OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 08:57:57 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What made the Seven Ecumenical Councils ecumenical?  (Read 1952 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
vasily
Warned
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox church in america
Posts: 189



« on: November 16, 2011, 10:11:57 AM »

 Scanning the forum I could not find the exact answers to the following;

 1. It was Rome's authority and approval that made a council ecumenical and legitimate.
 2. Any council without the bishop of Rome, is no council at all,because the Pope was the head of the Church..
 3. Is it only the Orthodox that make the claim of 'primacy of honor", or "first amongst equals", since the Latin West does not recognize the status of the Quinisext Council( Canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons), which the Orthodox declared as canon law.
 4. All Patriarchs were not of equal status. In 1054 the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were not the local bishops who used to rule from these ancient sees. The Orthodox bishops of these sees were Byzantine Melkites, with most of the Christians in Antioch and Alexandria being Oriental Orthodox.By 1054 Byzantium replaced the "poll of bishops" to determine Orthodoxy when they did not agree with the Byzantine decisions of Chalcedon. It was Constantinople that ruled these particular sees.

M-word removed - MK.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 02:08:55 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged
zekarja
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 745


O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!


« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2011, 10:38:22 AM »

The Orthodox bishops of these sees were Byzantine Melkites, with most of the Christians in Antioch and Alexandria being Monophysites.

We are Miaphysites not Monophysites. St Cyril says,

"We confess that He is Son of God and God according to the Spirit, Son of Man according to the flesh, not Two Natures to that One Son, One [Nature] worshipped the other unworshipped, but One Nature of God the Word Incarnate, worshipped with His flesh with One worship: nor Two Sons, One, Very Son of God and worshipped, the other the man out of Mary not worshipped, made by grace son of God just as men too are." - St Cyril of Alexandria, Against Theodore of Mopsuestia, ch 11

Source: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_against_theodore_01_text.htm
[Emphasis mine.]

The greek is: μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη [mia physis tou theou logou sesarkomeni]

Hence we are Miaphysites.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2011, 10:40:36 AM »

Scanning the forum I could not find the exact answers to the following;

 1. It was Rome's authority and approval that made a council ecumenical and legitimate.
 2. Any council without the bishop of Rome, is no council at all,because the Pope was the head of the Church..
 3. Is it only the Orthodox that make the claim of 'primacy of honor", or "first amongst equals", since the Latin West does not recognize the status of the Quinisext Council( Canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons), which the Orthodox declared as canon law.
 4. All Patriarchs were not of equal status. In 1054 the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were not the local bishops who used to rule from these ancient sees. The Orthodox bishops of these sees were Byzantine Melkites, with most of the Christians in Antioch and Alexandria being Monophysites.By 1054 Byzantium replaced the "poll of bishops" to determine Orthodoxy when they did not agree with the Byzantine decisions of Chalcedon. It was Constantinople that ruled these particular sees.
1. The Fifth was held over Rome's explicite objection, and it struck the pope of Rome from the diptychs.
2. No bishop of Rome attended any Council, and the Second had no legate from Rome at all.
3. The popes of Rome came around with the rest of the Church on Quinisext, but then changed its mind again when it went into schism.  And Canon 34 has nothing to do with Quinisext, nor with the primacy of Rome outside its own patriarchate.
4. Most of Antioch were, and are, Chalcedonian, not OO, and Antioch's patriarch was in Antioch.  Alexandria did mostly go into opposition to Chalcedon, but her pope was still the local bishop:Pope Eutychius (933-940), for instance, was born in Sa'id b. Batriq in Old Cairo in 877, and spoke no Greek, and Pope Elias I (963-1000) was the uncle of the caliph al-Hakim ruling from Cairo

And the Orthodox Patriarch to this day is the only local patriarchate in Jerusalem (though the present administration stretches the definition of "local," and the Latin patriarchate is trying to localize itself).
Logged

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
AWR
Greetings from the Southern Jersey Shore.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 240


Expelled from Paradise


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2011, 11:02:52 AM »

It is not who called the council or who attended the council that makes a council an Ecumenical Council, It is the entire Church, and its Holy Tradition. That "names" a council an Ecumenical Councils.  In the Orthodox Church only seven such councils have received the universal approval of the entire Church in all times and places.

Quote
It was Rome's authority and approval that made a council ecumenical and legitimate.
Wrong, it is the truth, inspired by the Holy Spirit and seen by the Church.

Quote
Any council without the bishop of Rome, is no council at all,because the Pope was the head of the Church..
Christ is the head of the Church, and it is God himself that causes the truth to be known.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2011, 11:16:18 AM by AWR » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2011, 11:09:53 AM »

It is not who called the council or who attended the council that makes a council an Ecumenical Council, It is the entire Church, and its Holy Tradition. That "names" a council an Ecumenical Councils.  In the Orthodox Church only seven such councils have received the universal approval of the entire Church in all times and places.

Quote
It was Rome's authority and approval that made a council ecumenical and legitimate.
Wrong, it is the truth, inspired by the Holy Spirit and seen by the Church.

Quote
Any council without the bishop of Rome, is no council at all,because the Pope was the head of the Church..
Christ is the head of the Church, and it is God himself that causes the trust to be known.

Amen!

The Councils proclaimed only what the Orthodox already knew:the heretics had the choice of either getting in the know, or remaining in ignorance.
Logged

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
vasily
Warned
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox church in america
Posts: 189



« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2011, 09:30:20 AM »

Scanning the forum I could not find the exact answers to the following;

 1. It was Rome's authority and approval that made a council ecumenical and legitimate.
 2. Any council without the bishop of Rome, is no council at all,because the Pope was the head of the Church..
 3. Is it only the Orthodox that make the claim of 'primacy of honor", or "first amongst equals", since the Latin West does not recognize the status of the Quinisext Council( Canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons), which the Orthodox declared as canon law.
 4. All Patriarchs were not of equal status. In 1054 the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were not the local bishops who used to rule from these ancient sees. The Orthodox bishops of these sees were Byzantine Melkites, with most of the Christians in Antioch and Alexandria being Monophysites.By 1054 Byzantium replaced the "poll of bishops" to determine Orthodoxy when they did not agree with the Byzantine decisions of Chalcedon. It was Constantinople that ruled these particular sees.
1. The Fifth was held over Rome's explicite objection, and it struck the pope of Rome from the diptychs.
2. No bishop of Rome attended any Council, and the Second had no legate from Rome at all.
3. The popes of Rome came around with the rest of the Church on Quinisext, but then changed its mind again when it went into schism.  And Canon 34 has nothing to do with Quinisext, nor with the primacy of Rome outside its own patriarchate.
4. Most of Antioch were, and are, Chalcedonian, not OO, and Antioch's patriarch was in Antioch.  Alexandria did mostly go into opposition to Chalcedon, but her pope was still the local bishop:Pope Eutychius (933-940), for instance, was born in Sa'id b. Batriq in Old Cairo in 877, and spoke no Greek, and Pope Elias I (963-1000) was the uncle of the caliph al-Hakim ruling from Cairo

And the Orthodox Patriarch to this day is the only local patriarchate in Jerusalem (though the present administration stretches the definition of "local," and the Latin patriarchate is trying to localize itself).



 I am referring to Canon 34, of the Apostolic Canons, which says ,"Rome enjoyed a primacy of honor-first amongst equals (primus inter pares). Is this canon only recognized by the Orthodox?

 In order for a council to be ecumenical, it had to be approved by the Pope. Is this a fact?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2011, 10:22:42 AM »

Quote
Any council without the bishop of Rome, is no council at all,because the Pope was the head of the Church..
Christ is the head of the Church, and it is God himself that causes the truth to be known.
The Pope being the visible head of the Church in no way negates Christ's headship, just as St. Peter being named the Rock by Christ in no way means that Christ is not the Rock.
Logged
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2011, 08:22:48 PM »

with most of the Christians in Antioch and Alexandria being Monophysites.
*Sigh* And here we go again...
« Last Edit: November 17, 2011, 08:23:02 PM by Severian » Logged

On hiatus from posting. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Note that some of my older posts -especially those prior to late 2012- may not reflect my current views. In the meantime, please pray for my sinful self as I am in a critical and unsure juncture in my life. Thank you.
Hiwot
Christ is Risen!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 1,959


Job 19:25-27


« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2011, 08:46:11 PM »

with most of the Christians in Antioch and Alexandria being Monophysites.
*Sigh* And here we go again...

LOL indeed! sometimes truth is not the interest of some ,a comfortable lie would serve their interest better.
Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2011, 09:05:31 PM »

Quote
Any council without the bishop of Rome, is no council at all,because the Pope was the head of the Church..
Christ is the head of the Church, and it is God himself that causes the truth to be known.
The Pope being the visible head of the Church in no way negates Christ's headship, just as St. Peter being named the Rock by Christ in no way means that Christ is not the Rock.
Actually this is the visible head of the Church:
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2011, 09:06:35 PM »

I am referring to Canon 34, of the Apostolic Canons, which says ,"Rome enjoyed a primacy of honor-first amongst equals (primus inter pares). Is this canon only recognized by the Orthodox?
LOL. Apostolic Canon 34 says no such thing.  Who told you it said that?

Who else recognizes the Apostolic Canons doesn't really concern us, as, if they are not in the Church, their application would be off. Btw, the Vatican has replaced them for itself with its own code of canon law (in two versions, West and East, both in Latin. And I don't mean just the language).

In order for a council to be ecumenical, it had to be approved by the Pope. Is this a fact?
No, it is not.  
« Last Edit: November 17, 2011, 09:09:02 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2011, 11:28:26 PM »

I thought it would be interesting to actually provide the wording of the 34th Apostolic Canon:

Quote
34. Do not ye receive any stranger, whether bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, without commendatory letters; and when such are offered, let them be examined. And if they be preachers of piety, let them be received; but if not, supply their wants, but do not receive them to communion: for many things are done by surprise.

Source

Clearly, this has absolutely nothing to do with proclaiming Rome having an alleged primacy of honor. Whoever told you this is mistaken, and should be corrected.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #12 on: November 18, 2011, 01:15:13 AM »

Quote
Any council without the bishop of Rome, is no council at all,because the Pope was the head of the Church..
Christ is the head of the Church, and it is God himself that causes the truth to be known.
The Pope being the visible head of the Church in no way negates Christ's headship, just as St. Peter being named the Rock by Christ in no way means that Christ is not the Rock.
Actually this is the visible head of the Church:

A picture of Christ?
Logged
vasily
Warned
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox church in america
Posts: 189



« Reply #13 on: November 18, 2011, 09:46:31 AM »

 The info for the Apostolic Canon 34 was from two websites, goarch.org/ourfaith and orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/canonlaw. The Apostolic Canon 34 states," The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent but neither let him (who is first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity."  I first came across this in an article posted on the Orthodox Christian information center website, by Michael Whelton, entitled Two Paths- Papal Monarchy-Collegial Tradition. He discusses Canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons.


 So again, does the Latin West recognize this canon?
 Does Rome's approval of a council make it ecumenical?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #14 on: November 18, 2011, 09:56:21 AM »

The info for the Apostolic Canon 34 was from two websites, goarch.org/ourfaith and orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/canonlaw. The Apostolic Canon 34 states," The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent but neither let him (who is first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity."  I first came across this in an article posted on the Orthodox Christian information center website, by Michael Whelton, entitled Two Paths- Papal Monarchy-Collegial Tradition. He discusses Canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons.


 So again, does the Latin West recognize this canon?
 Does Rome's approval of a council make it ecumenical?
Not anymore.
No.

As to the Apostolic Canon:I knew which one you were refering to, but as it doesn't refer to Rome (other than, per canon 6 of Nicea, the bishops of Italy acknowledge the bishop of Rome), it had no bearing on your question about Ecumenical Councils (except that Rome needed to approve them like Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Georgia and Cyprus).
Logged

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
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #15 on: November 18, 2011, 09:56:39 AM »

Well, in the Canon 34 used in those articles:

-nowhere does it specify Rome;
-it does state that whoever is designated head must make decisions with the consent of his brother bishops. In fact, imposition of any one's decisions is prohibited in favor of unanimity.

I have no idea if the Latin West recognizes this canon; I do know that East and West have alternate numberings for canons even within the same council, which may be a reason why the Apostolic Canon 34 cited at ccel may not be the same Canon 34 used in Whelton's work (my canonical library is not accessible right now, but if memory serves the East has 84 or 85 Apostolic Canons while the West only cites 50 or so, depending on when the list a person is citing for the West was developed).

Ialmisry has very capably answered your second question for you. Why are you still asking it?
« Last Edit: November 18, 2011, 09:58:00 AM by FrChris » Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #16 on: November 18, 2011, 02:13:23 PM »

Quote
Any council without the bishop of Rome, is no council at all,because the Pope was the head of the Church..
Christ is the head of the Church, and it is God himself that causes the truth to be known.
The Pope being the visible head of the Church in no way negates Christ's headship, just as St. Peter being named the Rock by Christ in no way means that Christ is not the Rock.
Actually this is the visible head of the Church:


What you have posted is an *icon* of Christ.  Christ is the the Head of the Church.  We are created in the *image and likeness* of God.  Image and likeness are not that which they represent.  They are just that, a representation of sorts.  The definition of the word "icon" is "image", if I'm not mistaken.  So, an icon of Christ is a representation of the Head of the Church.  Christ is not the "visible" Head of the Church.  That would be, currently, Pope Benedict XVI.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,349


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 18, 2011, 02:28:28 PM »

Quote
It was Rome's authority and approval that made a council ecumenical and legitimate
Only Rome believes that and actually, they always didn't believe that.
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #18 on: November 18, 2011, 03:10:15 PM »

Quote
Any council without the bishop of Rome, is no council at all,because the Pope was the head of the Church..
Christ is the head of the Church, and it is God himself that causes the truth to be known.
The Pope being the visible head of the Church in no way negates Christ's headship, just as St. Peter being named the Rock by Christ in no way means that Christ is not the Rock.
Actually this is the visible head of the Church:


What you have posted is an *icon* of Christ.  Christ is the the Head of the Church.  We are created in the *image and likeness* of God.  Image and likeness are not that which they represent.  They are just that, a representation of sorts.  The definition of the word "icon" is "image", if I'm not mistaken.  So, an icon of Christ is a representation of the Head of the Church.  Christ is not the "visible" Head of the Church.  That would be, currently, Pope Benedict XVI.
Only if you are in the ecclesial community that derives its unity and being from submission to the sovereign of the Vatican, in which case you are not in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that exists as the Body of Christ in union with Him as her head.  As for your head

That's not him:what I have posted is a "picture" of him. He is the head of your ecclesial community, who, and whose predecessors, have created your ecclesial community in the likeness of the office, supreme pontiff, the received from the Roman emperors. Pictures are not that which they represent. They are just that, a representation of sorts, and it is quite a question to answer how much more "visibile" your "visible head" was than Christ, given that at least until two centuries ago, or after the invention of printing in the days of the council of Florence, very few of his followers ever laid eyes on him, and had no idea what he looked like if they had glanced on him.

As Pope St. Leo the Great said:"everything of Him that was visible has passed into the sacraments."
Logged

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
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,021



« Reply #19 on: November 18, 2011, 03:12:46 PM »

The simple answer to the question, is that the 7 Ecumenical Synods were gatherings of all the bishops of the Church, whose decisions were accepted by the church and ratified, confirmed, by a subsequent synod.


The Orthodox Church is governed by synods of bishops; parishes are assembled under the authority of a bishop, who is a member of a Holy Synod, possibly an Eparchial (Provincial) Synod, which is under the Holy Synod of Bishops of one of the Holy Orthodox Churches.

The Ecumenical Council is an Ecumenical Synod (Council is a Western term, "Synodos" is the term in Greek), a gathering of all the bishops of the Church.  It includes priests and theologically knowledgeable laity, but only the bishops (metropolitans, archbishops, patriarchs) vote.  It is the gathering of the assembly of all bishops that begins the process of a Synod being considered "ecumenical;" and its decisions (which indicate the scriptural preface, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us,") must be accepted by the greater church.  When its decisions are ratified by a subsequent Synodal gathering, the decisions are considered  "infallible" teaching of the Church that must be believed.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2011, 03:22:15 PM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,099


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 18, 2011, 07:42:23 PM »

J Michael: you may as well not waste your time. There are some people, on some topics, from whom you will always receive an answer tinged with personal disrespect, and that's it. They don't like your point of view, and no matter what you post, they never will.

Just don't give them the satisfaction anymore.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #21 on: November 19, 2011, 12:17:14 PM »

4. Most of Antioch were, and are, Chalcedonian, not OO, and Antioch's patriarch was in Antioch.  Alexandria did mostly go into opposition to Chalcedon, but her pope was still the local bishop:Pope Eutychius (933-940), for instance, was born in Sa'id b. Batriq in Old Cairo in 877, and spoke no Greek, and Pope Elias I (963-1000) was the uncle of the caliph al-Hakim ruling from Cairo

And the Orthodox Patriarch to this day is the only local patriarchate in Jerusalem (though the present administration stretches the definition of "local," and the Latin patriarchate is trying to localize itself).
Really? I was under the impression that most of the Christians in the Levant who weren't Greek went OO.

Wasn't there a Chalcedonian Antiochian patriarch who never set foot in Antioch?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #22 on: November 19, 2011, 12:25:50 PM »

with most of the Christians in Antioch and Alexandria being Monophysites.
*Sigh* And here we go again...

LOL indeed! sometimes truth is not the interest of some ,a comfortable lie would serve their interest better.

Did you ever think that maybe vasily isn't aware of all of the subtleties of the controversy and was simply using the most common term (which, btw, I've seen plenty of OOs use)?

Don't go around calling people liars for using common misnomers, please.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #23 on: November 19, 2011, 01:33:13 PM »

Only if you are in the ecclesial community that derives its unity and being from submission to the sovereign of the Vatican, in which case you are not in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that exists as the Body of Christ in union with Him as her head.
Why do you all have such a hard to understanding that the Pope as our head does not mean that Christ is not our head as well? St. Peter and his successors derive their authority from Christ. Without Christ there would be no Pope, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, or Church for that matter. The Pope's authority is through and because of Christ, not in opposition to Christ.

As for your head

That's not him:what I have posted is a "picture" of him. He is the head of your ecclesial community, who, and whose predecessors, have created your ecclesial community in the likeness of the office, supreme pontiff, the received from the Roman emperors.
Christ was never a Roman emperor.

Pictures are not that which they represent.
Then why is an icon of Christ cited as proof that Christ is the visible head of the Church? An Icon is not Christ.

They are just that, a representation of sorts, and it is quite a question to answer how much more "visibile" your "visible head" was than Christ, given that at least until two centuries ago, or after the invention of printing in the days of the council of Florence, very few of his followers ever laid eyes on him, and had no idea what he looked like if they had glanced on him.
What's your point?

As Pope St. Leo the Great said:"everything of Him that was visible has passed into the sacraments."
Yes..."everything of Him that was visible....." Christ is no longer visible. He has ascended. Though he is really and truly present in the Eucharist He is hidden by the sacramental veil. We cannot see Him as He really is.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #24 on: November 19, 2011, 01:40:56 PM »

J Michael: you may as well not waste your time. There are some people, on some topics, from whom you will always receive an answer tinged with personal disrespect, and that's it. They don't like your point of view, and no matter what you post, they never will.

Just don't give them the satisfaction anymore.

Thanks, Biro.  Yeah, I know.... Sad  Some people are so, as Schultz put it on a different thread, "self-absorbed" that they just can't help but to always be "right", to spin others' words to mean what they don't, and to always have the last word about almost anything they discuss.  It's an incredibly sad state to be in, and I wonder if "satisfaction" is the right word for whatever it is they experience. 
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 19, 2011, 02:02:00 PM »

J Michael: you may as well not waste your time. There are some people, on some topics, from whom you will always receive an answer tinged with personal disrespect, and that's it. They don't like your point of view, and no matter what you post, they never will.

Just don't give them the satisfaction anymore.

Thanks, Biro.  Yeah, I know.... Sad  Some people are so, as Schultz put it on a different thread, "self-absorbed" that they just can't help but to always be "right", to spin others' words to mean what they don't, and to always have the last word about almost anything they discuss.  It's an incredibly sad state to be in, and I wonder if "satisfaction" is the right word for whatever it is they experience. 

Correct errors!  Move on!   Wink

Unless you have an opportunity to point out a particularly egregious and obvious twisting of the truth...then twist back!  and Move on!!

M.
Logged

Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,560


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #26 on: November 19, 2011, 02:11:27 PM »

with most of the Christians in Antioch and Alexandria being Monophysites.
*Sigh* And here we go again...

LOL indeed! sometimes truth is not the interest of some ,a comfortable lie would serve their interest better.

Did you ever think that maybe vasily isn't aware of all of the subtleties of the controversy and was simply using the most common term (which, btw, I've seen plenty of OOs use)?

Don't go around calling people liars for using common misnomers, please.


Using that word, except to refer to people who historically held Apollinarian or Eutychian beliefs, is forbidden by forum rules:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13455.msg187933.html#msg187933

If you have a problem with this rule, you can take it up with a global moderator.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #27 on: November 19, 2011, 02:27:55 PM »

4. Most of Antioch were, and are, Chalcedonian, not OO, and Antioch's patriarch was in Antioch.  Alexandria did mostly go into opposition to Chalcedon, but her pope was still the local bishop:Pope Eutychius (933-940), for instance, was born in Sa'id b. Batriq in Old Cairo in 877, and spoke no Greek, and Pope Elias I (963-1000) was the uncle of the caliph al-Hakim ruling from Cairo

And the Orthodox Patriarch to this day is the only local patriarchate in Jerusalem (though the present administration stretches the definition of "local," and the Latin patriarchate is trying to localize itself).
Really? I was under the impression that most of the Christians in the Levant who weren't Greek went OO.
No.  And it wasn't even an issue of being Greek or in the Levant: many in Crete (IIRC, St. Andrew, who wrote the poem we use as the Canon of St. Andrew, though he was from Damacus, so I am not sure if he was Greek or Syriac), Cyprus and Constantinople itself (hence the Henotikon) opposed Chalcedon.  The Acts of Chalcedon themselves mark which bishops signed on to its decisions in Syriac.  Many who had opposed Chalcedon ended up EO (for example, the majority of the Arabs).

Wasn't there a Chalcedonian Antiochian patriarch who never set foot in Antioch?
Several.  Just like there were several (the majority?) of non-Chalcedonian patriarchs who never set foot in Antioch (Antioch, btw, ceased to exist at all as a city around 1453, where it only had about 300 Turkomen settlers.  It only revitalized around 1800 or so).  I don't think that there was ever an OO patriarch who never set foot in the patriarch, although we have had a few EO ones.
Logged

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
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #28 on: November 19, 2011, 03:06:00 PM »

J Michael: you may as well not waste your time. There are some people, on some topics, from whom you will always receive an answer tinged with personal disrespect, and that's it. They don't like your point of view, and no matter what you post, they never will.

Just don't give them the satisfaction anymore.

Thanks, Biro.  Yeah, I know.... Sad  Some people are so, as Schultz put it on a different thread, "self-absorbed" that they just can't help but to always be "right", to spin others' words to mean what they don't, and to always have the last word about almost anything they discuss.  It's an incredibly sad state to be in, and I wonder if "satisfaction" is the right word for whatever it is they experience. 

Correct errors!  Move on!   Wink

Unless you have an opportunity to point out a particularly egregious and obvious twisting of the truth...then twist back!  and Move on!!

M.

Yes, good point!  Thanks for reminding me of that.  It's just that sometimes my (ever so pure, benign, and objective  Roll Eyes Grin Roll Eyes Grin Roll Eyes) attitude bumps into the (opposite of that  Grin Roll Eyes Grin) attitude of others and I forget myself.  And that's *not* an excuse!  Yup---Fall down.  Get up again.  Fall down.  Get up again.   Wink

Thanks, again.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #29 on: November 19, 2011, 03:50:05 PM »

J Michael: you may as well not waste your time. There are some people, on some topics, from whom you will always receive an answer tinged with personal disrespect, and that's it. They don't like your point of view, and no matter what you post, they never will.

Just don't give them the satisfaction anymore.

Thanks, Biro.  Yeah, I know.... Sad  Some people are so, as Schultz put it on a different thread, "self-absorbed" that they just can't help but to always be "right", to spin others' words to mean what they don't, and to always have the last word about almost anything they discuss.  It's an incredibly sad state to be in, and I wonder if "satisfaction" is the right word for whatever it is they experience.  
Probably none. Not a lot of people harbor the seething resentment that seems to be trapped in your head. Probably not a lot of people even care. Then again, that would contradict your raving anger, and you wouldn't be able to pick another fight, no matter how much you want to.

You get away with a lot because you're a priest. It's people like you who make me not want to be Orthodox.

It can't be 'right glory' to just be obnoxious and provoke people all the time.

I think certain people are too nice here and they're afraid to break out the ban hammer.

What a shame.
Is that seething resentment towards facts, or just the presenter thereof?
A cardinal, of course, is an honorary title for a member of a select group of archbishops. And the title of archbishop has been around since waaaay back when. Let's not get silly.  Roll Eyes Unless Isa didn't know that, in which case he's talking out of his hat. Doesn't he need a new hat by now?  Huh
evidently not.

The only archbishop waaaaay back when in Rome was the archbishop a/k/a the pope now (7th century or so, the title meandering from Alexandria-upon whom it was bestowed-through Carthage to Rome).  The other half dozen or so bishops were suffragans, who consecrated the new archbishop (a similar set up was in Alexandria, but not in Constantinople, Antioch or Jerusalem).  The first diocesan bishop, let alone archbishop, to be named cardinal didn't happen until 1163, when beseiged Pope Alexander III (another pope-antipope schism over the "font of unity")  let Archbishop Konrad of Mainz keep his see, although named cardinal in the college at Rome.

Not all cardinals are bishops.

Do get your facts straight.
It seems some look for offense.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 03:51:02 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 19, 2011, 04:30:45 PM »

The canon below establishes the rules for creating Cardinals:



Canon 351 §1 Those to be promoted Cardinals are men freely selected by the Roman Pontiff, who are at least in the order of priesthood and are truly outstanding in doctrine, virtue, piety and prudence in practical matters; those who are not already Bishops must receive episcopal consecration.

§2 Cardinals are created by decree of the Roman Pontiff, which in fact is published in the presence of the College of Cardinals. From the moment of publication, they are bound by the obligations and they enjoy the rights defined in the law.

§3 A person promoted to the dignity of Cardinal, whose creation the Roman Pontiff announces, but whose name he reserves in petto, is not at that time bound by the obligations nor does he enjoy the rights of a Cardinal. When his name is published by the Roman Pontiff, however, he is bound by these obligations and enjoys these rights, but his right of precedence dates from the day of the reservation in petto.
Logged

"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
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 19, 2011, 04:36:54 PM »

J Michael: you may as well not waste your time. There are some people, on some topics, from whom you will always receive an answer tinged with personal disrespect, and that's it. They don't like your point of view, and no matter what you post, they never will.

Just don't give them the satisfaction anymore.

Thanks, Biro.  Yeah, I know.... Sad  Some people are so, as Schultz put it on a different thread, "self-absorbed" that they just can't help but to always be "right", to spin others' words to mean what they don't, and to always have the last word about almost anything they discuss.  It's an incredibly sad state to be in, and I wonder if "satisfaction" is the right word for whatever it is they experience.  
Probably none. Not a lot of people harbor the seething resentment that seems to be trapped in your head. Probably not a lot of people even care. Then again, that would contradict your raving anger, and you wouldn't be able to pick another fight, no matter how much you want to.

You get away with a lot because you're a priest. It's people like you who make me not want to be Orthodox.

It can't be 'right glory' to just be obnoxious and provoke people all the time.

I think certain people are too nice here and they're afraid to break out the ban hammer.

What a shame.
Is that seething resentment towards facts, or just the presenter thereof?
A cardinal, of course, is an honorary title for a member of a select group of archbishops. And the title of archbishop has been around since waaaay back when. Let's not get silly.  Roll Eyes Unless Isa didn't know that, in which case he's talking out of his hat. Doesn't he need a new hat by now?  Huh
evidently not.

The only archbishop waaaaay back when in Rome was the archbishop a/k/a the pope now (7th century or so, the title meandering from Alexandria-upon whom it was bestowed-through Carthage to Rome).  The other half dozen or so bishops were suffragans, who consecrated the new archbishop (a similar set up was in Alexandria, but not in Constantinople, Antioch or Jerusalem).  The first diocesan bishop, let alone archbishop, to be named cardinal didn't happen until 1163, when beseiged Pope Alexander III (another pope-antipope schism over the "font of unity")  let Archbishop Konrad of Mainz keep his see, although named cardinal in the college at Rome.

Not all cardinals are bishops.

Do get your facts straight.
It seems some look for offense.
According to the new Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church a Cardinal must already be a bishop, or if he is not a bishop he must receive episcopal consecration before being created a Cardinal; nevertheless, the pope may dispense from the latter requirement in specific cases.
Logged

"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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #32 on: November 19, 2011, 04:52:36 PM »

The canon below establishes the rules for creating Cardinals:



Canon 351 §1 Those to be promoted Cardinals are men freely selected by the Roman Pontiff, who are at least in the order of priesthood and are truly outstanding in doctrine, virtue, piety and prudence in practical matters; those who are not already Bishops must receive episcopal consecration.

§2 Cardinals are created by decree of the Roman Pontiff, which in fact is published in the presence of the College of Cardinals. From the moment of publication, they are bound by the obligations and they enjoy the rights defined in the law.

§3 A person promoted to the dignity of Cardinal, whose creation the Roman Pontiff announces, but whose name he reserves in petto, is not at that time bound by the obligations nor does he enjoy the rights of a Cardinal. When his name is published by the Roman Pontiff, however, he is bound by these obligations and enjoys these rights, but his right of precedence dates from the day of the reservation in petto.
IIRC, the cardinalate is not mentioned in the CCOE, although some of the bishops bound by it, i.e. patriarchs and major-archbishops, are named cardinals. The only reference I found was this:
Quote
CCOE Canon 46
1. In exercising his office (munus) the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia, pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutes carry out the task committed to them in his name and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according to the norm of law established by the Roman Pontiff himself.
2. The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by special norms established by the Roman Pontiff.
IIRC, when the cardinalate was bestowed on Pat. Maximos, someone asked him if he was now "Your Eminence," or just "Your Beatitude," to which he replied "I always believed it better to be blessed than to be eminent."

I think this is the only relevant canons of the Code of Canon Law on that:
Quote
Can. 350 §1. The college of cardinals is divided into three orders: the episcopal order, to which belong cardinals to whom the Roman Pontiff assigns title of a suburbicarian church and Eastern patriarchs who have been brought into the college of cardinals; the presbyteral order and the diaconal order.
§3. Eastern patriarchs who have been made members of the college of cardinals have their own patriarchal see as a title.
For what it was like before that (where a cardinal outranked a patriarch even in his own patriarchate), Adrian Fortescue and the Eastern Christian Churches By Anthony Dragani
http://books.google.com/books?id=mlM1SRCdXtkC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=code+of+canon+law+cardinals+Eastern+patriarchs&source=bl&ots=9mBxskYfnq&sig=ZGopC1PL7OZx2zvJPnzfT79ytWE&hl=en#v=onepage&q=code%20of%20canon%20law%20cardinals%20Eastern%20patriarchs&f=false
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 05:19:32 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #33 on: November 19, 2011, 05:04:53 PM »

According to the new Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church a Cardinal must already be a bishop, or if he is not a bishop he must receive episcopal consecration before being created a Cardinal; nevertheless, the pope may dispense from the latter requirement in specific cases.
I was thinking of the cardinal deacon, which I think still has non-episcopal members.  I, of course, defer to your expertise.
Logged

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
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 19, 2011, 06:13:30 PM »

According to the new Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church a Cardinal must already be a bishop, or if he is not a bishop he must receive episcopal consecration before being created a Cardinal; nevertheless, the pope may dispense from the latter requirement in specific cases.
I was thinking of the cardinal deacon, which I think still has non-episcopal members.  I, of course, defer to your expertise.
Cardinal Deacons in the modern Roman Church are also bishops (e.g., Cardinal Deacon Jorge Medina Estevez, who as senior Cardinal Deacon announced the election of Benedict XVI, has been a bishop since 1985), but the present practice only dates back to the 1960s.

Postscript:  The pope is free to dispense from the requirements of canon 351.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 06:14:42 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"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
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 19, 2011, 06:19:36 PM »

I think this is the only relevant canons of the Code of Canon Law on that:
Quote
Can. 350 §1. The college of cardinals is divided into three orders: the episcopal order, to which belong cardinals to whom the Roman Pontiff assigns title of a suburbicarian church and Eastern patriarchs who have been brought into the college of cardinals; the presbyteral order and the diaconal order.
§3. Eastern patriarchs who have been made members of the college of cardinals have their own patriarchal see as a title.
For what it was like before that (where a cardinal outranked a patriarch even in his own patriarchate), Adrian Fortescue and the Eastern Christian Churches By Anthony Dragani
The idea that a Cardinal outranks a Patriarch is related to the notion that the Latin Rite is the exemplary ritual tradition (praestantia ritus Latini) of the Catholic Church, while other ritual traditions are merely permitted as an exemption from the normative worship of the Roman Catholic Church.

Postscript:  As a Melkite Catholic I am opposed to Eastern Patriarchs accepting the title of "Cardinal" in the Roman Church.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 06:24:34 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #36 on: November 19, 2011, 06:41:10 PM »

Only if you are in the ecclesial community that derives its unity and being from submission to the sovereign of the Vatican, in which case you are not in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that exists as the Body of Christ in union with Him as her head.
Why do you all have such a hard to understanding that the Pope as our head does not mean that Christ is not our head as well?
We believe what our eyes see, and use common sense.  That is of course reaffirmed, when we hear the apologists for the Vatican prattle on about how we Orthodox need "the head."  Well, we have our Head screwed on right:you have been introduced to Him on this thread already.

so you all must be talking about something else, and preaching another gospel.  No Council was ever convened under your "visible head." Just the under, by, through and for the Head of the Church.

St. Peter and his successors derive their authority from Christ.
That they do.

Without Christ there would be no Pope

Indeed

Bishops
Indeed

Priests
Indeed

Deacons
Indeed

or Church for that matter.
Indeed.

Patriarchs and other bishops, priests, deacons were visible and seen at the Ecumenical Councils, where the Church was visible and seen, but your "visible head" was never seen at one.

The Pope's authority is through and because of Christ, not in opposition to Christ.
Then he should not have set himself up in opposition to Christ and His Church
Quote
...If anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema...
...If anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema...
...If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema...
...we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
Well, all the bishops in the diptychs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church rejected, and reject, this definition of his.  So either they are under anathema, or your supreme pontiff lost his head.

When Pope Theodoros II of Alexandria and Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch (and the rest of the bishops) are accepted by the Vatican as the equal of Pope Benedict XVI of Rome (assuming, for sake of argument, that he was in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church), then Orthodox Rome can rise again to its place in the diptychs, and the claim made that its Pope's authority is through and because of Christ, not in opposition to Christ.  Not until.

As for your head

That's not him:what I have posted is a "picture" of him. He is the head of your ecclesial community, who, and whose predecessors, have created your ecclesial community in the likeness of the office, supreme pontiff, they received from the Roman emperors.
Christ was never a Roman emperor.
No, He is the King of Kings.

And the sole High Priest.  He never was a supreme pontiff, a pontifex maximus.



BENEDICTVS XVI PONT[IFEX] MAX[IMVS] ANNO DOMINI MMV PONT[IFICATVS]

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; and unto God that which is God's"
Pictures are not that which they represent.
Then why is an icon of Christ cited as proof that Christ is the visible head of the Church? An Icon is not Christ.
Then your "visible" head is of limited use or value, as very, very few of his followers, until the last two centuries, ever laid eyes on him.  And no one ever saw him at an Ecumenical Council.

The Orthodox seeing their local bishop has been the rule, rather than the exception.

They are just that, a representation of sorts, and it is quite a question to answer how much more "visibile" your "visible head" was than Christ, given that at least until two centuries ago, or after the invention of printing in the days of the council of Florence, very few of his followers ever laid eyes on him, and had no idea what he looked like if they had glanced on him.
What's your point?
That there is none to your having a "visible head," who was never seen at an Ecumenical Council, never seen as legitimizing nor making Ecumenical one, nor ever seen as the head above all bishops.

As Pope St. Leo the Great said:"everything of Him that was visible has passed into the sacraments."
Yes..."everything of Him that was visible....." Christ is no longer visible. He has ascended. Though he is really and truly present in the Eucharist He is hidden by the sacramental veil. We cannot see Him as He really is.
He has ascended, and left His Body, the Church.

He is really and truly present in her episcopate, into which He has passed:"He who receives you receives Me."  They are not hidden, but manifest Him.

That is what makes Ecumenical Councils Ecumenical: The visible Body of Christ with the antibodies of Orthodoxy repelling heresy.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 07:06:13 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 19, 2011, 07:13:21 PM »

I tend to agree with what Br. George Every said on this topic: 

"[In the East] the primacy of Rome was seldom directly denied, in the sense of 'the primacy among her sisters, and the presidency in the first place of honor at General Councils,' but the Latin interpretation of the primacy in terms of jurisdiction revealed a difference between East and West in the doctrine of the Church. Attempts were made to relate this to the filioque, but these could not penetrate to the heart of the matter while the distinctive element in Latin theology was very little, if at all, understood in the East. St. Augustine was not translated into Greek before the fourteenth century. His De Civitate Dei and his anti-Donatist writings did much to determine the development of the Western doctrine of the Church, as his anti-Pelagian writings are the starting-point of all Western controversies on the nature of grace. Grace is the connecting link between theology (in the Byzantine sense of the doctrine of the Trinity) and ecclesiology, the doctrine of the Church. The Eastern Churches never had a doctrine of created grace, of the gifts of God apart from the gift of Himself to the baptized who are buried and risen with Christ and live and reign in the Holy Spirit. Therefore they could never understand the idea of the vicar of Christ ruling His Church in His absence. They thought of their bishops not in the first place as rulers, but as high-priests in the presence of Christ and the Spirit, witnesses to the truth, and stewards of the mysteries of God." [George Every, S.S.M., The Byzantine Patriarchate 451-1204, pages 191-192]
Logged

"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
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #38 on: November 23, 2011, 10:01:34 AM »

Scanning the forum I could not find the exact answers to the following;

 1. It was Rome's authority and approval that made a council ecumenical and legitimate.
 2. Any council without the bishop of Rome, is no council at all,because the Pope was the head of the Church..
No. Ecumenical Council doesn't need confirmation by the bishop of Rome, because, according to Mt 18:20, it receives its authority immediately from Jesus Christ. So, approval by the Pope is good, but is not necessary.

Mt 18:20: “For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

All five passages below quote these words as a proof that decisions of the Ecumenical Councils were made with the help of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. So they could not err while studying during their sessions texts from the Scripture and from the Holy Fathers. And this is just the fact that they did not err - I mean Seven Ecumenical Councils. If you take their Acts and read them, you will feel the presence of the Holy Spirit, as you feel when you read the Scripture.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, LETTER 55 (on the holy creed).

    Therefore we must believe those who are in charge of rightness in thinking about the holy Gospels which, through the Holy Spirit, “they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have handed down to us,” 10 whose footsteps our all-glorious Fathers were zealous to follow, who assembled at Nicaea in a period of crisis and defined the venerable and universal profession of the faith. Christ himself was seated in council with them for he says, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” 11

    (5) How is there doubt that Christ was invisibly presiding over that holy and great council? A certain groundwork and unbreakable and unshaken foundation for mankind throughout the world was thrown up, or rather put down, which is the sincere and blameless confession of faith. Then how was Christ not present if indeed he was the foundation according to the statement of the most wise Paul, who says, “For another foundation no one can lay but that which has been laid, which is Jesus Christ.” 12

    (6) Therefore, the holy Fathers who were with them, shepherds of the people, luminaries of the churches, and most skillful teachers of the mysteries have protected unexceptionably the faith set forth and defined by them.

    10 Lk. 1.2.
    11 Mt 18.20.
    12 1 Cor 3.11.

THE LETTER OF POPE CŒLESTINE TO THE SYNOD OF EPHESUS.

    Cœlestine the bishop to the holy Synod assembled at Ephesus, brethren beloved and most longed for, greeting in the Lord.

    A Synod of priests gives witness to the presence of the Holy Spirit. For true is that which we read, since the Truth cannot lie, to wit, the promise of the Gospel; “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” And since this is so, if the Holy Spirit is not absent from so small a number how much more may we believe he is present when so great a multitude of holy ones are assembled together! Every council is holy on account of a peculiar veneration which is its due; for in every such council the reverence which should be paid to that most famous council of the Apostles of which we read is to be had regard to. Never was the Master, whom they had received to preach, lacking to this, but ever was present as Lord and Master; and never were those who taught deserted by their teacher. For he that had sent them was their teacher; he who had commanded what was to be taught, was their teacher; he who affirms that he himself is heard in his Apostles, was their teacher. This duty of preaching has been entrusted to all the Lord's priests in common, for by right of inheritance we are bound to undertake this solicitude, whoever of us preach the name of the Lord in divers lands in their stead: for he said to them, “Go, teach all nations.”

LETTER XCVIII. From the Synod of Chalcedon to Leo.

    ... 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 9.” 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 1,” 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 2 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 2*.

    9 S. Matt. xxviii.19, 20.
    1 Ibid. xviii.20.
    2 <...> others read <...> good advice <...>
    2* The reference is to Ezra iii. 2.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 10:16:13 AM by Vadim » Logged
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #39 on: November 23, 2011, 10:05:50 AM »

(continuation of my previous post)

The Fifth Ecumenical Council, THE SENTENCE OF THE SYNOD

    ... And because it happened that the most religious Vigilius stopping in this royal city, was present at all the discussions with regard to the Three Chapters, and had often condemned them orally and in writing, nevertheless afterwards he gave his consent in writing to be present at the Council and examine together with us the Three Chapters, that a suitable definition of the right faith might be set forth by us all. Moreover the most pious Emperor, accorrding to what had seemed good between us, exhorted both him and us to meet together, because it is comely that the priesthood should after common discussion impose a common faith. On this account we besought his reverence to fulfil his written promises; for it was not right that the scandal with regard to these Three Chapters should go any further, and the Church of God be disturbed thereby. And to this end we brought to his remembrance the great examples left us by the Apostles, and the traditions of the Fathers. For although the grace of the Holy Spirit abounded in each one of the Apostles, so that no one of them needed the counsel of another in the execution of his work, yet they were not willing to define on the question then raised touching the circumcision of the Gentiles, until being gathered together they had confirmed their own several sayings by the testimony of the divine Scriptures.

    And thus they arrived unanimously at this sentence, which they wrote to the Gentiles: “It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no other burden than these necessary things, that ye abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.”

    But also the Holy Fathers, who from time to time have met in the four holy councils, following the example of the ancients, have by a common discussion, disposed of by a fixed decree the heresies and questions which had sprung up, as it was certainly known, that by common discussion when the matter in dispute was presented by each side, the light of truth expels the darkness of falsehood.

    Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith, since each one needs the help of his neighbour, as we read in the Proverbs of Solomon: “A brother helping his brother shall be exalted like a walled city; and he shall be strong as a well-founded kingdom;” and again in Ecclesiastes he says: “Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.”

    So also the Lord himself says: “Verily I say unto you that if two of you shall agree upon earth as touching anything they shall seek for, they shall have it from my Father which is in heaven. For wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

    But when often he had been invited by us all, and when the most glorious judges had been sent to him by the most religious Emperor, he promised to give sentence himself on the Three Chapters (sententiam proferre): And when we heard this answer, having the Apostle's admonition in mind, that “each one must give an account of himself to God,” and fearing the judgment that hangs over those who scandalize one even of the least important, and knowing how much sorer it must be to give offence to so entirely Christian an Emperor, and to the people, and to all the Churches; and further recalling what was said by God to Paul: “Fear not, but speak, and be not silent, for I am with thee, and no one can harm thee.”

The Sixth Ecumenical Council, THE DEFINITION OF FAITH.

    ... The holy and Œcumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were presidents of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately President of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinarius, Severus, and Themistius, and endeavoring craftily to destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of will or operation. Christ, therefore, our God, has raised up our faithful Sovereign, a new David, having found him a man after his own heart, who, as it is written, has not suffered his eyes to sleep nor his eyelids to slumber, until he has found a perfect declaration of orthodoxy by this our collected of God, and holy Synod; for, according to the sentence spoken of God, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 10:09:38 AM by Vadim » Logged
Τιμόθεος
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 28



« Reply #40 on: November 24, 2011, 09:21:40 PM »

Thank you!!!!
[/quote]
Actually this is the visible head of the Church:

[/quote]
Logged
Tags: ecumenical councils 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.196 seconds with 68 queries.