I’ll give this some more thought.Texts which were written in the tradition of the East but that the West arrogantly claims it can understand better than those who are from the same heritage as those who wrote them. Perhaps the Vatican can next release a statement telling the Chinese that they have been misunderstanding the Tao Te Ching for the past 2400 years. Be honest, you very well know that there is plenty of opposition to the IC which dates back to the late middle ages when the doctrine first started to be taught. The Orthodox reacted so late because the IC frankly was none of their business, so they real had no reason to speak of it outside of dialogue with the Vatican.
Comparing the Orthodox to the Jehova’s Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists is just preposterous. The same could be said of Vatican II, which largely based its liturgical overhaul on the appeal to recovering something which had been lost in antiquity. Perhaps you should consider fortifying your glass house before throwing stones and taking pot shots at the Eastern Orthodox which you know are untrue by the teachings of your own Church which has the decency not to try and lump us together with JW’s and SDA’s.
I think I understand. So saying that Peter had spoken through Leo was about the Petrine office but it was not an example of universal Papal jurisdiction + Ecumenical council?
I am in agreement with your interpretation of this episode in the Council. The idea of “papal jurisdiction” over a council is foreign to the High Petrine view - that idea is only present among Absolutist Petrine advocates. The authority of an Ecumenical Council is COLLEGIAL through and through, and it is never the Pope ALONE that determines its outcome. As the Official Relatio of Vatican 1 asserted, in an Ecumenical Council, ALL the bishops are judges, not just the Pope. This is a great point of contention between High Petrine advocates and Absolutist Petrine advocates, if you have kept up with the debates between the two groups in the Eastern Catholicism Forum. Rest assured that the official position of the Catholic Church is High Petrine. Many of us here in CAF (Orientals, Easterns, and Latins alike) are fighting for this standard in the Catholic Church against the Absolutist Petrine advocates (mostly Traditionalist Catholics and members of the schismatic SSPX).
That’s what I thought you meant.
Of course you and I agree that they were wrong to reject the decision of the council of Chalcedon as well as Leo’s letter…Was papal infallibility (ex cathedra) a new doctrine?
The bolded is exactly what I mean. How can the pope make this kind of statement without a general council?
I will check out the thread and get back to you. I am discouraged by the comparison or the EO to JW’s and SDA’s, though I don’t think you meant it as it came off sounding.
And also with you.
I’m sorry, but I do not believe that there was any theological separation between the East/West/Orient on the matter of the Theotokos in the early Middle Ages. The Westerns can claim ANY Father of the united Church as their own in these early times just as much as the Eastern Church.
We already know the basis for the early opposition to the IC in the Latin Church - it was a certain school of thought that imagined that spiritual conception (i.e., ensoulment) did not occur at the same moment as physical conception, but at a later time. These opponents believed that Mary was sanctified at the time of her ensoulment, not at her physical conception. But the Church now unanimously believes that ensoulment occurs AT THE SAME TIME AS physical conception. In fact, the doctrine of the IC has nothing to do with the physical conception, but rather the spiritual conception (i.e. ,the ensoulment). So the basis of the early opposition was a mere technicality. The essence of the doctrine - that Mary was conceived SPIRITUALLY PURE (i…e, referring to her ensoulment) - has remained inviolably CONSTANT.
The doctrinal basis for the modern Eastern Orthodox opposition (i.e., differences in the understanding of original sin) is artificial. There are no differences. The doctrine of the IC does not touch upon the physical consequences of original sin, but only the spiritual consequences. For EO to keep insisting that Mary had original sin because she died is a non-sequitur, because that is not the point of the doctrine of the IC. The doctrine of the IC only teaches that Mary was SPIRITUALLY pure at her conception. It does not claim to make any statement about her natural physical state.
I was not comparing Orthodox generally to the JW’s and SDA’s. I was comparing the argument of those SPECIFIC EO apologists to the standard argument of the JW’s and SDA’s. Forgive me if it appeared otherwise.
AFAIK, the only matter at V2 that was claimed to be something that needed to be recovered was Liturgical PRAXIS. That’s something wholly different from claiming that a HERETICAL TEACHING has existed in the Church for over a thousand years, and now claim that the original TEACHING must be recovered.
Naturally, as a Catholic, I would say “No.” To me, the dogma of papal infallibility is the natural doctrinal outcome (development, according to some) of Jesus’ UNIQUE promise to St. Peter in Matthew 16, combined with his UNIQUE prayer for the same in Luke 22.
According to Catholic belief, the infallibility of the Church exists even outside the setting of the Ecumenical Council. Do you believe the same thing? If so, I fail to see the objection to an exercise of papal infallibility.
I did not intend to make a general comparison. I was only criticizing the arguments put forth by those SPECIFIC EO apologists.
Well, not even a Petrine office, just a recognition of the connection of Rome to Peter. I’m not so sure that the Fathers really conceived of it that way.
Well, this is going to be somewhat lengthy, so here goes (be prepared
). The Tome was an interesting issue at the Council of Chalcedon. We first see the Tome being read in session II, which was devoted to debating over what the right faith was. At this point in the council, it had met some major opposition from the Illyrians, Egyptians and Palestinians, who believed it to be Nestorian. It returns again in Session III, the trial of Dioscorus, where it was alleged that although the Tome was submitted to Ephesus II, Dioscorus did not allow for it to be read.Yes, but it was a conciliar action which finally anathematized Nestorius.
It’s only heretical if Cyprian was wrong. The two are not necessarily opposed (if I recall, John Zizioulas gets into this a little bit in being as communion). I don’t mean to be argumentative, but if you’re going to assert that the Eastern Orthodox are promoting an innovative Eucharistic Ecclesiology which is directly opposed the model of Universal Ecclesiology which was held for the past millennium—a high and serious charge to make—then I would expect that you have some sources in the form of official documents (either statements promulgated by synods or patriarchal encyclicals) to back up your claims that a) the Orthodox Church has consistently held to a model of Universal Ecclesiology in the past millennium and that b) within the last century, the innovation of Eucharistic Ecclesiology has become the official teaching of the Church. Furthermore, I would expect that you would be able to prove that the two are necessarily diametrically opposed (i.e., one must be heretical and the other must be correct). If you cannot do these things, then your claim is just speculation.
I’ve not made any claims. I am repeating what I read from one of your apologists in that thread to which I made a link. The EO apologist is the one claiming that the early Church since Cyprian held to a “universal ecclesiology.” The EO apologist is the one claiming that “Eucharistic ecclesiology” is being recovered by the EOC. The EO apologist is the one that is saying that “universal ecclesiology” and “Eucharistic ecclesiology” are diametrically opposed.
Yes. His opinion is his own. It would be best if we left what is official teaching to actual documents released by the Churches rather than apologists who may be of varying knowledge when it comes to discerning between actual church teaching and convenient opinions for converting people. It is my experience that apologists are only good at one thing, saying whatever is convenient in order to win.
The temptation can be quite alluring especially in debate, the commitment to truth gets thrown out for the sake of scoring a point.IGNATIUS [A.D. 30–107.]
But hasn’t it been said that it’s only some EO? How can it then be proved that it’s official church teaching?
Saying that someone “speaks through someone else” or “has spoken through someone else” looks like the clearest description of a representative or an ambassador for someone else- Why do you say it does not mean this?Like I said, this was a civilization that called the librarian of the Library of Alexandria the ‘Universal Librarian’ and called the Patriarch of Alexandria ‘The Thirteenth Apostle’ and ‘The Judge of the Universe’. I think we have to take passages like that with a grain of salt, and look at the context of what’s happening around it.But hasn’t it been said that it’s only some EO? How can it then be proved that it’s official church teaching?
And also Cavaradossi, obviously I’m no expert about these early documents etc- But it appears to me that “X has spoken thus through Y” is plain in its implications that when Y speaks, it’s X that speaks, otherwise why say that all? Just say that Y has spoken!
Peace!
Quick question: why say that Peter has spoken through Leo? Peter had been gone for some time so what’s the significance of them using his name?
Why the need for Cyril to even seek validation from Pope Celestine I, who then of course authorized Cyril to request that Nestorius recant his position or face excommunication? Why not just take matters into his own hands or better yet, refer the matter to an ecumenical council?