OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 24, 2014, 09:33:13 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 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: So how do you know if a council is ecumenical?  (Read 2305 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 325



« on: September 04, 2013, 05:03:18 PM »

This is the thing that has always troubled me about Orthodoxy. Certainly one doesn't need a council for the vast majority of what church tradition teaches, but when one is called for, how does an Orthodox Christian know that the council has authority?

The closest thing to an answer I've ever heard from an Orthodox Christian (this is not a generalisation; I genuinely looked for an answer wherever I could) was one of two things:
1. Placed the responsibility on the individual Orthodox Christian to study Holy Tradition, including Scripture, to determine it. This is generally where references to "the Holy Spirit guiding the Church" come in (often with the silly statement that the Pope of Rome is seen as a substitute for the Holy Spirit). Frankly, this sounds like the Protestant "personal interpretation" heresy, but without sola scriptura, and arguments in its favour generally fall victim to the same problem: Tradition and Scripture are cited to justify a whole bunch of contradictory things.
2. Stated that councils are ecumenical when they are accepted by the whole church. Since lots of people didn't accept each of the councils, this essentially turns into a circular argument along the lines of "Our beliefs are true because Ecumenical Councils X through Z defined them, and Councils X through Z are ecumenical because they are recognised as such by people of true beliefs, which are true because Ecumenical Councils..."
Logged

"I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary for your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your holy mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity." --Venerable St. Isaac of Nineveh
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,752


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2013, 05:11:20 PM »

There is no clearcut answer, it just happens.

This is one thing that irks me about Western converts (including myself). They are ALWAYS looking for some clearcut, exact, uniform, fail-safe final authority or source that can solve all of their problems if worse comes to worse. Protestants use the Bible for this, Roman Catholics the Pope.

But that's not how it works in Orthodoxy. We don't have a concept of infallibility/final authority. We believe that the truth can be revealed to us in a plethora of ways, and while things may be confusing and conradictory at times, in the end, the truth will always SOMEHOW end up prevailing in the end because Christ promised that the gates of Hades would never prevail.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2013, 05:17:11 PM »

There is no clearcut answer, it just happens.

This is one thing that irks me about Western converts (including myself). They are ALWAYS looking for some clearcut, exact, uniform, fail-safe final authority or source that can solve all of their problems if worse comes to worse. Protestants use the Bible for this, Roman Catholics the Pope.

But that's not how it works in Orthodoxy. We don't have a concept of infallibility/final authority. We believe that the truth can be revealed to us in a plethora of ways, and while things may be confusing and conradictory at times, in the end, the truth will always SOMEHOW end up prevailing in the end because Christ promised that the gates of Hades would never prevail.

That is an excellent answer.....
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2013, 05:20:13 PM »

Ecumenical councils, as opposed to local synods, are first declared ecumenical at the time. Then they are entered into imperial law. Beyond the empire, like in Britain or Persia, the local bishops met, sometimes well after the fact, and confirmed or rejected the council.

Where is the mystery?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,095


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2013, 05:23:41 PM »

Ecumenical councils, as opposed to local synods, are first declared ecumenical at the time. Then they are entered into imperial law. Beyond the empire, like in Britain or Persia, the local bishops met, sometimes well after the fact, and confirmed or rejected the council.

Where did you get this idea? Smiley
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2013, 05:26:52 PM »

This is the thing that has always troubled me about Orthodoxy. Certainly one doesn't need a council for the vast majority of what church tradition teaches, but when one is called for, how does an Orthodox Christian know that the council has authority?

The closest thing to an answer I've ever heard from an Orthodox Christian (this is not a generalisation; I genuinely looked for an answer wherever I could) was one of two things:
1. Placed the responsibility on the individual Orthodox Christian to study Holy Tradition, including Scripture, to determine it. This is generally where references to "the Holy Spirit guiding the Church" come in (often with the silly statement that the Pope of Rome is seen as a substitute for the Holy Spirit). Frankly, this sounds like the Protestant "personal interpretation" heresy, but without sola scriptura, and arguments in its favour generally fall victim to the same problem: Tradition and Scripture are cited to justify a whole bunch of contradictory things.
2. Stated that councils are ecumenical when they are accepted by the whole church. Since lots of people didn't accept each of the councils, this essentially turns into a circular argument along the lines of "Our beliefs are true because Ecumenical Councils X through Z defined them, and Councils X through Z are ecumenical because they are recognised as such by people of true beliefs, which are true because Ecumenical Councils..."

This is the thing that has always troubled me about Vaticanism. Certainly one doesn't need a Pope for the vast majority of what church tradition teaches, but when there are many claimant and equally valid Popes, how does a Vaticanist Christian know wich Pope has authority?



And i will repost what i said some time ago:

1st:

The Council that elected Martin V was not called by the Pope and was invalid, without authority to depose or elect any pope.

The Council said:

"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"

So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.

This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
 John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council, Gregory XII voluntarily resigned. Then Martin V was elected pope on 11 November 1417 and he was regarded as the legitimate pontiff by the church as a whole.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

So we have a council called by Pope john XXIII, a council that recognised John XXIII as the true Pope, and this same council deposed the true Pope. Fair enough.

But Vatican I says:

"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that... nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon...they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%203.%20On%20the%20power%20and%20character%20of%20the%20primacy%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff


2nd:

The Patriarch and Emperor wrote conciliatory letters to Leo reminding him that Canon 28 "merely sanctioned a custom of 60-70 years in the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace".

I guess St Leo didn't have much authority with his veto.

Just like what the Emperor said in the times of the 5th oecumenical council: "If you have condemned the three chapters I have no need of this new document for I have from you many others of the same content. If however you have in this new document departed from your earlier declarations, you have condemned yourself". (~Mansi IX 349).

And about your earlier question on how do we know that the Pope has an orthodox faith or not, adding to what ialmisry already said:

"That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason: because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters...

     Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

    What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.

    But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation.
"

~St Vincent The Commonitory: For Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies, Ch. II-III
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iii.iii.html

It is notewhorthy that St Vincent, in actual south of France, in Rome's jurisdiction, never mentions the Bishop of Rome. If he didn't need it, we don't need it either.

Now, you can argue with this saint, but History proves that the Bishop of Rome was not the criteria for Truth: St Meletius and 2nd Oecumenical Council, Vigilius case prior and during the 5th Oecumenical Council, Honorius case, The flip flop of Rome Popes about the 8th oecumenical Council.

So if this oecumenical council dissertations trouble you, this papist things should disturb you even more.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 05:40:48 PM by Napoletani » Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2013, 05:34:11 PM »

This is generally where references to "the Holy Spirit guiding the Church" come in...Frankly, this sounds like the Protestant "personal interpretation" heresy,

The first Church council in the Book of Acts began its resolution, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." And so do the ecumenical councils. It is not "personal interpretation," unless you want to consider the same of a statement on faith or morals from the pope of Rome. It is the interpretation of bishops, successors to the Apostles. (Really, the infallibility of the pope and the infallibility of the councils rest on the same ground, apostolic authority. And the opposition to both is also on the same ground--the argument between Sts. Peter and Paul, in which St. Peter was wrong, and Paul was right--as confirmed by the Synod of Jerusalem in Acts.)

Tradition and Scripture are cited to justify a whole bunch of contradictory things.
I think you need to do more research. I suggest first trying to excise prejudices.

councils are ecumenical when they are accepted by the whole church. Since lots of people didn't accept each of the councils, this essentially turns into a circular argument along the lines of "Our beliefs are true because Ecumenical Councils X through Z defined them, and Councils X through Z are ecumenical because they are recognised as such by people of true beliefs, which are true because Ecumenical Councils..."

First, as I said above, an ecumenical council is a matter of imperial law, not simply popular vote.

Who are "lots of people?" By them you mean those who rejected the council, yes? And who rejected the council, but people who sided with the heretics against whom was the judgment of the council? Their opinion, then, does not count. They aren't part of the Church in that they do not hold the faith of the Church.

There were cases when a council was purported to be ecumenical (Ephesus II, Lyons, Florence, the Iconoclast councils), but this does not mean that nobody before or after the council knew which position was Orthodox and which was heretical.

Florence was claimed to be ecumenical, but then the bishops returned home and repudiated it. The faithful would not attend liturgies served by those who had gone with the union. In that sense, we see that Orthodoxy is not the concern solely of the clergy.

So, where does that leave us?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2013, 05:38:41 PM »

Ecumenical councils, as opposed to local synods, are first declared ecumenical at the time. Then they are entered into imperial law. Beyond the empire, like in Britain or Persia, the local bishops met, sometimes well after the fact, and confirmed or rejected the council.

Where did you get this idea? Smiley

Is history such a novelty?

St. Constantine says, "I'm doing something new. I'm holding an ecumenical council."

Bishop asks, "What's that?"

St. Constantine replies, "Well, it's this really big council that involves bishops from all over the world, not just from a local church and makes decisions governing the whole Church."

Bishop: "Oh. We've never had one of those before. How will we know it's really ecumenical?"

St. Constantine: "Because I'm making it a matter of law."

Bishop: "Wow. That is new."

St. Constantine: "Yeah. And I'm going to personally pay for bishops from all over the world to come to it."
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 325



« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2013, 06:03:28 PM »

There is no clearcut answer, it just happens.

This is one thing that irks me about Western converts (including myself). They are ALWAYS looking for some clearcut, exact, uniform, fail-safe final authority or source that can solve all of their problems if worse comes to worse. Protestants use the Bible for this, Roman Catholics the Pope.

But that's not how it works in Orthodoxy. We don't have a concept of infallibility/final authority. We believe that the truth can be revealed to us in a plethora of ways, and while things may be confusing and conradictory at times, in the end, the truth will always SOMEHOW end up prevailing in the end because Christ promised that the gates of Hades would never prevail.
I have no doubt that the truth will prevail in the end. But will I be on its side at that point? I don't see that it's a bad thing to want to know for certain whether or not I am a heretic.
This is the thing that has always troubled me about Vaticanism. Certainly one doesn't need a Pope for the vast majority of what church tradition teaches, but when there are many claimant and equally valid Popes, how does a Vaticanist Christian know wich Pope has authority?
Nice turnaround. Firstly, both popes espoused the same doctrine in matters of faith and morals, the only region where a pope can be infallible. Secondly, the only reason the Avignon pope got elected was because some of the College of Cardinals decided they didn't like the pope's personality, which is nothing like a valid reason to have a new conclave, and the schism was resolved by excommunicating Avignon anyway. There is no reason to consider Avignon "equally valid".
Regarding the particulars of the council, John XXIII was given recognition because the council that produced him was an attempt to heal the schism; that is the part where you actually have two popes. And both John XXIII and Gregory XII resigned; the only pope forced to step down was the Avignon one.
Regarding your St. Vincent quote, the question then becomes whether or not the Fathers taught the papacy. It is the Catholic contention that they did.
Regarding the barrage of other examples: you'll have to explain St. Meletius to me; Pope Vigillius was dealing with anathemas which aren't infallible, and also with a poor command of the language the Chapters were written in; Pope Honorius never used his authority to teach his heretical beliefs, which I consider evidence for, not against, papal infallibility; and I'm also not sure what "flip-flopping" you refer to.
The first Church council in the Book of Acts began its resolution, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." And so do the ecumenical councils. It is not "personal interpretation," unless you want to consider the same of a statement on faith or morals from the pope of Rome. It is the interpretation of bishops, successors to the Apostles. (Really, the infallibility of the pope and the infallibility of the councils rest on the same ground, apostolic authority. And the opposition to both is also on the same ground--the argument between Sts. Peter and Paul, in which St. Peter was wrong, and Paul was right--as confirmed by the Synod of Jerusalem in Acts.)
I'm aware of that. My point is that without clear ground for considering a council ecumenical, the matter of which councils have apostolic authority is subject only to personal interpretation. To which argument between Ss. Peter and Paul do you refer? The one I recall was at Antioch, not Jerusalem, and Peter was wrong because he was failing to follow doctrine he knew to be orthodox, not because he was preaching heresy.
Quote
Who are "lots of people?" By them you mean those who rejected the council, yes? And who rejected the council, but people who sided with the heretics against whom was the judgment of the council? Their opinion, then, does not count. They aren't part of the Church in that they do not hold the faith of the Church.

There were cases when a council was purported to be ecumenical (Ephesus II, Lyons, Florence, the Iconoclast councils), but this does not mean that nobody before or after the council knew which position was Orthodox and which was heretical.

Florence was claimed to be ecumenical, but then the bishops returned home and repudiated it. The faithful would not attend liturgies served by those who had gone with the union. In that sense, we see that Orthodoxy is not the concern solely of the clergy.
The above largely proves my point. Your statement amounts to the reiteration that the council is ecumenical because people who agreed with it agreed with it. Everyone who goes to a council "knows" that their position is orthodox and the other is heretical, and they "know" it just as much afterward. Hence the Assyrian Church, hence the non-Chalcedonians, hence the East-West Schism.
Logged

"I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary for your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your holy mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity." --Venerable St. Isaac of Nineveh
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2013, 06:13:42 PM »

@Regnare

Quote
Nice turnaround. Firstly, both popes espoused the same doctrine in matters of faith and morals, the only region where a pope can be infallible.

Apostolic succession per vatican dogmas was broken there, and if one must by neccessity be in communion with Rome, there you have a problem.

Quote
Secondly, the only reason the Avignon pope got elected was because some of the College of Cardinals decided they didn't like the pope's personality, which is nothing like a valid reason to have a new conclave, and the schism was resolved by excommunicating Avignon anyway. There is no reason to consider Avignon "equally valid".

The Council said:

"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"

So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.

Quote
And both John XXIII and Gregory XII resigned; the only pope forced to step down was the Avignon one.

This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
 John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council,.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

Quote
Regarding your St. Vincent quote, the question then becomes whether or not the Fathers taught the papacy. It is the Catholic contention that they did.

And it is history's contention that they did not.

Quote
Regarding the barrage of other examples: you'll have to explain St. Meletius to me

Originally it was only a council of the Orient; the arguments of Baronius (ad an. 381, nos. 19, 20) to prove that it was called by Pope Damasus are invalid (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, Paris, 1908, II, 4). It was attended by 150 Catholic and 36 heretical (Semi-Arian, Macedonian) bishops, and was presided over by Meletius of Antioch; after his death, by the successive Patriarchs of Constantinople, St. Gregory Nazianzen and Nectarius.

In 379 Meletius held a council of 150 bishops in order to assure the triumph of orthodoxy in the East, and published a profession of faith which was to meet the approval of the Council of Constantinople (382). The end of the schism was near at hand. Since the two factions which divided the Antiochene Church were orthodox there remained but to unite them actually, a difficult move, but easy when the death of either bishop made it possible for the survivor to exercise full authority without hurting pride or discipline. This solution Meletius recognized as early as 381, but his friendly and peace- making proposals were rejected by Paulinus who refused to come to any agreement or settlement.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10161b.htm

Quote
Pope Vigillius was dealing with anathemas which aren't infallible, and also with a poor command of the language the Chapters were written in

Does not matter, Papacy was denied:

Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): "But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."


As one can see, the primacy and honor is conditional upon the Orthodox Faith of the Bishop of Rome, not of divine right forever and ever.


Quote
Pope Honorius never used his authority to teach his heretical beliefs, which I consider evidence for, not against, papal infallibility

You are not able to tell me on wich instances the Popes spoke ex cathedra or not so it is irelevant. Oecumenical COuncil said he was a heretic, later Popes confirmed it, that's enough.

Quote
and I'm also not sure what "flip-flopping" you refer to.

Your popes first accepted 880 eight council as oecumenical, then retracted centuries later. Flip flop of the final authority makes it useless.

Try better next time.
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,095


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2013, 06:14:49 PM »

Ecumenical councils, as opposed to local synods, are first declared ecumenical at the time. Then they are entered into imperial law. Beyond the empire, like in Britain or Persia, the local bishops met, sometimes well after the fact, and confirmed or rejected the council.

Where did you get this idea? Smiley

Is history such a novelty?

I just don't see how what you said lines up with what I've read and considered.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2013, 06:23:36 PM »

This is the thing that has always troubled me about Orthodoxy. Certainly one doesn't need a council for the vast majority of what church tradition teaches, but when one is called for, how does an Orthodox Christian know that the council has authority?

The closest thing to an answer I've ever heard from an Orthodox Christian (this is not a generalisation; I genuinely looked for an answer wherever I could) was one of two things:
1. Placed the responsibility on the individual Orthodox Christian to study Holy Tradition, including Scripture, to determine it. This is generally where references to "the Holy Spirit guiding the Church" come in (often with the silly statement that the Pope of Rome is seen as a substitute for the Holy Spirit). Frankly, this sounds like the Protestant "personal interpretation" heresy, but without sola scriptura, and arguments in its favour generally fall victim to the same problem: Tradition and Scripture are cited to justify a whole bunch of contradictory things.
2. Stated that councils are ecumenical when they are accepted by the whole church. Since lots of people didn't accept each of the councils, this essentially turns into a circular argument along the lines of "Our beliefs are true because Ecumenical Councils X through Z defined them, and Councils X through Z are ecumenical because they are recognised as such by people of true beliefs, which are true because Ecumenical Councils..."
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber; but He who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To Him the gatekeeper opens; the sheep hear His voice, and He calls His Own sheep by name and leads them out.  When He has brought out all His Own, He goes before them, and the sheep follow Him, for they know His voice.  A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers... I am the good shepherd; I know My Own and My Own know Me,  as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.  And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed My voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd."

That's how.

That Vatican just takes chooses its supreme pontiff for the Protestant "personal interpretation" heresy, and accepts the ones he picks, even if all the Church disagrees with him.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 06:25:25 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #12 on: September 04, 2013, 06:27:05 PM »

There is no clearcut answer, it just happens.

This is one thing that irks me about Western converts (including myself). They are ALWAYS looking for some clearcut, exact, uniform, fail-safe final authority or source that can solve all of their problems if worse comes to worse. Protestants use the Bible for this, Roman Catholics the Pope.

But that's not how it works in Orthodoxy. We don't have a concept of infallibility/final authority. We believe that the truth can be revealed to us in a plethora of ways, and while things may be confusing and conradictory at times, in the end, the truth will always SOMEHOW end up prevailing in the end because Christ promised that the gates of Hades would never prevail.

That is an excellent answer.....
indeed!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #13 on: September 04, 2013, 06:33:36 PM »

First, as I said above, an ecumenical council is a matter of imperial law
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's.

The imperial law only recognized an Ecumenical Council. It did not make it so.  Ephesus II and the Iconclast headless council were all imperial law, but they were never ecumenical.
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
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #14 on: September 04, 2013, 06:43:16 PM »

Ecumenical councils, as opposed to local synods, are first declared ecumenical at the time. Then they are entered into imperial law. Beyond the empire, like in Britain or Persia, the local bishops met, sometimes well after the fact, and confirmed or rejected the council.

Where did you get this idea? Smiley

Is history such a novelty?

I just don't see how what you said lines up with what I've read and considered.

What, that an ecumenical council is a matter of imperial law?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #15 on: September 04, 2013, 06:45:18 PM »

First, as I said above, an ecumenical council is a matter of imperial law
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's.

The imperial law only recognized an Ecumenical Council. It did not make it so.  Ephesus II and the Iconclast headless council were all imperial law, but they were never ecumenical.


Indeed, because they were excised by Orthodox emperors.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #16 on: September 04, 2013, 06:49:13 PM »

There is no clearcut answer, it just happens.

This is one thing that irks me about Western converts (including myself). They are ALWAYS looking for some clearcut, exact, uniform, fail-safe final authority or source that can solve all of their problems if worse comes to worse. Protestants use the Bible for this, Roman Catholics the Pope.

But that's not how it works in Orthodoxy. We don't have a concept of infallibility/final authority. We believe that the truth can be revealed to us in a plethora of ways, and while things may be confusing and conradictory at times, in the end, the truth will always SOMEHOW end up prevailing in the end because Christ promised that the gates of Hades would never prevail.
I have no doubt that the truth will prevail in the end. But will I be on its side at that point? I don't see that it's a bad thing to want to know for certain whether or not I am a heretic.
This is the thing that has always troubled me about Vaticanism. Certainly one doesn't need a Pope for the vast majority of what church tradition teaches, but when there are many claimant and equally valid Popes, how does a Vaticanist Christian know wich Pope has authority?
Nice turnaround. Firstly, both popes espoused the same doctrine in matters of faith and morals, the only region where a pope can be infallible.

First, there were three supreme pontiffs involved. And no, they did not have the same doctrine in faith and morals-at least not the same ecclesiology of their council.
Secondly, the only reason the Avignon pope got elected was because some of the College of Cardinals decided they didn't like the pope's personality, which is nothing like a valid reason to have a new conclave, and the schism was resolved by excommunicating Avignon anyway. There is no reason to consider Avignon "equally valid".
Regarding the particulars of the council, John XXIII was given recognition because the council that produced him was an attempt to heal the schism; that is the part where you actually have two popes. And both John XXIII and Gregory XII resigned; the only pope forced to step down was the Avignon one.
No, Pope John XXIII (note the number) was deposed by his council of Constance.

But then who was this guy?


Regarding your St. Vincent quote, the question then becomes whether or not the Fathers taught the papacy. It is the Catholic contention that they did.
No, it is the Ultramontanist Vatican's contention that they did.  Their Orthodox Catholic coreligionists stick to their teaching which taught no such thing.

Regarding the barrage of other examples: you'll have to explain St. Meletius to me; Pope Vigillius was dealing with anathemas which aren't infallible, and also with a poor command of the language the Chapters were written in; Pope Honorius never used his authority to teach his heretical beliefs, which I consider evidence for, not against, papal infallibility;

IOW you will call black white.
and I'm also not sure what "flip-flopping" you refer to.
The Pope of Old Rome nullified-with the rest of the Church-the pseudo-council of 869, and then called it ecumenical three centuries later, because the Vatican wanted its canons in its Investiture contraversy.

The first Church council in the Book of Acts began its resolution, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." And so do the ecumenical councils. It is not "personal interpretation," unless you want to consider the same of a statement on faith or morals from the pope of Rome. It is the interpretation of bishops, successors to the Apostles. (Really, the infallibility of the pope and the infallibility of the councils rest on the same ground, apostolic authority. And the opposition to both is also on the same ground--the argument between Sts. Peter and Paul, in which St. Peter was wrong, and Paul was right--as confirmed by the Synod of Jerusalem in Acts.)
I'm aware of that. My point is that without clear ground for considering a council ecumenical, the matter of which councils have apostolic authority is subject only to personal interpretation.
No: take for example your calling black white above. No matter how much you deny it, it remains

To which argument between Ss. Peter and Paul do you refer? The one I recall was at Antioch, not Jerusalem, and Peter was wrong because he was failing to follow doctrine he knew to be orthodox, not because he was preaching heresy.
"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
Quote
Who are "lots of people?" By them you mean those who rejected the council, yes? And who rejected the council, but people who sided with the heretics against whom was the judgment of the council? Their opinion, then, does not count. They aren't part of the Church in that they do not hold the faith of the Church.

There were cases when a council was purported to be ecumenical (Ephesus II, Lyons, Florence, the Iconoclast councils), but this does not mean that nobody before or after the council knew which position was Orthodox and which was heretical.

Florence was claimed to be ecumenical, but then the bishops returned home and repudiated it. The faithful would not attend liturgies served by those who had gone with the union. In that sense, we see that Orthodoxy is not the concern solely of the clergy.
The above largely proves my point. Your statement amounts to the reiteration that the council is ecumenical because people who agreed with it agreed with it. Everyone who goes to a council "knows" that their position is orthodox and the other is heretical, and they "know" it just as much afterward. Hence the Assyrian Church, hence the non-Chalcedonians, hence the East-West Schism.
hence heresy.  Yes.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 06:51:23 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 325



« Reply #17 on: September 04, 2013, 06:52:05 PM »

Apostolic succession per vatican dogmas was broken there, and if one must by neccessity be in communion with Rome, there you have a problem.
How is apostolic succession broken? The pope was chosen by conclave. That's how he's always chosen.
Quote
The Council said:

"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"

So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.
John XXIII was Pisan, not Avignon.
Quote
This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
 John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council,.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm
That's the closest to disproving the papacy I've ever seen someone come; I'll have to do some research and some asking around regarding this, but my question to you remains, if there is no pope how do I know a council is ecumenical?
Quote
And it is history's contention that they did not.
That's hardly an argument. Five minutes on a decent Catholic apologetics page overturns any notion that the Fathers were unanimously against papal authority. Here's a couple just to show you that "history" contends no such thing:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii
Quote
Originally it was only a council of the Orient; the arguments of Baronius (ad an. 381, nos. 19, 20) to prove that it was called by Pope Damasus are invalid (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, Paris, 1908, II, 4). It was attended by 150 Catholic and 36 heretical (Semi-Arian, Macedonian) bishops, and was presided over by Meletius of Antioch; after his death, by the successive Patriarchs of Constantinople, St. Gregory Nazianzen and Nectarius.

In 379 Meletius held a council of 150 bishops in order to assure the triumph of orthodoxy in the East, and published a profession of faith which was to meet the approval of the Council of Constantinople (382). The end of the schism was near at hand. Since the two factions which divided the Antiochene Church were orthodox there remained but to unite them actually, a difficult move, but easy when the death of either bishop made it possible for the survivor to exercise full authority without hurting pride or discipline. This solution Meletius recognized as early as 381, but his friendly and peace- making proposals were rejected by Paulinus who refused to come to any agreement or settlement.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10161b.htm
I'm not sure what this has to do with the papacy. Because Pope Damasus supported a bad bishop?
Quote
Does not matter, Papacy was denied:

Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): "But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."


As one can see, the primacy and honor is conditional upon the Orthodox Faith of the Bishop of Rome, not of divine right forever and ever.
Valid point. I'll have to check on that. I still want an answer on how you determine a valid council, though.
Quote
You are not able to tell me on wich instances the Popes spoke ex cathedra or not so it is irelevant. Oecumenical COuncil said he was a heretic, later Popes confirmed it, that's enough.
Oh, he was definitely a heretic. But the reason he was anathematised is that because of his private beliefs he refused to take a stand against heresy, but instead "by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted". It's not him speaking ex cathedra, it's him largely refusing to speak. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
Quote
Your popes first accepted 880 eight council as oecumenical, then retracted centuries later. Flip flop of the final authority makes it useless.

Try better next time.
The pope accepted what he was told by his legates. When he found out the actual nature of the council, he sent a bishop to make his position on it clear.
"Try better next time"-- Really? This is not a matter of self-serving justification. I am a convert, not a cradle Catholic. I have nothing to gain here, and this is not a contest.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 06:52:53 PM by Regnare » Logged

"I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary for your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your holy mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity." --Venerable St. Isaac of Nineveh
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #18 on: September 04, 2013, 06:56:13 PM »

Truth be told... From what I've read... They have no idea

The best they have is the circular reasoning that you pointed out.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 06:57:25 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Nicene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 615


« Reply #19 on: September 04, 2013, 06:57:16 PM »

When the whole of the church uncontroversially accepts it. That doesn't mean it became authoritative when the last person or church recognised it, rather that authority is recognised over time in the church, same can be said of the bible. Thats how I see it at least.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #20 on: September 04, 2013, 07:07:43 PM »

Truth be told... From what I've read... They have no idea

The best they have is the circular reasoning that you pointed out.
You mean: the Pope is infallible because he says so?

Odd that we have the Seven Ecumenical Councils, while your supreme pontiffs have gone back and forth on your Eighth, accepted and then rejected their council of Siena, have to pick and choose through your council of Constance, etc.
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
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #21 on: September 04, 2013, 07:09:28 PM »

Quote
How is apostolic succession broken? The pope was chosen by conclave. That's how he's always chosen.

A Council is not a conclave, Bishops are not cardinals. If this council, per Vatican I lacked authority to dismiss John XXIII, he lacked it to elect Martin V, and Apostolic Succession was ended here.

Quote
John XXIII was Pisan, not Avignon.

I didnt talk about that. Pisan Popes were considered the true ones by the Council.

Quote
but my question to you remains, if there is no pope how do I know a council is ecumenical?

There is no absolute answers, but if this is a problem for Orthodoxy, then it is the same for you to know wich Pope is the true one, and since Popes contradicted each other on the 8th oecumenical council, you have the same issue in RC.

Quote
That's hardly an argument. Five minutes on a decent Catholic apologetics page overturns any notion that the Fathers were unanimously against papal authority. Here's a couple just to show you that "history" contends no such thing:

Papal authority does not equal Vatican I Papacy. Those links dont prove ultramontanism.

Quote
I'm not sure what this has to do with the papacy. Because Pope Damasus supported a bad bishop?

Because the Oecumenical Council was not called by Rome, was runed by bishops not in communion with Rome and who died not in communion with Rome and because the Pope lacked any authority that Vatican I pretends he had.

Quote
But the reason he was anathematised is that because of his private beliefs he refused to take a stand against heresy, but instead "by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted". It's not him speaking ex cathedra, it's him largely refusing to speak.

Not only, the Council, confirmed by Rome, said he taugh Heresy. Don Chapman admited it and he is one of your greatest apologists:

"It is still more important that the formula for the oath taken by every new Pope from the 8th century till the 11th adds these words to the list of Monothelites condemned : “Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions”. Unquestionably no Catholic has the right to deny that Honorius was a heretic (though in the sense that Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia were heretics), a heretic in words if not in intention

It has been sometimes said that St. Leo in these words interprets the decision of the Council about Honorius in a mild sense, or that he modifies it. It is supposed that by “permitted to be polluted” Leo II means no positive action, but a mere neglect of duty, grave enough in a Pope, but not amounting to the actual teaching of heresy. If Leo II had meant this, he would have been mistaken. Honorius did positively approve the letter of Sergius, as the Council pointed out. Further, the merely negative ruling of the typus had been condemned as heresy by the Lateran Council.."
http://www.cristoraul.com/ENGLISH/History-of-the-Popes/GalleryofHistory/Pope_Honorius/CONDEMNATION-OF-POPE-HONORIUS.html

THE CONDEMNATION OF POPE HONORIUS

By

DOM JOHN CHAPMAN

 
Quote
The pope accepted what he was told by his legates. When he found out the actual nature of the council, he sent a bishop to make his position on it clear.

Not true and Father Dvornik, Catholic scholar proved it in his book the Photian Schism wich can be read online for free:

http://books.google.fr/books?id=X_A8AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+Photian+Schism&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=ssAnUv7XCofL0AWFr4FI&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20Photian%20Schism&f=false

Quote
Quote
Quote
Really? This is not a matter of self-serving justification. I am a convert, not a cradle Catholic. I have nothing to gain here, and this is not a contest.

You are right and i apologize for those bad words.
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #22 on: September 04, 2013, 07:14:14 PM »

Truth be told... From what I've read... They have no idea

The best they have is the circular reasoning that you pointed out.
You mean: the Pope is infallible because he says so?

Odd that we have the Seven Ecumenical Councils, while your supreme pontiffs have gone back and forth on your Eighth, accepted and then rejected their council of Siena, have to pick and choose through your council of Constance, etc.

This Pope is the true Pope because he says he is the true Pope and because the whole west recognized him as such. Oh except those poor guys in Basel and Constance, but they dont matter because the Pope they elected said they are wrong. This is not circular reasoning, this is natural logic, approved by Aristotle.
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
NightOwl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



« Reply #23 on: September 04, 2013, 07:36:38 PM »

Regnare-

To elaborate on the 2nd point of your 1st post...

A popular Orthodox theologian in America, Fr. Thomas Hopko, covered this question in one of his podcasts. Basically, his conclusion was that a council is accepted by the whole Church when it is integrated into the liturgical life of the Church. The liturgical life of every Orthodox church directly reflects the decisions and dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #24 on: September 04, 2013, 07:38:03 PM »


This is one thing that irks me about Western converts

Do a lot of things irk you? Wink
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #25 on: September 04, 2013, 07:40:38 PM »

Regnare-

To elaborate on the 2nd point of your 1st post...

A popular Orthodox theologian in America, Fr. Thomas Hopko, covered this question in one of his podcasts. Basically, his conclusion was that a council is accepted by the whole Church when it is integrated into the liturgical life of the Church. The liturgical life of every Orthodox church directly reflects the decisions and dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils.

The truth is essentialy that we do not have a kit for the oecumenical councils. Just like we do not have one to explain how Christ could at the same time grow in knowledge and be omnicient, that is how can he be God and Man at the same time. We dont know how, it just is. The same for Oecumenical Councils. And the rc are in the same position, despite their claims.
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #26 on: September 04, 2013, 07:40:58 PM »

Apostolic succession per vatican dogmas was broken there, and if one must by neccessity be in communion with Rome, there you have a problem.
How is apostolic succession broken? The pope was chosen by conclave. That's how he's always chosen.
Which has nothing to do with the Apostles-the conclave dates to after your finalizing your schism from the Catholic Church, created by those involved in that.

But then, your papacy has nothing to do with the Apostles either.

You were just saying that the conclave could not elect the Avignon line.  Make up your mind.
Quote
The Council said:

"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"

So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.
John XXIII was Pisan, not Avignon.
He wasn't Roman, which is your problem in your denial of the problem of three supreme pontiffs.
Quote
This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
 John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council,.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm
That's the closest to disproving the papacy I've ever seen someone come; I'll have to do some research and some asking around regarding this, but my question to you remains, if there is no pope how do I know a council is ecumenical?
We know it is not ecumenical, the same way that Vatican I and II are not.

But if you are an Ultramontanist, and believe a pope has to make a council ecumenical, Pope John XXIII called it as an "ecumenical council," Pope Gregory XII submitted to it as an "ecumenical council," and as on its status as an "ecumenical council" created Martin V a pope.

Quote
And it is history's contention that they did not.
That's hardly an argument. Five minutes on a decent Catholic apologetics page overturns any notion that the Fathers were unanimously against papal authority. Here's a couple just to show you that "history" contends no such thing:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii
unfortunately for your quote mine, most of them need only to be put back into the context out of which the Ultramontanists have wretched them, to undo Ultramontanist claims.  Or just an accurate translation. Case in point, your first one has
Quote
"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans
Where it actually says "Ignatius...to the Church holding the presidency in the place of the lands of the Romans," i.e. Italy.  Even if one wanted to stretch that to the Roman Empire (which itself is a problem), it still stops short of universal jurisdiction.

One need only compare and contrast the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium with the practice of the Early Church to see that the Fathers did not govern the Church according to the Ultramontanist "apostolic constitions" of the supreme pontiffs of the Vatican.

Quote
Originally it was only a council of the Orient; the arguments of Baronius (ad an. 381, nos. 19, 20) to prove that it was called by Pope Damasus are invalid (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, Paris, 1908, II, 4). It was attended by 150 Catholic and 36 heretical (Semi-Arian, Macedonian) bishops, and was presided over by Meletius of Antioch; after his death, by the successive Patriarchs of Constantinople, St. Gregory Nazianzen and Nectarius.

In 379 Meletius held a council of 150 bishops in order to assure the triumph of orthodoxy in the East, and published a profession of faith which was to meet the approval of the Council of Constantinople (382). The end of the schism was near at hand. Since the two factions which divided the Antiochene Church were orthodox there remained but to unite them actually, a difficult move, but easy when the death of either bishop made it possible for the survivor to exercise full authority without hurting pride or discipline. This solution Meletius recognized as early as 381, but his friendly and peace- making proposals were rejected by Paulinus who refused to come to any agreement or settlement.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10161b.htm
I'm not sure what this has to do with the papacy. Because Pope Damasus supported a bad bishop?
He insisted who was the Archbishop of Antioch. History-and the five lines of patriarchs his successors as pontifex maximus have tried to install there-proved him wrong.
Quote
Does not matter, Papacy was denied:

Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): "But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."


As one can see, the primacy and honor is conditional upon the Orthodox Faith of the Bishop of Rome, not of divine right forever and ever.
Valid point. I'll have to check on that. I still want an answer on how you determine a valid council, though.
You have been given the answer. That you do not like it does not change the fact.
Quote
You are not able to tell me on wich instances the Popes spoke ex cathedra or not so it is irelevant. Oecumenical COuncil said he was a heretic, later Popes confirmed it, that's enough.
Oh, he was definitely a heretic. But the reason he was anathematised is that because of his private beliefs he refused to take a stand against heresy, but instead "by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted". It's not him speaking ex cathedra, it's him largely refusing to speak. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Quote
Your popes first accepted 880 eight council as oecumenical, then retracted centuries later. Flip flop of the final authority makes it useless.

Try better next time.
The pope accepted what he was told by his legates. When he found out the actual nature of the council, he sent a bishop to make his position on it clear.
Not quite. Read Dvorak
"Try better next time"-- Really? This is not a matter of self-serving justification. I am a convert, not a cradle Catholic. I have nothing to gain here, and this is not a contest.
If there is nothing to gain, renounce Pastor Aeternus.

I'm not a cradle Orthodox either.
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
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #27 on: September 04, 2013, 07:42:07 PM »

Truth be told... From what I've read... They have no idea

The best they have is the circular reasoning that you pointed out.

You read through your own special glasses. Others' mileage may vary.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
NightOwl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



« Reply #28 on: September 04, 2013, 07:52:37 PM »

Regnare-

To elaborate on the 2nd point of your 1st post...

A popular Orthodox theologian in America, Fr. Thomas Hopko, covered this question in one of his podcasts. Basically, his conclusion was that a council is accepted by the whole Church when it is integrated into the liturgical life of the Church. The liturgical life of every Orthodox church directly reflects the decisions and dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils.

The truth is essentialy that we do not have a kit for the oecumenical councils. Just like we do not have one to explain how Christ could at the same time grow in knowledge and be omnicient, that is how can he be God and Man at the same time. We dont know how, it just is. The same for Oecumenical Councils. And the rc are in the same position, despite their claims.

I liked Fr. Tom's explanation myself Tongue. Here is the podcast for those interested:

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/doctrinal_development

Quote
In other words, what developments of doctrinal formulation would we say are good, proper and true, and which ones are not, and how do you know that? And here, it seems to me, that the answer is pretty clear. They answer is, when you can demonstrate that all of the churches on earth who recognize each other as Orthodox, and who say that they are in continuity with the Bible, with the Prophets, with the Apostles, with the earliest Christianity, with the Holy Scriptures, and with the formulations through history, when they who recognize each other as being true and real Christians and recognize the churches as being the real, one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Christ, you can tell which explanations and formulations and definitions and defenses and witnesses – and they may not even be in writing, they may be in icons, for example, the defense of the holy icons.
But how can you tell when it is right or wrong? Or, even if you are more modest, how can you tell when the Orthodox would think that it is right or wrong? And the answer would be, when all of the churches who recognize each other accept it. When they all say, “Yes, this is what we believe is right. This is what we believe is true.”
Now, that is a process that takes place in history. For example, after the Council of Nicaea, there were many who said that Nicaea was wrong. The children of Saint Constantine the Great said that those emperors were wrong. They persecuted the saints that we believe are the Orthodox saints. They exiled Athanasius the Great five times.
Or take another example—the icons. Saint Theodore the Studite was persecuted, exiled also five times. John of Damascus was mutilated. Saint Maximus the Confessor was mutilated.
But sooner or later they are verified and affirmed as being true. And how do you know when that happens? That happens when all the churches who claim to be Orthodox say that they are true, when they say, “Yes. We recognize that this is the truth.”

But then that raises the next question. How do you know when that happens? Here, it seems to me, that the answer to that is also very simple and very clear—when it becomes part of liturgy. Whenever any conciliar decree, or any teaching of any saint, or any council, is affirmed liturgically by all of the Orthodox churches, then the Orthodox churches would say that this is the Orthodox faith, and it is according to the Gospel.
And what that faith is, is not new.  But this conciliar decree, or this creed, or this formula, is different. It is new, in the sense that it did not exist previously. But it exists now to defend the truth of what does exist, previously and eternally.
So, for example, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed—without the Filioque, the section that was added in the west—is used in all Orthodox churches. So all of the Orthodox churches would say that this is the truth and it is according to the Christian faith and Holy Scripture, and there is nothing new in there, it is just a defense. Even though it uses one word that is not found in the Bible—homoousion to patri—of one essence with the Father.
We would say the same thing about the Council of Chalcedon. We go to church—I am going to church pretty soon tonight. We are going to hear in church that Jesus Christ is one in person, but two-fold in nature, that He is truly divine and truly human. Well, that is a formulation of the Council of Chalcedon. But that becomes part of our church life.
And then you can even go to church some days and you will have a commemoration of the Fathers of Chalcedon. Or you will have a church commemoration of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council. Or you will have a commemoration of the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of 787, which is another example. That council took place in 787. It was only finally, officially accepted throughout Christendom by the churches who recognize each other as Orthodox in 843, almost 70 years later.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 08:01:17 PM by NightOwl » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #29 on: September 04, 2013, 08:08:35 PM »

If you attatch a limb from someone else on someone, it turns black, gets gangerous and falls off.  If you are reattaching someone's limb, or doing something like a skin graft, it heals the damage and becomes a strong member of the body.  

So too Councils: if they are of the Church, they become part of her Tradition.  If not, they are rejected and fall off.

Of course, there are organ transplant, in which one has to take anti-rejection meds.  That is what ecumenists want to do, infuse the Body of Christ with anti-rejection that any heresy they fancy will not be rejected but grow onto the Body of Christ.  Christ, however, has passed into the Holy Mysteries, the signs of His life in her, and they will continue to act as antibodies to any heresy.

Does this mean that when Catholic doctrine reaches a satisfactory level of development and clarification it then starts to stagnate??!  Or is it imperative that Catholic doctrine never stops developing?  That's a curious idea!!!
I can see that I inadvertently stirred up hostility when I used the word "stagnant," which I would like to retract and apologize for because it carries a negative connotation that I did not intend when I said it. What would be better terminology perhaps would be dynamic versus static. Of course, just because the Catholic Church believes in development of doctrine doesn't mean that it just changes stuff willy-nilly.
Define willy-nilly.
Quote
This is a misconception that most Protestants and, unfortunately, a fair number of Orthodox believe about the Catholic Church which just isn't true.
Its record says otherwise.
Quote
I would assert that the Orthodox Church believes in development of doctrine as well or else it would reject all Ecumenical Councils and simply follow what the Early Church believed.
She does simply follow what the Early Church believed, which is why she held the Ecumenical councils. We have covered this ground before:
The Orthodox Church does not have the Roman Catholic concept of the development of doctrine.
So Nicaea wasn't a development? You believe that the understanding of the Trinity was as developed before Nicaea as it was after? If so, what was the purpose of Nicaea in the first place? I'm really having a difficult time understanding what the Orthodox think the purpose of an Ecumenical Council is if our understanding of teachings doesn't develop over time. After all, even the earliest Ecumenical Council took place around 300 years after Christ. Isn't that pretty late in the game for any teachings to be pronounced if you believe everything was taught once and for all by Christ and the Apostles?
Still haven't read the post?
I think you mean sewn up. Look at my post above, about the antibodies.

Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.
If you mean that the Church is a stagnant organization that has no use for the Holy Spirit because everything has already been revealed and needs no further clarification, of course the Vatican isn't going to "see" that because that notion is false.
Didn't read my post above, did you?

Now I look like my baby picture, despite I'm taller, weight more, right now have a 5 o'clock (actually more) shadow. That's development.

I also have a cross tattoo on my wrist which you will search in vain for on my baby pictures.  You call that developement but its not quite that: no matter how old I got, that tattoo wasn't going to appear until I had them apply it with the needle.

My best friend has four kidnies, from two kidney transplants. Not quite development there either.  He looks like his baby picture, though, too.

I have my doubts about those who have a "sex change," that they resemble their baby picture in specific ways, but I concede that their faces are probably the same.  You would have to get plastic surgery to change that, like Michael Jackosn.

I remember when he married Miss Presley, someone said they would believe it when she had a baby that looked like he used to look. Not like this:


But that's the problem: ya'll at the Vatican can't make a distinction between growing and radical plastic surgery, because it's all change=development.  So you appropriate it as a license to attribute the most outlandish things to the "deposit of Faith."

I'm going to repost something long (yeah, I know, suprise) but may not have the time to comment more.  I originally argued this against Sola Scriptura for the only source of the Faith.  I'll adapt it to the OP.

An example of what happens when Sola Scriptura runs against Apostolic Tradition:
Joshua Joshua 22:10 And when they came to the region about the Jordan, that lies in the land of Canaan, the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas'seh built there an altar by the Jordan, an altar of great size. 11 And the people of Israel heard say, "Behold, the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas'seh have built an altar at the frontier of the land of Canaan, in the region about the Jordan, on the side that belongs to the people of Israel." 12 And when the people of Israel heard of it, the whole assembly of the people of Israel gathered at Shiloh, to make war against them. 13 Then the people of Israel sent to the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas'seh, in the land of Gilead, Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar the priest, 14 and with him ten chiefs, one from each of the tribal families of Israel, every one of them the head of a family among the clans of Israel. 15 And they came to the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manas'seh, in the land of Gilead, and they said to them, 16 "Thus says the whole congregation of the LORD, 'What is this treachery which you have committed against the God of Israel in turning away this day from following the LORD, by building yourselves an altar this day in rebellion against the LORD? 17 Have we not had enough of the sin at Pe'or from which even yet we have not cleansed ourselves, and for which there came a plague upon the congregation of the LORD, 18 that you must turn away this day from following the LORD? And if you rebel against the LORD today he will be angry with the whole congregation of Israel tomorrow. 19 But now, if your land is unclean, pass over into the LORD's land where the LORD's tabernacle stands, and take for yourselves a possession among us; only do not rebel against the LORD, or make us as rebels by building yourselves an altar other than the altar of the LORD our God. 20 Did not Achan the son of Zerah break faith in the matter of the devoted things, and wrath fell upon all the congregation of Israel? And he did not perish alone for his iniquity.'"

21 Then the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manas'seh said in answer to the heads of the families of Israel, 22 "The Mighty One, God, the LORD! The Mighty One, God, the LORD! He knows; and let Israel itself know! If it was in rebellion or in breach of faith toward the LORD, spare us not today 23 for building an altar to turn away from following the LORD; or if we did so to offer burnt offerings or cereal offerings or peace offerings on it, may the LORD himself take vengeance. 24 Nay, but we did it from fear that in time to come your children might say to our children, 'What have you to do with the LORD, the God of Israel ? 25 For the LORD has made the Jordan a boundary between us and you, you Reubenites and Gadites; you have no portion in the LORD.' So your children might make our children cease to worship the LORD. 26 Therefore we said, 'Let us now build an altar, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice, 27 but to be a witness between us and you, and between the generations after us, that we do perform the service of the LORD in his presence with our burnt offerings and sacrifices and peace offerings; lest your children say to our children in time to come, "You have no portion in the LORD."' 28 And we thought, If this should be said to us or to our descendants in time to come, we should say, 'Behold the copy of the altar of the LORD, which our fathers made, not for burnt offerings, nor for sacrifice, but to be a witness between us and you.' 29 Far be it from us that we should rebel against the LORD, and turn away this day from following the LORD by building an altar for burnt offering, cereal offering, or sacrifice, other than the altar of the LORD our God that stands before his tabernacle!"

30 When Phin'ehas the priest and the chiefs of the congregation, the heads of the families of Israel who were with him, heard the words that the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manas'sites spoke, it pleased them well. 31 And Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar the priest said to the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manas'sites, "Today we know that the LORD is in the midst of us, because you have not committed this treachery against the LORD; now you have saved the people of Israel from the hand of the LORD." 32 Then Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar the priest, and the chiefs, returned from the Reubenites and the Gadites in the land of Gilead to the land of Canaan, to the people of Israel, and brought back word to them. 33 And the report pleased the people of Israel; and the people of Israel blessed God and spoke no more of making war against them, to destroy the land where the Reubenites and the Gadites were settled. 34 The Reubenites and the Gadites called the altar Witness; "For," said they, "it is a witness between us that the LORD is God."

Now, note the following:

The Sola Scriptura folks were quite correct: the Law given to Moses had restricted sacrifices to one altar before the one Tabernacle. Btw, the tribes living on the East of the Jordan was a deviation from what God had commanded, revealed in His Word, and to which the Prophet Moses objected (Numbers 32, especially verses 6-15). Sort of like the innovation of the monarchy (I Kingdoms/Samuel 8, esp. verses 6-7), but we go a Messiah out of that (I Chronicles 17). Yet it is those who add Tradition to the mix who save Israel that day, as the chiefs of the Assembly/Congregation (we would say "Church") of Israel admit.

However, the Sola Scriptura first accuse the Eastern tribes of rebelling against God's Word, setting something that they see in addition to, and hence in opposition to (in their mind) in order to supplant God's Word, and replacing the Word of God with the traditions of men. And their solution? Just stick to the text and cross over to us.

The Eastern tribes had the foresight to see that, people being people, and sin being sin, that the Books of Moses were not going to suffice to stop Israel from sin. Those on the West Bank would focus on the literal promises to Abraham (which said nothing of the East Bank) and would interpret it in a manner which suited their sense of sensibilities: the Promised Land should fit our idea of the Land of Canaan (sort of like the idea of eating Body and Blood). Acting on this, they would exclude the Easterners, leading them to sin.

So the solution? Set up an interpretation of the letter of the law that preserved an indisputable indication of its spirit. And this they did.

A Melkite priest gave the best one word definition of Chrsitianity: witness.

Now, the problem most Protestants have with Tradition is the idea that the Church which set it up has tried to suppliment, and hence oppose, in order to supplant, Scripture.

We do not believe in, say, the Real Presense because St. Ignatius of Antioch, whom the Aposles ordained themselves as successor of St. Peter in the place where the disciples were first called Christians, writes in c. 105:
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from the prayer, because they will not confess that the Eucharist is the self same flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

we believe in the Real Presence because He said, "This is My Body," "This is My Blood." Rising, He appeared and was known to the Apostles in the breakding of the bread that first Pascha (Luke 24:13-36 NOT btw, in His opening of the scriptures, though that did make their heart burn). Those who continued steadfast in the Apostles' doctrines communed in the breaking of bread in the prayers of the DL every Sunday from the Resurrection until June 7, 2009 (Acts 2:42, 20:7), which we received, delievered to us by the Apostles from the Lord (I Cor. 11:23. btw. when these words were written, the Church had been gathering on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:7) for over two decades).

Now, the Aposles weren't doing this because of the verses quoted. Rather the verses were written to record what the Apostles did, what they were doing, believing, teaching, whether by word or letter (I Thess. 2:15) so those who followed could stand fast and hold these traditions, and withdraw (I Thes. 3:6) from those who refused to walk according to the traditions which they delievered and which we received.

St. Ignatius stood fast and held that tradition, and did not neglect that gift that was given him by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, guarding what was committed to him. (I Tim. 4:14, 6:20) St. Ignatius set in order bishops in every city as the Aposltes commanded, to hold fast the faithful word as it had been taught, by word or letter, to both exhort and convict by sound doctrine those of a different opinion (heresia) who contradicted, and refused to walk according to that tradition. (cf. Titus 1:5-9). As the letters show, strong in the grace of Christ Jesus, he was committing these traditions he heard by word from the Apostles to the Faithful to teach others. (2 Tim. 2:1-2), that the Catholic Church continue in breaking the bread, the communion of the self same Body of Christ (I Cor. 10:16).

We do not believe in the Real Presence because St. Ignatius says so: he received the same Faith we received, and he stands as a Witness that God has erected between the Apostles and us, as a sign post as to whether we walk according to the Tradition of the Apostles or not. "Lo! I am with you always (Greek: "all the days") even unto the end of the age." Those were His parting words. And so He has: rather than standing gazing, the Church has raised up witnessses to that same Faith, who stand as witnesses between us and the Apostles. We have not abandoned the Bible for the Fathers (and Mothers!). Rather surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, we are able to point to the Witness, like the Eastern Tribes to the altar on the Jordan, to show that we are right in our interpretation of Scripture, including the Words of Institution (themselves written in the Gospels to reflect Church practice). Every generation, we can document, from the Apostles to this day, those who, if they lived in our day, would come to OUR Church and commune with us (of course, closed communion is part of that Apostolic Tradition). Their Faith is our Faith, and that is the value of their words, not that they replace the Bible. Rather they preserve the full import of the Bible.

Tradition is giving our ancestors, our Fathers, the ones who passed down the Faith and copied and preserved the Bible, a vote.

Catechesis means "echo," and Christ's Word has roared throughout the generations through Apostolic Tradition.

As our priest says, if you come up with an interpretation of Scripture that no one else has, be cautious and ask yourself if you are wrong. If it contradicts what has gone before, YOU ARE DEFINITELY WRONG.

How to interpret Acts 8:31? The believers of sola scriptura cannot tell us. They have no one to guide them.
Title of the thread confused the Consensus Patrum as a Source of Faith: the Consensus does not provide the Source of Faith, it reflects it.

There is only one soure of the Faith, Christ.  How that one source is transmitted, and how its transmition is verified, is what is at issue.

The Faith is transitted in the Holy Mysteries: as the Fathers say, Christ has passed into the Holy Mysteries, the signs of Christ's life within His Body, the Church.  When the Church acts as the Body of Christ, as a Body, in unity with her Head, then she speaks infallibly.  That is why the assent of the Faithful is needed, for instance, for the Ecumenicity of a Council.

There is, for no instance, no objective criteria on which to base the canon of the Bible.  Authorship by an Apostle does not determine the canon of the NT: St. Luke, strictly speaking, is not an Apostle-he does not include himself in the company of eyewitness and ministers of the Word from the beginning (Luke 1:2, cf. Acts 1:21-2). Yet there is no question of it being in the Orthodox canon.  St. Clement's first epistle (I'll leave aside the question of the second) which was reckoned as Scripture: after Clement received his doctrine directly from the Apostles, and not as an eyewitness of Christ, the same way  St. Luke received his doctrine.  Clement's epistles are approved by the Apostolic Canons (85), but yet St. Luke is canonized and St. Clement is not.  If an archaeologist dug up St. Paul's missing Epistles or when they dug up the Gospels that record Acts 20:35, or the Jesus seminar could prove that St. Thomas wrote the Gospel named after him, none were or would be accepted into the canon.  The Church has spoken.  Many Fathers and Churches deemed Reveltion spurious, but the Church accepted it into the canon, and even if textual criticism would able to prove that St. John did not write it, it would remain in the canon as the Church has received it as an expression of her Faith in the return of her Bridegroom.

And that is why the Bible is canonized: it is not that the Church collected documents that the Apostles wrote.  Rather, they looked at what the Faithful had produced in the bosom of the Church, recognized herself in it, and adopted it as her self revelation.  Sort of like when parents see themselves in their children, and leave them as their legacy.  The Bible is not like the America Constitution, which brought a new government into order which is derived from that constition: it is like the Canadian Constitution, which merely codifies the system of government in place.  When St. Paul refers to Christ's life, he is not teaching history. He is appealing to an audience who already knows His life. Case in point: St. Paul's account of the Mystical Supper predates all the Gospels' accounts of it.  But he is not telling the Corinthians nothing that they do not already know (I Corin. 11:23)  In fact the ongoing Great Canon of the DL helped shape the Gospels' account.

That is why Sola Scriptura doesn't work: it is like owning the manuel, but not owning the car.

St. Theophan deals with the issue of why we say prayers written by the saints.  It is not because they are a replacement for Scripture nor for our own words.  But as we do not know how to pray as we ought, we look to those who did.  The saints we know (because they have been glorified, and their words consecrated by the usage of the Church) had reached the stage where the Holy Spirit spoke within them at prayer.  In that state, they composed in human language their thoughts in that state.  Using these words as guideposts, we are trying to follow them into the state where the Holy Spirit gives utterance to our prayers.  As the lesson of the Samaritan woman shows: the Samaritans came because of what she told them, but they reached a point at which they believed from knowing Him for themselves (John 4:43).

So too the Liturgy: the Church gathered as the Body of Christ so that He made be in their midst have put that experience into words.  The Church as a whole has adopted the Liturgy as the public expression of that experience, hence the appeal of liturgical texts for dogma: lex credendi, lex orandi.  But in that order: we do not believe that Christ is in the Eucharist because the DL says so, rather because we believe so, and experience Him in the Eucharist, that the DL so says.

So too the Dogmatic Definitions of the Ecumenical Councils.  The Faith cannot be added too.  No development of doctrine, if it was not in the Apostles' preaching it cannot be in the Dogma of the Church.  When heresy infected the Body of Christ, the Body of Christ, as a Body, mustered its antibodies, the Fathers and developed an immunity, the Dogmatic Definitions, to the heresy.  They did not add to the Faith: as the body already has the antibody proteins but only puts them to work to form a defense against the foreign pathogen, so too the Fathers only erect from pre-existing materials a boundary marker which the Orthodox may not move.  The Fathers confessed the same Faith, but in different words to ensure it remained the same Faith.  The expression of Faith changes only so that the Faith can remain the same, something litrugists should keep in mind.

The iconography writes an icon only when he follows the canon the Church has laid down for the visual expression of her Faith. Otherwise he is a forger and a counterfeiter (like our deluded friend Lentz).  The icon is the expression of the Church, not personal agendas, and just like a counterfeiter tries to make his money look real but it has no value, so too the icongrapher who oversteps the Church's bounds.  That is why we appeal to the icons when we are asked about what we believe, because they are backed by the full Faith and Credit of the Church.

No Church Father is infallible: only Christ is infallible, and the Church's infallibility flows from her being His Body.  But that flows only when she acts as a Body, like in Ecumenical Council.  Any individual member cannot act infallibility, so why the claim of the alleged "visible head" to speak infallibly cannot be accepted.  So too, no one should expect every word of an individual Father to be infallible.  It is only in as much as they reflect the common Faith, between us and them and lived in the Church now, that they constitute the Consensus Patrum.  What they served, as I pointed out in my OP, as a witness between us and heretics, so when they claim that the Real Presence is an innovation, that we point to St. Ignatius etc.: they witenss to the Faith as we witness to the Faith.

Which is the point of my OP to the OP: merely extended Sola Scriptura to included Ecumenical Councils and certain Fathers misses the point.  These are not the source of Faith: they are witnesses, like the altar on the Jordan, to make sure we have kept the Faith.


If we truly had the fullest understanding of the truth from the very beginning then Christ would not have sent the Holy Spirit to the Church. The Church would need no guidance if all truth was fully understood from the beginning.
It was delievered once and for all to the saints.  The Apostles taught us all we need to know. Prying into mysteries we, who have Faith, do not need to do isn't development.  It's asking for trouble, the kind that necessitate Ecumenical Councils.

As I have mentioned in the past, I would have a very hard time believing that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was exactly the same pre-Nicea as it was and is post-Nicea.

The Eternal and All Holy Trinity was exactly the same: if Arius had Faith in Him, Nicea would not have been necessary.

Indeed, groups like the Oneness Pentecostals reject the notion of God as a Trinity simply because it wasn't explicitly defined prior to 325 A.D.

And they weren't there to object. We were. So Arius, but his folllowing died out.  Some people refuse to learn from the mistakes of others.

They, too, believe that we "invented" a doctrine when in actuality all the Church did was clarify and develop the understanding of a truth that already exists.

No, just restated the Faith in affirming it in the face of novelties.

So, coming back to the Holy Spirit, what does the Orthodox Church believe the purpose of the Holy Spirit is since all truth, according to you, is already fully received and we cannot reach a deeper understand of truth?

He is Who is.  He doesn't need a purpose to justify His existence. And we do not need to dissect His working in us.

If the truth existed in full clarity from the beginning and need not develop, why hold Councils?

Because some people do not trust the Spirit, lack Faith, and start trying to fit God into their understanding, and have to be slapped up side their head.


I have heard people on here poke fun at Papal Infallibility because of the fact that they think 1870 is pretty late to define dogma, yet if we truly had the fullness of truth as well as the fullest understanding of truth from the beginning with Christ and the Apostles, there would be no necessity for the Holy Spirit or for Ecumenical Councils.

No, we would still have to depend on the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life.  The idlely curious make Ecumenical Councils necessary.

If ex cathedra had the fullness of truth, it would have made all the councils superfluous (which is now why the Vatican reinterprets Ecumenical council in the light, or rather darkness, of Pastor Aeternas.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 08:10:52 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 325



« Reply #30 on: September 04, 2013, 08:30:09 PM »

A Council is not a conclave, Bishops are not cardinals. If this council, per Vatican I lacked authority to dismiss John XXIII, he lacked it to elect Martin V, and Apostolic Succession was ended here.
I still don't think it's correct to say apostolic succession is broken. The pope is already a bishop when he's elected. He still has apostolic succession regardless. I recognise your point about the Western Schism, though, and if I ever work out an answer to it I'll let you know.
Quote
There is no absolute answers, but if this is a problem for Orthodoxy, then it is the same for you to know wich Pope is the true one, and since Popes contradicted each other on the 8th oecumenical council, you have the same issue in RC.
So Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are on the same level, then. They both have severe logical flaws, so I might as well be in one as the other.
Quote
Papal authority does not equal Vatican I Papacy. Those links dont prove ultramontanism.
Several of them explicitly deny that it is possible for the bishop of Rome to promote heresy, and the rest imply it. I would certainly agree that not every exercise of papal authority falls under that, like the papal reservation of the authority to appoint bishops, but it certainly includes infallibility.
Quote
Because the Oecumenical Council was not called by Rome, was runed by bishops not in communion with Rome and who died not in communion with Rome and because the Pope lacked any authority that Vatican I pretends he had.
In what way were any of them not in communion with Rome?
The point of the Catholic dogma on councils is not that the pope needs to call them (after all, he certainly didn't call Nicea), but that he needs to approve them, which he did, as we count it ecumenical.
Quote
Not only, the Council, confirmed by Rome, said he taugh Heresy. Don Chapman admited it and he is one of your greatest apologists
Good point; I was wrong. Regardless, private writings are not infallible, nor are the broader letters known as encyclicals. It is required that he clearly be speaking to all and in his capacity as head of the church, and the fact that it was a private letter, as well as the uncertain tone of his whole letter to Sergius, indicates that he is not speaking as Pontifex Maximus, simply as a theologian.
Quote
Not true and Father Dvornik, Catholic scholar proved it in his book the Photian Schism wich can be read online for free:

http://books.google.fr/books?id=X_A8AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+Photian+Schism&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=ssAnUv7XCofL0AWFr4FI&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20Photian%20Schism&f=false
Interestingly, I was referring to a non-Catholic historian, Philip Schaff, in countering your argument (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/4_ch05.htm). Fr. Dvornik is not uncontested by Catholics either.
To elaborate on the 2nd point of your 1st post...

A popular Orthodox theologian in America, Fr. Thomas Hopko, covered this question in one of his podcasts. Basically, his conclusion was that a council is accepted by the whole Church when it is integrated into the liturgical life of the Church. The liturgical life of every Orthodox church directly reflects the decisions and dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils.

I liked Fr. Tom's explanation myself Tongue. Here is the podcast for those interested:

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/doctrinal_development
Thank you very much for that, NightOwl. It's the best explanation of that idea I've heard yet. But as I said, everyone's definition of "the Church" is dependent upon those with whom they are in communion. There are numerous doctrines which all the people who recognise each other as Roman Catholic, and who say that they are in continuity with the Bible, with the Prophets, with the Apostles, with the earliest Christianity, with the Holy Scriptures, have incorporated into the liturgy which you would consider heretical. Though I'm no expert, I would wager similar things have occurred in the non-Chalcedonian churches.

I've encountered several arguments here which have indeed shaken my faith in the papacy, but I still struggle (as you may have noticed  Smiley ) with an understanding of doctrine which seems so circular. If what you say is true, then despite my best attempts I was still led into heresy. How do I know that I won't be led there again by choosing (say) the New Calendarist Orthodox over the Old, or the Eastern over the Oriental?
Logged

"I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary for your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your holy mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity." --Venerable St. Isaac of Nineveh
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #31 on: September 04, 2013, 08:42:26 PM »

Okay, so say you become Orthodox because you "don't want to be a heretic." Well, other people are going to think you are one, based on their own reasonings. So, perhaps you need to dig deeper. What does your heart say to do? Don't answer that here, just think about it for yourself. Because if you convert to some faith because you felt their argument was solid or true, you might find yourself leaving and going elsewhere later, or dissatisfied, because your heart wasn't in the decision.

Ultimately "ecumenical" means squat compared to what is true. We believe the so-called ecumenical councils express the true faith. But they are not alone in that expression, of course. There is no book or set of councils or mere human being (singular or collective) who can articulate the fullness of Truth. Truth is a Person, Jesus Christ. The Church is His body and receives life and illumination from Him.

You really want to find the Truth? Leave the Internet and the endless arguments and go to church and find out for yourself.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
NightOwl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



« Reply #32 on: September 04, 2013, 09:03:19 PM »

Regnare- Fr. Tom does address that later in the same podcast, so I recommend you listen to the whole thing or read the rest of the transcript. Here is part of it:

Quote
So there are no new doctrines. There are new doxologies. There are new teachings in the sense of formulations. There are new definitions. There are new hymns. There are icons that are new. But the faith is the same. And that would be the teaching of the Orthodox Christian church. And we believe that is ancient Christianity.
Ancient Christianity held very strongly to two things, it seems, very, very clearly. Number one is that it is all given in Jesus and there is nothing beyond it. The second thing would be that the Holy Spirit is given to the Christians to explain it, to defend it, to unfold it, to bring it to remembrance, to adorn it, to beautify it, and that the Holy Spirit continues to live among us. Not making new doctrines, but making new defenses, new witnesses, new embellishments, new adornments, new definitions, new formulations. And we believe that will go on until the end of the world.
Now how do you know which ones are of the Spirit and which are not? Our answer would be, those that have been universally received by the Orthodox churches as demonstrated in their liturgical prayer and their sacramental life, those are the ones that are dependable, and anything that is contrary to that is not true. It is in error. Perhaps it is a misunderstanding. But then that would have to be straightened out. But if it would be substantially different, then we would claim it is not the faith.
But the faith is given. There is one faith, one hope, one baptism, one Lord, one God and Father of us all. There is one church. There is one truth. And that is there from the beginning. But the teaching about it, the defense of it, the explanation, the testimony, the witnessing, the praying, the doxologizing, the hymning, in a sense, you might even dare to say that the expressions of that are virtually infinite, because as we move through history, and as new people come and as new questions arise, those explications and formulations and defenses will continue. But the truth is one and the same.

In addition, at the risk of sounding like an ecumenist, I would say that there is a large degree of truth in the RCC and OOC. Kallistos Ware, another leading Orthodox theologian in the West, wrote that God's grace radiates outwards from the Church, so that other denominations/faiths are certainly not without divine truth, incomplete or erring though they may be. Therefore perhaps reckless and wholesale condemnation of "heretical" believers is best avoided.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 09:28:34 PM by NightOwl » Logged
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #33 on: September 04, 2013, 09:34:11 PM »

@Regnare

Quote
I still don't think it's correct to say apostolic succession is broken.

It is since you do not have a valid Pope since the western schism.

Quote
So Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are on the same level, then. They both have severe logical flaws, so I might as well be in one as the other.

Not really since we Orthodoxs are not in contradiction, but Vatican I is in contradiction with those facts.

Quote
Several of them explicitly deny that it is possible for the bishop of Rome to promote heresy, and the rest imply it. I would certainly agree that not every exercise of papal authority falls under that, like the papal reservation of the authority to appoint bishops, but it certainly includes infallibility.

I do not agree, and oecumenical councils neither.

Quote
In what way were any of them not in communion with Rome?

There was a schism in Antioch, Rome chose to commune with the wrong bishop. Wich could be called a partial communion, but wich is not possible in the Vatican I paradigm.

Quote
The point of the Catholic dogma on councils is not that the pope needs to call them (after all, he certainly didn't call Nicea)

So a Council made of bishops not in communion with Rome can be oecumenical? Weird since Vatican I says:

"Wherefore we teach and declare that,
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff

St Meletius didnt seem to have known any of this.

Quote
It is required that he clearly be speaking to all and in his capacity as head of the church, and the fact that it was a private letter, as well as the uncertain tone of his whole letter to Sergius, indicates that he is not speaking as Pontifex Maximus, simply as a theologian.

Not very important since all your concepts of ex cathedra etc were not known at that time and you cant give us a list of ex cathedra statements. There are even debates about Vatican II documents, John Paul II statements etc.

Quote
Interestingly, I was referring to a non-Catholic historian, Philip Schaff, in countering your argument (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/4_ch05.htm). Fr. Dvornik is not uncontested by Catholics either.

We can both agree that Schaff is outdated on this issue. As far as Dvornik is concerned, his arguments must be answered, and not with 19th century polemical litterature.

Quote
If what you say is true, then despite my best attempts I was still led into heresy. How do I know that I won't be led there again by choosing (say) the New Calendarist Orthodox over the Old, or the Eastern over the Oriental?

Well it is like choosing a wife, you can never be sure at 100%, but it is our Faith, from studies and prayers. Of course there is always a part of personnal opinion and judgment, but i'm confident in my choice(i'm a convert to Orthodoxy).  Wink

Add:

I want to show why i'm 100% confident that RC position is untenable:

Vatican I said:

That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.
This holy see has always maintained this,
the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and
the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it
.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff

But as posted earlier, Fathers of the 5th oecumenical council said:

"But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."

Either Vatican I is wrong, or the text of the 5th council is wrong, but they can not be both right. But, since Vatican I pretends to find its legitimacy partialy in this 5th Council, that means Vatican I is wrong. If Vatican I is wrong, then the RC can not be the true Church.

Now you only have to look for the OO, EO(not new vs old calendar since the Serb Church is old calendar, Romanian Church is new and both are in communion).
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 09:50:54 PM by Napoletani » Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #34 on: September 04, 2013, 10:26:05 PM »

A Council is not a conclave, Bishops are not cardinals. If this council, per Vatican I lacked authority to dismiss John XXIII, he lacked it to elect Martin V, and Apostolic Succession was ended here.
I still don't think it's correct to say apostolic succession is broken. The pope is already a bishop when he's elected. He still has apostolic succession regardless. I recognise your point about the Western Schism, though, and if I ever work out an answer to it I'll let you know.
Quote
There is no absolute answers, but if this is a problem for Orthodoxy, then it is the same for you to know wich Pope is the true one, and since Popes contradicted each other on the 8th oecumenical council, you have the same issue in RC.
So Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are on the same level, then. They both have severe logical flaws, so I might as well be in one as the other.
No, the one appeals and depends on logic, and fails; and the other transcends logic, and logic vindicates.
Quote
Papal authority does not equal Vatican I Papacy. Those links dont prove ultramontanism.
Several of them explicitly deny that it is possible for the bishop of Rome to promote heresy, and the rest imply it.
Hardly, even wretched out of context as they are.

Why don't you point out which one(s) you think "prove" it?  Then we can be spared a lot of sifting.

I would certainly agree that not every exercise of papal authority falls under that, like the papal reservation of the authority to appoint bishops, but it certainly includes infallibility.
Actually, your quotes make a better (but still failed) case for papal supremacy over bishops, than papal "infallibility."
Quote
Because the Oecumenical Council was not called by Rome, was runed by bishops not in communion with Rome and who died not in communion with Rome and because the Pope lacked any authority that Vatican I pretends he had.
In what way were any of them not in communion with Rome?
Old Rome would not accept communion with them, and St. Meletius archbishop of Antioch would not commune with Old Rome, although the other bishops of the East were in communion with him at Constantinople.
The point of the Catholic dogma on councils is not that the pope needs to call them (after all, he certainly didn't call Nicea)
He didn't-but Pastor Aeternus, VI and VII claim otherwise.

but that he needs to approve them, which he did, as we count it ecumenical.
The Fifth and Sixth Councils were Ecumenical before Old Rome's approval/acceptance.
Quote
Not only, the Council, confirmed by Rome, said he taugh Heresy. Don Chapman admited it and he is one of your greatest apologists
Good point; I was wrong. Regardless, private writings are not infallible, nor are the broader letters known as encyclicals. It is required that he clearly be speaking to all and in his capacity as head of the church, and the fact that it was a private letter, as well as the uncertain tone of his whole letter to Sergius, indicates that he is not speaking as Pontifex Maximus, simply as a theologian.
Abp. Hefele found differently-until his supreme pontiff Pius forced him to find otherwise.
Quote
Not true and Father Dvornik, Catholic scholar proved it in his book the Photian Schism wich can be read online for free:

http://books.google.fr/books?id=X_A8AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+Photian+Schism&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=ssAnUv7XCofL0AWFr4FI&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20Photian%20Schism&f=false
Interestingly, I was referring to a non-Catholic historian, Philip Schaff, in countering your argument (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/4_ch05.htm).

something in particular we should look at?

Protestants are the other side of the Vatican's coin.

Fr. Dvornik is not uncontested by Catholics either.
And?

To elaborate on the 2nd point of your 1st post...

A popular Orthodox theologian in America, Fr. Thomas Hopko, covered this question in one of his podcasts. Basically, his conclusion was that a council is accepted by the whole Church when it is integrated into the liturgical life of the Church. The liturgical life of every Orthodox church directly reflects the decisions and dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils.

I liked Fr. Tom's explanation myself Tongue. Here is the podcast for those interested:

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/doctrinal_development
Thank you very much for that, NightOwl. It's the best explanation of that idea I've heard yet. But as I said, everyone's definition of "the Church" is dependent upon those with whom they are in communion.

Yeah. And?

There are numerous doctrines which all the people who recognise each other as Roman Catholic, and who say that they are in continuity with the Bible, with the Prophets, with the Apostles, with the earliest Christianity, with the Holy Scriptures, have incorporated into the liturgy which you would consider heretical. Though I'm no expert, I would wager similar things have occurred in the non-Chalcedonian churches.
Actually, no.  The non-Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians had the same Divine Liturgies in Alexandria and Antioch (and, as long as they lasted, in Constantinople and Jerusalem) for almost a thousand years after Chalcedon.

I've encountered several arguments here which have indeed shaken my faith in the papacy, but I still struggle (as you may have noticed  Smiley ) with an understanding of doctrine which seems so circular. If what you say is true, then despite my best attempts I was still led into heresy. How do I know that I won't be led there again by choosing (say) the New Calendarist Orthodox over the Old, or the Eastern over the Oriental?
All good choices.
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
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 325



« Reply #35 on: September 04, 2013, 11:03:06 PM »

Thanks for the discussion, everybody. I've seen enough good arguments that I can't argue any further on my own, and though I don't necessarily concede, it's clear I need to do some more work. I think that, having obtained answers (or a lack thereof) to the questions this argument has raised, I'll stick to Shanghaiski's advice:
Leave the Internet and the endless arguments and go to church and find out for yourself.
though I think I'm going to stick around here anyway.

I will, however, answer ialmisry by choosing the quotes from that article which I think best indicate the Catholic conception of the papacy:
Quote
Irenaeus:
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Cyprian of Carthage: "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting ... You wrote ... that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church" (ibid., 55[52]:1).

Jerome: "I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).

Council of Ephesus: "Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members, by our holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle. And since now [we], after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, [have] arrived, we ask that you order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

Peter Chrysologus: "We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).
Logged

"I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary for your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your holy mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity." --Venerable St. Isaac of Nineveh
NightOwl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



« Reply #36 on: September 04, 2013, 11:07:27 PM »

Best of luck. Personally I've found this forum and others like it to be very helpful, so I hope you do stick around. Just try to avoid getting caught up too much in polemics. Smiley
Logged
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,756



« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2013, 12:11:44 AM »

Ecumenical councils, as opposed to local synods, are first declared ecumenical at the time. Then they are entered into imperial law. Beyond the empire, like in Britain or Persia, the local bishops met, sometimes well after the fact, and confirmed or rejected the council.

Where did you get this idea? Smiley

Is history such a novelty?

St. Constantine says, "I'm doing something new. I'm holding an ecumenical council."

Bishop asks, "What's that?"

St. Constantine replies, "Well, it's this really big council that involves bishops from all over the world, not just from a local church and makes decisions governing the whole Church."

Bishop: "Oh. We've never had one of those before. How will we know it's really ecumenical?"

St. Constantine: "Because I'm making it a matter of law."

Bishop: "Wow. That is new."

St. Constantine: "Yeah. And I'm going to personally pay for bishops from all over the world to come to it."


 I think your right

ecumenical councils seems to have in reality only been ecumenical if the emperor made it law, although there were ecumenical councils made into law by emperorrs before but they were later denouced by later ecumenical councils by being robber synods

perhaps this is why there have been no actual ecumenical councils since the fall of the roman empire, no one dared give themselves the pride to do so until recent ecumenical patriarchs of constantinople and their interpretation of having such huge authority, why not make up an authority to call ecumenical councils? after all, its in my title!

« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 12:26:39 AM by Gunnarr » Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,756



« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2013, 12:19:01 AM »

First, as I said above, an ecumenical council is a matter of imperial law
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's.

The imperial law only recognized an Ecumenical Council. It did not make it so.  Ephesus II and the Iconclast headless council were all imperial law, but they were never ecumenical.


I have a question, to be a devils advocate (and since from the devil, obviously flawed ;p )

Would the first ecumenical council have happened if the emperor did not call them to come together for the council, if he did not propose a council?

Would the bishops have all gotten together in unison, paying their own transportation?

Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,756



« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2013, 12:23:59 AM »


How is apostolic succession broken? The pope was chosen by conclave. That's how he's always chosen.

I dont think this is true, there used to be no such thing as cardinals. In fact, popes used to also have as his elector the citizens of Rome and some of her nobility, but this was discontinued after a certain "antipope" who was elected without being properly ordained in the correct order (despite other bishops condemning him for it being ordained the same way), you know, like being ordained a monk one day, a sub deacon the next, a deacon the next, and a priest the next, and finally a bishop

but that pope did not do the sub deacon or something ordination

i cant remember his name, but it was before 1000 AD
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2013, 05:13:12 AM »

@Regnare

Quote
I still don't think it's correct to say apostolic succession is broken.

It is since you do not have a valid Pope since the western schism.

What?  Cheesy This is a bunch of nonsense LOL the line of roman popes was legitimate case closed as I showed in a previous thread here on OC.net
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #41 on: September 05, 2013, 07:44:24 AM »

The emperor should convoke the Council. All bishops should be invited. The Imperial Sacra should be read at the beginning. The decisions should become Imperial legislation. The teachings should be Orthodox, accepted by future generations and accepted by future (ecumenical) councils.

That's the way it went in the Church before the Great Schism.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 07:47:20 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,095


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #42 on: September 05, 2013, 08:02:09 AM »

The emperor should convoke the Council. All bishops should be invited. The Imperial Sacra should be read at the beginning. The decisions should become Imperial legislation. The teachings should be Orthodox, accepted by future generations and accepted by future (ecumenical) councils.

That's the way it went in the Church before the Great Schism.

Not sure if serious...  Undecided
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #43 on: September 05, 2013, 09:04:13 AM »

@Regnare

Quote
I still don't think it's correct to say apostolic succession is broken.

It is since you do not have a valid Pope since the western schism.

What?  Cheesy This is a bunch of nonsense LOL the line of roman popes was legitimate case closed as I showed in a previous thread here on OC.net

Really? Post your demonstration here please. We'll see  Smiley
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #44 on: September 05, 2013, 09:14:00 AM »

@Regnare

Quote
I still don't think it's correct to say apostolic succession is broken.

It is since you do not have a valid Pope since the western schism.

What?  Cheesy This is a bunch of nonsense LOL the line of roman popes was legitimate case closed as I showed in a previous thread here on OC.net
No, you asserted because your case depends on it, although that does not make it so.  Your "Roman Popes"-as I've showed in previous thread here on OC.net-recognized the Pisan popes, listing them in the PA (as official a list as the Vatican will issue). Roman Pope Alexander VI took the number in recognition of Pisan Alexander V.  Roman Pope John XXIII (the one who closed Vatican I and convened Vatican II) took the number to disavow Pisan Pope John XXIII-although the Roman's authority depends on the council of Constance that the Pisan convened.
Your Roman popes closed your case against you.
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
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #45 on: September 05, 2013, 09:35:42 AM »

Thanks for the discussion, everybody. I've seen enough good arguments that I can't argue any further on my own, and though I don't necessarily concede, it's clear I need to do some more work. I think that, having obtained answers (or a lack thereof) to the questions this argument has raised, I'll stick to Shanghaiski's advice:
Leave the Internet and the endless arguments and go to church and find out for yourself.
though I think I'm going to stick around here anyway.

I will, however, answer ialmisry by choosing the quotes from that article which I think best indicate the Catholic conception of the papacy:
Quote
Irenaeus:
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Cyprian of Carthage: "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting ... You wrote ... that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church" (ibid., 55[52]:1).

Jerome: "I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).

Council of Ephesus: "Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members, by our holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle. And since now [we], after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, [have] arrived, we ask that you order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

Peter Chrysologus: "We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

Those quotes have been dealt with on the forum, you can check in the section. But maybe ialmisry will answer again on those.

But for St Cyrpian, he considers himself to be the chair of Peter, not only Rome, and his dispute with St Stephen puts this quote in context, just like what St Firmilian said at the same time wth approval of st Cyrpian;

"But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles...

 And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make; breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles...

17. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches...

But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity....

But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans' custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth;...

Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all"
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050674.htm

So that sets up the context, just like the fact that St Ireneus rebuked St Victor along with all the Church sets up the context for his quote.


Now for St Jerome, i'll repost again because it is funny:

Jerome: "I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria"

Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails

This is silly, because the issue in view here is the so called "meletian schism", but, St Meletius was OUT of the Damasus ark of Noah since he was not in communion with him, he presided over the Second Oecumenical Council and YET, he is a SAINT, and he was right. Wich proves the falseness of St Jerome's quote, and how wrong he was.  And wich shows why quotes battles are wrong and can be seen differently when we know history behind it.

And St Meletius was right, Sts Damasus and Jerome were wrong, and St Meletius didnt perish even so he didnt care about the ark of noah of Damasus and Jerome.

For the council of Ephesus is far from ultramontanism, it does not talk about infaillability or universal and direct jurisdiction. I dont see the point of posting it, since it only shows a primacy. And if you think that to consider the Bishop of Rome the head implies the vativan I Papacy, the 5th Council proves the opposite:

Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): "But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."


Quote
Peter Chrysologus: "We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).
[/quote]

Oecumenical Councils did what Peter Chrysologus says we can not do, he then was wrong, case closed.
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #46 on: September 05, 2013, 09:39:01 AM »

@Regnare

Quote
I still don't think it's correct to say apostolic succession is broken.

It is since you do not have a valid Pope since the western schism.

What?  Cheesy This is a bunch of nonsense LOL the line of roman popes was legitimate case closed as I showed in a previous thread here on OC.net
No, you asserted because your case depends on it, although that does not make it so.  Your "Roman Popes"-as I've showed in previous thread here on OC.net-recognized the Pisan popes, listing them in the PA (as official a list as the Vatican will issue). Roman Pope Alexander VI took the number in recognition of Pisan Alexander V.  Roman Pope John XXIII (the one who closed Vatican I and convened Vatican II) took the number to disavow Pisan Pope John XXIII-although the Roman's authority depends on the council of Constance that the Pisan convened.
Your Roman popes closed your case against you.

If i remember we had a whole OC post about this issue, we had no reply in the end...
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #47 on: September 05, 2013, 10:02:31 AM »

@Regnare

Quote
I still don't think it's correct to say apostolic succession is broken.

It is since you do not have a valid Pope since the western schism.

What?  Cheesy This is a bunch of nonsense LOL the line of roman popes was legitimate case closed as I showed in a previous thread here on OC.net

Really? Post your demonstration here please. We'll see  Smiley


Its a bit long but this practically sums up everything

Quote
It seems certain that the cardinals then took every means to obviate all possible doubts. On the evening of the same day thirteen of them proceeded to a new election, and again chose the Archbishop of Bari with the formally expressed intention of selecting a legitimate pope. During the following days all the members of the Sacred College offered their respectful homage to the new pope, who had taken the name of Urban VI, and asked of him countless favours. They then enthroned him, first at the Vatican Palace, and later at St. John Lateran; finally on 18 April they solemnly crowned him at St. Peter's. the very next day the Sacred College gave official notification of Urban's accession to the six French cardinals in Avignon; the latter recognized and congratulated the choice of their colleagues. The Roman cardinals then wrote to the head of the empire and the other Catholic sovereigns. Cardinal Robert of Geneva, the future Clement VII of Avignon, wrote in the same strain to his relative the King of France and to the Count of Flanders. Pedro de Luna of Aragon, the future Benedict XIII, likewise wrote to several bishops of Spain.

far, therefore, there was not a single objection to or dissatisfaction with the selection of Bartolommeo Prignano, not a protest, no hesitation, and no fear manifested for the future

Unfortunately Pope Urban did not realize the hopes to which his election had given rise. He showed himself whimsical, haughty, suspicious, and sometimes choleric in his relations with the cardinals who had elected him. Too obvious roughness and blameable extravagances seemed to show that his unexpected election had altered his character. St. Catherine of Siena, with supernatural courage, did not hesitate to make him some very well-founded remarks in this respect, nor did she hesitate when there was question of blaming the cardinals in their revolt against the pope whom they had previously elected. Some historians state that Urban openly attacked the failings, real or supposed, of members of the Sacred College, and that he energetically refused to restore the pontifical see to Avignon. Hence, they add, the growing opposition. However that may be, none of these unpleasant dissensions which arose subsequently to the election could logically weaken the validity of the choice made on 8 April. The cardinals elected Prignano, not because they were swayed by fear, though naturally they were somewhat fearful of the mischances that might grow out of delay. Urban was pope before his errors; he was still pope after his errors. The passions of King Henry IV or the vices of Louis XV did not prevent these monarchs from being and remaining true descendants of St. Louis and lawful kings of France. Unhappily such was not, in 1378, the reasoning of the Roman cardinals. dissatisfaction continued to increase. Under pretext of escaping the unhealthy heat of Rome, they withdrew in May to Anagni, and in July to Fondi, under the protection of Queen Joanna of Naples and two hundred Gascon lances of Bernardon de la Salle. They then began a silent campaign against their choice of April, and prepared men's minds for the news of a second election. On 20 September thirteen members of the Sacred College precipitated matters by going into conclave at Fondi and choosing as pope Robert of Geneva, who took the name of Clement VII. Some months later the new pontiff, driven from the Kingdom of Naples, took up his residence at Avignon; the schism was complete

So here we see a group of cardinals dissatisfied with the way Pope Urban , the legitimate pontiff, conducts himself and so decide to choose another pope. Clearly this second pope is illegitimate and any arguments for him are out of pure ignorance or hatred for the legitimacy of the papacy, period.

we continue :

Quote
Unfortunately the rival popes launched excommunication against each other; they created numerous cardinals to make up for the defections and sent them throughout Christendom to defend their cause, spread their influence, and win adherents. While these grave and burning discussions were being spread abroad, Boniface IX had succeeded Urban VI at Rome and Benedict XIII had been elected pope at the death of Clement of Avignon...

definite result. The evil continued without remedy or truce. The King of France and his uncles began to weary of supporting such a pope as Benedict, who acted only according to his humour and who caused the failure of every plan for union. Moreover, his exactions and the fiscal severity of his agents weighed heavily on the bishops, abbots, and lesser clergy of France. Charles VI released his people from obedience to Benedict (1398), and forbade his subjects, under severe penalties, to submit to this pope. Every bull or letter of the pope was to be sent to the king; no account was to be taken of privileges granted by the pope; in future every dispensation was to be asked of the ordinaries.

This therefore was a schism within a schism, a law of separation. The Chancellor of France, who was already viceroy during the illness of Charles VI, thereby became even vice-pope. Not without the connivance of the public power, Geoffrey Boucicaut, brother of the illustrious marshal, laid siege to Avignon, and a more or less strict blockade deprived the pontiff of all communication with those who remained faithful to him. When restored to liberty in 1403 Benedict had not become more conciliating, less obstinate or stubborn. Another private synod, which assembled in Paris in 1406, met with only partial success. Innocent VII had already succeeded Boniface of Rome, and, after a reign of two years, was replaced by Gregory XII. The latter, although of temperate character, seems not to have realized the hopes which Christendom, immeasurably wearied of these endless divisions, had placed in him. council which assembled at Pisa added a third claimant to the papal throne instead of two (1409). After many conferences, projects, discussions (oftentimes violent), interventions of the civil powers, catastrophes of all kinds, the Council of Constance (1414) deposed the suspicious John XXIII, received the abdication of the gentle and timid Gregory XII, and finally dismissed the obstinate Benedict XIII. On 11 November, 1417, the assembly elected Odo Colonna, who took the name of Martin V. Thus ended the great schism of the West

Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas. It suffices to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the faculty of Lille: "If after the election of a pope and before his death or resignation a new election takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostolic Succession. This was seen at the beginning of what is called, somewhat incorrectly, the Great Schism of the West, which was only an apparent schism from a theological standpoint. If two elections take place simultaneously or nearly so, one according to laws previously passed and the other contrary to them, the apostolicity belongs to the pope legally chosen and not to the other, and though there be doubts, discussions, and cruel divisions on this point, as at the time of the so-called Western Schism, it is no less true, no less real that the apostolicity exists objectively in the true pope.

To contemporaries this problem was, as has been sufficiently shown, almost insoluble. Are our lights fuller and more brilliant than theirs? After six centuries we are able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially, and apparently the time is at hand for the formation of a decision, if not definitive, at least better informed and more just. In our opinion the question made rapid strides towards the end of the nineteenth century. Cardinal Hergenröther, Bliemetzrieder, Hefele, Hinschius, Kraus, Brück, Funk, and the learned Pastor in Germany, Marion, Chenon, de Beaucourt, and Denifle in France, Kirsch in Switzerland, Palma, long after Rinaldi, in Italy, Albers in Holland (to mention only the most competent or illustrious) have openly declared in favour of the popes of Rome. Noel Valois, who assumes authority on the question, at first considered the rival popes as doubtful, and believed "that the solution of this great problem was beyond the judgment of history" (I,8). Six years later he concluded his authoritative study and reviewed the facts related in his four large volumes. The following is his last conclusion, much more explicit and decided than his earlier judgment: "A tradition has been established in favour of the popes of Rome which historical investigation tends to confirm". not this book itself (IV, 503), though the author hesitates to decide, bring to the support of the Roman thesis new arguments, which in the opinion of some critics are quite convincing? final and quite recent argument comes from Rome. In 1904 the "Gerarchia Cattolica", basing its arguments on the date of the Liber Pontificalis, compiled a new and corrected list of sovereign pontiffs. Ten names have disappeared from this list of legitimate popes, neither the popes of Avignon nor those of Pisa being ranked in the true lineage of St. Peter. If this deliberate omission is not proof positive, it is at least a very strong presumption in favour of the legitimacy of the Roman popes Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII. Moreover, the names of the popes of Avignon, Clement VII and Benedict XIII, were again taken by later popes (in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) who were legitimate http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm

The matter is settled and succession is maintained in the line of Roman pipes from whom Urban VI, who was legitimately elected, to Pope Francis today.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 10:08:29 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #48 on: September 05, 2013, 10:06:07 AM »

@Regnare

Quote
I still don't think it's correct to say apostolic succession is broken.

It is since you do not have a valid Pope since the western schism.

What?  Cheesy This is a bunch of nonsense LOL the line of roman popes was legitimate case closed as I showed in a previous thread here on OC.net

Really? Post your demonstration here please. We'll see  Smiley


Its a bit long but this practically sums up everything

Quote
It seems certain that the cardinals then took every means to obviate all possible doubts. On the evening of the same day thirteen of them proceeded to a new election, and again chose the Archbishop of Bari with the formally expressed intention of selecting a legitimate pope. During the following days all the members of the Sacred College offered their respectful homage to the new pope, who had taken the name of Urban VI, and asked of him countless favours. They then enthroned him, first at the Vatican Palace, and later at St. John Lateran; finally on 18 April they solemnly crowned him at St. Peter's. the very next day the Sacred College gave official notification of Urban's accession to the six French cardinals in Avignon; the latter recognized and congratulated the choice of their colleagues. The Roman cardinals then wrote to the head of the empire and the other Catholic sovereigns. Cardinal Robert of Geneva, the future Clement VII of Avignon, wrote in the same strain to his relative the King of France and to the Count of Flanders. Pedro de Luna of Aragon, the future Benedict XIII, likewise wrote to several bishops of Spain.

far, therefore, there was not a single objection to or dissatisfaction with the selection of Bartolommeo Prignano, not a protest, no hesitation, and no fear manifested for the future

Unfortunately Pope Urban did not realize the hopes to which his election had given rise. He showed himself whimsical, haughty, suspicious, and sometimes choleric in his relations with the cardinals who had elected him. Too obvious roughness and blameable extravagances seemed to show that his unexpected election had altered his character. St. Catherine of Siena, with supernatural courage, did not hesitate to make him some very well-founded remarks in this respect, nor did she hesitate when there was question of blaming the cardinals in their revolt against the pope whom they had previously elected. Some historians state that Urban openly attacked the failings, real or supposed, of members of the Sacred College, and that he energetically refused to restore the pontifical see to Avignon. Hence, they add, the growing opposition. However that may be, none of these unpleasant dissensions which arose subsequently to the election could logically weaken the validity of the choice made on 8 April. The cardinals elected Prignano, not because they were swayed by fear, though naturally they were somewhat fearful of the mischances that might grow out of delay. Urban was pope before his errors; he was still pope after his errors. The passions of King Henry IV or the vices of Louis XV did not prevent these monarchs from being and remaining true descendants of St. Louis and lawful kings of France. Unhappily such was not, in 1378, the reasoning of the Roman cardinals. dissatisfaction continued to increase. Under pretext of escaping the unhealthy heat of Rome, they withdrew in May to Anagni, and in July to Fondi, under the protection of Queen Joanna of Naples and two hundred Gascon lances of Bernardon de la Salle. They then began a silent campaign against their choice of April, and prepared men's minds for the news of a second election. On 20 September thirteen members of the Sacred College precipitated matters by going into conclave at Fondi and choosing as pope Robert of Geneva, who took the name of Clement VII. Some months later the new pontiff, driven from the Kingdom of Naples, took up his residence at Avignon; the schism was complete

So here we see a group of cardinals dissatisfied with the way Pope Urban , the legitimate pontiff, conducts himself and so decide to choose another pope. Clearly this second pope is illegitimate and any arguments for him are put of pure ignorance or hatred for the legitimacy of the papacy, period.

we continue :

Quote
Unfortunately the rival popes launched excommunication against each other; they created numerous cardinals to make up for the defections and sent them throughout Christendom to defend their cause, spread their influence, and win adherents. While these grave and burning discussions were being spread abroad, Boniface IX had succeeded Urban VI at Rome and Benedict XIII had been elected pope at the death of Clement of Avignon...

definite result. The evil continued without remedy or truce. The King of France and his uncles began to weary of supporting such a pope as Benedict, who acted only according to his humour and who caused the failure of every plan for union. Moreover, his exactions and the fiscal severity of his agents weighed heavily on the bishops, abbots, and lesser clergy of France. Charles VI released his people from obedience to Benedict (1398), and forbade his subjects, under severe penalties, to submit to this pope. Every bull or letter of the pope was to be sent to the king; no account was to be taken of privileges granted by the pope; in future every dispensation was to be asked of the ordinaries.

This therefore was a schism within a schism, a law of separation. The Chancellor of France, who was already viceroy during the illness of Charles VI, thereby became even vice-pope. Not without the connivance of the public power, Geoffrey Boucicaut, brother of the illustrious marshal, laid siege to Avignon, and a more or less strict blockade deprived the pontiff of all communication with those who remained faithful to him. When restored to liberty in 1403 Benedict had not become more conciliating, less obstinate or stubborn. Another private synod, which assembled in Paris in 1406, met with only partial success. Innocent VII had already succeeded Boniface of Rome, and, after a reign of two years, was replaced by Gregory XII. The latter, although of temperate character, seems not to have realized the hopes which Christendom, immeasurably wearied of these endless divisions, had placed in him. council which assembled at Pisa added a third claimant to the papal throne instead of two (1409). After many conferences, projects, discussions (oftentimes violent), interventions of the civil powers, catastrophes of all kinds, the Council of Constance (1414) deposed the suspicious John XXIII, received the abdication of the gentle and timid Gregory XII, and finally dismissed the obstinate Benedict XIII. On 11 November, 1417, the assembly elected Odo Colonna, who took the name of Martin V. Thus ended the great schism of the West

Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas. It suffices to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the faculty of Lille: "If after the election of a pope and before his death or resignation a new election takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostolic Succession. This was seen at the beginning of what is called, somewhat incorrectly, the Great Schism of the West, which was only an apparent schism from a theological standpoint. If two elections take place simultaneously or nearly so, one according to laws previously passed and the other contrary to them, the apostolicity belongs to the pope legally chosen and not to the other, and though there be doubts, discussions, and cruel divisions on this point, as at the time of the so-called Western Schism, it is no less true, no less real that the apostolicity exists objectively in the true pope.

To contemporaries this problem was, as has been sufficiently shown, almost insoluble. Are our lights fuller and more brilliant than theirs? After six centuries we are able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially, and apparently the time is at hand for the formation of a decision, if not definitive, at least better informed and more just. In our opinion the question made rapid strides towards the end of the nineteenth century. Cardinal Hergenröther, Bliemetzrieder, Hefele, Hinschius, Kraus, Brück, Funk, and the learned Pastor in Germany, Marion, Chenon, de Beaucourt, and Denifle in France, Kirsch in Switzerland, Palma, long after Rinaldi, in Italy, Albers in Holland (to mention only the most competent or illustrious) have openly declared in favour of the popes of Rome. Noel Valois, who assumes authority on the question, at first considered the rival popes as doubtful, and believed "that the solution of this great problem was beyond the judgment of history" (I,8). Six years later he concluded his authoritative study and reviewed the facts related in his four large volumes. The following is his last conclusion, much more explicit and decided than his earlier judgment: "A tradition has been established in favour of the popes of Rome which historical investigation tends to confirm". not this book itself (IV, 503), though the author hesitates to decide, bring to the support of the Roman thesis new arguments, which in the opinion of some critics are quite convincing? final and quite recent argument comes from Rome. In 1904 the "Gerarchia Cattolica", basing its arguments on the date of the Liber Pontificalis, compiled a new and corrected list of sovereign pontiffs. Ten names have disappeared from this list of legitimate popes, neither the popes of Avignon nor those of Pisa being ranked in the true lineage of St. Peter. If this deliberate omission is not proof positive, it is at least a very strong presumption in favour of the legitimacy of the Roman popes Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII. Moreover, the names of the popes of Avignon, Clement VII and Benedict XIII, were again taken by later popes (in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) who were legitimate

The matter is settled and succession is maintained in the line of Roman pipes from whom Urban VI, who was legitimately elected, to Pope Francis today.

And it does not work for several reasons:

The Council that elected Martin V was not called by the Pope and was invalid, without authority to depose or elect any pope.

The Council said:

"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"


So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.


This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
 John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council, Gregory XII voluntarily resigned. Then Martin V was elected pope on 11 November 1417 and he was regarded as the legitimate pontiff by the church as a whole.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

So we have a council called by Pope john XXIII, a council that recognised John XXIII as the true Pope, and this same council deposed the true Pope. Fair enough.

But Vatican I says:

"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that... nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon...they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
[/color]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%203.%20On%20the%20power%20and%20character%20of%20the%20primacy%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff

And:

Quote
Your "Roman Popes"-as I've showed in previous thread here on OC.net-recognized the Pisan popes, listing them in the PA (as official a list as the Vatican will issue). Roman Pope Alexander VI took the number in recognition of Pisan Alexander V. Roman Pope John XXIII (the one who closed Vatican I and convened Vatican II) took the number to disavow Pisan Pope John XXIII-although the Roman's authority depends on the council of Constance that the Pisan convened.
Your Roman popes closed your case against you.

Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #49 on: September 05, 2013, 10:14:47 AM »

@Regnare

Quote
I still don't think it's correct to say apostolic succession is broken.

It is since you do not have a valid Pope since the western schism.

What?  Cheesy This is a bunch of nonsense LOL the line of roman popes was legitimate case closed as I showed in a previous thread here on OC.net

Really? Post your demonstration here please. We'll see  Smiley


Its a bit long but this practically sums up everything

Quote
It seems certain that the cardinals then took every means to obviate all possible doubts. On the evening of the same day thirteen of them proceeded to a new election, and again chose the Archbishop of Bari with the formally expressed intention of selecting a legitimate pope. During the following days all the members of the Sacred College offered their respectful homage to the new pope, who had taken the name of Urban VI, and asked of him countless favours. They then enthroned him, first at the Vatican Palace, and later at St. John Lateran; finally on 18 April they solemnly crowned him at St. Peter's. the very next day the Sacred College gave official notification of Urban's accession to the six French cardinals in Avignon; the latter recognized and congratulated the choice of their colleagues. The Roman cardinals then wrote to the head of the empire and the other Catholic sovereigns. Cardinal Robert of Geneva, the future Clement VII of Avignon, wrote in the same strain to his relative the King of France and to the Count of Flanders. Pedro de Luna of Aragon, the future Benedict XIII, likewise wrote to several bishops of Spain.

far, therefore, there was not a single objection to or dissatisfaction with the selection of Bartolommeo Prignano, not a protest, no hesitation, and no fear manifested for the future

Unfortunately Pope Urban did not realize the hopes to which his election had given rise. He showed himself whimsical, haughty, suspicious, and sometimes choleric in his relations with the cardinals who had elected him. Too obvious roughness and blameable extravagances seemed to show that his unexpected election had altered his character. St. Catherine of Siena, with supernatural courage, did not hesitate to make him some very well-founded remarks in this respect, nor did she hesitate when there was question of blaming the cardinals in their revolt against the pope whom they had previously elected. Some historians state that Urban openly attacked the failings, real or supposed, of members of the Sacred College, and that he energetically refused to restore the pontifical see to Avignon. Hence, they add, the growing opposition. However that may be, none of these unpleasant dissensions which arose subsequently to the election could logically weaken the validity of the choice made on 8 April. The cardinals elected Prignano, not because they were swayed by fear, though naturally they were somewhat fearful of the mischances that might grow out of delay. Urban was pope before his errors; he was still pope after his errors. The passions of King Henry IV or the vices of Louis XV did not prevent these monarchs from being and remaining true descendants of St. Louis and lawful kings of France. Unhappily such was not, in 1378, the reasoning of the Roman cardinals. dissatisfaction continued to increase. Under pretext of escaping the unhealthy heat of Rome, they withdrew in May to Anagni, and in July to Fondi, under the protection of Queen Joanna of Naples and two hundred Gascon lances of Bernardon de la Salle. They then began a silent campaign against their choice of April, and prepared men's minds for the news of a second election. On 20 September thirteen members of the Sacred College precipitated matters by going into conclave at Fondi and choosing as pope Robert of Geneva, who took the name of Clement VII. Some months later the new pontiff, driven from the Kingdom of Naples, took up his residence at Avignon; the schism was complete

So here we see a group of cardinals dissatisfied with the way Pope Urban , the legitimate pontiff, conducts himself and so decide to choose another pope. Clearly this second pope is illegitimate and any arguments for him are put of pure ignorance or hatred for the legitimacy of the papacy, period.

we continue :

Quote
Unfortunately the rival popes launched excommunication against each other; they created numerous cardinals to make up for the defections and sent them throughout Christendom to defend their cause, spread their influence, and win adherents. While these grave and burning discussions were being spread abroad, Boniface IX had succeeded Urban VI at Rome and Benedict XIII had been elected pope at the death of Clement of Avignon...

definite result. The evil continued without remedy or truce. The King of France and his uncles began to weary of supporting such a pope as Benedict, who acted only according to his humour and who caused the failure of every plan for union. Moreover, his exactions and the fiscal severity of his agents weighed heavily on the bishops, abbots, and lesser clergy of France. Charles VI released his people from obedience to Benedict (1398), and forbade his subjects, under severe penalties, to submit to this pope. Every bull or letter of the pope was to be sent to the king; no account was to be taken of privileges granted by the pope; in future every dispensation was to be asked of the ordinaries.

This therefore was a schism within a schism, a law of separation. The Chancellor of France, who was already viceroy during the illness of Charles VI, thereby became even vice-pope. Not without the connivance of the public power, Geoffrey Boucicaut, brother of the illustrious marshal, laid siege to Avignon, and a more or less strict blockade deprived the pontiff of all communication with those who remained faithful to him. When restored to liberty in 1403 Benedict had not become more conciliating, less obstinate or stubborn. Another private synod, which assembled in Paris in 1406, met with only partial success. Innocent VII had already succeeded Boniface of Rome, and, after a reign of two years, was replaced by Gregory XII. The latter, although of temperate character, seems not to have realized the hopes which Christendom, immeasurably wearied of these endless divisions, had placed in him. council which assembled at Pisa added a third claimant to the papal throne instead of two (1409). After many conferences, projects, discussions (oftentimes violent), interventions of the civil powers, catastrophes of all kinds, the Council of Constance (1414) deposed the suspicious John XXIII, received the abdication of the gentle and timid Gregory XII, and finally dismissed the obstinate Benedict XIII. On 11 November, 1417, the assembly elected Odo Colonna, who took the name of Martin V. Thus ended the great schism of the West

Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas. It suffices to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the faculty of Lille: "If after the election of a pope and before his death or resignation a new election takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostolic Succession. This was seen at the beginning of what is called, somewhat incorrectly, the Great Schism of the West, which was only an apparent schism from a theological standpoint. If two elections take place simultaneously or nearly so, one according to laws previously passed and the other contrary to them, the apostolicity belongs to the pope legally chosen and not to the other, and though there be doubts, discussions, and cruel divisions on this point, as at the time of the so-called Western Schism, it is no less true, no less real that the apostolicity exists objectively in the true pope.

To contemporaries this problem was, as has been sufficiently shown, almost insoluble. Are our lights fuller and more brilliant than theirs? After six centuries we are able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially, and apparently the time is at hand for the formation of a decision, if not definitive, at least better informed and more just. In our opinion the question made rapid strides towards the end of the nineteenth century. Cardinal Hergenröther, Bliemetzrieder, Hefele, Hinschius, Kraus, Brück, Funk, and the learned Pastor in Germany, Marion, Chenon, de Beaucourt, and Denifle in France, Kirsch in Switzerland, Palma, long after Rinaldi, in Italy, Albers in Holland (to mention only the most competent or illustrious) have openly declared in favour of the popes of Rome. Noel Valois, who assumes authority on the question, at first considered the rival popes as doubtful, and believed "that the solution of this great problem was beyond the judgment of history" (I,8). Six years later he concluded his authoritative study and reviewed the facts related in his four large volumes. The following is his last conclusion, much more explicit and decided than his earlier judgment: "A tradition has been established in favour of the popes of Rome which historical investigation tends to confirm". not this book itself (IV, 503), though the author hesitates to decide, bring to the support of the Roman thesis new arguments, which in the opinion of some critics are quite convincing? final and quite recent argument comes from Rome. In 1904 the "Gerarchia Cattolica", basing its arguments on the date of the Liber Pontificalis, compiled a new and corrected list of sovereign pontiffs. Ten names have disappeared from this list of legitimate popes, neither the popes of Avignon nor those of Pisa being ranked in the true lineage of St. Peter. If this deliberate omission is not proof positive, it is at least a very strong presumption in favour of the legitimacy of the Roman popes Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII. Moreover, the names of the popes of Avignon, Clement VII and Benedict XIII, were again taken by later popes (in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) who were legitimate

The matter is settled and succession is maintained in the line of Roman pipes from whom Urban VI, who was legitimately elected, to Pope Francis today.

And it does not work for several reasons:

The Council that elected Martin V was not called by the Pope and was invalid, without authority to depose or elect any pope.

The Council said:

"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"


So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.


This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
 John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council, Gregory XII voluntarily resigned. Then Martin V was elected pope on 11 November 1417 and he was regarded as the legitimate pontiff by the church as a whole.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

So we have a council called by Pope john XXIII, a council that recognised John XXIII as the true Pope, and this same council deposed the true Pope. Fair enough.

But Vatican I says:

"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that... nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon...they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
[/color]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%203.%20On%20the%20power%20and%20character%20of%20the%20primacy%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff

And:

Quote
Your "Roman Popes"-as I've showed in previous thread here on OC.net-recognized the Pisan popes, listing them in the PA (as official a list as the Vatican will issue). Roman Pope Alexander VI took the number in recognition of Pisan Alexander V. Roman Pope John XXIII (the one who closed Vatican I and convened Vatican II) took the number to disavow Pisan Pope John XXIII-although the Roman's authority depends on the council of Constance that the Pisan convened.
Your Roman popes closed your case against you.



It wasn't called by the roman one but had his assent and such his authority for decision to fund one successor to end the schism. Hence he resigned as this is the ONLY way the schism would be ended and proof is that all sides accepted Martin as legitimate. Case closed.

So again what you said is total nonsense.

Now to deal with the listing of pisan popes. They aren't listed anymore. This is because of what I showed  before how the case for Rome is established. From the beginning its was either Rome or Avigon that's was issue at hand. Only one of these two was right. Clearly from the facts Rome was right and legitimate as anyone can see so Rome never stops being legitimate. All council of Constance did was choose a successor to the pope of Rome as this successor is legitimate. Logic follows.

The politics behind recognizing pisan pipes is simply that, politics of the time so as to keep unity. As soon as there was an established unity for a few centuries the matter was finally settled and Rome issued a corrected list of popes EXCLUDING the pisan popes.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 10:31:16 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #50 on: September 05, 2013, 10:21:08 AM »

Thanks for the discussion, everybody. I've seen enough good arguments that I can't argue any further on my own, and though I don't necessarily concede, it's clear I need to do some more work. I think that, having obtained answers (or a lack thereof) to the questions this argument has raised, I'll stick to Shanghaiski's advice:
Leave the Internet and the endless arguments and go to church and find out for yourself.
though I think I'm going to stick around here anyway.
all good decisions.

I'll deal with your quotes that are pressed into service by the Vatican to prop up Pastor Aeternus:
I will, however, answer ialmisry by choosing the quotes from that article which I think best indicate the Catholic conception of the papacy:
Quote
Irenaeus:
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
On the face of it, Pastor Aeternus has a problem with this quote, as St. Irenaeus-like all the Fathers-couples St. Paul with St. Peter.  Pastor Aeternus depends on St. Peter alone being involved with Old Rome's authority, as its Relatio makes clear:
Quote
The argument is to be set forth in the following thesis:  Christ the Lord granted to St. Peter the prerogative of infallibility in His Church at the same time as He granted him the primacy; this infallibility has passed on - indeed was meant to pass on - to all the successors of St. Peter and heirs of his primacy.  Thus, the first part of the thesis is:  Christ granted the prerogative of infallibility to St. Peter at the same time He gave him primacy in the universal Church.  The places in Sacred Scripture which demonstrate this thesis are very well-known and have been excellently explained by many of the reverend fathers.  Enough said on that point.  The second part of the thesis is:  this prerogative of infallibility has passed, together with the primacy, to the successors of St. Peter and heirs of his primacy.  Since many of the reverend fathers have had different opinions on this point, let me offer my opinion briefly.  The infallibility granted to St. Peter has passed to all the successors of Peter.  The reason for this is the following:  the prerogative of infallibility belonged ordinarily to Peter and was inseparably connected with his primacy; hence, it passed with the fullness, of his apostolic power into the Apostolic See, and to his successors in this See.  The same conclusion follows from the famous words of Christ.  For as the  words of Christ, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:16), are not bounded by time but will have authority until the end of the world, so the foundation of the Church on Peter and his successors ought always remain unshaken against the proud gates of those who belong to the nether world, that is against heresies and the builders of heresy, as St. Epiphianius says.
 
The case was different with the infallibility of the other Apostles; each of them individually was infallible:  but this infallibility was extraordinary, granted to them in an extraordinary mode and for an extraordinary purpose, as appears from the words of Christ when He took leave of them before ascending into heaven, saying: "You will receive the power of the Holy Spirit who will come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:Cool.  This promise of the coming Holy Spirit was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, and, clothed by the Holy Spirit as by power from on high, they began to bear witness to the word of life and to preach in the name of Jesus, "the Lord cooperating with them and confirming their preaching by the signs which accompanied them" (Mk. 16:20).

The office of the Apostles consisted in this: they would be the authentic ocular and auricular witnesses to the word of God, witnesses preordained by God and sent by Christ to all nations: and to this office, proper to the Apostles, there was added the corresponding gift of personal infallibility.  The bishops succeeded the Apostles not as succeeding to a universal apostolate but rather to an episcopate as rulers of individual churches.  And thus it happened that the prerogative of personal infallibility, joined in an extraordinary mode to the apostolate, would not pass on to the bishops.  The bishops by power of their office are guardians of the deposit which the Apostles - as witnesses preordained by God - committed to them.  It is as Paul says to Timothy:  "Hold to the form of sound teaching, which you heard from me in faith and in the love of Christ Jesus.  Through the Holy Spirit who dwells in you guard the worthy deposit" (2 Tm. 1:13-14).  This same thing is said to all the bishops.  In this duty of guarding, communicating and defending the deposit as a treasure of divine truth, the bishops also are helped by the Holy Spirit.  But this infallible aid of the Holy Spirit is not present in each of the bishops but rather in the bishops taken together and joined with [their] head, for it was said to all generally and not each individually: "Behold, I am with you all days until the end of time" (Mt. 28:20).
http://books.google.com/books?id=4ClPRR0HrHEC&pg=PA23&dq=%22The+case+was+different+with+the+infallibility+of+the+other+Apostles%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s4soUorTBsT8yAGw44G4AQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20case%20was%20different%20with%20the%20infallibility%20of%20the%20other%20Apostles%22&f=false
If Pastor Aeternus, as its Official Relatio explains, taught the Gospel Truth, St. Irenaeus would not have St. Peter share credit with St. Paul in founding and organizing the Church at Rome when speaking of the succession of bishops at "the greatest and most ancient church."  If St. Peter had an unlimited succession of infallibility, and St. Paul only a "personal" and limited one, of effect only with all others and with St. Peter's unlimited succession, the mention of St. Paul on a par with St. Peter in St. Irenaeus-and the Church and Fathers as a whole-would make no sense.

St. Irenaeus, however, does not agree with Pastor Aeternus or its official "Relation," as shown in the part write before the lifted quote in the "Catholic Answer" quote mine:
Quote
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
The Apostles passing on to the bishops, which the Relation of Pastor Aeternus denies, St. Irenaeus affirms.  And although he said it would be too tedious to list more than Rome (the reason why Rome is singled out), he goes on-write after CA's edited quote and St. Irenaeus account of the succession at Old Rome, to do just that:
Quote
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10 There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
Notice the plurality in "Churches."

Then there is the well known fact, recorded in the NT itself, that Rome was not "most ancient church known to all": all knew that SS. Peter and Paul had founded Antioch earlier, and that its archbishop succeeded to St. Peter there, a fact celebrated even in Old Rome with the feast of St. Peter at Antioch-now the feast of the Chair of St. Peter.  Hence, St. Irenaeus indicates he is hyperbolizing, which Pastor Aeternus takes as a scholastic definition.

St. Irenaeus also says in the quote " it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition." How does "the Faithful everywhere" maintain the Apostolic Tradition in one place?  "All roads lead to Rome," as I have explained previously:
St. Irenaeus, "if there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse to the Roman Church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches."

St. Irenaeus is talking about Rome acting as a prism, where all the rays from the other Churches coming there, are focused in the crucible of the capital, burning off the dross of the heresies which all collected there from the various corners of the empire.  Not that Rome is the sun which sheds its rays on the rest of us.
Was there a point in there?  Ah, yes, that St. Paul founded the Church at Rome.  And other points:
Rome, no.

Are we talking about the same Rome of which was said in the early second century?

Quote
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
yeah, that's the one.  Rome was the draw of all the Christians, Orthodox Catholic and heretic alike, so it was a crucible where all the gold ore from around the world in heated exchange with heretics from around the world confronted each other and burned off the dross of the later by drawing on the resources of the former.  It was not the sun dispensing its apostolic rays, it was a prism concentrating the lights from all over focusing there.  
I've always took the above quote as a directive to follow Rome because it was a rock of Orthodoxy, and was a shining light of correct dogma. Not because of an inherent supremacy.

PP
depending on it the translation it says that we should follow Rome because of its "superior origin" or because of "its preeminent authority".
in any case, no matter the translation, it puts Rome in the context of being founded by St. Peter AND St. Paul AND among Apostolic sees like Smyrna and Ephesus in Asia (all the more pertinent, as Asia was the one who took the lead in challenging the first beginnings of an idea of Roman supremacy).

Its "superior origin" and "preeminent authority" came from being the capital and all roads of the empire leading to it.  Hence the rays of Orthodoxy came to it from all corners and in the Roman crucible burned off the dross of heresy which collected there from all corners as well.  It was a prism where all the rays of from the four corners were focused, not a sun shedding its rays into all corners, "that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
Yes, St. Peter and St. Paul, which only strengthens the Papal claim to  primacy. Thank you for bringing that up. Are you sure you are not a Catholic Apologist pretending to be an Eastern Orthodox polemicist?
Orthodox polemics are only in the service of Catholic Apologist, as only the Church that confesses the Orthodox Faith is Catholic.  The Catholic Church speaks of primacy of the see of Rome among the Orthodox sees "which exist everywhere...inasmuch as the Tradition has been preserved continuously."  The Vatican talks about supremacy of its supreme pontiff over the bishops of your ecclesiastical community.

Your Vatican doesn't agree with your analysis, which is why they have tried to down play St. Paul.  Hence knocking him off of June 29, Holy Apostles, SS. Peter AND Paul, their common martyrdom, to June 30. It realizes that your supreme pontiff cannot have two founders, and has labeled a heresy the idea that St. Paul was a cofounder (I remember that from my days in Latin high school, looking at dogmatic compiliations).  Such is a much latter development of doctrine.  Of course, that could only happen after Rome started basing its claims to primacy solely on St. Peter, and the beginnings of that is not seen until Pope St. Stephen in the third century.  I wonder if Pope St. Victor, smarting from his rebuke, sowed any seeds of that.

Of course, Scripture attests to the founding of the see of Antioch, unlike Rome, by SS. Peter and Paul.  "The very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at [ANTIOCH] by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul," more ancient and universally known than Rome.  But even Antioch has to yield to the superior orgins of Jerusalem, Mother Church of the world.

Lord willing, I'll revisit the other quotes. Real life duties call.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 10:23:23 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #51 on: September 05, 2013, 10:28:50 AM »

The emperor should convoke the Council. All bishops should be invited. The Imperial Sacra should be read at the beginning. The decisions should become Imperial legislation. The teachings should be Orthodox, accepted by future generations and accepted by future (ecumenical) councils.

That's the way it went in the Church before the Great Schism.

Not sure if serious...  Undecided

That's how the Seven Councils became ecumenical.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #52 on: September 05, 2013, 10:30:07 AM »

@Regnare

Quote
I still don't think it's correct to say apostolic succession is broken.

It is since you do not have a valid Pope since the western schism.

What?  Cheesy This is a bunch of nonsense LOL the line of roman popes was legitimate case closed as I showed in a previous thread here on OC.net

Really? Post your demonstration here please. We'll see  Smiley


Its a bit long but this practically sums up everything

Quote
It seems certain that the cardinals then took every means to obviate all possible doubts. On the evening of the same day thirteen of them proceeded to a new election, and again chose the Archbishop of Bari with the formally expressed intention of selecting a legitimate pope. During the following days all the members of the Sacred College offered their respectful homage to the new pope, who had taken the name of Urban VI, and asked of him countless favours. They then enthroned him, first at the Vatican Palace, and later at St. John Lateran; finally on 18 April they solemnly crowned him at St. Peter's. the very next day the Sacred College gave official notification of Urban's accession to the six French cardinals in Avignon; the latter recognized and congratulated the choice of their colleagues. The Roman cardinals then wrote to the head of the empire and the other Catholic sovereigns. Cardinal Robert of Geneva, the future Clement VII of Avignon, wrote in the same strain to his relative the King of France and to the Count of Flanders. Pedro de Luna of Aragon, the future Benedict XIII, likewise wrote to several bishops of Spain.

far, therefore, there was not a single objection to or dissatisfaction with the selection of Bartolommeo Prignano, not a protest, no hesitation, and no fear manifested for the future

Unfortunately Pope Urban did not realize the hopes to which his election had given rise. He showed himself whimsical, haughty, suspicious, and sometimes choleric in his relations with the cardinals who had elected him. Too obvious roughness and blameable extravagances seemed to show that his unexpected election had altered his character. St. Catherine of Siena, with supernatural courage, did not hesitate to make him some very well-founded remarks in this respect, nor did she hesitate when there was question of blaming the cardinals in their revolt against the pope whom they had previously elected. Some historians state that Urban openly attacked the failings, real or supposed, of members of the Sacred College, and that he energetically refused to restore the pontifical see to Avignon. Hence, they add, the growing opposition. However that may be, none of these unpleasant dissensions which arose subsequently to the election could logically weaken the validity of the choice made on 8 April. The cardinals elected Prignano, not because they were swayed by fear, though naturally they were somewhat fearful of the mischances that might grow out of delay. Urban was pope before his errors; he was still pope after his errors. The passions of King Henry IV or the vices of Louis XV did not prevent these monarchs from being and remaining true descendants of St. Louis and lawful kings of France. Unhappily such was not, in 1378, the reasoning of the Roman cardinals. dissatisfaction continued to increase. Under pretext of escaping the unhealthy heat of Rome, they withdrew in May to Anagni, and in July to Fondi, under the protection of Queen Joanna of Naples and two hundred Gascon lances of Bernardon de la Salle. They then began a silent campaign against their choice of April, and prepared men's minds for the news of a second election. On 20 September thirteen members of the Sacred College precipitated matters by going into conclave at Fondi and choosing as pope Robert of Geneva, who took the name of Clement VII. Some months later the new pontiff, driven from the Kingdom of Naples, took up his residence at Avignon; the schism was complete

So here we see a group of cardinals dissatisfied with the way Pope Urban , the legitimate pontiff, conducts himself and so decide to choose another pope. Clearly this second pope is illegitimate and any arguments for him are put of pure ignorance or hatred for the legitimacy of the papacy, period.

we continue :

Quote
Unfortunately the rival popes launched excommunication against each other; they created numerous cardinals to make up for the defections and sent them throughout Christendom to defend their cause, spread their influence, and win adherents. While these grave and burning discussions were being spread abroad, Boniface IX had succeeded Urban VI at Rome and Benedict XIII had been elected pope at the death of Clement of Avignon...

definite result. The evil continued without remedy or truce. The King of France and his uncles began to weary of supporting such a pope as Benedict, who acted only according to his humour and who caused the failure of every plan for union. Moreover, his exactions and the fiscal severity of his agents weighed heavily on the bishops, abbots, and lesser clergy of France. Charles VI released his people from obedience to Benedict (1398), and forbade his subjects, under severe penalties, to submit to this pope. Every bull or letter of the pope was to be sent to the king; no account was to be taken of privileges granted by the pope; in future every dispensation was to be asked of the ordinaries.

This therefore was a schism within a schism, a law of separation. The Chancellor of France, who was already viceroy during the illness of Charles VI, thereby became even vice-pope. Not without the connivance of the public power, Geoffrey Boucicaut, brother of the illustrious marshal, laid siege to Avignon, and a more or less strict blockade deprived the pontiff of all communication with those who remained faithful to him. When restored to liberty in 1403 Benedict had not become more conciliating, less obstinate or stubborn. Another private synod, which assembled in Paris in 1406, met with only partial success. Innocent VII had already succeeded Boniface of Rome, and, after a reign of two years, was replaced by Gregory XII. The latter, although of temperate character, seems not to have realized the hopes which Christendom, immeasurably wearied of these endless divisions, had placed in him. council which assembled at Pisa added a third claimant to the papal throne instead of two (1409). After many conferences, projects, discussions (oftentimes violent), interventions of the civil powers, catastrophes of all kinds, the Council of Constance (1414) deposed the suspicious John XXIII, received the abdication of the gentle and timid Gregory XII, and finally dismissed the obstinate Benedict XIII. On 11 November, 1417, the assembly elected Odo Colonna, who took the name of Martin V. Thus ended the great schism of the West

Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas. It suffices to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the faculty of Lille: "If after the election of a pope and before his death or resignation a new election takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostolic Succession. This was seen at the beginning of what is called, somewhat incorrectly, the Great Schism of the West, which was only an apparent schism from a theological standpoint. If two elections take place simultaneously or nearly so, one according to laws previously passed and the other contrary to them, the apostolicity belongs to the pope legally chosen and not to the other, and though there be doubts, discussions, and cruel divisions on this point, as at the time of the so-called Western Schism, it is no less true, no less real that the apostolicity exists objectively in the true pope.

To contemporaries this problem was, as has been sufficiently shown, almost insoluble. Are our lights fuller and more brilliant than theirs? After six centuries we are able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially, and apparently the time is at hand for the formation of a decision, if not definitive, at least better informed and more just. In our opinion the question made rapid strides towards the end of the nineteenth century. Cardinal Hergenröther, Bliemetzrieder, Hefele, Hinschius, Kraus, Brück, Funk, and the learned Pastor in Germany, Marion, Chenon, de Beaucourt, and Denifle in France, Kirsch in Switzerland, Palma, long after Rinaldi, in Italy, Albers in Holland (to mention only the most competent or illustrious) have openly declared in favour of the popes of Rome. Noel Valois, who assumes authority on the question, at first considered the rival popes as doubtful, and believed "that the solution of this great problem was beyond the judgment of history" (I,8). Six years later he concluded his authoritative study and reviewed the facts related in his four large volumes. The following is his last conclusion, much more explicit and decided than his earlier judgment: "A tradition has been established in favour of the popes of Rome which historical investigation tends to confirm". not this book itself (IV, 503), though the author hesitates to decide, bring to the support of the Roman thesis new arguments, which in the opinion of some critics are quite convincing? final and quite recent argument comes from Rome. In 1904 the "Gerarchia Cattolica", basing its arguments on the date of the Liber Pontificalis, compiled a new and corrected list of sovereign pontiffs. Ten names have disappeared from this list of legitimate popes, neither the popes of Avignon nor those of Pisa being ranked in the true lineage of St. Peter. If this deliberate omission is not proof positive, it is at least a very strong presumption in favour of the legitimacy of the Roman popes Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII. Moreover, the names of the popes of Avignon, Clement VII and Benedict XIII, were again taken by later popes (in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) who were legitimate

The matter is settled and succession is maintained in the line of Roman pipes from whom Urban VI, who was legitimately elected, to Pope Francis today.

And it does not work for several reasons:

The Council that elected Martin V was not called by the Pope and was invalid, without authority to depose or elect any pope.

The Council said:

"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"


So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.


This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
 John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council, Gregory XII voluntarily resigned. Then Martin V was elected pope on 11 November 1417 and he was regarded as the legitimate pontiff by the church as a whole.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

So we have a council called by Pope john XXIII, a council that recognised John XXIII as the true Pope, and this same council deposed the true Pope. Fair enough.

But Vatican I says:

"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that... nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon...they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
[/color]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%203.%20On%20the%20power%20and%20character%20of%20the%20primacy%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff

And:

Quote
Your "Roman Popes"-as I've showed in previous thread here on OC.net-recognized the Pisan popes, listing them in the PA (as official a list as the Vatican will issue). Roman Pope Alexander VI took the number in recognition of Pisan Alexander V. Roman Pope John XXIII (the one who closed Vatican I and convened Vatican II) took the number to disavow Pisan Pope John XXIII-although the Roman's authority depends on the council of Constance that the Pisan convened.
Your Roman popes closed your case against you.



It wasn't called by the roman one but had his assent and such his authority for decision to fund one successor to end the schism. Hence he resigned as this is the ONLY way the schism would be ended and proof is that all sides accepted Martin as legitimate. Case closed.

So again what you said is total nonsense.

Now to deal with the listing of pisan popes. They aren't listed anymore. This is because of what I showed in before how the case for Rome is established.
*

You are still wrong:

Roman Pope Alexander VI took the number in recognition of Pisan Alexander V thus you can take them back from the list, Alexander VI is a proof that remains against your case.

Then, Council of Constance was composed of full heretics who contradicted Vatican I and deposed the one they considered the true Pope. On what makes a Council having authority:

Councils (or synods) are assemblies composed first and foremost of Bishops [an allusion to Councils in the past, in which Princes and Christian Sovereigns participated-Ed.]; these  assemblies  are  held to  discuss  the Church's affairs, to take decisions and promulgate decrees....An assembly of the representatives of the whole Church, convoked in a regular manner (convoked, directed and confirmed  by  the Pope), is called an Ecumenical Council. According to Catholic doctrine and Canon Law [1977 Code of Canon Law, can. 228] the Bishops who, assembled in an Ecumenical Council, deliberate and take decisions with the Pope and under his direction, exercise supreme power in the Church; further-more, when the Council adopts a solemn definition, they enjoy infallibility in a matter of Faith.

For an Ecumenical Council to exist, therefore, the conditions are as follows: it must be called by the Pope; its work must be directed by the Pope (in person or by persons delegated by him); and its acts must be confirmed by the Pope.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2002_May/Vatican_II_An_Untypical_Council.htm

Even your encyclopedia says:

The Council of Constance was held during the great Schism of the West, with the object of ending the divisions in the Church. It became legitimate only when Gregory XI had formally convoked it.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

But he didnt convoke it.

Case closed, you are speaking nonsense  Smiley
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« Reply #53 on: September 05, 2013, 10:32:47 AM »

Gotta have an emperor for one of those.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #54 on: September 05, 2013, 10:52:28 AM »

@Regnare

Quote
I still don't think it's correct to say apostolic succession is broken.

It is since you do not have a valid Pope since the western schism.

What?  Cheesy This is a bunch of nonsense LOL the line of roman popes was legitimate case closed as I showed in a previous thread here on OC.net

Really? Post your demonstration here please. We'll see  Smiley


Its a bit long but this practically sums up everything

Quote
It seems certain that the cardinals then took every means to obviate all possible doubts. On the evening of the same day thirteen of them proceeded to a new election, and again chose the Archbishop of Bari with the formally expressed intention of selecting a legitimate pope. During the following days all the members of the Sacred College offered their respectful homage to the new pope, who had taken the name of Urban VI, and asked of him countless favours. They then enthroned him, first at the Vatican Palace, and later at St. John Lateran; finally on 18 April they solemnly crowned him at St. Peter's. the very next day the Sacred College gave official notification of Urban's accession to the six French cardinals in Avignon; the latter recognized and congratulated the choice of their colleagues. The Roman cardinals then wrote to the head of the empire and the other Catholic sovereigns. Cardinal Robert of Geneva, the future Clement VII of Avignon, wrote in the same strain to his relative the King of France and to the Count of Flanders. Pedro de Luna of Aragon, the future Benedict XIII, likewise wrote to several bishops of Spain.

far, therefore, there was not a single objection to or dissatisfaction with the selection of Bartolommeo Prignano, not a protest, no hesitation, and no fear manifested for the future

Unfortunately Pope Urban did not realize the hopes to which his election had given rise. He showed himself whimsical, haughty, suspicious, and sometimes choleric in his relations with the cardinals who had elected him. Too obvious roughness and blameable extravagances seemed to show that his unexpected election had altered his character. St. Catherine of Siena, with supernatural courage, did not hesitate to make him some very well-founded remarks in this respect, nor did she hesitate when there was question of blaming the cardinals in their revolt against the pope whom they had previously elected. Some historians state that Urban openly attacked the failings, real or supposed, of members of the Sacred College, and that he energetically refused to restore the pontifical see to Avignon. Hence, they add, the growing opposition. However that may be, none of these unpleasant dissensions which arose subsequently to the election could logically weaken the validity of the choice made on 8 April. The cardinals elected Prignano, not because they were swayed by fear, though naturally they were somewhat fearful of the mischances that might grow out of delay. Urban was pope before his errors; he was still pope after his errors. The passions of King Henry IV or the vices of Louis XV did not prevent these monarchs from being and remaining true descendants of St. Louis and lawful kings of France. Unhappily such was not, in 1378, the reasoning of the Roman cardinals. dissatisfaction continued to increase. Under pretext of escaping the unhealthy heat of Rome, they withdrew in May to Anagni, and in July to Fondi, under the protection of Queen Joanna of Naples and two hundred Gascon lances of Bernardon de la Salle. They then began a silent campaign against their choice of April, and prepared men's minds for the news of a second election. On 20 September thirteen members of the Sacred College precipitated matters by going into conclave at Fondi and choosing as pope Robert of Geneva, who took the name of Clement VII. Some months later the new pontiff, driven from the Kingdom of Naples, took up his residence at Avignon; the schism was complete

So here we see a group of cardinals dissatisfied with the way Pope Urban , the legitimate pontiff, conducts himself and so decide to choose another pope. Clearly this second pope is illegitimate and any arguments for him are out of pure ignorance or hatred for the legitimacy of the papacy, period.
Then clearly Martin V is illegitimate and any arguments for him are out of pure ignorance or hatred for the legitimacy of the papacy, period.

we continue :
actually, your discontinuity is the issue.
Quote
Unfortunately the rival popes launched excommunication against each other; they created numerous cardinals to make up for the defections and sent them throughout Christendom to defend their cause, spread their influence, and win adherents. While these grave and burning discussions were being spread abroad, Boniface IX had succeeded Urban VI at Rome and Benedict XIII had been elected pope at the death of Clement of Avignon...

definite result. The evil continued without remedy or truce. The King of France and his uncles began to weary of supporting such a pope as Benedict, who acted only according to his humour and who caused the failure of every plan for union. Moreover, his exactions and the fiscal severity of his agents weighed heavily on the bishops, abbots, and lesser clergy of France. Charles VI released his people from obedience to Benedict (1398), and forbade his subjects, under severe penalties, to submit to this pope. Every bull or letter of the pope was to be sent to the king; no account was to be taken of privileges granted by the pope; in future every dispensation was to be asked of the ordinaries.

This therefore was a schism within a schism, a law of separation. The Chancellor of France, who was already viceroy during the illness of Charles VI, thereby became even vice-pope. Not without the connivance of the public power, Geoffrey Boucicaut, brother of the illustrious marshal, laid siege to Avignon, and a more or less strict blockade deprived the pontiff of all communication with those who remained faithful to him. When restored to liberty in 1403 Benedict had not become more conciliating, less obstinate or stubborn. Another private synod, which assembled in Paris in 1406, met with only partial success. Innocent VII had already succeeded Boniface of Rome, and, after a reign of two years, was replaced by Gregory XII. The latter, although of temperate character, seems not to have realized the hopes which Christendom, immeasurably wearied of these endless divisions, had placed in him. council which assembled at Pisa added a third claimant to the papal throne instead of two (1409). After many conferences, projects, discussions (oftentimes violent), interventions of the civil powers, catastrophes of all kinds, the Council of Constance (1414) deposed the suspicious John XXIII, received the abdication of the gentle and timid Gregory XII, and finally dismissed the obstinate Benedict XIII. On 11 November, 1417, the assembly elected Odo Colonna, who took the name of Martin V. Thus ended the great schism of the West
You skipped over the two colleges of cardinals of Rome and Avignon electing the Pisan pope, a vital link in the chain.

No Pope John XXIII, no council of Constance, no Pope Martin V.

Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas.
You mean, those doctors licensed a la Winston Smith to doctor history to fit a predetermined, desired result?  How about most modern historians?

Your Supreme Pontiff Pope Alexander VI moots your "modern doctors."

It suffices
Oh? Says who? Canon J. Didiot and
Quote
Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
whose own authority rests on Pope Martin V being the "real pope"?
to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the faculty of Lille: "If after the election of a pope and before his death or resignation a new election takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostolic Succession. This was seen at the beginning of what is called, somewhat incorrectly, the Great Schism of the West, which was only an apparent schism from a theological standpoint. If two elections take place simultaneously or nearly so, one according to laws previously passed and the other contrary to them, the apostolicity belongs to the pope legally chosen and not to the other, and though there be doubts, discussions, and cruel divisions on this point, as at the time of the so-called Western Schism, it is no less true, no less real that the apostolicity exists objectively in the true pope.

To contemporaries this problem was, as has been sufficiently shown, almost insoluble. Are our lights fuller and more brilliant than theirs? After six centuries we are able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially
Hardly: they all have a vested interest in the legitimacy of Pope Martin V.
and apparently the time is at hand for the formation of a decision, if not definitive, at least better informed and more just. In our opinion the question made rapid strides towards the end of the nineteenth century. Cardinal Hergenröther, Bliemetzrieder, Hefele, Hinschius, Kraus, Brück, Funk, and the learned Pastor in Germany, Marion, Chenon, de Beaucourt, and Denifle in France, Kirsch in Switzerland, Palma, long after Rinaldi, in Italy, Albers in Holland (to mention only the most competent or illustrious) have openly declared in favour of the popes of Rome. Noel Valois, who assumes authority on the question, at first considered the rival popes as doubtful, and believed "that the solution of this great problem was beyond the judgment of history" (I,8). Six years later he concluded his authoritative study and reviewed the facts related in his four large volumes. The following is his last conclusion, much more explicit and decided than his earlier judgment: "A tradition has been established in favour of the popes of Rome which historical investigation tends to confirm". not this book itself (IV, 503), though the author hesitates to decide, bring to the support of the Roman thesis new arguments, which in the opinion of some critics are quite convincing? final and quite recent argument comes from Rome. In 1904 the "Gerarchia Cattolica", basing its arguments on the date of the Liber Pontificalis, compiled a new and corrected list of sovereign pontiffs. Ten names have disappeared from this list of legitimate popes, neither the popes of Avignon nor those of Pisa being ranked in the true lineage of St. Peter.

1417-1904 is nearly half a millenium of agreeing with Pope Alexander VI, whose own legitimacy rests on the council of Constance and on whose own legitimacy Pope John XXIIIb rests, along with the Vatican I and Vatican II church.
If this deliberate omission is not proof positive
I question whether an omission in silence can be characterized as "deliberate."
it is at least a very strong presumption in favour of the legitimacy of the Roman popes Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII. Moreover, the names of the popes of Avignon, Clement VII and Benedict XIII, were again taken by later popes (in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) who were legitimate[/b] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm
btw, your Canon's quote "apostolicity exists objectively in the true pope" is why it has been said here that apostolic succession has been broken by the Great Western Schism.
The matter is settled

 Roll Eyes

and succession is maintained in the line of Roman pipes from whom Urban VI, who was legitimately elected, to Pope Francis today.
The only problem, you cannot get from Pope Urban VI to Pope Francis: Haec Sancta Synodus blocks your way.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 10:54:59 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #55 on: September 05, 2013, 10:54:27 AM »

Those quotes are all so terribly long. Can't you guys try to just quote the relevant parts?
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #56 on: September 05, 2013, 10:57:57 AM »

@Regnare

Quote
I still don't think it's correct to say apostolic succession is broken.

It is since you do not have a valid Pope since the western schism.

What?  Cheesy This is a bunch of nonsense LOL the line of roman popes was legitimate case closed as I showed in a previous thread here on OC.net

Really? Post your demonstration here please. We'll see  Smiley


Its a bit long but this practically sums up everything

Quote
It seems certain that the cardinals then took every means to obviate all possible doubts. On the evening of the same day thirteen of them proceeded to a new election, and again chose the Archbishop of Bari with the formally expressed intention of selecting a legitimate pope. During the following days all the members of the Sacred College offered their respectful homage to the new pope, who had taken the name of Urban VI, and asked of him countless favours. They then enthroned him, first at the Vatican Palace, and later at St. John Lateran; finally on 18 April they solemnly crowned him at St. Peter's. the very next day the Sacred College gave official notification of Urban's accession to the six French cardinals in Avignon; the latter recognized and congratulated the choice of their colleagues. The Roman cardinals then wrote to the head of the empire and the other Catholic sovereigns. Cardinal Robert of Geneva, the future Clement VII of Avignon, wrote in the same strain to his relative the King of France and to the Count of Flanders. Pedro de Luna of Aragon, the future Benedict XIII, likewise wrote to several bishops of Spain.

far, therefore, there was not a single objection to or dissatisfaction with the selection of Bartolommeo Prignano, not a protest, no hesitation, and no fear manifested for the future

Unfortunately Pope Urban did not realize the hopes to which his election had given rise. He showed himself whimsical, haughty, suspicious, and sometimes choleric in his relations with the cardinals who had elected him. Too obvious roughness and blameable extravagances seemed to show that his unexpected election had altered his character. St. Catherine of Siena, with supernatural courage, did not hesitate to make him some very well-founded remarks in this respect, nor did she hesitate when there was question of blaming the cardinals in their revolt against the pope whom they had previously elected. Some historians state that Urban openly attacked the failings, real or supposed, of members of the Sacred College, and that he energetically refused to restore the pontifical see to Avignon. Hence, they add, the growing opposition. However that may be, none of these unpleasant dissensions which arose subsequently to the election could logically weaken the validity of the choice made on 8 April. The cardinals elected Prignano, not because they were swayed by fear, though naturally they were somewhat fearful of the mischances that might grow out of delay. Urban was pope before his errors; he was still pope after his errors. The passions of King Henry IV or the vices of Louis XV did not prevent these monarchs from being and remaining true descendants of St. Louis and lawful kings of France. Unhappily such was not, in 1378, the reasoning of the Roman cardinals. dissatisfaction continued to increase. Under pretext of escaping the unhealthy heat of Rome, they withdrew in May to Anagni, and in July to Fondi, under the protection of Queen Joanna of Naples and two hundred Gascon lances of Bernardon de la Salle. They then began a silent campaign against their choice of April, and prepared men's minds for the news of a second election. On 20 September thirteen members of the Sacred College precipitated matters by going into conclave at Fondi and choosing as pope Robert of Geneva, who took the name of Clement VII. Some months later the new pontiff, driven from the Kingdom of Naples, took up his residence at Avignon; the schism was complete

So here we see a group of cardinals dissatisfied with the way Pope Urban , the legitimate pontiff, conducts himself and so decide to choose another pope. Clearly this second pope is illegitimate and any arguments for him are put of pure ignorance or hatred for the legitimacy of the papacy, period.

we continue :

Quote
Unfortunately the rival popes launched excommunication against each other; they created numerous cardinals to make up for the defections and sent them throughout Christendom to defend their cause, spread their influence, and win adherents. While these grave and burning discussions were being spread abroad, Boniface IX had succeeded Urban VI at Rome and Benedict XIII had been elected pope at the death of Clement of Avignon...

definite result. The evil continued without remedy or truce. The King of France and his uncles began to weary of supporting such a pope as Benedict, who acted only according to his humour and who caused the failure of every plan for union. Moreover, his exactions and the fiscal severity of his agents weighed heavily on the bishops, abbots, and lesser clergy of France. Charles VI released his people from obedience to Benedict (1398), and forbade his subjects, under severe penalties, to submit to this pope. Every bull or letter of the pope was to be sent to the king; no account was to be taken of privileges granted by the pope; in future every dispensation was to be asked of the ordinaries.

This therefore was a schism within a schism, a law of separation. The Chancellor of France, who was already viceroy during the illness of Charles VI, thereby became even vice-pope. Not without the connivance of the public power, Geoffrey Boucicaut, brother of the illustrious marshal, laid siege to Avignon, and a more or less strict blockade deprived the pontiff of all communication with those who remained faithful to him. When restored to liberty in 1403 Benedict had not become more conciliating, less obstinate or stubborn. Another private synod, which assembled in Paris in 1406, met with only partial success. Innocent VII had already succeeded Boniface of Rome, and, after a reign of two years, was replaced by Gregory XII. The latter, although of temperate character, seems not to have realized the hopes which Christendom, immeasurably wearied of these endless divisions, had placed in him. council which assembled at Pisa added a third claimant to the papal throne instead of two (1409). After many conferences, projects, discussions (oftentimes violent), interventions of the civil powers, catastrophes of all kinds, the Council of Constance (1414) deposed the suspicious John XXIII, received the abdication of the gentle and timid Gregory XII, and finally dismissed the obstinate Benedict XIII. On 11 November, 1417, the assembly elected Odo Colonna, who took the name of Martin V. Thus ended the great schism of the West

Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas. It suffices to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the faculty of Lille: "If after the election of a pope and before his death or resignation a new election takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostolic Succession. This was seen at the beginning of what is called, somewhat incorrectly, the Great Schism of the West, which was only an apparent schism from a theological standpoint. If two elections take place simultaneously or nearly so, one according to laws previously passed and the other contrary to them, the apostolicity belongs to the pope legally chosen and not to the other, and though there be doubts, discussions, and cruel divisions on this point, as at the time of the so-called Western Schism, it is no less true, no less real that the apostolicity exists objectively in the true pope.

To contemporaries this problem was, as has been sufficiently shown, almost insoluble. Are our lights fuller and more brilliant than theirs? After six centuries we are able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially, and apparently the time is at hand for the formation of a decision, if not definitive, at least better informed and more just. In our opinion the question made rapid strides towards the end of the nineteenth century. Cardinal Hergenröther, Bliemetzrieder, Hefele, Hinschius, Kraus, Brück, Funk, and the learned Pastor in Germany, Marion, Chenon, de Beaucourt, and Denifle in France, Kirsch in Switzerland, Palma, long after Rinaldi, in Italy, Albers in Holland (to mention only the most competent or illustrious) have openly declared in favour of the popes of Rome. Noel Valois, who assumes authority on the question, at first considered the rival popes as doubtful, and believed "that the solution of this great problem was beyond the judgment of history" (I,8). Six years later he concluded his authoritative study and reviewed the facts related in his four large volumes. The following is his last conclusion, much more explicit and decided than his earlier judgment: "A tradition has been established in favour of the popes of Rome which historical investigation tends to confirm". not this book itself (IV, 503), though the author hesitates to decide, bring to the support of the Roman thesis new arguments, which in the opinion of some critics are quite convincing? final and quite recent argument comes from Rome. In 1904 the "Gerarchia Cattolica", basing its arguments on the date of the Liber Pontificalis, compiled a new and corrected list of sovereign pontiffs. Ten names have disappeared from this list of legitimate popes, neither the popes of Avignon nor those of Pisa being ranked in the true lineage of St. Peter. If this deliberate omission is not proof positive, it is at least a very strong presumption in favour of the legitimacy of the Roman popes Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII. Moreover, the names of the popes of Avignon, Clement VII and Benedict XIII, were again taken by later popes (in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) who were legitimate

The matter is settled and succession is maintained in the line of Roman pipes from whom Urban VI, who was legitimately elected, to Pope Francis today.

And it does not work for several reasons:

The Council that elected Martin V was not called by the Pope and was invalid, without authority to depose or elect any pope.

The Council said:

"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"


So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.


This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
 John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council, Gregory XII voluntarily resigned. Then Martin V was elected pope on 11 November 1417 and he was regarded as the legitimate pontiff by the church as a whole.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

So we have a council called by Pope john XXIII, a council that recognised John XXIII as the true Pope, and this same council deposed the true Pope. Fair enough.

But Vatican I says:

"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that... nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon...they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
[/color]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%203.%20On%20the%20power%20and%20character%20of%20the%20primacy%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff

And:

Quote
Your "Roman Popes"-as I've showed in previous thread here on OC.net-recognized the Pisan popes, listing them in the PA (as official a list as the Vatican will issue). Roman Pope Alexander VI took the number in recognition of Pisan Alexander V. Roman Pope John XXIII (the one who closed Vatican I and convened Vatican II) took the number to disavow Pisan Pope John XXIII-although the Roman's authority depends on the council of Constance that the Pisan convened.
Your Roman popes closed your case against you.



It wasn't called by the roman one but had his assent and such his authority for decision to fund one successor to end the schism. Hence he resigned as this is the ONLY way the schism would be ended and proof is that all sides accepted Martin as legitimate. Case closed.

So again what you said is total nonsense.

Now to deal with the listing of pisan popes. They aren't listed anymore. This is because of what I showed in before how the case for Rome is established.
*

You are still wrong:

Roman Pope Alexander VI took the number in recognition of Pisan Alexander V thus you can take them back from the list, Alexander VI is a proof that remains against your case.

Like I said , politics if the time. Its obvious for all to see.

Quote
The Council of Constance was composed of full heretics who contradicted Vatican I and deposed the one they considered the true Pope. On what makes a Council having authority:

Councils (or synods) are assemblies composed first and foremost of Bishops [an allusion to Councils in the past, in which Princes and Christian Sovereigns participated-Ed.]; these  assemblies  are  held to  discuss  the Church's affairs, to take decisions and promulgate decrees....An assembly of the representatives of the whole Church, convoked in a regular manner (convoked, directed and confirmed  by  the Pope), is called an Ecumenical Council. According to Catholic doctrine and Canon Law [1977 Code of Canon Law, can. 228] the Bishops who, assembled in an Ecumenical Council, deliberate and take decisions with the Pope and under his direction, exercise supreme power in the Church; further-more, when the Council adopts a solemn definition, they enjoy infallibility in a matter of Faith.

For an Ecumenical Council to exist, therefore, the conditions are as follows: it must be called by the Pope; its work must be directed by the Pope (in person or by persons delegated by him); and its acts must be confirmed by the Pope.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2002_May/Vatican_II_An_Untypical_Council.htm

Even your encyclopedia says:

The Council of Constance was held during the great Schism of the West, with the object of ending the divisions in the Church. It became legitimate only when Gregory XI had formally convoked it.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

But he didnt convoke it.

Case closed, you are speaking nonsense  Smiley

Again his assent to its findings bar the first session give it authority hence Catholics recognize the first seven ecumenical councils. Stop polemics and actually read about the council :

Quote
Gregory XII then sent representatives to Constance, whom he granted full powers to summon, open and preside over an Ecumenical Council; he also empowered them to present his resignation to the Papacy. This would pave the way for the end of the Western Schism.

The legates were received by King Sigismund and by the assembled Bishops, and the King yielded the presidency of the proceedings to the papal legates, Cardinal Dominici of Ragusa and Prince Charles of Malatesta. On 4 July 1415 the Bull of Gregory XII which appointed Malatesta and Cardinal Dominici of Ragusa as his proxies at the council was formally read before the assembled Bishops. The cardinal then read a decree of Gregory XII which convoked the council and authorized its succeeding acts.
, the Bishops voted to accept the summons. Prince Malatesta immediately informed the Council that he was empowered by a commission from Pope Gregory XII to resign the Papal Throne on the Pontiff's behalf. He asked the Council whether they would prefer to receive the abdication at that point or at a later date. The Bishops voted to receive the Papal abdication immediately. Thereupon the commission by Gregory XII authorizing his proxy to resign the Papacy on his behalf was read and Malatesta, acting in the name of Gregory XII, pronounced the resignation of the papacy by Gregory XII and handed a written copy of the resignation to the assembly.

Former Pope Gregory XII was then created titular Cardinal Bishop of Porto and Santa Ruffina by the Council, with rank immediately below the Pope (which made him the highest-ranking person in the Church, since, due to his abdication, the See of Peter was vacant). Gregory XII's cardinals were accepted as true cardinals by the Council, but the members of the council delayed electing a new pope for fear that a new pope would restrict further discussion of pressing issues in the Church.

By the time the anti-popes were all deposed and the new Pope, Martin V, was elected, two years had passed since Gregory XII's abdication, and Gregory was already dead. The council took great care to protect the legitimacy of the succession, ratified all his acts and a new pontiff was chosen. The new pope, Martin V, elected November 1417, soon asserted the absolute authority of the papal

So like u said, you're talking nonsense
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 11:02:54 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #57 on: September 05, 2013, 11:02:40 AM »

@Regnare

Quote
I still don't think it's correct to say apostolic succession is broken.

It is since you do not have a valid Pope since the western schism.

What?  Cheesy This is a bunch of nonsense LOL the line of roman popes was legitimate case closed as I showed in a previous thread here on OC.net

Really? Post your demonstration here please. We'll see  Smiley


Its a bit long but this practically sums up everything

Quote
It seems certain that the cardinals then took every means to obviate all possible doubts. On the evening of the same day thirteen of them proceeded to a new election, and again chose the Archbishop of Bari with the formally expressed intention of selecting a legitimate pope. During the following days all the members of the Sacred College offered their respectful homage to the new pope, who had taken the name of Urban VI, and asked of him countless favours. They then enthroned him, first at the Vatican Palace, and later at St. John Lateran; finally on 18 April they solemnly crowned him at St. Peter's. the very next day the Sacred College gave official notification of Urban's accession to the six French cardinals in Avignon; the latter recognized and congratulated the choice of their colleagues. The Roman cardinals then wrote to the head of the empire and the other Catholic sovereigns. Cardinal Robert of Geneva, the future Clement VII of Avignon, wrote in the same strain to his relative the King of France and to the Count of Flanders. Pedro de Luna of Aragon, the future Benedict XIII, likewise wrote to several bishops of Spain.

far, therefore, there was not a single objection to or dissatisfaction with the selection of Bartolommeo Prignano, not a protest, no hesitation, and no fear manifested for the future

Unfortunately Pope Urban did not realize the hopes to which his election had given rise. He showed himself whimsical, haughty, suspicious, and sometimes choleric in his relations with the cardinals who had elected him. Too obvious roughness and blameable extravagances seemed to show that his unexpected election had altered his character. St. Catherine of Siena, with supernatural courage, did not hesitate to make him some very well-founded remarks in this respect, nor did she hesitate when there was question of blaming the cardinals in their revolt against the pope whom they had previously elected. Some historians state that Urban openly attacked the failings, real or supposed, of members of the Sacred College, and that he energetically refused to restore the pontifical see to Avignon. Hence, they add, the growing opposition. However that may be, none of these unpleasant dissensions which arose subsequently to the election could logically weaken the validity of the choice made on 8 April. The cardinals elected Prignano, not because they were swayed by fear, though naturally they were somewhat fearful of the mischances that might grow out of delay. Urban was pope before his errors; he was still pope after his errors. The passions of King Henry IV or the vices of Louis XV did not prevent these monarchs from being and remaining true descendants of St. Louis and lawful kings of France. Unhappily such was not, in 1378, the reasoning of the Roman cardinals. dissatisfaction continued to increase. Under pretext of escaping the unhealthy heat of Rome, they withdrew in May to Anagni, and in July to Fondi, under the protection of Queen Joanna of Naples and two hundred Gascon lances of Bernardon de la Salle. They then began a silent campaign against their choice of April, and prepared men's minds for the news of a second election. On 20 September thirteen members of the Sacred College precipitated matters by going into conclave at Fondi and choosing as pope Robert of Geneva, who took the name of Clement VII. Some months later the new pontiff, driven from the Kingdom of Naples, took up his residence at Avignon; the schism was complete

So here we see a group of cardinals dissatisfied with the way Pope Urban , the legitimate pontiff, conducts himself and so decide to choose another pope. Clearly this second pope is illegitimate and any arguments for him are put of pure ignorance or hatred for the legitimacy of the papacy, period.

we continue :

Quote
Unfortunately the rival popes launched excommunication against each other; they created numerous cardinals to make up for the defections and sent them throughout Christendom to defend their cause, spread their influence, and win adherents. While these grave and burning discussions were being spread abroad, Boniface IX had succeeded Urban VI at Rome and Benedict XIII had been elected pope at the death of Clement of Avignon...

definite result. The evil continued without remedy or truce. The King of France and his uncles began to weary of supporting such a pope as Benedict, who acted only according to his humour and who caused the failure of every plan for union. Moreover, his exactions and the fiscal severity of his agents weighed heavily on the bishops, abbots, and lesser clergy of France. Charles VI released his people from obedience to Benedict (1398), and forbade his subjects, under severe penalties, to submit to this pope. Every bull or letter of the pope was to be sent to the king; no account was to be taken of privileges granted by the pope; in future every dispensation was to be asked of the ordinaries.

This therefore was a schism within a schism, a law of separation. The Chancellor of France, who was already viceroy during the illness of Charles VI, thereby became even vice-pope. Not without the connivance of the public power, Geoffrey Boucicaut, brother of the illustrious marshal, laid siege to Avignon, and a more or less strict blockade deprived the pontiff of all communication with those who remained faithful to him. When restored to liberty in 1403 Benedict had not become more conciliating, less obstinate or stubborn. Another private synod, which assembled in Paris in 1406, met with only partial success. Innocent VII had already succeeded Boniface of Rome, and, after a reign of two years, was replaced by Gregory XII. The latter, although of temperate character, seems not to have realized the hopes which Christendom, immeasurably wearied of these endless divisions, had placed in him. council which assembled at Pisa added a third claimant to the papal throne instead of two (1409). After many conferences, projects, discussions (oftentimes violent), interventions of the civil powers, catastrophes of all kinds, the Council of Constance (1414) deposed the suspicious John XXIII, received the abdication of the gentle and timid Gregory XII, and finally dismissed the obstinate Benedict XIII. On 11 November, 1417, the assembly elected Odo Colonna, who took the name of Martin V. Thus ended the great schism of the West

Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas. It suffices to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the faculty of Lille: "If after the election of a pope and before his death or resignation a new election takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostolic Succession. This was seen at the beginning of what is called, somewhat incorrectly, the Great Schism of the West, which was only an apparent schism from a theological standpoint. If two elections take place simultaneously or nearly so, one according to laws previously passed and the other contrary to them, the apostolicity belongs to the pope legally chosen and not to the other, and though there be doubts, discussions, and cruel divisions on this point, as at the time of the so-called Western Schism, it is no less true, no less real that the apostolicity exists objectively in the true pope.

To contemporaries this problem was, as has been sufficiently shown, almost insoluble. Are our lights fuller and more brilliant than theirs? After six centuries we are able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially, and apparently the time is at hand for the formation of a decision, if not definitive, at least better informed and more just. In our opinion the question made rapid strides towards the end of the nineteenth century. Cardinal Hergenröther, Bliemetzrieder, Hefele, Hinschius, Kraus, Brück, Funk, and the learned Pastor in Germany, Marion, Chenon, de Beaucourt, and Denifle in France, Kirsch in Switzerland, Palma, long after Rinaldi, in Italy, Albers in Holland (to mention only the most competent or illustrious) have openly declared in favour of the popes of Rome. Noel Valois, who assumes authority on the question, at first considered the rival popes as doubtful, and believed "that the solution of this great problem was beyond the judgment of history" (I,8). Six years later he concluded his authoritative study and reviewed the facts related in his four large volumes. The following is his last conclusion, much more explicit and decided than his earlier judgment: "A tradition has been established in favour of the popes of Rome which historical investigation tends to confirm". not this book itself (IV, 503), though the author hesitates to decide, bring to the support of the Roman thesis new arguments, which in the opinion of some critics are quite convincing? final and quite recent argument comes from Rome. In 1904 the "Gerarchia Cattolica", basing its arguments on the date of the Liber Pontificalis, compiled a new and corrected list of sovereign pontiffs. Ten names have disappeared from this list of legitimate popes, neither the popes of Avignon nor those of Pisa being ranked in the true lineage of St. Peter. If this deliberate omission is not proof positive, it is at least a very strong presumption in favour of the legitimacy of the Roman popes Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII. Moreover, the names of the popes of Avignon, Clement VII and Benedict XIII, were again taken by later popes (in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) who were legitimate

The matter is settled and succession is maintained in the line of Roman pipes from whom Urban VI, who was legitimately elected, to Pope Francis today.

And it does not work for several reasons:

The Council that elected Martin V was not called by the Pope and was invalid, without authority to depose or elect any pope.

The Council said:

"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"


So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.


This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
 John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council, Gregory XII voluntarily resigned. Then Martin V was elected pope on 11 November 1417 and he was regarded as the legitimate pontiff by the church as a whole.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

So we have a council called by Pope john XXIII, a council that recognised John XXIII as the true Pope, and this same council deposed the true Pope. Fair enough.

But Vatican I says:

"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that... nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon...they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
[/color]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%203.%20On%20the%20power%20and%20character%20of%20the%20primacy%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff

And:

Quote
Your "Roman Popes"-as I've showed in previous thread here on OC.net-recognized the Pisan popes, listing them in the PA (as official a list as the Vatican will issue). Roman Pope Alexander VI took the number in recognition of Pisan Alexander V. Roman Pope John XXIII (the one who closed Vatican I and convened Vatican II) took the number to disavow Pisan Pope John XXIII-although the Roman's authority depends on the council of Constance that the Pisan convened.
Your Roman popes closed your case against you.



It wasn't called by the roman one but had his assent and such his authority for decision to fund one successor to end the schism. Hence he resigned as this is the ONLY way the schism would be ended and proof is that all sides accepted Martin as legitimate. Case closed.

So again what you said is total nonsense.

Now to deal with the listing of pisan popes. They aren't listed anymore. This is because of what I showed in before how the case for Rome is established.
*

You are still wrong:

Roman Pope Alexander VI took the number in recognition of Pisan Alexander V thus you can take them back from the list, Alexander VI is a proof that remains against your case.

Like I said , politics if the time. Its obvious for all to see.

Then, Council of Constance was composed of full heretics who contradicted Vatican I and deposed the one they considered the true Pope. On what makes a Council having authority:

Councils (or synods) are assemblies composed first and foremost of Bishops [an allusion to Councils in the past, in which Princes and Christian Sovereigns participated-Ed.]; these  assemblies  are  held to  discuss  the Church's affairs, to take decisions and promulgate decrees....An assembly of the representatives of the whole Church, convoked in a regular manner (convoked, directed and confirmed  by  the Pope), is called an Ecumenical Council. According to Catholic doctrine and Canon Law [1977 Code of Canon Law, can. 228] the Bishops who, assembled in an Ecumenical Council, deliberate and take decisions with the Pope and under his direction, exercise supreme power in the Church; further-more, when the Council adopts a solemn definition, they enjoy infallibility in a matter of Faith.

For an Ecumenical Council to exist, therefore, the conditions are as follows: it must be called by the Pope; its work must be directed by the Pope (in person or by persons delegated by him); and its acts must be confirmed by the Pope.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2002_May/Vatican_II_An_Untypical_Council.htm

Even your encyclopedia says:

The Council of Constance was held during the great Schism of the West, with the object of ending the divisions in the Church. It became legitimate only when Gregory XI had formally convoked it.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

But he didnt convoke it.

Case closed, you are speaking nonsense  Smiley

Again his assent to its findings bar the first session five it authority. Stop polemics and actually read about the council :

Quote
Fregory XII then sent representatives to Constance, whom he granted full powers to summon, open and preside over an Ecumenical Council; he also empowered them to present his resignation to the Papacy. This would pave the way for the end of the Western Schism.

The legates were received by King Sigismund and by the assembled Bishops, and the King yielded the presidency of the proceedings to the papal legates, Cardinal Dominici of Ragusa and Prince Charles of Malatesta. On 4 July 1415 the Bull of Gregory XII which appointed Malatesta and Cardinal Dominici of Ragusa as his proxies at the council was formally read before the assembled Bishops. The cardinal then read a decree of Gregory XII which convoked the council and authorized its succeeding acts.
, the Bishops voted to accept the summons. Prince Malatesta immediately informed the Council that he was empowered by a commission from Pope Gregory XII to resign the Papal Throne on the Pontiff's behalf. He asked the Council whether they would prefer to receive the abdication at that point or at a later date. The Bishops voted to receive the Papal abdication immediately. Thereupon the commission by Gregory XII authorizing his proxy to resign the Papacy on his behalf was read and Malatesta, acting in the name of Gregory XII, pronounced the resignation of the papacy by Gregory XII and handed a written copy of the resignation to the assembly.

Former Pope Gregory XII was then created titular Cardinal Bishop of Porto and Santa Ruffina by the Council, with rank immediately below the Pope (which made him the highest-ranking person in the Church, since, due to his abdication, the See of Peter was vacant). Gregory XII's cardinals were accepted as true cardinals by the Council, but the members of the council delayed electing a new pope for fear that a new pope would restrict further discussion of pressing issues in the Church.

By the time the anti-popes were all deposed and the new Pope, Martin V, was elected, two years had passed since Gregory XII's abdication, and Gregory was already dead. The council took great care to protect the legitimacy of the succession, ratified all his acts and a new pontiff was chosen. The new pope, Martin V, elected November 1417, soon asserted the absolute authority of the papal

The Council didnt care about Gregory since it didnt believe him to be the Pope:

The Council said:

"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"


So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.

This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
 John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council
, Gregory XII voluntarily resigned. Then Martin V was elected pope on 11 November 1417 and he was regarded as the legitimate pontiff by the church as a whole.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #58 on: September 05, 2013, 11:09:09 AM »

@Regnare

Quote
I still don't think it's correct to say apostolic succession is broken.

It is since you do not have a valid Pope since the western schism.

What?  Cheesy This is a bunch of nonsense LOL the line of roman popes was legitimate case closed as I showed in a previous thread here on OC.net

Really? Post your demonstration here please. We'll see  Smiley


Its a bit long but this practically sums up everything

Quote
It seems certain that the cardinals then took every means to obviate all possible doubts. On the evening of the same day thirteen of them proceeded to a new election, and again chose the Archbishop of Bari with the formally expressed intention of selecting a legitimate pope. During the following days all the members of the Sacred College offered their respectful homage to the new pope, who had taken the name of Urban VI, and asked of him countless favours. They then enthroned him, first at the Vatican Palace, and later at St. John Lateran; finally on 18 April they solemnly crowned him at St. Peter's. the very next day the Sacred College gave official notification of Urban's accession to the six French cardinals in Avignon; the latter recognized and congratulated the choice of their colleagues. The Roman cardinals then wrote to the head of the empire and the other Catholic sovereigns. Cardinal Robert of Geneva, the future Clement VII of Avignon, wrote in the same strain to his relative the King of France and to the Count of Flanders. Pedro de Luna of Aragon, the future Benedict XIII, likewise wrote to several bishops of Spain.

far, therefore, there was not a single objection to or dissatisfaction with the selection of Bartolommeo Prignano, not a protest, no hesitation, and no fear manifested for the future

Unfortunately Pope Urban did not realize the hopes to which his election had given rise. He showed himself whimsical, haughty, suspicious, and sometimes choleric in his relations with the cardinals who had elected him. Too obvious roughness and blameable extravagances seemed to show that his unexpected election had altered his character. St. Catherine of Siena, with supernatural courage, did not hesitate to make him some very well-founded remarks in this respect, nor did she hesitate when there was question of blaming the cardinals in their revolt against the pope whom they had previously elected. Some historians state that Urban openly attacked the failings, real or supposed, of members of the Sacred College, and that he energetically refused to restore the pontifical see to Avignon. Hence, they add, the growing opposition. However that may be, none of these unpleasant dissensions which arose subsequently to the election could logically weaken the validity of the choice made on 8 April. The cardinals elected Prignano, not because they were swayed by fear, though naturally they were somewhat fearful of the mischances that might grow out of delay. Urban was pope before his errors; he was still pope after his errors. The passions of King Henry IV or the vices of Louis XV did not prevent these monarchs from being and remaining true descendants of St. Louis and lawful kings of France. Unhappily such was not, in 1378, the reasoning of the Roman cardinals. dissatisfaction continued to increase. Under pretext of escaping the unhealthy heat of Rome, they withdrew in May to Anagni, and in July to Fondi, under the protection of Queen Joanna of Naples and two hundred Gascon lances of Bernardon de la Salle. They then began a silent campaign against their choice of April, and prepared men's minds for the news of a second election. On 20 September thirteen members of the Sacred College precipitated matters by going into conclave at Fondi and choosing as pope Robert of Geneva, who took the name of Clement VII. Some months later the new pontiff, driven from the Kingdom of Naples, took up his residence at Avignon; the schism was complete

So here we see a group of cardinals dissatisfied with the way Pope Urban , the legitimate pontiff, conducts himself and so decide to choose another pope. Clearly this second pope is illegitimate and any arguments for him are put of pure ignorance or hatred for the legitimacy of the papacy, period.

we continue :

Quote
Unfortunately the rival popes launched excommunication against each other; they created numerous cardinals to make up for the defections and sent them throughout Christendom to defend their cause, spread their influence, and win adherents. While these grave and burning discussions were being spread abroad, Boniface IX had succeeded Urban VI at Rome and Benedict XIII had been elected pope at the death of Clement of Avignon...

definite result. The evil continued without remedy or truce. The King of France and his uncles began to weary of supporting such a pope as Benedict, who acted only according to his humour and who caused the failure of every plan for union. Moreover, his exactions and the fiscal severity of his agents weighed heavily on the bishops, abbots, and lesser clergy of France. Charles VI released his people from obedience to Benedict (1398), and forbade his subjects, under severe penalties, to submit to this pope. Every bull or letter of the pope was to be sent to the king; no account was to be taken of privileges granted by the pope; in future every dispensation was to be asked of the ordinaries.

This therefore was a schism within a schism, a law of separation. The Chancellor of France, who was already viceroy during the illness of Charles VI, thereby became even vice-pope. Not without the connivance of the public power, Geoffrey Boucicaut, brother of the illustrious marshal, laid siege to Avignon, and a more or less strict blockade deprived the pontiff of all communication with those who remained faithful to him. When restored to liberty in 1403 Benedict had not become more conciliating, less obstinate or stubborn. Another private synod, which assembled in Paris in 1406, met with only partial success. Innocent VII had already succeeded Boniface of Rome, and, after a reign of two years, was replaced by Gregory XII. The latter, although of temperate character, seems not to have realized the hopes which Christendom, immeasurably wearied of these endless divisions, had placed in him. council which assembled at Pisa added a third claimant to the papal throne instead of two (1409). After many conferences, projects, discussions (oftentimes violent), interventions of the civil powers, catastrophes of all kinds, the Council of Constance (1414) deposed the suspicious John XXIII, received the abdication of the gentle and timid Gregory XII, and finally dismissed the obstinate Benedict XIII. On 11 November, 1417, the assembly elected Odo Colonna, who took the name of Martin V. Thus ended the great schism of the West

Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas. It suffices to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the faculty of Lille: "If after the election of a pope and before his death or resignation a new election takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostolic Succession. This was seen at the beginning of what is called, somewhat incorrectly, the Great Schism of the West, which was only an apparent schism from a theological standpoint. If two elections take place simultaneously or nearly so, one according to laws previously passed and the other contrary to them, the apostolicity belongs to the pope legally chosen and not to the other, and though there be doubts, discussions, and cruel divisions on this point, as at the time of the so-called Western Schism, it is no less true, no less real that the apostolicity exists objectively in the true pope.

To contemporaries this problem was, as has been sufficiently shown, almost insoluble. Are our lights fuller and more brilliant than theirs? After six centuries we are able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially, and apparently the time is at hand for the formation of a decision, if not definitive, at least better informed and more just. In our opinion the question made rapid strides towards the end of the nineteenth century. Cardinal Hergenröther, Bliemetzrieder, Hefele, Hinschius, Kraus, Brück, Funk, and the learned Pastor in Germany, Marion, Chenon, de Beaucourt, and Denifle in France, Kirsch in Switzerland, Palma, long after Rinaldi, in Italy, Albers in Holland (to mention only the most competent or illustrious) have openly declared in favour of the popes of Rome. Noel Valois, who assumes authority on the question, at first considered the rival popes as doubtful, and believed "that the solution of this great problem was beyond the judgment of history" (I,8). Six years later he concluded his authoritative study and reviewed the facts related in his four large volumes. The following is his last conclusion, much more explicit and decided than his earlier judgment: "A tradition has been established in favour of the popes of Rome which historical investigation tends to confirm". not this book itself (IV, 503), though the author hesitates to decide, bring to the support of the Roman thesis new arguments, which in the opinion of some critics are quite convincing? final and quite recent argument comes from Rome. In 1904 the "Gerarchia Cattolica", basing its arguments on the date of the Liber Pontificalis, compiled a new and corrected list of sovereign pontiffs. Ten names have disappeared from this list of legitimate popes, neither the popes of Avignon nor those of Pisa being ranked in the true lineage of St. Peter. If this deliberate omission is not proof positive, it is at least a very strong presumption in favour of the legitimacy of the Roman popes Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII. Moreover, the names of the popes of Avignon, Clement VII and Benedict XIII, were again taken by later popes (in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) who were legitimate

The matter is settled and succession is maintained in the line of Roman pipes from whom Urban VI, who was legitimately elected, to Pope Francis today.

And it does not work for several reasons:

The Council that elected Martin V was not called by the Pope and was invalid, without authority to depose or elect any pope.

The Council said:

"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"


So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.


This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
 John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council, Gregory XII voluntarily resigned. Then Martin V was elected pope on 11 November 1417 and he was regarded as the legitimate pontiff by the church as a whole.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

So we have a council called by Pope john XXIII, a council that recognised John XXIII as the true Pope, and this same council deposed the true Pope. Fair enough.

But Vatican I says:

"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that... nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon...they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
[/color]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%203.%20On%20the%20power%20and%20character%20of%20the%20primacy%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff

And:

Quote
Your "Roman Popes"-as I've showed in previous thread here on OC.net-recognized the Pisan popes, listing them in the PA (as official a list as the Vatican will issue). Roman Pope Alexander VI took the number in recognition of Pisan Alexander V. Roman Pope John XXIII (the one who closed Vatican I and convened Vatican II) took the number to disavow Pisan Pope John XXIII-although the Roman's authority depends on the council of Constance that the Pisan convened.
Your Roman popes closed your case against you.



It wasn't called by the roman one but had his assent and such his authority for decision to fund one successor to end the schism. Hence he resigned as this is the ONLY way the schism would be ended and proof is that all sides accepted Martin as legitimate. Case closed.

So again what you said is total nonsense.

Now to deal with the listing of pisan popes. They aren't listed anymore. This is because of what I showed in before how the case for Rome is established.
*


You are still wrong:

Roman Pope Alexander VI took the number in recognition of Pisan Alexander V thus you can take them back from the list, Alexander VI is a proof that remains against your case.

Like I said , politics if the time. Its obvious for all to see.

Then, Council of Constance was composed of full heretics who contradicted Vatican I and deposed the one they considered the true Pope. On what makes a Council having authority:

Councils (or synods) are assemblies composed first and foremost of Bishops [an allusion to Councils in the past, in which Princes and Christian Sovereigns participated-Ed.]; these  assemblies  are  held to  discuss  the Church's affairs, to take decisions and promulgate decrees....An assembly of the representatives of the whole Church, convoked in a regular manner (convoked, directed and confirmed  by  the Pope), is called an Ecumenical Council. According to Catholic doctrine and Canon Law [1977 Code of Canon Law, can. 228] the Bishops who, assembled in an Ecumenical Council, deliberate and take decisions with the Pope and under his direction, exercise supreme power in the Church; further-more, when the Council adopts a solemn definition, they enjoy infallibility in a matter of Faith.

For an Ecumenical Council to exist, therefore, the conditions are as follows: it must be called by the Pope; its work must be directed by the Pope (in person or by persons delegated by him); and its acts must be confirmed by the Pope.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2002_May/Vatican_II_An_Untypical_Council.htm

Even your encyclopedia says:

The Council of Constance was held during the great Schism of the West, with the object of ending the divisions in the Church. It became legitimate only when Gregory XI had formally convoked it.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

But he didnt convoke it.

Case closed, you are speaking nonsense  Smiley

Again his assent to its findings bar the first session five it authority. Stop polemics and actually read about the council :

Quote
Fregory XII then sent representatives to Constance, whom he granted full powers to summon, open and preside over an Ecumenical Council; he also empowered them to present his resignation to the Papacy. This would pave the way for the end of the Western Schism.

The legates were received by King Sigismund and by the assembled Bishops, and the King yielded the presidency of the proceedings to the papal legates, Cardinal Dominici of Ragusa and Prince Charles of Malatesta. On 4 July 1415 the Bull of Gregory XII which appointed Malatesta and Cardinal Dominici of Ragusa as his proxies at the council was formally read before the assembled Bishops. The cardinal then read a decree of Gregory XII which convoked the council and authorized its succeeding acts.
, the Bishops voted to accept the summons. Prince Malatesta immediately informed the Council that he was empowered by a commission from Pope Gregory XII to resign the Papal Throne on the Pontiff's behalf. He asked the Council whether they would prefer to receive the abdication at that point or at a later date. The Bishops voted to receive the Papal abdication immediately. Thereupon the commission by Gregory XII authorizing his proxy to resign the Papacy on his behalf was read and Malatesta, acting in the name of Gregory XII, pronounced the resignation of the papacy by Gregory XII and handed a written copy of the resignation to the assembly.

Former Pope Gregory XII was then created titular Cardinal Bishop of Porto and Santa Ruffina by the Council, with rank immediately below the Pope (which made him the highest-ranking person in the Church, since, due to his abdication, the See of Peter was vacant). Gregory XII's cardinals were accepted as true cardinals by the Council, but the members of the council delayed electing a new pope for fear that a new pope would restrict further discussion of pressing issues in the Church.

By the time the anti-popes were all deposed and the new Pope, Martin V, was elected, two years had passed since Gregory XII's abdication, and Gregory was already dead. The council took great care to protect the legitimacy of the succession, ratified all his acts and a new pontiff was chosen. The new pope, Martin V, elected November 1417, soon asserted the absolute authority of the papal

The Council didnt care about Gregory since it didnt believe him to be the Pope:

The Council said:

"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"


So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.

This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
 John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council
, Gregory XII voluntarily resigned. Then Martin V was elected pope on 11 November 1417 and he was regarded as the legitimate pontiff by the church as a whole.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

But as you saw, it DID care about his assent contrary to what you're trying to show.
The council exclaimed John as such because he called it, even though illicit. But how Rome gains convoking rights is by the assent of The Pope of Rome as was the case with the seven ecumenical councils as that's how we recognize them as such. And btw all 3 claimants were deposed. Further Rome ws legitimate from the beginning and such you can't lose legitimacy.

read up : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Constance
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 11:11:44 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #59 on: September 05, 2013, 11:11:10 AM »

This is all pretty OT. What a shame. I'd love to see a discussion about what makes a council ecumenical.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« Reply #60 on: September 05, 2013, 11:15:36 AM »

Those quotes are all so terribly long. Can't you guys try to just quote the relevant parts?

Seriously? Detail and nuance are too irritating for you to sift through, even when others have done all of the legwork for you?

Welcome to internet-era intellectual discourse.

If it no a soundbite, I no wanna.
Logged
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #61 on: September 05, 2013, 11:17:36 AM »

@Regnare

Quote
I still don't think it's correct to say apostolic succession is broken.

It is since you do not have a valid Pope since the western schism.

What?  Cheesy This is a bunch of nonsense LOL the line of roman popes was legitimate case closed as I showed in a previous thread here on OC.net

Really? Post your demonstration here please. We'll see  Smiley


Its a bit long but this practically sums up everything

Quote
It seems certain that the cardinals then took every means to obviate all possible doubts. On the evening of the same day thirteen of them proceeded to a new election, and again chose the Archbishop of Bari with the formally expressed intention of selecting a legitimate pope. During the following days all the members of the Sacred College offered their respectful homage to the new pope, who had taken the name of Urban VI, and asked of him countless favours. They then enthroned him, first at the Vatican Palace, and later at St. John Lateran; finally on 18 April they solemnly crowned him at St. Peter's. the very next day the Sacred College gave official notification of Urban's accession to the six French cardinals in Avignon; the latter recognized and congratulated the choice of their colleagues. The Roman cardinals then wrote to the head of the empire and the other Catholic sovereigns. Cardinal Robert of Geneva, the future Clement VII of Avignon, wrote in the same strain to his relative the King of France and to the Count of Flanders. Pedro de Luna of Aragon, the future Benedict XIII, likewise wrote to several bishops of Spain.

far, therefore, there was not a single objection to or dissatisfaction with the selection of Bartolommeo Prignano, not a protest, no hesitation, and no fear manifested for the future

Unfortunately Pope Urban did not realize the hopes to which his election had given rise. He showed himself whimsical, haughty, suspicious, and sometimes choleric in his relations with the cardinals who had elected him. Too obvious roughness and blameable extravagances seemed to show that his unexpected election had altered his character. St. Catherine of Siena, with supernatural courage, did not hesitate to make him some very well-founded remarks in this respect, nor did she hesitate when there was question of blaming the cardinals in their revolt against the pope whom they had previously elected. Some historians state that Urban openly attacked the failings, real or supposed, of members of the Sacred College, and that he energetically refused to restore the pontifical see to Avignon. Hence, they add, the growing opposition. However that may be, none of these unpleasant dissensions which arose subsequently to the election could logically weaken the validity of the choice made on 8 April. The cardinals elected Prignano, not because they were swayed by fear, though naturally they were somewhat fearful of the mischances that might grow out of delay. Urban was pope before his errors; he was still pope after his errors. The passions of King Henry IV or the vices of Louis XV did not prevent these monarchs from being and remaining true descendants of St. Louis and lawful kings of France. Unhappily such was not, in 1378, the reasoning of the Roman cardinals. dissatisfaction continued to increase. Under pretext of escaping the unhealthy heat of Rome, they withdrew in May to Anagni, and in July to Fondi, under the protection of Queen Joanna of Naples and two hundred Gascon lances of Bernardon de la Salle. They then began a silent campaign against their choice of April, and prepared men's minds for the news of a second election. On 20 September thirteen members of the Sacred College precipitated matters by going into conclave at Fondi and choosing as pope Robert of Geneva, who took the name of Clement VII. Some months later the new pontiff, driven from the Kingdom of Naples, took up his residence at Avignon; the schism was complete

So here we see a group of cardinals dissatisfied with the way Pope Urban , the legitimate pontiff, conducts himself and so decide to choose another pope. Clearly this second pope is illegitimate and any arguments for him are put of pure ignorance or hatred for the legitimacy of the papacy, period.

we continue :

Quote
Unfortunately the rival popes launched excommunication against each other; they created numerous cardinals to make up for the defections and sent them throughout Christendom to defend their cause, spread their influence, and win adherents. While these grave and burning discussions were being spread abroad, Boniface IX had succeeded Urban VI at Rome and Benedict XIII had been elected pope at the death of Clement of Avignon...

definite result. The evil continued without remedy or truce. The King of France and his uncles began to weary of supporting such a pope as Benedict, who acted only according to his humour and who caused the failure of every plan for union. Moreover, his exactions and the fiscal severity of his agents weighed heavily on the bishops, abbots, and lesser clergy of France. Charles VI released his people from obedience to Benedict (1398), and forbade his subjects, under severe penalties, to submit to this pope. Every bull or letter of the pope was to be sent to the king; no account was to be taken of privileges granted by the pope; in future every dispensation was to be asked of the ordinaries.

This therefore was a schism within a schism, a law of separation. The Chancellor of France, who was already viceroy during the illness of Charles VI, thereby became even vice-pope. Not without the connivance of the public power, Geoffrey Boucicaut, brother of the illustrious marshal, laid siege to Avignon, and a more or less strict blockade deprived the pontiff of all communication with those who remained faithful to him. When restored to liberty in 1403 Benedict had not become more conciliating, less obstinate or stubborn. Another private synod, which assembled in Paris in 1406, met with only partial success. Innocent VII had already succeeded Boniface of Rome, and, after a reign of two years, was replaced by Gregory XII. The latter, although of temperate character, seems not to have realized the hopes which Christendom, immeasurably wearied of these endless divisions, had placed in him. council which assembled at Pisa added a third claimant to the papal throne instead of two (1409). After many conferences, projects, discussions (oftentimes violent), interventions of the civil powers, catastrophes of all kinds, the Council of Constance (1414) deposed the suspicious John XXIII, received the abdication of the gentle and timid Gregory XII, and finally dismissed the obstinate Benedict XIII. On 11 November, 1417, the assembly elected Odo Colonna, who took the name of Martin V. Thus ended the great schism of the West

Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas. It suffices to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the faculty of Lille: "If after the election of a pope and before his death or resignation a new election takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostolic Succession. This was seen at the beginning of what is called, somewhat incorrectly, the Great Schism of the West, which was only an apparent schism from a theological standpoint. If two elections take place simultaneously or nearly so, one according to laws previously passed and the other contrary to them, the apostolicity belongs to the pope legally chosen and not to the other, and though there be doubts, discussions, and cruel divisions on this point, as at the time of the so-called Western Schism, it is no less true, no less real that the apostolicity exists objectively in the true pope.

To contemporaries this problem was, as has been sufficiently shown, almost insoluble. Are our lights fuller and more brilliant than theirs? After six centuries we are able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially, and apparently the time is at hand for the formation of a decision, if not definitive, at least better informed and more just. In our opinion the question made rapid strides towards the end of the nineteenth century. Cardinal Hergenröther, Bliemetzrieder, Hefele, Hinschius, Kraus, Brück, Funk, and the learned Pastor in Germany, Marion, Chenon, de Beaucourt, and Denifle in France, Kirsch in Switzerland, Palma, long after Rinaldi, in Italy, Albers in Holland (to mention only the most competent or illustrious) have openly declared in favour of the popes of Rome. Noel Valois, who assumes authority on the question, at first considered the rival popes as doubtful, and believed "that the solution of this great problem was beyond the judgment of history" (I,8). Six years later he concluded his authoritative study and reviewed the facts related in his four large volumes. The following is his last conclusion, much more explicit and decided than his earlier judgment: "A tradition has been established in favour of the popes of Rome which historical investigation tends to confirm". not this book itself (IV, 503), though the author hesitates to decide, bring to the support of the Roman thesis new arguments, which in the opinion of some critics are quite convincing? final and quite recent argument comes from Rome. In 1904 the "Gerarchia Cattolica", basing its arguments on the date of the Liber Pontificalis, compiled a new and corrected list of sovereign pontiffs. Ten names have disappeared from this list of legitimate popes, neither the popes of Avignon nor those of Pisa being ranked in the true lineage of St. Peter. If this deliberate omission is not proof positive, it is at least a very strong presumption in favour of the legitimacy of the Roman popes Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII. Moreover, the names of the popes of Avignon, Clement VII and Benedict XIII, were again taken by later popes (in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) who were legitimate

The matter is settled and succession is maintained in the line of Roman pipes from whom Urban VI, who was legitimately elected, to Pope Francis today.

And it does not work for several reasons:

The Council that elected Martin V was not called by the Pope and was invalid, without authority to depose or elect any pope.

The Council said:

"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"


So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.


This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
 John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council, Gregory XII voluntarily resigned. Then Martin V was elected pope on 11 November 1417 and he was regarded as the legitimate pontiff by the church as a whole.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

So we have a council called by Pope john XXIII, a council that recognised John XXIII as the true Pope, and this same council deposed the true Pope. Fair enough.

But Vatican I says:

"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that... nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon...they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
[/color]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%203.%20On%20the%20power%20and%20character%20of%20the%20primacy%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff

And:

Quote
Your "Roman Popes"-as I've showed in previous thread here on OC.net-recognized the Pisan popes, listing them in the PA (as official a list as the Vatican will issue). Roman Pope Alexander VI took the number in recognition of Pisan Alexander V. Roman Pope John XXIII (the one who closed Vatican I and convened Vatican II) took the number to disavow Pisan Pope John XXIII-although the Roman's authority depends on the council of Constance that the Pisan convened.
Your Roman popes closed your case against you.



It wasn't called by the roman one but had his assent and such his authority for decision to fund one successor to end the schism. Hence he resigned as this is the ONLY way the schism would be ended and proof is that all sides accepted Martin as legitimate. Case closed.

So again what you said is total nonsense.

Now to deal with the listing of pisan popes. They aren't listed anymore. This is because of what I showed in before how the case for Rome is established.
*


You are still wrong:

Roman Pope Alexander VI took the number in recognition of Pisan Alexander V thus you can take them back from the list, Alexander VI is a proof that remains against your case.

Like I said , politics if the time. Its obvious for all to see.

Then, Council of Constance was composed of full heretics who contradicted Vatican I and deposed the one they considered the true Pope. On what makes a Council having authority:

Councils (or synods) are assemblies composed first and foremost of Bishops [an allusion to Councils in the past, in which Princes and Christian Sovereigns participated-Ed.]; these  assemblies  are  held to  discuss  the Church's affairs, to take decisions and promulgate decrees....An assembly of the representatives of the whole Church, convoked in a regular manner (convoked, directed and confirmed  by  the Pope), is called an Ecumenical Council. According to Catholic doctrine and Canon Law [1977 Code of Canon Law, can. 228] the Bishops who, assembled in an Ecumenical Council, deliberate and take decisions with the Pope and under his direction, exercise supreme power in the Church; further-more, when the Council adopts a solemn definition, they enjoy infallibility in a matter of Faith.

For an Ecumenical Council to exist, therefore, the conditions are as follows: it must be called by the Pope; its work must be directed by the Pope (in person or by persons delegated by him); and its acts must be confirmed by the Pope.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2002_May/Vatican_II_An_Untypical_Council.htm

Even your encyclopedia says:

The Council of Constance was held during the great Schism of the West, with the object of ending the divisions in the Church. It became legitimate only when Gregory XI had formally convoked it.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

But he didnt convoke it.

Case closed, you are speaking nonsense  Smiley

Again his assent to its findings bar the first session five it authority. Stop polemics and actually read about the council :

Quote
Fregory XII then sent representatives to Constance, whom he granted full powers to summon, open and preside over an Ecumenical Council; he also empowered them to present his resignation to the Papacy. This would pave the way for the end of the Western Schism.

The legates were received by King Sigismund and by the assembled Bishops, and the King yielded the presidency of the proceedings to the papal legates, Cardinal Dominici of Ragusa and Prince Charles of Malatesta. On 4 July 1415 the Bull of Gregory XII which appointed Malatesta and Cardinal Dominici of Ragusa as his proxies at the council was formally read before the assembled Bishops. The cardinal then read a decree of Gregory XII which convoked the council and authorized its succeeding acts.
, the Bishops voted to accept the summons. Prince Malatesta immediately informed the Council that he was empowered by a commission from Pope Gregory XII to resign the Papal Throne on the Pontiff's behalf. He asked the Council whether they would prefer to receive the abdication at that point or at a later date. The Bishops voted to receive the Papal abdication immediately. Thereupon the commission by Gregory XII authorizing his proxy to resign the Papacy on his behalf was read and Malatesta, acting in the name of Gregory XII, pronounced the resignation of the papacy by Gregory XII and handed a written copy of the resignation to the assembly.

Former Pope Gregory XII was then created titular Cardinal Bishop of Porto and Santa Ruffina by the Council, with rank immediately below the Pope (which made him the highest-ranking person in the Church, since, due to his abdication, the See of Peter was vacant). Gregory XII's cardinals were accepted as true cardinals by the Council, but the members of the council delayed electing a new pope for fear that a new pope would restrict further discussion of pressing issues in the Church.

By the time the anti-popes were all deposed and the new Pope, Martin V, was elected, two years had passed since Gregory XII's abdication, and Gregory was already dead. The council took great care to protect the legitimacy of the succession, ratified all his acts and a new pontiff was chosen. The new pope, Martin V, elected November 1417, soon asserted the absolute authority of the papal

The Council didnt care about Gregory since it didnt believe him to be the Pope:

The Council said:

"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"


So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.

This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
 John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council
, Gregory XII voluntarily resigned. Then Martin V was elected pope on 11 November 1417 and he was regarded as the legitimate pontiff by the church as a whole.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

But as you saw, it DID care about his assent contrary to what you're trying to show.
The council exclaimed John as such because he called it, even though illicit. But how Rome gains convoking rights is by the assent of The Pope of Rome as was the case with the seven ecumenical councils as that's how we recognize them as such. And btw all 3 claimants were deposed. Further Rome ws legitimate from the beginning and such you can't lose legitimacy.

read up : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Constance

The 2nd and 5th Oecumenical Council didnt care either about the assent of the Bishop of Rome, St Meletius was not even in communion with Rome, and the 5th Council bishops stoped communion with Bishop of Rome too. Ultramontanism nonsense  Roll Eyes With wikipedia... laugh

Quote
And btw all 3 claimants were deposed.

Vatican I says no council can depose the Pope, so that does not solve the issue for you.

Quote
Further Rome ws legitimate from the beginning and such you can't lose legitimacy.

Then Alexander VI is also an anti pope?

« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 11:19:51 AM by Napoletani » Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #62 on: September 05, 2013, 11:27:46 AM »

It wasn't called by the roman one but had his assent and such his authority for decision to fund one successor to end the schism.
This is what he assented to:
Quote
The said holy synod decrees, determines and ordains for the good of unity in God's church that neither the lord Baldassare de Cossa, recently John XXIII, nor Angelo Correr nor Peter de Luna, called Gregory XII and Benedict XIII by their respective obediences, shall ever be re-elected as pope. If the contrary happens, it is by this very fact null and void. Nobody, of whatever dignity or pre-eminence even if he be emperor, king, cardinal or pontiff, may ever adhere to or obey them or any one of them, contrary to this decree, under pain of eternal damnation and of being a supporter of the said schism. Let those who presume to the contrary, if there are any in the future, also be firmly proceeded against in other ways, even by invoking the secular arm....

In order that the reunion of the church may be possible and that a beginning may be made which is fitting and pleasing to God, since the most important part of any matter is its beginning, and in order that the two obediences—namely the one claiming that the lord John XXIII was formerly pope and the other claiming that the lord Gregory XII is pope—may be united together under Christ as head, this most holy general synod of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit and representing the catholic church, accepts in all matters the convoking, authorising, approving and confirming that is now being made in the name of the lord who is called Gregory XII by those obedient to him, insofar as it seems to pertain to him to do this, since the certainty obtained by taking a precaution harms nobody and benefits all, and it decrees and declares that the aforesaid two obediences are joined and united in the one body of our lord Jesus Christ and of this sacred universal general council, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit.

The most holy general synod of Constance, etc., enacts, pronounces, ordains and decrees, in order that God's holy church may be provided for better, more genuinely and more securely, that the next election of the future Roman pontiff is to be made in the manner, form, place, time and way that shall be decided upon by the sacred council; that the same council can and may henceforth declare fit, accept and designate, in the manner and form that then seems suitable, any persons for the purposes of this election, whether by active or by passive voice, of whatever state or obedience they are or may have been, and any other ecclesiastical acts and all other suitable things, notwithstanding any proceedings, penalties or sentences; and that the sacred council shall not be dissolved until the said election has been held. The said holy synod therefore exhorts and requires the most victorious prince lord Sigismund, king of the Romans and of Hungary, as the church's devoted advocate and as the sacred council's defender and protector, to direct all his efforts to this end and to promise on his royal word that he wishes to do this and to order letters of his majesty to be made out for this purpose.

The most holy general synod of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, representing the universal catholic church, accepts, approves and commends, in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit, the cession renunciation and resignation made on behalf of the lord who was called Gregory XII in his obedience, by the magnificent and powerful lord Charles Malatesta. here present, his irrevocable procurator for this business, of the right, title and possession that he had, or may have had, in regard to the papacy.

May this judgment come forth from the face of him who sits on the throne, and from his mouth proceeds a double-edged sword, whose scales are just and weights are true, who will come to judge the living and the dead, our lord Jesus Christ, Amen. The Lord is just and loves just deeds, his face looks on righteousness. But the Lord looks on those who do evil so as to cut off their remembrance from the earth. Let there perish, says the holy prophet, the memory of him who did not remember to show mercy and who persecuted the poor and needy. How much more should there perish the memory of Peter de Luna, called by some Benedict XIII, who persecuted and disturbed all people and the universal church? For, how greatly he has sinned against God's church and the entire Christian people, fostering, nourishing and continuing the schism and division of God's church How ardent and frequent have been the devout and humble prayers, exhortations and requests of kings, princes and prelates with which he has been warned in charity, in accordance with the teaching of the gospel, to bring peace to the church, to heal its wounds and to reconstitute its divided parts into one structure and one body, as he had sworn to do, and as for a long time it was within his power to do ! He was unwilling, however, to listen to their charitable admonitions. How many were the persons afterwards sent to attest to him! Because he did not listen at all even to these, it has been necessary, in accordance with the aforesaid evangelical teaching of Christ, to say to the church, since he has not listened even to her, that he should be treated as a heathen and a publican. All these things have been clearly proved by the articles coming from the inquiry into faith and the schism held before this present synod, regarding the above and other matters brought against him, as well as by their truth and notoriety. The proceedings have been correct and canonical, all the acts have been correctly and carefully examined and there has been mature deliberation. Therefore this same holy general synod, representing the universal church and sitting as a tribunal in the aforesaid inquiry, pronounces, decrees and declares by this definitive sentence written here, that the same Peter de Luna, called Benedict XIII as has been said, has been and is a perjurer, a cause of scandal to the universal church, a promoter and breeder of the ancient schism, that long established fission and division in God's holy church, an obstructer of the peace and unity of the said church, a schismatic disturber and a heretic, a deviator from the faith, a persistent violator of the article of the faith One holy catholic church, incorrigible, notorious and manifest in his scandal to God's church, and that he has rendered himself unworthy of every title, rank, honour and dignity, rejected and cut off by God, deprived by the law itself of every right in any way belonging to him in the papacy or pertaining to the Roman pontiff and the Roman church, and cut off from the catholic church like a withered member. This same holy synod, moreover, as a precautionary measure, since according to himself he actually holds the papacy, deprives, deposes and casts out the said Peter from the papacy and from being the supreme pontiff of the Roman church and from every title, rank, honour, dignity, benefice and office whatsoever. It forbids him to act henceforth as the pope or as the supreme and Roman pontiff. It absolves and declares to be absolved all Christ's faithful from obedience to him, and from every duty of obedience to him and from oaths and obligations in any way made to him. It forbids each and every one of Christ's faithful to obey, respond to or attend to, as if he were pope, the said Peter de Luna, who is a notorious, declared and deposed schismatic and incorrigible heretic, or to sustain or harbour him in any way contrary to the aforesaid, or to offer him help, advice or good will. This is forbidden under pain of the offender being counted as a promoter of schism and heresy and of being deprived of all benefices, dignities and ecclesiastical or secular honours, and under other penalties of the law, even if the dignity is that of a bishop, a patriarch, a cardinal, a king or the emperor. If they act contrary to this prohibition, they are by this very fact deprived of these things, on the authority of this decree and sentence, and they incur the other penalties of the law. This holy synod, moreover, declares and decrees that all and singular prohibitions and all processes, sentences, constitutions, censures and any other things whatsoever that were issued by him and might impede the aforesaid, are without effect; and it invalidates, revokes and annuls them; saving always the other penalties which the law decrees for the above cases.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM16.HTM#4

And this is what anti-Pope Martin V (Pope John XXIII still reigned) assented to:
Quote
Martin, etc. We wish and desire to put into effect a decree of this general council [towit: "The frequent holding of general councils is a pre-eminent means of cultivating the Lord's patrimony. It roots out the briars, thorns and thistles of heresies, errors and schisms, corrects deviations, reforms what is deformed and produces a richly fertile crop for the Lord's vineyard. Neglect of councils, on the other hand, spreads and fosters the aforesaid evils. This conclusion is brought before our eyes by the memory of past times and reflection on the present situation. For this reason we establish, enact, decree and ordain, by a perpetual edict, that general councils shall be held henceforth in the following way. The first shall follow in five years immediately after the end of this council, the second in seven years immediately after the end of the next council, and thereafter they are to be held every ten years for ever. They are to be held in places which the supreme pontiff is bound to nominate and assign within a month before the end of each preceding council, with the approval and consent of the council, or which, in his default, the council itself is bound to nominate. Thus, by a certain continuity, there will always be either a council in existence or one expected within a given time. If perchance emergencies arise, the time may be shortened by the supreme pontiff, acting on the advice of his brothers, the cardinals of the Roman church, but it may never be prolonged. Moreover, he may not change the place assigned for the next council without evident necessity. If an emergency arises whereby it seems necessary to change the place—for example in the case of a siege, war, disease or the like—then the supreme pontiff may, with the consent and written endorsement of his aforesaid brothers or of two-thirds of them, substitute another place which is suitable and fairly near to the place previously assigned. It must, however, be within the same nation unless the same or a similar impediment exists throughout the nation. In the latter case he may summon the council to another suitable place which is nearby but within another nation, and the prelates and other persons who are customarily summoned to a council will be obliged to come to it as if it had been the place originally assigned. The supreme pontiff is bound to announce and publish the change of place or the shortening of time in a legal and solemn form within a year before the date assigned, so that the aforesaid persons may be able to meet and hold the council at the appointed time. ] which lays down, among other things, that general councils must always be held in the place which the supreme pontiff, with the consent and approval of the council, is bound to depute and assign, within the month before the end of this council, as the place for the next council after the end of the present one. With the consent and approval of this present council, we therefore, by this present decree, depute and assign the city of Pavia for this purpose, and we ordain and decree that prelates and others who ought to be summoned to general councils are obliged to go to Pavia at the aforesaid time. Let nobody therefore ... If anyone however .... Given and enacted at Constance, in the place of this public session ....
Hence he resigned as this is the ONLY way the schism would be ended and proof is that all sides accepted Martin as legitimate.
Pope John XXIIIa had not resigned, hence you cannot accept Martin as legitimate if you want to hold to Pastor Aeternus. Case closed.
Case closed.

So again what you said is total nonsense.

Now to deal with the listing of pisan popes. They aren't listed anymore

Yes, Cardinal Winston Smith at the Congregation of Truth dealt with them a half millenium afterwards, so they never existed.
 Roll Eyes
This is because of what I showed  before how the case for Rome is established. From the beginning its was either Rome or Avigon that's was issue at hand. Only one of these two was right.
Both their college of cardinals elected the Pisan pope Alexander V, so I guess he was super right.
Clearly from the facts Rome was right and legitimate as anyone can see so Rome never stops being legitimate.



All council of Constance did was choose a successor to the pope of Rome as this successor is legitimate. Logic follows.
Oh, the council of Constance did far more than that.  Read its acts.  Logic follows, but Pastor Aeternus does not.

The politics behind recognizing pisan pipes is simply that, politics of the time so as to keep unity. As soon as there was an established unity for a few centuries the matter was finally settled and Rome issued a corrected list of popes EXCLUDING the pisan popes.
so if you usurp a throne you are legitimized if you manage to keep it for a while.  by that logic, the Orthodox don't need Old Rome: the Patriarchs have managed to keep their thrones legitimately without the Vatican for anywhere from over half a millenium to almost a millenium.
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
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,365



« Reply #63 on: September 05, 2013, 11:28:37 AM »

How do I know which councils are ecumenical? Books, mostly. Same as you.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #64 on: September 05, 2013, 11:29:44 AM »

Those quotes are all so terribly long. Can't you guys try to just quote the relevant parts?
I did: there is even more at the links.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #65 on: September 05, 2013, 11:40:31 AM »

Like I said , politics if the time. Its obvious for all to see.
especially those blinded by the Kool-Aid.

Pope John XXIIIa's forced acceptance of Pope Martin V was politics of the time, obvious for all to see.  As obvious as the inscription-protested by Pope Martin V-on his tomb "the former Pope John."

Again his assent to its findings bar the first session give it authority hence Catholics recognize the first seven ecumenical councils. Stop polemics and actually read about the council :
Stop polemics and actually read the council:
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM16.HTM

So like u said, you're talking nonsense
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
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #66 on: September 05, 2013, 11:44:31 AM »

@Regnare

Quote
I still don't think it's correct to say apostolic succession is broken.

It is since you do not have a valid Pope since the western schism.

What?  Cheesy This is a bunch of nonsense LOL the line of roman popes was legitimate case closed as I showed in a previous thread here on OC.net

Really? Post your demonstration here please. We'll see  Smiley


Its a bit long but this practically sums up everything

Quote
It seems certain that the cardinals then took every means to obviate all possible doubts. On the evening of the same day thirteen of them proceeded to a new election, and again chose the Archbishop of Bari with the formally expressed intention of selecting a legitimate pope. During the following days all the members of the Sacred College offered their respectful homage to the new pope, who had taken the name of Urban VI, and asked of him countless favours. They then enthroned him, first at the Vatican Palace, and later at St. John Lateran; finally on 18 April they solemnly crowned him at St. Peter's. the very next day the Sacred College gave official notification of Urban's accession to the six French cardinals in Avignon; the latter recognized and congratulated the choice of their colleagues. The Roman cardinals then wrote to the head of the empire and the other Catholic sovereigns. Cardinal Robert of Geneva, the future Clement VII of Avignon, wrote in the same strain to his relative the King of France and to the Count of Flanders. Pedro de Luna of Aragon, the future Benedict XIII, likewise wrote to several bishops of Spain.

far, therefore, there was not a single objection to or dissatisfaction with the selection of Bartolommeo Prignano, not a protest, no hesitation, and no fear manifested for the future

Unfortunately Pope Urban did not realize the hopes to which his election had given rise. He showed himself whimsical, haughty, suspicious, and sometimes choleric in his relations with the cardinals who had elected him. Too obvious roughness and blameable extravagances seemed to show that his unexpected election had altered his character. St. Catherine of Siena, with supernatural courage, did not hesitate to make him some very well-founded remarks in this respect, nor did she hesitate when there was question of blaming the cardinals in their revolt against the pope whom they had previously elected. Some historians state that Urban openly attacked the failings, real or supposed, of members of the Sacred College, and that he energetically refused to restore the pontifical see to Avignon. Hence, they add, the growing opposition. However that may be, none of these unpleasant dissensions which arose subsequently to the election could logically weaken the validity of the choice made on 8 April. The cardinals elected Prignano, not because they were swayed by fear, though naturally they were somewhat fearful of the mischances that might grow out of delay. Urban was pope before his errors; he was still pope after his errors. The passions of King Henry IV or the vices of Louis XV did not prevent these monarchs from being and remaining true descendants of St. Louis and lawful kings of France. Unhappily such was not, in 1378, the reasoning of the Roman cardinals. dissatisfaction continued to increase. Under pretext of escaping the unhealthy heat of Rome, they withdrew in May to Anagni, and in July to Fondi, under the protection of Queen Joanna of Naples and two hundred Gascon lances of Bernardon de la Salle. They then began a silent campaign against their choice of April, and prepared men's minds for the news of a second election. On 20 September thirteen members of the Sacred College precipitated matters by going into conclave at Fondi and choosing as pope Robert of Geneva, who took the name of Clement VII. Some months later the new pontiff, driven from the Kingdom of Naples, took up his residence at Avignon; the schism was complete

So here we see a group of cardinals dissatisfied with the way Pope Urban , the legitimate pontiff, conducts himself and so decide to choose another pope. Clearly this second pope is illegitimate and any arguments for him are put of pure ignorance or hatred for the legitimacy of the papacy, period.

we continue :

Quote
Unfortunately the rival popes launched excommunication against each other; they created numerous cardinals to make up for the defections and sent them throughout Christendom to defend their cause, spread their influence, and win adherents. While these grave and burning discussions were being spread abroad, Boniface IX had succeeded Urban VI at Rome and Benedict XIII had been elected pope at the death of Clement of Avignon...

definite result. The evil continued without remedy or truce. The King of France and his uncles began to weary of supporting such a pope as Benedict, who acted only according to his humour and who caused the failure of every plan for union. Moreover, his exactions and the fiscal severity of his agents weighed heavily on the bishops, abbots, and lesser clergy of France. Charles VI released his people from obedience to Benedict (1398), and forbade his subjects, under severe penalties, to submit to this pope. Every bull or letter of the pope was to be sent to the king; no account was to be taken of privileges granted by the pope; in future every dispensation was to be asked of the ordinaries.

This therefore was a schism within a schism, a law of separation. The Chancellor of France, who was already viceroy during the illness of Charles VI, thereby became even vice-pope. Not without the connivance of the public power, Geoffrey Boucicaut, brother of the illustrious marshal, laid siege to Avignon, and a more or less strict blockade deprived the pontiff of all communication with those who remained faithful to him. When restored to liberty in 1403 Benedict had not become more conciliating, less obstinate or stubborn. Another private synod, which assembled in Paris in 1406, met with only partial success. Innocent VII had already succeeded Boniface of Rome, and, after a reign of two years, was replaced by Gregory XII. The latter, although of temperate character, seems not to have realized the hopes which Christendom, immeasurably wearied of these endless divisions, had placed in him. council which assembled at Pisa added a third claimant to the papal throne instead of two (1409). After many conferences, projects, discussions (oftentimes violent), interventions of the civil powers, catastrophes of all kinds, the Council of Constance (1414) deposed the suspicious John XXIII, received the abdication of the gentle and timid Gregory XII, and finally dismissed the obstinate Benedict XIII. On 11 November, 1417, the assembly elected Odo Colonna, who took the name of Martin V. Thus ended the great schism of the West

Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas. It suffices to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the faculty of Lille: "If after the election of a pope and before his death or resignation a new election takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostolic Succession. This was seen at the beginning of what is called, somewhat incorrectly, the Great Schism of the West, which was only an apparent schism from a theological standpoint. If two elections take place simultaneously or nearly so, one according to laws previously passed and the other contrary to them, the apostolicity belongs to the pope legally chosen and not to the other, and though there be doubts, discussions, and cruel divisions on this point, as at the time of the so-called Western Schism, it is no less true, no less real that the apostolicity exists objectively in the true pope.

To contemporaries this problem was, as has been sufficiently shown, almost insoluble. Are our lights fuller and more brilliant than theirs? After six centuries we are able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially, and apparently the time is at hand for the formation of a decision, if not definitive, at least better informed and more just. In our opinion the question made rapid strides towards the end of the nineteenth century. Cardinal Hergenröther, Bliemetzrieder, Hefele, Hinschius, Kraus, Brück, Funk, and the learned Pastor in Germany, Marion, Chenon, de Beaucourt, and Denifle in France, Kirsch in Switzerland, Palma, long after Rinaldi, in Italy, Albers in Holland (to mention only the most competent or illustrious) have openly declared in favour of the popes of Rome. Noel Valois, who assumes authority on the question, at first considered the rival popes as doubtful, and believed "that the solution of this great problem was beyond the judgment of history" (I,8). Six years later he concluded his authoritative study and reviewed the facts related in his four large volumes. The following is his last conclusion, much more explicit and decided than his earlier judgment: "A tradition has been established in favour of the popes of Rome which historical investigation tends to confirm". not this book itself (IV, 503), though the author hesitates to decide, bring to the support of the Roman thesis new arguments, which in the opinion of some critics are quite convincing? final and quite recent argument comes from Rome. In 1904 the "Gerarchia Cattolica", basing its arguments on the date of the Liber Pontificalis, compiled a new and corrected list of sovereign pontiffs. Ten names have disappeared from this list of legitimate popes, neither the popes of Avignon nor those of Pisa being ranked in the true lineage of St. Peter. If this deliberate omission is not proof positive, it is at least a very strong presumption in favour of the legitimacy of the Roman popes Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII. Moreover, the names of the popes of Avignon, Clement VII and Benedict XIII, were again taken by later popes (in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) who were legitimate

The matter is settled and succession is maintained in the line of Roman pipes from whom Urban VI, who was legitimately elected, to Pope Francis today.

And it does not work for several reasons:

The Council that elected Martin V was not called by the Pope and was invalid, without authority to depose or elect any pope.

The Council said:

"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"


So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.


This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
 John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council, Gregory XII voluntarily resigned. Then Martin V was elected pope on 11 November 1417 and he was regarded as the legitimate pontiff by the church as a whole.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

So we have a council called by Pope john XXIII, a council that recognised John XXIII as the true Pope, and this same council deposed the true Pope. Fair enough.

But Vatican I says:

"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that... nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon...they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
[/color]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%203.%20On%20the%20power%20and%20character%20of%20the%20primacy%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff

And:

Quote
Your "Roman Popes"-as I've showed in previous thread here on OC.net-recognized the Pisan popes, listing them in the PA (as official a list as the Vatican will issue). Roman Pope Alexander VI took the number in recognition of Pisan Alexander V. Roman Pope John XXIII (the one who closed Vatican I and convened Vatican II) took the number to disavow Pisan Pope John XXIII-although the Roman's authority depends on the council of Constance that the Pisan convened.
Your Roman popes closed your case against you.



It wasn't called by the roman one but had his assent and such his authority for decision to fund one successor to end the schism. Hence he resigned as this is the ONLY way the schism would be ended and proof is that all sides accepted Martin as legitimate. Case closed.

So again what you said is total nonsense.

Now to deal with the listing of pisan popes. They aren't listed anymore. This is because of what I showed in before how the case for Rome is established.
*


You are still wrong:

Roman Pope Alexander VI took the number in recognition of Pisan Alexander V thus you can take them back from the list, Alexander VI is a proof that remains against your case.

Like I said , politics if the time. Its obvious for all to see.

Then, Council of Constance was composed of full heretics who contradicted Vatican I and deposed the one they considered the true Pope. On what makes a Council having authority:

Councils (or synods) are assemblies composed first and foremost of Bishops [an allusion to Councils in the past, in which Princes and Christian Sovereigns participated-Ed.]; these  assemblies  are  held to  discuss  the Church's affairs, to take decisions and promulgate decrees....An assembly of the representatives of the whole Church, convoked in a regular manner (convoked, directed and confirmed  by  the Pope), is called an Ecumenical Council. According to Catholic doctrine and Canon Law [1977 Code of Canon Law, can. 228] the Bishops who, assembled in an Ecumenical Council, deliberate and take decisions with the Pope and under his direction, exercise supreme power in the Church; further-more, when the Council adopts a solemn definition, they enjoy infallibility in a matter of Faith.

For an Ecumenical Council to exist, therefore, the conditions are as follows: it must be called by the Pope; its work must be directed by the Pope (in person or by persons delegated by him); and its acts must be confirmed by the Pope.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2002_May/Vatican_II_An_Untypical_Council.htm

Even your encyclopedia says:

The Council of Constance was held during the great Schism of the West, with the object of ending the divisions in the Church. It became legitimate only when Gregory XI had formally convoked it.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

But he didnt convoke it.

Case closed, you are speaking nonsense  Smiley

Again his assent to its findings bar the first session five it authority. Stop polemics and actually read about the council :

Quote
Fregory XII then sent representatives to Constance, whom he granted full powers to summon, open and preside over an Ecumenical Council; he also empowered them to present his resignation to the Papacy. This would pave the way for the end of the Western Schism.

The legates were received by King Sigismund and by the assembled Bishops, and the King yielded the presidency of the proceedings to the papal legates, Cardinal Dominici of Ragusa and Prince Charles of Malatesta. On 4 July 1415 the Bull of Gregory XII which appointed Malatesta and Cardinal Dominici of Ragusa as his proxies at the council was formally read before the assembled Bishops. The cardinal then read a decree of Gregory XII which convoked the council and authorized its succeeding acts.
, the Bishops voted to accept the summons. Prince Malatesta immediately informed the Council that he was empowered by a commission from Pope Gregory XII to resign the Papal Throne on the Pontiff's behalf. He asked the Council whether they would prefer to receive the abdication at that point or at a later date. The Bishops voted to receive the Papal abdication immediately. Thereupon the commission by Gregory XII authorizing his proxy to resign the Papacy on his behalf was read and Malatesta, acting in the name of Gregory XII, pronounced the resignation of the papacy by Gregory XII and handed a written copy of the resignation to the assembly.

Former Pope Gregory XII was then created titular Cardinal Bishop of Porto and Santa Ruffina by the Council, with rank immediately below the Pope (which made him the highest-ranking person in the Church, since, due to his abdication, the See of Peter was vacant). Gregory XII's cardinals were accepted as true cardinals by the Council, but the members of the council delayed electing a new pope for fear that a new pope would restrict further discussion of pressing issues in the Church.

By the time the anti-popes were all deposed and the new Pope, Martin V, was elected, two years had passed since Gregory XII's abdication, and Gregory was already dead. The council took great care to protect the legitimacy of the succession, ratified all his acts and a new pontiff was chosen. The new pope, Martin V, elected November 1417, soon asserted the absolute authority of the papal

The Council didnt care about Gregory since it didnt believe him to be the Pope:

The Council said:

"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"


So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.

This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
 John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council
, Gregory XII voluntarily resigned. Then Martin V was elected pope on 11 November 1417 and he was regarded as the legitimate pontiff by the church as a whole.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

But as you saw, it DID care about his assent contrary to what you're trying to show.
The council exclaimed John as such because he called it, even though illicit. But how Rome gains convoking rights is by the assent of The Pope of Rome as was the case with the seven ecumenical councils as that's how we recognize them as such. And btw all 3 claimants were deposed. Further Rome ws legitimate from the beginning and such you can't lose legitimacy.

read up : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Constance

The 2nd and 5th Oecumenical Council didnt care either about the assent of the Bishop of Rome, St Meletius was not even in communion with Rome, and the 5th Council bishops stoped communion with Bishop of Rome too. Ultramontanism nonsense  Roll Eyes With wikipedia... laugh

You clearly missed the point

Assent was given eventually hence we recognize it as ecumenical because of this. The Pope need not physically convoke or preside. This is how it lines up with Vatican I.

Quote
Quote
And btw all 3 claimants were deposed.

Vatican I says no council can depose the Pope, so that does not solve the issue for you

Yeah bad wording, resigned as Gregory did and all the council agreed to
Quote
The promised resignation of Gregory XII was now in order, and was accomplished with the dignity to be expected from the pope usually considered by Catholic historians the legitimate occupant of the See of Peter, though at this time his obedience had practically vanished, being confined to Rimini and a few German dioceses. Through his protector and plenipotentiary, Carlo Malatesta, Lord of Rimini, he posited as conditions that the council should be reconvoked by himself, and that in the session which accepted his resignation neither Baldassare Cossa nor any representative of him should preside. The council agreed to these conditions. The fourteenth session (4 July, 1415) had, therefore, for its president the Emperor Sigismund, whereby it appeared, as the supporters of Gregory wished it to appear, that hitherto the council was an assembly convoked by the civil authority. The famous Dominican Cardinal John of Ragusa (Johannes Dominici), friend and adviser of Gregory XII, and since 19 Dec., 1414, the pope's representative at Constance, convoked anew the council in the pope's name and authorized its future acts. The reunion of both obediences (Gregory XII and John XXIII) was then proclaimed, whereupon the Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia (Viviers) assumed the presidency, and Malatesta pronounced, in the name of Gregory, the latter's abdication of all right whatsoever to the papacy. Gregory confirmed these acts in the seventeenth session (14 July) and was himself confirmed as Cardinal-Bishop of Porto, Dean of the Sacred College and perpetual Legate of Ancona, in which position he died (18 Oct., 1417) at Recanati, in his ninetieth year in the odour of sanctity. From the fourteenth session, in which he convoked the council, it is considered by many with Phillips (Kirchenrecht, I, 256) a legitimate general council. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm

Quote
Further Rome ws legitimate from the beginning and such you can't lose legitimacy.

Quote
Alexander VI is also an anti pope?



Not at all. Lol and your reasoning to try "catch me out" is pathetic. His name is Alexander. Numbering is not that important and can't make you ant antipope as he was legitimately elected.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 11:51:43 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #67 on: September 05, 2013, 11:54:35 AM »

Not at all. Lol and your reasoning to try "catch me out" is pathetic. His name is Alexander. Numbering is not that important
au contraire, it shows whom he considered a "valid" pope and his predecessor in office.

Wouldn't that fall under "faith and morals"?  How solemn is taking a papal throne name on taking the cathedra and proclaiming it therefrom, ex cathedra?

and can't make you ant antipope as he was legitimately elected.
If Pastor Aeternus is correct, by an illegitimate college of cardinals.  But then if he is illegitimate, so is Pastor Aeternus, but if the council of Constance is illegitimate, so is Pope Alexander VI.

Quite a catch-22 you have there.
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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #68 on: September 05, 2013, 12:12:33 PM »

Those quotes are all so terribly long. Can't you guys try to just quote the relevant parts?
I did: there is even more at the links.

True. But Wandile and Napoletani all have long quotes.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 01:56:12 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 325



« Reply #69 on: September 05, 2013, 12:31:10 PM »

I concede Napoletani's point, but I do want to ask one question about his quote from the letter to Cyprian.
"But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles...

 And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make; breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles..."
If Rome is failing to observe those things handed down from the beginning and vainly pretending authority, how is there no departure from the peace and unity of the church? Or is it just saying that the disunity Stephen is causing is even worse?
Logged

"I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary for your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your holy mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity." --Venerable St. Isaac of Nineveh
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #70 on: September 05, 2013, 01:33:54 PM »

Not at all. Lol and your reasoning to try "catch me out" is pathetic. His name is Alexander. Numbering is not that important
au contraire, it shows whom he considered a "valid" pope and his predecessor in office.

Wouldn't that fall under "faith and morals"?  How solemn is taking a papal throne name on taking the cathedra and proclaiming it therefrom, ex cathedra?

LOL numbering is not ex cathedra nor is listing of popes. Hence the list now excludes avigon and pisan antipopes. Your reasoning is poor

Quote
Quote from: Wandile link=topic=53527.msg984185#msg98418b5 date=1378395871
and can't make you ant antipope as he was legitimately elected.
If Pastor Aeternus is correct, by an illegitimate college of cardinals.  But then if he is illegitimate, so is Pastor Aeternus, but if the council of Constance is illegitimate, so is Pope Alexander VI.

Quite a catch-22 you have there.

It was legitimate as recognized by the catholic church. The same church that promulgated pastor aeturnus. The problem is your weird and unfounded deliberate misinterpretation of the document.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #71 on: September 05, 2013, 01:36:19 PM »

I concede Napoletani's point, but I do want to ask one question about his quote from the letter to Cyprian.
"But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles...

 And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make; breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles..."
If Rome is failing to observe those things handed down from the beginning and vainly pretending authority, how is there no departure from the peace and unity of the church? Or is it just saying that the disunity Stephen is causing is even worse?

see the previous thread that covered , as a side topic, the confrontation between Cyprian and Pope Stephen. I'll try get the the link
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #72 on: September 05, 2013, 01:37:52 PM »

Those quotes are all so terribly long. Can't you guys try to just quote the relevant parts?
I did: there is even more at the links.

True. But Wandile and Napoletani are have long quotes.

Sorry, I just post the whole quote to give the bolded parts context
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #73 on: September 05, 2013, 02:08:22 PM »

Not at all. Lol and your reasoning to try "catch me out" is pathetic. His name is Alexander. Numbering is not that important
au contraire, it shows whom he considered a "valid" pope and his predecessor in office.

Wouldn't that fall under "faith and morals"?  How solemn is taking a papal throne name on taking the cathedra and proclaiming it therefrom, ex cathedra?

LOL numbering is not ex cathedra nor is listing of popes. Hence the list now excludes avigon and pisan antipopes. Your reasoning is poor
not as poor as your historiography (or rather, revisionism) and theology (or rather, propaganda).

If the numbering is not ex cathedra nor the listing of popes, then your anti-popes' list excluding the Avignon and Pisan Popes lacks substance or meaning.  And until your anti-popes see fit issue a list of "true popes" "ex cathedra," you are precluded from dropping or even questioning the legitimacy of the Avignon and-especially-the Pisan pontiffs.

They existed, unlike Pastor Aeternus' history of the Church.
Quote from: Wandile link=topic=53527.msg984185#msg98418b5 date=1378395871
and can't make you ant antipope as he was legitimately elected.
If Pastor Aeternus is correct, by an illegitimate college of cardinals.  But then if he is illegitimate, so is Pastor Aeternus, but if the council of Constance is illegitimate, so is Pope Alexander VI.

Quite a catch-22 you have there.
It was legitimate as recognized by the catholic church. The same church that promulgated pastor aeturnus. The problem is your weird and unfounded deliberate misinterpretation of the document.
Haec Sancta Synodus directly contradicts Pastor Aeternus, and the same authority that issued Haec Sancta Synodus made Martin V pope, whose authority Vatican I and its Pope Pius depended on to issue Pastor Aeternus.

All the same church. We in the Catholic Church recognize all of the above as illegitimate, because of their weird and unfounded deliberate misinterpretation of the documented Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 02:09:22 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #74 on: September 05, 2013, 06:29:25 PM »

I concede Napoletani's point, but I do want to ask one question about his quote from the letter to Cyprian.
"But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles...

 And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make; breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles..."
If Rome is failing to observe those things handed down from the beginning and vainly pretending authority, how is there no departure from the peace and unity of the church? Or is it just saying that the disunity Stephen is causing is even worse?

It is mostly because Economia allows for exceptions, but what Staphen did was trying to make exceptions a rule and the Apostolic one, wich is wrong. Like if Rome tried to impose celibate to eastern priests. That both celibacy and married priests existed is a fact, trying to impose it to a fellow patriarchate is breaking unity and peace. I dont know if i was clear or not  Cheesy
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #75 on: September 05, 2013, 06:37:32 PM »

Quote
Yeah bad wording, resigned as Gregory did and all the council agreed to

False!

This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council,
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

So no, it was not a bad wording, it was true, but you try anything as long as you can reply something.

Quote
You clearly missed the point

Assent was given eventually hence we recognize it as ecumenical because of this. The Pope need not physically convoke or preside. This is how it lines up with Vatican I.

The pope didnt even spiritualy convoked it, had no legates, nothing to do with those councils. And those Saints were out of communion with Rome. So no, it does not line up with it. Vatican I says:

"In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd "

No such unity with the Roman pontiff at 2nd or 5th oecumenical Councils.

Councils (or synods) are assemblies composed first and foremost of Bishops [an allusion to Councils in the past, in which Princes and Christian Sovereigns participated-Ed.]; these  assemblies  are  held to  discuss  the Church's affairs, to take decisions and promulgate decrees....An assembly of the representatives of the whole Church, convoked in a regular manner (convoked, directed and confirmed  by  the Pope), is called an Ecumenical Council. According to Catholic doctrine and Canon Law [1977 Code of Canon Law, can. 228] the Bishops who, assembled in an Ecumenical Council, deliberate and take decisions with the Pope and under his direction, exercise supreme power in the Church; further-more, when the Council adopts a solemn definition, they enjoy infallibility in a matter of Faith.

For an Ecumenical Council to exist, therefore, the conditions are as follows: it must be called by the Pope; its work must be directed by the Pope (in person or by persons delegated by him); and its acts must be confirmed by the Pope.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2002_May/Vatican_II_An_Untypical_Council.htm

SSPXASIA is not a greek "schismatic" website.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 06:47:50 PM by Napoletani » Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,756



« Reply #76 on: September 06, 2013, 05:30:24 AM »

IAL

Would ecumenical councils have happened if there were no emperor???
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #77 on: September 06, 2013, 08:38:34 AM »

IAL

Would ecumenical councils have happened if there were no emperor???
eventually, yes.  The Emperor only sped the process up as a facilitator, and ending the biggest obstacles to such a large gathering (although not all were that large: the Second was only 150, and none from the Western Empire).

Because of the persecusions, heresies usually remained local, but some did manage to spread (Montanism, for instance).  The spread of Arianism didn't happen before, because it wouldn't have had the opportunity earlier to spread out of Egypt (cf. the confinement of the Ebionites to Palestine), hence no need for an Ecumenical gathering to condemn it.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 08:42:00 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,145


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #78 on: September 06, 2013, 10:44:48 AM »

 Kiss
Quote
Yeah bad wording, resigned as Gregory did and all the council agreed to

False!

This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council,
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

So no, it was not a bad wording, it was true, but you try anything as long as you can reply something.

Lol Gregory resigned and the other two deposed. Whatever its makes no difference to what I'm telling you as the ecumenical council recognized at Constance in 1415 was reconvoked by Gregory by his prelates as YOUR source and mine have been telling you :

Quote


I have given the conventional session numbers for "the" Council of Constance so as to make cross referencing with other editions easier. However it is very misleading to do so. One should not speak of "the" Council of Constance, but of the councils of Constance. was a council of bishops [and others] beginning 16 November 1414 which styled itself ecumenical, but which the true pope of the day did not recognize as such. There was another council [even if its members were those of the first] which he convoked, by proxy, on 4 July 1415 and did recognize as ecumenical. The ratification of "the" council by Martin the fifth, given in a footnote to session 45, was a ratification of everything determined "in a conciliar way ... by this present council of Constance", i.e. of the one convoked on 4 July 1415. The intent of the words "in a conciliar way" is, on my reading, to distinguish the true [ecumenical] council from the false one.

The matter is crucial to the possibility of the catholic doctrine of the infallibility of ecumenical councils, since the teachings of Vatican 1 on papal primacy are inconsistent with those of the first [non-ecumenical] Council of Constance [in particular the famous session 5, Haec Sancta, which taught conciliarism] , but not with those of the second [ecumenical] one

Crucial to my claim is the question of who the true pope was and when a genuinely ecumenical council came into existence. I shall quote from Phillip Hughes (the footnotes here included are from Hughes' text) :

"Just five weeks after Baldassare Cossa (John XXIII) meekly accepted the council's sentence, the fathers met to receive the solemn abdication of Gregory XII. He was in fact, and to the end he claimed to be in law, the canonically elected representative of the line that went back to Urban VI, the last pope to be acknowledged as pope by Catholics everywhere [2 ] . The abdication was arranged and executed with a care to safeguard all that Gregory claimed to be; and his merits - and indeed, requires - much more detailed consideration than it usually receives. [3 ]

Gregory XII sent to Constance as his representatives his protector Carlo Malatesta, the Lord of Rimini, and the Dominican cardinal, John Domenici -- to Constance indeed, but not to the General Council assembled there by the authority, and in the name, of John XXIII. The envoys' commission was to the emperor Sigismund, presiding over the various bishops and prelates whom his zeal to restore peace to the Church had brought together. To these envoys -- and to Malatesta in the first place-Gregory gave authority to convoke as a General Council -- to convoke and not to recognise -- these assembled bishops and prelates ; [4 ] and by a second bull [5 ] he empowered Malatesta to resign to this General Council in his name.

The emperor, the bishops and prelates consented and accepted the role Gregory assigned. And so, on July 4, 1415. Sigismund, clad in the royal robes, left the throne he had occupied in the previous sessions for a throne placed before the altar, as for the president of the assembly. Gregory's two legates sat by his side facing the bishops. bull was read commissioning Malatesta and Domenici to convoke the council and to authorise whatever it should do for the restoration of unity and the extirpation of the schism -- with Gregory's explicit condition that there should be no mention of Baldassare Cossa, [6 ] with his reminder that from his very election he had pledged himself to resign if by so doing he could truly advance the good work of unity, and his assertion that the papal dignity is truly his as the canonically elected successor of Urban VI.

Malatesta then delegated his fellow envoy, the cardinal John Domenici, to pronounce the formal operative words of convocation [7 ] ; and the assembly -- but in its own way -- accepted to be thus convoked, authorised and confirmed in the name "of that lord who in his own obedience is called Gregory XII" [8 ] . The council next declared that all canonical censures imposed by reason of the schism were lifted, and the bull was read by which Gregory authorised Malatesta to make the act of abdication [9 ] and promised to consider as ratum gratum et firmum, and forever irrevocable, whatever Malatesta, as his proxy, should perform. The envoy asked the council whether they would prefer the resignation immediately, or that it should be delayed until Peter de Luna's decision was known. The council preferred the present moment. It ratified all Gregory XII's acts, received his cardinals as cardinals, promised that his officers should keep their posts and declared that if Gregory was barred from re-election as pope, this was only for the peace of the Church, and not from any personal unworthiness. the great renunciation was made [10 ] , " . . . renuncio et cedo . . . et resigno . . . in hac sacrosancta synodo et universali concilio, sanctam Romanam et universalem eccleciam repraesentante"and the council accepted it [11 ] , but again as made "on the part of that lord who in his own obedience was called Gregory XII". The Te Deum was sung and a new summons drawn up calling upon Peter de Luna to yield to the council's authority.

THE WORK OF PISA WAS NOW ALMOST UNDONE, AND BY THIS COUNCIL WHICH, IN ORIGIN, WAS A CONTINUATION OF PISA. IT HAD SUPPRESSED THE PISAN POPE WHOM PISA, WITH BITING WORDS, HAD REJECTED AS A SCHISMATIC AND NO POPE."

Phillip Hughes A History of the Church, p289-291 http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

Quote
Quote
You clearly missed the point

Assent was given eventually hence we recognize it as ecumenical because of this. The Pope need not physically convoke or preside. This is how it lines up with Vatican I.

The pope didnt even spiritualy convoked it, had no legates, nothing to do with those councils. And those Saints were out of communion with Rome. So no, it does not line up with it. Vatican I says:

"In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd "

No such unity with the Roman pontiff at 2nd or 5th oecumenical Councils.

Councils (or synods) are assemblies composed first and foremost of Bishops [an allusion to Councils in the past, in which Princes and Christian Sovereigns participated-Ed.]; these  assemblies  are  held to  discuss  the Church's affairs, to take decisions and promulgate decrees....An assembly of the representatives of the whole Church, convoked in a regular manner (convoked, directed and confirmed  by  the Pope), is called an Ecumenical Council. According to Catholic doctrine and Canon Law [1977 Code of Canon Law, can. 228] the Bishops who, assembled in an Ecumenical Council, deliberate and take decisions with the Pope and under his direction, exercise supreme power in the Church; further-more, when the Council adopts a solemn definition, they enjoy infallibility in a matter of Faith.

For an Ecumenical Council to exist, therefore, the conditions are as follows: it must be called by the Pope; its work must be directed by the Pope (in person or by persons delegated by him); and its acts must be confirmed by the Pope.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2002_May/Vatican_II_An_Untypical_Council.htm

SSPXASIA is not a greek "schismatic" web

Lol btw his assent was given, no matter how many years later and thus ratified and recognized as ecumenical by us Catholics. Go read a book and stop polemics. Ask the catholic Church why it recognises thes as ecumenical and you'll see what I just told you
« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 11:03:04 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #79 on: September 06, 2013, 11:04:37 AM »

Kiss
Quote
Yeah bad wording, resigned as Gregory did and all the council agreed to

False!

This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council,
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

So no, it was not a bad wording, it was true, but you try anything as long as you can reply something.

Lol Gregory resigned and the other two deposed. Whatever its makes no difference to what I'm telling you as the ecumenical council recognized at Constance in 1415 was reconvoked by Gregory by his prelates as YOUR source and mine have been telling you :

Quote


I have given the conventional session numbers for "the" Council of Constance so as to make cross referencing with other editions easier. However it is very misleading to do so. One should not speak of "the" Council of Constance, but of the councils of Constance. was a council of bishops [and others] beginning 16 November 1414 which styled itself ecumenical, but which the true pope of the day did not recognize as such. There was another council [even if its members were those of the first] which he convoked, by proxy, on 4 July 1415 and did recognize as ecumenical. The ratification of "the" council by Martin the fifth, given in a footnote to session 45, was a ratification of everything determined "in a conciliar way ... by this present council of Constance", i.e. of the one convoked on 4 July 1415. The intent of the words "in a conciliar way" is, on my reading, to distinguish the true [ecumenical] council from the false one.

The matter is crucial to the possibility of the catholic doctrine of the infallibility of ecumenical councils, since the teachings of Vatican 1 on papal primacy are inconsistent with those of the first [non-ecumenical] Council of Constance [in particular the famous session 5, Haec Sancta, which taught conciliarism] , but not with those of the second [ecumenical] one

Crucial to my claim is the question of who the true pope was and when a genuinely ecumenical council came into existence. I shall quote from Phillip Hughes (the footnotes here included are from Hughes' text) :

"Just five weeks after Baldassare Cossa (John XXIII) meekly accepted the council's sentence, the fathers met to receive the solemn abdication of Gregory XII. He was in fact, and to the end he claimed to be in law, the canonically elected representative of the line that went back to Urban VI, the last pope to be acknowledged as pope by Catholics everywhere [2 ] . The abdication was arranged and executed with a care to safeguard all that Gregory claimed to be; and his merits - and indeed, requires - much more detailed consideration than it usually receives. [3 ]

Gregory XII sent to Constance as his representatives his protector Carlo Malatesta, the Lord of Rimini, and the Dominican cardinal, John Domenici -- to Constance indeed, but not to the General Council assembled there by the authority, and in the name, of John XXIII. The envoys' commission was to the emperor Sigismund, presiding over the various bishops and prelates whom his zeal to restore peace to the Church had brought together. To these envoys -- and to Malatesta in the first place-Gregory gave authority to convoke as a General Council -- to convoke and not to recognise -- these assembled bishops and prelates ; [4 ] and by a second bull [5 ] he empowered Malatesta to resign to this General Council in his name.

The emperor, the bishops and prelates consented and accepted the role Gregory assigned. And so, on July 4, 1415. Sigismund, clad in the royal robes, left the throne he had occupied in the previous sessions for a throne placed before the altar, as for the president of the assembly. Gregory's two legates sat by his side facing the bishops. bull was read commissioning Malatesta and Domenici to convoke the council and to authorise whatever it should do for the restoration of unity and the extirpation of the schism -- with Gregory's explicit condition that there should be no mention of Baldassare Cossa, [6 ] with his reminder that from his very election he had pledged himself to resign if by so doing he could truly advance the good work of unity, and his assertion that the papal dignity is truly his as the canonically elected successor of Urban VI.

Malatesta then delegated his fellow envoy, the cardinal John Domenici, to pronounce the formal operative words of convocation [7 ] ; and the assembly -- but in its own way -- accepted to be thus convoked, authorised and confirmed in the name "of that lord who in his own obedience is called Gregory XII" [8 ] . The council next declared that all canonical censures imposed by reason of the schism were lifted, and the bull was read by which Gregory authorised Malatesta to make the act of abdication [9 ] and promised to consider as ratum gratum et firmum, and forever irrevocable, whatever Malatesta, as his proxy, should perform. The envoy asked the council whether they would prefer the resignation immediately, or that it should be delayed until Peter de Luna's decision was known. The council preferred the present moment. It ratified all Gregory XII's acts, received his cardinals as cardinals, promised that his officers should keep their posts and declared that if Gregory was barred from re-election as pope, this was only for the peace of the Church, and not from any personal unworthiness. the great renunciation was made [10 ] , " . . . renuncio et cedo . . . et resigno . . . in hac sacrosancta synodo et universali concilio, sanctam Romanam et universalem eccleciam repraesentante"and the council accepted it [11 ] , but again as made "on the part of that lord who in his own obedience was called Gregory XII". The Te Deum was sung and a new summons drawn up calling upon Peter de Luna to yield to the council's authority.

THE WORK OF PISA WAS NOW ALMOST UNDONE, AND BY THIS COUNCIL WHICH, IN ORIGIN, WAS A CONTINUATION OF PISA. IT HAD SUPPRESSED THE PISAN POPE WHOM PISA, WITH BITING WORDS, HAD REJECTED AS A SCHISMATIC AND NO POPE."

Phillip Hughes A History of the Church, p289-291

Quote
Quote
You clearly missed the point

Assent was given eventually hence we recognize it as ecumenical because of this. The Pope need not physically convoke or preside. This is how it lines up with Vatican I.

The pope didnt even spiritualy convoked it, had no legates, nothing to do with those councils. And those Saints were out of communion with Rome. So no, it does not line up with it. Vatican I says:

"In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd "

No such unity with the Roman pontiff at 2nd or 5th oecumenical Councils.

Councils (or synods) are assemblies composed first and foremost of Bishops [an allusion to Councils in the past, in which Princes and Christian Sovereigns participated-Ed.]; these  assemblies  are  held to  discuss  the Church's affairs, to take decisions and promulgate decrees....An assembly of the representatives of the whole Church, convoked in a regular manner (convoked, directed and confirmed  by  the Pope), is called an Ecumenical Council. According to Catholic doctrine and Canon Law [1977 Code of Canon Law, can. 228] the Bishops who, assembled in an Ecumenical Council, deliberate and take decisions with the Pope and under his direction, exercise supreme power in the Church; further-more, when the Council adopts a solemn definition, they enjoy infallibility in a matter of Faith.

For an Ecumenical Council to exist, therefore, the conditions are as follows: it must be called by the Pope; its work must be directed by the Pope (in person or by persons delegated by him); and its acts must be confirmed by the Pope.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2002_May/Vatican_II_An_Untypical_Council.htm

SSPXASIA is not a greek "schismatic" web

Lol btw his assent was given, no matter how many years later and thus ratified and recognized as ecumenical by us Catholics. Go read a book and stop polemics. Ask the catholic Church why it recognises thes as ecumenical and you'll see what I just told you

That your church is blind to its internal contradiction does not erase the contradiction  Smiley A Council that would recognize 2 Popes as valid, and depose one he considers the true Pope, is per Vatican I illegitimate. So all its decisions too.

Quote
THE WORK OF PISA WAS NOW ALMOST UNDONE, AND BY THIS COUNCIL WHICH, IN ORIGIN, WAS A CONTINUATION OF PISA. IT HAD SUPPRESSED THE PISAN POPE WHOM PISA, WITH BITING WORDS, HAD REJECTED AS A SCHISMATIC AND NO POPE."

Alexander VI proves the opposite.





As far as the 2nd and 5oecumenical Councils are concerned, assent is not the only criteria for an oecumenical council, and per Vatican I, still in contradiction:

For an Ecumenical Council to exist, therefore, the conditions are as follows: it must be called by the Pope; its work must be directed by the Pope (in person or by persons delegated by him); and its acts must be confirmed by the Pope.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2002_May/Vatican_II_An_Untypical_Council.htm

« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 11:14:09 AM by Napoletani » Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #80 on: September 06, 2013, 11:18:11 AM »

Kiss
Quote
Yeah bad wording, resigned as Gregory did and all the council agreed to

False!

This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council,
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

So no, it was not a bad wording, it was true, but you try anything as long as you can reply something.

Lol Gregory resigned and the other two deposed. Whatever its makes no difference to what I'm telling you as the ecumenical council recognized at Constance in 1415 was reconvoked by Gregory in the name of prelates as YOUR source and mine have been telling you
That's not what "This most holy general synod of Constance, representing the catholic church, legitimately assembled in the Holy Spirit, for the eradication of the present schism and errors, for bringing about the reform of the church in head and members, and in order that the unity of the church may be obtained...pronounce[d], determine[d], decree[d] and ordain[ed]"

Not to be redundant, but re-post what I have already posted:
The council accepted anti-pope Gregory XII as pope on a par with pope John XXIII:
Quote
In order that the reunion of the church may be possible and that a beginning may be made which is fitting and pleasing to God, since the most important part of any matter is its beginning, and in order that the two obediences—namely the one claiming that the lord John XXIII was formerly pope and the other claiming that the lord Gregory XII is pope—may be united together under Christ as head, this most holy general synod of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit and representing the catholic church, accepts in all matters the convoking, authorising, approving and confirming that is now being made in the name of the lord who is called Gregory XII by those obedient to him, insofar as it seems to pertain to him to do this, since the certainty obtained by taking a precaution harms nobody and benefits all, and it decrees and declares that the aforesaid two obediences are joined and united in the one body of our lord Jesus Christ and of this sacred universal general council, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit.
it then affirmed its power to choose the pontiff (and not his college of cardinals):
Quote
The most holy general synod of Constance, etc., enacts, pronounces, ordains and decrees, in order that God's holy church may be provided for better, more genuinely and more securely, that the next election of the future Roman pontiff is to be made in the manner, form, place, time and way that shall be decided upon by the sacred council; that the same council can and may henceforth declare fit, accept and designate, in the manner and form that then seems suitable, any persons for the purposes of this election, whether by active or by passive voice, of whatever state or obedience they are or may have been, and any other ecclesiastical acts and all other suitable things, notwithstanding any proceedings, penalties or sentences; and that the sacred council shall not be dissolved until the said election has been held. The said holy synod therefore exhorts and requires the most victorious prince lord Sigismund, king of the Romans and of Hungary, as the church's devoted advocate and as the sacred council's defender and protector, to direct all his efforts to this end and to promise on his royal word that he wishes to do this and to order letters of his majesty to be made out for this purpose.
And THEN accepted anti-pope Gregory XII's resignation:
Quote
The most holy general synod of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, representing the universal catholic church, accepts, approves and commends, in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit, the cession renunciation and resignation made on behalf of the lord who was called Gregory XII in his obedience, by the magnificent and powerful lord Charles Malatesta. here present, his irrevocable procurator for this business, of the right, title and possession that he had, or may have had, in regard to the papacy.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM16.HTM#4
Where is the record of your "reconvocation"?

Quote
...this council which, in origin, was a continuation of Pisa...
 
all the pages of verbage of your "source" (actually, it is literature, and apologetic at that) can't get around that FACT.

Lol btw his assent was given, no matter how many years later and thus ratified and recognized as ecumenical by us Catholics.
We Catholics-and historians of any faith-know better.


We are familiar with claims of later day ratification and recognition of reconstitution of the church.

Go read a book and stop polemics.
No doubt only a book with "nihil obstat" and "imprimatur" by an authority dependent on this revision of history for its legitimation.

Physician, heal thyself.

Ask the catholic Church why it recognises these as ecumenical and you'll see what I just told you
No Catholic Church recognizes it as Ecumenical (in particular, not the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #81 on: September 06, 2013, 09:44:54 PM »

btw, the council of Constance declared
Quote
For the honour, praise and glory of the most holy Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit, and to obtain on earth, for people of good will, the peace that was divinely promised in God's church, this holy synod, called the sacred general council of Constance, duly assembled here in the holy Spirit for the purpose of bringing union and reform to the said church in its head and members, discerns declares, defines and ordains as follows.

First, that this synod was and is rightly and properly summoned to this city of Constance, and likewise has been rightly and properly begun and held.

Next, that this sacred council has not been dissolved by the departure of our lord pope from Constance, or even by the departure of other prelates or any other persons, but continues in its integrity and authority, even if decrees to the contrary have been made or shall be made in the future.

Next, that this sacred council should not and may not be dissolved until the present schism has been entirely removed and until the church has been reformed in faith and morals, in head and members.

Next, that this sacred council may not be transferred to another place, except for a reasonable cause, which is to be debated and decided on by this sacred council.

Next, that prelates and other persons who should be present at this council may not depart from this place before it has ended, except for a reasonable cause which is to be examined by persons who have been, or will be, deputed by this sacred council. When the reason has been examined and approved, they may depart with the permission of the person or persons in authority. When the individual departs, he is bound to give his power to others who stay, under penalty of the law, as well as to others appointed by this sacred council, and those who act to the contrary are to be prosecuted.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM16.HTM#4

This was before July 4, 1415
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
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 325



« Reply #82 on: September 07, 2013, 01:15:14 AM »

Although I think much of the argument here has gone beyond the simple question of how Orthodox Christians view ecumenical councils, I want to ask about the Orthodox perspective on this quote from the Council of Ephesus, where the necessity of papal support seems evident at least to me.

"As, in addition to other things, the impious Nestorius has not obeyed our citation, and did not receive the holy bishops who were sent by us to him, we were compelled to examine his ungodly doctrines.  We discovered that he had held and published impious doctrines in his letters and treatises, as well as in discourses which he delivered in this city, and which have been testified to.  Compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Cœlestine, the Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence against him, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, decrees by the holy Synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal dignity, and from all priestly communion." --Decree Against Nestorius
Logged

"I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary for your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your holy mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity." --Venerable St. Isaac of Nineveh
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #83 on: September 07, 2013, 01:30:11 AM »

Although I think much of the argument here has gone beyond the simple question of how Orthodox Christians view ecumenical councils, I want to ask about the Orthodox perspective on this quote from the Council of Ephesus, where the necessity of papal support seems evident at least to me.

"As, in addition to other things, the impious Nestorius has not obeyed our citation, and did not receive the holy bishops who were sent by us to him, we were compelled to examine his ungodly doctrines.  We discovered that he had held and published impious doctrines in his letters and treatises, as well as in discourses which he delivered in this city, and which have been testified to.  Compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Cœlestine, the Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence against him, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, decrees by the holy Synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal dignity, and from all priestly communion." --Decree Against Nestorius
The Archbishop of Old Rome was the only one not present at the Council, but who had expressed his vote of confidence by his letter. The Archbishop of Antioch wasn't there either, which became an issue that had to be addressed (which would not have been the case if Abp. Celestine's word was final).

Somewhere we dealt with the fact that Abp. Celestine seemed to want the Fathers to treat his letter like a writ of mandamus-Old Rome condemned him in a Council 11 August 430.  Instead the Council tried Nestorius themselves, e.g. Nestorius was not treated as a condemned man, but treated as a primate until he refused summons to the Council.
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
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #84 on: September 07, 2013, 03:25:34 AM »

Although I think much of the argument here has gone beyond the simple question of how Orthodox Christians view ecumenical councils, I want to ask about the Orthodox perspective on this quote from the Council of Ephesus, where the necessity of papal support seems evident at least to me.

"As, in addition to other things, the impious Nestorius has not obeyed our citation, and did not receive the holy bishops who were sent by us to him, we were compelled to examine his ungodly doctrines.  We discovered that he had held and published impious doctrines in his letters and treatises, as well as in discourses which he delivered in this city, and which have been testified to.  Compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Cœlestine, the Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence against him, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, decrees by the holy Synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal dignity, and from all priestly communion." --Decree Against Nestorius

The view of every Orthodox Bishop, if right and in accordance with the whole Church, is compelling. Had Celestine been in error, it would not have been compelling. Just like in the 5th Council, it is dependant on the Orthodoxy of the Bishop of Old Rome.
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 325



« Reply #85 on: September 07, 2013, 01:34:00 PM »

The Archbishop of Antioch wasn't there either, which became an issue that had to be addressed (which would not have been the case if Abp. Celestine's word was final).
I am speaking outside my area of expertise here (as if this whole thread didn't demonstrate that), but Abp. John's absence doesn't seem to have been an issue because his approval was vital; it was problematic because he'd set up a competing council (Ephesus having managed to start without him) and condemned St. Cyril as a heretic. The Archbishop of Antioch doesn't need to be on a level with Rome for that to be a serious problem of church unity.
Logged

"I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary for your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your holy mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity." --Venerable St. Isaac of Nineveh
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: 1,620



« Reply #86 on: September 07, 2013, 03:31:55 PM »

The Archbishop of Antioch wasn't there either, which became an issue that had to be addressed (which would not have been the case if Abp. Celestine's word was final).
I am speaking outside my area of expertise here (as if this whole thread didn't demonstrate that), but Abp. John's absence doesn't seem to have been an issue because his approval was vital; it was problematic because he'd set up a competing council (Ephesus having managed to start without him) and condemned St. Cyril as a heretic. The Archbishop of Antioch doesn't need to be on a level with Rome for that to be a serious problem of church unity.

It was a pretty major issue, even without the other competing council. The issue of the exclusion of an entire church, that of Antioch, was serious enough that they needed to appeal to the emperor in order to solve the crisis, which resulted in the formula of union.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #87 on: September 07, 2013, 08:43:43 PM »

The Archbishop of Antioch wasn't there either, which became an issue that had to be addressed (which would not have been the case if Abp. Celestine's word was final).
I am speaking outside my area of expertise here (as if this whole thread didn't demonstrate that), but Abp. John's absence doesn't seem to have been an issue because his approval was vital; it was problematic because he'd set up a competing council (Ephesus having managed to start without him) and condemned St. Cyril as a heretic. The Archbishop of Antioch doesn't need to be on a level with Rome for that to be a serious problem of church unity.

It was a pretty major issue, even without the other competing council. The issue of the exclusion of an entire church, that of Antioch, was serious enough that they needed to appeal to the emperor in order to solve the crisis, which resulted in the formula of union.
Notice, the appeal was to the emperor (the partisans of Nestorius had been blocking the functioning of the Council of Ephesus), not to Rome.  If Pastor Aeternus were true, the "supreme pontiff" would have solved it.
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
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,756



« Reply #88 on: September 08, 2013, 01:58:10 AM »

this thread page crashed my computer  laugh
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox church
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 290


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #89 on: December 06, 2013, 02:26:55 PM »

This is the thing that has always troubled me about Orthodoxy. Certainly one doesn't need a council for the vast majority of what church tradition teaches, but when one is called for, how does an Orthodox Christian know that the council has authority?

This is what bothers me too. How do I know there are 7 Ecumenical Councils? Catholics have a "convenient" way to know whether a council is ecumenical or not (if its accepted by the Pope). It doesn't seem as clear-cut in Orthodoxy. For example, why isn't the 4th Council of Constantinople of 879 considered ecumenical? The Orthodox surely agree with it and it was attended by the whole Church, the five Patriarchates. And what about the councils of Lyons and Florence? How could the Orthodox accept the council but then later reject it? (or was it that only some Orthodox bishops attended those councils, but not all?)

"Further, the question of when exactly one may say that the Church has received or rejected a council is not answerable by receptionist theory. Another ecclesiological problem is also created by receptionism: Why is it, for instance, that the Fourth Ecumenical Council may be said to have been "received by the whole Church" while significant numbers of Christians apparently within the Church rejected it, leading to the schism which even now persists? Such reasoning is circular, because whoever accepts a council is therefore inside the Church, but any who reject it are outside. In other words, such councils are ecumenical essentially because those who hold to their decrees declare themselves exclusively to be the Church.
The practical needs of the historical circumstances of the councils also bear out Romanides' analysis. Dogmatic decisions were needed right away when the councils met. The idea that one could wait for decades or even centuries to know whether a council was truly ecumenical would have radically changed the character of such a council. The councils' fathers regarded their decisions as immediately binding." - Orthodox Wiki

So what is exactly an Ecumenical Council, and why are there only 7?
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 02:29:38 PM by Laird » Logged
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox church
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 290


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #90 on: December 06, 2013, 02:40:18 PM »

IAL

Would ecumenical councils have happened if there were no emperor???
eventually, yes.  The Emperor only sped the process up as a facilitator, and ending the biggest obstacles to such a large gathering (although not all were that large: the Second was only 150, and none from the Western Empire).

Because of the persecusions, heresies usually remained local, but some did manage to spread (Montanism, for instance).  The spread of Arianism didn't happen before, because it wouldn't have had the opportunity earlier to spread out of Egypt (cf. the confinement of the Ebionites to Palestine), hence no need for an Ecumenical gathering to condemn it.
So am I right in saying that the emperor is not necessary to convene an Ecumenical Council, but that it is more helpful for the Church for him to do so? I've heard some Orthodox say that there can't be any more Ecumenical Councils today because there are no longer any emperors.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #91 on: December 06, 2013, 02:59:18 PM »

This is the thing that has always troubled me about Orthodoxy. Certainly one doesn't need a council for the vast majority of what church tradition teaches, but when one is called for, how does an Orthodox Christian know that the council has authority?

This is what bothers me too. How do I know there are 7 Ecumenical Councils? Catholics have a "convenient" way to know whether a council is ecumenical or not (if its accepted by the Pope). It doesn't seem as clear-cut in Orthodoxy. For example, why isn't the 4th Council of Constantinople of 879 considered ecumenical? The Orthodox surely agree with it and it was attended by the whole Church, the five Patriarchates. And what about the councils of Lyons and Florence? How could the Orthodox accept the council but then later reject it? (or was it that only some Orthodox bishops attended those councils, but not all?)
how could the Pope of the Vatican convene the council of Pisa as "ecumenical," and later reject it?
"Further, the question of when exactly one may say that the Church has received or rejected a council is not answerable by receptionist theory. Another ecclesiological problem is also created by receptionism: Why is it, for instance, that the Fourth Ecumenical Council may be said to have been "received by the whole Church" while significant numbers of Christians apparently within the Church rejected it, leading to the schism which even now persists? Such reasoning is circular, because whoever accepts a council is therefore inside the Church, but any who reject it are outside. In other words, such councils are ecumenical essentially because those who hold to their decrees declare themselves exclusively to be the Church.
The practical needs of the historical circumstances of the councils also bear out Romanides' analysis. Dogmatic decisions were needed right away when the councils met. The idea that one could wait for decades or even centuries to know whether a council was truly ecumenical would have radically changed the character of such a council. The councils' fathers regarded their decisions as immediately binding." - Orthodox Wiki

So what is exactly an Ecumenical Council, and why are there only 7?

The Orthodox Wiki article is particularly bad.  It would have a hard time explaining away the Iconoclast council, for instance.

There are only 7 because only 7 has been held.  If the need arose, an 8th could be held.  That hasn't happened yet.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #92 on: December 06, 2013, 02:59:57 PM »

IAL

Would ecumenical councils have happened if there were no emperor???
eventually, yes.  The Emperor only sped the process up as a facilitator, and ending the biggest obstacles to such a large gathering (although not all were that large: the Second was only 150, and none from the Western Empire).

Because of the persecusions, heresies usually remained local, but some did manage to spread (Montanism, for instance).  The spread of Arianism didn't happen before, because it wouldn't have had the opportunity earlier to spread out of Egypt (cf. the confinement of the Ebionites to Palestine), hence no need for an Ecumenical gathering to condemn it.
So am I right in saying that the emperor is not necessary to convene an Ecumenical Council, but that it is more helpful for the Church for him to do so? I've heard some Orthodox say that there can't be any more Ecumenical Councils today because there are no longer any emperors.
Yes, such an answer is foolish.

The Emperor is just the facilitator.
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
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 325



« Reply #93 on: December 06, 2013, 03:58:27 PM »

how could the Pope of the Vatican convene the council of Pisa as "ecumenical," and later reject it?
If you're talking about the one during the Western Schism which created a third papal claimant, that was convened by Card. de Malesset of Palestrina, because the bishops present didn't like either claimant.
Quote
There are only 7 because only 7 has been held.  If the need arose, an 8th could be held.  That hasn't happened yet.
So why aren't Constantinople IV and V considered ecumenical, given that they seem to have been generally accepted?
Logged

"I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary for your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your holy mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity." --Venerable St. Isaac of Nineveh
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,529


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #94 on: December 06, 2013, 04:15:50 PM »

So why aren't Constantinople IV and V considered ecumenical, given that they seem to have been generally accepted?

Some call them the 8th and 9th council. But it doesn't matter whether they are ecumenical, it matters whether they taught the orthodox faith.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 325



« Reply #95 on: December 06, 2013, 04:50:16 PM »

So why aren't Constantinople IV and V considered ecumenical, given that they seem to have been generally accepted?

Some call them the 8th and 9th council. But it doesn't matter whether they are ecumenical, it matters whether they taught the orthodox faith.

I understand that part. I'm just confused about why the word isn't applied to them when they seem to tick all the boxes.
Logged

"I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary for your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your holy mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity." --Venerable St. Isaac of Nineveh
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #96 on: December 07, 2013, 12:58:54 AM »

So why aren't Constantinople IV and V considered ecumenical, given that they seem to have been generally accepted?

Some call them the 8th and 9th council. But it doesn't matter whether they are ecumenical, it matters whether they taught the orthodox faith.

I understand that part. I'm just confused about why the word isn't applied to them when they seem to tick all the boxes.
Why isn't the Letter of Clement not among the Epistles of Scripture?  His Apostolic standing is the equal of St. Luke, whose Gospel and book of Acts was included in Scripture.  Some did consider it part of Scripture.  But the Church as a whole decided no, it was not a part of scripture, though it ticked all the boxes that St. Luke did.
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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,824


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #97 on: December 07, 2013, 01:14:40 AM »

Why isn't the Letter of Clement not among the Epistles of Scripture?  His Apostolic standing is the equal of St. Luke, whose Gospel and book of Acts was included in Scripture.  Some did consider it part of Scripture.  But the Church as a whole decided no, it was not a part of scripture, though it ticked all the boxes that St. Luke did.

In his catechetical work Mathopadesa Sarangal, St Dionysius (Vattasseril, +1934) includes, among the list of canonical books of the New Testament for the Orthodox Syriac Church, two Letters of St Clement.  St John's Apocalypse doesn't make the list, though it is of course included in the NT and regarded as Scripture.  Neither St Clement's letters nor Apocalypse feature in the Lectionary.   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #98 on: December 07, 2013, 01:15:02 AM »

how could the Pope of the Vatican convene the council of Pisa as "ecumenical," and later reject it?
If you're talking about the one during the Western Schism which created a third papal claimant, that was convened by Card. de Malesset of Palestrina, because the bishops present didn't like either claimant.
Sorry, I meant Siena.

But on Pisa: no Ecumenical Council was convened by the Archbishop of Rome. At the Second Ecumenical Council he wasn't represented and wasn't in communion with its members.

There are only 7 because only 7 has been held.  If the need arose, an 8th could be held.  That hasn't happened yet.
So why aren't Constantinople IV and V considered ecumenical, given that they seem to have been generally accepted?
because they haven't been accepted as Ecumenical.
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
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: 1,620



« Reply #99 on: December 07, 2013, 03:58:41 AM »

So why aren't Constantinople IV and V considered ecumenical, given that they seem to have been generally accepted?

Some call them the 8th and 9th council. But it doesn't matter whether they are ecumenical, it matters whether they taught the orthodox faith.

I understand that part. I'm just confused about why the word isn't applied to them when they seem to tick all the boxes.

Because they simply have not, in the words of one Greek theologian whose name escapes me at the moment, been enumerated as such. We recognize their ecumenical character in so far as their authority is undisputed, but for reasons of custom, they are not universally enumerated as the Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils. Think of it as akin to the situation which faced Latin canonists in the 16th century. It was only during that time that several councils, such as the four councils held in the Lateran, and two held in Lyon, were enumerated as being ecumenical councils (which is why some canonists awkwardly regarded Florence as being the Ninth or Tenth Ecumenical Council, as opposed to its modern enumeration as the 17th). Before that point, nobody in the Western world disputed the authority of these councils, but then nobody enumerated them as ecumenical councils, likely because it simply was not customary to do so.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #100 on: December 08, 2013, 08:51:17 PM »

It's not like the Orthodox care about making neat little lists about anything.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 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 0.678 seconds with 128 queries.