No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

  • Thread starter Thread starter smad0142
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vico said:
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>
Click to expand...
Isn’t it well-established that neither Nicaea I nor Constantinople I were under “the presdiency of the pope or his legates”? There were papal legates present at Nicaea I, but they cetainly did not preside. I don’t believe there were even papal legates present at Constantinople I.
 
CharlesdeFoucld said:
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.
Click to expand...
Don’t you think the Pope confirmed his own synod? Of course he did.
 
ConstantineTG said:
They addressed the Reformation. Ever since Trent, the Roman Catholic Church has been on “Counter Reformation” mode.
Click to expand...
It’s probably why they’re not ready for Orthodox criticisms.

Some years ago I contacted a few apologetics sites directly. Both immediately swung into “You can’t criticise the church that gave YOU the bible” mode.

They just expected I was a Protestant. And their sense of having been affronted in no way actually addressed my concerns.
 
CharlesdeFoucld said:
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).
Click to expand...
There is not a ‘single chair of Peter’ - several Sees claim Petrine descent, including my own - the Antiochian
 
Montalban said:
It’s probably why they’re not ready for Orthodox criticisms.

Some years ago I contacted a few apologetics sites directly. Both immediately swung into “You can’t criticise the church that gave YOU the bible” mode.

They just expected I was a Protestant. And their sense of having been affronted in no way actually addressed my concerns.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget that the biggest thing that Martin Luther did was essentially eliminate the Episcopate, so the Catholic Church needed to affirm the place of the Bishops in the Church, especially the Pope whom they were already touting as having some divine authority for a while by then. It is not like they’ve never taught that being in communion with the Pope (ie, being under his authority) was essential to salvation even before then. But Pastor Aeternus just expanded that view to include the Pope’s supreme authority and finality of his teachings. Basically that became useful in trying to combat the teachings of the likes of Luther and all who followed afterwards who tried to contest established Catholic beliefs. By my estimation, the Orthodox wasn’t even in the rear view mirror of the Catholic Church at this time, so they never thought of the consequences this would bring towards any sort of reunion with the East. Of course there is the Unia model.
 
Montalban,

From reading the threads there seems to be a lot of various things you are saying. Would you mind organizing all your various objections, arguments, etc. into one post so that it could help re-focus the discussion? I am absolutely not saying this because I think your posts are rambling or all or over the place; I just think that it becomes hard to keep the thread of an argument over several pages. In order to make myself clear let me give a brief example: you object to the Catholic understanding of what constitutes an Ecumenical Council in part based upon Acts 15 and the history of councils being recognized retroactively. Would you be so kind as to simply compile all of these points of yours into one, preferably listed, post? Thank you so much!!
 
Schism_hater said:
Isn’t it well-established that neither Nicaea I nor Constantinople I were under “the presdiency of the pope or his legates”? There were papal legates present at Nicaea I, but they cetainly did not preside. I don’t believe there were even papal legates present at Constantinople I.
Click to expand...
The Popes did not attend those councils.

Presidency definition (Collins): the office, function, or term of office of a president.
Legate definition (Collins): an ecclesiastic delegated by the pope as his representative.
 
Schism_hater said:
Isn’t it well-established that neither Nicaea I nor Constantinople I were under “the presdiency of the pope or his legates”? There were papal legates present at Nicaea I, but they cetainly did not preside. I don’t believe there were even papal legates present at Constantinople I.
Click to expand...
The Popes did not attend those councils. It is not necessary nor does there need to be a legate present.

Presidency definition (Collins): the office, function, or term of office of a president.
Legate definition (Collins): an ecclesiastic delegated by the pope as his representative.
 
Montalban said:
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?
Click to expand...
The bishops approved *Dei Filius *without opposition. There were (and are) many errors that resulted from the movements that were addressed at Vatican I. They are pervasive and have an effect on the faithful.
 
smad0142 said:
Montalban,

From reading the threads there seems to be a lot of various things you are saying. Would you mind organizing all your various objections, arguments, etc. into one post so that it could help re-focus the discussion?
Click to expand...
No.I already driected people to a Wiki article I wrote on this, covering much of my points.

👍
 
Vico said:
The bishops approved Dei Filius without opposition. There were (and are) many errors that resulted from the movements that were addressed at Vatican I. They are pervasive and have an effect on the faithful.
Click to expand...
That seems to be to me you’re saying you don’t know who these heretics were
 
Vico said:
The Popes did not attend those councils. It is not necessary nor does there need to be a legate present.

Presidency definition (Collins): the office, function, or term of office of a president.
Legate definition (Collins): an ecclesiastic delegated by the pope as his representative.
Click to expand...
I’ve asked several times which papal legate presided over 1st Ecumenical Council
 
Montalban said:
No.I already driected people to a Wiki article I wrote on this, covering much of my points.

👍
Click to expand...
I just found it. It will take a lot of time to address the 20 or 30 some odd points the article has outlined but I will try and respond in a reasonably short amount of time.
 
smad0142 said:
I just found it. It will take a lot of time to address the 20 or 30 some odd points the article has outlined but I will try and respond in a reasonably short amount of time.
Click to expand...
You can pick any one point - which I’m amazed you’ve not done so far.

Take the fact councils met after the pope had made rulings in matters, if you want.
 
Montalban said:
No. The 1st Ecumenical Council was an Ecumenical Council.

The contention from Catholics is that all had to be presided over by a papal legate.

None was presiding at this. Therefore the ‘rule’ cited by Catholics has exceptions.
Click to expand...
There is no such rule. A council must be ratified by the Pope to be accepted as a General Council, and the ratification may be partial.

These are the early councils that were eventually accepted. Constantinople I was local to the east and accepted *later *as the second ecumenical by Rome. Popes did not attend any of these. See (Old Catholic Encyclopedia) about Constantinople I: " It ranks as Ecumenical because its decrees were ultimately received in the West also."

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
  1. Council of Nicaea (325)
    ratified by Pope St. Sylvester I (314-335 pontificate)
  2. First Council of Constantinople (381)
    It was a local council of the east. Later ratified by Pope Vigilius (537-555 pontificate)
  3. Council of Ephesus (431)
    ratified by Pope Celestine I (421-432 pontificate)
  4. Council of Chalcedon (451)
    rejection of canon 28 (that of canon 3 of Const. 381) by Pope St. Leo the Great,
    ratified by Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461 pontificate)
  5. Council of Constantinople II (553)
    reconfirmed the first four councils: Nicea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus 431, Chalcedon 451,
    ratified by Pope Vigilius (537-555 pontificate)
 
I just went reading all the posts of this thread. Very intense indeed! There is a one year difference between post 126 and 127, its good they revived it again.

I just have one question for Orthodox. What is your definition of Ecumenical Council? Or what elements are required for a council to be Ecumenical according to your perspective?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top