Perhaps this is one for Catholics to answer? My attempt goes as follows:
1. The ECF's are not infallible, no one ever claimed they were, There is no 'agreed list' of ECFs in any case. They are great Christian souls whose writings provide us with edification and guidance.
2. Yes. Eastern Orthodox would argue that St. Augustine is wrong on Original Sin, for example; but I'm not sure how much Augustine EOs have read! But since they are not infallible they must be able to be wrong. St. Clement, for example, quotes from the Gospel of the Egyptians as though it has canonical status; this was before the canon was formalised, of course.
4. This is a difficult one. The Catholics would argued that certain doctrines and dogmas have been developed but no 'changed'. Thus, at one time, the Pope would not accept the filioque but later Popes decided that properly understood it was acceptable. The early Church did not insist on clerical celibacy, but later the Catholics decided that since it was so highly commended in Scripture and by the early Church, it would be best to have no married priests. The Orthodox take the view of the early Church. Did someone change their mind here, or did the two traditions read the same evidence in different ways? This is not to invite debate, just to try to demonstrate how both sides can defend their position.
5. One listens to one's Church. Catholics have the Magisterium which offers a unity and single voice which the Orthodox lack.
Ok. I don't want to actually discuss these things there, I just want a few answers since when I try to ask them in other threads I'm "getting off topic" and avoiding the issue.
Please, nobody start debating, I don't want debates, only answers to questions.
1) Are the ECF's infallible?
2) Are the ECF's ever wrong?
3) Based on the yes or no answer to those I will have a few more questions.
4) Has the Catholic Church ever changed a teaching on anything?
5) How does one determine if something is dogma or just a teaching that might change?
__________________ Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig.
Perhaps this is one for Catholics to answer? My attempt goes as follows:
1. The ECF's are not infallible, no one ever claimed they were, There is no 'agreed list' of ECFs in any case. They are great Christian souls whose writings provide us with edification and guidance.
2. Yes. Eastern Orthodox would argue that St. Augustine is wrong on Original Sin, for example; but I'm not sure how much Augustine EOs have read! But since they are not infallible they must be able to be wrong. St. Clement, for example, quotes from the Gospel of the Egyptians as though it has canonical status; this was before the canon was formalised, of course.
4. This is a difficult one. The Catholics would argued that certain doctrines and dogmas have been developed but no 'changed'. Thus, at one time, the Pope would not accept the filioque but later Popes decided that properly understood it was acceptable. The early Church did not insist on clerical celibacy, but later the Catholics decided that since it was so highly commended in Scripture and by the early Church, it would be best to have no married priests. The Orthodox take the view of the early Church. Did someone change their mind here, or did the two traditions read the same evidence in different ways? This is not to invite debate, just to try to demonstrate how both sides can defend their position.
5. One listens to one's Church. Catholics have the Magisterium which offers a unity and single voice which the Orthodox lack.
In peace,
Anglian
For what it is worth coming from me, that seems to be a very great non-biased analysis. A good conclusion for us all to remember as well.
Hey Anglian, thanks for the answers. It was mostly for TLF, but your answers are good too.
It's hard to tell whether with the ECF's because from what some OBOB people say, it seems that when they agree with Catholic teaching they are infallible and if you disagree you are a heretic or worse, but when they don't then of course they are not infallible.
So I just wanted to get a clear answer on the position because it seems impossible to nail down.
__________________ Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig.
Ok. I don't want to actually discuss these things there, I just want a few answers since when I try to ask them in other threads I'm "getting off topic" and avoiding the issue.
Please, nobody start debating, I don't want debates, only answers to questions.
1) Are the ECF's infallible?
The infallible Church knew when someone was in error. Correct?
Such as Novatians, arians, nestorians...
ANd the Church knew who was correct...and named them doctors and SAINTS...correct?
Infallible?
Or a great source of teaching of the Traditions of the Church?
The Church is infallible and will not succumb to error, so if the fathers are upheld...and the Church will not fail...hmmm.
Lets just say they were Spirit led and upheld as Tradition in the infallible Church.
Otherwise when you start piccking them apart...you will end up with tearing down the early Church which leads to agnostism.
2) Are the ECF's ever wrong?
I wouldnt say they were wrong...
I would say their language and demeanor was more severe.
COmpared to our times..where PC is a must...
Yea, they didnt mince words.
I find it hard to judge them compared to our relative beliefs.
3) Based on the yes or no answer to those I will have a few more questions.
4) Has the Catholic Church ever changed a teaching on anything?
No.
ANd before you bring up limbo...which was never a papal teachings, it has never been a doctrine and has not been removed as such.
It is what it is.
Abstinence of the priest in the Roman RIte is a discipline...not a doctrine.
AND i have made a note that the EO follow St Gregory the Great [pope] in his decree that Bishops cannot be married at all....in any Rite.
5) How does one determine if something is dogma or just a teaching that might change?
Dogma is a defined belief in a doctrine that all must uphold and believe to be Catholic.
Doctrines are informal teachings of the Church that should be upheld.
And which doctrine has been changed?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Matthew Chapter 7
7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."
It's hard to tell whether with the ECF's because from what some OBOB people say, it seems that when they agree with Catholic teaching they are infallible and if you disagree you are a heretic or worse, but when they don't then of course they are not infallible.
That's about it. The ECF's who were sainted were not declared so because they were consistent in their writings or in comparison to other ECF's...but whichever one of them supported--at any time--whatever doctrine is in question, that's good enough for an "infallible!"
Perhaps this is one for Catholics to answer? My attempt goes as follows:
1. The ECF's are not infallible, no one ever claimed they were, There is no 'agreed list' of ECFs in any case. They are great Christian souls whose writings provide us with edification and guidance. From a Catholic Chrch point of view the Early Church Fathers are infallible as a whole, not as single writers. That means that one Father can be wrong about something, but if we get their teaching in the period it is infallible. (It is mainly the same kind of infallibility that the Church Magisterium has)
2. Yes. Eastern Orthodox would argue that St. Augustine is wrong on Original Sin, for example; but I'm not sure how much Augustine EOs have read! But since they are not infallible they must be able to be wrong. St. Clement, for example, quotes from the Gospel of the Egyptians as though it has canonical status; this was before the canon was formalised, of course.
As I wrote before the single teachings of a ECF is not inffallible. So the Catholic Church for exemple consider the teaching of St Augustin on the trasmission of the original sin bythe sexual act of the parents as a his personal opinion only, not at all a doctrine of the Church.
Yes, reading many Orthodox site I'm sure they have never read Augustine, and all (all) what they know of Augustine is through the protestant schools (remind that Luter was an Augustinian monk, and so the protestant doctrine is by far more "Augustinian' that the catholic doctrine)
4. This is a difficult one. The Catholics would argued that certain doctrines and dogmas have been developed but no 'changed'. Thus, at one time, the Pope would not accept the filioque but later Popes decided that properly understood it was acceptable. The early Church did not insist on clerical celibacy, but later the Catholics decided that since it was so highly commended in Scripture and by the early Church, it would be best to have no married priests. The Orthodox take the view of the early Church. Did someone change their mind here, or did the two traditions read the same evidence in different ways? This is not to invite debate, just to try to demonstrate how both sides can defend their position. There are very different types of believes: some can be changed, other not: - the base doctrinal statments (as that Jesus is Tru God and True Man, the apostolic succession or the unpossibility of women priest) will never be changed
- some sacramental issues can be changed by the Church: as the necessity of a priest in a marriage (that was not necessary before the Council of Trent and now it is) or the validity of the Assyrian Anaphora of Addai and Mari without the words of the institution
- other issues are liturgical or pastoral, so they can be changed without any problem (the filioque, the marriage of priests)
5. One listens to one's Church. Catholics have the Magisterium which offers a unity and single voice which the Orthodox lack.
Also the Magisteruim is infallible as a whole, not in any his statment (as he pope is in the very few ex-cathedra dogmas). And the Magisterium uses different expressions in different ages.
__________________
Sola Scriptura has hindered rather than helped the understanding of Christianity
Linear Mode
