OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 26, 2014, 02:09:16 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Catholic Infallibility  (Read 2249 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« on: April 08, 2011, 08:25:05 PM »

Earlier this year I read the book Infallibility And The Evidence by Bp. Francis Simons, in which the author argues that the Catholic Church is wrong about it's claims of infallibility. While I didn't find the arguments particularly convincing (in fact, I can't even really remember much of it) I was curious if any Catholics here had read the book, or similar texts by others, and if so what they thought.

Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2011, 08:29:40 PM »

While I didn't find the arguments particularly convincing....
So you think the Catholic Church (of Rome) is infallible?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2011, 08:38:30 PM »

While I didn't find the arguments particularly convincing....
So you think the Catholic Church (of Rome) is infallible?

That's not exactly what I meant (and I'm partially side stepping your question, btw, but nonetheless...) it's not about whether Catholicism is infallible or not, I just didn't find his particular arguments to be persuasive, but wondered if perhaps there were other thoughts (e.g. maybe someone else though they were difficult arguments, or perhaps another writer had more persuasive arguments). At the time I just remember thinking something like "If I was a Catholic I wouldn't find this to be a very strong case against my beliefs in the infallibility of the Catholic Church".
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2011, 08:44:25 PM »

Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, each in their own respective ways, claim the charism of infallibility.  Such a charism is absolutely necessary if a communion is going to claim to be THE Church in which is to be found the fullness of truth and life.  Clearly neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy can claim to be the Church and at the same time admit that its central dogmatic teachings may be false and are therefore reformable.

The Catholic Church differs from the Orthodox Church in that it claims for the Bishop of Rome the authority to authoritatively and bindingly speak for the entire Church under specific conditions.  But how does one evaluate and assess this claim?  Many folk think it can be clearly answered, one way or the other, by taking a look at the historical evidence.  I am not one of those people.  At this point I follow John Henry Newman, who came to believe in the supreme authority of the Pope only because he became the convinced that the Church of Rome was the Church of Jesus Christ.  Newman knew that historical evidence could never, by itself, settle the question of the papacy, just as it cannot, by itself, settle the question of the divinity and messianic identity of Jesus of Nazareth.  The historical evidence looks different when viewed through the eyes of faith than it does when viewed through the eyes of nonfaith. 

One of the strongest critiques of papal infallibility remains George Salmon's The Infallibility of the Church.  One of the strongest arguments in favor of the papacy remains Thomas Allies's The See of Peter: the rock of the church, the source of jurisdiction, and the centre of unity.  For a contemporary Orthodox discussion of the papacy, see Olivier Clement:  You Are Peter

 
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2011, 09:20:43 PM »


Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, each in their own respective ways, claim the charism of infallibility.  Such a charism is absolutely necessary if a communion is going to claim to be THE Church in which is to be found the fullness of truth and life. 


The word "infallibility" is absent from Orthodox vocabulary.  It is pretty much meaningless for us.  Instead the Councils speak of being faithful to the Fathers, and the Fathers speak of being faithful to earlier Fathers, to the Scriptures, to the Tradition of the Church which flows down to us from the Apostolic era.  Therefore, imho, discussions on infallibility in the ecumenical dialogue with Roman Catholics will ultimately turn out to be a casus irrealis since the concept is, and always has been, outside the Orthodox phronema.

I think that Georges Florovsky has much to say about this.  Does anybody recall his works and where he writes of it?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2011, 10:01:44 PM »


Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, each in their own respective ways, claim the charism of infallibility.  Such a charism is absolutely necessary if a communion is going to claim to be THE Church in which is to be found the fullness of truth and life.


The word "infallibility" is absent from Orthodox vocabulary.  It is pretty much meaningless for us.  Instead the Councils speak of being faithful to the Fathers, and the Fathers speak of being faithful to earlier Fathers, to the Scriptures, to the Tradition of the Church which flows down to us from the Apostolic era.  Therefore, imho, discussions on infallibility in the ecumenical dialogue with Roman Catholics will ultimately turn out to be a casus irrealis since the concept is, and always has been, outside the Orthodox phronema.

I think that Georges Florovsky has much to say about this.  Does anybody recall his works and where he writes of it?

Not precisely what you are referencing here but an apt article nonetheless:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/florov_fathers.aspx

And the following is probably closer to your point

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/church_tradition_florovsky.htm#n1
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 10:05:43 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2011, 11:13:04 PM »

The Latin terminology may be absent from classical Orthodox reflection, but the reality sure ain't.  It appears whenever the Orthodox appeal to the Ecumenical Councils, the local Palamite councils, the patristic phronema, or the mind of the Church to assert the irreformability, unchangeableness, and finality of Orthodox dogma.  At some point the doctrinal buck stops, and when it does, there you confront the infallibility of the Church in the truth and power of the Holy Spirit.  Without it, you simply have a patristico-Protestantism.  For an Orthodox discussion, see Stylianos Harkianakis, The Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology, as well as his article "Dogma and Authority in the Church." 
Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2011, 11:18:56 PM »

Thank you for the links, Father, and Elijahmaria Smiley I will hopefully read them tomorrow. Regarding Orthodoxy and infallibility, I have long had issues with the idea, for a number of reasons (for instance, even if we say that there is something infallible--a Church, a text, etc--it wouldn't amount to much since we humans are infallible. Does having an infallible source matter much if it is in a language that is somewhat foreign to us, and we can only at best understand it with 85% accuracy? but I'm still thinking and rethinking this...)  Almost any time this issue has come up, most Orthodox seem to favor infallibility (though there seems to be--in my experience--a greater willingness to attribute infallibility to the Church or consensus patrum, and less of a willingness to attribute it to the Scripture)
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2011, 12:01:18 AM »

Thank you for the links, Father, and Elijahmaria Smiley I will hopefully read them tomorrow. Regarding Orthodoxy and infallibility, I have long had issues with the idea, for a number of reasons (for instance, even if we say that there is something infallible--a Church, a text, etc--it wouldn't amount to much since we humans are infallible. Does having an infallible source matter much if it is in a language that is somewhat foreign to us, and we can only at best understand it with 85% accuracy? but I'm still thinking and rethinking this...)  Almost any time this issue has come up, most Orthodox seem to favor infallibility (though there seems to be--in my experience--a greater willingness to attribute infallibility to the Church or consensus patrum, and less of a willingness to attribute it to the Scripture)

Catholics, I think, probably push infallibility too hard: in practical reality, it does not resolve all dogmatic dispute (contrary to the claims of popular Catholic apologists).  Anyone who has any experience with Catholic theology know that Catholics disagree violently on many issues, despite papal interventions.  And all dogmas, as you point out, need to be interpreted by fallible bishops and theologians.   

IMHO, the claim of infallibility ultimately resolves to a deep trust in the truth-telling of the ecclesial community to which one belongs.  One trusts the reliability and truthfulness of the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church or the Coptic Church or whatever, especially regarding the community's core beliefs and essential practices.       
Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2011, 12:12:18 AM »

I see that my typo didn't cause an issue, but just to correct myself, I of course meant to say in my last post that it "wouldn't amount to much since we humans are fallible" (not "infallible," as I accidentally said)

Quote
One trusts the reliability and truthfulness of the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church or the Coptic Church or whatever, especially regarding the community's core beliefs and essential practices.

And I think this is important for skeptics like me, who have issues with certainty, and maybe push things too far in the opposite direction. In the end, if a Church is a Chestertonian "truth telling thing," or the "theanthropic body of Christ," or whatever, then we just have to have trust that God is guiding it.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2011, 03:20:41 AM »

From Khomiakov: On Infallibility and teaching in the Church:

"The Eastern Patriarchs, meeting in council with their bishops, solemnly declared in their response to an encyclical of Pius IX that 'Infallibility resides solely in the universality of the Church united by mutual love; and that the protection of both the constancy of dogma and the purity of rite was entrusted not to any hierarchy but to the people of the Church as whole, which is the body of Christ.' This formal declaration of the entire Eastern clergy, received with a respect full of fraternal gratitude by the local church of Russia, acquired all the moral authority of an ecumenical witness; and this is certainly the most remarkable fact of ecclesiastical history in recent centuries. There is no teaching Church in the Church."


http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Cb_vQhnAGFYC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=%22The+Eastern+Patriarchs,+meeting+in+council+with+their+bishops%22&source=bl&ots=6YpB-bU9vK&sig=Jb82RJ8Cwn_C2QWjrVADWZVEOXg&hl=en&ei=MlmhTYW0IImXcfHcoe8B&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Eastern%20Patriarchs%2C%20meeting%20in%20council%20with%20their%20bishops%22&f=false
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 10, 2011, 10:24:16 AM »

Thank you for the links, Father, and Elijahmaria Smiley I will hopefully read them tomorrow. Regarding Orthodoxy and infallibility, I have long had issues with the idea, for a number of reasons (for instance, even if we say that there is something infallible--a Church, a text, etc--it wouldn't amount to much since we humans are infallible. Does having an infallible source matter much if it is in a language that is somewhat foreign to us, and we can only at best understand it with 85% accuracy? but I'm still thinking and rethinking this...)  Almost any time this issue has come up, most Orthodox seem to favor infallibility (though there seems to be--in my experience--a greater willingness to attribute infallibility to the Church or consensus patrum, and less of a willingness to attribute it to the Scripture)

The only source of Infallibility, Asteriktos, is the grace of the Holy Spirit. 

The Holy Spirit is the inspiration of Grace and Truth.

In short, the Truth is the Word.  Anyone who speaks the Word, speaks the Truth.  Which is why I did not flinch when you spoke of infallible individuals for that is a fact.  We are all infallible when we speak a Word in Truth.

There is absolutely no way that any creature can know the fullness of Truth...ever.  This should tell you something about self-professed "true" churches that are splinters from the Body.

There is one holy catholic and apostolic Church through whom the Holy Spirit speaks the fullness of Truth in so far as creatures are capable of hearing it. 

There is one bishop who speaks with all bishops and is guaranteed, in cases of doubt where Truth is in dire doubt and contested by those very bishops, to be led to Truth by the Holy Spirit.

There is one Body made up of members who, in faith, follows their respective bishops in all things but sin, and out of that Body comes the Work of the Church, the Liturgy.

There is each individual soul within the Body who must discern by the Word Made Flesh whether or not he or she is on the path to salvation or are reprobate and in need of help and healing, and to do so there are sacramental and liturgical rites and rituals whose repetition insures that we keep being drawn back to the Way, the Truth and the Life.

I have never met the pope but I have worked hard over time to have some idea about where the Way is and how it is illumined...I have all the help I need in scripture, in liturgy and in the lives of the saints, all as exercised in the Body.  There's nothing more that I need.   Anything else is icing on the cake, and an exercise of theological curiosity.

And none of it is done without Faith and Hope in The Word and The Spirit brings faith and hope into the world through the Body by way of inspiring the Body and inspiring and illuminating each member. 

To have faith and hope is way above your pay grade and mine...thus Grace.

I didn't do it very well but it works out to be a lovely little Tautology.  You either yield to it, or you don't.

As you know, I always recommend yielding.

That does not solve the questions that Father Ambrose and Father Al are inquiring about...but it makes it a lot less dangerous to the soul to watch or to participate in them.   laugh

Father Al said it yesterday very very nicely so I'll paraphrase:  Things look very different when viewed through the eyes of faith.



Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #12 on: April 10, 2011, 11:20:22 AM »


Father Al said it yesterday very very nicely so I'll paraphrase:  Things look very different when viewed through the eyes of faith.


Much of the logic which prevails in the Church is by necessity circular.  That is just a fact.  The reason is that it stems from an initial act of faith - in other words "I believe that this is the authentic Orthodox Church founded by God Almighty and therefore I believe it is gifted with the charism of discernment of truth."   It's circular.  Much the same as the Catholics who would say, "I believe that the Pope is chosen as the successor of Peter and has the gift of infallibility.  Therefore all that he defines on faith amd morals is true."

In neither case is this "logic" at all convincing to an outsider.  But it is convincing to a believer.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2011, 11:48:06 AM »


The Latin terminology may be absent from classical Orthodox reflection, but the reality sure ain't.


Father,

This appears, at least to me, to be an attempt to impose a very late latinisation and development on the Church.

We can be certain that if the Fathers, of both East and West, had discerned a principle of infallibility at work in either the Roman Pope or in some other Church institution that they would have coined a term for it and written about it.   They simply didn't.  The concept is not there in the Fathers.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2011, 11:49:06 AM »


Father Al said it yesterday very very nicely so I'll paraphrase:  Things look very different when viewed through the eyes of faith.


Much of the logic which prevails in the Church is by necessity circular.  That is just a fact.  The reason is that it stems from an initial act of faith - in other words "I believe that this is the authentic Orthodox Church founded by God Almighty and therefore I believe it is gifted with the charism of discernment of truth."   It's circular.  Much the same as the Catholics who would say, "I believe that the Pope is chosen as the successor of Peter and has the gift of infallibility.  Therefore all that he defines on faith amd morals is true."

In neither case is this "logic" at all convincing to an outsider.  But it is convincing to a believer.

 Smiley Your first sentence there is very Aristotelian of you  Smiley  

That's a half-tease...

But the serious response to what you are saying here is that I learned years ago to make, what is to me, a very important distinction between faith, which is a grace and  is the power to be and become something (theosis or divinization), and a set of beliefs set out by the Church to which I must give assent.  My faith and my beliefs are not a one to one equivalency...
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2011, 11:55:37 AM »


The Latin terminology may be absent from classical Orthodox reflection, but the reality sure ain't.


Father,

This appears, at least to me, to be an attempt to impose a very late latinisation and development on the Church.

We can be certain that if the Fathers, of both East and West, had discerned a principle of infallibility at work in either the Roman Pope or in some other Church institution that they would have coined a term for it and written about it.   They simply didn't.  The concept is not there in the Fathers.


In the west, infallibility is the marriage of the patristic concepts of authority and that which is without error.

M.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #16 on: April 10, 2011, 11:55:44 AM »


Father Al said it yesterday very very nicely so I'll paraphrase:  Things look very different when viewed through the eyes of faith.


Much of the logic which prevails in the Church is by necessity circular.  That is just a fact.  The reason is that it stems from an initial act of faith - in other words "I believe that this is the authentic Orthodox Church founded by God Almighty and therefore I believe it is gifted with the charism of discernment of truth."   It's circular.  Much the same as the Catholics who would say, "I believe that the Pope is chosen as the successor of Peter and has the gift of infallibility.  Therefore all that he defines on faith amd morals is true."

In neither case is this "logic" at all convincing to an outsider.  But it is convincing to a believer.

 Smiley Your first sentence there is very Aristotelian of you  Smiley  

That's a half-tease...

But the serious response to what you are saying here is that I learned years ago to make, what is to me, a very important distinction between faith, which is a grace and  is the power to be and become something (theosis or divinization), and a set of beliefs set out by the Church to which I must give assent.  My faith and my beliefs are not a one to one equivalency...

I think that is what I said.  The act of faith in the Church creates the trust which enables acceptance of the belief system of the Church.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #17 on: April 10, 2011, 11:57:21 AM »


The Latin terminology may be absent from classical Orthodox reflection, but the reality sure ain't.


Father,

This appears, at least to me, to be an attempt to impose a very late latinisation and development on the Church.

We can be certain that if the Fathers, of both East and West, had discerned a principle of infallibility at work in either the Roman Pope or in some other Church institution that they would have coined a term for it and written about it.   They simply didn't.  The concept is not there in the Fathers.


In the west, infallibility is the marriage of the patristic concepts of authority and that which is without error.

M.

Can you please reference that to the Fathers.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 10, 2011, 12:04:13 PM »


The Latin terminology may be absent from classical Orthodox reflection, but the reality sure ain't.


Father,

This appears, at least to me, to be an attempt to impose a very late latinisation and development on the Church.

We can be certain that if the Fathers, of both East and West, had discerned a principle of infallibility at work in either the Roman Pope or in some other Church institution that they would have coined a term for it and written about it.   They simply didn't.  The concept is not there in the Fathers.


In the west, infallibility is the marriage of the patristic concepts of authority and that which is without error.

M.

Can you please reference that to the Fathers.

Are you looking for a direct reference to an eastern Father who says that western infallibility is a combination of our patristic understanding of the authority of the Church to teach the inerrrancy of Scripture?

I don't believe that I can get you a flat out quote translated into English that says that, do you?
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 10, 2011, 12:06:33 PM »


Father Al said it yesterday very very nicely so I'll paraphrase:  Things look very different when viewed through the eyes of faith.


Much of the logic which prevails in the Church is by necessity circular.  That is just a fact.  The reason is that it stems from an initial act of faith - in other words "I believe that this is the authentic Orthodox Church founded by God Almighty and therefore I believe it is gifted with the charism of discernment of truth."   It's circular.  Much the same as the Catholics who would say, "I believe that the Pope is chosen as the successor of Peter and has the gift of infallibility.  Therefore all that he defines on faith amd morals is true."

In neither case is this "logic" at all convincing to an outsider.  But it is convincing to a believer.

 Smiley Your first sentence there is very Aristotelian of you  Smiley  

That's a half-tease...

But the serious response to what you are saying here is that I learned years ago to make, what is to me, a very important distinction between faith, which is a grace and  is the power to be and become something (theosis or divinization), and a set of beliefs set out by the Church to which I must give assent.  My faith and my beliefs are not a one to one equivalency...

I think that is what I said.  The act of faith in the Church creates the trust which enables acceptance of the belief system of the Church.

I don't think you said what I was saying.

My faith is not in the Church. 

My faith is in the Word of God, and his covenant with all baptised Christians, baptised by water and the Spirit, or by blood or by desire.

My belief is that he gave the authority to preach and teach the inerrant Word in the world to His Church.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #20 on: April 10, 2011, 12:15:21 PM »


Father Al said it yesterday very very nicely so I'll paraphrase:  Things look very different when viewed through the eyes of faith.


Much of the logic which prevails in the Church is by necessity circular.  That is just a fact.  The reason is that it stems from an initial act of faith - in other words "I believe that this is the authentic Orthodox Church founded by God Almighty and therefore I believe it is gifted with the charism of discernment of truth."   It's circular.  Much the same as the Catholics who would say, "I believe that the Pope is chosen as the successor of Peter and has the gift of infallibility.  Therefore all that he defines on faith amd morals is true."

In neither case is this "logic" at all convincing to an outsider.  But it is convincing to a believer.

 Smiley Your first sentence there is very Aristotelian of you  Smiley 

That's a half-tease...

But the serious response to what you are saying here is that I learned years ago to make, what is to me, a very important distinction between faith, which is a grace and  is the power to be and become something (theosis or divinization), and a set of beliefs set out by the Church to which I must give assent.  My faith and my beliefs are not a one to one equivalency...

I think that is what I said.  The act of faith in the Church creates the trust which enables acceptance of the belief system of the Church.

I don't think you said what I was saying.

My faith is not in the Church. 

My faith is in the Word of God,


The Word of God is Jesus Christ Who is the Church.

I am pretty sure that we share that teaching.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 10, 2011, 12:18:34 PM »


Father Al said it yesterday very very nicely so I'll paraphrase:  Things look very different when viewed through the eyes of faith.


Much of the logic which prevails in the Church is by necessity circular.  That is just a fact.  The reason is that it stems from an initial act of faith - in other words "I believe that this is the authentic Orthodox Church founded by God Almighty and therefore I believe it is gifted with the charism of discernment of truth."   It's circular.  Much the same as the Catholics who would say, "I believe that the Pope is chosen as the successor of Peter and has the gift of infallibility.  Therefore all that he defines on faith amd morals is true."

In neither case is this "logic" at all convincing to an outsider.  But it is convincing to a believer.

 Smiley Your first sentence there is very Aristotelian of you  Smiley 

That's a half-tease...

But the serious response to what you are saying here is that I learned years ago to make, what is to me, a very important distinction between faith, which is a grace and  is the power to be and become something (theosis or divinization), and a set of beliefs set out by the Church to which I must give assent.  My faith and my beliefs are not a one to one equivalency...

I think that is what I said.  The act of faith in the Church creates the trust which enables acceptance of the belief system of the Church.

I don't think you said what I was saying.

My faith is not in the Church. 

My faith is in the Word of God,


The Word of God is Jesus Christ Who is the Church.

I am pretty sure that we share that teaching.

My belief is in the Church

My faith is with, in, by and through God.

God and the Church are not one=one equivalents.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #22 on: April 10, 2011, 12:25:19 PM »

God and the Church are not one=one equivalents.
Is this Church teaching your just your opinion? I have always heard that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 10, 2011, 12:32:58 PM »

God and the Church are not one=one equivalents.
Is this Church teaching your just your opinion? I have always heard that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.

There are two things going on here and you have to keep them together.  

The meaning of faith and belief and their distinctiveness which is also a difference, and our manifold understanding of Church.

Faith is said in the Catholic Church to be one of the theological virtues.  A virtue is a power [a grace].  The Faith that is said to be given in Baptism is thus a power to be or become something.

Belief is that assent that we give to the authority of the Church [which is the initiating authority of Jesus]...and why we give it comes out of one of those manifold understandings of what Church is...which question generally occupies whole books rather than a few sentences.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2011, 12:34:37 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 10, 2011, 01:34:17 PM »

God and the Church are not one=one equivalents.
Is this Church teaching your just your opinion? I have always heard that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.

What I am saying here about the virtue of faith and belief does not contradict the teaching of the Mystical Body of Christ.  IN fact the two paragraphs that I hold most dear in helping me to understand the difference between the virtue of faith and belief is from one of the more recent encyclicals devoted to the question of the Mystical Body as follows:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p12mysti.htm

From MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI

51. Holiness begins from Christ; and Christ is its cause. For no act conducive to salvation can be performed unless it proceeds from Him as from its supernatural source. "Without me," He says, "you can do nothing."[89] If we grieve and do penance for our sins, if, with filial fear and hope, we turn again to God, it is because He is leading us. Grace and glory flow from His inexhaustible fullness. Our Savior is continually pouring out His gifts of counsel, fortitude, fear and piety, especially on the leading members of His Body, so that the whole Body may grow ever more and more in holiness and in integrity of life. When the Sacraments of the Church are administered by external rite, it is He who produces their effect in souls.[90] He nourishes the redeemed with His own flesh and blood and thus calms the turbulent passions of the soul; He gives increase of grace and prepares future glory for souls and bodies. All these treasures of His divine goodness He is said to bestow on the members of His Mystical Body, not merely because He, as the Eucharistic Victim on earth and the glorified Victim in heaven, through His wounds and His prayers pleads our cause before the Eternal Father, but because He selects, He determines, He distributes every single grace to every single person "according to the measure of the giving of Christ."[91]

Hence it follows that from our Divine Redeemer as from a fountainhead "the whole body, being compacted and fitly joined together, by what every joint supplieth according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity."[92]
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,152



« Reply #25 on: April 10, 2011, 10:28:17 PM »

Catholics, I think, probably push infallibility too hard

I was thinking much the same thing, only I was going to say "the west".

I'm reminded the part of Dr. Scott Hahn's conversion story where he complains about the bible as "a fallible list of infallible books".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 11, 2011, 09:55:07 AM »

Recent comments reminded me of the following citation from Fr Richard Neuhaus:

Quote
Friedrich Schleiermacher was the father of nineteenth century liberal Protestant theology, and Kasper cites his claim that Protestantism “makes the relationship of the individual to the Church dependent on his relationship to Christ,” whereas Catholicism “makes the relationship of the individual to Christ dependent on his relationship to the Church.” That formulation, says Kasper, may be somewhat exaggerated but it “points in the right direction.” He notes that Protestant thinkers today are not agreed on whether the denial of the sacramental nature of the Church arose out of an emergency situation in the sixteenth century and has lasted to the present day, or whether it is foundational and constitutive for the Protestant construal of the Christian reality. Kasper’s way of putting the matter brings to mind Ratzinger’s assertion that the crucial difference between Catholic and Protestant is that, for the Catholic, faith in Christ and faith in the Church is one act of faith, whereas, for the Protestant, faith in the Church is a second act of faith, if it is thought to be necessary or even legitimate. In a similar vein, I have written elsewhere about “ecclesial” and “non-ecclesial” faith in Christ.

I think it is true that for both the Catholic and Orthodox, faith is always ecclesial.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 11, 2011, 11:09:41 AM »

Recent comments reminded me of the following citation from Fr Richard Neuhaus:

Quote
Friedrich Schleiermacher was the father of nineteenth century liberal Protestant theology, and Kasper cites his claim that Protestantism “makes the relationship of the individual to the Church dependent on his relationship to Christ,” whereas Catholicism “makes the relationship of the individual to Christ dependent on his relationship to the Church.” That formulation, says Kasper, may be somewhat exaggerated but it “points in the right direction.” He notes that Protestant thinkers today are not agreed on whether the denial of the sacramental nature of the Church arose out of an emergency situation in the sixteenth century and has lasted to the present day, or whether it is foundational and constitutive for the Protestant construal of the Christian reality. Kasper’s way of putting the matter brings to mind Ratzinger’s assertion that the crucial difference between Catholic and Protestant is that, for the Catholic, faith in Christ and faith in the Church is one act of faith, whereas, for the Protestant, faith in the Church is a second act of faith, if it is thought to be necessary or even legitimate. In a similar vein, I have written elsewhere about “ecclesial” and “non-ecclesial” faith in Christ.

I think it is true that for both the Catholic and Orthodox, faith is always ecclesial.


Dear Father Al,

Two things: 

First:  In Orthodoxy the priest is the ONLY one capable of administering a valid Baptism.  I say that with some hesitation but we'll chance it nonetheless.   

In the Catholic Church anyone can validly Baptise as long as they intend what the Church intends, and by that it is generally understood as Baptism by water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

That means that to some degree the Catholic Church places the relationship between man and God ahead of the relationship between man and Church.  You won't hear that trumpeted about but praxis, to me, speaks quite a bit louder than words in this instance.

Second: In a Church which puts the relationship between man and God [theosis, or deification] first, Faith is, in its primary meaning, a grace.   The authority of the Church is Son, giving glory to the Father by the power of the Holy Spirit and it is toward that relationship that the Church encourages us, in the first instance, by making Baptism possible in any and all circumstances.  And it is no accident that she teaches that with Baptism we are infused with the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity...These are the essential sanctifying graces that open the door to Theosis for us.

Therefore, faith-as-belief is a secondary meaning in the Catholic Church, and is essentially impossible without first activating the primary meaning of Faith as grace.

That is why I make those distinctions in my own life and ask other to consider their import when speaking of such things as authority and inerrancy in the Church.  I believe it gives us a better focal point from which to understand that the Catholic Church is not kidding when she says that the head of the Church is Christ and the auctoratis is the Father and the power to be and become is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I certainly don't expect you to follow my lead in any way but I do think the lead whom I followed when I began on this path was a wise one, a seasoned one, and an old-fashioned Catholic one.

M.



Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #28 on: April 11, 2011, 06:46:20 PM »

Dear Father Al,

Two things: 

First:  In Orthodoxy the priest is the ONLY one capable of administering a valid Baptism.  I say that with some hesitation but we'll chance it nonetheless.   


Under normal circumstances, the priest baptizes.

Under extraordinary circumstances any Orthodox Christian may baptize - a hospital nurse or doctor afraid the baby will not survive, a granny baptizing her granddaughter in secret because the parents refuse or (in communist times) were afraid, a soldier baptizing a dying friend, etc.

If the newly baptized survives he or she is taken to a priest who will do the chrismation and give Holy Communion.  The priest does NOT repeat the Baptism.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 11, 2011, 06:58:54 PM »

Dear Father Al,

Two things: 

First:  In Orthodoxy the priest is the ONLY one capable of administering a valid Baptism.  I say that with some hesitation but we'll chance it nonetheless.   


Under normal circumstances, the priest baptizes.

Under extraordinary circumstances any Orthodox Christian may baptize - a hospital nurse or doctor afraid the baby will not survive, a granny baptizing her granddaughter in secret because the parents refuse or (in communist times) were afraid, a soldier baptizing a dying friend, etc.

If the newly baptized survives he or she is taken to a priest who will do the chrismation and give Holy Communion.  The priest does NOT repeat the Baptism.

That shades how I think about Orthodoxy with respect to my point concerning Faith and Belief then...well...it always has but I did not want to say more than I should so that my point would be lost in some other detail.  It is the same in the Catholic Church as well...the child or adult is anointed with the oil of Baptism and the Holy Spirit is invoked through the action of the priest [Church]...or at least that is how it should be done.

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 13, 2011, 04:33:17 PM »

The Latin terminology may be absent from classical Orthodox reflection, but the reality sure ain't.  It appears whenever the Orthodox appeal to the Ecumenical Councils, the local Palamite councils, the patristic phronema, or the mind of the Church to assert the irreformability, unchangeableness, and finality of Orthodox dogma.  At some point the doctrinal buck stops, and when it does, there you confront the infallibility of the Church in the truth and power of the Holy Spirit.  Without it, you simply have a patristico-Protestantism.  For an Orthodox discussion, see Stylianos Harkianakis, The Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology, as well as his article "Dogma and Authority in the Church."  


So sorry that I took the conversation out on a discussion arc concerning faith and belief.  Surely did not mean to derail the discussion.  Actually had something substantial in mind.  

So today, I had some time and was looking for a way back to the original topic that made sense of the arc, and by happenstance, opened the Father Stylianos article at just the right spot.  This seems to make the connection that I was trying to make among authority-faith-belief-truth and ties it back into the original line of inquiry on infallibility/inerrancy in the Church.  I'll post it now in an attempt to reignite the original interest in the topic:

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/stylianos_dogma_authority.htm

The sacred authority and Theanthropic validity of dogma

In an attempt to promote properly and constructively the sacredness and the inviolate character of dogma in the midst of the general instability and questioning of the world's values. We often speak of the authenticity and validity of dogma, unthinkingly using these two terms in the same sense, almost as if they were synonyms. Careful study shows that this is a grave error which testifies to an unacceptable confusion of meanings that leads in turn to a gross inaccuracy of expression. This verbal recklessness unfortunately goes beyond formal terminology. Greater damage is caused by the fact that such inaccuracy seriously obstructs the correct understanding of the deeper essence of dogma which — as has been already stated and as shall be shown below in more detail — lies in its Theanthropic character.

To avoid fatal confusion, then, we must distinguish between the meanings of "authority" and "validity" by carefully examining the precise content of each. When speaking of "authority", we do not mean of course the moral force and binding character of dogma, but rather the "fatherhood" and "source" from where the truth which becomes dogma emanates. This is more easily understood if we consider the corresponding Latin term auctorirtas which refers more directly to the notion of fatherhood. In these terms, it is clear why "authority" is identified only with the Divine factor [9] . On the one hand, because the truth of faith was given from above "once and for all to the saints" (Jude 1:3) and, on the other, because any subsequent development of these truths in the conscience of the faithful, expressed as a conscientious teaching and theology, continues to be accompanied always by the extraordinary attributes of faith. These prevent it from becoming assimilated, or even compared with, any form of merely rational knowledge.

Having established from what has been said the main meaning of the "authority" of dogma, as its transcendent starting point and source, we can now recognise more easily and unhesitatingly that it is natural to infer the moral and religious power and binding character of dogma for the faithful, as a product and secondary notion of "authority" which is very close to the notion of "validity". If, however, this notion of "validity" stems from the transcendent origin and source of dogma — to which its strength and sacredness can be mainly attributed — then both the nature of the truths of faith as well as the nature of the human person nonetheless compel us to acknowledge the moral contribution of the human factor also in the manifestation and consolidation of the validity of dogma. Being in the salvific, theandric or Divine human form, the human factor does not even remain neutral in the extraordinary process of irregular revelation, nor in the subsequent task of sanctification and eternal salvation towards which this aims.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 04:43:52 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 13, 2011, 04:45:06 PM »


The Latin terminology may be absent from classical Orthodox reflection, but the reality sure ain't.


Father,

This appears, at least to me, to be an attempt to impose a very late latinisation and development on the Church.

We can be certain that if the Fathers, of both East and West, had discerned a principle of infallibility at work in either the Roman Pope or in some other Church institution that they would have coined a term for it and written about it.   They simply didn't.  The concept is not there in the Fathers.

Perhaps you are narrowing down what could be meant by infallibility too much. I know that I tend to believe in an indefectibility of the Church as a whole (the collection of all of its faithful members) from its dogma, which amounts to a form of infallibility.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 13, 2011, 06:03:36 PM »

This is a complicated issue, I know; and it is made more complicated by Orthodox/Catholic polemics.  When Catholics speak of infallibility, they almost invariably refer to papal infallibility; but in fact, all claims about papal infallibility rest upon a deeper conviction about the infallibility of the Church.  I don't want to pretend I have a clear grasp of all the issues and questions, but I think I understand pretty well what a Protestant thinks about these matters.  To simplify things, let's think about a theological controversy that has been resolved by an ecumenical council.  Take your pick.  How about the full and complete divinity of the Holy Spirit?  As is well known, many "orthodox" churchmen felt uncomfortable about asserting the divinity of the Holy Spirit, but the 2nd Ecumenical Council dogmatically insisted upon it. 

Okay, here we are many centuries later.  Is the Orthodox Church willing to entertain the possibility that the Church got it wrong at Constantinople I?  Of course not!  Why not?  At least many Orthodox would reply that the dogmatic judgment of the 2nd ecumenical council was inspired and directed by God himself and is therefore not open to debate.  That's infallibility!   

Protestants, of course, insist that even the dogmatic decisions of the seven ecumenical councils are reformable and thus potentially open to review and debate.  Are the Orthodox willing to entertain such a possibility?  If I were Orthodox, I sure wouldn't! 

At some point, the dogmatic buck stops--and that is where we have the infallibility of the Church.     
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #33 on: April 13, 2011, 06:13:01 PM »


This is a complicated issue, I know;

At some point, the dogmatic buck stops--and that is where we have the infallibility of the Church. 
   

When Grandma Moses agrees with Baba Masha agrees with Yiayia Thespina - voila!   Infallibility!
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #34 on: April 13, 2011, 06:24:44 PM »


This is a complicated issue, I know;

At some point, the dogmatic buck stops--and that is where we have the infallibility of the Church. 
   

When Grandma Moses agrees with Baba Masha agrees with Yiayia Thespina - voila!   Infallibility!

If Granny Mose and Baba Masha and Yia Yia Photini even understand the teachings of the first seven councils, much less agree with them in the fullness of understanding, I'll eat my hat.

Soooo...wah-la!!!...nothing matters, nothing stays, all is changeable, loudest most recent mouth rules.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #35 on: April 13, 2011, 06:26:34 PM »


Is the Orthodox Church willing to entertain the possibility that the Church got it wrong at Constantinople I?  Of course not!  Why not?  At least many Orthodox would reply that the dogmatic judgment of the 2nd ecumenical council was inspired and directed by God himself and is therefore not open to debate.  That's infallibility!   
     

And Catholics would say that it was open to debate and rejection until the Council was ratified by the Pope in Rome.    No ratification from him and the Council has no authority nor infallibility.   *That's* infallibility!  A personal charism of the successor of Saint Peter.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #36 on: April 13, 2011, 06:29:20 PM »


Is the Orthodox Church willing to entertain the possibility that the Church got it wrong at Constantinople I?  Of course not!  Why not?  At least many Orthodox would reply that the dogmatic judgment of the 2nd ecumenical council was inspired and directed by God himself and is therefore not open to debate.  That's infallibility!   
     

And Catholics would say that it was open to debate and rejection until the Council was ratified by the Pope in Rome.    No ratification from him and the Council has no authority nor infallibility.   *That's* infallibility!  A personal charism of the successor of Saint Peter.

Ahhhh  laugh  the loudest most recent mouth speaks.

But I am a Catholic so I can actually believe what my Church teaches...not what you insist is the summa total of it all.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #37 on: April 13, 2011, 06:30:20 PM »


This is a complicated issue, I know;

At some point, the dogmatic buck stops--and that is where we have the infallibility of the Church. 
   

When Grandma Moses agrees with Baba Masha agrees with Yiayia Thespina - voila!   Infallibility!

If Granny Mose and Baba Masha and Yia Yia Photini even understand the teachings of the first seven councils, much less agree with them in the fullness of understanding, I'll eat my hat.

Soooo...wah-la!!!...nothing matters, nothing stays, all is changeable, loudest most recent mouth rules.

The last phrase applies to the Popes.  More recent Popes counter or ignore teachings of their predecessors.  Some proclaim we are going to hell. Some proclaim otherwise.  The confusion of Peter!!
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #38 on: April 13, 2011, 06:32:57 PM »


This is a complicated issue, I know;

At some point, the dogmatic buck stops--and that is where we have the infallibility of the Church.  
  

When Grandma Moses agrees with Baba Masha agrees with Yiayia Thespina - voila!   Infallibility!

If Granny Mose and Baba Masha and Yia Yia Photini even understand the teachings of the first seven councils, much less agree with them in the fullness of understanding, I'll eat my hat.

Soooo...wah-la!!!...nothing matters, nothing stays, all is changeable, loudest most recent mouth rules.

The last phrase applies to the Popes.  More recent Popes counter or ignore teachings of their predecessors.  Some proclaim we are going to hell. Some proclaim otherwise.  The confusion of Peter!!

Ahhh...yes...both are perversions of our respective Church's teachings.  I am glad you accommodated.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 06:33:28 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #39 on: April 13, 2011, 06:34:45 PM »


Is the Orthodox Church willing to entertain the possibility that the Church got it wrong at Constantinople I?  Of course not!  Why not?  At least many Orthodox would reply that the dogmatic judgment of the 2nd ecumenical council was inspired and directed by God himself and is therefore not open to debate.  That's infallibility!   
     

And Catholics would say that it was open to debate and rejection until the Council was ratified by the Pope in Rome.    No ratification from him and the Council has no authority nor infallibility.   *That's* infallibility!  A personal charism of the successor of Saint Peter.

Ahhhh  laugh  the loudest most recent mouth speaks.

But I am a Catholic so I can actually believe what my Church teaches...not what you insist is the summa total of it all.

Would you please take my words which you are mocking and point out where I an wrong
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #40 on: April 13, 2011, 06:43:52 PM »


Is the Orthodox Church willing to entertain the possibility that the Church got it wrong at Constantinople I?  Of course not!  Why not?  At least many Orthodox would reply that the dogmatic judgment of the 2nd ecumenical council was inspired and directed by God himself and is therefore not open to debate.  That's infallibility!   
     

And Catholics would say that it was open to debate and rejection until the Council was ratified by the Pope in Rome.    No ratification from him and the Council has no authority nor infallibility.   *That's* infallibility!  A personal charism of the successor of Saint Peter.

Ahhhh  laugh  the loudest most recent mouth speaks.

But I am a Catholic so I can actually believe what my Church teaches...not what you insist is the summa total of it all.

Would you please take my words which you are mocking and point out where I an wrong

That is what this entire discussion was to be about but since you've reduced it to its lowest common polemic, I am afraid that discussion ain't gonna happen for the moment.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,152



« Reply #41 on: April 13, 2011, 07:30:30 PM »


Is the Orthodox Church willing to entertain the possibility that the Church got it wrong at Constantinople I?  Of course not!  Why not?  At least many Orthodox would reply that the dogmatic judgment of the 2nd ecumenical council was inspired and directed by God himself and is therefore not open to debate.  That's infallibility!  
    

And Catholics would say that it was open to debate and rejection until the Council was ratified by the Pope in Rome.    No ratification from him and the Council has no authority nor infallibility.   *That's* infallibility!  A personal charism of the successor of Saint Peter.

Correction: it wasn't an ecumenical council until ratified by the Pope in Rome. That doesn't mean that it wasn't infallible before then.

P.S. I curious why you changed the subject. Clearly, the post from akimel that you were responding to was about the Orthodox p.o.v. not the Catholic p.o.v.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 07:32:42 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.162 seconds with 69 queries.