A friend asked me about an argument against Catholicism raised by Fr. Viktor Potapov, an Orthodox priest based here in D.C., in Chapter Ten of his Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy. The argument essentially says that the early Church believed in conciliar infallibility, but that the West replaced this idea with papal infallibility. Fr. Potapov first explains that, “since the opinion of the whole Church is made manifest at Ecumenical Councils, the Ecumenical Councils are the infallible custodians and interpreters of Divine Revelation.” Catholics agree with this, but Fr. Potapov claims that papal infallibility undermines this idea:
This view of the infallibility of the universal Church, which comes from Christ and His apostles, was common in Christianity during the course of the first centuries and remained unchanged in the Orthodox Church. But in the West, side by side with other deviations, this view of the infallibility of the Church also under-went distortion. The Roman bishop was always considered one of the members of the council, and he submitted to its decisions. But, in the course of time, the pope of Rome began to attribute the privilege of ecclesiastical infallibility to himself alone and, after long efforts, finally secured the recognition of his absurd pretension at the Vatican Council of 1870.
This distorts Catholic teaching badly: we don’t believe that only the pope is infallible. The reason that Orthodox apologists will be able to find innumerable instances of Ecumenical Councils acting infallibly is because Ecumenical Council can act infallible. Catholicism affirms this, and always has. So this argument doesn’t prove the case against the papacy at all.
 |
| Peter Paul Rubens, Christ Surrendering the Keys to St. Peter (1614) |
In other words, it’s a false choice between papal infallibility and conciliar infallibility. We believe in both. And Scripture seems to support both, as well. Let me give you a couple examples from the Bible, where we see parallel Petrine and conciliar infallibility / authority:
- In Acts 15, the Apostles settle the dispute over the Judaizers by organizing the Council of Jerusalem. Did the Council have the capacity and authority to settle this dispute? Yes (see Acts 15:28).
- In Acts 10:1-11-18, St. Peter (on his own) settled a nearly-identical dispute involving the Judaizers. Did St. Peter individually have the capacity and authority to settle this dispute? Yes (see Acts 10:44).
So it’s not “God works through St. Peter” or “God works through the Council.” He works through both. Next:
- In Matthew 18:15-18, Jesus gives the Church collectively the power to bind and loosen.
- In Matthew 16:17-19, Jesus gives St. Peter individually the power to bind and loosen.
Even more than the first, this second example reflects the two distinct (but interconnected) ways that the Holy Spirit works: through the Petrine Office, and through the Ecumenical Council. That is, why is Matthew 16:17-19 in Scripture, if it’s not just redundant of Matthew 18:15-18?
But let me go ahead and turn this objection on its head. Three things to consider:
- The papacy is necessary for the existence of a valid Ecumenical Council. Without the papacy, there is no objective reason to accept the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.), while rejecting the Second Council of Ephesus (449 A.D.). More on this subject here, here, and here.
As further proof, how many Ecumenical Councils has the East have since they broke off from Rome? Nobody knows, including the Orthodox themselves: some say none, some say two. Without the pope, there’s no way of even determining if a Council is Ecumenical or not.
On the other hand, we can tell you how many Ecumenical Councils the Church has had since the schism: fourteen, for a total of twenty-one.
- The First Vatican Council is an Ecumenical Council. This is an obvious point, but one that gets overlooked. Not only do Ecumenical Councils not disprove papal infallibility, but they prove it. If you accept Vatican I as an Ecumenical Council, you have to accept papal infallibility as well, since Vatican I tells you to.
- The Orthodox, in rejecting the papacy, act contrary to the Ecumenical Councils. Obviously they reject the First Vatican Council. But that’s not what I mean. I mean that even the first Seven (pre-schism) Ecumenical Councils, lay out papal primacy unambiguously.
Canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople in 381 says, “Let the Bishop of Constantinople, however, have the priorities of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because of its being New Rome.” Constantinople’s authority was (a) always secondary to Rome’s, and (b) always based off of its relationship to Rome.
Phillip Schaff, the Protestant historian, remarked: “Even the last clause, it would seem, could give no offence to the most sensitive on the papal claims, for it implies a wonderful power in the rank of Old Rome, if a see is to rank next to it because it happens to be ‘New Rome.’” More on that here.
That is, as of 381, the whole Church was ready to acknowledge Rome as the Primal See. How, then, can the Orthodox justify breaking away from this See in 1054? It seems to me that any answer would devolve into “you have to follow the primal see only if you happen to agree.” But that’s the exact logic that brings us to Evangelicalism’s theological anarchy.
 |
| Peter Paul Rubens, Saint Peter (1612) |
So if you see the need for Ecumenical Councils, you should equally see the need for the papacy (the office that makes such Councils possible and enforceable).
 |
| The Council of Trent |
So, where there is confusion about the validity of a certain papal claimant, the Church can clarify it at Council; likewise, where there is confusion about the validity of a certain Council, the pope can clarify it. This rightly mirrors the relationship God’s own Sovereignty works: the Father endorses the Son (John 5:31-32; Matthew 17:5), and the Son reveals the Father (John 14:7-9).
Each Person of the Trinity is wholly Sovereign, but there’s no risk of contradiction because they are in Divine harmony. Likewise, we don’t have to worry about papal infallibility and conciliar infallibility contradicting, since they’re similarly in harmony (governed, as each are, by the Holy Spirit). These objections are from mere man’s way of thinking, not Christ’s.
Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but didn’t the Council of Florence (1442) clearly state Papal Infallibility? The East attended the Council (unlike Vatican I) and agreed to it, only to later reject it. But, if an Ecumenical Council is infallible, who would have the authority (in the East) to later reject what the Bishops (including Eastern Orthodox Bishops) agreed to at Florence? Thus, by their own logic, they should accept the decrees of the Council of Florence and return to communion with Rome.
even if you find a clause here or there that gave primacy to the bishop of Rome, you have to weigh it against the fact that every local synod had a primus inter pares clause. Any group of bishops could appeal to an outside observer to be an objective sounding board. This went up the line to the highest sees. So Constantinople could arbtrate as primus inter pares between antioch and alexandria given this principle of appeal to an objective outsider. It is also clearly stated in the Nicea canons that “old Rome shal serve as first among equals to abritrate disputes because it had been the capital of the ancient Roman empire.” But so what? there is nothing theological,or ontological. And even if we do find Rome stepping in here or there,it does not mean Rome decided things. If two students have a difficulty and get into a fight, a class room teacher will step in a break up the fight. It does not mean that students ontology is determined by the teacher, or that the students cannot have any independentt thought and must follow anything the teacher says.
I think a student’s ontology is exactly determined by the teacher, unless you are saying that ordination is merely accidental?
Is baptism merely accidental?
I guess what I’m saying is that metaphor seems to need some clarification to me.
The Emperor went. The Bishops went. But the person with primacy stayed home, and sent his legates.
The Emperor went. The Bishops went. But the person with primacy stayed home, and sent his legates.
The Orthodox reject Florence because it was politically motivated and almost universally rejected by the people and renounced by many of the bishops who attended. It seems to me that the Orthodox judge the councils based on how they are received and lived out in the life of the church. Nicea had staying power, Florence didn’t.
Joe, your statement that the Orthodox don’t know how many councils there are can easily boomerang on you, since Catholics are similarly uncertain about which papal statements are infallible.
Regarding Peter and the council acting against Judaizers, I don’t see how this proves that Peter’s authority was different in kind than that of the other apostles. Even today, can’t bishops suppress practices or speak on doctrine without papal sanction?
a teachers’s ontolocial essence as as much determined by the student as visa versa. The kind of control, or dominance I should say, Roman Caholics are interested in anachronistically reading into the tradition and re-establishing today is actually not somehting I am opposed to. The Romans would stand back, with their less theologically and liturgically rich tradition, and when they saw that the entire church had come up with the truth, Rome would recognize it, and go “yeah, yeah this is the truth.” So it might be good for the Vatican to go back to this model actually. What with all the guitar strumming masses, the misunderstanding of clerical celibacy, the throwing out of any meaningiful Lenten fasting etc.
The infallibility of popes and councils is refuted by the Council of Trent which declared that only the Vulgate represented the authorized canonical text of Scripture. The Vulgate’s mistranslation of Gen. 3:15(“she shall crush his head”) demonstrates the fallibility of both the council and the pope who approved it.
BTW, Joe, I could not respond to your challenge of my post on the Canon Question because there is now no place to comment. I have a response if you are interested. – Lojahw
Lojahw,
Sorry for the delay in responding. It looks like other commenters already covered most or all of what I was going to say in response, so I’ll keep it relatively brief:
1) The Council of Trent never declared the Vulgate an infallible translation, and even acknowledged that it (and every translation) contained errors. This lead to the Revised (or Sistine) Vulgate in 1590.
Your entire argument is based upon a logical leap: that since the Vulgate was, for many years, the only “authorized version” of Scripture, that therefore, it must have been considered an infallibly perfect translation. This is wrong: rather, it was considered the best available translation.
The Council of Trent clearly says the opposite of this. The conciliar texts acknowledged both (a) that other translations of Scripture existed, and (b) that it was possible to screw up any translation. For these reasons, the Council decreed that, “henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible” (ut posthac Sacra Scriptura, potissimum vero haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quam emendatissime imprimatur). That’s a far cry from what you’re thinking Trent said.
In response to this, one of the first things that the Church did after Trent was revise the Vulgate to make it a more perfect translation, with the Vulgata Sixtina appearing in 1590. This clearly shows that, not did the Council of Trent not suggest that the Vulgate was already perfect, the Church immediately took steps to correct known errors… precisely because it was the version being authorized for liturgical use.
Additionally, the Bishop of Fano explained what was (and wasn’t) intended in declaring the Vulgate to be the sole authorized translation of Scripture: “The Council does not wish to reject all the texts of Sacred Scripture with the exception of the Vulgate. Such versions as the Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion are not to be rejected or frowned upon. Because of the variant readings the commission urged the acceptance of one translation as authentic and prescribed its use for the Church. The commission selected the Vulgate of St. Jerome, because it is better than the other translations and because of its long and continued usage in the Church.”
That is, the problem was that there wasn’t a single Latin version of Scripture being used Liturgically, and so they authorized the most perfect one available for use in church. For this same reason, this decree never bound the Eastern Catholic Churches, since it was specific to which Latin translation was the best (and the Eastern Churches didn’t, and don’t, use Latin liturgically). How is this different from someone thinking of the KJV as the “Authorized Version,” while acknowledging that it contains minor flaws?
As for the part about the Council requiring all of the parts of each of the Vulgate Books to be accepted as canonical, the meaning is obvious: that the Church considers canonical the longer version of the Books of Daniel, Esther, Jeremiah, etc. The context makes it abundantly clear that Trent was not declaring each and every word choice to be infallible or inspired.
So conciliar infallibility isn’t going to rise or fall on whether you can find a flaw in one of the various versions of the Vulgate (say that three times fast).
2) You haven’t shown the Vulgate version of Genesis 3:15 to be false.
You’ve declared the Vulgate translation of Genesis 3:15 to be false. And when Daniel suggested that “as I read Gesenius’s Lexicon on the word ‘shuwph’, assigning male gender as a reference to Christ to the object of the verb in Gen 3:15 is ‘purely neologian,’” you responded arrogantly: “Daniel, you obviously know nothing about Hebrew or the text of Gen. 3:15.” But hubris isn’t convincing, nor is it the mark of someone with command of his argument.
What we do know is that St. Jerome, looking at the evidence available to him at the time, believed that Genesis 3:15 was most accurately translated, “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” Of this same Jerome, you have said that, “[o]f the early church fathers, only Jerome was trilingual,” and that St. Hilary of Poitiers “didn’t understand Jewish tradition as Jerome did.” So when you want him to be, Jerome is a brilliant polygot who singularly understands Jewish Scriptural tradition. You can talk down to Daniel, but on what basis can you now talk down to (or about) St. Jerome?
Put another way, on what basis can you say that Jerome didn’t understand the Hebrew as well as you do? And how can you know that he didn’t just have access to now-extinct manuscripts that you don’t? After all, the oldest copies of the Masoretic Text date from the 9th and 10th century A.D., about a half millennium after Jerome. And as Daniel notes, in other contexts (cf. Isaiah 7:14), we have no trouble saying that Jerome is right, and the MT wrong.
Additionally, look at the broader context of Genesis 3:15. There are two conflicts mentioned, not one: (1) the Woman v. the Serpent, and (2) the Seed of the Woman v. the Seed of the Serpent. This is unambiguous, and every English translation notes this distinction. So if there is an ambiguity about who crushed the Serpent, it’s not unreasonable to ask: who does Scripture say is fighting the Serpent in the first place?
Having said all of that, I concede that Genesis 3:15 is ambiguous, and note that the latest version of the Vulgate uses the neuter pronoun. For that reason, to my knowledge, I’ve never tried to use the second half of that sentence to support any Marian doctrines. That brings me to my last point:
3) The Pronoun Choice in Genesis 3:15 is Irrelevant for the Marian Doctrines. Regardless of how you render the second half of Genesis 3:15, the Church’s Marian doctrines easily stand.
The Woman, a type of Mary, is still (unambiguously) depicted as battling the Satan, as I just mentioned (Genesis 3:15; Rev. 12). Mary is still depicted as the Ark of the New Covenant, as the Builder of the New Temple, and perhaps most importantly, as the New Woman (or New Eve). That is, whether it’s the New Adam or the New Eve who crushes the Serpent is tangential to the fact that Mary is the New Eve.
The extreme purity of the Ark, the requirement that the Builder of the Temple have clean hands, and Eve’s lack of original sin all point to Mary’s sinlessness, and thus, to the Immaculate Conception. Likewise, the parallel between the Woman/Serpent battle in Genesis 3:15 and Rev. 12 point to Mary. And Rev. 12 depicts the New Woman as enthroned in Heaven (see Rev. 12:1), which supports the doctrine of the Assumption.
Remember that St. Irenaeus of Lyons, in 180 A.D. (well before Jerome’s birth), argued both that it was Christ who crushed the head of Satan and that Mary was the New Eve who, through obedience to God, became “the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.” Clearly, his view that Gen. 3:15 referred to Christ crushing the head of Satan didn’t cause him to overlook the connection between Eve and Mary, or the important that connection held.
So Jerome’s translation of Genesis 3:15 has had an impact on popular Catholic art, but it certainly didn’t lead to the creation of any new Catholic doctrines. At worst, it’s like Moses’ horns, a harmless Scriptural error.
God bless,
Joe
A few quick post-Scripts:
P.S. I clearly don’t know what “relatively brief” means. Sorry.
P.P.S. To keep this from getting completely out of control, let’s try and focus this comment thread on conciliar infallibility, and the Genesis 3:15 issue specifically, rather than diverting towards the tangential issues related to the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, papal infallibility, Mary, or our earlier discussion on the canon.
P.P.P.S. I’ll go ahead and do a post, time permitting, within the next day or two, addressing your “bulls eye” theory of the creation of the canon. If you would, save your response for the comments there, and we can pick it up a bit more seamlessly, without everything becoming a muddled mess. To that end, how should I refer to you in the post? Just as “a commenter calling himself Lojahw”? I assume you have a real name, but I confess that I don’t know it.
God bless!
16th century Bishop of Fano quotes reside at the tip of Joe’s tongue.
Latenter, for some reason your post just brought an image to my mind of Joe typing all that on a mobile while rushing down a busy sidewalk eating a chili-dog 😀
There can be no doubt that he *could* have done it that way. I’m pretty sure he did it on a mobile he was hiding from the court under a massive stack of litigation documents seconds before he had to give an opening statement, however.
Has to be a doctrinal question for infallability to apply, Lojahw, so the statement as to the accuracy of translation which is apparently ipsum vs ipsa isn’t relevant. The church always has the authority to declare something binding on the faithful without declaring such a thing infallibly, i.e. the rules for fasting which answers one of Malcom’s statements above, the last part of that statement: “What with all the guitar strumming masses, the misunderstanding of clerical celibacy, the throwing out of any meaningiful Lenten fasting etc.” which is another irrelevant assertion. And as to the East having a more theologically and liturgically rich tradition, the West has all of the East’s traditions and theology (here is a list men the Catholic Church considers our Church Fathers)and even more. This isn’t going to be popular, brother, but all the Orthodox I’ve met/read have identified themselves, not by their ‘Orthodoxy’ but by what they didn’t like about what Rome did or does. That’s not to say that is a philosophically sound argument to make but then again neither is the argument against, just tit for tat I suppose. And so what if Rome’s control and dominance developed through the centuries, that doesn’t refute the point that Rome always had preeminence, which was the point in question. If you want to say that infallability was reinserted anachronistically, fair enough, the gnostics and arians can lay the same charge against early conciliar statements, after all didn’t most of the Bishops adhere to heresy at the time of the arian controversy? The same point about the declarations of ecumenical councils applies, who determines? I guess I’ve just grown a little weary of Orthodox complaints against Catholicism so instead I’ll just ask, instead of Catholics pointing to statements in Tradition by various Fathers to develop the doctrine of Infallibility, please point to some Church Fathers who viewed the idea of Roman preeminence, because at least that wasn’t anachronistically inserted, as heresy please, at least to advance this stagnant (dare I say millineal) debate. I can’t really argue against nebulous points based on your authority except to question your authority, which is a little rude of me.
For some specifics on the development of infallability here is the Catholic Encyclopedia article which also treats papal infallability:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
The list of Catholic Church Fathers was omitted, sorry:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
Your “list of Catholic Church Fathers” is in fact a list of authors included in an Anglican publication of Early Church literature (ANF and NPNF). The Roman Church uses the term “Father” very differently from the Orthodox.
Now on to CJ’s point, that the Catholic Church should treat a Pope’s statement with reverence is true, that everything the Pope says is infallible is not. We do know that the Pope has spoken infallably with regard to Immaculate Conception and Assumption. With regard to less definite formulae for speaking infallably read the article above with regard to “Ordinary Magisterium” and the development of infallable teaching through the same. The Pope’s statements that do not invoke the explicit formula for infallability are not really considered to be infallible, for the same reason. Here’s what infallability ‘Ex Cathedra’ looks like:
(from Ineffabilis Deus)
‘Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own:
“”””We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
[Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.]””””””
Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.’
Hope that helps.
Get all the Catholics who are obedient to the Magisterium to agree on when and where the pope is infallible (i.e. what the Magisterium actually is), and then you can tell the Orthodox why it’s so necessary/useful.
Thanks for your response, Ryan, however, you must admit that Trent’s pronouncement on the canonical text, specifically text that reads “she shall crush his head” has had significant doctrinal implications. Indeed, how different might your Mariology be today (compare with the Orthodox) without the Vulgate mistranslation?
Acts. 5:1-6 – Peter passes judgment on Ananias and his wife for their incorrect behavior as disciples.
Acts. 1:20-26 – By word of Peter, a new bishop/apostle is chosen by lots under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Acts. 15:7-12 – Peter resolves a doctrinal issue. After Peter spoke, all were silent. Paul and Barnabas then speak in support.
Mt. 16:17 – Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.
Mt. 16:16; Mk. 8:29; Jn. 6:69 – Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.
Gal. 1:18 – Paul spends fifteen days with Peter before beginning his ministry, even after Christ’s revelation to Paul.
Mt. 16:18 – Jesus builds the Church only on Peter with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.
Mt. to Rev. – Peter is mentioned more times and all other apostles combined. Peter is always listed first but for two obvious exceptions
Mt. 17:24-25 – Peter is asked for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.
You slightly reworked Acts 15. It is true that when Peter spoke the gathering were silent. However they were equally silent when Paul spoke.
You link this yourself!
Acts 15:12 And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
That’s called being polite.
If Paul spoke ‘in support’ what was the point? Surely by your logic Peter gave the definitive statement. That should have been a case of ‘Rome has spoken, the case is closed!’ 😉
Paul’s speaking thus becomes superfluous.
However James himself says he is the one making the decision – based on what Peter, the scripture, etc. all say.
As to building on the Apostles, that is a continuaiton of the idea of ‘Rock’ – they are the foundation and Christ the chief corner-STONE.
(Ephesians 2:20)
That is Jesus too is a ‘rock’ (or stone).
Another problem with your apology is this strange fact “Mt. to Rev. – Peter is mentioned more times and all other apostles combined. Peter is always listed first but for two obvious exceptions”
Why are they obvious exceptions? How then is it a rule if there are exceptions?
” [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority…”
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (A.D. 180)
“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.”
Pope St. Clement of Rome, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians (A.D. 96)
BTW, Ryan, Here is the text from the Council of Trent, Session 4. – “But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”
Since when is an anathema not a doctrinal matter?
It seems to me that this is anathematizing Luther’s practice of cutting out the Deuterocanon and portions of other books. So the Church is here saying that you must take all the books in their complete form as, for example, the Vulgate does. It is not getting at the translation/interpretation found in the Vulgate. So even if the interpretation were false, this wouldn’t show that this statement by the Church is wrong.
When 1L’s are taught to interpret statutes they are told that to properly do so they must consider the problem the statute is addressing, otherwise the plasticity of language can throw you into all sorts of crazy interpretations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._X-Citement_Video for an example of SCOTUS employing this technique. And we need to apply it to understand this. This is a counter Reformational anathema and when it is understood as such, one can see that it is not claiming that the Vulgate perfectly translates the Hebrew (if there even is such a thing as “perfect translation,” which there isn’t, which is another reason why this is a moot point).
Even if true, I’m not sure it would make the councils statement false. Your claim is not true though. The original vulgate followed the hebrew
Lojahw,
Jerome adhered to the Hebrew truth for the OT, angering many contemporaries. You could translate ‘HUW’ as ‘he’, or ‘she’, or even ‘it’, for Gn3:15. They are all correct. It does not change our doctrines or morals in any way. Some verses of the bible are rich enough to reveal multiple mysteries.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15515b.htm, in answer to Lojahw, I don’t think that the precision of translation is governed under this canon, and is subject to revision.
Ver. 15. She shall crush. Ipsa, the woman: so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz. the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head. (Challoner) — The Hebrew text, as Bellarmine observes, is ambiguous: He mentions one copy which had ipsa instead of ipsum; and so it is even printed in the Hebrew interlineary edition, 1572, by Plantin, under the inspection of Boderianus. Whether the Jewish editions ought to have more weight with Christians, or whether all the other manuscripts conspire against this reading, let others inquire. The fathers who have cited the old Italic version, taken from the Septuagint agree with the Vulgate, which is followed by almost all the Latins; and hence we may argue with probability, that the Septuagint and the Hebrew formerly acknowledged ipsa, which now moves the indignation of Protestants so much, as if we intended by it to give any divine honour to the blessed Virgin. We believe, however, with St. Epiphanius, that “it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin, than to glorify her above measure.” We know that all the power of the mother of God is derived from the merits of her Son. We are no otherwise concerned about the retaining of ipsa, she, in this place, that in as much as we have yet no certain reason to suspect its being genuine. As some words have been corrected in the Vulgate since the Council of Trent by Sixtus V. and others, by Clement VIII. so, if, upon stricter search, it be found that it, and not she, is the true reading, we shall not hesitate to admit the correction: but we must wait in the mean time respectfully, till our superiors determine. (Haydock) Kemnitzius certainly advanced a step too far, when he said that all the ancient fathers read ipsum. Victor, Avitus, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, &c. mentioned in the Douay Bible, will convict him of falsehood. Christ crushed the serpent’s head by his death, suffering himself to be wounded in the heel. His blessed mother crushed him likewise, by her co-operation in the mystery of the Incarnation; and by rejecting, with horror, the very first suggestions of the enemy, to commit even the smallest sin. (St. Bernard, ser. 2, on Missus est.) “We crush,” says St. Gregory, Mor. 1. 38, “the serpent’s head, when we extirpate from our heart the beginnings of temptation, and then he lays snares for our heel, because he opposes the end of a good action with greater craft and power.” The serpent may hiss and threaten; he cannot hurt, if we resist him. (Haydock)
ripped that last quote off another website: From the Haydock commentary of the Douay-Rheims’s correct rendition of “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”:
If the assertion of the Church’s infallibility is supposed to help anyone implicitly trust everything that Rome declares to be de fide, its credibility is severely compromised by declarations such as the Council of Trent’s anathema on anyone who does not accept every part of the Vulgate (including its mistranslation of Gen. 3:15, “she shall crush his head”) as canonical. Ryan, your assertion that the Hebrew text uses both ipsa and ipsum is self-defeating: these are Latin words inserted in an interlinear version by a Latin translator. Moreover, there is no LXX text which uses the feminine pronoun. The Hebrew text is and always has used the masculine pronoun. If its statements about infallible Scripture (bolstered by anathemas) can’t be trusted, what good are any other claims of infallibility?
Also, the value of the asserted papal infallibility is vastly overrated. For example, in light of the Apostle Paul’s statement: “I determined to know nothing among you but Christ and Him crucified,” why is it that the only infallible papal declarations have to do with Mary’s conception and the post-apostolic legend of her bodily assumption into heaven? How are these things necessary for faith in Christ and Him crucified?
Nothing new has been asserted in your argument, and all was previously addressed. Also the assertion that the Hebrew text ‘uses’ (more precisely the assertion was that it encompasses) Ipsa and Ipsum is not my point, it’s Irenaeus’s.
In Christ
Ryan
Lojawh, as I read Gesenius’s Lexicon on the word ‘shuwph’, assigning male gender as a reference to Christ to the object of the verb in Gen 3:15 is “purely neologian.”
To summarize, you are stating that papal infallibility can’t exist because the Pope endorses a translation of a text contrary to your translation, from an ambiguous language, whose earliest extant manuscripts come from 900 years after Christ, first written 2300 years before you were born by Moses or his scribe, and all the while we can agree the Masoretic Text is corrupted compared to Jerome’s Vulgate at Is 7:14
‘object’=subject, fail…
Daniel, you obviously know nothing about Hebrew or the text of Gen. 3:15. The verb you refer to is found in the text to be in the Qal Imperfect third-person masculine singular form.
There is no question that the Vulgate mistranslation of Gen. 3:15 played a significant role in
the first “infallible papal” definition – Pius IX ’s Ineffabilis Deus:
“. . . she was chosen before the ages, prepared for himself by the Most High, foretold by God when he said to the serpent, ‘I will put enmities between you and the woman.’ – unmistakable evidence that she has crushed the poisonous head of the serpent.” (Lest there be any doubt that Pius really meant it, he repeats this assertion many times throughout Ineffabilis Deus.)
This “infallible” interpretation – that “enmities between you and the woman” is “unmistakable evidence that she has crushed the poisonous head of the serpent” – seems to be Pius’ attempt to justify the Vulgate’s mistranslation. However, the logic is faulty: that both the woman and her seed are at enmity with the serpent and his seed in no way necessitates that both will crush Satan’s head. The text is very clear in the original Hebrew as well as the Greek LXX: “He shall crush your head.” Not “she” and not “they” and not “he and she.” The victory over Satan at the cross is Christ’s alone, as the Scriptures clearly teach (e.g., Col. 2:15).
To make the claim that “he” really means “she” contradicts Pius IX’s own claim in the same encyclical that the Church “never changes anything” and “never adds anything” to the deposit of faith. Moreover, in spite of Pius’ attempts to show that the church always believed in Mary’s immaculate conception, there is ample evidence to the contrary (including the testimonies of Leo I, Aquinas, and others).
Again, the claim of Rome’s infallibility is refuted by undeniable evidence.
Fool and knave, it is not my Hebrew kungfu you are taking issue with, but that of Gesenius.
As for your assumption that the text means “he” and only “he,” well I’m sorry to embarrass you with the Targums:
“Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:” “And I will place enmity between you and the woman, and between the offspring of your sons and the offspring of her sons. And it will happen: when the sons of the woman will observe the precepts of the Torah, they will aim to strike you on the head; and when they will forsake the precepts of the Torah, you will aim to bite them in the heel. But for them there will be a remedy; whereas for you there will be no remedy. And they will be ready to make a crushing with the heel in the days of King Messiah.”
“Fragmentary Targum:” “And it shall be: when the sons of the woman observe the Torah and fulfill the commandments, they will aim to strike you on the head and kill you; and when the sons of the woman will forsake the precepts of the Torah and will not keep the commandments, you will aim to bite them on their heel and harm them. However there will be a remedy for the sons of the woman, but for you, O serpent, there will be no remedy. Still, behold, they will appease one another in the final end of days, in the days of the King Messiah.”
“Targum Neofiti:” “And I will put enmities between you and the woman, and between your sons and her sons. And it will happen: when her sons keep the Law and put into practice the commandments, they will aim at you and smite you on the head and kill you; but when they forsake the commandments of the Law, you will aim at and wound him on his heel and make him ill. For her son, however, there will be a remedy, but for you, serpent, there will be no remedy. They will make peace in the future in the day of King Messiah.”
That doesn’t support my theory, but it decisively and irrefutably destroys yours.
Hey Joe, I have been meaning to ask you a question regarding the writings of the Church Fathers but didn’t really know how to get in touch with you. The problem is that under this post, it wouldn’t really fit and would be off topic so I was wondering how and where to ask this question to get a response? Basically my question is that I have heard some Protestants accuse Catholics of using incorrect (or purposely mistranslating) the writings of the Fathers to make it appear to support Catholic doctrine. I am sure you have run into this argument. Not to mention, you can see it in their translations. For example, I believe it was St. Clement that Catholics say mentioned not removing from the episcopate those who offer it’s sacrifices, which implies the sacrifice of the Mass. But a Protestant translation of the same Father has St. Clement saying not to eject from the episcopate those who carry out the duties of that office. No sacrifice mentioned, so therefore, no Mass. What my question is are Catholic translations of the Fathers correct? Or as Protestants accuse, are we mistranslating them to make them say something they did not mean or more than what they actually meant? Sorry for the long post, but I have been dying to ask this. I am Catholic, by the way.
That’s in Chapter 44, Verse 4. You can see the original text here:
http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/apostfaths/clem_i.html
Here’s the text for that verse:
For our sin is not small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily offered its sacrifices.
αμαρτια γαρ ου μικρα ημιν εσται, εαν τους εμεμπτως και οσιως προσενεγκοντας τα δωρα της επισκοπης αποβαλωμεν.
I’m not a Greek scholar so I’ll leave it to others to translate…
Kens,
You can e-mail me at joseph[dot]heschmeyer[at]gmail[dot]com, but generally, the best way is to do exactly what you did here: find a sort of relevant comment thread, or (if you can’t find anything topical), just the most recent comment thread. Yes, it’s a bit messy, but it has the advantage of allowing you access to the vast pools of knowledge from other readers (as the comments from Restless Pilgrim and Daniel demonstrate).
In my own experience, I’ve found things to be the polar opposite of the accusations you’ve heard. Catholic translations (particularly when we’re talking about translations from Greek to Latin) are generally really old, from a time when there were no Protestants. So the texts often weren’t translated with an eye towards modern Catholic/Protestant disputes at all. On the other hand, when Protestants translate the Patristic texts, it’s almost inescapable that the translator is conscious of the implications of word choice on Catholic/Protestant disputes. I’ve discussed this before with the NIV’s Bible translations.
That doesn’t mean that any and every Catholic translation is superior to any and every Protestant translation, of course. But it’s easy to exaggerate the existence (and importance) of bad translations. I’d be skeptical, and ask for concrete examples, as it sounds like you did.
This comment has been removed by the author.
‘dora’ means ‘gifts’, and can be used in the sense of ‘sacrificial offerings’. It is the plural of ‘doron’–which is what I think Daniel means by δωραν.
St. Clement uses ‘dora’ with the verb prospherein (‘προσενεγκοντας τα δωρα’) so that he alludes to Hebrews 8:3. The phrase ‘prospherein ta dora’ most certainly refers to the offering of the Mass.
I hope that helps.
God Bless,
David
David, thanks so much!
Restless Pilgrim, δωρα (dora) is “gift.”
It’s related to δωραν (doran) which can be translated as ‘offering ‘ which Strong’s lexicon calls a sacrifice, as does Thayer’s lexicon. See G1435.
Thanks, my knowledge of Greek extends to the alphabet and a Lexicon 🙂
Daniel, I see you still don’t get it. All of your Hebrew Targums speak of “sons” – not one speaks of a “daughter” of the woman. The Targums are application of Scripture and thus are broadened to speak to the community of faith. What faithful Jew would not want to claim the promise? But what person other than Christ could fulfill it?
However, my real question is: What’s all the fuss about infallible councils and popes? I have given two clear examples of fallibility, one council (which Rome calls “ecumenical,” but does not deserve the designation since it lacked delegates from the East), and one pope. By declaring anathemas against any opposition, they showed their mistaken commitment to “all parts of the Vulgate,” including the mistranslation of Gen. 3:15 (“She shall crush [Satan’s] head”).
Augustine rightly wrote [not excluding himself from his judgment]:
But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of someone who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them. ( On Baptism, Against the Donatists 2.3.4)
Be they bishops, scholars, councils or popes, they are all subject to correction. Only Scripture is in a position to admit “no manner or doubt or disputation.”
….until the canon itself was questioned you might have sort of had a point, but seeing as there are separate bibles with different books and especially given that Luther wanted to remove even parts of the new testament, in what way would you say that dispute could be resolved?
1) Scredsoxfan2’s comment brings up an obvious point: St. Augustine’s definition of “Scripture” was the Catholic canon of Scripture. You reject that canon. How, then, are you deferring to Scripture, as Augustine defines that term? That’s the first irony.
2) The second is this. Here’s how St. Augustine begins the paragraph that you selectively quote from:
“Now let the proud and swelling necks of the heretics raise themselves, if they dare, against the holy humility of this address. You mad Donatists, whom we desire earnestly to return to the peace and unity of the holy Church, that you may receive health therein, what have ye to say in answer to this? You are wont, indeed, to bring up against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion, his Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church?”
(On Baptism, Against the Donatists 2.3.4)
That is, he was pretty adamantly against taking straw Patristic opinions to justify breaking away from the Catholic Church. And yet that’s exactly what’s being done here, and what I think you did with St. Jerome on the canon question.
3) Having said all of that, Catholics would agree with everything that St. Augustine said here: (a) that Scripture is superior to episcopal letters (and can show that a bishop’s letter is in the wrong), (b) that regional Councils can check and correct a bishop’s erroneous views, (c) that Ecumenical Councils can check and correct a regional Council, and (d) that later Ecumenical Councils can correct errors in Ecumenical Councils of the sort that St. Augustine refers.
Your presentation of (d) is misleading, because for some reason, you cut the sentence in half and place a period where none should exist. Here’s how Augustine actually finishes that thought:
“even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?”
So he’s not denying that Ecumenical Councils can speak infallibly. He’s just acknowledging that they don’t always, and can make errors, due to lack of facts.
So which of the points that St. Augustine makes is something you think refutes Catholicism or establishes Augustine as a believer in sola Scriptura?
As for your triumphant opinion that you’ve “given two clear examples of fallibility,” I would refer you to my above comment, addressing your prior claims. You surely can’t ignore correction, declare victory, and roll on.
I.X.,
Joe
Lojahw,
where have you gone to? hope all is well, wherever you are!
In Christ
Cary
Cary,
He mentioned to me (by email) that he was travelling this week, so turn-around may not be prompt.
I.X.,
Joe
Glad to hear he’s ok! I was a little concerned by the sudden stop. ESP because he had been so thorough previously…
Cary
But Joe, all that aside, he has presented a clear case where the Church got one letter wrong, on one word, in one verse, in one chapter, in one Book, in one Scripture that he doesn’t even believe in.
It’s very convincing to me.
I believe, though your mileage may vary, that Strong’s 7779 occurs in two forms in Gen 3:15
One is the Qal Imperfect third-person masculine singular form, and the other is the Qal Imperfect third-person feminine singular form.
Masculine:
ישופך
Feminine:
תשופנו
Hebrew jumples up subjects, verbs, direct objects, and indirect objects all of the time compared to English, so word order doesn’t really help us here.
But what we do know is that the Qal Imperfect third-person masculine singular form of the verb ישכנו in Eccl 10:8 is used when the subject to the verb is ‘serpent…’
But if the subject ‘serpent’ is paired with the Qal Imperfect third-person MASCULINE singular form, then the feminine verb form points to A FEMININE SUBJECT (which Catholics believe is Mary, the New Eve) in Gen 3:15.
Q.E.D.
In other words:
הוא
he/she/it
ישופך
shall bruise [sing. masc.]
ראש
the head
ואתה
and you [sing. masc.]
תשופנו
shall bruise [sing. fem.]–see the problem???
עקב׃ ס
the heel
MAKES MORE SENSE IF WE ARRANGE THIS WAY:
הוא
she
תשופנו
shall bruise [sing. fem.]
ראש
the head
ואתה
and you [sing. masc.]
ישופך
shall bruise [sing. masc.]
עקב׃ ס
the heel
………………
Mine has subject-verb agreement, yours doesn’t.
“One is the Qal Imperfect third-person
masculine singular form, and the other
is the Qal Imperfect third-person
feminine singular form.”
Should read:
One is the Qal Imperfect third-person
masculine singular form, and the other
is the Qal Imperfect SECOND-person
feminine singular form.
I guess I’ll get a response when this semester of Hebrew 101 draws to a close…
Thank you for your responses, Joe. I’ve been away, but I’ll take the opportunity now to comment:
Ad 1) the Council of Trent’s assertion that the Vulgate edition was printed in the most correct manner possible may indeed concede that it contained errors. However, the text of the Council’s declaration does not admit your argument: “But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” The declaration of “Sacred and canonical” to “the said books and all their parts” includes every text of the Vulgate “as they have been used to be read.” The curse on anyone who challenges any text in the Vulgate has the force of declaring the text to be infalllible.
Ad 2) As for your assertion that Jerome made the translation error, how do you know that the error was not introduced by a later copiest? Even so, Jerome never claimed perfection. You need not focus your ad hominem against my reading of the Hebrew text – just ask any Hebrew scholar whether there is any evidence of a Hebrew text anywhere with the feminine form of the verb “crush” in Gen. 3:15 (it appears twice in the text in the masculine, once for Satan, once for the seed of the woman). While you’re at it, see if you can find any evidence of a Greek text of Gen. 3:15 that translates the phrase with the feminine gender. Your comment that the current version of the Vulgate uses the neuter version of the pronoun only shows that keepers of the Roman Catholic version of the deposit of the faith persist in error. There are no grounds for either feminine or neuter pronoun in that text.
Ad 3) I acknowledged the two conflicts; however, even accepting Mary as the new Eve does not change the fact that the original text of Gen. 3:15 clearly says “he” not “she” shall crush Satan’s head. Your statements about the New Woman do not absolve Pius XI from error in his “ex cathedra” definition of the faith re: Mary.
Daniel, all of your posts about Strong’s words, Gesenius’s Lexicon, etc. are irrelevant to the actual verb form used in the Hebrew text of Gen. 3:15. Just because one can find masculine, feminine, and neuter forms of the third person singular pronoun in a dictionary does not determine which form is used in any particular text. Your tenacity is noted, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Vulgate text dictated as “used to be read” by the Council of Trent is in error.
Lojahw:
Sorry for the delay. I was on a retreat this weekend, and am catching up with life in general.
To my 1), you first say: “the Council of Trent’s assertion that the Vulgate edition was printed in the most correct manner…” No, that’s not what the Council said. Trent that it needed to be printed in the most correct manner possible, not that it was. And in addressing the problems with the printing of the Vulgate, the Council makes it really clear that they don’t think the various printings of the Vulgate are inerrant.
This is really simple. The Council of Trent confirmed the Vulgate canon, including “the said books and all their parts.” It didn’t confirm every word choice the Vulgate uses, and its a terrible perversion to proof-text that phrase, and make it contradict what the Council itself said about the Vulgate.
When the Council defended the Vulgate Books “and all their parts,” it was defending against the Lutheran removal of large chunks of the Book of Daniel and the Book of Esther, not claiming that it was an inspired or even infallible translation. If Trent did teach that, why did the Church immediately revise the Vulgate after Trent?
Basically, you started from the false premise that canonization of “the said books and all their parts” means that each word of the translation has to be inerrant, infallible, or inspired. I showed that this isn’t what that phrase meant at all, and that Trent actually rejected the idea that each word choice in the Vulgate was inspired. You then regurgitated your original, now-discredited argument, while glossing over or ignoring the points I raised above, namely:
(a) that the Council decreed that, “henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible,” which shows that they realized the various Vulgate printings weren’t completely perfect;
(b) that the Church responded to the Council by revising the Vulgate with the Vulgata Sixtina, which clearly debunks the idea that they thought the Vulgate was already perfect;
(c) that the bishop of Fano, who attended Trent, explained what was and wasn’t meant by the endorsement of the Vulgate.
Since you haven’t addressed these points, and since they seem to thoroughly debunk your argument, I’d just urge you to reread my above comment more carefully.
To my 2), you say that I don’t know that the error wasn’t introduced by a later copyist. Is there anyone credible who takes the view that this was a latter error? That some later copyist made the same error to every existent copy of the Vulgate? This objection doesn’t strike me as particularly serious.
As to3), you’re now arguing against papal infallibility, rather than conciliar infallibility. This isn’t the original argument, but I’ll address it, since it’s also easily debunked. Vatican I provided an objective rubric by which to determine if a statement is ex cathedra. This is the passage in Munificentissimus Deus that is an express exercise of papal infallibility:
“For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”
Everything else is support for the ex cathedra declaration, and is not per se infallible. So even if you were right about Gen. 3:15, and even if you showed that one of Pius’ arguments was bad, it wouldn’t disprove papal infallibility. Re-read Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility if you don’t understand why your argument misses the mark.
I.X.,
Joe
Daniel, Where are you getting your information on the Hebrew text of Gen. 3:15?
The verb translated to crush/bruise appears twice in Gen. 3:15:
VQI3MSX2MS, the object suffix is second person masculine singular: He will crush/bruise your [Satan’s] head.
VQI2MSX3MS, “you [Satan] will bruise his heel.”
I was using : study.interlinearbible.org/genesis/3.htm
And I tweaked a setting to hide vowel points, so it was easier to read on my phone.
If I remember correctly when you hover over the verbs with a mouse, a box pops up that shows the number and gender of the verbs.
Thanks for letting me know, Daniel. My apologies for saying earlier that you knew nothing about Hebrew. More accurately, you don’t seem to know as much as you claim to know. I looked at the link and did not see any identification of the gender or number of the two verbs. Hovering with the mouse only transliterates the verb, gives the Strong’s #, and a basic translation: “shall bruise/to bruise.” When you click on the verb in the text, it lists 4 OT occurrences and none of them are feminine. I suggest you find someone who can help you learn the difference between the masculine and feminine forms of the verb, and that you avoid speculating about things you are not qualified to speak about.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Better link:
http://bhco.hebrewtanakh.com/genesis/3.htm
Now can you see number and gender with a mouse hover?
Thanks for trying, Daniel, but this link (showing only consonants) does not give gender and number. However, the verb you seem to believe is feminine is a Qal-imperfect second person masculine singular with a third-person masculine singular object – speaking to Satan about the seed of the woman.
No one on this site has yet refuted my claim that both the Council of Trent (by virtue of declaring anathemas on anyone who would dare challenge the reading of the Vulgate), and Pope Pius XI’s erroneous statement in his ex cathedra definition, Ineffibilis Deus, affirming this erroneous translation defended erroneous doctrine in spite of the claims to infallibility in these situations. Ergo, the dogmas of infallibility as taught by Rome are false.
Educate me.
ואיבה אשית בינך ובין
האשה ובין זרעך ובין זרעה
הוא ישופך ראש ואתה תשופנו
עקב׃ ס
Why am I wrong?
The yod in
ישופך
means masculine while the tav in
תשופנו
means feminine?
Daniel, Didn’t you say you are taking a class in Hebrew? Ask your professor. I’m not a Hebrew tutor, but I can tell you that it is important to look at the pronouns that go with the verbs. In this case both instances of the verb in Gen. 3:15 are preceded by masculine pronouns(3rd person masculine singular and 2nd person masculine singular). You have done what you wrongly accused me of doing: you haven’t matched the genders. See the below for a simple example.
http://www.hebrew-verbs.co.il/
enter verb: break (similar to crush/bruise); show root; select male and female; select future tense; select singular.
View: note that “you will break” male & female both use a tav prefix, but the pronouns are key.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ah, I get it.
I agree with you now. Your Hebrew kungfu is strong.
Catholics don’t believe Ecumenical Councils are infallible. They selectively reject certain canons and statements of the first seven. See especially the label of Honorius as a heretic, canon 28 of Chalcedon, etc. etc.
And the Second Ecumenical, with its lack of any papal involvement, sufficiently shows that the Ecumenical Councils of the Church have nothing to do with what the Catholics mean by the term. It also destroys the argument about “accepting” Councils. The Church “recognizes” Councils like it recognizes Gospels. There is no juridical criteria.
Also, I’ve said this here before, Joe, but I think your apologetic in this regard is overly ambitious. You have one basic argument against the Protestants. And it’s a good one: “who canonized the canon?” But your effort to extend that to Orthodox ecclesiology is faulty. The Ecumenical Councils are not for us what the Scriptures are for the Protestants, namely an EXTERNAL criterion of truth. You would do well to think of our relationship with the Councils as not differing from our (and maybe even your)relationship to the Scriptures (as alluded above). These two phaenomena relate to Tradition in the same way. Even though they are different, both in status and in kind, yet both are inspired products OF and BY the Church. The Church doesn’t find truth in a text, and she doesn’t interpret “sources.” She is the source. So there’s also nothing strange about the Church rejecting one council for another, since the criterion of acceptance is truth, not the council itself. We never said that a specific KIND of gathering is preemptively infallible. We say, rather, that specific gatherings HAVE defended and defined the truth. You’re acting as if Chalcedon had an automatic, juridical claim to validity. Of course, if there were some mystery ingredient exclusive to valid councils, it might work to say that there would be no other possibility but the pope (although even in that case it wouldn’t hold up). But unfortunately, we do not have external prerequisites for the oecumenicity of synods anymore than for the Scripturality of writings purporting to be apostolic. I think, then, that your real question is, “When we say that the Church believes, thingks, teaches something, etc., what are we talking about? What constitutes the Church in that sense?” Since your answer to that is the papacy (magisterium), you rightly ask what alternative there could possibly be to a living, breathing agent capable of making decisions in that regard. The Protestants feebly purport that a book is the alternative. And you incorrectly believe that our answer is “an Ecumenical Council.” That is your mistake.
As for the specious argument that the Orthodox Church has not had anymore Ecumenical Councils and therefore has some deficiency, I’ll respond in the same vein: we also have only four Gospels. Should we feel insecure in the face of a denomination that has 20?
Again, this is not strange if you remember, as you refuse to do, that Ecumenical Councils are not part of the canonical structure of the Church.
Fr. Viktor is not saying that whereas you have a pope we have ecumenical councils. He is saying that you have supplanted the infallibility of the Church by the infallibility of the pope. I get your point, that you are still able to say, by your model, that the Church is infallible. But Fr. Viktor is not trying to deny you your synechdoche. He is simply describing the change from “no one bishop necessarily speaks for the Church” to “this particular bishop makes or breaks the Church.”
Tikhon,
A serious question, from your perspective, what peoples/communities qualify as being part of the infallible Church? In what way do we know that the infallible Church is acting? I guess what I’m trying to figure out is how and when do we know if something is OF the Church and therefore to be followed by Christians?
In Christ
Cary
Cary,I take it that here you mean as an individual?
I guess. Or how does an orthodo church know which other so called churches are Christian? Ie how would an orthodox member or church identify Mormons? Working from some ignorance here so please pardon me.
Cary
It depends what you mean by Christian. By your clarification it sounds as if you’re asking whether the Orthodox Church uses the technical label “Christian” to denote a distinct ecclesiological category whose boundaries are not necessarily coterminous with the Church. So for Roman Catholics this is usually confined to groups professing belief in the Holy Trinity. The short answer is that “Christian” is an ancient term for members of the Church; we don’t believe in “mere (universal in the sense of non-denominational) Christianity. Christianity is the fullness of the dogmas, not a select number: So although we might use the word equivocally, as a term of convenience to distinguish certain groups from Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc., it is no more than that. Mormonism is a heterodox confession. If you want to arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake, distinguish their particular brand of heresy from those which leave certain tenets intact, that’s fine. But we don’t do that at any official level. So the word “Orthodox” is not a subcategory, it’s a synonym added to avoid confusion.
I’m not sure where your question is leading. I originally though it was pointed to the identification of the true Church, but it doesn’t seem like that’s what you’re getting at.
I was heading to the identification of the Church but I got sidetracked! oops. You said:
“These two phaenomena relate to Tradition in the same way. Even though they are different, both in status and in kind, yet both are inspired products OF and BY the Church. The Church doesn’t find truth in a text, and she doesn’t interpret “sources.” She is the source.”
So my question is really how do the Orthodox identify who/what is OF and BY the Church? I ascribe to the ideas that you are stating here mostly, and even above where you say Christianity is the fullness of the dogmas. However, identifying what dogmas make up this fullness is critical. If we can’t identify an authority (namely what is OF and BY the Church) to say what is and isn’t the fullness, how do we ever know which dogmas are right?
In Christ
Cary
Cary,
How should the Jews and the Apostles have known that Jesus is the Christ? What was their authority?
And who was the authority that guaranteed you the truth of Christianity?
And how did you come to believe in the papacy? By what outside authority?
If these “critical” identifications are capable of being made, why is the rhetoric so dramatic when it comes to the ambiguities of schism? Why is the truth capable of being discerned only when it comes to first principles? It seems to me a false dilemma.
Without meaning to answer for Cary, and recognizing some truth in your argument, what’s the point of first principles, if everything ultimately refers back to private judgment? Maybe it’s the manner in which you’re presenting it, but you’re making it sound like the Church (and specifically, the Church at Council) does nothing more than affirm those truths we already know. But that’s a much more Protestant understanding of the role of Councils than anything I’ve ever read from an Orthodox source.
Your responses have been more in the form of questions, or challenges to the questions you’ve been asked, but I think that the result is that no one on the Catholic side of this question is quite sure just exactly what you’re willing to defend. Perhaps you would like to spell out affirmatively what role Councils have, and how you can tell which Councils have this authority (or play this role, if those are better terms)?
I.X.,
Joe
Tikhon,
a) i second what Joe said, and it does seem that rather than answer the question (i don’t presume to know your motives) you have tried to inquire as to the nature of the problem that I might feel in the same light. However, we both understand Christ to be the Savior of the World, the Son of the Father, and God. We can understand this through reason (see the trillema), through the testimony and truth of the Apostles and others, and by historical continuity with this understanding. Nothing contradicts this understanding, because it is truth. Similarly, we can look to the Scriptures, to the early Church, to the Church Fathers, and other such instances to show the importance of a visible Church, which Christ said the Devil would not prevail against. We can also see proof for the papacy in those sources and especially in the Gospel. I know you know all this, you are in fact much better schooled than I.
B) You put forth questions rather than answers. I will presume (though I’d be happy to change the presumption) that you dont have a good answer to my question. This implies that the orthodox position is that the Church can’t be identified. This presents a problem because if true it means that Christ neccesarily left a big thing as ambiguous, namely how the average person can determine which truth claimers are actually representing truth neccesary for salvation. The Catholic Church has a much more obvious answer to this question…namely through the bishops, councils, and the papacy. My question is whether the orthodox have a similar logical solution? This question is based on my ignorance and I am hoping you can clarify, not to pick a fight. Though I do think the question, if without an answer is an important one for you to consider.
In Christ
Cary
Joe,
You ask, “What’s the point of first principles, if everything ultimately refers back to private judgment?”
I didn’t say anything refers back to private judgment. I said that the dynamic of faith operative in accepting the Lord is operative in the constant recognition of the Church.
You say, “Maybe it’s the manner in which you’re presenting it, but you’re making it sound like the Church (and specifically, the Church at Council) does nothing more than affirm those truths we already know. But that’s a much more Protestant understanding of the role of Councils than anything I’ve ever read from an Orthodox source.”
It depends what you mean by “truths we already know.” Are you claiming that the Church (and specifically the Church at Council) is receiving some new revelation? How did all the Holy Fathers fight these heresies, and obtain vindication at Council, if we didn’t already know the truths? And how do you explain the fact that the theology of the Councils was in the main nothing but an endorsement of a pre-existent theology (be it that of St. Athanasius, Gregory, Cyril, Leo, Maximus, or others)? I think the facts point to something like you’re describing, that the Councils has an “affirmative” role, although I’d need to know more about what you mean by this term.
As for this being a “Protestant” understanding, you would have to clarify. I don’t see in this description any of the marks of Luther’s, Calvin’s, or Henry VIII’s protestations. Unless you mean by “Protestant” an idea that the truth can be known without some magisterial definition. But I’ve already alluded to this on this thread: the opposite view is untenable. We know for a fact that time and again the truth has been known and upheld without Councils or papal interference (see the example of the Nikolations et al. below).
You say that, “No one on the Catholic side of this question is quite sure just exactly what you’re willing to defend. Perhaps you would like to spell out affirmatively what role Councils have, and how you can tell which Councils have this authority (or play this role, if those are better terms)?”
Are you asking what role the Oecumenical Synods had? And by that do you mean practically or juridically?
Cary,
You say, “We both understand Christ to be the Savior of the World, the Son of the Father, and God. We can understand this through reason.”
But isn’t this “Protestant”, like Joe says? It sounds like Catholics are always telling me that without a pope you can’t come to a unified perspective on a matter. But the Lord is an exception?
“…through the testimony and truth of the Apostles and others.”
So the Apostles have a definitive testimony but the Holy Father who came after them didn’t? One can appeal to an Apostolic witness without magisterial arbitration, and yet one can’t appeal to a patristic testimony as to the Orthodox faith?
“…and by historical continuity with this understanding.”
Sounds Orthodox to me. Or, without the pope, it sounds “Protestant,” since it requires interpretation without authority–at least only with the authority of the individual mind.
“Nothing contradicts this understanding, because it is truth.”
Then why the big fuss about saying the same thing for Chalcedon?
“Similarly, we can look to the Scriptures, to the early Church, to the Church Fathers, and other such instances to show the importance of a visible Church, which Christ said the Devil would not prevail against.We can also see proof for the papacy in those sources and especially in the Gospel.”
This is circular, since you will confess that you only trust these sources because you believe in the infallibility of the pope. Otherwise, your perspective is the same as mine, and you are proving things by their conformity to truth and not by a magisterial authority.
“You put forth questions rather than answers. I will presume (though I’d be happy to change the presumption) that you dont have a good answer to my question.”
As you say, this is your presumption. I have no need to defend myself against a presumption. There is nothing deceptive about asking rhetorical questions rather than submit to the terms of your queries, loaded as I find them with presuppositions that I do not accept.
“This implies that the orthodox position is that the Church can’t be identified.”
I explicitly said the opposite.
“This presents a problem because if true it means that Christ neccesarily left a big thing as ambiguous, namely how the average person can determine which truth claimers are actually representing truth neccesary for salvation.”
You had a nice list above for how the average person can determine which truth claimers are actually representing truth. And all of them were markers, witness, testimonies, and signposts. I don’t dispute them. What I questioned was the necessity of a magisterial authority to know truth.
So at the end of the day it sounds like you’re saying, “These are the ways we can know truth. Yet, without a pope, we can’t actually know them. But I don’t have to point out the problem with such an argument. Anyway, you yourself stated better than I could the ways in which the Church is identified. I don’t have a problem with them. (Does that answer your question?) But my question to you is: if the Church can be identified, and the truth known, without an infallible source to verify our faith (as is the case with accepting the Lord), why do you selectively create a false “proof” for papal infallility which puts the papacy itself into questions, since it becomes something like an unproved prover?
Tikhon,
Let me for now just focus on the original question, you said you explicitly said the opposite, that the orthodox can distinguish what is the visible church. I must have missed that but can you again say how the orthodox do this? The rest of your commentary basically leads me to ask whether you think Protestants or Catholics need to convert and be orthodox?
Cary
Cary,
I’m not capable of giving an exhaustive list of the inductive proofs of the Church. But like I said, the list you provide is a fine start. Isn’t that, after all, how you yourself came to believe that the papal church is the true Church (i.e., without a magisterial authority)? If so, it seems you only introduce the “problem” that the papacy solves for a limited selection of situations.
As for your second question: absolutely. Protestants and Catholics need to convert to the Orthodox Church for their own salvation. But I’m not sure how this relates to your other questions.
Well the papal church actually has documents (Catechism to start with) and a structure (through the Bishops and ultimately Pope) which allow it to state a) what Catholics actually believe and b) to ensure that Catholic Churches teach those doctrines. The visible Church is easily defined as those Catholic parishes together. I dont think that without a magesterial authority I could have, in good consience identify the true Church, I might have had to settle as a Christian relativist (ie nondenominational). Christ promised to keep the Church Holy, and protect Her from the devil, there must have been some entity which is identifiable that He was promising this protection for. Its much harder to believe that it was just left ambiguous than that the magesterium is that identifiable entity. (all my perspective)
Part of my problem is this, if I ask which Orthodox Church I SHOULD convert to, from your perspective, how do I know which Church is or isn’t “orthodox?” Is there a list, does someone dictate this? What if I consider the RCC to be the “real” orthodox church? If I am supposed to convert, to where? why? based on whom? is there historical proof for which are and which aren’t orthodox?
The whole point is not to really criticize you, i was really just curious about how the Orthodox identify the visible Church(es) which contain the fullness of the truth. From what I know many different branches of the Orthodox may or may not be in communion with one another at any point, is this correct? if so, who determines which side is truly Orthodox? or are they both Orthodox? What is the deliniation for one to become Schismatic? something they do as declared external? or is it only their own claim to no longer be Orthodox that fails to make them a visible part of the Church? These are all just curious questions by me. Obviously I think we should all be Catholic and I pray for unity but we really can’t have that unless someone tells us which doctrines and beliefs are needed to hold us as one.
In Christ
Cary
Why is it you think I am arguing for an “ambiguous,” invisible Church? A lot of what you describe is not limited to the Roman Church, but is something we hold in common. So the Orthodox Church is likewise a visible communion. (I guess in that sense it would satisfy your query about a list, although we usually call that list the diptychs. See here for one such “list”: http://orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/resources/hierarchs.htm) And of course there is historical proof. In fact, there is historical proof only for the Orthodox Church. The papacy, on the other hand, is unhistorical. This is why apologists so often take refuge in the “development of doctrine” to explain away the obvious discrepancies between papal claims and historical fact.
You said, “I dont think that without a magisterial authority I could have, in good conscience, identified the true Church. I might have had to settle as a Christian relativist (i.e., nondenominational).”
But you did identify the true Church without magisterial authority! (Or so you think.) It wasn’t an infallible source that guaranteed you the truth of papal infallibility. You accepted the magisterial authority of the pope, and then you said, “From here on in nothing can be known, or agreed upon, without him.” But by that point you had already identified as true the two most important things: the Lord and His Church (or so you thought). And you (or at least Joe) is now trying to get others to accept a magisterium without the possibility of appealing to some external infallible oracle.
As for the rest, what you describe does not accurately represent the Orthodox Church. You’ll have to be more specific about what you see as its ambiguous boundaries. And your question about the dilemma of identifying the True Body in a schism is just a restatement of the problem addressed above.
Tikhon,
I can see that my question isn’t clear to you and that I perhaps am frustrating you. That was not my intention. I was honestly trying to inquire about the Orthodox structure because frankly I dont know how the dictates of that works. I know the Orthodox Church is a visible communion but my question was who gets to say who is in and out of that communion? and why?
With regard to what you claim I have accepted, maybe this makes it clearer. Without an understanding of a) the historical nature of the papacy and b) the claim of an authority protected by the Holy Spirit that can settle disputes. It was in this thatI found the Church to have a, and the only reasonable claim, it seemed as to why I shouldn’t just read and interpret the Bible privately in accord with the dictates of my conciense, or to just be a nondenominationalist.
In any case, I’m sorry this is trudged on and that I obviously haven’t been clear enough about the intent and content of my questions. I know you are quite knowledgable, and I’ll leave things at that.
Cary,
It’s Tradition: the universal inheritance from the Lord to his Apostles, preached by them to all the world, preserved and handed down by the Holy Fathers, defended by the seven Oecumenical Councils (de facto not de jure), and lived by the saints in every age. This Tradition is attested to by all the inductive proofs mentioned above: personal, textual, historical, and otherwise. But at no point does faith in the Church’s dogmas cease to be a matter of faith. It is always a recognition of the Lord’s Body and never an assent to some technical source which, ex officio, guarantees truth.
I can say the same to you about the Orthodox Church that you concluded about the papacy: there is a historical, visible body which the Lord has guaranteed will not falter (the only difference being that in this case it is guaranteed to the entire body [katholou] and not to one See).
The way this functions is not, as some might have you believe, that an Ecumenical Council is (again, de jure) the only thing that speaks for the whole Church. Such faulty ecclesiology would leave impotent not only the post-eighth century Church, but also the ante-Nicene Church and even the inter-Conciliar Church. No, the whole Church did indeed speak at those momentous events (and only in that sense and for that reason were they infallible), but the whole Church also spoke in its vindication of Hesychasm, in its rejection of Florence, and in its acceptance of St. Nektarios of Aegina as a saint. And it did this no differently than when it accepted St. Paul as a saint, condemned Pope Honorius, and rejected Montanism, Nicolationism, or any other pre-Nicene heresy (i.e., the ordinary “magisterium” of the bishops, when it is not isolated from the rest of the bishops or the sensus fidelium).
The most important thing about this process though, which is admittedly sometimes messy (For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you), is that truth is never something new, requiring an exceptionally-equipped arbiter. The truth has been handed down. It has been given to the Church by Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit, and it has been passed on at baptism (all the dogmas!) It is only afterward a matter of defending it, proclaiming it, and sacrificing oneself for it. And this is primarily the role of the bishops (and the work of the saints).
Which is why I keep referring the question back to faith. The struggles of the Church is the struggle of a people already equipped with the fullness of revelation and a promise never to lose it, not as individuals or as bishops or as sees, but as the Church (think of a body, which has no defining point, but is a unified whole). So the insistence on an arbiter is bizarre to me coming from people who had no such arbiter in their acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ or in their conclusion that the pope was the core of the Church.
I hope that’s more straightforward. Sorry about any misunderstanding. Thank you for your patience and your politeness. It was good talking to you.
Tikhon
Tikhon,
No problem. I could just tell that, as usual, I was not explaining my question well enough and that I was perhaps impeding rather than helping a conversation. It seems a little clearer now but that still, to me, seems to come down to an explicitly individual judgement of what is or isn’t the fullness of the faith and orthodoxy. In other words, the orthodox are those whose people proclaim them as orthodox. I mean, i know there are external ways to judge this, but those judgments are all personal, no? and I think there is some truth to what your saying in that I also make a personal judgement that the papacy is the correct arbiter…but that just seems to me to be the only logical way these issues COULD be settled and so that I dont just be my own non-denominationalist living by my own interpretations and calling myself the true Christian. DOes that make any sense?
I am merely trying to convey my struggles and get your responses, not to attack your position. I trust full well that you have many times over probably thought about these things far more deeply than I.
In Christ
Cary
“that just seems to me to be the only logical way these issues COULD be settled”
Why? Faith in the Holy Spirit is faith in the Holy Spirit, whether you think this is vouchsafed through one man or through a cohesive body.
The question is, if you look back through time, which is the way in the Church has attempted to “settle” issues? Has it been through appeal to the pope as some guaranteur of truth, or has it been through tapping into the universal, apostolic confession deposited in all the Churches by the Holy Fathers, with faith in the Holy Spirit that he would not allow the bishops in unison to fall into heresy.
In reading the Scriptures, does it strike you that St. Paul does not tells his bishops or congregations to rely on Peter in any way? Does not his repudiation of partisanship (of ‘I am of Kephas’ [=I am of that rock on which the Church is built?]) not likewise destroy the ecclesiology that says “one is in the Church by virtue of communion with Rome.”
Doesn’t it strike you as odd that in none of the ecumenical crises which gave rise to the ecumenical councils did any Father of the Church preach the infallibility of the pope as a guide? That Constantine would think to call, and impose the decision of, a Nicaea instead of simply referring arbitration to the pope? That the Second Oecumenical Synod should have had no papal involvement whatsoever? That the Fourth, though endorsing Leonine theology, scrutinized it and confirmed it rather than received it and submitted to it?
The whole history of the Church points away from an ecclesiology centered around the bishop of Rome.
Anyway, I’m sure you didn’t mean for this to go another round, so respond if you wish, and I’ll keep quiet. Thanks again for the discussion.
Tikhon
Tikhon,
Just in regard to this: “In reading the Scriptures, does it strike you that St. Paul does not tells his bishops or congregations to rely on Peter in any way?”
No it doesn’t. I mean in the same way I could say doesn’t it seem weird that Paul didn’t outline how the Church was to be identified or how Ecumenical Councils should be used to settle disputes? Does that make sense as a paralel to you?
and this: “Doesn’t it strike you as odd that in none of the ecumenical crises which gave rise to the ecumenical councils did any Father of the Church preach the infallibility of the pope as a guide?”
As Joe covers, much like the canon, infalliblity was implied, and primacy of Rome was explicitly talked about by the Fathers from Chrysostom to Augustine. Similar to how the Church only denied heresy’s when they became detrimental to the faith, this issue of papal infallibility had to, at some point be clarified but not neccesarily in the early centuries of the Church. In addition, the dogma of infallibility can’t be a reason for the Orthodox split, because such a declaration came long after the split. It is a similar line of argument to that of Protestants who, when faced with the canon question, bring up dogmas on Mary, which were defined long after the Reformation, to justify the Reformation.
The other stuff is somewhat specific and arbitrary but has nothing to do with the primacy of Rome or of the Pope’s infallibility. Pope Benedict is a smart man and a great Theologian, but all of his theology doesn’t get accepted just because He is Pope. Not all of it is dogmatically defined. Similarly, the Summa, while a great work by a great Saint, still requires inspection and questioning.
In any case, I don’t find any of the above particularly troubling. I did and do find it troubling not to have a structure which allows for the identificaiton of the visible Church and to state who holds the fullness of truth. Without that we can judge by history but are left paralyzed in the face of new controversies and also leaves the common man in quite a predicament as to the identification of the True Church. I dont think such confusion is something Jesus was trying to establish and so along with Scripture, history, writings of the Fathers et al. I find the only and most satisfying logical choice to be that of the Pope as the Earthly head of the Bride of Christ who can, in the office given by Christ to Peter, ensure proper doctrine and the fullness of the faith.
In Christ
Cary