling the schisms that’ve wracked the Papacy (the “Reformation” comes to mind), and other weird stuff (clown Masses? Hans Kung?).

You can whip Occam’s Razor around all you want, but the Orthodox haven’t done too shabbily for themselves, in spite of spending plenty of time under the bootheels of Islam, Communism, Fascism, Ivan the Terrible, you name it. We still know and practice what we believe, and frankly do it a lot better than Catholics on average, at least in the externals (e.g., we still fast Wed/Fri and all of Lent, etc.) in spite of at least a thousand years with no universal centralization. The secret? Lex orandi, lex credendi, my friend.

John214:

I have not read any of Prof. Craig’s works, unfortunately. I do know of him by reputation, however.

You are correct that the Orthodox believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, eternally, and comes to us from/through the Son, temporally. As time has gone on, Catholic thought on the subject has trended more toward the Orthodox view, which is a great relief.

It is not my belief that the filioque represents a tremendous impediment in Orthodox-Catholic relations, since many Catholic theologians today essentially affirm the Orthodox understanding, and hence don’t run afoul of the triadology issue which might otherwise ensnare them. In addition, while the great Orthodox saints Photius, Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus all roundly condemn the filioque in its illictly triadological sense, no Orthodox synod has ever formally condemned the filioque as per se heretical. Nor, to my knowledge, have the Catholics ever authoritatively condemned the absence thereof, notwithstanding a few kooky folks in 1054 who made the ludicrous assertion that the East had purposefully and heretically omitted (?!) the filoque from the liturgy. Thus, while not an insignificant issue, I believe the filioque in no way represents an irreconcilable theological difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. My main beef therewith is the rather anticanonical manner in which it was inserted into the Creed and imposed upon the churches, rather than any theological grounds.

 

[John214]

Evlogitos,

If you get the chance, I would highly recommend his works (you or anyone else) he mainly deals with Christian vs Atheist debate, but it is all good stuff.

Evlogitos:

As time has gone on, Catholic thought on the subject has trended more toward the Orthodox view, which is a great relief.

Evlogitos:

My main beef therewith is the rather anticanonical manner in which it was inserted into the Creed and imposed upon the churches, rather than any theological grounds

These two points are, I believe, the most important in considering the Filioque. Two questions arise:

1)If the Catholic Church is “changing” its position on the meaning of the filioque clause, then does that not present a contradiction in Tradition? (This question is mainly directed to Catholics)

1. Does the Pope have the authority to negate a part of a previous council (namely that which declared the Nicene creed to be unchangeable except by ecumenical council), and is the addition of the filioque justifiable?

While it is not so much the actual theological meaning, persay, the implications of the filioque are rather serious, unless a counter position can be provided.

Evlogitos:

We Orthodox are very apophatic, you see.

Yes, yes the Orthodox are. Sometimes dangerously so if I might add.

John

 

[Evlogitos]

1)If the Catholic Church is “changing” its position on the meaning of the filioque clause, then does that not present a contradiction in Tradition?

In the Catholics’ defense, what is changing is in the nature of the rhetoric and theologumena used to elabourate on the ratified position. This does not represent any sort of formal dogmatic shift, which means that the Catholics may legitimately claim all that’s happening is that consensus in solidifying on what it meant all along.

Off the top of my head, the only fairly serious question mark here is that the Second Council of Lyon (Fourteenth Ecumenical Council for the RCC) anathematized those who do not believe that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son; while the Catholics have strongly backed off this position and claim the anathema no longer applies, I do not believe there has been an authoritative repudiation of this fairly nasty dogmatic pronunciation.

As a side note, if I recall correctly, most of the non-Latin Rites in communion with the RCC recite the Creed sans filioque. This is quite heartening, but prior to any renunion, I’m going to bet that the Orthodox would want to see in authoritative writing that the filioque is to be read in a manner consonant with the Tradition of the Greek Fathers.

1. Does the Pope have the authority to negate a part of a previous council (namely that which declared the Nicene creed to be unchangeable except by ecumenical council), and is the addition of the filioque justifiable?

It is my understanding that, even under Catholic ecclesiology, once the Pope ratifies an Ecumenical Council, he can’t renege on it without formally reversing the process. While arguably some of the later Catholic great councils made formal revision, this still leaves us with at least a few hundred years where the filioque was read in direct violation of the canons. The only way out would be to accord the Pope an Emperor Palpatine-style power to morph the rules at will. “I am the Republic!”

Yes, yes the Orthodox are. Sometimes dangerously so if I might add.

I’m not sure I take your meaning. Apophasis is knowledge via mystery. It is our way of reaching for the Truth about God. While certainly positive statements have their place, apophasis is the best way to circumscribe a truth without running afoul of human conception. For example, you could say “God goes on forever.” But “forever” is a concept which the human mind is incapable of correctly conceiving. The best our mind can give us is a really, really, really great amount. Since “forever” is a concept beyond human experience or understanding, while the phrase may be accurate, it is of limited contemplative utility. Instead, something like “God is boundless” is much more accurate within human conception, since bounds are within the abstract realm of human thought-experience. Our struggle, then, is to have a conception of a being without bounds. Without denying the usefulness of positive statements about God, its end tends to be in the speculative scholastic silliness of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin,” and suchlike. I would recommend you read the works of pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite.

 

[steve_b]

Why is this a reasonable inference from the text? Irenaeus cites the tedium of going through every church’s succession, and mentions that Rome is great, ancient, universally known. Where does Irenaeus state that Rome has any fuller a share of Tradition than another church? I suppose you could make an argument that this is what he means by “preeminent” (potentiorum principalitatem), but such a conclusion is eisegetical and speculative–again, begging the question.

Quite right. But what does convenire mean in this context? As the link I provided points out, convenire cum is the normal rendition of “agree with,” while what Irenaeus says–convenire ad–typically means "assemble at**."** This rendition is backed by the Vulgate:

viz., Judg 20:11; 1Sa 22:2; 3Ki 8:2,5; Ezr 9:4; Dan 3:2; 1Ma 5:38,64; 7:12,22; 11:47; 15:10; 2Ma 14:16; Mt 27:62; Mk 1:45; 5:21; 6:30; 7:1; 10:1; Lk 8:4 (?); Ac 20:7; and 1Co 11:33. The reader can readily verify for himself that in every one of these passages, CONVENIRE refers to a physical coming together, not to an agreement.

And continuing:

Note that Irenaeus, having said that every church must CONVENIRE AD Rome, goes on to explain that he is referring to the faithful Christians who travel to Rome from everywhere. If he meant that every local church must agree with Rome in doctrine, it would not be necessary to explain the phrase; but since he has said that every local congregation will travel to Rome, he explains that he means that individual Christians from every local congregation will be visiting Rome. Note also that he speaks, not of the faithful IN every place (UBIQUE), but of the faithful FROM every place (UNDIQUE). If they were agreeing with Rome, they could do that without leaving home, and so he would speak of the faithful UBIQUE. But his point is that by regularly visiting Rome, the faithful contribute to the stability of doctrine there, and so he speaks twice of the faithful UNDIQUE. He has already made the point that in each individual congregation, the continuity of the bishops and of their council of presbyters preserves the faith (an argument that applies with equal force to all local congregations founded by apostles). Here he is pointing out the additional importance of the intercommunication among congregations as a bulwark against innovation.

Irenaeus’ plain point is that bishops and presbyters are kept true to the faith they have received from the Apostles not only by continuity with their predecessors, but also by the continual cross-fertilization and cross-checking provided by the network of travel and correspondence among congregations.

Why is this not an accurate possible rendition of the text’s sense?

[continued]

The link you provided quoted the Latin

emphasis mine]

:
Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio.

the argument you pose from the link, is based on reading into the text what is not there.

 

[Evlogitos]

the argument you pose from the link, is based on reading into the text what is not there.

You need to brush up a bit on your Latin sentence structure. Again, as you so helpfully provided, here is what Irenaeus says:

Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio.

To restructure the relevant portions of the sentence for a more English grammar:

enim est necesse omnem ecclesiam convenire ad hanc ecclesiam;

That is, “for it is necessary that all the church convenire ad this church.”

This is basic stuff. You’ll see the same things in the instances of convenire ad in the Vulgate. For example, Mark 5:21:

Now when Jesus had crossed over again by boat to the other side, a great multitude gathered to Him; and He was by the sea.

Latin:

et cum transcendisset Iesus in navi rursus trans fretum convenit turba multa ad illum et erat circa mare

Here we see convenire ad used in context to blatantly refer to a physical gathering together. We see this also in, e.g., Dan. 3:2 (“Nebuchadnezzar sent word to gather together convenirent ad] the satraps”). Thus, the argument remains unanswered. Nice try, though.

 

[steve_b]

This also seems at least slightly eisegetical, and it doesn’t prove your point.

When Irenaeus gives the succession of Bishops at Rome he stops at Clement reminding the reader it was Clement who settled the sedition at Corinth among their bishops. We’ve talked about Clement’s letter on this forum. So my point re: recourse to Rome is not eisegetical.

Evlogitos:

Certainly the Tradition is preserved at Rome, but where does Irenaeus suggest that this preservation, and the recourse of other churches thereunto, is exclusive to Rome?

It’s more than preserved. If ALL Churches EVERYWHERE are to agree with Rome, that’s pretty exclusive,… would you agree?

Evlogitos:

Remember that the burden is yours to prove that the Bishop of Rome uniquely is guaranteed the deposit of faith in unbreakable fullness, such that if a church lacks communion with Rome, it lacks the communion of the true Faith. Irenaeus is certainly unsparing in his praise of the Roman Church, but this does not necessarily rise to the level of RCC papal prerogatives.

This is not about me, we’re talking about Irenaeus and what HE wrote… correct?

Evlogitos:

Irenaeus appears to define any authority of the Roman Church in light of, and inasmuch as it has participated in, continuous preservation of the Apostolic Tradition, rather than the other way around.

Could you quote Irenaeus for your assessment?

Evlogitos:

Let us presume that convenire means “agree with.” So every church must agree with Rome. Why?

Ad hanc enim ecclesiam

For to this Church,

propter potentiorem principalitatem

Because of its more powerful chiefness,

{principalitas is a hard rendering to make}

necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam,

It is necessary that every Church agree [with],

Agree with what?

agree with the** ecclesiam (Church) **

The Church he is speaking of in context, is the Church of Rome

 

[steve_b]

You need to brush up a bit on your Latin sentence structure. Again, as you so helpfully provided, here is what Irenaeus says:

“Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio.”

To restructure the relevant portions of the sentence for a more English grammar:

Let’s leave the text alone. There is no need for you to restructure it.

 

[steve_b]

I largely agree with this. Catholics who don’t know should understand that under the Cyprianic view of Apostolic succession, the vast majority of Orthodox believe we do not have valid Apostolic orders. In other words, we don’t have any bishops - just heretics who are incapable of administering valid sacraments. There are have been no valid baptisms for nearly a thousand years within the RCC for instance.

Actually,

Under the Cyprianic view, (strictly speaking) the Orthodox have no valid orders today unless they all got rebaptized. All their sees were at one time in heresy, and sometimes all of them at the same time. That means no heretic could validly administer a sacrament. Therefore, Cyprian would have required all of them to be rebaptized before they could administer valid sacraments.

Rebaptism as you know is where Pope Stephen said Cyprian tangled around the axle…

 

[tdgesq]

Perhaps you could start by indicating what you mean by not all bishops being equal. In a sense, I would agree, but at the same time, the ecclesiological buck stops with the episkopos, no matter how finely you try to splice it. To go beyond that, you’d have to adopt an ecclesiology like that of the (Protestant) New Apostolic Church or some such.

Quickly. There is only one sacrament of holy orders within the Latin Church. It applies to deacons, priests, bishops, and popes alike. The ceremonial aspects may differ, but they all involve the laying on of hands. Nevertheless, the episcopate clearly has more and greater spiritual (not just temporal) authority than the diaconate. I suspect things are similar if not identical in the East.

The pope is a bishop, but in a very real sense the pope and all bishops are also priests. I doubt that causes you very much concern. What you really have a problem with is the notion that a bishop could be endowed with anymore divinely mandated authority than another bishop. I realize that it doesn’t fit into your sacramental theology, but that’s exactly what we are here to debate.

Catholics don’t take Matthew 16:18 as mere surplusage. They understand that Peter is the rock upon which Christ built has Church and that he has been given the keys. We can debate what that unique ministry entails, but that it is unique to Peter and his successors isn’t a proposition that requires a brand new never before heard of ecclesiology. I think you’re being a little bit coy here.

I would vigorously dispute particularly the last bit of this assertion. While I agree that many more conservative Orthodox are leery of whether the RCC has maintained Apostolic Succession, I am aware of only a few rather fundamentalistic types who would even consider rebaptizing a Catholic convert to Orthodoxy. Both the priest and the deacon at my home parish are ex-Catholic, and take a keen interest in Orthodox-Catholic relations, so I consider myself fairly well-informed on the subject.

Not true, particularly within the ROC, which I believe is the largest single church within Orthodoxy at present. I have been told on these forums by ROC clergy that this is the case, and I have to admit that the logical extension of their reasoning makes some sense. I disagree with all of their premises of course, including the Cyprianic theory of apostolic succession. I know that in at least one instance the Roman Catholic delegates at a joint theological dialogue walked out because the validity of their baptisms was questioned. I was as surprised as you appear to be.

Again, we must make the distinction between what makes a bishop a bishop, and what makes a bishop an archbishop or a metropolitan or a partriarch. These are not super-bishops; they’re ordinary bishops who have been accorded certain canonical or traditional responsibilities within the divine economy. Perhaps the Pope does have a specific Petrine ministry given by Christ, that may extend to the entire church. That’s well and good and possible. The two questions truly at issue are the nature of this ministry, and within that question, most specifically, whether its presence is required for a valid orthodox catholic Church.

I agree with this.

From the acts of Vatican I:
. . .

I don’t know how you can read into this that the Pope doesn’t have supreme jurisdiction over every church in communion with Rome.

I agree with everything stated in that portion of Vatican I. If that is what you meant by:

(1) the See of Rome possesses absolute universal jurisdiction over every other Church,

Then I don’t dispute it.

 

[Evlogitos]

When Irenaeus gives the succession of Bishops at Rome he stops at Clement reminding the reader it was Clement who settled the sedition at Corinth among their bishops. We’ve talked about Clement’s letter on this forum. So my point re: recourse to Rome is not eisegetical.

Let me re-quote myself, since you seem to perhaps have glossed over what I actually said:

“Certainly the Tradition is preserved at Rome, but where does Irenaeus suggest that this preservation, and the recourse of other churches thereunto, is exclusive to Rome?”

Nobody is going to argue that Rome in Irenaeus’ day had Apostolic succession, and preserved the Tradition, and that Rome helped other churches settle some disputes. What’s at issue is whether Rome is the anchor point with exclusive rights of appeal. I submit that such a conclusion, on the basis of what Irenaeus wrote, is eisegesis unsupported by the text.

It’s more than preserved. If ALL Churches EVERYWHERE are to agree with Rome, that’s pretty exclusive,… would you agree?

Did you completely ignore my entire argument? Again, I hate rehashing, but it’s clear you’re ignoring the main thrust of what I’m saying:

“Note that semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio; the flow of Tradition is preserved by those who are from everywhere. Irenaeus does not credit the papacy as the sine qua non of communion with the Tradition, but rather seems to indicate that communion with Tradition consists in communion with the faithful in all parts of the world, while citing Rome as a locus, nexus, and example.”

In case I’m being too wordy or highfalutin’, I’ll try to simplify the argument for you:

Assuming convenire ad to mean “agree with:”

-The Latin seems to indicate that all churches must agree with Rome,
—because Rome is an example of the full orthodox Faith,
—being a reflection (microcosm) of people everywhere who have preserved the Apostolic tradition.

Therefore:
-Because the faithful from everywhere have ensured that Rome preserves the Apostolic tradition,
-opposition to what is at Rome is opposition to the Apostolic tradition.

The reason this cuts against the Catholic interpretation is because Irenaeus is thus saying that it is the faithful men from everywhere who ensure Rome preserves the Tradition, not the other way around. As such, this is not a statement that Rome alone is the permanent guarantee of true Tradition, or that Rome has the power to tell other churches what is and isn’t true Tradition. With Irenaeus, the measure of the Apostolic Tradition is not Rome, but rather the faithful from everywhere.

Let’s leave the text alone. There is no need for you to restructure it.

I wasn’t planning to touch it before you displayed monstrous ignorance of Latin grammar and sentence structure. Grammatically, ad in the sentence does refer to (and attach to) convenire. Ask your priest, if you don’t believe me (I assume he knows Latin).

I’m wracking my brains to try and figure out how to convey this maddeningly simple point to you. Okay, let’s take the above sentence:

Let’s leave the text alone. There is no need for you to restructure it.

What you are saying, by analogy, is that because “it” does not appear in the sentence next to “the text,” therefore “it” cannot refer to “the text.” Clearly, such a statement is incorrect.

Long history of internet debates has led me to have a fairly low tolerance for willful ignorance. As such, I’m not going to comment further on this particular grammatical issue. I have repeatedly explained that your “gotcha” was founded on a mistaken premise, and therefore your conclusion was false. I explained why, and provided examples from the Latin Vulgate illustrating my point. This is all objectively verifiable, and if doubt still remains in your mind, I invite you to check the facts for yourself.

FYI, it would, however, be nice for anyone who takes interest in accurate Latin translation to reply to the point raised on convenire cum vs. convenire ad. I mean no disrespect at all to Steve, but I’m not sure his Latin or grammatical abilities are up to the task of providing a reasonable counter.

Under the Cyprianic view, (strictly speaking) the Orthodox have no valid orders today unless they all got rebaptized. All their sees were at one time in heresy, and sometimes all of them at the same time. That means no heretic could validly administer a sacrament. Therefore, Cyprian would have required all of them to be rebaptized before they could administer valid sacraments.

It is a huge stretch to say that all the Eastern bishoprics were at one time in heresy. Certainly, three of the Patriarchates were, and sometimes simultaneously, but as you know, Orthodox ecclesiology is pretty democratic. As such, even under Cyprianic ecclesiology (which, btw, is not the mainline of Orthodoxy), it would be a stretch to say that the Orthodox would have no valid orders.

As a teasing counterargument: Under the Catholic view, did St. John Chrysostom have no valid orders, since he was ordained by a bishop whose episcopate was not recognized by the papacy?

 

[Evlogitos]

tdgesq:

The pope is a bishop, but in a very real sense the pope and all bishops are also priests. I doubt that causes you very much concern. What you really have a problem with is the notion that a bishop could be endowed with anymore divinely mandated authority than another bishop. I realize that it doesn’t fit into your sacramental theology, but that’s exactly what we are here to debate.

Actually, I don’t really have an issue with that, in a sense. For example, a metropolitan has the power/responsibility of confirming bishops in his jurisdiction, and calling synods. Is this divinely mandated authority? Well, yes, in a sense, through the holy Canons and the holy Tradition. But again, the buck stops with the bishop. A metropolitan is a bishop in a certain temporal position, with certain responsibilities, but he’s still a bishop.

Catholics don’t take Matthew 16:18 as mere surplusage. They understand that Peter is the rock upon which Christ built has Church and that he has been given the keys. We can debate what that unique ministry entails, but that it is unique to Peter and his successors isn’t a proposition that requires a brand new never before heard of ecclesiology. I think you’re being a little bit coy here.

IIRC, Matthew 16:18 was debated early on in this thread. Let me dig up the specific quote from the Byzantine Rite funeral service, slightly paraphrased for clarity:

Jesus Christ our God… gave to [the] holy Disciples and Apostles the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and also the authority… both to bind and to loose the sins of men, so that bound in Heaven would be whatsoever things through them might be bound on earth, and likewise loosed in Heaven whatsoever things through them might be loosed.

This is a clear liturgical and theological statement (made by a not inconsiderable chunk of Catholics on a regular basis, no less) that your statement about the keys is perhaps not quite so absolute as you make it out to be.

As to the specific argument you make, while a Petrine ministry does not per se step on the toes on the episcopacy, it does require a considerable expansion on standard episcopal ecclesiology to assert that the character of this ministry extends to direct ordinary jurisdiction over every Christian in communion therewith, ex cathedra infallibility, and extance as the fount of the full Faith.

Again, I iterate: It is not the Petrine ministry that causes ecclesiological issues. It is not the uniqueness thereof that causes ecclesiological issues. It is the extent thereof that creates the issue.

Not true, particularly within the ROC, which I believe is the largest single church within Orthodoxy at present. I have been told on these forums by ROC clergy that this is the case, and I have to admit that the logical extension of their reasoning makes some sense. I disagree with all of their premises of course, including the Cyprianic theory of apostolic succession. I know that in at least one instance the Roman Catholic delegates at a joint theological dialogue walked out because the validity of their baptisms was questioned. I was as surprised as you appear to be.

ROC clergy in what sense? Moscow Patriarchate? ROCOR? IIRC, think the MP at large is pretty non-Cyprianic at large, but ROCOR (which just returned to communion with the MP) is well-known for its fairly fundamentalistic views on a lot of issues. SSPX-esque, perhaps?

 

[steve_b]

Steve B,

Thank you for your response, and for the links. I would like to comment on the part of the Council of Florence that you posted.

To begin with, while it is interesting and beneficial to see what was said there, two things must be acknowledged. 1) The council was held largely, if not entirely on Western terms.

I would suggest both sides had their reasons. The West sought unity, the East had a particular problem (the Sultan) breathing down their neck.

John:

My understanding of Orthodox position is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father and is “sent” through the Son. I would like to know what Catholic perspective was in say the 11th and 12th centuries on the issue, and what the Popes of these times said.

I thought session 6 from Florence that I linked, had a good history and balanced explanation