Dr. Liccione,
This is a good article, even if I have more sympathy for Fr. Behr's POV. In any case, something you wrote as a rebuttal seems not to have been a strong rebuttal to Fr. Behr's point. You wrote "The upshot of distinctively Catholic Mariology is that Mary sums up in her person pre-eminently what every believer is called to be in lesser degree. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception tells us that Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, what each believer is at the moment of their baptism; the Assumption tells us that Mary, from time her earthly life ended, has enjoyed proleptically that fullness of resurrection which all the saved will enjoy on the Last Day."
My point is, that the Marian dogmas you cite are of a different type from e.g. the dogma of the Theotokos--at least Fr. Behr would seem to say so. He said "...the only aspect pertaining to the Virgin Mary that was ever recognized as dogma is that she is Theotokos -- "Mother of God" -- for she gave birth to our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ -- it is something which pertains to the Incarnation, rather than to Mary herself." "Theotokos" is about Jesus Christ, and hence is a legitimate development of the Church's teaching from the Scriptures, while the Immaculate Concenption is about Mary and thus is not a legitimate development of the church's teaching from the Scriptures because it is not part of the history of God--though it is fit for speculation.
Unless e.g. the Immaculate Conception is just as important to the Incarnation/history of God without RC assumptions regarding original sin, I don't think that you have shown Fr. Behr has begged the question.
"though it is fit for speculation."
And THAT right there is the difference between Orthodox view of dogma and Roman Catholicism. Orthodoxy doesn't dogmatize speculations, but tolerates certain ideas as theologoumena (and some she says are out right heresy). There is nothing in the *paradosis* of the Apostles that isn't contained in the New Testament. The point is that what they preached is identical to what they wrote as what pertains to our salvation. One would have to show that such doctrines as the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, et al. are part of that Apostolic Preaching which I don't think is possible but rather based on many centuries of debate and reflection. And this doesn't even begin to touch the even higher speculative doctrines and dogmas based on natural theology, Mike, and you know my favorite darling here.
The point of the contention, from my perspective, between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is whether or not speculations can evolve into being a dogma.
Photios
I'm not a theological heavy weight by any means, but it doesn't strike me that the Marian teachings are as divorced from the revelation of God's plan for us as is being suggested by Ed and Photius.
Take the Assumption, for example, "theologoumena" most Orthodox agree with. The doctrine appears to me to preclude a metaphorical understanding of the respective assumptions of Enoch and Elijah, and confirms a bodily resurrection as part of the salvation of mankind. Granted, such an understanding can be reached through a literal reading of Scripture, but this hasn't prevented some Anglicans and others (who dismiss the Assumption as a pious myth) from interpreting the relevant scriptural passages metaphorically. The Assumption thus plays a role in dogmatizing the proper interpretation of Scripture and thus of revelation as a whole.
What I am less sure of, however, is whether the Marian beliefs, infallibility, etc. qualify as "developments." All these can be demonstrated as having been held by at least some of the early Church Fathers, so from the Catholic perspective they would appear to me to have been "confirmed" rather than "developed" as dogma.
Perhaps I am unclear on what Newman meant by "development" I had previously understood it as referring to the deduction of previously undefined or poorly defined truths from defined ones.
Michaël
Photius,
Allow me to chime in here! I am a simple hack with no expertise, however, this sentence caught my attention. You said:
"One would have to show that such doctrines as the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, et al. are part of that Apostolic Preaching which I don't think is possible but rather based on many centuries of debate and reflection."
I am interested here in the fact that you cited, "... papal infallibility,..." as something, "fit for speculation." Papal Infallibility is not a point of speculation for a Roman Catholic, however, it would be for an Eastern Orthodox. This is the difference between the RCC and EOC. The truth is Photius, Papal Infallibility is in the NT. It is part of the Apostolic Preaching. It is Christ Himself who "preached" it and continues to sustain it just as is the case with the Episcopal authority you recognize in the East. Mere Episcopalism, however, is insufficient and divided by nature and is prone to division. Mere Papalism would be tyranney. Once again, it's a "both/and" not an "either/or."
It's quite possible that Mary was assumed, as it was for Elijah and Enoch. The question was not whether it was possible or even probable. The question is DID IT IN FACT happen. We have data from Revelation for the latter and not for the former. So if you believe Mary to be assumed its a pious theologoumena and just that. Not something that is revealed by God that is necessary for salvation to believe. To impose that as a dogma is to do violence to the gospel.
Exactly what early Church Father do you think taught the Assumption and I mean TAUGHT the doctrine and I'm not talking about something that might be a part of someone's speculation AS A devotion. You might be interested to know that it has its earliest ideas in gnostic sources, since they were most interested in speculation.
Photios
"So if you believe Mary to be assumed its a pious theologoumena and just that. "
That type of talk would get an umbrella to the face from any good baboushka or yiayia in the Orthodox Church. If you don't believe in the Assumption of the Virgin, you are either deaf when the Dormition services are chanted, or have no love for the Virgin. Indeed, were not great churches in Russia named for the Assumption of the Virgin?
Just more crypto-Protestant Orthodox convert talk if you ask me. (Which is appropriate, since many Russian Orthodox students studied in Protestant seminaries during the "Babylonian capitivity" of Russian theology.)
Pick another example and leave it at that. You could probably argue something around the Immaculate Conception, but leave the poor Assumption of the Virgin alone because no one really argues about that in Orthodoxy except grouchy polemicists who like to pick fights over the Filioque.
Arturo,
I've had the exact same conversation with my Greek priest from Romania. He agrees with me, Behr agrees with me. It is not an Orthodox dogma, NOR CAN IT BE. You don't seem to get it what actually constitutes dogma and what is theologoumena. You aren't Orthodox.
Moreover, I'm not a Protestant convert.
Photios
"It is Christ Himself who "preached" it and continues to sustain it just as is the case with the Episcopal authority you recognize in the East. Mere Episcopalism, however, is insufficient and divided by nature and is prone to division. Mere Papalism would be tyranney. Once again, it's a "both/and" not an "either/or.""
On the contrary, Robert, it is you that have an either/or understanding because you have a dialectical relationship of the One - Many debate that goes all the way back to your Fathers, the Hellenes (and I don't mean Greek Church Fathers). Just look at the One-Many debate problems in the Medieval Period on up to the pre-reformation conciliarists. For you because of your Neoplatonism, diversity and distinction is instable and prone to instability so it must be secured and bound up in the absolutely simple essence of your pope. For Orthodoxy, there isn't such a problem since we have a different Trinity, a different understanding of who God and Christ are.
"It is Christ Himself who "preached" it and continues.."
Who was the receivers of this papal infallibility? Paradosis means that which is received. Elighten me. It can't be Rome, because Rome was ruled by a plurality of bishops in the apostolic day, as scholars recognize. This isn't surprising since it is both Peter *AND PAUL* that founded the Church of Rome. Rome was ruled by a communion of bishops presiding in love over the people of God.
Photios
I think Arturo may be on to something here, as the harsh distinction between Scripture and Tradition articulated by Photios doesn't ring true in terms of what Catholics normally understand as Eastern hermeneutics (essentially analogous to the Latin "lex orandi, lex credenti").
In any case, in response to which Fathers taught the Assumption, St John Damascene cited approvingly St Juvenal of Jerusalem (one of the Fathers at Chalcedon) as ascribing the teaching to St. Thomas and to the Apostles in general. That's about as explicit a witness to extra-Scriptural Tradition as you can get.
As to the early "Gnostic" references to the Assumption, it might be wise to consider that something need not be doubtful, ipso facto, merely by virtue of having once been taught by Gnostics. That type of ad hominem dismissal is really low polemics.
Michaël
Here is something that Orthodox claim that confuses me.
1. We pray what we believe. Your liturgy celebrates the assumption of the virgin mary & her sinlessness. How is that different from the Catholic understanding? In their system the pope can make things doctrine. It seems to me that both are saying the same thing according to the way each tradition proclaims truth. Isn't there a two week fast preceding the feast in the East. If that part of the liturgy is untrue, what else about orthodoxy liturgy is up for revision? How can the church make me pray something see does not believe
Michael,
I guess you don't seem to understand my subtle distinctions. Dogma and theologoumena are things we believe. All dogma we believe to be true without question and infallibly true, but not all things that we believe are of the level of dogma, hence theologoumena for either devotional piety or the good of our souls for doctrines like the Assumption. This is why the Iconography takes the more conservative route in depicting the Dormition (THE *FALLING ASLEEP* OF THE THEOTOKOS) as Christ holding a child in swaddling clothes that represents Mary's *SOUL*, the icon is silent and/or open to the Assumption of her body. It leaves that point ambiguous and for good reason. You and Arturo seem to be tearing me asunder that if I attack the DOGMA of the Assumption that I then render the doctrine as false, which is not the case. Later reflection or a devotion by St. John of Damascus cannot change that fact, nor would St. John hold it as a dogma elevating it as high as the Trinity or Christ's two natures.
The point about the Gnostics, is about ORIGIN of source, not association. The latter is ad hominem, the former is not. Try The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption (Oxford Early Christian Studies) by Stephen Shoemaker.
Photios
Photius,
Thanks for responding. You said:
"Who was the receivers of this papal
infallibility?"
First, let me clarify again that I am not a theologian or historian or expert. I do read many things and I am a Roman Catholic. Actually, in the strictest sense this does not matter for you or me anyway. Precisely because I hold no position of Authority in the Church. I am assuming that you do not either. Now, we of course, can discuss these matters and indeed we should.
As to your question above, I think you are aware of how a Roman Catholic comes to this understanding from Scripture and Tradition regarding the Papacy. So, to venture an answer on my part will not really get us anywhere. Simply put, we do not agree on the 'office' of the Papacy. The scriptural evidences- Mt. 16, Luke 22, John 21 etc are wrongly interpreted by Roman Catholics according to you. So be it.
My real issue I was attempting to bring out is that Papal Infallibility is not "a pious theologoumena." It is not mere speculation on the part of the RCC. The name change (to Peter), the Keys, Binding and Loosing, Strengthen your Brothers, Feed My Sheep etc... It's not as if the RCC is pulling this out of thin air. I am very convinced by the scriptural evidence that supports the papacy and Papal Infallibility. And, with this said, I ask you to tell me, Am I deceived in my conscience?
Pat,
If you're saying that the dogma of papal infallibility for you is not something for you to speculate about *as a Roman Catholic* as a possible theory as it might relate to other plausible theories like Gallicanism, Concilliarism, or what not, then I whole hardedly agree. It is not. I meant that the doctrine in question by lights of those who are perceiving to understand it from any Christian stand-point is of a "speculative" nature. It is not clear cut like the Resurrection or God's revelation as Trinity, Christ's two natures, etc. Papal Infallibility, from even a Roman Catholic reading of history is a minority doctrine, what I mean by this is that only a few people supported an explicated the full papal theory, this is why Newman had to come up with the development hypothesis in the first place (which is very close to Alcuin's view of development on the filioque). This is why you had much debate on the doctrine in the middle ages and even at the vatican council itself (which Pius IX excluded most of the opposition in the first place to obtain his own definition) to come to a *consistent* basis of construing the doctrine. If one understands the broader context of "nationalism" and "modernism" of Europe in which the doctrine was formulated, it's not difficult to see the motivation or a leep for this peculiar formulation.
Do I think some popes have been infallible? Yes I do in fact, but that has more to do with their attainment of glorification than to the *character or chrism of the office* (which I don't think exists), but I also believe quite a few bishops of other sees and not a few layman have to.
Photios
If Dr. Liccione has proven that the Orthodox do in fact believe in the development of doctrine, I think that there still exists a big difference between East and Rome on this issue, namely in how they understand it. This is highlighted in the way in which Catholics utilize the development of doctrine regarding their mariology. A large part of Dr. Liccione's entry is worth quoting in this regard:
"The upshot of distinctively Catholic Mariology is that Mary sums up in her person pre-eminently what every believer is called to be in lesser degree. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception tells us that Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, what each believer is at the moment of their baptism; the Assumption tells us that Mary, from time her earthly life ended, has enjoyed proleptically that fullness of resurrection which all the saved will enjoy on the Last Day. For those and other reasons, Mary is by far the most powerful intercessor on believers' behalf. Indeed, Mary is not only Mother of God but Mother of that Church which is the Mystical Body of her divine Son, in virtue of being one body with him in a unity of which Christian marriage is a sacramental sign. And that Church is necessary for salvation, even when the grace offered to the world in and through her works outside her visible boundaries. So if the economy of salvation really does include all the things about Mary that the Catholic Church teaches, then Mary is indeed 'Mediatrix of all Graces' . . ."
This reasoning is characteristic of Catholic theology. Writing about the medieval reasoning regarding the Assumption, Dr. John Haldane of St. Andrews University wrote the following (Examing the Assumption, HeyJ XLIII (2002), pp. 412-413):
"In terms of speculative theology the best case for the doctrine is indeed an argument along the following lines:
1) The Assumption of the earthly bearer of the divine incarnation is fitting in the order of grace;
2) The Assumption os possible by God's ordinance:
3) God ordains what it is fitting in the order of grace;
4) Therefore, God ordains this;
5) Whatever God ordains occurs;
6) Therefore, the assumption occured."
It is not clear cut like the Resurrection or God's revelation as Trinity...
Of course it's not -- I mean, it only took several centuries before the doctrine of the Trinity was ultimately formally defined.
The question is, Is this the hermeneutic, which seems to consist of theological-philosophical reasoning and speculation, given by Christ and the Apostles for understanding the Faith once for all handed down to the Saints? Eastern and Western Reformation Christianity have a literal understanding of the "once for all" part of the handing down of the Faith by the Apostles, that is to say, they believe in the completeness of both the material and inspired formal content (i.e., the New Testament writings) of the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints. (Obviously the difference between Eastern and Western Reformation Christianity is that the latter believes that this completeness resides solely in the Sacred Scriptures. Nevertheless, it should not be overlooked that both agree against Rome regarding the development of doctrine because of their literal understanding of "once for all handed down.")
Modern Rome's developed understanding seems to contradict this literal understanding by implying that the Faith was not "once for all" handed down, but that there is ever-new discoveries or developments of the Faith, which Catholic theological-philosophical reasoning tells us are not new doctrines or dogmas. Indeed, we might very well be on the verge of yet another new discovery/development! Interestingly, the development of hypothesis is itself a development, which can be seen by the fact that for quite some time the Catholic Church shared the Eastern and Reformation understanding of "once for all handed down" when the partim-partim theory was dominant. Now that the partim-partim theory has been overthrown by the development theory Rome has changed her understanding. In light of this change shouldn't she have to prove this new historical hermeneutic? Does the New Testament or the Early Church testify to this hermeneutic? Why doesn't Paul tell the Bereans to stop searching the Scriptures because what he is saying is a development of doctrine that only the Apostolic Magisterium can interpret for them? Why does Justn Martyr argue for literal christological understandings of Old Testament passages against the Jews? Why didn't he just inform the Jews that it was all a development that only the Magisterium could interpret for them? Eastern and Western Reformation Christianity seem to have the correct understanding of the Faith "once for all handed down."
Both of my posts are really one post.
"Of course it's not -- I mean, it only took several centuries before the doctrine of the Trinity was ultimately formally defined."
No. What was defined was the technical use of a terminological shibboleth "homoousios" to say that whatever the Father is, the Son is, and then later at Constantinople with the Holy Spirit. You have the fully developed Triadology in St. Irenaeus and Ignatius, you don't have to have the same terminology to have identical content. Formation can still be the same without idenity in terms (which is why the Latins first used substantia to translate hypostasis and essentia to translate ousia, even though hypostasis was not being used as "substance" by the East). Nicene Crisis happened in the first place because the proper order of asking questions was lost due to Alexandria's fascination with Neoplatonism and melding their religious first principle (The Father) with a philosophical first principle (The One), starting with Origen and the some of the Apologists. It took Athanasius to restore it, and then Hilary learning it from the East and taking it back to the West.
Photios
Dr. Shoemaker's work is invaluable. He shows that of the Dormition-Assumption traditions the earliest are the Dormition, and that they way the Catholic scholars commission in 1950 got around this was to say that it was a development, i.e., that the dormition traditions came first in the development. He also shows that the earliest reference to Mary's end is in St. Epiphanius, who conducted an exhaustive investigation into the various traditions of the time as to the Blessed Mothjer's end, the fruit of which was negative. In light of this, as well as the silence of Scripture on the issue, St. Epiphanius then speculated that Mary and the woman of Revelation 12 could be the same person.
Dr. Shoemaker's work is pricey but well worth it!
Trying to return to a more eirenic note, perhaps the root to the difficulty here lies in a different understanding of what is meant by "dogma."
Photios appears to be arguing that only first order teachings, belief in which is essentially to salvation, are "dogma," whereas the Catholic approach is to consider "dogma" all parts of the authentic Tradition.
From the Catholic perspective, one *might* be denied communion for repudiating a second order "dogma," but rejecting "infallibility" or the Assumption, for example, does not in and of itself seriously imperil your soul.
If this insight is correct, the problem is one of definition with "dogma" for Orthodox meaning "what it is absolutely necessary to believe," but for Catholics meaning "what has been authoritatively revealed as true."
Michaël
Michael,
Not quite, because I would actually accept the view of dogma that is based on revealed truth. For me, I would slightly tweak Behr's proposal, and say that Tradition, paradosis, that which is received, is scripture (revelation) and the Apostolic preaching which is the latter plus the hermeneutical key and not paradosis as simply the hermeneutical key.
In Orthodoxy, there's just dogma, not second or third order kinds.
Photios
Given the explanation provided by Photios above, I don't believe that Photios is a Protestant convert as some had previously supposed.
If he were, I doubt he would engage my incendiary comment with any such precision as made evident in the marshalling of the facts (at least, those which he has presented even if not necessarily comprehensive) concerning the Trinity in his subsequent reply; for that, I respect him and his argument although I may not necessarily agree with it.
The terms of dispute and the situation concerning the "lost in translation"; could these perhaps be amongst the very things which still needlessly result in the continuing great divide between East and West?
Photius,
Can I back up for a minute and ask you to clarify for me a more foundational question? What specific texts of Scripture do Orthodox use to explain Apostolic Succession?
Byzantine manuscript text type, which is why we are KJV-onlyists (to a certain degree I might add), though I don't hold to the stupid claim of KJV-onlyists that only the KJV translation is the only word of God (which isn't what the Anglican translators thought anyway). I believe the modern translations flirt a little to close to gnostic manipulation of texts. Bishop who are flirting with other text types are threatening their apostolic succession in doing so.
A perfect example is Rom 5:12 which the KJV is the only english translation to actually capture the subtlties of the subtle Greek text in my opinion. 
e,
Even if I was a protestant convert, what's wrong with protestant converts? They have much good to say and in fact I agree with MANY things that the Reformation was trying to accomplish especially at the eve of the Reformation with the Conciliarists at Basel (during the Papal schism) which was where the Greeks were originally wanting to "hook" up with, but the Emperor had other plans with the Pope.
Photios
Photius,
Even if I was a protestant convert, what's wrong with protestant converts?
You seem to have mistakened my comments as a perjorative jab at protestant converts, which it was not at all.
They have much good to say and in fact I agree with MANY things that the Reformation was trying to accomplish
Are you serious about this?
If you are, to start, which of the reformers?
You are aware, I hope, that many of their theological objections against Rome would most certainly go against those of the East?
I am very curious just what "MANY things" of the Reformation do you actually agree with.
It seems to me that, so far, nobody has ventured a serious argument against there being such a thing as “authentic DD” in the history of Christianity—a concept which, be it noted, I outlined using Behr’s own words. The disagreement is over two questions: (1) By what criteria can a given development be assessed as "authentic" or rejected as inauthentic? and (2) Is there a historical point at which authentic DD stopped?
In at least one obvious way, the two questions are related. For on some answers that have been given to (1), we can answer (2) affirmatively and specifically. E.g., if I understand kepha (see above) correctly, he holds that “Western Reformation Christianity”—i.e., Protestantism—sees the deposit of faith as having acquired its complete formal expression with the closing of the biblical canon (assuming ancient agreement on what the canon is, one from which Luther departed by subtracting the so-called apocrypha); whereas “Eastern Christianity”—i.e., Eastern Orthodoxy, for we’re not talking here about the OOs or the Eastern Catholics—would hold that formal completeness was attained sometime in the latter half of the first millennium, perhaps with the sixth or seventh “ecumenical council” or with the end of what is ordinarily thought of as “the patristic age.” As a Catholic, of course, I cannot see things that way; there neither is nor can be a particular historical or conceptual stage at which authentic DD ceases or even could cease. The two major alternatives strike me as fundamentalism in the bad sense of the word—the difference between the two just being over the size and age of the fundament.
A good deal of attention has been devoted in this thread to those examples of DD which constitute Catholic “distinctives.” Nobody around here objects to the homoousion or even to dyothelitism; it’s the stuff that Rome dogmatized after the first millennium that poses nearly all of the difficulty. Still, I shall leave aside the filioque, because I have come to the conclusion that most of the difficulty over it arises from either misunderstanding of its logical import or resentment of how Rome imposed its profession after having long opposed such imposition.
(continued below)
The more pertinent question is whether those developments which Rome dogmatized in the 19th and 20th centuries—i.e., the Immaculate Conception, the nature of papal authority and infallibility, and the Assumption—are to be accounted authentic or inauthentic. It is evident that counting them all as authentic logically commits one to communion with Rome; so, people who find reason enough to be out of communion with Rome will count at least one of those three dogmas as instances of inauthentic DD. The question then becomes by what hermeneutic one assesses doctrines as authentic or inauthentic developments.
To a degree, such a question invites a circular answer. If one is convinced, for reasons other than one's theory of DD, that the Catholic Church does not have the authority she claims, so that one will not be in full communion with her, one is committed to concluding that any theory of DD according to which Catholic distinctives are all authentic must be mistaken; and so, from such a viewpoint, Newman's theory must seem mistaken or at least inadequate, since it allows such distinctives as authentic. On the other hand, there is no agreement among non-Catholics on any particular hermeneutic of the relevant sort. It cannot be denied that there has been such a thing as authentic DD, but Christians as a whole do not enjoy useful agreement on criteria for identifying particular instances of it as such.
What that suggests to me is that much of the necessary thinking still remains to be done. And I include Louth and Behr in that. It isn't enough just to say that there is no hierarchy of truths within the deposit of faith, for there clearly is; it isn't enough to say that dogmatizing should be restricted to those truths knowledge of which is necessary for salvation, for there is no way to make the needed distinction without begging the question what truths the deposit actually contains materially.
Dr. Licione,
What I tried to state is that it is the nature of development that is the question. In Catholic thinking, as I tried to point out, this entails theological-philosophical reasoning and speculation the end result of which could be a dogma. With respect to Eastern and Reformation Christianity, what I tried to state was that they both believe that the Apostolic preaching and writings were essentially the same (Photius also said this above). This affects their understanding of a concept of development of doctrine. This can be seen when Photius said that "development" is nothing more than precision in langauge and understanding. Hence, if the Apostles themselves did not teach the now-dogma of Rome that Mary was immaculately conceived, then there can be no development of the issue, as there is nothing to develop.
Photius, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Mike,
What you don't seem to grasp about Behr, is that the Orthodox do not hold that the homoousios is something implicit in Tradition to be explicated and hashed out by the use of syllogisms and dialectic. If you were to affirm that authentic DD consisted of coming together to use a consistent set of terminology to describe (or rather apophatic statements of unconfused, undivided as Chalcedon affirms) what we worship, then we would whole heartedly agree. The element of apophaticism is missing in your account and that is the big key. The theological shibboleths have no positive philosophical content, but are only understood from the context of apophaticism. The issue isn't solved by a "faith seeking understanding," but rather is resolved through an ecounter with the Incarnate Lord in worship, which isn't a wholesale rejection of the rational principle, but its recontextualization. And in that ecounter and ONLY in that encounter does one find a satisfaction for one's circularity. The Son is unconfused with the Father, the Son is UNdivided with the Father. This is what homoousios comes to symbolize.
The problem is that DD comes to the foy as a justification for a peculiar doctrine, which is the basis for its suspicion as a theory by the Orthodox. For us, these things are empirical and applicative, which is why you can't talk about the general concept of "DD" without also speaking of the distinctives that are used to justify both the theory as a concept and the distinctive doctrine (which I think is your "implicit" frustration).
Photios
Kepha,
Exactly. And I think you capture Behr's point well.
e,
The commonality that you see between kepha and I is why I have a tender heart for Reformation Christianity. They sought to put philosophy in its place and subsume it back under theology (though I don't think they were successful). I think Luther's sola scriptura has more to do with a reaction to what philosophy was doing then necessarily the Church per se, though I think the historical reality worked itself out differently. But I think this conversation is illustrative of that point when we speak of DD.
Photios
kepha,
An interesting comparison would be a dialogue between Keith Mathison's the shape of sola scriptura and John Behr. I'm not so certain anymore that what Mathison defines as Tradition - T1 is incompatible with Orthodoxy's understanding of Tradition. The only thing is that Reformation Protestants would have to understand that there is such a thing as irreformable and infallible dogma and that such things like the Trinity are not revisable based on reflection or reason, that the Church in times can authentically formulate scripture rightly and irreformably. I think that what worries Protestants at least the conservative type is the dogmatizing the "Church" with a specific geography, like Rome, for no particular Church is immune to failure of apostasizing from the faith.
Photios
"In Catholic thinking, as I tried to point out, this entails theological-philosophical reasoning and speculation the end result of which could be a dogma." And then, I think, what also needs to be pointed out is that THAT end result will be adjudicated by the Pope. The pope becomes the point of departure for development TO dogma.
...that the Church in times can authentically formulate scripture rightly and irreformably.
That is EXACTLY the crux of the Issue -- just what do you suppose are those times? Or, rather, do we arbitrarily select those or, better yet, submit to Sola Scriptura wherein it is all entirely up to the individual themselves to determine just what is the right interpretation of Scripture, what are the actual tenets of the Christian Faith and what s/he believes is doctrine.
Survey, if you will, the sum result of such in the thousands of denominations that have since arisen.
A developed doctrine is not a new one, but a more fully and carefully articulated one. To this extent, I have to share Dr. Licione's puzzlement as how this historically well-documented process as applied to the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ or apostolic succession, is somehow fundamentally different in kind from that applied to Mary's (subsidiary) role in human redemption and salvation.
I can see that some Orthodox, might consider the former worthy and appropriate applications of the Church's teaching authority, while seeing the latter as an excessive Western response to a theological "horreur du vide." What I cannot see is that how the process discernment itself involved in doctrinal "development" (caricatured as "sylogisms and dialectic") differs from one subject to the other. The only difference I can see seems to lie in the subject itself of the application.
Whatever the Orthodox choose to call it, what happened with respect to the refinement of Trinitarian, Christological and ecclesiological terminonology is what Catholics (at any rate) mean by "development of doctrine". So it would appear to me that as Catholics understand the term, Orthodox do accept the concept (whether they accept the term or not), but only object to development of certain categories of beliefs which they see as inherently unworthy of doctrinal definition.
Michaël
"Is somehow fundamentally different in kind from that applied to Mary's (subsidiary) role in human redemption and salvation. "
They are fundamentally different in kind because you don't see in the Apostolic Fathers, a reference or even a hint of the Immaculate Conception, whereas they talk a whole lot about One God and the Three persons. And Orthodox and Catholics have a different understanding of what the New Eve types amount to. One of us is being faithful to Irenaeus and the other is reading a new concept into the text. For us, Irenaeus meant one thing which has to do with the Annunciation and the Incarnation, where as Catholics the New Eve concept has to be developed and deducted through a trail of Franciscan syllogistic arguments and devotions and apparitions until we finally arrive to the devloped "New Eve" of the Immaculate Conception. For us, the New Eve type is plain as day in scripture as referring to her co-operating with the Spirit of Truth to bring about Life (Christ) where Eve inaugurated Death by her choice. In other words, it's not talking about something else that scripture isn't speaking to.
Whether or not Mary personally sinned (she inherited Ancestral Sin the same as the rest of us) is a pious theologoumenon since many Orthodox held to it, but many Orthodox also believed she was a sinner (Chrysostom and Basil). So both are acceptable. I personally think the latter is more probable (based on the Byzantine text type of Rom 5:12, i.e. sin caused death to Adam, and the passing on of death causes us to sin) and think the Assumption (though after she died) is more likely than her leading a sinless life.
Photios
kepha:
What I tried to state is that it is the nature of development that is the question. In Catholic thinking, as I tried to point out, this entails theological-philosophical reasoning and speculation the end result of which could be a dogma. With respect to Eastern and Reformation Christianity, what I tried to state was that they both believe that the Apostolic preaching and writings were essentially the same (Photius also said this above).
I have two difficulties with that way of posing the question of the “nature” of DD.
First, saying that “the Apostolic preaching and writings were essentially the same” only confuses matters. If by that you mean that the oral kerygma and the written content of the New Testament were formally the same, we have no way of knowing that even if it were true, which it isn’t. There is no evidence whatsoever that what’s recorded in the NT are all and only the words the Apostles preached. That’s because the only such evidence there could be would be the recorded word of somebody who had heard all the Apostles preach and had also read all the original manuscripts of those writings which now comprise the NT; yet we have no evidence that there was such a person. Of course you might mean only that the preaching of the Apostles and the content of the NT are materially the same, in the sense that each in its own way faithfully conveyed what God thereby wished to be conveyed for the sake of our salvation. But that is not at issue; as a Catholic I do and must affirm it. The question at issue is not whether the apostolic kerygma and the NT each materially contain the Gospel; of course they do. The issue is how much and what kind of formal DD beyond both is admissible as authentic. Pointing out the material equivalence of kerygma and scripture simply does not address that issue.
(continued below)
Second, “theological-philosophical reasoning and speculation the end result of which could be a dogma” is not an activity limited to Roman Catholicism and can be perfectly compatible with affirming that the deposit of faith was given once-for-all in the apostolic age. E.g., the kind of reasoning in which St. Maximus the Confessor employed in refuting monothelitism was highly technical, showing unusually high theological and philosophical gifts; but by such means Maximus demonstrated that monothelitism is incompatible with Chalcedonian orthodoxy. You also find much “theological-philosophical reasoning” in St. Gregory Palamas, whose way of framing the essence/energies distinction is considered dogmatic by many Orthodox. And those are only two examples. Theological and philosophical reasoning are not something inherently opposed to affirming the material sufficiency of Scripture; all depends on how such reasoning is employed, on what assumptions, and for what purposes. If the purpose is to make some aspect of the deposit of faith more explicit by addressing certain questions that arise historically, and if the result is orthodox, then there is no a priori reason why such a result could not be accounted an authentic instance of DD. The further question whether such a result ought to be dogmatized, i.e. taught with the Church’s full, solemn authority, is largely a prudential one. My view of MMAG is an example of how such a question can be treated.
Best,
Mike
e,
I think there are many way that God has preserved His truth in the Church, and none of them are exhaustive of how He does it, but they all seem to represent a coming together of two or more in His name. Councils are definitely normative, but the reception of the Council can be its mark of authenticity (Ware and many Orthodox), the participation of glorified Saints in the Council or who's teaching they followed (Romanides' view,e.g. Maximus the Confessor, St. Gregory the Theologian), a Holy Emperor (St. Justinian), the Martyrdom of Pope and layman (St. Martin and Maximus), the monastics (7th Ecumenical Council) or even one man (St. Mark Eugenikos) and the people.
Photios
Michaël de Verteuil:
Please e-mail me to tell me who you are. If you are who I think you are, I'd like to correspond with you.
Best,
Mike
Michael,
Have you read Oberman or Mathison on the issue of the hisotry of the concept of Tradition? If not, then in a nutshell, there are four understandings of Tradition throughout Church history: Tradition 0, I, II, III.
Tradition 0 is the contemporary, popular Protestant understanding, what Mathison calls, solo Scriptura. This view holds that nothing whatsoever is needed other than the Bible.
Tradition I is the view of the Early Church (and Eastern Christianity), which understands the Apostolic preaching as conveyed through both the New Testament and the Tradition to be essentially the same. Tradition does not contain apostolic doctrines or dogmas that didn't make it into the canon. This is also the view that Mathison is calling Protestants to.
Tradition II is the partim-partim or two-source theory that used to be the dominant Catholic understanding. Tradition is understood in this view to contain or convey or hand-on apostolic doctrines or dogmas, e.g., Immaculate Conception, that are not contained in Scripture.
Tradition III is basically a conflation of Newman's development hypothesis, on the one hand, and the concept of a "living Magisterium" (the Pope and those who agree with him) on the other. In other words, the contemporary Catholic understanding. The Catechism actually defines "Tradition III" very well:
“Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” (CCC, para. 86, quoting Dei Verbum
...the Apostolic preaching and writings were essentially the same...
If you look at Scripture, there is a lively awareness of the Faith being passed down in a variety of means – sometimes in written form and sometimes not.
The original preaching of the Apostles was oral and, in fact, Jesus’ teaching was oral (mind you, he didn’t write any books of Scripture) and so they lived in a largely oral culture back then and, as a result, there was a much heavier dependence on the Spoken Word and other elements of Tradition such as liturgical action, which were not written down.
That Tradition was something that was handed onto us from Jesus and the Apostles – part of it was handed on in written form but part of it went beyond writing – which is one of the reasons that there are some questions that Scripture doesn’t seem to answer clearly.
For example, the question whether or not you should baptize babies or whether you baptize by immersion or not.
We know people are supposed to be baptized as preached in Scripture but we don’t have the precise details of how it was supposed to work: whether you did it for babies as well, whether you could do it by pouring.
The reason for that is pretty clear: Scripture doesn’t answer those questions because it expects us to be (like the Early Christians) not simply reading about the Church but looking to the practice of the Church.
That's why the Church is said to be in 1 Timothy 3:15 the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth" and why Paul instructs in 2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
1 Cor 11 even uses the same Greek word "Paradosis" in "I commend you brothers for holding fast to the Traditions" which 2 Thess 3:6 also speaks.
By "Michael" I did not mean to refer to Dr. Liccione. I would consider that disrespectful. I was referring to the other Michael whose last I cannot pronounce.
Before I make a further comment in response to Photios, I just thought I'd address the "Tradition III" idea by referring kepha to Dei Verbum as a whole, but especially those sections numbered 8 through 10. Here's the link:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hi...-
verbum_en.html
I point out that this is now authoritative Catholic teaching.
A.N.S. (Anthony) Lane, in his concise essay, Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey, cogently argues for two clear distinctions within what is termed "Tradition I" by Mathison and Oberman. He labels the position held by the ECFs as the "coincidence view", and that of the magisterial Reformers as the "ancillary view". IMHO, Lane's distinction is accurate, as well as important.
Grace and peace,
David
I must admit, I remain more than a little puzzled at Photios' contention that the doctrine of the Assumption is a mere theological opinion for the Orthodox. To cast doubt on the apostolicity of this doctrine is, it seems to me, tantamount to denying it outright let alone allowing it as a theological opinion. Given the very nature of the doctrine, if it is indeed true, then it is of apostolic origin, if only because it refers to an event deemed to have occurred within the lifetime of the apostles and, perhaps, witnessed by one or more of them. If it is not true, then not only is it not of apostolic origin, it is also not worthy of inclusion in our liturgical worship. Yet it is so included. Indeed, it is believed and enshrined in the liturgies of all the Apostolic Churches. This fact alone (i.e., its universal reception by the Church) should be enough to attest to its apostolicity.
Let me ask this of Photios: When the Orthodox Church includes the teaching on the Assumption in its Liturgy, does it include it as something which every Orthodox ought to believe or as something optional? If the latter, then why does it force Orthodox believers to pray what they need not believe? If the former, then why is it not sinful to refuse belief? And if it is sinful to refuse belief, then it would seem that the doctrine of the Assumption is, in some sense, necessary for salvation.
Ed
Ed I asked the same question 10 hours ago and never got a response. Such is life...If the pope says it is Dogma which is how Catholics define things, at least in some cases. The orthodox pray it. It seems that, using the way each side speaks on matters of faith, they have both deemed it infallible.
If you read Dr. Shoemaker's book on the Dormition and the Assumption, you will find that there is not a consistent and uniform liturgical tradition on the Dormition/Assumption. The Byzantine liturgical tradition on this point is one among many and one I highly respect, and personally believe, but that doesn't make it a dogma of the Church because 1) the nature of the doctrine isn't of dogmatic content in the first place and 2) there is no universality on this question, and 3) the Byzantine Iconography is more conservative on this point then the theologoumena in question.
Again, Catholics wish to make this an all or nothing game, but for us Orthodox we have no reason to do so. Even if one tradition of the Dormition proved to be of more authenticity, it would not negate the reality of what the devotion points to: the grace and hope wrought by Christ's resurrection. Orthodox just don't live in this state of anxiety about the question, but any honest Orthodox theologian worth his salt will tell you that there is at a certain point due to a lack of universality and liturgical witness about the passing of the Theotokos that there is a level of uncertainty in which we must need be silent.
Photios
Photius,
I asked earlier for the Scriptural support given by the EOC's for Apostolic Succession. I think my question got lost in the shuffle. What texts are used to support Episcopal Authority?
Pat
Pat,
St. Paul says that one of the duties of a Bishop is to appoint the Bishops and Presbyters in every town (Titus 1:5-9):
“For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.”
St. Paul points to his own laying on of hands of Timothy, showing that it is a gift of God given to Timothy 2 Tim 1:6:
“Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.”
His laying on hands of a council of Presbyters, 1 Tim 4:14:
“Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.”
This shows the passing on of grace of the ministry.
Since the Episcopoi (Bishops) were the chief overseers of the church, it was there duty not just in the act of ordination but also the selection of who gets ordained, 1Tim 5:22:
“Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.”
Hence, the ordination is not just mechanistic; it is not just having a unbroken lineage to the Apostolic ministry through the laying on of hands, but also fidelity to the Gospel that is necessary for apostolic succession. On that basis, heretics do not have apostolic succession.
Photios
Photius,
Thanks for your response. Let me clear up something here. I am Roman Catholic and believe in Apostolic Succession. I appreciate your citing the texts in support of this. My reason was actually different for asking for the EOC's scriptural support for the Authority of the Episcopacy. In my mind, the texts that the RCC and the EOC ( heck, even some High Church Anglicans) use to support Apostolic Succession are the same texts. In fact, the Authority that is proper to the Episcopacy in all ages for all times-unbroken- comes from God. Or, as Jesus said, "So as the Father has sent me so I send you..." IOW, there is a Sacred Order or Hierarchy beginning, of course, with God. As a Roman Catholic, all the texts that show the Authority given to the Apostles then the Apostles "sending" others with Authority are part of the Divine Constitution of Christ's Church. The Petrine Ministry is bound up in this Succession. IOW, in these same Scriptural texts that EO defend their Authority (rightly, by the way). In short, the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome is recognized to this day by the EOC, is it not?
Mike,
There is also a bit of ambiguity in your response to Behr. First, you reject his claim that Tradition is the right interpretation of Scripture, and then go-on to equate Scripture with the Septuagint. That doesn't necessarily follow, since St. Peter was already calling St. Paul's writings scripture and uses the same greek for "scripture" (2 Peter 3:16). So "scripture" = "septuagint" in the NT Church doesn't hold. Second, you are ambiguous to exactly what relationship of scripture to tradition you are presenting. You say that Tradition is "it was that set of revealed data in light of which the right interpretation of the Septuagint could be achieved." You are ambiguous here if you are holding to the partim-partim view of Tradition or if you are saying that the Apostolic Preaching is identical to the material that is in the NT scripture. You reject Behr's view of tradition, but you never explicate what exactly you think this Tradition is.
Photios
Photius Jones,
This reminds me of another question which I had, which is tangentially related. Earlier you alluded to scholarship which suggests that a community of presbyter-bishops ruled the Roman Church at the earliest times. As I was considering this, I thought of how a similar conclusion is made about "presbyter" and "bishop" in the New Testament usage. Both terms are often used interchangeably. Hence, for instance, many presbyter-bishops resided in the same area.
My question to you is this. How does this square with your view on Orthodoxy and Tradition, and what are the implications for the divinity of the doctrine of the bisphoric in Orthodoxy? Wouldn't this suggest that the later distinction of the bisphoric from the presbyterate (which is undoubtedly early, e.g., in Ignatius) is nevertheless not an apostolic doctrine because it is not "contained in the New Testament" as you put it?
My formulation is somewhat crude, but I'm sure you'll catch the thread I'm aiming at hitting. I'm interested in your response. God bless!
-Rob
Pat,
I see nothing in the New Testament that suggest that there is a "petrine" chrism above the office of Bishop. If the petrine chrism is identical to the office of Bishop, then all of them sit on the Chair of Peter (Chrysostom, Cyril, Cyprian). The Bishop is the Icon of Christ. There's nothing that needs to be added to the office of Bishop for it to fully function and preach the Apostolic ministry. The fullness of the Church is in the Eucharist gathered around the Bishop. Every local Church expresses this universality.
There's no doubt that Rome held a certain primacy in the Church due to her adversion to Gnosticism and other heresies and being the Church founded by both Peter and Paul. She lost this privilege when she was taken over by Germanic influence coupled with the German's political ambition to rule the Roman Empire in Constantinople. So in order to accomplish this, they made a particular doctrine a dogma (filioque) at their council of Frankfurt to drive a wedge between the Roman-Byzantine oikounomia. East Romans became "Greeks" and "heretics" and no longer teach the Roman faith since they deny the filioque. And Germans became "Roman" and "Catholic."
Photios
Photius:
So "scripture" = "septuagint" in the NT Church doesn't hold.
The Septuagint is the major Greek translation of the Old Testament. It was produced between the third and first centuries B.C. and is extensively quoted in the New Testament. The great majority of times that the New Testament quotes from the Old, it's the Septuagint that is being used.
If you take Paul's letters, for instance, and isolate his OT quotes and compare them to the MT (Masoretic texts -- which the Protestants take their canon from), it is obvious that that is not what Paul was quoting.
His quotes are often verbatim what we find in the LXX (Septuagint) as you'd find it in a modern edition.
In fact, most Jews, used the LXX for their Scriptures, rather than the Hebrew original, Hebrew having become a scholar's language several hundred years earlier during the Babylonian Captivity.
So, how can you then claim it is not Scripture?
e,
You misunderstood me. I never said that the LXX isn't the normative text type for the OT. It is. My argument was that "Scripture" for the apostles already in their day was MORE than just the LXX OT. One of Mike's main arguments againt Behr here is that Scripture = LXX, which I do not think holds up based on the Apostle's own words.
RobNY,
I'm pretty much convinced that the term "elder" gets used interchangeably with presvteros and espiscopos (and diaconos), but I'm not at all convinced that espiscopos and presvyteros are in the NT. Part of the problem also is the use of terms, namely the ministry of "Apostle" by Clement and "Bishop" by Ignatius. In other words, what we see here is a consistent set of terminology coming together in Ignatius, though the content being the same.
Photios
Photios:
I had been preparing a reply to a few other things you've said in this thread, but I might as well reply first to the comment of yours (a few comments above) that is addressed to me.
Re your first point, I do not "equate" Scripture with the Septuagint. All I said was that, during the Apostles' lifetime, the term "Scripture" meant the Septuagint, as when Paul said that Jesus had risen on the third day "according to the Scriptures." Of course I realize that the term eventually came to mean a lot more than that. Thus 2 Peter 3: 15-16 does indicate that, by the time that letter was written, the letters of Paul were revered as "scripture" by the community to which the letters of Peter were addressed. That was part of the development of what we now call the New Testament. But we cannot be sure enough of either the actual authorship or the dating of 1 & 2 Peter to conclude with confidence that such a development had taken place during the Apostles' lifetime. And even if it did, it does not follow that there was an actual canon of apostolic writings that could be presented throughout the universal Church as that inspired rule of faith of which Tradition was the "right interpretation." All that follows is that some writings of Paul were taken by many in the 1st-century Church to be just as authoritative as the Septuagint. I do not deny that for a moment; indeed, my own view of authority in the Church requires it. But that supplies no evidence at all for Behr's claim that Tradition is essentially the right interpretation of Scripture, which is a much stronger claim.
Re your second point, I should have thought it clear by now that I subscribe to that view of Tradition which Vatican II taught authoritatively in Dei Verbum, especially sections 7 through 10. Of course I don't think that document is quite the last word. Instead of saying, e.g., that Scripture and Tradition are two sources that "merge" into one sacred deposit, I would say that Scripture is the earliest and most authoritative written record of Tradition. I am not alone in that view. But it is a refinement, not a negation, of what Vatican II taught; for if Scripture is what I say it is, then it is what Vatican II said it is; it's just that the converse does not necessarily hold from the standpoint of logic. Accordingly, I am obliged find the partim-partim theory inadequate, even though echoes of its language can be heard in Dei Verbum. And in response to kepha, I've already and explicitly rejected the idea that "the Apostolic Preaching is identical to the material that is in the NT scripture." All we can say is that the evangelical content of the former is materially equivalent to that of the latter, which is a weaker if still quite important claim.
At this point it would be a mere distraction to veer off into a debate about my own personal theory of the Scripture-Tradition relati
At this point it would be a mere distraction to veer off into a debate about my own personal theory of the Scripture-Tradition relation. I think Behr's view is demonstrably inadequate for reasons even Orthodox could accept. And that's all I need to show in order to show for purposes of my critique of his argument against DD.
"the Apostolic Preaching is identical to the material that is in the NT scripture." All we can say is that the evangelical content of the former is materially equivalent to that of the latter, which is a weaker if still quite important claim.
Mike,
My point has been that the content of both (Apostolic preaching and NT writing) is identical and that the Apostolic preaching provides the evangelical message plus the hermeneutical and contextual key that may not be apparent in the NT. After reading this here, I'm not sure how you are distinguishing your view from the former quoted or what exactly that distinction amounts to or how it amounts to a weaker claim.
Photios
Photios:
If only in light of my old debate with Perry about divine simplicity, you must surely know how careful I am about assertions whose predicate is '...is identical with...'
Seriously, I don't think you've quite got how I've been using the distinction between formal and material equivalence, a scholastic distinction which still holds good in a variety of disciplines. Suppose A and B are two sets of words: A is oral only, B is written. A and B are formally equivalent just in case the statements comprising B are the exact written record of the statements comprising A. In other words, B is a accurate transcript of A. It cannot be seriously maintained that the totality of oral apostolic preaching, which in this case would be A, is formally equivalent to the NT, which would be B, even though there is probably some overlap. However, I gladly concede that A and B in this case are in one respect materially equivalent. The totality of what B (the NT) means is coextensive with the totality of what A (the oral apostolic preaching) meant. There is no evidence that the two always say the same things in the same ways; and the written record, the NT, cannot be said to contain everything of theological importance that the Apostles said; for if it did, there would be no such thing as an oral Tradition beyond written Tradition, which there is. But the collective force of the written record is the same as that of the oral preaching: to wit, the Gospel.
I’d really rather get back at this point to what I had been planning to say to you much earlier.
Best,
Mike
Mike,
Ha! You got me on that one and I had to chuckle a bit!
Anyways, I'm not sure I did fully grasp your distinction at first and I will mull over what you have said here. But real quick,
"The totality of what B (the NT) means is coextensive with the totality of what A (the oral apostolic preaching) meant."
If we stop there, I would fully agree, which is more or less what I meant by "identity."
"There is no evidence that the two always say the same things in the same ways.."
If the emphasis is on *the same way,* I would agree and there is no reason to think they HAVE to be the same way or even necessarily the same way for the full expression of the gospel. It's more likely that they weren't in the same "way" given that each of the apostles is their own completely unique person, but I would still emphasize that they are still the same thing in content, the same gospel (which I think you would still agree).
"and the written record, the NT, cannot be said to contain everything of theological importance that the Apostles said; for if it did, there would be no such thing as an oral Tradition beyond written Tradition, which there is."
I think this is where we would start to diverge in views, because it seems to me right at this very point that you seem open to the fact that Tradition might very well contain some theological content that scripture does not. Is this correct?
Photios
I do not mean to sound grumpy or uncharitable, but increasingly I wonder what's the point of dialogue with dogmatic anti-ecumenical Online Orthodox. Sorry for bluntness, but let's face it: Orthodoxy is more and more irrelevant to anything. Its numbers are shrinking; even the convert boomlet of a few years ago is drying up. Its squabbling jurisdictions are at each other's throats over the silliest, most arcane issues. Its hardcore anti-ecumenism appeals mainly to a few Internet cranks. And meanwhile the rest of the world is passing it by.
Christianity is exploding in the Global South, not in the OCA. And for the Africans and Asians now flocking to the Gospel, the supposedly church-dividing questions that exercise the Internet Orthodox do not even register.
I understand why Rome wants to heal the Schism--although I personally think it will take a major miracle--but I also understand why Rome is even more concerned with more pressing issues, like global evangelism. That is where the future lies, not with endless squabbles over the Filioque.
I'm not expressing this well, but the bottom line is that I just can't get cranked up anymore about Internet Orthodoxy's silly arguments.
Thanks Diane, I'll be sure to let my girlfriend know that I am officially an "Internet Orthodox crank." I think she'll get a kick out of that.
Diane:
As a friend of yours, I well understand your viewpoint. I think the first paragraph of my post makes clear why. But it might help if I explained why my own viewpoint is not precisely the same as yours.
I don't believe that Orthodoxy either is or ever will be "irrelevant" because the churches comprising it are, in fact, real apostolic churches. In keeping with Vatican II, I hold that those churches "belong properly" to the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ subsists as a perduring whole. But the schism means that they exist only in what one might call an "ectopic" relation with "the" Church. That was not always the case; it should not be the case; and the fact that it continues to be the case is an ongoing scandal which weakens the evangelical credibility of all the churches involved. So, to the extent that Catholicism and Orthodoxy come together, to that extent both contribute to evangelization.
I just see myself as making a small contribution to that endeavor.
Best,
Mike
Photios:
I think this is where we would start to diverge in views, because it seems to me right at this very point that you seem open to the fact that Tradition might very well contain some theological content that scripture does not. Is this correct?
I'm rather curious about what you've said here: are you claiming that every Christian doctrine and practice of the ancient Church can be found explicitly in Scripture?
e,
No. Not at all. I think St. Basil outlines many of the things that we do that aren't found in Scripture in an explicit sense or even an implicit sense: say the practice of three fold immersion of baptism in which is probably more of a reflection of our Trinitarian faith and possibly introduced by the apostles then a practice that is deduced explicitly from the pages of scripture (also, facing east while praying). Rather, the issue is what's on the table for being dogma? I believe it can only be what's in the content of scripture. Our terminology and formal presentation can differ, but the content of both must be one and the same. I'm not trying to reduce Christianity to dogmatic formulae, far from it. The purpose of dogma is to be a guide and symbol toward a "system" that leads to "right glory," glorification, "Orthodoxy."
Furthermore, this doesn't entail that liturgical expressions or postures or prayers can be jettisoned on the basis that they can't be named "dogma" properly. For they originate from the very source and reflection of what the dogma represents and in that spirit.
A further example of how dogma shapes other things, and although these things can't be called dogma, there's no good reason for them to be replaced either. As an example, take St. Justinian's political theories, here we have a Church Father who is also the Emperor, one of the most important 'Cyrillic Chalcedonians' and the greatest theologian of his day. He articulated a 'symphony' between Church and State that was modeled on Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. Was his view without error, probably not; was it always without fault, of course not; was it idealized at times, most likely; but it was also someone as a Theologian who saw that the Secular and Sacred could truly be united, even in an imperfect way by the Emperor who had a specific liturgical role. And I think he did something that was far more superior to any other model that the Church has had to live with or live in.
Photios
Dr. Liccione,
"That was not always the case; it should not be the case; and the fact that it continues to be the case is an ongoing scandal which weakens the evangelical credibility of all the churches involved. "
This draws to mind an anecdote about a Old Calendarist Greek Orthodox monk who was presented with the same question: isn't the division of the churches a scandal for those outside of it? (It should be pointed out that the Old Calendarists exist in part to oppose ecumenism). To which the monk replied: the real scandal is not the separartion of Christians from each other, but the separation of Christians from Christ. Get the latter right, and the former will fall into place.
Or rather not. There is only so much we can do to make our religion seem more palitable, less hostile, and less hypocritical to the eyes of the world. In the end, the world is going to think whatever it wants of us anyway, and for those outside the Church, no amount of compromise, be it with the Filioque, nuancing our cult to the Virgin and saints, or apologizing for our intolerant past will be enough. Conversations like those that happen on threads like these make people feel good because they more often than not degenerate into intellectual pissing contests: who's read what and in what language. (Which is all the more ironic for the Orthodox here, who read St. Basil the Great like Hegel trying to extract a metaphysical system from it. Good luck with that.) There is only so much whoring of our doctrines and practices that we can do before we really start to look insincere. I would argue that we as Catholics have enough problems in our own house, with the general ignorance and lukewarmness of our own people, to go around arguing with the Orthodox about fifth century Christology.
We are talking about two systems of ecclesial being that are very much in crisis especially in the developed world. This talk can seem like adamant arguments over the seating arrangements on the deck of the Titanic.
Okay, Dr. Liccione, that last comment wasn't even primarily for you. You are pretty solid in your presentation of the Catholic Faith. It was probably more venting at those who are not so solid. Please don't take it the wrong way.
"Which is all the more ironic for the Orthodox here, who read St. Basil the Great like Hegel trying to extract a metaphysical system from it. Good luck with that."
Wow. At least when I make arguments I try to point the lines of historical trends and themes for what I think people are articulating, right or wrong. I guess its okay to just throw accusations all you want in that regard as long as it serves the ultimate purpose of the prohibition of questions.
I think Mike and I can agree on one thing. These debates and dialogues are important because we both love the truth, and that you can't have an 'evangelism' together if you don't have a common 'evangel.'
Photios
It was probably more venting at those who are not so solid.
And this should be considered the fault of present-day Catholics many of whom, through no fault of their own, were poorly catechized?
It is like blaming a ghetto-raised child for his ignorance of classical literature even though that person's deficiency was primarily the result of his indigence.
... and that you can't have an 'evangelism' together if you don't have a common 'evangel
Indeed, Photios has a point.
Also, I should think that one of the primary reasons for "the separation of Christians from Christ" is the lack of charity that's often observed by such interlocutors whose condescending views only hurt the discussion.
Photios, all I can say is "if the shoe fits..." Not saying it does (that would be ad hominem )...but *IF* it does....
Arturo, even when I don't agree with you, I always aprpeciate the colorfulness and cogency of your arguments. And, in this cxase, as it happens, I *do* agree with you....
I am simply so tired of Internet Orthodox polemics. Sick unto death of the purblind bigotry and uncharity. I declare I would rather tussle with Jack Chick than with some of my online Orthodox brethren (who of course do not consider me their sister anyway...insert rolleyes emoticon here).
I am glad that Mike L. has the stomach for these debates. He does it a lot better than I ever could, and his patience is truly godly and beautiful.But...better he than I. For me, personally, "this kind comes out only by prayer and fasting," which is why I regularly pray for certain Internt Orthodox folks (among others) before our parish's statue of Our Lady of Guadalupe. La Guadalupana always gets her man--even if it's not until he's on his deathbed.
God bless, all,
Diane
Diane,
As an *Internet Catholic*, I'm not sure this stuff is really your cup of tea. Your definition as to what constitutes an "Orthodox polemicist" is simply anyone that disagrees with Catholicism, think it is woefully wrong, and said group offers refutations of it from a traditional dogmatic Orthodox perspective. Perry and I have been making arguments for a long time, some that were never even heard of before by Mike, or Jonathan, or Al Kimel, or Scott Carson. I can remember a long time ago now when Mike first dialogued with me (when I was still a Catholic ) about the relationship between Monotheletism and dialectic. He definitely saw some things there in Maximus that he had not accounted for and that he had to reconsider some aspects of his Christology and how this played out with other theological issues like the Monarchy of the Father, free will as a principle of nature,the Beatific vission, predestinatrianism, and to a certain degree theological method. The fact that he addressed those things based on the implications that he saw confirms to me that he saw some *legitimate* concerns. I also can remember dialoguing personally and privately with the finest Roman Catholic scholar of his day (who was also one of my professors) on Gregory of Nyssa, in which I drew out and highlighted certain texts of Gregory's Contra Eunomium corpus that would appear to cut the legs right out from under the scholastic program of natural theology, his response pretty much came down to that he just hadn't given those specific set of texts much attention or he hadn't seen the implications of what these texts were saying. This isn't to demonstrate my superior intellect over him (far from it; he's far more learned than I am) or that I was anyhow his better, but it demonstrated that we both read the same texts and that we wholly read these texts in a different way and from a different theological context. It demonstrated in alot of ways a general poverty of the Orthodox mindset on at least a wider level. There have been some exceptions of course (Fr. Edmond Hussey).
When I was a Catholic I thought the controversey surrounding the filioque was merely "verbal trifles." I could not understand it's ramifications and it didn't seem to me like it was one that really mattered either way. I could not understand the alarm of a St. Photios who thought that the doctrine would sew a secularist path for western europe or how the 9th century was the first open clash of "two civilizations." And most importantly, I never could understand how the Orthodox saw the whole event as a matter of life and death in which the Orthodox in the end would rather take their chances under the "tolerance" of the Turks rather than unite with the papacy. And you will never understand until you seek out to see the Schism from our perspective.
Part of the problem in all this is that you have embraced a compatibility between Rome and Orthodoxy (minus the papacy) through various V
(continued)
Part of the problem in all this is that you have embraced a 'more' or 'less' compatibility between Rome and Orthodoxy (minus the papacy) through various Vatican II and Papal pronouncements that the Orthodox do not perceive or share, so that an argument against Rome is an argument of a polemicist. All this does is deduce the problem of Orthodoxy as one of psychology: "If the Orthodox just weren't so stubborn" instead of the problem being grounded in truth.
Photios
Dear Photios: No, that is **not** my definitoion of a polemicist. My definition of a polemicist is someone who can state, with a straight face, that there is no hint of the Immaculate Conception in the Early Church Fathers. And expect not to be laughed off the board. And throw a few sneering condescendig insults into the mix while he's at it. As my Byzantinist husband always says, when I tell him about some of the arguments I encounter online, "Why do you boither arguing with such silly people?"
Why indeed. But, as I say, that's why I leave it to patient, charitable, godly guys like Mike L. and the other Michael here (the one Kepha patronizingly introduced to Oberman and that renowned scholar Mathison / sarc).
OK. outta here. Sorry for the interruption.
Diane
Diane,
I think the claim was rather,
"One would have to show that such doctrines as the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, et al. are part of that Apostolic Preaching which I don't think is possible but rather based on many centuries of debate and reflection."
And the reference to "hinting" is to the Apostolic Fathers, not just to any Father. I think you are confused, no honest RC scholar that I've seen has said that the Apostolic Fathers reference the question of Mary's status as a sinner or non-sinner, and they certainly don't even speak about her conception, unless of course you count Gnostic sources which they do have a possible hint. That's why the development hypothesis is used to justify the doctrine because the Fathers in that period don't talk about Mary in that regard.
Furthermore, I wouldn't use the argument from authority (your husband) unless he's has done some work on the Fathers and has a reference work that we could judge and evaluate. That he has done some Byzantine studies doesn't necessarily entail that he's done good quality work in the area or that he has taken advantage of many aspects of Byzantium's own captivities and thinking that these are representative of Orthodoxy. Byzantium and Orthodoxy at times weren't always co-existensive. You can use that if you want, but I wouldn't expect many Orthodox to take that very seriously. Quote someone like Yannaras or Staniloae, and we'll take you real seriously.
Photios
Daniel, when it comes to Byzantine historiography, you are not worthy to unlatch my husband's Adidas. As always, I find your patronizing put-downs rather comical.
God bless, dear heart. I'll check bak with you when your adopted communion has one gazillionth the numerical strength or moral authority of the Catholic Church.
Diane
A great read! Thanks to all the posters in this thread, especially Dr. Liccione, Photios Jones, e., and Kepha.
Commenting by HaloScan
