Authority and the Church

[rusmeister]

I'm thinking about what it means to be an Orthodox Christian, and what you have to accept to be in communion with the Church.

Frankly, there are things that have been expressed by a couple of posters bearing the blue 3-bar cross that represents the Orthodox Church here on CF that I am wholly out of communion with. They are beliefs that I see to work, in the name of diversity and/or individual interpretations, to break communion and deny Holy Tradition.

I am not talking about evolution here. I believe that people can believe in quite a few things and be in communion; I think a lot of us have self-contradictory views in our heads, things that, unconscious to us, contradict our stated faith, but this doesn't prevent communion. There are old women in provincial churches that believe in bad luck if a cat crosses your path, or worse, that if you say certain prayers, what you desire will come to pass. There are Orthodox people who also follow astrology. But I believe they are in communion, despite the foolishness of the things that contradict Orthodox faith. Similarly, I don't think belief in evolution, in itself, to be a barrier to faith and communion.

But there is one thing without which we cannot be one Church, of one heart, mind, and worldview. And that is accepting the authority of the Church - not just our priest or bishop, for on their own, any one man or group of men really could be wrong - but of the doctrines, teaching and dogmas (which all mean the same thing), discerning between local practice and universal acceptance over space and time, which have been developed, clarified, preserved and died for for two millennia. Accepting its authority to teach and correct us when we are wrong. For any of us may fall into error - including me, and so everything I say - or that anyone says (including GK Chesterton) must be measured against that Holy Tradition, and where our wisdom, and even those of our teachers - Schmemann, Men', Rose, Bloom, Ware, etc - fails that test, we must submit to the Church and admit that we may not understand something correctly.

but we have people saying things like this:

No, I don't need to admit that science has no power or authority over the teachings of the Church, neither do I have to accept that the consensus of all those who went before as being what constitutes our Holy Tradition, nor do I have to admit to not being in communion with the Body of Christ. It is perfectly acceptable for any Christian to embrace the scientific theory of evolution and to, consequently, support an allegorical approach to understanding sacred writings.

Evolution aside (and I am perfectly willing to conditionally assume that evolution is true for purposes of this thread), while we would all admit that some sacred writings require allegorical understanding, it would be fatal to accept the idea that an Orthodox individual could or should decide for himself what ought to be understood allegorically. The Resurrection of Christ could then be so interpreted.

I cannot see being part of a body that would say that we may interpret Holy Tradition as we choose. I couldn't recognize it as being part of the Body of Christ. True, God can save whom He will, but we may not accept just anything at all as being of the Church on the mere say-so of ANY individual (including myself). I think the person who said, "What we want is not a Church that is right where we are right, but One that is right where we are wrong." to be right.

So I do not ask whether people agree with me in all my views (which I think true, or else they would not be my views), but I am asking who here believes that the consensus of the Church, what nearly all have agreed on throughout history as being true teaching of the Church, can be used to authoritatively correct members who dissent? Or is correcting anyone impermissible and unthinkable? May we authoritatively say (for example) that sodomy and abortion are sin, brokenness with God, or must we tolerate views which teach otherwise?

I realize some might say we only have to accept the pronouncements of the seven Councils, or worse, only the Symbol of Faith (the Creed). But that leaves for me a hundred inexplicable contradictions, from the Liturgy to monasticism, much, if not most of which, is outside the scope of the narrower goals of those proclamations.

And how many want to be in a TAW - or a Church - where there is little to no agreement on what Tradition is? The cacophany would become unbearable, sooner or later. May I always be found wrong when I disagree with the consensus of Holy Tradition!

For posters identifying as Orthodox only. Please, no non-member posts if you are not Orthodox!

 

[Dorothea]

Hold on. I don't think you can technically be a member of the Church if you are going to psychics or reading your daily horoscope. I say that because the first day I stepped back into an Orthodox Church, the sermon was on that very subject. About reading tea leaves and palms, and astrology stuff. The priest said "YOU CAN'T SERVE TWO MASTERS." That really hit me hard, as I had been in the midst of visiting a psychic and reading my horoscope and using a dream interpretation dictionary to interpret my dreams. When I got home, I threw all those books out and didn't go back to the psychic. It was my first start on the journey back to the church I was baptized in. It was understood that you can't serve God and another "god." One or the other.

 

[ArmyMatt]

the problem that I see with only accepting the councils, and what has been dogmatically pronounced by them, is that opens up someone thinking that Arianism is wrong only AFTER the First Council. almost like one is free to believe in something until the Council says no. in my limited understanding, Councils merely affirm what has always been taught because, according to the words of Christ, the Holy Spirit led the Apostles into all Truth.

and I would also say that I also do not think belief in evolution makes one less Orthodox, as much as I disagree with the theory.

 

[Lukaris]

I would think that most individual adults applying a junior high school level of intellect should be able to know what their faith entails. The original prayer books & catechisms I have seen in English focused on the 10 commandments, the creed, the Lord's prayer, the 2 great commands, 7 sacraments, the Beatitudes & the details thereof pertaining to sin & virtues. This is the faith, I would think, we should take to the Divine liturgy & should be experienced spiritually & known intellectually. Since all of these are printed alongside the DL in the prayer book is how I would think this standard applies.

If a person cannot discern that the world is at odds with them over the faith given by the Lord to the apostles, it is a sad situation.

 

[gzt]

I don't think that anybody is advocating we only have to accept the councils. However, when you have an idea that is not refuted by the various synods but spoken of as an option, which teachers of dogmatic theology think about, not to mention, of course, not being refuted by the councils, and which is also a question of fact and which all conceivable empirical methods confirm, well, what is one to do?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Interestingly enough, there is this ongoing case in Oklahoma where this "Satanic Temple of New York" is seeking to make a huge Baphomet statue with two little children looking up at him admiringly, just to tick off the Christians there who have a Moses/10 Commandments statue.

When I was looking up online just who these crazy Satanists in New York are, I ran across their website. Under their "tenets of Satanism" section there are a kind of diabolical commandments for them. And here was one of them that was considered extremely important. I think it pertains to not only this thread Rus created, but the mindset we saw in the evolution thread! Direct quote from the Satanists:

•Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.

In other words, science first, theology conforms to science. Science doesn't conform to theology. Interesting to me that SATANISTS believe this....ironic

 

[Damaris]

Hold on. I don't think you can technically be a member of the Church if you are going to psychics or reading your daily horoscope. I say that because the first day I stepped back into an Orthodox Church, the sermon was on that very subject. About reading tea leaves and palms, and astrology stuff. The priest said "YOU CAN'T SERVE TWO MASTERS." That really hit me hard, as I had been in the midst of visiting a psychic and reading my horoscope and using a dream interpretation dictionary to interpret my dreams. When I got home, I threw all those books out and didn't go back to the psychic. It was my first start on the journey back to the church I was baptized in. It was understood that you can't serve God and another "god." One or the other.

You're right, but what I think Rus was getting at are elderly women who were taught superstitions alongside Orthodoxy, and are not aware that the Church is against such things. Their error is in ignorance, not deliberate rebellion against Orthodox teaching.

 

[ArmyMatt]

However, when you have an idea that is not refuted by the various synods but spoken of as an option, which teachers of dogmatic theology think about, not to mention, of course, not being refuted by the councils, and which is also a question of fact and which all conceivable empirical methods confirm, well, what is one to do?

I would say you still look to the consensus. just because something is not openly refuted or endorsed as an option does not make it correct if it goes against what the holy Fathers have said. it would seem that if it truly was a theological option, the saints would have reflected it as one. since I know this was inspired by the ecolution thread, even the educated saints who taught higher academia (St John Maximovitch, St Nektarios of Aegina, St Luke the Blessed Surgeon, etc) have all spoken against it. it's not just the simple monks and nuns, but the educated as well.

 

[gzt]

But what is a "consensus" - it's not a transparently obvious thing, and the various methods of synthesizing the various Fathers across time are controversial with no one particular method endorsed by an "authority", not to mention they all generally involve "flattening" various nuances of belief.

 

[ArmyMatt]

But what is a "consensus" - it's not a transparently obvious thing, and the various methods of synthesizing the various Fathers across time are controversial with no one particular method endorsed by an "authority", not to mention they all generally involve "flattening" various nuances of belief.

well, I think it is an obvious thing. they seem to be very lock in step throughout all 2000 years. yeah you see a little varience, but that varience aside, they do speak with pretty much one voice.

 

[gzt]

One voice about what? Univocal about many things, but not everything. And people are only arguing about things in the "not everything" bin.

 

[E.C.]

The authority of the Church is such that we can't really function without it. I recently heard one man in my parish talk about how he's always had an issue with the Church's authority (administratively, not theologically) and I immediately remembered the General Theology section which bears the fruits of the absence of authority!

We need our Holy Tradition plain and simple. Without it we would not be Orthodox and would not be able to help save souls.

Interestingly enough, there is this ongoing case in Oklahoma where this "Satanic Temple of New York" is seeking to make a huge Baphomet statue with two little children looking up at him admiringly, just to tick off the Christians there who have a Moses/10 Commandments statue.

When I was looking up online just who these crazy Satanists in New York are, I ran across their website. Under their "tenets of Satanism" section there are a kind of diabolical commandments for them. And here was one of them that was considered extremely important. I think it pertains to not only this thread Rus created, but the mindset we saw in the evolution thread! Direct quote from the Satanists:

•Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.

In other words, science first, theology conforms to science. Science doesn't conform to theology. Interesting to me that SATANISTS believe this....ironic

Satanists come in a great variety of flavors; not all of them believe in some sort of deity. Some are quite atheistic and typically use their "belief" as a means of attacking Christianity in a quasi-religious manor. Hedonism, not Satan, is typically at the heart of Satan.

 

[jckstraw72]

the authority of the Church is not found in any one source. The Church teaches via Scripture, Fathers, Councils, canons, icons, hymnography. All of these are authoritative and should not be ignored. Just as we are not Sola Scriptura, nor are we Sola Synodia.

and St. Theophan speaks to us about the nature of Church authority:

[FONT="]The positive teaching of the Church serves to know whether a concept is from the Truth. This is a litmus test for all teachings. Whatever agrees with it, you should accept it, whatever does not- - reject. One can do it without further deliberations. [/FONT]
[FONT="]---[/FONT][FONT="] Nastavleniya v duhovnoi zhisni. - Pskov-Pechery Monastery of Holy Dormition: Mosc. Patriarchate Publ., 1994[/FONT][FONT="],http://creatio.orthodoxy.ru/sbornik/sbufeev_whynot_english.html[/FONT]

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You're right, E.C. Also, with regards to Satanism, I'm aware there are exists a plethora of so-called Satanists ranging from the most common garden variety secular humanist atheist who just loves the image of Satan as the ultimate iconoclastic symbol of humanism and freedom to the even nuttier wackos who wear goat headdresses and sacrifice black cats standing in pentagrams. But what struck me about these Satanists is their passion for science and how science comes BEFORE religion, not the inverse. I just found that pertinent to what we've been talking about.

I definitely felt some "get thee behind me Satan" moments in that evolution thread!

The authority of the Church is such that we can't really function without it. I recently heard one man in my parish talk about how he's always had an issue with the Church's authority (administratively, not theologically) and I immediately remembered the General Theology section which bears the fruits of the absence of authority!

We need our Holy Tradition plain and simple. Without it we would not be Orthodox and would not be able to help save souls.


Satanists come in a great variety of flavors; not all of them believe in some sort of deity. Some are quite atheistic and typically use their "belief" as a means of attacking Christianity in a quasi-religious manor. Hedonism, not Satan, is typically at the heart of Satan.

 

[127.0.0.1]

Direct quote from the Satanists:

•Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.

In other words, science first, theology conforms to science. Science doesn't conform to theology. Interesting to me that SATANISTS believe this....ironic

It's probably my fault for being a bit naive and ignorant but... I don't really get your point. Satanists like science ergo science is bad because satanists like it?

Wasn't St. Theophan the Recluse a bit of a scientist himself?

well, I think it is an obvious thing. they seem to be very lock in step throughout all 2000 years. yeah you see a little varience, but that varience aside, they do speak with pretty much one voice.

You don't find that statement a little bit vague? What is variance? How big can a variance be before you can't ignore it? Can you ignore any kind of variance or only some kinds?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Respectfully, 127, you're correct, you don't get my point. My point was not that Satanists "like science." My point was that they think science MUST PRECEDE theology in any religious context. They're saying that science dictates Truth, which is boloney. And my point was that this argument that science comes first could be felt in TAW lately. Rus has been acutely frustrated by it as have others.

But another frustration I think is that anytime a traditional Creationist mentions evolution or science in a critical context, he gets accused of "hating science."

Why must these discussions always get down to the most fundamental base level arguments---"I like it" or "I don't like it." As Orthodox Christians, we should all be well past this stuff. We're too smart for it!

It's probably my fault for being a bit naive and ignorant but... I don't really get your point. Satanists like science ergo science is bad because satanists like it?

Wasn't St. Theophan the Recluse a bit of a scientist himself?



You don't find that statement a little bit vague? What is variance? How big can a variance be before you can't ignore it? Can you ignore any kind of variance or only some kinds?

 

[rusmeister]

You're right, but what I think Rus was getting at are elderly women who were taught superstitions alongside Orthodoxy, and are not aware that the Church is against such things. Their error is in ignorance, not deliberate rebellion against Orthodox teaching.

Yes, quite right, and thank you!

So yes, Dot, you are right, but that's what I meant.

That's why I'm going to avoid arguing (in the best sense, I hope) about evolution. The thing that concerns me most is deliberate rebellion, and I see this in anyone saying "I will decide for myself what I will accept and what I will reject." It is the danger of saying that we need only agree on the Creed, Councils, and other things on Lukaris's short list. Who is to say that is the list or limit? Heck, Orthodox don't generally agree with the bit about "7" sacraments. Everything I've heard has said that that's a Catholic thing and that we don't count sacraments, assign a number. Who is to say? Just the self? Any creed (belief/faith) that has the self as the final authority, the ultimate veto on whether or not to accept something, makes one their own god, their own church. Anything that tells the complete truth is bound to displease or disturb us somewhere, for we are all broken in different ways. There practically has to be something that we don't like, that makes us uncomfortable, if it's really true. And if everybody up to now has agreed on something, who are we to change it, and say "They didn't know any better." Where do we get the idea that WE know better??

TrueFiction DID say the above quote publicly. Evolution aside, what can we say to such an attitude to authority? On what basis can Lukaris tell Macarius or anyone else that it is wrong to disdain the ancient teaching of the Church on the sexual perversions promoted bt the "LGBTQXYZ" movement or the consecration of men only into the priesthood? Because it is in a prayer book? What makes the ancient teachings Tradition, if it is NOT the consensus of the Church, the fathers and the faithful over two thousand years, found in Scripture, the Church fathers, the Councils and affirmed at every turn? May we turn to that consensus, anything that all have agreed on, shown in all the teachings of the Church to correct errors n teaching and thought, or must we admit that we may correct no one, that anyone can hold any view that seems good to them?

I am all for you correcting me from that consensus, which IS Holy Tradition, not limited merely to Scripture or to Councils or to the Fathers alone or to prayer books or liturgical content, but to what we find uncontested in all of the above.
I WANT to be corrected, to be made right, which is what "correct" means.

 

[GregConstantine]

"But another frustration I think is that anytime a traditional Creationist mentions evolution or science in a critical context, he gets accused of "hating science."

But another frustration I think is that anytime a a traditional Orthodox Christian mentions that the dichotomy between science and faith is a false one, that the Church makes no dogmatic statements about the scientific theory of evolution, (but does make dogmatic statements about the philosophy and ideology behind evolution and rightfully rejects them), and that evolution can be utilize only if you are a researcher and are in a field of science requiring you to utilize it, but otherwise has no bearing on you as an Orthodox Christian, you are accused of being a "pro-evolutionist"

"Why must these discussions always get down to the most fundamental base level arguments---"I like it" or "I don't like it." As Orthodox Christians, we should all be well past this stuff. We're too smart for it!"

Maybe if some actually read and actually listen to what some of us are saying this wouldn't happen? Just throwing out a guess there.

 

[rusmeister]

One voice about what? Univocal about many things, but not everything. And people are only arguing about things in the "not everything" bin.

This is not true. There are plenty of Orthodox Christians in the West now who think women's ordination (ancient deaconnesses aside) and same-sex relations are just peachy and ought to be brought into the Church, just to throw the most obvious examples where we have clear Tradition that IS univocal that people today want to debunk and "consign to the history bin".

 

[rusmeister]

"But another frustration I think is that anytime a traditional Creationist mentions evolution or science in a critical context, he gets accused of "hating science."

But another frustration I think is that anytime a a traditional Orthodox Christian mentions that the dichotomy between science and faith is a false one, that the Church makes no dogmatic statements about the scientific theory of evolution, (but does make dogmatic statements about the philosophy and ideology behind evolution and rightfully rejects them), and that evolution can be utilize only if you are a researcher and are in a field of science requiring you to utilize it, but otherwise has no bearing on you as an Orthodox Christian, you are accused of being a "pro-evolutionist"

"Why must these discussions always get down to the most fundamental base level arguments---"I like it" or "I don't like it." As Orthodox Christians, we should all be well past this stuff. We're too smart for it!"

Maybe if some actually read and actually listen to what some of us are saying this wouldn't happen? Just throwing out a guess there.

I think you understand something seriously different from what I do in the prefix "pro-".

But right now, evolution is not the topic. Authority is. What constitutes the Holy Tradition that we must accept and defend and by what authority can we say so, and can we exclude universal teaching of the past as NOT being part of Holy Tradition, and on what basis? What exactly has the power to correct us when we are wrong, as some of us must be some of the time?