No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

[Montalban]

There is an astounding level of confusion in this thread over ecumenical councils. Ecumenical Councils were so-called because they were taken to be representative of the mind of the bishops throughout what was the graeco-roman world.

I agree; with most of this. Bishops also came from outside this world - as I understand it - from Armenia, Persia etc.

They were not only church affairs, but also legal affairs within the empire.

That’s true. The emperor, or one of his representatives had to be there.

One can see this from the importance given to the reading of the imperial sacra at councils. We see for example, at the Council of Ephesus, that the council simply could not begin its proceedings until the imperial sacra was read. St. Cyril somewhat cleverly managed to trick the Emperor’s representative into reading the imperial sacra early at this council, managing thereby to begin the council before John of Antioch’s party had arrived.

There really is no explanation for why councils become ecumenical, except for the idea that the received tradition recognizes them as such. This is even true in the West, up until perhaps the First Vatican Council. The very modern idea that having papal ratification of a council automatically gives it ecumenical authority is most certainly false when examined against the historical record of papal ratification of councils and their reception.

Yes, the modern Catholic councils are called for by the pope to declare that has more power.

 

[Montalban]

We do know about how councils are classified, at least by the Catholic Church, as can be seen in the (Old) Catholic Encylopedia:Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.
Wilhelm, Joseph. “General Councils.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 27 May 2013 <newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm>

According to you or your colleagues - I can’t recall who said it, the 1st Ecumenical Council started off as a local eastern council. Are you saying that the pope sent legates to a local eastern council? And, that they ‘presided’?

Move on through history; there’s debate whether Cyril was papal legate.

However this all misses a very important point. Nestorius (like Arius before him) had already been condemned BEFORE the respective councils by the pope.

Despite the popes already giving a ruling the respective councils met - called for by the emperors, These councils met and decided for themselves and each gave rulings based on their own judgment. They don’t use language like “The pope says…” but “We the council say…”

In the case of Nestorius, despite already being condemned as a heretic by the pope AND Cyril was accorded all due honour as befitting his rank UNTIL the council had condemned him - and I should note that Cyril too, in a local council met AFTER the pope had condemned Nestorius. He too then judged the matter locally.

 

[Montalban]

St. Cyril somewhat cleverly managed to trick the Emperor’s representative into reading the imperial sacra early at this council, managing thereby to begin the council before John of Antioch’s party had arrived.

Yes, this is mentioned in Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by John Anthony McGuckin

The emperor’s representative is Count Candidian.

On another note I wrote for wiki a large article that is still much as I wrote it
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy

However it was the subject of a vile edit war when one Catholic editor continually chopped the article up

 

[ConstantineTG]

What I find also interesting is that councils, including the one mentioned in Acts 15 came together because of a trouble brewing in the community.

The ‘cause’ was some dogmatic problem; the councils were ‘reactive’.

However recent ‘Catholic’ Ecumenical Councils, such as Vatican I were called - as far as I’m aware - to discuss matters that were not a raging heresy within the church.

The modern ‘Catholic’ Ecumenical Councils come about differently from previous councils.

They were still reactive. Rome always touted the supremacy of the Pope but never taught of dogmatizing it until the rampat anti-clericalism in Europe as a fallout of the Reformation. All Marian and Papal Dogmas were a response to the Reformation.

 

[Montalban]

They were still reactive. Rome always touted the supremacy of the Pope but never taught of dogmatizing it until the rampat anti-clericalism in Europe as a fallout of the Reformation. All Marian and Papal Dogmas were a response to the Reformation.

What heresy was raging through the Catholic Church at that time questioning papal infallibility???

I’m not aware of them. What were they called, prior to the Council?

 

[ConstantineTG]

What heresy was raging through the Catholic Church at that time questioning papal infallibility???

There were people leaving the Catholic Church and following the Protestants. They needed to make the assertion that the correct teaching can only come from the Pope, thus believing the Reformers is akin to condemning yourself.

I’m not aware of them. What were they called, prior to the Council?

The dogmas? Well, they weren’t dogmas. The beliefs were there, but they weren’t dogmatized the same as they were in the East. I’m not sure how much emphasis was there on those traditions before Dogmatization.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

There really is no explanation for why councils become ecumenical, except for the idea that the received tradition recognizes them as such. This is even true in the West, up until perhaps the First Vatican Council. The very modern idea that having papal ratification of a council automatically gives it ecumenical authority is most certainly false when examined against the historical record of papal ratification of councils and their reception.

Epistemologically, I’m not sure how you could determine from the historical record that papal ratification bestows ecumenical authority is ‘most certainly false.’ At most, you could establish that this was not the perception in certain times or places, or that a pope played a less active role in this or that council. But the Petrine ministry is a theological claim about the instruments the Holy Spirit uses to guide the Church.

For Catholics, the very definition of an ecumenical council is the successor of Peter teaching in conjunction with the successors of the apostles, as Vico’s quotation from Lumen Gentium shows. The Church has defined it that way based on our understanding of the Lord’s promises to Peter. ‘By ecumenical council, we mean precisely this.’ You may consider the phrase ‘ecumenical council’ to mean something different, but it’s a question of definition, not of the historical record. If a mathematician says, ‘Let x=1’, I don’t know how you can appeal to the historical record to prove him incorrect.

At most, one could propose an alternative model (eg, an ecumenical council is a council that the later orthodox tradition regards as an ecumenical council).

But barring the Lumen Gentium definition cited above, it’s very difficult to account for what makes an ecumenical council an ecumenical council (in the solemn sense of binding and loosing).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Epistemologically, I’m not sure how you could determine from the historical record that papal ratification bestows ecumenical authority is ‘most certainly false.’ At most, you could establish that this was not the perception in certain times or places, or that a pope played a less active role in this or that council. But the Petrine ministry is a theological claim about the instruments the Holy Spirit uses to guide the Church.

Because the First Council in Lateran wasn’t an Ecumenical Council even though it was convened by the Pope and even though the same teaching was taught at the 6th Ecumenical Council. If the Pope always had the power to declare a council Ecumenical, why wasn’t his council deemed Ecumenical even though the same teaching was accepted by an Ecumenical Council later on?

 

[Montalban]

There were people leaving the Catholic Church and following the Protestants. They needed to make the assertion that the correct teaching can only come from the Pope, thus believing the Reformers is akin to condemning yourself.

People have always left the Catholic church and gone to Protestantism, and vise versa

That’s not a heresy, though.

The dogmas? Well, they weren’t dogmas. The beliefs were there, but they weren’t dogmatized the same as they were in the East. I’m not sure how much emphasis was there on those traditions before Dogmatization.

Then you’ve not answered my question

 

[ConstantineTG]

People have always left the Catholic church and gone to Protestantism, and vise versa

That’s not a heresy, though.

They needed to assert that Papal Teaching is the right one. Also, they have proclaimed in the past that one needs to be under the Pope to be saved. So Pastor Aeternus dogmatizes the Pope’s authority over what is true Christian belief vs. the claims made by those who aren’t the Pope, namely people like Martin Luther.

Then you’ve not answered my question

If you know what is not the answer, then you know the answer
Dogmatization basically means something is “required” and not something that is merely a theological opinion. For example, in Orthodoxy we do not have Marian dogmas. While there are Traditions which are unmovable, there are certain beliefs about the Theotokos that is open for debate and frankly the faith does not require a definitive believe one way or another. Whereas in Catholicism there arose a need to make these beliefs “required” because Protestantism has said otherwise. So to ensure people who are Catholic aren’t confused by the Reformers, it was stated clearly that such beliefs are dogmas and thus necessary to be believed for salvation.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Because the First Council in Lateran wasn’t an Ecumenical Council even though it was convened by the Pope and even though the same teaching was taught at the 6th Ecumenical Council. If the Pope always had the power to declare a council Ecumenical, why wasn’t his council deemed Ecumenical even though the same teaching was accepted by an Ecumenical Council later on?

I’ll have to read up on the Lateran Synod, but I already notice that we’ve gone from the ‘confirmed/accepted’ of Lumen Gentium to the ‘convened’ of the Lateran Synod. That’s a significant distinction.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

What heresy was raging through the Catholic Church at that time questioning papal infallibility???

Gallicanism.

 

[Montalban]

They needed to assert that Papal Teaching is the right one. Also, they have proclaimed in the past that one needs to be under the Pope to be saved. So Pastor Aeternus dogmatizes the Pope’s authority over what is true Christian belief vs. the claims made by those who aren’t the Pope, namely people like Martin Luther.

Are you saying Catholics believe Vatican I addressed Lutheranism?

 

[Montalban]

Gallicanism.

Your own source says this:
When the first Vatican Council opened, in 1869, it had in France only timid defenders.

Hardly ‘raging’ through the Church.

What about Vatican II - what heresy did it combat?

There exists in Catholicism today two lines of thought regarding Mary; whether she is a co-redemptrix/redemptress, or not. I’m not here to debate the merits of either of these. But clearly one would be wrong - due to the law of the excluded middle.

They currently exist in the church. I would not say that they are ‘raging through the church’ - the controversy and would be surprised if today a council was called to settle the matter.

Likewise difference of opinion exist in any number of matters.

I do not see “Gallicanism” as a heresy that was a major cause of vexation to the church at the time the Council was called.

I believe that the two Vatican councils were not like previous ‘reactive’ councils – councils that date back to Acts 15.

 

[Vico]

What I find also interesting is that councils, including the one mentioned in Acts 15 came together because of a trouble brewing in the community.

The ‘cause’ was some dogmatic problem; the councils were ‘reactive’.

However recent ‘Catholic’ Ecumenical Councils, such as Vatican I were called - as far as I’m aware - to discuss matters that were not a raging heresy within the church.

The modern ‘Catholic’ Ecumenical Councils come about differently from previous councils.

Vatican I was called to combat rationalism, liberalism, and materialism, and to define the Catholic doctrine concerning the Church of Christ. The issue of the nature of the Church was continued at Vatican II. Two dogmatic documents were issued from the council: Dei Filius and Pastor Aeternus.Decree of opening of the council

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. Most reverend fathers, is it your pleasure that,

• to the praise and glory of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
• for the increase and exaltation of the Catholic faith and religion,
• for the uprooting of current errors,
• for the reformation of the clergy and the Christian people, and
• for the common peace and concord of all,

the holy ecumenical Vatican council should be opened, and be declared to have been opened?

[They replied: Yes]
Vatican IThis council was summoned by Pope Pius IX by the bull Aeterni Patris of 29 June 1868. The first session was held in St. Peter’s basilica on 8 December 1869 in the presence and under the presidency of the Pope.

 The purpose of the council was, besides the condemnation of contemporary errors, to     define the Catholic doctrine concerning the Church of Christ. In fact, in the three     following sessions, there was discussion and approval of only two constitutions: Dogmatic     Constitution On The Catholic Faith and First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of     Christ, the latter dealing with the primacy and infallibility of the bishop of Rome. The     discussion and approval of the latter constitution gave rise, particularly in Germany, to     bitter and most serious controversies which led to the withdrawal from the Church of those     known as "Old Catholics".

 The outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war led to the interruption of the council.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm

inters.org/Vatican-Council-I-Dei-Filius

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

dailycatholic.org/history/20ecume1.htm

Vatican II

1. Vatican II presented a renewed vision of what it means to be the Church. The Council document Lumen Gentium on the nature of the Church called the Church a light for the world and the source of salvation. The document Gaudium et Spes on the Church in the modern world said the Church shares the joys and sufferings of the world. Both documents refer to the Church as the People of God, reflecting a new appreciation of lay people that surfaced repeatedly at the Council.

usccb.org/news/2012/12-155.cfm

 

[Montalban]

Vatican I was called to combat rationalism, liberalism, and materialism, and to define the Catholic doctrine concerning the Church of Christ. The issue of the nature of the Church was continued at Vatican II. Two dogmatic documents were issued from the council: Dei Filius and Pastor Aeternus.

Decree of opening of the council
​

So… Nationalism was a heresy in the Catholic Church?

Who were these nationalist heretics? What were they called in the church? Garibaldists???

I’m not aware of any nationalist bishops being called to the council to stand judgment​

 

[Montalban]

I don’t want to draw people into discussing this too much, because it’s detracting from my point - still not addressed about Ecumenical Councils called for AFTER popes had made rulings

And also I’d like to know which papal legate presided over the First Ecumenical Council… given that Catholics here have told me that it was only a local eastern council.

 

[Vico]

So… Nationalism was a heresy in the Catholic Church?

Who were these nationalist heretics? What were they called in the church? Garibaldists???

That font may be hard to read, not nationalism but** r a t i o n a l i s m.

**Q. “which papal legate presided over the First Ecumenical Council?”
A. None, it was a local council with no representation from Rome. There were 186 bishops there.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const1.txt

 

[Montalban]

Also, much earlier someone made the error of stating that Peter presided in the council of Acts 15. This is false. James presided.

It was also noted that when Peter spoke, all were silent. This act is typical of a problem I find with papal apologetics.

Things are taken to mean Peter was pope; because they are.

An act of courtesy extended to subsequent speakers – such as Paul, is deemed (in the context of Peter) to be something special when there is no difference in the text when they’re silent to Peter, and they’re silent to Paul.

 

[Montalban]

That font may be hard to read, not nationalism but** r a t i o n a l i s m.

**Q. “which papal legate presided over the First Ecumenical Council?”
A. None, it was a local council with no representation from Rome. There were 186 bishops there.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const1.txt

My apologises.- I also left my glasses at home.

What ‘rationalist bishops’ were called to the council. What movement of Catholics were lead by these heretics?