Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

  • Thread starter Thread starter DJLake
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ConstantineTG said:
Ecumenical means “the inhabited world”, or basically “the whole world” in today’s parlance. The emperor summoned the councils but never participated in them (though many emperors did try to influence them). It is true that the Pope’s acceptance is required, but so does every other bishop. The Pope’s acceptance is just one of many, not the only one, that makes a council Ecumenical.
Click to expand...
Exactly or “universal”. Just how can a council be called Ecumenical when only the West participates?

IMO a council can only be called ecumenical when both west and east participate, one part the western part can not go off on it’s own and have a truly ecumenical council IMHO.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Just look at all the councils that were overturned. The first council that was called the Seventh Ecumenical Council taught iconoclasm. Obviously it was overturned and eventually the iconodule council of Nicaea II became the officially recognized Seventh Ecumenical Council.
Click to expand...
There was no recognition of the Iconoclast Synod of Constantinople as an Ecumencial Council. Where the emperors power did not reach, bishops broke communion with the Iconoclast Patriarch of Constantinople and his bishops. Cosmas of Alexandria, Theodore of Antioch, and Theodore of Jerusalem were all defenders of the holy icons in communion with Rome.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Ecumenical means “the inhabited world”, or basically “the whole world” in today’s parlance. The emperor summoned the councils but never participated in them (though many emperors did try to influence them). It is true that the Pope’s acceptance is required, but so does every other bishop. The Pope’s acceptance is just one of many, not the only one, that makes a council Ecumenical.
Click to expand...
If the Pope’s acceptance is required, then why would you consider the Iconoclast synod to be ecumencial?
If the Pope is just one of many whose acceptance is required, then why is Chalcedon, rejected by the OOs, an ecumenical council?
 
andrewstx said:
Exactly or “universal”. Just how can a council be called Ecumenical when only the West participates?

IMO a council can only be called ecumenical when both west and east participate, one part the western part can not go off on it’s own and have a truly ecumenical council IMHO.
Click to expand...
Actually, what is required is recognition rather than participation. Otherwise, the second ecumneical council would have to be dropped.
 
andrewstx said:
Exactly or “universal”. Just how can a council be called Ecumenical when only the West participates?

IMO a council can only be called ecumenical when both west and east participate, one part the western part can not go off on it’s own and have a truly ecumenical council IMHO.
Click to expand...
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but the Oriental Orthodox rejected Chalcedon and yet we both (Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christians) rightly refer to it as an Ecumenical Council. Do you believe your theory proves too much?
 
ConstantineTG said:
Because it is not true doctrine, and it doesn’t fit the entirety of Orthodox faith. We can’t accept something even if it sounds good or logical, if it doesn’t fit the overall picture.
Click to expand...
The Immaculate Conception dogma is a Latin formulation of a very simple point that Orthodox agree with: the sinlessness of Mother Mary. Differences on sin, such as those held by St. Augustine AND Pope St. Gregory the Great, for example, as opposed to St. Athanasius are not communion dividing, although it should be noted that post-Vatican II theology has moved far closer to the Greek Fathers on sin/grace abd while totally abandoning Augustinian and Gregorian tradition, which has enriched or tradition overall IMO.

I don’t have access to the article because I am out of town, but there is one which argues that IC was a dogmatic decree and binding on RCs but not ex Cathedra like the Assumption. It was a technicality in canon law, iirc, but unfortunately I don’t remember the specifics off the top of my head.
  • it is by Rev. John T. Ford entitled ‘Infallibility’ and it is in a recent article in the journal Theological Studies, if anyone is interested.
 
LionHeart777 said:
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but the Oriental Orthodox rejected Chalcedon and yet we both (Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christians) rightly refer to it as an Ecumenical Council. Do you believe your theory proves too much?
Click to expand...
I was not speaking of the Orientals. Eastern Orthodox are kind to them, but I consider them heretics along with the Nestorians.

OOs basically are Monosphystites basically.
 
LionHeart777 said:
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but the Oriental Orthodox rejected Chalcedon and yet we both (Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christians) rightly refer to it as an Ecumenical Council. Do you believe your theory proves too much?
Click to expand...
This is an excellent point. I do understand the EO poster’s point though; that a reunited Church of RC/OO/EO which calls a council seems like it should have some sort of distinction. I believe that Pope Paul VI had referred to the councils prior to Trent, VI, VII as 'general councils, with the latter being identified as ecumenical. Just an interesting note. They are all dogmatically binding on RCs, but there may be more potential for ecumenical dialogue with regard to the earlier councils,
 
LionHeart777 said:
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but the Oriental Orthodox rejected Chalcedon and yet we both (Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christians) rightly refer to it as an Ecumenical Council. Do you believe your theory proves too much?
Click to expand...
Yes. Well, they eventually left the Chalcedonian Church so their acceptance is no longer required.
 
dvdjs said:
There was no recognition of the Iconoclast Synod of Constantinople as an Ecumencial Council. Where the emperors power did not reach, bishops broke communion with the Iconoclast Patriarch of Constantinople and his bishops. Cosmas of Alexandria, Theodore of Antioch, and Theodore of Jerusalem were all defenders of the holy icons in communion with Rome.
Click to expand...
They still treated the Council as Ecumenical. Even more a better example it is that Ecumanical status is dependent on all bishops accepting it, rather than a few, or one, imposing it on everybody else.
 
andrewstx said:
I was not speaking of the Orientals. Eastern Orthodox are kind to them, but I consider them heretics along with the Nestorians.

OOs basically are Monosphystites basically.
Click to expand...
That’s not entirely accurate. Some Orientals, perhaps many, in the early Church were monophysites, but, alternatively, many Orientals were and are orthodox in their christology in that they prefer the Cyrillian formula of ‘one nature with two substances that are not confused or mixed.’ Thus, they affirm the Chalcedonian teaching that the hypostasis (Christ) united human and divine nature in the Incarnation without confusion, etc.

The joint statement with Pope John Paul II is good for clarification.

The term currently in ‘vogue’ is Miaphysite, which has the same technical meaning but it separates Cyrillian from Arian christology.
 
andrewstx said:
I was not speaking of the Orientals. Eastern Orthodox are kind to them, but I consider them heretics along with the Nestorians.

OOs basically are Monosphystites basically.
Click to expand...
No, I know, perhaps I didn’t make myself as clear as I thought.

Your previous post said:
Exactly or ‘universal’. Just how can a council be called ecumenical when only the West participates?
Click to expand...
IMO a council can only be called ecumenical when both west and east participate, one part the western part can not go off on it’s own and have a truly ecumenical council IMHO.
Click to expand...
I’m saying, that if the rejection of Chalcedon by the Oriental Orthodox doesn’t negate the fact that a Council is Ecumenical (we agree on this, at least for the subsequent Councils we both hold as Ecumenical), then why should the rejection by the Eastern Orthodox negate the subsequent Catholic Ecumenical Councils? You claim that participation of East and West are necessary? But what Canons claim this? Or are you just arguing against the semantical use of the term “Ecumenical”?
 
dvdjs said:
You still have that problem with Chalcedon.
Click to expand...
The acceptance of a council is not overnight. Even with the aforementioned 7th Ecumenical Council, it took decades and another local council before icons were reinstated in churches.
 
ConstantineTG said:
They still treated the Council as Ecumenical. Even more a better example it is that Ecumanical status is dependent on all bishops accepting it, rather than a few, or one, imposing it on everybody else.
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine)

Doesn’t history (at least) prove this not to be the case?
 
LionHeart777 said:
(Emphasis mine)

Doesn’t history (at least) prove this not to be the case?
Click to expand...
History proves that to be the case, at least for the First Seven. The later councils which only Rome accepts proves Rome’s claims. Then again, only Rome accepts those other 14 councils.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The supporters of the council, including the Emperor.
Click to expand...
:confused: All councils are supported by their supporters. And the Emperor’s support does not suffice to make a local synod an ecumenical council. Just a bad exmaple all around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top