Author Topic: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity  (Read 335 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Volnutt

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,974
  • Faith: Semi-Evangelical
  • Jurisdiction: Might become Orthodox
For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« on: May 28, 2015, 03:29:27 AM »
Ok, since you don't want this in that other thread, I'll make the point here.

It doesn't matter if the Orthodox have no good way to determine whether a council is Ecumenical because the Catholic way is no better given the existence of dissenters to Papal pronouncements such as the Old Catholics and various sedevacantists.

Quote
"What makes a Council binding on all? The fact that it has been accepted by all. Well, what if it has not been accepted by some? Oh, they're all schismatics, so they don't count. But, since the Council has not been accepted by some, how can it be Ecumenical? It's accepted by all, because those who don't accept the decision are cut off. But, since it has not been accepted, how can it be binding? It has been accepted by all ..."

That dilemma holds for the RCC as well, though. How can Vatican I be binding when the Old Catholics refuse to accept it? How can Vatican II be binding when sedevacantists refuse to accept it and conclavists have gone so far as to elect their own Pope over it?

A problem for everybody is a problem for nobody.

Please for the last time to everybody, the CC has no part in this discussion, only the first millenium is up for discussion.

But to answer : This does not diminish the ecumenical status of the council as the council was ratified as the 21st ecumenical council by the Roman Bishop. Thus it is binding on all, even those who don't adhere. Just as law is binding on all , even on criminals who refuse to obey.

Not if the law is unconstitutional it isn't. Not if said legislature is composed of spies from an enemy nation.


I repeat:  Poking holes in other people's ecclesiologies does no good unless one can show that a better solution to said holes is out there.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 03:31:23 AM by Volnutt »
Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,491
  • Pray for me, a sinner
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2015, 03:45:25 AM »
Ok, since you don't want this in that other thread, I'll make the point here.

It doesn't matter if the Orthodox have no good way to determine whether a council is Ecumenical because the Catholic way is no better given the existence of dissenters to Papal pronouncements such as the Old Catholics and various sedevacantists.

Nonsense! the presence of dissenters does not nullify authority, it only shows dissent. The catholic way to determine whether a council is ecumenical is by papal ratification, not by acceptance...

Quote
Quote
"What makes a Council binding on all? The fact that it has been accepted by all. Well, what if it has not been accepted by some? Oh, they're all schismatics, so they don't count. But, since the Council has not been accepted by some, how can it be Ecumenical? It's accepted by all, because those who don't accept the decision are cut off. But, since it has not been accepted, how can it be binding? It has been accepted by all ..."

That dilemma holds for the RCC as well, though. How can Vatican I be binding when the Old Catholics refuse to accept it? How can Vatican II be binding when sedevacantists refuse to accept it and conclavists have gone so far as to elect their own Pope over it?

A problem for everybody is a problem for nobody.

Please for the last time to everybody, the CC has no part in this discussion, only the first millenium is up for discussion.

But to answer : This does not diminish the ecumenical status of the council as the council was ratified as the 21st ecumenical council by the Roman Bishop. Thus it is binding on all, even those who don't adhere. Just as law is binding on all , even on criminals who refuse to obey.

Not if the law is unconstitutional it isn't. Not if said legislature is composed of spies from an enemy nation.

Fair but my point is valid. E.g. The law prohibiting theft and murder is constitutional, yet there are men who disregard these laws and murder and steal regularly. Does this mean because such men exist, the law does not have authority, or is at leas of questionable authority? Come on now...


Quote
I repeat:  Poking holes in other people's ecclesiologies does no good unless one can show that a better solution to said holes is out there.

We have. We have a clear marker for ecumenicity. Papal ratification... Even prominent EO writers admit the CC has a clear system of determining ecumenicity and that the EO have not worked one out yet
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 03:46:20 AM by Wandile »
"We are to love God for Himself, because of a twofold reason; nothing is more reasonable, nothing more profitable."
-St. Bernard of Clairvaux

Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyr of Africa, pray for the Church today


"Yes. Crucifixion is a Roman practice" - xOrthodox4Christx

Offline Volnutt

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,974
  • Faith: Semi-Evangelical
  • Jurisdiction: Might become Orthodox
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2015, 03:51:01 AM »
On faith? We all witnessed the conclave and the cardinals of the church (all in good standing with the church) elect Pope Francis. It is not a matter of faith but matter of fact from the observance of the following of the electoral process. The men who elected the Pope were in good standing with the church, none have been declared formal heretics and are still members of the church. The Pope himself is not a formal heretic either. He has to obstinately (refuse correction and continue in your ways) espouse formal heresy for him to lose his office.

In good standing with a Church that went off the rails in 1870 or 1965 or refused to move the Holy See to El Palmar de Troya in 1978?

How much is that worth?
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 03:51:57 AM by Volnutt »
Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

Offline Volnutt

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,974
  • Faith: Semi-Evangelical
  • Jurisdiction: Might become Orthodox
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #3 on: May 28, 2015, 03:59:44 AM »
Ok, since you don't want this in that other thread, I'll make the point here.

It doesn't matter if the Orthodox have no good way to determine whether a council is Ecumenical because the Catholic way is no better given the existence of dissenters to Papal pronouncements such as the Old Catholics and various sedevacantists.

Nonsense! the presence of dissenters does not nullify authority, it only shows dissent. The catholic way to determine whether a council is ecumenical is by papal ratification, not by acceptance...

Which Pope, though?

Quote
Quote
"What makes a Council binding on all? The fact that it has been accepted by all. Well, what if it has not been accepted by some? Oh, they're all schismatics, so they don't count. But, since the Council has not been accepted by some, how can it be Ecumenical? It's accepted by all, because those who don't accept the decision are cut off. But, since it has not been accepted, how can it be binding? It has been accepted by all ..."

That dilemma holds for the RCC as well, though. How can Vatican I be binding when the Old Catholics refuse to accept it? How can Vatican II be binding when sedevacantists refuse to accept it and conclavists have gone so far as to elect their own Pope over it?

A problem for everybody is a problem for nobody.

Please for the last time to everybody, the CC has no part in this discussion, only the first millenium is up for discussion.

But to answer : This does not diminish the ecumenical status of the council as the council was ratified as the 21st ecumenical council by the Roman Bishop. Thus it is binding on all, even those who don't adhere. Just as law is binding on all , even on criminals who refuse to obey.

Not if the law is unconstitutional it isn't. Not if said legislature is composed of spies from an enemy nation.

Fair but my point is valid. E.g. The law prohibiting theft and murder is constitutional, yet there are men who disregard these laws and murder and steal regularly. Does this mean because such men exist, the law does not have authority, or is at leas of questionable authority? Come on now...

That's why there's a SCOTUS, to tell us whether a law violates the constitution or not. We're not making this comparison to things like theft that are obviously unconstitutional, but rather things that are controversial such as gay marriage or NSA wire taping.

It doesn't matter if they put me in jail for violating a law I feel to be unconstitutional. If it's really unconstitutional, I'll be vindicated in the end.

Quote
I repeat:  Poking holes in other people's ecclesiologies does no good unless one can show that a better solution to said holes is out there.

We have. We have a clear marker for ecumenicity. Papal ratification...

See above.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 04:09:24 AM by Volnutt »
Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,491
  • Pray for me, a sinner
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #4 on: May 28, 2015, 04:17:18 AM »
Ok, since you don't want this in that other thread, I'll make the point here.

It doesn't matter if the Orthodox have no good way to determine whether a council is Ecumenical because the Catholic way is no better given the existence of dissenters to Papal pronouncements such as the Old Catholics and various sedevacantists.

Nonsense! the presence of dissenters does not nullify authority, it only shows dissent. The catholic way to determine whether a council is ecumenical is by papal ratification, not by acceptance...

Which Pope, though?

There is only one pope who was elected by the conclave , not two or three. Even the great western schism is not as messy as people make it out to be. Now that we look retrospectively and have all the facts, it was a slam dunk case of legitimacy for the roman line. You're forcing the issue.

Quote
Quote
Quote
"What makes a Council binding on all? The fact that it has been accepted by all. Well, what if it has not been accepted by some? Oh, they're all schismatics, so they don't count. But, since the Council has not been accepted by some, how can it be Ecumenical? It's accepted by all, because those who don't accept the decision are cut off. But, since it has not been accepted, how can it be binding? It has been accepted by all ..."

That dilemma holds for the RCC as well, though. How can Vatican I be binding when the Old Catholics refuse to accept it? How can Vatican II be binding when sedevacantists refuse to accept it and conclavists have gone so far as to elect their own Pope over it?

A problem for everybody is a problem for nobody.

Please for the last time to everybody, the CC has no part in this discussion, only the first millenium is up for discussion.

But to answer : This does not diminish the ecumenical status of the council as the council was ratified as the 21st ecumenical council by the Roman Bishop. Thus it is binding on all, even those who don't adhere. Just as law is binding on all , even on criminals who refuse to obey.

Not if the law is unconstitutional it isn't. Not if said legislature is composed of spies from an enemy nation.

Fair but my point is valid. E.g. The law prohibiting theft and murder is constitutional, yet there are men who disregard these laws and murder and steal regularly. Does this mean because such men exist, the law does not have authority, or is at leas of questionable authority? Come on now...

That's why there's a SCOTUS, to tell us whether a law violates the constitution or not. We're not making this comparison to things like theft that are obviously unconstitutional, but rather things that are controversial such as gay marriage or NSA wire taping.

It doesn't matter if they put me in jail for violating a law I feel to be unconstitutional. If it's really unconstitutional, I'll be vindicated in the end.

Quote
I repeat:  Poking holes in other people's ecclesiologies does no good unless one can show that a better solution to said holes is out there.

We have. We have a clear marker for ecumenicity. Papal ratification...

See above.

No its a principle ... Plain and simple does the presence of criminals violating constitutional law, nullify the authority of the law?
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 04:18:18 AM by Wandile »
"We are to love God for Himself, because of a twofold reason; nothing is more reasonable, nothing more profitable."
-St. Bernard of Clairvaux

Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyr of Africa, pray for the Church today


"Yes. Crucifixion is a Roman practice" - xOrthodox4Christx

Offline Volnutt

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,974
  • Faith: Semi-Evangelical
  • Jurisdiction: Might become Orthodox
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #5 on: May 28, 2015, 04:35:03 AM »
Ok, since you don't want this in that other thread, I'll make the point here.

It doesn't matter if the Orthodox have no good way to determine whether a council is Ecumenical because the Catholic way is no better given the existence of dissenters to Papal pronouncements such as the Old Catholics and various sedevacantists.

Nonsense! the presence of dissenters does not nullify authority, it only shows dissent. The catholic way to determine whether a council is ecumenical is by papal ratification, not by acceptance...

Which Pope, though?

There is only one pope who was elected by the conclave , not two or three. Even the great western schism is not as messy as people make it out to be. Now that we look retrospectively and have all the facts, it was a slam dunk case of legitimacy for the roman line. You're forcing the issue.

Fat lot of good that hindsight does for the people living at the time.

If the conclave is illegitimate, then they'll elect an illegitimate Pope.

Quote
Quote
Quote
"What makes a Council binding on all? The fact that it has been accepted by all. Well, what if it has not been accepted by some? Oh, they're all schismatics, so they don't count. But, since the Council has not been accepted by some, how can it be Ecumenical? It's accepted by all, because those who don't accept the decision are cut off. But, since it has not been accepted, how can it be binding? It has been accepted by all ..."

That dilemma holds for the RCC as well, though. How can Vatican I be binding when the Old Catholics refuse to accept it? How can Vatican II be binding when sedevacantists refuse to accept it and conclavists have gone so far as to elect their own Pope over it?

A problem for everybody is a problem for nobody.

Please for the last time to everybody, the CC has no part in this discussion, only the first millenium is up for discussion.

But to answer : This does not diminish the ecumenical status of the council as the council was ratified as the 21st ecumenical council by the Roman Bishop. Thus it is binding on all, even those who don't adhere. Just as law is binding on all , even on criminals who refuse to obey.

Not if the law is unconstitutional it isn't. Not if said legislature is composed of spies from an enemy nation.

Fair but my point is valid. E.g. The law prohibiting theft and murder is constitutional, yet there are men who disregard these laws and murder and steal regularly. Does this mean because such men exist, the law does not have authority, or is at leas of questionable authority? Come on now...

That's why there's a SCOTUS, to tell us whether a law violates the constitution or not. We're not making this comparison to things like theft that are obviously unconstitutional, but rather things that are controversial such as gay marriage or NSA wire taping.

It doesn't matter if they put me in jail for violating a law I feel to be unconstitutional. If it's really unconstitutional, I'll be vindicated in the end.

Quote
I repeat:  Poking holes in other people's ecclesiologies does no good unless one can show that a better solution to said holes is out there.

We have. We have a clear marker for ecumenicity. Papal ratification...

See above.

No its a principle ... Plain and simple does the presence of criminals violating constitutional law, nullify the authority of the law?

You're assuming said law is constitutional when that is in question.

Quote from: Volnutt
We're not making this comparison to things like theft that are obviously unconstitutional, but rather things that are controversial such as gay marriage or NSA wire taping.
Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,491
  • Pray for me, a sinner
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2015, 06:51:16 AM »
Ok, since you don't want this in that other thread, I'll make the point here.

It doesn't matter if the Orthodox have no good way to determine whether a council is Ecumenical because the Catholic way is no better given the existence of dissenters to Papal pronouncements such as the Old Catholics and various sedevacantists.

Nonsense! the presence of dissenters does not nullify authority, it only shows dissent. The catholic way to determine whether a council is ecumenical is by papal ratification, not by acceptance...

Which Pope, though?

There is only one pope who was elected by the conclave , not two or three. Even the great western schism is not as messy as people make it out to be. Now that we look retrospectively and have all the facts, it was a slam dunk case of legitimacy for the roman line. You're forcing the issue.

Fat lot of good that hindsight does for the people living at the time.
The reason it was confusing is because at the time information travelled slower. So by the time they hear of a new pope, they hear also of another conclave electing another pope. That was just the unfortunate nature of the time. But everyone close to the events knew the truth.  A pope was legitimately elected, reigned for some time and then some cardinals were unhappy with the way he went about things so they ran away to a far land in secret and "elected" another. ::)

Quote
if the conclave is illegitimate, then they'll elect an illegitimate Pope.
It was a legitimate one. The cardinals (in good standing) of the church elected one of their fellows as pope. And the fact that there were no significant protests (only from small schismatic groups not of the CC) shows its legitimacy for the church. Nevermind its legitimacy was already shown by the strict following of the rules by the electoral persons.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
"What makes a Council binding on all? The fact that it has been accepted by all. Well, what if it has not been accepted by some? Oh, they're all schismatics, so they don't count. But, since the Council has not been accepted by some, how can it be Ecumenical? It's accepted by all, because those who don't accept the decision are cut off. But, since it has not been accepted, how can it be binding? It has been accepted by all ..."

That dilemma holds for the RCC as well, though. How can Vatican I be binding when the Old Catholics refuse to accept it? How can Vatican II be binding when sedevacantists refuse to accept it and conclavists have gone so far as to elect their own Pope over it?

A problem for everybody is a problem for nobody.

Please for the last time to everybody, the CC has no part in this discussion, only the first millenium is up for discussion.

But to answer : This does not diminish the ecumenical status of the council as the council was ratified as the 21st ecumenical council by the Roman Bishop. Thus it is binding on all, even those who don't adhere. Just as law is binding on all , even on criminals who refuse to obey.

Not if the law is unconstitutional it isn't. Not if said legislature is composed of spies from an enemy nation.

Fair but my point is valid. E.g. The law prohibiting theft and murder is constitutional, yet there are men who disregard these laws and murder and steal regularly. Does this mean because such men exist, the law does not have authority, or is at leas of questionable authority? Come on now...

That's why there's a SCOTUS, to tell us whether a law violates the constitution or not. We're not making this comparison to things like theft that are obviously unconstitutional, but rather things that are controversial such as gay marriage or NSA wire taping.

It doesn't matter if they put me in jail for violating a law I feel to be unconstitutional. If it's really unconstitutional, I'll be vindicated in the end.

Quote
I repeat:  Poking holes in other people's ecclesiologies does no good unless one can show that a better solution to said holes is out there.

We have. We have a clear marker for ecumenicity. Papal ratification...

See above.

No its a principle ... Plain and simple does the presence of criminals violating constitutional law, nullify the authority of the law?

You're assuming said law is constitutional when that is in question.

Quote from: Volnutt
We're not making this comparison to things like theft that are obviously unconstitutional, but rather things that are controversial such as gay marriage or NSA wire taping.

Really??? The laws against theft  and murder are debateable whether they are constitutional? You cant possibly believe this. You're getting desperate as the point I made of law having authority despite dissenters refutes you...
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 06:52:53 AM by Wandile »
"We are to love God for Himself, because of a twofold reason; nothing is more reasonable, nothing more profitable."
-St. Bernard of Clairvaux

Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyr of Africa, pray for the Church today


"Yes. Crucifixion is a Roman practice" - xOrthodox4Christx

Offline Volnutt

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,974
  • Faith: Semi-Evangelical
  • Jurisdiction: Might become Orthodox
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2015, 11:57:30 PM »
Ok, since you don't want this in that other thread, I'll make the point here.

It doesn't matter if the Orthodox have no good way to determine whether a council is Ecumenical because the Catholic way is no better given the existence of dissenters to Papal pronouncements such as the Old Catholics and various sedevacantists.

Nonsense! the presence of dissenters does not nullify authority, it only shows dissent. The catholic way to determine whether a council is ecumenical is by papal ratification, not by acceptance...

Which Pope, though?

There is only one pope who was elected by the conclave , not two or three. Even the great western schism is not as messy as people make it out to be. Now that we look retrospectively and have all the facts, it was a slam dunk case of legitimacy for the roman line. You're forcing the issue.

Fat lot of good that hindsight does for the people living at the time.
The reason it was confusing is because at the time information travelled slower. So by the time they hear of a new pope, they hear also of another conclave electing another pope. That was just the unfortunate nature of the time. But everyone close to the events knew the truth.  A pope was legitimately elected, reigned for some time and then some cardinals were unhappy with the way he went about things so they ran away to a far land in secret and "elected" another. ::)

Ok, so what about those who weren't so close to the situation? How were they supposed to know who the real Pope was?

Quote
if the conclave is illegitimate, then they'll elect an illegitimate Pope.
It was a legitimate one. The cardinals (in good standing) of the church elected one of their fellows as pope. And the fact that there were no significant protests (only from small schismatic groups not of the CC) shows its legitimacy for the church. Nevermind its legitimacy was already shown by the strict following of the rules by the electoral persons.

And how do we know they were schismatic? Because they didn't submit to the previous Popes. From their point of view the conclave was illegitimate or heretical.

From the point of view of the Old Catholics, Vatican I was illegitimate or heretical. Prove them wrong.

You're moving in circles. You want a magic believe-o-ray that the Pope can zap you with and give you absolute certainty. It isn't going to work. The Catholic view runs on faith just as much as the Orthodox view does.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
"What makes a Council binding on all? The fact that it has been accepted by all. Well, what if it has not been accepted by some? Oh, they're all schismatics, so they don't count. But, since the Council has not been accepted by some, how can it be Ecumenical? It's accepted by all, because those who don't accept the decision are cut off. But, since it has not been accepted, how can it be binding? It has been accepted by all ..."

That dilemma holds for the RCC as well, though. How can Vatican I be binding when the Old Catholics refuse to accept it? How can Vatican II be binding when sedevacantists refuse to accept it and conclavists have gone so far as to elect their own Pope over it?

A problem for everybody is a problem for nobody.

Please for the last time to everybody, the CC has no part in this discussion, only the first millenium is up for discussion.

But to answer : This does not diminish the ecumenical status of the council as the council was ratified as the 21st ecumenical council by the Roman Bishop. Thus it is binding on all, even those who don't adhere. Just as law is binding on all , even on criminals who refuse to obey.

Not if the law is unconstitutional it isn't. Not if said legislature is composed of spies from an enemy nation.

Fair but my point is valid. E.g. The law prohibiting theft and murder is constitutional, yet there are men who disregard these laws and murder and steal regularly. Does this mean because such men exist, the law does not have authority, or is at leas of questionable authority? Come on now...

That's why there's a SCOTUS, to tell us whether a law violates the constitution or not. We're not making this comparison to things like theft that are obviously unconstitutional, but rather things that are controversial such as gay marriage or NSA wire taping.

It doesn't matter if they put me in jail for violating a law I feel to be unconstitutional. If it's really unconstitutional, I'll be vindicated in the end.

Quote
I repeat:  Poking holes in other people's ecclesiologies does no good unless one can show that a better solution to said holes is out there.

We have. We have a clear marker for ecumenicity. Papal ratification...

See above.

No its a principle ... Plain and simple does the presence of criminals violating constitutional law, nullify the authority of the law?

You're assuming said law is constitutional when that is in question.

Quote from: Volnutt
We're not making this comparison to things like theft that are obviously unconstitutional, but rather things that are controversial such as gay marriage or NSA wire taping.

Really??? The laws against theft  and murder are debateable whether they are constitutional? You cant possibly believe this. You're getting desperate as the point I made of law having authority despite dissenters refutes you...

No, I said that the acts of theft and of murder are obviously unconstitutional. Awkward phrasing admittedly, but the conversation seemed to be locked into it.

NSA wire tapping is debatable as to it's constitutionality. A law that is against the constitution is not legitimately in force. You might get thrown in jail for violating it while it is being challenged, but you've not acted against the principle of the highest law of the land.

In the same way, the proclamations of an illegitimate Pope or an illegitimate Council have no true force even if they might seem to. Otherwise all you're saying is that the Pope is right because he says he is.
Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,016
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #8 on: Yesterday at 12:50:09 AM »
Ok, since you don't want this in that other thread, I'll make the point here.

It doesn't matter if the Orthodox have no good way to determine whether a council is Ecumenical because the Catholic way is no better given the existence of dissenters to Papal pronouncements such as the Old Catholics and various sedevacantists.

Nonsense! the presence of dissenters does not nullify authority, it only shows dissent. The catholic way to determine whether a council is ecumenical is by papal ratification, not by acceptance...

Nonsense!
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,016
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #9 on: Yesterday at 01:03:32 AM »
Ok, since you don't want this in that other thread, I'll make the point here.

It doesn't matter if the Orthodox have no good way to determine whether a council is Ecumenical because the Catholic way is no better given the existence of dissenters to Papal pronouncements such as the Old Catholics and various sedevacantists.

Nonsense! the presence of dissenters does not nullify authority, it only shows dissent. The catholic way to determine whether a council is ecumenical is by papal ratification, not by acceptance...

Which Pope, though?

There is only one pope who was elected by the conclave , not two or three. Even the great western schism is not as messy as people make it out to be. Now that we look retrospectively and have all the facts, it was a slam dunk case of legitimacy for the roman line. You're forcing the issue.
No, your supreme Pontiff Alexander VI did that by recognizing the Pisan Pope Alexander V, after your Roman line resigned to the Pisans' council.

And then the purported successor of your supreme Pontiff Alexander VI, John, messed it up by claiming to be Pope John XXIII, a position recognized by your general council of Constance and its appointed supreme pontiff Martin V as belonging to Pope Alexander V's successor (who called the council of Constance).

you overshot.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,016
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #10 on: Yesterday at 01:33:25 AM »
Quote
"What makes a Council binding on all? The fact that it has been accepted by all. Well, what if it has not been accepted by some? Oh, they're all schismatics, so they don't count. But, since the Council has not been accepted by some, how can it be Ecumenical? It's accepted by all, because those who don't accept the decision are cut off. But, since it has not been accepted, how can it be binding? It has been accepted by all ..."

That dilemma holds for the RCC as well, though. How can Vatican I be binding when the Old Catholics refuse to accept it? How can Vatican II be binding when sedevacantists refuse to accept it and conclavists have gone so far as to elect their own Pope over it?

A problem for everybody is a problem for nobody.

Please for the last time to everybody, the CC has no part in this discussion, only the first millenium is up for discussion.

But to answer : This does not diminish the ecumenical status of the council as the council was ratified as the 21st ecumenical council by the Roman Bishop. Thus it is binding on all, even those who don't adhere. Just as law is binding on all , even on criminals who refuse to obey.

Not if the law is unconstitutional it isn't. Not if said legislature is composed of spies from an enemy nation.

Fair but my point is valid. E.g. The law prohibiting theft and murder is constitutional, yet there are men who disregard these laws and murder and steal regularly. Does this mean because such men exist, the law does not have authority, or is at leas of questionable authority? Come on now...
Your analogy is off: you are thinking more of a situation like Bush v. Gore and who was really the elected president in 2000.

As for your claim of the bishop of Rome binding all even those who do not adhere, you have (amongst other things) the problem of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which bound the bishop of Rome, although he refused to adhere to its convening and the promulgation of its decrees and Definition.


I repeat:  Poking holes in other people's ecclesiologies does no good unless one can show that a better solution to said holes is out there.

We have. We have a clear marker for ecumenicity. Papal ratification... Even prominent EO writers admit the CC has a clear system of determining ecumenicity and that the EO have not worked one out yet
your theory is clear, as is the fact that it clearly doesn't match reality.  Besides the problems of the 2nd (where Rome wasn't and it was convened by those not in communion with Old Rome) and 5th Ecumenical Councils, you have your problems of your councils of Pisa, Constance, Siena and Basel, to name a few.

only if this is clear

We didn't work out one. We stick to the one given us. John 10:14.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,560
  • 1951-2015 Memory Eternal Uncle Roy--40 Days of Mourning.
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #11 on: Yesterday at 01:56:24 AM »
Nonsense! the presence of dissenters does not nullify authority, it only shows dissent. The catholic way to determine whether a council is ecumenical is by papal ratification, not by acceptance...

What if the ratification is contested? You are merely pushing the issue one step back. There are those who could say that the ratification was illegitimate or better yet, contest whether or not the papacy is really the papacy. Either way, the point is that the subjective human element is always present and can never fully be negated no matter how much Western Christendom may attempt to do so, be it Rome with the papacy or Protestantism with the Bible alone. And the great irony is that within the 1,000 years Rome has been in schism and the 500 or so years Protestantism has existed, Western Christendom has been more divided and produced more schism than the Orthodox Church ever has since 1054. Your papacy and your bible was responsible for the very thing it tried to prevent. And I would say it's due to your arrogance. God cannot be placed in a test-tube, nor can you bind the Holy Spirit by means of logical syllogism, scholastic formulas, and other vain complexities. Christ said that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the Church; He never told us the exact mechanism of how He would do so. He never said "...because I will work through the papacy, because I will give you the Bible," or even "...because of the Ecumenical Councils." He left it blank and vague. It requires faith. The Orthodox Church has accepted with faith that Christ will somehow and in someway protect the Church in the end, be it St. Maximos the Confessor, the canons, or even overzealous converts on an internet forum. And so far He has. Western Christendom has repudiated this faith with trying to work out an exact mechanism, and the results are a self evident failure riddled with schism and division.

Quote
We have. We have a clear marker for ecumenicity. Papal ratification... Even prominent EO writers admit the CC has a clear system of determining ecumenicity and that the EO have not worked one out yet

Papal ratification is only clear to those who accept it. To those who contend it, it is no more a clear marker than the Ecumenical Councils are. And the results of the different systems speak for themselves. Have fun cleaning up the mess known as the Reformation that your clear marker of ecumenicity started.
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Offline Xavier

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #12 on: Yesterday at 03:23:01 AM »
Quote
What if the ratification is contested? You are merely pushing the issue one step back.

On the contrary, it is the only workable rule that there be some supreme and final tribunal in the Church from which no judgment is permitted. That's why even secular nations have many high courts, but only one supreme court, many chief ministers or members of cabinet, but only one prime minister, who presides over all. Even Orthodox priest Fr. Nicholas Afanaseiff concedes Rome from the Apostolic age has ever held a universal primacy in the Church, of "presiding over the brotherhood in love", by being the final court of appeal for all the Churches, even though Father does not draw all the necessary conclusions flowing from that fact. He writes, "Rome's vocation [in the "pre-Nicene period"] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition -- that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine -- and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome ...."

Justly, therefore, does Pastor Aeternus reiterate this Tradition in these words, "The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs." And therefore, all Gallicans, conciliarists, sedevacantists etc condemn themselves by presuming to appeal or condemn the judgments of the Apostolic See.

It should also be noted that there is nothing like an "antiPope" whose election receives uncontested acceptance. An "antiPope" refers to an uncanonically elected candidate set up in opposition to a true Pope, in other words, there can only be an antiPope when there is another true Pope, and it is uncertain to whom Petrine succession has passed. And, since the Roman Pontiff is infallible in official ex cathedra judgments, there is no appeal possible from them, but all are bound to hear and obey the Church speaking through Her Supreme Pastor as they would hear and obey Christ the Lord, according to His words in the Gospel. It should also be noted that this very uncontested acceptance is, according to Catholic Faith, infallible proof of valid succession to the See of Peter, as eminent Catholic theologians Cardinal Billot, Wernz-Vidal, Rev. Francis Connell, Fr. Sylvester Hunter etc teach. I can document this if necessary and it suffices to refute modern heresies like "sedevacantism".

But the point here is - Catholics who accept Church teaching have an easy and safe way of recognizing a Council to be Ecumenical. Do the Orthodox also have such a rule? To take one concrete example, why is the Synod of Jerusalem, 1672, for example, not recognized as Ecumenical in your Church? It received universal acceptance and was attended by several metropolitans and patriarchs, yet some 19th and 20th century Orthodox priests have thought it acceptable to question some of its doctrinal judgments or call for their revision. I will explain why the Council of Lyons II, as well as Florence, is Ecumenical by any reasonable standard in a subsequent post.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 03:24:36 AM by Xavier »
"Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. Save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven" (St. Theodore to St. Leo III, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Offline Xavier

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #13 on: Yesterday at 04:04:25 AM »
Quote
What if the ratification is contested? You are merely pushing the issue one step back.

On the contrary, it is the only workable rule that there be some supreme and final tribunal in the Church from which no judgment is permitted. That's why even secular nations have many high courts, but only one supreme court, many chief ministers or members of cabinet, but only one prime minister, who presides over all. Even Orthodox priest Fr. Nicholas Afanaseiff concedes Rome from the Apostolic age has ever held a universal primacy in the Church, of "presiding over the brotherhood in love", by being the final court of appeal for all the Churches, even though Father does not draw all the necessary conclusions flowing from that fact. He writes, "Rome's vocation [in the "pre-Nicene period"] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition -- that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine -- and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome ...."

Justly, therefore, does Pastor Aeternus reiterate this Tradition in these words, "The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs". And therefore, all Gallicans, conciliarists, sedevacantists etc condemn themselves by presuming to appeal or condemn the judgments of the Apostolic See.

It should also be noted that there is nothing like an "antiPope" whose election receives uncontested acceptance. An "antiPope" refers to an uncanonically elected candidate set up in opposition to a true Pope, in other words, there can only be an antiPope when there is another true Pope, and it is uncertain to whom Petrine succession has passed. And, since the Roman Pontiff is infallible in official ex cathedra judgments, there is no appeal possible from them, but all are bound to hear and obey the Church speaking through Her Supreme Pastor as they would hear and obey Christ the Lord, according to His words in the Gospel. It should also be noted that this very uncontested acceptance is, according to Catholic Faith, infallible proof of valid succession to the See of Peter, as eminent Catholic theologians Cardinal Billot, Wernz-Vidal, Rev. Francis Connell, Fr. Sylvester Hunter etc teach. I can document this if necessary and it suffices to refute modern heresies like "sedevacantism".

But the point here is - Catholics who accept Church teaching have an easy and safe way of recognizing a Council to be Ecumenical. Do the Orthodox also have such a rule? To take one concrete example, why is the Synod of Jerusalem, 1672, for example, not recognized as Ecumenical in your Church? It received universal acceptance and was attended by several metropolitans and patriarchs, yet some 19th and 20th century Orthodox priests have thought it acceptable to question some of its doctrinal judgments or call for their revision. I will explain why the Council of Lyons II, as well as Florence, is Ecumenical by any reasonable standard in a subsequent post.
"Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. Save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven" (St. Theodore to St. Leo III, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Offline Cyrillic

  • Arbiter Elegantiarum
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,377
  • We must go back!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #14 on: Yesterday at 04:53:16 AM »
But the point here is - Catholics who accept Church teaching have an easy and safe way of recognizing a Council to be Ecumenical.

....

Pope St. Martin I held the Lateran Council of 649, which he and St. Maximus proclaimed to be the 6th Ecumenical Council. It was never accepted as such by the sensus fidelium, and thus the 649 Lateran Council is recognized by nobody as the 6th Ecumenical Council. If Papal recognition is what makes a council ecumenical, the Lateran Council of 649 would be ecumenical; but it isn't.

So, 649 Lateran is ecumenical according to you?

Even prominent EO writers admit the CC has a clear system of determining ecumenicity and that the EO have not worked one out yet

A clear, yet false system, as the example of the Lateran Council of 649 proves.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 04:59:26 AM by Cyrillic »
"Par ma foi! Il y a plus de quarante ans que je dis de la prose sans que j'en susse rien."
-Molière, The Middle-Class Gentleman.

Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,792
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #15 on: Yesterday at 05:40:26 AM »
So here's the problem.  The Popes from around 1,000 until Pope St. Pius V were filthy human beings.  Pope St. Piis V was the first Pope in 500 years that was not an appalling miscreant.  The Borgias, Julius II who seemed to care more about the Gospel of Julius Caesar than of zjesus Christ, Pope Leo X who lied to cheat Germans out of their money to rebuild St. Peter's, provoking the Protestant schism, which was a true disaster, dashing all hopes for a complete reconciliation between the Orthodox and the Western church (because there are so many Protestant sects who cling so passionately to error, at best we can only reconcile a few of the less radical sects), and of course the worst villains of all, the prosecutors of the crusades, which caused the death of countless Orthodox, the fall of the Roman Empire, and what appears to be the permanent loss of Asia Minor and Constantinople to the Muslims.

How can any council declared ecumenical by such wicked men be regarded as Ecumemical?  Though the Council of Trent is gravely mistaken on some points of theology, it started in motion a reform of the Roman Church that cleansed her of such diabolical Popes and ultimately led to some very good popes like Ss. Pius X, John XXIII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.  Especially after the papacy was shorn of its land holdings; I would argue that the Papal States were a violation of the Apostolic Canon prohibiting anyone in Noly Orders from being engaged in secular affairs.  Of course one could argue that as Ethnarchs the Ecumenical Patriarchs were forced into a similiar role.  However I would counter that by saying the leaders of the Christisn millets of the Ottoman Wmpire served as advocates for the rights of Chrostisnsunder their protection before the Sublime Porte, which is a worthy duty for a prelate, whereas the Pope in exercising direct temporal control over the Papal States violated his ecclesiastical obligations.

And this violation is severe enough to render any pronunciation of ecumeni city by the Popes null and void.  Indeed any councils the evil pre counter Reformation popes convened, prior to Pius V, should be regarded as a latrocinium.

Now here's the bitter truth.  The word Ecumenical can mean "Of the Empire."  What really made these councils Exumenical was the Emperor.  Which is probably why we haven't had one since the fall of Constantinople.  And I for one am happy about that.  I don't want any more ecumenical councils; the fear of a Vatican II like debacle that would lead to the acceptance of things like homosexuality and the destruction of the liturgy is palpable among many quarters.  It won't happen of course, as the majority of our bishops are pious and God fearing.  But alas most of your bishops aren't of the character of HE Salvador Cordileone or Raymond Cardinal Burke; I pray for the Roman church that you are not subjected to a Vatican III.  As I do believe the Roman church is a force of good in the world and I want it to survive, to thrive, and to find its way home to Orthodoxy.

Offline Cyrillic

  • Arbiter Elegantiarum
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,377
  • We must go back!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #16 on: Yesterday at 05:45:20 AM »
How can any council declared ecumenical by such wicked men be regarded as Ecumemical?

Although the theory that councils are ecumenical because the Pope says so is nonsense, your argument sucks. The prophet Jonah, for example, was far from sinless, yet the Holy Spirit spoke through him.
"Par ma foi! Il y a plus de quarante ans que je dis de la prose sans que j'en susse rien."
-Molière, The Middle-Class Gentleman.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,697
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #17 on: Yesterday at 07:01:53 AM »
Quote
What if the ratification is contested? You are merely pushing the issue one step back.

On the contrary, it is the only workable rule that there be some supreme and final tribunal in the Church from which no judgment is permitted. That's why even secular nations have many high courts, but only one supreme court, many chief ministers or members of cabinet, but only one prime minister, who presides over all. Even Orthodox priest Fr. Nicholas Afanaseiff concedes Rome from the Apostolic age has ever held a universal primacy in the Church, of "presiding over the brotherhood in love", by being the final court of appeal for all the Churches, even though Father does not draw all the necessary conclusions flowing from that fact. He writes, "Rome's vocation [in the "pre-Nicene period"] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition -- that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine -- and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome ...."

Have you actually read Fr. Nicholas Afanasieff's works in full? Quoting him out of context like this is naive at best and dishonest at worst, because those quotations do not sum up the totality of his thought on the issue of primacy and how Rome exercised primacy in the first millennium. It is also simply nowhere near evident that your own preconceived notions of Roman primacy are necessary conclusions of Fr. Afanasieff's work.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Xavier

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #18 on: Yesterday at 10:33:42 AM »
1. Wow. Cavaradossi, Please don't put words in my mouth, I did not say that Fr. Afanasieff agreed with my view of the Roman primacy, but expressly disavowed it. Father comes quite close to the Catholic view in his exegesis of well-known passages in St. Irenaeus of Lyons and St. Ignatius of Antioch, describing the Roman Church as presiding over the brotherhood in love and the centre of communion to which other Churches must of necessity have recourse in settling disputes. Elsewhere, he criticizes Catholic scholars who he says understand this patristic and canonical Tradition in purely juridical terms. On the matter at hand, he states, "Let us return to the text of Irenaeus. He says that every local church, if contentious problems arise, must (necesse) have recourse to the Church of Rome. Necesse in Irenaeus does not suggest any legal obligation. The necessity springs from a more inward duty, reflecting the very nature of the Church: the duty of appealing, if there is disagreement, to the church which has the greatest authority. This church bore her witness on events in the other churches; or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, events in the Church. The witness was not a verdict backed by the force of law, and, as such, constraining the other churches to obey. It was a free act when the local churches followed Rome’s witness; they were accepting witness from a fellow-church because of its higher authority. But Rome’s witness was not less valid, but had higher validity than any and every legal verdict. If there has ever been a time in church history when the catch-word, Roma locuta, causa finita, stood for something real, that time was before the Church of Rome had any powers by law." which words go beyond a mere primacy of honor, but fall short of the Catholic doctrine of primacy of jurisdiction, where the decrees of the Roman Pontiff, while also exhorting the other Churches in a fraternal manner, also have legal force to bind.

If you still think I am misrepresenting Father, the entire relevant chapter can be read in its original context online by anyone interested here http://www.golubinski.ru/ecclesia/primacy.htm And yes, I have read Father's works relating to the primacy entirely. If you think I have misquoted him, explain where he would take issue with what I said.

2. What is your own understanding of what primacy entails, merely one or one's delegates having the seat of honor in an ecumenical council? But not the power to convoke, preside over or at least confirm it? No power to judge contentious issues and settle judgments between the Churches? The idea that a secular emperor has more power to issue binding decrees than the See of Peter is untenable, yet besides the Emperor, no one other than the Apostolic See has ever claimed the right and power to convoke or at least ratify councils, the one because of secular privileges, the other by divine decree and the words of the Lord in the Gospel, and Apostolic Tradition. Pope Pelagius II was cited on the other thread, expressly saying "the authority of convoking General Synods by a singular privilege has been delivered to the Apostolic See of Blessed Peter".

Cyrillic, on the other thread, you stated that what the legates had said before the whole Council of Chalcedon that "to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which has never and can never take place", was "obviously false". Please demonstrate what is obvious and why this is false? I understand your point about the Lateran Synod, but recall Pope St. Martin I and later St. Maximus were soon subject to duress for their defense of orthodoxy by the emperor Constans II. In this context, where for a time the triumph of monothelitism favored by the emperor seemed a real possibility, it was deemed preferable that the true doctrine should prevail in the Church, whether at Lateran or in Constantinople was a matter of inconsequence. Lateran remains a synod of authority, the essence of its dogmatic teaching was incorporated into Constantinople III where monothelitism was condemned. If the emperor had not been so crass in attempting to force the hand of the Pope, things would have played out differently. Besides, it is hardly only the Tradition of the Roman Church that bears witness to this primacy, but the leading lights of Constantinople, the second see in Christendom, also testify to it, especially St. Nicephorus, Patriarch Macedonius, St. Maximus and St. Theodore. Please show me, by contrast, a single Father, Saint or Doctor in the first Christian millenium, in Rome, Constantinople or elsewhere, agreeing with your theory that the ratification of an emperor, or even the laity, gives an ecclesiastical decree binding force in the universal Church.

How do you understand St. Nicephorus teaching, "Without whom a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (i.e. the Roman Pontiffs) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles.", Patriarch Macedonius stating, "such a step (i.e. condemning Chalcedon) without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.", St. Maximus explaining, "she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate ... even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (i.e. the Roman Church) according to sacerodotal law" and St. Theodore declaring (most of these were written to the Byzantine emperor at the time) that to the Pope of Rome is given, "authority over an Ecumenical Synod"?
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 10:39:19 AM by Xavier »
"Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. Save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven" (St. Theodore to St. Leo III, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,016
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #19 on: Yesterday at 10:56:17 AM »
Quote
What if the ratification is contested? You are merely pushing the issue one step back.

On the contrary, it is the only workable rule that there be some supreme and final tribunal in the Church from which no judgment is permitted. That's why even secular nations have many high courts, but only one supreme court, many chief ministers or members of cabinet, but only one prime minister, who presides over all. Even Orthodox priest Fr. Nicholas Afanaseiff concedes Rome from the Apostolic age has ever held a universal primacy in the Church, of "presiding over the brotherhood in love", by being the final court of appeal for all the Churches, even though Father does not draw all the necessary conclusions flowing from that fact. He writes, "Rome's vocation [in the "pre-Nicene period"] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition -- that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine -- and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome ...."
It was the lights of all the Churches focusing in the prism of Rome that made it a crucible where Orthodoxy and heresy collected-remember? all roads led to Rome-and burned off the dross of the latter to bring out the purity of the former. Fr. Afanaseiff didn't hold to the heretical idea that Rome was a sun upon which the other Churches depended on its rays for Light.

Btw, Rome was final court of appeals only in that it decided if an appeal warranted a retrial. The retrial, however, was to be held IN THE ORIGINAL CHURCH-ROME DID NOT CONDUCT IT. e.g. putting Ephesus II on trial at Chalcedon. Something you forgot below:
Justly, therefore, does Pastor Aeternus reiterate this Tradition in these words, "The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs." And therefore, all Gallicans, conciliarists, sedevacantists etc condemn themselves by presuming to appeal or condemn the judgments of the Apostolic See.
And the praxis of the Church condemns Pastor Aeternus.
It should also be noted that there is nothing like an "antiPope" whose election receives uncontested acceptance. An "antiPope" refers to an uncanonically elected candidate set up in opposition to a true Pope, in other words, there can only be an antiPope when there is another true Pope, and it is uncertain to whom Petrine succession has passed. And, since the Roman Pontiff is infallible in official ex cathedra judgments, there is no appeal possible from them, but all are bound to hear and obey the Church speaking through Her Supreme Pastor as they would hear and obey Christ the Lord, according to His words in the Gospel. It should also be noted that this very uncontested acceptance is, according to Catholic Faith, infallible proof of valid succession to the See of Peter, as eminent Catholic theologians Cardinal Billot, Wernz-Vidal, Rev. Francis Connell, Fr. Sylvester Hunter etc teach. I can document this if necessary and it suffices to refute modern heresies like "sedevacantism".


But the point here is - Catholics who accept Church teaching have an easy and safe way of recognizing a Council to be Ecumenical.
We Catholics do.
You Vaticanistas do, except when you don't


Do the Orthodox also have such a rule? To take one concrete example, why is the Synod of Jerusalem, 1672, for example, not recognized as Ecumenical in your Church? It received universal acceptance and was attended by several metropolitans and patriarchs, yet some 19th and 20th century Orthodox priests have thought it acceptable to question some of its doctrinal judgments or call for their revision.
Not an issue. You forget to mention, it was never accepted as Ecumenical, although it has received universal acceptance.
I will explain why the Council of Lyons II, as well as Florence, is Ecumenical by any reasonable standard in a subsequent post.
accepting heresy is never reasonable, and that's your problem-you are claiming that we can ignore the content of an council as long as a single bishop puts his seal of approval on it.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,016
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #20 on: Yesterday at 10:58:32 AM »
2. What is your own understanding of what primacy entails, merely one or one's delegates having the seat of honor in an ecumenical council? But not the power to convoke, preside over or at least confirm it? No power to judge contentious issues and settle judgments between the Churches? The idea that a secular emperor has more power to issue binding decrees than the See of Peter is untenable, yet besides the Emperor, no one other than the Apostolic See has ever claimed the right and power to convoke or at least ratify councils, the one because of secular privileges, the other by divine decree and the words of the Lord in the Gospel, and Apostolic Tradition. Pope Pelagius II was cited on the other thread, expressly saying "the authority of convoking General Synods by a singular privilege has been delivered to the Apostolic See of Blessed Peter".
Pope Vigilius.
Cyrillic, on the other thread, you stated that what the legates had said before the whole Council of Chalcedon that "to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which has never and can never take place", was "obviously false".
The Fifth Ecumenical Council, as well as the Second.

How do you understand St. Nicephorus teaching, "Without whom a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (i.e. the Roman Pontiffs) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles.", Patriarch Macedonius stating, "such a step (i.e. condemning Chalcedon) without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.", St. Maximus explaining, "she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate ... even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (i.e. the Roman Church) according to sacerodotal law" and St. Theodore declaring (most of these were written to the Byzantine emperor at the time) that to the Pope of Rome is given, "authority over an Ecumenical Synod"?
first kindly supply the bedrock of the context out of which your quote mine has wretched these words.
In the meantime, look up "Rhetoric." And embrace the idea that even saints can misspeak, or even be mistaken. (there is nothing, for instance, in the "sacerdotal law"-i.e. the Sacred Canons-placing the bishop of Rome over the Church's canons. And plenty of examples of the contrary can be provided (e.g. Pope Felix's mandating Boniface to succeed him)).
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 11:08:21 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Cyrillic

  • Arbiter Elegantiarum
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,377
  • We must go back!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #21 on: Yesterday at 11:08:32 AM »
St. Maximus explaining, "she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate ... even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (i.e. the Roman Church) according to sacerodotal law"

Rhetorical exaggeration. Remember that Rome was St. Maximus' only ally. As Isa already pointed out, St. Maximus conceded that Rome could fall into heresy and commune with the monothelites, and that he'd have to break communion with Rome in that case. Something a Roman Catholic could never admit.

For the other quotes, in that time the 'pentarchy theory' was in vogue, which said that for a council to be ecumenical all five patriarchates, including Rome, had to accept a council as ecumenical. This theory isn't true, but still.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 11:12:27 AM by Cyrillic »
"Par ma foi! Il y a plus de quarante ans que je dis de la prose sans que j'en susse rien."
-Molière, The Middle-Class Gentleman.

Offline Volnutt

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,974
  • Faith: Semi-Evangelical
  • Jurisdiction: Might become Orthodox
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #22 on: Today at 06:07:10 PM »
St. Maximus explaining, "she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate ... even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (i.e. the Roman Church) according to sacerodotal law"

Rhetorical exaggeration. Remember that Rome was St. Maximus' only ally. As Isa already pointed out, St. Maximus conceded that Rome could fall into heresy and commune with the monothelites, and that he'd have to break communion with Rome in that case. Something a Roman Catholic could never admit.

For the other quotes, in that time the 'pentarchy theory' was in vogue, which said that for a council to be ecumenical all five patriarchates, including Rome, had to accept a council as ecumenical. This theory isn't true, but still.

So, those Fathers would not have said that a Council that was accepted by Rome alone against all the other Churches would still have been Ecumenical? How were Sts. Maximus and Martin then able to justify calling Lateran 649 Ecumenical? Presumably it was supported by Jerusalem to the extent that St. Sophronius knew what was going on, but not by the other three.

By what standard are we justifying saying that St. Maximus must of necessity have been exaggerating when he said that? Forgive me, but it looks kind of ad hoc.
Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,016
Re: For Wandile and Xavier- The determination of ecumenicity
« Reply #23 on: Today at 06:32:42 PM »
By what standard are we justifying
the Sacred Canons to which St. Maximus was ostensibly appealing.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth