No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

  • Thread starter Thread starter smad0142
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mardukm said:
(4) Where is Pope Vigilius’ name mentioned with anathema in the Final Sentence? Certainly, other Ecum Councils had no problem anathematizing patriarchs by name.
Click to expand...
If you will remember, this is the point actually being debated, whether the council’s anathema against those who would defend the Three Chapters or the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia was directed against Vigilius (and his supporting faction of bishops who signed the first Constitutum). We keep getting on tangents because you refuse to acknowledge the authenticity of the Seventh Session or the claims that Vigilius did not participate in the council, the latter, which is directly corroborated by the sentence of the council from the Eight Session, and the former, for which Richard Price builds a strong case in one of the excerpts which I have posted above.

Given these things, I believe that a good case can be built for the proposition that the council, by anathematizing the defenders of the Three Chapters, indeed intended to anathematize Vigilius without having him suffer the embarrassment of being mentioned by name, with the hopes that this anathema would force him to capitulate (which he did six months later).
 
Trebor135 said:
What book are you citing, Cavaradossi? 🙂
Click to expand...
The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553: With Related Texts on the Three Chapters Controversy, authored by Richard Price and published by the University of Liverpool Press. ISBN: 9781846311789. You can find it for sale from the University of Chicago Press here: press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/A/bo6925335.html and also on Amazon.

Considering that it costs a whopping $185.00, I think you’d probably be better of trying to get it from a library through an inter-library loan (which is how I got my hands on this book), if that’s a resource which is available to you.
 
Cavaradossi said:
The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553: With Related Texts on the Three Chapters Controversy, authored by Richard Price and published by the University of Liverpool Press. ISBN: 9781846311789. You can find it for sale from the University of Chicago Press here: press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/A/bo6925335.html and also on Amazon.

Considering that it costs a whopping $185.00, I think you’d probably be better of trying to get it from a library through an inter-library loan (which is how I got my hands on this book), if that’s a resource which is available to you.
Click to expand...
As a university student I’m in no position to make such an exorbitant purchase. Thanks for the details though–interlibrary loan would indeed be my best bet (i.e., only option).

Now back to our discussion of the “Vigilius situation”… 😛
 
smad0142 said:
Someone once told me that one of the early Ecumenical Councils contains a statement that there can not be a Council without the Bishop of Rome. Can anyone provide a quote or tell me which Council? Thanks!
Click to expand...
I think what that person meant was, without the pope’s approval of the council, it is not ecumenical i.e. binding on the entire Church. Such a council would only bind those parts of the Church that were presented by those bishops in attendance. Several of the early councils called ecumenical, no Western bishops were even present. So how could those councils be ecumenical? The pope’s approval of them.
 
steve_b said:
I think what that person meant was, without the pope’s approval of the council, it is not ecumenical i.e. binding on the entire Church. Such a council would only bind those parts of the Church that were presented by those bishops in attendance. Several of the early councils called ecumenical, no Western bishops were even present. So how could those councils be ecumenical? The pope’s approval of them.
Click to expand...
But do we have documentation that the bishop of Rome approved all seven councils? Did the Early Church believe his approval to be necessary and sufficient for it to gain ecumenical status?
 
steve_b said:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8981112&postcount=21 Vico identified at least 4 of 7. If I had the time I’d look up the other 3. 😉

Can you show the pope’s approval was not necessary for ecumenical status?
Click to expand...
Of course all of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils were ultimately approved/accepted by the pope, and apart from such approval/acceptance, they would not have been deemed to be ecumenical. However, I think it is an anachronistic error to think of it in terms of the role the pope has had over the last several centuries with respect to those Councils deemed to be ecumenical only by the Catholic Church. There seems not to have been any concensus that the pope held such a role. Had that been the case, I doubt that the Assyrian Church of the East would have broken communion following the Council of Ephesus, or that the Oriental Orthodox Churches would have broken communion following the Council of Ephesus.
 
RyanBlack said:
Of course all of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils were ultimately approved/accepted by the pope, and apart from such approval/acceptance, they would not have been deemed to be ecumenical. However, I think it is an anachronistic error to think of it in terms of the role the pope has had over the last several centuries with respect to those Councils deemed to be ecumenical only by the Catholic Church. There seems not to have been any concensus that the pope held such a role. Had that been the case, I doubt that the Assyrian Church of the East would have broken communion following the Council of Ephesus, or that the Oriental Orthodox Churches would have broken communion following the Council of Ephesus.
Click to expand...
The Assyrian (Persian) Church of the East became independent prior to the Council of Ephesus in 424 A.D. via the Synod of Dadyeshu. (They were part of the Assyrian empire which was often at war with the Byzantine empire.)
 
Vico said:
The Assyrian (Persian) Church of the East became independent prior to the Council of Ephesus in 424 A.D. via the Synod of Dadyeshu. (They were part of the Assyrian empire which was often at war with the Byzantine empire.)
Click to expand...
I had never heard this before, but I did a little bit of investigating, and from what I have read, you are correct. Thank you for pointing this out.
 
RyanBlack said:
Of course all of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils were ultimately approved/accepted by the pope, and apart from such approval/acceptance, they would not have been deemed to be ecumenical. However, I think* it is an anachronistic error to think of it in terms of the role the pope has had over the last several centuries with respect to those Councils deemed to be ecumenical only by the Catholic Church.* There seems not to have been any concensus that the pope held such a role. Had that been the case, I doubt that the Assyrian Church of the East would have broken communion following the Council of Ephesus, or that the Oriental Orthodox Churches would have broken communion following the Council of Ephesus.
Click to expand...
Those in full union with the pope are Catholic.

The Catholic Church recognizes 21 ecumenical councils over the last 20 centuries newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

Since the pope is over the Catholic Church, it is not anachronistic error for a pope to determine over the last 20 centuries, what is and what is not an ecumenical council for the Catholic Church.
 
Trebor135 said:
But do we have documentation that the bishop of Rome approved all seven councils? Did the Early Church believe his approval to be necessary and sufficient for it to gain ecumenical status?
Click to expand...
Has anyone on this thread claimed the “sufficient” part? (That’s not a rhetorical question – it’s possible that someone did and I missed it.)
 
steve_b said:
Those in full union with the pope are Catholic.

The Catholic Church recognizes 21 ecumenical councils over the last 20 centuries newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

Since the pope is over the Catholic Church, it is not anachronistic error for a pope to determine over the last 20 centuries, what is and what is not an ecumenical council for the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I stand by what I wrote. I believe that it is an anachronistic error to state that during the time of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils the approval of the pope was both necessary and sufficient for a council to be deemed ecumenical. Clearly, the pope’s eventual approval/acceptance was necessary-otherwise, a council could not possibly be ecumenical. However, I do not believe that the pope’s approval of a council was understood to be sufficient to make a council ecumenical.
 
RyanBlack said:
I stand by what I wrote. I believe that it is an anachronistic error to state that during the time of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils the approval of the pope was both necessary and sufficient for a council to be deemed ecumenical. Clearly, the pope’s eventual approval/acceptance was necessary-otherwise, a council could not possibly be ecumenical. However, I do not believe that the pope’s approval of a council was understood to be sufficient to make a council ecumenical.
Click to expand...
Same question I put to Trebor: Has anyone on this thread claimed that the Pope’s approval was considered sufficient as well as necessary?
 
Peter_J said:
Same question I put to Trebor: Has anyone on this thread claimed that the Pope’s approval was considered sufficient as well as necessary?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that steve b’s position is that the pope’s approval was considered both necessary and sufficient, though I may be misunderstanding him.
 
RyanBlack said:
I stand by what I wrote. I believe that it is an anachronistic error to state that during the time of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils the approval of the pope was both necessary and sufficient for a council to be deemed ecumenical. Clearly, the pope’s eventual approval/acceptance was necessary-otherwise, a council could not possibly be ecumenical. However, I do not believe that the pope’s approval of a council was understood to be sufficient to make a council ecumenical.
Click to expand...
:confused:
If you agree that “Clearly, the pope’s eventual approval/acceptance was necessary-otherwise, a council could not possibly be ecumenical.” what then is the question?
 
steve_b said:
:confused:
If you agree that “Clearly, the pope’s eventual approval/acceptance was necessary-otherwise, a council could not possibly be ecumenical.” what then is the question?
Click to expand...
If I am reading what he wrote correctly, he does not believe that the approval of the pope was sufficient, only that it was necessary.
 
Peter_J said:
See #74.
Click to expand...
okay, I’ve looked up sufficient and necessary.

sufficient = adequate, enough

necessary = Absolutely essential, indespensable

Since we’re talking about the pope’s involvement in determining a council status, seems to me either one will do, although necessary is a stronger word 🙂
 
steve_b said:
Since we’re talking about the pope’s involvement in determining a council status, seems to me either one will do, although necessary is a stronger word 🙂
Click to expand...
I imagine people could get into a lengthy discussion just over which word is stronger; but to me that’s beside the point.

RyanBlack thought you were claiming that the pope’s approval is sufficient as well as necessary. If you weren’t saying that, then there doesn’t seem to be any actual disagreement there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top