A 22nd Ecumenical Council and representation

[eddie_too]

i just read this today at bigpulpit.

apparently, the first council of constantinople, it occurred after nicea, had a very limited attendance. bishops from the west did not make it and many from africa did not make it.

however, the article i read said that the whole Church subsequently ratified (accepted, acknowledged) what the council taught as ecumenical (in the sense that it applied universally is i think the point) even though so few bishops attended.

could this have created a precedent that allows for a council being recognized as ecumenical in the future?

just wanted to throw a little fuel on the fire. honestly, i am uncertain as to the significance of the whole issue.

i have little doubt that should the Holy Father wish to convene an ecumenical council and invites all of the bishops, a place would be found. so, i kind of reject the idea that it would not be practical to invite all bishops in this day and age.

furthermore, in this day and age, with its high level of communication technology, an ecumenical council could occur with on-line assistance. perhaps each continent’s bishops could gather at a location that is technologically designed to allow them to communicate with all of the other bishops around the world.

more fuel.

 

[eddie_too]

maybe i missed it, but did the pope forbid some bishops from participating at Lyons?

if the pope intentionally prohibits some bishops, in good standing, from participating in a council of bishops, i support the idea that the pope has not convened an ecumenical council.

it would be different if all the bishops were invited but many could not attend. that would be like the first council of constantinople.

 

[FrDavid96]

… the pope declared that those who were present without being specifically summoned were given “leave to depart with the blessing of God” .

In the English language when someone is “given leave to depart” that means that such a person has permission to go elsewhere. That does not mean (as you repeatedly, and wrongly) insist that the pope prevented them from participating.

I’ve addressed this very sentence about 3 times now. You simply refuse to read what I’ve written.

Apparently, you don’t understand the meaning of the phrase “given leave to depart.”

Leave
noun

1. permission to do something:
   to beg leave to go elsewhere.
2. permission to be absent, as from work or military duty:
   The firm offers a maternity leave as part of its benefit program.
   dictionary.reference.com/browse/leave?s=t

 

[FrDavid96]

This is not the same. Back then they didn’t have aeroplanes to travel with in luxury conditions where home is on the other side of the world but can be reached in a matter of hours.

Back then it took months of travel in hard terrain, terrible conditions and nevermind poor health and how expensive it was to travel such long distances (way more than a plane ticket today). In those days willingly turning back, from a council you wish to attend after spending crazy amounts of money, time and energy, was almost insane.

The latter.

The Pope specifically gave invites to attend. However, the council was open even the uninvited but when it became too overwhelming, the pope declared that those who were present without being specifically summoned were given “leave to depart with the blessing of God” .

Most European bishops in the 13th century did not exactly have the reputation for being devoted theologians.

Most of them had their offices by virtue of political appointments, often being the second or third sons of the nobility, who were granted bishoprics in lieu of fiefdoms. Formal theological training was in its infancy at that time.

It is not at all surprising that, given leave to depart, a great many of them would have had no interest in participating in theological discussions and would have been quite pleased to be excused–in which case, they would have enjoyed first-class travel accommodations all the way back to their homes, as honored guests of the local nobility each night.

The fact that you think that 13th century bishops would have been disappointed to be excused from participating in theological discussions and debates only further demonstrates that you do not understand the topic at hand.

The bishops who were genuine theologians were the ones who decided to stay and participate in the council. There were good bishops at that time, let’s not forget them.

 

[Wandile]

In the English language when someone is “given leave to depart” that means that such a person has permission to go elsewhere. That does not mean (as you repeatedly, and wrongly) insist that the pope prevented them from participating.

I’ve addressed this very sentence about 3 times now. You simply refuse to read what I’ve written.

Apparently, you don’t understand the meaning of the phrase “given leave to depart.”

Leave
noun

1. permission to do something:
   to beg leave to go elsewhere.
2. permission to be absent, as from work or military duty:
   The firm offers a maternity leave as part of its benefit program.
   dictionary.reference.com/browse/leave?s=t

Father we all also understand euphemism. That honestly was a nice way of the bishops being asked to go home. The fact is that all historical sources say they were sent home. Not offered to go home. This is wishful thinking on your part.

That’s why I say show me one sources that shows the were given permissions rather than told to leave then I will concede. All sources I have read confirm that the pope told all uninvited guest to step out in kind words and they did accordingly. This is confirmed by the fact that ** nobody who was uninvited remained**.

 

[Wandile]

Most European bishops in the 13th century did not exactly have the reputation for being devoted theologians.

Most of them had their offices by virtue of political appointments, often being the second or third sons of the nobility, who were granted bishoprics in lieu of fiefdoms. Formal theological training was in its infancy at that time.

Thanks for the history lesson but I know this already

It is not at all surprising that, given leave to depart, a great many of them would have had no interest in participating in theological discussions and would have been quite pleased to be excused

Then why even attend? Because it was the uninvited attendees that were sent home. If they weren’t interested then why even go there in the first place only to leave because you had no interest to begin with? That makes no sense

in which case, they would have enjoyed first-class travel accommodations all the way back to their homes, as honored guests of the local nobility each night.

Does not make travel anymore pleasant. It still was a tiresome and long process that would much rather be avoided.

The fact that you think that 13th century bishops would have been disappointed to be excused from participating in theological discussions and debates only further demonstrates that you do not understand the topic at hand.

Thats not anything close to what I said. You are creating a straw man. I’m saying the people that attended who were not invited actually went there because they wanted to. Or else why else would they?? They were later sent home for not being specifically summoned. If they never wanted to be there in the first place, and were not invited, why even show up?

The bishops who were genuine theologians were the ones who decided to stay and participate in the council. There were good at that time, let’s not forget them.

Actually, the ones who stayed were those who were were specifically invited and nobody else… They did not stay behind because of their zeal for theological dialogue (nevermind how little of that happened at that council) even though many prominent theologians were there.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thanks for the history lesson but I know this already
…
Actually, the ones who stayed were those who were were specifically invited and nobody else… They did not stay behind because of their zeal for theological dialogue (nevermind how little of that happened at that council) even though many prominent theologians were there.

My big mistake here was to accept what you posted in the first place without verifying it.

All of the bishops were invited to the 2nd Council of Lyons and none of the bishops were given leave to depart.

Only the non-bishops who were not summoned by name were given leave to depart the Council at its second session.

We therefore have decided that all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, abbots and priors whom we summoned specially and by name are to remain, they are not to depart without our special leave before the council ends. The other non-mitred abbots and priors and the other abbots and priors, who were not summoned by us specially and by name, and the provosts, deans, archdeacons and other prelates of churches, and the procurators of any prelates, chapters, colleges and convents, have our gracious leave to depart with the blessing of God and our own.

Constitution I of the 2nd Council of Lyons.
The quote is from middle of the 4th paragraph in the Tanner translation.

This is the “Tanner” translation—one of the most respected translations of the decrees of the Councils.

It can be found in (at least) 2 online sources:

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum14.htm

dailycatholic.org/history/14ecume1.htm

 

[Wandile]

My big mistake here was to accept what you posted in the first place without verifying it.

All of the bishops were invited to the 2nd Council of Lyons and none of the bishops were given leave to depart.

Only the non-bishops who were not summoned by name were given leave to depart the Council at its second session.

We therefore have decided that all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, abbots and priors whom we summoned specially and by name are to remain, they are not to depart without our special leave before the council ends. The other non-mitred abbots and priors and the other abbots and priors, who were not summoned by us specially and by name, and the provosts, deans, archdeacons and other prelates of churches, and the procurators of any prelates, chapters, colleges and convents, have our gracious leave to depart with the blessing of God and our own.

Constitution I of the 2nd Council of Lyons.
The quote is from middle of the 4th paragraph in the Tanner translation.

This is the “Tanner” translation—one of the most respected translations of the decrees of the Councils.

It can be found in (at least) 2 online sources:

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum14.htm

dailycatholic.org/history/14ecume1.htm

I’ve actually read that.

Notice how it says:

"We therefore have decided that all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, abbots and priors whom we summoned specially and by name are to remain"

Which is still a problem for you because this is clear restriction as only certain bishops were invited…the 300 or some odd that remained there. They list a number of people that were uninvited but also state “and other prelates of churches” which is a term that includes bishops.

The only place in that decree where uninvited attendees are not to be excused from leave is where is specifically says “The other non-mitred abbots and priors” meaning if they were mitred, they were allowed to stay. That’s the Only exception given to uninvited prelates

 

[Wandile]

My big mistake here was to accept what you posted in the first place without verifying it.

All of the bishops were invited to the 2nd Council of Lyons and none of the bishops were given leave to depart.

Only the non-bishops who were not summoned by name were given leave to depart the Council at its second session.

We therefore have decided that all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, abbots and priors whom we summoned specially and by name are to remain, they are not to depart without our special leave before the council ends. The other non-mitred abbots and priors and the other abbots and priors, who were not summoned by us specially and by name, and the provosts, deans, archdeacons and other prelates of churches, and the procurators of any prelates, chapters, colleges and convents, have our gracious leave to depart with the blessing of God and our own.

Constitution I of the 2nd Council of Lyons.
The quote is from middle of the 4th paragraph in the Tanner translation.

This is the “Tanner” translation—one of the most respected translations of the decrees of the Councils.

It can be found in (at least) 2 online sources:

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum14.htm

dailycatholic.org/history/14ecume1.htm

I ran out of edit time in my previous post but like is said, I’ve read this before.

In fact this passage has been my whole basis for what I have been telling you the whole time we have been speaking:shrug:

It is no friend of yours as I have shown above

 

[FrDavid96]

I ran out of edit time in my previous post but like is said, I’ve read this before.

In fact this passage has been my whole basis for what I have been telling you the whole time we have been speaking:shrug:

It is no friend of yours as I have shown above

You have not shown anything.

You’ve done nothing but misunderstand it.

I cannot locate any source, anything at all, that supports your claim that bishops were turned away from the 2nd Council of Lyon (alt. spelling Lyons).

I have the Tanner translations (it’s much easier to cut-and-paste from the online version).
In that version, only the non-bishops were given leave to depart.

The Catholic Encyclopedia agrees that some were rejected, but mentions only “the proxies of chapters, abbots, and unmitred priors, except those who had been summoned by name” but does not mention any bishops being rejected. Which would be a serious error of omission on the part of the editors, if that were true.

The online translations I can find are all either the Tanner translation, or ones which I would not necessarily consider reliable.

As far as I am concerned, the Tanner translation by itself is reliable enough for our purposes here. Depending on the situation, it might be better to consult more than one translation of a Council’s documents.

I cannot find any translation of Pope Gregoy Xs Bull invoking the Council.

What I have found is that the only person who seems to think that bishops were turned away from the 2nd Council of Lyons is you. No one else makes that claim.

Look at the little dots at the end of the sentences. Those are called “periods.” They indicate that one sentence ends and another sentence begins.

This is the sentence about who is to remain:

We therefore have decided that all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, abbots and priors whom we summoned specially and by name are to remain, they are not to depart without our special leave before the council ends.

Note that all ranks of bishops are included in those who are “not to depart.”

On the other hand, when we read the sentence about those who “have…leave to depart.”

The other non-mitred abbots and priors and the other abbots and priors, who were not summoned by us specially and by name, and the provosts, deans, archdeacons and other prelates of churches, and the procurators of any prelates, chapters, colleges and convents, have our gracious leave to depart with the blessing of God and our own.

All of those who have leave to depart are non-bishops (monastics and clerics of various ranks).

The only thing you have “proven” is that you do not understand how sentences and periods work in the English language. You’re taking two different sentences and combining and confusing them.

**Do you have any reliable source that supports your claim that bishops were denied admittance to 2 Lyon? **

 

[Wandile]

You have not shown anything.

You’ve done nothing but misunderstand it.

Nope

Look at the little dots at the end of the sentences. Those are called “periods.”

Everywhere else in the world, we call those “full stops”

They indicate that one sentence ends and another sentence begins.

Why the punctuation lesson? Do you think I can’t speak english? The mere fact that you presume my supposed misunderstanding to have arisen from not knowing how full stops end sentences and indicate the beginning of a new one indicates to me that you have no idea on how to counter me except with this last ditch sorry excuse for an argument. The simple fact is if you knew me in person, you would not even dare to think of the idea of coming at me with an argument like this.

This is the sentence about who is to remain:

We therefore have decided that all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, abbots and priors whom we summoned specially and by name are to remain, they are not to depart without our special leave before the council ends.

Time for your English lesson

Note that after listing all these people it says:
“…whom we summoned specially and by name are to remain”

This means all those in that list had to have been specifically summoned irrespective of their rank. If it were to mean only abbots for instance or priors (Which the sentence does not specifically indicate they are mitred) had to be specifically summoned then the use of a full stop at the last listing of “…bishop” would have been employed to indicate a break and that at the start of the listing of the the abbots and priors, that these people needed to be specifically summoned unlike the bishops.

Another device that could be used instead of the full stop to indicate such a distinction between those who need to be summoned versus those who don’t would be the use of parenthesis. Since we are in the habit of giving definitions these days; Parenthesis is the use of commas, brackets and dashes to indicate a piece of information only related to some something specifically mentioned before or to indicate any information that may help the understanding of something said previously.

In this case, it would have been put in brackets, dashes or commas next to the words “…abbots and priors” to indicate that they had to have been specifically summonsed and not the bishops. This is not the case. The decree lists all possible types of persons who are allowed to stay and concludes that they have been specifically summoned by name. An inconvenient fact that goes against your whole argument:thumbsup:

Note that all ranks of bishops are included in those who are "not to depart.

Incorrect. The decree lists “abbots and priors”. These people are not necessarily mitred and hence the decree at this point (listing who must stay) does not explicitly state that they are because as we know, many people who were not bishops but were abbots, monks, priests and persons who were great teachers at universities stayed at the council even after this decree because of their theological prowess. The second part that lists who has leave to depart mentions the

"non-mitred abbots and priors and the other other abbots and priors" (possibly mitred) who were not summoned by us…"

So even the ones who were not necessarily non mitred had to be summoned. This is because the whole essence of this decree is not that “only bishops can stay, the rest of you leave”. It is simply “if you were not summoned by us specifically by name, please leave”, hence why the decree stresses this point of importance (having to be specifically summoned) on more than one occasion to emphasize the fact that anyone who stayed was specifically called to the council.

The only thing you have “proven” is that you do not understand how sentences and periods work in the English language.

LOL seems like you were speaking of yourself when you said this, as adequately proven above.

You’re taking two different sentences and combining and confusing them.

That is not even close to what I was doing but hey, this is not the first time you have tried to impose your straw man on me so that my disagreement with you somehow can be explained away for your intellectual convenience.

Do you have any reliable source that supports your claim that bishops were denied admittance to 2 Lyon?

Most sources don’t discriminate between bishops and non bishops but just state that those who were not invited were sent home. Besides the evidence I have provided in the English lesson above (showing that you had to be invited irrespective of you being a bishop or not, due to the lack of full stops or parenthesis in the listings before stating “…that have been specifically invited and summoned by name”) ,the other support for bishops being sent home is in the decree itself when on giving leave to depart, it lists “prelates of other churches” which obviously includes, but is not exclusive to, bishops.

 

[FrDavid96]

Nope

Everywhere else in the world, we call those “full stops”

Why the punctuation lesson? Do you think I can’t speak english? The mere fact that you presume my supposed misunderstanding to have arisen from not knowing how full stops end sentences and indicate the beginning of a new one indicates to me that you have no idea on how to counter me except with this last ditch sorry excuse for an argument. The simple fact is if you knew me in person, you would not even dare to think of the idea of coming at me with an argument like this.

Time for your English lesson

Note that after listing all these people it says:
“…whom we summoned specially and by name are to remain”

This means all those in that list had to have been specifically summoned irrespective of their rank. If it were to mean only abbots for instance or priors (Which the sentence does not specifically indicate they are mitred) had to be specifically summoned then the use of a full stop at the last listing of “…bishop” would have been employed to indicate a break and that at the start of the listing of the the abbots and priors, that these people needed to be specifically summoned unlike the bishops.

Another device that could be used instead of the full stop to indicate such a distinction between those who need to be summoned versus those who don’t would be the use of parenthesis. Since we are in the habit of giving definitions these days; Parenthesis is the use of commas, brackets and dashes to indicate a piece of information only related to some something specifically mentioned before or to indicate any information that may help the understanding of something said previously.

In this case, it would have been put in brackets, dashes or commas next to the words “…abbots and priors” to indicate that they had to have been specifically summonsed and not the bishops. This is not the case. The decree lists all possible types of persons who are allowed to stay and concludes that they have been specifically summoned by name. An inconvenient fact that goes against your whole argument:thumbsup:

Incorrect. The decree lists “abbots and priors”. These people are not necessarily mitred and hence the decree at this point (listing who must stay) does not explicitly state that they are because as we know, many people who were not bishops but were abbots, monks, priests and persons who were great teachers at universities stayed at the council even after this decree because of their theological prowess. The second part that lists who has leave to depart mentions the

"non-mitred abbots and priors and the other other abbots and priors" (possibly mitred) who were not summoned by us…"

So even the ones who were not necessarily non mitred had to be summoned. This is because the whole essence of this decree is not that “only bishops can stay, the rest of you leave”. It is simply “if you were not summoned by us specifically by name, please leave”, hence why the decree stresses this point of importance (having to be specifically summoned) on more than one occasion to emphasize the fact that anyone who stayed was specifically called to the council.

LOL seems like you were speaking of yourself when you said this, as adequately proven above.

That is not even close to what I was doing but hey, this is not the first time you have tried to impose your straw man on me so that my disagreement with you somehow can be explained away for your intellectual convenience.

Most sources don’t discriminate between bishops and non bishops but just state that those who were not invited were sent home. Besides the evidence I have provided in the English lesson above (showing that you had to be invited irrespective of you being a bishop or not, due to the lack of full stops or parenthesis in the listings before stating “…that have been specifically invited and summoned by name”) ,the other support for bishops being sent home is in the decree itself when on giving leave to depart, it lists “prelates of other churches” which obviously includes, but is not exclusive to, bishops.

You’re just digging your hole even deeper.

You don’t understand the language being used in the text. You don’t understand the theology/ecclesiology. You are nowhere near close to understanding either.

You have this idea, based on your own mid-reading of the text that bishops were actually denied admittance to the Council (or otherwise turned away), but no actual evidence to support that. Nothing.

Which gets us back to the original question; the same one you keep asking people to answer.

The answer is the same as it has been from the beginning of this thread.

In order to be an Ecumenical Council, by definition, the entire College of Bishops must be invited to attend. If a portion of the College is intentionally excluded, then such a meeting (in modern usage we typically call that a synod) would not, and cannot be, an Ecumenical Council.

 

[Wandile]

You’re just digging your hole even deeper.

You don’t understand the language being used in the text. You don’t understand the theology/ecclesiology. You are nowhere near close to understanding either.

You have this idea, based on your own mid-reading of the text that bishops were actually denied admittance to the Council (or otherwise turned away), but no actual evidence to support that. Nothing.

Which gets us back to the original question; the same one you keep asking people to answer.

The answer is the same as it has been from the beginning of this thread.

In order to be an Ecumenical Council, by definition, the entire College of Bishops must be invited to attend. If a portion of the College is intentionally excluded, then such a meeting (in modern usage we typically call that a synod) would not, and cannot be, an Ecumenical Council.

I grow tired of this but it is a Sunday. Father lets agree to disagree…

Just one more question, what do we make of local synods being raised to ecumenical status? Like the second ecumenical council? Just curious to see your reply