OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 12:02:58 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 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ecumenical Councils  (Read 2250 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Andrew Crook
formerly known as AveChriste11
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 523



« 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.
Logged

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
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« 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.
Logged

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.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« 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.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,990



« 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.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,044



« 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.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« 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).
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
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« 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.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


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

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« 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.
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
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,990



« 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..."
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« 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.
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« 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.
Logged

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
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2012, 12:04:32 AM »

witega with an avatar. Might have to get used to this.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« 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.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« 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.

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

-----    -----
-------------
-------------
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,990



« 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.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« 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"?
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
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« 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 » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,044



« 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.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« 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.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« 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.

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

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« 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?
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
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« 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).
Logged

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
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« 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 » Logged

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
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,520



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

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« 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..... Grin
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
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« 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..... Grin

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 » Logged

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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« 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..... Grin

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

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« 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..... Grin

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   Wink.  (Which is not to say that the Church you belong to.....well....dare we go down that well-worn rut 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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,044



« 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?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« 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" ?
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,228


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« 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
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
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« 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?
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,228


Inserting personal quote here.


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

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« 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!  Wink
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
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #35 on: June 20, 2012, 11:38:54 AM »

you both suck Smiley .. blind obedience is not good.. obedience to a church who might have fallen in apostasy is not good either..
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #36 on: June 20, 2012, 12:14:16 PM »

you both suck Smiley .. blind obedience is not good.. obedience to a church who might have fallen in apostasy is not good either..

Hey...thanks!  You suck, too Smiley.  Who said anything about "blind obedience"?
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
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,728


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 20, 2012, 12:41:04 PM »

you both suck Smiley .. blind obedience is not good.. obedience to a church who might have fallen in apostasy is not good either..

Okay, take it outside, you.  Wink
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/
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #38 on: June 20, 2012, 12:58:15 PM »

you both suck Smiley .. blind obedience is not good.. obedience to a church who might have fallen in apostasy is not good either..

Okay, take it outside, you.  Wink

(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  Wink Wink?

And he (she?) did use a smiley, as did I, so we're just havin' fun with each other.  Aren't we, Azul?
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
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,728


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

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

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« 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
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
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,358


« 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!
Logged

There are many foolish priests out there.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« 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!

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

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« 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.........


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
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« 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
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   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 0.176 seconds with 73 queries.