Union with Rome. What Would it Take?

[Virgil the Roman]

.

 

[MilesVitae]

The fallacy lies in applying the definition you cite above or the notion of Ex Cathedra. Unless the Pope is infallible every time he speaks or writes something, an individual Catholic's judgement about what is infallible influences his judgement about whether the conditions above are being met. If that were not the case, Roman Catholics would all agree on what are infallible papal statements. Yet they do not. So papal pronouncements are not infallible, unless Catholics say they are (which is circular).

I think I see what you're saying, but I think your drawing too strong a conclusion. The definition is not tautological and the explanation of the conditions for infallibility are not circular. But, it may be quite difficult to determine which actually falls under the qualifications.

Also, we cannot both agree about the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils. The Ecumenical Councils themselves do not use the word "infallibility" so why should we? Orthodox are generally reluctant to use that word, even when speaking of the Bible. The only council that uses that word that I am aware of is the local Synod of Jerusalem (1672), which is much criticised for being influenced by Latins.

Okay, fair enough. What about, the definitions of councils are inerrant, i.e., without error, i.e., true? Whatever is the best choice of words, my point still stands - we both believe the councils are inerrant and unable to contradict past councils, and there is no fallacy in that....

 

[Virgil the Roman]

.

 

[MilesVitae]

Most Orthodox do not describe the Ecumenical councils in and of themselves as "infallible".

But, all councils confirmed as ecumenical are without error in regard to the faith, right? What would be the preferred word among the Orthodox?

 

[GregConstantine]

We don't feel the need to label them as "inerrant" or "infallible". What they proclaimed, what they dogmatized, is the Truth, is what God revealed to the Apostles, but the actual councils themselves are not inerrant or infallible or whatever kind of word you want to use to describe it. We don't even describe the Scriptures that way.

This is a very good example of the different mindset between the East and the West. The West wants to label, categorize, the East is lest inclined to do that. Another example that illustrates this difference is the idea of transubstantiation. We do believe in an equivalence of that, but we don't try to pinpoint exactly when and how it happens.

 

[MilesVitae]

We don't feel the need to label them as "inerrant" or "infallible". What they proclaimed, what they dogmatized, is the Truth, is what God revealed to the Apostles, but the actual councils themselves are not inerrant or infallible or whatever kind of word you want to use to describe it. We don't even describe the Scriptures that way.

This is a very good example of the different mindset between the East and the West. The West wants to label, categorize, the East is lest inclined to do that. Another example that illustrates this difference is the idea of transubstantiation. We do believe in an equivalence of that, but we don't try to pinpoint exactly when and how it happens.

Well, by "inerrant" I mean, at least, "without error," so couldn't the ecumenical councils rightly be called inerrant in that sense? One could also mean "unable to err," though I would tend to favor the word "infallible" for that - but, in any case, I can see how that could be more problematic since it seems to suggest a protection from councils falling into error (like papal ex cathedra definitions in Catholicism). But councils, even those represented by bishops from across the world, can fall into error, and they are only considered ecumenical and confirmed in their truth afterwards, once they have been received as such by the whole Church - please correct me if I'm misunderstanding anything - so calling them infallible gets a little messy and confusing, at the least....

 

[GregConstantine]

But we don't label them as such, so no worries on that end.

 

[MilesVitae]

But we don't label them as such, so no worries on that end.

Right, I understand - it's just that you said "the actual councils themselves are not inerrant," so I was looking for clarification, but I think I got it. It seems like, in addition to labeling things less than us westerns anyway, you are less willing to attribute qualities to the councils, as distinct from the council's teachings - which I guess is pretty much what you said, I just missed it at first ... or maybe I'm still just confused....

 

[GregConstantine]

no, you got it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

With all this "infallibility" talk and such it just makes me glad to be home!! I can't go back to that Catholic mindset.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

What's the matter with calling a council or teaching inerrant or infallible? Please educate me, kindly.

 

[Cappadocious]

Because in practice it means that such a thing cannot withstand attack from its enemies, and so must be sheltered by its followers. Infallibility receives the same mockery that Elijiah cast at the followers of Ba'al, mocking their impotence.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

What's the matter with calling a council or teaching inerrant or infallible? Please educate me, kindly.

As Metropolitan Kallistos Ware has noted, there is a certain hierarchy of sources in Orthodoxy, that includes:
The Gospels
The rest of Scripture
The Creeds and The Ecumenical Councils
The Fathers

Liturgies are also part of that hierarchy, probably after the Councils. We do think Christ and his teachings are inerrant. However, as I note above, except the Synod of Jerusalem, even local councils do not speak of "infallibility". The Gospels and Epistles don't either. I am unaware of Fathers who speak of "infallibility"; even the Fathers cited by RC apologists to defend the notion of papal infallibility don't use the word "infallible".

So why should we use a word foreign to Scripture, the Councils and the Fathers. Even if we are describing something that seems infallible, describing it in an innovative way with the word "infallible" seems imprudent and un Orthodox.

 

[MilesVitae]

I am unaware of Fathers who speak of "infallibility"; even the Fathers cited by RC apologists to defend the notion of papal infallibility don't use the word "infallible".

So why should we use a word foreign to Scripture, the Councils and the Fathers. Even if we are describing something that seems infallible, describing it in an innovative way with the word "infallible" seems imprudent and un Orthodox.

What are the limits of this notion, though? I mean, at what point does new terminology become acceptable to explain or describe theological realities? For instance (my ignorance of this may be even deeper than I already realize - I'm really seeking to be informed more than I'm arguing here), was the terminology used by the Councils to explain the nature of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, etc. original to the vocabulary of the Church? If not, how do we decide when we can or can't introduce new terminology?

 

[ArmyMatt]

What are the limits of this notion, though? I mean, at what point does new terminology become acceptable to explain or describe theological realities? For instance (my ignorance of this may be even deeper than I already realize - I'm really seeking to be informed more than I'm arguing here), was the terminology used by the Councils to explain the nature of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, etc. original to the vocabulary of the Church? If not, how do we decide when we can or can't introduce new terminology?

I think the issue is not new terminology but rather when innovative doctrines come with it. one example is homoousios, which caused so many problems that it is not in the part of the Holy Spirit section in the Creed. many Fathers did not like it because alone it sounds too Sabellian. so the issue is not innovative terms or words, but theology.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

What are the limits of this notion, though? I mean, at what point does new terminology become acceptable to explain or describe theological realities? For instance (my ignorance of this may be even deeper than I already realize - I'm really seeking to be informed more than I'm arguing here), was the terminology used by the Councils to explain the nature of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, etc. original to the vocabulary of the Church? If not, how do we decide when we can or can't introduce new terminology?

Good question and not easy to answer. The philosophy of language is complex.

Orthodox like to quote St Vincent of Lerins when describing their "theological reality": Orthodoxy is that which was taught "everywhere, always, by everyone". Teaching new doctrines or even old doctrines with new words, when there is a danger of thereby changing those doctrines, is generally considered un Orthodox.

The use of the word "Trinity" has very early origins in Christian thought, dating at least to the 2nd century.When early Christian writers such as Tertullian first used the word Trinity, they were tying to describe a recondite underlying reality of God in the face of fierce heretical challenges. The Councils embraced that term, but with a huge corpus of opinion to clarify it.

If a new term is useful in fighting a heresy and the Church embraces that term, then that new term is appropriate. So, hypothetically, new terminology could be introduced.

I think there is a general sentiment amongst modern Orthodox that most of the important heresies have already been invented and they have already challenged Orthodoxy. The Church has emerged from these battles without employing the term "infallible". So there is no real reason to start now.

 

[prodromos]

I just learned today that the Catholic Church has dispensed with the requirement for relics to be placed in the altars of their churches.

To the best of my knowledge, Catholic priests do not carry an altar cloth with relics sewn into the corners, in contrast to all Orthodox priests who cannot serve Divine Liturgy without it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Antimension?

I just learned today that the Catholic Church has dispensed with the requirement for relics to be placed in the altars of their churches.

To the best of my knowledge, Catholic priests do not carry an altar cloth with relics sewn into the corners, in contrast to all Orthodox priests who cannot serve Divine Liturgy without it.

 

[prodromos]

The Antimension?

Yes. Are Catholic priests given one by their bishop?

 

[Anhelyna]

NO !

As far as I know [ and I'll check later today ] there are still relics in RC Altars.

I have seen some 'Altar Stones' which clearly have relics in them but I certainly can't see any priest carrying one of them around - about the size of my 13 ins MacBook Pro and very very heavy.

Our EC priests have Antimensia issued by our Hierarchs and when our Priest is away from our Parish [ serving the little mission outreach Communities ] he takes his with him for use in an RC Church.


Further edit after receiving information
OK , I've asked a very good friend of mine whom I've known since he was 'knee high to a grasshopper' , supported him throughout his 7 years in Seminary in Rome and since, about the question of relics in the Altar in an RC Church. This is his answer - in full

I thought you could have answered this yourself from your own experience at Masses in Holyrood. Although still recommended (but not absolutely required) in a permanent fixed altar, relics are not required in every situation. The antimensium is, as you know, an Eastern requirement but we have no direct equivalent and carrying around an altar stone is rarely practical!

That has certainly jogged my mind and brought back several memories - and I can now confidently state that yes I have attended many Masses in Holyrood [ a huge RC Secondary School ] in the '80s where there were very definitely no relics present in the 6 foot formica topped table that had to serve as an Altar for Masses for years groups of 500 pupils