Authority

[Lucian]

This seems to me to be an extremely important topic. I doubt that I can do it justice, but I want to try anyway.

First off, let’s begin by agreeing that we all regard our Lord Jesus Christ as the Head of the Church. That is a given. But it seems to me that it does no practical good to say that in a discussion of earthly authority unless one means by it that he is receiving direct revelations from the Lord and therefore has a corner on knowledge of the divine will.

So, who or what is the authority for the Christian faith?

1. Is it the individual Christian?

After all, each of us had to evaluate the various religions of the world, at least to some extent, and choose Christianity, right?

Each of us will stand as an individual before the Judgment Seat of Christ, responsible for his or her beliefs and actions.

Does that make us, as individuals, the final arbiters of the truth?

In some sense it must, right?

What then? Having become Christians, do we continue evaluating the faith based on what we have learned and our impressions of it?

Upon finding the teaching of our parish priest or diocesan bishop in conflict with our own beliefs, do we change churches?

In terms of ultimate authority, if I as an individual decide what is or is not Christian truth, does it matter if I base my decisions solely upon the Bible, or upon the Bible plus some combination of other sources that I regard as authoritative, like the Church Fathers or my knowledge of Church history? In any case, is it not I, through my own private understanding of these sources, who am the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes the true Christian faith?

Do we belong to the Orthodox Church through common consent and provisionally; in other words, provided the Orthodox Church doesn’t appear to stray too much from our perception of what is true?

2. Is the Church the authority?

St. Paul called the Church “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

What did he mean by that?

Having come to the conclusion, as individuals, that Christianity is true, do we now accept the teachings of the Church - as represented by her current set of bishops - in every case, even when they conflict with our own private opinions?

Do we defer to the corporate wisdom of the Body of Christ or insist on our own correctness?

What if we really believe we are right?

Does it depend on how important the point at issue is?

If it is something important, does that mean that the body we had up until now regarded as the Church is not really the Church?

Has the Church become merely the small circle of those who agree with us?

Who or what is the Church?

How does she express what her teaching is?

Has she a living voice of authority, or must we read the whole of the Tradition to find out what her teaching is? If so, then doesn't our take on that reading become the authority?

Is the true Church easily identified?

If so, does her guaranteed infallibility and the presence of the Holy Spirit mean that we should defer to her whenever we find ourselves in conflict with her teachings?

We know from Church history of times when it seemed that a few saints were all that was left of the true Faith. One thinks of St. Athanasius and the other defenders of Nicene Orthodoxy who were persecuted by the Emperor Constantius when it seemed all the Eastern bishops were Arians. One thinks, too, of St. Maximus the Confessor and his friends, who faced three successive heretical patriarchs of Constantinople and a set of emperors bent on placating the Monophysites at the expense of the truth.

Of course, Sts. Athanasius and Maximus had recourse to Orthodox popes in Rome: St. Julius I in the case of St. Athanasius, and St. Martin I in the case of St. Maximus.

So what happens when it seems the whole Church has gone haywire?

Do we rely on ourselves and what we know about Scripture, the Fathers, the Liturgy, etc. - in sum, the Tradition?

Help me out here, guys.

I am not trying to formulate a position or argue one. I am asking some questions that have been on my mind for awhile. I am sure I will think of others after I have posted this.

What are your thoughts?

[joasia]

Lucian,

First we must follow the Seven Ecumenical Councils. They established the path for Christianity, before the Great Schism.

Then there is the definite line of Apostolic succession. This is a must. I have found that it has kept me clear on where the main path exists.

Also, the Nicene Creed, for comparing all the Christian denominations, is a perfect guiding rule.

I find that the "men of cloth" (in Orthodoxy) have had personal agendas which have caused the dilemmas we witness now. But, as it has happened in all the centuries passed, we see that not all clergymen are worthy of their duties. We tend to blend that in the same pot with the faith, but they are two completely different issues.

Don't forget about St. Mark of Ephesus, who stood up for the true faith. He went to the Council in Florence, not because he was going to follow all the other bishops, but because he was there to identify true Orthodoxy, where the other bishops wanted to bow down to the pope.

I don't remember the name of the pope, but when St. Mark refused to sign with the other bishops, the pope stated that since bishop Mark did not sign, all was in vain.

It is true that there was always a saint or two that stood up for Orthodoxy, in the past. I, myself, am wondering where the saints of our time are, who will shine the light for the path to be clear again.

I hope I have been of some help. Your question is not unique. I follow the above points to keep my mind straight about it.

I would prefer to read the holy fathers, along with the Bible, as they are pure in their teachings and closer to the event, than someone(layman) in the 21st century (or 20th). And any writings that come from an Orthodox saint, because they reflect the same faith, with no innovations.

[Lucian]

I don't disagree with you, Joasia, but I don't think you have answered my questions.

Who or what is the authority in the Christian Church?

I accept the Seven Ecumenical Councils, but how did those alive at the time of those councils know they were ecumenical and authoritative?

Many who called themselves Christians rejected them.

There have been many heretical councils that were supposed to be ecumenical, were convened by Byzantine emperors, and were attended by many bishops.

Are we to acquiesce in something because a great many bishops have endorsed it?

We believe the Church is infallible, but what do we mean by that?

What constitutes the Church when a plurality or even a majority of her bishops go astray? When they do go astray, of what use is the fact that their ordinations can be traced back to the Apostles?

Is there a definite way to identify the true Church, a set of guidelines for the confused?

What do we do when we find ourselves opposed to the views of many supposedly Orthodox bishops or even patriarchs?

Does that mean that we - like Protestants - think of ourselves and our private viewpoints as more authoritative than the hierarchs of the Church?

[joasia]

Lucian,

I feel that if I quote you, I will be able to answer each question clearly.

Who or what is the authority in the Christian Church?

The authority is the Seven Ecumenical Councils. They are the only legitimate authority on the establishment of the church.

but how did those alive at the time of those councils know they were ecumenical and authoritative?

From the 1st Ecumenical Council, in which, St. Nicholas was a participant, they proclaimed their decision as it was right by the Holy Spirit and therefore right by them. These were not ordinary men. The Holy Spirit led them as He did the Apostles. During this Council, the relic of Ephemia was present amongst them. They took the book of Arian and the Bible(that they compiled at that time) and put it in her coffin. They closed the lid and prayed. When the lid was opened, the book of Arian was under her feet and the Bible was cradled in her arms. God's will is revealed amongst the holy fathers. These are the same holy fathers that wrote so many edifying words of the truth of the Holy Faith of Christianity (before the Great Schism).

Many who called themselves Christians rejected them.

They call themselves Christian, but they are not.

There have been many heretical councils that were supposed to be ecumenical, were convened by Byzantine emperors, and were attended by many bishops.

You said it yourself...they were heretical. Therefore, not accepted.

Are we to acquiesce in something because a great many bishops have endorsed it?

If they are the bishops of the Seven Ecumenical Councils...yes.

We believe the Church is infallible, but what do we mean by that?

Orthodoxy states that Jesus Christ, the Head, is Perfect. The word "infallible" is a RC connotation.

What constitutes the Church when a plurality or even a majority of her bishops go astray? When they do go astray, of what use is the fact that their ordinations can be traced back to the Apostles?

If they go astray for dogmatic reasons, they become heretical and forfeit their connection to the Apostolic Succession. Example: the Great Schism. If they have their own personal agenda, the laity suffer, yes. But, many times, there have been, not so kind, Mets. or bishops in these positions. Still, the true path was enlightened by God's servants.

Is there a definite way to identify the true Church, a set of guidelines for the confused?

I listed them in my previous post.

What do we do when we find ourselves opposed to the views of many supposedly Orthodox bishops or even patriarchs?

Good question. Depends on the circumstance. We'll have to talk about those aspects with more details, if you want.

Does that mean that we - like Protestants - think of ourselves and our private viewpoints as more authoritative than the hierarchs of the Church?

That is the general temptation.

But, I will follow the authority of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Nicene Creed as the foundation, despite the confusions generated by the bishops in authority now. We can measure them (clergy) by the same Orthodox truth stick as I mentioned, because they have to answer to that authority too....and they know it.

In Christ, Joanna

[Lucian]

Joasia: The authority is the Seven Ecumenical Councils. They are the only legitimate authority on the establishment of the church.

I think you are missing the point, Joasia.

I agree that the Seven Councils are authoritative.

But now they are documents.

They must be read, understood, and interpreted.

Whose interpretation and understanding is authoritative?

There are some who say that those the Fathers anathematized at the councils can be "unanathematized" and rehabilitated.

There are those who say such a thing is impossible.

There are those who read the councils and see universal papal authority and jurisdiction in them.

Others disagree.

Who is right, and who decides?

Have you read all of the councils?

Must we all read them and decide for ourselves what they mean?

If we make the Councils authoritative in the way you seem to suggest - with ourselves as their interpreters - are we not erecting our own doctrine of Solum Conciliorum (forgive me if I have messed up the Latin) much like the Protestants' Sola Scriptura?

Don't get me wrong; I'm not arguing with you.

What I am getting at is some definition of authority that is not so subjective and that will not automatically lead to differences in interpretation.

Books and other documents cannot in and of themselves be authorities.

That is the fatal flaw in Sola Scriptura.

Someone must interpret them.

Is it up to each individual to read, interpret, and decide for him/herself?

[Aristokles]

Lucian,
You seem caught in a Protestant loop of sorts. As a note, trying to approach this from an individual's vantage is even more difficult and prone to circular thinking.
The Authority of the Church (the Bride) is the Pantokrator - the Bridegroom. Interpretation flows from Him through the Church guided by the Helper.

Demetri

[TomS]

The Authority of the Church (the Bride) is the Pantokrator - the Bridegroom. Interpretation flows from Him through the Church guided by the Helper.

Yes. But then the question is WHICH Orthodox Church -- and indeed, in some cases, WHICH Bishop and Priest in that Church?

Look at the GOA - so many different opinions on things.