How can we be sure of Peter's Supremacy?

[Orthodolic]

By your definition, how are there more than three ecumenical councils?

At the current time, the episcopacy of the Church has not as yet put forward a universal definition as to what precisely lends a council its ecumenicity. Some Orthodox consider the 8th council still as ecumenical.

 

[Orthodolic]

First, how do the Orthodox convene a council? Fact is, you can’t, because you have no mechanism by which the “whole church” determines whether or not the decisions of the Council will be accepted. According to the EO, this could take centuries…in which case, what is the point of attempting to solve doctrinal questions if the decisions of the fathers cannot be implemented for hundreds of years?

We can convene a council the same as you. The need for Rome is not held by all Orthodox. I don’t speak for the Church, but myself.

 

[Duane1966]

At the current time, the episcopacy of the Church has not as yet put forward a universal definition as to what precisely lends a council its ecumenicity. Some Orthodox consider the 8th council still as ecumenical.

But you said this:

For a council to truly be ecumenical the whole Church must be present and agree, East and West. So, since we’ve been out of communion, we have not truly had an ecumenical council - only local synods.

Since the Oriental Orthodox rejected the fourth council, and were not present at the following councils, by your own criteria, there cannot have been more than three ecumenical councils, as the WHOLE church was not present for any subsequent council.

 

[Orthodolic]

But you said this:Since the Oriental Orthodox rejected the fourth council, and were not present at the following councils, by your own criteria, there cannot have been more than three ecumenical councils, as the WHOLE church was not present for any subsequent council.

Yes, I know what I said. The thoughts are my own, but a large number of us believe it. We don’t have a definitive description of what makes the council’s ecumenical. But, in this case the west accepted it for 300 years and then didn’t, so, in my mind it lost its ecumenical status.

 

[Duane1966]

Yes, I know what I said. The thoughts are my own, but a large number of us believe it. We don’t have a definitive description of what makes the council’s ecumenical. But, in this case the west accepted it for 300 years and then didn’t, so, in my mind it lost its ecumenical status.

You are not answering the question. How can there be more than three ecumenical councils when the** WHOLE **church has not been unified since the Oriental Orthodox rejected the fourth council?

 

[Orthodolic]

You are not answering the question. How can there be more than three ecumenical councils when the** WHOLE **church has not been unified since the Oriental Orthodox rejected the fourth council?

Personal opinion is a combination of majority opinion and how the council stacks up against tradition.

 

[Duane1966]

Personal opinion is a combination of majority opinion and how the council stacks up against tradition.

So, while the presence of the WHOLE church would be nice at a council, and acceptance of what is formulated at said council by the WHOLE church would be nice, in reality, whether the presence of the WHOLE church is there or not, or even accepted by the WHOLE church, does not matter for a council to be declared, and accepted as ecumenical. And this holds true for both the East and the West.

We see the reality of the above statement in the second ecumenical council, where no western bishops were in attendance, which fails your representation by WHOLE church test, and the fourth ecumenical council, which the OO rejected, thereby failing your acceptance by the WHOLE church test.

 

[Orthodolic]

We see the reality of the above statement in the second ecumenical council, where no western bishops were in attendance, which fails your representation by WHOLE church test

I’ve read that Pope Damasus I sent legates, but it doesn’t matter either way. It’s not about how many are present or not, it’s about acceptance. Does the majority opinion of the Church agree with the council and does that agreement stand up to the Traditions.

and the fourth ecumenical council, which the OO rejected, thereby failing your acceptance by the WHOLE church test.

It’s quite impossible for every Christian to believe the same thing. It’s about the mind of the Church - the “sensus fidelium” as you Romans say. In addition, does that “sensus fidelium” accurately represent the faith handed down to us.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We can convene a council the same as you. The need for Rome is not held by all Orthodox. I don’t speak for the Church, but myself.

Oh?

And what is the mechanism by which an Ecumenical Council would be convened and validated by the Eastern Orthodox? Has this EVER happened even once in history? :nope:

Even John Chryssavgis, Archdeacon and theological advisor to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, asks whether the Council to be held in June qualifies:

On the Great Council of the Orthodox Church
firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/02/on-the-great-council-of-the-orthodox-church

 

[Randy_Carson]

But you said this:Since the Oriental Orthodox rejected the fourth council, and were not present at the following councils, by your own criteria, there cannot have been more than three ecumenical councils, as the WHOLE church was not present for any subsequent council.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are not answering the question. How can there be more than three ecumenical councils when the** WHOLE **church has not been unified since the Oriental Orthodox rejected the fourth council?

Following that line of reasoning, the Church has not been united since Arias!

Or maybe we just recognized that some folks are heretics and schimatics, and we move along without them!

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, while the presence of the WHOLE church would be nice at a council, and acceptance of what is formulated at said council by the WHOLE church would be nice, in reality, whether the presence of the WHOLE church is there or not, or even accepted by the WHOLE church, does not matter for a council to be declared, and accepted as ecumenical. And this holds true for both the East and the West.

We see the reality of the above statement in the second ecumenical council, where no western bishops were in attendance, which fails your representation by WHOLE church test, and the fourth ecumenical council, which the OO rejected, thereby failing your acceptance by the WHOLE church test.

Yep. Orthodolic wants to have it both ways as seen in how they handled the filioque situation. Here’s my summary:

Filioque – Why it’s Okay to Add it to the Creed

Here are some key dates:

AD 325 – Nicaea
AD 381 – Constantinople I
AD 431 – Ephesus
AD 451 – Chalcedon
AD 1438 – Florence

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)

Note that Ephesus referred to the creed as composed by the Fathers at Nicaea (325), not as modified at Constantinople in 381. 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 Eastern 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’s 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 the Faith).

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.

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 Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-45) had the authority to add “filioque” legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit’s procession; therefore, the Creed was changed, and the council ruled that the addition of the words “and the Son” was valid.

 

[Rohzek]

Ugh, is this really becoming a thread about discrediting all aspects of Orthodoxy? I thought this was supposed to be just a thread regarding papal primacy? I mean, if we’re really gonna make this thread all about Orthodoxy, I’d be more than happy to jump in, but I thought at least that I would respect what subforum this thread was in. But it seems to me at least that what everyone really wants is just a debate.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ugh, is this really becoming a thread about discrediting all aspects of Orthodoxy? I thought this was supposed to be just a thread regarding papal primacy? I mean, if we’re really gonna make this thread all about Orthodoxy, I’d be more than happy to jump in, but I thought at least that I would respect what subforum this thread was in. But it seems to me at least that what everyone really wants is just a debate.

FWIW, I did notify the mods that this thread needs to be pruned and certain posts moved to another subforum.

 

[Orthodolic]

Oh?

And what is the mechanism by which an Ecumenical Council would be convened and validated by the Eastern Orthodox?

The Holy Spirit works and goes where He wills.

Even John Chryssavgis, Archdeacon and theological advisor to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, asks whether the Council to be held in June qualifies:

On the Great Council of the Orthodox Church
firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/02/on-the-great-council-of-the-orthodox-church

We will have to see what happens at the council and where the Holy Spirit leads the Church.

 

[steve_b]

Met. Kallistos Ware stated; it was found as early as St. Cyprian’s day.

From the 33rd Epistle of St. Cyprian:

*“Our Lord, whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and to the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter, I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19). Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates.”

That doesn’t say all bishops are successors of Peter.
O:

St. Optatus:

*“For the sake of unity, Peter was made the first among all the apostles, and he alone received the keys, that he might give them to the rest.”
*

Again, that doesn’t say all bishops are successors of Peter.
O:

St. Gregory of Nyssa:

*“It is through Peter that Christ gave to bishops the keys of their heavenly prerogative.”
*

All these quotes show Peter is the leader. Not that all bishops are successors to Peter.
O:

St. Pope Leo the Great:

*“If our Lord willed that there should be something common to Peter and the rest of the princes of His Church, it was only on this condition, that whatsoever He gave to the rest, He gave it to them through Peter.” Yes, the episcopate is most sacred, for it comes from the hands of Jesus Christ through Peter and his successors. Such is the unanimous teaching of Catholic tradition, which is in keeping with the language used by the Roman Pontiffs, from the earliest ages, who have always spoken of the dignity of bishops as consisting in their being “called to a. share of their own solicitude …” *

He’s saying, “successors” of Peter are the Roman Pontiffs, NOT every bishop in general.
O:

For a council to truly be ecumenical the whole Church must be present and agree, East and West. So, since we’ve been out of communion, we have not truly had an ecumenical council - only local synods. The Catholics say that the “Fourth Council of Constantinople” in year 869 is the 8th council, however, the Orthodox contend that the “Fourth Council of Constantinople” in year 879 overrode the council of the 869. We contend that the council of 879 would be a true ecumenical council if Rome had not decided in the 11th century to go back and disavow it. We thought we had ecumenically decided the true council of 879 when Pope John VIII approved it. Why did the Roman Church approve it as the 8th ecumenical council until the 11th century?

Haven’t all these quotes you’ve presented, shown who holds the keys? The pope has the keys, therefore, the authority to define when a council is to be applied universally…

 

[Orthodolic]

Haven’t all these quotes you’ve presented, shown who holds the keys? The pope has the keys, therefore, the authority to define when a council is to be applied universally…

Of course Peter had the keys, but it’s true that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have long believed that “the Apostolate and the Episcopate both owe their origin to Peter.” - Pope St. Innocent the First

And another from Pope St. Innocent the First: “that Bishops must look upon Peter as the source whence both their name and their dignity are derived;”

We Orthodox aren’t suggesting that all Bishops are the successors of St. Peter in the unique and special way that the Bishop of Rome is.

 

[Abu]

Orthodolic #37
We Orthodox aren’t suggesting that all Bishops are the successors of St. Peter in the unique and special way that the Bishop of Rome is.

But does Christ ensure Peter’s Supremacy? This is how Christ establishes Peter’s Supremacy as His Magisterium:
**You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY Church." (Mt 16:18) **

1. “The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
2. “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
3. “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]. [My emphasis]

To St Peter alone – Sole authority:
4) “Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
5) “Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

The Key is to really listen to Christ – His actions in 1), 2), 4) and 5) are to Peter ALONE as the ROCK on which He builds His Church, and which He assured He would be with “until the end of time.”

There is not a skerrick of truth or any value in the opinion that Peter and his successors are not Christ’s Supreme Pastors in Christ’s Catholic Church. No other religion has Christ’s Magisterium established and guaranteed in and through St Peter.

 

[Orthodolic]

But does Christ ensure Peter’s Supremacy? This is how Christ establishes Peter’s Supremacy as His Magisterium:
**You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY Church." (Mt 16:18) **

1. “The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
2. “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
3. “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]. [My emphasis]

To St Peter alone – Sole authority:
4) “Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
5) “Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

The Key is to really listen to Christ – His actions in 1), 2), 4) and 5) are to Peter ALONE as the ROCK on which He builds His Church, and which He assured He would be with “until the end of time.”

There is not a skerrick of truth or any value in the opinion that Peter and his successors are not Christ’s Supreme Pastors in Christ’s Catholic Church. No other religion has Christ’s Magisterium established and guaranteed in and through St Peter.

Nothing that you have brought forward is news to me, or to the Orthodox Church. None of this proves the current Papal claims as defined at Vatican 1.

 

[Abu]

Orthodolic #39
None of this proves the current Papal claims as defined at Vatican 1.

That shows the failure to acknowledge the reasonableness of the development of doctrine which John Henry Cardinal Newman so clearly came to see by the 1840’s.

In reality, the doctrine of Papal infallibility is found in Scripture (Mt 16:17-19; Jn 21: 15-17; Mt 28:19-20; 1 Tim 3:15), and for the final proposed definition of Vatican I there were 471 bishops for and 130 against; more than two-thirds bishops for. Sixty-six bishops then returned to their dioceses before the Public Session, but all eventually declared full acceptance of the defined doctrine. [Dr Leslie Rumble, *Questions People Ask, Chevalier, 1975, p 159].

When anyone wants to do their own thing, its so easy to dismiss the Sacred Scriptures above with Christ giving His powers emphatically to His Church, and Timothy’s witness to “the Church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of the Truth”, by substituting a false and unscriptural opinion.

John Henry Newman’s proof from necessity:
“A revelation is not given, if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given….The absolute need of a spiritual supremacy is at present the strongest of arguments in favour of the fact of its supply. Surely, either an objective revelation has not been given, or it has been provided with means for impressing its objectiveness on the world. If Christianity be a social religion, as it certainly is, and if it be based on certain ideas acknowledged as divine, or a creed….and if these ideas have various aspects, and make distinct impressions on different minds, and issue in consequence in a multiplicity of developments, true, or false, or mixed…what power will suffice to meet and to do justice to these conflicting conditions, but a supreme authority ruling and reconciling individual judgments by a divine right and a recognized wisdom?..philosophy, taste, prejudice, passion, party, caprice, will find no common measure, unless there be some supreme power to control the mind and to compel agreement.” An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1845, Rev. ed. 1878, Part I, Ch II, Sect. II, 12-13].
newmanreader.org/works/de…/chapter2.html
[Cited in *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised Fr Peter Joseph, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 146-7].

Christ’s Catholic Church teaches that doctrine develops, and this means the understanding by the Church develops, without contradiction, as Pope St John XXIII so clearly enunciated at Vatican II:
“The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this, that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously…it is necessary that this certain and unchangeable doctrine, to which the obedience of Faith must be given, be studied thoroughly and explained in the way for which our times are calling. One thing is the deposit of Faith which consists of the truth contained in sacred doctrine, another thing is the manner of presentation, always however with the same meaning and the same sense.” [Pope St John XXIII in his opening address to the Council Fathers at Vatican II, *Creed and Catechetics, Msgr E Kevane p 60, 221-222]. The Pope here uses the very words of Vatican I, which in turn came from St Vincent of Lerins.