Your argument goes like this: councils need Rome’s approval in order to be ecumenical; therefore, these councils were not ecumenical because Rome did not approve of them. That is not a valid argument. Even if it were, the fact that we have continued to function and have held binding general councils without the participation of Rome should show that this argument is flawed…
No Cav the Second Council approval counters your claim.
My arguement goes like this. “There never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor. And it is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke such councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.”
- Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium: 22
I believe its in fact correct. No only do I believe V-II is correct but the we must go back to pre V-I arguement I hear consistantly here is another straw-man. Its impossible, not logical and re-confirms issues which in fact spoke of a period long passed and in fact needed to be further defined which is how we arrived here at this point with Cyprian.
Flawed exists on your part since none exist without the approval of Rome. Where is a Council without Romes Approval?
Again, this is a begging the question. The only councils you recognize as valid are the ones approved by Rome, therefore only councils recognized by Rome are valid. That is an invalid argument. .
The only Councils that are valid and the specific Canons in them are the ones approved by Rome. Where’s the contrary evidence? History does not indicate otherwise without resorting to vague assumptions, which is a two way street.
The Orthodox do not advocate a democratic approach to the truth…
autocephalous definition: self governing, is it substanciated Biblically? If fact its very much the opposite in View of St Peter, that is Biblically. And of course this term doesn’t appear till when? Oh right 1863, and who ever said the EO doesn’t create new doctrine.
This is a novel twist which isn’t Biblical or Historically accurate.
Its a twist on the Biblical Greek of Matthew. Christ stated upon YOU Peter, he didn’t say you guys. He said I will give YOU Peter the Keys to the Kingdom. And of course then the digress is to understanding the Davidic Kingdom, Isaiah etc.
That is not in line with patristic exegeses of the council of Jerusalem…
Whos to determine the patristic exegeses? Peter spoke, the issue at hand was dead, the Apostles moved on, We been through this before. I have “never” seen a arguement that holds weight contrary and I assure you I didn’t need Scott Hahn to see this. Though he has further developed the point.
Peter spoke for the Apostles beinging the respounding theme “throughout the Bible” there no other way to see this. He was the spokeman for the Apostle’s as he was/is through History. Which btw is inconsistant with self governing, which all Bishops being of equal indicates something very different that what Christ established. He appointed One Apostle to break the stalemate of debate then the debates would have continued for eternity. This is the only understanding which makes perfect sense.
I would suggest that you read St. John Chrysostom’s exegeses of passages regarding Peter. His position is far from being in agreement with the modern functioning of the papacy. .
I have, I don’t agree. I see exactly opposite. There is no sense throwing quotes back and forth. You know what exists as well as I.
The only straw is assumption made not supported by facts usually by those in disageement with Papal Authority through History. Here is where I consistantly find the Stawman.
Same arguement documented with Fr Hardin and the Anglicans. There is no historical proof to suggest otherrwise.
In the records of the Councils of the fifth century, we can see the Bishops of Rome coming to assume explicitly the dominant position which their successors have continued to exercise ever since in those Councils recognized by the Catholic Church as “Ecumenical.”
My point of course is the illicit councils further prove what is historical.
Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon confirms Romes Authority. A papal primacy of jurisdiction, then, was without doubt generally accepted by the mid-fifth century. When I say “generally” that is to say that just as today there have always been individuals who refused to cooperate with the majority.
Or course we simply do not have the original records of the first two councils. Do you? Then I guess there no sense jumping to conclusions here.
The Second wasn’t even considered an Ecumenical Council since it revolved around merely 150 Bishops to discuss “Eastern” issues. In fact it wasn’t raised to Ecumenical till the next Council which took Gregory the Great to elevate it papally to that status.
The Forth Century we see the same. Catholic view of the relationship between the Popes and the first Councils is quite consistent with the available documentary evidence, and this continues through all the Councils. Those we do have the original Documentation from obviously confirm this.
The Stawman is lack of proof historically to valicate a non-existing Papal Authority, the burden of proof would seem to lie very much with the historian who wishes to maintain that the idea of papal jurisdiction over the whole Church, recognized so widely by the fifth-century conciliar Fathers, was a novelty which would have been repudiated by their predecessors at Nicaea and Constantinople. Everything indicates otherwise historically until we jump to conclusions in a vague unsubstanciated sense. At this point I see a two way street. St. John Chrysostom is a perfect example.
If fact IMHO I believe the Anglicans provided a very compelling case which in the end held no weight. Bishop Wand comes to mind along with Lambeth which is what I referred to with Fr Hardin.
However, perhaps a debate for another day since I became distracted with St Cyprian my apology.
