No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

[steve_b]

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.

Since the pope’s approval is necessary, i.e. **Absolutely essential, indespensable **why would anyone ague the pope’s approval isn’t also sufficient, i.e adequate, enough

To test this,

look at the 1st 7 E councils. They were all in the East. We as Catholics have to put on different hats in order to argue certain points. EO argue , the pope’s approval, doesn’t mean anything in the East. We could rebut, then they’d be local councils binding only on those in the East who participated and agreed to the decisions made in those councils. Could anyone in the East make it ecumenical, i.e. also binding on the West? No. None of them (bishops of whatever rank) were adequate or enough to make them ecumenical.

How about the West? Whose approval was absolutely essential? The pope. Could anyone else in the West (not the pope) fill that requirement? No. Could any one in the East fill that spot? No. That means the pope’s approval was not only necessary, but also adequate and enough (sufficient). The Catholic Church had 14 other ecumenical councils after those 1st 7 councils…

After the 7th E council, what about the Orthodox? Any pan Orthodox council in that 1300 year span? What’s necessary, absolutely essential, and indespensable, for such a pan Orthodox council to meet? Whatever that is, Is that also sufficient, i.e. adequate and enough for a binding decision for all Orthodox?

 

[RyanBlack]

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.

Exactly. I believe that the eventual acceptance or approval by the Pope of Rome was indeed understood to be necessary in the early Church for a Council to be deemed ecumenical, but I do not believe that approval by the Pope alone was sufficient for a Council to be deemed ecumenical. In other words, acceptance by the other bishops was also necessary for a Council to be deemed ecumenical. There were all sorts of local synods that are indeed viewed as being authoritative (although not to the same extent as the Ecumenical Councils), but are not viewed as Ecumenical, because they were local in character. I know of none of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils that were not eventually accepted by a majority of the bishops. Some of the Seven Ecumenical Councils started out as being local (particularly the First Council of Constantinople), but their eventual acceptance/approval by the entire Church is what resulted in their status as Ecumenical.

 

[steve_b]

Exactly. I believe that the eventual acceptance or approval by the Pope of Rome was indeed understood to be necessary in the early Church for a Council to be deemed ecumenical, but I do not believe that approval by the Pope alone was sufficient for a Council to be deemed ecumenical. In other words, acceptance by the other bishops was also necessary for a Council to be deemed ecumenical. There were all sorts of local synods that are indeed viewed as being authoritative (although not to the same extent as the Ecumenical Councils), but are not viewed as Ecumenical, because they were local in character. I know of none of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils that were not eventually accepted by a majority of the bishops. Some of the Seven Ecumenical Councils started out as being local (particularly the First Council of Constantinople), but their eventual acceptance/approval by the entire Church is what resulted in their status as Ecumenical.

I think you’re over thinking this. Of course the individual bishops have to at least approve what they’ve decided on. Otherwise what’s the pope supposed to put the final approval to? Without his approval, individual bishops can only speak for their own diocese. Individually, they can’t speak for the entire Church. The pope makes that a reality.

 

[RyanBlack]

Since the pope’s approval is necessary, i.e. **Absolutely essential, indespensable **why would anyone ague the pope’s approval isn’t also sufficient, i.e adequate, enough

To test this,

look at the 1st 7 E councils. They were all in the East. We as Catholics have to put on different hats in order to argue certain points. EO argue , the pope’s approval, doesn’t mean anything in the East. We could rebut, then they’d be local councils binding only on those in the East who participated and agreed to the decisions made in those councils. Could anyone in the East make it ecumenical, i.e. also binding on the West? No. None of them (bishops of whatever rank) were adequate or enough to make them ecumenical.

How about the West? Whose approval was absolutely essential? The pope. Could anyone else in the West (not the pope) fill that requirement? No. Could any one in the East fill that spot? No. That means the pope’s approval was not only necessary, but also adequate and enough (sufficient). The Catholic Church had 14 other ecumenical councils after those 1st 7 councils…

After the 7th E council, what about the Orthodox? Any pan Orthodox council in that 1300 year span? What’s necessary, absolutely essential, and indespensable, for such a pan Orthodox council to meet? Whatever that is, Is that also sufficient, i.e. adequate and enough for a binding decision for all Orthodox?

Necessary and sufficient don’t mean the same thing. Heat is necessary for a flame, but not sufficient-one must also have fuel. I simply don’t see how you can make a case that the Church of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils saw the approval of the pope, and his approval alone, as being sufficient to make a Council Ecumenical. If that were the case, why aren’t western synods (prior to the Great Schism) viewed as Ecumenical? Furthermore, why bother to have a Council at all? Why would anyone other than the Pope (or his legates, since the Pope did not attend any of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils) even have a vote? Why not simply refer the matter to the Pope and await his judgment?

 

[steve_b]

Necessary and sufficient don’t mean the same thing. Heat is necessary for a flame, but not sufficient-one must also have fuel. I simply don’t see how you can make a case that the Church of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils saw the approval of the pope, and his approval alone, as being sufficient to make a Council Ecumenical. If that were the case, why aren’t western synods (prior to the Great Schism) viewed as Ecumenical? Furthermore, why bother to have a Council at all? Why would anyone other than the Pope (or his legates, since the Pope did not attend any of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils) even have a vote? Why not simply refer the matter to the Pope and await his judgment?

Once you have what’s necessary for something to exist, you also have what’s sufficient.

 

[RyanBlack]

I think you’re over thinking this. Of course the individual bishops have to at least approve what they’ve decided on. Otherwise what’s the pope supposed to put the final approval to? Without his approval, individual bishops can only speak for their own diocese. Individually, they can’t speak for the entire Church. The pope makes that a reality.

No, the agreement of all the bishops made it a reality that the Council spoke for the entire Church. Otherwise, why did we have Councils that were entirely eastern (or almost entirely eastern) with respect to which bishops attended become Ecumenical, but none that were entirely western become Ecumenical, until after the Great Schicm?

 

[RyanBlack]

Once you have what’s necessary for something to exist, you also have what’s sufficient.

Once you have ALL of those things that are necessary for something to exist. Something can indeed be necessary, without being sufficient. As I stated before, heat is necessary for a flame, but it is not sufficient. Fuel is necessary for a flame, but it is not sufficient. An oxidizing agent is necessary for a flame, but not sufficient. All the necessary parts must be present for sufficiency to exist.

 

[steve_b]

No, the agreement of all the bishops made it a reality that the Council spoke for the entire Church.

Not so. Unless every possible bishop on the planet attended the council. Bishops can’t speak for anyone other than their own diocese.
R:

Otherwise, why did we have Councils that were entirely eastern (or almost entirely eastern) with respect to which bishops attended become Ecumenical, but none that were entirely western become Ecumenical, until after the Great Schicm?

What were the common denominators before and after the schism?

• Catholic Church
• the pope

Who is the leader of the Catholic Church? the pope

The Catholic Church was here before and after schism

 

[steve_b]

Once you have ALL of those things that are necessary for something to exist. *Something can indeed be necessary, without being sufficient. *As I stated before, heat is necessary for a flame, but it is not sufficient. Fuel is necessary for a flame, but it is not sufficient. An oxidizing agent is necessary for a flame, but not sufficient. All the necessary parts must be present for sufficiency to exist.

If you have a flame, then you have what’s necessary and sufficient for a flame.

 

[RyanBlack]

If you have a flame, then you have what’s necessary and sufficient for a flame.

 With no disrespect intended, that statement makes no sense.  What is necessary for a flame is fuel, heat, and an oxidizing agent.  Without all three you have no flame.  Each of the three is necessary, but none of the three alone is sufficient.  In the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the acceptance of a Council by the pope of Rome was necessary, but not sufficient for a Council to be deemed Ecumenical (universal).  The acceptance by the other bishops who participated in the Council (or at least those who chose to remain until the bitter end) was also necessary, otherwise, there would have been nothing for the pope of Rome to accept/approve, since he never actually attended any of them.  A Church Council, by its very nature, is collegial in character.  

 So, from the First Seven Ecumenical Councils: no consensus of the eastern bishops who actually made up the Council=nothing  for   the pope of Rome to approve, while consensus of the eastern bishops who actually made up the Council=possibility for an ecumenical (universal) Council. Acceptance of an eastern council by the pope of Rome (Patriarch of the West) grants an eastern council the status of ecumenical (universal), while no acceptance by the pope of Rome denies an ecumenical (universal) character to such a council. Both parts are necessary.  Neither part without the other is sufficient.

Realistically, this is how the Roman Catholic Church, subsequent to the Great Schism, has operated. What Council can you point became a Council on the will of the pope of Rome alone, apart from the consensus of the bishops gathered in Council?

 

[steve_b]

With no disrespect intended, that statement makes no sense. What is necessary for a flame is fuel, heat, and an oxidizing agent. Without all three you have no flame.

as I said

“If you have a flame, then you have what’s necessary and sufficient for a flame.”

otherwise you have no flame…true?
R:

Each of the three is necessary, but none of the three alone is sufficient. In the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the acceptance of a Council by the pope of Rome was necessary, but not sufficient for a Council to be deemed Ecumenical (universal). The acceptance by the other bishops who participated in the Council (or at least those who chose to remain until the bitter end) was also necessary, otherwise, there would have been nothing for the pope of Rome to accept/approve, since he never actually attended any of them. A Church Council, by its very nature, is collegial in character.

I think you’re misunderstanding this.

The bishops have done their part.

By necessary and sufficient, that means the pope’s approval of a council is necessary and sufficient to make it ecumenical. iow Once he approves a council, he needs no other (name removed by moderator)ut or approval from anyone else, i.e. no one to approve what he approves in order to make it final… His necessary approval is sufficient to end the process.
R:

So, from the First Seven Ecumenical Councils: no consensus of the eastern bishops who actually made up the Council=nothing for the pope of Rome to approve, while consensus of the eastern bishops who actually made up the Council=possibility for an ecumenical (universal) Council. Acceptance of an eastern council by the pope of Rome (Patriarch of the West) grants an eastern council the status of ecumenical (universal), while no acceptance by the pope of Rome denies an ecumenical (universal) character to such a council. Both parts are necessary. Neither part without the other is sufficient.

Again, once a pope approves a council, no other approval is necessary. His approval is sufficient to end all debate.
R:

Realistically, this is how the Roman Catholic Church, subsequent to the Great Schism, has operated. What Council can you point became a Council on the will of the pope of Rome alone, apart from the consensus of the bishops gathered in Council?

For clarification,

Are you asking, what council became an E council on the will of the pope apart from the consensus of the bishops gathered?

 

[Trebor135]

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?

I’m not very familiar with these issues. My goal was not to prove something in particular, but to acquire more information/hear other posters’ perspectives.

 

[Trebor135]

Same question I put to Trebor: Has anyone on this thread claimed that the Pope’s approval was considered sufficient as well as necessary?

I was asking general questions, not responding to a statement in the thread about the pope’s approval being necessary, sufficient, or both, for a council to be ecumenical.

I’d like to see the earlier discussion resume about the Vigilius/Fifth Ecumenical Council episode (it just… stopped).

 

[steve_b]

I was asking general questions, not responding to a statement in the thread about the pope’s approval being necessary, sufficient, or both, for a council to be ecumenical.

I’d like to see the earlier discussion resume about the Vigilius/Fifth Ecumenical Council episode (it just… stopped).

could you refresh everyone’s memory, what is it you wanted to discuss,

newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

 

[RyanBlack]

as I said

“If you have a flame, then you have what’s necessary and sufficient for a flame.”

otherwise you have no flame…true?

I think you’re misunderstanding this.

The bishops have done their part.

By necessary and sufficient, that means the pope’s approval of a council is necessary and sufficient to make it ecumenical. iow Once he approves a council, he needs no other (name removed by moderator)ut or approval from anyone else, i.e. no one to approve what he approves in order to make it final… His necessary approval is sufficient to end the process.

Again, once a pope approves a council, no other approval is necessary. His approval is sufficient to end all debate.

For clarification,

Are you asking, what council became an E council on the will of the pope apart from the consensus of the bishops gathered?

Yes, if you have a flame, you have what is necessary to have a flame: fuel, heat, and an oxidizing agent. Each of them is necessary, but none of the three is sufficient. It is my opinion that the history of the Seven Ecumenical Councils shows that the approval of the pope of Rome is necessary for a council to be deemed Ecumenical (it is also a matter of common sense, sense a council that is deemed Ecumenical is deemed to be universal in scope). However, it is not my opinion that the history of the the Seven Ecumenical Councils shows that the approval of the pope of Rome, apart from the approval of the bishops gathered in council, is sufficient for a council to be deemed an Ecumenical Council. Furthermore, I do not agree that the history of the Seven Ecumenical Councils shows that the approval of the pope of Rome was both necessary and sufficient to bring an end to the debate. The debate ended before it even got to the pope of Rome, since he was not present at any of them, and in the case of at least one of them, he was not even represented by papal legates. Finally, in response to your last question, yes, I was asking, which council became an Ecumenical Council on the will of the pope apart from the consensus of the bishops gathered (when the council’s deliberations came to a close, since there are councils where some bishops departed and were not there for a final vote)?

 

[Trebor135]

could you refresh everyone’s memory, what is it you wanted to discuss,

Please see posts #55-60 on page 4 of this thread, in which Cavaradossi, citing a scholar by the name of Richard Price, seems to demonstrate conclusively that the Fifth Ecumenical Council implicitly anathematized Vigilius. This episode may say a lot about the ecclesiology of the Early Church: I couldn’t imagine an ecumenical council excommunicating a pope today. Has this ever occurred since the Great Schism?

newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia may be a widely respected source even now, but given that it was published a hundred and four years ago, it would seem best to rely on much more recent scholarship insofar as we are able on any issue, historical or otherwise.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
Same question I put to Trebor: Has anyone on this thread claimed that the Pope’s approval was considered sufficient as well as necessary?

No problem. My question has become obsolete in the last few hours anyhow.

 

[Peter_J]

Please see posts #55-60 on page 4 of this thread, in which Cavaradossi, citing a scholar by the name of Richard Price, seems to demonstrate conclusively that the Fifth Ecumenical Council implicitly anathematized Vigilius. This episode may say a lot about the ecclesiology of the Early Church: I couldn’t imagine an ecumenical council excommunicating a pope today. Has this ever occurred since the Great Schism?

I’m not sure off the top of my head. But my guess is that later Ecumenical Councils repeated earlier anathemas, but didn’t actually anathematize a sitting Pope.

 

[steve_b]

Please see posts #55-60 on page 4 of this thread, in which Cavaradossi, citing a scholar by the name of Richard Price, seems to demonstrate conclusively that the Fifth Ecumenical Council implicitly anathematized Vigilius. This episode may say a lot about the ecclesiology of the Early Church: I couldn’t imagine an ecumenical council excommunicating a pope today. Has this ever occurred since the Great Schism?

The Catholic Encyclopedia may be a widely respected source even now, but given that it was published a hundred and four years ago, it would seem best to rely on much more recent scholarship insofar as we are able on any issue, historical or otherwise.

Then here’s the updated versions

3 Chapters oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Three_Chapters last updated 2010
Pope Vigilius oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Pope_Vigilius last updated 2010

 

[steve_b]

It is my opinion that the history of the Seven Ecumenical Councils shows that the approval of the pope of Rome is necessary for a council to be deemed Ecumenical (it is also a matter of common sense, sense a council that is deemed Ecumenical is deemed to be universal in scope). However,* it is not my opinion that the history of the the Seven Ecumenical Councils shows that the approval of the pope of Rome, apart from the approval of the bishops gathered in council, is sufficient for a council to be deemed an Ecumenical Council.*

No one is saying the bishops don’t do their part. We’re talking about the final approval.

The pope’s approval is final. It is necessary and sufficient to end the process.
R:

Furthermore, I do not agree that the history of the Seven Ecumenical Councils shows that the approval of the pope of Rome was both necessary and sufficient to bring an end to the debate.

Do you have any examples that the process continued (iow, the council kept going) after the pope approved the council
R:

The debate ended before it even got to the pope of Rome, since he was not present at any of them, and in the case of at least one of them, he was not even represented by papal legates.

That doesn’t make the council ecumenical.
R:

Finally, in response to your last question, yes, I was asking, which council became an Ecumenical Council on the will of the pope apart from the consensus of the bishops gathered (when the council’s deliberations came to a close, since there are councils where some bishops departed and were not there for a final vote)?

The point is, bishops by themselves can’t make a council ecumenical.