No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

[smad0142]

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

I am just taking a stab in the dark here since I am running late to my date tonight so I do not have time to read the article.

But one thing that explains away the entire issue you seem to be having Montalban is that this requirement as quoted above is now a canonical norm to help standardize the hallmarks of what constitutes an Ecumenical Council. Catholics do not deny that a Pope can confer a Council as Ecumenical after the fact, rather this quote explains that going forward the Church wishes to convoke and identify Ecumenical Councils according to new canonical criterion. Under this understanding of the canonical criterion either preemptive or retroactive recognition of an EC is permissible under divine law, but the preemptive recognition is now the canonical way to precede.

 

[Montalban]

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?

That’s the very point I’m addressing of yours – I’m asking you if a particular church is all he spoke of then it’s not exclusive –as you suppose of a council of churchmen

Further you’ve not shown he’s talking of a particular.

AND I addressed that even if he was each particular church is only a church because it is in communion with the pope – which he fails to mention!

It just doesn’t work, your theory.

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.

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.

Not only are you therefore arguing from silence; an example of not obeying the pope = papal supremacy, your response; that’s not quite it, but almost what I was saying. They’re not merely dealing with pomp and therefore – according to you being sinful also – but there’s the pope accepting that they’re doing what you consider ‘sinful’.

He accepted the council.

 

[Vico]

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

The Pope or legates do not need to be present, and the Catholic Encyclopedia shown that. I am in complete agreement with the Catholic Encyclopedia and posted this from it before (second classification):The Synod Of Constantinople (381) was originally only an Eastern general synod, at which were present the four patriarchs of the East (viz. of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), with many metropolitans and bishops. It ranks as Ecumenical because its decrees were ultimately received in the West also.

It also states for first classification: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.

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
Presidency does not mean that the Pope has to be present, it is under his Presidency, that is, while in office. Confusion over that meaning is why I posted the definition of presidency “the office, function, or term of office of a president.”

 

[Montalban]

I am just taking a stab in the dark here since I am running late to my date tonight so I do not have time to read the article.

God speed you on your way

But one thing that explains away the entire issue you seem to be having Montalban is that this requirement as quoted above is now a canonical norm to help standardize the hallmarks of what constitutes an Ecumenical Council. Catholics do not deny that a Pope can confer a Council as Ecumenical after the fact, rather this quote explains that going forward the Church wishes to convoke and identify Ecumenical Councils according to new canonical criterion. Under this understanding of the canonical criterion either preemptive or retroactive recognition of an EC is permissible under divine law, but the preemptive recognition is now the canonical way to precede.

Yes, again it’s me with the issue – not you guys contradicting each other, and the Catholic sources!

So the pope can retroactively head a council he wasn’t present at???

That’s a new one.

 

[Vico]

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?

You wrote: “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.”

That would mean that Nicea (325) canons were read into the record of Constantinople I (381) before Nicea (325) had been accepted by a Pope. But it was Constantinople I (381) that had delayed acceptance (circa 553). There must be some confusion about the names and orders of those councils.

Since Rome already accepted the decrees of the 1st Ecumenical Council Nicaea (325) it is irrelevant.

• The 1st Ecumenical Council is Nicaea (325) was accepted by Rome.
• The 2nd Ecumenical Council is Constantinople I (381) and is was later accepted by Rome (circa. 553).

 

[Montalban]

The Pope or legates do not need to be present, and the Catholic Encyclopedia shown that. I am in complete agreement with the Catholic Encyclopedia and posted this from it before (second classification):The Synod Of Constantinople (381) was originally only an Eastern general synod, at which were present the four patriarchs of the East (viz. of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), with many metropolitans and bishops. It ranks as Ecumenical because its decrees were ultimately received in the West also.

It also states for first classification: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.

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
Presidency does not mean that the Pope has to be present, it is under his Presidency, that is, while in office. Confusion over that meaning is why I posted the definition of presidency “the office, function, or term of office of a president.”

Your argument fails several times:

You seem to be suggesting that the pope ‘presides’In absentia’ because he’s ‘presiding’ in Rome over the whole church.

This doesn’t work because he is ‘presiding’ then over all councils, including heretical councils called for, etc.

Your interpretation is not only illogical, it’s just plain wrong. The texts notes Pope or his legates! Unless you’re now going to argue that legates ‘presiding’ somewhere in office but not in the council are still presiding (albeit ‘In absentia’) over that council!

The text also says he has to call it. However he didn’t call this council either - as you note it was a local eastern one, So you’re still not given a ‘get out of gaol’ card on this either.

 

[Vico]

God speed you on your way

Yes, again it’s me with the issue – not you guys contradicting each other, and the Catholic sources!

So the pope can retroactively head a council he wasn’t present at???

That’s a new one.

Did you now know that Popes did not personally attend those councils?

Preside includes presence whereas “under the presidency of” does not mean personally present.

 

[Montalban]

Did you now know that Popes did not personally attend those councils?

Preside includes presence whereas “under the presidency of” does not mean personally present.

I addressed this already in a post above - your assertion is not supported by that site’s fact. I says presided over by pope OR legates.

You say Nicea was a local church. This too is not bourne out by the evidence.

All quotes/refernces from the Life of Constantine

Eusebius said that Constantine called an Ecumenical Council.
Chapter VI.—How he ordered a Council to be held at Nicæa.

Can it be called a ‘local’ council then? No.

Certainly it was dominated (in terms of numbers) in eastern attendees. But they were from all over
Chapter VII.—Of the General Council, at which Bishops from all Nations were Present

As I mentioned early, like the Apostles meeting together, so this too was a meeting of equals.
Chapter VIII.—That the Assembly was composed, as in the Acts of the Apostles, of Individuals from Various Nations

Remember that the pope had already condemned Arius.

“Now when the appointed day arrived on which the council met for the final solution of the questions in dispute, each member was present for this in the central building of the palace”
*Chapter X.—Council in the Palace. Constantine, entering, took his Seat in the Assembly.*The FINAL solution to the problem – the pope’s ruling was not final; the council’s was

Of all the clerics Bishop Eusebius held the ‘chief place’ – not the papal legates!
Chapter XI.—Silence of the Council, after Some Words by the Bishop Eusebius

Like James, chief of Jerusalem in Acts 15, Eusebius was chief in the city in which the council was held

 

[Montalban]

One person has tried to explain the lack of papal authority at the 1st Ecumenical Council with several novel arguments

a) that the council was not ecumenical till the pope declared it so.

Eusebius says otherwise

b) that the pope was still ‘presiding’ because he presided over the whole church and was in Rome, presiding

The catholic source mentions popes OR legates presiding. The context is not about absent clerics, but clerics present at the actual council

c) that the council was only ‘eastern’ (or local)

Eusebius said that people came from all over the empire and beyond

Simply put there’s no way of squeezing papal supremacy into the event. That’s not even taking into account that Eusebius presided (not the legates) AND that the council met to give a final solution on a matter the pope had already ruled on.

 

[Vico]

I addressed this already in a post above - your assertion is not supported by that site’s fact. I says presided over by pope OR legates.

You say Nicea was a local church. This too is not bourne out by the evidence.

All quotes/refernces from the Life of Constantine

Eusebius said that Constantine called an Ecumenical Council.
Chapter VI.—How he ordered a Council to be held at Nicæa.

Can it be called a ‘local’ council then? No.

Certainly it was dominated (in terms of numbers) in eastern attendees. But they were from all over
Chapter VII.—Of the General Council, at which Bishops from all Nations were Present

As I mentioned early, like the Apostles meeting together, so this too was a meeting of equals.
Chapter VIII.—That the Assembly was composed, as in the Acts of the Apostles, of Individuals from Various Nations

Remember that the pope had already condemned Arius.

“Now when the appointed day arrived on which the council met for the final solution of the questions in dispute, each member was present for this in the central building of the palace”
*Chapter X.—Council in the Palace. Constantine, entering, took his Seat in the Assembly.*The FINAL solution to the problem – the pope’s ruling was not final; the council’s was

Of all the clerics Bishop Eusebius held the ‘chief place’ – not the papal legates!
Chapter XI.—Silence of the Council, after Some Words by the Bishop Eusebius

Like James, chief of Jerusalem in Acts 15, Eusebius was chief in the city in which the council was held

No, I am not referring to Nicea (325) as a local council. It has always been Constantinople I (381).

Give me the exact quote you are referring to in the Catholic Encyclopedia, just as I have give you some.

 

[Montalban]

This site makes strange claims re: Acts 15

“As for Acts 15, a number of factors point to Peter actually being both the leader at the council and the leader of the early Church. First, there is the manner in which his speech begins and ends. By standing up to speak after the debate had subsided, Peter made an emphatic physical gesture affirming his authority and centrality. The silence afterwards indicated the finality of what Peter had just said; no one disputes either his speech or his right to make it. In fact, the witness of Paul and Barnabas, along with James’s speech, only reinforce and agree with what Peter says.”
catholic.com/magazine/articles/was-james-the-real-leader-of-the-early-church

No one doubts Peter made an emphatic statement. But then so did Paul, then James, and so on.

Most of the article (with headlines such as “Problems with Authority”) is about defending Peter’s primacy against an alleged primacy of James

James certainly was the ‘head’ at that meeting but this didn’t make James ‘pope’. And neither was Peter. The article misses the point entirely as if people are trying to supplant a Catholic notion for Peter with a similar one for James

 

[Montalban]

No, I am not referring to Nicea (325) as a local council. It has always been Constantinople I (381).

Then who was the papal legate who lead at 1st Ecumenical?

Give me the exact quote you are referring to in the Catholic Encyclopedia, just as I have give you some.

You cited the evidence yourself…

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.

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

Your understanding of “preside” to mean the Pope presided (in Rome) therefore over the council doesn’t work

 

[Vico]

Your argument fails several times:

You seem to be suggesting that the pope ‘presides’In absentia’ because he’s ‘presiding’ in Rome over the whole church.

This doesn’t work because he is ‘presiding’ then over all councils, including heretical councils called for, etc.

Your interpretation is not only illogical, it’s just plain wrong. The texts notes Pope or his legates! Unless you’re now going to argue that legates ‘presiding’ somewhere in office but not in the council are still presiding (albeit ‘In absentia’) over that council!

The text also says he has to call it. However he didn’t call this council either - as you note it was a local eastern one, So you’re still not given a ‘get out of gaol’ card on this either.

Did you read what the Catholic Encyclopedia states?

The Synod Of Constantinople (381) was originally only an Eastern general synod, at which were present the four patriarchs of the East (viz. of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), with many metropolitans and bishops. It ranks as Ecumenical because its decrees were ultimately received in the West also.

 

[Vico]

For Reference:

The Seven Ecumenical Councils

1. Nicaea (325)
POPE: St. Sylvester I, 314 – 335
ACTION: Called by the emperor and ratified by Pope Sylvester.
Presided over the council: Constantine I and Hosius is generally believed to have presided at the council.

2. First Council of Constantinople (381) local
POPE: St. Damasus I, 367 – 384
Called by the emperor, it was not attended by the pope or his legates or any bishops from the West. Ratified later by Pope Vigilius (553).
Presided over the council: St. Meletius of Antioch and St. Gregory the Theologian

3. Ephesus (431)
POPE: St. Celestine I, 423 – 432
Called by the Eastern Emperor, Theodosius II and ratified by Pope Celestine I.
Presided over the council: Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria

4. Chalcedon (451)
POPE: St. Leo I, the Great, 440 - 461
Called by Emperor Marcian, and ratified by Pope St. Leo the Great.
Presided over the council: Eusebius of Dorylaeum

5. Constantinople II (553)
POPE: Vigilius, 537 - 555
Called by Justinian I and ratified by Pope Vigilius.
Presided over the council: Patriarch of Constantinople Eutychios

6. Constantinople III (680-681)
POPES: St. Agatho, 678 - 681, and St. Leo II, 682 – 683
Called by Emperor Constantine IV and ratified by Pope St. Leo II.
Presided over the council: Emperor Constantine IV

7. Nicaea II (787)
POPE: Hadrian I, 772 – 795
Called by Empress and ratified by Pope Hadrian I.
Presided over the council: Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

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 think you have to calm down a little bit on Catholics ignoring you etc. What rule are you referring to?

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

Do you mean that there is flexibility in this area among Orthodox? Or different opinions? May I know yours?

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

Well there are some things that were discussed here which may not be exactly what the OP asked and many arguments are going in circles and some aren’t that important. I don’t really have any other question in mind other than the one I made above (about how Orthodox define what a Council is), and the following:

Its been more than 1200 years since Orthodox had a Ecumenical Council, If I am correct. Is there a particular reason for this? I know that the Popes weren’t physically present in the first ones. But do you need the Pope for some reason to make it an “Ecumenical Council”?

If Yes, then wouldn’t that be contradictory for you guys not having the Pope on your side?
If No, well is there something I’m missing here? If the answer to that question is “We’ve simply have had no reason as to why we should make another Ecumenical Council”, well then make me know if that is the answer. Because I asked a friend in real life, and he didn’t have a definite answer (though admittedly he follows his faith very little).

I do not intend to go in circles here (as many people here seem to be going), because I simply do not have the time as many of you do. All I want is one straight answer. In fact I won’t object to the answer you provide me (there is no reason to do it, just wanna know the Orthodox answer to the above question, just to know your position on the matter). Just straight and flat out.

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

I dont think you are being ignored here in any way. I think brother Vico, Markduk and others have answered some objections fairly well. Vico’s last post, answers many objections.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

For Reference:

The Seven Ecumenical Councils

1. Nicaea (325)
POPE: St. Sylvester I, 314 – 335
ACTION: Called by the emperor and ratified by Pope Sylvester.
Presided over the council: Constantine I and Hosius is generally believed to have presided at the council.

2. First Council of Constantinople (381) local
POPE: St. Damasus I, 367 – 384
Called by the emperor, it was not attended by the pope or his legates or any bishops from the West. Ratified later by Pope Vigilius (553).
Presided over the council: St. Meletius of Antioch and St. Gregory the Theologian

3. Ephesus (431)
POPE: St. Celestine I, 423 – 432
Called by the Eastern Emperor, Theodosius II and ratified by Pope Celestine I.
Presided over the council: Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria

4. Chalcedon (451)
POPE: St. Leo I, the Great, 440 - 461
Called by Emperor Marcian, and ratified by Pope St. Leo the Great.
Presided over the council: Eusebius of Dorylaeum

5. Constantinople II (553)
POPE: Vigilius, 537 - 555
Called by Justinian I and ratified by Pope Vigilius.
Presided over the council: Patriarch of Constantinople Eutychios

6. Constantinople III (680-681)
POPES: St. Agatho, 678 - 681, and St. Leo II, 682 – 683
Called by Emperor Constantine IV and ratified by Pope St. Leo II.
Presided over the council: Emperor Constantine IV

7. Nicaea II (787)
POPE: Hadrian I, 772 – 795
Called by Empress and ratified by Pope Hadrian I.
Presided over the council: Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople

Nice post

 

[Montalban]

Did you read what the Catholic Encyclopedia states?

The Synod Of Constantinople (381) was originally only an Eastern general synod, at which were present the four patriarchs of the East (viz. of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), with many metropolitans and bishops. It ranks as Ecumenical because its decrees were ultimately received in the West also.

Presided over by the pope OR his legates

Which legates presided at 1st Ecumenical?

 

[Montalban]

I think you have to calm down a little bit on Catholics ignoring you etc. What rule are you referring to?

nm

Do you mean that there is flexibility in this area among Orthodox? Or different opinions? May I know yours?

I gave the answer I’m going to give

Well there are some things that were discussed here which may not be exactly what the OP asked and many arguments are going in circles and some aren’t that important. I don’t really have any other question in mind other than the one I made above (about how Orthodox define what a Council is), and the following:

There’s Orthodox web-sites out there

 

[Montalban]

I’ve asked one Catholic poster here several times which papal legate presided at the 1st Ecumenical Council.

I’ve seen posts by this person which says Hosius presided. But that’s not to answer my question - it’s a dodge - because Hosius WAS NOT a papal legate.

Here’s what the Catholic encyclopaedia says…

The actual president seems to have been Hosius of Cordova, assisted by the pope’s legates, Victor and Vincentius

newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

Yes, I’m aware that this writer believes in a ‘phantom’ presidency; that the pope residing in Rome some how projects his presidency into the Council; which not only is not supported by the Catholic encyclopaedia, but negates the need for legates – why be represented in a council he’s already presiding in/over?

Interestingly rather than enaging in any of this another Catholic poster wishes to move the discussion onto what Orthodox believe on issues - which is a great off-topic excursion, I’m sure.

 

[Montalban]

Instead of answering my question about the 1st Ec. Council someone chooses to talk a lot about the 2nd.

This doesn’t help the Catholic cause either.

It was accepted in the east AS ECUMENICAL despite not being accepted in the west at that time

First Council of Constantinople
The ecumenical character of this council seems to date, among the Greeks, from the Council of Chalcedon (451). According to Photius (Mansi, III, 596) Pope Damasus approved it, but if any part of the council were approved by this pope it could have been only the aforesaid creed. In the latter half of the fifth century the successors of Leo the Great are silent as to this council

newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm