tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14247942.post6387063016286454131..comments2023-08-10T05:32:21.163-04:00Comments on An Examined Life: Why Privileging Private Judgment Is A Sin Against UnityVitae Scrutatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12808120163472036743noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14247942.post-59272023899358630722007-10-25T18:18:00.000-04:002007-10-25T18:18:00.000-04:00SamIn asking about a "quorum" it almost sounds as ...Sam<BR/><BR/>In asking about a "quorum" it almost sounds as if you're thinking that the <I>consensus fidelium</I> is something that is established by majority vote, and while I do think that numbers are not irrelevant I do not think that numbers are by any means the whole story.<BR/><BR/>It is true, as you say, that after the Schism between East and West there was a certain sort of discontinuity, but it was not a complete break, as we find at the time of the Reformation, because the Churches of the East did, at the very least, retain the Apostolic Succession and are still counted as genuine regional Churches.<BR/><BR/>So the question you raise, "why should a non-Roman Catholic accept as a matter of authority something that was only promulgated by a part of the church" seems to me to be begging the question. It was only promulgated "by a part of the Church" if you antecedently define the Church (in its authoritative sense) as <I>merely</I> a majority of Christians. But I don't think that is the right way to proceed. The Church is a certain sort of institutional structure alone with its members, and that structure is the Apostolic one. There are disputes over whether that structure needs to be in Communion with the Bishop of Rome, but whether such a requirement was itself mandated by that very same structure seems to me to be a historical question rather than a definitional one.<BR/><BR/>On the question of the Anglican position, I think it may very well depend upon whom you ask. I'm less familiar with the flux of ideas in your neck of the woods, but there are some very conservative Anglicans here in the U.S. for whom teachings well after A.D. 1000 are regarded as authoritative and not in the least provisional. Indeed, I know many Anglicans who accept [2]. It is true that many of them accept it on its own merits and not, principally, because it was mandated by the Church, but one hopes that the Church mandates only those things that are true.Vitae Scrutatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12808120163472036743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14247942.post-72754899469980635092007-10-22T07:20:00.000-04:002007-10-22T07:20:00.000-04:00I would be interested to hear your view on what co...I would be interested to hear your view on what constitutes the "quorum" for the <I>consensus fidelium</I>. That is, it makes perfect sense to me that accepting [1] is a matter of obedience within a community, and that it was an expression of the consensus within that community. Yet such unity was abandoned after the Great Schism - there precisely was no consensus about the developments which led to separate Eastern and Western churches. So why should a non-Roman Catholic accept as a matter of authority something that was only promulgated by a <I>part</I> of the church? <BR/><BR/>I don't see why it is incoherent to accept (say) pre-1000AD teachings as authoritative but post-1000AD teachings of the magisterium as provisional - eg [2]. Which is what I understand the Anglican position to be.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.com