No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

[Montalban]

I pasted the wrong quote,

I accept it was a genuine error on your part.

I don’t know what relevence your quote has, anyway

the correct one is in THE DECRETAL LETTER OF POPE VIGILIUS in the same source. Vigilius to his beloved brother Eutychius.

…

Therefore, my dear brothers, I do you to wit, that in common with all of you, our brethren, we receive in all respects the four synods, that is to say the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the first Ephesian, and the Chalcedonian; and we venerate them with devout mind, and watch over them with all our mind. And should there be any who do not follow these holy synods in all things which they have defined concerning the faith, we judge them to be aliens to the communion of the holy and Catholic Church.

…
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.asp

Now all you have to do is show ‘the Greeks’ only accepting the council because of this - but I’ve asked you so many times now.

You’re still 100 years after them doing this!

Once again; the Catholic source says:

The ecumenical character of this council seems to date, among the Greeks, from the Council of Chalcedon (451).
newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

You’re citing something from 553

The problem remains the same. For days now you’ve not addressed it

Your claim - the council needs papal approval to be ecumenical

The evidence (above) is that the east accepted it at least by 451

You keep posting evidence of popes approving it 100 years later.

I ask you to evidence your claims and you keep repeating evidence that is too late

Perhaps you don’t understand the problem?

 

[Montalban]

Okay I am more than happy to start off with a point of yours so long as we agree that we will talk about this and only this point for right now. The point I would like to talk about is St. Ignatius’ quote you cite in the wiki article.

“In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.”

I maintain that the quote can only be logically applied to the particular church.

I maintain I’ve already responded to this. What’s worse is that it was YOU who I responded!
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10804526&postcount=204
and here
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10804801&postcount=211
and so on
I’m happy to go over your error again.
Each particular Catholic church is only Catholic because of its relationship with the church in Rome; that it is in communion with the pope.
That’s the catholic notion of church – unless you now want to say the pope is unnecessary.
Ignatius’ idea is – even if I take your ‘particular church’ notion, doesn’t help because he doesn’t say “deacon, priest, bishop UNDER THE POPE” but makes a categorical statement that apart from these there is no church.
I then dealt with your other objection about bishops being in communion with other bishops and how this still is okay, because it’s a reflection of the Triune nature of God.
So where are we up to now?
I’ve responded to your posts. Instead of dealing with that you spend time telling me how you can’t reply to any of my posts because there’s too many points and it’s too unwieldy etc.
But I responded to particular points of yours.

From my perspective all the arguments here from Catholics are simply going back to something already said!

Vico posts the same evidence over and over again.
You return to ‘starting with’ points we’ve already discussed.

 

[Montalban]

The whole re-interpretation of smad0142 is quite startling.

Ignatius says
*“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” *
Epistle to the Smyrnaeans. Chapter VIII. – Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.

He says there is THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

He doesn’t say “There is your particular church”

The Catholic notion is that what makes a church “Catholic” is it’s continued communion with the See of Peter in Rome.

Ignatius doesn’t mention that at all. He doesn’t even say “Your particular church is Catholic because it’s in communion with Rome”. He says it’s Catholic because it’s under its own bishop! Full stop.

This is simply another case of Catholics starting with the papacy as axiomatic and mashing the texts in to meet that ‘truth’.

Here’s some other interpretation of that text:
“In this text, the catholic Church is the local Church, the gathering of the people of God around the bishop to offer the sacred Eucharist, not ‘universal visible society founded by Christ”.(a) For Ignatius the church is a world-wide unity of many Catholic communities. Each has at its centre a bishop “who draws together the local community in the Eucharistic celebration.” (b) “The church in its fullness is present in a limited locality.” (c)

Catholic writer Cardinal Newman recognises this lack of evidence from Ignatius, but tries to argue a reason for this “…it is true, St. Ignatius is silent in his Epistles on the subject of the Pope’s authority; but if in fact that authority could not be in active operation then, such silence is not so difficult to account for…” (d)

a) Cleenewerck , L. A., (2007) His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (Euclid University Consortium Press; Washington, DC), p71.

b) Empie, P. C., & Murphy, T. A., (1974) Papal Primacy and the Universal Church: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V (Augsburg Publishing House; Minneapolis, MN) p47.

c) Kesich, V., Peter’s Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition in Meyendorff, J. (Ed.) (1992) The Primacy of Peter (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p48.

d) Newman, J. H., (1909) An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (Longmans, Green & Co; London), p149

smad0142 is adding meaning that is both absent from the text, and doesn’t help anyway. Cardinal Newman noted that there’s NOTHING in Ignatius that supports the papacy. Although he too goes on to argue from silence; that the absence of it doesn’t prove that it doesn’t exist. Even if this were true it still doesn’t help the Catholic cause because at best they can’t use Ignatius of Antioch to support their case.

 

[Montalban]

Even when Ignatius writes and I believe he’s writing about a particular church; it doesn’t help the Catholic case such as when he writes to Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna he states that God is Polycarp’s bishop, clearly stating that there is no intermediary between the local bishop and God;

• “Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnæans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness” *
  Salutation in Epistle to Polycarp

He mentions a relationship between Polycarp (a bishop) straight to Jesus. Not through another tier, not through “Jesus’ representative here on earth”, etc.

 

[Vico]

I accept it was a genuine error on your part.

I don’t know what relevence your quote has, anyway

Now all you have to do is show ‘the Greeks’ only accepting the council because of this - but I’ve asked you so many times now.

You’re still 100 years after them doing this!

Once again; the Catholic source says:

The ecumenical character of this council seems to date, among the Greeks, from the Council of Chalcedon (451).
newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

You’re citing something from 553

The problem remains the same. For days now you’ve not addressed it

Your claim - the council needs papal approval to be ecumenical

The evidence (above) is that the east accepted it at least by 451

You keep posting evidence of popes approving it 100 years later.

I ask you to evidence your claims and you keep repeating evidence that is too late

Perhaps you don’t understand the problem?

The relevance is to address your statement: “He evidences nothing that the pope accepted THE COUNCIL (only a creed).”

The east and the west have different criteria for an ecumenical or general council. Constantinople made a determination independently of Rome in 451, Rome made their statement in 553. The Council of Constantinople (381) was not accepted in toto at The Council of Chalcedon by Pope Leo I. Catholic Encyclopedia has (with regard to the second council and canon 3):Nor did Rome easily acknowledge this unjustifiable reordering of rank among the ancient patriarchates of the East. It was rejected by the papal legates at Chalcedon. St. Leo the Great (Ep. cvi in P.L., LIV, 1003, 1005) declared that this canon has never been submitted to the Apostolic See and that it was a violation of the Nicene order.
newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

 

[twf]

Even when Ignatius writes and I believe he’s writing about a particular church; it doesn’t help the Catholic case such as when he writes to Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna he states that God is Polycarp’s bishop, clearly stating that there is no intermediary between the local bishop and God;

• “Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnæans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness” *
  Salutation in Epistle to Polycarp

He mentions a relationship between Polycarp (a bishop) straight to Jesus. Not through another tier, not through “Jesus’ representative here on earth”, etc.

This is also the Catholic teaching. Each bishop is a true vicar of Christ, as the Second Vatican Council taught, and receives the fulness of the high priesthood directly from Christ. The pope of Rome exercises primacy over all of the Churches, but he is not ontologically distinct from his brother bishops - there is no fourth order of holy orders. The pope is a bishop, not something else. The pope is greater in the order of jurisdiction, but not in terms of sacramental orders. This goes back to my earlier post where I maintained that many objections to Catholic doctrine are based on over simplifications of Catholic beliefs that miss the nuance intrinsic to our holy faith. There is nothing in St Ignatius that contradicts my faith. An ecumenical council can over rule the judgment of a local bishop in the same way that the pope can, when there is true necessity, but this doesn’t imply that each bishop doesn’t receive his authority directly from Christ Jesus, otherwise the Orthodox would have the same issue with ecumenical councils disciplining or over ruling individual bishops. In the sacrament of holy orders - the very essence of the priesthood - each bishop’s connection to Christ is direct. In the matter of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or Church discipline, Christ gave the body as a whole - the bishops united to their head the Bishop of Rome - oversight over individual bishops to ensure unity and order.
See paragraphs 894 and 895 in the Catechisim of the Catholic Church - not only are all bishops explicitly said to be true vicars of Christ, but the Church states “bishops should NOT be thought as vicars of the Pope.”
I often like to imagine it as something akin to a federal constitutional monarchy such as Canada. In Canada, the federal government exercises governance over the entire country and receives its mandate and authority from the Queen, as exercised by her “vicar” the Governor General. The 10 provincial governments exercise governance over only portions of the country - individual provinces - but they do not receive their authority as a delegation of the federal government’s greater jurisdiction, but rather receive it also directly from the Queen as represented by the Lieutenant Governor in each province - who represent her directly and not the Governor General. Likewise, while the Prime Minister of Canada has a greater degree of authority over the entire nation than do the provincials premiers, both are direct ministers of the Queen and receive their mandates from her.

 

[Montalban]

The relevance is to address your statement: “He evidences nothing that the pope accepted THE COUNCIL (only a creed).”

I haven’t made that an absolute statement; only that conditional support had been given

The east and the west have different criteria for an ecumenical or general council.

Yes, I know. I’ve asked you several times how you reconcile this with papal supremacy

You’ve got to admit, I’ve been very patient. I don’t know why you won’t answer.

 

[Montalban]

This is also the Catholic teaching.

Nio, it’s not. Each bishop is only this by his continued communion with Rome. Rome in that sense is an extra-special bishopric because it’s bishop doesn’t have to be in communion with ANY other bishop to be Catholic.

881: The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

The pope is a bishop AND he is a bishop of bishops.

**882: **The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

ONLY the pope (or are you going to argue every bishop does this, regardless of the pope? ) He alone is the Vicar of Christ.

He is unique. But it never ceases to amaze me how many times Catholics, in order to argue papal supremacy reverse course to try and deny it.

No other bishopric has that function. None. The pope can interfere in the jurisdiction of any and every other See that adheres to Rome. He is an absolute monarch. That he chooses to work through a college of cardinals, or anyone else doesn’t diminish his power.

That’s how confused Catholic apologetics is. In order to prove he rules supreme Catholics end up denying this and arguing he’s just another bishop.

For us, each church run by a bishop is sufficient. However priests sometimes fill in in that role. However your church has the pope alone is sufficient with bishops filling-in in his stead.

They are very much different.

Returning to Ignatius - who offers NO evidence for the papacy (according to Cardinal Newman), he says only the bishop, not the bishop in the stead of the pope.

Ignatius, occupying a See of Peter (in Antioch) is therefore said to be equal to Peter
“…when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter…”
John Chrysostom
Homilies on S. Ignatius and S. Babylas – Eulogy quoted in Abbé Guettée (1866). The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches, (Minos Publishing Co; NY), p165

Here’s Ignatius’ description of what is the Catholic Church
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is,* there is the Catholic Church**. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” *
Epistle to the Smyrnaeans. Chapter VIII. – Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.

Let nothing be done without the bishop. Not “Let nothing be done without the pope’s representative in a parish”

 

[Montalban]

What makes a church Catholic?

Ignatius: A church under a bishop, under Jesus

the RCC: A church under a bishop, under the pope (as Vicar of Christ)

 

[Montalban]

The Catholic one does not match history

By ‘whole church’ this includes the people

 

[twf]

Montalban: I believe that my previous post still stands. I take none of it back. I don’t mean any disrespect, but I don’t believe that you are correctly presenting Catholic doctrine. Please reconsider my earlier point regarding the bishop as the summit of the sacrament of holy orders (and thus of the priesthood) vs the issue of jurisdiction/governance. For Catholics these are two distinct matters and it is only by understanding this point that you will be able to understand how it is true that the Pope exercises primacy throughout the entire Church and, when necessary, over his brother bishops, without in any way denying that the authority and office of bishop comes directly from God and that each bishop is, in his own particular Church, a vicar of Christ. As I stated in my earlier post, your argument backfires on the Orthodox as both Catholics and Orthodox recognize a greater authority than the local bishop - the ecumenical council (and for Catholics the pope as well). The unique authority of the Bishop of Rome no more infringes upon the bishop’s direct sharing in the high priesthood of Christ than does the unique authority of an ecumenical council over individual bishops.
You are cherry picking quotations from the Catechism - doing exactly what you accuse Catholics of doing with the Fathers. Your response did not address the following paragraphs which I cited in my previous post:

894 “The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power” which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.426

895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church."427 **But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. **Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

The same could apply to the Orthodox Churches. The individual bishop is a true legate of Christ and there is no higher office than bishop in terms of the sacred mystery of the priesthood, but in terms of governance and jurisdiction, the holy synod or an ecumenical council can exercise authority over individual bishops for the good of the whole Church.

Also, while communion with the Bishop of Rome is necessary to be in full communion with the Catholic Church, lack of communion with him does not completely sever a bishop/church’s ties with the Catholic Church nor with Christ - it is an imperfect state, as the Church of Rome, which presides in charity, is the objective standard of unity and orthodoxy to which we must all look - but as the bishop is a true vicar of Christ and receives his high priesthood from him, lack of communion with Rome does not deprive his church of being a true particular church.

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."

 

[Vico]

The Catholic one does not match history

By ‘whole church’ this includes the people

The assertion shown, that the pope calls the council, it not true. It is not the teaching of the Catholic Church that the pope must call the council.

Only since Lateran I, convoked by Pope Calixtus II in December 1122, have the general councils been convoked solely by the Pope.

 

[Vico]

I won’t address Vico’s other two citations

The second - I get an error message - “page not found”

The third - I’ve addressed many many times already

I found the second link in my buffer, but it does not have a quote from Pope Gregory on it.

catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/EcumenicalCouncils.htm

Since that was the wrong link, I two provide sources. The first does not mention Pope Vigilius and lists Pope Hormisdas.

First Source: The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology By Leo Donald Davis, p 130.In the West Pope Felix III, who died in 492, recognized only three ecumenical councils – Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon. Pope Hormisdas (d. 523) finally recognized Constantinople as on a par with the other three, while Pope Gregory I (d. 604) compared the first four general councils with the Four Gospels. Gregory, though not accepting the canons of Constantinople, addressed the notification of his election first to the bishop of Constantinople. It was only at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 that the canons of Constantinople were accepted in the West.

Second source The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Philip Schaff:
**III. The Number of the Ecumenical Synods.

** It may not be unjustly expected that some reasons should be assigned for limiting the number of the Ecumenical Synods to seven. There is no need here to enter into any proof that Nice, I. Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon are Ecumenical, since so long ago as the time of St. Gregory the Great, that Saint and Doctor said of them: “I venerate the first four Ecumenical Councils equally with the Four Gospels (sicut quatuor Evangelia),”10 and no one has been found to question that in so saying he gave expression to the mind of the Church of his day. Of the fifth and sixth synods there never was any real doubt, although there was trouble at first about the reception of the fifth in some places. The ecumenical character of the seventh is not disputed by East or West and has not been for near a thousand years, and full proof of its ecumenicity will be found in connection with that council. There is therefore no possible doubt that these seven must be included, but it may be asked why certain others are not here also.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.iii.iii.html

 

[Vico]

I haven’t made that an absolute statement; only that conditional support had been given

Yes, I know. I’ve asked you several times how you reconcile this with papal supremacy

You’ve got to admit, I’ve been very patient. I don’t know why you won’t answer.

One issue at a time requires patience. There are many incorrect statements so far about what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban: I believe that my previous post still stands. I take none of it back. I don’t mean any disrespect, but I don’t believe that you are correctly presenting Catholic doctrine. Please reconsider my earlier point regarding the bishop as the summit of the sacrament of holy orders (and thus of the priesthood) vs the issue of jurisdiction/governance.

There is NO difference between the two. That’s why you can chop and change your church’s hierarchy. We cannot. The church is the Body of Christ. By changing the governence of the church you’re grafting things on, or chopping them off the image of Christ.

For Catholics these are two distinct matters and it is only by understanding this point that you will be able to understand how it is true that the Pope exercises primacy throughout the entire Church and, when necessary, over his brother bishops, without in any way denying that the authority and office of bishop comes directly from God and that each bishop is, in his own particular Church, a vicar of Christ.

That doesn’t even work. A bishop is only bishop in the RCC because of the pope. The pope has immediate jurisdiction over every part of the church. He can interfere in a bishopric without regards to that bishop.

The authority of the bishop is therefore only a spectre; there at the whim of the pope.

As I stated in my earlier post, your argument backfires on the Orthodox as both Catholics and Orthodox recognize a greater authority than the local bishop - the ecumenical council (and for Catholics the pope as well). The unique authority of the Bishop of Rome no more infringes upon the bishop’s direct sharing in the high priesthood of Christ than does the unique authority of an ecumenical council over individual bishops.

That’s false. We don’t recognise the ‘authority’ of the Council as being higher than a bishop. We recognise the council because it teaches the faith.

The emperor Leo called a council that outlawed the use of images. He rightly called it. That council taught differently and was rejected by the people because of that

Even the canons…

“The canons of the Ecumenical Councils are regarded within the Orthodox Church as universally authoritative, though not in a strictly constructionist sense. Their canons have often been repealed or revised by the decisions of local synods or even of later Ecumenical Councils. Nevertheless, their legislation is central to the Orthodox canonical tradition, and appeals to such canons are more frequently made than to any other source of canonical legislation.”
orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils

That is, they hold to be true because everyone agreed that that’s what they’d hold to. So in that sense they have AUTHORITY - but an agreement BY bishops doesn’t make the bishops less.

You are cherry picking quotations from the Catechism - doing exactly what you accuse Catholics of doing with the Fathers. Your response did not address the following paragraphs which I cited in my previous post:

I picked the CCC that dealt directly with my claim - that’s how you present an argument. If you have any evidence showing where a bishop has his power DESPITE the pope you’d have a point; and of course you’d be arguing against the RCC

Which is probably why your counter-argument introduces NO evidence at all

Just you making statements

 

[Montalban]

The assertion shown, that the pope calls the council, it not true. It is not the teaching of the Catholic Church that the pope must call the council.

Only since Lateran I, convoked by Pope Calixtus II in December 1122, have the general councils been convoked solely by the Pope.

“…it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them” – Lumen Gentium.22 at vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

“…it goes without saying that no temporal ruler has the right to do so.”
Thielen, T. T., (1960) What is an Ecumenical Council (The Newman Press; Westminster, MD), p22

Cardinal Newman expressed this later point when he claimed that the church was given a promise that it “should have no master upon earth”.
Newman, J. H., (1909) An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (Longmans, Green & Co; London), p255.

Q. 1. What is the purpose of Ecumenical Councils?

A. 1. In summary, an Ecumenical Council is a solemn assembly in the Roman Catholic Church,** convoked **and presided over by the pope and composed of cardinals, bishops, and certain other prelates whose decrees, when confirmed by the pope, become binding. An Ecumenical Council must be convened by the Pope.
catholicdoors.com/faq/qu342.htm
(emphasis added)

If you want to go ahead and again show that this hasn’t always been the case you’d be arguing for my point again!

That’s why your argument is so confused.

 

[Montalban]

This is a general post, but you can use it for discussions on this point.

There is a site available where you can view and download out of copyright books for free.

It’s www.archive.org

There’s many Catholic works there, including by Cardinal Newman and others.

 

[twf]

There is NO difference between the two. That’s why you can chop and change your church’s hierarchy. We cannot. The church is the Body of Christ. By changing the governence of the church you’re grafting things on, or chopping them off the image of Christ.

That doesn’t even work. A bishop is only bishop in the RCC because of the pope. The pope has immediate jurisdiction over every part of the church. He can interfere in a bishopric without regards to that bishop.

The authority of the bishop is therefore only a spectre; there at the whim of the pope.

That’s false. We don’t recognise the ‘authority’ of the Council as being higher than a bishop. We recognise the council because it teaches the faith.

The emperor Leo called a council that outlawed the use of images. He rightly called it. That council taught differently and was rejected by the people because of that

Even the canons…

“The canons of the Ecumenical Councils are regarded within the Orthodox Church as universally authoritative, though not in a strictly constructionist sense. Their canons have often been repealed or revised by the decisions of local synods or even of later Ecumenical Councils. Nevertheless, their legislation is central to the Orthodox canonical tradition, and appeals to such canons are more frequently made than to any other source of canonical legislation.”
orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils

That is, they hold to be true because everyone agreed that that’s what they’d hold to. So in that sense they have AUTHORITY - but an agreement BY bishops doesn’t make the bishops less.

I picked the CCC that dealt directly with my claim - that’s how you present an argument. If you have any evidence showing where a bishop has his power DESPITE the pope you’d have a point; and of course you’d be arguing against the RCC

Which is probably why your counter-argument introduces NO evidence at all

Just you making statements

Introduces no evidence at all? Did you read my Catechism quotes? The bishops are true vicars of Christ and they are NOT vicars of the Pope.
Your notion of an ecumenical council NOT being an authority over that of the local bishop is not necessarily shared by all Orthodox Christians - I have seen different opinions on this matter as with many others. It also is illogical. The council has authority because if defines the orthodox faith as recognized by the orthodox faithful? What then is the point of a council? Everyone believes they are orthodox. Ecumenical councils can and have disciplined individual bishops, which proves my point… it is an authority that exists above that of the individual bishop.

 

[Schism_hater]

Your notion of an ecumenical council NOT being an authority over that of the local bishop is not necessarily shared by all Orthodox Christians - I have seen different opinions on this matter as with many others. It also is illogical. The council has authority because if defines the orthodox faith as recognized by the orthodox faithful? What then is the point of a council? Everyone believes they are orthodox. Ecumenical councils can and have disciplined individual bishops, which proves my point… it is an authority that exists above that of the individual bishop.

The difference is that the pope is an authority completely external to a bishop, whereas, since a bishop is by the fact of being a bishop a member of any ecumencial council called during his reign, the council is not completely external to him. In other words, since the council is a body composed of many bishops, it cannot be an uber-bishop, which is in effect what the pope is in Roman Catholic ecclesiology, the fact that he is not called that notwithstanding. That is what his authority in the RC church amounts to.

 

[Montalban]

Introduces no evidence at all?

I worded that badly; introduces any evidence to prove your point - I have not claimed bishops don’t have power in the RCC

Did you read my Catechism quotes? The bishops are true vicars of Christ and they are NOT vicars of the Pope.

NO. They would be ‘vicars of Christ’ by virtue of their communion with the Holy See.

Your posts keep misrepresenting the power of the pope; I noted already the irony of people defending papal supremacy to argue he doesn’t have any!

What you’re confused by is like with this statement
It is of Catholic faith that bishops are of Divine institution. In the hierarchy of order they possess powers superior to those of priests and deacons; in the hierarchy of jurisdiction, by Christ’s will, the are appointed for the government of one portion of the faithful of the Church, under the direction and authority of the sovereign pontiff, who can determine and restrain their powers, but, not annihilate them.
newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm

When it says the Pope cannot annihilate the power of the bishop it means that there’s a limit to the pope’s powers in that as an institution he cannot destroy it. (which is NOT an argument I am making). However it notes he is above it (which IS an argument I am making).

You’re saying that the pope is just the same as any other bishop by demonstrating one thing that

a) I’m not arguing against
and
b) doesn’t prove your point

It’s like me saying “The President is the ultimate de jure authority in the United States” and you replying “He cannot destroy the constitution”. That he cannot in no way makes him equal of the cabinet ministers he works with.

Your notion of an ecumenical council NOT being an authority over that of the local bishop is not necessarily shared by all Orthodox Christians - I have seen different opinions on this matter as with many others.

I cannot argue for what you claim others have said

It also is illogical. The council has authority because if defines the orthodox faith as recognized by the orthodox faithful?

Yes, I referenced this

What then is the point of a council?

To state the faith.

I already dealt with this even earlier on this thread with an example of what Catholics believe; is Mary the co-redemptress, or not.

At present is is not wrong to believe either.

Because it hasn’t been stated what you believe.

When Catholic councils make a judgment they put it in terms “This is what we have always believed to be true”

Put this another way. The gospels taught what Christ said and did before they were put into a bible. They still had the ‘authority’ of the word of God before someone came along 300 years later and formally collected them together into an anthology - which is in effect what the bible is.

The councils aren’t stating new faith.

And as to matters of discipline - I dealt with that and referenced that too! (from OrthodoxWiki)

Everyone believes they are orthodox. Ecumenical councils can and have disciplined individual bishops, which proves my point… it is an authority that exists above that of the individual bishop.

Actually that’s not true either. Councils have made judgments on what is the faith. It is the emperors who had disciplined them; I also evidenced this where the emperor ruled against both Cyril of Alexandria AND Nestorius

Anyway, while you’re there denying papal supremacy here’s what one pope made of his own powers:
A few of his points are worth mentioning:
III. That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
IV. That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
V. That the pope may depose the absent.
…
VII. That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
…
XIII. That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
XIV. That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
XV. That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
XVI. That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
XVII. That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
XVIII. That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
XIX. That he himself may be judged by no one.
XX. That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
XI. That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
…
XXIV. That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
XV. That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
XVI. That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
XVII. That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men. quoted in Miller, M. C., (2005), “Power and the Holy in the Age of the Investiture Conflict: A Brief History with Documents”, (Bedford; New York), pp81-83.