Eastern Orthodoxy Questions

[Cavaradossi]

“…happened outside the structure of the Christian Ecumene”.
Do you really consider this an important point from the point of Christian dogma? Was the Church unable to hold ecumenical councils prior to the marriage of Christianity and the Roman Empire (yes I know that She didn’t but that’s besides the point)? In the centuries following the Schism, Latin Christendom took on a life of its own and became something far larger, geographically and numerically, than the original Roman Christian Ecumene had ever been…if the Church once embraced the Roman Ecumene, why can’t She also embrace later social structures?
If you are thinking more along the lines of representation from all bishops, West and East, you will not find any councils that meet that criteria. Chalcedon was rejected by very important bishops.

No, I don’t think the existence of the Christian Ecumene as a socio-religious construct was necessarily vital to Christianity. My point was rather that the ecumenical councils take their name from this construct, such that the idea of an ecumenical council after the dissolution of the Ecumene should strike one as a bit of an absurdity. Councils after the destruction of the Ecumene may be called ecumenical, but this is merely by convention, like an abuse of notation in mathematics, where the word ecumenical serves as shorthand for ‘of highest authority’ rather than its original meaning relating its subject to the Christian Ecumene. Sometimes I wonder if the Christian East, because of its more vivid memory of the Ecumene has avoided naming any subsequent councils ‘Ecumenical’, despite having held several which might be considered to be ‘of highest authority’ for this very reason.

 

[steve_b]

Sounds like the geographic West must have been a real hotbed of disunity and heresy in those times. I’ll remember that the next time somebody claims the same of the East in the first millennium

I don’t think that’s an effective argument. Through all the historical global nonsense, for 2000 years, the Catholic Church has been led by Peter and his successors in Rome.

 

[Wandile]

The post schism West did not even have unified positions on things, but also only had prevailing opinions. See for example the rivalry of Thomism vs. Scotism. Indeed, Scotism had such a natural affinity for the East that Gennadius Scholarius utilized Scotism in his defense of Orthodoxy.

But the west did. We defined the filioque at the Lateran council. We defined papal primacy through various bulls and councils. Various other topics are philosophical schools of thought. The east literally had different positions on how to understand the filioque, primacy, purgatory etc

You would not know a passage from either of those two saints if one hit you in the face. Have you read anything by either?

Why stop now? You already spoke authoritatively on what I would know concerning a passage from them. Why ask me the follow up question? Oh great reader of minds and omniscient cavaradossi, why do you speak of things you presume to know then proceed to ask me a question concerning my very knowledge which you know all about?

But YES I have read some passages of the works concerning the procession plus mark of ephesus’ speeches at Florence.

I revise nothing but simply report what is there to be read. And I have no agenda. I simply think that your perspective fails to capture the breadth of history and bases itself upon gross simplification.

Provide quotes please or these are just empty words with no substance. I backed myself up with hard evidence. Can you?

 

[Wandile]

What would you consider a heretical understanding of the Filioque?

One that destroys the monarchy of the Father or brings about a numerical nature of principals (first cause, secondary, tertiary etc) from which the Holy Spirit proceeds . Or an affirmation of the Spirit proceeding through the Son only through time but entirely alien from the Son eternally. Finally an understanding of the son passively (as a conduit) participating in the procession but not actively and equally as the father.

 

[steve_b]

I for one, as a Latin Catholic, agree with you. We do see Latin and Eastern theologies as fundamentally compatible. How else could the Melkites, for example, who were Orthodox just a couple centuries ago, be in full communion with us? Many Orthodox may not agree…but from our perspective there is compatibility of faith.

It was actually because the Melkites chose to come back in union with the Catholic Church.
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome which meant they had to accept something specific

 

[twf]

No, I don’t think the existence of the Christian Ecumene as a socio-religious construct was necessarily vital to Christianity. My point was rather that the ecumenical councils take their name from this construct, such that the idea of an ecumenical council after the dissolution of the Ecumene should strike one as a bit of an absurdity. Councils after the destruction of the Ecumene may be called ecumenical, but this is merely by convention, like an abuse of notation in mathematics, where the word ecumenical serves as shorthand for ‘of highest authority’ rather than its original meaning relating its subject to the Christian Ecumene. Sometimes I wonder if the Christian East, because of its more vivid memory of the Ecumene has avoided naming any subsequent councils ‘Ecumenical’, despite having held several which might be considered to be ‘of highest authority’ for this very reason.

Fair enough. In Catholic theology what we call an ecumenical council (which as you say is simply by convention) is an “extraordinary exercise of the Magisterium”. The Magisterium, the highest teaching authority of the Catholic Church, is exercised in three ways:

1. Ordinary Magisterium: consistent teaching of all bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome in every time and place (e.g. the impossibility of ordaining women or the immorality of artificial birth control have never been declared dogmas, but they are infallible truths of the faith as reiterated by the Ordinary Magisterium and as confirmed by Bishops of Rome)
2. Extraordinary Magisterium exercised by the entire College of Bishops: definitive teaching promulgated by all of the bishops assembled in solemn council with the Bishop of Rome (this is conveniently labelled an ecumenical council)
3. Extraordinary Magisterium exercised by the Pope as head of the College of Bishops: the Pope, drawing upon Tradition and the witness of his brother bishops, definitively promulgates dogma for the entire Church

 

[Cavaradossi]

But the west did. We defined the filioque at the Lateran council. We defined papal primacy through various bulls and councils. Various other topics are philosophical schools of thought. The east literally had different positions on how to understand the filioque, primacy, purgatory etc

Please, that’s a whole lot of nonsense. The Thomists have accused the Scotists of heresy for centuries. I know of no Thomist who would call issues like the univocity of being solely pholosophical. It is a very theological issue which remains unresolved to this day.

Why stop now? You already spoke authoritatively on what I would know concerning a passage from them. Why ask me the follow up question? Oh great reader of minds and omniscient cavaradossi, why do you speak of things you presume to know then proceed to ask me a question concerning my very knowledge which you know all about?

Your attempts at hyperbole are rather flat, I’m afraid.

But YES I have read some passages of the works concerning the procession plus mark of ephesus’ speeches at Florence.

You could’ve fooled me. But it appears to me that you have failed to contemplate either the scope of the arguments made by Photius in the Mystagogy (if you have read them in full), and similarly have not seen the true breadth of Mark of Ephesus’ thought (if you’ve only read what he said at the Florence, then you are not getting a clear picture of his thought, because at Florence he could speak nothing relating to the Uncreated Energies, including the energetic procession, whereas elsewhere in his theological output, he was free to do so).

Provide quotes please or these are just empty words with no substance. I backed myself up with hard evidence. Can you?

I already backed myself up with something more authoritative than the opinions of several popes. I referred to the presuppositions which must have been made in drafting the formula of union at Florence.

 

[Kmon23]

And who decided that?

All your theologians are 100% solid?

Heresy is the obstinate post baptismal denial or doubt of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

From that I think it could be said, heresy and schism often go together and are NOT necessarily apart from each other

Observation

after ~1000 years, You’re still not one with each other, and you are still in schism from the Catholic Church. How are “local” councils sufficient in themselves, in that case?

Since this is in conversation with Catholics, and to say to them we are not in heresy, I refer to the Vatican that we are not full of theological heresies. From my numerous discussions with Catholics online and in person, I’ve been told numerous times that Orthodox are not in heresy, but only in schism (as any theological issues ultimately stem from Papal Supremacy/Infallibility).

And yes, heresy and schism usually do go hand in hand, but people I have spoken to and read (Catholics) seem to indicate with Orthodox that we are only in schism.

And I would not recommend using the question of “who decided that” for when it is necessary to call an ecumenical council or not, as the majority of the ecumenical councils in the first millenium were not called by the Pope.

 

[Kmon23]

Okay, I have immense respect for many users of CA Forums, but is it possible we may… tone down so to speak? I am no moderator, but I think we should try to stay as charitable as possible so as to avoid the locking of this thread (after numerous others).

Furthermore, I think we are straying away from the original question on Canon 28 with Pope Leo, and of Papal Primacy (immediate universal jurisdiction) within the canons of the early church (ecumenical councils).

Now back to my popcorn.

 

[steve_b]

Okay, I have immense respect for many users of CA Forums, but is it possible we may… tone down so to speak? I am no moderator, but I think we should try to stay as charitable as possible so as to avoid the locking of this thread (after numerous others).

I agree completely. My response #53 is my 1st response on this thread. Out of 5 entries in that post, 4 were questions, 1 was a definition. And questions is the topic of the thread…agreed?

I was only asking
K:

Furthermore, I think we are straying away from the original question on Canon 28 with Pope Leo, and of Papal Primacy (immediate universal jurisdiction) within the canons of the early church (ecumenical councils).

Now back to my popcorn.

there’s alot there #1 … agreed? I was thinking that is what is being discussed

 

[Tomdstone]

The church has always held the Greeks as holding errors.

Not true because of the Council of Florence.

 

[Kmon23]

I agree completely. My response #53 is my 1st response on this thread. Out of 5 entries in that post, 4 were questions, 1 was a definition. And questions is the topic of the thread…agreed?

I was only asking

there’s alot there #1 … agreed? I was thinking that is what is being discussed

Yes, we are discussing things about the Pope, but I feel like we are going tangent by discussing things such as whether the Greeks were right or wrong instead of whether Papal Primacy existed in the canons of the ecumenical councils, and other topics such as the filioque which is clearly a different topic.

 

[Wandile]

Not true because of the Council of Florence.

Even after Florence they are spoken of as holding errors. Remember the union of Florence never posted for long

 

[Wandile]

Please, that’s a whole lot of nonsense. The Thomists have accused the Scotists of heresy for centuries. I know of no Thomist who would call issues like the univocity of being solely pholosophical. It is a very theological issue which remains unresolved to this day.

Is this what you’re going with? Really? Univocity… Lol this is far from anything significant to what you make it out to be. It’s really a dispute between to schools of thought and them only. The church is not endangered by this and most people are unaware of this dispute . You’re getting desperate.

Your attempts at hyperbole are rather flat, I’m afraid.

Well who could ever disagree with you? You are omniscient after all

You could’ve fooled me. But it appears to me that you have failed to contemplate either the scope of the arguments made by Photius in the Mystagogy (if you have read them in full), and similarly have not seen the true breadth of Mark of Ephesus’ thought (if you’ve only read what he said at the Florence, then you are not getting a clear picture of his thought, because at Florence he could speak nothing relating to the Uncreated Energies, including the energetic procession, whereas elsewhere in his theological output, he was free to do so).

OR like many Catholics, I understand most of what they are saying and just happen to see the error in their writings because of the illumination of divine catholic faith taught by the saints . Nevermind Mark of Ephesus holding the ridiculous theory of the entire corpus of Latin writing being forged because of the unanimous acclamation of the filioque dogma (something he even admitted those texts taught).

I already backed myself up with something more authoritative than the opinions of several popes. I referred to the presuppositions which must have been made in drafting the formula of union at Florence.

Lol riiiiight. Speculative hypothesis > testimony of the popes , saints and doctors.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Is this what you’re going with? Really? Univocity… Lol this is far from anything significant to what you make it out to be. It’s really a dispute between to schools of thought and them only. The church is not endangered by this and most people are unaware of this dispute . You’re getting desperate.

Yes. Have you read any disputations or essays on the doctrine of univocity of being? They don’t contain much vacuous content like ‘lol’ in them, so they may be a bit difficult for some to comprehend.

Well who could ever disagree with you? You are omniscient after all

More failed hyperbole. At least the ancient writers were good at it.

OR like many Catholics, I understand most of what they are saying and just happen to see the error in their writings because of the illumination of divine catholic faith taught by the saints .

Nonsense. Any time you have ever presented any sort of condensed version of their thought you have always presented facile caricatures. I have never seen anything which indicates that you have ever interacted with their thought beyond the basis of apologetics (i.e., bad philosophy).

Nevermind Mark of Ephesus holding the ridiculous theory of the entire corpus of Latin writing being forged because of the unanimous acclamation of the filioque dogma (something he even admitted those texts taught).

See, here is an example of where your grasp of Mark of Ephesus is superficial at best. He could not introduce anything to do with the manifestation of the Holy Spirit or the essence-energies distinction at the council. He was essentially bound into making a rhetorical appeal that he himself may not have even believed. St. Mark of Ephesus was also well aware of St. Maximus’ letter to Marinus and that it contained the key to understanding the meaning of the filioque as professed by the Latin fathers (i.e., that the Son is not cause of the Holy Spirit), but he also could not introduce this testimony, as the Latins at the council likewise argued that the letter of St. Maximus to Marinus was a forgery, likely because they knew that it would derail their whole case for the Son being cause of the Holy Spirit.

Then again, how could you be familiar with St. Mark of Ephesus? Most of his writings have not been translated into English from Greek. Seeing as you do not, to my knowledge understand Greek, it is actually a reasonable assumption on my part to suppose that you do not know much about St. Mark of Ephesus’ thought on the filioque at all.

Lol riiiiight.

Such a splendid and persuasive rebuttal.

Speculative hypothesis

Rational logical deduction from the definitive teaching of a council.

testimony of the popes , saints and doctors.

i.e., the opinions of popes.

 

[Tomdstone]

Even after Florence they are spoken of as holding errors.

So, from the Roman Catholic POV, would the Eastern Orthodoxl be required to renounce these “errors” before any union of RC and EO could take place?

 

[steve_b]

I’m on a board with some Eastern Orthodox, and I’m trying to learn more about Eastern Orthodoxy.

One of the claims the poster makes is that no Ecumenical Council ever gave the Pope supreme jurisdiction or right of settling appeals in the Church.

Here’s 2 questions one could ask

1. 
   *]Did Peter get supreme jurisdiction in the Church? Y/N?
   *]Who gave it to him? Jesus or a Church Council?
   
   Answer:
   1. 
      *]yes
      *]Jesus, (said in 3 ways) #30 , #385 ,#660
      p:
      

      They claim
      
      They also say Pope Leo was forced to accept Canon 28 of Chalcedon, which apparently made Constantinople equal to Rome and said that Rome’s privileges were due to her being the Imperial City.

      As in the resiedence of the emperor?
      
      Rome the city was priveledge due to being the imperial city but that’s NOT why the Church of Rome was priviledged. Rome the city was trying to irradicate the Church. The Church in Rome was priveledged because it was the see of Peter.
      
      So…what was happening before the Catholic Church became legal in the empire??
      
      #123
      
      from the 1st century, The Church of Rome held the presidency. See Ignatius of Antioch (~35 - 107 a.d.) letter to the Romans ~107 a,d earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html Read the introduction
      
      Regardless of Tiberius in 37 through Constantine in 307, past the Empire and Emperor phase into forever the Church of Rome is priveledged above all the Churches.

 

[Tomdstone]

Here’s 2 questions one could ask

1. 
   *]Did Peter get supreme jurisdiction in the Church? Y/N?
   *]Who gave it to him? Jesus or a Church Council?
   
   Answer:
   1. 
      *]yes

1. 1. 
      According to the Eastern Orthodox, AFAIK, they will say that each bishop is a successor of Peter.

 

[Rohzek]

Okay, I have immense respect for many users of CA Forums, but is it possible we may… tone down so to speak? I am no moderator, but I think we should try to stay as charitable as possible so as to avoid the locking of this thread (after numerous others).

Furthermore, I think we are straying away from the original question on Canon 28 with Pope Leo, and of Papal Primacy (immediate universal jurisdiction) within the canons of the early church (ecumenical councils).

Now back to my popcorn.

The fundamental problem with looking at canon 28 of Chalcedon is that most people tend to look back at it with a 11th and 12th century perspective. The papacy’s position evolved over time; that much can be demonstrated historically. So the question we should ask ourselves really is how did Leo understand his opposition? How did he understand papal primacy?

Pope Nicholas I was really the first pope to claim a sort of universal jurisdiction explicitly. Even then though, the powers he claimed were significantly weaker than those that Pope Gregory VII, Urban II, and the modern-day papacy claim.

 

[Rohzek]

OR like many Catholics, I understand most of what they are saying and just happen to see the error in their writings because of the illumination of divine catholic faith taught by the saints . Nevermind Mark of Ephesus holding the ridiculous theory of the entire corpus of Latin writing being forged because of the unanimous acclamation of the filioque dogma (something he even admitted those texts taught).

Mark of Ephesus actually wasn’t far off. It has been demonstrated historically that a vast number of the most important manuscripts presented at Florence were highly corrupted. This revelation and vindication of many Orthodox complaints at the time, of course, does not fully resolve the Filioque debate. For the source, see: Siecienski, A. Edward. The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Debate. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

The first florilegium composed in favor of the Filioque clause by Theodulf of Orleans in the late eighth or early ninth century contained excerpts thought to be by Athanasius. Now we know that is was not he who wrote it, so it is now understood to be pseudo-Athanasius.