Trouble understanding Filioque and the Father's "monarchy"
#31
(05-21-2018, 08:25 PM)Klemens Wrote: I acknowledge that there is no potential numerical limit to Ecumenical Councils. But there are such things as Robber Councils. I myself subscribe to the Orthodox definition of ecumenicity. Ecumenicity is based on a Council’s agreement (absence of contradictions) with that which Christ taught to the Apostles. The entire Church must accept that this continuity exists for a council to be ecumenical. Usually this acceptance was relayed by the Patriarchs/bishops (when the need was pressing, this was often relayed immediately). Perhaps the best evidence for a Council’s ecumenicity is its affirmation at all subsequent councils.

Evidence, yes, but not proof.

The issue always comes down to precisely what "agreement with that which Christ taught to the Apostles" means. Is the Immaculate Conception in such agreement?

Then we have the issue that if there are "Robber Councils" where certain parts of the "Church" object, what happens when we have a legitimate council where part of the Church objects (e.g. Nicaea, to which the Arians who eventually made up a majority of the Eastern episcopacy, were firmly against).

The only solution is an authority to decide such matters.

(05-21-2018, 08:25 PM)Klemens Wrote: ... As such, I trust that the canons of these Councils are in agreement with (and don’t simply co-exist with) Christ’s teachings. Adding and subtracting nothing.

So when Nicaea determined that those who were voluntarily castrated needed to be deposed from the clergy this was not an "addition", but straight from what Christ taught?

How about for penitents who were dying, who were declared not only able, but duty bound to receive viaticum, but if recovering were to be excommunicated again. That's clearly from Christ's teaching, right?

Care to offer a reference.

(05-21-2018, 08:25 PM)Klemens Wrote: While the entire Church has not yet acknowledged the ecumenicity of the 879-880 Council, individual Churches (Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem) have acknowledged the Sofian (Fourth Constantinopolitan) Council as ecumenical. As an Orthodox Christian, I too acknowledge the Sofian Council as ecumenical. As such I reject the Robber Council of 869-870 because of its errors. I acknowledge the Sofian Council precisely because it repudiates the Robber Council (the change to the Symbol of Faith). This is why I limit myself to only Eight Ecumenical Councils.

So basically you accept an 8th council against the standards you previously mentioned.

(05-21-2018, 08:25 PM)Klemens Wrote: In short, the standard of reflecting without contradiction the Teachings of Christ and Apostles (and previous councils deemed to do so) offers a far better standard than one of authority (ratification by one bishop/patriarch). Whats more, even if the participants of a council were to all agree on heresy, they can be countered by those members of the Church who did not participate.

Authority is all we have, otherwise we're just Protestants with trappings.

The question is to whom did Christ give the authority to determine such things. That's where the Papacy debate comes in, but even before then, without one authority, there is none.

(05-21-2018, 08:25 PM)Klemens Wrote: All that I write is simply a reflection of the Faith that I now live in. I believe it to be true and came to it by my own road (not an easy road). I’m no longer in conflict regarding my place (Catholic or Orthodox). I am definitely Orthodox, but I do maintain a Catholic presence (Mass, etc.) for purely external reasons.

So you're attending a schismatic liturgy for external reasons? Isn't that showing support for the schism and heresy of Rome? Do you confess this?
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#32
(05-21-2018, 09:27 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-21-2018, 08:25 PM)Klemens Wrote: I acknowledge that there is no potential numerical limit to Ecumenical Councils. But there are such things as Robber Councils. I myself subscribe to the Orthodox definition of ecumenicity. Ecumenicity is based on a Council’s agreement (absence of contradictions) with that which Christ taught to the Apostles. The entire Church must accept that this continuity exists for a council to be ecumenical. Usually this acceptance was relayed by the Patriarchs/bishops (when the need was pressing, this was often relayed immediately). Perhaps the best evidence for a Council’s ecumenicity is its affirmation at all subsequent councils.

Evidence, yes, but not proof.

The issue always comes down to precisely what "agreement with that which Christ taught to the Apostles" means. Is the Immaculate Conception in such agreement?

Then we have the issue that if there are "Robber Councils" where certain parts of the "Church" object, what happens when we have a legitimate council where part of the Church objects (e.g. Nicaea, to which the Arians who eventually made up a majority of the Eastern episcopacy, were firmly against).

The only solution is an authority to decide such matters.

(05-21-2018, 08:25 PM)Klemens Wrote: ... As such, I trust that the canons of these Councils are in agreement with (and don’t simply co-exist with) Christ’s teachings. Adding and subtracting nothing.

So when Nicaea determined that those who were voluntarily castrated needed to be deposed from the clergy this was not an "addition", but straight from what Christ taught?

How about for penitents who were dying, who were declared not only able, but duty bound to receive viaticum, but if recovering were to be excommunicated again. That's clearly from Christ's teaching, right?

Care to offer a reference.

(05-21-2018, 08:25 PM)Klemens Wrote: While the entire Church has not yet acknowledged the ecumenicity of the 879-880 Council, individual Churches (Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem) have acknowledged the Sofian (Fourth Constantinopolitan) Council as ecumenical. As an Orthodox Christian, I too acknowledge the Sofian Council as ecumenical. As such I reject the Robber Council of 869-870 because of its errors. I acknowledge the Sofian Council precisely because it repudiates the Robber Council (the change to the Symbol of Faith). This is why I limit myself to only Eight Ecumenical Councils.

So basically you accept an 8th council against the standards you previously mentioned.

(05-21-2018, 08:25 PM)Klemens Wrote: In short, the standard of reflecting without contradiction the Teachings of Christ and Apostles (and previous councils deemed to do so) offers a far better standard than one of authority (ratification by one bishop/patriarch). Whats more, even if the participants of a council were to all agree on heresy, they can be countered by those members of the Church who did not participate.

Authority is all we have, otherwise we're just Protestants with trappings.

The question is to whom did Christ give the authority to determine such things. That's where the Papacy debate comes in, but even before then, without one authority, there is none.

(05-21-2018, 08:25 PM)Klemens Wrote: All that I write is simply a reflection of the Faith that I now live in. I believe it to be true and came to it by my own road (not an easy road). I’m no longer in conflict regarding my place (Catholic or Orthodox). I am definitely Orthodox, but I do maintain a Catholic presence (Mass, etc.) for purely external reasons.

So you're attending a schismatic liturgy for external reasons? Isn't that showing support for the schism and heresy of Rome? Do you confess this?
If we relied on proof alone, then we wouldn’t be people of faith would we? Why else did Christ send the Holy Spirit on the day of the Holy Trinity (Pentecost) to be with the Church through the ages?  

In terms of determining whether a council is ecumenical, that is largely dependent on whether the council is later acknowledged as such by the faithful and by future councils. As such any new(ish) council is held up first to the Scriptures, then to the Liturgy (yes, I mean the Liturgy, the second-best instruction in the faith), then to the Apostles/Fathers, and so on. The point is that one cannot exclude these elements of critique. It’s not like there is a single, reducible criterion. All must taken into account.   

First, I must admit that I made and omission, but I meant what Christ and the Apostles/Fathers taught. "What Christ taught” was simply my own shorthand for the teachings contained in Scripture and the teaching of the Apostles/Fathers (how else we know what Christ taught if not through this means/).   
As for Canons I and XIII of the First Ecumenical Council. Keeping in mind that this was the first ecumenical council, many controversies had arisen that simply needed to be settled based on the consensus patrum (consensus of the Fathers). Self-mutilation was already proscribed by the Apostolic Canons (XXI). The Apostolic Canons are attributed the Holy Apostles themselves and constitute an part of Tradition. Thus, Canon I of Nicaea only affirmed what was already believed in the Apostolic faith. Canon XIII prohibits one who has received the last Pre-Sanctified Gifts from receiving communion (the original definition of excommunication, as the word itself implies), not an anathema or casting out of the Church. This prohibition only affirms the practise had already existed whereby the last Pre-Sanctified Gifts were brought to the dying to provide a final absolution.

My statement regarding the Sofian Council is purely personal. I stand in agreement with the theologians and Churches that do acknowledge its ecumenicity. And in Orthodoxy I am not bound to believe as such (but I’m also not prohibited). If all the Orthodox Churches (and by extension all the faithful) ever acknowledge/reject the Sofian Council, then I shall do likewise. Until then, this is a personal opinion. It is my opinion, however, that the Sofian Council is ecumenical and necessary because it reverses what is otherwise a false council that affirmed an illegitimate alteration of the Symbol of Faith.

Christ gave authority to all the Apostles to loose and bind (if the Holy Apostle Peter were so great as to simply, why bother with the other Eleven? Why else give them same powers?). As such you have the collective teachings of the Apostles, which were then relayed to their earliest successors (the earliest Fathers) and so forth. It is these Fathers, who in some way have succeeded the Apostles, that have authority based on their faithfulness to the Apostolic faith (their celebration of the Mysteries aside). It is the very purpose of the apostolic succession, to assure the right belief in that which Christ taught and which the Apostles later conveyed. Authority comes not from position itself, but from the relationship to right belief. But the most important thing to remember is that no single Apostle taught alone. All were unified in right belief. And their successors likewise are tasked with unified right belief. But God’s truth cannot not wrought by force (authority), but by preservation and faithful adherence to his praecepts. I always hold dear to one of my favourite parts of the Vsyenochnaya is the refrain of the angyelskiy sobor «Благословен еси, Господи, научий мя оправданием Твоим.» (Blessed are you, Lord, teach me Your praecepts) Psalm 118:12. 

Orthodoxy is not Protestantism because in Protestantism, in one form or another, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura makes each man into an Apostle teaching his own version of Christ’s teachings contained in Scripture. It is precisely why Scripture reading in Orthodoxy is always accompanied by commentary by the Fathers, Councils, etc.

Altogether, I certainly trust that a system that impedes rather than expedites changes is far less likely to veer away from Christ’s teaching. Concentrating teaching authority into one man (other than Christ) can be dangerous. [Please don’t take offence, for I’m not levelling any accusations, just relaying my own observation] One Orthodox priest said that if such great authority is given over to one man and that it extends over the world, then one has prepared a throne for the Scatterer. Granted I’m not accusing any pope of being the Antichrist. But if I were the devil, I would certainly strike at the papacy because with the pope’s universal jurisdiction, inability to be judged by a higher Church entity (council), and not being bound by predecessors (at least in doctrine and praxis), I would be able to distort Christ’s teachings through the world with no substantial opposition. If I said anything offensive, I apologise up front. I in no way wish to accuse any pope of being the Antichrist (we don’t know who will be the Antichrist yet). I, like many, have my personal concerns.        

As for my personal situation, I haven’t been Chrismated/initiated through Ikonomia, meaning that I’m not a formal member of my canonical Orthodox Church.  I am basically in something of a spiritual prison. As soon as my personal situation improves, I’m going straight to my local Orthodox Church and asking for formal initiation (whatever my priest decides is best). I pray Orthodox (Church Slavonic) daily prayers for the morning and evening. I pray Slavonic Orthodox prayers before and after Mass and confession. I also pray the Jesus Prayer and the prayer rope to the Bogarodica as restored by St Syerafim Sarovskiy, along with occasional tropariya and kondaki. I attend Saturday Vsyenochnaya as frequently as possible. I cross myself in the Orthodox manner when nobody is looking/in private situations. And finally, I kiss icons as regularly as possible. All this to me isn’t mere ritual, it’s a physical profession of right belief.
Reply
#33
(05-22-2018, 12:47 AM)Klemens Wrote: If we relied on proof alone, then we wouldn’t be people of faith would we? Why else did Christ send the Holy Spirit on the day of the Holy Trinity (Pentecost) to be with the Church through the ages?  

So the acceptance of whether a council is ecumenical is not proven by any evidence, but a matter of belief?

Does that not end in the same problem?

How can I know that this things the Church teaches is orthodox and de fide?

(05-22-2018, 12:47 AM)Klemens Wrote: In terms of determining whether a council is ecumenical, that is largely dependent on whether the council is later acknowledged as such by the faithful and by future councils. As such any new(ish) council is held up first to the Scriptures, then to the Liturgy (yes, I mean the Liturgy, the second-best instruction in the faith), then to the Apostles/Fathers, and so on. The point is that one cannot exclude these elements of critique. It’s not like there is a single, reducible criterion. All must taken into account.   

But that is a subjective standard, and that's the problem.

If there is not one "reducible criterion" then there is no criterion. It is a purely subjective standard.

I say that Trent perfectly matches the Scripture, Liturgy and Fathers. You say no. Who is right? Who decides?

Unless there is some authority or at least objective "reducible criterion" then we could never adequately bind anyone to any ecumenical decree.

(05-22-2018, 12:47 AM)Klemens Wrote: First, I must admit that I made and omission, but I meant what Christ and the Apostles/Fathers taught. "What Christ taught” was simply my own shorthand for the teachings contained in Scripture and the teaching of the Apostles/Fathers (how else we know what Christ taught if not through this means/).

That was obvious, and understood.

(05-22-2018, 12:47 AM)Klemens Wrote: As for Canons I and XIII of the First Ecumenical Council. Keeping in mind that this was the first ecumenical council, many controversies had arisen that simply needed to be settled based on the consensus patrum (consensus of the Fathers). Self-mutilation was already proscribed by the Apostolic Canons (XXI). The Apostolic Canons are attributed the Holy Apostles themselves and constitute an part of Tradition. Thus, Canon I of Nicaea only affirmed what was already believed in the Apostolic faith. Canon XIII prohibits one who has received the last Pre-Sanctified Gifts from receiving communion (the original definition of excommunication, as the word itself implies), not an anathema or casting out of the Church. This prohibition only affirms the practise had already existed whereby the last Pre-Sanctified Gifts were brought to the dying to provide a final absolution.

Attribution does not equal authorship.

The "Apostolic Canons" are highly debated, may reflect or represent Apostolic decrees, but are certainly not directly from the Apostles. Best research on the collection shows the probability of a 2nd century authorship on some (since it was known to Origen), but also the probability of at least additions or heavy editing in certain parts as the scripture used in it is from after Origen's time.

And again, then you and I can compare such texts and come to different conclusions. You are convinced it is from the Apostles. Some attribute them to the Apostles. Others do not. I am not convinced.

Even if we were so convinced, then we're stuck doing textual comparisons, from which, again, we could come to differing conclusions as to whether they are adequate matches to say that Nicaea is repeating an Apostolic practice.

In such questions who makes the judgement? To whom does one go to know what the Church teaches?

If there is no objective standard, we're again, stuck with effectively private judgement.

(05-22-2018, 12:47 AM)Klemens Wrote: My statement regarding the Sofian Council is purely personal. I stand in agreement with the theologians and Churches that do acknowledge its ecumenicity. And in Orthodoxy I am not bound to believe as such (but I’m also not prohibited). If all the Orthodox Churches (and by extension all the faithful) ever acknowledge/reject the Sofian Council, then I shall do likewise. Until then, this is a personal opinion. It is my opinion, however, that the Sofian Council is ecumenical and necessary because it reverses what is otherwise a false council that affirmed an illegitimate alteration of the Symbol of Faith.

Again, you're taking a even more purely subjective standard, and this is not disinterested. You start with the pre-supposed conclusion, so you accept the council that gives that conclusion.

(05-22-2018, 12:47 AM)Klemens Wrote: ... Authority comes not from position itself, but from the relationship to right belief ...

That's self-contradictory. One has authority only if one is orthodox, but it prompts the same question. Who judges whether one is orthodox, and thus whether one has authority?

The only objective solution is that authority (of any kind) is not a personal quality but an official one. It is attached to an office, so that the office holder has it, and when he is no longer in that office, does not. This is how it works in any natural society. Why would a supernatural society, like the Church, be the opposite? Does not supernature build on nature?

(05-22-2018, 12:47 AM)Klemens Wrote: Orthodoxy is not Protestantism because in Protestantism, in one form or another, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura makes each man into an Apostle teaching his own version of Christ’s teachings contained in Scripture. It is precisely why Scripture reading in Orthodoxy is always accompanied by commentary by the Fathers, Councils, etc.

Again, though, what happens when several Fathers take opposite opinions on a passage? What if they are not clear?

An example, what can one believe regarding the Hexameron without rejecting the orthodox Faith? The Fathers are not unanimous on many points in this regard.

(05-22-2018, 12:47 AM)Klemens Wrote: Altogether, I certainly trust that a system that impedes rather than expedites changes is far less likely to veer away from Christ’s teaching. Concentrating teaching authority into one man (other than Christ) can be dangerous. [Please don’t take offence, for I’m not levelling any accusations, just relaying my own observation] One Orthodox priest said that if such great authority is given over to one man and that it extends over the world, then one has prepared a throne for the Scatterer. Granted I’m not accusing any pope of being the Antichrist. But if I were the devil, I would certainly strike at the papacy because with the pope’s universal jurisdiction, inability to be judged by a higher Church entity (council), and not being bound by predecessors (at least in doctrine and praxis), I would be able to distort Christ’s teachings through the world with no substantial opposition. If I said anything offensive, I apologise up front. I in no way wish to accuse any pope of being the Antichrist (we don’t know who will be the Antichrist yet). I, like many, have my personal concerns.

Yet the question isn't whether it is the safest system, but whether it is the system that Christ established or not.

What matter is what Christ set up, not the pitfalls or benefits of such a system.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • SaintSebastian
Reply
#34
"For as the Son is bound to the Father, and, while deriving existence from Him, is not substantially after Him, so again the Holy Spirit is in touch with the Only-begotten, Who is conceived of as before the Spirit's subsistence only in the theoretical light of a cause. Extensions in time find no admittance in the Eternal Life; so that, when we have removed the thought of cause, the Holy Trinity in no single way exhibits discord with itself; and to It is glory due."

-St. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomious 1:42


"Insofar as we understand the special relationship of the Son to the Father, we also understand that the Spirit has this same relationship to the Son. And since the Son says, ‘everything that the Father has is mine (John 16:15),’ we will discover all these things also in the Spirit through the Son. And just as the Son was announced by the Father, Who said, ‘This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased (Matthew 3:17),’ so also is the Spirit of the Son; for, as the Apostle says, ‘He has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!' (Galatians 4:6)." 

-St. Athanasius, Letters to Serapion III 1:33

"Concerning the Holy Spirit I ought not to be silent, and yet I have no need to speak; still, for the sake of those who are in ignorance, I cannot refrain. There is no need to speak, because we are bound to confess Him, proceeding, as He does, from Father and Son."

-St. Hilary of Pottiers, On the Trinity 2:29 

"And this, again, is not a trivial matter that we read that a river goes forth from the throne of God. For you read the words of the Evangelist John to this purport: And He showed me a river of living water, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street thereof, and on either side, was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruits, yielding its fruit every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of all nations. (Revelation 22:1-2)  This is certainly the River proceeding from the throne of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, Whom he drinks who believes in Christ, as He Himself says: If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink. He that believes in Me, as says the Scripture, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spoke He of the Spirit. (John 7:37-38) Therefore the river is the Spirit." 
-St. Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, Book III, 20:153-154

"It was not the syllogisms... or the force of arguments that lead me to believe this, but the plain words of the doctors. For when I saw and heard them, straightaway I put aside all contention and controversy and yielded to the authority of those whose words they were... For I judged that the holy fathers, speaking as they did in the Holy Spirit, could not have departed from the truth and I was grieved that I had not heard their words before."

- Basilios Bessarion, De Spiritus Sanctii processione ad Alexium Lascarin Philanthropinum


"The Fathers of East and West, inspired by the same Spirit, could not contradict one another. This was the universally accepted principle that there existed a 'symphony of the saints.'" 
- Basilios Bessarion,Oratio Dogmatica
"..the throne of Peter, and to the chief Church whence priestly unity takes its source..." -St. Cyprian

"...the Roman Church, the Head of the whole Roman world... from thence flow all the rights of venerable Communion to all persons." -St. Ambrose

"You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles for which reason he was called Cephas,  that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim -each for himself- separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner." -St. Opatus of Milevis

http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.p...sg33996805

http://www.amazon.com/Studies-Early-Papa...merReviews
Reply
#35
(05-22-2018, 01:27 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-22-2018, 12:47 AM)Klemens Wrote: If we relied on proof alone, then we wouldn’t be people of faith would we? Why else did Christ send the Holy Spirit on the day of the Holy Trinity (Pentecost) to be with the Church through the ages?  

So the acceptance of whether a council is ecumenical is not proven by any evidence, but a matter of belief?

Does that not end in the same problem?

How can I know that this things the Church teaches is orthodox and de fide?

(05-22-2018, 12:47 AM)Klemens Wrote: In terms of determining whether a council is ecumenical, that is largely dependent on whether the council is later acknowledged as such by the faithful and by future councils. As such any new(ish) council is held up first to the Scriptures, then to the Liturgy (yes, I mean the Liturgy, the second-best instruction in the faith), then to the Apostles/Fathers, and so on. The point is that one cannot exclude these elements of critique. It’s not like there is a single, reducible criterion. All must taken into account.   

But that is a subjective standard, and that's the problem.

If there is not one "reducible criterion" then there is no criterion. It is a purely subjective standard.

I say that Trent perfectly matches the Scripture, Liturgy and Fathers. You say no. Who is right? Who decides?

Unless there is some authority or at least objective "reducible criterion" then we could never adequately bind anyone to any ecumenical decree.

(05-22-2018, 12:47 AM)Klemens Wrote: First, I must admit that I made and omission, but I meant what Christ and the Apostles/Fathers taught. "What Christ taught” was simply my own shorthand for the teachings contained in Scripture and the teaching of the Apostles/Fathers (how else we know what Christ taught if not through this means/).

That was obvious, and understood.

(05-22-2018, 12:47 AM)Klemens Wrote: As for Canons I and XIII of the First Ecumenical Council. Keeping in mind that this was the first ecumenical council, many controversies had arisen that simply needed to be settled based on the consensus patrum (consensus of the Fathers). Self-mutilation was already proscribed by the Apostolic Canons (XXI). The Apostolic Canons are attributed the Holy Apostles themselves and constitute an part of Tradition. Thus, Canon I of Nicaea only affirmed what was already believed in the Apostolic faith. Canon XIII prohibits one who has received the last Pre-Sanctified Gifts from receiving communion (the original definition of excommunication, as the word itself implies), not an anathema or casting out of the Church. This prohibition only affirms the practise had already existed whereby the last Pre-Sanctified Gifts were brought to the dying to provide a final absolution.

Attribution does not equal authorship.

The "Apostolic Canons" are highly debated, may reflect or represent Apostolic decrees, but are certainly not directly from the Apostles. Best research on the collection shows the probability of a 2nd century authorship on some (since it was known to Origen), but also the probability of at least additions or heavy editing in certain parts as the scripture used in it is from after Origen's time.

And again, then you and I can compare such texts and come to different conclusions. You are convinced it is from the Apostles. Some attribute them to the Apostles. Others do not. I am not convinced.

Even if we were so convinced, then we're stuck doing textual comparisons, from which, again, we could come to differing conclusions as to whether they are adequate matches to say that Nicaea is repeating an Apostolic practice.

In such questions who makes the judgement? To whom does one go to know what the Church teaches?

If there is no objective standard, we're again, stuck with effectively private judgement.

(05-22-2018, 12:47 AM)Klemens Wrote: My statement regarding the Sofian Council is purely personal. I stand in agreement with the theologians and Churches that do acknowledge its ecumenicity. And in Orthodoxy I am not bound to believe as such (but I’m also not prohibited). If all the Orthodox Churches (and by extension all the faithful) ever acknowledge/reject the Sofian Council, then I shall do likewise. Until then, this is a personal opinion. It is my opinion, however, that the Sofian Council is ecumenical and necessary because it reverses what is otherwise a false council that affirmed an illegitimate alteration of the Symbol of Faith.

Again, you're taking a even more purely subjective standard, and this is not disinterested. You start with the pre-supposed conclusion, so you accept the council that gives that conclusion.

(05-22-2018, 12:47 AM)Klemens Wrote: ... Authority comes not from position itself, but from the relationship to right belief ...

That's self-contradictory. One has authority only if one is orthodox, but it prompts the same question. Who judges whether one is orthodox, and thus whether one has authority?

The only objective solution is that authority (of any kind) is not a personal quality but an official one. It is attached to an office, so that the office holder has it, and when he is no longer in that office, does not. This is how it works in any natural society. Why would a supernatural society, like the Church, be the opposite? Does not supernature build on nature?

You've hit on one of the biggest problems with Eastern Orthodoxy. In reality, the system Klemens has proposed is a novelty in the EO world, introduced to deny the reunion Councils and certain post-schism EO Councils modern Neo-Palamites don't like.  The Church historically did not wait for the the faithful to receive its definitive dogmatic decisions--it anathemitzed and kicked out dissenters forthwith.  Non-Chalcedonians would certainly argue that all the faithful did not accept Chalcedon.  Of course everyone in the Church will accept something when you kick out everyone who doesn't!
[Image: catherinesiena-1.jpg]
[-] The following 3 users Like SaintSebastian's post:
  • jovan66102, MagisterMusicae, yablabo
Reply
#36
double post
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)