Author Topic: Ecumenical councils  (Read 12266 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Ecumenical councils
« on: December 05, 2013, 01:06:12 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2013, 01:17:48 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?

Being Ecumenical (in the old sense of the word, not how the WCC defines it).
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 Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2013, 01:18:24 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice. 

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2013, 01:39:25 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?

Being Ecumenical (in the old sense of the word, not how the WCC defines it).

Binding on the whole church
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2013, 01:41:50 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice. 

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2013, 01:42:05 PM »
In my opinion, what makes a council back then "ecumenical" is what makes the patriarch of Constantinople "ecumenical", which is what made the guards of the emperor "ecumenical", and probably the emperor's barber "ecumenical".  ;)
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Nektarios_In_E.S.

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2013, 01:50:25 PM »
In Orthodoxy, just like the Mysteries ("Sacraments"), we cannot really say we have 7 "concretely" but many more Mysteries ("Sacraments").  The same goes for the canon of Scripture being "concretely" reduced to 47 (or so OT books) and the 27 NT books.  In Orthodoxy, there were other synods which were convened -after the 7th, which could also be considered as "Ecumenical" in nature.  Here is some information regarding the "8th Ecumenical Synod" which may answer some -if not all- of your questions.
                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let us return, though, to the Eighth OEcumenical Synod. The Synod convened under the presidency of the “most holy OEcumenical Patriarch Photios”; around three hundred and ninety Bishops and Episcopal representatives took part; Pope John VIII appointed three delegates; and representatives of the three Patriarchates of the East also participated. The proceedings of the Synod commenced in November of 879 and concluded in March of 880. Seven sessions were held in all, and the transactions of this historic Synod in Hagia Sophia, “composed in Greek and preserved,” and published in 1705 by the illustrious Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (1669-1707), as witnessed by a manuscript in the Athonite Monastery of Iveron.

The Holy Synod of 879-880 “was one of the most important Synods in the history of the Church,” and, being comprised of three hundred and ninety “Fathers, both Eastern and Western, representing the five Patriarchates, presented an imposing spectacle such as had not been seen since the time of the Fourth OEcumenical Synod of Chalcedon.”

The Synod of Hagia Sophia under St. Photios the Great bears all of the hallmarks of an OEcumenical Synod, both outwardly and inwardly, and consequently “it is not at all surprising that it was regarded as the Eighth OEcumenical Synod by [Patriarch Euythmios I (907-917)], Theodore Balsamon, Neilos of Thessalonica, Neilos of Rhodes, Symeon of Thessalonica, Mark of Ephesus, Gennadios Scholarios, Dositheos of Jerusalem, Constantine Oikonomos, and” many “others,” such as the important “Dialogue of a Certain Hieromnemon,” and by our contemporaries, St. Nectarios of Pentapolis, Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadoupoulos, Francis Dvornik, Archimandrite Basileios Stephanides, Father John Romanides, Protopresbyter George Metallinos, Metropolitan Hierotheos Blachos, et al. And this Synod also called itself OEcumenical in many places in its Proceedings and Canons, and Archimandrite Basileios Stephanides writes that “since it has not been officially recognized as the Eighth OEcumenical Synod, any OEcumenical Synod that may be convened in the future ought to deal with this issue.”

It is, however, time for us to identify “all of the canonical elements necessary for the convocation, work, and decisions of an OEcumenical Synod,” which elements, indeed, the illustrious and clearly anti-Papist Synod of Constantinople bring together in:
1. “Its convocation as an OEcumenical Synod, at which the five ancient Patriarchal thrones were represented”;
2. “its convocation by Emperor Basil I the Macedonian (867-886),” who “in fact, together with his sons, was the first to sign the dogmatic decree (Ὅρος) of the Synod and its Acts”;
3. “the large number of its members (338-390 Bishops)”;
4. “the functioning of the Synod in conformity with the traditional canonical functioning of the OEcumenical Synods”;
5. “its canonical regulations” (it promulgated three Canons);
6. “its stipulations about matters of Faith,” wherein, on pain of anathema, it designated that the Sacred Symbol of Faith (the Creed) was unalterable and inviolable;
7. “its clear awareness of its authenticity as an OEcumenical Synod,” as this is expressed “in its decision to number the Seventh OEcumenical Synod with the preceding OEcumenical Synods, which only OEcumenical Synods were entitled to do”;
8. and “the decisions made in this Synod, which were consonant with the decrees of the previous OEcumenical Synods, in accordance with the Tradition of the Church.”

The work accomplished by the great Synod of 879-880 was momentous both for that troubled period and for the future of the Church: it functioned in a unitive spirit on the basis of dogmatic Truth and ca-nonical Tradition; it condemned the alteration of the Symbol of Faith through the addition of the Filioque; ratified the Sacred Symbol as it was handed down to us by the first two OEcumenical Synods; and rejected the distortion of the simple Primacy of Honor due to the Bishop of Rome, who had transformed this into an administrative Primacy of Power over the entire Church.

St. Photios the Great also acted in a unitive spirit, refuted the Papal Primacy of Power and the adulteration of the Symbol of Faith with incontrovertible arguments, set forth the Orthodox positions with candor and clarity, and called upon the representatives of Pope John VIII to renounce their errors, which had led to the schism of 867.

St. Nectarios of Pentapolis states emphatically that
[t]he Eighth OEcumenical Synod has great importance [because] in this Synod Photios was triumphant..., his struggles for the independence of the Eastern Church were crowned with total success, and the Truth of Orthodoxy, for which he had toiled so hard, prevailed.... In a word, the triumph was complete: it was a political, an ecclesiastical, and a personal triumph.

:) hope that was helpful!
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 01:53:27 PM by Nektarios_In_E.S. »

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2013, 01:59:38 PM »
In my opinion, what makes a council back then "ecumenical" is what makes the patriarch of Constantinople "ecumenical", which is what made the guards of the emperor "ecumenical", and probably the emperor's barber "ecumenical".  ;)

I see what you did there  :D
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Antivoluntarist evangelist
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,836
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2013, 02:01:50 PM »
I'm leaning towards Mina's answer. Ecumenical referred to the households (sees) of the "civilized world", so it's not a term of theological significance per se.
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2013, 02:04:46 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice. 

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

They are today. 

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2013, 02:10:46 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice. 
I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

They are today. 
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2013, 02:14:20 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice. 
I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

They are today. 
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....

You cannot try to prove the validity of something like this externally.  We stand on Christs promise by faith.  We reject scholasticism and it's progeny.  As to Chalcedon, the OOs may very well accept its teaching because it's teaching, and their response, was misunderstood by both sides for political reasons.  We now know that most likely their teaching does not contradict Chalcedon, which condemned a theology which they did not embrace and do not embrace. 

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2013, 02:23:57 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice.  

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them
All of them. Heretics don't get a vote.

It is the "explanation" manifested in history. No other contender can make its case.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 02:24:40 PM by ialmisry »
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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2013, 02:26:21 PM »
In my opinion, what makes a council back then "ecumenical" is what makes the patriarch of Constantinople "ecumenical", which is what made the guards of the emperor "ecumenical", and probably the emperor's barber "ecumenical".  ;)
Then the First one wouldn't be Ecumenical, as Pope St. Athanasius found out five times.
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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2013, 02:30:52 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice.  
I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

They are today.  
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.
"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"

How do we know that?

"He said so.  Ex cathedra."

Oh.  And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?

"We know when we know it."

Oh. ::)
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 02:31:10 PM by ialmisry »
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: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2013, 02:35:58 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice.  

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them
All of them. Heretics don't get a vote.

It is the "explanation" manifested in history. No other contender can make its case.

The did ay the councils... Arius and one other voted for himself. He was part of the church until excommunicated. Many of his followers while in the church rejected Niceae then left  the church. That means at a point in time, the council was not accepted by all...yet it was still binding,on all as the council conducted itself as such.

The reason why heresies were addressed was because factions within the church taught troubling doctrines. So to simply ignore them and say they don't have a vote is Ahistorical and circular  :-\
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2013, 02:39:52 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice. 
I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

They are today. 
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....

You cannot try to prove the validity of something like this externally.  We stand on Christs promise by faith.  We reject scholasticism and it's progeny.  As to Chalcedon, the OOs may very well accept its teaching because it's teaching, and their response, was misunderstood by both sides for political reasons.  We now know that most likely their teaching does not contradict Chalcedon, which condemned a theology which they did not embrace and do not embrace. 

But you cannot ignore that some of the faithful rejected the council either. The fact remains is they rejected the council. And at that point in tie they were part of the church
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #17 on: December 05, 2013, 02:42:55 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice.  

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them
All of them. Heretics don't get a vote.

It is the "explanation" manifested in history. No other contender can make its case.

The did ay the councils... Arius and one other voted for himself. He was part of the church until excommunicated. Many of his followers while in the church rejected Niceae then left  the church. That means at a point in time, the council was not accepted by all...yet it was still binding,on all as the council conducted itself as such.

The reason why heresies were addressed was because factions within the church taught troubling doctrines. So to simply ignore them and say they don't have a vote is Ahistorical and circular  :-\
you just demolished your own argument:

Many of his followers while in the church rejected Niceae then left  the church.
Btw, Arius, being just a priest, didn't get a vote.

If a bishop got up today and said "there was a time when He was not," we don't need to wait until he is formally deposed/excommunicated.  We know to stay away from him, knowing he was among us but not of us.
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 Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #18 on: December 05, 2013, 02:44:10 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice.  
I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

They are today.  
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.
"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"

How do we know that?

"He said so.  Ex cathedra."

Oh.  And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?

"We know when we know it."

Oh. ::)

The Emperor Julian didn't really care about whether Nicaea was ecumenical or not. Constantine banished St. Athanasius because of non-theological reasons.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2013, 02:45:01 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice.  

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them
All of them. Heretics don't get a vote.

It is the "explanation" manifested in history. No other contender can make its case.

The did ay the councils... Arius and one other voted for himself. He was part of the church until excommunicated. Many of his followers while in the church rejected Niceae then left  the church. That means at a point in time, the council was not accepted by all...yet it was still binding,on all as the council conducted itself as such.

The reason why heresies were addressed was because factions within the church taught troubling doctrines. So to simply ignore them and say they don't have a vote is Ahistorical and circular  :-\
you just demolished your own argument:

Many of his followers while in the church rejected Niceae then left  the church.
Btw, Arius, being just a priest, didn't get a vote.

If a bishop got up today and said "there was a time when He was not," we don't need to wait until he is formally deposed/excommunicated.  We know to stay away from him, knowing he was among us but not of us.

Quite right.  Such people excommunicate themselves. 

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #20 on: December 05, 2013, 02:45:24 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice.  
I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

They are today.  
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.
"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"

How do we know that?

"He said so.  Ex cathedra."

Oh.  And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?

"We know when we know it."

Oh. ::)

incorrect...

The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra

How do we know that?
the 20th ecumenical council teaches us so

Oh.  And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?

The First Vatican Council tells us how we may know :

◦we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

◾when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, ◾that is, when, 1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,


◾he possesses, ◾by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

◾ that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
◾Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
 
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #21 on: December 05, 2013, 02:46:42 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice. 
I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

They are today. 
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....

You cannot try to prove the validity of something like this externally.  We stand on Christs promise by faith.  We reject scholasticism and it's progeny.  As to Chalcedon, the OOs may very well accept its teaching because it's teaching, and their response, was misunderstood by both sides for political reasons.  We now know that most likely their teaching does not contradict Chalcedon, which condemned a theology which they did not embrace and do not embrace. 

But you cannot ignore that some of the faithful rejected the council either.
If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council.

Sort of like the Sede Vacantists upholding Pastor Aeternus.

The fact remains is they rejected the council. And at that point in tie they were part of the church
and now they are't.  Like a gangrenous limb amputated as it was falling off.
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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #22 on: December 05, 2013, 02:48:21 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice.  
I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

They are today.  
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.
"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"

How do we know that?

"He said so.  Ex cathedra."

Oh.  And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?

"We know when we know it."

Oh. ::)

The Emperor Julian didn't really care about whether Nicaea was ecumenical or not. Constantine banished St. Athanasius because of non-theological reasons.
Yes, but you get the point: Constantine's heirs didn't have the power to annul Nicene's status as Ecumenical, although they gave it a good try.
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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,077
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2013, 02:48:26 PM »
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....

Are you interested in how Orthodoxy (Eastern and Oriental) recognises councils as "ecumenical", as your OP states?  Or was that simply a smokescreen to allow you to resume the OO baiting you've done in other threads (and for which I've previously called you out)?  

Orthodox Rome knew how to unite, non-Orthodox Rome can and will only divide and conquer.  
OCnet is KGB.
I hail Mor Ephrem as our Secretary General.

Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2013, 02:49:45 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice.  
I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

They are today.  
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.
"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"

How do we know that?

"He said so.  Ex cathedra."

Oh.  And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?

"We know when we know it."

Oh. ::)

incorrect...

The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra

How do we know that?
the 20th ecumenical council teaches us so

Oh.  And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?

The First Vatican Council tells us how we may know :

◦we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

◾when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, ◾that is, when, 1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,


◾he possesses, ◾by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

◾ that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
◾Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
 

This is the dead end reached as the result of the wrong fork in the road taken when the Pope turned to Pepino the Short to protect the former western Empire rather than the lawful Byzantine emperor ca 755.  To his credit, Pope Francis is trying to back up and seek out the correct model of conciliarity.  

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,077
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #25 on: December 05, 2013, 02:52:04 PM »
The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra

How do we know that?
the 20th ecumenical council teaches us so

Oh.  And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?

The First Vatican Council tells us how we may know :

◦we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

◾when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, ◾that is, when, 1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,


◾he possesses, ◾by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

◾ that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
◾Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
 

How do we know what statements are ex cathedra, Wandile?  Even RC's can't agree on how many there are, which they are, etc.  Canonisations, for example, are widely touted as infallible statements, and yet they're never counted among "ex cathedra" statements in the same way as the dogmas of 1854 and 1950 are. 
OCnet is KGB.
I hail Mor Ephrem as our Secretary General.

Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #26 on: December 05, 2013, 02:54:21 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice.  
I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

They are today.  
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.
"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"

How do we know that?

"He said so.  Ex cathedra."

Oh.  And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?

"We know when we know it."

Oh. ::)

incorrect...

The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra

How do we know that?
the 20th ecumenical council teaches us so

Oh.  And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?

The First Vatican Council tells us how we may know :

◦we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

◾when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, ◾that is, when, 1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,


◾he possesses, ◾by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

◾ that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
◾Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
 
And when does he not exercise his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians? When does he do anything not "in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority?  Does he ever define a doctrine concerning faith and moral to be held by some people but not the whole church?

If it were so easy to know, you'd have an authoritative-magisterial-list of when he has done so.  At least a number of times ya'll can agree on.  But as it is, in the one instance ya'll are agreed on, Munificentissimus Deus, ya'll can't agree on which part is "infallible."
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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #27 on: December 05, 2013, 03:15:30 PM »
In my opinion, what makes a council back then "ecumenical" is what makes the patriarch of Constantinople "ecumenical", which is what made the guards of the emperor "ecumenical", and probably the emperor's barber "ecumenical".  ;)
Then the First one wouldn't be Ecumenical, as Pope St. Athanasius found out five times.

You seem to miss my point, Isa.  Go back and read what I wrote.  You're not using ecumenical in the manner I was alluding to.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #28 on: December 05, 2013, 03:15:45 PM »
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....

Are you interested in how Orthodoxy (Eastern and Oriental) recognises councils as "ecumenical", as your OP states?  Or was that simply a smokescreen to allow you to resume the OO baiting you've done in other threads (and for which I've previously called you out)?  

Orthodox Rome knew how to unite, non-Orthodox Rome can and will only divide and conquer.  

I mean exactly what I've said in my OP. But some answers given aren't true to history so I'm questioning them...

Now I don't "Oriental orthodox bait"... I just refer to history...plain and simple. You don't own that port in of history.

Now if you want contribute by answering the OP then go ahead ... But please, enough of this ..
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #29 on: December 05, 2013, 03:16:34 PM »
The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra

How do we know that?
the 20th ecumenical council teaches us so

Oh.  And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?

The First Vatican Council tells us how we may know :

◦we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

◾when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, ◾that is, when, 1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,


◾he possesses, ◾by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

◾ that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
◾Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
 

How do we know what statements are ex cathedra, Wandile?  Even RC's can't agree on how many there are, which they are, etc.  Canonisations, for example, are widely touted as infallible statements, and yet they're never counted among "ex cathedra" statements in the same way as the dogmas of 1854 and 1950 are. 
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

that's how we know
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #30 on: December 05, 2013, 03:17:59 PM »
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....

Are you interested in how Orthodoxy (Eastern and Oriental) recognises councils as "ecumenical", as your OP states?  Or was that simply a smokescreen to allow you to resume the OO baiting you've done in other threads (and for which I've previously called you out)?  

Orthodox Rome knew how to unite, non-Orthodox Rome can and will only divide and conquer.  

I mean exactly what I've said in my OP. But some answers given aren't true to history so I'm questioning them...
but the answers given which aren't true to history are the ones you are giving.
Now I don't "Oriental orthodox bait"... I just refer to history...plain and simple. .
OK, Inquisitor Winston Smith.
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: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #31 on: December 05, 2013, 03:18:12 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice.  
I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

They are today.  
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument.
"The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra"

How do we know that?

"He said so.  Ex cathedra."

Oh.  And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?

"We know when we know it."

Oh. ::)

incorrect...

The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra

How do we know that?
the 20th ecumenical council teaches us so

Oh.  And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?

The First Vatican Council tells us how we may know :

◦we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

◾when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, ◾that is, when, 1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,


◾he possesses, ◾by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

◾ that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
◾Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
 
And when does he not exercise his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians? When does he do anything not "in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority?  Does he ever define a doctrine concerning faith and moral to be held by some people but not the whole church?

If it were so easy to know, you'd have an authoritative-magisterial-list of when he has done so.  At least a number of times ya'll can agree on.  But as it is, in the one instance ya'll are agreed on, Munificentissimus Deus, ya'll can't agree on which part is "infallible."

when he writes as private theologian

just because we have criteria does not necessitate an accompanying list of past statements as all that is dogma revealed in the past is already known. So today maybe a list would be helpful but not necessary for  proclamations like immaculate conception and the assumption
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 03:27:13 PM by Wandile »
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #32 on: December 05, 2013, 03:18:55 PM »
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....

Are you interested in how Orthodoxy (Eastern and Oriental) recognises councils as "ecumenical", as your OP states?  Or was that simply a smokescreen to allow you to resume the OO baiting you've done in other threads (and for which I've previously called you out)?  

Orthodox Rome knew how to unite, non-Orthodox Rome can and will only divide and conquer.  

I mean exactly what I've said in my OP. But some answers given aren't true to history so I'm questioning them...

Now I don't "Oriental orthodox bait"... I just refer to history...plain and simple. You don't own that port in of history.

Now if you want contribute by answering the OP then go ahead ... But please, enough of this ..

We answered your question of how the church makes this determination.  You found the answer preposterous, apparently, as is your right.   But it is still the answer.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #33 on: December 05, 2013, 03:19:20 PM »
The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra

How do we know that?
the 20th ecumenical council teaches us so

Oh.  And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?

The First Vatican Council tells us how we may know :

◦we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

◾when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, ◾that is, when, 1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,


◾he possesses, ◾by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

◾ that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
◾Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
 

How do we know what statements are ex cathedra, Wandile?  Even RC's can't agree on how many there are, which they are, etc.  Canonisations, for example, are widely touted as infallible statements, and yet they're never counted among "ex cathedra" statements in the same way as the dogmas of 1854 and 1950 are. 
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

that's how we know
by repeating the mantra, over and over
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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,077
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #34 on: December 05, 2013, 03:19:40 PM »
Now I don't "Oriental orthodox bait"... I just refer to history...plain and simple. You don't own that port in of history.

Neither does Rome.

Quote
Now if you want contribute by answering the OP then go ahead ... But please, enough of this ..

Here is some homework.  
OCnet is KGB.
I hail Mor Ephrem as our Secretary General.

Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #35 on: December 05, 2013, 03:21:14 PM »
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....

Are you interested in how Orthodoxy (Eastern and Oriental) recognises councils as "ecumenical", as your OP states?  Or was that simply a smokescreen to allow you to resume the OO baiting you've done in other threads (and for which I've previously called you out)?  

Orthodox Rome knew how to unite, non-Orthodox Rome can and will only divide and conquer.  

I mean exactly what I've said in my OP. But some answers given aren't true to history so I'm questioning them...
but the answers given which aren't true to history are the ones you are giving.
Now I don't "Oriental orthodox bait"... I just refer to history...plain and simple. .
OK, Inquisitor Winston Smith.

No serious Orthodox theologians hold the position of the laity must accept the council. Thy recognize how Ahistorical the position is... Chalcedon is a prime example of how the Alexandrians never accepted the council showing that some faithful rejected and yet the council was still ecumenical
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #36 on: December 05, 2013, 03:23:02 PM »
Now I don't "Oriental orthodox bait"... I just refer to history...plain and simple. You don't own that port in of history.

Neither does Rome.

great  I believe this too... your point is?

Quote
Here is some homework.  

I'll check the link out
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #37 on: December 05, 2013, 03:23:44 PM »
when he writes as private theologian
I notice you had no answer to the other questions.

And when does he write as a private theologian?
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: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #38 on: December 05, 2013, 03:24:19 PM »
The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra

How do we know that?
the 20th ecumenical council teaches us so

Oh.  And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?

The First Vatican Council tells us how we may know :

◦we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

◾when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, ◾that is, when, 1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,


◾he possesses, ◾by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

◾ that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
◾Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
 

How do we know what statements are ex cathedra, Wandile?  Even RC's can't agree on how many there are, which they are, etc.  Canonisations, for example, are widely touted as infallible statements, and yet they're never counted among "ex cathedra" statements in the same way as the dogmas of 1854 and 1950 are.  
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

that's how we know
by repeating the mantra, over and over


lol because that's the answer ::) I can't make up new categories to let one know how a statement is ex cathedra or not
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 03:33:47 PM by Wandile »
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,481
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #39 on: December 05, 2013, 03:31:21 PM »
If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council...  Like a gangrenous limb amputated as it was falling off.

Are you actually saying that the OO's are a gangrenous limb?
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #40 on: December 05, 2013, 03:32:19 PM »
This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....

Are you interested in how Orthodoxy (Eastern and Oriental) recognises councils as "ecumenical", as your OP states?  Or was that simply a smokescreen to allow you to resume the OO baiting you've done in other threads (and for which I've previously called you out)?  

Orthodox Rome knew how to unite, non-Orthodox Rome can and will only divide and conquer.  

I mean exactly what I've said in my OP. But some answers given aren't true to history so I'm questioning them...
but the answers given which aren't true to history are the ones you are giving.
Now I don't "Oriental orthodox bait"... I just refer to history...plain and simple. .
OK, Inquisitor Winston Smith.

No serious Orthodox theologians hold the position of the laity must accept the council.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
No Orthodox, serious or not, should take an Ultramontanist as a guide as to what Orthodox theologians should teach.

Sorry, we don't share you clericalism.

Thy recognize how Ahistorical the position is...
Tell the people at the "They" Institute that that is the position history demonstrates.
Chalcedon is a prime example of how the Alexandrians never accepted the council showing that some faithful rejected and yet the council was still ecumenical
splitting, are you.

Alexandrians were not all laity. And not all Alexandrians rejected the Council.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 03:33:25 PM by ialmisry »
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: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #41 on: December 05, 2013, 03:32:28 PM »
when he writes as private theologian
I notice you had no answer to the other questions.

And when does he write as a private theologian?


Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #42 on: December 05, 2013, 03:34:19 PM »
when he writes as private theologian
I notice you had no answer to the other questions.

And when does he write as a private theologian?


Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  
Does it have an imprimatur and nihil obstat?
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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #43 on: December 05, 2013, 03:40:13 PM »
If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council...  Like a gangrenous limb amputated as it was falling off.

Are you actually saying that the OO's are a gangrenous limb?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.
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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #44 on: December 05, 2013, 03:41:20 PM »
The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra

How do we know that?
the 20th ecumenical council teaches us so

Oh.  And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?

The First Vatican Council tells us how we may know :

◦we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

◾when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, ◾that is, when, 1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,


◾he possesses, ◾by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

◾ that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
◾Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
 

How do we know what statements are ex cathedra, Wandile?  Even RC's can't agree on how many there are, which they are, etc.  Canonisations, for example, are widely touted as infallible statements, and yet they're never counted among "ex cathedra" statements in the same way as the dogmas of 1854 and 1950 are.  
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

that's how we know
by repeating the mantra, over and over


lol because that's the answer ::) I can't make up new categories to let one know how a statement is ex cathedra or not
rote repetition does not knowledge make.
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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,077
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #45 on: December 05, 2013, 03:42:55 PM »
The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra

How do we know that?
the 20th ecumenical council teaches us so

Oh.  And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?

The First Vatican Council tells us how we may know :

◦we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

◾when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, ◾that is, when, 1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,


◾he possesses, ◾by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

◾ that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
◾Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
 

How do we know what statements are ex cathedra, Wandile?  Even RC's can't agree on how many there are, which they are, etc.  Canonisations, for example, are widely touted as infallible statements, and yet they're never counted among "ex cathedra" statements in the same way as the dogmas of 1854 and 1950 are. 
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

that's how we know

And yet, you reject allegedly "circular" reasonings from the Orthodox...

Wandile, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis uses language that appears to have been modeled on Vatican I's requirements for an ex cathedra proclamation in order to satisfy them:

Quote
Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

And yet, Rome appears to reject the idea that this was an exercise of the extraordinary papal magisterium, but only a reiteration of the ordinary magisterium, while leaving open the possibility that it could be declared infallibly later, even if it's already infallible now:

Quote
A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.

IOW, "X is infallible when I say it's infallible".





OCnet is KGB.
I hail Mor Ephrem as our Secretary General.

Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,481
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #46 on: December 05, 2013, 03:44:35 PM »
If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council...  Like a gangrenous limb amputated as it was falling off.

Are you actually saying that the OO's are a gangrenous limb?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.

But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,834
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #47 on: December 05, 2013, 03:46:56 PM »
We'd all get along better if everyone would accept that all arguments, if you go down far enough, are based in circular reasoning and unfounded/unverifiable assumptions.

I will say that some of the answers to the OP I've found helpful though, which really isn't something I would say about most threads on this topic.
"The publican’s prayers overcame God, although God is invincible. Nineveh was saved by its tears from the impending ruin caused by its sin.” (St. Jerome, Letter 16.1)

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #48 on: December 05, 2013, 03:47:05 PM »
If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council...  Like a gangrenous limb amputated as it was falling off.

Are you actually saying that the OO's are a gangrenous limb?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.

But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?

The position gaining traction is that the OOs rejected a misinterpretation of Chalcedon and Chalcedon condemned an imaginary picture of the OOs.  When the true picture of both sides is shown there is no problem.  

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #49 on: December 05, 2013, 03:47:22 PM »
If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council...  Like a gangrenous limb amputated as it was falling off.

Are you actually saying that the OO's are a gangrenous limb?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.

But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?
Open a thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,23.0.html
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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,077
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #50 on: December 05, 2013, 03:51:22 PM »
And when does he write as a private theologian?


Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  

Yeah, Popes always wrote as private theologians and so it wasn't a big deal with Pope Benedict did it.  It was just for the sake of one or two confused idiots that he had to specify in the preface to the first volume of Jesus of Nazareth that his book was "absolutely not a magisterial act", normal people would've known that instinctively.    
OCnet is KGB.
I hail Mor Ephrem as our Secretary General.

Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,481
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #51 on: December 05, 2013, 03:54:02 PM »
If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council...  Like a gangrenous limb amputated as it was falling off.

Are you actually saying that the OO's are a gangrenous limb?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.

But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?
Open a thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,23.0.html

Unnecessary. The specifics of the Chalcedon dispute, and who was right or wrong there, need not be brought up here. The argument at play here is that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful. If there is a council which is both ecumenical and rejected by some of the faithful, whatever their reasons were for rejecting it, there is a hole that argument.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,481
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #52 on: December 05, 2013, 03:57:49 PM »
If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council...  Like a gangrenous limb amputated as it was falling off.

Are you actually saying that the OO's are a gangrenous limb?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.

But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?

The position gaining traction is that the OOs rejected a misinterpretation of Chalcedon and Chalcedon condemned an imaginary picture of the OOs.

I'm aware of that; the problem remains, if we A) consider a council ecumenical and B) admit that some of the faithful rejected that council, we can no longer argue that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #53 on: December 05, 2013, 04:00:59 PM »
If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council...  Like a gangrenous limb amputated as it was falling off.

Are you actually saying that the OO's are a gangrenous limb?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.

But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?

The position gaining traction is that the OOs rejected a misinterpretation of Chalcedon and Chalcedon condemned an imaginary picture of the OOs.

I'm aware of that; the problem remains, if we A) consider a council ecumenical and B) admit that some of the faithful rejected that council, we can no longer argue that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful.


But they didn't reject it.  They rejected a caricature of it.  It sometimes takes hundreds or even thousands of years for stuff to become clear.  That's no big deal in Gods time.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #54 on: December 05, 2013, 04:03:33 PM »
when he writes as private theologian
I notice you had no answer to the other questions.

And when does he write as a private theologian?
 
Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  
Does it have an imprimatur and nihil obstat?
Yes because he is still writing as a catholic theologian presenting catholic views
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 04:08:52 PM by Wandile »
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,481
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #55 on: December 05, 2013, 04:08:14 PM »

But they didn't reject it.  They rejected a caricature of it.  

So the argument now is that a council is ecumenical when all the faithful accept its substance, even if they might formally reject it? So theoretically, if the bishops hold a council and 90% of the faithful reject it, the bishops can just say, "It's still ecumenical, and you really do accept it, you just didn't understand it"? Perhaps the Catholics can say, "The Orthodox rejected a caricature of the Council of Florence, but they really accept it."

Just to be clear, I'm not here to support Wandile's arguments and I have no sympathy for Papal supremacy; I'm just pointing at holes where I see them.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 04:12:17 PM by Iconodule »
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #56 on: December 05, 2013, 04:14:13 PM »
The Supreme Pontiff speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra

How do we know that?
the 20th ecumenical council teaches us so

Oh.  And how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?

The First Vatican Council tells us how we may know :

◦we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

◾when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, ◾that is, when, 1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,


◾he possesses, ◾by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

◾ that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
◾Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
 

How do we know what statements are ex cathedra, Wandile?  Even RC's can't agree on how many there are, which they are, etc.  Canonisations, for example, are widely touted as infallible statements, and yet they're never counted among "ex cathedra" statements in the same way as the dogmas of 1854 and 1950 are. 
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

that's how we know

And yet, you reject allegedly "circular" reasonings from the Orthodox...

Wandile, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis uses language that appears to have been modeled on Vatican I's requirements for an ex cathedra proclamation in order to satisfy them:

Quote
Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

And yet, Rome appears to reject the idea that this was an exercise of the extraordinary papal magisterium, but only a reiteration of the ordinary magisterium, while leaving open the possibility that it could be declared infallibly later, even if it's already infallible now:

Quote
A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.

IOW, "X is infallible when I say it's infallible".







I've read this post three times and no where can i see where it implies "its infallible when I say its infallible". You are reading your bias into the text Mor

The very text you quote clears up your confusion ???
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #57 on: December 05, 2013, 04:20:27 PM »

But they didn't reject it.  They rejected a caricature of it.  

So the argument now is that a council is ecumenical when all the faithful accept its substance, even if they might formally reject it? So theoretically, if the bishops hold a council and 90% of the faithful reject it, the bishops can just say, "It's still ecumenical, and you really do accept it, you just didn't understand it"? Perhaps the Catholics can say, "The Orthodox rejected a caricature of the Council of Florence, but they really accept it."

Just to be clear, I'm not here to support Wandile's arguments and I have no sympathy for Papal supremacy; I'm just pointing at holes where I see them.

The bishops could in no wise make such an assertion.  The faithful themselves would have to do so.  All I'm saying is that it isn't like ratification of a constitutional amendment -- there is no set timeframe for acceptance.  Re Chalcedon, both EO and OO seem to be reaching that point.  When they do I don't think we and they will say that they finally recognized Chalcedon, instead that what they have recognized all along is, in fact, Chalcedon.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,481
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #58 on: December 05, 2013, 04:26:28 PM »
The bishops could in no wise make such an assertion.  

Why not? Are the bishops not part of the faithful? You have already allowed for a segment of the faithful (Chalcedonians) to declare a council ecumenical on behalf of everyone, why not an even smaller segment?

And let's be clear here: the OO's may eventually say they accept the teaching of Chalcedon in substance as it is currently taught by the EO, but the idea that their rejection was based on misinterpretation of the council is not going to fly with them any time soon.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 04:29:54 PM by Iconodule »
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #59 on: December 05, 2013, 04:26:55 PM »
Mor this was taken from Orthodoxwiki :

"...theologians such as Fr. John S. Romanides have argued, however, that the councils universally regarded as ecumenical within the Orthodox Church seemed of themselves to have no sense of requiring a reception by the Church before they went into effect. Their texts do indeed include self-declarations of their ecumenicity, and in most cases, their decrees immediately were written into Roman imperial law. No condition of later reception is reflected in the councils' texts.

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"

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 04:29:50 PM by Wandile »
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #60 on: December 05, 2013, 04:32:32 PM »
The bishops could in no wise make such an assertion.  

Why not? Are the bishops not part of the faithful? You have already allowed for a segment of the faithful (Chalcedonians) to declare a council ecumenical on behalf of everyone, why not an even smaller segment?

And let's be clear here: the OO's may eventually say they accept the teaching of Chalcedon in substance as it is currently taught by the EO, but the idea that their rejection was based on misinterpretation of the council is not going to fly with them any time soon.

They don't declare anything.  Some may recognize it ahead of others.  I think that it is too much to impose chronological limitations on what is essentially a mystery (the working of the Holy Spirit in a council). 

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,481
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #61 on: December 05, 2013, 04:34:56 PM »
The bishops could in no wise make such an assertion.  

Why not? Are the bishops not part of the faithful? You have already allowed for a segment of the faithful (Chalcedonians) to declare a council ecumenical on behalf of everyone, why not an even smaller segment?

And let's be clear here: the OO's may eventually say they accept the teaching of Chalcedon in substance as it is currently taught by the EO, but the idea that their rejection was based on misinterpretation of the council is not going to fly with them any time soon.

They don't declare anything. 

We have been declaring Chalcedon to be the 4th ecumenical council for 1500 years. Are we wrong to do so? How do we know it is ecumenical?
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #62 on: December 05, 2013, 04:36:37 PM »
The bishops could in no wise make such an assertion.  

Why not? Are the bishops not part of the faithful? You have already allowed for a segment of the faithful (Chalcedonians) to declare a council ecumenical on behalf of everyone, why not an even smaller segment?

And let's be clear here: the OO's may eventually say they accept the teaching of Chalcedon in substance as it is currently taught by the EO, but the idea that their rejection was based on misinterpretation of the council is not going to fly with them any time soon.

They don't declare anything. 

We have been declaring Chalcedon to be the 4th ecumenical council for 1500 years. Are we wrong to do so? How do we know it is ecumenical?

It is better to say that the churches in communion with the EP (and the Romans) recognize this.  The OOs have adhered to it as well, and we and they are now recognizing that. 

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #63 on: December 05, 2013, 04:38:22 PM »
The bishops could in no wise make such an assertion.  

Why not? Are the bishops not part of the faithful? You have already allowed for a segment of the faithful (Chalcedonians) to declare a council ecumenical on behalf of everyone, why not an even smaller segment?

And let's be clear here: the OO's may eventually say they accept the teaching of Chalcedon in substance as it is currently taught by the EO, but the idea that their rejection was based on misinterpretation of the council is not going to fly with them any time soon.

They don't declare anything. 

We have been declaring Chalcedon to be the 4th ecumenical council for 1500 years. Are we wrong to do so? How do we know it is ecumenical?

It is better to say that the churches in communion with the EP (and the Romans) recognize this.  The OOs have adhered to it as well, and we and they are now recognizing that. 

I don't know why you are trying to put a legal interpretation on this.  To me that is no more useful than trying to determine the exact moment that the Eucharist becomes Christs body and blood.  Either people believe it or they don't. 

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,481
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #64 on: December 05, 2013, 04:43:25 PM »
I don't know why you are trying to put a legal interpretation on this.  

So, when someone points out a hole in your logic, accuse him of legalism. Gotcha.
Excuse me buddy, I'm not the one claiming that we know a council is ecumenical when all the faithful accept it. Answer the question: How do we know a council is ecumenical? If you want to say "Either people believe it or they don't," fine, but that is not the argument that ialmisry was making and which you were, until about a minute ago, defending.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 04:44:04 PM by Iconodule »
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #65 on: December 05, 2013, 04:45:42 PM »
Their texts do indeed include self-declarations of their ecumenicity

Not in all cases.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #66 on: December 05, 2013, 04:47:12 PM »
I don't know why you are trying to put a legal interpretation on this.  

So, when someone points out a hole in your logic, accuse him of legalism. Gotcha.
Excuse me buddy, I'm not the one claiming that we know a council is ecumenical when all the faithful accept it. Answer the question: How do we know a council is ecumenical? If you want to say "Either people believe it or they don't," fine, but that is not the argument that ialmisry was making and which you were, until about a minute ago, defending.

I don't think that the mysteries of the church were susceptible to a microscope.  Yes, either you gelid be it or you don't.  I'm pointing out a way by which the EO and OO can reunite as I in faith believe they should, they having one faith, and by which neither could lose face.  Your hypothetical is just that and one which, again by faith, I don't believe the Holy Spirit would permit. Big it is accepted, it must be ecumenical.  If it is ecumenical, it must be accepted.  

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #67 on: December 05, 2013, 04:47:41 PM »
Their texts do indeed include self-declarations of their ecumenicity

Not in all cases.
And plenty of those which claimed to be Ecumenical (e.g. the council of the iconoclasts) are not.
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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #68 on: December 05, 2013, 04:49:26 PM »
when he writes as private theologian
I notice you had no answer to the other questions.

And when does he write as a private theologian?
 
Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  
Does it have an imprimatur and nihil obstat?
Yes because he is still writing as a catholic theologian presenting catholic views
who issues it?
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 Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #69 on: December 05, 2013, 04:51:01 PM »
I don't know why you are trying to put a legal interpretation on this.  

So, when someone points out a hole in your logic, accuse him of legalism. Gotcha.
Excuse me buddy, I'm not the one claiming that we know a council is ecumenical when all the faithful accept it. Answer the question: How do we know a council is ecumenical? If you want to say "Either people believe it or they don't," fine, but that is not the argument that ialmisry was making and which you were, until about a minute ago, defending.

My argument is that the OOs haven't rejected Chalcedon.  They haven't formally accepted it yet, but they will. They have lived in accordance with its teachings for 1500 years.  We and they realize that now.  What's so hard about that?   Must it come together in a neat package on your lifetime?   

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #70 on: December 05, 2013, 04:51:36 PM »
If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council...  Like a gangrenous limb amputated as it was falling off.

Are you actually saying that the OO's are a gangrenous limb?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.

But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?
Open a thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,23.0.html

Unnecessary. The specifics of the Chalcedon dispute, and who was right or wrong there, need not be brought up here. The argument at play here is that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful. If there is a council which is both ecumenical and rejected by some of the faithful, whatever their reasons were for rejecting it, there is a hole that argument.
yes, necessary, as the specifics of the Chalcedon dispute you refer to here hold that both were right.
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 Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,481
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #71 on: December 05, 2013, 04:55:12 PM »
I don't know why you are trying to put a legal interpretation on this.  

So, when someone points out a hole in your logic, accuse him of legalism. Gotcha.
Excuse me buddy, I'm not the one claiming that we know a council is ecumenical when all the faithful accept it. Answer the question: How do we know a council is ecumenical? If you want to say "Either people believe it or they don't," fine, but that is not the argument that ialmisry was making and which you were, until about a minute ago, defending.

My argument is that the OOs haven't rejected Chalcedon.  They haven't formally accepted it yet, but they will. They have lived in accordance with its teachings for 1500 years.
I have already pointed out why that makes no sense.

 
Quote
We and they realize that now.  

We have several OO right here on this forum. Ask any one of them if he or his bishop agrees with you that they fundamentally accept Chalcedon. The answer you get will likely be much more complex than your narrative allows.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 04:55:24 PM by Iconodule »
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,481
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #72 on: December 05, 2013, 05:00:08 PM »
If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council...  Like a gangrenous limb amputated as it was falling off.

Are you actually saying that the OO's are a gangrenous limb?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.

But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?
Open a thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,23.0.html

Unnecessary. The specifics of the Chalcedon dispute, and who was right or wrong there, need not be brought up here. The argument at play here is that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful. If there is a council which is both ecumenical and rejected by some of the faithful, whatever their reasons were for rejecting it, there is a hole that argument.
yes, necessary, as the specifics of the Chalcedon dispute you refer to here hold that both were right.

If you mean that both still held to orthodox doctrine, that is a different question from whether it was right to reject the council.

Again, your argument: we know a council is ecumenical because all the faithful accept it.

The fact that one of the ecumenical councils was rejected by a large portion of the faithful puts a massive hole in this argument.

No need for specifics- that's the hole right there.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,077
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #73 on: December 05, 2013, 05:01:25 PM »
I've read this post three times and no where can i see where it implies "its infallible when I say its infallible". You are reading your bias into the text Mor

Or you are reading yours into the text.

Quote
The very text you quote clears up your confusion ???

I referred to several texts.  Maybe that was the problem.  So let's do this step by step.  

Wandile, is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis an ex cathedra declaration?  Why or why not?
OCnet is KGB.
I hail Mor Ephrem as our Secretary General.

Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #74 on: December 05, 2013, 05:02:00 PM »
I don't know why you are trying to put a legal interpretation on this.  

So, when someone points out a hole in your logic, accuse him of legalism. Gotcha.
Excuse me buddy, I'm not the one claiming that we know a council is ecumenical when all the faithful accept it. Answer the question: How do we know a council is ecumenical? If you want to say "Either people believe it or they don't," fine, but that is not the argument that ialmisry was making and which you were, until about a minute ago, defending.

My argument is that the OOs haven't rejected Chalcedon.  They haven't formally accepted it yet, but they will. They have lived in accordance with its teachings for 1500 years.
I have already pointed out why that makes no sense.

 
Quote
We and they realize that now.  

We have several OO right here on this forum. Ask any one of them if he or his bishop agrees with you that they fundamentally accept Chalcedon. The answer you get will likely be much more complex than your narrative allows.

I have faith that, in time, they will say that what they believe is in entire accord with what Chalcedon teaches.  I believe that it already is.  This is why I consider them Orthodox and lament the break in communion.  If such were the case now, of course, there would be no schism.  

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #75 on: December 05, 2013, 05:03:52 PM »
If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council...  Like a gangrenous limb amputated as it was falling off.

Are you actually saying that the OO's are a gangrenous limb?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.

But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?
Open a thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,23.0.html

Unnecessary. The specifics of the Chalcedon dispute, and who was right or wrong there, need not be brought up here. The argument at play here is that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful. If there is a council which is both ecumenical and rejected by some of the faithful, whatever their reasons were for rejecting it, there is a hole that argument.
yes, necessary, as the specifics of the Chalcedon dispute you refer to here hold that both were right.

If you mean that both still held to orthodox doctrine, that is a different question from whether it was right to reject the council.

Again, your argument: we know a council is ecumenical because all the faithful accept it.

The fact that one of the ecumenical councils was rejected by a large portion of the faithful puts a massive hole in this argument.

No need for specifics- that's the hole right there.

From what I know of their faith, I don't believe that they rejected it.  They rejected something else, which was probably a good thing as I understand that the form was cloaked in imperialism. 

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,481
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #76 on: December 05, 2013, 05:11:17 PM »
I have faith that, in time, they will say that what they believe is in entire accord with what Chalcedon teaches.  

Again your argument, or at least the argument you were defending, is this: A council is ecumenical when all the faithful accept it. Such a definition is meaningless and useless if we can say to anyone who rejects the council, "Your rejection is based on misunderstanding; you really accept it; therefore it is ecumenical."
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,481
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #77 on: December 05, 2013, 05:15:08 PM »
From what I know of their faith, I don't believe that they rejected it.  They rejected something else, which was probably a good thing as I understand that the form was cloaked in imperialism. 

What you are saying is that their rejection of Chalcedon stems from ignorance on their part and on the part of their fathers. Good luck getting them to agree with you.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #78 on: December 05, 2013, 05:17:42 PM »
From what I know of their faith, I don't believe that they rejected it.  They rejected something else, which was probably a good thing as I understand that the form was cloaked in imperialism. 

What you are saying is that their rejection of Chalcedon stems from ignorance on their part and on the part of their fathers. Good luck getting them to agree with you.

And on the part of our fathers who believed some to be holding to errors which they did not.  It goes both ways. 

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #79 on: December 05, 2013, 05:23:00 PM »
If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council...  Like a gangrenous limb amputated as it was falling off.

Are you actually saying that the OO's are a gangrenous limb?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.

But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?
Open a thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,23.0.html

Unnecessary. The specifics of the Chalcedon dispute, and who was right or wrong there, need not be brought up here. The argument at play here is that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful. If there is a council which is both ecumenical and rejected by some of the faithful, whatever their reasons were for rejecting it, there is a hole that argument.
yes, necessary, as the specifics of the Chalcedon dispute you refer to here hold that both were right.

If you mean that both still held to orthodox doctrine, that is a different question from whether it was right to reject the council.

Again, your argument: we know a council is ecumenical because all the faithful accept it.

The fact that one of the ecumenical councils was rejected by a large portion of the faithful puts a massive hole in this argument.

No need for specifics- that's the hole right there.
Since that "hole" occurred in all the Ecumenical Councils except, in some respects, the Second, discussing the issue of the hole in Chalcedon would require discussion of the specifics of Chalcedon.  We have a place for that:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,37.0.html

Now, if you want to discuss the issue of the hole in the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and the Three Chapter Schism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Chapter_schism
that's a different issue.  I don't think the board has any specific rules on a specific fora for that debate.
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 Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #80 on: December 05, 2013, 05:25:54 PM »
I have faith that, in time, they will say that what they believe is in entire accord with what Chalcedon teaches.  

Again your argument, or at least the argument you were defending, is this: A council is ecumenical when all the faithful accept it. Such a definition is meaningless and useless if we can say to anyone who rejects the council, "Your rejection is based on misunderstanding; you really accept it; therefore it is ecumenical."

I get your point on this.  But what makes Chalcedon so unusual, to me, is that both sides were really arguing past one another.  They weren't disagreeing so much as misunderstanding.  I believe that Chalcedon states timeless truth and that the belief of the OOs doesn't contradict it.  I think that they live according to Chalcedon and will someday accept it on those terms.  I don't think that this is time limited.  

I don't know of any other council before or since where there has been such wholesale misunderstanding and yet both sides continuously preserved Orthodox doctrine and praxis in accordance with the spirit of its teaching.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,481
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #81 on: December 05, 2013, 05:26:47 PM »
If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council...  Like a gangrenous limb amputated as it was falling off.

Are you actually saying that the OO's are a gangrenous limb?
Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.

But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?
Open a thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,23.0.html

Unnecessary. The specifics of the Chalcedon dispute, and who was right or wrong there, need not be brought up here. The argument at play here is that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful. If there is a council which is both ecumenical and rejected by some of the faithful, whatever their reasons were for rejecting it, there is a hole that argument.
yes, necessary, as the specifics of the Chalcedon dispute you refer to here hold that both were right.

If you mean that both still held to orthodox doctrine, that is a different question from whether it was right to reject the council.

Again, your argument: we know a council is ecumenical because all the faithful accept it.

The fact that one of the ecumenical councils was rejected by a large portion of the faithful puts a massive hole in this argument.

No need for specifics- that's the hole right there.
Since that "hole" occurred in all the Ecumenical Councils except, in some respects, the Second, discussing the issue of the hole in Chalcedon would require discussion of the specifics of Chalcedon.  We have a place for that:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,37.0.html

Now, if you want to discuss the issue of the hole in the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and the Three Chapter Schism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Chapter_schism
that's a different issue.  I don't think the board has any specific rules on a specific fora for that debate.

You're right- your argument has more than one hole after all. Which convinces me further that this receptionist criterion of ecumenicity doesn't hold up.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,481
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #82 on: December 05, 2013, 05:28:59 PM »
From what I know of their faith, I don't believe that they rejected it.  They rejected something else, which was probably a good thing as I understand that the form was cloaked in imperialism. 

What you are saying is that their rejection of Chalcedon stems from ignorance on their part and on the part of their fathers. Good luck getting them to agree with you.

And on the part of our fathers who believed some to be holding to errors which they did not.  It goes both ways. 

Yes, that's another problem. But I can tell you right now, I have yet to see any OO's say that, for instance, Dioscorus and Severus were mistaken for rejecting Chalcedon. I don't think they're likely ever to agree to that, which is why, IMO, formal acceptance of Chalcedon should not be a condition for reunion.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #83 on: December 05, 2013, 05:33:30 PM »
From what I know of their faith, I don't believe that they rejected it.  They rejected something else, which was probably a good thing as I understand that the form was cloaked in imperialism. 

What you are saying is that their rejection of Chalcedon stems from ignorance on their part and on the part of their fathers. Good luck getting them to agree with you.

And on the part of our fathers who believed some to be holding to errors which they did not.  It goes both ways. 

Yes, that's another problem. But I can tell you right now, I have yet to see any OO's say that, for instance, Dioscorus and Severus were mistaken for rejecting Chalcedon. I don't think they're likely ever to agree to that, which is why, IMO, formal acceptance of Chalcedon should not be a condition for reunion.

Never say never.  It may take centuries of living side by side amid persecution.  We must all own up to our humanity and reject pride.  I have problems with that myself!   I think both sides have a lot of apologizing to do.  And again I think the argument can be made that their fathers didn't reject Chalcedon but rejected what it stood for politically and what others wrongly sought to use it to impose on them.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,481
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #84 on: December 05, 2013, 05:37:08 PM »
The question is, do they need to formally accept the council to reunite with us? I don't think so. The agreement between St. Cyril and John of Antioch did not require the latter to formally accept Ephesus. Which again puts a big question mark on the idea that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #85 on: December 05, 2013, 05:38:55 PM »
The question is, do they need to formally accept the council to reunite with us? I don't think so. The agreement between St. Cyril and John of Antioch did not require the latter to formally accept Ephesus. Which again puts a big question mark on the idea that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful.

It might be enough for them to say that what it teaches is not error.  We have to be united in faith. 

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #86 on: December 05, 2013, 06:09:06 PM »
And when does he write as a private theologian?


Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  

Yeah, Popes always wrote as private theologians and so it wasn't a big deal with Pope Benedict did it.  It was just for the sake of one or two confused idiots that he had to specify in the preface to the first volume of Jesus of Nazareth that his book was "absolutely not a magisterial act", normal people would've known that instinctively.    
given the amorphous definition of what is ex cathedra, what is normal?  Not only the status of various encyclicals, but we can't get a straight answer at the ex cathedra status of the CCC: their Supreme Pontiff had all his bishops review it and he promulgated it with an "Apostolic Constitution."

Was it not in the exercise of his "office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians"?

Was it not promulgated, with an "Apostolic" constitution, in virtue of his "supreme apostolic authority"?

Does it define a doctrine concerning faith or morals not to be held by the whole church, but just part?

Yet try to get a definitive answer on its "infalibility."
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 mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #87 on: December 05, 2013, 06:12:30 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice. 

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

IIRC, Constantinople II was accepted without much controversy.
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #88 on: December 05, 2013, 06:24:10 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice. 

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

IIRC, Constantinople II was accepted without much controversy.
Hardly.  There was a large schism for decades over it in the West.  And the Archbishop of Rome was struck from the diptychs by the Fathers of the Council until he submitted to it.

For that reason, I've seen a number of Ultramontanists try to back track on it, like they have with their council of Pisa, and engage in revisionism of its degrees, like they have with their council of Constance.
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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #89 on: December 05, 2013, 06:26:43 PM »
You're right- your argument has more than one hole after all. Which convinces me further that this receptionist criterion of ecumenicity doesn't hold up.
Well given that you haven't held up your criterion of ecumenicity, I have to conclude that whole of it must be all hole.

Ours are all filled in.
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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #90 on: December 05, 2013, 06:27:41 PM »
The question is, do they need to formally accept the council to reunite with us? I don't think so. The agreement between St. Cyril and John of Antioch did not require the latter to formally accept Ephesus. Which again puts a big question mark on the idea that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful.
To the contrary, it answers the question.
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: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #91 on: December 05, 2013, 09:49:42 PM »
when he writes as private theologian
I notice you had no answer to the other questions.

And when does he write as a private theologian?
 
Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  
Does it have an imprimatur and nihil obstat?
Yes because he is still writing as a catholic theologian presenting catholic views
who issues it?

I don't know. I don't have the answers to everything and I'm not gonna pretend to.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 09:53:46 PM by Wandile »
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,077
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #92 on: December 05, 2013, 09:56:26 PM »
Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  
Does it have an imprimatur and nihil obstat?
Yes because he is still writing as a catholic theologian presenting catholic views
who issues it?

I don't know. I don't have the answers to everything and I'm nit gonna pretend to.

Actually, IIRC Pope Ratzinger's Jesus of Nazareth trilogy has neither nihil obstat nor imprimatur. 
OCnet is KGB.
I hail Mor Ephrem as our Secretary General.

Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #93 on: December 05, 2013, 10:11:24 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice. 

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

IIRC, Constantinople II was accepted without much controversy.
Hardly.  There was a large schism for decades over it in the West.  And the Archbishop of Rome was struck from the diptychs by the Fathers of the Council until he submitted to it.

For that reason, I've seen a number of Ultramontanists try to back track on it, like they have with their council of Pisa, and engage in revisionism of its degrees, like they have with their council of Constance.

He never rejected the council for doctrinal reasons but for political reasons :

"...Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs, without prejudice, however, it was said, to communion with the Apostolic See. Soon the Roman clergy and people, now freed by Narses from the Gothic yoke, requested the emperor to permit the return of the pope, which Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second "Constitutum" of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11), independently, however, and without mention of the council. His opposition had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportuneness of the measures proposed, the wrongful imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the West. Here, indeed, despite the additional recognition of it by Pelagius I (555-60), the Fifth General Council only gradually acquired in public opinion an ecumenical character. In Northern Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke off communion with the Apostolic See; the former yielding only towards the end of the sixth century, whereas the latter (Aquileia-Grado) protracted its resistance to about 700 (Hefele, op. cit., II, 911-27). (For an equitable appreciation of the conduct of Vigilius see, besides the article VIGILIUS, the judgment of Bois, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1238-39.) The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites..."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,481
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #94 on: December 06, 2013, 07:22:51 AM »
The question is, do they need to formally accept the council to reunite with us? I don't think so. The agreement between St. Cyril and John of Antioch did not require the latter to formally accept Ephesus. Which again puts a big question mark on the idea that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful.
To the contrary, it answers the question.

If you mean that it shows that reception of an ecumenical council by all the faithful is unnecessary, then I agree.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #95 on: December 06, 2013, 08:37:18 AM »
Am I the only one to think that holding to the faith of the Councils is more important than having the correct list of Councils?

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,481
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #96 on: December 06, 2013, 08:56:32 AM »
Am I the only one to think that holding to the faith of the Councils is more important than having the correct list of Councils?

I think that's basically what I and others have just said. Which makes the whole argument about "How do you know a council is ecumenical without the Pope"? unnecessary.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 08:57:07 AM by Iconodule »
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #97 on: December 06, 2013, 09:00:58 AM »
Well, then we answered the OP's question.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #98 on: December 06, 2013, 09:14:34 AM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice. 

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

IIRC, Constantinople II was accepted without much controversy.
Hardly.  There was a large schism for decades over it in the West.  And the Archbishop of Rome was struck from the diptychs by the Fathers of the Council until he submitted to it.

For that reason, I've seen a number of Ultramontanists try to back track on it, like they have with their council of Pisa, and engage in revisionism of its degrees, like they have with their council of Constance.

He never rejected the council for doctrinal reasons but for political reasons :

"...Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs, without prejudice, however, it was said, to communion with the Apostolic See. Soon the Roman clergy and people, now freed by Narses from the Gothic yoke, requested the emperor to permit the return of the pope, which Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second "Constitutum" of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11), independently, however, and without mention of the council. His opposition had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportuneness of the measures proposed, the wrongful imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the West. Here, indeed, despite the additional recognition of it by Pelagius I (555-60), the Fifth General Council only gradually acquired in public opinion an ecumenical character. In Northern Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke off communion with the Apostolic See; the former yielding only towards the end of the sixth century, whereas the latter (Aquileia-Grado) protracted its resistance to about 700 (Hefele, op. cit., II, 911-27). (For an equitable appreciation of the conduct of Vigilius see, besides the article VIGILIUS, the judgment of Bois, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1238-39.) The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites..."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm
Tsk, tsk.  I know you know better.  Back on CAF which spawned this thread
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=833565&page=13
Cavaraodossi has supplied Archbishop (I'm sure if they were popes quite yet) Vigilius' "Apostolic" Constitutions defending the Three Chapters.  That they further cause problems for in view of Pastor Aeternus (a ex cathedra statement upholding the heretical Letter Attributed to Ibas) doesn't obscure that.
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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #99 on: December 06, 2013, 09:16:27 AM »
when he writes as private theologian
I notice you had no answer to the other questions.

And when does he write as a private theologian?
 
Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  
Does it have an imprimatur and nihil obstat?
Yes because he is still writing as a catholic theologian presenting catholic views
who issues it?

I don't know. I don't have the answers to everything and I'm not gonna pretend to.
Why stop now?
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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #100 on: December 06, 2013, 09:17:27 AM »
Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  
Does it have an imprimatur and nihil obstat?
Yes because he is still writing as a catholic theologian presenting catholic views
who issues it?

I don't know. I don't have the answers to everything and I'm nit gonna pretend to.

Actually, IIRC Pope Ratzinger's Jesus of Nazareth trilogy has neither nihil obstat nor imprimatur. 
and it would be interesting to know why that is.
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 Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,878
  • Why am I still here?
  • Faith: Mongol-Finnic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #101 on: December 06, 2013, 09:20:00 AM »
Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  
Does it have an imprimatur and nihil obstat?
Yes because he is still writing as a catholic theologian presenting catholic views
who issues it?

I don't know. I don't have the answers to everything and I'm nit gonna pretend to.

Actually, IIRC Pope Ratzinger's Jesus of Nazareth trilogy has neither nihil obstat nor imprimatur. 
and it would be interesting to know why that is.

Maybe he was trying to emphasize that he is writing as an individual and not as a pope.
I just need to find out how to say it in Slavonic!

Offline Romaios

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,940
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #102 on: December 06, 2013, 09:38:15 AM »
Maybe he was trying to emphasize that he is writing as an individual and not as a pope.

Quite the contrary - he did write it as pope.

Pontifical documents, encyclical letters, etc. usually come without imprimaturs (translations thereof might need a stamp of approval, though, to show they "concord with the original").
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 09:42:54 AM by Romaios »

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,077
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #103 on: December 06, 2013, 11:25:13 AM »
Actually, IIRC Pope Ratzinger's Jesus of Nazareth trilogy has neither nihil obstat nor imprimatur. 
and it would be interesting to know why that is.

For one thing, it's no longer required by their canon law.  Encouraged, maybe, but not necessary anymore.
OCnet is KGB.
I hail Mor Ephrem as our Secretary General.

Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #104 on: December 06, 2013, 11:46:24 AM »
Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  
Does it have an imprimatur and nihil obstat?
Yes because he is still writing as a catholic theologian presenting catholic views
who issues it?

I don't know. I don't have the answers to everything and I'm nit gonna pretend to.

Actually, IIRC Pope Ratzinger's Jesus of Nazareth trilogy has neither nihil obstat nor imprimatur. 
True and Most books of Catholic authors such as Bishop Fulton Sheen, Father Benedict Groeschel, Peter Kreeft, and Eugene Kennedy have no Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat.

I guess maybe the Pope might not need one as it is needed from the local overseer... It kind a follows that book of bishops like Jesus of Nazareth written by PBXVI have neither as the process would end with themselves
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #105 on: December 06, 2013, 11:48:42 AM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice. 

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

IIRC, Constantinople II was accepted without much controversy.
Hardly.  There was a large schism for decades over it in the West.  And the Archbishop of Rome was struck from the diptychs by the Fathers of the Council until he submitted to it.

For that reason, I've seen a number of Ultramontanists try to back track on it, like they have with their council of Pisa, and engage in revisionism of its degrees, like they have with their council of Constance.

He never rejected the council for doctrinal reasons but for political reasons :

"...Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs, without prejudice, however, it was said, to communion with the Apostolic See. Soon the Roman clergy and people, now freed by Narses from the Gothic yoke, requested the emperor to permit the return of the pope, which Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second "Constitutum" of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11), independently, however, and without mention of the council. His opposition had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportuneness of the measures proposed, the wrongful imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the West. Here, indeed, despite the additional recognition of it by Pelagius I (555-60), the Fifth General Council only gradually acquired in public opinion an ecumenical character. In Northern Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke off communion with the Apostolic See; the former yielding only towards the end of the sixth century, whereas the latter (Aquileia-Grado) protracted its resistance to about 700 (Hefele, op. cit., II, 911-27). (For an equitable appreciation of the conduct of Vigilius see, besides the article VIGILIUS, the judgment of Bois, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1238-39.) The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites..."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm
Tsk, tsk.  I know you know better.  Back on CAF which spawned this thread
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=833565&page=13
Cavaraodossi has supplied Archbishop (I'm sure if they were popes quite yet) Vigilius' "Apostolic" Constitutions defending the Three Chapters.  That they further cause problems for in view of Pastor Aeternus (a ex cathedra statement upholding the heretical Letter Attributed to Ibas) doesn't obscure that.

seen the thread on CAF a few weeks ago. Mardukum dealt adequately to disprove Cavaradossi's assertions :)
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,077
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #106 on: December 06, 2013, 12:36:16 PM »
I guess maybe the Pope might not need one as it is needed from the local overseer... It kind a follows that book of bishops like Jesus of Nazareth written by PBXVI have neither as the process would end with themselves

An imprimatur can be granted not only by the local ordinary of the author, but also by the ordinary of the place where the book will be published.  It is conceivable, then, that a Pope could ask for an imprimatur from the bishop of the place where Doubleday or whatever is located. 

But your point makes the point: if a Pope doesn't need an imprimatur because "the process would end with himself", how can he write as a private theologian?  He can only do that now that the whole process for ecclesiastical approval of books is not obligatory, and still it is not without controversy (e.g., Benedict XVI's controversial statement on condom use and its controversial clarification by the Vatican). 
OCnet is KGB.
I hail Mor Ephrem as our Secretary General.

Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #107 on: December 06, 2013, 12:50:10 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice.  

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

IIRC, Constantinople II was accepted without much controversy.
Hardly.  There was a large schism for decades over it in the West.  And the Archbishop of Rome was struck from the diptychs by the Fathers of the Council until he submitted to it.

For that reason, I've seen a number of Ultramontanists try to back track on it, like they have with their council of Pisa, and engage in revisionism of its degrees, like they have with their council of Constance.

He never rejected the council for doctrinal reasons but for political reasons :

"...Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs, without prejudice, however, it was said, to communion with the Apostolic See. Soon the Roman clergy and people, now freed by Narses from the Gothic yoke, requested the emperor to permit the return of the pope, which Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second "Constitutum" of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11), independently, however, and without mention of the council. His opposition had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportuneness of the measures proposed, the wrongful imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the West. Here, indeed, despite the additional recognition of it by Pelagius I (555-60), the Fifth General Council only gradually acquired in public opinion an ecumenical character. In Northern Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke off communion with the Apostolic See; the former yielding only towards the end of the sixth century, whereas the latter (Aquileia-Grado) protracted its resistance to about 700 (Hefele, op. cit., II, 911-27). (For an equitable appreciation of the conduct of Vigilius see, besides the article VIGILIUS, the judgment of Bois, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1238-39.) The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites..."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm
Tsk, tsk.  I know you know better.  Back on CAF which spawned this thread
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=833565&page=13
Cavaraodossi has supplied Archbishop (I'm sure if they were popes quite yet) Vigilius' "Apostolic" Constitutions defending the Three Chapters.  That they further cause problems for in view of Pastor Aeternus (a ex cathedra statement upholding the heretical Letter Attributed to Ibas) doesn't obscure that.

seen the thread on CAF a few weeks ago. Mardukum dealt adequately to disprove Cavaradossi's assertions :)
No, he failed as usual, and Cavaradossi, as usual was spot on with the documents, which he, unlike Mardukm often does not, provides always.  Hence Cavaradossi demonstrates, not asserts.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 01:22:14 PM by ialmisry »
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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #108 on: December 06, 2013, 01:12:19 PM »
I guess maybe the Pope might not need one as it is needed from the local overseer... It kind a follows that book of bishops like Jesus of Nazareth written by PBXVI have neither as the process would end with themselves

An imprimatur can be granted not only by the local ordinary of the author, but also by the ordinary of the place where the book will be published.  It is conceivable, then, that a Pope could ask for an imprimatur from the bishop of the place where Doubleday or whatever is located. 

But your point makes the point: if a Pope doesn't need an imprimatur because "the process would end with himself", how can he write as a private theologian?  He can only do that now that the whole process for ecclesiastical approval of books is not obligatory, and still it is not without controversy (e.g., Benedict XVI's controversial statement on condom use and its controversial clarification by the Vatican). 
Exactly.  Where any of the writings of prior "Supreme Pontiffs" ever given a imprimatur or nihil obstat when the Vatican required that de rigueur?
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: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #109 on: December 06, 2013, 02:04:52 PM »
I guess maybe the Pope might not need one as it is needed from the local overseer... It kind a follows that book of bishops like Jesus of Nazareth written by PBXVI have neither as the process would end with themselves

An imprimatur can be granted not only by the local ordinary of the author, but also by the ordinary of the place where the book will be published.  It is conceivable, then, that a Pope could ask for an imprimatur from the bishop of the place where Doubleday or whatever is located.  

But your point makes the point: if a Pope doesn't need an imprimatur because "the process would end with himself", how can he write as a private theologian?   He can only do that now that the whole process for ecclesiastical approval of books is not obligatory, and still it is not without controversy (e.g., Benedict XVI's controversial statement on condom use and its controversial clarification by the Vatican).  

Easy by just doing so ...as many fathers in the past did so... Writing their own books for personal reflection not as a source of teaching for their congregations. That definition of writing in personal/theological capacity. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI even said the book was how own private work did he not?

Just like when Bishop Fulton Sheen wrote some books. They weren't bishops letter s that have teachings authority on the dioceses buy were merely his own personal works or else bishop Fulton sheen . According to your logic, could not write as a private theologian too  :-\
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 02:07:02 PM by Wandile »
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #110 on: December 06, 2013, 02:09:44 PM »
I guess maybe the Pope might not need one as it is needed from the local overseer... It kind a follows that book of bishops like Jesus of Nazareth written by PBXVI have neither as the process would end with themselves

An imprimatur can be granted not only by the local ordinary of the author, but also by the ordinary of the place where the book will be published.  It is conceivable, then, that a Pope could ask for an imprimatur from the bishop of the place where Doubleday or whatever is located. 

But your point makes the point: if a Pope doesn't need an imprimatur because "the process would end with himself", how can he write as a private theologian?  He can only do that now that the whole process for ecclesiastical approval of books is not obligatory, and still it is not without controversy (e.g., Benedict XVI's controversial statement on condom use and its controversial clarification by the Vatican). 
Exactly.  Where any of the writings of prior "Supreme Pontiffs" ever given a imprimatur or nihil obstat when the Vatican required that de rigueur?

All the process seeks to achieve is to allows regular Catholics to read documents free from any teaching contradictory to the Catholic Faith. It is not to determine whether you may or may not write as a private theologian or not
.. So why are we even discussing this again? What's the point you are trying to get at?
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #111 on: December 06, 2013, 02:12:31 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice.  

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

IIRC, Constantinople II was accepted without much controversy.
Hardly.  There was a large schism for decades over it in the West.  And the Archbishop of Rome was struck from the diptychs by the Fathers of the Council until he submitted to it.

For that reason, I've seen a number of Ultramontanists try to back track on it, like they have with their council of Pisa, and engage in revisionism of its degrees, like they have with their council of Constance.

He never rejected the council for doctrinal reasons but for political reasons :

"...Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs, without prejudice, however, it was said, to communion with the Apostolic See. Soon the Roman clergy and people, now freed by Narses from the Gothic yoke, requested the emperor to permit the return of the pope, which Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second "Constitutum" of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11), independently, however, and without mention of the council. His opposition had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportuneness of the measures proposed, the wrongful imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the West. Here, indeed, despite the additional recognition of it by Pelagius I (555-60), the Fifth General Council only gradually acquired in public opinion an ecumenical character. In Northern Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke off communion with the Apostolic See; the former yielding only towards the end of the sixth century, whereas the latter (Aquileia-Grado) protracted its resistance to about 700 (Hefele, op. cit., II, 911-27). (For an equitable appreciation of the conduct of Vigilius see, besides the article VIGILIUS, the judgment of Bois, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1238-39.) The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites..."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm
Tsk, tsk.  I know you know better.  Back on CAF which spawned this thread
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=833565&page=13
Cavaraodossi has supplied Archbishop (I'm sure if they were popes quite yet) Vigilius' "Apostolic" Constitutions defending the Three Chapters.  That they further cause problems for in view of Pastor Aeternus (a ex cathedra statement upholding the heretical Letter Attributed to Ibas) doesn't obscure that.

seen the thread on CAF a few weeks ago. Mardukum dealt adequately to disprove Cavaradossi's assertions :)
No, he failed as usual, and Cavaradossi, as usual was spot on with the documents, which he, unlike Mardukm often does not, provides always.  Hence Cavaradossi demonstrates, not asserts.

Clearly we disagree so lets leave it then? Coz I'm not gonna get into "nuh-uh... Uh-huh" spat over who proved who wrong between mardukum and cavaradossi
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #112 on: December 06, 2013, 03:10:18 PM »
seen the thread on CAF a few weeks ago. Mardukum dealt adequately to disprove Cavaradossi's assertions :)

If that's true I'll eat my hat.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #113 on: December 06, 2013, 03:25:12 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice.  

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

IIRC, Constantinople II was accepted without much controversy.
Hardly.  There was a large schism for decades over it in the West.  And the Archbishop of Rome was struck from the diptychs by the Fathers of the Council until he submitted to it.

For that reason, I've seen a number of Ultramontanists try to back track on it, like they have with their council of Pisa, and engage in revisionism of its degrees, like they have with their council of Constance.

He never rejected the council for doctrinal reasons but for political reasons :

"...Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs, without prejudice, however, it was said, to communion with the Apostolic See. Soon the Roman clergy and people, now freed by Narses from the Gothic yoke, requested the emperor to permit the return of the pope, which Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second "Constitutum" of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11), independently, however, and without mention of the council. His opposition had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportuneness of the measures proposed, the wrongful imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the West. Here, indeed, despite the additional recognition of it by Pelagius I (555-60), the Fifth General Council only gradually acquired in public opinion an ecumenical character. In Northern Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke off communion with the Apostolic See; the former yielding only towards the end of the sixth century, whereas the latter (Aquileia-Grado) protracted its resistance to about 700 (Hefele, op. cit., II, 911-27). (For an equitable appreciation of the conduct of Vigilius see, besides the article VIGILIUS, the judgment of Bois, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1238-39.) The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites..."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm
Tsk, tsk.  I know you know better.  Back on CAF which spawned this thread
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=833565&page=13
Cavaraodossi has supplied Archbishop (I'm sure if they were popes quite yet) Vigilius' "Apostolic" Constitutions defending the Three Chapters.  That they further cause problems for in view of Pastor Aeternus (a ex cathedra statement upholding the heretical Letter Attributed to Ibas) doesn't obscure that.

seen the thread on CAF a few weeks ago. Mardukum dealt adequately to disprove Cavaradossi's assertions :)
No, he failed as usual, and Cavaradossi, as usual was spot on with the documents, which he, unlike Mardukm often does not, provides always.  Hence Cavaradossi demonstrates, not asserts.

Clearly we disagree so lets leave it then? Coz I'm not gonna get into "nuh-uh... Uh-huh" spat over who proved who wrong between mardukum and cavaradossi
I could just as easily show that Pope Vigilius rejected/opposed the Fifth Ecumenical Council on theological grounds, but why redo what Cavardossi has already done?
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: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #114 on: December 06, 2013, 03:29:12 PM »
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?


Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice.  

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

IIRC, Constantinople II was accepted without much controversy.
Hardly.  There was a large schism for decades over it in the West.  And the Archbishop of Rome was struck from the diptychs by the Fathers of the Council until he submitted to it.

For that reason, I've seen a number of Ultramontanists try to back track on it, like they have with their council of Pisa, and engage in revisionism of its degrees, like they have with their council of Constance.

He never rejected the council for doctrinal reasons but for political reasons :

"...Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs, without prejudice, however, it was said, to communion with the Apostolic See. Soon the Roman clergy and people, now freed by Narses from the Gothic yoke, requested the emperor to permit the return of the pope, which Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second "Constitutum" of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11), independently, however, and without mention of the council. His opposition had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportuneness of the measures proposed, the wrongful imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the West. Here, indeed, despite the additional recognition of it by Pelagius I (555-60), the Fifth General Council only gradually acquired in public opinion an ecumenical character. In Northern Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke off communion with the Apostolic See; the former yielding only towards the end of the sixth century, whereas the latter (Aquileia-Grado) protracted its resistance to about 700 (Hefele, op. cit., II, 911-27). (For an equitable appreciation of the conduct of Vigilius see, besides the article VIGILIUS, the judgment of Bois, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1238-39.) The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites..."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm
Tsk, tsk.  I know you know better.  Back on CAF which spawned this thread
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=833565&page=13
Cavaraodossi has supplied Archbishop (I'm sure if they were popes quite yet) Vigilius' "Apostolic" Constitutions defending the Three Chapters.  That they further cause problems for in view of Pastor Aeternus (a ex cathedra statement upholding the heretical Letter Attributed to Ibas) doesn't obscure that.

seen the thread on CAF a few weeks ago. Mardukum dealt adequately to disprove Cavaradossi's assertions :)
No, he failed as usual, and Cavaradossi, as usual was spot on with the documents, which he, unlike Mardukm often does not, provides always.  Hence Cavaradossi demonstrates, not asserts.

Clearly we disagree so lets leave it then? Coz I'm not gonna get into "nuh-uh... Uh-huh" spat over who proved who wrong between mardukum and cavaradossi
I could just as easily show that Pope Vigilius rejected/opposed the Fifth Ecumenical Council on theological grounds, but why redo what Cavardossi has already done?

Go ahead.. Do your best
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #115 on: December 06, 2013, 03:33:47 PM »
I guess maybe the Pope might not need one as it is needed from the local overseer... It kind a follows that book of bishops like Jesus of Nazareth written by PBXVI have neither as the process would end with themselves

An imprimatur can be granted not only by the local ordinary of the author, but also by the ordinary of the place where the book will be published.  It is conceivable, then, that a Pope could ask for an imprimatur from the bishop of the place where Doubleday or whatever is located. 

But your point makes the point: if a Pope doesn't need an imprimatur because "the process would end with himself", how can he write as a private theologian?  He can only do that now that the whole process for ecclesiastical approval of books is not obligatory, and still it is not without controversy (e.g., Benedict XVI's controversial statement on condom use and its controversial clarification by the Vatican). 
Exactly.  Where any of the writings of prior "Supreme Pontiffs" ever given a imprimatur or nihil obstat when the Vatican required that de rigueur?

All the process seeks to achieve is to allows regular Catholics to read documents free from any teaching contradictory to the Catholic Faith. It is not to determine whether you may or may not write as a private theologian or not
.. So why are we even discussing this again? What's the point you are trying to get at?
When isn't your supreme pontiff  speaking "infallibly", especially in view of this:
Lumen Gentium:
Quote
This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
So if he doesn't speak ex cathedra, we have to act as if he did.  Big help, infallibility.
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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,077
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #116 on: December 06, 2013, 04:48:55 PM »
I guess maybe the Pope might not need one as it is needed from the local overseer... It kind a follows that book of bishops like Jesus of Nazareth written by PBXVI have neither as the process would end with themselves

An imprimatur can be granted not only by the local ordinary of the author, but also by the ordinary of the place where the book will be published.  It is conceivable, then, that a Pope could ask for an imprimatur from the bishop of the place where Doubleday or whatever is located.  

But your point makes the point: if a Pope doesn't need an imprimatur because "the process would end with himself", how can he write as a private theologian?   He can only do that now that the whole process for ecclesiastical approval of books is not obligatory, and still it is not without controversy (e.g., Benedict XVI's controversial statement on condom use and its controversial clarification by the Vatican).  

Easy by just doing so ...as many fathers in the past did so...

But only a small minority of those fathers claimed the prerogatives which the Roman Popes claim, and were treated accordingly by their faithful.

Quote
Writing their own books for personal reflection not as a source of teaching for their congregations. That definition of writing in personal/theological capacity. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI even said the book was how own private work did he not?

He said his book was not a magisterial act.  Very well.  But it's insane to think that a "book for personal reflection" that is also written by a world class theologian and Pope is going to be treated as a bedside diary.  It is most definitely received by the RC faithful as a source of teaching (see ialmisry's citation from Lumen Gentium).  It was most definitely written by a theologian Pope in order to teach Christian truth.  By your logic, it would be no big deal if a Pope wrote a "book of personal reflection" on God as a woman, as long as he doesn't try to do it from his throne in the Lateran Basilica.  That's stupid.   

Quote
Just like when Bishop Fulton Sheen wrote some books. They weren't bishops letter s that have teachings authority on the dioceses buy were merely his own personal works or else bishop Fulton sheen . According to your logic, could not write as a private theologian too  :-\

Make up your mind: either there is a difference between the Pope of Rome and the Bishop of Rochester, or there is not. 

Sheen can write books as a private theologian, and so can Ratzinger (one does wonder, however, what is the point of a "private theologian"...theology is not a hobby like collecting butterflies, it is at the service of the Church).  But a Pope will always trump a bishop in your system:

 

It's disingenuous for you to act as if a Pope writing a book is no different from anyone else writing a book.
OCnet is KGB.
I hail Mor Ephrem as our Secretary General.

Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #117 on: December 07, 2013, 02:27:34 PM »
I guess maybe the Pope might not need one as it is needed from the local overseer... It kind a follows that book of bishops like Jesus of Nazareth written by PBXVI have neither as the process would end with themselves

An imprimatur can be granted not only by the local ordinary of the author, but also by the ordinary of the place where the book will be published.  It is conceivable, then, that a Pope could ask for an imprimatur from the bishop of the place where Doubleday or whatever is located.  

But your point makes the point: if a Pope doesn't need an imprimatur because "the process would end with himself", how can he write as a private theologian?   He can only do that now that the whole process for ecclesiastical approval of books is not obligatory, and still it is not without controversy (e.g., Benedict XVI's controversial statement on condom use and its controversial clarification by the Vatican).  

Easy by just doing so ...as many fathers in the past did so...

But only a small minority of those fathers claimed the prerogatives which the Roman Popes claim, and were treated accordingly by their faithful.

universal truth is not measured in mass appeal... Secondly who reprimanded Popes Leo and Gregory the Greats as well as Pope Damasus, Agatho and many others for their claims? Who reprimanded Maximus the confessor or patriarch John of jerusalem for his claims about the papacy? Or many other countless fathers of the west and the east who said the same?

Quote
He said his book was not a magisterial act.  Very well.  But it's insane to think that a "book for personal reflection" that is also written by a world class theologian and Pope is going to be treated as a bedside diary.  It is most definitely received by the RC faithful as a source of teaching (see ialmisry's citation from Lumen Gentium).  It was most definitely written by a theologian Pope in order to teach Christian truth.  By your logic, it would be no big deal if a Pope wrote a "book of personal reflection" on God as a woman, as long as he doesn't try to do it from his throne in the Lateran Basilica.  That's stupid.


That's not my logic . The fact is he can write as a private theologian. I never said his writings won't be a big deal or that it would be ok for him to teach heresy in those  writings. These writings are not binding on the faithful. What don't you get about that?

Quote
Make up your mind: either there is a difference between the Pope of Rome and the Bishop of Rochester, or there is not.


The popes universal authority is not attached to him being a bishop but to his role as head of the church. So there is no difference Mor. A bishop is a bishop.

Quote
can write books as a private theologian, and so can Ratzinger (one does wonder, however, what is the point of a "private theologian"...theology is not a hobby like collecting butterflies, it is at the service of the Church).  But a Pope will always trump a bishop in your system:


It certainly isn't but it helps to make a distinction between what is binding on the faithful and what is not. Just because the Popes writings might carry more weight due to who he is does not make them authoritative.

Quote
It's disingenuous for you to act as if a Pope writing a book is no different from anyone else writing a book.
And equally so its disingenuous of you to try imply that because a Popes writings carry more weight that that makes them automatically binding. That's stupid.
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #118 on: December 07, 2013, 02:51:23 PM »
Secondly who reprimanded Popes Leo

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

and Gregory the Greats

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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #119 on: December 07, 2013, 03:34:00 PM »
I guess maybe the Pope might not need one as it is needed from the local overseer... It kind a follows that book of bishops like Jesus of Nazareth written by PBXVI have neither as the process would end with themselves

An imprimatur can be granted not only by the local ordinary of the author, but also by the ordinary of the place where the book will be published.  It is conceivable, then, that a Pope could ask for an imprimatur from the bishop of the place where Doubleday or whatever is located.  

But your point makes the point: if a Pope doesn't need an imprimatur because "the process would end with himself", how can he write as a private theologian?   He can only do that now that the whole process for ecclesiastical approval of books is not obligatory, and still it is not without controversy (e.g., Benedict XVI's controversial statement on condom use and its controversial clarification by the Vatican).  

Easy by just doing so ...as many fathers in the past did so...

But only a small minority of those fathers claimed the prerogatives which the Roman Popes claim, and were treated accordingly by their faithful.

universal truth is not measured in mass appeal
It isn't dictated by the pretensions of bishop suffering megalomania either.  Especially when he has had to acquiesce to reality.

... Secondly who reprimanded Popes Leo and Gregory the Greats as well as Pope Damasus, Agatho and many others for their claims
The Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon and his suffragans in the Balkans (we have Pope St. Leo's to the Empress whining about that).

His suffragans in Sicily (Pope St. Gregory's famous line on the EP are in his letter trying to silence his critics for his imitation of Constantinopolitan ways).

The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council, and their successors until 399, over a decade after his death.

The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council-they went ahead for nearly a year after Pope St. Agatho reposed shortly after it opened.  Pope Leo II would not succeed Pope St. Agatho for nearly a year after the Council closed and issued its Decrees, including the anathema against Pope Honorius.

And Archbishop (definitely not "Pope" then) St. Victor I, the first to make such pretensions, as, as Eusbius records, was reprimanded by "the whole Church."

Who reprimanded Maximus the confessor
St. Maximus the Confessor, and the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
or patriarch John of jerusalem for his claims about the papacy?
The Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and his successor Pat. St. Sophronios.

Or many other countless fathers of the west and the east who said the same?
That you so desperately wish to ignore context and cling to an obscure third hand (at least) quote unknown in 1870 just shows that you don't exactly have a great number of Fathers in the East to count on.

He said his book was not a magisterial act.  Very well.  But it's insane to think that a "book for personal reflection" that is also written by a world class theologian and Pope is going to be treated as a bedside diary.  It is most definitely received by the RC faithful as a source of teaching (see ialmisry's citation from Lumen Gentium).  It was most definitely written by a theologian Pope in order to teach Christian truth.  By your logic, it would be no big deal if a Pope wrote a "book of personal reflection" on God as a woman, as long as he doesn't try to do it from his throne in the Lateran Basilica.  That's stupid.

That's not my logic . The fact is he can write as a private theologian. I never said his writings won't be a big deal or that it would be ok for him to teach heresy in those  writings. These writings are not binding on the faithful. What don't you get about that?
How you get around Lumen Gentium 25.

And how you are fine if your supreme pontiff writes that God is a woman (not far off, with how far your Supreme Pontiff John Paul II let Maximillian Kolbe's semi-incarnated Immaculata and the Fifth Marian Dogma folks go).

Make up your mind: either there is a difference between the Pope of Rome and the Bishop of Rochester, or there is not.


The popes universal authority is not attached to him being a bishop but to his role as head of the church. So there is no difference Mor. A bishop is a bishop.
unless he is the bishop of Rome.  Or Avignon.

can write books as a private theologian, and so can Ratzinger (one does wonder, however, what is the point of a "private theologian"...theology is not a hobby like collecting butterflies, it is at the service of the Church).  But a Pope will always trump a bishop in your system:


It certainly isn't but it helps to make a distinction between what is binding on the faithful and what is not.
Lumen Gentium 25 renders that a distinction without a difference.

Just because the Popes writings might carry more weight due to who he is does not make them authoritative.
So the Winnipeg Statement is the equal of Humanae Vitae?

It's disingenuous for you to act as if a Pope writing a book is no different from anyone else writing a book.
And equally so its disingenuous of you to try imply that because a Popes writings carry more weight that that makes them automatically binding. That's stupid.
It is. And yet your "Apostolic Constantion" Lumen Gentium 25 mandates just that.
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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,077
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #120 on: December 07, 2013, 05:55:00 PM »
universal truth is not measured in mass appeal... Secondly who reprimanded Popes Leo and Gregory the Greats as well as Pope Damasus, Agatho and many others for their claims? Who reprimanded Maximus the confessor or patriarch John of jerusalem for his claims about the papacy? Or many other countless fathers of the west and the east who said the same?

See above.  And thanks for the laugh: asking an OO Christian about who reprimanded Pope Leo?  ;)

Quote
That's not my logic . The fact is he can write as a private theologian. I never said his writings won't be a big deal or that it would be ok for him to teach heresy in those  writings. These writings are not binding on the faithful. What don't you get about that?

Wandile, the RC faith is not "if it's not ex cathedra, feel free to disagree as much as you want".  Yes, a Pope's "private writings" are not binding on the faithful in the sense that an ex cathedra statement would be, but LG 25 seems to be more inclusive than you want to admit:

Quote
Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Lumen Gentium, 25

Notice, first of all, that when speaking of bishops in general (which includes the Pope), the council says "in matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent".  There's nothing about "ex cathedra" or "promulgations of ecumenical councils" or "papal infallibility" there.  It's simply "The job of bishops is to teach the faith and morality of the Church, and the faithful are to accept their teaching as from Christ".

When speaking specifically about the Pope, however, the council specifies that even when not invoking infallibility, what above applies to bishops in general is even more the case with the Pope.  The faithful's religious submission of mind and will "must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will".  The Pope's mind and will "may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking". 
 
You can fly a space shuttle through that gaping hole.  It is not nearly so restrictive as "not binding on the faithful unless it's ex cathedra", it is not as restrictive as you want us to believe in order to suit your polemic.  The average faithful Catholic gets that: only various stripes of conservative and liberal try to take advantage of the restriction for which you advocate.   

Quote
The popes universal authority is not attached to him being a bishop but to his role as head of the church. So there is no difference Mor. A bishop is a bishop.

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. 

And as far as "a bishop is a bishop", see above.  In fact, read Vatican II in light of Vatican I and previous RC tradition. 

Quote
And equally so its disingenuous of you to try imply that because a Popes writings carry more weight that that makes them automatically binding. That's stupid.

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.   
OCnet is KGB.
I hail Mor Ephrem as our Secretary General.

Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #121 on: December 07, 2013, 06:33:48 PM »


When speaking specifically about the Pope, however, the council specifies that even when not invoking infallibility, what above applies to bishops in general is even more the case with the Pope.  The faithful's religious submission of mind and will "must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will".  The Pope's mind and will "may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking".  
 
You can fly a space shuttle through that gaping hole.  It is not nearly so restrictive as "not binding on the faithful unless it's ex cathedra", it is not as restrictive as you want us to believe in order to suit your polemic.  The average faithful Catholic gets that: only various stripes of conservative and liberal try to take advantage of the restriction for which you advocate.    

Quote
The popes universal authority is not attached to him being a bishop but to his role as head of the church. So there is no difference Mor. A bishop is a bishop.

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.  

And as far as "a bishop is a bishop", see above.  In fact, read Vatican II in light of Vatican I and previous RC tradition.  

Quote
And equally so its disingenuous of you to try imply that because a Popes writings carry more weight that that makes them automatically binding. That's stupid.

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.    


And the bolded language is significant in light of the first public statements Pope Francis made upon his election as Bishop of Rome - and why the same were tantalizing to the Orthodox. The tease was continued in his recent encyclical regarding the role of collegiality and the role of synods. We're certainly not holding our breath on this side of the divide, but it his papacy remains enigmatic and intriguing.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 06:34:49 PM by podkarpatska »

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #122 on: December 07, 2013, 07:19:37 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?

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

Why do many orthodox think this is a strike against the pope? It but agree with catholic teaching andbso do these quotes from the same man :) :

"As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it" (Epistles 9:26).

"...the Apostolic See, which is the head of all other churches" (13:1).

, "I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church"



Text modified to removed forbidden epithet pursuant to the following rule:

Quote
* EO/OO/RC Pejoratives -- Please do not use the following terms in your discussions as they are considered to be pejorative by other members of this forum: Uniate: Use Eastern Catholic (or their appropriate official title).  Monophysite: Please use Oriental Orthodox or Non-Chalcedonian.  Obviously, if you are discussing these terms in their true and historical sense then there is no problem using the term. What is being rejected is using this as a label to counter other members of the forum. As always, this does not imply that the board takes a position itself on these positions; this is merely a request to use civilized terminology & academic discussion standards in dialog on this forum.

-PtA
« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 11:22:40 PM by PeterTheAleut »
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #123 on: December 07, 2013, 07:24:46 PM »
Secondly who reprimanded Popes Leo

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

for what exactly? The monophosites you mean? The "reprimanded" him for his claims or orthodox tome?
and his attempts to have it adopted as the definition of the Council

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

Why do many orthodox think this is a strike against the pope? It but agree with catholic teaching andbso do these quotes from the same man :) :

"As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it" (Epistles 9:26).

"...the Apostolic See, which is the head of all other churches" (13:1).

, "I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church"
LOL. Have you ever read the entire letter, or just the excepts cut out for you?
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 Salpy

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,490
  • Holy Martyrs of the Armenian Genocide pray for us!
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #124 on: December 07, 2013, 08:45:15 PM »
This thread on a letter from Pope Leo to St. Dioscoros may (or may not) contribute to this discussion:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,43146.0.html#top

Offline Nicene

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 630
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #125 on: December 07, 2013, 11:08:07 PM »
When everyone says its eccumenical.
Thank you.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #126 on: December 08, 2013, 02:43:16 PM »
When everyone says its eccumenical.
That has never happened.

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #127 on: December 08, 2013, 02:47:27 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.

Offline Nektarios_In_E.S.

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Wandile, once again, to answer your question:
« Reply #128 on: December 09, 2013, 10:30:54 AM »
In my humble opinion, I feel that this best answers Wandile's question, at least, in a basic straightforward way.  No personal opinions from my part about what I think constitutes an Ecumenical Council.  In case you did not see it the first time, here it is again:

Quote
I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?

In Eastern Orthodoxy, just like the Mysteries ("Sacraments"), we cannot really say we have 7 "concretely" but many more Mysteries ("Sacraments").  The same goes for the canon of Scripture being "concretely" reduced to 47 (or so OT books) and the 27 NT books.  In Orthodoxy, there were other synods which were convened -after the 7th, which could also be considered as "Ecumenical" in nature.  Here is some information regarding the "8th Ecumenical Synod" which may answer some -if not all- of your questions.
                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let us return, though, to the Eighth OEcumenical Synod. The Synod convened under the presidency of the “most holy OEcumenical Patriarch Photios”; around three hundred and ninety Bishops and Episcopal representatives took part; Pope John VIII appointed three delegates; and representatives of the three Patriarchates of the East also participated. The proceedings of the Synod commenced in November of 879 and concluded in March of 880. Seven sessions were held in all, and the transactions of this historic Synod in Hagia Sophia, “composed in Greek and preserved,” and published in 1705 by the illustrious Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (1669-1707), as witnessed by a manuscript in the Athonite Monastery of Iveron.

The Holy Synod of 879-880 “was one of the most important Synods in the history of the Church,” and, being comprised of three hundred and ninety “Fathers, both Eastern and Western, representing the five Patriarchates, presented an imposing spectacle such as had not been seen since the time of the Fourth OEcumenical Synod of Chalcedon.”

The Synod of Hagia Sophia under St. Photios the Great bears all of the hallmarks of an OEcumenical Synod, both outwardly and inwardly, and consequently “it is not at all surprising that it was regarded as the Eighth OEcumenical Synod by [Patriarch Euythmios I (907-917)], Theodore Balsamon, Neilos of Thessalonica, Neilos of Rhodes, Symeon of Thessalonica, Mark of Ephesus, Gennadios Scholarios, Dositheos of Jerusalem, Constantine Oikonomos, and” many “others,” such as the important “Dialogue of a Certain Hieromnemon,” and by our contemporaries, St. Nectarios of Pentapolis, Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadoupoulos, Francis Dvornik, Archimandrite Basileios Stephanides, Father John Romanides, Protopresbyter George Metallinos, Metropolitan Hierotheos Blachos, et al. And this Synod also called itself OEcumenical in many places in its Proceedings and Canons, and Archimandrite Basileios Stephanides writes that “since it has not been officially recognized as the Eighth OEcumenical Synod, any OEcumenical Synod that may be convened in the future ought to deal with this issue.”

It is, however, time for us to identify “all of the canonical elements necessary for the convocation, work, and decisions of an OEcumenical Synod,” which elements, indeed, the illustrious and clearly anti-Papist Synod of Constantinople bring together in:
1. “Its convocation as an OEcumenical Synod, at which the five ancient Patriarchal thrones were represented”;
2. “its convocation by Emperor Basil I the Macedonian (867-886),” who “in fact, together with his sons, was the first to sign the dogmatic decree (Ὅρος) of the Synod and its Acts”;
3. “the large number of its members (338-390 Bishops)”;
4. “the functioning of the Synod in conformity with the traditional canonical functioning of the OEcumenical Synods”;
5. “its canonical regulations” (it promulgated three Canons);
6. “its stipulations about matters of Faith,” wherein, on pain of anathema, it designated that the Sacred Symbol of Faith (the Creed) was unalterable and inviolable;
7. “its clear awareness of its authenticity as an OEcumenical Synod,” as this is expressed “in its decision to number the Seventh OEcumenical Synod with the preceding OEcumenical Synods, which only OEcumenical Synods were entitled to do”;
8. and “the decisions made in this Synod, which were consonant with the decrees of the previous OEcumenical Synods, in accordance with the Tradition of the Church.”

The work accomplished by the great Synod of 879-880 was momentous both for that troubled period and for the future of the Church: it functioned in a unitive spirit on the basis of dogmatic Truth and ca-nonical Tradition; it condemned the alteration of the Symbol of Faith through the addition of the Filioque; ratified the Sacred Symbol as it was handed down to us by the first two OEcumenical Synods; and rejected the distortion of the simple Primacy of Honor due to the Bishop of Rome, who had transformed this into an administrative Primacy of Power over the entire Church.

St. Photios the Great also acted in a unitive spirit, refuted the Papal Primacy of Power and the adulteration of the Symbol of Faith with incontrovertible arguments, set forth the Orthodox positions with candor and clarity, and called upon the representatives of Pope John VIII to renounce their errors, which had led to the schism of 867.

St. Nectarios of Pentapolis states emphatically that
[t]he Eighth OEcumenical Synod has great importance [because] in this Synod Photios was triumphant..., his struggles for the independence of the Eastern Church were crowned with total success, and the Truth of Orthodoxy, for which he had toiled so hard, prevailed.... In a word, the triumph was complete: it was a political, an ecclesiastical, and a personal triumph.

:) hope that was helpful!

« Last Edit: December 09, 2013, 10:31:54 AM by Nektarios_In_E.S. »

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #129 on: December 09, 2013, 12:57:47 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 believed to be infallible today by catholics but yet some still dissent.

notice to isa and Mor... I'll reply by tomorrow . I've just been busy the past few days
« Last Edit: December 09, 2013, 01:01:19 PM by Wandile »
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #130 on: December 09, 2013, 01:00:58 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.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #131 on: December 09, 2013, 01:07:25 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
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #132 on: December 09, 2013, 01:11:23 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?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #133 on: December 09, 2013, 01:50:14 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 believed to be infallible today by catholics but yet some still dissent.
This logic is flawed.  The non-Chalcedonians never echoed that cognitive dissonance.
notice to isa and Mor... I'll reply by tomorrow . I've just been busy the past few days
No problem.  I understand things are busy in your neck of the woods.
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: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ecumenical councils
« Reply #134 on: December 10, 2013, 11:32:53 AM »
Wandile, the RC faith is not "if it's not ex cathedra, feel free to disagree as much as you want".  Yes, a Pope's "private writings" are not binding on the faithful in the sense that an ex cathedra statement would be, but LG 25 seems to be more inclusive than you want to admit
no you seem to not understand the capacity in which bishops can teach/write in the catholic church. Lumen Gentum 25 teaches that when a bishop teaches In his capacity as instructor of the faithful/overseer of the diocese then even though it's not ex cathedra, the bishops words are still binding as religious assent is demanded by the faithful. That's patristic.

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.

Quote
When speaking specifically about the Pope, however, the council specifies that even when not invoking infallibility, what above applies to bishops in general is even more the case with the Pope.  The faithful's religious submission of mind and will "must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will".  The Pope's mind and will "may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking".

Yes I know all of this. This is all relative to him writing in the position of Bishop of Rome . He wrote his books as Joseph Ratzinger , not PBXVI I.e. Out of capacity.
 that's why he went out of his way to make sure people knew its was just a private theological writing as opposed to something authoritative like a papal bull.

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?

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.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 11:52:19 AM by Wandile »
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • 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 »
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,794
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: 3,177
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • 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 »
” Where there is no love, pour love in, and you will draw love out.”
- St John of the Cross


Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,077
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
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? 
OCnet is KGB.
I hail Mor Ephrem as our Secretary General.

Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite