D
dvdjs
Guest
Nope.
- Status
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Edit: How does history show it to be so for the first Seven Ecumenical Councils when not all bishops were on board for all 7 (at the very least, Chalcedon)?
I guess then, I’ll make the point that at the very least, it is not required that all the Bishops of the world agree or accept the Council in order for it to be deemed Ecumenical. Doesn’t more than just Rome accept the subsequent Councils?
Doesn’t all of this beg the question, just who’s acceptance of a council is required to make it deemed ecumenical? It’s certainly not all the Bishops as we have establishes. And it certainly isn’t all of the Patriarchates, since Alexandria didn’t accept Chalcedon (if I’m not mistaken) and yet it was an Ecumenical Council. What is necessary and what is your basis for saying so?
S
Surnaturel
Guest
The majority of the bishops of Egypt and other Oriental Churches rejected Chalcedon though…
J
josie_L
Guest
Why isn’t it true, and if it doesn’t fit is it because you refuse to make it fit?
J
josie_L
Guest
The second ecumenical council (Constantinople) was completely comprised of Eastern bishops (no Western bishops), so how can a council be called ecumencial when only the East participated???
S
Surnaturel
Guest
I believe the answer to that is it became ecumenical when the Pope eventually accepted it since it would then become binding on the West.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
But couldn’t Catholics turn right around and use this same argument against the Eastern Orthodox that you are using against the Oriental Orthodox?
We would agree, if I’m not mistaken, with your sentence above. But it seems like you are wanting to say that once they reject the Council, it isn’t necessary to have their acceptance in order for Chalcedon to be classified as an Ecumenical Council. But you won’t allow the Catholic Church the same leeway you offer yourselves. It seems like you are being inconsistent.
J
josie_L
Guest
Yes, at Chalcedon, but neither the pope nor Western bishops participated in the actual council. My question was actually rhetorical anyways, I was trying to relay that truth can be found even if one part of the Church is not present.
S
Surnaturel
Guest
Yes. Actually your first post makes sense in the context of the quote that you replied to. That was my fault.
J
josie_L
Guest
You threw me for a loop, but I finally realized what I meant when I wrote that post (I must be tired), I meant simply that the second ecumenical council would not have been an ecumenical council according to his standards, irregardless of the Pope eventually approving it.
p.s. One should ask (I refer to the Orthodox poster) why the Pope did, if there were no Western bishops present?
P
Peter_J
Guest
The 15th-century Council of Florence, which did have both eastern and western participation, considered itself to be the 9th ecumenical council. The next council, at the Lateran several decades later, also considered itself ecumenical … presumably under the theory that the East had placed itself outside of the church by rejecting Florence. (Please note the similarity with the Oriental Orthodox placing themselves outside of the church by rejecting Chalcedon.)
But in the mid-16th century, 8 earlier western councils were added en masse to the “official” list of ecumenical councils (and Florence was redesignated as the 17th ecumenical council rather than the 9th). In my humble opinion, this was an extreme unwise move.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I think you hit the nail on the head. Both of the easy answers, namely:
- Only acceptance by Rome matters.
- All bishops have to accept it in order for it to be an ecumenical council.
are wrong.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
I didn’t mean to imply that “Only acceptance by Rome matters” is wrong.
I wasn’t very clear – Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by that?I think what I meant when I said, “Doesn’t more than just Rome accept the subsequent Councils?”, was that the Councils following the 7th Ecumenical Councils are not just accepted by Rome, they are accepted by Catholics in the East as well (Chaldeans, Melkites like yourself, Maronites, etc.) And that some in the East always accepted them to my understanding.
P
Peter_J
Guest
OIC. But, in any case, it is wrong.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Why should we make it fit? Do we just jam theological opinions into our faith just for what?
It never took root in the East. When St. Athanasius wrote “On the incarnation”, he wrote man’s fall as corruption inherent in man’s nature which took hold of us after Adam’s sin. We went from there, not from St. Augustine’s teaching.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Sure. That is why the Catholic Church has Ecumenical Councils after the schism. And they have the right to declare any other council as Ecumenical even long after the council has been convened, which is really how the earlier councils were declared Ecumenical.
In the same breath, the Orthodox can do the same. But the Orthodox has a different view on how a council can be called Ecumenical. For one thing, there is no more one leader of the entire world (although we know that the Roman/Byzantine Emperor didn’t exactly rule the entire world, but that is how they view him).
If one stays in the Church and rejects a council, then that council cannot be Ecumenical. But the caveat here is that you have to survive the succeeding debates on the topic. Of course when a council happens, the bishops want to resolve the thing, so even if a council ends and some bishops do not agree, the debate continues. Eventually, either the decision of the council stays or is overturned. If it stays, usually the dissenting bishops are deposed or themselves leave. That is why you would see in most of the Ecumenical Councils, there are canons that will uphold the previous council. Even with the Seventh, there is a local council later on affirming the Seventh, and only by that local council were the icons actually returned to the churches. Simply, the debate did not end at Nicaea II, but when the dust settled they upheld Nicaea II as the Ecumenical Council.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Yes and they left the Church.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
What do you disagree with in the follow excerpts in the forms of “In Brief” from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
?
Source: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#406
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
We do not believe in a transmission of sin or guilt. We believe that man’s nature was corrupted by Adam’s sin and this nature is what we get today.
D
dvdjs
Guest
As pointed out again and again, whomever you might like to mean by “we”, it is not the Orthodox church.
- Status