tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6945988241484245731..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: In search of the criterion of truthRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79653086235937777232009-04-02T11:14:00.000-04:002009-04-02T11:14:00.000-04:00Steve,I've posted a reply in the comments on that ...Steve,<BR/><BR/>I've posted a reply in the comments on that thread.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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." <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>The rest of the piece displays these kinds of easily refuted mistakes.Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44802636378254088262009-04-02T09:30:00.000-04:002009-04-02T09:30:00.000-04:00Truth Unites... and Divides said..."I think this i...Truth Unites... and Divides said...<BR/><BR/>"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."<BR/><BR/>The Orthodox commenters I quoted were offering criteria. So the criteria are either virtuous or vicious.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64023284775628092132009-04-02T09:28:00.000-04:002009-04-02T09:28:00.000-04:00Fr. Maximus Says: “I think Romanides is onto the c...Fr. Maximus Says: <BR/><BR/>“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.”<BR/><BR/>http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/st-maximus-on-caesaropapism/#comment-8467<BR/><BR/>What is that supposed to mean?<BR/><BR/>The logical connection which “Fr. Maximus” is positing seems to be this: <BR/><BR/>i) To be a sure interpreter of Scripture you have to experience Scriptural truths<BR/>ii) Only the saints experience Scriptural truths.<BR/>iii) Ergo, the saints are the only sure interpreters of Scripture<BR/><BR/>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?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72414408652379888642009-04-02T01:40:00.000-04:002009-04-02T01:40:00.000-04:00Fr. Brian Harrison demonstrates the circularity of...Fr. Brian Harrison demonstrates the circularity of the Eastern Orthodox rule of faith in this article:<BR/><BR/>http://rtforum.org/lt/lt133.html#HarrisonBen Douglasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12251222044837915281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26312267061277156112009-04-02T00:06:00.000-04:002009-04-02T00:06:00.000-04:00Steve Hays: "Thus far I haven't' seen any of the ...<B>Steve Hays</B>: "Thus far I haven't' seen any of the Orthodox commenters offer a criterion that isn't viciously circular or viciously regressive."<BR/><BR/>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.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43464181157997888112009-04-01T12:29:00.000-04:002009-04-01T12:29:00.000-04:00"Doesn't this amount to saying the criterion of tr..."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?"<BR/><BR/>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.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.com