Eastern Catholic and Orthodoxy

[Badaliyyah]

its source comes from its initial transmission to the ‘Romans’.

JJR

the Melkites in the room, among a few others (I am sure there is a Maronite or two hanging around here somewhere) would like to point out that Peter’s “initial transmission” would have been Antioch

have fun.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well, it would seem Rome is always used as that yardstick for orthodoxy.

Only if you are looking through the Vatican’s key hole. It certainly wasn’t at the Second Ecumenical Council.

Same thing took place in the preceding years with the semi-Arians who wrote out their declaration of faith to Rome and the Italian bishops in order ot be received back into the church.

Yet the issue was resolved at Constantinople without (actually, in part, in spite of) Rome.

Also, I must say, I have never seen any Orthodox go through so much trouble to explain away a statement as to state that it was to the ‘Roman Empire’ that St. Peter transmitted the orthodox faith!

Odd, you all are the ones prattling on about St. Peter’s universal jurisdiction.

Allow me to expound brother. The reason Alexandria is also noted along with Rome is because these are the two leading see’s in both East and West, thus, Theodosius is procaliming the lawful adherence of the entire empire.

Like I said, the above mentioned ROMANS.

Alexandria was also the 2nd city of the empire.

Constantinople had not yet applied her ambitions.

Yes, Theodoosius would do that next year.

Im sorry, but your absurd and distorted interpretation that St. Peter transmitted the true faith to a pagan Rome Empire is utterly outlandish.

When he says ‘Romans’, he is refering to the christians of the city of Rome, NOT a pagan Empire.

Sorry, but at the time, Rome was still quite pagan. The Altar of Victory had yet to removed from the Senate after Julian restored it, and it is questionable if Gratian had given the pagan title pontifex maximus to the Pope of Rome yet. And Roman (in the sense of citizen versus barbarian) was becoming synonomous with “Christian.” It is used in this sense in the Theodosian code.

It is preserved by Peter of Alexandria as well

hence why he is called “a man of Apostolic Holiness.”

but its source comes from its initial transmission to the ‘Romans’.

The 3rd city of the empire, Antioch got it from St. Peter, but not from either Rome nor Alexandria.

 

[JJR1453]

Why stop there? Pope Victor thought he could dictate the date of Pascha, and he was rebuked by the entire Church.

Not quite. Economia was embraced, but not the “valid but illicit” line. Btw, Cyprian was in Rome’s patriarchate.

Yes this claim is advanced much. Problem is that we see the operation of canon 3 shortly thereafter by all the Eastern patriarchates, and the grudging de facto recognition of Rome.

Yet Constantinople still insisted on her rank, and Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and yes, even Rome (Leo had to complain that his own bishops obeyed c. 28) recognized it
.

Yes, where warrented. And plenty that take Rome to task when necessary. The Fifth and Sixth Councils for instance.

For such a bold move as to ex-communicate a significant portion of the East, we see St Irenaeus encourage Pope Victor to use the servicce of peace, rather than such a harsh decision as the cutting off of communion. He uses examples as Polycarp and Anicetus’ compromise. However, no where do we see St. Irenaeus, or any other member of the church for that matter, proclaim that Pope Victor does not have the right to such a harsh judgement. Interestingly enough, why would such venerable members of the church go through such strides to persuade someone against an action that he doesnt really have the power to enforce anyway?

Here is the point: the Roman ruling of heretical baptism being recognized so long as it is valid, stood. The Roman ruling thus triumphed. Period.

Again, one must understand the historical context of the time. Only a mere 100 years after the council and Alexandria is almost entirely consumed by Monophysism. Constantinople really had to assume second place. Also, we cant forget the Eastern way of subsisting, which is, in a state of Church & Empire.

You would be surprised what one can do with the support of the Emperor. This is really the reason behind most of the steps taken in Constantinople’s ambitious advancement. Not even the Pope’s could contend with the great influence of the Emperor’s. Also, when Illyricum was taken from the Western patriarchate by the Emperor because the Pope would not adhere to Iconoclasm, it was not restored back to him even after the East came in line to orthodoxy and denounced Iconoclasm. Such is the influence of the Emperor.

God bless,

JJR

 

[Isa_Almisry]

For such a bold move as to ex-communicate a significant portion of the East, we see St Irenaeus encourage Pope Victor to use the servicce of peace, rather than such a harsh decision as the cutting off of communion. He uses examples as Polycarp and Anicetus’ compromise. However, no where do we see St. Irenaeus, or any other member of the church for that matter, proclaim that Pope Victor does not have the right to such a harsh judgement. Interestingly enough, why would such venerable members of the church go through such strides to persuade someone against an action that he doesnt really have the power to enforce anyway?

Matthew 15:18; Luke 17: 3; I Thessalonians 5:14; I Corinthians 15:34 ; II Corinthians 2:6; Ephesians 5:11; Titus 1:13, 2:15; I Timothy 5:20, II Timothy 4:2; Jude 1:15.

Rebuke. That’s the word that is used of what the entire Church did to Victor. So I guess when the Lord rebuked the disciples for wanting to nuke the Samaritans (Luke 9:56) He wasn’t saying that they didn’t have a right to such a harsh judgement.

Here is the point: the Roman ruling of heretical baptism being recognized so long as it is valid, stood. The Roman ruling thus triumphed. Period.

No. It didn’t.

Again, one must understand the historical context of the time. Only a mere 100 years after the council and Alexandria is almost entirely consumed by Monophysism. Constantinople really had to assume second place. Also, we cant forget the Eastern way of subsisting, which is, in a state of Church & Empire.

I’m always amazed how the accusation of Caesaropapism is raised, yet they then complain that we didn’t obey the emperors at Florence, for instance, in the various “union” schemes. Ditto what is trying to be made of the decree of Theodosios, who, last I checked, was an emperor, not a bishop.

Papal states. What were they? Or should I say, is?

Constantinople had already assumed second place.

You would be surprised what one can do with the support of the Emperor. This is really the reason behind most of the steps taken in Constantinople’s ambitious advancement. Not even the Pope’s could contend with the great influence of the Emperor’s. Also, when Illyricum was taken from the Western patriarchate by the Emperor because the Pope would not adhere to Iconoclasm, it was not restored back to him even after the East came in line to orthodoxy and denounced Iconoclasm. Such is the influence of the Emperor.

The Emperor Charlemagne in the West condemned the Seventh Ecumenical Council at the council of Frankfurt (794). Later his successor Henry II forced Rome to accept the filioque, which had been resisted for centuries. And the emperor Gratian gave the title Pontifex Maximus to the pope of Rome. I’m not suprised at all what one can do with the support of the Emperor.

 

[tdgesq]

Oh? The Second Ecumenical Council, convened by saints (it is the council with the most canonized saints) OUT of communion with Rome, had no impute from when when they wrote the Creed of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Chruch.

Although this paragraph is nearly unintelligible because of spelling and grammar errors, I will attempt to respond. You and I personally debated the issue before when this was the Eastern Christianity forum. You fared quite badly as I recall, as you were unaware at the time that Rome had sent a tome of its previous decrees of its local synod to the bishops of the Church. They were invited to Rome but could not make it due to the unrest in their own bishoprics. A letter was then sent from the synod of Constantinople to Rome informing it of what had been decided, apparently in the belief that it reflected what Rome had decided at its synod. It does not appear Rome ever received the tome of Constantinople I, which is no longer extant.

Constantinople I was a local council until it was accepted by Rome. A pre-schism ecumenical council without the participation of Rome flies in the face of nearly all modern Orthodox thinking on the subject. Participation of the Pentarchy is required. Your position is radical even within your own communion and is rejected historically by most scholars, including Schaff.

Of course my original point was that St. James’ declaration at the Council of Jerusalem is not significant. Neither the Orthodox nor the CC find declarations of ecumenical councils from the See of Jerusalem, or any other individual Patriarchal See in the first seven ecumenical councils (other than Rome). The letter of Constantinople I was from all of the bishops gathered at that council, just as I suspect the epistle generated at the Council of Jerusalem was. You have gone somewhat far afield here.

Rome’s definitive pronouncement by Leo IX (contradicting Leo III) on the Creed led to your schism.

Now you are on the filioque? I went ahead and left the additional spaces just as they occur in your quote. A hastily typed addition it appears.

I don’t see St. Peter’s name there, nor a “pope” among the “apostles, elders and brethren.”

We don’t see anything about who was responsible for the letter. To assume that it was solely St. James is not consistent with later ecumenical councils, even for the Orthodox. St. James explicitly agrees with Peter’s declaration at the council of Jerusalem. My argument was that it is doubtful the epistle came solely from St. James, particularly since it was widely distributed to the rest of the Church.

And what does St. John say of Matthew 16? Not Vatican I.

Fact is, we do not see Rome controlling the other patriarchates in the early Church. Rome did not appoint the other patriarchs, did not depose them, did not approve them, etc. Ditto for the rest of the bishops outside of Rome’s patriarchate.

I never argued that St. John gave the infallibility criterion of Vatican I, or that he supported Rome controlling other patriarchates. All I did is give quotes from Chrysostom to show that he was proclaimed head of the apostles, the Rock, and that Peter is the teacher of the whole world - specifically in connection with the Council of Jerusalem. In other words, that Chrysostom says things consistent with what the CC today believes to be the role of St. Peter.

His successsors at Antioch? Alexandria? There is much on them being “Petrine” Sees, including from Rome.

My statement was in answer to the assertion that all of the papal claims are innovations, yet at the same time the Orthodox have their own supposed “innovations” throughout the first seven ecumenical councils. I am not interested in getting into yet another debate on another topic - the Bishop of Rome as ultimate successor to the authority of St. Peter.

The point stands. Nothing about the Council of Jerusalem is at odds with the current position of the papacy.

 

[JJR1453]

Only if you are looking through the Vatican’s key hole. It certainly wasn’t at the Second Ecumenical Council.

Yet the issue was resolved at Constantinople without (actually, in part, in spite of) Rome.

Odd, you all are the ones prattling on about St. Peter’s universal jurisdiction.

Like I said, the above mentioned ROMANS.

Alexandria was also the 2nd city of the empire.

Yes, Theodoosius would do that next year.

Sorry, but at the time, Rome was still quite pagan. The Altar of Victory had yet to removed from the Senate after Julian restored it, and it is questionable if Gratian had given the pagan title pontifex maximus to the Pope of Rome yet. And Roman (in the sense of citizen versus barbarian) was becoming synonomous with “Christian.” It is used in this sense in the Theodosian code.

hence why he is called “a man of Apostolic Holiness.”

The 3rd city of the empire, Antioch got it from St. Peter, but not from either Rome nor Alexandria.

Since common sense obviously has not won the day; allow me to explain in more of a step-by-step way. Let us first start off by quoting the Emperor:

“We desire that all the people under the rule of our clemency should live by that religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the Romans, and which it is evident that Pope Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, followed; that is that we should believe in the one deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with equal majesty and in the Holy Trinity according to the apostolic teaching and the authority of the gospel. Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius Augusti.”(C. Th.XVI.i.2)

First off, we must observe the Emperors words when he states:

*"which divine Peter the apostle **is said to have given *to the Romans".

Is it to “the Romans” of the day he is thinking? Of course not, obviously because half the Empire is in heretical schism. Also, “is said to have given”, is refering here to the living tradition of Peter preaching and being martyred in Rome. Moreover, notice how Theodosius felt it necessary to mention the personal merits of the incumbent of Alexandria. Seriously, I fail to see how you could argue otherwise and protest that Theodosius is refering to ‘the Empire’. Truly an arguement that carries no weight.

Also, can you elaborate how the Arian controversy was repaired “in spite of Rome”? Ive never heard of such an assertion

God bless,

JJR

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Although this paragraph is nearly unintelligible because of spelling and grammar errors,

My bad:

Oh? The Second Ecumenical Council, convened by saints (it is the Council with the most canonized saints) OUT of communion with Rome, had no imput from Rome (or the West) when it wrote the Creed of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Chruch.

I will attempt to respond. You and I personally debated the issue before when this was the Eastern Christianity forum. You fared quite badly as I recall, as you were unaware at the time that Rome had sent a tome of its previous decrees of its local synod to the bishops of the Church.

No, there was/is some question if the tome mentioned in the reputed canon V was appended later to the Council.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.vi.html
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.vii.html

I also brought up that if it were the case that the Council rubber stamped what Rome sent, how do you plead ignorance of the Council’s Ecumenical status, and canon III, as is claimed?

There is also the issue that the Council notified Rome of what they had done.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.ix.html

They were invited to Rome but could not make it due to the unrest in their own bishoprics. A letter was then sent from the synod of Constantinople to Rome informing it of what had been decided, apparently in the belief that it reflected what Rome had decided at its synod. It does not appear Rome ever received the tome of Constantinople I, which is no longer extant.

See above.

Constantinople I was a local council until it was accepted by Rome.

Yes, Ecumenical everywhere else but Rome. Sorry we didn’t wait for the Vatican. It was accepted by Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

A pre-schism ecumenical council without the participation of Rome flies in the face of nearly all modern Orthodox thinking on the subject.

And yet it happened. Even if was not Ecumenical until Chalcedon, the opinion popular on your side, that still wouldn’t create any partcipation of Rome in a Council nearly a century old by that time.

Participation of the Pentarchy is required.

Oh? Says who?

Your position is radical even within your own communion

source?

and is rejected historically by most scholars, including Schaff.

You mean the Protestant Schaff. Pray tell, what is his definition of an Ecumenical Council. One approved by the pope of Rome?

Of course my original point was that St. James’ declaration at the Council of Jerusalem is not significant. Neither the Orthodox nor the CC find declarations of ecumenical councils from the See of Jerusalem, or any other individual Patriarchal See in the first seven ecumenical councils (other than Rome).

None of the Seven Ecumenical Councils was at Rome, so what are you imagining?

The letter of Constantinople I was from all of the bishops gathered at that council, just as I suspect the epistle generated at the Council of Jerusalem was. You have gone somewhat far afield here.

Quite the contrary. Yes the Conciliar epistles were in the name of all the assembled bishops.

We don’t see anything about who was responsible for the letter. To assume that it was solely St. James is not consistent with later ecumenical councils, even for the Orthodox. St. James explicitly agrees with Peter’s declaration at the council of Jerusalem. My argument was that it is doubtful the epistle came solely from St. James, particularly since it was widely distributed to the rest of the Church.

Seems an Epistle of St. James was widely distrubuted enough to make it into the canon. And it seems to be solely from him, so I don’t see your point.

And I didn’t claim it was only from St. James, nor would St. James claim so. Neither does Acts.

I never argued that St. John gave the infallibility criterion of Vatican I, or that he supported Rome controlling other patriarchates. All I did is give quotes from Chrysostom to show that he was proclaimed head of the apostles, the Rock, and that Peter is the teacher of the whole world - specifically in connection with the Council of Jerusalem. In other words, that Chrysostom says things consistent with what the CC today believes to be the role of St. Peter.

And yet that deafening silence on Matthew 16, the Vatican’s great “proof text.” Speaking of consistent, if it was so important, why did he accept ordination from someone not in communion with Rome? (confrast St. Jerome’s whinning on this).

My statement was in answer to the assertion that all of the papal claims are innovations, yet at the same time the Orthodox have their own supposed “innovations” throughout the first seven ecumenical councils.

Such as?

I am not interested in getting into yet another debate on another topic - the Bishop of Rome as ultimate successor to the authority of St. Peter.

I’m sure you’re not.

The point stands. Nothing about the Council of Jerusalem is at odds with the current position of the papacy.

Only the position that the Council has no authority separate from the “pope.” Jerusalem says otherwise.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Since common sense obviously has not won the day; allow me to explain in more of a step-by-step way. Let us first start off by quoting the Emperor:

“We desire that all the people under the rule of our clemency should live by that religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the Romans, and which it is evident that Pope Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, followed; that is that we should believe in the one deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with equal majesty and in the Holy Trinity according to the apostolic teaching and the authority of the gospel. Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius Augusti.”(C. Th.XVI.i.2)

First off, we must observe the Emperors words when he states:

*“which divine Peter the apostle **is said to have given ***to the Romans”.

Is it to “the Romans” of the day he is thinking? Of course not, obviously because half the Empire is in heretical schism. Also, “is said to have given”, is refering here to the living tradition of Peter preaching and being martyred in Rome. Moreover, notice how Theodosius felt it necessary to mention the personal merits of the incumbent of Alexandria. Seriously, I fail to see how you could argue otherwise and protest that Theodosius is refering to ‘the Empire’. Truly an arguement that carries no weight.

Ah, the dangers of cut and paste.

The oblivion of how the Romans viewed themselves. The same oblivion which dreamed up a “Byzantine” empire.

Also, can you elaborate how the Arian controversy was repaired “in spite of Rome”? Ive never heard of such an assertion

The Second Ecumenical Council gave the death blow to Arianism (in the East at least). Most of the participants were excommunicated from Rome, the rest by implication (after all, they were assmebling with the excommunicated). Several of the decisions (like the succession in Antioch, and the status and succession of Constantinople) were done with problems with Rome in mind.

 

[JJR1453]

Ah, the dangers of cut and paste.

The oblivion of how the Romans viewed themselves. The same oblivion which dreamed up a “Byzantine” empire.

The Second Ecumenical Council gave the death blow to Arianism (in the East at least). Most of the participants were excommunicated from Rome, the rest by implication (after all, they were assmebling with the excommunicated). Several of the decisions (like the succession in Antioch, and the status and succession of Constantinople) were done with problems with Rome in mind.

What dangers? I see no dangers in not taking one’s words out of context; something you certainly have done to try and prove your side of the arguement, which is, wildly untenable.

It is this exact communion with Rome that the council and all the East are striving for. And yes you are correct, the East needed this council; the West was in far better shape, as far as Nicene Orthodoxy goes.

God bless,

JJR

 

[Isa_Almisry]

What dangers? I see no dangers in not taking one’s words out of context; something you certainly have done to try and prove your side of the arguement, which is, wildly untenable.

See below.

It is this exact communion with Rome that the council and all the East are striving for.

You are always welcome back.

And yes you are correct, the East needed this council; the West was in far better shape, as far as Nicene Orthodoxy goes.

Oh? The excuse given for the filioque is that it was needed to combat Arianism in Spain. That’s in the West I believe.

This wasn’t the only edict of Theodios on religion, nor on the “Romans.” And the Theodoisan code is not the only source on the self definition of the Romans. The emperor at Constantinople, New Rome, held the title “Emperor of the Romans,” and the empire was called “Empire of the Romans.”

 

[byzgirl]

"Objection:**Some Eastern Orthodox claim that the Catholic Church is under anathema because it added the word filioque (“and the son”) to the Nicene Creed after the declaration that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. This was illicit, they say, because the Council of Ephesus condemned anyone who composes a new creed. **

Answer: It is true that the Council of Ephesus (431) prohibited the making of new creeds. It stated, “It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy Fathers who were gathered together in the Holy Spirit at Nicaea. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges, and if they are laymen they are to be anathematized” (Definition of the Faith at Nicaea).

Edicts of an ecumenical council are binding on Christians, but they are not binding on another ecumenical council unless they are pronouncing a matter of faith or morals. Later ecumenical councils can revise or modify disciplinary policies of their predecessors. Since the prohibition on making a new creed was a disciplinary matter, it could be changed by later ecumenical councils.

At the ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-45), it was changed, and the council ruled that the words “and the Son” had been validly added to the Creed. The Eastern Orthodox originally accepted the authority of the Council of Florence, but later rejected it.

Note that Ephesus referred to the creed as composed by the Fathers at Nicaea (325), not as modified at Constantinople. This is significant because the final portion of the Nicene Creed, which deals with the Holy Spirit and contains the filioque clause, was not composed until the First Council of Constantinople (381). If the prohibition of Ephesus undermined the modern Catholic creed, it undermines the Eastern Orthodox creed no less, since the Easter Orthodox version includes the material on the Holy Spirit as written at Constantinople I. It is inconsistent for the Eastern Orthodox to cite Ephesus about the filioque clause when all of the material on the Holy Spirit was added to the creed that was formulated at Nicaea.

Ephesus’ prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), which stated, “Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city–the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit” (Definition of Faith).

According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea; they were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Thus the Council of Florence could add “filioque” legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit’s procession."

**Besides this particular line of argument, I’d like to point out something that may be quite shocking to you!!! The Byzantine Catholic Church, as part of a return to their ancient traditions and customs, (encouraged by Pope John Paul II and our current Pope, Benedict), has returned to the original formula of the Nicene Creed. Our church removed the ‘and the son’ portion of the creed, and no longer uses it.

I think this may be problematic for those that wish to claim that the fililoque an insurmountable, dividing issue. It would seem that, the fililoque argument, as a Catholic heresy, has lost some of its steam.**

 

[tdgesq]

No, there was/is some question if the tome mentioned in the reputed canon V was appended later to the Council.

For who will give us wings as of a dove, and we will fly and be at rest? But this course seemed likely to leave the churches who were just recovering quite undefended, and the undertaking was to most of us impossible, for, in accordance witch the letters sent a year ago from your holiness after the synod at Aquileia to the most pious emperor Theodosius, we had journeyed to Constantinople, equipped only for travelling 189so far as Constantinople, and bringing the consent of the bishops remaining in the provinces of this synod alone.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.ix.html

They obviously knew of the synod, and they obviously were attempting to gain the consent of the bishops remaining in the provinces that could attend Constantinople.

I also brought up that if it were the case that the Council rubber stamped what Rome sent, how do you plead ignorance of the Council’s Ecumenical status, and canon III, as is claimed?

I never claimed they rubber stamped it. I claim they knew of it. Whether it was properly adopted or not does not concern me. Canon III was not part of it. It was part of what Constantinople decreed. I also did not claim that the West was ignorant of the third canon. I do claim that they did not adopt when it was received. I do that now, but I didn’t in any earlier post.

There is also the issue that the Council notified Rome of what they had done.

Yes, and where did they adopt it again? Or is this an argument from silence? Besides that, it apparently wouldn’t make any difference according to you. It was ecumenical before Rome accepted it. Right?

I am having difficulty seeing what any of this has to do with the Council of Jerusalem and the claim that St. James wrote the epistle of the council.

Yes, Ecumenical everywhere else but Rome. Sorry we didn’t wait for the Vatican. It was accepted by Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

You mean that it was their assertion that the entire Church was bound by it before Rome had a chance to see it and accept it. And I have not seen historical evidence that all four other Sees were present. I have no doubt they were attempting to act in accordance with what had already been decided by the Western Synod, but Canon III was not part of that. I’m afraid 150 bishops meeting at Constantinople doesn’t make Canon III ecumenical.

And yet it happened. Even if was not Ecumenical until Chalcedon, the opinion popular on your side, that still wouldn’t create any partcipation of Rome in a Council nearly a century old by that time.

It wasn’t accepted at Chalcedon. Canon 28 was explicitly rejected by Pope Leo.

Oh? Says who?source?

Every source I have ever seen on the subject. I will give you links tomorrow.

You mean the Protestant Schaff. Pray tell, what is his definition of an Ecumenical Council. One approved by the pope of Rome?

I said “including Schaff.” You seem to accept his interpretations when it suits you on the subject. Of course I suppose the real issue is what is your definition of an ecumenical council. You can’t even affirm that all the other Sees were present. You want to say that the See of Rome with its “primacy of honor” wasn’t a necessary participant. Your own Orthodox brethren disagree, as I will show you later.

None of the Seven Ecumenical Councils was at Rome, so what are you imagining?

Since I never said they were, I suppose I’m not imagining anything. Where did I ever assert that the place the council occurred was important? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about or arguing against at this point.

Quite the contrary. Yes the Conciliar epistles were in the name of all the assembled bishops.
Seems an Epistle of St. James was widely distrubuted enough to make it into the canon. And it seems to be solely from him, so I don’t see your point.
And I didn’t claim it was only from St. James, nor would St. James claim so. Neither does Acts.

The poster I responded to said St. James had written it. I said there was no evidence of that. I also said it would have been an epistle from the entire council. I don’t even know what you are arguing against anymore.

And yet that deafening silence on Matthew 16, the Vatican’s great “proof text.” Speaking of consistent, if it was so important, why did he accept ordination from someone not in communion with Rome? (confrast St. Jerome’s whinning on this).

He did write on Matthew 16. Why did he accept ordination from someone outside of Rome? St. Jerome’s whining? I get the impression you aren’t really here to engage me on the issue of the Council of Jerusalem at all. It looks like you want a fight on anything at all that has to do even tangentially with the papacy.

Such as?

Pentarchy. Constantinople being in second place. All of the developments that occurred in the first seven ecumenical councils.

I’m sure you’re not.

Because it is wildly off topic. You apparently want to argue anything and everything associated with the papacy on a post made to show that the Council of Jerusalem doesn’t conflict with the modern notion of the papacy as asserted by another poster.

Or maybe it’s because I’m afraid to debate the subject with you. Although I guess that wouldn’t explain the multitude of other threads (even on that very topic) that I’ve had with you. You are all over the place Isa.

Only the position that the Council has no authority separate from the “pope.” Jerusalem says otherwise.

Well then why don’t you demonstrate it since that is what the post was about. If the Council of Jerusalem says otherwise, then let’s see it. Not every other objection imaginable that you might have to the papacy.

 

[Hesychios]

** …****I’d like to point out something that may be quite shocking to you!!! The Byzantine Catholic Church, as part of a return to their ancient traditions and customs, (encouraged by Pope John Paul II and our current Pope, Benedict), has returned to the original formula of the Nicene Creed. Our church removed the ‘and the son’ portion of the creed, and no longer uses it. **

And this is important because of what… does it mean you are allowed to disbelieve it?

Does it mean the rest of the Communion will soon follow suit?

Of what particular relevance is this information?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

"Objection:**Some Eastern Orthodox claim that the Catholic Church is under anathema because it added the word filioque (“and the son”) to the Nicene Creed after the declaration that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. This was illicit, they say, because the Council of Ephesus condemned anyone who composes a new creed. **

Answer: It is true that the Council of Ephesus (431) prohibited the making of new creeds. It stated, “It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy Fathers who were gathered together in the Holy Spirit at Nicaea. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges, and if they are laymen they are to be anathematized” (Definition of the Faith at Nicaea).

Edicts of an ecumenical council are binding on Christians, but they are not binding on another ecumenical council unless they are pronouncing a matter of faith or morals. Later ecumenical councils can revise or modify disciplinary policies of their predecessors. Since the prohibition on making a new creed was a disciplinary matter, it could be changed by later ecumenical councils.

No. It is the Symbol of FAITH. Hence the Creed can not be tampered with to promulgate a new faith.

At the ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-45), it was changed, and the council ruled that the words “and the Son” had been validly added to the Creed. The Eastern Orthodox originally accepted the authority of the Council of Florence, but later rejected it

.

The emperor strongarmed a number of bishops (again, the selective condemnation of Caesaropapism), who claimed they were starved in Italy. Not even a majority of Orthodox bishops, and the one that the Latins called the creme of the bishops sent, St. Mark of Ephesus was adamantly against and refused to sign. And even the strong armed who signed, did so with THE EXPRESS PROVISO THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE RATIFIED AT A SYNOD IN THE EAST. No such ratification ever took place. Those who apostacized either returned to the faith or fled to Italy (or were expelled there). So no, the Eastern Orthodox did NOT accept Florence, although a few apostates under duress might have.

Note that Ephesus referred to the creed as composed by the Fathers at Nicaea (325), not as modified at Constantinople. This is significant because the final portion of the Nicene Creed, which deals with the Holy Spirit and contains the filioque clause, was not composed until the First Council of Constantinople (381). If the prohibition of Ephesus undermined the modern Catholic creed, it undermines the Eastern Orthodox creed no less, since the Easter Orthodox version includes the material on the Holy Spirit as written at Constantinople I.

Another problem, as the canons of Constantinople (canon I) also expressly forbid tampering with the Creed. Obviously they didn’t mean what they just had done was anathematized.

The Creed is still called the Nicene Creed, although it was redacted at Constantinople. Were the Fathers any different?

Your explanation fails to explain how Toledo, not an Ecumenical Council got to change the Creed about a millenium before Florence.

It is inconsistent for the Eastern Orthodox to cite Ephesus about the filioque clause when all of the material on the Holy Spirit was added to the creed that was formulated at Nicaea.

by an Ecumenical Council (not a local council on the fringes of Christendom, and infested with Arians no less) which set the seal on the Creed. Big difference.

Ephesus’ prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), which stated, “Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city–the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit” (Definition of Faith).

“Made (past tense) known to all.” Sounds pretty Ecumenical, the “all” part.

According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea; they were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Thus the Council of Florence could add “filioque” legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit’s procession."

The fact that the filioque cannot be added to the original Greek with resulting in what even the Vatican calls heresy belies your position.

The Fathers of Constantinople used the Lord’s own words on the matter. Leave it to Florence to tell it better than the Lord Himself.

B]Besides this particular line of argument, I’d like to point out something that may be quite shocking to you!!! The Byzantine Catholic Church, as part of a return to their ancient traditions and customs, (encouraged by Pope John Paul II and our current Pope, Benedict), has returned to the original formula of the Nicene Creed. Our church removed the ‘and the son’ portion of the creed, and no longer uses it.

I think this may be problematic for those that wish to claim that the fililoque an insurmountable, dividing issue.

When they start condemning it, I’ll be impressed.

It would seem that, the fililoque argument, as a Catholic heresy, has lost some of its steam.

Why, because of the backtracking on it?

 

[JJR1453]

See below.

You are always welcome back.

Oh? The excuse given for the filioque is that it was needed to combat Arianism in Spain. That’s in the West I believe.

This wasn’t the only edict of Theodios on religion, nor on the “Romans.” And the Theodoisan code is not the only source on the self definition of the Romans. The emperor at Constantinople, New Rome, held the title “Emperor of the Romans,” and the empire was called “Empire of the Romans.”

These are all obvious historical truism’s. The Emperor’s from the East still viewed and called themselves ‘Romans’ even after the official language of the Empire was changed to Greek. However, this does nothing to help your arguement as Theodosius ***was not ***declaring that St. Peter transmited the true faith to a then pagan Roman Empire. The ‘Romans’ of St. Peter’s day were pagan, in case you didnt know. He was refering to the christians of Rome. Re-read his edict and try and use a shred of objectiveness, maybe this will help you. But I fear I can not do more for you than I have already tried to do here.

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

Yes, Ecumenical everywhere else but Rome. Sorry we didn’t wait for the Vatican. It was accepted by Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

Wrong. You may wish to backtrack to my earlier post in this thread. Ecumenical councils had the habit of always naming off and giving praise to preceding Ecumenical councils. However, at the 3rd Ecumenical council of Ephesus we see the council Fathers bestowing much praise to that of Nicea; but are completely silent to that of Constantinople. This was an Ecumenical council in Ephesus, which certainly is apart of the East. Moreover at Ephesus II Robber synod the council also acknowledged and praised both Nicea and Ephesus, but again, is completely silent to Constantinople. Now, one may argue that Ephesus II(Robber synod) was largely held by Monophysistes, but as we hear from their orthodox accuser, Eusebius of Doylaeum, whom also speaks only of Nicea and Ephesus as Ecumenical when he states:

*“He held to the faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers
assembled at Nicea, and to all that was done at the great
and Holy Synod at Ephesus.” * (Hefele, Hist of Counc. Vol. II)

You may check the sessions of all the Ecumenical councils up to Chalcedon; however, you will find no speech to that of the synod held in Constantinople in 381.

God bless,

JJR

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Wrong. You may wish to backtrack to my earlier post in this thread. Ecumenical councils had the habit of always naming off and giving praise to preceding Ecumenical councils. However, at the 3rd Ecumenical council of Ephesus we see the council Fathers bestowing much praise to that of Nicea; but are completely silent to that of Constantinople. This was an Ecumenical council in Ephesus, which certainly is apart of the East. Moreover at Ephesus II Robber synod the council also acknowledged and praised both Nicea and Ephesus, but again, is completely silent to Constantinople. Now, one may argue that Ephesus II(Robber synod) was largely held by Monophysistes, but as we hear from their orthodox accuser, Eusebius of Doylaeum, whom also speaks only of Nicea and Ephesus as Ecumenical when he states:

*“He held to the faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers
assembled at Nicea, and to all that was done at the great
and Holy Synod at Ephesus.” * (Hefele, Hist of Counc. Vol. II)

You may check the sessions of all the Ecumenical councils up to Chalcedon; however, you will find no speech to that of the synod held in Constantinople in 381.

God bless,

JJR

You can also check the pronouncements of the Popes of Rome after Chalcdeon, where they also don’t mention Constantinople I. Perhaps it didn’t become Ecumenical until Pope Gregory I then, as he includes it as he venerates the Four Gospels?

If there was no Constantinople, there would be no Ephesus: Nestorius would be a suffragan, and wouldn’t require the fuss of an Ecumenical Council.

Constantinople set the succession in Antioch aright, in spite of Rome (Rome’s line died out, and is not even claimed by Rome’s three/four patriarchs in Antioch now).

Constantinople set up the succession at Constantinople, leading to the ascent of St. John. So why would Pope Innocent fight the deposition of an usurper? (deposed with St. Cyril’s help. hint. hint).

Shortly after a council was convened where Alexandria and Antioch took their seats after Constantinople, according to the decrees of the Second Council.

And St. Epiphanius records the Creed as Constantinople left it.

Btw, you should not that Ephesus, like Constantinople I, tried to be minimalist in their mandate. Only with Chalcedon to the elaborate duties of a Council (like reciting and linking it to its predecessors) become the norm.

 

[JJR1453]

You can also check the pronouncements of the Popes of Rome after Chalcdeon, where they also don’t mention Constantinople I. Perhaps it didn’t become Ecumenical until Pope Gregory I then, as he includes it as he venerates the Four Gospels?

If there was no Constantinople, there would be no Ephesus: Nestorius would be a suffragan, and wouldn’t require the fuss of an Ecumenical Council.

Constantinople set the succession in Antioch aright, in spite of Rome (Rome’s line died out, and is not even claimed by Rome’s three/four patriarchs in Antioch now).

Constantinople set up the succession at Constantinople, leading to the ascent of St. John. So why would Pope Innocent fight the deposition of an usurper? (deposed with St. Cyril’s help. hint. hint).

Shortly after a council was convened where Alexandria and Antioch took their seats after Constantinople, according to the decrees of the Second Council.

And St. Epiphanius records the Creed as Constantinople left it.

Btw, you should not that Ephesus, like Constantinople I, tried to be minimalist in their mandate. Only with Chalcedon to the elaborate duties of a Council (like reciting and linking it to its predecessors) become the norm.

Correct. St. Gregory does compare the four councils to the four gospels; however, it is the creed which affords it such an analogy. The creed which was accepted and held in high reverence at Rome.

Constantinople was necessary for Ephesus? Really? So was Arius some sort of Archbishop, or was he a Patriarch? Nevertheless, he seems to have caused quite the heretical movement.

I will agree with you that Constantinople did later preside over Alexandria and Antioch, as per the Eastern council of 381. Certainly Rome knew mothing of the sorts, reason being: It was not Ecumenical canons that were pronounced at the synod. Only Eastern canons that were followed by Eastern see’s.

Your last post is a historical error. The Fathers looked on at Nicea in very high reverence, no minimalist about it. And they were not shy in their praise of the councils.

God bless,

JJR

 

[Isa_Almisry]

These are all obvious historical truism’s. The Emperor’s from the East still viewed and called themselves ‘Romans’ even after the official language of the Empire was changed to Greek. However, this does nothing to help your arguement as Theodosius ***was not ***declaring that St. Peter transmited the true faith to a then pagan Roman Empire. The ‘Romans’ of St. Peter’s day were pagan, in case you didnt know. He was refering to the christians of Rome. Re-read his edict and try and use a shred of objectiveness, maybe this will help you. But I fear I can not do more for you than I have already tried to do here.

God bless,

JJR

Funny, the Pope of Rome at the time, the one named in the edict, had no problem accepting the pagan title “pontifax maximus” at the time, a title that had been passed on from the time of Romulus.
The edict, btw, is directed “to the people of Constantinople.”

Btw, in 386 Jan. 23 Theodios issues an edict granting the right of assmbly to those who confirm what the “divine” (the term of pagan Rome was still used of the Christian emperors) Constantine held “out of all the Roman world” (ex omni orbe Romano) and the Council of Constantinople (ie. the Second Council).

again, chancery usage of “Roman” means the empire. the same source for the use of ecumenical (as in Ecumenical Patriarch). And the edict is a chancery document.

 

[JJR1453]

Funny, the Pope of Rome at the time, the one named in the edict, had no problem accepting the pagan title “pontifax maximus” at the time, a title that had been passed on from the time of Romulus.
The edict, btw, is directed “to the people of Constantinople.”

Btw, in 386 Jan. 23 Theodios issues an edict granting the right of assmbly to those who confirm what the “divine” (the term of pagan Rome was still used of the Christian emperors) Constantine held “out of all the Roman world” (ex omni orbe Romano) and the Council of Constantinople (ie. the Second Council).

again, chancery usage of “Roman” means the empire. the same source for the use of ecumenical (as in Ecumenical Patriarch). And the edict is a chancery document.

Like I stated before, that the Emperors from the East viewed themselves as still ‘Roman’, is a historical truism for anyone who knows anything about Ancient and Early Medieval European history. But again it does nothing to weigh to your arguement. Theodosius is giving a pronouncement to his territory of the Empire, as you yourself have stated, and he uses the orthodox faith that was transmitted to the Romans by St. Peter as that communion and true faith that must be met by all Roman citizens. Now tell me this, if the ‘Roman Empire’ was that faith that was transmitted to it by St. Peter than why was the edict necessary? If the ‘Romans’, meaning all the Empire as you have suggested, held to that faith that was preached to it by St. Peter than why the need for a council or edict? Why had Constantinople’s Archbishop and its Emperors been backing Arianism long beforehand? If the ‘Empire’ is the one that held the true faith by St. Peter than why was the ‘Roman Empire’ engulfed in heresy? None of your arguement makes sense. It is the Romans, or christians of the city of Rome, that Theodosius speaks of. How could he possibly mean ‘the Roman Empire’ when the Emperor Valens before him was a devout Arian? Constantiniople was infested with Arianism to such a degree that Gregory Nazianzus had to convert his relatives house into a church for the use of the few orthodox christians left in the city. Ya sounds like the ‘Roman Empire’ really held to that faith that was preached by St. Peter.

God bless,

JJR