A possible step towards unity?

[Vico]

I disagree with that (it’s supremacy by the way, not primacy), but if that’s the feeling in the west than they can go ahead and call a synod to recant. It doesn’t particularly make a difference to the East.

I’m not sure why you disagree. How can a definitive statement of what is heterodox be made without agreement by the Orthodox Church, and also how can the Catholic Church not have a synod and expect it to be accepted?

Yet, I think we agree that at least one issue is “supremacy”. But I use the term primacy as understood by the Catholic Church, which has universal jurisdiction within the context of the infallibility of the unified conciliar Church (such as confirmation of dogmas of faith). SCOBA identified the issues as “proper exercise of primacy”:

"2. A Central Point of Disagreement. In the course of our discussions, it has become increasingly clear to us that the most divisive element in our traditions has been a growing diversity, since the late patristic centuries, in the ways we understand the structure of the Church itself, particularly our understanding of the forms of headship that seem essential to the Church’s being at the local, regional and worldwide levels. At the heart of our differences stands the way each of our traditions understands the proper exercise of primacy in the leadership of the Church, both within the various regions of the Christian world and within Christianity as a whole. In order to be the Body of Christ in its fullness – to be both “Orthodox” and “Catholic” – does a local community, gathered to celebrate the Eucharist, have to be united with the other Churches that share the Apostolic faith, not only through Scripture, doctrine, and tradition, but also through common worldwide structures of authority – particularly through the practice of a universal synodality in union with the bishop of Rome? "

scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html

 

[steve_b]

Yes, we have inherited all the same canons.

Actually, your church inherited them too. They belong to you too.

True, regarding the E councils. Local councils as you know for Catholics, don’t bind everyone. & we have a few more councils than you do.

 

[Nine_Two]

True, regarding the E councils. Local councils as you know for Catholics, don’t bind everyone. & we have a few more councils than you do.

Actually local councils seem to mean more in the Latin church than they do in the East. For example at least two of the Marion Doctrines, which are required belief for all Catholics, were defined at Local Councils, and I’m pretty sure were not confirmed by later “Ecumenical Councils” in the Catholic Church.
I could be wrong on that, but that is as I understand it.

 

[Nine_Two]

Okay, what if they don’t confirm the bishops, such as Florence?

You seem stuck on this. If they don’t confirm the bishops it is a passive act, while the result may be the same as a veto, a veto is an active act.

 

[steve_b]

You seem stuck on this. If they don’t confirm the bishops it is a passive act, while the result may be the same as a veto, a veto is an active act.

seems like a distinction without a difference

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Actually local councils seem to mean more in the Latin church than they do in the East. For example at least two of the Marion Doctrines, which are required belief for all Catholics, were defined at Local Councils, and I’m pretty sure were not confirmed by later “Ecumenical Councils” in the Catholic Church.
I could be wrong on that, but that is as I understand it.

That’s a very interesting point - sounds a lot like the Orthodox way!

Do you happen to recall which of the Marion Doctrines? I’m going to “hit the books” on this one …

 

[steve_b]

Actually local councils seem to mean more in the Latin church than they do in the East. For example at least two of the Marion Doctrines, which are required belief for all Catholics, were defined at Local Councils, and I’m pretty sure were not confirmed by later “Ecumenical Councils” in the Catholic Church.
I could be wrong on that, but that is as I understand it.

thinking of this perhaps?

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=424

 

[Nine_Two]

That’s a very interesting point - sounds a lot like the Orthodox way!

Do you happen to recall which of the Marion Doctrines? I’m going to “hit the books” on this one …

I’m looking over it now, I may have been wrong on it being Marion - Of the four one was proclaimed by an ecumenical council, two are more recent as “doctrines” and the last has been confirmed by a number of ecumenical councils.

I’m sure I recall coming across some doctrine that originated out of a local council in what is now France. I’ll see if I can figure out what it was.

 

[Nine_Two]

Ahh, found it. I feel a bit silly, it wasn’t Marion doctrine. It was the Second Council of Orange which affirmed the Augustinian view of Original Sin.

 

[Hesychios]

True, regarding the E councils. Local councils as you know for Catholics, don’t bind everyone. & we have a few more councils than you do.

Local councils in the west have been very important in the development of doctrine. They occasionally established critical precedents which carried forward into later times, often these local councils are referenced in Denziger and Ott.

Interesting (to me, anyway) is that they (local councils) were very common in the west before the changes in ecclesiology. They certainly seem to reflect a more decentralized church.

I don’t know if I can agree that there have been more local councils in the west than the east over two thousand years. Perhaps that is so but I don’t know, and it may depend on how one defines ‘East’. Anyway we can see that the Latin west was pretty good at keeping records and pretty fortunate to have so much survive.

 

[steve_b]

Local councils in the west have been very important in the development of doctrine. They occasionally established critical precedents which carried forward into later times, often these local councils are referenced in Denziger and Ott.

Interesting (to me, anyway) is that they (local councils) were very common in the west before the changes in ecclesiology. They certainly seem to reflect a more decentralized church.

I don’t know if I can agree that there have been more local councils in the west than the east over two thousand years. Perhaps that is so but I don’t know, and it may depend on how one defines ‘East’. Anyway we can see that the Latin west was pretty good at keeping records and pretty fortunate to have so much survive.

My bad. I wasn’t clear. I was refering to 21 ecumenical councils.
newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

Maybe you’re thinking these 21 councils were “local” councils.

 

[Hesychios]

My bad. I wasn’t clear. I was refering to 21 ecumenical councils.
newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

Maybe you’re thinking these 21 councils were “local” councils.

No, I was thinking of local councils (like Orange, mentioned by Nine_Two above).

But now I understand your original point.

 

[Vico]

Ahh, found it. I feel a bit silly, it wasn’t Marion doctrine. It was the Second Council of Orange which affirmed the Augustinian view of Original Sin.

It is difficult reading the topic.

Augustine restated an original sin doctrine based upon Jerome, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Gregory of Nyssa, as early as 396 A.D. The* Council of Carthage* 418 A.D., condemned Pelagianism, Pelagius, and Celestius and those that deny the Fall, and at that council Aurelius the Bishop of Carthage, proclaimed a doctrine of original sin.

But the Council of Orange in 529 A.D. condemned double-predestination and adopted Augustine’s doctrine of grace and sin. But there is doubt about the second Council of Orange acceptance of all 25 canons (or perhaps only the first eight or nine) by Pope Boniface II.

crivoice.org/creedorange.html

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

What act were they supposed to get together?

Helping save the Byzantine Empire from the Ottoman Turks by successfully orchestrating substantial military aid… as the Byzantines hoped they would.

 

[Hesychios]

It is difficult reading the topic.

Augustine restated an original sin doctrine based upon Jerome, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Gregory of Nyssa, as early as 396 A.D. The* Council of Carthage* 418 A.D., condemned Pelagianism, Pelagius, and Celestius and those that deny the Fall, and at that council Aurelius the Bishop of Carthage, proclaimed a doctrine of original sin.

But the Council of Orange in 529 A.D. condemned double-predestination and adopted Augustine’s doctrine of grace and sin. But there is doubt about the second Council of Orange acceptance of all 25 canons (or perhaps only the first eight or nine) by Pope Boniface II.

crivoice.org/creedorange.html

There was also the Mozarabic Council of Toledo which introduced the filioque to western Christianity, and the Frankish Council of Frankfurt which - amazingly - opposed the (what would be) Seventh Ecumenical Council.

On the plus side the council of Frankfurt also condemned the practice of burning witches. In some ways this appears to have been a forward looking bunch.

We must not forget the Council at Arles, called by Constantine it could probably claim to be what I would call the First General Council of the West.

 

[Vico]

There was also the Mozarabic Council of Toledo which introduced the filioque to western Christianity, and the Frankish Council of Frankfurt which - amazingly - opposed the (what would be) Seventh Ecumenical Council.

On the plus side the council of Frankfurt also condemned the practice of burning witches. In some ways this appears to have been a forward looking bunch.

We must not forget the Council at Arles, called by Constantine it could probably claim to be what I would call the First General Council of the West.

Keeping in mind, all the while, that the Third Council of Toledo was in 589 A.D., well after the filioque was declared as a dogma by Pope St. Leo I in 447 A.D.:

CCC 247. “The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, [Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284.] even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.”

References:

“Quam Laudabiliter,” to Turibius, Bishop of Astorga (21 July 447) Pope St. Leo I, wrote a letter refuting the Arians, stating “and as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both.” or [The Holy Spirit] “who proceeds from the two.” depending on the translation.

DS 284, Pope St. Leo I: temporal substance of flesh.-
Likewise we believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one substance, but we do not say that the Virgin Mary gave birth to the unity of the Trinity, but only to the Son, who alone assumed our nature in the unity of His person. Also, we must believe that the entire Trinity accomplished the Incarnation of the Son of God, because the works of the Trinity are inseparable. However, only the Son took the form of a servant [cf. Phil. 2:7 ] in the singleness of His person, not in the unity of His divine nature; in what is proper to the Son, not in what is common to the Trinity; and this form was adapted to Him for unity of person so that the Son of God and the Son of man is one Christ, that is, Christ in these two natures exists in three substances; of the Word, which must refer to the essence of God alone, of the body, and of the soul, which pertain to true man.

 

[Formosus]

One letter and a vague reference in another document does not make something a dogmatic teaching, even according to the VI understanding of infallibility.

 

[Vico]

One letter and a vague reference in another document does not make something a dogmatic teaching, even according to the VI understanding of infallibility.

Formusus, are you referring to the source given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, referring to Pope St. Leo I letter to Quam Laudabiliter (CCC 247)?

Note that the Tome of Leo that was accepted as the faith at Chalcedon (although not read out) included the Tome of Leo I (and Quam Laudabiliter shows the teaching of Leo I).

If so, then do you dispute with the Catholic Church on the issue of it being a dogma in 447 A.D.?