Author Topic: Ecumenical councils  (Read 10495 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • 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?
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,729
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: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • 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
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • 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
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

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: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • 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
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Antivoluntarist evangelist
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,827
    • 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: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • 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....
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

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: 41,729
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: 41,729
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: 41,729
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: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • 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  :-\
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • 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
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,729
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: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • 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.
 
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,729
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: 41,729
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: 35,715
  • A well-sexed theologian
    • 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.  
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: 35,715
  • A well-sexed theologian
    • 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. 
Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,729
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: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • 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 ..
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • 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
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,729
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: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • 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 »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

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: 41,729
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: 35,715
  • A well-sexed theologian
    • 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.  
Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • 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
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • 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
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,729
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: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • 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 »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,366
  • 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: 41,729
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: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • 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  
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,729
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: 41,729
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: 41,729
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