No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

[Montalban]

I don’t understand why you are asking about heretics, but I know of no heretical Catholic bishops at Vatican I.

My point was that the two Vatican Councils were different from the first councils in that rather than be reactive they were proactive; addressing issues that weren’t actually vexing the church.

You said it was; (I thought you wrote nationalism) you said rationalism.

I asked you what rationalist bishops were called to the Council to be judged.

Now, after all this wonderful exercise in futility you say there were none - thus my point is proven!

 

[Montalban]

There is no such rule.

I address points made here. Catholics here have said that all the ecumenical councils were headed by the pope; or a legate representing him.

Another of these wonderful exercises where you engage me in discussion only to end up not actually addressing the point made… I’m not the one who presented this ‘rule’.

A council must be ratified by the Pope to be accepted as a General Council, and the ratification may be partial.

Which is something I addressed and you’ve not subsequently engaged in - but here it is again; the 1st Ecumenical Council’s canons were read into the 2nd Ecumenical Council BEFORE the 1st had been accepted by a pope. Therefore I conclude that the people at the 2nd accepted the 1st EVEN THOUGH it wasn’t approved of by the pope.

Then there’s a plethora of other points I made that no one wishes to address; such as the issue of councils meeting AFTER the pope has ruled; and that councils met and were headed by people not in communion with Rome.

Further to that I addressed YOUR facts re the 2nd Council that you claim wasn’t accepted by a pope to several centuries later. You have not responded to this particular point.

 

[Montalban]

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.

That would be my fault, if I can use the word. I was, for research going through the posts to see what points people had made on a certain issue. I then noticed one Catholic poster wrongfully using an objection; claiming someone had made an Appeal to Authority.

Like many things I have said, Catholics here have chosen to ignore and instead engage me in rather odd debates; including someone above questioning me over a rule that I DID NOT GIVE HERE

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?

I choose to leave this for others to address. I see this more as a diversion.*

You come to this thread, saying you’ve read the posts - have you nothing to question in particular about points raised?

Why is it that councils were called for to judge on matters when the pope had already ruled?

*- that is, issues are raised, and ignored and instead switching to talk about something else.

 

[smad0142]

Montalban,

 Your presence in this thread, in spite of your 8,000+ posts, is the first time I have found you on the forums. If anything stands out about you it is your frequent use of the “logical fallacy” argument. So imagine how surprised I was when I read your wiki article on Orthodox views of Papal claims (in my response I will say” you claim” when referencing the wiki article since you said you wrote it) and most of the arguments you made was based on several faulty logical connections between premises and conclusions. Here are some examples:

Your article is crippled by two major fallacies: Non sequitur and composition

Non sequitur fallacies

 St. Ignatius of Antioch writes on the composition of the local or particular church. From a discussion about the particular you make an argument about the whole without providing any necessary logical link between your understanding of the particular and the whole. Furthermore you argue that since St. Ignatius is silent on a tier of hierarchy above Bishops he must not believe in such a thing which is of course arguing from silence, another logical fallacy. (Also see the link I mention in my conclusion, St. Ignatius in another passage will refer to the Bishop of Rome as presiding over love). 

 You say that both Sts. Leo and Cyril taught as St. Peter. Yet the quote you provide reads, “Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril.” This quote clearly states that St. Peter taught through St. Leo. This quote also clearly states that St. Cyril taught like St. Leo insofar as St. Cyril taught piously and truly as St. Leo did. Nowhere do you prove that St. Cyril possessing piety or veracity in his teaching therefore makes him a conduit of St. Peter like St. Leo was. Your conclusion has no rational basis in the excerpt your provided.

 You allege that St. Basil did not hold the office of the Bishop of Rome in high esteem. In partial support of this claim you say, “"...but what possible good could accrue to the cause by communication between a man proud and exalted, and therefore quite unable to hear those who preach the truth to him from a lower standpoint, and a man like my brother, to whom anything like mean servility is unknown?" But in this quote St. Basil is clearly referring to the particular man who is currently the Bishop of Rome and not to the Office itself. Your assertion has no rational basis in the quote you provide.

Composition Fallacy

 Overall your article fails because it is based on the composition fallacy. You allege that certain individuals at certain times made certain statements that do not support Papal claims. Even if I were to accept your understanding of the texts provided at best all that serves to do is to show that those individuals did not believe in Papal claims. From the particular you cannot necessarily derive an understanding of the whole.

Other general observations

 You oftentimes are completely silent on or completely ignore the plain meaning of the text. 

 You never address St. John Chrysostom’s claim that St Peter "For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren." You do not critically engage this text or the bolded portion. You move on to talk about something else St. John said later on in the same homily. 

 “I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries.” You admit that this sentence conflates communion with the Catholic Church with agreement with the Apostolic See of Rome but you argue that this conflation refers to the 70 years of orthodoxy at Rome preceding this document. Yet this sentence clearly has nothing to do with the past but with the future, i.e. “from now on.” This sentence does not conflate Catholic Communion and agreement with Rome for a specified and previous time period but rather this sentence establishes that the signatories to this document recognize that going forward disagreeing with the Roman See constitutes a break in communion with the Church. 

 You often cite disciplinary canons, by which I mean rules of conduct, and how the Roman Church does not follow them into the modern era. You do not prove how these canons are immutable and you completely ignore that the Orthodox do not observe all the ancient canons.

 You oftentimes become engaged in arguments based on semantics, e.g. the Keys given to St. Peter and the Apostles. You treat words as if they have only one absolute meaning that is never changed by context, intention, etc. Furthermore such an understanding of theological language amounts to an outright exclusion of nuance from understanding the language of the Fathers. 

 Additionally it would appear that you do not have a full understanding of what Papal Primacy and Infallibility is and therefore you cannot adequately address the teaching as nuanced and believed by the Church as opposed to the caricatures commonly found in polemical literature.

 Your wiki article also overlooks a great number of Patristic sources dealing with the Papacy. Follow the link that Vico provided called Catholic Patristics. Although not a perfect compilation it definitely provides a great amount of information to support the Catholic understanding of the Papacy from Patristic sources. (cont'd)

 

[smad0142]

(cont’d)

You also point to instances where the Bishop of Rome appeared to be scorned, disobeyed, etc. You do not prove how that constitutes an authentic expression of true Dogma and Doctrine. There are myriad examples of the Fathers teaching error but yet they are still venerated in spite of their errors. The presence of a thing does not constitute the legitimacy of that thing, i.e. you consider the episodes of apparent disobedience to constitute doctrinal teaching where I consider them just to be examples of sin.

Conclusion
In my opinion the article you cite is open to far too many criticisms to be able to deal with all of them in a timely manner, and also in a manner that would fit the word limit on posts in CAF threads. My criticisms above serve only to show that your article is not nearly as unassailable as you maintain. If you wish to discuss certain passages from the wiki article you mentioned I would be more than happy to have a focused discussion on each passage one at a time. But it would be simply impossible for me to address all of these claims in a reasonable amount of time. If you would like I would be more than happy to engage each point that is made in the article but I would need about a month.

 

[Montalban]

I’ve had to split this post

Montalban,

 Your presence in this thread, in spite of your 8,000+ posts, is the first time I have found you on the forums.

So what?

If anything stands out about you it is your frequent use of the “logical fallacy” argument.

Are you arguing I’ve applied it incorrectly? Else, so what?

So imagine how surprised I was when I read your wiki article on Orthodox views of Papal claims

Which is heading to the logical fallacy called tu quoque

(in my response I will say” you claim” when referencing the wiki article since you said you wrote it) and most of the arguments you made was based on several faulty logical connections between premises and conclusions. Here are some examples:

Your article is crippled by two major fallacies: Non sequitur and composition

Non sequitur fallacies

 St. Ignatius of Antioch writes on the composition of the local or particular church. From a discussion about the particular you make an argument about the whole without providing any necessary logical link between your understanding of the particular and the whole.

You’ll have to be more specific. What quote are you talking about?

Furthermore you argue that since St. Ignatius is silent on a tier of hierarchy above Bishops he must not believe in such a thing which is of course arguing from silence, another logical fallacy. (Also see the link I mention in my conclusion, St. Ignatius in another passage will refer to the Bishop of Rome as presiding over love).

I didn’t make that argument. I said he mentions what is the church. I cited it. And he says APART FROM THESE THERE IS NO CHURCH.

Therefore I take it that he is saying that this is ‘it’. And, therefore he says nothing above bishop, because he’s already excluded anything other than what he just said! You need to read the quote again.

 

[Montalban]

pt II

 You say that both Sts. Leo and Cyril taught as St. Peter. Yet the quote you provide reads, “Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril.” This quote clearly states that St. Peter taught through St. Leo.

I accept that. It also says “SO TAUGHT CYRIL” which means Cyril taught the same way

This quote also clearly states that St. Cyril taught like St. Leo insofar as St. Cyril taught piously and truly as St. Leo did. Nowhere do you prove that St. Cyril possessing piety or veracity in his teaching therefore makes him a conduit of St. Peter like St. Leo was. Your conclusion has no rational basis in the excerpt your provided.

That’s you drawing a dichotomy that isn’t in the text. It says exactly “SO TAUGHT CYRIL” which you have to ignore, and put in a division not in the text.

 You allege that St. Basil did not hold the office of the Bishop of Rome in high esteem. In partial support of this claim you say, “"...but what possible good could accrue to the cause by communication between a man proud and exalted, and therefore quite unable to hear those who preach the truth to him from a lower standpoint, and a man like my brother, to whom anything like mean servility is unknown?" But in this quote St. Basil is clearly referring to the particular man who is currently the Bishop of Rome and not to the Office itself. Your assertion has no rational basis in the quote you provide.

Composition Fallacy

No. Basil is critical of the papacy

 Overall your article fails because it is based on the composition fallacy. You allege that certain individuals at certain times made certain statements that do not support Papal claims. Even if I were to accept your understanding of the texts provided at best all that serves to do is to show that those individuals did not believe in Papal claims. From the particular you cannot necessarily derive an understanding of the whole.

So from you when they say they’re against something, they’re actually not. Which is an argument from silence.

It’s also to continue the mistake of applying Catholic understanding of the church backwards. It’s like saying “The Papacy existed as we understand it, and even if we have periods when people seem to be saying the opposite, they’re not, because the papacy existed as we understand it!”

Other general observations

 You oftentimes are completely silent on or completely ignore the plain meaning of the text.

That’s a ‘just-so’ statement.

 You never address St. John Chrysostom’s claim that St Peter "For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren." You do not critically engage this text or the bolded portion. You move on to talk about something else St. John said later on in the same homily.

So you’re saying I never dealt with evidence I never dealt with. I also noted that the Catholic encyclopaedia categorically says Chrysostom doesn’t support the papacy. That would, to me, be both clear, and also take care of any number of other quotes you wish to throw into the ring.

 “I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries.” You admit that this sentence conflates communion with the Catholic Church

So what? I address that the east didn’t accept it

 You often cite disciplinary canons, by which I mean rules of conduct, and how the Roman Church does not follow them into the modern era. You do not prove how these canons are immutable and you completely ignore that the Orthodox do not observe all the ancient canons.

I’m not aware what particular canons you refer, but if you have “use by dates” on them, let me know

 You oftentimes become engaged in arguments based on semantics, e.g. the Keys given to St. Peter and the Apostles.

That is the exact type of argument Catholics make.

In Mathew 16 Peter is explicitly given the keys. Later the Apostles are given the same power of binding and loosing, but the word ‘keys’ is absent. Therefore Catholics conclude it was a totally different situation. That’s why I included Church Fathers who aren’t following sola scriptura as you are here

You treat words as if they have only one absolute meaning that is never changed by context, intention, etc.

Which is another ‘just-so’ statement

Furthermore such an understanding of theological language amounts to an outright exclusion of nuance from understanding the language of the Fathers.

I cited the Fathers!

 Additionally it would appear that you do not have a full understanding of what Papal Primacy and Infallibility is and therefore you cannot adequately address the teaching as nuanced and believed by the Church as opposed to the caricatures commonly found in polemical literature.

Which is more ‘just-so’ statement

smad0142:

 

[Montalban]

pt III

 Your wiki article also overlooks a great number of Patristic sources dealing with the Papacy.

Read the title of the article.

Also, I do indeed deal with some of the arguments Catholics make.

Follow the link that Vico provided called Catholic Patristics.

The very reason I wrote my article was because of Catholic quote-mines!

Although not a perfect compilation it definitely provides a great amount of information to support the Catholic understanding of the Papacy from Patristic sources. (cont’d)

No, they’re out of context quote mines. If you actually understood them, you’d note that I addressed many in the article. I rebutted them.

Just one single example (because it also relates to the semantic issue above): Catholic quote mines use John Chryostom to note that Peter was given the keys. I note that this is true but the same Saint notes that the Apostle John “The Son of Thunder” also received the keys.

This both demonstrates your (and other apologists) reading of Matthew is

a) based on sola scriptura – and therefore semantics
b) ignores the Church Fathers – and even when you use John, it’s selective use of evidence!

 

[Montalban]

(cont’d)

You also point to instances where the Bishop of Rome appeared to be scorned, disobeyed, etc. You do not prove how that constitutes an authentic expression of true Dogma and Doctrine.

Yes, this is the Catholic argument from silence again; when Church Councils convened after the pope, ignored the pope, declared a pope a heretic etc. it means that it doesn’t disprove Papal Supremacy – because it just must have existed.

It’s also a goal switch. I’m not sure that there was ANY expression for or against a dogma of papal supremacy in the first 1000 years of our church

There are myriad examples of the Fathers teaching error but yet they are still venerated in spite of their errors.

I agree, so what?

The presence of a thing does not constitute the legitimacy of that thing, i.e. you consider the episodes of apparent disobedience to constitute doctrinal teaching where I consider them just to be examples of sin.

I make no such claim.

I can just as easily say that as there was NO papal supremacy there’d be naturally enough no doctrinal statements about something that didn’t exist!

What I do conclude is that when people disobey or ignore the pope they disobey or ignore the pope. You haven’t accounted for the lack of consequences from the papacy for doing so.

Obviously you think that Meletius who was NOT IN COMMUNION with Rome when he chaired an ecumenical council was actually in communion with Rome –and that John Chryostom who took holy orders from such a man was actually in communion with Rome, because there’s no formal excommunication of them. We can go by arguments of silence all day/

Conclusion
In my opinion the article you cite is open to far too many criticisms to be able to deal with all of them in a timely manner, and also in a manner that would fit the word limit on posts in CAF threads. My criticisms above serve only to show that your article is not nearly as unassailable as you maintain. If you wish to discuss certain passages from the wiki article you mentioned I would be more than happy to have a focused discussion on each passage one at a time. But it would be simply impossible for me to address all of these claims in a reasonable amount of time. If you would like I would be more than happy to engage each point that is made in the article but I would need about a month.

I appreciate you taking time to respond. Apart from your own logical fallacies (even boldly opening your post with a massive tu quoque), and appeals to Protestant exegesis (sola scriptura – and ignoring evidence from Church Fathers) it was very interesting

Then you draw inferences not in the text such as some kind of difference between Cyril and Leo, that’s not written there.

 

[Montalban]

I’d like to repeat…

Ignatius makes a categorical statement of what makes the church; and notes that apart from these offices (deacon, priest and, bishop), along with the people – there is no church.

One Catholic writer then says that this is an argument from silence, because he never mentions the papacy! Of course he doesn’t. He just listed what is the church and excluded other things.

There also seems to be a new Catholic understanding of papal supremacy. Even people condemned by the papacy, or not in communion with the papacy, if they are accorded all due honours or chair an ecumenical council, this isn’t a refutation of the papacy – despite the popes not accepting them.

This is just ‘sin’ – however that’s a massive understatement, and thus a misrepresentation of the case.

Take Nestorius. Condemned by the Pope in a local council. He continued in his beliefs. One might be correct in applying his behaviour after the papal condemnation as ‘sinful’, but that’s not the whole case. He was accepted at an ecumenical council with all due honour – because he hadn’t been removed from his church.

Is the entire council therefore ‘sinning’ because they’ve disobeyed the Pope. The emperor too – because he hadn’t at that time removed Nestorius!

He didn’t until AFTER the ecumenical council had ruled.

But do the popes accept the council? Yes! Apparently they’re not concerned that the emperor, his representatives, and the council were apparently ‘sinning’

It’s simply a case of Catholics trying to have all arguments at once.

 

[smad0142]

I’d like to repeat…

Ignatius makes a categorical statement of what makes the church; and notes that apart from these offices (deacon, priest and, bishop), along with the people – there is no church.

One Catholic writer then says that this is an argument from silence, because he never mentions the papacy! Of course he doesn’t. He just listed what is the church and excluded other things.

There also seems to be a new Catholic understanding of papal supremacy. Even people condemned by the papacy, or not in communion with the papacy, if they are accorded all due honours or chair an ecumenical council, this isn’t a refutation of the papacy – despite the popes not accepting them.

This is just ‘sin’ – however that’s a massive understatement, and thus a misrepresentation of the case.

Take Nestorius. Condemned by the Pope in a local council. He continued in his beliefs. One might be correct in applying his behaviour after the papal condemnation as ‘sinful’, but that’s not the whole case. He was accepted at an ecumenical council with all due honour – because he hadn’t been removed from his church.

Is the entire council therefore ‘sinning’ because they’ve disobeyed the Pope. The emperor too – because he hadn’t at that time removed Nestorius!

He didn’t until AFTER the ecumenical council had ruled.

But do the popes accept the council? Yes! Apparently they’re not concerned that the emperor, his representatives, and the council were apparently ‘sinning’

It’s simply a case of Catholics trying to have all arguments at once.

I would love to respond to everything you said but I hate how unwieldy that makes the thread so I will respond to two points in this post since it is much more tightly packed.

1. Regarding St. Ignatius he is most obviously referring to particular Churches and not the Church Universal. Otherwise the very notion of things such as the College of Bishops and Ecumenical Councils goes out the window. If each particular church constitutes the entire church unto itself then there would be no need for collegiality, councils, synods, etc., all of which are hallmarks of Orthodox ecclesiology. The local Church serves as an Icon of the Trinity and the Universal Church but the local Church does not of itself constitute the entire Church. Once again this tries to force a characteristic of the particular on the whole without proof of necessity.
2. Many things and people have been accepted in the history of the Church which were less than perfect or even sinful. For example how many Fathers committed heresies before certain formal definitions were made but those Fathers still enjoy the status of Saints? Recognizing the authority of a thing does not necessarily make every action of that thing legitimate. I stated this above but you did not seem to understand why. Just because you can cite examples of Fathers and Councils acting a certain why does not make those actions legitimate so to cite such actions in your argument serves no purpose but to obfuscate.

 

[Montalban]

If I had a dollar for every time, instead of engaging in discussion, a Catholic referred me to a web-site of quote mines I’d probably only have about $27

But that’s 27 times too many

 

[Montalban]

I would love to respond to everything you said but I hate how unwieldy that makes the thread so I will respond to two points in this post since it is much more tightly packed.

I appreciate this is the case

Regarding St. Ignatius he is most obviously referring to particular Churches and not the Church Universal. Otherwise the very notion of things such as the College of Bishops and Ecumenical Councils goes out the window.

Why? 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).

Why then would it be a problem for ‘the church’ as a whole meeting – with bishops meeting other bishops?

Surely the fact that many apostles met in Acts 15 would undermine your supposition.

Furthermore, he still doesn’t say “In this PARTICULAR church it consists of only bishop, deacon and priest UNDER THE POPE”

Surely the Catholic understanding of ‘church’ is that it exists under the papacy.

If each particular church constitutes the entire church unto itself then there would be no need for collegiality, councils, synods, etc., all of which are hallmarks of Orthodox ecclesiology. The local Church serves as an Icon of the Trinity and the Universal Church but the local Church does not of itself constitute the entire Church. Once again this tries to force a characteristic of the particular on the whole without proof of necessity.

Then you have a different understanding of the Trinity than I do.

Each member of the Trinity is fully God. Each, person, of the Trinity with each other together is God. One has both the fullness of God in one member, and in all three. That is the mystery of God.

The church serves as a reflection of the Trinity.

Many things and people have been accepted in the history of the Church which were less than perfect or even sinful.

I addressed this:

The council that met to judge the ‘sinful’ Nestorius accorded him due honour until he was pronounced guilty by that council

The pope accepted this. Your convoluted theory would have Nestorius as a ‘sinner’ being judged sinful – yet again, by an ecumenical council.

For example how many Fathers committed heresies before certain formal definitions were made but those Fathers still enjoy the status of Saints?

Which is irrelevant

Recognizing the authority of a thing does not necessarily make every action of that thing legitimate. I stated this above but you did not seem to understand why. Just because you can cite examples of Fathers and Councils acting a certain why does not make those actions legitimate so to cite such actions in your argument serves no purpose but to obfuscate.

Which is as close to an argument from silence as you like.

Then you have to account for why the Council isn’t ‘sinful’ for dealing fairly with a ‘sinner’ already condemned as such by the pope!

 

[Montalban]

There is a really weird system of ‘justice’ in one person’s idea of the Catholic church. Using the terminology of that apologist regarding being ‘sinful’.

Nestorius: charged with heresy by the pope; found to be such, buy the pope.

He is therefore ‘a sinner’.

Cyprian hearing this calls a local council and judges him ‘sinful’ too.

A general council meets. Calls Nestorius. He is still in his role as churchman, despite being declared a ‘sinner’ by two previous local councils.

Why then isn’t Cyprian condemned by the Papacy for ‘daring’ to judge this matter for himself?

Why isn’t the Emperor condemned for calling a general council to pronounce on a person already condemned?

Why aren’t the council members also so condemned?

Nestorius AND Cyprian were both removed from their respective posts.

The council so ruled.

The pope ACCEPTED this council – apparently he HAS TO, to make it Ecumenical!

So the pope has ‘made’ ecumenical a council that came together to judge in a matter he’d already decided upon!

That’s the convoluted Catholic position!

 

[Vico]

My point was that the two Vatican Councils were different from the first councils in that rather than be reactive they were proactive; addressing issues that weren’t actually vexing the church.

You said it was; (I thought you wrote nationalism) you said rationalism.

I asked you what rationalist bishops were called to the Council to be judged.

Now, after all this wonderful exercise in futility you say there were none - thus my point is proven!

I can see you are frustrated. You wrote:

Originally Posted by Montalban forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif *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.*

The Catholic faithful are the community and make up the Church. The Catholic faithful were led into errors due to rationalism, etc., that were considered at Vatican I. Many anathemas were given at Vatican I. There were five decrees on God the Father, four decrees on revelation, six on faith, and three were on faith and reason.

 

[Vico]

I address points made here. Catholics here have said that all the ecumenical councils were headed by the pope; or a legate representing him.

Another of these wonderful exercises where you engage me in discussion only to end up not actually addressing the point made… I’m not the one who presented this ‘rule’.

Which is something I addressed and you’ve not subsequently engaged in - but here it is again; the 1st Ecumenical Council’s canons were read into the 2nd Ecumenical Council BEFORE the 1st had been accepted by a pope. Therefore I conclude that the people at the 2nd accepted the 1st EVEN THOUGH it wasn’t approved of by the pope.

Then there’s a plethora of other points I made that no one wishes to address; such as the issue of councils meeting AFTER the pope has ruled; and that councils met and were headed by people not in communion with Rome.

Further to that I addressed YOUR facts re the 2nd Council that you claim wasn’t accepted by a pope to several centuries later. You have not responded to this particular point.

Catholics that said that are simply wrong. That is why I linked to the Catholic Encyclopedia, to show you an authoritative document.

The only council that I have called a local council of the first seven (of those considered to be ecumenical by Rome after Chaldecon) is Constantinople I (381). That was the second council. Since the second council was the local council, what was read into the record there was irrelevant to this issue. Constantinople I (381) was accepted first by Pope Vigilius after Constantinople II (553).

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

For anyone interested in a non-polemical presentation of the Catholic understanding of ecumenical councils, the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on General Councils is quite good. It’s slightly dated (1917, I think?) but substantively still reflects what I understand to be the relationship between the papacy and the ecumenical councils.

Despite being a century old and a fallible document (anything of its scope and detail could never be infallible), the Catholic Encyclopedia is still a remarkable resource.

Edit: I see Vico has already cited this above. Still, I second his recommendation.

 

[Montalban]

Catholics that said that are simply wrong. That is why I linked to the Catholic Encyclopedia, to show you an authoritative document.

The only council that I have called a local council of the first seven (of those considered to be ecumenical by Rome after Chaldecon) is Constantinople I (381). That was the second council. Since the second council was the local council, what was read into the record there was irrelevant to this issue. Constantinople I (381) was accepted first by Pope Vigilius after Constantinople II (553).

How is it irrelevant - when the councils go on with regard to each other and without regard to whether a Pope has approved of one or not?

 

[smad0142]

I appreciate this is the case

Why? 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).

Why then would it be a problem for ‘the church’ as a whole meeting – with bishops meeting other bishops?

Surely the fact that many apostles met in Acts 15 would undermine your supposition.

Furthermore, he still doesn’t say “In this PARTICULAR church it consists of only bishop, deacon and priest UNDER THE POPE”

Surely the Catholic understanding of ‘church’ is that it exists under the papacy.

Then you have a different understanding of the Trinity than I do.

Each member of the Trinity is fully God. Each, person, of the Trinity with each other together is God. One has both the fullness of God in one member, and in all three. That is the mystery of God.

The church serves as a reflection of the Trinity.

I addressed this:

The council that met to judge the ‘sinful’ Nestorius accorded him due honour until he was pronounced guilty by that council

The pope accepted this. Your convoluted theory would have Nestorius as a ‘sinner’ being judged sinful – yet again, by an ecumenical council.

Which is irrelevant

Which is as close to an argument from silence as you like.

Then you have to account for why the Council isn’t ‘sinful’ for dealing fairly with a ‘sinner’ already condemned as such by the pope!

The bolded section of your writing is the very composition fallacy I was speaking of (the underlined parts make up the bare structure of your composition fallacy: particular therefore universal). The characteristics of the particular do not necessarily translate into the characteristics of the whole If we can admit that he is in fact speaking of the local church then why do you keep insisting on making it a conversation about the universal Church?

In your post below the one I am quoting in this post you seem to be surprised about my assertion that the Ecumenical Council could have treated a “sinful” Bishop with all the pomp and circumstance of his office. Surely you are aware that this sort of unfortunate thing happens all the time whether it be a sinful Deacon, Priest, Bishop, Patriarch, Pope or anything in between. It may be scandalous but unfortunately it is a fact of life that has happened many times before and undoubtedly will continue.

Furthermore I do not understand why the convocation of the Council was problematic even in the light of the Pope’s condemnation. As the problem continued to grow it became opportune for the Bishops to come together to develop a coherent pastoral approach to the entire situation. The convocation of the Council does not nullify the Papal Condemnation; the Council actually helped to foster a universal pastoral approach to address the Nesotorian problem.

And I said the local Church serves as an Icon of the Trinity which is analogous to your statement that it serves as a reflection of the Trinity.

I do appreciate this very much. If it cannot continue here due to the unwieldy development of the thread I would be happy to continue over email.

 

[Montalban]

For anyone interested in a non-polemical presentation of the Catholic understanding of ecumenical councils, the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on General Councils is quite good. It’s slightly dated (1917, I think?) but substantively still reflects what I understand to be the relationship between the papacy and the ecumenical councils.

Despite being a century old and a fallible document (anything of its scope and detail could never be infallible), the Catholic Encyclopedia is still a remarkable resource.

Edit: I see Vico has already cited this above. Still, I second his recommendation.

And yet Vico disagrees with it.

This is what it says:
The pope’s office and the council’s function in the organization of the Church require that the pope should call the council together, **preside over **and direct its labours, and finally promulgate its decrees to the universal Church as expressing the mind of the whole teaching body guided by the Holy Ghost

According to Vico no papal legate presided over the 1st Ecumenical Council