Posted on 02/16/2009 12:41:27 PM PST by annalex
You’ve got it wrong, FK. The “consent” of the laity involves the dogmatic declarations of Ecumenical Councils. The Consensus Patrum is just what it says, the consensus of The Fathers on a given subject. It has nothing to do with the “Great Axios” of the people.
Thank you for the correction, but it does not address my point since Ecumenical Councils are Councils of men. I will change it to: "It was my understanding that the Ecumenical Councils of men, with the consent of the laity, were infallible. THAT, by definition, would make them more authoritative than the Bible as you describe above."
The issue remains that the Bible is lessened and men are raised above it.
“”It was my understanding that the Ecumenical Councils of men, with the consent of the laity, were infallible. THAT, by definition, would make them more authoritative than the Bible as you describe above.””
That’s fair.
“The issue remains that the Bible is lessened and men are raised above it.”
The bible is what it is. The fact that Ecumenical Councils are believed to be infallible really is neither here nor there with regard to the bible. As for men being “raised above it”, well FK, men wrote it, notwithstanding what Leo XIII said.
That’s fair.
OK, then the statement by another that "... the Holy Scripture is the 'most authoritative part of the Holy Tradition.'" cannot be correct according to the Orthodox Church. I don't mean to be picking on anyone here, but this is a significant issue as I see it. When I tell others "what the Orthodox believe" I want to have it right. :)
“OK, then the statement by another that “... the Holy Scripture is the ‘most authoritative part of the Holy Tradition.’” cannot be correct according to the Orthodox Church.”
Assuming that the speaker views the dogmatic decrees of an Ecumenical Council to be part of Holy Tradition, which I think is questionable and not usually thought of that way, then the comment is not correct in my opinion.
There is no way that the "Bible" could have played a significant role in the early Church, for the simple reason that the Bible as we know it did not exist for the first four hundred years, and that until then there was no correpsonding theology to fall back on.
The Church didn't even use the Old Testament during the second century, and there are a number of NT books that make no reference to any OT scriptures at all. The second century Church was torn between Marcion's 100% literal reading of the OT and Barnabas' 100% allegorical.
Neither of these ended up with many followers and eventually, somewhere around 360 AD the Church threw out Barnabas (whose Epistle is part of the oldest surviving Christian Bible), who was an Apostolic Father!
The first attempt at bridging the gap between the OT and the NT began with Irinaeus towards the end of the 2nd century, and only because he was looking for an authoritative source that would give the Church's NT some leverage in his dealings with heretical sects which challenged the Church authority and interpretation.
He was the one who devised a "seamless" union between the two Testaments. The real work on Christian theology really doesn't begin to take off until the 3rd century, when Origen began his colossal work or creating a unified theology.
Reasonably uniformed Christian theology really did not exist for the first 200-plus years since Christ, and even after that only loosely until the Nicene Council in 325 AD, and the Canon until 396 AD! Until then, the Church was completely heterodox in her beliefs and practices, and her approach to the scriptures.
I have previously posted what different Fathers considered as canonical, based on their writings, and they were as different as night and day. Along with the Origen's work, the canon slowly began to take shape by concensus, but was still full of books that were later deemed "profane."
The idea of Trinity was likewise very heterodox. The names were there but outside of the three Hypostases mentioned in the Bible (and not even mentioned as Hypostases!), there was no uniform theology as to how they relate, what their nature is, and so on.
The OT and the NT writings were the basis, the mine so to say, that Origen and others used to "dig" for answers and hints, so in a sense, the "Bible" was the basis, the foundation of their postulates, but the authority that made the Bible and the Trinitarian and Christological dogmas unquestioned foundation of the post-Nicene Christian faith (and by that I include all traditional Protestant groups) was the concensus patrum reached in the early Councils.
The scriptures were the "raw" material, and the Councils the blacksmiths that forged theology on which all of Christianity rests. And the, in a brilliant stroke of circular logic, the Church canonized the Bible, completing the loop!
So, the Church, by consensus, and based on a belief, gave itself the authority to infallibly define what God is, based on the "raw" material found to be useful for the narrow agenda, in various writings the Church later canonized, while rejecitng (and even destorying) everything that did nto suit her purpose and goal. And all this was made "legitimate" by claiming the Holy Spirit was behind it!
First, by consensus, you give yourself (arrogate) the power to make something "holy," then you use that "authority" to proclaim that something is "holy," which "confirms" that you are "holy" because you base your "holiness" on that which you made "holy."
Sometimes, I wonder if people claim their believe in God simply because they consider themselves holier than others, and God is nothing but a projection of their own ego.
I don't have a problem with most of your essay till this point. Why the sarcasm? The Church as a whole most definitely has the guidance of the Holy Spirit at all times. The Holy Evangelists had it, Paul and Peter had it, and so the Holy Scripture has it as canonized by the Church. The bishops at Nicea and Pope Leo XIII did not say anything new in that regard.
“So, the Church, by consensus, and based on a belief, gave itself the authority to infallibly define what God is, based on the “raw” material found to be useful for the narrow agenda, in various writings the Church later canonized, while rejecitng (and even destorying) everything that did nto suit her purpose and goal. And all this was made “legitimate” by claiming the Holy Spirit was behind it!
First, by consensus, you give yourself (arrogate) the power to make something “holy,” then you use that “authority” to proclaim that something is “holy,” which “confirms” that you are “holy” because you base your “holiness” on that which you made “holy.”
Sometimes, I wonder if people claim their believe in God simply because they consider themselves holier than others, and God is nothing but a projection of their own ego.”
Sorry Kosta mou, I’m with Alex on this one...except for this part:
“...people claim their believe in God simply because they consider themselves holier than others....”
I know that’s why I do it, but of course I am Greek and therefore excused!
Thou art excused, Grekolotronaki mou.
Τι λογος, βραι παιδακι μου! :)
Alex: I don't have a problem with most of your essay till this point. Why the sarcasm?
There is no sarcasm, Alex. What I write is not visceral. Claiming the Holy Spirit is no different that Paul using Christ as his authoirty. Inviisble, untangible authority that no one has to prove as long as you convince someone to believe you. That was the Church's only "authority" from Paul onward.
Imagine if you sit at a restaurant table and the waiter appears to place something inviisble on your table and then ask you if everything was okay. You would positively call him nuts. A nd if he inisted that there was spiritual food on your table, and that Gos is guiding him, you may call 911.
In many ways that's exactly what the Church is doing, whether it nios through sacrametns or trough the Bible; the proverbial waiter is the same.
Trouble is, every religion on this earth makes similar (and in my opinion pathetic) claims and for a good reason (there is not proof!). There is nothing inherently "holy" about the Bible or the God of Israel unless you are willing to believe there is. And then it is presneted as true, because this God "guides" you.
How is that different from all other gods and religions on this earth? There is not a shred of palpable, substantial evidence to prove any of this, except by blind faith. So, then let's keep it on that level. The problem arises when someone's perosonal conviciton is elevated to the rank of absolute "fact." And the one, looking at the empty table and wondering if the waiter is nuts is suddenly nuts?!?
The history of the Church, the development of the theology and the canon indicates nothing divinely spiritual. It's all human sturggle to come up with the most convincing argument, nothing but wars of opinions, just like here on the FR, those who believe in pink unincorns on Jupiter vs. those who don't. Might as well argue over how many angels can fit on the tip of the needle. The "profit" is about the same.
That's okay. I don't take it personally. This is not a contest to me. As long as it is given as belief and not on belief claimed as "fact," I have no issues.
...except for this part: “...people claim their believe in God simply because they consider themselves holier than others....” I know that’s why I do it, but of course I am Greek and therefore excused!
Εντάξει, είναι δικαιολογημένη! :)
Βεβαια! :)
Well, faith is a theological virtue for a reason -- this reason precisely. However, you are not correct that there is not a shread of evidence. The Resurrection of Christ is one miracle that is attested to by hundreds of witnesses, and other miracles of Christ have witnesses as well. Obviously, there are skeptics denying all of that, but you cannot say that Christianity operates on faith alone. Our faith is faith in the evidence that the Church has preserved and passed on.
Next, there is no reason to only take our evidence and not take the Jewish evidence of the Old Testament miracles. I would admit that some of them look less forensically convincing and perhaps some of them are allegoric. But we cannot a priori dismiss their evidence while holding on to our evidence.
Further, the Old Testament miracle all point to the Chrisitan religion. For example Jesus saw in Jonas swallowed by a fish a prefigurement of Himself. The talking donkey has a spiritual meaning, as I struggled to show, that has to do with the inerranct character of true prophecy. So if God has a message to us, and miracles are His language, why not have faith in all of them?
After all, what is easier, for a donkey to talk or for a man to come from the dead?
Then Hinduism and Zoroastrianism beat us hands down, Alex.
With that interpretation I agree. But that doesn't prove that Jonah story actually happened. :)
After all, what is easier, for a donkey to talk or for a man to come from the dead?
Frankly, Alex, dear friend, if it is faith it really doesn't matter, does it? If in your imagination you believe that you can actually fly who am I to say you can't fly in your imagination? :)
I just have a problem when someone says "as a matter of fact I can fly" and then not be able to prove it factually. He may have believed it, but he confused his faith with facts; he could not distinguish his imagination from the reality.
Who actually saw Christ resurrect? I am reminding you that even at the Pentecost, after he has eaten and spoken amongs them, some of his own eleven disciples actually doubted him (cf Math 28:17).
Obviously, there are skeptics denying all of that, but you cannot say that Christianity operates on faith alone
Obviously, but I am not the one denying it. I am simply saying that what I am being told by those who claim to "know" does not add up.
What? I don't understand this at all. For the purposes of it being taught, the fact that the Bible was not in an organized and printed form for a few hundred years is irrelevant. Its contents were taught from the beginning. Do you really think that the theology of the Bible was unknown UNTIL the Bible was formally put together? That would mean there was no such thing as Christianity until hundreds of years after Christ, AND that the Apostles did not individually TEACH Christianity. You can't mean that. :)
The first attempt at bridging the gap between the OT and the NT began with Irinaeus towards the end of the 2nd century, and only because he was looking for an authoritative source that would give the Church's NT some leverage in his dealings with heretical sects which challenged the Church authority and interpretation.
There is no "gap" between the OT and NT (aside from 400 years). They describe the same God. Naturally, that God is different from the God of those who think that only a small part of the Bible describes God.
Reasonably uniformed Christian theology really did not exist for the first 200-plus years since Christ, and even after that only loosely until the Nicene Council in 325 AD, and the Canon until 396 AD! Until then, the Church was completely heterodox in her beliefs and practices, and her approach to the scriptures.
That can't be right. Paul specifically told the Bereans to compare the NT God he was telling them about to the OT God in scriptures to make sure they were the same. If you want to say that Orthodox theology did not come along for a few hundred years that is fine, but the OT and NT God being one is not something that had to be invented.
The idea of Trinity was likewise very heterodox. The names were there but outside of the three Hypostases mentioned in the Bible (and not even mentioned as Hypostases!), there was no uniform theology as to how they relate, what their nature is, and so on.
Believers knew. Of course not all who put out "theology" were believers. I make no judgment as to names, but it is not surprising at all that individual beliefs were all over the place.
So, the Church, by consensus, and based on a belief, gave itself the authority to infallibly define what God is, based on the "raw" material found to be useful for the narrow agenda, in various writings the Church later canonized, while rejecting (and even destroying) everything that did not suit her purpose and goal. And all this was made "legitimate" by claiming the Holy Spirit was behind it!
I certainly can't argue that this is a view out there. I have read many posts consistent with it. But if the Church gave itself the authority, then what would be the problem with saying that it is a man-made faith?
Sometimes, I wonder if people claim their believe in God simply because they consider themselves holier than others, and God is nothing but a projection of their own ego.
I'm sure there are many examples of that across Christianity, but a true believer would have no use in comparing himself to anyone else. The Bible teaches plainly on this very subject.
That would leave nine others who have written nothing. It is only our guess what they taught, but we do know that Christianity was a heterodox movement, consisting of a wide range of beliefs and practices, with only Christ's name in common (not much different than today).
The first attempt at theology was not made until c. 190 AD (late 2nd century) by Irenaeus of Lyons, but that was rudimentary. It was not until well into the 3rd century that Origen of all people really set the stage for a systematized Christian theology, which was officially established in 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea (First Ecumenical, aka Nicene Council).
The Trinitarian creed was confirmed and wastly expanded by the second Council in 381 AD and the Bible was canonzied at the local African Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD, following the canon of Athansius of Alexandria form c. 360 AD.
Moreover, extant Bibles dating from circa middle of the 4th century contain books that are no longer considered canonical. Any copies of the New Testament books prior to the Nicene Council are mysteriously missing (presumbaly destroyed by the Church), but fragments and indirect evidence shows that the post-Nicene sources have been heavily redacted to more closely reflect the new trinitarian dogma of the Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.