Having doubts after looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, development of doctrine

[Contarini]

Edwin, you really haven’t paid much attention to a single thing I’ve written. I never said that Clemet went on at any length about power and jurisdiction, that isn’t why he was writing .His power nor jusidiction were in question, at issue was certain heresy in Corenth.

I have paid attention to what you are saying. You think you can deduce power and jurisdiction from the mere fact of Clement being asked to intervene. That’s my point. The evidence simply doesn’t show this. You said at one point that they would have been “wasting their time” asking him to intervene if he didn’t have jurisdiction. It just doesn’t follow.

And as a matter of fact I don’t think heresy was the problem–the problem was a power struggle within the church at Corinth.

Edwin

 

[steve_b]

Healthier in what sense, and to what end Edwin… Please just think about this for a minute, Corinth was in a state of Chaos as attested to by Clemet him self:

Are these the kind of people that are going to stop just because you consulted a “honored sister church”? We’ve seen this kind of thing over and over again in the history of the Church, in many cases it took banishment from the empire of the offenders to put things right (something not possible in 90AD as the church was in persecution).

This is supported by the other fathers, like St. John Chrysostom:

Peter, as is his successor the teacher of the entire world, this is the understanding of the Pontiff’s jurisdiction. This has been constant through the ages, and finally defined at Vatican I

Not to mention, why didn’t Corinth seek Athens, a mere 50 miles away for resolution to the sedition that took place? Athens is mentioned in Acts, and 1 Thes… They have valid bishops. Why did Corinth go to Rome? No matther how antagonists want to ignore the obvious, the pattern is already being set…DURING apostolic times. As Ignatius wrote, Rome is the Church that holds the presidency. It’s not just words on a page. Corinth had sedition among their bishops, so what did they DO? Corinth went to Rome. By that, Corinth is saying neither Athens, nor Thessolonika, nor Ephesus, nor Antioch etc etc etc, even though closer in distance to themselves, could fix the problem. That’s why they went to Rome, the chair of Peter.

 

[crazzeto]

I have paid attention to what you are saying. You think you can deduce power and jurisdiction from the mere fact of Clement being asked to intervene. That’s my point. The evidence simply doesn’t show this. You said at one point that they would have been “wasting their time” asking him to intervene if he didn’t have jurisdiction. It just doesn’t follow.

And as a matter of fact I don’t think heresy was the problem–the problem was a power struggle within the church at Corinth.

Edwin

Then I find it quite bizzar, that you came to this strange conclusion, that I was arguing Clemet was writing a letter to address his own power, or jurisdiction.

 

[Contarini]

Not to mention, why didn’t Corinth seek Athens, a mere 50 miles away for resolution to the sedition that took place? Athens is mentioned in Acts, and 1 Thes… They have valid bishops.

What on earth does Athens have to do with it? I don’t know of any evidence that the Church of Athens had any particular prestige in this era.

Why did Corinth go to Rome? No matther how antagonists want to ignore the obvious, the pattern is already being set

I don’t deny that it shows they had a high regard for Rome. I deny that you can be any more specific than that on the basis of 1 Clement.

.DURING apostolic times. As Ignatius wrote, Rome is the Church that holds the presidency.

The presidency in charity. Which may mean a number of things, one of them possibly being that Rome was wealthy and had provided financial support to Ignatius’s community and others.

That Rome was recognized as “presiding in love” in a number of ways is, again, not what I’m disputing. But you can’t leap from that to the claim of jurisdiction found in Vatican I.

It’s not just words on a page. Corinth had sedition among their bishops, so what did they DO? Corinth went to Rome. By that, Corinth is saying neither Athens, nor Thessolonika, nor Ephesus, nor Antioch etc etc etc, even though closer in distance to themselves, could fix the problem. That’s why they went to Rome, the chair of Peter.

Show me where in 1 Clement the “chair of Peter” is mentioned. In the absence of such an indication, you can’t assume that that was in the minds of those who appealed to Rome. It may well have been, but 1 Clement itself doesn’t prove that.

Again, the fact that they appealed to Rome shows only that the church of Rome commanded great respect. That’s certainly something–it’s a foundation on which you can build an argument for Roman primacy as it exists today in your Communion. But that’s as far as you can go on the basis of 1 Clement.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Then I find it quite bizzar, that you came to this strange conclusion, that I was arguing Clemet was writing a letter to address his own power, or jurisdiction.

No, I didn’t conclude anything of the sort. I concluded (because you explicitly said so) that you thought Clement’s actions couldn’t be explained otherwise than by the theory that he exercised some kind of jurisdiction. I didn’t suppose that you were saying that he explicitly referred to this jurisdiction, but that his intervention implied such jurisdiction. My point (as I have said about three or four times now) is that his intervention can be quite well explained without the theory that he enjoyed direct jurisdiction over Corinth, and that your willingness to leap to the assumption that he enjoyed jurisdiction indicates something disturbing about the way you think authority in the Church works.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No problem, Carlan. And you’re only wrong about one thing—you’re never too old to learn! When you talk about your “stage of life,” shoot, you’re a sharp lady. You have plenty gas left in the tank and it’s never too late to learn anything, especially theology.

I appreciate your kind words and prayers.

I am sorry Gurney , my comments were uncalled for.
I pray for unity amongst Christ’s Flock ,along with the Church, everyday. Even so, it is still o,k for you all to debate this if you are so inclined.
Actually in recent years, I understand that the recent Popes have made great progress toward unity with our Orthodox Brothers and others.

I am not educated in the early history of the Church, so I am not really qualified to comment one way or the other, at this stage in life,and always really, I have looked to the teaching authority of the Church and prayer.

Again forgive me for offending, you are a fine debater, and contribute a good deal to answers. Sincerely, and Peace to us all. Carlan.

 

[steve_b]

What on earth does Athens have to do with it? I don’t know of any evidence that the Church of Athens had any particular prestige in this era.

Does Athens have valid bishops? Yes. Did Paul visit them? Yes. Are Athens and Corinth closest of neighbors? Yes. So why does Corinth in Eastern Greece go ALLLLLL the way over to Rome on the western shores of Italy to have Rome settle the dispute Corinth is having with their bishops?
C:

I don’t deny that it shows they had a high regard for Rome. I deny that you can be any more specific than that on the basis of 1 Clement.

High regard? What does that mean? They had a serious situation going on in Corinth. Clement told the Corinthians he apologised for not getting back with them sooner due to the persecution that was going on. Yet still Corinth persisted in having Rome settle the matter. All you’re doing is raising problematic questions for your position and the EO position. You’re making the case that the Church of Rome had primacy over ALL going back to the 1st century, DURING apostolic times. Corinth knew it, Ignatius of Antioch knew it, and if Ignatius knew it so did the other Churchs Ignatius wrote to.
C:

The presidency in charity. Which may mean a number of things, one of them possibly being that Rome was wealthy and had provided financial support to Ignatius’s community and others.

Let’s not confuse secular politics of Rome which was pagan with the Church of Rome. The only thing the pagan city of Rome gave the Church in the entire empire, was grief and lots of it.
C:

That Rome was recognized as “presiding in love” in a number of ways is, again, not what I’m disputing. But you can’t leap from that to the claim of jurisdiction found in Vatican I.

A leap would be, if the Church of Rome presided over the solution at Corinth and for the next 1900 years Rome never got involved again with anybody. And Catholics in 2010 were trying to make a case off that one episode of Clement for primacy or juristiction. Catholics don’t do that.

BTW, where do you suppose Ignatius got the idea that Rome presides? Who taught him that? Ignatius WAS a disciple of St John, so did he receive that information from John? Polycarp of Smyrna was a disciple of St John also. Polycarp received one of the Letters Ignatius wrote as Ignatius was on his way to Rome to be martyred. Did Polycarp know that Rome presides? Irenaeus also from Smyrna, as a young man, knew Polycarp. When Irenaeus wrote in “Against Heresies” that all must agree with Rome because that’s the tradition of the apostles and the bishops in union with them, who told Irenaeus that?. Did Irenaeus learn that from Polycarp who learned it from John? Looking at the timeline, St John died ~100 a.d. Clement 3rd successor to St Peter, was writing from Rome ~ 80a.d., Ignatius of Antioch was ~107 a.d., Polycarp was ~130 a.d., and Irenaeus was ~ 180 a.d.

The only one of these names who didn’t know an apostle was Irenaeus. But he studied under men who knew an apostle.

BTW Peter was also bishop in Antioch. Interesting, Ignatius doesn’t make any special deal about Antioch presiding. Neither does Irenaeus. Ignatius was bishop at the time Clement is settling sedition in Corinth.
C:

Show me where in 1 Clement the “chair of Peter” is mentioned. In the absence of such an indication, you can’t assume that that was in the minds of those who appealed to Rome. It may well have been, but 1 Clement itself doesn’t prove that.

This argument is more than settled. Rome is the chair of Peter and Clement is his successor. Clement doesn’t have to blow his own horn.

Bk 3 ch 3, vs 2-4 Irenaeus “Against Heresies”
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes
C:

Again, the fact that they appealed to Rome shows only that the church of Rome commanded great respect. That’s certainly something–it’s a foundation on which you can build an argument for Roman primacy as it exists today in your Communion. But that’s as far as you can go on the basis of 1 Clement.

As you know, it doesn’t stop at 1 Clement.

 

[Carlan]

No problem, Carlan. And you’re only wrong about one thing—you’re never too old to learn! When you talk about your “stage of life,” shoot, you’re a sharp lady. You have plenty gas left in the tank and it’s never too late to learn anything, especially theology.

I appreciate your kind words and prayers.

Thanks! Carlan.
…Fiat Voluntas Tua, secut in Coelo et in terra…

 

[Nine_Two]

Not to mention, why didn’t Corinth seek Athens, a mere 50 miles away for resolution to the sedition that took place? Athens is mentioned in Acts, and 1 Thes… They have valid bishops. Why did Corinth go to Rome? No matther how antagonists want to ignore the obvious, the pattern is already being set…DURING apostolic times. As Ignatius wrote, Rome is the Church that holds the presidency. It’s not just words on a page. Corinth had sedition among their bishops, so what did they DO? Corinth went to Rome. By that, Corinth is saying neither Athens, nor Thessolonika, nor Ephesus, nor Antioch etc etc etc, even though closer in distance to themselves, could fix the problem. That’s why they went to Rome, the chair of Peter.

As I’m pretty sure I’ve told you in another thread (forgive me if I am mistaken), Rome was a Metropolis, Athens wasn’t.

 

[steve_b]

As I’m pretty sure I’ve told you in another thread (forgive me if I am mistaken), Rome was a Metropolis, Athens wasn’t.

What does metropolis have to do with ecclesiastics?

 

[prodromos]

Hey Steve! Maybe you can explain the following as nobody else seems willing to comment.

Your Church labelled the council of 879 as Ecumenical for 200 years and it was believed by 50 of your Popes to be Ecumenical until the reforms of Pope Gregory VII.
So for 200 years, both Rome and Constantinople accepted the council of 879 as the “Fourth Council of Constantinople”. This council, accepted by both Rome and Constantinople, not only healed the schism which had seperated Rome and Constantinople, but also repudiated the earlier council of 869 as a false council.
As Pope John VIII wrote to the council of 879, the same being read out at the council by his legates: **"We [Pope John VIII] wish that it is declared before the Synod, that the Synod which took place against the aforementioned Patriarch Photios at the time of Hadrian, the Most holy Pope in Rome, and [the Synod] in Constantinople [869/70] should be ostracized from this present moment and be regarded as annulled and groundless, and should not be co-enumerated with any other holy Synods."In a letter he wrote to Patriarch Photius, he states:“As for the Synod that was summoned against your Reverence we have annulled here and have completely banished, and have ejected [it from our archives], because of the other causes and because our blessed predecessor Pope Hadrian did not subscribe to it…”**Apparently Pope Adrian II had not even signed the procedings of the 869 council, thus it cannot be listed among the Ecumenical Councils according to Latin standards since it had not been ratified by the Pope.

So for the reign of 50 Popes the Latin records listed the 879 council as the “Fourth Council of Constantinople” and the “Eighth Ecumenical Council”, however at the end of the 11th century, Rome suddenly did an about face, and without fanfare or explanation, shelved the 879 council and reinstated the false council of 869, calling it the “Fourth Council of Constantinople” and “Eighth Ecumenical Council”. How do Catholics explain this reversal and what reason do they give for the removal of the 879 council from the records?.

 

[Mickey]

I reverted to Catholicism in 2002 and for several reasons moral and theological I have struggled greatly do believe the catechism and Catholic agenda. For a couple of months now I have been back at my old Anglican parish as I just can’t be hypocritical. I have also thought of Orthodoxy but their views on Original Sin trouble me. I do not see how development doctrine a la Newman makes any sense. Indulgences, purgatory, infallibility, innovation, and other ideas trouble me greatly. Please IM if you’d like someone to talk to.

Orthodoxy seems to have done more to stay original to the deposit of faith, traditional church polity, and they never had the Reformation on their side. But on the other hand, it was the popes that struck down many of the Orthodox heresies like Arianism, Iconoclasm, etc. I tend to agree more with the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin and thus prefer the Catholic view. But I agree more with Orthodoxy about confession and not holding indulgences and satisfaction for sins, etc. The Catholic Church post 1054 changed dramatically from its previous form whereas Orthodoxy stayed status quo for the most part. Orthodoxy has not undergone the watering-down of its liturgy with folk musicky songs, the removal of incense, people holding hands during the Our Father, and so many other abuses.

May God bless you on your journey to eternity!

 

[steve_b]

Hey Steve! Maybe you can explain the following as nobody else seems willing to comment.

:
Originally Posted by prodromos forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Your Church labelled the council of 879 as Ecumenical for 200 years and it was believed by 50 of your Popes to be Ecumenical until the reforms of Pope Gregory VII.
So for 200 years, both Rome and Constantinople accepted the council of 879 as the “Fourth Council of Constantinople”. This council, accepted by both Rome and Constantinople, not only healed the schism which had seperated Rome and Constantinople, but also repudiated the earlier council of 869 as a false council.
As Pope John VIII wrote to the council of 879, the same being read out at the council by his legates:
"We [Pope John VIII] wish that it is declared before the Synod, that the Synod which took place against the aforementioned Patriarch Photios at the time of Hadrian, the Most holy Pope in Rome, and [the Synod] in Constantinople [869/70] should be ostracized from this present moment and be regarded as annulled and groundless, and should not be co-enumerated with any other holy Synods."

In a letter he wrote to Patriarch Photius, he states:
"As for the Synod that was summoned against your Reverence we have annulled here and have completely banished, and have ejected [it from our archives], because of the other causes and because our blessed predecessor Pope Hadrian did not subscribe to it…"

Apparently Pope Adrian II had not even signed the procedings of the 869 council, thus it cannot be listed among the Ecumenical Councils according to Latin standards since it had not been ratified by the Pope.

So for the reign of 50 Popes the Latin records listed the 879 council as the “Fourth Council of Constantinople” and the “Eighth Ecumenical Council”, however at the end of the 11th century, Rome suddenly did an about face, and without fanfare or explanation, shelved the 879 council and reinstated the false council of 869, calling it the “Fourth Council of Constantinople” and “Eighth Ecumenical Council”. How do Catholics explain this reversal and what reason do they give for the removal of the 879 council from the records?.

Is this what you’re talking about?

Eighth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople IV (869)

The Fourth General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Adrian II and Emperor Basil numbering 102 bishops 3 papal legates, and 4 patriarchs, consigned to the flames the Acts of an irregular council (conciliabulum) brought together by Photius against Pope Nicholas and Ignatius the legitimate Patriarch of Constantinople; it condemned Photius who had unlawfully seized the patriarchal dignity. The Photian Schism, however, triumphed in the Greek Church, and no other general council took place in the East.

As to the other stuff you posted, you’ll have to give more information

 

[Contarini]

Does Athens have valid bishops? Yes. Did Paul visit them? Yes. Are Athens and Corinth closest of neighbors? Yes. So why does Corinth in Eastern Greece go ALLLLLL the way over to Rome on the western shores of Italy to have Rome settle the dispute Corinth is having with their bishops?

High regard? What does that mean?

Hard to tell, which is the fatal problem with your argument. But that’s all that it shows. Rome clearly had some kind of prestige and respect that other churches didn’t have. I have no problem with admitting that. How much of it was the association with Peter, how much of it was the fact that it was the capital of the Empire, how much of it was the fact that it sent financial aid to other churches–well, you have to look at specific evidence in specific texts to solve this. And in this text there is no such evidence. So the text won’t do what you want it to do.

They had a serious situation going on in Corinth. Clement told the Corinthians he apologised for not getting back with them sooner due to the persecution that was going on. Yet still Corinth persisted in having Rome settle the matter. All you’re doing is raising problematic questions for your position and the EO position. You’re making the case that the Church of Rome had primacy over ALL going back to the 1st century, DURING apostolic times. Corinth knew it, Ignatius of Antioch knew it, and if Ignatius knew it so did the other Churchs Ignatius wrote to.

But since neither I nor the Orthodox questions the historic primacy of Rome, this doesn’t raise any problems at all.

What I questioned was the claim that Rome had direct jurisdiction over other churches. And this doesn’t settle the matter. All your list of other churches they could have called on only shows that they had greater regard for Rome for some reason. It doesn’t tell you why, and it doesn’t tell you that the difference was one of kind rather than degree, let alone what the difference in kind was.

From my perspective it’s the RC apologists who are causing themselves huge problems by harping on this text, because the desperate effort to manufacture primacy of jurisdiction makes it evident that you don’t have much to support your case.

Let’s not confuse secular politics of Rome which was pagan with the Church of Rome. The only thing the pagan city of Rome gave the Church in the entire empire, was grief and lots of it.

Sorry, but that’s your assumption. It is by no means evident from early Christian texts that they all saw things that way. Clement’s letter itself is full of echoes of Roman ideology (see James Jeffers, Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity).

A leap would be, if the Church of Rome presided over the solution at Corinth and for the next 1900 years Rome never got involved again with anybody. And Catholics in 2010 were trying to make a case off that one episode of Clement for primacy or juristiction. Catholics don’t do that.

No. What you do instead is take a trajectory of development and read back into earlier stages of that trajectory ideas that are only evident in later stages. That would be OK if you didn’t use the earlier stages to prove the validity of the later ones. You confuse defense with offense–I see this on these forums all the time. This line of argument works well as a defense against folks who say that Roman primacy was something manufactured later. It doesn’t work at all when used to try to convince those of us who say “we accept Roman primacy but at point X we think it went in the wrong direction.”

The problem with your concept of development is that it blinds you to the real differences between earlier and later stages. You honestly can’t see that 1 Clement (or Matt. 16) can be interpreted in a number of ways, of which yours is only one.

BTW, where do you suppose Ignatius got the idea that Rome presides?

This is rather pointless, since I’m not disputing that Rome presided, only *how *it presided. And mostly I’m saying that we really don’t know, beyond the fact that it clearly provided financial aid and intervened as an arbitrator in local disputes, and by the later second century was capable of attempting to cut other churches off from the common communion of the whole Church, though since the attempt we know about was successfully resisted by Irenaeus and other bishops, this isn’t unequivocal evidence in favor of present Roman claims.

 

[Contarini]

BTW Peter was also bishop in Antioch. Interesting, Ignatius doesn’t make any special deal about Antioch presiding.

Indeed. That could, of course, be taken as evidence that Roman primacy had little to do with Peter at this point. Or it could be evidence, as you suggest, that Peter’s authority had passed to Rome and not to Antioch. Or it could be due to the fact that Ignatius wasn’t going to toot his own horn. As you point out, Irenaeus also focuses on Rome and not Antioch–this is quite likely influenced by Rome’s status as the capital of the empire, but he does talk about both Peter and Paul and clearly that had something to do with it too.

This argument is more than settled. Rome is the chair of Peter and Clement is his successor. Clement doesn’t have to blow his own horn.

This is a classic example of “special pleading.” When you don’t find what you need, you use the fact that it’s not there as an argument in favor of your position

Again, that would work *defensively *if I were claiming that the absence of the kind of language Popes used later proves that Clement didn’t believe in Roman primacy. But I’m not claiming anything of the sort. I’m simply saying that this letter doesn’t establish as much as you think it does.

Bk 3 ch 3, vs 2-4 Irenaeus “Against Heresies”

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

This last sentence can be translated quite differently. “Convenire” can indeed mean “agree,” but it can also mean “come together.” And the Latin does not say “its pre-eminent authority everywhere.” The Latin phrase is “propter potiorem principatum”: “on account of more powerful principality.” It doesn’t say whose–it could be that of the church of Rome, but the language seems better to fit the city of Rome as capital of the Empire. So the point may simply be that Christians from all over the Empire can be found in Rome, making Rome the place to go if you want to understand what the Church as a whole teaches.

Because of the international nature of the Church in Rome, some scholars believe that the Quartodeciman controversy (the attempt by Pope Victor to excommunicate the Asian churches, to which I refer above) was actually a local conflict within the Church at Rome (that the Asians he was trying to excommunicate lived in Rome but practiced the customs of their native province). I’m not convinced by that, but since you brought up Irenaeus I thought I’d mention that it is the opinion of some scholars.

As you know, it doesn’t stop at 1 Clement.

Indeed. But crazzeto chose to bring up 1 Clement, claiming that it established that Rome had jurisdiction over Corinth. It doesn’t. It only proves that Rome was respected to much that Christians at Corinth would appeal to it to help resolve conflicts within their own congregation.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hey Micky! Nice to hear from you! How’ve you been?

May God bless you on your journey to eternity!

 

[LionHeart777]

Greetings Conrarini;

Regarding your point:

So the point may simply be that Christians from all over the Empire can be found in Rome, making Rome the place to go if you want to understand what the Church as a whole teaches.

Tim Staples brings this interpretation up in this presentation. I think he refuted it by pointing out that St. Irenaeus is claiming that the Roman Church has this preeminence because of St. Peter and St. Paul (that is the context) and not just because Rome is such a metropolitan city that one gets a good sample (my rough paraphrase.) I think he brings up an interesting point… if St. Irenaeus is just talking about a sampling of doctrine why the reference to St. Peter and St. Paul? Why is that significant if the interpretation which you gave is correct?

thanks,

Nick

P.S.

Indeed. But crazzeto chose to bring up 1 Clement, claiming that it established that Rome had jurisdiction over Corinth. It doesn’t. It only proves that Rome was respected to much that Christians at Corinth would appeal to it to help resolve conflicts within their own congregation.

I think I may agree that it does not definitively prove the existince of the Papacy, but to me it is a link in what I see as a chain of circumstantial evidence that argues for the Catholic position.

 

[prodromos]

Is this what you’re talking about?

Eighth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople IV (869)

The Fourth General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Adrian II and Emperor Basil numbering 102 bishops 3, and 4 patriarchs, consigned to the flames the Acts of an irregular council (conciliabulum) brought together by Photius against Pope Nicholas and Ignatius the legitimate Patriarch of Constantinople; it condemned Photius who had unlawfully seized the patriarchal dignity. The Photian Schism, however, triumphed in the Greek Church, and no other general council took place in the East.

Goodness me, you need to find yourself some better sources my friend. Here you make reference to the Robber Council of 869 which began with no more than 18 bishops. By the eighth session a month later they had 38 bishops in attendance, three months later they had 65 and by the last session they had 102 bishops present, of whom many did not sign the acts of the council.
Almost 10 years later, contrary to what your source claims, there was another council held, attended by 383 bishops from all five Patriarchs as well as legates from Rome which reinstated Photius and condemned the earlier council of 869. This latter council was accepted by Pope John VIII and 49 subsequent Popes until the end of the 11th century when Rome did an abrupt about face and reinstated the Robber Council in its place.

How does Rome justify this action and what was the status of the 50 Popes who upheld the 879 Council?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

*Note for this thread just in case someone cares, RCC and EO will be used to denote each Church. Even if the terms aren’t technically correct they are unambiguous

As I was perusing the internet I became curious as to Eastern Orthodox beliefs, and their view of history. I will not state what some of my problems are because I do not want to discuss issues outside of my question. Anyways, throughout my reading I’ve noticed the different views on doctrinal development in the two churches, and this is the issue that if I could be convinced of the RC way of thinking would really help clear some of the doubt up. At the moment I do not take any view as I’m not educated enough on the defense of either. What I’m looking for is reasons why I should accept the Roman Catholic view on doctrinal development vs. the EO view. I would also like EO members to post their views/retorts so I can make sure there’s no strawmen going on.

My next problem is the EO and RCC view of each other. While the RCC views EO sacraments as valid and that they have apostolic succession, my understanding is that orthodox EO people do not reciprocate those feelings. I was looking for an EO forum online to express some of these questions to, and I noticed a very hostile attitude toward Catholicism and use of derogatory words in contrast with the EO here who seem to be much more cordial. This got me thinking, seeing the huge similarity of our history pre-1054, choosing between these two Churches is quite an undertaking. From my point of view both were founded by Jesus, and if I could have any wish in the world it would be unification. However, objectively speaking, I seem to have statistically the best chance for salvation through the EO Church. Since both churches recognize EO sacraments but EO do not recognize the RCC. While this is not reason to convert, it has scared the pants off me as a Roman Catholic and I’m starting to struggle with living my faith as well as possible from the stress.

Thank you to everyone in advance. And once again I implore you not to give me off-topic arguments

Do you see development of doctrine in the New Testament? I do. I think that in the Acts of the Apostles and other post gospel books there is a deeper understanding of the truth and message of the gospel.

The life and teachings of Jesus can be compared to a movie. The more you watch it, the more clearly you understand and the more details emerge.

The Holy Spirit helps guide the Church in understanding the life and message of Jesus.

Two key scripture passage:

John 14
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you

John 16
13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

 

[crazzeto]

Edwin, perhaps I got lost in your quotes (as you didn’t use usernames) but are you quite sure you were addressing points I was making? That is, that you were quoting one of my posts?