Recognized retroactively in the 11th century in the place of Constantinople 879-80; and after that same council of 869-70 was anathematized by a previous pope.
Yes. That is what I was trying to say. There is a serious problem here.
Recognized retroactively in the 11th century in the place of Constantinople 879-80; and after that same council of 869-70 was anathematized by a previous pope.
Is that what you would call a game of “musical councils”?
Did Ferde really say that? I have him on ignore. That’s just awesome!
That ignores what “ecumenical council” is supposed to mean - a council with universal acceptance.
Of course not, part of being ecumenical means having to stand the test of time, at least that’s the Orthodox perspective.
Source?
By “asserted” you mean invented, right? Pretty sure none of the prior councils were called by popes. The idea that he has an exclusive right is particularly laughable since most (if not all) the previous ecumenical councils had been called by emperors. That Rome acknowledges these councils as ecumenical seems to contradict it being the pope’s exclusive right.
Why are you responding to a third party’s message? If you want to address something I said, respond to my message – the entire message.
So Pope St. Gregory changed the rules late in the game? That’s precisely what the Orthodox have been asserting for centuries. Good to know we can at least agree on that.
When the Eastern patriarchs willingly ceded their authority to secular governments, as they continued to do well into the 20th Century. And the first eight councils were convened in the East to counter the heresies of Eastern bishops
That Rome acknowledged those councils asserted the rightful authority of the Church.
It is kinda funny.So Pope St. Gregory changed the rules late in the game? That’s precisely what the Orthodox have been asserting for centuries. Good to know we can at least agree on that.
The laity are integral to the Church. You can’t even have a liturgy without them. So Orthodox laity = Orthodox.
You were obviously mocking the humanness of the Catholic Church with your prior comment. If you were not intending to make a distinction between the humanity of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, there are better ways to have presented it.Did I say the Orthodox Church is perfect? Did I miss something?
Yes. I suspect you are still bearing that old “human beings are infallible” misconception. Did you ever read the explanation of infallibility I gave you?
If you understood what infallibility actually is according to the teaching of the CC, you wouldn’t be making comments like this.Of course we recognize the shortcomings of humanity. We’re not the ones with an infallible leader.
But you do have “super-bishops.” You have metropolitans over your bishops, and you have patriarchs over your metropolitans. Make the plunge, bro. Go all the way.As to my argument being inconsistent; it does not follow that since we have bishops we have to have one super-bishop. You are starting with basic Catholic presuppositions and then making a series of logical leaps to arrive at your conclusion. In order to get from point A to point B you’ve made a number of wild and unnecessary detours.
That’s why I stated it is inconsistent to not have the office of the papacy. The higher offices of bishop are for the very purpose of preserving the visible unity of the Church at progressively larger scales. It’s illogical (and unbiblical and unpatristic to boot) to not have an office at the highest (i.e. universal) level for the same purpose of preserving the visible unity of the Church at that level.The Catholic principle is that there is freedom in interpretation as long as it does not contradict the dogmas of the Faith. I don’t think there is anything I’ve ever stated - novel though it may seem to some ears - that contradicts the dogmas of Catholicism. The problem comes when one (whether Catholic or non-Catholic) tries to make it appear as if past teaching contradicts present teaching, and vice-versa. In such instances, we should be willing to hear the other side’s explanation, instead of imposing our own interpretations on what the other believes. I wouldn’t normally point out the “inconsistencies” between EO’xy and the early Fathers due to developments in EO’xy. I do it only when attempts are made to paint such inconsistency on Catholic teaching. My point is that these appeals to emotion are unworthy of dialogue partners. No Church is immune from developments. It is in the nature of humanity to develop. The key is to try to understand what those developments mean in the each other’s eyes.
That does not seem to be the point of the conversation. In fact, I don’t understand what you are saying here. Can you explain?Actually my chair is beneath me. I wonder, did St Paul kiss St Peter’s feet and back out of the room after calling him a hypocrite?
Well, that goes back to an Absolutist Petrine prespective of the papacy, which I, and many others, don’t share.
If you “excuse” the MP on that account, then you can “excuse” the papacy on the same basis, since both have had to deal with the encroachment of the civil power on Church prerogatives.
I’ve heard of that over the I-net, and not just from you. I would agree. TBH, however, I think that as far as the EO traditional jurisdictions are concerns, I believe the EP is simply exercising his historic, Traditional, and canonical prerogatives. IOW, I don’t really agree with the complaints from certain (many?) EO quarters that the EP is trying to “muscle in” on other EO jurisdictions. But that’s just the opinion of an admitted outsider looking in.Of course I would say if any Orthodox bishop has pretensions to power it would be the Ecumenical Patriarch and his novel interpretation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon.
Nicea had to be clarified by Constantinople. Constantinople had to be clarified by Ephesus. Chalcedon had to be clarified by the Fifth. Would you claim that Traditional statements from the EO like “Mary save us” or “the Essence is God and the Energy is God” requires no explanation? Development occurs. That’s always been the way of it. The Church is human and she grows in understanding the deep mysteries of Faith. The “plain text” is always subject to vagueness. As the discussions between the miaphysites and diophysites have revealed, the “plain text” is often not very “plain” at all. That is why it is necessary to discuss in order to understand what the Fathers really meant when they proposed their “plain texts” for belief. Fortunately, we do have the background debates and speeches of V1 available, and they readily reveal that V1 did not intended to promote or propose an Absolutist Petrine view.
Not exactly. The pressures of modernistic and pluralistic society have not been sufficiently tested within the EOC paradigm. The Catholic Church has faced it throughout the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and has withstood it, and the papacy has been key to withstanding that onslaught. The Catholic Church basically has a 600 year head-start over the EOC in dealing with liberalism, modernism, and pluralism. The EOC has for most of its history been stuck in autocratic societies that were inimical to the principles of free thought. So everytime I hear or read of EO claiming “we did fine without the papacy for a thousand years,” it’s not very convincing.
You can only state that by imposing a Low Petrine perspective on history. The early Church was not Absolutist Petrine or Low Petrine, but High Petrine in its constitution.
Sure they did. Scholasticism seems to have been the general theological paradigm of the Latin Church. But Scholasticism did not inspire nor promote the rebellion - rather, the rebellion was due to political and social motivations. Luther himself had no intention of separating from the CC in the first place. It was only after the enticements of secular powers-that-be that he felt emboldened to do so.
You stated in no uncertain terms that Protestantism exists because the Catholic Church was too “man-centered” to oppose it properly. If you did not mean to imply that the EOC was a “bulwark of perfection,” then you shouldn’t be blaming the Catholic Church for the existence of Protestantism - because Protestantism also exists in EO countries.As to the Orhtodox Church being a “bulwark of perfection”, I don’t remember saying that. Perhaps you can point out where I made that assertion?
Do you like to spread falsehood about the Orthodox Church?
If that is true, I am mistaken. However, on an on-line discussion group an Orthodox gentleman explained carefully how the Orthodox laity is the judge of a bishop’s performance and gave an instance when the laymen of his diocese threw the reigning bishop out and elected another. He named the bishop, but I forget it now. I’ll check the archives of the group and, if I find it, I’ll get back to you.
Yes its all been posted in the News. This is done already these meetings were last week.
If you think so lowly of us, why do you care for unity? Is your church so lacking that you need union with people you see as nothing more than terrorists?
Gary didn’t post that, 9-2. I did and my motive was not to call you terrorists, but a hyperbolic way of demonstrating the intensity of negative relations between some of the various Orthodox factions.