Author Topic: Ecumenical Councils  (Read 3045 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Andrew Crook

  • formerly known as AveChriste11
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
Ecumenical Councils
« on: June 17, 2012, 02:52:22 AM »
Hi everyone,

I have a question and I put it on this part of the forum, because I'd love to get the Catholic perspective as well.  Were the councils decided by majority vote, and if so why?  I know that voting had taken place, but if everyone decided for or against a theological issue -- is that how things were settled? 

If they were settled that way, does this mean that the Revelation of Jesus Christ is subject to the votes of we mere mortals?  The implications of that would be astounding.  But I have talked to others who didn't really understand how Councils went down, that thought it was determined by "majority vote" and had some of these issues with that idea.
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Avowed denominationalist
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,426
  • Nepsis or Sepsis™
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian+Greek
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2012, 02:56:32 AM »
If they were settled that way, does this mean that the Revelation of Jesus Christ is subject to the votes of we mere mortals? 
The Holy Scriptures were written by mere mortals.

If one has a not-so-negative view of mortals and a positive view of the Holy Spirit, it isn't problematic.
Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

Πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς
Τοῖς δὲ μεμιασμένοις καὶ ἀπίστοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν

Offline Azul

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 988
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2012, 05:12:01 AM »
I add another question to your question.And if the majority decides at Ecumenical Council, than why aren`t we in joined communion with the Roman Catholics according to the council of Florence.
Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Basil 320

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,150
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2012, 07:51:29 AM »
"in joined"?


Upon return of the delegates from Florence, the clergy and the faithful rejected the agreements made at Florence.  That is part of the process of the work of Ecumenical Synods (Council's)---though Florence was attended by representatives, it was not "Ecumenical," anyway; the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods must be accepted by the greater church, and must be ratified by a subsequent synod.
"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."

Online Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,301
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2012, 08:03:05 AM »
Hi everyone,

I have a question and I put it on this part of the forum, because I'd love to get the Catholic perspective as well.  Were the councils decided by majority vote, and if so why?  I know that voting had taken place, but if everyone decided for or against a theological issue -- is that how things were settled? 

If they were settled that way, does this mean that the Revelation of Jesus Christ is subject to the votes of we mere mortals?  The implications of that would be astounding.  But I have talked to others who didn't really understand how Councils went down, that thought it was determined by "majority vote" and had some of these issues with that idea.

The vote at the council is the easy part. The hard part is the question of whether the council was an Ecumenical Council or not.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,160
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #5 on: June 17, 2012, 11:05:32 AM »
Hi everyone,

I have a question and I put it on this part of the forum, because I'd love to get the Catholic perspective as well.  Were the councils decided by majority vote, and if so why?  I know that voting had taken place, but if everyone decided for or against a theological issue -- is that how things were settled? 

If they were settled that way, does this mean that the Revelation of Jesus Christ is subject to the votes of we mere mortals?  The implications of that would be astounding.  But I have talked to others who didn't really understand how Councils went down, that thought it was determined by "majority vote" and had some of these issues with that idea.
The Councils were not like a vote in Congress, but rather like a convention of physicians gathered on discussing the treatment of a disease,  so it they are more like a session of WHO (World Health Organization).
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 Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2012, 12:26:57 PM »
Read The Orthodox Church by Timothy (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia) Ware, if you have not already done so.  Part of the book explains the Ecumenical Councils and the process they took.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,457
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #7 on: June 17, 2012, 02:13:35 PM »
If they were settled that way, does this mean that the Revelation of Jesus Christ is subject to the votes of we mere mortals? 
The Holy Scriptures were written by mere mortals.

If one has a not-so-negative view of mortals and a positive view of the Holy Spirit, it isn't problematic.
Exactly. If you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church then the voting of the Bishops of the Church is not a problem at all.

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2012, 08:24:38 PM »
If they were settled that way, does this mean that the Revelation of Jesus Christ is subject to the votes of we mere mortals? 
The Holy Scriptures were written by mere mortals.

If one has a not-so-negative view of mortals and a positive view of the Holy Spirit, it isn't problematic.
Exactly. If you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church then the voting of the Bishops of the Church is not a problem at all.

Then, if "the faithful" reject the council, e.g. the Council of Florence, was the Holy Spirit with them and not with the Bishops?  If He wasn't with the Bishops, then.....well, then what?  Possibly a naive question, but one I had to ask.
"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline Basil 320

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,150
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #9 on: June 17, 2012, 11:00:16 PM »
If they were settled that way, does this mean that the Revelation of Jesus Christ is subject to the votes of we mere mortals? 
The Holy Scriptures were written by mere mortals.

If one has a not-so-negative view of mortals and a positive view of the Holy Spirit, it isn't problematic.
Exactly. If you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church then the voting of the Bishops of the Church is not a problem at all.

The terminology used by the Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Synods for promulgating their decisions begins with the scriptural formula, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..."
"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,457
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2012, 11:27:39 PM »
If they were settled that way, does this mean that the Revelation of Jesus Christ is subject to the votes of we mere mortals? 
The Holy Scriptures were written by mere mortals.

If one has a not-so-negative view of mortals and a positive view of the Holy Spirit, it isn't problematic.
Exactly. If you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church then the voting of the Bishops of the Church is not a problem at all.

Then, if "the faithful" reject the council, e.g. the Council of Florence, was the Holy Spirit with them and not with the Bishops?  If He wasn't with the Bishops, then.....well, then what?  Possibly a naive question, but one I had to ask.
The answer to that question depends on which Church you believe is truly the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Offline witega

  • Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,614
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2012, 12:00:28 AM »
If they were settled that way, does this mean that the Revelation of Jesus Christ is subject to the votes of we mere mortals? 
The Holy Scriptures were written by mere mortals.

If one has a not-so-negative view of mortals and a positive view of the Holy Spirit, it isn't problematic.
Exactly. If you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church then the voting of the Bishops of the Church is not a problem at all.

Then, if "the faithful" reject the council, e.g. the Council of Florence, was the Holy Spirit with them and not with the Bishops?  If He wasn't with the Bishops, then.....well, then what?  Possibly a naive question, but one I had to ask.
The answer to that question depends on which Church you believe is truly the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The answer to that question depends on who was being faithful to the Apostolic Tradition.

Which is also why the 'voting' at Ecumenical Councils is nothing like 'majority-rules democracy'. It was not a matter of at least 51% of the bishops voted for homoousious or the Theotokos and so those terms won the day. Rather the bishops discussed it in council until it was clear that a concensus had been reached and the 'vote' as such was a mere formality which allowed each bishop to publicly declare his support for the concensus.

We honor the 318 Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council or the 350 Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical not because 160 or 176 of them voted correctly but because all 318 or 350 affirmed the Orthodox teaching promulgated by that council.
Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Offline Shiny

  • Site Supporter
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,267
  • Paint It Red
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2012, 12:04:32 AM »
witega with an avatar. Might have to get used to this.
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,716
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2012, 01:18:50 AM »
Ah, the ecumenical councils. From the way people talk about them, you would think that they were divining rods straight out of the I Ching, used by the Church to discern the truth.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline akimori makoto

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,126
  • No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2012, 01:25:21 AM »
Ah, the ecumenical councils. From the way people talk about them, you would think that they were divining rods straight out of the I Ching, used by the Church to discern the truth.

-------------
-----    -----
-------------

-----    -----
-------------
-------------
The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.

Offline Basil 320

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,150
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2012, 03:55:56 AM »
Ah, the ecumenical councils. From the way people talk about them, you would think that they were divining rods straight out of the I Ching, used by the Church to discern the truth.

No, the church always knew the truth, "...the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3: 15), the Ecumenical Synods enabled the church the opportunity to promulgate the truth, dogma, that is considered infallible upon acceptance by the greater church and ratified by subsequent Synods.
"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2012, 09:56:22 AM »
If they were settled that way, does this mean that the Revelation of Jesus Christ is subject to the votes of we mere mortals? 
The Holy Scriptures were written by mere mortals.

If one has a not-so-negative view of mortals and a positive view of the Holy Spirit, it isn't problematic.
Exactly. If you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church then the voting of the Bishops of the Church is not a problem at all.

Then, if "the faithful" reject the council, e.g. the Council of Florence, was the Holy Spirit with them and not with the Bishops?  If He wasn't with the Bishops, then.....well, then what?  Possibly a naive question, but one I had to ask.
The answer to that question depends on which Church you believe is truly the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The answer to that question depends on who was being faithful to the Apostolic Tradition.

Which is also why the 'voting' at Ecumenical Councils is nothing like 'majority-rules democracy'. It was not a matter of at least 51% of the bishops voted for homoousious or the Theotokos and so those terms won the day. Rather the bishops discussed it in council until it was clear that a concensus had been reached and the 'vote' as such was a mere formality which allowed each bishop to publicly declare his support for the concensus.

We honor the 318 Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council or the 350 Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical not because 160 or 176 of them voted correctly but because all 318 or 350 affirmed the Orthodox teaching promulgated by that council.

Are you saying, then, that the bishops at, for example,  Florence were *not* "being faithful to the Apostolic Tradition"?
"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,716
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2012, 10:53:22 AM »
Ah, the ecumenical councils. From the way people talk about them, you would think that they were divining rods straight out of the I Ching, used by the Church to discern the truth.

No, the church always knew the truth, "...the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3: 15), the Ecumenical Synods enabled the church the opportunity to promulgate the truth, dogma, that is considered infallible upon acceptance by the greater church and ratified by subsequent Synods.

So why did they need to meet in order to promulgate the truth, if they already knew the truth? Either they already knew the truth or councils served the function of promulgating the truth (implying that the truth was unknown by all beforehand). For both to be true would be nonsensical. The latter is precisely what I mean by the divining rod mentality. Even though you admit that a council is not automatically infallible, you still fall until this mentality, because you have your own magic formula which guarantees in your mind that a council will be infallible, its acceptance by the 'greater church'. There simply is no magic formula, no string of words, no acceptance by the pentarchy, no  acceptance by any number or percentage of bishops, presbyters, deacons, monks or laymen which guarantees that a council will be infallible.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 10:57:28 AM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Online Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,301
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2012, 10:54:08 AM »
Are you saying, then, that the bishops at, for example,  Florence were *not* "being faithful to the Apostolic Tradition"?

Perhaps he doesn't feel like he needs to say it.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline witega

  • Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,614
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #19 on: June 18, 2012, 11:06:04 AM »
If they were settled that way, does this mean that the Revelation of Jesus Christ is subject to the votes of we mere mortals? 
The Holy Scriptures were written by mere mortals.

If one has a not-so-negative view of mortals and a positive view of the Holy Spirit, it isn't problematic.
Exactly. If you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church then the voting of the Bishops of the Church is not a problem at all.

Then, if "the faithful" reject the council, e.g. the Council of Florence, was the Holy Spirit with them and not with the Bishops?  If He wasn't with the Bishops, then.....well, then what?  Possibly a naive question, but one I had to ask.
The answer to that question depends on which Church you believe is truly the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The answer to that question depends on who was being faithful to the Apostolic Tradition.

Which is also why the 'voting' at Ecumenical Councils is nothing like 'majority-rules democracy'. It was not a matter of at least 51% of the bishops voted for homoousious or the Theotokos and so those terms won the day. Rather the bishops discussed it in council until it was clear that a concensus had been reached and the 'vote' as such was a mere formality which allowed each bishop to publicly declare his support for the concensus.

We honor the 318 Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council or the 350 Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical not because 160 or 176 of them voted correctly but because all 318 or 350 affirmed the Orthodox teaching promulgated by that council.

Are you saying, then, that the bishops at, for example,  Florence were *not* "being faithful to the Apostolic Tradition"?

Yes.
Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #20 on: June 18, 2012, 11:19:26 AM »
Are you saying, then, that the bishops at, for example,  Florence were *not* "being faithful to the Apostolic Tradition"?

Perhaps he doesn't feel like he needs to say it.

Maybe, maybe not.  But he did say it.  And I asked, not because I was trolling, but because I was interested if that was what he really meant.  Turns out it was.  Interesting.

"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #21 on: June 18, 2012, 11:21:22 AM »
If they were settled that way, does this mean that the Revelation of Jesus Christ is subject to the votes of we mere mortals? 
The Holy Scriptures were written by mere mortals.

If one has a not-so-negative view of mortals and a positive view of the Holy Spirit, it isn't problematic.
Exactly. If you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church then the voting of the Bishops of the Church is not a problem at all.

Then, if "the faithful" reject the council, e.g. the Council of Florence, was the Holy Spirit with them and not with the Bishops?  If He wasn't with the Bishops, then.....well, then what?  Possibly a naive question, but one I had to ask.
The answer to that question depends on which Church you believe is truly the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The answer to that question depends on who was being faithful to the Apostolic Tradition.

Which is also why the 'voting' at Ecumenical Councils is nothing like 'majority-rules democracy'. It was not a matter of at least 51% of the bishops voted for homoousious or the Theotokos and so those terms won the day. Rather the bishops discussed it in council until it was clear that a concensus had been reached and the 'vote' as such was a mere formality which allowed each bishop to publicly declare his support for the concensus.

We honor the 318 Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council or the 350 Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical not because 160 or 176 of them voted correctly but because all 318 or 350 affirmed the Orthodox teaching promulgated by that council.

Are you saying, then, that the bishops at, for example,  Florence were *not* "being faithful to the Apostolic Tradition"?

Yes.

Thanks.

Can you cite other examples where bishops, in "Ecumenical" Council, were not faithful to Apostolic Tradition?
"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline witega

  • Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,614
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2012, 11:31:41 AM »
So why did they need to meet in order to promulgate the truth, if they already knew the truth? Either they already knew the truth or councils served the function of promulgating the truth (implying that the truth was unknown by all beforehand).

While I'm pretty sure I understand (and agree) with what you are getting at here, there is actually a 3rd option in phrasing. It's possible 'they' (as in most of the bishops coming to the council) already knew the truth, but the truth was under attack by a significant enough (defined either in terms of numbers or political power) threat that they needed to meet in council to determine how to best phrase the Orthodox rejection of said attack (not to mention simply to make clear on which side of the contemporary debate the bishops of the Church as a body fell on--whatever this or that heresiarch might be declaring).
Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Offline witega

  • Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,614
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2012, 11:36:51 AM »
If they were settled that way, does this mean that the Revelation of Jesus Christ is subject to the votes of we mere mortals?  
The Holy Scriptures were written by mere mortals.

If one has a not-so-negative view of mortals and a positive view of the Holy Spirit, it isn't problematic.
Exactly. If you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church then the voting of the Bishops of the Church is not a problem at all.

Then, if "the faithful" reject the council, e.g. the Council of Florence, was the Holy Spirit with them and not with the Bishops?  If He wasn't with the Bishops, then.....well, then what?  Possibly a naive question, but one I had to ask.
The answer to that question depends on which Church you believe is truly the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The answer to that question depends on who was being faithful to the Apostolic Tradition.

Which is also why the 'voting' at Ecumenical Councils is nothing like 'majority-rules democracy'. It was not a matter of at least 51% of the bishops voted for homoousious or the Theotokos and so those terms won the day. Rather the bishops discussed it in council until it was clear that a concensus had been reached and the 'vote' as such was a mere formality which allowed each bishop to publicly declare his support for the concensus.

We honor the 318 Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council or the 350 Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical not because 160 or 176 of them voted correctly but because all 318 or 350 affirmed the Orthodox teaching promulgated by that council.

Are you saying, then, that the bishops at, for example,  Florence were *not* "being faithful to the Apostolic Tradition"?

Yes.

Thanks.

Can you cite other examples where bishops, in "Ecumenical" Council, were not faithful to Apostolic Tradition?

(Let me clean this up a little)

From an OO perspective: Chalcedon, which why they reject it.

From an EO and RC perspective
Ephesus II (which is why Chalcedon was necessary to overturn it)
Hiera (the Iconoclast "Ecumenical Council")
Constantinople IV/the 8th Ecumenical Council (RC consider 869 a true council and 879 a false council, EO though opposite, but either way *one* of them is an example of a council that fit all the formal criteria of an Ecumenical Council that was not faithful).

From an EO perspective
Lyons II and, of course, Florence.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 11:55:52 AM by witega »
Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,652
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2012, 11:39:03 AM »
There were no "votes."  As we read through the Acts of the Council, they talked and talked until resolution was unanimously made.  On dogmatic matters, we read "All exclaimed, this is the Faith of the Apostles...etc."  It was simply a recognition of what was already the Faith and dogma of the Church.   It was not considered resolved until "all exclaimed."  Even in pragmatic matters, for example, in the 4th Ecumenical Council with regard to the deposition of a bishop, we have all sides making their cases.  They did not have unanimous resolution in the 11th session so they still needed to delve further into the canonical tradition and the facts of the case.  Finally, through extensive discussion, we read at the end of the 12th session:  "All exclaimed: 'This is a just judgment...the two were installed contrary to the canons.  Let the provision of the canon regarding them prevail.  The the archbishops' proposal prevail."  

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #25 on: June 18, 2012, 12:07:57 PM »
If they were settled that way, does this mean that the Revelation of Jesus Christ is subject to the votes of we mere mortals?  
The Holy Scriptures were written by mere mortals.

If one has a not-so-negative view of mortals and a positive view of the Holy Spirit, it isn't problematic.
Exactly. If you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church then the voting of the Bishops of the Church is not a problem at all.

Then, if "the faithful" reject the council, e.g. the Council of Florence, was the Holy Spirit with them and not with the Bishops?  If He wasn't with the Bishops, then.....well, then what?  Possibly a naive question, but one I had to ask.
The answer to that question depends on which Church you believe is truly the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The answer to that question depends on who was being faithful to the Apostolic Tradition.

Which is also why the 'voting' at Ecumenical Councils is nothing like 'majority-rules democracy'. It was not a matter of at least 51% of the bishops voted for homoousious or the Theotokos and so those terms won the day. Rather the bishops discussed it in council until it was clear that a concensus had been reached and the 'vote' as such was a mere formality which allowed each bishop to publicly declare his support for the concensus.

We honor the 318 Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council or the 350 Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical not because 160 or 176 of them voted correctly but because all 318 or 350 affirmed the Orthodox teaching promulgated by that council.

Are you saying, then, that the bishops at, for example,  Florence were *not* "being faithful to the Apostolic Tradition"?

Yes.

Thanks.

Can you cite other examples where bishops, in "Ecumenical" Council, were not faithful to Apostolic Tradition?

(Let me clean this up a little)

From an OO perspective: Chalcedon, which why they reject it.

From an EO and RC perspective
Ephesus II (which is why Chalcedon was necessary to overturn it)
Hiera (the Iconoclast "Ecumenical Council")
Constantinople IV/the 8th Ecumenical Council (RC consider 869 a true council and 879 a false council, EO though opposite, but either way *one* of them is an example of a council that fit all the formal criteria of an Ecumenical Council that was not faithful).

From an EO perspective
Lyons II and, of course, Florence.

So, there seems to be some confusion about just who is and who isn't faithful to Apostolic Tradition and who the Holy Spirit is and isn't with.  All of which seems to put us back with Wyatt's answer above, "The answer to that question depends on which Church you believe is truly the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."  And round and round the merry-go-round goes..... ;D
"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline witega

  • Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,614
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #26 on: June 18, 2012, 12:39:51 PM »
So, there seems to be some confusion about just who is and who isn't faithful to Apostolic Tradition and who the Holy Spirit is and isn't with.  All of which seems to put us back with Wyatt's answer above, "The answer to that question depends on which Church you believe is truly the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."  And round and round the merry-go-round goes..... ;D

I think you and Wyatt are getting the arrow of causality wrong. It's not which Church you belong to that determines Apostolic Tradition, but which Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets (i.e., faithful to the Apostolic tradition) which is the Church you should belong to.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 12:40:40 PM by witega »
Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,457
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #27 on: June 18, 2012, 01:22:30 PM »
So, there seems to be some confusion about just who is and who isn't faithful to Apostolic Tradition and who the Holy Spirit is and isn't with.  All of which seems to put us back with Wyatt's answer above, "The answer to that question depends on which Church you believe is truly the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."  And round and round the merry-go-round goes..... ;D

I think you and Wyatt are getting the arrow of causality wrong. It's not which Church you belong to that determines Apostolic Tradition, but which Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets (i.e., faithful to the Apostolic tradition) which is the Church you should belong to.
I'm well aware of that. I'm also aware that you and I and many others on this forum disagree on which Church is most fully built on the foundation of the Apostles...it's the nature of being in schism with one another.

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #28 on: June 18, 2012, 01:30:05 PM »
So, there seems to be some confusion about just who is and who isn't faithful to Apostolic Tradition and who the Holy Spirit is and isn't with.  All of which seems to put us back with Wyatt's answer above, "The answer to that question depends on which Church you believe is truly the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."  And round and round the merry-go-round goes..... ;D

I think you and Wyatt are getting the arrow of causality wrong. It's not which Church you belong to that determines Apostolic Tradition, but which Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets (i.e., faithful to the Apostolic tradition) which is the Church you should belong to.

According to your criteria then, the Church I "should" belong is the one Wyatt and I do belong to   ;).  (Which is not to say that the Church you belong to.....well....dare we go down that well-worn rut again??)
"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Online Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,301
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #29 on: June 18, 2012, 02:22:08 PM »
There were no "votes."  As we read through the Acts of the Council, they talked and talked until resolution was unanimously made.  On dogmatic matters, we read "All exclaimed, this is the Faith of the Apostles...etc."  It was simply a recognition of what was already the Faith and dogma of the Church.   It was not considered resolved until "all exclaimed."  Even in pragmatic matters, for example, in the 4th Ecumenical Council with regard to the deposition of a bishop, we have all sides making their cases.  They did not have unanimous resolution in the 11th session so they still needed to delve further into the canonical tradition and the facts of the case.  Finally, through extensive discussion, we read at the end of the 12th session:  "All exclaimed: 'This is a just judgment...the two were installed contrary to the canons.  Let the provision of the canon regarding them prevail.  The the archbishops' proposal prevail."  

Who were the two mentioned there?
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Azul

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 988
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #30 on: June 19, 2012, 12:30:29 PM »
Ah, the ecumenical councils. From the way people talk about them, you would think that they were divining rods straight out of the I Ching, used by the Church to discern the truth.

No, the church always knew the truth, "...the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3: 15), the Ecumenical Synods enabled the church the opportunity to promulgate the truth, dogma, that is considered infallible upon acceptance by the greater church and ratified by subsequent Synods.

And who is the "greater church" ?
Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,138
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #31 on: June 19, 2012, 01:00:02 PM »
Ah, the ecumenical councils. From the way people talk about them, you would think that they were divining rods straight out of the I Ching, used by the Church to discern the truth.

No, the church always knew the truth, "...the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3: 15), the Ecumenical Synods enabled the church the opportunity to promulgate the truth, dogma, that is considered infallible upon acceptance by the greater church and ratified by subsequent Synods.

And who is the "greater church" ?
The believers everywhere. We dont really have one, or a few folks that state, "this is ecumenical".

PP
"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

Offline Azul

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 988
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #32 on: June 19, 2012, 01:38:55 PM »
Ah, the ecumenical councils. From the way people talk about them, you would think that they were divining rods straight out of the I Ching, used by the Church to discern the truth.

No, the church always knew the truth, "...the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3: 15), the Ecumenical Synods enabled the church the opportunity to promulgate the truth, dogma, that is considered infallible upon acceptance by the greater church and ratified by subsequent Synods.

And who is the "greater church" ?
The believers everywhere. We dont really have one, or a few folks that state, "this is ecumenical".

PP

so how would the great church know when the great apostasy has come?
Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,138
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #33 on: June 20, 2012, 10:16:31 AM »
Quote
so how would the great church know when the great apostasy has come?
It very well could have, or is still to come. I dont try to think on those things. I just try to focus on obedience.

PP
"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

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #34 on: June 20, 2012, 10:20:37 AM »
Quote
so how would the great church know when the great apostasy has come?
It very well could have, or is still to come. I dont try to think on those things. I just try to focus on obedience.

PP

Amen to that!  ;)
"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline Azul

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 988
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #35 on: June 20, 2012, 11:38:54 AM »
you both suck :) .. blind obedience is not good.. obedience to a church who might have fallen in apostasy is not good either..
Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #36 on: June 20, 2012, 12:14:16 PM »
you both suck :) .. blind obedience is not good.. obedience to a church who might have fallen in apostasy is not good either..

Hey...thanks!  You suck, too :).  Who said anything about "blind obedience"?
"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline biro

  • Excelsior
  • Site Supporter
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,010
  • Chapter one again, here I go again
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #37 on: June 20, 2012, 12:41:04 PM »
you both suck :) .. blind obedience is not good.. obedience to a church who might have fallen in apostasy is not good either..

Okay, take it outside, you.  ;)

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #38 on: June 20, 2012, 12:58:15 PM »
you both suck :) .. blind obedience is not good.. obedience to a church who might have fallen in apostasy is not good either..

Okay, take it outside, you.  ;)

(Was that a "you", a "youse", a "y'all", a "yins", a "yuns", or a "yins all, y'all"?)

Ahh, c'mon biro--where's your sense of adventure  ;) ;)?

And he (she?) did use a smiley, as did I, so we're just havin' fun with each other.  Aren't we, Azul?
"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline biro

  • Excelsior
  • Site Supporter
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,010
  • Chapter one again, here I go again
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #39 on: June 20, 2012, 01:16:33 PM »
Don't you kids make me come back there, or I'm stopping the car.

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #40 on: June 20, 2012, 01:30:48 PM »
Don't you kids make me come back there, or I'm stopping the car.

Are we there, yet, are we there yet, are we there yet???

c'mon ma, are we almost there............??


 :laugh: :laugh:
"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline Justin Kissel

  • *
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,236
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #41 on: June 20, 2012, 01:32:34 PM »
Mom! J Michael is touching me! he's touching me!

Ok, he stopped touching me but now he's looking at me! Make him stop looking at me!

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #42 on: June 20, 2012, 01:34:02 PM »
Mom! J Michael is touching me! he's touching me!

Ok, he stopped touching me but now he's looking at me! Make him stop looking at me!

"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #43 on: June 20, 2012, 01:34:44 PM »
Mom! J Michael is touching me! he's touching me!

Ok, he stopped touching me but now he's looking at me! Make him stop looking at me!



And then.........


"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline Ortho_cat

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,392
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #44 on: June 20, 2012, 01:45:57 PM »
Mom! J Michael is touching me! he's touching me!

Ok, he stopped touching me but now he's looking at me! Make him stop looking at me!

son didn't I tell you to stay away from those creepy old guys?? :police:

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #45 on: June 20, 2012, 01:59:47 PM »
Mom! J Michael is touching me! he's touching me!

Ok, he stopped touching me but now he's looking at me! Make him stop looking at me!

son didn't I tell you to stay away from those creepy old guys?? :police:

Hey....I'm *only* 7!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

(And that little twerp keeps shooting spitballs at me!)
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 02:03:16 PM by J Michael »
"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Online Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,301
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #46 on: June 20, 2012, 02:55:00 PM »
son didn't I tell you to stay away from those creepy old guys?? :police:

Okay, now it's getting a little creepy.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #47 on: June 20, 2012, 03:11:00 PM »
son didn't I tell you to stay away from those creepy old guys?? :police:

Okay, now it's getting a little creepy.

Creepiness knows no bounds.....



So.....howz about them Ecumenical Councils, anyway?
"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline Justin Kissel

  • *
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,236
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #48 on: June 20, 2012, 03:18:28 PM »
son didn't I tell you to stay away from those creepy old guys?? :police:

Okay, now it's getting a little creepy.

Creepiness knows no bounds.....



So.....howz about them Ecumenical Councils, anyway?

All 9 1/2 Ecumenical Councils are doing quite well :)

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #49 on: June 20, 2012, 03:37:12 PM »
son didn't I tell you to stay away from those creepy old guys?? :police:

Okay, now it's getting a little creepy.

Creepiness knows no bounds.....



So.....howz about them Ecumenical Councils, anyway?

All 9 1/2 Ecumenical Councils are doing quite well :)

That's a relief! 

Now, knock it off with the spit-balls, okay!?!?  ;D
"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,652
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #50 on: June 20, 2012, 05:35:14 PM »
son didn't I tell you to stay away from those creepy old guys?? :police:

Okay, now it's getting a little creepy.

Creepiness knows no bounds.....



So.....howz about them Ecumenical Councils, anyway?

All 9 1/2 Ecumenical Councils are doing quite well :)

For the RC's or for the Orthodox?  1/3 of the council of Basle is ok with the RCC, and 1/4 of Constance, and then of course Florence trumps the others on papal supremacy.  Even Vatican I is in fractions as the official name of the RCC there is indeed "Roman" whereas this was nullified by Vatican II which reduced it to "Catholic."   We may have less whole numbers but also have less fractions.  ;)

Offline Justin Kissel

  • *
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,236
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #51 on: June 20, 2012, 05:44:32 PM »
son didn't I tell you to stay away from those creepy old guys?? :police:

Okay, now it's getting a little creepy.

Creepiness knows no bounds.....



So.....howz about them Ecumenical Councils, anyway?

All 9 1/2 Ecumenical Councils are doing quite well :)

For the RC's or for the Orthodox?  1/3 of the council of Basle is ok with the RCC, and 1/4 of Constance, and then of course Florence trumps the others on papal supremacy.  Even Vatican I is in fractions as the official name of the RCC there is indeed "Roman" whereas this was nullified by Vatican II which reduced it to "Catholic."   We may have less whole numbers but also have less fractions.  ;)

Well, I can google for the dates and details, but off the top of my head...

Nicea = 1
Constantinople = 1 (even though the actual council broke up, and was reconvened later, I'll still count this as one)
Ephesus = 1
Chalcedon = 1 (leaving aside that a large chunk of the Church rejected it, which I guess is true to a lesser extent for Ephesus)
Justinian's Thing = 1
That one in 680 = 1
Trullo = 1/2 (it met like 10 years after #6, so ain't no way I'm counting it as the same)
The 787 Icon council
Photian Council (the Orthodox one that sort of settled things down, not the Catholic one)
Palamite Councils (multiple councils, at least three, and maybe as high as six, but I'm fine with them be grouped together).

= 9 1/2

(yes, I'm only being 1/4 serious  ;D )

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,652
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #52 on: June 20, 2012, 05:50:19 PM »
son didn't I tell you to stay away from those creepy old guys?? :police:

Okay, now it's getting a little creepy.

Creepiness knows no bounds.....



So.....howz about them Ecumenical Councils, anyway?

All 9 1/2 Ecumenical Councils are doing quite well :)

For the RC's or for the Orthodox?  1/3 of the council of Basle is ok with the RCC, and 1/4 of Constance, and then of course Florence trumps the others on papal supremacy.  Even Vatican I is in fractions as the official name of the RCC there is indeed "Roman" whereas this was nullified by Vatican II which reduced it to "Catholic."   We may have less whole numbers but also have less fractions.  ;)

Well, I can google for the dates and details, but off the top of my head...

Nicea = 1
Constantinople = 1 (even though the actual council broke up, and was reconvened later, I'll still count this as one)
Ephesus = 1
Chalcedon = 1 (leaving aside that a large chunk of the Church rejected it, which I guess is true to a lesser extent for Ephesus)
Justinian's Thing = 1
That one in 680 = 1
Trullo = 1/2 (it met like 10 years after #6, so ain't no way I'm counting it as the same)
The 787 Icon council
Photian Council (the Orthodox one that sort of settled things down, not the Catholic one)
Palamite Councils (multiple councils, at least three, and maybe as high as six, but I'm fine with them be grouped together).

= 9 1/2

(yes, I'm only being 1/4 serious  ;D )

Trullo being 1/2 is the archsemiheresy of Ambrosism.  The 6th is 680 (dogmas)+Trullo (canons)=1, despite what Fr. Ambrose says.  So says the 7th, so says the Rudder and Kormchaya Kniga.   

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #53 on: June 21, 2012, 09:40:10 AM »
son didn't I tell you to stay away from those creepy old guys?? :police:

Okay, now it's getting a little creepy.

Creepiness knows no bounds.....



So.....howz about them Ecumenical Councils, anyway?

All 9 1/2 Ecumenical Councils are doing quite well :)

For the RC's or for the Orthodox?  1/3 of the council of Basle is ok with the RCC, and 1/4 of Constance, and then of course Florence trumps the others on papal supremacy.  Even Vatican I is in fractions as the official name of the RCC there is indeed "Roman" whereas this was nullified by Vatican II which reduced it to "Catholic."   We may have less whole numbers but also have less fractions.  ;)

Well, I can google for the dates and details, but off the top of my head...

Nicea = 1
Constantinople = 1 (even though the actual council broke up, and was reconvened later, I'll still count this as one)
Ephesus = 1
Chalcedon = 1 (leaving aside that a large chunk of the Church rejected it, which I guess is true to a lesser extent for Ephesus)
Justinian's Thing = 1
That one in 680 = 1
Trullo = 1/2 (it met like 10 years after #6, so ain't no way I'm counting it as the same)
The 787 Icon council
Photian Council (the Orthodox one that sort of settled things down, not the Catholic one)
Palamite Councils (multiple councils, at least three, and maybe as high as six, but I'm fine with them be grouped together).

= 9 1/2

(yes, I'm only being 1/4 serious  ;D )

Trullo being 1/2 is the archsemiheresy of Ambrosism.  The 6th is 680 (dogmas)+Trullo (canons)=1, despite what Fr. Ambrose says.  So says the 7th, so says the Rudder and Kormchaya Kniga.   

Pardon my ignorance, but how can you have 1/2 of an *Ecumenical* Council?  Does that mean that 1/2 of it was "Ecumenical" and 1/2 wasn't; or that 1/2 of the proclamations were official and 1/2 unoffical; or that the Holy Spirit was there providing guidance only 1/2 the time, or.........what??  And what is an "archsemiheresy"  ??? ???



(Just to get it off my chest, because it's a pet peeve of mine with respect especially to "well-educated" people, we don't have "less" whole numbers or fractions or sheep or councils or cups of coffee, etc., etc., we have *fewer* of them  :police:  :angel:.  Okay, I feel better now  ;D ;D)
"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline jmbejdl

  • Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #54 on: June 21, 2012, 09:51:20 AM »
(Just to get it off my chest, because it's a pet peeve of mine with respect especially to "well-educated" people, we don't have "less" whole numbers or fractions or sheep or councils or cups of coffee, etc., etc., we have *fewer* of them  :police:  :angel:.  Okay, I feel better now  ;D ;D)

Nice to find a fellow grammar nazi. ;)  Does apostrophe abuse make you equally apoplectic or is that just my personal cross?

On the question of the Council in Trullo being half a council, I think the post was a humorous take on the fact that its canons are considered an adjunct to the fifth and sixth councils and so we consider it Ecumenical as part of those but not as an Ecumenical Council in its own right.

James
We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Online Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,301
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #55 on: June 21, 2012, 10:21:48 AM »
(Just to get it off my chest, because it's a pet peeve of mine with respect especially to "well-educated" people, we don't have "less" whole numbers or fractions or sheep or councils or cups of coffee, etc., etc., we have *fewer* of them  :police:  :angel:.  Okay, I feel better now  ;D ;D)

Nice to find a fellow grammar nazi. ;)  Does apostrophe abuse make you equally apoplectic or is that just my personal cross?

I can understand people mixing up its and it's, but some of the apostrophe mistakes I see are just unbelievable.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline jmbejdl

  • Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #56 on: June 21, 2012, 10:29:09 AM »
(Just to get it off my chest, because it's a pet peeve of mine with respect especially to "well-educated" people, we don't have "less" whole numbers or fractions or sheep or councils or cups of coffee, etc., etc., we have *fewer* of them  :police:  :angel:.  Okay, I feel better now  ;D ;D)

Nice to find a fellow grammar nazi. ;)  Does apostrophe abuse make you equally apoplectic or is that just my personal cross?

I can understand people mixing up its and it's, but some of the apostrophe mistakes I see are just unbelievable.

One of my personal peeves is seeing people (and in this instance I must, lamentably, include the BBC) abbreviating 1990s (for example) as 90's rather than '90s. After all, what can actually belong to a 90?

(Sorry everyone for the brief derailment - feel free to ignore my confessed affliction and return to the subject at hand)

James
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 10:29:39 AM by jmbejdl »
We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #57 on: June 21, 2012, 10:36:16 AM »
(Just to get it off my chest, because it's a pet peeve of mine with respect especially to "well-educated" people, we don't have "less" whole numbers or fractions or sheep or councils or cups of coffee, etc., etc., we have *fewer* of them  :police:  :angel:.  Okay, I feel better now  ;D ;D)

Nice to find a fellow grammar nazi. ;)  Does apostrophe abuse make you equally apoplectic or is that just my personal cross?

On the question of the Council in Trullo being half a council, I think the post was a humorous take on the fact that its canons are considered an adjunct to the fifth and sixth councils and so we consider it Ecumenical as part of those but not as an Ecumenical Council in its own right.

James

And my confusion grows  ;D ;D ;D.  (Don't worry, I'll get over it ;).)



Re: grammar--Apostrophe abuse doesn't bother me nearly as much as the "less/fewer" issue.  At least with apostrophes the issue only comes up in *written* language (you can't actually hear an apostrophe), whereas sooooooooo very many supposedly well-educated people and people who speak publicly (broadcasters, college profs., lawyers, priests, bishops, etc., etc.) grossly confuse "less" and "fewer".  Do they not teach this stuff in school anymore?  Or do people just not care?  I have to admit that every once in a while I get a little confused about apostrophes  :(.  Please accept my apologies in advance  ;).
"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,652
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #58 on: June 21, 2012, 01:51:00 PM »
son didn't I tell you to stay away from those creepy old guys?? :police:

Okay, now it's getting a little creepy.

Creepiness knows no bounds.....



So.....howz about them Ecumenical Councils, anyway?

All 9 1/2 Ecumenical Councils are doing quite well :)

For the RC's or for the Orthodox?  1/3 of the council of Basle is ok with the RCC, and 1/4 of Constance, and then of course Florence trumps the others on papal supremacy.  Even Vatican I is in fractions as the official name of the RCC there is indeed "Roman" whereas this was nullified by Vatican II which reduced it to "Catholic."   We may have less whole numbers but also have less fractions.  ;)

Well, I can google for the dates and details, but off the top of my head...

Nicea = 1
Constantinople = 1 (even though the actual council broke up, and was reconvened later, I'll still count this as one)
Ephesus = 1
Chalcedon = 1 (leaving aside that a large chunk of the Church rejected it, which I guess is true to a lesser extent for Ephesus)
Justinian's Thing = 1
That one in 680 = 1
Trullo = 1/2 (it met like 10 years after #6, so ain't no way I'm counting it as the same)
The 787 Icon council
Photian Council (the Orthodox one that sort of settled things down, not the Catholic one)
Palamite Councils (multiple councils, at least three, and maybe as high as six, but I'm fine with them be grouped together).

= 9 1/2

(yes, I'm only being 1/4 serious  ;D )

Trullo being 1/2 is the archsemiheresy of Ambrosism.  The 6th is 680 (dogmas)+Trullo (canons)=1, despite what Fr. Ambrose says.  So says the 7th, so says the Rudder and Kormchaya Kniga.    

Pardon my ignorance, but how can you have 1/2 of an *Ecumenical* Council?  Does that mean that 1/2 of it was "Ecumenical" and 1/2 wasn't; or that 1/2 of the proclamations were official and 1/2 unoffical; or that the Holy Spirit was there providing guidance only 1/2 the time, or.........what??  And what is an "archsemiheresy"  ??? ???



(Just to get it off my chest, because it's a pet peeve of mine with respect especially to "well-educated" people, we don't have "less" whole numbers or fractions or sheep or councils or cups of coffee, etc., etc., we have *fewer* of them  :police:  :angel:.  Okay, I feel better now  ;D ;D)

Yes, the entire thing was meant to be humerous to those who have been around a while.  Fr. Ambrose (Irish Hermit) held that Trullo was less than Ecumenical.  That is my point, that there is no such thing as a 1/2 Ecumenical Council, which I think I made clear.  The Vatican does claim that there are partial ecumenical councils (Basle, Constance, etc).

The simplicity of the statement "we have less whole numbers..." etc. implied that such an argument is childish, like one among 8 year olds:  "You have less marbles than me," response, "nu uh, I got more than you," hence the emoticon following.  If you think that such an argument is mature and wish to dignify the argument by making it grammatically correct, I suppose you can do so.  

Since you have already taken the joy out of this litany of posts (one of my pet peeves), I refuse to explain the humor of a word such as "archsemiheresy" in this context  :laugh:  ;)
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 01:53:01 PM by FatherHLL »

Online Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,301
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #59 on: June 21, 2012, 02:11:51 PM »
The simplicity of the statement "we have less whole numbers..." etc. implied that such an argument is childish, like one among 8 year olds:  "You have less marbles than me," response, "nu uh, I got more than you," hence the emoticon following.  If you think that such an argument is mature and wish to dignify the argument by making it grammatically correct, I suppose you can do so.  

Nuh-uh (or nuh'uh ;D).
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #60 on: June 21, 2012, 03:26:30 PM »
son didn't I tell you to stay away from those creepy old guys?? :police:

Okay, now it's getting a little creepy.

Creepiness knows no bounds.....



So.....howz about them Ecumenical Councils, anyway?

All 9 1/2 Ecumenical Councils are doing quite well :)

For the RC's or for the Orthodox?  1/3 of the council of Basle is ok with the RCC, and 1/4 of Constance, and then of course Florence trumps the others on papal supremacy.  Even Vatican I is in fractions as the official name of the RCC there is indeed "Roman" whereas this was nullified by Vatican II which reduced it to "Catholic."   We may have less whole numbers but also have less fractions.  ;)

Well, I can google for the dates and details, but off the top of my head...

Nicea = 1
Constantinople = 1 (even though the actual council broke up, and was reconvened later, I'll still count this as one)
Ephesus = 1
Chalcedon = 1 (leaving aside that a large chunk of the Church rejected it, which I guess is true to a lesser extent for Ephesus)
Justinian's Thing = 1
That one in 680 = 1
Trullo = 1/2 (it met like 10 years after #6, so ain't no way I'm counting it as the same)
The 787 Icon council
Photian Council (the Orthodox one that sort of settled things down, not the Catholic one)
Palamite Councils (multiple councils, at least three, and maybe as high as six, but I'm fine with them be grouped together).

= 9 1/2

(yes, I'm only being 1/4 serious  ;D )

Trullo being 1/2 is the archsemiheresy of Ambrosism.  The 6th is 680 (dogmas)+Trullo (canons)=1, despite what Fr. Ambrose says.  So says the 7th, so says the Rudder and Kormchaya Kniga.    

Pardon my ignorance, but how can you have 1/2 of an *Ecumenical* Council?  Does that mean that 1/2 of it was "Ecumenical" and 1/2 wasn't; or that 1/2 of the proclamations were official and 1/2 unoffical; or that the Holy Spirit was there providing guidance only 1/2 the time, or.........what??  And what is an "archsemiheresy"  ??? ???



(Just to get it off my chest, because it's a pet peeve of mine with respect especially to "well-educated" people, we don't have "less" whole numbers or fractions or sheep or councils or cups of coffee, etc., etc., we have *fewer* of them  :police:  :angel:.  Okay, I feel better now  ;D ;D)

Yes, the entire thing was meant to be humerous to those who have been around a while.  Fr. Ambrose (Irish Hermit) held that Trullo was less than Ecumenical.  That is my point, that there is no such thing as a 1/2 Ecumenical Council, which I think I made clear.  The Vatican does claim that there are partial ecumenical councils (Basle, Constance, etc).

The simplicity of the statement "we have less whole numbers..." etc. implied that such an argument is childish, like one among 8 year olds:  "You have less marbles than me," response, "nu uh, I got more than you," hence the emoticon following.  If you think that such an argument is mature and wish to dignify the argument by making it grammatically correct, I suppose you can do so.  

Since you have already taken the joy out of this litany of posts (one of my pet peeves), I refuse to explain the humor of a word such as "archsemiheresy" in this context  :laugh:  ;)


Sheesh....what a grouch   :laugh: ;)!

Awww....c'mon, Fahder.... :laugh:
"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #61 on: June 21, 2012, 03:27:23 PM »
The simplicity of the statement "we have less whole numbers..." etc. implied that such an argument is childish, like one among 8 year olds:  "You have less marbles than me," response, "nu uh, I got more than you," hence the emoticon following.  If you think that such an argument is mature and wish to dignify the argument by making it grammatically correct, I suppose you can do so.  

Nuh-uh (or nuh'uh ;D).

Superb usage of The Apostrophe, Peter  ;)!
"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,652
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #62 on: June 21, 2012, 04:05:14 PM »
The simplicity of the statement "we have less whole numbers..." etc. implied that such an argument is childish, like one among 8 year olds:  "You have less marbles than me," response, "nu uh, I got more than you," hence the emoticon following.  If you think that such an argument is mature and wish to dignify the argument by making it grammatically correct, I suppose you can do so.  

Nuh-uh (or nuh'uh ;D).

Superb usage of The Apostrophe, Peter  ;)!

You would hate northern and western PA.  They use "wasn't" instead of "were not," and the town of Versailles is pronounced "Vuursayyuls."   :'(
And of course, in Pittsburgh, "where you are" is pronounced "up air."   :laugh:
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 04:05:43 PM by FatherHLL »

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #63 on: June 21, 2012, 04:23:18 PM »
The simplicity of the statement "we have less whole numbers..." etc. implied that such an argument is childish, like one among 8 year olds:  "You have less marbles than me," response, "nu uh, I got more than you," hence the emoticon following.  If you think that such an argument is mature and wish to dignify the argument by making it grammatically correct, I suppose you can do so.   

Nuh-uh (or nuh'uh ;D).

Superb usage of The Apostrophe, Peter  ;)!

You would hate northern and western PA.  They use "wasn't" instead of "were not," and the town of Versailles is pronounced "Vuursayyuls."   :'(
And of course, in Pittsburgh, "where you are" is pronounced "up air."   :laugh:

I *love* Pittsburgh and western PA!!  My wife and I are thinking of moving there when certain circumstances allow.  So...consider that fair warning  ;D!

As for the pronunciations, etc....I've learned Hebrew, Texan, British English, and am working on Russian, so I might just be able to squeak by up there  ;D.

Now...please, Fahder, I beg you.....what on earth is an ""archsemiheresy"?  (I promise never again to criticize your incorrect usage of "fewer" and "less".  I promise!!  Really!!!)   ;D
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 04:32:47 PM by J Michael »
"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline Αριστοκλής

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,026
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #64 on: June 21, 2012, 09:55:04 PM »
The simplicity of the statement "we have less whole numbers..." etc. implied that such an argument is childish, like one among 8 year olds:  "You have less marbles than me," response, "nu uh, I got more than you," hence the emoticon following.  If you think that such an argument is mature and wish to dignify the argument by making it grammatically correct, I suppose you can do so.   

Nuh-uh (or nuh'uh ;D).

Superb usage of The Apostrophe, Peter  ;)!

You would hate northern and western PA.  They use "wasn't" instead of "were not," and the town of Versailles is pronounced "Vuursayyuls."   :'(
And of course, in Pittsburgh, "where you are" is pronounced "up air."   :laugh:

I have lived in the 'Burgh for twenty years and this sort of thing drives me nuts. They can pronounce Duquesne properly but massacre Coraopolis and DuBois as badly as Versailles.
"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,652
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #65 on: June 22, 2012, 09:37:42 AM »
The simplicity of the statement "we have less whole numbers..." etc. implied that such an argument is childish, like one among 8 year olds:  "You have less marbles than me," response, "nu uh, I got more than you," hence the emoticon following.  If you think that such an argument is mature and wish to dignify the argument by making it grammatically correct, I suppose you can do so.   

Nuh-uh (or nuh'uh ;D).

Superb usage of The Apostrophe, Peter  ;)!

You would hate northern and western PA.  They use "wasn't" instead of "were not," and the town of Versailles is pronounced "Vuursayyuls."   :'(
And of course, in Pittsburgh, "where you are" is pronounced "up air."   :laugh:

I have lived in the 'Burgh for twenty years and this sort of thing drives me nuts. They can pronounce Duquesne properly but massacre Coraopolis and DuBois as badly as Versailles.

Ah, yes, I forgot about Dooboys.   :(

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,616
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Ecumenical Councils
« Reply #66 on: June 22, 2012, 10:15:08 AM »
The simplicity of the statement "we have less whole numbers..." etc. implied that such an argument is childish, like one among 8 year olds:  "You have less marbles than me," response, "nu uh, I got more than you," hence the emoticon following.  If you think that such an argument is mature and wish to dignify the argument by making it grammatically correct, I suppose you can do so.   

Nuh-uh (or nuh'uh ;D).

Superb usage of The Apostrophe, Peter  ;)!

You would hate northern and western PA.  They use "wasn't" instead of "were not," and the town of Versailles is pronounced "Vuursayyuls."   :'(
And of course, in Pittsburgh, "where you are" is pronounced "up air."   :laugh:

I have lived in the 'Burgh for twenty years and this sort of thing drives me nuts. They can pronounce Duquesne properly but massacre Coraopolis and DuBois as badly as Versailles.

Folks is folks, ain't they?  I lived in Israel for 5 years and met numerous people there who had been there for as long as 20 or 30 years or longer and could barely put together a coherent sentence in Hebrew!
"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)