[article] Luther's Sola fide - was it all?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Medieval Europe
Forum Discription: The Middle Ages: AD 500-1500
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25000
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 22:01
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: [article] Luther's Sola fide - was it all?
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Subject: [article] Luther's Sola fide - was it all?
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 01:39
|
This was an article that I actually wrote on a park bench whilst thinking about the question, and thankfully I had my laptop with me so I just decided to write it! Summer holidays can do things like that!
|
Replies:
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 11:51
|
Hmmh. I wish you had more of these 'outbreaks'. So could Alex and Sam... We'd have no problem of fresh content... Hehe...
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 11:13
Here and further down it's somewhat misleading to leave it at that, because it implies - in modern English - that faith alone was enough to guarantee salvation. This is untrue. There were, according to Luther, five 'solas' necessary to salvation: sola Fide—sola Gratia—solo Christo—sola Scriptura—soli Deo gloria . The point of the 'sola' here is simply that good works are not necessary to salvation, not that 'faith is all you need' as many current Christian denominations would say. That salvation would be achievable simply by faith, without, e.g., grace, would be untenable, even I think in Islam.
That's a biassed statement if I ever heard one. 'Admittedly pseudo-Christian?' Admitted by whom?
Lutheranism rejected the power and hierarchy of the Catholic church mainly through Luther’s concept of “sola fide” or “faith alone”. Luther rejected the clergy because he thought that there was no need for people to need to use intermediaries in their relationship with god, which was supposedly personal. In the Marburg Colloquy in the 1540s, where Luther and Zwingli debated, the main emphasis of the debate was not “sola fide”, which both essentially agreed upon, but the issue of transubstantiation. Zwingli and other humanist Christian movements were much more radical in that they actually rejected the entire principle, maintaining that it was purely symbolic. Luther, however, rejected transubstantiation, but instead advocated “consubstantiation”, which maintained that no miracle had actually taken place, but the “essence” of Christ was in ordinary wine and ordinary bread. |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 11:43
I'm particuarly focusing on Luther's "Sola fide" and if it was actually that which defined his religious philosophy - I'm not really speaking in that much detail about other forms of christianity
Fair point - I did write this in a rush but then again, many Catholic beliefs do not come from the scriptures whatsoever - the term "Christian" logically means following the teachings of Christ - therefore, logically, practices which do not come from the scriptures cannot be considered fully Christian. Moreover, I'm not being bias as I'm neither a protestant nor a catholic, and live in a country filled with a great many of both denominations. I'm a pan-deist/loose Ashkenazi Jew, therefore my observations are not based on any latent feelings I may have for or against either form of christianity.
I'm not sure what you meant by this - the CofE of Luther's age was fundamentally a catholic institution which still endorsed key tenants such as transubstantiation, monastic vows and a complex clergical hierarchical system. Even after 1549 in Northumberland's regency of Edward, when the second "Edwardian book of common prayer" was enforced, and each church made to have a copy of Erasmus' "paraphrases" and Cranmer's "Homilies", there were still some strong Catholic elements at play - Bishop Hooper, for example - a firebrand protestant - who would not be ordained in typically CofE garments, but wished to be ordained in austre Lutheran ones. Obviously by the time of Northumberland, the CofE is admittedly Zwinglian and to all intents and purposes protestant, but even under Elizabeth, Transubstantiation was still upheald, and the 39 articles did essentially confirm the key tenents of the original faith. Comparing Luther's church to the CofE is itself a little premature as Luther's ideas had been cemented by around 1525 after the three key tracts were published in 1520, whereas it would take at least until 1536 with the acts of supression of annates, "vallor excclesiasticus" and "stasis collectanea copossia" until Henry VIII's church was a proper instated organisation, and a few years later, when the treaties of Toledo and Nice were signed in 1538 and 1540, Henry would execute Cromwell and instate the 6 articles. Obviously this a long-running and furious debate, and it depends whether you prefer A.G. Dickens. J.J. Scarisbrooke, Christopher Haigh or J.A. Froude, but at the end of the day, all of them generally agree that Henry VIII and his church were doctrinally essentially catholic in the begining.
Admittedly - Luther could never bring himself to deny transubstantiation and instead developed the rather ambigious principle of "consubstatiation" and had furious debates with Zwingli in the 1540s Marburg Colloquies. However, we are speaking about classical "Lutheranism", meaning when the church was not yet experiencing the counter reformation and the kind of criticisms that Luther were making were clearly against the doctrine of the church of those under Leo X, Alexander VI, Adrian IV, Clement VII etc. I do take your point about this issue - even in the 1531 diet of Regensburg, when Melancanthon and cardinal Conditerri came to an agreement about both faith and good works being important, many other protestant divisions such as anabaptists, Zwingilians etc would not accept it, and Luther himself was sceptical. Moreover, Melanchanton was himself a humanist and therefore a clear distinction needs to be made between his brand of Christianity and Luther's dogma. I would seriously doubt initially that the breach between Luther and the papacy was more serious than his arguments against the Anglican church. Many protestants did under Mary flee and import a more Calvinist brand of Christianity back to England under Elizabeth, and proto-Lutherans such as Wycliffe and the Lollards were clearly active among the middle classes from early periods (Henry VIII rather ironically even endorsed Tyndales' 1526 venacular English bible). However, don't forget that Luther's "Breach" as you put it between his newly forming church and that of Henry VIII's based mainly due to his disgust at Henry VIII himself - he believed that Henry VIII's marriage was immoral from a biblical perspective purely, whereas Clement VII mainly disagreed because he did not want to undermine papal infalability and also because, simply Charles V held him almost as a prisoner after the 1527 sack of Rome. However, don't forget that Henry VIII would not sign the 1530 Augsburg Confession, which does, as you say, insinuate a breach between him and the Lutherans, but right from this period to the 30 years war in the 18th century, it would be folly to suggest that Luther's breach with the pre-counter reformation church was less than that of his minimal breach with Henry VIII's - he had "bigger fish" both theologically and secularly to fry.
Much of the attraction of Luther's theology was politcally based, as it allowed various disparite groups within the Holy Roman empire to rebel and rise up against the imperial authority (or authority in general in some cases). I believe that the examples I've given above have everything to do with "Sola Fide" because I am also concentrating on the political implications of this aspect of Sola fide as well as theological. Much of the political attraction of Lutheranism came from what it would entail due to it's theological rejection of Catholicism in many respects - therefore the effects of one of it's undisputably key principles cannot be left unnoticed.
Point taken, but you can't deny that Catholic hierarchy is far more ritual and extensive than that of the Lutheran and other protestant churches - it's inevitable with a church that has lasted roughly from around 1054 and covered a large chunk of Europe.
...Also, I appreciate your advice, but take into account I did write this on the absolute spur of the moment very quickly - so it's not exactly meticulously revised. I think it's okay though ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 15:17
My initial point was that simply using the phrase 'sola fide' and 'by faith alone' is misleading because it implies that Luther preached that salvation could be achieved simply through believing. That's such a common viewpoint nowadays that it might easily be taken that way. In fact Luther didn't preach salvation through faith all by itself, and no opponent would have any trouble tearing him apart if he did.
You have to take the five 'solas' together, and explain that it is the combination of the five that lead to salvation: Luther's point was that there was no sixth element - there was no requirement to do good works. In this he was breaking with more than just Roman Catholic tradition, but with the inherent feeling in most people in any society or group that one should be rewarded for what one does. That's a common point made in theological discussion of the issue by all side.
This is from a somewhat biassed
 Reformed Church source, for instance:
In fact one could argue that more significance lay in sola scriptura, because that is the maxim that leads to rejection of the Roman claim to continuing revelation through the Pope and the hierarchy. There hasn't been any great trouble seeking reconciliation on the sola fide front, but sola scriptura is the main stumbling block and distinction between the two sides of the schism.
That itself is a biassed statement. Most of the world's Christians in fact accept the doctrine of continuing revelation.
Qhat you're stating there is the sola scriptura position, which I've been pointing out is the important difference in the Lutheran position. If you simply accept that only something coming from the scriptures can be "fully Christian" then it's no wonder you don't see the importance of it to the Reformation.
I didn't mean to imply you were inherently or personally biassed, just that you were presenting an extremely biassed assertion as if it was factual.
wikipedia
I accept before I checked I said 'protestant' instead of 'Calvinist' but it seems reasonable to equate 'too Calvinist' with 'too Protestant' since the Calvinists are generally seen as more extreme than other Protestants.
So was the Lutheran Church.
You might care to look at http://www.blc.edu/comm/gargy/gargy1/liturgical_church.html - http://www.blc.edu/comm/gargy/gargy1/liturgical_church.html
Couldn't agree more. It was catholic, is catholic, and apart from a short period in the 16th century remained catholic. Unless you call the Church under the Republic the 'Church of England' which would be pretty heterodox for both camps, and anyway would only add a short period in the 17th century.
What both Lutherans and Anglicans did was reject the authority of the Pope, and substitute their own hierarchy for the Roman one. Neither abolished hierachies altogether and both would claim to be in the apostolic succession.
Well, you had broadened it to cover the period of the religious wars, which takes one up to the Council of Trent.
I wrote 'break'. You wrote 'breach'.
I also didn't make myself clear: I was talking about the break between the (Anglicans and Lutherans) both on one side, and the more extreme Protestants on the other side, not about any difference between the CofE on one side and the Lutherans on the other. I don't think there ever was any serious break/breach between them, except for that short period when the CofE flirted with Puritanism. And despite its press, Puritanism was never a serious movement in England: even Cromwell was driven to get rid of it after a few years of growing unpopularity.
Again I'm not sure how you got the idea I mentioned a breach between the CofE and the Lutherans. In 1530 of course Henry was still a fervent believer in Roman Catholicism, and there was no CofE, so there was certainly no break between the two in 1530.
I'm lost. I never said any such thing. What was greater than the breach between Luther and the Roman church was the breach between Luther and the extreme Protestants, in particular over issues like the Mass, the episcopate, vestments, election of ministers, congregational government, liturgy... on all of which the Roman Catholics, the Anglicans, and the Lutherans line up on the same side against the Baptists, Congregationalists, Wee Frees and all the other truly protestant denominations.
Then you can hardly ignore sola scriptura, which is the chief reason for objecting to Roman Catholic doctrine as it had developed, in particular of course the claim of continuous revelation which underlies to position of the Pope, and eventually lies back of the authority of the Roman hierarchy.
But that's just what you are doing by pinning everything on sola fide. OK, salvation through faith without good works, but where is that faith to come from. Sola scriptura provides the answer - it comes from scripture with no întermediaries on earth. Luther didn't take that doctrine as far as other church leaders (he doesn't suggest every man can make up his own mind through reading the Bible) but he does on that one issue seriously challenge the right of the Church to impose doctrine because of its unique relationship with the Holy Spirit.
The whole Reformation as it involves Luther and the Church of England is not at heart about theology, but about power and authority and theological arguments are advanced and deployed to that end. So it's the challenge to authority of sola scriptura that is important, not some abstruse theory about salvation (do we do good works because we have faith? Do we do good works because we believe and/or are elect for salvation or do we earn salvation through doing good works and believing.)
Luther's quarrel - amd more importantly historically - the quarrel of those who supported him was not really about whether good works lead to salvation, but about who got to decide what those good works were: as, for instance, the buying of indulgences.
My point is more that the Anglican and Lutheran liturgies and rituals are much closer to Rome than they are to, say, Baptists. Especially of course nowadays.
I appreciate you were rushed. ------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 16:37
|
What were his other "solae"? I haven't read about any other apart from "fide" and, in passing, "scriptura"? ------------- |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 17:56
| In the end luther was wrong because scripture states "Works without faith is empty, faith without works is empty." So it isn't "faith alone" but a composition of things. Luther's theology was a bit warped, more a counter reaction to the excesses of the church of rome then an actual theological backing, though he sure tried. |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 18:22
Good point, Carpathian Wolf, but take into account that some attempts at compromise were attemped, such as the diet of Regensburg in 1541, where Cardinal Conditerri and Melanchanton actually came to an agreement that both works and faith were important. However, it's important to understand that any scripture-based religion usually cuts apart into several distinct sects, as protestantism did. Although all of the members of, say, the Schmalkadic league of 1531 or the league of Torgau of 1526 all agreed roughly (mainly in the second case when Luther's rising was now a large issue for Charles) upon the key principles laid out in the Schmalkaldic declarations of the 1540s or the confession of Augsburg of 1530, internally there was much debate and schism. For example, at the marburg colloqy, Luther and Zwingli debated fiercely on the issue of the Eucharist, despite the fact that Zwingli was later to die in battle against one of Luther's princely enemies in the Holy Roman Empire. It really doesn't matter what the scripture literally said - now that the scripture was in the venacular and "sola scriptura" was advocated, anyone could use it to their advantage - hence the disunity of the protestants at the councils of Trent from the mid 1530s to the 1540s. Many such as the "Zwickau prophets" of 1520 used the scripture to their own advantage and interpreted it in terms of social upheaval, leading to Thomas Muntzer's leadership of the peasant revolt in 1525. However, on the other hand, we've got the battle of Frankhausen in 1526, where Luther provides scriptural evidence to justify the massacre of peasants by the imperial princes. Scripture can be interpreted in any way one likes, and therefore, Luther wasn't "wrong" or "right" in any helpful sense of the term. This can be seen in hundreds of examples in the reformation period - for example, Luther and the Christian humanists both wanted reform of the church, but those such as Erasmus, Rubeanius Cocteus, Marsiglino, Machavelli, Melancathon etc all wanted to reform the church from within by non-violent methods (it's interesting that even Melanchanton and Machavelli are both determined to be Christian Humanists despite their obvious differences - again, these ideologies are broad markers for radically different interpretations), but those such as Luther, Andreas von Karlstadt, Ulrich von Hutten, Zwingli, Huss, Wycliffe, Calvin, Tyndale etc all wanted to by violence and political agression - but both justified their position by academic interpretation of the scripture. In a nutshell, scripture can mean whatever you want it to mean. However, there are some extreme exceptions - some of the anabaptists had radical ideas for the time that Jesus was not the son of god, and that baptism and the eucharist (the latter is a Zwinglian idea as well) were all merely memorials to Christ and his life. These interpretations would have just been considered "wrong". Incidentally, much of the interpretation also depends on the "Thomists" and "Aristotelean churchmen" versus the "Nominalists" - the latter was a humanist position that denied the Aristotelean principle of universals, and thus logically lead to a denial of the bread containing a "universal" in the true body and blood of christ. Therefore, for people who were in this new humanist mindset, they may not have been able to comprehend or even attempt to understand the old teachings of aristotelean logic by the schoolmen. My point on syllogisms here is that interpretation of the scripture went beyond scripture itself, if you see what I mean. ------------- |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 18:51
| Oh no doubt, i'm just commenting from an Orthodox perspective. Papal or protestant, two sides of the same coin for me. :) |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 18:52
|
Are you an orthodox Christian? What do they think about the Eucharist? ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 18:58
sola Gratia—solo Christo—soli Deo gloria.
By grace alone, by Christ alone (the sacrifice of the Redemption), glory to God alone.
No salvation without grace, and no salvation without the Redemption I don't think any Christian group would quarrel with. You might not think the last would create much controversy, but Luther used it to denounce the glorification of the Church - in that it is rather like sola scriptura in that it challenges Church pretensions. However St John of the Cross had used the phrase in a more straightforward way.
The phrase is also taken to mean no veneration of saints, but, again, not by the Lutherans, who have a calendar of saints and venerate them. This is something else again where Lutherans, the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox churches, and the Anglicans join together on one side, and what I would actually call the Protestants - Calvinists, etc - take the other.
In fact any of the solae can probably be read as implying the Church itself was unnecessary to salvation. But I don't think Luther meant that there should be no Church - that has to wait for the Congregationalists later in the century - just that the Roman church pretended to more authority and power than it should. ------------- |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 19:54
It's a mystery we can't afford to make any definate judgements on but what we do know we know from Christ. "Eat this is my body which has been broken for you, drink, this is my blood shed for the remission of sins." The catholic's mistake was making definate judgements on something we can't comprehend as humans in our current state, while the protestants counter reacted against it by relegating it to simply being "something done im memory."
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 20:41
|
"the term "Christian" logically means following the teachings of Christ - therefore, logically, practices which do not come from the scriptures cannot be considered fully Christian."
This doesn't make any sense friend. Even in scripture it states that you must follow the traditions of the church by word and by deed. What about the Christians in the first several hundred years of Church history? The bible wasn't even complete then. Were those people not Christian then?
The problem with protestant theology is that it turns a book into God, a "paper pope".
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 20:42
The New Testament is a collection of accidental books by diverse authors, it was not intented to be a complete work of Revelation. The doctrine of the old churches, Orthodox, Catholic, Monophysites, is that not the Scripture but what is called the Holy Tradition is the base of belief and practices. The Holy Tradition is a term for all manifestations of the Church in all the epochs, starting with the time of Jesus and Apostles and including the orally transmited teachings, the diverse writings, the liturgical services, the decisions of the Councils etc. This includes the Scriptures but the Scriptures are not the base of faith and never have been in an eclesiastic meaning because the life and practices of the Church preceded with decades the apparition of the gospels and epistles and after that continuated to be grounded on the traditions directly transmitted in the communities. The Scriptures influenced the decisions of the Councils and much of the theological writings (although is considered that many or most of the ascetical/theological/mystic writers, the so-called Holy Fathers, have been directly inspired by God) but them (the Scriptures) are considered incomplete and insufficient for defining the faith points. The Holy Tradition is considered to be mostly good and useful, those books and authors that contain grave heretical teachings have been excluded but there are small doctrinal errors in the writings of the Fathers and perhaps even in the New Testament. There are few official reglementations of the faith in the old Oriental Churches (Orthodox and Monophysites) and they are the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils and are called dogmas. The Orthodox Church recognizes seven Ecumenical Councils, after the last one the doctrine of the church being considered complete and other Ecumenical Councils useless. The Monophysites recognize 3 Councils (they have been declared heretics at the fourth) and Catolics consider that the Revelation is continuous and that the Church's doctrine is in permanent evolution. -------------  |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 21:38
|
Of course not - I never meant that. I mean that by questioning the scriptures in such a dynamic way in a country with the socio-political problems of the Holy Roman Empire and ther utilisation of the printing press, it was bound to spread and cause various other interpretations to run wild. That's a problem many monarchs found when they instated protestantism in some sense - the traditional principle of there being only one religion was completely turned upon its head when people began chatting about matters of severe theological importance in pubs, and therefore undermining the traditional principle of the "great chain of being". Therefore, the garguantuan hierarchy of the catholic church was undermined when Luther dennounced the papacy as an insitution - and for German peasants and the imperial knights in this period there were obviously many advantages. Granted, Luther thought in a fundamentally medieval mindset in social matters and wanted there to be a "great chain of being" - that's why he denounced the teachings of those such as Thomas Muntzer and Andreas Von Karlstadt who used Luther's teachings to completely overturn almost all clerical hierarchy, but one cannot deny that Luther would not have approved of chapters and suchlike. Of course Luther didn't want to destroy the church fully, but he wanted to damn well change it not just theologically, but institutionally as well.
However, from your perspective, one could argue against what I've said above by saying that Luther initially respected the pope and wanted to encourage reform from within the church, and it was only until his meeting with Cajetan in 1518 and the Leipzig disputation with Johann Eck in 1519 that he realised that he would have to make his own steps for theological reform rather than do it through the church. Again, Luther's presence at the council of Trent also backs up your point, as the council of trent from the mid 1530s onwards was initiated not only to try and reconsile the catholics and protestants, but also to try and address the abuses of the church - the council of Trent was one of the beginings of the catholic counter reformation itself. I'm begining to see your point more now :) after all - he was a monk first and foremost, and tried to reform and aid his own theological dilemma from within the catholic church rather than turning to Hussism or Tyndale etc.
Perhaps theologically, but when you have people like Alexander VI, Julius II, Pauls III and IV and Leo X calling the shots, they are not going to want to change their doctrine in any way that would give the laity or any foreign political entity more power over the church - remember that after the c.1370 schism in the papacy, it's fair to say that the vast majority of members of the Curia and Papacy were in it for their own nepotistic interests, or were preoccupied with trying desperately to free the papacy from the influence of the French and Holy Romans. Many of the popes that actually did want reform such as Adrian IV and Clement VII did not have the influence or circumstances in which and with which to actually enforce reform. Adrian died pretty soon and Clement VII was essentially held hostage by Charles after 1527. Obviously, theory and practice - especially in this age - were pretty different. ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 21:51
Aye. To clarify a bit: It has been alleged by Protestants that the definition of the Synod of Jerusalem in the 17th century regarding the Eucharist is simply an Eastern form of the doctrine of transubstantiation, but this is not so. What is missing -- and rightly so -- is the Latin dissection of the sacrament into Aristotelian categories. Or as John of Damascus notes, it is enough for us to know that the change comes about by through the action of the Holy Spirit -- hence the absolute need for the epiclesis during the consecration.
Of course the errors are only errors insofar as they have been misinterpreted. Thus, the doctrinal errors are not in the New Testament itself, but in the erroneous interpretation.
I don't think the definition of Nicaea II precludes the possibility of other Ecumenical Councils being summoned -- simply the possibility of abrogating the matters it decreed on, as well as those defined by the earlier councils. There are several councils with strong claims to ecumenicity, and some which have been considered of an ecumenical character, though they have not been enumerated. Professor Dragas (I think he teaches at Holy Cross) actually wrote a rather interesting piece on the pro-Photian synod which addressed this matter briefly. -Akolouthos |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 23:31
Could you please elaborate on that? I don't quite understand what you are saying here but it sounds damn interesting. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 12:26
I didn't mean you did, but other people do. One of the problems with discussing Luther is that everyone wants a piece of him, including those who take sola scriptura to mean 'no church' like the congregationalists.
True. I said I don't quarrel with what you say about historic events, just with your placing so much emphasis on sola fide. (And a couple of places where you regurgitate Protestant views as if they were generally accepted.)
'Catholic counter reformation' is good
 Protestants call it the Reformation and Catholics call it the Catholic Reformation so a neat compromise.
That men are fallible and corruption has invaded the Church doesn't alter the belief that the Revelation did not end with the Bible. There's a case to be made that the very councils that determined the contents of the New Testament were themselves ambitious and nepotistic.
The message of the Church on matters of faith and morals is not affected by the conduct of the messenger. (At least, that's the Catholic belief - I maybe should add that I'm not presenting my own views here, not being any kind of religious believer.
I think you're right about the practice but wrong about the theory. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 12:31
I know the habit is hard to break and I get caught by it myself sometimes, but I think it helps to define a little more closely what you mean by 'Protestant'. What Carpathian Wolf says about Protestants and "something done in memory" is not true of all the groups that are sometimes called 'Protestant' (though it is true of the ones that I would call "really Protestant" )------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 16:30
Aye, a definition would have been helpful, especially since I was using the term "Protestant" in two different senses (subconsciously, I assure you).  In the first sense (the intended one) I was referring to the academic Protestantism of the mid-to-late 19th century. I believe that the passage I was hinting at came from a reference to the Synod of Jerusalem in the first volume of Schaff's Creeds of Christendom, but I'd have to check. In this sense we may say that Western scholarship has examined the decrees of the synod and come to the wrong conclusion -- at least from my point of view. As I see it, the natural opposition of 19th century Protestant academia to Roman Catholicism led these western scholars to inherently distrust anything that smacked of popery, and miss the distinction between saying that something is and saying how something is. At this earlier point, at least in the academic world, I believe we can refer to Protestantism as a somewhat homogeneous movement, at least in the context of this particular issue. In the second sense (the subconscious one) I could be referring to the lack of understanding among many Evangelicals today. Mainstream Protestant academia in the modern era, especially in Churches which have a well developed concept of hierarchy and tradition, has done much more justice to Eastern sacramental theology, and can make the distinction between the Greek and Latin views -- although often without fully accepting either. Much of the scholarship coming out of the less hierarchical/tradition oriented churches, however, still displays an ignorance of the debate between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church over Eucharistic theology, and is thus largely unable to make a distinction between the two. In both situations we notice a lack of understanding, but the former stems from an examination which was impeded by an inherent hostility, while the latter stems from a simple lack of study. My apologies for being unclear; it will probably happen again, but we can always hope for improvement, eh? -Akolouthos |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 20:05
I went to a protestant private school which was mostly baptists and calvinists so the term is aimed in that relative direction from my perspective.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 20:25
|
And in that context you're perfectly correct.
But the Episcopalians in the US, for instance, call themselves nominally 'Protestant' yet believe in the real presence.
I'm happy they should so believe, but it irritates me they call themselves Protestant. ------------- |
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2008 at 00:19
I fully agree with your first point. I assume you are refering to St. Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians, where he states,"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
However, I strongly feel you, like many, have a very skewed understanding of the Papacy.
------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King. |
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2008 at 00:55
Hello again Ako,
That certainly would be an interesting read. I have a question to pose, although I fear it may be a bit off-topic; how would you assume the Easterns would go about confirming an Ecumenical council? I've talked with many EO who believe that the reception of the church, which would also include the laity, is of neccesity. Of course this would fly in the face of such councils as Chalcedon and Ephesus, for which we have our Monophysite and Nestorian brothers. Just wondering your opinion, even if it be abbreviated due to the relevancy of the topic at present.
------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King. |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2008 at 02:03
Hey arch.buff, I'll get back to our thread one of these days, I assure you. I do have time to briefly address your question here.First, we must note that in the Church it is the consensus patrum that is the ultimate authority -- an authority of which the Councils are only a reflection. There have been many synods with claims to ecumenicity which were rejected as the Church gathered that they had failed to express Apostolic Tradition. The difference, historically, is how the Church came to do this. Second, when we speak of conciliar theology, we must look at it in the context of one of several historical periods. I think the best way to go would be to start from the beginning, then examine the context that surrounded Nicaea (and the period before the Theodosian edicts), and then examine Ephesus, Chalcedon, and what came after. In the ante-Nicene Church, unity was expressed through the communion of bishops in a much less hierarchical sense than is true of later eras. Local councils were held, and their decrees were promulgated locally, and gradually disseminated to a greater or lesser extent through the whole of the Church -- take our earlier discussion on baptism, for example, where conflicting conciliar decrees gradually evolved into a more or less comprehensive policy. After the acceptance of Christianity as the favored religion of the empire, the bishops became more involved in doctrinal disputes outside of their dioceses, and the emperors began exercising a certain amount of influence in the promulgation of synodal decrees (although we see a foreshadowing of this with Aurelian at the close of the third century). Thus, at Nicaea we see Constantine gathering the bishops, mediating between them, and playing a role in the resolution of the dispute after the Council had reached its conclusion (although he began to take a softer stance against the Arian party). Thus, the bishops at Nicaea promulgated their decrees through the authority of the Council, but relied upon the support of the emperor to establish these decrees -- coincidentally, this was one of the reasons for the collapse of the Nicene solution in the decade after the Council itself. Thus, after much debate throughout the rest of the fourth century, various councils appealed to various emperors to resolve the debates. Eventually, Theodosius the Great summoned the Council of Constantinople, and enforced her decrees through a series of laws (the Theodosian Edicts). By the time Chalcedon had convened, the concept of Pentarchs that had been forshadowed by the first two Ecumenical Councils (and which was canonically pronounced at Chalcedon) had developed more fully, and the role of the five great patriarchal sees expanded. This remained the case throughout the rest of the Ecumenical and Post Ecumenical Period (including the pro-Photian synod and the Palaamite synods). During this period, after the bishops had come to agreement, they prayed to the emperor for acceptance. Immediately before the fall, we see the increasing tendency of the imperial power to deviate from Tradition, and this no longer of an individual, but rather an institutional character, and motivated by a variety of practical concerns. This is nowhere more evident than at the repudiated councils of Lateran IV, Lyons II, and Florence. This was a period when the Emperor selected a few sympathetic bishops and Patriarchs and tried to enforce an "imperial orthodoxy" which conflicted with the consensus patrum. Still, the Church managed to repudiate these false unions through the efforts of the episcopacy supported by the laity. We see this nowhere more clearly than in the case of Mark of Ephesus' spirited defense of Orthodoxy during and immediately after the Council of Florence. After the fall, the Church has relied upon her pentarchs to gather the episcopacy in council. It may seem improbable, but it was quite sufficient to repudiate the errors of the Latins and the Protestants at Jerusalem in the seventeenth century. Since then, we simply haven't had the need to summon a general synod; most of the problems stem from conflicting jurisdictions, canonical issues relating to heretical churches, etc. All questions of faith have been resolved rather easily. It should be noted that the full acceptance of the ecumenicity of a council has never been a reality at any point in history. We may look back and say that this or that council was Ecumenical but would a bishop of that era have been able to make a pronouncement with the same certainty? There is a period after any synod where the Church is blown to-and-fro on the winds of conflicting theology and ecclesiology -- where She must determine where She stands. This is a period where She pronounces, not only on the validity of the Councils themselves, but also upon how their decrees will be promulgated. This is most evident in the case of Nicaea and the century that followed, but we can turn to the more recent examples of the disputed Eighth Ecumenical Council and you may turn, in your own tradition, to the example of the two Vatican Councils. If you wished a quick illustration of the relative importance of the acceptance by certain groups throughout the various periods of history, you might look at the diagram below (and since this is a recklessly thought out historical analysis, I shall feel free to revise it if I ever get the time  ):Ante-Nicene (bishops, laity) > Nicaea (bishops, emperor, laity) > Constantinople I (bishops, emperor, laity) > Ephesus and Chalcedon through the Eighth "Ecumenical" Council/s (pentarchs, emperor, bishops and laity) > Post-Ecumenical Period to the Fall of Constantinople (pentarchs/bishops, laity, emperor) > From the Fall to the Present (pentarchs, bishops, laity) Looking back on that, it is a rather poor representation, and glosses over a great many minor historical factors. Still, the first and last links in the chain -- the ones which express the whole -- are precise enough. As you will note, we have come full circle, so to speak, albeit with a more developed concept of a universal hierarchy. While the laity play a role, neither they nor the bishops hold sole possession of the enlightenment and guidance of the Holy Spirit that belongs to the Church universal. The recognition of an Ecumenical Council, like every other act of the Christian Church, is expressed relationally: through the communion of the bishops, in union with the laity, whom they lead by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Hope that answers your question. -Akolouthos |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2008 at 02:09
Not at all. The pope thinks he is the vicar of Christ. A vicar is a ruler in one's place, a stand in for when someone is absent. So the pope teaches that Christ is absent in this world. To me that is not Christian theology. To me that is a nightmare.
I do not mean to offend but it is simply how I see it. For the first thousand years there was no such thing as papal primacy. Yes there was respect toward the bishop of rome, but the notion of supremacy is an innovation due to the politics of the 800s and onward. Thank you Charles the (not so) Great. The difference I have found finding my faith between the papacy and the Orthodox Church is that one comes up with theological innovations while the other comes up with theological definitions. Even the ecumenical councils are simply done for defining, clarification, where as we need only look back to papal infallibility to see an innovation. One day it wasn't and then it was. Nothing was defined, but something was added.
|
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2008 at 19:27
Hey Ako! like I said, dont worry about rushing our discussion. Although, I eagerly await your reply. However, would it be better if we continued our discussion in the "Pope" thread? As it would seem it relevant, considering his relationship to the confirmation of councils, or the contrary opinion, for which is the topic we find ourselves consumed by at the moment.
Ah, Cyril Lukaris and the synod of Jerusalem. I, admittedly, am certainly not as knowledgeable about this specific synod but to my recolection the Latins were not at all refered to. I do remember, however, the synod, wrongly, denying the authorship of Lukaris in his confessions by appeal to his sermons. Would you consider, "most of the problems stem from conflicting jurisdictions, canonical issues relating to heretical churches", a matter of universality?
"It should be noted that the full acceptance of the ecumenicity of a council has never been a reality at any point in history."
Im inclined to disagree with you here. Case in point Chalcedon. As we have seen in our own discussion this was a council that Leo and the bishops who appealed to him had strived very hard for. It came together with the express intention of a full ecumenical character. At the closure of the council the bishops assembled had composed a letter to Pope Leo requesting confirmation for all that had been done. Leo approved and even for some time after Marcian writes a letter requesting his confirmation so he could publish it in certain churches. Throughout its life Chalcedon has been Ecumenical, no matter the rejection of the laity, which was no little population. Of course, this is not the exact same history for each specific council but it still serves to show how the ecumenical character of councils is not so wishy-washy as Ive heard some Easterns try to assert in their revisionist theories to explain away all the reunion councils.
It seems the Easterns have blurred the lines to a point where, it would seem, it becomes nonextant. For one to suggest that a council be of no merit if it be rejected by, an undefined, number of the laity is something of a new creature. Truths are just that- truths, even if we as sinners refuse to follow those truths. We have all, in action and in thought, refused universal teachings of the church at some point. The Bishops as apostolic successors of Christ exercise valid teaching authority whether a certain amount of the laity would choose to agree with them or not. To say otherwise is to deny institutional authority of the church, which is Christ's teaching authority on Earth for the tending and leading of the flock. If however, the arguement against the reunion councils is posed from the political and historical front, then I would say the laity would have been against the council before its commencement.
God bless,
arch.buff
------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King. |
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2008 at 19:48
Vicar of Christ? Yes. But you said:
'The problem with protestant theology is that it turns a book into God, a "paper pope".'
From these words I concluded, (rightly or wronlgy?), that you view the Pope to be a self-procalimed 'God'?
 Not just the Pope, but also the other bishop within their own dioceses are refered to with like monikers, as the Catechism shows:
1560 As Christ's vicar, each bishop has the pastoral care of the particular Church entrusted to him, but at the same time he bears collegially with all his brothers in the episcopacy the solicitude for all the Churches: "Though each bishop is the lawful pastor only of the portion of the flock entrusted to his care, as a legitimate successor of the apostles he is, by divine institution and precept, responsible with the other bishops for the apostolic mission of the Church."
^I wonder, what is so much as a nightmare within this theology? For which you will find your own church not foreign to.
I would be happy to engage you in discussion regarding Papal primacy, as there is no shortage of information that history has provided, whether one would be for against such doctrines. However, I would refer you to the thread "The Pope: A discussion of the Roman Primacy".
God bless,
arch.buff
------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King. |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2008 at 22:31
I think we can resolve this in short order here; we will definitely continue discussing it in a more thorough manner in the Primacy thread.
Some of them, certainly. Still, a general synod and an Ecumenical Council are two different things -- although representationally and in character they bear many similarities. The distinction is a bit loosely defined, but generally *ahem* a general synod deals with canonical issues in response to heteropraxy while an Ecumenical Council deals with dogmatic and canonical issues in response to heresy. Both have universal authority; thus, the issue is largely one of definition. The Synod in Trullo is a perfect example. The canons of that synod, which were general in character, were appended to the acts of the Fifth and Sixth Councils. The synod that is currently under discussion in the Orthodox world would be, if summoned, a general one.
I was fairly sure this would come up, which is why I couched the statement as I did. You will note that I did not say that the ecumenicity of the Council of Chalcedon was a matter of doubt; only that it's acceptance was. For our purposes, and speaking from our historical vantage point, we may say that the Ecumenical Councils have always been ecumenical, but an ecclesiastic in the thick of things would be a bit less sure. The most clear example, as I noted, is Nicaea, where it's eventual acceptance was far from sure several decades after it had concluded the matter. Now this is not to say that the Council of Nicaea was not Ecumenical from the beginning -- indeed it was; this is only to state that when we say that it is Ecumenical, we are speaking with the benefit of historical hindsight. If you are still unclear on this, you might look to Chalcedon in the context of Roman ecclesiology for an illustration (and we will leave aside the fact that, as proven in the other thread, Leo attempted to prevent the summoning of the synod when it became apparent that not only would it not be held in Italy, but that it purposed to examine his tomus rather than simply accept it). You believe that the acceptance of the pope is the ultimate step in the acceptance of a council's ecumenicity. Now Chalcedon, we both agree, was fully Ecumenical from the start. However, would anyone deny that Leo had to make a decision as to whether or not he would accept it, and under what terms? He initially only wished to receive the dogmatic decrees, but later ratified the canons (although still attempting, unsuccesfully, to ignore the 28th) when it became apparent that his refusal to do so might appear as a repudiation of the authority of the Council itself. Now we do not accept the view that the pope has the final say, or even a greater say in determining the validity of a council, but that it beside the point; the point is that there is that period in which the merits must be weighed and a decision must be made. The Latin Church vests this power in one man; we vest it in Holy Spirit as manifested through the Church universal. Granted the Latin process is shorter, but the Eastern process has worked in the past, and will continue to do so, precisely because it is guided by the Holy Spirit. Many councils have claimed ecumenicity, while we, today, call them robber synods. The churchmen of the period, however, were acting in medias res, and while they may have had their particular inclinations, there was a great deal more uncertainty. The gradual nature of this process of acceptance is why each Ecumenical Council is enumerated by the ones that succeed it (if you check back through the acts, you will notice that each of the Councils we recognize as ecumenical refer back to the authority of the "God inspired [insert number] fathers" of the councils that preceded it. We are not saying that the process is wishy-washy, only that we must give ourselves over to the Holy Spirit's care rather than impose a premature end to the process due to a human desire for a quicker result. (Hint: Look to the Council of Jerusalem --and specifically to the account of the synodal letter -- for a primitive version of this process. I might also help you to consider how we go about "doing" history in other ways; how we see things more clearly the more we examine them.)
Like the endless qualifications placed upon the exercise of papal infallibility, which ultimately destroy the integrity of the false doctrine itself -- to say nothing of what Pius would have said about the modern interpretations of the original qualifications.
I believe that I have addressed all of this above. Truths remain truths, but economia is exercised while the process of acceptance is going on. This is why the heretics of Nicaea were given the opportunity to examine the Council's decrees, for a set period of time, before they either accepted them or went into exile. Anyway, if you are still unclear, feel free to ask any questions you may have. -Akolouthos |
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2008 at 18:00
(1) Semantics? General=Ecumenical, Synod=Council. This is how I understand it. The Greek synodus corresponds to the Latine concilium.
The Synod in Trullo, which also goes by other names such as: Trullan Council, Council in Trullo, and Quinisext Council; which you know refers to: Fifth-Sixth, is not universal as the West never recognized these canons put forth with so much anti-Western effort. The Council in Trullo could be defined as a General Synod of the East. As when appended by "of the East" it does not denote universality as it would in normal(General) circumstances. Also, let us look to "Ecumenical". Of course no one would say that ecumenical would not mean universal, but when the assembly in Constantinople writes to Rome in 382 about all they have done they insert the stamp of ecumenical, eventhough it was not universal. This same type of example can be applied to North Africa and the regular councils they arranged, they also labeled them ecumenical, eventhough they held no universal character.
(2) Ok, let us look at in the context of Roman ecclesiology, and here I believe you have made an error:
"Leo's letter was by no means accepted without discussion of its content, and it created serious difficulties for some individual fathers. This, in fact, was not contrary to Leo's instructions, which called for agreement based on discussion and accommodation among the fathers. It is true that he did not consider the rejection of his letter a possible solution, but that was because he was convinced he was clearly teaching the traditional faith." (Schatz, Papal Primacy)
Back to the Roman ecclesiology; yes, I would agree there is a certain amont of time between the conclusion of the council and the confirmation by the Pope. However, we as Catholics do not believe that the laity can overturn or use a veto-power and extinguish the council. Funny enough, the Catholic Church also believes that it is guided by the Holy Spirit. That is why when the council proclaims, "Peter has spoken through Leo", we really believe it. The Holy Spirit is at work during the council and no amount of rejection by the laity can say otherwise.
(3) And I suppose Pius would just have loved it had the Popes been thundering down as many definitions as possible from their ever-so high-altar
 (4) Exactly my point. Now, I understand Nicea I can not be seen in the same context of that of Lyons II or Florence, and there was no exile punishment put in place by the Emperor of both latter councils, but why the difference in reception? Why if the laity reject Nicea does Nicea still stand? When the laity reject Lyons II and Florence the East just backtracks? Truth be told, I dont really wish to get in too deep with the reunion councils as they are largely politically motivated(from the Eastern end) and I truly dont believe the East's heart was ever really in it. Forgive me if I offended at all here, proposing that the Eastern church would gather together in council(a traditionally honorable and venerable cause) in the pursuits of giving up what would seem their faith on principles that differ from ours for solely political and Imperial survival. However, I still hold to the contention that the Easterns as a whole would have rejected the council even before its commencement. Sadly, the Latins gave them much to be bitter over.
God bless,
arch.buff
------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King. |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2008 at 23:41
That's the basic gist of it. Technically the term "synod" refers to a gathering of bishops (although it can include other delegates). Thus, when speaking of the Ecumenical Councils we may use the terms "synod" and "council" interchangeably. The terms "general", "universal", and "ecumenical" are a bit different. It is true that the term "ecumenical" derives from the Greek term oikoumene, which refers to the "inhabited world"; this may be used interchangeably with the term "universal" in some contexts (although in practice it generally referred to the orbis Romanus, or the Christian world during the Ecumenical Period). The term "general" also refers to the Christian world, and from this perspective, all the terms may be said to be synonyms. That said, in modern usage we draw a distinction -- and a largely arbitrary one -- between the terms "general" and "ecumenical" for practical reasons. That is to say that we recognize in the first seven Ecumenical/Universal/General Synods/Councils a special character, deriving from the fact that they all dealt with issues essential to the underlying character of the faith. This is also why there has been a reluctance to enumerate the Synods gathered after the close of the Ecumenical Era; it is a vestigial practice stemming from an economia adopted toward the Roman Church, and dating back to the time when it was believed that the issues between the Latin and Greek churches could be easily resolved. Still, these councils are held as Ecumenical in practice, and lack of enumeration does not mean lack of application, as Dragas points out.
Precisely. Now you see how two terms, or even the same term may be used or understood in several different senses depending upon a series of variables (the ecclesiastical situation, the historical context, the perspective of the reader, etc.), and how these usages can be either accepted or rejected.
This will be taken up in our other thread, but I will address it briefly here. I wrote: Anyway, the whole thing [we were, as you recall, discussing the acceptance of the 28th canon of Chalcedon] is a moot point. None of the Patriarchs has the authority to exercise a line-item veto. Revisionist Roman theory on this point simply does not match up with historical fact. This is borne out by the fact that Leo's refusal to accept the canon did not prevent it from going into force; you might say that the Holy Spirit guided the Church away from such presumption. The whole question, however, is purely academic in light of the subsequent actions of the Church during the Ecumenical Period. The 28th canon of Chalcedon was approved by the 31st of Trullo (Quinisext), and all of the canons of Trullo were approved by canon 1 of the Second Council of Nicaea (Seventh Ecumenical) in A.D. 787. Incidentally, I do not see how the Roman Church can reject the Trullan canons in light of their acceptance by Nicaea II, which condemned Iconoclasm. and you responded: Rome did not consent to this canon in the Trullan synod, as you have asserted.
"The seventh oecumenical Council (787) readopted the 102 canons, and erroneously ascribed them to the sixth oecumenical Council.The Roman church never committed herself to these canons except as far as they agreed with ancient Latin usage" (Schaff, Hist. Chur. Vol. IV Ch. XI Sec. 114) I'll
leave my arguement about the Quinisext council here. However, if you'd
like to speak more about the 7th Ecumenical council and the council of
Trullo just let me know.
But this is precisely the point. Rome did not, nor did she ever, have the authority to veto specific measures of any council. The authority of the Seventh Ecumenical Council imbued the Trullan canons with a real universal sanction, not a "quasi-Ecumenical authority" as some assert. Part of the purpose of an Ecumenical Council is to confirm the decrees of it's predecessors, and adopt canons based upon ecclesiastical precedent. If you believe that the pope has any extra-episcopal right to determine the terms under which he will accept a council, I can only tell you that you are mistaken. True, this has been asserted since the fourth century by the bishops of Rome, but it has always been a baseless assertion; if one studies the Apostolic Council, as well as the acts of the pre-Nicene councils, the innovative absurdity of the Latin position is obvious.
No error; you failed to take my meaning. Of course Leo felt that he was teaching the true faith, and that his letter could not possibly be rejected except by a heretical synod. Arius, Eunomius, Nestorius, and all of the other heresiarchs were also convinced that they were in the right, but it was the councils that distinguished between them and the orthodox. The point is, it was the Council of Chalcedon which examined the tomus of Leo, and it was the Council of Chalcedon which had the authority to judge its theological content. They pronounced correctly: "It is Peter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter - who says this through Leo. This is what we all of us believe. This is the faith of the Apostles. Leo and Cyril teach the same thing." It was the orthodoxy of his document, and not the fact that Leo was the bishop of Rome that obligated the Council fathers to accept his tomus as true Apostolic doctrine. In other words, the Council fathers accepted the theology of Leo when they had been satisfied that it was in accord with the theology of Cyril.
But you're still missing the point: of course an Ecumenical Council has always been Ecumenical -- the question is not one of reality, but of acceptance. The only difference between the orthodox position and the Roman one is in the matter of who has the authority to decide the point -- we trust the task to the Holy Spirit through the Church universal, you feel that the Holy Spirit works primarily through the pope. If what I have written above hasn't cleared this up, keep reading; Nicaea provides a perfect illustration, and I shall address it below. Hint: It may help if you considered the way in which the Scriptures were received by the Church. Surely we affirm that the canonical books have always been divinely inspired and fully canonical. Still, there were times before the canon was set that some of them were viewed as uncanonical (as in the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse of John), and some works which were not received into the canon were viewed by many early fathers as canonical (as in the case of the Shepherd of Hermas or the First Epistle of Clement). The fact that their canonicity was not clear to the Early Church does not prevent us from recognizing the fact that they have always been divinely inspired and worthy of inclusion in the canon. Hope that helps.
Yes, he would have. Fortunately, the Roman Church has not obliged him. That said, it would be more fortunate if the Roman Church had rejected the heretical doctrine outright rather than just emasculating it by means of an increasingly ridiculous series of interpretations.
If you can understand how Nicaea differs from the so-called reunion councils, then you are halfway there. Still, I think it might be helpful if I explained it a bit more specifically.First, with regard to the reunion councils, you don't offend at all, it is good that the West has finally acknowledged some of the political bullying she engaged in in the past; that is a necessary prerequisite for mutual understanding. We must remember, however, that it was not the Eastern Church that participated in any real sense, but only a handpicked collection of Eastern bishops compelled by the Emperor -- and that, only in any significant sense at Florence. It was not the Church, but the state that sought after its survival. The laity did not "reject Nicaea"; the matter was simply up in the air for quite some time. A variety of ecclesiastics, and even some heretical councils appealed to Nicaea in the fourth century; others repudiated it. Eventually, it was confirmed and enumerated by the Council of Constantinople, and its decrees were enforced by imperial edict. Nicaea was eventually universally accepted because its decrees had, from the beginning, been in accord with Apostolic doctrine; the reunion councils were rejected because they were not in accord with Apostolic doctrine. Once again, the Council had always been Ecumenical, and had been defended as such by the orthodox -- and particularly Athanasius. Still, many of the anti-Nicene synods of the fourth century were defended by the heretics who opposed the Nicene party, who consequently rejected Nicaea. We, speaking from our advantaged position in the twenty first century, speak with Athanasius and the orthodox, while a few select groups of intransigent heretics speak with the Arians and the robber synods held by the anti-Nicene party. The reunion councils are merely later versions of the robber synods that have always been held by heretics throughout the history of the Christian Church. When we view the reunion councils in their proper context, we may say that those bishops who spoke in favor of the acceptance of the decrees of the reunion councils spoke with the heretics. Some of them repented of their error, and some did not, as is always the case. The Church, however, spoke with the Apostles, the martyrs, and the holy fathers down through the ages, affirming the consensus patrum against Latin error. You may disagree with the orthodox view of the Councils, but I don't see how you could fail to understand it. If you still find yourself unable to grasp it, you may need a more basic explanation of orthodox ecclesiology, and I could recommend some reading material that starts from the ground up. -Akolouthos EDIT: I just reread that last paragraph, and I felt that it probably came across as a bit condescending -- at least that is how I would have taken it if it had been addressed to me. Thus, I wanted to clarify a bit, and you have my apologies if it was in any way offensive. What I meant was that I have run through about all the illustrations and explanations I can think of offhand; though more may arise as we discuss this, I have, I feel, illustrated the point as clearly as is generally necessary to explain the intricate nuances of Orthodox ecclesiology to those who study the subject. If the basic nature still proves elusive, a reader might wish a deeper immersion in the basics of Orthodox ecclesial theology, which many learned scholars can describe much better than I will ever be able. That is to say that if what I have said still remains elusive or unclear, the most profitable course would be to immerse oneself in a few introductory texts to establish a context in which a proper understanding may develop. These introductory texts will provide context for a further study of the fathers, and consequently of the orthodox theological understanding surrounding the councils. Whenever I feel myself unable to understand a particular theological or ecclesiological issue, I go to the texts of the supporters of the theory or doctrine in question in an attempt to gain a greater contextual perspective. Anyway, if it seemed to be condescending, you have my apologies. God bless. |
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 07:31
Ok, here, I must admit that I am not all that sure on how far I should address the topic of Trullo. You've stated, which I would agree, that we continue this in the Primacy thread in more detail. However, I am compelled to at least give some note here, go figure.
Firstly, it is the 36th canon of Trullo that you refer to; not the 31st.
You assert that, "Rome did not, nor did she ever, have the authority to veto specific measures of any council." However, funny enough, this is exactly what the Emperor was requesting of Rome. Immediately after the council Justinian II sends Pope Sergius, himself an Oriental Syrian, the acts of the synod in order for him to sign and subscribe to these canons in the place left blank for him. Of course, Sergius refused to approve and Justinian, unsurprisingly, took extra measures in order to receive the Pope's consent. He sends his represenative Zacharias and an armed guard to forcibly bring Sergius back as a prisoner, but to his surprise he finds that the guard at Ravenna and the duchy of Pentapolis came to the Pope's aid. Zacharias finds himself hiding beneath the Pope's bed werein Sergius calms the crowd and assures Zacharias his safety. So the armed guards leave Rome empty-handed, apparently the not so far off days of Pope St. Martin were no longer.
Now, when Justinian recovered from his very own deposition he finds John VII, himself a Greek, as Pope. He again repeats his cause for approval, but now requests that the Pope hold a council of the Apostolic church whereby he may efface those canons which were unacceptable, and confirm the others. One could only hope that such a course should have taken place; however, John was a very timid man and does practically nothing. He neither confirms nor holds council; he simply sends back the acts the way he recieved them. We see some headway when Justinian invites Pope Constantine to Nicomedia, no doubt to discuss Trullo. A middle ground seems to have been meant but exactly we do not know. Pope John VIII seems to provide that capacity, "He accepted all those canons which did not contradict the true faith, good morals, and the decrees of Rome."
I believe Hefele sums up the matter properly when he states
"That the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nice ascribed the Trullan canons to the Sixth
Ecumenical Council, and spoke of them entirely in the Greek spirit, cannot astonish us, as it was attended almost solely by Greeks. They specially pronounced the recognition of the canons in question in their own first canon ; but their own canons have never received the ratification of the Holy See."
Maybe I did misunderstand you, something that is certainly not foreign to our correspondences.
However the error I was refering to was from your specific note:(and we will leave aside the fact that, as proven in the other thread, Leo attempted to prevent the summoning of the synod when it became apparent that not only would it not be held in Italy, but that it purposed to examine his tomus rather than simply accept it.)
To which I responded:
"Leo's letter was by no means accepted without discussion of its content, and it created serious difficulties for some individual fathers. This, in fact, was not contrary to Leo's instructions, which called for agreement based on discussion and accommodation among the fathers. It is true that he did not consider the rejection of his letter a possible solution, but that was because he was convinced he was clearly teaching the traditional faith." (Schatz, Papal Primacy)
Also:
'"Leo and Cyril teach the same thing." This last statement was intended to prevent Cyril from being co-opted by the supporters of Dioscorus and Eutyches and to emphasize the continuity between Ephesus I and the purpose of Alexandrian Christology, while also giving special weight to the Tome of Leo.' (Schatz, Papal Primacy)
Leo's letter was not simply put to Cyril's theology; but rather, the Apostolic tradition as such, of which Ephesus I has its part.
But I suppose we shall take much of this up in our Primacy thread..
Oh, like the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome was not so clear to the Early Church but that should not stop that same Church from recognizing what has become clear, as always, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
On that Scriptural note, curious to know your take on this:
"Another oriental authority of this period that is objected against us is the 6oth canon of the Council of Laodicea. This canon explicitly defines that the books to be read in the Church are those which we now comprehend in the protocanonical class. The date of the Council of Laodicea is uncertain, but it is generally believed to have been celebrated about the middle of the fourth century. Some have doubted the genuinity of the 6oth canon (Herbst, Vincenzi, Malou, Danko), but as it is recognized by Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 749 — 751, we shall not base our treatment of it upon its doubtful character. Admitting all its claims, it simply establishes that some bishops of Phrygia in a particular council refused to allow to be read publicly in the Church any book excepting those that were absolutely certain. We are not endeavoring to prove that the position of protocanonical and deuterocanon- ical books were equal in the early ages of the Church. Their equality was wrought by the Council of Trent. What we wish to show is that these books were known to the early Christians, venerated by them, committed to memory by them, and considered by them as the inspired word of God. The Council in Trullo, which the Greeks hold to be oecumenical, received the Canons of the Council of Laodicea, but, as they also received the Canons of the Council of Carthage, they evidently intended that the decree concerning the canonical Scriptures should be modified in accordance with the complete Canon of the Council of Carthage. The Greeks also in the Council in Trullo received various Apocryphal documents of the fifth century called the Canons of the Apostles. The 85th canon of this collection is sometimes cited against us, as it does not contain any of the deu- terocanonical books, save the books of Maccabees. This canon can have no weight since it embraces three books of Maccabees, two epistles of St. Clement of Rome, and the eight books of the Constitutiones Apostolorum. The Council in Trullo in receiving this Canon could not have excluded the Canon of the Council of Carthage, whose decrees and canons it ratified.
In fact, the Council in Trullo expressly stated that the Constitutiones Apost. were adulterated, and hence not to be read. It seems, however, due to this canon that the Greeks, even to this day, recognize as canonical three books of Maccabees. We can scarcely expect the guiding hand of the Holy Ghost in the members who composed the Council in Trullo. One who candidly examines the data here presented must admit that the Oriental Church during the fourth and fifth centuries recognized and used the deuterocanonical books as divine Scripture." (Breen, A General and Critical Introduction to the study of Holy Scripture) I found this little piece from Meyendorff:
http://books.google.com/books?id=GoVeDXMvY-8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Byzantine+theology%3F&lr=&sig=ACfU3U1Teo_SLcuSoKi7185-u2_PrJceTw#PPA7,M1 - http://books.google.com/books?id=GoVeDXMvY-8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Byzantine+theology%3F&lr=&sig=ACfU3U1Teo_SLcuSoKi7185-u2_PrJceTw#PPA7,M1
But how are the Epistles of Clement to be reconciled? The canon itself does not seem to address that the Epistles of Clement should not be, "published to all", rather only those eight books of his Constitution.
No offense taken, actually the fact that your church view us as in error, as we do you, funny enough, just goes to show how similiar we really are. We both hold to be the true visible church that Christ established, a far cry from the viewpoints of our Protestant brethren. If I had not been of a mild character I suppose I might have taken offense at your surprising assumptions of Pius and his Lordly doctrine. I suppose it shall do me well to remember to keep a cool tongue when refering to Cerularius and the like.
The Orthodox ecclesiology regarding councils doesnt seem all that hard to grasp, and you have expounded well by the way, but I believe you have summed up the matter rather well when you state: "You may disagree with the orthodox view of the Councils...".
May the Lord keep you and bless you dear brother,
God bless,
arch.buff
------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King. |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 16:34
Hm. I simply pasted a few comments from the other thread to give a bit of context to our discussion, and since the numbering of the canon was not questioned there, I didn't give it any thought. I do not presently have access to my books, so I can only assume that you are correct and that I made a typographical error in the other thread.
Ah, John VIII. Would that his reign had lasted a century and all of this might have been resolved; he certainly did the Church a great service in resolving the so-called Photian schism (and here I agree, for the most part, with Dvornik's analysis of the situation, at least as far as I can recall it). I think that we are largely in agreement here; I certainly agree with the passage from Hefele that you quoted. The point upon which we disagree is whether or not the fact that the canons of Trullo "never received the ratification of the Holy See [Rome]" prevents them from going into force. The West believes that it does, while the rest of the Church does not.
Aye, we should discuss it there, especially since I am not so certain that we disagree here. If you acknowledge that the fathers of Chalcedon had the authority to examine the tomus of Leo, and to judge its theological character, then we agree. Councils have always examined and pronounced judgment on the writings of various ecclesiastics, and if the tomus had failed to meet the Apostolic standard, it would have been rejected, as the letter of Pope Honorius to Patriarch Sergius was rejected by the Sixth Ecumenical Council which took up the question of the Monothelite controversy. I think we might disagree slightly as to precisely why Leo felt that the Council could not reject it, but other than that I agree with most of the discussion outlined above.
Clever rhetoric.  That said, the reason the Orthodox Church and many Catholics opposed and continue to oppose the doctrine of infallibility is that it is incompatible with the Tradition of the Church; in essence, Vatican I is the equivalent of a Robber synod, which has always been in error. Whereas the canon of Scripture or the decrees of Nicaea find themselves wholly within the context of the consensus patrum, the decree of Vatican I regarding the "infallibility" of the Roman popes finds itself rejected.
My take is that I am thoroughly unqualified to treat it in any great depth without further research. I can, however, make a few statements. The canon of Scripture accepted by Laodicea, as Meyendorff notes, is thought to be a later addition, but I shall leave this aside as he did, as it really doesn't have any effect on the discussion I purpose to undertake.What we must remember is that the development of the canon is something that took a good deal more time than any of us generally recognize. When we discuss the issue with Protestants, generally we are speaking of an earlier process, and only attempting to validate the inclusion of the Apocrypha -- thus, we turn to the process that culminated in the acceptance of many books in the end of the fourth and early part of the fifth century. When we address the matter of the exact limits of the Biblical canon, however, we must look to a much later date, and a different group of councils (Trent, in the West; and Jerusalem, in the East). It was at these two councils upon which we, from our modern standpoint, receive the canon of Scripture. Thus, when we speak of the earlier councils, we are speaking largely of an ongoing process.
Glad you took it as I intended. I was just a little worried. Disagreement is something that we can discuss -- and continue doing ; lack of understanding, however, would have meant that there was something lacking in my explanation, and as I have exhausted my ability to explain the matter I simply purposed to direct the reader to those who are much more able than I to provide the ecclesiological foundation in which my explanations may be contextualized and understood. The problem with discussing these matters is that we all so often speak past each other without really realizing it, and take certain things for granted that our counterparts do not always hold, and are sometimes not even aware of (due to the fact that they have been raised in an entirely separate ecclesiastical tradition, which accepts its own foundational statements). I know I had enough of my own problems understanding Western doctrine (both Roman and Reformation era) when I first began to study it. Anyway, I ramble -- that's never happened before, eh?
Likewise. God bless.-Akolouthos |
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 20:29
Oh it slipped my eye as well in the Primacy thread, so I am just at fault. I guess you could say that, whenever we dont agree, we are both claiming to "correct" each other.
 So it would do us well whenever we find the other has erred on the simple numbering of a canon, to use an example, to politely correct them. I have no doubt that during our ongoing discussions; which will hopefully have a long life, we will continue to make simple errors that stem from focus in other complicated points of our position; inadvertently putting the simple details to the wayside. I know I am certainly guilty of it myself.
I concur, this is where we disagree. The Byzantine church had tried to make the rest of the church conform to their customs, which ultimately ended in failure. But hopefully we will continue Trullo, and the nature of its canons, in our Primacy thread.
I fear there may also be room for disagreement here as well, go figure.
And here we may need to discuss once again the nature of councils. The council and its members do not come together all believing in the true faith in its entirety. There are some fathers that need to be persuaded and the faith needs to be explained ad nauseum if necessary for a consensus. As much as Leo's letter faced scrutiny and judgement, which I will not deny, it was also as much teaching and directing the ture faith. It goes hand and hand. And of course had Leo's letter not been orthodox it would have been rejected. I am not proposing, if this is what you have come to believe, that had Leo sent a letter containing the true nature of the one true God: The All-Holy Cookie Monster, that the council should confirm such things simply because he is the Bishop of Rome. Also I am very eager to engage in discussion with you about Honorius in our thread. The 6th Ecumenical council also received a letter from Pope Agatho expounding the true faith to which, once again, the council responds,"Peter has spoken through Agatho". This will all be covered in our thread though.
I concur. It is rejected by those outside the Church, not by those within it. For those Catholics such as Hans Kung and Brian Tierney I can only tell you that their 'postulations' run counter to the true faith of the Church. Ive read some of their arguements and am eager to discuss the issue with you.
Currently I am reading Adrian Fortescue's: The Orthodox Eastern Church. An immensely knowledgeable man that obtained a rare triple Doctorate. Of course this is from the Latin perspective. I am looking forward to purchasing Timothy[Kallistos] Ware's: The Orthodox Church; however I currently have my eye on a couple of books that verge on the triple digit money area. I have no problem spending money on books that attract my fancy, however it becomes straining when one has to pay for school and the books therein.
God bless brother,
arch.buff ------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King. |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 02:47
The only two typographical errors I recall from the other thread were mine (one concerning... Chalcedon? and one concerning Trullo); and you were right to point these out. Honestly, it helps both the readers and me; if you hadn't corrected me on those things, those who read the thread and were not familiar with the documents we are talking about would have gotten incorrect information, and if you had not corrected me, I would not be confronted with the fact that I need to be a bit more careful when I'm swiftly thumbing through pages. I've always been a bit scatterbrained, and it is not a quality that is appreciated in my field. You're actually helping me to realize that I need to be paying more attention, and making me a better scholar in the process. You are doing great, and both I and the people who read the thread benefit as a result.
Yes, we will. It may even be beneficial, since you and I are addressing the same basic underlying premises of consent from two different perspectives -- with me referring to the majority of the bishops in collegial unity, according to the perspective that developed in the East, and you referring to the bishop of Rome as the holder of an extra-collegial authority, according to the perspective that developed in the West.
There may not be disagreement here; I certainly agree with everything you said here regarding Leo. Many Roman apologists would not, while many Roman historians would. The problem is we are both attempting to be apologists and historians, so we find ourselves confronting the difficult task of bridging the gap. I suppose the question hinges on our discussion of the matter of Honorius in the other thread. Janus and I discussed this at one point in an earlier thread, if you are interested in knowing some of my thoughts on the matter, (which may or may not have evolved; honestly, I haven't reviewed it in quite some time).
If you wish me to defend Hans Kung opinions on the matter in any comprehensive sense, you will be disappointed; I don't feel that his theology fits the consensus of the fathers all that much better in an Eastern sense than in a Western sense. I don't mean to insult him; he is a brilliant theologian, a very honest and genuine man, and I do agree with certain of his postulations, but some of his ecclesiological ideas are problematic; he and Ratzinger went in two very different directions after the student movement. Very few theologians are wholly correct, or wholly mistaken; often there is a great deal of gray area. Tierney and Dvornik I like a bit more.
The triple doctorate was a good deal more common in the happy era in which he lived, if I remember my dates correctly; it was an era when we valued knowledge more than bureaucracy, and we should mourn its passing. I've never actually read the work of which you speak; I am only familiar with him from certain bibliographical information I have come into contact with. Ware's book is a wonderful introduction, but if you understand basic Orthodox ecclesiology, it would be more useful as a general historical source; it is written for the inquirer and the initiate, and it has undergone several revisions since it was originally written. As I recall, a scholar by the name of Deno Geanakoplos has written several interesting historical works on the subject. Anyway, I wish you luck; I can guess at a few of the triple digit purchases you wish to make, as I am under the same compulsion myself, and I definitely sympathize with your financial situation. God bless, and we shall plan to take up the outstanding issues in the other thread. -Akolouthos |
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 16:52
Hey we are both here to offer our positions, which we may find at times is not so concrete as we may have thought, on certain issues. Along the way I hope we can teach and learn from eachother; I certainly know I have learned much from you, both directly and indirectly.
Thanks for the quick review of Ware's book. Is there any Orthodox book in particular that you would recommend? As your suggestions carry much weight with me.
Eagerly awaiting the resumption of our discussion.
God bless brother,
arch.buff
------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King. |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 02:27
I view the pope as a deist. Think about it. Vicar means to rule in one's absense. So according to the pope...Christ is absent? It seems that the pope by his own definition seeks to rule apart from God (because he is absent hence a vicar) where as the Orthodox seek to work with God.
Concerning the paper pope statement, well Protestants like to teach scripture alone, faith alone, etc etc (even though scripture says faith AND works and also speaks of tradition). So the paper pope comment really if you follow its logic every person is his/her own pope.
But yea the main point about the vicar is that the very meaning of the word suggests there is no God around us.
|
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 03:47
Hello again Carpathian Wolf!
Nice to hear from you again. The reason I have quoted(above) our responses in their entirety is for reasons of explanation, or rather, clarity. I wished to vaguely and courteously correct your allusion to St. Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians. You wrote, "word and by deed"; whereas a more accurate wording would be,"by word, or our epistle". This directly related to the discussional topic of the Protestant way of thinking as goes scripture. As you well know, they follow the peculiar and rather late novel doctrine of sola scriptura.
I assume you are a member of the Orthodox Church, no? Forgive me if you are not, its just that I somewhere remember you stating you were. Nevertheless, I will address the following as if you are; please, correct me if I am wrong in my assumption.
Allow me to first quote St. Ignatius of Antioch:
"Wherever the bishop appear, there let the multitude be; even as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful either to baptize, or to hold a love-feast without the consent of the bishop; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that also is well pleasing unto God, to the end that whatever is done may be safe and sure." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:2)
Also, 2 Corinthians 2:10-
"To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;"
You see, here St. Paul directly refers to himself In Persona Christi. Did St. Paul fancy himself God? Of course not but he did very well understand the priesthood given to him and all the other shepards as that one priesthood under the chief-priest, Christ. Enter St. Ignatius, he explains for us very well what St. Paul, and the Catholic Church, know of this priesthood.
We here speak of Protestants, but we most be careful not to, as they do, diminish the ordained to something very unfruitful and unnecessary, as they truly are our spiritual shepards, and we their flock.
If I have failed to explain well in any sense, please let me know.
Abundant blessings,
arch.buff ------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King. |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 04:16
|
"Hello again Carpathian Wolf!
Nice to hear from you again. The reason I have quoted(above) our responses in their entirety is for reasons of explanation, or rather, clarity. I wished to vaguely and courteously correct your allusion to St. Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians. You wrote, "word and by deed"; whereas a more accurate wording would be,"by word, or our epistle". This directly related to the discussional topic of the Protestant way of thinking as goes scripture. As you well know, they follow the peculiar and rather late novel doctrine of sola scriptura."
Yea the main point was just that tradition has a place where as in protestantism (the kind i generally refer to) it's a bad word.
"I assume you are a member of the Orthodox Church, no? Forgive me if you are not, its just that I somewhere remember you stating you were. Nevertheless, I will address the following as if you are; please, correct me if I am wrong in my assumption.
"I gave all the Christian denominations a chance (as well as Mesoretic Judaism as I call it and Islam). But yes I am (try to be) Orthodox.
"
Allow me to first quote St. Ignatius of Antioch:
"Wherever the bishop appear, there let the multitude be; even as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful either to baptize, or to hold a love-feast without the consent of the bishop; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that also is well pleasing unto God, to the end that whatever is done may be safe and sure." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:2)
Also, 2 Corinthians 2:10-
"To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;"
You see, here St. Paul directly refers to himself In Persona Christi. Did St. Paul fancy himself God? Of course not but he did very well understand the priesthood given to him and all the other shepards as that one priesthood under the chief-priest, Christ. Enter St. Ignatius, he explains for us very well what St. Paul, and the Catholic Church, know of this priesthood.
We here speak of Protestants, but we most be careful not to, as they do, diminish the ordained to something very unfruitful and unnecessary, as they truly are our spiritual shepards, and we their flock.
If I have failed to explain well in any sense, please let me know.
Abundant blessings,
arch.buff"
I'm not denying any of that. The issue is when using the term Vicar you are stating that someone is absent and that someone in this example is God. I'm not denying the role of bishops or priests. But the papal doctrine goes beyond that. As I have stated before I view that the papacy has added to the faith as the protestants subtracted from it (in reaction to the former's addition) while the Orthodox have simply maintained and defined. There was no papal primacy at the First Council or the 2nd or 3rd etc etc. Even infailbility didn't exist until the 1800s. Just from a technic point of view these are obvious additions. |
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 17:20
Quite the contrary. You state,"The issue is when using the term Vicar you are stating that someone is absent and that someone in this example is God." However, it is exactly the attendance of Christ himself in our Eucharistic celebration which is what makes it what it is. But who is to offer us this 'life giving food'? The ordained who received orders in Apostolic succession directly from Christ's words himself to the Apostles--Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven...-- Now, if it is the actual word "vicar" that you are hung up on I can only tell you that it means 'represenative'. The Catholic Church has always believed such things(refer back to St. Ignatius and St. Paul). Also, this specific title was not given to the Pope in reaction to anything the Reformers had done. In the early 13th Century Pope Innocent III speaks specifically of the title. However, the use of the word stretches much farther back; long before Luther and the Reformers.
The Eucharistic example can also be applied to the Sacrament of Reconciliation; again also followed by the angelic words of our Lord. The term of "Vicar of Christ" when used by the Pope refers to him being head of all the churches, as the title of "Vicar" is also applied to the bishop in charge of his immediate church or diocese(Refer back to the Catechism that I quoted). From what I know of the Orthodox, which admittedly is not much, I dont believe there is any disagreement here, except for the fact that the Pope is the head of all churches when he applies the title as "Vicar" to himself. As far as your Primacy assertions, once again I would love to discuss this with you if you have any contributions to make or any specific 'proofs' to back your assertions. This, however, would be more proper if it was carried on in the thread-- Pope: Discussions of the Roman Primacy.
God bless,
arch.buff
------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King. |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 18:46
|
Nothing that Saints Paul or Ignatius say details papal supremacy. They simply speak of the duties of clergy. I don't disagree with Apostolic Succession, just that somehow Peter was above everyone else, and even if he was, why Rome has a higher standing then Antioch when it was at Antioch that Peter was a Bishop.
Yes it is the word Vicar which is also a problem.
vic·ar
< =text/ minmax_bound="true">
// %5Chttp://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/V01/V0110400%5C"> ", "6");
interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");
interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");
interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");
interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");
interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FV01%2FV0110400.mp3");
interfaceflash.write();
// ]]>
< id=speaker code=code= height=18 width=17 align=top id=:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000 minmax_bound="true" http: fpdownload.macromedia.com pub shockwave cabs flash swflash.cab#version='6,0,0,0"'>< NAME="_cx" VALUE="450">< NAME="_cy" VALUE="476">< NAME="FlashVars" VALUE="">< NAME="Movie" VALUE="http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf">< NAME="" VALUE="http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf">< NAME="WMode" VALUE="">< NAME="Play" VALUE="0">< NAME="Loop" VALUE="0">< NAME="Quality" VALUE="High">< NAME="SAlign" VALUE="T">< NAME="Menu" VALUE="0">< NAME="" VALUE="">< NAME="AllowAccess" VALUE="">< NAME="Scale" VALUE="ShowAll">< NAME="DeviceFont" VALUE="0">< NAME="Movie" VALUE="0">< NAME="" VALUE="">< NAME="SWRemote" VALUE="">< NAME="Movie" VALUE="">< NAME="SeamlessTabbing" VALUE="1">< NAME="Pro" VALUE="0">< NAME="ProAddress" VALUE="">< NAME="Pro" VALUE="0">< NAME="AllowNetworking" VALUE="all">< NAME="AllowFullScreen" VALUE="false">ər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vik-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
Number 4 is what I am speaking about specifically. The pope believes himself a substitute for the head of the Church. The head of the Church is God, so the pope believes himself to be a substitute for God. Where was the theology of this in the Ecumenical Councils for example?
Could I have a link to the said thread? |
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 19:59
Ok, here is about the time it would seem I have been talking in circles; or my points are failing to come accross in any effective way. This should be more taken as my inadequacy to expound in any way that would be seen as fruitful, no doubt, and for that you have my apologies. So, I shall attempt to expound in the simplest sense. All of the ordained are to be considered Vicars of Christ, especially when administering the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist. Does that make sense?
Also, I did not quote SS. Paul and Ignatius for benefit of argumentation as goes Papal Primacy; but rather, for explanation regarding the ordained as those who stand in persona Christi(Vicar).
Here allow me to briefly explain the different definitions-
3. Here it would be refering to such historical examples as the bishop of Thessalonica being the Vicar of the Apostolic see.
4. Now, here is a good straight-to-the-point definition.
5. And here and even more specific straight-to-the-point definition. The ordained sit in place of Christ and shepard the flock. Think of a living conduit for Christ, hence- in persona Christi.
It would do you better rather to not even think of the Pope when trying to fix yourself around the theology of the ordained representing Christ here on Earth. I would gather you have tangled the two and this may be the reason for your confusion. The Pope is only one of those Vicars of Christ. The Bishop of Rome is no more of a bishop than any other bishop within the Church. However, and this I believe is where Orthodoxy and Catholicism differ, the Pope is the Head of all churches. Why does Rome have a higher standing than Antioch? A simple look-over to some of the Church Father's writings will provide some clarity. However, as I assume you will be posting in the 'Primacy' thread I will leave my sources there. Now that we have smoothly transitioned into the topic of Papal Primacy
, I will refer you to the relevant thread: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=21045 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=21045 God bless,
arch.buff ------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King. |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 20:35
|
Avoiding the primacy discussion here I don't disagree the position of the clergy, simply at which level the pope took it. And with that i'll go to the other thread. |