On the Great Council of the Orthodox Church

[Rohzek]

Yes really. St Ignatius is not using “catholic” as a proper noun, which you have done by arbitrarily capitalising the word.

Yeah, seriously, this is what a mss. looked like generally back then. Every letter was in all caps with no spacing. “catholic” or “orthodox” were not proper nouns.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[steve_b]

Yeah, seriously, this is what a mss. looked like generally back then. Every letter was in all caps with no spacing. “catholic” or “orthodox” were not proper nouns.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Vergilius_Augusteus,_Georgica_141.jpg

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/b1/09/1d/b1091d037f0c68ecef3f4fba42257b83.jpg

That doesn’t make your point.

One can’t use CATHOLIC CHURCH, as an identification, without knowing what CATHOLIC CHURCH means and who and where it is.

Irenaeus (one man away from the apostle John) gave a good description of Catholic Church Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 2

"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the who exist everywhere."

In context (all links are operational) one can see it is the Church of Rome that Irenaeus is talking about. **While he doesn’t use the name Catholic Church there, he did that earlier
**
Bk 1 v 3 Irenaeus names the Catholic Church which he is defending.

“For in reference to these points, and others of a like nature, the apostle exclaims: Oh! The depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! Romans 11:33 But [the superior skill spoken of] is not found in this, that any one should, beyond the Creator and Framer [of the world], conceive of the Enthymesis of an erring Æon, their mother and his, and should thus proceed to such a pitch of blasphemy; nor does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Æons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.”

 

[Cavaradossi]

Anybody can read the definition of those words and the links I gave for convenience that explain the words being used. #45

I always give links because I don’t expect anybody to take my word for anything.

You can’t translate from definitions (that’s how you get a comedic masterpiece like English as She is Spoke). You have to know the grammar of the language, which you evidently don’t as far as Greek is concerned, as well as the context for words which are polysemic. Μείζων is the comparative of μέγας. Μέγας in Greek can be an indicator of greatness of size or of age, just as how the word “big” in English can be used colloquially to mean old (as in “big kid,” which literally could mean a large child or more figuratively could be used to mean an older child, with the intended meaning being determined by context).

 

[Peter_J]

I always give links because** I don’t expect anybody to take my word for anything. **

Heh. This could probably be a good opening for a joke, but I’ll resist. shaw:

I actually do take your word for some things – a lot of things actually. But I have found our past conversations/arguments/discussions to be fruitless, which is why in more recent times I’ve been leaving that for others. (Have you notice that the Internet never seems to have a shortage of engagers (is that a word)?)

 

[steve_b]

You can’t translate from definitions. You have to know the grammar of the language, which you evidently don’t as far as Greek is concerned, as well as the context for words which are polysemic. Μείζων is the comparative of μέγας. Μέγας in Greek can be an indicator of greatness of size or of age, just as how the word “big” in English can be used colloquially to mean old (as in “big kid,” which literally could mean a large child or more figuratively could be used to mean an older child, with the intended meaning being determined by context).

Don’t miss the bigger point. Leadership
the leader ἡγούμενος ] *, *2232 , **2233

Satan doesn’t get them in an argument over age and who’s the oldest. All the emphasis I was making was over leadership

**

Luke 22:26 Jesus confirms one of THE apostles is the greatest μείζων ] & the leader ἡγούμενος ] over all, (thus everyone is NOT equal in authority ). In context, Jesus names only Simon to be that leader.

Original Word: ἡγούμενος ] is ἡγέομαι*/ hēgeomai [Lk 22:26] comes from *2232 , 2233
1) to lead
a) to go before
b) to be a leader
1) to rule, command
2) to have authority over
3) a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
4) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
5) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman

Sure looks like Jesus is establishing the papacy to me

 

[Abu]

Rohzek
The reality remains that the Catholic Church herself in her official Council and Papal documents does not use the term “Roman Catholic” for the reasons stated, and only the misinformed imagine so.

 

[Rohzek]

Rohzek
The reality remains that the Catholic Church herself in her official Council and Papal documents does not use the term “Roman Catholic” for the reasons stated, and only the misinformed imagine so.

I wasn’t just talking about “Roman Catholic.” I was walking about “Catholic, Orthodox, etc.” These terms as proper nouns are inventions of the Reformation for convenience of classification. Reread what I said:

Only a few of us believe this.

Also, steve b, the proper noun names of Orthodox Church and Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church all came about during the Protestant Reformation. As for your other polemics, they are not appropriate for this thread and are moreover facile.

I personally find it amazing that we cannot even have a thread dedicated to the upcoming Orthodox council in Crete without it devolving into an e-peen war over the papacy. Jon Mallory pays us one compliment with regards to the conduct of councils and every Catholic apologist has to all of a sudden burst onto the scene starting a great debate over the papacy. Couldn’t anyone have at least just pm’d him or started a separate thread? It’s absolutely narcissistic to think that the Orthodox Church would even spend a significant amount of its time discussion Catholicism or the papacy at Crete. We have more important matters to attend to.

 

[steve_b]

Heh. This could probably be a good opening for a joke, but I’ll resist. shaw:

I actually do take your word for some things – a lot of things actually. But I have found our past conversations/arguments/discussions to be fruitless, which is why in more recent times I’ve been leaving that for others. (Have you notice that the Internet never seems to have a shortage of engagers (is that a word)?)

Peter,

you’ve got 17 posts so far on this thread I’ve got 7. I haven’t initiated one response with you. My responses to you are from what you initiate with me. If conversations are sooooo fruitless between us, why do you initiate?

 

[Peter_J]

Sorry, steve b. But in my defense, I think almost everyone on the forum has the same weakness I do (some to a greater extent than others), namely hitting the Reply button when their better judgment tells them not to. And to further complicate matters, ocassionally you’ll get somebody who thinks that not Replying to something means that you must agree with it.

Anyhow, now that I know we’re in agreement it should be easier for me to resist your posts.

 

[Tommy999]

I think Trump’s a little busy.

Donald Trump is probably busy reading Two Corinthians.

 

[Peter_J]

Donald Trump is probably busy reading Two Corinthians.

How many do most people read?

 

[Cavaradossi]

How many do most people read?

In modern times? None.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

I personally find it amazing that we cannot even have a thread dedicated to the upcoming Orthodox council in Crete without it devolving into an e-peen war over the papacy. Jon Mallory pays us one compliment with regards to the conduct of councils and every Catholic apologist has to all of a sudden burst onto the scene starting a great debate over the papacy. Couldn’t anyone have at least just pm’d him or started a separate thread? It’s absolutely narcissistic to think that the Orthodox Church would even spend a significant amount of its time discussion Catholicism or the papacy at Crete. We have more important matters to attend to.

I’m sure you have some extremely important things to attend to, after all it’s been forever since the Orthodox sees have convened for any sort of council on this scale and with this level of inclusion.

And I can’t help but think, every other ecumenical council that’s involved the Eastern sees and the Great Councils since then have put down, repudiated, or re-rejected (for the second or third time) some sort of major heresy that presents a serious problem for the Church as a whole, which it must solve.

I wonder, what problem is being solved this time? To the Orthodox way of thinking, councils of this type are akin to major surgery. With that image in mind, what are the important matters that require attending? Is it likely that a major point of interest will be the way in which different churches recognize each other, and making sure that everyone is in agreement as to universal recognition or non-recognition?

 

[steve_b]

I wasn’t just talking about “Roman Catholic.” I was walking about “Catholic, Orthodox, etc.” These terms as proper nouns are inventions of the Reformation for convenience of classification. Reread what I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohzek forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Only a few of us believe this.

Also, steve b, the proper noun names of Orthodox Church and Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church all came about during the Protestant Reformation. As for your other polemics, they are not appropriate for this thread and are moreover facile.

I personally find it amazing that we cannot even have a thread dedicated to the upcoming Orthodox council in Crete without it devolving into an e-peen war over the papacy. Jon Mallory pays us one compliment with regards to the conduct of councils and every Catholic apologist has to all of a sudden burst onto the scene starting a great debate over the papacy. Couldn’t anyone have at least just pm’d him or started a separate thread? It’s absolutely narcissistic to think that the Orthodox Church would even spend a significant amount of its time discussion Catholicism or the papacy at Crete. We have more important matters to attend to.

What I brought up, focused on a few points raised in the article from the opening link.

#[1 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13636938&postcount=1)
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclu…rthodox-church

There were many points raised in that article worth discussing IMV.

For example

The article said

*“the Orthodox believe that it is the whole church that must convene—East and West—in order for a council to be considered ecumenical” *

And you responded to that
*
“only a few of us believe that”*, (post #[50 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13643299&postcount=50) )

*John Chryssavgis, *is the author of the article.

*John Chryssavgis is Archdeacon and theological advisor to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. *

Based on my conversations and understandings over the years of authority in Orthodoxy, do you see why, based on your answer, why I’m focusing on the issue of authority and who has it in Orthodoxy? It’s a legitimate issue to discuss

Archdeacon Chryssavgis also said in his article

“For Orthodox Christians, there hasn’t been an Ecumenical Council since 787…”

Okay, that suggests to me

• “ecumenical” to him, means pre-schism
• however, just being transparent, I’m also thinking, there was no Orthodox Church(es) in 787. There was no schism then. That wouldn’t come for 300 years.

See why that raised a few flags as well?

You said in #[**59 ** (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13643895&postcount=59)

(emphasis mine)

"Great or General Councils, such as the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 are universally accepted. For most it isn’t regarded as ecumenical, insofar that it is indispensable to the faith, but still has universal ramifications. "

We talked previously, about a council in Orthodoxy and you mentioned a council isn’t binding on the ones who didn’t attend. My followup questions are,

1. • what makes a council universally indispensable for faith and has universal application, but not ecumenical in Orthodoxy.
   • Who determines that?

 

[Jon_Mallory]

I wasn’t just talking about “Roman Catholic.” I was walking about “Catholic, Orthodox, etc.” These terms as proper nouns are inventions of the Reformation for convenience of classification. Reread what I said:

I personally find it amazing that we cannot even have a thread dedicated to the upcoming Orthodox council in Crete without it devolving into an e-peen war over the papacy.** Jon Mallory pays us one compliment with regards to the conduct of councils and every Catholic apologist has to all of a sudden burst onto the scene starting a great debate over the papacy. **Couldn’t anyone have at least just pm’d him or started a separate thread? It’s absolutely narcissistic to think that the Orthodox Church would even spend a significant amount of its time discussion Catholicism or the papacy at Crete. We have more important matters to attend to.

:imsorry: :bighanky: I apologize for opening pandora’s box of sorrows. The Pope should be the servant of the servants of God. Can we all agree on this? I’ll start a second thread.

 

[Rohzek]

I’m sure you have some extremely important things to attend to, after all it’s been forever since the Orthodox sees have convened for any sort of council on this scale and with this level of inclusion.

And I can’t help but think, every other ecumenical council that’s involved the Eastern sees and the Great Councils since then have put down, repudiated, or re-rejected (for the second or third time) some sort of major heresy that presents a serious problem for the Church as a whole, which it must solve.

I wonder, what problem is being solved this time? To the Orthodox way of thinking, councils of this type are akin to major surgery.** With that image in mind, what are the important matters that require attending? Is it likely that a major point of interest will be the way in which different churches recognize each other, and making sure that everyone is in agreement as to universal recognition or non-recognition?**

Ideally, there will be a reiteration of condemning the combination of Orthodox autonomy and autocephaly with nationalism. Furthermore, some sort of consensus view of ecumenism. Too many Orthodox are anti-ecumenical. And finally how the Church as a whole will relate to the rest of the modern world and perform its ministry going forward. These are just a few, but which I personally value.

:imsorry: :bighanky: I apologize for opening pandora’s box of sorrows. The Pope should be the servant of the servants of God. Can we all agree on this? I’ll start a second thread.

I don’t blame you, so no need to apologize.

You said in #**59 **

(emphasis mine)

"Great or General Councils, such as the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 are universally accepted. For most it isn’t regarded as ecumenical, insofar that it is indispensable to the faith, but still has universal ramifications. "

We talked previously, about a council in Orthodoxy and you mentioned a council isn’t binding on the ones who didn’t attend. My followup questions are,

1. 
   *]what makes a council universally indispensable for faith and has universal application, but not ecumenical in Orthodoxy.
   *]Who determines that?

1. 
   Most wouldn’t hold Jerusalem as ecumenical solely because it didn’t deal with any pressing theological issues. Sure it condemned Calvinism, but this wasn’t as serious as Nestorianism, Iconoclasm, Arianism, etc. was to the Church. That’s my general impression from reading at least. If a council is attended by near universal representation of the various churches as well as being essential to the faith, then it usually is eventually regarded as ecumenical. As for who determines that, it is left up to the individual churches that make up Orthodoxy themselves. I mean, it took centuries for the Frankish Church to accept II Nicaea as ecumenical solely because they were not represented. They didn’t consider the papal legates their representatives. So it only became ecumenical for them after they came around on the theological front and much later the attendance front, which they dropped only after accepting the sound theology as essential to the faith. Pope Hadrian I died before the Franks were convinced of the theology, and the Eastern patriarchs and clergy were so ignorant and dismissive of anything coming from the north of the Alps, that they simply couldn’t care any less than they already did about the Franks’ protests.