Rome’s answer? Perhaps the world will never know–but it takes just one Bishop of Rome to undo every attempt made by every Bishop on earth, including Popes, at barring changes to the Creed.
The Issue. Recently, I had pointed out that typically Orthodox argue that Canon V to the Council of Ephesus forbids any additions at all to the Constantinopolitan Creed. I concluded that such an apologetic is far too simplistic as Canon V pertained only to the Nicene Creed specifically and there appeared to be indications that Chalcedon allowed for surface-level changes in the Creed, as even the council fathers equated even the Tome of Leo with the Creed inasmuch as it reiterated the “same faith.”
While the preceding (if correct) explodes a simplistic talking point, it does not undo the Orthodox position. How so? In this article, I aim to show that subsequent to Chalcedon the Church formulated an understanding that the Constantinopolitan Creed cannot be altered at all. I will call this, for the sake of the article, the idea of the “changeless Creed.”
The Beginnings of an Idea. The notion that the Creed was changeless might have not been endorsed by the Council of Chalcedon in the final estimation, we do have recorded for us in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Session II statements from council fathers that can be construed as such. The following is a notable example:
Bishop Flavius: For we wish you to know that the most divine and pious lord of the whole world [the Emperor] and ourselves hold the orthodox faith set forth by the 318 and by the 150 holy fathers, and what also has been taught by the rest of the most holy and glorious fathers, and in accordance with this is our belief.
The most reverend bishops cried: Any other setting forth (ἔκθεσιν ἄλλην) no one makes, neither will we attempt it, neither will we dare to set forth [anything new] (ἐκθεσθαι). For the fathers taught, and in their writings are preserved, what things were set forth by them, and further than this we can say nothing…These are the opinions of all of us. The expositions (ἐκτεθέντα) already made are quite sufficient: it is not lawful to make any other…we make no new exposition in writing. This is the law, [i.e. Council of Ephesus, Canon 7] which teaches that what has been set forth is sufficient. The law wills that no other exposition should be made. Let the sayings of the Fathers remain fast.
The statement of the “reverend bishops” seems pretty clear: “The expositions already made are quite sufficient: it is not lawful to make any other…we make no new exposition in writing.” This, if taken literally, would seem to exclude the making of any new creedal statements, because the expositions which already exist are sufficient.
So, was my previous article wrong? Not precisely. In fact, what were the expositions that the preceding statement was referring to?
- “The orthodox faith set forth by the 318″ (i.e. Nicene Creed)
- “The orthodox faith set forth by…the 150 holy fathers” (i.e. Constantinopolitan Creed)
- “What also has been taught by the rest of the most holy and glorious fathers” (emphasis added)
The third bullet point opens a super-mega-gigantic-humongous can of worms for Orthodox apologetics as “most holy and glorious fathers” such as Saint Augustine, (Saint?) Didymus the Blind, and Saint Basil the Great already made statements which either seemingly endorse the modern Roman Catholic understanding of the Filioque or at the very least, use terms such as “proceeds from the Father and/through the Son.”
Furthermore, the ban on making any new expositions, if it includes the expositions of holy fathers up until the point of Chalcedon, is virtually meaningless for the future Filioque controversy. Why? Because ultimately the argument is not over the word “filioque” but over its interpretation. The term was already in existence. If we had to hang our hats on Ephesus or Chalcedon, then we would be stuck with “filioque.”
Nonetheless, the forceful wording of Chalcedon at least planted the seed to an idea–that the Creed should not be altered. In time, this seed would germinate.
The Idea of the Changeless Creed Sprouts. As time passed and the use of the Constantinopolitan Creed became normalized over centuries of repetition, it became increasingly unthinkable to dispense away with the Creed through modifications. The words of Pope Leo III (eighth to ninth centuries AD) according to Smaragdus, Abbot of St. Michael’s in Lorraine, preserved for us how the Papacy began to understand the issue of the changeless Creed:
It [the filioque] may, I say, it may be sung in teaching, and be taught by being sung: but neither by writing nor by singing may it be unlawfully inserted into that, which it is forbidden us to touch..I say that they considered why they left it out, and why, when once left out, they [the fathers] forbade either it or any thing else to be added afterwards. Do thou consider, what ye think or yourselves: for as for me, I say not that I will not set myself up above [the Ecumentical Councils], but God forbid that I should either equal myself to them.
As we can see, he does not forbid the Filioque being taught. This would be completely inconsistent with the entire Western Pneumatological tradition since the time of Augustine. He even allowed for the Filioquist-Creed to be sung. However, Pope Leo III banned the permanent alteration of the Creed, specifically because he believed such a move to be made unlawful by Chalcedon (he was incorrect in this) and that a council would be necessary to accomplish it. Being the debate between Conciliarism versus Papism had not yet confronted the Roman Church in its fullness, it was not out of the ordinary for western thinkers (here a Pope) to take a Conciliar view.
The Blooming of the Changeless Creed. So far, we have established that (1) the fathers of Chalcedon seem to take a non-literal view to what it meant to not make additions to the Creed and (2) centuries later, we have the statement of a Pope that favors the literal view. Suffice it to say, Pope Leo III was not alone. By the mid 9th century it was clear that the entire eastern Church agreed with him.
The question then is, how do we settle this issue? Well, we do what Pope Leo III implied–we have a council and we settle the issue once and for all!
In the real Council of Constantinople IV, the fathers of the council stated the following about the changeless Creed:
Thus, having in mind and declaring all these things, we embrace with mind and tongue (τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ γλώσσῃ) and declare to all people with a loud voice the Horos [Rule pertaining to faith and morals] of the most pure faith of the Christians which has come down to us from above through the Fathers, subtracting nothing, adding nothing, falsifying nothing; for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by the ingenious fabrications of the evil one, introduces disapprobation of those who are exempt from blame and inexcusable assault on the Fathers. As for the act of changing with falsified words the Horoi [“Rules”] of the Fathers is much worse that the previous one. Therefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod embracing whole-heartedly and declaring with divine desire and straightness of mind, and establishing and erecting on it the firm edifice of salvation, thus we think and loudly proclaim this message to all:
“I believe in One God, Father Almighty, … and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God… and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord … who proceeds from the Father…” [the whole Creed is cited here]
If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol [the Creed]…and impose on it his own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις) and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely (κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos [Rule] with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people.
In the eighth ecumenical council, the point of contention was the Filioque itself. The anathema was aimed against those who “imposed…invented phrases” into the Creed. Clearly, everyone understood this to pertain to any addition whatsoever, including the Filioque. To interpret this otherwise or to accuse the fathers of being imprecise in order to legitimize the addition of what the council clearly called “illegitimate words.”
After all, it is not that we lack writings from the fathers telling us what they meant. Not only do we have the letter of Pope Leo III endorsing the changeless Creed, the words of Pope John VIII to Saint Photius I in the wake of the council reiterates the same idea:
That we may give you satisfaction touching that addition in the Creed, [and from the Son,] we let you know, that not only we have no such addition, but also we condemn them as transgressors of the direct word, that were the first authors of this addition.
Rome up to this point in time did not use the Filioque, but merely taught the doctrine and waffled on allowing it in Frankish and Spanish churches (we have not only the letter of Leo III, but also the existence of several western councils that shows that this was a debate that went back and forth.) Pope John VIII was not conceding anything to Saint Photius, simply because this was the same position Rome held since the days of Pope Leo III–Believe the Filioque, but not change the Creed in the process. It was a “have your cake and eat it too” sort of position.
Conclusion. Let’s return to the question posed in the title of the article. How many Bishops does it take to bar changes to the Creed? We had 383 Bishops affirm Constantinople IV, which stated that the keeping the Creed changeless was necessary for the preservation of the Horos (declared faith and morals) of the Church. A Pope affirmed the council and even wrote subsequent to the council and affirmation of the same idea. It would seem that, apart from council, the Creed cannot be changed–and even then, being that it pertains to the Horos, one must question whether even a council can overturn what has already been agreed upon by the whole Church. Theoretically, the Church cannot change on issues of faith and morals.
Yet, not long afterwards the Bishop of Rome would excommunicate the Bishop of Constantinople (and “backers of his foolishness”) for a litany of charges, “cut[ting] off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son.” Rome, unilaterally, anathematized those who believed in the changeless Creed, an idea defended even by Popes and given the force of law in an Ecumenical Council.
All of this begs the question: how else could have Popes and the fathers of Constantinople IV expressed themselves so that their teaching would not be abrogated so soon?
My opinion? It does not matter what words they would have used. If Pope John VIII himself signed onto the council writing that “and I affirm that what is taught herein is a matter of faith and morals and cannot be rescinded, that not one jot nor tittle can be changed in the Creed, and this I bind everywhere in Christendom,” even this cannot philosophically settle the issue according to the epistemological paradigm of Roman Catholicism. A future Pope can simply clarify that simply calling something “a matter of faith and morals” does not make it so, and it can be rescinded. Or that saying something is taught everywhere in word does not apply if it is not so in deed.
Endless clarification makes it impossible to verify whether an issue is settled even when the Pope or Council in question clearly intended to do this.
Back to the issue of Pope Leo III and Constantinople IV–if one were to accept what they have written to be authentic, it would seem that the present Roman position is that both Popes and Councils can assert it is unlawful to change something such as a Creed, but be wrong in the assertion. The danger is the the Church ultimately is incapable of settling any matter, as the categories we use to define what is settled or not can be continually infallibly defined in the present to the point that what was considered settled and unlawful in the past, in effect, is not anymore.
This epistemological conundrum is why most Roman Catholic apologists deny the authenticity of the real Constantinople IV. Most do not want to confront the fact that their epistemology makes it impossible to ever settle any matter. Hence, the faith once and all delivered by the Saints is in danger of constantly being in flux due to re-interpretations and updated definitions. The logical result of such an epistemology is endless change.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
An interesting read. I am enjoying your treatment of Constantinople 879. I’ve been mulling it over for quite some time and considering it in something I hope to finish before the end of September regarding the ecumenical status of councils in Orthodox and Catholic frameworks and the historical veracity of those models. I haven’t had the time to listen to your entire video discussion yet from the previous post, but thus far I find it very interesting. I’ve been rather distracted reading your comment debates on YouTube and FB with Ybarra, who has been commenting on my blog as well lately.
I’m highly reluctant to comment on FB, so I will simply say it here, if you don’t mind. Don’t listen to those who accuse you of sounding “too Protestant.” You sound perfectly Orthodox to me.
Oh man, please email me when you are done. I am far too of a lightweight to really cover the issue all that well. Thank you Alura, please pray for me, an ignorant and sinful man.
As for this issue, I would be particularly interested on a lot of the manuscript issues, as I have to rely almost entirely second hand. (other the minutes of Chalcedon). I would really like to see how many Latin manuscripts there are of John VIII’s letters and if they differ.
Further, I would be interested in a concise Orthodox view of ecumenicity. As far as I know, it does not exist other than “it is ecumenical when it happens, but we can only recognize later if it did.”
” The logical result of such an epistemology is endless change.”
Yet, we do not see constant or endless change.
No, because we have only gone through 2,000 years of history. So we have seen modest change in that time. Orthodoxy has changed too, just more slowly.
There’s actually a reason that Const. IV was not accepted in the West — i don’t believe the West ever had access to Latin translations of the council , meaning it was not incorporated into the counsciousness of the West as a whole.
https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2016/10/10/rehabilitating-a-patriarch-byzantine-thomism-and-ecumenical-theology/
Out of charity’s sake, I wish to say a few things:
1) My above comment is my inference and should not be taken as my stating of historical fact. Apologies.
2) Reading the bull of excommunication, is isn’t that the Greeks wore beards, but rather that they (according to the bull) discommunicate from the Latins who DON’T have beards . It’s an accusation of intolerance. (But that’s a very minor thing, isn’t it?)
Good point about the beards I will need to edit that.
Craig–
Ah, an epistemology of endless change… this reminds me of what C. S. Lewis gave as his justification for never having converted to Catholicism despite his being exceedingly ecumenical in character:
“The real reason why I cannot be in communion with [Rome] is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine, but that to accept [the] Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine [the] Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but to what he’s going to say…To us the terrible thing about Rome is the recklessness (as we hold) with which she has added to the depositum fidei [deposit of faith]…the proliferation of credenda [what must be believed].”
Of course, Rome boasts of an epistemological superiority over Orthodoxy in the person of the pope as a unifying factor. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, has many branches without any effective unifying apparatus (e.g., the Oriental groupings don’t accept Chalcedon).
Though an ecumenical council would be a possibility, none has been forthcoming.
In defense of Orthodoxy, however, there has been ongoing dialogue, resulting in a narrowing of differences.
Let’s see where that goes in the next few hundred years
I hear you. We might see a serious rise in the number of sedevacantists if postmodernism continues to make ever more visible inroads into the dogmas of Rome. I have empathy for (some of) these purists, by the way. In the wake of the vague fuzziness of Vatican II, they at least have the courage of their convictions…and tenaciously stick by the traditions handed down to them.
I am far less exercised by schism than you are. Within an utterly fragmented church, it becomes increasingly difficult to quantify schism with any precision. Small “o” orthodoxy must be recrafted before we can hold anyone to it, before we can rally around it and unify.
If I am sure of anything, it is that orthodoxy is not to be found in the usual suspects: you won’t see me swimming the Tiber or the Bosporus any time soon.
I am, however, passionately in search of the orthodoxy of the early church. I will start from scratch if I have to, and my guess is that I will have to. In the early church, purity and unity were all of one cloth. They cannot be separated in our day and age if we are ever to make progress.
You will be Orthodox soon then
I was watching a documentary today concerning converts to Catholicism.
Many of them credited the writings of C. S. Lewis with assisting in their progress.
As a result, I was struck by the irony: for most of these converts, the epistemic certainty of Rome was its number one selling point. For Lewis himself, Rome’s epistemic uncertainty kept him from converting.
“Back to the issue of Pope Leo III and Constantinople IV–if one were to accept what they have written to be authentic, it would seem that the present Roman position is that both Popes and Councils can assert it is unlawful to change something such as a Creed, but be wrong in the assertion. ”
Only a minor note: The laws of the Church are not the same dogmas concerning faith and morals. In every case, the articulation of a Creed pertains to Church law. An exception would be if the very form of a Creed comes from the Apostles (as some might assert for, say, the Apostles Creed; though this is unlikely), but I no one asserts this about any Creed promulgated at a Council. An example: For a time, all Catholic priests were required to take an oath against modernism upon their ordination. This oath is no longer required, but whether or not it is required is a matter of ecclesiastical discipline.
Same with a Creed from an ecumenical council. Just as ecclesiastical positive law made it a requirement, so also ecclesiastical positive law can remove the requirement. There are irreformable teachings on dogma. But there is no ecclesiastical positive law (law made by the Church, not by Christ or the Apostles) which could not subsequently be changed by legitimate authority.
Another example, very helpful since it pertains to one and the same Legislator. In 1983, John Paul II promulgated the Code in these words: “with the supreme authority with which I am vested, by means of this Constitution, to be valid forever in the future, I promulgate the present Code as it has been set in order and revised. I command that for the future it is to have the force of law for the whole Latin Church, and I entrust it to the watchful care of all those concerned, in order that it may be observed. ” And then in 1998, he modified this law. Was this illegal? No, even the Code itself describes the process for changing the law (c. 7-22).
Laws can be changed by legitimate authority. Dogmas never change. So whatever else is going on in there, pointing to a change in the law or the unlawfulness of one act or another does not touch on papal infallibility.
I think you ignored the word horos there
Quite the opposite. A horos is an articulation or a rule. My entire comment is about how there is no horos devised by a council that could not be changed by a council (or equivalent). Unless you are asserting that the Creed of Constantinople is of divine origin, it is a horos devised by legitimate ecclesiastical authority and can be legitimately modified by the same ecclesiastical authority. That the truths contained therein are unchanging is certain, but the articulation is itself something that is much later than the constitution of the depositum fidei.
As for whether the Holy Father ever approved a horos containing a denial of the filioque, that is the subject of the comment I made on a different post. I am not inclined to think he did, but we can discuss that over there.
Is Pelikan wrong in the citation? And the byzantine greek lexiconography?
I don’t have access to Pelikan’s book, but if the definition of Horos is just the phrase contained in brackets, “Horos [Rule pertaining to faith and morals]”, then it seems correct. It is a rule or an articulation pertaining to faith and morals. And all that I have said remains true. The articulation can be changed (by legitimate authority), even though the faith cannot change. Franks and Spaniards may have been wrong to introduce the word filioque to the Creed as an anti-Arian measure. But the Supreme Authority in the Church can approve such a change, so long as it does not contradict the faith. And it does not contradict the faith.
They call the Creed and the necessity it not be altered a rule pertaining to faith and morals. Just so I am clear, can an ecumenical council be fallible when it comes to rules that pertain to faith and morals?
The difference between disciplinary norms and an infallible teaching on faith and morals is the key here. The recitation or non-recitation of a Creed in whole or in part pertains to discipline. An ecumenical council (duly confirmed, etc.) is authoritative with respect to discipline and, when it intends to teach in such a manner, teaches on faith and morals infallibly.
Whether or not a certain Creed is used or modified pertains to the discipline of the Church. All measures pertaining to discipline, even if binding, do not pertain to the definition of faith and morals as such.
This is why I am always insistent on distinguishing the Pope’s Universal Jurisdiction from his Infallible Teaching Authority. In the former, he can certainly make prudential mistakes (or other sorts of mistakes), which are still authoritative but might later require amendments and merit apologies. The later is infallible and irreformable.
So also with Councils: If the 8th ecumenical council (in 879, say) had simply condemned the truth of the filioque, then this would be the greatest evidence that it is not a true council (or contrariwise, that the doctrine is false). But as it merely places as a disciplinary measure that Creeds are not to be changed (and given that the Creed is question is one invented 381, not something itself from Christ or the Apostles), this norm is itself subject to change (by nothing less than the authority that issued, or its equivalent).
Question–Presuming that it is **possible** that not changing the contents of a creed pertains to faith and morals, is there any other verbiage other than “horos” that the council fathers could have used to convey the idea that the creed is a matter of faith and morals and cannot be altered, one jot or tittle, no matter what? Becuase, reading their plain statement, I literally cannot conceive how they could have been any clearer.
To a Creed? No, I think it would take God himself to do something like that. Or at least the Apostles. The content can be defined infallibly, for sure. But the actual usage of a particular formula defined in 381 cannot itself pertain to the deposit of faith.
An alternative case, that comes close to what you’re talking about, would be the definition of the form for a sacrament. This could be defined infallibly by a Pope/Council in many cases, since it pertains to the deposit of faith. For example, baptism must use the Trinitarian formula (the exact words in East and West differ, but we agree it must be Trinitarian), and the Church could perhaps define that the words of institution are the proper form of the Eucharist (the Council of Florence teaches this, but in a non-definitive way; the Eastern Churches are generally wary of such a definition).
“To a Creed? No, I think it would take God himself to do something like that. ”
I find this interesting, because it shows that it is philosophically impossible for you to concede the idea. I do not view it as impossible, as the Church does have a teaching authority. We are not going to let terms like consubstantial and hypostatic union drop from the vocabulary. So, if a council decided that certain terminology could not be altered as it would alter the faith, wouldn’t this be consistent with the teaching authority of the Church?
Pray for me, an ignorant sinner.
God bless,
Craig
It’s a very good question, but I think if the terminology originates with the Church, then it is at the Church’s discretion to continue using the terminology. I am certainly of the mindset that it could be disastrous to change such terminology, and should only be done with the greatest care (or not at all). But this principle seems sound: If it originates in the Church it can be abolished/changed by the Church. As I have said before, the doctrine itself cannot change.
A concrete example where the Church was careful about adopting terminology is with respect to transubstantiation. The doctrine is defined at Trent, Session 13, c. 2. And yet for the term itself, the canon reads: “…which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation”. So the canon is saying the “transubstantiation” is an accurate term for the doctrine professed, but is not requiring the use of that term or giving it any sort of divine approbation.
Be ever assured of my prayers! I hope to return the chapter you sent me with many comments. I was sidetracked the other day into reading a whole book by Chadwick on the division of East and West! (As an Anglican, he writes from outside the conflict, which makes it feels like a fairer comparison than if a Latin or Greek wrote it.)
What does Chadwick say?
Plenty! The book is called “East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church”. In your chapter, you talk about how the basis of the split already existed in the time of Pope Victor. He goes back to the centuries immediately before Christ, where there are clear differences between the Greeks (masters of philsophy, drama) and Romans (masters of law, organization, war). Even Cicero talks about the beard thing! I picked it up to look at the Photius chapter, but I got pulled in. This book is where I found those interesting quotes from Florence.
I remember hearing about that when I first studied latin and greek philosophy 13 years ago, but I honestly think that this is too simplistic. Aristotelianism , which is obviously Greek, lends itself very well to the western mindset. Ultimately, I honestly think that what separates Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism is the very Jewishness of Orthodoxy. It is not a belief system ultiamtely predicated upon philosophy. It has philosophical formulations and adherents, but it is ultimately an experiential religion. The experience of the Church dictates doctrine and it informs faith. Of course RCs will say “we have that to,” but it certainly is not emphasized to anywhere near that degree. This is what the OO and EO have in common–an earlier Hellenistic-Jewish mode of thinking, which informs their orthopraxy. To speak of orthopraxy in the RC tradition is laughable, because it has changed so drastically in that it bears almost no resemblence to any of the practices of the western saints in the first 1,000 years of the Church (with perhaps the words of the mass itself as a very important exception.)
So, this mode of thought informs epistemology. Orthodoxy believes in what the Church experiences, in the past and today. RCism emphasizes logical formulations above experience, in which these actually take precedence over experience (how else has fasting been reduced to 1 hour before the Eucharist, no vespers before each mass, or the Eucharist is regularly made His flesh and blood apart from the laity, or the altar is used multiple times a day, etc?) It is not that analogues for these things, based upon contingencies, do not exist in Orthodoxy. The difference is, what is logically possible does not become the norm in Orthodoxy, because experience bears out that these logically possible exceptions can never become the rule.
Yet, the RC way of thinking is if they are possible, than they are just as good, and logic dictates that they may even be better than what experience has dictated for centuries beforehand.
The RC way of thinking lends itself to constant evolution. In my mind, it is clearly wrong, as we are not a religion built upon philosophy but experience. However, if the RC epistemology is really what is true and intended by Christ, than everything I wrote is meaningless.
God bless,
Craig
Do read that blog post I posted! I just reread it to be sure, but I think it at least shows that all the concerns you named are present among Catholics, and that even the Catechism states the principle that Pontiffs are subject to liturgical tradition.
I think I read it already…but being that I “think” I obviously forget what it is about, LOL.
I agree that such a characterization of the difference is oversimplistic.
Even if Roman Catholicism is correct (as it is 😀 ), I don’t think your concerns are misplaced, and it is certainly an ongoing concern especially in the area of liturgy. I wrote a brief post on this issue here:
https://vogliodio.wordpress.com/2017/09/05/ultramontanism-and-the-objectivity-of-the-liturgy/
At the same time you point out the evolution in the Catholic Church, I could point back at the apparent stagnation and impossibility of growth in Orthodox Churches. The note of evolution/development is something I am focusing on in my comments on the chapter you wrote up. Although a deformation would be bad, I don’t think change in the form of maturity is bad. Obviously mistakes or undue laxity have appeared along the way, but this doesn’t mean the actual growth is inauthentic. Nor is philosophy itself the driving factor here, but really the living faith of the Church in confrontation with new historical situations.
To say the Roman Catholic Church is predicated upon philosophy seems strange to me, as much as I like philosophy and clear thinking. In the early centuries, it was always the Eastern Church thinkers that are known as philosophers (notable example: Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus, John of Damascus) whereas the West’s notable achievement is a formal stubbornness. (I could talk more about the showdown in the 13th century, when philosophy threatened to marginalize faith as a source of truth but was put in its proper place, but that comes later…)
And to go back to the “Jewish” claim you make, I think the OT gives the groundwork for authentic development: The worship in the desert looked different than that of Abraham; in the Temple was different than the desert; in Exile, different than in the Temple. Jeremiah told the peole to be subject to Babylon. Daniel figured out how to worship in his circumstance. Elijah and Elisha preached in a land where there was no Temple or son of David. Are all these men adherents of the same faith? Surely. I wouldn’t make the case for an exact parallel, but if you are claiming a likeness of Orthodoxy to Judaism, it is Judaism after Christ, which is indeed a relic and an accurate witness to an earlier time, but inadequate as the living community of the faithful today. (I didn’t intend that to sound so harsh, but to boast of Orthodoxy on its connection to Judaism…well, it really seems to depend on how you see that connection.)
I will get that chapter back to you before long! I should probably work on it today.
Fr Max, I understand your point, but the Jewish development was ordained by prophets saying “thus saith the Lord.” I do not think the RC argues they have that today, even with a Vicar of Christ. The Latin worldview (broadly speaking, i.e. Cicero and pals) is overly practical. I hated Cicero’s philosophy when I read it. It simply was, “This works, we see that it does, let’s go with it.” So, it is a great deal less speculatory (which, as you pointed out, shielded the West from the zany philosophical arguments that consumed the East during the Christological controversies), but pragmatism ultimately does not have a governor on it. Look how moral pragmatism, since the early 20th century, has greatly changed social norms in the west. It is a less speculatory philosophy, but it leads to way more change.
So, while I agree the philosophical basis of the west informed their epistemology, which in extension informed their ecclesiology–unless this was the philosophical basis of the Apostles (which, if they a Jews with some hellenistic influence, it was not), it clearly is not the epistemology that we are supposed to use as the lens to understand and experience Apostolic teaching. So, the stagnation on older norms in Orthodoxy, though Orthodoxy has changed, is a proof of its superiority, not inferiority. The fact that RCism would be unrecognizable to Paul or Peter, not just aesthetically, but in its very practice and way of thinking, is to me disconcerting.
Ultimately, I cannot definitively prove that the Roman epistemology is wrong, as I repeat again and again in my chapter. But, I can point out that it is different and almost the whole Christian world rejected it for a very long time.
This is why I cannot see myself becoming Roman Catholic, as I would literally feel like I am taking a chance with my salvation by ignoring the witness of the vast majority of Christians throughout history, pre-schism.
God bless,
Craig
My main point was not that there is some Roman philosophy (with Cicero as representative) that is the basis for the (Roman) Catholic understanding of the Church. Rather, that the Catholic view is not philosophical, but apostolic, resting on the authority handed onto it from the Apostles. The big objection to canon 28 at Chalcedon, besides elevating a See above two ancient ones with prerogatives, was that it implied that Old Rome had its authority on account of being the imperial capital. The Popes always contest this, on the basis that it is the Apostles who are the basis of their authority.
As for the Apostles, and the worldviews that informed their understanding, there is no doubt that Roman order had an influence. Paul asserts his Roman citizenship and appeals to Caesar against accusations of heresy from the Jews; every Christmas we read that there was a census in the reign of Caesar Augustus. After Chalcedon, it seems more and more like the conflict about the correct conception of the Church is more about whether the Pope or the Emperor has the ultimate care: the successor of the Apostles or the successor of Constantine.
It might be worth noting that, even though Catholicism seems diverse and evolving compared to certain forms of Orthodoxy, most Protestants and external onlookers would make the opposite judgment. The uniformity of the Catholic Church, in the midst of all its diversity, is something both admired and criticized by those without, but it is generally taken for granted.
Also: By stagnation, I had in mind not only the unchanging practice and ritual (certainly not a bad thing in most cases!), but the failure to evangelize East of the imperial border. For centuries, the Eastern Church seemed more about striking compromises than spreading the Gospel further. Why shouldn’t the Middle East and Far East be fully evangelized by now? In the West, however, there is the constant flow of missionaries to the North and beyond, and as soon as the New World is discovered, the first intention of the Church is to bring the faith. Once navigation can reach India, China and Japan, we sent out missionaries right away, with greater or less success. I must admit, this (like the argument that we have so many excellent saints) is not any definitive or epistemologically certain demonstration, but it seems like a sign to me. Even the eagerness for reunion seems primarily on the Western side, with initiatives like the First Crusade, the Council of Florence, and the (consequently problematic) Union of Brest. The East seems content to hold the (ever more Muslim) fort. I will concede that the evangelization of Russia and Alaska are important exceptions to what I have said.
I think we are speaking past each other a tad, but let’s be honest, the Protestants were the first group of people to truly evangelize since the emissaries that St Photios sent out. Otherwise, the RC and EO have been content to simply convert colonial subjects.
Read the lives of the Jesuit missionaries. Saint Isaac Jogues had his fingers eaten off by natives, and then after escaping came back to continue his mission. I would not speak so dismissively of Christ’s most faithful and beloved servants.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Jogues
They are Orthodox missionaries too, like St Peter the Aleut. We would both be lying if we were to pretend that 99% of modern RC and EO are not the direct result of national policy of RC and EO states–and their imposition of the state religion in colonial territories.
Craig/Max–
I dunno. Most Protestants I read and speak with think of Catholicism as incredibly diverse. From RadTrad geocentrists to Leftist social justice warriors. Is there any political/ethical/economic/cultural/philosophical/theological stance that is NOT held by a mainstream Catholic somewhere? Modernism, postmodernism, syncretism, neopaganism, secularism: all rampant. There is a core belief system represented by the new Catechism, but very few adherents adhering to it in practice. Catholicism to me seems in total disarray, especially under the leadership of this odd new Pope.
I kind of wish Catholicism would contract into a smallish, coherent body of believers I could respect, something along the lines of the SSPX.
As for Orthodoxy, I’m still somewhat new to it. So far it strikes me as rather vague and amorphous, kind of like Islam. Where they worship in much the same way the world over, but believe many different things. Experiential, yes, and thus very subjective and unsystematic.
“Evangelism” is one of those terms where RC and EO churches mean such a completely different thing from Protestants (much like is the case with “justification”). I’m tempted to surmise, from a Protestant point of view, that Catholic and Orthodox alike don’t even believe in evangelism or justification, let alone preach or practice them. Catholic “evangelism” is nothing more than “churchification,” if you ask me. The priority is to get posteriors into pews after getting them a bit wet. Converts to Evangelicalism speak glowingly of “becoming Christian” (regardless of the denomination). Converts to Catholicism speak of coming into (or returning to) THE CHURCH. (And, to tell the truth, most Catholics and Orthodox relentlessly deride the whole notion of being “born again”–other an as a euphemism for being baptised–despite clear Scriptural provenance.)
My wife and I spoke about your comment here: “Converts to Evangelicalism speak glowingly of “becoming Christian” (regardless of the denomination). Converts to Catholicism speak of coming into (or returning to) THE CHURCH. ”
Obviously, people brought up as a Lutheran/Orthodox/Catholic will more likely have the latter attitude due to them not knowing really when they became a Christian to begin with. It reminds me that a Pres candidate, Ron Paul (Lutheran), was asked “when did you become a Christian” and he said, “I don’t know there was not an exact day, but I’ll choose my day of confirmation I suppose.”
That being said, there are more than a few Protestant converts to RCism or EOism which will adopt the attitude of “finding the Church,” as if this is in some sort of equal par, God forbid above, finding Christ. I think more than a little of the cause of this is that when one becomes EO or RC, he leaves behind all of the tantalizing inconsistencies and shoddy traditions of his former Protestant sect. So, to find a body of beliefs that is 90% cogent and rooted in CHristian history is exciting.
Further, “finding Jesus” is really not a Biblical idea to begin with. You cannot find the words “let Jesus into your heart” or “finding Christ” in the Scriptures. Not coincidentally, the fathers never speak this way.
Yet, I cannot help but think that the fathers never talk about “finding the Church either.” When we hear about their conversions, like Augustine, it is usually within the context of what we would call in the modern day parlance “surrender.” X, Y, Z father comes to grip with his sin or some great impediment to the Christian life (for Augustine it was sex, for Anthony of the desert it was money, etc) and they leave everything behind and follow after Christ in their whole way of life. It is in many ways, much more Biblical than the modern paradigm we see in modern Christianity, Protestant or Apostolic. You don’t read about Augustine “finding the Church,” though he was a former manichee. As far as he was concerned, he was finding the truth–which was in the Church. He was already a catechumen in the Church before he actually repented.
As for my own personal “testimony,” which for some reason I really never wrote, I certainly repented before I had faith in Christ, and I obviously had faith in Christ before I considered Orthodoxy. I am to this day confused when I was “saved” considering the Protestant view of the concept (as this would have been the day I believed, which I consider miraculous), and the day I began “being saved” (which would have included my miraculous repentance.)
I generally assume that until I had faith in Christ, I had no real hope that I was saved, no matter my repentance. And I will be, God willing, Chrismated Dec 24th, and at this point Orthodoxy teaches that I have a normative expectation that I really have the Holy Spirit indwelling in me. This is something I would consider I had already had for years, though I would not seek to say I would be assure apart from the sacrament or that the sacrament is not somehow normative.
First and foremost we are Christians. We should all be Orthodox, because Orthodoxy is the Church. But, Orthodoxy, or whatever else, is not an end in of itself. Glorifying God is the end–which is why I prefer to give glory to God than to dwell disordinately on any Church. I look to the Head and the Body as a complete whole, but the Head gets more attention. We tend to speak to people looking at their face, right?
GOd bless,
Craig
Sorry. In rereading my post, I see where I meant to say that Catholics get new believers wet (baptized)…not their posteriors or the pews! Hopefully, those remain dry. 😊
Craig–
I can relate to (and agree with) much of what you’re saying here. My continuance in Protestantism, as you might suspect, gives me a different slant on things, however. I’ll probably have to write this in more than one posting. The kids are acting particularly needy today for some reason.
I myself grew up Lutheran, and I wouldn’t have been able to tell you when I became a Christian because I never had surrendered or repented or made the faith my own…whatever you feel like calling it. I simply went through the motions because that was what was expected of me.
Through Evangelicalism, I became a Christian, but I still wouldn’t be able to pin down a date. Most Evangelicals can’t. For scads and scads of us, it wasn’t a Damascus Road experience. It was, instead, surrender and repentance and trust and commitment. I’m guessing the Church Fathers actually speak of such things!
And some really do sound like Evangelicals in doing it. Here’s Augustine:
“I wanted to read no further, nor did I need to. For instantly, as the sentence ended, there was infused in my heart something like the light of full certainty and all the gloom of doubt vanished away.”
That sounds SO similar to Luther and Wesley and Pascal (and other famous testimonies of conversion). Augustine runs to tell his mother, and she “leaped for joy” at the news. (She didn’t leap for joy at his becoming a catechumen. She didn’t leap for joy at his baptism.)
There is a universe of difference between partaking of a sacrament and proceeding step by step through a ritual. So many RC’s and EO’s I encounter will not acknowledge the distinction.
The Bible is not really not an Arminian document, so there won’t be an emphasis on actively “finding Christ.” Instead, the blind GAIN their sight, the lost BECOME found, and the dead ARE MADE alive again.
We do exercise freedom of will, so you will find instances of hearkening to a knock on the door, of seeking the Lord with all our heart, of choosing this day whom we shall follow, or of repentantly returning home to a longsuffering father.
It sounds like blasphemy to me (and Pelagianistic, to boot) to disavow the work of the Holy Spirit in your life up to this point. (I think a baptism–or a chrismation, in your case–should be considered more of a seal than an initiation. You loved your wife and were committed to her before your wedding. A wedding is incredibly important. It makes everything official. It sets it in stone covenantally. I can see baptism as regenerational (if it represents the big picture of God’s relationship with us). But it cannot be seen as introducing us to the Spirit of God.
I loved my wife before I was married. But marriage changes things. Sacraments change things
A couple of final thoughts. Any system worth its salt should be 100% cogent within the paradigm itself. I imagine even RC and EO make sense to adherents. (To me, on so many issues, these churches say that A and non-A are both correct without the least attempt to systematize or explain. Just bare contradictions left to mystery or paradox. Way, way short of anything approaching coherence.)
What in the world does it mean to be “rooted in Christian history”? Even if we posit Protestantism as beginning in 1517…that is still an historical framework.
I can only assume you mean that RC and EO churches go back to the origins of Christendom. But this seriously begs the question. The POINT of the Reformation was that the Catholic Church had lost its way and DID NOT accurately represent the Apostolic Church any longer. Absolutely NONE of those tenets usually considered distinctively RC/EO are documented in the first three centuries of the church. No purgatory. No Marian devotion. No papacy (or monepiscopacy). No invocation of the saints. No transubstantiation.
I’m a Protestant BECAUSE its rootedness in apostolic history is more plausible than for Rome or Constantinople!
I agree with you, Craig. Sacraments change things….because the Holy Spirit works through them. They are certainly NOT just signs, just symbols.
But, for you, do RC sacraments change things? (Those perfidious schismatics?!) Do Protestant sacraments change things? (Those shoddy exegetes?!)
Or has the Holy Spirit abandoned us?
(…and only dwells with you and yours)?