Author Topic: Some miscellaneous OO questions  (Read 3321 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,160
Some miscellaneous OO questions
« on: January 03, 2008, 04:51:28 PM »
On another forum :police: my posting has come the following challenges.

The OO, I was told, didn't accept the Second Ecumenical Council until Ephesus II, which the person (Latin rite I believe) said the OO consider Ecumenical.  (The reason why was he was trying to establish that a council is local until the pope of Rome says otherwise, and since Chalcedon is explicit (partly in reaction to Ephesus II) about what Councils were accepted).

Further, the issue between the Orthodox and the Latin West over eating blood (forbidden at the Council of Jerusalem, and at Trullo) came up.

Do the OO consider Ephesus II Ecumenical? (I know they accept it, but I thought on the same level as the Synod of Jerusalem (17th cent.) among the EO)

Do the OO believe they did not accept Constantinople I until Ephesus II?

Do the OO think it is OK to eat blood?
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 Salpy

  • Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,457
  • New Martyrs of Libya pray for us!
Re: Some miscellaneous OO questions
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2008, 05:11:44 PM »
I've never heard of the Armenian Church calling Ephesus II an ecumenical council and I don't think it was the thing that got the Armenians to accept Constantinople I.  Of course I can't verify that, I just never heard of that being the case.  In fact I don't think that any Armenians even participated in Ephesus II, though I think we would accept its holdings, such as the condemnation of the three chapters.




Do the OO think it is OK to eat blood?

Ick.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,317
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: Some miscellaneous OO questions
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2008, 05:55:34 PM »
Dear ialmisry,

Do you mean things strangulated?  From what I know, no, we do not eat things strangulated due to St. Paul's teaching not to eat anything strangulated or offered to idols.  I don't think we needed a council for that, although I wonder whether St. Paul meant that literally or if it had something to do with pagan worship.  As Egyptians it's also culturally unacceptable.  When animals are killed, they make sure most of the blood is drained through the neck, whether Muslim or Christian.

As for Constantinople, as far as I'm aware, it's been understood that it was never meant or understood to be an ecumenical council when it was held.  Later on in history, I'm not sure about Ephesus II, but certainly Ephesus III gave most OO's an idea that this is one of the councils we MUST accept, along with Nicea, Ephesus I, and Ephesus II.  Likewise, for the EO's, Constantinople was considered ecumenical in Chalcedon as well.

There was no mention of Constantinople in Ephesus I (431), only Nicea, which made some people think there were only two ecumenical councils accepted by that time.  Only mid to late fifth century have Constantinople been given mention as an ecumenical council.  Let's not forget the importance of this council in adding part of the Creed that pertained to the Holy Spirit, the Church, and the General Resurrection, as well as the condemnation of the heresies of Eunomius, Macedonius, and Apollinarius, which were probably universally accepted even before mentioning Constantinople as ecumenical.  The only issue about Constantinople that may have delayed its acceptance was probably the idea that Constantinople would be considered as "New Rome" equal in honor to Western Rome.

God bless.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 05:58:38 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,160
Re: Some miscellaneous OO questions
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2008, 07:34:59 PM »
thanks

Dear ialmisry,

Do you mean things strangulated?  From what I know, no, we do not eat things strangulated due to St. Paul's teaching not to eat anything strangulated or offered to idols.  I don't think we needed a council for that, although I wonder whether St. Paul meant that literally or if it had something to do with pagan worship.  As Egyptians it's also culturally unacceptable.  When animals are killed, they make sure most of the blood is drained through the neck, whether Muslim or Christian.

this was what I recall. We (Middle Easterners of basically any stripe) seem to have an aversion to blood.  I just wanted to get a sense from the OO that my perceptions were correct.

This issue comes up because the Council at Trullo (one of those the OO didn't parcipate, but I dare say they would agree with most or all) affirms the prohibition of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15 , it was St. James, Brother of God).  The council of Florence abrogated it (and cites faulty premesis in support: its not a Mosaic prohibition, but Noachid)

Quote
As for Constantinople, as far as I'm aware, it's been understood that it was never meant or understood to be an ecumenical council when it was held.  Later on in history, I'm not sure about Ephesus II, but certainly Ephesus III gave most OO's an idea that this is one of the councils we MUST accept, along with Nicea, Ephesus I, and Ephesus II.  Likewise, for the EO's, Constantinople was considered ecumenical in Chalcedon as well.

What do you mean by Ephesus III?

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: 39,160
Re: Some miscellaneous OO questions
« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2008, 07:37:45 PM »
thanks


I've never heard of the Armenian Church calling Ephesus II an ecumenical council and I don't think it was the thing that got the Armenians to accept Constantinople I.  Of course I can't verify that, I just never heard of that being the case.  In fact I don't think that any Armenians even participated in Ephesus II, though I think we would accept its holdings, such as the condemnation of the three chapters.

Yes, we caught up with you on that in the Fifth Council.  We had to bring Rome in kicking and screaming (quite literally).

Quote
Ick.

Yes, but those under Rome (Poles, Germans, British, Filipinos, etc.) all have national dishes made from blood.
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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,317
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: Some miscellaneous OO questions
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2008, 12:26:18 PM »
Dear ialmisry,

We OO's had what you may call a "fifth" council that can be considered ecumenically binding, the third council of Ephesus held in the year 475 AD.  Its contribution to dogma affirmed the unanimous condemnation of the person of Eutyches and his belief, but also affirmed condemnation of Nestorius and what the fathers of that council considered the semi-Nestorianism of Chalcedon and Leo of Rome with his famous Tome.  It is in this council where Constantinople was mentioned as ecumenical (as well as Ephesus II), which is quite a step, considering that the one who lead this council was an Alexandrian bishop, St. Timothy Aelurius (besides the see of Constantinople, I think they also wanted to show that they condemned Apollinarianism or any form of docetism to confirm the OO belief in a real humanity).

God bless.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2008, 12:26:38 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,160
Re: Some miscellaneous OO questions
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2008, 12:30:19 PM »
Dear ialmisry,

We OO's had what you may call a "fifth" council that can be considered ecumenically binding, the third council of Ephesus held in the year 475 AD.  Its contribution to dogma affirmed the unanimous condemnation of the person of Eutyches and his belief, but also affirmed condemnation of Nestorius and what the fathers of that council considered the semi-Nestorianism of Chalcedon and Leo of Rome with his famous Tome.  It is in this council where Constantinople was mentioned as ecumenical (as well as Ephesus II), which is quite a step, considering that the one who lead this council was an Alexandrian bishop, St. Timothy Aelurius (besides the see of Constantinople, I think they also wanted to show that they condemned Apollinarianism or any form of docetism to confirm the OO belief in a real humanity).

God bless.

I haven't seen much on this council, I had the feeling it was sort of like our Synod of Jerusalem.
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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,317
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: Some miscellaneous OO questions
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2008, 01:21:44 PM »
I haven't seen much on this council, I had the feeling it was sort of like our Synod of Jerusalem.

Can you describe the Synod of Jerusalem for me?  I don't know that one.

Even though shockingly you don't find much written about Ephesus III, it has been said that this synod was quite grand, almost matches the number of bishops in Chalcedon.  On the level of importance, I can say that there was a great number of bishops in the Roman empire who found the issues brought up in 475 was very important.  I wish to see more writings on this council.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,160
Re: Some miscellaneous OO questions
« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2008, 05:05:17 PM »
Can you describe the Synod of Jerusalem for me?  I don't know that one.

Even though shockingly you don't find much written about Ephesus III, it has been said that this synod was quite grand, almost matches the number of bishops in Chalcedon.  On the level of importance, I can say that there was a great number of bishops in the Roman empire who found the issues brought up in 475 was very important.  I wish to see more writings on this council.

It was at first a gathering at the invitation of the Patriarch Dositheus to the rededication of the Church of the Nativity.  A number of bishops all over the EO world came, and the patriarch took the opportunity to issue a confession against the Calvinist one written by the EP Cyril Lukaris.  They incorporated the decisions of the council of Iasi, and the catechism approved there (by St. Peter Movila of Kiev, there's a thread in faith on it).  Basically it turned out to be our Trent, against the Protestants.  Since it didn't deal with anyone in the Church (just warning on heresies outside the Church) it was never Ecumenical but Pan Orthodox.

Most of the decisions can be read here:
http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html
« Last Edit: January 04, 2008, 05:06:08 PM 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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,317
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: Some miscellaneous OO questions
« Reply #9 on: January 04, 2008, 06:26:21 PM »
Oh I remember the Confession of Dositheus.  Didn't that receive heat from contemporary Orthodox who thought the confession was very "Latinized?"
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,160
Re: Some miscellaneous OO questions
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2008, 12:22:24 AM »
Oh I remember the Confession of Dositheus.  Didn't that receive heat from contemporary Orthodox who thought the confession was very "Latinized?"

Yes, another reason why it is authoritative, but not infallible.  It deals with a lot of issues (the Real Presence) which are really issues between the factions of the West, and not a problem for the Orthodox.
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 Νεκτάριος

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,437
Re: Some miscellaneous OO questions
« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2008, 12:46:28 PM »
Yes, but those under Rome (Poles, Germans, British, Filipinos, etc.) all have national dishes made from blood.

Romanians also have blood dishes. 

Offline holdencaulfield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 244
Re: Some miscellaneous OO questions
« Reply #12 on: June 20, 2008, 05:52:39 PM »
I was under the impression that the Second Council of Ephesus was semi-Appollinarianist. Am I wrong in this?
"For better is a laudable war than a peace which severs a man from God" - St Gregory the Theologian

Offline Salpy

  • Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,457
  • New Martyrs of Libya pray for us!
Re: Some miscellaneous OO questions
« Reply #13 on: June 20, 2008, 05:59:35 PM »
It would depend on who you were talking to.    :)  I'm not an expert on this Council, but i think it was headed by St. Dioscoros, who condemned that heresy.  People who don't like the outcome of a council will call it names. 

Just to let you know, whether Ephesus II was Orthodox or not can quickly turn polemical.  This is one of those topics that can end up in the private forum.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2008, 06:03:06 PM by Salpy »

Offline holdencaulfield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 244
Re: Some miscellaneous OO questions
« Reply #14 on: June 20, 2008, 06:10:26 PM »
It would depend on who you were talking to.    :)  I'm not an expert on this Council, but i think it was headed by St. Dioscoros, who condemned that heresy.  People who don't like the outcome of a council will call it names. 

Just to let you know, whether Ephesus II was Orthodox or not can quickly turn polemical.  This is one of those topics that can end up in the private forum.

I don't even know much about the council, it doesn't mean much to me.
"For better is a laudable war than a peace which severs a man from God" - St Gregory the Theologian

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,160
Re: Some miscellaneous OO questions
« Reply #15 on: October 14, 2008, 12:26:51 AM »
Can you describe the Synod of Jerusalem for me?  I don't know that one.

Even though shockingly you don't find much written about Ephesus III, it has been said that this synod was quite grand, almost matches the number of bishops in Chalcedon.  On the level of importance, I can say that there was a great number of bishops in the Roman empire who found the issues brought up in 475 was very important.  I wish to see more writings on this council.

It was at first a gathering at the invitation of the Patriarch Dositheus to the rededication of the Church of the Nativity.  A number of bishops all over the EO world came, and the patriarch took the opportunity to issue a confession against the Calvinist one written by the EP Cyril Lukaris.  They incorporated the decisions of the council of Iasi, and the catechism approved there (by St. Peter Movila of Kiev, there's a thread in faith on it).  Basically it turned out to be our Trent, against the Protestants.  Since it didn't deal with anyone in the Church (just warning on heresies outside the Church) it was never Ecumenical but Pan Orthodox.

Most of the decisions can be read here:
http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

The rest of the decision, including the parts besides Dositheus' confession, can be found here.
http://books.google.com/books?id=G1h5ijh3YcwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Acts+and+Decrees+of+the+Synod+of+Jerusalem
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 marlo

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
Re: Some miscellaneous OO questions
« Reply #16 on: January 05, 2009, 04:54:49 AM »
and Its Delicious,  ;D


Yes, but those under Rome (Poles, Germans, British, Filipinos, etc.) all have national dishes made from blood.