No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

[Vico]

As I noted you’ve posted heaps in response - none of which troubles my postion - but fear not, another described to me your posts as being informative and helpful.

For me however it’s just been another fruitless exercise where your posts offer no points to make. Wherein I get a large volume of posts that don’t disagree with me. I wonder then how you reconcile this with the position of papal authority.

Whis is still irrelevant to my point.

What would be helpful if you come up with an explanation of why you think the eastern church ignored the pope.

Like: What relevance does this have to the papacy?

I said it before, when the Creed was accepted in 451 by the Latin Church, the east considered their local council ecumenical.

 

[Montalban]

I said it before, when the Creed was accepted in 451 by the Latin Church, the east considered their local council ecumenical.

Thanks for the non-seqitur and speculation.

And it still doesn’t help

At best you’re acknowledging that the East accepted the WHOLE of the council when the popes only supported the Creed! That’s speculation.

It’s a non-sequitur to think that the east had to await the papal approval of just a tiny part of it. It doesn’t follow that they waited until this very limited papal approval.

It doesn’t help because you’ve still not accounted for why this was so; why did the east accept as ecumenical a council that the pope had not.

Good luck coming up with an explanation

 

[tdgesq]

I said it before, when the Creed was accepted in 451 by the Latin Church, the east considered their local council ecumenical.

That or they believed that it had been already confirmed by Rome. Montalban conveniently forgets to tell everybody that Pope Damasus had already sent his tome to the council of Constantinople:

“All these matters were in close agreement with the tome that Pope Damasus and a Roman council, held probably in 378, had sent to the East.”
Norman Tanner

Here is the letter from the Bishops of Constantinople to Rome, although it’s unclear if Rome ever received it:

To the most honoured lords and most reverend brethren and fellow-ministers, Damasus, Ambrose, Britton, Valerian, Acholius, Anemius, Basil, and the rest of the holy bishops who met in the great city of Rome: the sacred synod of orthodox bishops who met in the great city of Constantinople sends greetings in the Lord.
. . .
But now you have shown your brotherly love for us by convoking a synod in Rome, in accordance with God’s will, and inviting us to it, by means of a letter from your most God-beloved emperor, as if we were limbs of your very own, so that whereas in the past we were condemned to suffer alone, you should not now reign in isolation from us, given the complete agreement of the emperors in matters of religion. Rather, according to the word of the apostle, we should reign along with you’. So it was our intention that if it were possible we should all leave our churches together and indulge our desires rather than attend to their needs. But who will give us wings as of a dove, so we shall fly and come to rest with you? This course would leave the churches entirely exposed, just as they are beginning their renewal; and it is completely out of the question for the majority.

Letter from Bishops of Constantinople I

It’s obvious Constantinople wasn’t holding an ecumenical council apart from Rome. Not even the Eastern Orthodox believe that could happen - at least not pre-schism. I mean, Montalban’s claims about what the Catholic Encyclopedia is describing is truly ridiculous.

Then you don’t have a point

I like how you just had to answer this before throwing a fit. You are wrong again. The point is that non-schismatic churches (like Rome at the time, even by your own reckoning) all had to agree to the decrees of a council for it to be universally binding on the Church. So arguing that the Catholic Encyclopedia states that - well - really a council could be binding in this way without the approval of Rome, is a ridiculous statement.

Thanks for the ad hom,. Bye!

This is whining on your part. You apparently don’t enjoy it when someone engages you with the same debate style that you impose upon everybody else. We all know that Meletius was deposed by Maximus. It just doesn’t help you in the least, make you smarter than anybody else, or prove in any way that the Bishop of Rome must approve of a council before it could possibly be ecumenical.

 

[Vico]

Thanks for the non-seqitur and speculation.

And it still doesn’t help

At best you’re acknowledging that the East accepted the WHOLE of the council when the popes only supported the Creed! That’s speculation.

It’s a non-sequitur to think that the east had to await the papal approval of just a tiny part of it. It doesn’t follow that they waited until this very limited papal approval.

It doesn’t help because you’ve still not accounted for why this was so; why did the east accept as ecumenical a council that the pope had not.

Good luck coming up with an explanation

Pope Vigilius was the first to accept the eastern Synod of 381, in the west, in 553. As to the eastern Church, see what is written by the Greek Orthodox Church about the Second’s acceptance as ecumenical because of the Creed. The Creed of 381 was accepted at Chalcedon (451):11. Its title to being (as it undoubtedly is) the Second of the Ecumenical Synods rests upon its Creed having found a reception in the whole world. And now–mirabile dictu–an English scholar comes forward, ready to defend the proposition that the First Council of Constantinople never set forth any creed at all!(3)
allholyspirit.ne.goarch.org/about-orthodoxy/canon/ecf37the_second_ecumenical_councilthe-a9c.html

 

[tdgesq]

Pope Vigilius was the first to accept the eastern Synod of 381, in the west, in 553. As to the eastern Church, see what is written by the Greek Orthodox Church about the Second’s acceptance as ecumenical because of the Creed. The Creed of 381 was accepted at Chalcedon (451):11. Its title to being (as it undoubtedly is) the Second of the Ecumenical Synods rests upon its Creed having found a reception in the whole world. And now–mirabile dictu–an English scholar comes forward, ready to defend the proposition that the First Council of Constantinople never set forth any creed at all!(3)
allholyspirit.ne.goarch.org/about-orthodoxy/canon/ecf37the_second_ecumenical_councilthe-a9c.html

Good job, Vico. I think this is actually Philip Schaff’s (a Protestant) edit of Percival’s work on the first seven ecumenical councils. But there it is on an Orthodox website.

 

[Montalban]

The only way papal claims match history is if one’s rules that prove the papacy are continually waived, or ignored altogether.

And, one has to believe every praise of Peter is for him, and him alone (and the successors of only one of the Sees he had association with).

Pope Leo the Great said that Rome’s foundations were on Peter and Paul

Initially Rome’s claim to greatness rested on

a) it was the capital
and
b) it was founded by two great Apostles (Peter and Paul)

Being the capital became a problem when that function was moved to Constantinople

 

[Montalban]

Good job, Vico. I think this is actually Philip Schaff’s (a Protestant) edit of Percival’s work on the first seven ecumenical councils. But there it is on an Orthodox website.

All you need do is ingore the main points, and selective use of evidence.

IF we can now accept a non-Catholic site as an authority - let’s just limit it to this site it says
8. Its action in continuing the Meletian Schism was condemned at Rome, and its Canons rejected for a thousand years.

It’s canons were NOT accepted in Rome, according to this site.
allholyspirit.ne.goarch.org/about-orthodoxy/canon/ecf37the_second_ecumenical_councilthe-a9c.html

I still don’t get why you think someone citing evidence against the Catholic cause is a good job.

Obviously ‘the whole world’ which Vico cites doesn’t include the West



And you think that helps?

Vico’s first part

"Pope Vigilius was the first to accept the eastern Synod of 381, in the west, in 553. As to the eastern Church, see what is written by the Greek Orthodox Church about the Second’s acceptance as ecumenical because of the Creed. The Creed of 381 was accepted at Chalcedon (451):

It’s something he has repeated endlessly

Is again his repeating of evidence I’ve dealt with.

At best he accepts (sometimes) that it’s only an acceptence of the creed, not of the council itself.

So, in summary

He evidences nothing that the pope accepted THE COUNCIL (only a creed).

He then cites something that doesn’t include Rome!

Maybe you guys should take some time out and read your own sources first before citing them

 

[tdgesq]

The only way papal claims match history is if one’s rules that prove the papacy are continually waived, or ignored altogether.

And, one has to believe every praise of Peter is for him, and him alone (and the successors of only one of the Sees he had association with).

Pope Leo the Great said that Rome’s foundations were on Peter and Paul

Initially Rome’s claim to greatness rested on

a) it was the capital
and
b) it was founded by two great Apostles (Peter and Paul

This doesn’t help you. The title of this thread is “No Pope = No Ecumenical Council.” There can’t be an ecumenical council without the approval of the Pope of Rome; at least not pre-schism. Whatever the other prerogatives claimed by the Pope may be, it doesn’t negate that claim. You’ve gotten yourself into quite a quandary.

 

[Montalban]

This doesn’t help you. The title of this thread is “No Pope = No Ecumenical Council.” There can’t be an ecumenical council without the approval of the Pope of Rome; at least not pre-schism. Whatever the other prerogatives claimed by the Pope may be, it doesn’t negate that claim. You’ve gotten yourself into quite a quandary.

The very posts Vico has shown show this to be untrue. He notes no papal approval for the 2nd Ecumenical Council, only the creed. He then notes that it’s accepted as ecumenical by ‘the Greeks’.

Thank you for the just-so statement.

I can now see why you think Vico’s endless repeating of an assumption is accepted as good debate!

Despite Vico continually repeating his assertion that ‘approval of a canon = approval for the whole council’ I don’t know what else you think has been added.

Evidence presented shows categorically that the popes REJECTED the canons of that council for some time

:shrug:Maybe if you repeat it a few more times it’ll just appear to say something else???

 

[tdgesq]

All you need do is ingore the main points, and selective use of evidence.

IF we can now accept a non-Catholic site as an authority - let’s just limit it to this site it says
8. Its action in continuing the Meletian Schism was condemned at Rome, and its Canons rejected for a thousand years.

Because they were only definitively accepted at Florence; at least that is one interpretation of the historical record. The creed was accepted. Canon 28 of Chalcedon clearly wasn’t accepted, which is nearly identical to Canon 3 of Constantinople I. I thought you already knew all of this?

I still don’t get why you think someone citing evidence against the Catholic cause is a good job.

Because it wasn’t. I say again, good job Vico. You just haven’t made an adequate study of the historical record, which is why you claim bizarre things like a council can be ecumenical without the approval of Rome.

 

[Montalban]

Because they were only definitively accepted at Florence;

BY ROME

Because it wasn’t. I say again, good job Vico. You just haven’t made an adequate study of the historical record, which is why you claim bizarre things like a council can be ecumenical without the approval of Rome.

Firstly, the evidence says that ‘the Greeks’ accepted it as ecumenical before the pope did (all he accepted was a Creed). It says categorically that’s what they did

All you do is keep ignoring the evidence Vico provided. That’s what it says; ‘the Greeks’ accepted it as ecumenical. The only approval from Rome was the most tentative approval of only one small aspect; the creed. The canons, as you note, one in particular weren’t accepted till Florence. You’ve provided MORE ARGUMENT against your stance.

That means that ACCORDING TO YOU aspects of the Council weren’t considered ecumenical till 1,000 years after ‘the Greeks’ had accepted it - which is also what the Orthodox site Vico provided said!

I don’t know why you guys keep providing argument against your own assertions

And then applying circular logic; an ecumenical council can’t be ecumenical without the pope’s approval; because it can’t. And then repeating that over and over again. Then incredulously wondering why I don’t meet that discussion! I must note again, the evidence Vico provided says categorically that ‘the Greeks’ accepted it as ecumenical

When you start from looking at the evidence first and not start with ‘the papacy must be true’ it would help your understanding. Starting with the evidence and seeing what that points to.

That’s why you (plural - not just you personally) continually provide here argument against your own assertions.

This is going to take a paradigm shift on your part.

I’m happy for anyone else reading this to summarize the situation BASED ON the evidence provided by Catholics…

The ‘east’ (or ‘the Greeks’ as the source says) accepted as ecumenical the 2nd Council at least 100 years before the papacy did. All that the sources acknowledge is that the pope’s approved the CREED - not the Council, not the canons.

The east approved of the Canons - one particular one - Canon 28 the west didn’t finally accept till the Council of Florence, 1000 years after the council.

The mind of the ‘east’ shows that they didn’t accept the council needed papal approval to make it ecumenical

Of course Catholics can think that they’re wrong in their assertions - but they need to reconcile the action of the easterners with the results - that is, even though one could argue that they disobey the pope, they weren’t cut off in all that time for accepting as ecumenical a council he did not.

 

[Montalban]

The Catholic Encyclopedia is a fairly good source.

It notes requirements for what makes a council “Ecumenical”

One of these rules; approval by the pope is not shown by history.

Vico was good enough to provide evidence that the 2nd Ecumenical Council was accepted by ‘the Greeks’ long before the popes had approved it.

The first ‘approval’ was simply of the Creed. Papal approval of the rest of the council lagged for many centuries. The canons weren’t approved for some time. tdgesq mentioned that Canon 28 wasn’t approved of till 1,000 years later!

What does all this mean (aside from Catholics evidencing my side of the argument)?

The assertion that papal approval is necessary is one that is absent from the mind of the eastern churches.

I’ve called on Catholics to come up with any ideas that they have to reconcile this; none have.

At best they’ve congratulated each other on the other’s posts!

 

[smad0142]

Montalban,

I think this conversation would benefit from talking about one point at a time, even if we are blue in the face. This conversation hops from one point to another and nothing gets accomplished. How about you pick your absolute favorite single fact against papal claims and let’s go from there? Also I promise to not disappear for a day like I did yesterday, unless of course life intervenes again.

And if I also may suggest going forward that you put all of your thoughts into one post at a time. I am not saying your thoughts are not organized but rather you have a habit of responding to somebody’s post and then posting your representation of how the argument has developed below your response; that makes a thread explode rather quickly.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban,

I think this conversation would benefit from talking about one point at a time, even if we are blue in the face. This conversation hops from one point to another and nothing gets accomplished. How about you pick your absolute favorite single fact against papal claims and let’s go from there? Also I promise to not disappear for a day like I did yesterday, unless of course life intervenes again.

I’ve already dealt with ‘the facts’ that your rules don’t apply - especially papal approval to make a council ecumenical.

Montalban,
And if I also may suggest going forward that you put all of your thoughts into one post at a time. I am not saying your thoughts are not organized but rather you have a habit of responding to somebody’s post and then posting your representation of how the argument has developed below your response; that makes a thread explode rather quickly.

Well there’s a distinct case of a back-slapping mentality going on where people, rather than discussing what I wrote (as you have avoided here) they talk about other things like how good the other Catholic posters’ posts are, etc. How bad my writing is (including style), etc.

How they’d really love to discuss something with me, but they can’t or won’t because of something I’ve done or failed to do etc.

Why not YOU pick a point you find most contentious? Nothing stopped you doing that.

I appreciate this need to actually avoid discussing points made.

The points are there. Pick one.

No point making excuses? Your ability to discuss things isn’t solely reliant upon me is it?

You’re totally silent too about the Catholics here providing evidence that supports my point.

 

[Vico]

All you need do is ingore the main points, and selective use of evidence.

IF we can now accept a non-Catholic site as an authority - let’s just limit it to this site it says
8. Its action in continuing the Meletian Schism was condemned at Rome, and its Canons rejected for a thousand years.

It’s canons were NOT accepted in Rome, according to this site.
allholyspirit.ne.goarch.org/about-orthodoxy/canon/ecf37the_second_ecumenical_councilthe-a9c.html

I still don’t get why you think someone citing evidence against the Catholic cause is a good job.

Obviously ‘the whole world’ which Vico cites doesn’t include the West



And you think that helps?

Vico’s first part

"Pope Vigilius was the first to accept the eastern Synod of 381, in the west, in 553. As to the eastern Church, see what is written by the Greek Orthodox Church about the Second’s acceptance as ecumenical because of the Creed. The Creed of 381 was accepted at Chalcedon (451):

It’s something he has repeated endlessly

Is again his repeating of evidence I’ve dealt with.

At best he accepts (sometimes) that it’s only an acceptence of the creed, not of the council itself.

So, in summary

He evidences nothing that the pope accepted THE COUNCIL (only a creed).

He then cites something that doesn’t include Rome!

Maybe you guys should take some time out and read your own sources first before citing them

Pope Vigilius:“Having thus detailed all that has been done by us, we again confess that we receive the four holy Synods, that is, the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the first of Ephesus, and that of Chalcedon, and we have taught, and do teach all that they defined respecting the one faith.”
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.html

Pope St. Gregory I (590-604 pontificate) declared the first four general councils to be authoritative as the four Gospels.

catholic-resources.org/Church…alCouncils.htm

And also there was Pope Pelagius II (579-590 pontificate) and Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085 pontificate): Gregory the Great, following the example of Vigilius and Pelagius II, recognized Constantinople I as one of the four general councils, in its dogmatic utterances (P.G., LXXVII, 468, 893).
newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

 

[Montalban]

A supposed witness for the notion that Hosisus was a papal representative is Gelasius.

The evidence used is…

“Hosius himself, the famous Beacon of the Spaniards, held the place of Sylvester, bishop of great Rome, along with the Roman presbyters Vito and Vincent, as they held council with the many [bishops].”
Patrologia Graece 85:1229

Whilst citing this as evidence, one Catholic apologist then states “It is true, and I state, that there is no specific evidence that Ossius was specifically designated as a papal representative at Nicaea…”
Armstrong, D., Pope Silvester and the Council of Nicaea
socrates58.blogspot.com.au/2007/03/pope-silvester-and-council-of-nicaea.html

 

[Montalban]

Pope Vigilius:“Having thus detailed all that has been done by us, we again confess that we receive the four holy Synods, that is, the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the first of Ephesus, and that of Chalcedon, and we have taught, and do teach all that they defined respecting the one faith.”
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.html

You quote something that sites (on the site you cited) under “THE SENTENCE OF THE SYNOD” - specifically EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION VII.

Yet you put “Pope Vigilius” in front of it, as if he’s saying it! It doesn’t appear to me that is the case.

Further down the page they have
THE DECRETAL EPISTLE OF POPE VIGILIUS IN CONFIRMATION OF THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL SYNOD.
HISTORICAL NOTE.

and

THE DECRETAL LETTER OF POPE VIGILIUS.

From my understanding of that site you’ve taken the words of the council out of their context and presented them as the pope’s words

I assume you did this unintentionally and not an act of deception by falsifying evidence

 

[smad0142]

I’ve already dealt with ‘the facts’ that your rules don’t apply - especially papal approval to make a council ecumenical.

Well there’s a distinct case of a back-slapping mentality going on where people, rather than discussing what I wrote (as you have avoided here) they talk about other things like how good the other Catholic posters’ posts are, etc. How bad my writing is (including style), etc.

How they’d really love to discuss something with me, but they can’t or won’t because of something I’ve done or failed to do etc.

Why not YOU pick a point you find most contentious? Nothing stopped you doing that.

I appreciate this need to actually avoid discussing points made.

The points are there. Pick one.

No point making excuses? Your ability to discuss things isn’t solely reliant upon me is it?

You’re totally silent too about the Catholics here providing evidence that supports my point.

The thread is simply too involved to follow all the arguments and posters. I can only be responsible for my posts so that’s why I focus on them.

Okay I am more than happy to start off with a point of yours so long as we agree that we will talk about this and only this point for right now. The point I would like to talk about is St. Ignatius’ quote you cite in the wiki article.

“In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.”

I maintain that the quote can only be logically applied to the particular church. For one St. Ignatius clearly identifies the elements of the local church, namely the Bishop, the Priests, and the Deacons. Since he mentions these elements we know for certain that he must at least be talking about the local church. You allege though that he is talking about the nature of the universal church as well and therefore the Bishop, Priests, and Deacons make up the totality of the Church to the exclusion of the Papacy. To the premise that he is talking about the universal church I object on the grounds that:

St. Ignatius clearly says the Bishop. The Church Hierarchy as understood by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches includes the Apostolic College, i.e. all the Bishops of the world. If St. Ignatius is truly talking about the nature of the Church universal then he would be wrong to exclude all the Bishops. If he is talking only about the particular church does it make sense to say apart from the Bishop there is no Church; if he is talking about the universal Church he would have only have been correct if he said the Bishops.

We also know from Sacred Tradition that there is an authority in the Church not mentioned by St. Ignatius, that of the Ecumenical Councils. The Orthodox Church recognizes the Ecumenical Councils to be the highest authority within the governance of the Church but if I accept your interpretation of St. Ignatius then I should not accept any conception of the Church that is not the Bishop with his Priests and Deacons. So either your interpretation of St. Ignatius is wrong and he really is talking about the local church OR your interpretation of St. Ignatius is correct and then why do Ecumenical Councils carry higher authority than the Bishop?

Also you have yet to prove how you did not commit the composition fallacy. Quoting you from earlier you say:

If a particular church only consists of deacon, priest and, bishop then the very nature of the church, as a whole would consist of many bishops (each in their own See). There is nothing therefore inconsistent in Ignatius’ understanding of church to consist of one bishop in a particular church, with having more than one bishop (in other churches).

The bolded portions of your statement serve to highlight the structure beneath your argument; this structure is literally the structure of the composition fallacy.

In Summation:

St. Ignatius is obviously talking at least about the local church.

You maintain that he is also talking about the universal church. I object because:

1. The grammar of the quote focuses on one specific Bishop. If the Saint were talking about the very nature of the universal Church then talking only about one Bishop would exclude the very existence of other Bishops which would of course be a demonstrably false statement.
2. Sacred Tradition shows us that the highest authority of the Church is the full Apostolic College in Council, which is completely omitted from St. Ignatius’ statement. Either Ecumenical Councils are the highest authority in the Church thereby showing that the totality of the Church and her hierarchy was not taught in St. Ignatius’ quote OR the Saint is correct in which case the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have erred by considering the authority of an Ecumenical Council to outweigh the Bishop.

 

[Vico]

You quote something that sites (on the site you cited) under “THE SENTENCE OF THE SYNOD” - specifically EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION VII.

Yet you put “Pope Vigilius” in front of it, as if he’s saying it! It doesn’t appear to me that is the case.

Further down the page they have
THE DECRETAL EPISTLE OF POPE VIGILIUS IN CONFIRMATION OF THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL SYNOD.
HISTORICAL NOTE.

and

THE DECRETAL LETTER OF POPE VIGILIUS.

From my understanding of that site you’ve taken the words of the council out of their context and presented them as the pope’s words

I assume you did this unintentionally and not an act of deception by falsifying evidence

I pasted the wrong quote, the correct one is in THE DECRETAL LETTER OF POPE VIGILIUS in the same source. Vigilius to his beloved brother Eutychius.

…

Therefore, my dear brothers, I do you to wit, that in common with all of you, our brethren, we receive in all respects the four synods, that is to say the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the first Ephesian, and the Chalcedonian; and we venerate them with devout mind, and watch over them with all our mind. And should there be any who do not follow these holy synods in all things which they have defined concerning the faith, we judge them to be aliens to the communion of the holy and Catholic Church.

…
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.asp

 

[Montalban]

I won’t address Vico’s other two citations

The second - I get an error message - “page not found”

The third - I’ve addressed many many times already