Does this article (obviously from an Eastern Orthodox perspective) accurately represent Catholicism?

[dzheremi]

Dear brother Dzheremi,



In a SUBSEQUENT POST, this is what you wrote:
“Reformation of Nestorius”? Is this an actual historical event, or a word applied to Rome’s caving in on the Nestorian heresy? I’m sorry, Sir, but there is absolutely no way I will say it is anything else.

If this current post is your way of retracting your subsequent statement, then I accept and I thank you for admitting your mistake.

But if you think I have put words in your mouth given what you explicitly stated above, please don’t expect an apology from me. I’m not going to expect an apology from you for claiming I put words in your mouth. I have pretty think skin, and just consider this an honest mistake on your part.

Blessings,
Marduk

Efffff…this is getting nowhere. But really, putting the first post and the subsequent post together should lead to the idea that since I don’t think Rome itself embraced Nestorianism (1st post), but it seems clearly okay with other churches it communes embracing Nestorius and his doctrine, then Rome’s “caving in” has to do with its acceptance of others’ doctrine (not adoption, but acceptance) that it had previously held as erroneous and heretical. This tendency of Rome has been noted in more cases than just the Nestorian, as plenty of people here on CAF and elsewhere have noted the relative weakness of Rome’s convictions when it comes to wooing those from outside its fold (most frequently the EO). It makes Rome seem not serious about matters of doctrine and theology.

I don’t expect or care for an apology from you. You are once again arguing against a strawman, so please feel free to consider yourself the winner of this argument, too. It doesn’t matter. No one grows as a result of arguing on the internet anyway. There’s no point in continuing this mindlessness.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Josephdaniel,

Here comes the part where Mardukm attempts to explain to legions of Latin Catholics that what they believe about the papacy isn’t actually correct and that the texts of Vatican I and II don’t actually mean what they say.

Since you have yourself claimed that the texts of Vatican 1 and 2 say that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council, can you please give the direct quote that says it? So far, brother SteveB has not been able to do it. Maybe you can help him out.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Shiranui117]

I’m one of the most guilty people on this board for getting off topic, so I guess my credibility here is not much but I’ll say it anyway…we’re waaaaaayy off topic!

It’s a basic internet law: The more posts a topic has, the less likely the original point of the topic is the main focus of said topic.

 

[Shiranui117]

Forgive me for not being more clear. When I said that the Pope insisted on St. Photius abdicating, I meant that the Pope did so ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE CANON, NOT HIS OWN AUTHORITY. Would you agree with that statement?

Yes I would.

Yes. But it was not really a matter of what Pope St. Nichalas wanted. It was a matter of adhering to the Canons. Canon 4 of Sardica specifically dictates that NO BISHOP CAN OCCUPY THE SEE OF A BISHOP EJECTED FROM HIS SEE IF THAT BISHOP HAS PRESENTED FRESH EVIDENCE FOR A NEW TRIAL AND THE BISHOP OF ROME HAS DEEMED THE NEW EVIDENCE WARRANTS A NEW TRIAL.

And he wants a procedure in accordance with the Canons. What I was getting at; sorry I wasn’t clear.

I thought the filioque rationale was used by Photius during his Synod of 879, not in during his attempted excommunication of Pope Nicholas in 867. I could be wrong, but that is not really relevant. The question is, was there a trial at which Pope Nicholas was present before Photius tried to excommunicate him? Did Pope Nicholas have a chance to defend himself at this trial? If not, regardless of any of the reasons you gave, such a move by Photius was uncanonical.

I’m not sure if there was a trial. Photius put forth an encyclical condemning the Filioque, Nicholas supported people who used the Filioque, Photius excommunicated him because he supported what was (in his eyes) a heresy. That’s all I know of the matter at the moment. The controversy involving Photius is something I’m keen to look into…

And, yes, the Filioque was also a driving force during the Synod of 879; the condemnation of it was, as I’m quite sure you know, one of the highlights of it. By the way, did Rome ever condemn that Council before the Schism of 1054?

 

[Shiranui117]

I see we are in much more agreement on the papacy than I previously thought - even 100% agreement.:hug1: I hope you realize that the position I hold (and the position you hold) is perfectly orthodox from the Catholic point of view. I guess what I’m saying is that I hope that just because you have a different understanding of the papacy than many Latin Catholics, it does not cause you to think that your view is somehow not as Catholic as theirs, and thus cause you to leave the Church. In fact, from what I’ve seen in our discussion, your understanding is certainly more faithful to the intent of the Fathers of the First Vatican Council than the exaggerations of the Absolutist Petrine advocates.

Thank you. I still have a lot of research to do into Scripture and Church Tradition and the writings of the Fathers before I feel ready to make an informed decision of which side of the fence to stand on, but it is nice to know that I’m not anathema by Vatican 1.

I would like to offer a revision of your statement here if you don’t mind. Let me know if you agree: “So when the judgment of the Pope didn’t solve the issue, a Council was convened for a common agreement between the party in union with the Pope, and the party not in union with the Pope.”

Sure. I would agree with that.

I agree with the principle you present here, but I don’t agree with your examples. That’s because the Council of Trullo and the Council of Contance were not Ecumenical Councils. The Council of Trullo was a local Eastern Synod that never gained acceptance by the Western See - so it is not “Ecumenical” even by the objective standards of the Easterns who claim it has ecumenical status. There are certain (even many) canons from Trullo that the Latin Church does accept, but on the whole, it can’t be considered “ecumenical.” Many Easterns (particularly the EO - I’ve never come across an EC who claims it is ecumenical, though they affirm that the Synod of Trullo is authoritative for the Eastern Church) claim it was part of the Sixth Ecumenical Council - in fact, it was convened about 10 YEARS AFTER the close of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. The Council of Constance never had papal approval as a whole, and thus is not legitimately an Ecumenical Council even by the standards of the Latins. It is normally appended to the Ecumenical Council of Florence in the Latin lists, because SOME of its contents obtained papal approval, but it was never considered Ecumenical in and of itself.

Wait, so the Pope elected by/after Constance didn’t approve the Council that paved the way for him being the only guy claiming to be Pope? Ungrateful son of a muffin.

And as far as Trullo being appended to the 6th Ecumenical Council, I believe the work provided on ccel.org stated such because it added jurisdictional canons that they felt needed to be added to the 5th and 6th Councils. I’ll have to double-check what the source of that statement is, though.

The example I prefer to use (and have done so several times in the past in my debates with Absolutist Petrine advocates) to demonstrate that the Pope can be corrected WITHIN an Ecumenical Council is the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Please note my specific use of the preposition “WITHIN.” I believe the phrase “the Pope can be corrected BY an Ecumenical Council” is an error, for the plain fact that an Ecumenical Council (ANY Council for that matter - even a local one) is not a legitimate Council without a head bishop. An Ecumencal Council does not judge the Pope; an Ecumenical Council CANnot judge the Pope. What occurs is that within an Ecumenical Council, the Pope is persuaded by his brother bishops to abjure his error. This is what happened during the Fifth Ecumenical Council. The Fifth Ecumenical Council demonstrates for us two important patristic principles:

I believe I understand the distinction you’re making between “by” and “within.” Since the Pope presides over it (sometimes; otherwise he sends his legates to sit in for him while someone else presides) and is therefore a part of the proceedings, he cannot really be disciplined by something he is a part of, directly or indirectly.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Dear brother Josephdaniel,

Since you have yourself claimed that the texts of Vatican 1 and 2 say that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council, can you please give the direct quote that says it? So far, brother SteveB has not been able to do it. Maybe you can help him out.

Blessings,
Marduk

We don’t need to go over that again my friend. I was really just messing with you.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m more guilty of it than any of you guys. Heck, half the time folks in here and I end up talking about baseball, comic books, or guitars! LOL…all my favorite things!

It’s a basic internet law: The more posts a topic has, the less likely the original point of the topic is the main focus of said topic.

 

[mardukm]

We don’t need to go over that again my friend. I was really just messing with you.

Forgive me if I sounded reactionary. I was really also ribbing you. I understood your intent, and wanted to respond with just as much wit, but I can see how my response could come off as something less copacetic.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Wait, so the Pope elected by/after Constance didn’t approve the Council that paved the way for him being the only guy claiming to be Pope? Ungrateful son of a muffin.

OOPS! Sorry for the error. The Council of Constance is indeed considered Ecumenical by the Latins. That’s what I get for trying to work off of memory alone! I did some reading to see why you would think Constance was an example of a Council correcting the Pope, and discovered my error. I confused Constance with Basel-Ferrara.

In any case, I’m wondering what it is about Constance which causes you to think that the Pope erred and was corrected?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Shiranui117]

I’m more guilty of it than any of you guys. Heck, half the time folks in here and I end up talking about baseball, comic books, or guitars! LOL…all my favorite things!

Then let’s get one thing established: The Orthodox will reenter union with Rome when the Pope plays Free Bird with the amp turned up to 11, sings the Akathist to the Theotokos, writes a comic book about St. Nicholas of Myra with his foot, and signs papers condemning Absolute Petrine views with his other foot, all at once.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Wolverine, Magneto, the Hulk, and the Red Skull join forces to convince the Easterners that Christus Victor is the wrong view of the Atonement bar none. The Orthodox, with Ozzy in the background singing “Over the Mountain” find the argument compelling. The Pope, wielding a 58 Stratocaster vintage comes to the head of the table, the Orthodox admit they’ve been wrong for a thousand years, swallow their pride, shave their beards, we go back to the Latin Mass, the Filioque is universally accepted, the Avengers provide security for the whole event, and the Police get back together for a benefit concert to help raise money for East and West. 90% of the threads about “Will Orthodoxy and Catholicism ever Reunite?” will vaporize and the Orthodox posters who badger Catholics will have nothing to talk about except guitars, Marvel comics, and classic rock. So, Orthodox and Catholics start new threads like “Who is tougher, The Thing or the Hulk?” and “Who would you rather be friends with: The Phoenix or Iron Monger?” and “Which band was more progressive—Yes or King Crimson?”

Then let’s get one thing established: The Orthodox will reenter union with Rome when the Pope plays Free Bird with the amp turned up to 11, sings the Akathist to the Theotokos, writes a comic book about St. Nicholas of Myra with his foot, and signs papers condemning Absolute Petrine views with his other foot, all at once.

 

[Shiranui117]

OOPS! Sorry for the error. The Council of Constance is indeed considered Ecumenical by the Latins. That’s what I get for trying to work off of memory alone! I did some reading to see why you would think Constance was an example of a Council correcting the Pope, and discovered my error. I confused Constance with Basel-Ferrara.

In any case, I’m wondering what it is about Constance which causes you to think that the Pope erred and was corrected?

Blessings,
Marduk

Well, it didn’t correct not just one, but THREE Popes. It was convened to settle the slight issue of the Great Western Schism. Ludicrously long excerpt from the Council of Constance inbound.

John, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for future record. Wishing to carry out those things which were decreed at the council of Pisa [13] by our predecessor of happy memory, pope [14] Alexander V, regarding the summoning of a new general council, we earlier convoked this present council by letters of ours, the contents of which we have ordered to be inserted here:
John, bishop … [15]
We have therefore come together with our venerable brothers, cardinals of the holy Roman church, and our court to this city of Constance at the appointed time. Being present here by the grace of God, we now wish, with the advice of this sacred synod, to attend to the peace, exaltation and reform of the church and to the quiet of the Christian people…
(John XXIII publicly offers to resign the papacy)
(Decrees on the integrity and authority of the council, after the pope s flight [18])

Next, that this sacred council has not been dissolved by the departure of our lord pope from Constance, or even by the departure of other prelates or any other persons, but continues in its integrity and authority, even if decrees to the contrary have been made or shall be made in the future.
Next, that this sacred council should not and may not be dissolved until the present schism has been entirely removed and until the church has been reformed in faith and morals, in head and members.

First, that this synod, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council, representing the catholic church militant, has power immediately from Christ, and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith and the eradication of the said schism. [19]
Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII may not move or transfer the Roman curia and its public offices, or its or their officials, from this city to another place, nor directly or indirectly compel the persons of the said offices to follow him, without the deliberation and consent of the same holy synod; this refers to those officials or offices by whose absence the council would probably be dissolved or harmed. If he has acted to the contrary in the past, or shall in the future, or if he has in the past, is now or shall in the future fulminate any processes or mandates or ecclesiastical censures or any other penalties against the said officials or any other adherents of this council, to the effect that they should follow him then all is null and void and in no way are the said processes, censures and penalties to be obeyed, inasmuch as they are null and void, and they are invalid.
First it declares that, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members.
Next, it declares that anyone of whatever condition, state or dignity, even papal, who contumaciously refuses to obey the past or future mandates, statutes, ordinances or precepts of this sacred council or of any other legitimately assembled general council, regarding the aforesaid things or matters pertaining to them, shall be subjected to well-deserved penance, unless he repents, and shall be duly punished, even by having recourse, if necessary, to other supports of the law.
Next, the said holy synod defines and ordains that the lord pope John XXIII may not move or transfer the Roman curia and its public offices, or its or their officials, from the city of Constance to another place, nor directly or indirectly compel the said officials to follow him, without the deliberation and consent of the same holy synod. If he has acted to the contrary in the past, or shall in the future, or if he has in the past, is now or shall in the future fulminate any processes or mandates or ecclesiastical censures or any other penalties, against the said officials or any other adherents of this sacred council, to the effect that they should follow him, then all is null and void. . .

The said holy synod decrees, determines and ordains for the good of unity in God’s church that neither the lord Baldassare de Cossa, recently John XXIII, nor Angelo Correr nor Peter de Luna, called Gregory XII and Benedict XIII by their respective obediences, shall ever be re-elected as pope. If the contrary happens, it is by this very fact null and void. Nobody, of whatever dignity or pre-eminence even if he be emperor, king, cardinal or pontiff, may ever adhere to or obey them or any one of them, contrary to this decree, under pain of eternal damnation and of being a supporter of the said schism. Let those who presume to the contrary, if there are any in the future, also be firmly proceeded against in other ways, even by invoking the secular arm.

 

[edowitz1]

Roman Catholic Doctrine Vs. The Doctrinal Teaching of the Word of God

Eternal life is a merited reward [1821, 2010]. - Roman Catholicism
Eternal life is the free gift of God (Romans 6:23)

No one can know if he will attain eternal life [1036, 2005] - Roman Catholicism
The believer can know that he has eternal life by the Word of God (1 John 5:13)

The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation [846]. - Roman Catholicism
There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, “for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)

Purgatory is necessary to atone for sin and clean the soul [1030-1031]. - Roman Catholicism
Purgatory does not exist. Jesus made purification for sins on the cross (Hebrews 1:3)

Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin from the first instant of her conception (the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) [490-492].
Mary, a descendant of Adam, was born in sin (Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12)

Mary is the Mother of the Church [963, 975]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus ( John 2:1)

The Magisterium is the authoritative teacher of the Church. [85-87]. - Roman Catholicism
The Holy Spirit is the authoritative teacher of the church (John 14:26; John 16:13, I John 2:27)

The pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is the successor of Peter [882, 936] - Roman Catholicism
Peter had no successor, nor was he a pope.

The pope is infallible in his authoritative teaching [891]. - Roman Catholicism
God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19)

Scripture and Tradition together are the Word of God [81, 85, 97, 182]. - Roman Catholicism
Scripture is the Word of God (John 10:35, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21). Tradition is the words of men (Mark 7:1-13).

The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the Sacrifice of the Mass. [1364,1405, 1846]. - Roman Catholicism
The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7, Hebrews 1:3).

God desires that consecrated bread and wine be worshiped as divine. [1378-1381] - Roman Catholicism
God forbids the worship of any object, even t hose intended to represent Him (Exodus 20:4-5, Isaiah 42:8)

Justification is lost through mortal sin [1033, 1855, 1874] - Roman Catholicism
Justification cannot be lost. Those whom God justifies will be saved from the wrath of God (Romans 5:8-9).

Justification is furthered by sacraments and good works [1212, 1392, 2010] - Roman Catholicism
Justification is the imputation of the perfect righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21). In Christ the believer has been made complete (Colossians 2:10).

Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments [183, 1129, 1815, 2002]. - Roman Catholicism
Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Good works are the result, not the cause, of salvation (Ephesians 2:10).

Mary, “the All-Holy,” lived a perfectly sinless life [411, 493]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary was a sinner; God alone is sinless (Luke 18:19, Romans 3:23, Revelation 15:4).

Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ [496-511]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary remained a virgin until after the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:25). Later she had other children (Matthew 13:55-56, Psalm 69:8).

Each Sacrifice of the Mass appeases God’s wrath against sin [1371, 1414]. - Roman Catholicism
The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God’s wrath against sin. (Hebrews 10:12-18).

The Bishops, with the Pope, as their head, rule the universal church. [883, 894-896]. - Roman Catholicism
Christ, the head of the body is the Head of the Church. (Colossians 1:18).

The faithful receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure through the Sacrifice of the Mass [1366, 1407]. - Roman Catholicism
Believers receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure in Christ through faith (Ephesians 1:3-14).

God has exalted Mary in heavenly glory as Queen of Heaven and Earth [966]. She is to be praised with special devotion [971, 2675]. - Roman Catholicism
The name of the Lord is to be praised, for He alone is exalted above heaven and earth (Psalm 148:13). God commands, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” (Exodus 20:3).

Mary is the co-mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions 9 968-970, 2677] - Roman Catholicism
Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5, John 14:13-14, 1 Peter 5:7).

Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participate with Christ in the painful act of redemption [618, 964, 968, 970]. - Roman Catholicism
Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin (1 Peter 1:18-19).

The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass [1323, 1382] - Roman Catholicism
The Sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).

Indulgences dispensed by the Church for acts of piety release sinners from temporal punishment [1471-1473]. - Roman Catholicism
Jesus releases believers from their sins by His blood. (Revelation 1:5).

The Magisterium has the right to define truth found only obscurely or implicitly in revelation. [66, 88, 2035, 2051]. - Roman Catholicism
No one has the right to go beyond what is written in Scripture (1 Corinthians 4:6, Proverbs 30:5-6).

Scripture and Tradition together are the Church’s supreme role of faith [80, 82]. - Roman Catholicism
Scripture is the church’s rule of faith (Mark 7:7-13, 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

 

[joe370]

Well, it didn’t correct not just one, but THREE Popes. It was convened to settle the slight issue of the Great Western Schism. Ludicrously long excerpt from the Council of Constance inbound.

To what doctrinal correction are you referring? From what I can glean, Haec Sancta Synodus, a decree issued at the council of Constance, (a novelty) - which gave primacy to the authority of said Council and thereby becoming the sole reliance for ecclesial conciliarism, of which even the papacy was supposedly, now bound to obey, was not considered valid by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Why? It was never approved by Pope Gregory XII or his successors. Why? The Church declared the first sessions of the Council of Constance an “invalid and illicit assembly of Bishops,” gathered under the authority of Emperor Sigismund and antipope John XXIII.

Pope Gregory XII eventually responded by sending legates to Constance, whom he granted full power to preside over an Ecumenical Council. Gregory, in an attempt at ecclesial resolution, authorized his legates to present his resignation of the Papacy, which gave way the end of the western schism. The papal legates were received by Emperor Sigismund and by the assembled Bishops and Emperor Sigismund yielded the presidency of the proceedings to the papal legates, at which point, the Bull of Gregory XII, (which appointed his proxies, at the council) - was formally read before the assembled bishops; the Bull officially convoked and authorized the council and its succeeding acts, and the presiding bishops proceeded to accept the summons, at which point the papal legates informed the Council that they were there with the expressed purpose of resigning the Papal throne, on the pope’s behalf. The bishops voted to receive the Papal abdication and the legates proceeded to hand a written copy of the resignation to the assembly. Pope Gregory XII was eventually assigned as Cardinal Bishop of Porto and Santa Ruffina by said Council; Gregory XII’s cardinals were accepted as true cardinals by the Council; the anti-popes were all deposed and the new pope, Martin V, was elected and soon asserted the absolute authority of the papal office.

 

[joe370]

Whatchya been smokin dude…LOL…LOL… Don’t forget one of the greatest cape crusaders ever - Bat Man; after all, he has a new movies coming out soon…

Wolverine, Magneto, the Hulk, and the Red Skull join forces to convince the Easterners that Christus Victor is the wrong view of the Atonement bar none. The Orthodox, with Ozzy in the background singing “Over the Mountain” find the argument compelling. The Pope, wielding a 58 Stratocaster vintage comes to the head of the table, the Orthodox admit they’ve been wrong for a thousand years, swallow their pride, shave their beards, we go back to the Latin Mass, the Filioque is universally accepted, the Avengers provide security for the whole event, and the Police get back together for a benefit concert to help raise money for East and West. 90% of the threads about “Will Orthodoxy and Catholicism ever Reunite?” will vaporize and the Orthodox posters who badger Catholics will have nothing to talk about except guitars, Marvel comics, and classic rock. So, Orthodox and Catholics start new threads like “Who is tougher, The Thing or the Hulk?” and “Who would you rather be friends with: The Phoenix or Iron Monger?” and “Which band was more progressive—Yes or King Crimson?”

 

[mardukm]

Wolverine, Magneto, the Hulk, and the Red Skull join forces to convince the Easterners that Christus Victor is the wrong view of the Atonement bar none.

Magneto would be sufficient, methinks.

90% of the threads about “Will Orthodoxy and Catholicism ever Reunite?” will vaporize and the Orthodox posters who badger Catholics will have nothing to talk about except guitars, Marvel comics, and classic rock. So, Orthodox and Catholics start new threads like “Who is tougher, The Thing or the Hulk?” and “Who would you rather be friends with: The Phoenix or Iron Monger?” and “Which band was more progressive—Yes or King Crimson?”

I had a great amount of respect for you, brother Gurney, until I read this. You fail to realize that the greatest matter next to ecclesiastical union, is DC vs. Marvel. It’s obvious you are a Marvel fan.

DC ALL THE WAY, BABY!!!

 

[mardukm]

To what doctrinal correction are you referring?

That’s kind of what I was getting at.

Each Pope was elected - even though only one was the legitimate Pope. And each of them believed he was the legitimate Pope because of their election.

I don’t think any of these rival Popes believed that it was doctrinally correct that there was more than one Pope. I think each of them genuinely believed he was the legitimate Pope.

I confused the Council of Constance with the Council of Basle because I was thinking of the principle of conciliarism. Both Councils supported the “conciliar theory.” To settle the issue, the Council of Constance applied a mitigated conciliarism, and was successful because the legitimate Pope willfuly abdicated. Basle, on the other hand, sought to make conciliarism a general principle, separating the body from its head.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

By the way, did Rome ever condemn that Council before the Schism of 1054?

I’m not certain it was condemned. I think it simply passed out of recognition. From what I know, the reason it was no longer recognized had nothing to do with the doctrinal matter of the Photian controversy, but with regards to some disciplinary canons that contradicted other ancient canons of the Latin Church. I think it is well within the rights of each particular Church to pick and choose its own discplinary canons, so I don’t see anything wrong with the Eastern Synod of 879 to have passed out of the recognition of the Latin Church. The same goes for the Council of Trullo. Some will consider it ecumenical, others not, but it was a synod meant to settle purely disciplinary questions, so differences in opinion on it don’t really affect the doctrinal integrity of any particular Church, which is what counts.

As I have proposed in the past, a distinction must be made between the concept of ecumenicity and the concept of infallibility. They are not identical. Even a local council can teach infallibly, yet not be considered “Ecumenical.” For instance, all the local Councils recognized by the Ecumenical Councils taught infallibly as far as doctrine was concerned, but none of them were considered “Ecumenical” in and of themselves. And not all Councils considered “Ecumenical” have the mark of infallibility for the plain reason that they were not convened for the purpose of settling an issue of doctrine or morals - the Council of Trullo which many Easterns regard as “Ecumenical” and several of the post-Schism Latin Councils which the Latins consider “Ecumenical” immediately come to mind.

As far as initial papal approval of the Eastern Synod of 879, the polemic Eastern use of this Council against the dogma of the Pope’s infallible Magisterium (i.e., that it was once approved by Popes, and later rejected by Popes, throws a big monkey-wrench on the idea of papal infallibility) is based on a misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching on papal infallibility. And this for one important reason: the Catholic teaching on the infallible papal Magisterium is a DIFFERENT concept from the Catholic teaching on the infallible Magisterium of an Ecumenical Council (as affirmed in a previous post).

The facts are:

1. Papal approval of a council by which it gains Ecumenical status is NOT an exercise of “papal infallibility.” An Ecumenical Council is considered infallible IN AND OF ITSELF, and the Pope’s approval WITHIN the Council is a function NOT of the infallible papal Magisterium, but rather simply of the Pope’s action as head bishop of the body of bishops WHICH TOGETHER (NEVER APART) is the subject of the infallibility given by God to His Church.
2. There have been many Councils convened on a doctrinal matter approved by the Pope, but has never been claimed by the Latin Catholic Church as “Ecumenical.” The Council of Orange which settled the issue of Semi-pelagianism is one example that immediately comes to mind.
3. Though papal approval is a necessary condition for the Ecumenicity of a Council, it is not a sufficient condition for its ecumenicity. Note that our Canons state ONLY that a Council must have papal approval for it to be considered Ecumenical. It takes some mental gymnastics to force this statement to mean that papal approval is the ONLY thing that causes a Council to be considered Ecumenical (as Absolutist Petrine adovcates pretend).

So given the disconnect between the concept of the infallible papal Magisterium, on the one hand, with the concept of the Ecumenical Council, on the other, it cannot be the case (as non-Catholic polemicists pretend) that papal approval of the 879 Synod at one time, and lack of it at another time, demonstrates something against the Catholic teaching on the infallible papal Magisterium.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[angelic06]

Magneto would be sufficient, methinks.

I had a great amount of respect for you, brother Gurney, until I read this. You fail to realize that the greatest matter next to ecclesiastical union, is DC vs. Marvel. It’s obvious you are a Marvel fan.

DC ALL THE WAY, BABY!!!

Gobbledygook—I stand with Gurney. It’s got to be Marvel, baby!

(jk. I don’t read either.)

That being said, about the article:

I think it should be noted that both the Latin and the EO/EC practice of chrismation originated out of the same practice. I sometimes see the EO charge that RC’s have changed the apostolic practice. In truth, both sides have retained some, but not all, elements of the apostolic practice.

The apostles and eventually the bishops that succeeded them shortly chrismated after baptism. When congregations became too large, the the bishop sanctifed Holy Chrism, and thereupon presbyters took upon themselves this ministry. See also:

saintkatherineorthodoxchurch.org/articles/chrismation.htm

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Good Lord, brother mardukm. I’l pretend I didn’t hear that and you didn’t realize what you were saying. If it is your contention that DC is superior to Marvel in any way, shape, or form it is a mortal sin. You are making this claim will full awareness of what you’re saying, it involved grave matter, and it should be confessed at once!

Only exceptions where I’ll let DC slide: Batman and Green Lantern

Magneto would be sufficient, methinks.

I had a great amount of respect for you, brother Gurney, until I read this. You fail to realize that the greatest matter next to ecclesiastical union, is DC vs. Marvel. It’s obvious you are a Marvel fan.

DC ALL THE WAY, BABY!!!