Here's a great example of why I am not an Evidentialist, Quasi-Evidentialist, or - for that matter - Romanist:
(link).
The portion of the post of interest is the account of the people who were tricked into thinking that they had been legally married when, in fact, they had not.
Our senses are generally reliable, but they do not always provide true information.
-Turretinfan
Post Script - A special note to Roman Catholic readers:
While this "priest" apparently "eventually" told the people that they were not married, it is certainly at least conceivable that there is at least one psychopathic person out there impersonating a Roman Catholic priest or even bishop on a daily basis, with no plan to reveal the truth. That priest may even be the one who married (maybe I should put "married") you and your spouse, who hears your confessions, and who will perform last rites for you.
If it turns out that the priest is a fraud, then none of the bread you ate was the body of Christ (nor was the wine his body), you have lived in unconfessed and unrepetant adultery (in fact all of your sins are unconfessed), and you will have died (without intending to do so) in a state of final impenitance. There is, one supposes, even a real question about whether you were ever baptized, since baptism by a non-believer has not traditionally been considered a valid baptism. [One dear reader has noted some ambiguity here: to be clear, Rome has not traditionally considered baptisms by non-Christians to be valid baptisms. Most protestants do not concen themselves with the question of baptismal validity.]
The point is this, if you think that participation in the sacraments is a necessary part of salvation, and if you agree that sacraments performed by a faux priest are not valid, you can have only a tenuous assurance of salvation.
And that is not Christianity. Salvation does not depend on human merit, human activity, or the faithfulness of the men who administer sacraments. Salvation depends on the action of God alone.
Think about it. If you trust in Christ alone for salvation, you have only the risk that Christ is a fraud, and God has revealed to us that Christ is the Way, the Life, and most importantly (in this context) the Truth. Confess your sins to God, not to someone who claims to be his vicar, whose claim you can never be sure about. Of course, we still confess our faults to one another, but do not place your reliance for salvation on the faithfulness of any man except Christ the one who is both God and Man in two distinct natures and one person. Only He can save you from your sins, and confidence in Him alone is sure.
-Turretinfan
UPDATE: Chinese Catholics can breathe a sigh of relief that this bishop bears the Vatican seal of approval (link). Some folks, however, will focus on the fact that the mitre that the bishop is wearing has six boxes, six vertical line segments, and six horizontal line segments (depending on how you count them). Even if that were intended to mean what it most likely is not intended to mean, that would be a very minor point contrasted with trust folks have in the man that wears the mitre.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
It's trivial to find out if a priest is a real one. And no impersonator can get away with it long, because they won't be in touch with the bishop. And the identity of the bishop is well known to all.
Dear Orthodox,
It's relatively easy to check for obvious frauds. It's harder to tell about more devious frauds. Even bishops can be tricked, bribed, blackmailed, and/or intimidated.
-Turretinfan
Also, dear Orthodox,
As a demonstration of the ease with which one can find out if a priest is real or not...
Please tell me whether the Soviet-appointed patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Churches in lands occupied by the Soviet Union were real bishops or not.
-Turretinfan
Well, in perhaps a difference to what Rome would say, Orthodoxy would say that the validity of the bishop or priest ultimately comes down to his serving in the true church. The grace of the church is all sufficient to overcome any technical difficulties.
To give an example, I've even heard of bishops giving permission for Orthodox to attend non-Orthodox services because there is no other church for a thousand miles, and because of the blessing of the church, that person was considered to be receiving valid sacrament, whereas everyone else eating the same bread was not.
Or another example: If Anglicans en-masse wanted to become Orthodox, there would not necessarily need to be an en-masse re-ordination. Their acceptance into the Church is enough, because the Church's grace is all sufficient to bind and loose what it will.
So if faithful Christians recognised these patriarchs, and the real bishop recognises a fake priest, then they become in effect real, because the church says so.
Dear Orthodox,
I think it would be challenging (to say the least) to find Orthodox authority that is allegedly infallible that supports what you just stated.
It might be possible to find an individual bishop who would say such things (and I've heard similar things), but that's not the teaching of "the Church."
Still, if you have some links or citations, it would be great (for at least this reader) to learn a bit more.
-Turretinfan
Well, it isn't hard to find plenty of Orthodox sources which essentially state this. e.g.:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/schmem_canon.aspx
"It would not be difficult to show that the canonical tradition, when dealing with holy orders and sacraments, always stresses that they are valid because they are acts of, and within, the Church which means that it is their authenticity as acts of the Church that make them valid and not vice-versa."
The problem is you are approaching Orthodoxy with a Western scholastic mindset asking for an "infallible" source. Whereas Orthodoxy would echo the words of John Chrysostom: "It is Tradition, look no further".
Of course, the whole problem that you pose is born of the same scholastic mindset.
Dear Orthodoxy,
Whether or not Chrysostom said that (or meant what modern "Orthodox" believers mean by that), in order for "Tradition" to be of value, it must be identifiable.
Not every saying of every "Orthodox" bishop can be correct, as they frequently disagree with one another.
So the question is: "Is that the teaching of the Church," or just a teaching of a churchman.
The article you point out is especially illustrative of the difficulty, especially as the author is calling for reform of the American Orthodox church(es).
And the call for reform is important to the author because (though it is not identified in the article, that I noticed) the ancient canons of the ecumenical councils declare "one bishop, one city" but in America many cities have several "Orthodox" bishops (one Greek, one Russian, one Bulgarian, one ROCOR, one Antiochan, one Ukranian, and so on and so forth).
The question in response to the assetion, "It's tradition, accept it," is, "Yes, but is it really tradition?"
The answer, "I'm your bishop, I say so," can receive the response, "How do I know that you are a bishop?"
Simply answering "Bah, scholasticism," doesn't answer these questions, nor does it get to the heart of the problem, namely that it is not the Church, but Christ who saves (no matter what churchmen may have claimed to the contrary).
-Turretinfan
I don't get it. Are you saying the canons of the ecumenical councils are not identifiable? Or do you think that Orthodox are in some doubt about the ecumenical councils standing as authentic tradition?
Orthodox wrote: "I don't get it. Are you saying the canons of the ecumenical councils are not identifiable? Or do you think that Orthodox are in some doubt about the ecumenical councils standing as authentic tradition?"
I respond:
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying:
Not every saying of every "Orthodox" bishop can be correct, as they frequently disagree with one another.
So the question is: "Is that the teaching of the Church," or just a teaching of a churchman.
-Turretinfan
Is what the teaching of the church? The ecumenical councils? I thought that was the topic. If not, what? Maybe if you identify something more concrete...
You asked (I think) for the referrent of "that" in:
"Is that the teaching of the church or a churchman?"
I was using it generically as to any proposition one hears from an "Orthodox" source, such as a lay apologist, local bishop, or writing attributed to a "church father."
Try re-reading the last few exchanges with that clarification in mind.
-Turretinfan
Post a Comment