Author Topic: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?  (Read 38869 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« on: January 18, 2011, 04:19:10 PM »
I stated in another thread that RCs believe that the Pope's charism comes to him by virtue of the Holy Spirit and was told that the only way that was possible was if the pontificate were in itself a fourth tier in Holy Orders. Is that not saying that the Holy Spirit is bound to the Sacraments and cannot work in any other way?

Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,522
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2011, 06:26:07 PM »
I stated in another thread that RCs believe that the Pope's charism comes to him by virtue of the Holy Spirit and was told that the only way that was possible was if the pontificate were in itself a fourth tier in Holy Orders. Is that not saying that the Holy Spirit is bound to the Sacraments and cannot work in any other way?

I personally believe that the Holy Spirit can work however He wishes. That out of the way, the charisms that belong to every office that I'm aware of in the Church are received sacramentally. For example all bishops, priests, and deacons receive the charisms belonging to their offices at their ordination through the laying on of hands to that office and not simply by virtue of election to their office.

I don't believe that the EP has any special charism that does not belong to any other bishop. He does have certain responsibilities and prerogatives attached to his office, but my understanding is that they are an administrative structure set up for the good order of Church governance. His role as a bishop is charismatic through his ordination, but his role as patriarch is administrative within the context of his synod, and role as first among equals is administrative within the context of the heads of the other autocephalous churches. I don't know exactly what is specific to his role as first among patriarchs, but I believe it is purely administrative and not charismatic by virtue of the office of primate. I think I'll start another thread on that particular subject.

That being said, whether the Pope or the EP or anyone else, primacy among the patriarchs, or any other level of Church governance, should be viewed and exercised similarly, that is within the context of the brotherhood of bishops and not above it, beyond it, or detached from it.

That's just my understanding of it.
And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 20,985
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2011, 06:49:16 PM »
I stated in another thread that RCs believe that the Pope's charism comes to him by virtue of the Holy Spirit and was told that the only way that was possible was if the pontificate were in itself a fourth tier in Holy Orders. Is that not saying that the Holy Spirit is bound to the Sacraments and cannot work in any other way?

LOL.  You've oversimplified a step or two.

However, for RC ecclesiology it does because we believe St. Peter had a special role given to him by Christ and that there would naturally be a succession to that just as there is Apostolic Succession from the Apostles down to the modern Episcopate.

By the way, your final sentence indicates, from our POV, that the Papacy is a separate clerical office, different than deacon, presbyter, and bishop - an indication that is, IME, universally denied by those defending the RC position viz-a-viz Papal Primacy.

The statement, "St. Peter had a special role given to him by Christ and that there would naturally be a succession to that just as there is Apostolic Succession from the Apostles down to the modern Episcopate," is problematic from our POV, not only because it posits something we do not believe (i.e. that St. Peter had a special charism), but also because - if we accept that there was a charism - you're proposing that it is a special charism that is passed down, "like Apostolic succession," but that is not inherent in the Episcopacy (all parts of the Apostolic ministry and succession are passed down in the succession to the hierarchs).  It is a special office, with special prerogatives and powers, authorities and charisms - too many differences, from our POV, to call him a Bishop like the others.
I don't typically presume to speak for Mor
You can presume to speak for Mor.  

How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2011, 08:02:29 PM »
LOL.  You've oversimplified a step or two.
I'm glad you are so amused by my post when I was asking a serious question.

The statement, "St. Peter had a special role given to him by Christ and that there would naturally be a succession to that just as there is Apostolic Succession from the Apostles down to the modern Episcopate," is problematic from our POV, not only because it posits something we do not believe (i.e. that St. Peter had a special charism), but also because - if we accept that there was a charism - you're proposing that it is a special charism that is passed down, "like Apostolic succession," but that is not inherent in the Episcopacy (all parts of the Apostolic ministry and succession are passed down in the succession to the hierarchs).  It is a special office, with special prerogatives and powers, authorities and charisms - too many differences, from our POV, to call him a Bishop like the others.
I guess where I erred was in the way my post was worded. I did not mean "just like in the modern Episcopate." I should have said like or similar to. Obviously Pope is an office, but the one holding the office possesses Petrine authority. This, I suppose, is where we differ since to the Eastern Orthodox charisms are only received via Sacraments and not in any other way. How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?

Offline Apotheoun

  • "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,435
  • St. John Maximovitch
    • The Taboric Light
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2011, 08:21:37 PM »
I guess where I erred was in the way my post was worded. I did not mean "just like in the modern Episcopate." I should have said like or similar to. Obviously Pope is an office, but the one holding the office possesses Petrine authority. This, I suppose, is where we differ since to the Eastern Orthodox charisms are only received via Sacraments and not in any other way.
For the Eastern Churches the petrine ministry is found in each and every bishop, because all the bishops are the successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter; so there is no sense in which the bishop of Rome, or the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch for that matter, ontologically continue the petrine ministry in a unique way.

How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?
This statement - made by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon - is not understood in the Eastern Churches in an ontological sense, but was meant to convey the idea that Leo's Tome, i.e., after it had been diligently examined in committee in order to determine its agreement with the teaching of St. Cyril, was an Orthodox expression of the Church's Christological faith.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2011, 08:22:59 PM by Apotheoun »
"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 20,985
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2011, 09:31:59 PM »
How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?

Rhetorical flourish.  They weren't lying, but there was a certain degree of propaganda involved in many declarations of the Imperial Era; they certainly had a different understanding of rhetoric than we do.  We frequently encounter problems when we look back at some of their writings and interpret them with our particular understanding of language, how it's used, etc.
I don't typically presume to speak for Mor
You can presume to speak for Mor.  

How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2011, 11:04:39 PM »
LOL.  You've oversimplified a step or two.
I'm glad you are so amused by my post when I was asking a serious question.

The statement, "St. Peter had a special role given to him by Christ and that there would naturally be a succession to that just as there is Apostolic Succession from the Apostles down to the modern Episcopate," is problematic from our POV, not only because it posits something we do not believe (i.e. that St. Peter had a special charism), but also because - if we accept that there was a charism - you're proposing that it is a special charism that is passed down, "like Apostolic succession," but that is not inherent in the Episcopacy (all parts of the Apostolic ministry and succession are passed down in the succession to the hierarchs).  It is a special office, with special prerogatives and powers, authorities and charisms - too many differences, from our POV, to call him a Bishop like the others.
I guess where I erred was in the way my post was worded. I did not mean "just like in the modern Episcopate." I should have said like or similar to. Obviously Pope is an office,
Obvious? How so?
Quote
but the one holding the office possesses Petrine authority.
How is it not lost during the sede vacans/interregnum?
Quote
This, I suppose, is where we differ since to the Eastern Orthodox charisms are only received via Sacraments and not in any other way. How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?
The Council of Epheses said that Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria was a new Paul, and so was Pontiff Celestine of Rome.

The Council of Chalcedon said St. Peter spoke through Leo AFTER a committee of a hundred Fathers of the Council EXAMINED THE ORTHODOXY of his tome, i.e. they didn't just accept it because Pope St. Leo issued it ex cathedra Petri. And even then, they refused to just adopt his tome as their statement of Faith, but issued their own definition.  Rome continued to try to get the other Patriarchs to put the Tome on a par, if not higher, than the Definiton of Chalcedon, e.g. the demands of the Formula of Hormisdas. But no, at best accepted on a par with the Anathemas of Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria.
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
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2011, 11:07:10 PM »
I guess where I erred was in the way my post was worded. I did not mean "just like in the modern Episcopate." I should have said like or similar to. Obviously Pope is an office, but the one holding the office possesses Petrine authority. This, I suppose, is where we differ since to the Eastern Orthodox charisms are only received via Sacraments and not in any other way.
For the Eastern Churches the petrine ministry is found in each and every bishop, because all the bishops are the successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter; so there is no sense in which the bishop of Rome, or the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch for that matter, ontologically continue the petrine ministry in a unique way.

How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?
This statement - made by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon - is not understood in the Eastern Churches in an ontological sense, but was meant to convey the idea that Leo's Tome, i.e., after it had been diligently examined in committee in order to determine its agreement with the teaching of St. Cyril, was an Orthodox expression of the Church's Christological faith.
ULtramontanists take NOTE: the ex cathedra Tome of a pontiff of Rome was examined by an Ecumenical Council to see if it agree with the Faith of the Pope of Alexandria.
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 Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2011, 03:16:15 AM »
How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?

Dear Wyatt,

I fear that many Catholics have been lead astray by the truncated version given by Roman Catholic apologists in order to bolster their claims for the Pope of Rome.  If we look at the whole text we see that it does not bolster his claims at all.

"The most reverend bishops cried out; This is the orthodox faith; this we all believe: into this we were baptized; into this we baptize: Blessed Cyril so taught: this is the true faith: this is the holy faith: this is the everlasting faith: into this we were baptized: into this we baptize: we all so believe: so believes Leo, the Pope: Cyril thus believed: Pope Leo so interpreted it"


After Cyril's Letter had been read the Council Fathers said:


"And when these letters [i.e. Cyril's letter to Nestorius Καταφλυαροῦσι and his letter to John of Antioch Εὐφραινέσθωσαν] had been read, the most reverend bishops cried out: We all so believe: Pope Leo thus believes: anathema to him who divides and to him who confounds: this is the faith of Archbishop Leo: Leo thus believes: Leo and Anatolius so believe: we all thus believe. As Cyril so believe we, all of us: eternal be the memory of Cyril: as the epistles of Cyril teach such is our mind, such has been our faith: such is our faith: this is the mind of Archbishop Leo, so he believes, so he has written."


Then Leo's Letter was read and the Council Fathers said:


"After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away."

See the text at
http://www1000.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm

When we have the whole text in front of us, it gives a quite different impression than what the usual truncated Roman Catholic text does.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2011, 03:22:17 AM by Irish Hermit »

Offline Rafa999

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,591
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2011, 11:05:14 AM »
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2011, 01:21:52 PM »
I guess where I erred was in the way my post was worded. I did not mean "just like in the modern Episcopate." I should have said like or similar to. Obviously Pope is an office, but the one holding the office possesses Petrine authority. This, I suppose, is where we differ since to the Eastern Orthodox charisms are only received via Sacraments and not in any other way.
For the Eastern Churches the petrine ministry is found in each and every bishop, because all the bishops are the successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter; so there is no sense in which the bishop of Rome, or the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch for that matter, ontologically continue the petrine ministry in a unique way.

How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?
This statement - made by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon - is not understood in the Eastern Churches in an ontological sense, but was meant to convey the idea that Leo's Tome, i.e., after it had been diligently examined in committee in order to determine its agreement with the teaching of St. Cyril, was an Orthodox expression of the Church's Christological faith.
ULtramontanists take NOTE: the ex cathedra Tome of a pontiff of Rome was examined by an Ecumenical Council to see if it agree with the Faith of the Pope of Alexandria.
Hey, I don't think that there are any ultramontantists in this forum. I guess you are talking to no one... A step towards insanity.  ;)
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2011, 01:22:54 PM »
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2011, 02:10:25 PM »
For full reference, since people are throwing around apologetic excerpts. Here is the whole thing, which others are quoting and/or referencing.


Letter XCVIII.
From the Synod of Chalcedon to Leo.

Quote
The great and holy and universal Synod, which by the grace of God and the sanction of our most pious and Christ-loving Emperors has been gathered together in the metropolis of Chalcedon in the province of Bithynia, to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo.

I.  They congratulate Leo on taking the foremost part in maintaining the Faith.

“Our mouth was filled with joy and our tongue with exultation.”  This prophecy grace has fitly appropriated to us for whom the security of religion is ensured.  For what is a greater incentive to cheerfulness than the Faith? what better inducement to exultation than the Divine knowledge which the Saviour Himself gave us from above for salvation, saying, “go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things that I have enjoined you.”  And this golden chain leading down from the Author of the command to us, you yourself have stedfastly preserved, being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all.  Whence we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of Truth, not giving our instruction each singly and in secret, but making known our confession of the Faith in conceit, with one consent and agreement.  And we were all delighted, revelling, as at an imperial banquet, in the spiritual food, which Christ supplied to us through your letter:  and we seemed to see the Heavenly Bridegroom actually present with us.  For if “where two or three are gathered together in His name,” He has said that “there He is in the midst of them,” must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him to their country and their ease?  Of whom you were chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you; whilst our religious Emperors presided to the furtherance of due order, inviting us to restore the doctrinal fabric of the Church, even as Zerubbabel invited Joshua to rebuild Jerusalem.

II.  They detail Dioscorus’ wicked acts.

And the adversary would have been like a wild beast outside the fold, roaring to himself and unable to seize any one, had not the late bishop of Alexandria thrown himself for a prey to him, who, though he had done many terrible things before, eclipsed the former by the latter deeds; for contrary to all the injunctions of the canons, he deposed that blessed shepherd of the saints at Constantinople, Flavian, who displayed such Apostolic faith, and the most pious bishop Eusebius, and acquitted by his terror-won votes Eutyches, who had been condemned for heresy, and restored to him the dignity which your holiness had taken away from him as unworthy of it, and like the strangest of wild beasts, falling upon the vine which he found in the finest condition, he uprooted it and brought in that which had been cast away as unfruitful, and those who acted like true shepherds he cut off, and set over the flocks those who had shown themselves wolves:  and besides all this he stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Saviour, we mean of course your holiness, and purposed excommunication against one who had at heart the unifying of the Church.  And instead of showing penitence for this, instead of begging mercy with tears, he exulted as if over virtuous actions, rejecting your holiness’ letter and resisting all the dogmas of the Truth.

III.  We have deposed Eutyches, treating him as mercifully as we could.

And we ought to have left him in the position where he had placed himself:  but, since we profess the teaching of the Saviour “who wishes all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the Truth,” as a fact we took pains to carry out this merciful policy towards him, and called him in brotherly fashion to judgment, not as if trying to cut him off but affording him room for defence and healing; and we prayed that he might be victorious over the many charges they had brought against him, in order that we might conclude our meeting in peace and happiness and Satan might gain no advantage over us.  But he, being absolutely convicted by his own conscience, by shirking the trial gave countenance to the accusations and rejected the three lawful summonses he received.  In consequence of which, we ratified with such moderation as we could the vote which he had passed against himself by his blunders, stripping the wolf of his shepherd’s skin, which he had long been convicted of wearing for a pretence.  Thereupon our troubles ceased and straightway a time of welcome happiness set in:  and having pulled up one tare, we filled the whole world to our delight with pure grain:  and having received, as it were, full power to root up and to plant, we limited the up-rooting to one and carefully plant a crop of good fruit.  For it was God who worked, and the triumphant Euphemia who crowned the meeting as for a bridal, and who, taking our definition of the Faith as her own confession, presented it to her Bridegroom by our most religious Emperor and Christ-loving Empress, appeasing all the tumult of opponents and establishing our confession of the Truth as acceptable to Him, and with hand and tongue setting her seal to the votes of us all in proclamation thereof.  These are the things we have done, with you present in the spirit and known to approve of us as brethren, and all but visible to us through the wisdom of your representatives.

IV.  They announce their decision that Constantinople should take precedence next to Rome, and ask Leo’s consent to it.

And we further inform you that we have decided on other things also for the good management and stability of church matters, being persuaded that your holiness will accept and ratify them, when you are told.  The long prevailing custom, which the holy Church of God at Constantinople had of ordaining metropolitans for the provinces of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, we have now ratified by the votes of the Synod, not so much by way of conferring a privilege on the See of Constantinople as to provide for the good government of those cities, because of the frequent disorders that arise on the death of their bishops, both clergy and laity being then without a leader and disturbing church order.  And this has not escaped your holiness, particularly in the case of Ephesus, which has often caused you annoyance.  We have ratified also the canon of the 150 holy Fathers who met at Constantinople in the time of the great Theodosius of holy memory, which ordains that after your most holy and Apostolic See, the See of Constantinople shall take precedence, being placed second:  for we are persuaded that with your usual care for others you have often extended that Apostolic prestige which belongs to you, to the church in Constantinople also, by virtue of your great disinterestedness in sharing all your own good things with your spiritual kinsfolk.  Accordingly vouchsafe most holy and blessed father to accept as your own wish, and as conducing to good government the things which we have resolved on for the removal of all confusion and the confirmation of church order.  For your holiness’ delegates, the most pious bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and with them the right Godly presbyter Boniface, attempted vehemently to resist these decisions, from a strong desire that this good work also should start from your foresight, in order that the establishment of good order as well as of the Faith should be put to your account.  For we duly regarding our most devout and Christ loving Emperors, who delight therein, and the illustrious senate and, so to say, the whole imperial city, considered it opportune to use the meeting of this ecumenical Synod for the ratification of your honour, and confidently corroborated this decision as if it were initiated by you with your customary fostering zeal, knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parent’s glory.  Accordingly, we entreat you, honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting.  For thus will our pious Emperors be treated with due regard, who have ratified your holiness’ judgment as law, and the See of Constantinople will receive its recompense for having always displayed such loyalty on matters of religion towards you, and for having so zealously linked itself to you in full agreement.  But that you may know that we have done nothing for favour or in hatred, but as being guided by the Divine Will, we have made known to you the whole scope of our proceedings to strengthen our position and to ratify and establish what we have done.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.xciii.html



Acts from the Fourth Ecumenical Council:

Extracts from the Acts.
Session II.

Quote
(L. and C., Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 338.)

When all were seated before the rails of the most holy altar, the most superb and glorious judges and the great (ὑπερφυὴς) senate said; At a former meeting the question was examined of the condemnation of the most reverend bishop Flavian of blessed memory and Eusebius, and it was patent to you all with what justice and accuracy the examination was conducted:  and it was proved that they had been cruelly and improperly condemned.  What course we should pursue in this matter became clear after your deliberations.  Now however the question to be enquired into, studied, and decided, is how the true faith is to be established, which is the chief end for which this Council has been assembled.  As we know that ye are to render to God a strict account not only for your own souls in particular, but as well for the souls of all of us who desire rightly to be taught all things that pertain to religion, and that all ambiguity be taken away, by the agreement and consent of all the holy fathers, and by their united exposition and doctrine; hasten therefore without any fear of pleasing or displeasing, to set forth (ἐκθέσθαι) the pure faith, so that they who do not seem to believe with all the rest, may be brought to unity through the acknowledging of the truth.  For we wish you to know that the most divine and pious lord of the whole world and ourselves hold the orthodox faith set forth by the 318 and by the 150 holy fathers, and what also has been taught by the rest of the most holy and glorious fathers, and in accordance with this is our belief.

The most reverend bishops cried; Any other setting forth (ἔκθεσιν ἄλλην) no one makes, neither will we attempt it, neither will we dare to set forth [anything new] (ἐκθεσθαι).  For the fathers taught, and in their writings are preserved, what things were set forth by them, and further than this we can say nothing.

Cecropius, the most reverend bishop of Sebastopol said:  The matters concerning Eutyches have been examined, and the most holy archbishop of Rome has given a form (τύπον) which we follow and to his letter we all [i.e. those in his neighbourhood] have subscribed.

The most reverend bishops cried:  These are the opinions of all of us.  The expositions (ἐκτεθέντα) already made are quite sufficient:  it is not lawful to make any other.

The most glorious judges and great senate said, If it pleases your reverence, let the most holy patriarch of each province, choosing one or two of his own province and going into the midst, and together considering the faith, make known to all what is agreed upon.  So that if, as we desire, all be of one mind, all ambiguity may be removed:  But if some entertain contrary opinions (which we do not believe to be the case) we may know what their opinions are.

The most reverend bishops cried out, we make no new exposition in writing.  This is the law, [i.e. of the Third Synod] which teaches that what has been set forth is sufficient.  The law wills that no other exposition should be made.  Let the sayings of the Fathers remain fast.

Florentius, the most reverend bishop of Sardis, said, since it is not possible for those who follow the teaching of the holy Synod of Nice, which was confirmed rightly and piously at Ephesus, to draw up suddenly a declaration of faith in accordance with the faith of the holy fathers Cyril and Celestine, and of the letter of the most holy Leo, we therefore pray your magnificence to give us time, so that we may be able to arrive at the truth of the matter with a fitting document, although so far as we are concerned, who have subscribed the letter of the most holy Leo, nothing further is needed.

Cecropius, the most reverend bishop of Sebastopol, said, The faith has been well defined by the 318 holy fathers and confirmed by the holy fathers Athanasius, Cyril, Celestine, Hilary, Basil, Gregory, and now once again by the most holy Leo:  and we pray that those things which were decreed by the 318 holy fathers, and by the most holy Leo be read.

The most glorious judges and great Senate said:  Let there be read the expositions (ἐκτεθέντα) of the 318 fathers gathered together at Nice.

Eunomius, the most reverend bishop of Nicomedia read from a book [the Exposition of faith of the 318 fathers.281]
The Exposition of faith of the Council held at Nice.
“In the consulate of Paul and Julian” etc.
“We believe in one God,” etc.
“But those who say,” etc.

The most reverend bishops cried out; This is the orthodox faith; this we all believe:  into this we were baptized; into this we baptize:  Blessed Cyril so taught:  this is the true faith:  this is the holy faith:  this is the everlasting faith:  into this we were baptized:  into this we baptize:  we all so believe:  so believes Leo, the Pope (ὁ πάπας):  Cyril thus believed:  Pope Leo so interpreted it.
The most glorious judges and great senate said, Let there be read what was set forth by the 150 holy fathers.

Aëtius, the reverend deacon of Constantinople read from a book [the creed of the 150 fathers.]
The holy faith which the 150 fathers set forth as consonant to the holy and great Synod of Nice.
“We believe in one God,” etc.
All the most reverend bishops cried out:  This is the faith of all of us:  we all so believe.

The reverend archdeacon Aëtius said, There remains the letter of Cyril of holy and blessed memory, sometime bishop of the great city Alexandria, which he wrote to Nestorius, which was approved by all the most holy bishops assembled in the first Council at Ephesus, called to condemn the same Nestorius, and which was confirmed by the subscription of all.  There is also another letter of the same Cyril, of blessed memory, which he wrote to John, of blessed memory, sometime bishop of the great city of Antioch, which likewise was confirmed.  If it be so ordered, I shall read these.

The most glorious judges and great senate said, Let the letters of Cyril of blessed memory be read.
Aëtius, the Archdeacon of the imperial city Constantinople read.
To the most reverend and most religious fellow-priest Nestorius, Cyril sends greeting in the Lord.
[Καταφλυαροῦσι μὴν κ.τ.λ.  Lat. Obloquuntur quidem, etc.  This letter is found among the acts of the Council of Ephesus.]
Likewise the same Archdeacon Aëtius read [the letter of the same holy Cyril of blessed memory to John of Antioch, on the peace].
[This letter begins, Εὐφραινέθωσαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ κ.τ.λ.; and in the Latin Lætentur cæli.]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.iv.html
Quote
Extracts from the Acts.
Session II.  (Continued).
(L. and C., Conc., Tom. IV., col. 343.)

And when these letters [i.e. Cyril’s letter to Nestorius Καταφλυαροῦσι and his letter to John of Antioch Εὐφραινέσθωσαν] had been read, the most reverend bishops cried out:  We all so believe:  Pope Leo thus believes:  anathema to him who divides and to him who confounds:  this is the faith of Archbishop Leo:  Leo thus believes:  Leo and Anatolius so believe:  we all thus believe.  As Cyril so believe we, all of us:  eternal be the memory of Cyril:  as the epistles of Cyril teach such is our mind, such has been our faith:  such is our faith:  this is the mind of Archbishop Leo, so he believes, so he has written.

The most glorious judges and the great senate said:  Let there be read also the epistle of the most worthy Leo, Archbishop of Old Rome, the Imperial City.

Beronician, the most devout clerk of the sacred consistory, read from a book handed him by Aëtius, Archdeacon of the holy Church of Constantinople, the encyclical or synodical letter of the most holy Leo, the Archbishop, written to Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.vi.html
Quote
xtracts from the Acts.
Session II.  (continued).
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 368.)

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out:  This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles.  So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe.  Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. (bolded because of previous reference, not for proclamation)  So taught the Apostles.  Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril.  Everlasting be the memory of Cyril.  Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe.  This is the true faith.  Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.  This is the faith of the fathers.  Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]?  These are the things Dioscorus hid away.

[Some explanations were asked by the Illyrian bishops and the answers were found satisfactory, but yet a delay of a few days was asked for, and some bishops petitioned for a general pardon of all who had been kept out.  This proposition made great confusion, in the midst of which the session was dissolved by the judges.  (Col. 371.)]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.viii.html
« Last Edit: January 19, 2011, 02:15:42 PM by Azurestone »

I'm going to need this.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2011, 04:09:51 PM »
I guess where I erred was in the way my post was worded. I did not mean "just like in the modern Episcopate." I should have said like or similar to. Obviously Pope is an office, but the one holding the office possesses Petrine authority. This, I suppose, is where we differ since to the Eastern Orthodox charisms are only received via Sacraments and not in any other way.
For the Eastern Churches the petrine ministry is found in each and every bishop, because all the bishops are the successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter; so there is no sense in which the bishop of Rome, or the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch for that matter, ontologically continue the petrine ministry in a unique way.

How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?
This statement - made by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon - is not understood in the Eastern Churches in an ontological sense, but was meant to convey the idea that Leo's Tome, i.e., after it had been diligently examined in committee in order to determine its agreement with the teaching of St. Cyril, was an Orthodox expression of the Church's Christological faith.
ULtramontanists take NOTE: the ex cathedra Tome of a pontiff of Rome was examined by an Ecumenical Council to see if it agree with the Faith of the Pope of Alexandria.
Hey, I don't think
Quote
A step towards insanity.  ;)
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 Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2011, 04:54:48 PM »
I guess where I erred was in the way my post was worded. I did not mean "just like in the modern Episcopate." I should have said like or similar to. Obviously Pope is an office, but the one holding the office possesses Petrine authority. This, I suppose, is where we differ since to the Eastern Orthodox charisms are only received via Sacraments and not in any other way.
For the Eastern Churches the petrine ministry is found in each and every bishop, because all the bishops are the successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter; so there is no sense in which the bishop of Rome, or the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch for that matter, ontologically continue the petrine ministry in a unique way.

How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?
This statement - made by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon - is not understood in the Eastern Churches in an ontological sense, but was meant to convey the idea that Leo's Tome, i.e., after it had been diligently examined in committee in order to determine its agreement with the teaching of St. Cyril, was an Orthodox expression of the Church's Christological faith.
ULtramontanists take NOTE: the ex cathedra Tome of a pontiff of Rome was examined by an Ecumenical Council to see if it agree with the Faith of the Pope of Alexandria.
Oh good, since I am not an ultramontanist I don't have to "note" any nonsense you spew.

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,278
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #15 on: January 19, 2011, 05:15:18 PM »
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #16 on: January 19, 2011, 07:19:30 PM »
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.


« Last Edit: January 19, 2011, 07:20:49 PM by Azurestone »

I'm going to need this.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2011, 08:29:25 PM »
I stated in another thread that RCs believe that the Pope's charism comes to him by virtue of the Holy Spirit and was told that the only way that was possible was if the pontificate were in itself a fourth tier in Holy Orders. Is that not saying that the Holy Spirit is bound to the Sacraments and cannot work in any other way?

What it means is that there appears to be no visible means by which this seemingly sanctifying charism is conveyed, and thus no means of identifying when and how the Holy Spirit would be conveying it. To suggest that Christ would have instituted this without any visible means associated with it seems sort of ridiculous.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #18 on: January 19, 2011, 08:45:56 PM »
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.
Well, I hope he is ok.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #19 on: January 19, 2011, 08:53:01 PM »
I stated in another thread that RCs believe that the Pope's charism comes to him by virtue of the Holy Spirit and was told that the only way that was possible was if the pontificate were in itself a fourth tier in Holy Orders. Is that not saying that the Holy Spirit is bound to the Sacraments and cannot work in any other way?

What it means is that there appears to be no visible means by which this seemingly sanctifying charism is conveyed, and thus no means of identifying when and how the Holy Spirit would be conveying it. To suggest that Christ would have instituted this without any visible means associated with it seems sort of ridiculous.
Would also explain why they have such trouble reading the tea leaves to see when the supreme pontiff has spoken ex cathedra.
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 deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #20 on: January 19, 2011, 09:12:23 PM »
How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?

Heaven forbid! No, that was at the Council of Chalcedon.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2011, 09:43:31 PM »
For full reference, since people are throwing around apologetic excerpts. Here is the whole thing, which others are quoting and/or referencing.


Letter XCVIII.
From the Synod of Chalcedon to Leo.

Quote
The great and holy and universal Synod, which by the grace of God and the sanction of our most pious and Christ-loving Emperors has been gathered together in the metropolis of Chalcedon in the province of Bithynia, to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo.

I.  They congratulate Leo on taking the foremost part in maintaining the Faith.

“Our mouth was filled with joy and our tongue with exultation.”  This prophecy grace has fitly appropriated to us for whom the security of religion is ensured.  For what is a greater incentive to cheerfulness than the Faith? what better inducement to exultation than the Divine knowledge which the Saviour Himself gave us from above for salvation, saying, “go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things that I have enjoined you.”  And this golden chain leading down from the Author of the command to us, you yourself have stedfastly preserved, being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all.  Whence we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of Truth, not giving our instruction each singly and in secret, but making known our confession of the Faith in conceit, with one consent and agreement.  And we were all delighted, revelling, as at an imperial banquet, in the spiritual food, which Christ supplied to us through your letter:  and we seemed to see the Heavenly Bridegroom actually present with us.  For if “where two or three are gathered together in His name,” He has said that “there He is in the midst of them,” must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him to their country and their ease?  Of whom you were chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you; whilst our religious Emperors presided to the furtherance of due order, inviting us to restore the doctrinal fabric of the Church, even as Zerubbabel invited Joshua to rebuild Jerusalem.

II.  They detail Dioscorus’ wicked acts.

And the adversary would have been like a wild beast outside the fold, roaring to himself and unable to seize any one, had not the late bishop of Alexandria thrown himself for a prey to him, who, though he had done many terrible things before, eclipsed the former by the latter deeds; for contrary to all the injunctions of the canons, he deposed that blessed shepherd of the saints at Constantinople, Flavian, who displayed such Apostolic faith, and the most pious bishop Eusebius, and acquitted by his terror-won votes Eutyches, who had been condemned for heresy, and restored to him the dignity which your holiness had taken away from him as unworthy of it, and like the strangest of wild beasts, falling upon the vine which he found in the finest condition, he uprooted it and brought in that which had been cast away as unfruitful, and those who acted like true shepherds he cut off, and set over the flocks those who had shown themselves wolves:  and besides all this he stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Saviour, we mean of course your holiness, and purposed excommunication against one who had at heart the unifying of the Church.  And instead of showing penitence for this, instead of begging mercy with tears, he exulted as if over virtuous actions, rejecting your holiness’ letter and resisting all the dogmas of the Truth.

III.  We have deposed Eutyches, treating him as mercifully as we could.

And we ought to have left him in the position where he had placed himself:  but, since we profess the teaching of the Saviour “who wishes all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the Truth,” as a fact we took pains to carry out this merciful policy towards him, and called him in brotherly fashion to judgment, not as if trying to cut him off but affording him room for defence and healing; and we prayed that he might be victorious over the many charges they had brought against him, in order that we might conclude our meeting in peace and happiness and Satan might gain no advantage over us.  But he, being absolutely convicted by his own conscience, by shirking the trial gave countenance to the accusations and rejected the three lawful summonses he received.  In consequence of which, we ratified with such moderation as we could the vote which he had passed against himself by his blunders, stripping the wolf of his shepherd’s skin, which he had long been convicted of wearing for a pretence.  Thereupon our troubles ceased and straightway a time of welcome happiness set in:  and having pulled up one tare, we filled the whole world to our delight with pure grain:  and having received, as it were, full power to root up and to plant, we limited the up-rooting to one and carefully plant a crop of good fruit.  For it was God who worked, and the triumphant Euphemia who crowned the meeting as for a bridal, and who, taking our definition of the Faith as her own confession, presented it to her Bridegroom by our most religious Emperor and Christ-loving Empress, appeasing all the tumult of opponents and establishing our confession of the Truth as acceptable to Him, and with hand and tongue setting her seal to the votes of us all in proclamation thereof.  These are the things we have done, with you present in the spirit and known to approve of us as brethren, and all but visible to us through the wisdom of your representatives.

IV.  They announce their decision that Constantinople should take precedence next to Rome, and ask Leo’s consent to it.

And we further inform you that we have decided on other things also for the good management and stability of church matters, being persuaded that your holiness will accept and ratify them, when you are told.  The long prevailing custom, which the holy Church of God at Constantinople had of ordaining metropolitans for the provinces of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, we have now ratified by the votes of the Synod, not so much by way of conferring a privilege on the See of Constantinople as to provide for the good government of those cities, because of the frequent disorders that arise on the death of their bishops, both clergy and laity being then without a leader and disturbing church order.  And this has not escaped your holiness, particularly in the case of Ephesus, which has often caused you annoyance.  We have ratified also the canon of the 150 holy Fathers who met at Constantinople in the time of the great Theodosius of holy memory, which ordains that after your most holy and Apostolic See, the See of Constantinople shall take precedence, being placed second:  for we are persuaded that with your usual care for others you have often extended that Apostolic prestige which belongs to you, to the church in Constantinople also, by virtue of your great disinterestedness in sharing all your own good things with your spiritual kinsfolk.  Accordingly vouchsafe most holy and blessed father to accept as your own wish, and as conducing to good government the things which we have resolved on for the removal of all confusion and the confirmation of church order.  For your holiness’ delegates, the most pious bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and with them the right Godly presbyter Boniface, attempted vehemently to resist these decisions, from a strong desire that this good work also should start from your foresight, in order that the establishment of good order as well as of the Faith should be put to your account.  For we duly regarding our most devout and Christ loving Emperors, who delight therein, and the illustrious senate and, so to say, the whole imperial city, considered it opportune to use the meeting of this ecumenical Synod for the ratification of your honour, and confidently corroborated this decision as if it were initiated by you with your customary fostering zeal, knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parent’s glory.  Accordingly, we entreat you, honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting.  For thus will our pious Emperors be treated with due regard, who have ratified your holiness’ judgment as law, and the See of Constantinople will receive its recompense for having always displayed such loyalty on matters of religion towards you, and for having so zealously linked itself to you in full agreement.  But that you may know that we have done nothing for favour or in hatred, but as being guided by the Divine Will, we have made known to you the whole scope of our proceedings to strengthen our position and to ratify and establish what we have done.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.xciii.html



Acts from the Fourth Ecumenical Council:

Extracts from the Acts.
Session II.

Quote
(L. and C., Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 338.)

When all were seated before the rails of the most holy altar, the most superb and glorious judges and the great (ὑπερφυὴς) senate said; At a former meeting the question was examined of the condemnation of the most reverend bishop Flavian of blessed memory and Eusebius, and it was patent to you all with what justice and accuracy the examination was conducted:  and it was proved that they had been cruelly and improperly condemned.  What course we should pursue in this matter became clear after your deliberations.  Now however the question to be enquired into, studied, and decided, is how the true faith is to be established, which is the chief end for which this Council has been assembled.  As we know that ye are to render to God a strict account not only for your own souls in particular, but as well for the souls of all of us who desire rightly to be taught all things that pertain to religion, and that all ambiguity be taken away, by the agreement and consent of all the holy fathers, and by their united exposition and doctrine; hasten therefore without any fear of pleasing or displeasing, to set forth (ἐκθέσθαι) the pure faith, so that they who do not seem to believe with all the rest, may be brought to unity through the acknowledging of the truth.  For we wish you to know that the most divine and pious lord of the whole world and ourselves hold the orthodox faith set forth by the 318 and by the 150 holy fathers, and what also has been taught by the rest of the most holy and glorious fathers, and in accordance with this is our belief.

The most reverend bishops cried; Any other setting forth (ἔκθεσιν ἄλλην) no one makes, neither will we attempt it, neither will we dare to set forth [anything new] (ἐκθεσθαι).  For the fathers taught, and in their writings are preserved, what things were set forth by them, and further than this we can say nothing.

Cecropius, the most reverend bishop of Sebastopol said:  The matters concerning Eutyches have been examined, and the most holy archbishop of Rome has given a form (τύπον) which we follow and to his letter we all [i.e. those in his neighbourhood] have subscribed.

The most reverend bishops cried:  These are the opinions of all of us.  The expositions (ἐκτεθέντα) already made are quite sufficient:  it is not lawful to make any other.

The most glorious judges and great senate said, If it pleases your reverence, let the most holy patriarch of each province, choosing one or two of his own province and going into the midst, and together considering the faith, make known to all what is agreed upon.  So that if, as we desire, all be of one mind, all ambiguity may be removed:  But if some entertain contrary opinions (which we do not believe to be the case) we may know what their opinions are.

The most reverend bishops cried out, we make no new exposition in writing.  This is the law, [i.e. of the Third Synod] which teaches that what has been set forth is sufficient.  The law wills that no other exposition should be made.  Let the sayings of the Fathers remain fast.

Florentius, the most reverend bishop of Sardis, said, since it is not possible for those who follow the teaching of the holy Synod of Nice, which was confirmed rightly and piously at Ephesus, to draw up suddenly a declaration of faith in accordance with the faith of the holy fathers Cyril and Celestine, and of the letter of the most holy Leo, we therefore pray your magnificence to give us time, so that we may be able to arrive at the truth of the matter with a fitting document, although so far as we are concerned, who have subscribed the letter of the most holy Leo, nothing further is needed.

Cecropius, the most reverend bishop of Sebastopol, said, The faith has been well defined by the 318 holy fathers and confirmed by the holy fathers Athanasius, Cyril, Celestine, Hilary, Basil, Gregory, and now once again by the most holy Leo:  and we pray that those things which were decreed by the 318 holy fathers, and by the most holy Leo be read.

The most glorious judges and great Senate said:  Let there be read the expositions (ἐκτεθέντα) of the 318 fathers gathered together at Nice.

Eunomius, the most reverend bishop of Nicomedia read from a book [the Exposition of faith of the 318 fathers.281]
The Exposition of faith of the Council held at Nice.
“In the consulate of Paul and Julian” etc.
“We believe in one God,” etc.
“But those who say,” etc.

The most reverend bishops cried out; This is the orthodox faith; this we all believe:  into this we were baptized; into this we baptize:  Blessed Cyril so taught:  this is the true faith:  this is the holy faith:  this is the everlasting faith:  into this we were baptized:  into this we baptize:  we all so believe:  so believes Leo, the Pope (ὁ πάπας):  Cyril thus believed:  Pope Leo so interpreted it.
The most glorious judges and great senate said, Let there be read what was set forth by the 150 holy fathers.

Aëtius, the reverend deacon of Constantinople read from a book [the creed of the 150 fathers.]
The holy faith which the 150 fathers set forth as consonant to the holy and great Synod of Nice.
“We believe in one God,” etc.
All the most reverend bishops cried out:  This is the faith of all of us:  we all so believe.

The reverend archdeacon Aëtius said, There remains the letter of Cyril of holy and blessed memory, sometime bishop of the great city Alexandria, which he wrote to Nestorius, which was approved by all the most holy bishops assembled in the first Council at Ephesus, called to condemn the same Nestorius, and which was confirmed by the subscription of all.  There is also another letter of the same Cyril, of blessed memory, which he wrote to John, of blessed memory, sometime bishop of the great city of Antioch, which likewise was confirmed.  If it be so ordered, I shall read these.

The most glorious judges and great senate said, Let the letters of Cyril of blessed memory be read.
Aëtius, the Archdeacon of the imperial city Constantinople read.
To the most reverend and most religious fellow-priest Nestorius, Cyril sends greeting in the Lord.
[Καταφλυαροῦσι μὴν κ.τ.λ.  Lat. Obloquuntur quidem, etc.  This letter is found among the acts of the Council of Ephesus.]
Likewise the same Archdeacon Aëtius read [the letter of the same holy Cyril of blessed memory to John of Antioch, on the peace].
[This letter begins, Εὐφραινέθωσαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ κ.τ.λ.; and in the Latin Lætentur cæli.]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.iv.html
Quote
Extracts from the Acts.
Session II.  (Continued).
(L. and C., Conc., Tom. IV., col. 343.)

And when these letters [i.e. Cyril’s letter to Nestorius Καταφλυαροῦσι and his letter to John of Antioch Εὐφραινέσθωσαν] had been read, the most reverend bishops cried out:  We all so believe:  Pope Leo thus believes:  anathema to him who divides and to him who confounds:  this is the faith of Archbishop Leo:  Leo thus believes:  Leo and Anatolius so believe:  we all thus believe.  As Cyril so believe we, all of us:  eternal be the memory of Cyril:  as the epistles of Cyril teach such is our mind, such has been our faith:  such is our faith:  this is the mind of Archbishop Leo, so he believes, so he has written.

The most glorious judges and the great senate said:  Let there be read also the epistle of the most worthy Leo, Archbishop of Old Rome, the Imperial City.

Beronician, the most devout clerk of the sacred consistory, read from a book handed him by Aëtius, Archdeacon of the holy Church of Constantinople, the encyclical or synodical letter of the most holy Leo, the Archbishop, written to Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.vi.html
Quote
xtracts from the Acts.
Session II.  (continued).
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 368.)

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out:  This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles.  So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe.  Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. (bolded because of previous reference, not for proclamation)  So taught the Apostles.  Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril.  Everlasting be the memory of Cyril.  Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe.  This is the true faith.  Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.  This is the faith of the fathers.  Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]?  These are the things Dioscorus hid away.

[Some explanations were asked by the Illyrian bishops and the answers were found satisfactory, but yet a delay of a few days was asked for, and some bishops petitioned for a general pardon of all who had been kept out.  This proposition made great confusion, in the midst of which the session was dissolved by the judges.  (Col. 371.)]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.viii.html
My, my. All this Pope St. Cyril. Where's Pope Celestine?
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 deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #22 on: January 19, 2011, 09:46:14 PM »
Isa, do you not recognize Pope Celestine as a Saint? I'm curious because I have seen him in the Coptic Synaxarium.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #23 on: January 19, 2011, 09:50:14 PM »
Isa, do you not recognize Pope Celestine as a Saint? I'm curious because I have seen him in the Coptic Synaxarium.
I could have said Pope St. Celestine, though it would have been an anachronism: Rome hadn't appropriated the term.  Just putting the emphasis on the one whom the Fathers at Chalcedon emphasized and singled out as the one who defined the Faith at Ephesus, Pope St. Cyril, not Pope St. Celestine.
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 deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #24 on: January 19, 2011, 10:00:54 PM »
Ah.

Offline Apotheoun

  • "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,435
  • St. John Maximovitch
    • The Taboric Light
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2011, 10:09:29 PM »
St. Cyril's writings were used by the council Fathers as the standard for determining the orthodoxy of Leo's Tome, and I don't see any reason to pretend otherwise.

The following text is from the Orthodox Unity website, and gives some historical background to the events surrounding Leo's Tome and its acceptance in subordination to St. Cyril's writings:

Quote
Returning to Leo s Tome it is important to point out that at Chalcedon it was accepted only as a document against the heresy of Eutyches, in spite of the fact that both Leo and his legates believed it to be a good statement against Nestorius also. It is even more important to keep in mind that during its reading at Session II the three now famous Nestorian sounding passages were each one challenged as the document was being read. During each interruption it was attacked and defended by the use of parallel passages from Cyril. [ 11 ] After what must have been a somewhat stormy and long debate, bishop Atticos of Nikopolis in Old Epirus, Greece, made the motion that time out be taken to give the assembly the opportunity to carefully compare Leo s Tome with the Twelve Chapters of Cyril in order to make sure of what they were approving.[ 12 ] The imperial representatives chairing the meeting gave the bishops five days in which to do this and suggested the formation of a committee under the presidency of Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople. [ 13 ] The committee reported back at the fourth session, at the beginning of which the imperial and senatorial representatives declared the unswerving faith of the emperor in the expositions of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus with its approval of the two canonical letters of Cyril, i.e., the Second and Third to Nestorius.[ 14 ] This profession of the imperial faith had been made also at the end of Session I, [ 15 ] and now in anticipation of the committee's report on the question of Leo s agreement with Cyril's Twelve Chapters it was repeated. The committee report [ 16 ] was included in the minutes in the form of a listing of the individual opinions of its members, all of whom expressed their belief that Leo's Tome agreed with Nicaea, Ephesus, and the letter of Cyril. Most of the bishops mentioned the (one) letter of Cyril, [ 17 ] which cannot be any other than the Twelve Chapters since this was the one the Illyrians and Palestinians were concerned about as is clear from the motion of the Illyrian Atticos which initiated the careful comparison of Leo's Tome with the letter of Cyril. Some of the members mentioned their belief that the Tome agreed with the two letters of Cyril, dearly referring to the ones of Ephesus mentioned as part of the imperial faith. It is extremely interesting to note that among the similar individual opinions given by the rest of the Assembly and recorded in the minutes is that of none other than Theodoret of Cyrus, [ 18 ] who claims that he finds the Tome of Leo in agreement with the letters of Cyril and the Council of Ephesus, certainly a tremendous leap from his position just before the Council. In the light of his strong hesitation at Session VIII to anathematize Nestorius, a hesitation which infuriated the assembly, one wonders about his sincerity, especially since he tried to defend his former acts by an exposition of how he never taught two Sons. He was interrupted by shouts of "Nestorian. [ 19 ]"

The acceptance of Leo s Tome in the light of and in subordination to the letters of Cyril is also clearly contained in the Chalcedonian definition itself. [ 20 ] It is declared that the Council accepts the Synodical (the Third letter to Nestorius is titled synodical, or since this is in the plural it could be a reference to the two of Ephesus, which in the minutes are called canonical, plus the one to John) letters of Cyril to Nestorius and to those of the East, "and to which (epistles) it reasonably adapted the letter of Leo ... (epistolas... hais kai ten epistolen tou Leontos... eikotos syncrmose...)." This is not a of a balance between Cyril and Leo, as many scholars would have us believe. Leo became very sensitive about the doubts raised about his tome, and especially disturbed did he become over determined opposition in certain quarters like Palestine where Juvenal was deposed for accepting the Tome. In a letter to Julian of Cos (cxvli, 3) in which he shows much concern with accusations of heresy against himself, he writes that,...if they think there is any doubt about our teaching, let them at least not reject the writings of such holy priests as Athanasius, Theophilus and Cyril of Alexandria, with whom our statement of the faith so completely harmonizes that anyone who professes consent to them disagrees in nothing with us. No one can doubt the sincerity with which Leo wanted to be in agreement with those Alexandrine Fathers, but his defense of Theodoret compromised him. In a letter to the now restored Bishop of Cyrus he chides Theodoret for the tardy way in which he anathematized Nestorius (cxx, 5), yet in his opening remarks of this very same letter he speaks of "the victory you [Theodoret] and we together had won by assistance from on high over the blasphemy of Nestorius, as well as over the madness of Eutyches. Dioscoros relationship to Eutyches may have some parallels.

Source:  Orthodox Unity
"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite

Offline Rafa999

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,591
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #26 on: January 19, 2011, 10:53:07 PM »
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.

Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts

Offline Rafa999

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,591
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #27 on: January 19, 2011, 10:53:08 PM »
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.
Well, I hope he is ok.

We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor.

-1 Corinthians 4:10
I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #28 on: January 20, 2011, 03:41:25 AM »
DELETE. DUPLICATE
« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 03:45:42 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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #29 on: January 20, 2011, 03:44:58 AM »
I guess where I erred was in the way my post was worded. I did not mean "just like in the modern Episcopate." I should have said like or similar to. Obviously Pope is an office, but the one holding the office possesses Petrine authority. This, I suppose, is where we differ since to the Eastern Orthodox charisms are only received via Sacraments and not in any other way.
For the Eastern Churches the petrine ministry is found in each and every bishop, because all the bishops are the successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter; so there is no sense in which the bishop of Rome, or the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch for that matter, ontologically continue the petrine ministry in a unique way.

How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?
This statement - made by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon - is not understood in the Eastern Churches in an ontological sense, but was meant to convey the idea that Leo's Tome, i.e., after it had been diligently examined in committee in order to determine its agreement with the teaching of St. Cyril, was an Orthodox expression of the Church's Christological faith.
ULtramontanists take NOTE: the ex cathedra Tome of a pontiff of Rome was examined by an Ecumenical Council to see if it agree with the Faith of the Pope of Alexandria.
Oh good, since I am not an ultramontanist
Oh, good, then you
More at the linked thread.
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 Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #30 on: January 20, 2011, 01:32:08 PM »
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.

Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
But Catholics do believe that Christ is ruling over us as our High Priest.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #31 on: January 20, 2011, 05:18:41 PM »
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.

Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
But Catholics do believe that Christ is ruling over us as our High Priest.

Debatable. It's a matter of perspective. Just as, from our perspective, the filioque compromises the doctrine of the Trinity, so the papacy is seen as compromising the High Priesthood of Christ

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #32 on: January 20, 2011, 05:28:39 PM »
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.

Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
But Catholics do believe that Christ is ruling over us as our High Priest.

Debatable. It's a matter of perspective. Just as, from our perspective, the filioque compromises the doctrine of the Trinity, so the papacy is seen as compromising the High Priesthood of Christ
Wow. You and Isa are in competition for the most ridiculous posts of the month. If I were to follow you on this I would have say that your concept of the Bishop as shepherd of his flock would compromise Christ's role as the good shepherd.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #33 on: January 20, 2011, 05:37:39 PM »
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.

Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
But Catholics do believe that Christ is ruling over us as our High Priest.

Debatable. It's a matter of perspective. Just as, from our perspective, the filioque compromises the doctrine of the Trinity, so the papacy is seen as compromising the High Priesthood of Christ
Wow. You and Isa are in competition for the most ridiculous posts of the month. If I were to follow you on this I would have say that your concept of the Bishop as shepherd of his flock would compromise Christ's role as the good shepherd.

One of the most enlightening writings on the effect of the adoption of the filioque on the concept and practice of hierarchy in the Roman Catholic Church is found in Philip Sherrard's "The Greek East and the Latin West: A Study in the Christian Tradition "

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #34 on: January 20, 2011, 05:51:48 PM »
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.

Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
But Catholics do believe that Christ is ruling over us as our High Priest.

Debatable. It's a matter of perspective. Just as, from our perspective, the filioque compromises the doctrine of the Trinity, so the papacy is seen as compromising the High Priesthood of Christ
Wow. You and Isa are in competition for the most ridiculous posts of the month. If I were to follow you on this I would have say that your concept of the Bishop as shepherd of his flock would compromise Christ's role as the good shepherd.

Not really. Setting up the Pope as the visible head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and the locus of unity of the Church whereby unity with him is necessary for salvation all appear to us to upstage the High Priesthood of Christ. If you think that is so highly ridiculous then you should take a look around at the general sentiment of Eastern Christians toward the papacy.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #35 on: January 20, 2011, 06:15:37 PM »
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.

Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
But Catholics do believe that Christ is ruling over us as our High Priest.

Debatable. It's a matter of perspective. Just as, from our perspective, the filioque compromises the doctrine of the Trinity, so the papacy is seen as compromising the High Priesthood of Christ
Wow. You and Isa are in competition for the most ridiculous posts of the month. If I were to follow you on this I would have say that your concept of the Bishop as shepherd of his flock would compromise Christ's role as the good shepherd.

One of the most enlightening writings on the effect of the adoption of the filioque on the concept and practice of hierarchy in the Roman Catholic Church is found in Philip Sherrard's "The Greek East and the Latin West: A Study in the Christian Tradition "

Much better translator and poet than he is a theologian.  And he has the usual protestant perceptions of the Catholic Church.  If you actually read him closely, he turns the same eye on Orthodoxy.   I do read his work, though he's a better poet than clear prose writer.

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 20,985
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #36 on: January 20, 2011, 06:25:38 PM »
Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
But Catholics do believe that Christ is ruling over us as our High Priest. 

Debatable. It's a matter of perspective. Just as, from our perspective, the filioque compromises the doctrine of the Trinity, so the papacy is seen as compromising the High Priesthood of Christ
Wow. You and Isa are in competition for the most ridiculous posts of the month. If I were to follow you on this I would have say that your concept of the Bishop as shepherd of his flock would compromise Christ's role as the good shepherd.

It would be ironic if you felt that way, since we do have extremely similar views on the Bishop as shepherd.  But yes, his point is that from our perspective there is concern that the Papacy, as constructed currently, has taken Christ's place (nudged Him aside, rather than St. Ignatios' concept of "type and place") as the One Head of the Church.  We've given our reasons why; as I mentioned in another thread - from our POV, your lips say, "no," but your actions (and, in this case, dogma, etc.) say, "yes."
I don't typically presume to speak for Mor
You can presume to speak for Mor.  

How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #37 on: January 20, 2011, 06:31:09 PM »
Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
But Catholics do believe that Christ is ruling over us as our High Priest.  

Debatable. It's a matter of perspective. Just as, from our perspective, the filioque compromises the doctrine of the Trinity, so the papacy is seen as compromising the High Priesthood of Christ
Wow. You and Isa are in competition for the most ridiculous posts of the month. If I were to follow you on this I would have say that your concept of the Bishop as shepherd of his flock would compromise Christ's role as the good shepherd.

It would be ironic if you felt that way, since we do have extremely similar views on the Bishop as shepherd.  But yes, his point is that from our perspective there is concern that the Papacy, as constructed currently, has taken Christ's place (nudged Him aside, rather than St. Ignatios' concept of "type and place") as the One Head of the Church.  We've given our reasons why; as I mentioned in another thread - from our POV, your lips say, "no," but your actions (and, in this case, dogma, etc.) say, "yes."
Which is simply stupid and childish on your part. When it comes t your Bishops your lips say "no" but your actions say "yes". Of course here is the image of your church:

Each Bishop as the head of his diocese.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 06:32:03 PM by Papist »
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 20,985
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #38 on: January 20, 2011, 06:40:29 PM »
Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
But Catholics do believe that Christ is ruling over us as our High Priest. 

Debatable. It's a matter of perspective. Just as, from our perspective, the filioque compromises the doctrine of the Trinity, so the papacy is seen as compromising the High Priesthood of Christ
Wow. You and Isa are in competition for the most ridiculous posts of the month. If I were to follow you on this I would have say that your concept of the Bishop as shepherd of his flock would compromise Christ's role as the good shepherd.

It would be ironic if you felt that way, since we do have extremely similar views on the Bishop as shepherd.  But yes, his point is that from our perspective there is concern that the Papacy, as constructed currently, has taken Christ's place (nudged Him aside, rather than St. Ignatios' concept of "type and place") as the One Head of the Church.  We've given our reasons why; as I mentioned in another thread - from our POV, your lips say, "no," but your actions (and, in this case, dogma, etc.) say, "yes."
Which is simply stupid and childish on your part. When it comes t your Bishops your lips say "no" but your actions say "yes". Of course here is the image of your church:
Each Bishop as the head of his diocese.

I would hope that it is neither stupid nor childish.  Just as you claim we don't understand your ecclesiology viz-a-viz the Papacy, we also point out that you don't understand, well, our ecclesiology viz-a-viz much of anything.  Our 3-1 Model of the Church (Universal, Regional, Diocesan; each "Catholic") vs. your 2-1 Model (Universal, Diocesan; only the first is "Catholic"); episcopal sovereignty and unity; conciliarity as the highest expression of the work of the Spirit in the governance of the Church (a la the Synod of Jerusalem); ontological unity of the priesthood and Archpriesthood in the Priesthood and Archpriesthood of Christ (which comes up in the "indellible mark" discussions), etc.
I don't typically presume to speak for Mor
You can presume to speak for Mor.  

How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,517
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #39 on: January 20, 2011, 06:52:41 PM »
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is not a Synod and neither is the Episcopal Assembly a Synod.

Each Bishop in the USCCB is appointed by and subject to the Pope.  Each Hierarch in the Episcopal Assembly is elected by and accountable only to His respective Synod.

Each Cardinal in the College of Cardinals is personally selected by the Pope and/or his predecessors.  If you want to make the argument that each Cardinal was personally selected just as Jesus personally selected the 12 and the 70 Disciples, fair enough (although that would place the Pope as equivalent or superior to Jesus).  Do you believe that the Holy Spirit intended to elevate the Pope above the other Bishops as a result of some form of economy?   ???

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #40 on: January 20, 2011, 07:29:41 PM »
I don't really care what you see when you look at the Catholic Church.

But I do reserve the right to say:

This ain't it!!

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is not a Synod and neither is the Episcopal Assembly a Synod.

Each Bishop in the USCCB is appointed by and subject to the Pope.  Each Hierarch in the Episcopal Assembly is elected by and accountable only to His respective Synod.

Each Cardinal in the College of Cardinals is personally selected by the Pope and/or his predecessors.  If you want to make the argument that each Cardinal was personally selected just as Jesus personally selected the 12 and the 70 Disciples, fair enough (although that would place the Pope as equivalent or superior to Jesus).  Do you believe that the Holy Spirit intended to elevate the Pope above the other Bishops as a result of some form of economy?   ???

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #41 on: January 20, 2011, 07:39:50 PM »
Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
But Catholics do believe that Christ is ruling over us as our High Priest.  

Debatable. It's a matter of perspective. Just as, from our perspective, the filioque compromises the doctrine of the Trinity, so the papacy is seen as compromising the High Priesthood of Christ
Wow. You and Isa are in competition for the most ridiculous posts of the month. If I were to follow you on this I would have say that your concept of the Bishop as shepherd of his flock would compromise Christ's role as the good shepherd.

It would be ironic if you felt that way, since we do have extremely similar views on the Bishop as shepherd.  But yes, his point is that from our perspective there is concern that the Papacy, as constructed currently, has taken Christ's place (nudged Him aside, rather than St. Ignatios' concept of "type and place") as the One Head of the Church.  We've given our reasons why; as I mentioned in another thread - from our POV, your lips say, "no," but your actions (and, in this case, dogma, etc.) say, "yes."
Which is simply stupid and childish on your part. When it comes t your Bishops your lips say "no" but your actions say "yes". Of course here is the image of your church:

Each Bishop as the head of his diocese.

Ah, no. Think about that image. That is multiple heads for one body. But that is not our ecclesiology. The universal Church has one Head and that is Christ Himself alone. The Bishops are simply the deputies of Christ who minister particular sections of His Church on His behalf.

Offline Ortho_cat

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,392
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #42 on: January 20, 2011, 07:43:45 PM »
Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
But Catholics do believe that Christ is ruling over us as our High Priest.  

Debatable. It's a matter of perspective. Just as, from our perspective, the filioque compromises the doctrine of the Trinity, so the papacy is seen as compromising the High Priesthood of Christ
Wow. You and Isa are in competition for the most ridiculous posts of the month. If I were to follow you on this I would have say that your concept of the Bishop as shepherd of his flock would compromise Christ's role as the good shepherd.

It would be ironic if you felt that way, since we do have extremely similar views on the Bishop as shepherd.  But yes, his point is that from our perspective there is concern that the Papacy, as constructed currently, has taken Christ's place (nudged Him aside, rather than St. Ignatios' concept of "type and place") as the One Head of the Church.  We've given our reasons why; as I mentioned in another thread - from our POV, your lips say, "no," but your actions (and, in this case, dogma, etc.) say, "yes."
Which is simply stupid and childish on your part. When it comes t your Bishops your lips say "no" but your actions say "yes". Of course here is the image of your church:

Each Bishop as the head of his diocese.

I'm sorry, but that is no way to speak to a member of our clergy.

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,517
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #43 on: January 20, 2011, 08:19:25 PM »
I don't really care what you see when you look at the Catholic Church.

But I do reserve the right to say:

This ain't it!!

Suit yourself.   ;)  The Pope, vicar of Christ and superior to Christ; hence, why need Christ who was a Prophet? a forerunner? (as the Muslims claim)    ;)

I said earlier that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch are under great temptations to unify with the Pope even to the point of discussing the absurdity of a global protos since they have to accept the Pope in his "man-made" elevated role before unification can proceed.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is not a Synod and neither is the Episcopal Assembly a Synod.

Each Bishop in the USCCB is appointed by and subject to the Pope.  Each Hierarch in the Episcopal Assembly is elected by and accountable only to His respective Synod.

Each Cardinal in the College of Cardinals is personally selected by the Pope and/or his predecessors.  If you want to make the argument that each Cardinal was personally selected just as Jesus personally selected the 12 and the 70 Disciples, fair enough (although that would place the Pope as equivalent or superior to Jesus).  Do you believe that the Holy Spirit intended to elevate the Pope above the other Bishops as a result of some form of economy?   ???

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
« Reply #44 on: January 20, 2011, 08:45:38 PM »
Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
But Catholics do believe that Christ is ruling over us as our High Priest.  

Debatable. It's a matter of perspective. Just as, from our perspective, the filioque compromises the doctrine of the Trinity, so the papacy is seen as compromising the High Priesthood of Christ
Wow. You and Isa are in competition for the most ridiculous posts of the month. If I were to follow you on this I would have say that your concept of the Bishop as shepherd of his flock would compromise Christ's role as the good shepherd.

It would be ironic if you felt that way, since we do have extremely similar views on the Bishop as shepherd.  But yes, his point is that from our perspective there is concern that the Papacy, as constructed currently, has taken Christ's place (nudged Him aside, rather than St. Ignatios' concept of "type and place") as the One Head of the Church.  We've given our reasons why; as I mentioned in another thread - from our POV, your lips say, "no," but your actions (and, in this case, dogma, etc.) say, "yes."
Which is simply stupid and childish on your part. When it comes t your Bishops your lips say "no" but your actions say "yes". Of course here is the image of your church:

Each Bishop as the head of his diocese.

Ah, no. Think about that image. That is multiple heads for one body. But that is not our ecclesiology. The universal Church has one Head and that is Christ Himself alone. The Bishops are simply the deputies of Christ who minister particular sections of His Church on His behalf.

Oh geeze...and here I thought it was just New York!!