Wednesday, April 01, 2009

In search of the criterion of truth

Fr. Maximus Says:
March 30, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Notice the ecclesiological implications of this passage. A local council is just as capable of defining the Orthodox faith as an Ecumenical council: the criterion of truth is not how many bishops agree to it, but whether it accords with the Apostolic teaching of the Church. Consequently, a local council is also competent to anathematize heretics. This is because the plenitude of the Church is found in each local Church.

http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/st-maximus-on-caesaropapism/#comment-8446

Doesn't that merely push the question back a step? By what criterion does he identify the Apostolic teaching of the Church?

NeoChalcedonian Says:
March 30, 2009 at 5:20 pm
“It is ____________ that gives authority to a council.”

Let’s survey some of the most well-known answers:

1. the Emperor
2. Universal reception by local churches
3. Papal approval
4. Incorporation into Liturgy
5. Orthodoxy of its teaching

(1) might be true in a strictly legal sense (Roman law), but (5) is the only correct answer with respect to dogmatic authority, (2)-(4) are at best noteworthy potential signs/effects of (5). How (5) is identified/proven is a separate question.


http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/st-maximus-on-caesaropapism/#comment-8450

Doesn't this amount to saying the criterion of truth is true teaching? Does that make the content its own criterion? Do you determine true teaching by a criterion of truth, or by true content?

photios Says:
March 30, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Yep, brings us back to the question of how we identify Orthodoxy, especially when institutions have been co-opted.

http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/st-maximus-on-caesaropapism/#comment-8451

And how does he propose to answer that question?

Fr. Maximus Says:
March 30, 2009 at 5:59 pm
(5) Precisely. I think the solution is not formulaic, but involves looking to see whether there is fidelity to the entirety of tradition. This does not mean that it devolves in a Protestant sense onto the judgment of the individual, however. The consensus patrum is generally pretty clear, and whenever a heresy arises it involves either rejecting part of tradition or exaggerating one element or one father over the rest. So nestorianism is based on Theodore of Mopsuestia to the exclusion of the others; monophysitism is based on St. Cyril to the exclusion of the other Fathers; Papism is based on St. Augustine to the exclusion of the other Fathers. Iconoclasm and Protestantism simply reject tradition or part of it. Exclusion could also mean that the other Fathers are read through the lenses of or subordinated to the favorite authority.

http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/st-maximus-on-caesaropapism/#comment-8452

i) By what criterion does he identify this or that individual as a church father?

ii) By what criterion does he identify the entirely of tradition?

iii) By what criterion does he distinguish orthodox tradition from heterodox tradition?

NeoChalcedonian Says:
March 30, 2009 at 8:33 pm
The words of Scripture presuppose a knowledge of and participation in the original Apostolic community’s shared paradigmatic structure of worship, thought and new life in Christ (the rest of Holy Tradition) that is made possible and preserved by Church alone. Bishops, Synods and the Holy Fathers have the potential to speak infallibly singly and collectively concerning the original content of the Apostles’ written and oral teaching insofar as members of God’s body; the living Head of which is Christ. No one formulaic procedural action or mechanism signals or necessitates the activation of this divine power.

http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/st-maximus-on-caesaropapism/#comment-8453

i) So Jews like Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zecharias didn't have or grasp the words of Scripture?

ii) How does he identify the structure of worship of the original Apostolic community?

iii) Since all Christians are members of the body of Christ, under the headship of Christ, how does that single out bishops, synods, and holy fathers to the exclusion of other members of the body?

iv) Isn't his denial of a "formulaic procedure or mechanism" just a euphemistic admission that he has no objective criterion of truth?

Fr. Maximus Says:
March 30, 2009 at 10:48 pm
It is not a tautology. What he means is that there is no external factor which can garrantee that a council is valid. In this case he is referring to approval by an emperor, but the logic applies equally well to say the Pope: pace the Roman apologists, if St. Maximus had really believed in Papal supremecy as is claimed he simply would have stated here that papal approval is the litmus test for a council’s Orthodoxy. But instead he says that the only thing that garrantees a council’s orthodoxy is whether or not it has expressed what the Church has always believed. So… the faith of the Church never changes at all.

http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/st-maximus-on-caesaropapism/#comment-8456

What the church always believes. Would that be a historical criterion? What about various controversies like iconoclasm or hesychasm? What did the church always believe?

Thus far I haven't' seen any of the Orthodox commenters offer a criterion that isn't viciously circular or viciously regressive.

6 comments:

  1. "Doesn't this amount to saying the criterion of truth is true teaching? Does that make the content its own criterion? Do you determine true teaching by a criterion of truth, or by true content?"

    I suppose a Protestant could say that and mean, "A council or creed has authority to the extent that it rightly represents Scripture." But it seems unlikely that this is what he meant.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve Hays: "Thus far I haven't' seen any of the Orthodox commenters offer a criterion that isn't viciously circular or viciously regressive."

    I think this is where the Eastern Orthodox protest mightily against the rigor of Protestant logic, claiming that it's an "artificial imposition" upon the sacred mysteries of liturgical worship and theology, and/or also making esoteric appeal to apophatic (sp?) theology by which to dismiss claims of vicious circularity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fr. Brian Harrison demonstrates the circularity of the Eastern Orthodox rule of faith in this article:

    http://rtforum.org/lt/lt133.html#Harrison

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fr. Maximus Says:

    “I think Romanides is onto the central point with respect to the saints. The saints are the norm for Orthodoxy, both in the sense that Christians are supposed to be saints and in the sense that they are the only sure interpreters of scripture and doctrine because they have experienced the truth.”

    http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/st-maximus-on-caesaropapism/#comment-8467

    What is that supposed to mean?

    The logical connection which “Fr. Maximus” is positing seems to be this:

    i) To be a sure interpreter of Scripture you have to experience Scriptural truths
    ii) Only the saints experience Scriptural truths.
    iii) Ergo, the saints are the only sure interpreters of Scripture

    But in what possible sense have the saints personally experienced all the truths of Scripture? Consider a few Scriptural truths: the six days of creation; the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden; the flood; the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; the burning bush, the Egyptian bondage; the ten plagues of Egypt; the Red Sea crossing; the manna from heaven; the water from the rock; the fall of Jericho; Samson and Delilah; David and Bathsheba; the translation of Elijah, Daniel in the lion’s den; Jonah and the whale; the miracle at Cana; the feeding of the 5000; walking on water, Paul’s imprisonment, &c. Did the saints travel back in time and witness these events? Does Eastern Orthodoxy subscribe to reincarnation?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Truth Unites... and Divides said...

    "I think this is where the Eastern Orthodox protest mightily against the rigor of Protestant logic, claiming that it's an 'artificial imposition' upon the sacred mysteries of liturgical worship and theology, and/or also making esoteric appeal to apophatic (sp?) theology by which to dismiss claims of vicious circularity."

    The Orthodox commenters I quoted were offering criteria. So the criteria are either virtuous or vicious.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve,

    I've posted a reply in the comments on that thread.

    Ben, Fr. Harrison does no such thing. The first sign that he isn't well informed is that he cites Ware's book as an "authoritative source" on Orthodox teaching on contraceptives. If that as he declares is his "main source" of information on Orthodoxy, you can bet the rest of his criticisms fail to hit their target.

    Take for example his claim that Orthodoxy isn't catholic in the original sense of the term since say in Austrailia it functions as something of an ethnic enclave. Well katholicos doesn't refer to encompassing the enthicity of the English or geography, but to the faith according to the whole. Fr. Harrison doesn't seem to know what the term means. And by his own standard, Rome wasn't Catholic at least until the discovery of the New World, if not the 20th century when it had the kind of "cultural universality and openness" that he thinks makes a body "catholic."

    More to the point, his representation of Orthodox teaching onf what constitutes an ecumenical council is actually a later Slavophile theory via Khomiakov, which is in fact not representative of Orthodox teaching. The idea that reception by the "whole church" is some kind of private recognition by each Christian was a product of the slavophile enchantment with German Idealism, which is why such views were censured in Russia.

    Further his insistence of Roman approval/acceptance as a sufficient condition will cause him problems since it will include the condemnation of the filioque in the council of the 880. Not only that, but it is directly contradicted by the 5th council with the excommunication of Vigilius.

    As for Lyons and Florence, in a nutshell Fr. Harrison simply has the facts wrong. Lyon had no represention from anyof the Eastern sees and on Florence not all of the participants signed and many who did, did so under duress or bribery from the Pope.

    The rest of the piece displays these kinds of easily refuted mistakes.

    ReplyDelete