Author Topic: Ecumenical councils  (Read 6002 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,022
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #135 on: December 10, 2013, 11:54:32 AM »
Secondly who reprimanded Popes Leo

The majority of the Christians in Syria, Egypt and, at the time, Palestine.

for what exactly? The non-Chalcedonians you mean? The "reprimanded" him for his claims or orthodox tome?

Obviously the Oriental Christians didn't consider him to be infallible or they wouldn't have rejected his tome.

This logic is flawed. The pope is belueved infallble today by catholics but yet some still dessent.

But they don't anathematise the Pope because of an infallible document, call him accursed and refuse all communion with him. If they did, they obviously wouldn't believe him to be infallible.
Sedevacantists

You think that the Oriental Orthodox were some sort of proto-sedevacantists?
I was proving a point about the hole in your logic. As here are a group of christians who, as you say ; "anathematise the Pope because of an infallible document, call him accursed and refuse all communion with him." yet believe in papal infallibility.

As a far as infallibility of the pope is concerned in the first millenium. It was an implicit dogma. Most in the east were unaware of it but some did recognize it.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 11:57:10 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today


You are welcome to send me private messages but I don't post publicly anymore

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,203
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #136 on: December 10, 2013, 12:21:38 PM »
Secondly who reprimanded Popes Leo

The majority of the Christians in Syria, Egypt and, at the time, Palestine.

for what exactly? The non-Chalcedonians you mean? The "reprimanded" him for his claims or orthodox tome?

Obviously the Oriental Christians didn't consider him to be infallible or they wouldn't have rejected his tome.

This logic is flawed. The pope is belueved infallble today by catholics but yet some still dessent.

But they don't anathematise the Pope because of an infallible document, call him accursed and refuse all communion with him. If they did, they obviously wouldn't believe him to be infallible.
Sedevacantists

You think that the Oriental Orthodox were some sort of proto-sedevacantists?
I was proving a point about the hole in your logic. As here are a group of christians who, as you say ; "anathematise the Pope because of an infallible document, call him accursed and refuse all communion with him." yet believe in papal infallibility.
and how do they demonstrate that belief again?
As a far as infallibility of the pope is concerned in the first millenium. It was an implicit dogma. Most in the east were unaware of it but some did recognize it.
"Most in the East," i.e. where the Ecumenical Councils were held, "were unaware of it." LOL.

Some tried to score debating points with it (and failed).  Not much "recognition."
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,022
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #137 on: December 10, 2013, 01:36:06 PM »
Secondly who reprimanded Popes Leo

The majority of the Christians in Syria, Egypt and, at the time, Palestine.

for what exactly? The non-Chalcedonians you mean? The "reprimanded" him for his claims or orthodox tome?

Obviously the Oriental Christians didn't consider him to be infallible or they wouldn't have rejected his tome.

This logic is flawed. The pope is belueved infallble today by catholics but yet some still dessent.

But they don't anathematise the Pope because of an infallible document, call him accursed and refuse all communion with him. If they did, they obviously wouldn't believe him to be infallible.
Sedevacantists

You think that the Oriental Orthodox were some sort of proto-sedevacantists?
I was proving a point about the hole in your logic. As here are a group of christians who, as you say ; "anathematise the Pope because of an infallible document, call him accursed and refuse all communion with him." yet believe in papal infallibility.
and how do they demonstrate that belief again?
Ask a sede , its a confusing world they live in
Quote
As a far as infallibility of the pope is concerned in the first millenium. It was an implicit dogma. Most in the east were unaware of it but some did recognize it.
"Most in the East," i.e. where the Ecumenical Councils were held, "were unaware of it." LOL.

Some tried to score debating points with it (and failed).  Not much "recognition."

It was implicit so its expected most are unaware. Is this the same east where the churches' greatest heretics came from? Lets not make this get ugly by making it east vs west. Secondly numbers do not determine truth. Once upon a time most of the church believed in Arianism :-\ and I can guarantee you that most first century Christians never explicitly knew about the trinity. In fact it too was implicit. Until it was finally defined in the late second century, 3rd and 4th centuries
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 01:43:25 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today


You are welcome to send me private messages but I don't post publicly anymore

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,205
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #138 on: December 10, 2013, 03:09:09 PM »
however a bishop can write outside of his capacity as a instructor of the faith in the respective diocese. He can write as theologian I.e. Layman meaning the writing has no authority whatsoever as opposed to the regular bishops letter. Prime example is how PBXVI Jesus of Nazareth is not part of the faith of the church nor teaching instruction. Its a private writing for anybody to read, criticize and reflect over.  Another is like the books bishop Fulton sheen wrote were not binding on his diocese as the merely private reflection of theological ideas he had.

For someone whose faith teaches him that ordination imprints upon the souls of the ordained an indelible mark forever conforming them to Christ the Priest, I find it interesting that you're willing to look at priesthood as a purely functional phenomenon that can be removed as easily as one's shirt. 

I understand the distinction you're trying to make, but it is a distinction "in theory".  That's not how the clergy or the people receive it: do you think the average RC is reading a book by a Pope and thinking "Eh, so what?  If he didn't issue it ex cathedra, I don't care"?  No: even if he wrote it as a private theologian, the book is still written by "Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI" (that's how the books are published, and that's how he signed his forewords).  People read the words of the Pope, and give him the benefit of the doubt that what he writes is true because they presume he would not teach something false because he is the Pope (and ISTM he would not intentionally write something he knew was controversial or contrary to RC faith because he knows that, even if he explicitly states it is private speculation, it will be received otherwise).  The average RC faithful likely extend this same regard to books written by other bishops.  Per LG 25, they are correct in doing so.       

Quote
Quote
And yet, the Pope is only the Pope because he is elected by the clergy of Rome (Cardinals) as Bishop of Rome.  You can't claim that his universal authority comes from his Papacy and not his Episcopacy when his Papacy derives precisely from his Episcopacy.

irrelevant as the authority dircetly stems from him being head, not bishop of Rome as this is indirect. Hence had Peter left his cathedra in Antioch, Patriarch Gregory III Laham would be head. He even joked about this once. This shows succession from Peter in his position as head is what matters. Not where you are bishop. It just so happened that the Romans succeeded Peter as head and as a consequence the roman bishops gain the authority of peter... Understand better now?

No, because it hasn't been even seven days since I watched a program on EWTN in which a Dominican priest in Rome explained the Papacy as I did above.  Why should I believe you instead?   

Quote
Quote
It's not that a Pope's writings are automatically binding on the faithful because they're a Pope's writings.  It's that, even if they're not "automatically binding", you still have to accept them with "religious submission of mind and will".  IOW, even if he says it's not infallible, you better treat it as if it is.    
Absolutely, but you continually fail to distinguish between one writing as a bishop as opposed to writing as a theologian only. The catholic church highlights difference. Bishops don't need to be infallible as their teaching must be submitted to by the faithful. However if he writes a book for his own benefit or or whatever reason, it does not form part of the teaching body of the church but secular and extra ecclesia.

"Absolutely" implies agreement.  Why agree with my premise and then spend time disagreeing with it? 
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).