Author Topic: Ecumenical councils  (Read 12280 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,079
    • 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: 38,835
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: 36,079
    • 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: 3,178
  • 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: 3,178
  • 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: 3,178
  • 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: 36,079
    • 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