www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Nature of Dogma

I really do wish this type of discussion would get away from how various Churches define things in theory and abstract, and look at how the Church worked--and works--in actuality.

That, of course, requires a close study of Church history, and especially the history of the development of doctrine. And I can understand why so many people are loathe to do this--the process of doctrinal formulation is messy, much akin to the making of sausage, and can be both disedifying and disillusioning. To think, all those Church Fathers were not constantly wandering around with beatific looks on their faces, earnestly discerning the voice of the Spirit, having set aside all earthly cares and all that, but were in fact hard-headed wheeler-dealers very much aware of the political dimensions, both secular and ecclesiastical, of the decisions they were making.

Oh, and personalities certainly had a lot to do with things, too. I am quite sure the moderators would not want any number of the Fathers posting on this forum, for they were not at all charitable to those with whom they disagreed, and had the rhetorical skills to flay flesh from bone.

That truth emerged from these confabulations of fallible human beings is the true testament to the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ, but to discern this, we all need to put aside our pious myths and pretensions and look at what really happened, and why. Only then will we be able to separate truth from the miasma of polemics that has engulfed the Church for a millennium. I'm not holding my breath, because too many people are entirely satisfied with the status quo.

[quote=StuartK]I really do wish this type of discussion would get away from how various Churches define things in theory and abstract...[/quote]

Why? The "theory and abstract" is the life-giving dogma of the Church. Why should I abandon the way of the Fathers for what Pope Stuart says over at Byzcath.org?

[quote]Only then will we be able to separate truth from the miasma of polemics that has engulfed the Church for a millennium. I'm not holding my breath, because too many people are entirely satisfied with the status quo. [/quote]

The "status quo," from my end, is simply the Church's Tradition. I am happy to accept it over some internet theologians' self-serving and worldly-minded interpretations of history. None of the Fathers or saints accepted this historical revisionist approach, and the fact that it results in espousal of the branch theory reveals it to be inspired by something other than the Holy Spirit. "By their fruits shall ye know them..."

For 500 years Catholics and Orthodox have insisted, against Protestantism, that the true meaning of Scripture is not always plain and obvious, that it cannot be simply read off the page by anyone who just happens to pick up a Bible. Why should dogmatic definitions be judged to possess a greater perspicuity than the written Word of God? By Catholic understanding, dogmatic definitions do not fall from Heaven. They are not dictated by the Spirit. The claim made for dogmatic definitions is actually quite modest, particularly when compared to the inspiration and inerrancy that the Church asserts for the Holy Scriptures: authentic dogmatic definitions are without error.

But what precisely does it mean to say that a human statement is "without error"? That is a question that has been debated intensely by Catholic theologians for a century now. How is a dogmatic definition to be interpreted and applied? What are its limits? Only the Church can say.

It may well seem that the Catholic Church is "backtracking" in its understanding of dogma. Consider, e.g., the dogmatic definitions of the second millenium, most of which dealt specifically with Western questions and preoccupations, with little or no Eastern involvement. That was all well and good when the Catholic Church understood the Church of Christ as exclusively identified with the canonical boundaries of the Catholic Church; but the ecclesiology of the post-Vatican II Church no longer allows her to dismiss the Churches of the East as "non-Churches." Yet if they are in fact authentic local Churches with authentic bishops, then their non-participation in the Western councils of the 2nd millenium and their non-reception of any dogmatic definitions issued by these councils raises serious questions about the ecumenicity of these councils. All of which means that the Catholic Church here has greater latitude than may be suspected.

The Church's dogmatic teaching, as Fr Richard Neuhaus liked to say, lives forward. Who knows what would happen if an ecumenical council were convened, attended by Catholic and Orthodox bishops, to address the infallibility and jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome? Who knows?

Dear Father,

While it will not be an Ecumenical Council in less than three weeks the 11th Plenary Session of the "Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church" opens on Cyprus. Its topic is the role of the Archbishop of Rome in the Church of the first millenium.

A Russian Commission has been studying this question for the last three years and we hope that they have something substantial to present on Cyprus. It has to be both true to the past and offering possible solutions for the future.

A good point. Thanks, Fr. Kimel, for this observation.

Another source of misunderstanding of the role of the Pope in an ecumenical Council is the notion that only the Pope grants an Ecumenical Council its Ecumenical status. Both monarchial papists and anti-papal non-Catholics derive this misconception from the teaching that an Ecumenical Council is not Ecumenical unless the Pope confirms it or at least recognizes it as such. Personally, I don't see the word "only" in the definition.

That is quite interesting. Which are the Councils accepted as Ecumenical but not confirmed or recognised by the Pope?

None. I think I see your point and I think I see the source of the misunderstanding. Perhaps the following explanation will help:

Do you see the difference between the following two statements?

1) A council has ecumenical status only if it is confirmed or at least recognized as such by the Pope.

2) Only the Pope can grant a council its ecumenical status.

The first assigns the Pope's confirmation or recognition as the final requirement.

The second assigns the Pope's confirmation or recognition as the only requirement.

Seraphim,

Stuart's rhetoric may be a little rough, but please recall that a dogma is only an expression of the Faith of the Church, not the full reality of that Faith, which is beyond human expression. It has always been the lived experience of the Church, sharing in the Divine Life and becoming a visible sign of the invisible Kingdom, that gives the Faith its fullest expression in human terms. Dogmas certainly have great value, but they are not of themselves "life-giving."


I'm not sure what you mean here by "branch theory;" are you really saying that you reject completely the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is any part of the true Church? If so, I do not know why you would want to participate in this forum.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Perhaps he means, "there is only one true Church of God, outside of which is undifferentiated darkness, in which the Pope of Rome is indistinguishable from a witch doctor", to paraphrase Metropolitan Kallistos (who was condemning this perspective). Nonetheless, this is very attractive to a certain mindset that wants to make sure the riff-raff are kept out of heaven. Not much place for the concept of "We know where the Church is, but we cannot say where it is not" (again, to paraphrase Kyr Kallistos).

Of course, we can also say the same thing regarding any of the other great Churches. Would Chalcedon be ecumenical if it had been accepted in Rome but rejected in Constantinople? How about Nicaea II (which, interestingly, Pope Benedict XVI says was only partially or imperfectly accepted by the Church of Rome)?

The Orthodox object to the notion that there are councils that must be considered ecumenical because the Pope ratified them, even if no other Church did so. And I fully agree with them.

Conversely, what can we say about Councils that were not immediately received by Rome? Were they not ecumenical, and their acts true and binding, until Rome did so? What, then, of the fifty years between Constantinople I and Ephesus?

Also, what can we say about councils that were ratified by the Pope, but which were later disavowed by his successors?

This is why canonical rules to define ecumenical councils do not work. History trips up any theory other than reception makes the Council.

There can be no distinction between dogma and its lived application. The dogmas may be expressed in human words but they are inspired of God and embody Truth. It is a grave mistake to treat the dogmas merely as words to be manipulated or re-interpreted at our convenience. "The preaching of the Apostles and the dogmas of the Fathers have strengthened the unity of the faith in the church; Thus, she, in wearing the tunic of Truth woven from supernal theology, teaches aright and glorifies the great Mystery of piety."


Heretics are not part of the Church. This is neither a novel nor an extreme view; that is simply what the Church has taught since ancient times.

The branch theory is simply the idea that the Church is composed of many branches which, while being out of communion with each other or even holding mutually exclusive doctrines, are nevertheless fully valid parts of the Church.

Stuart has expressed many times his opinion that the Nestorian, non-Chalcedonian, Orthodox, and Catholic churches are all parts of the true Church, and that they are equally valid, equally expressing the fullness of truth. The only difference between this theory and the original branch theory is that it does not include the Anglicans. I know that this opinion is not shared by all of the Catholics on this forum.

I am not interested in keeping anyone out of heaven, nor do I see "undifferentiated darkness" outside of the Church, nor would I speculate as to the eternal fate of anyone here. I do not believe the Catholic church is part of the true Church but that doesn't mean that there are not people within that communion worth talking to or learning from.

Dear brother StuartK,

Would Chalcedon be ecumenical if accepted by Rome but not by Alexandria?

I believe that was due to the non-acceptance of many of the canons of Trullo, which I think is rather fair. Was there any other reason it was only considered "partially" accepted?

Who said "no other Church?" Certainly not me. And certainly not the Catholic Church.

Don't you mean the 70 years between Constantinople and Chalcedon? Ephesus did not accept Constantinople as Ecumenical.

That's debatable. There's only one supposed example of this occuring - the so-called 8th Ecumenical Council. There are non-Catholic and secular sources that assert that John XIII repudiated that Council within his pontificate (and excommunicated the legates), when he discovered that Photius tampered with the papal statement intended for the Council to ratify, and that Photius included several explicitly anti-Latin canons (See: the Protestant Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, Vol. IV; Italian secular historian Claudio Rendina’s The Popes, Histories and Secrets, an appraisal of Catholic Church history from the political perspective).

Ravenna admits that an Ecumenical Council is a unique event guided by the Holy Spirit. I think the best solution is to distinguish between the inherent infallibility of an Ecumenical Council (necessary to establish Truth), and the necessity of consensus to establish unity.

Blessings

An excellent question. The subsequent Great Councils were in essence attempts to find ways of correcting the deficiencies of the Chalcedonian definition. While Chalcedon was not inherently diphysite, there were certainly those in the Eastern Churches who took a diphysite view of it. As long as the Roman Empire encompassed Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, there was always a chance for recociliation. With each additional council, the Christological synthesis became more coherent and complete. But the Muslim Conquests erected a barrier between Constantinople and the other Churches of the East, after which no further dialogue took place for some 1300 years.

As it now appears, there is no dispute between Alexandria and Constantinople over the substance of Chalcedon, only the terms in which the doctrine is expressed. The compatibility of Cyrilian and Chalcedonian Christology is conceded by both sides. But the weight of 1300 years is difficult to shake off, so it is very difficult, if not impossible, for either side to abandon the terminology it has used. It ought to be enough for the Alexandrians to admit that Chalcedon is not heretical, and for the Chalcedonians to admit that the Alexandrians are not heretics for their failure to receive Chalcedon.


Trullo has nothing to do with the Seventh Council, which is why it is called the Quinisextunct (Fifth-Sixth): it was intended to provide a canonical addendum to the Second and Third Councils of Constantinople. Pope Benedict wrote in his book Reflections on the Liturgy that the West did not fully receive the Second Council of Nicaea because it did not understand or accept the Christological foundations for the doctrine of sacred images. The Latin Church opposed iconoclasm, but did so on the grounds that images were part of the Depositum Fidei, and that they were necessary for the catechesis of the illiterate. In other words, it took a purely pragmatic and didactic approach to images, and did not really comprehend the arguments made by John Damascene and Theodore Studites. As a result, a "canon" of sacred art did not emerge in the Latin West, and images are not integral to Western worship as they are in the Byzantine East.


Rome retained what can best be called "Paleo-Nicene" theology, and did not accept the Cappodocian or "Neo-Nicene" theology of Constantinople I until the Council of Ephesus in 431. That's a fifty year gap. But, now that you mention it, Rome wasn't particularly happy with Chalcedon, either, mainly because of its famous Canon 28, and the exact time that Rome accepted the acts of Chalcedon remains in dispute.

That is the key example. But we can also look at the ambivalent relationship between the Councils of Constance and Florence-Ferrara.


These were decisively rebutted by Francis Dvornik in his monumental The Photian Schism, on which all subsequent scholars have relied since. There is near universal consensus among Catholic, Orthodox and secular historians that the Synod of 879-880 did indeed revoke the decrees of the Synod of 869-870, and that John VIII did indeed ratify the Synod. The fact that the Synod remained in collections of Roman canons through the eleventh century indicates it was accepted. There was no second Photian Schism.


And the Holy Spirit, being the anarchist contingent of the Trinity, cannot be bound by a priori canonical criteria defining what is and is not an ecumenical council.

Two questions:

1. In what explicit way did pre-VC II ecclesiology dismiss the Churches of the East as "non-Churches"? That is a very strong term. How did that ecclesiology differ regarding the churches of the East and the West in that they are "authentic local Churches with authentic bishops"?

2.As I asked in a previous post: Why limit it ["ecumenicity of these councils"] then to only the councils held in the West? As noted a number of times, has not the absence of Nestorians and especially non-Calcedonian churches also "rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term"?