Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[mardukm]

Yes, not on any grounds of heterodoxy, but because he felt he was defending the decisions of the 4th Ecum. He stated at one point that the writings of Ibas and Theodoret could be interpreted in an orthodox manner (as the writings were actually exonerated by the 4th Ecum). Of course, the Emperor was not really interested in any dialogue with the Church of the East (which was not within his political sphere of influence), but was only interested in re-union with the non-Chalcedonians (which were within his political sphere of influence).

OOPS! I wanted to make a correction to the statement highlighted above.

Pope Vigilius condemned the writings of Theodore and Theodoret (that much in agreement with the Three chapters). However, he spared the person of Theodore (because he had already died in communion with the Church) and spared the letter of Ibas. Pope Vigilius never actually read the letter of Ibas. HIs only justification for defending it was the judgment of the Fourth Ecum on the matter, which apparently exonerated the letter of Ibas. So the Pope did not actually defend the contents of Ibas’ letter (since he didn’t know what they were), but was simply defending the judgment of Chalcedon.

Insofar as the condemnation of Theodore, the Council was treading on new ground, for an Ecum Council had never before considered anathematizing a dead person who had ostensibly died in communion with the Church (the Council actually offered up as evidence the local practice of the Latins). On this matter, they had to await the confirmation of Pope Vigilius for any validity. As far as Ibas’ letter, since it was ostensibly likewise considered and exonerated by Chalcedon, the Council Fathers had to await the confirmation of Vigilius for its condemnation to take full effect.

A big part of the problem was that (1) Pope Vigilius did not know Greek, and (2) he had good reason to believe that the condemnation of the Three Chapters was a ploy to discredit the authority of Chalcedon.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[frjohnmorris]

“I RESPOND: Exactly what do Eastern Catholics believe about the Immaculate Conception? We believe that Our Lady was prepared by the grace of God to become the Theotokos. We celebrate a feast on Nov. 21 of the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple that embodies this principle. The liturgical texts for the feast tell of her being taken to the Temple as a child where she was raised and prepared by God’s grace to become the Theotokos. However, it is important to Orthodox theology that Mary had free will and could have refused. Her obedience to God makes her the Second Eve, whose obedience to God begins our liberation from the curse of sin and death that came into the world through the First Eve. However, we also believe that she was born in ancestral sin. That is she was born mortal. There seems to be a question among Catholics on whether or not Our Lady died. We both agree that she ascended soul and body into heaven, but the EO teaching is that she died and then ascended. I know that the Melkites believe as we do, because they use the same liturgical texts for the Feast of the Dormation of the Theotokos, which tell of her death and the opening of her tomb so that St. Thomas who was not there when she died so that he could see her. The tomb was empty and the Apostles had a vision of her ascending body and soul into Heaven.”

When you say she was born in ancestral sin. St. Mary was indeed completely human, She was also subjected to the consequence of the fall. Raised, prepared and consistent with St Maximus the Confessors work “Life of the Virgin” just as you saying. Very plausible.

Thus the thinking as your describing is completely in line with apostolic teaching. Except on a couple points. St Mary had no birth pain as indicated by Genesis. Thus we have to conclude St Mary was indeed preserved by a singular act of Grace?

Also there is no patristic writing to support the idea that St Mary was born in Ancestral Sin. In fact early Church there is no mention of Original or Ancestral Sin till Augustine came along.

Through the course of history we have abundant statements and very early on which fall short of elaborating on this early, especially the first 300-years. In fact either way, preserved of sin or not. Though the consistency indicates a situation very different as we see early with the New Eve, Irenaeus forward.

Taken this into account its also plausible St Mary in predestination of Gods love could well have been conceived without sin. God isn’t Himself subjected to the condition of mankind, there is no reason to believe He cannot act outside His law opposed on man, and in particular regarding time, this is a known, its exactly how miracles occur on the horizontal plane we are one with God interacting on the lateral. Mary was surely further sanctified at the Annunciation/Incarnation, which is consistent with early Church teaching also, and also I might add myself at the Cross and Her resurrection. This is why indeed we consider Her Queen of Heaven and in those pious prayers of Church antiquity place Her above the Angels and the communion of Saints.

Eastern Orthodox also believe that Our Lady gave birth to Christ without pain. However, we do teach that she actually died. According to Orthodox teaching ancestral sin is the inheritance of the consequences of the sin of Adam, not the guilt. That consequence is mortality and the corruption that comes with it. Because we are all born mortal, we sin and thereby become guilty not of the sin of Adam, but of our own sins. Mary was born in ancestral sin and died a natural death. However, as the liturgical texts of the Byzantine Rite make clear, three days after her death, the Apostles opened her tomb and found it empty. They then had a vision of her ascending body and soul into Heaven. However, we also believe that through the grace of God Mary did not actually sin and was prepared to bear Christ. Thus our belief is not that far form the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
It is an important theological point that Mary was born in ancestral sin. St. Gregory the Theologian wrote, “That which is not assumed is not healed.” By assuming ancestral sin from the human nature that His human nature inherited from Mary, Christ healed those who are united to Him through the Sacramental Life of the Church from the curse of death, the result of ancestral sin. There is a line from a prayer to the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary in the service of Compline that beautifully expresses this concept. “O Lady, Bride of God, spotless, blameless, pure and immaculate Virgin, thou without corruption, by thy glorious birth-giving hast untied God the Word to man and joined the fallen nature of our race to heavenly things…”

Fr. John

 

[mardukm]

To this, I seriously doubt the CC can agree. Bishops from everywhere always appealed to the Pope for his decisions. Such appeals bore fruit in dogmatic statements by Popes such as St. Damasus, St. Leo, St. Martin, and St. Agatho, on the respective heresies to which they responded. Catholic apologists normally and unequivocally affirm the dogmas established by, in particular, Popes St. Leo and St. Agatho as examples of ex cathedra decrees.

I need to go for a few days, but I just wanted to leave a final comment on this portion of my previous post.

I’ve met Absolutist Petrine advocates interpret the ex cathedra decrees of Popes St. Leo and St. Agatho as the other bishops submitting to the decrees of the Popes. This would be an incorrect assessment of the case because the bishops who agreed with the Popes already shared the same Faith with the Popes on the matter. So they were not submitting, but were rather expressing their agreement - hence consensus.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[frjohnmorris]

I appreciate the time that has been taken to answer my questions by all of you. Some or you have obviously been a lot of thought and work in your responses. I will cover a few points in a general answer to all of you if you do not mind.
The Paschal controversy between Pope St. Victor and the Churches in Asia Minor during the 2nd centiry shows the limits of papal authority and how decisions were made in the ancient Church. Rome celebrated Pascha on the Sunday after the Jewish Passover, while the Churches in Asia Minor celebrated Pascha on the same day as the Jewish Passover regardless of the day of the week. There is really only source that we have for this period of Church history, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. It is true that local councils were held to discuss the Paschal controversy, but no where does Eusebius state that Pope St. Victor I ordered them to be held, as one post claimed. Even if Pope St. Victor asked the local Churches to hold councils to discuss the matter, this shows that decisions were not made by papal decree, but rather by councils. As I have mentioned, when Pope St. Victor threatened to excommunicate the Church is Asia Minor because of their different method to calculate the date of Pascha, St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote a letter to the Pope protesting that he lacked the authority to take such an action.
It is a stretch to apply canon 34 of the Apostles which required the Bishops of every nation to accept the authority of the Bishop “who is first among them” to the papacy. This canon sets up regional primates, as was reaffirmed by canon VI of the 1st Ecumenical Council, which established three regional primates, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. However, if one accepts the argument that canon 34 applies to the papacy, it is important to note that the canon limits the authority of the primates by requiring that they must do nothing “without the consent of all…” Thus canon 34 of the Apostles does not give the Pope ultimate authority over the Bishops under Rome, but requires him, like all other regional primates to follow the decisions of the council of Bishops of his Patriarchate.
Concerning the Ecumenical Councils. It is apparent that they assumed that the Bishop of Rome was under their authority. Canon VI of the 1st Council, Nicaea I in 325 limited the jurisdiction of Rome to the areas already under Roman authority and affirmed the independence of Alexandria and Antioch. Canon 28 of Chalcedon gave the Patriarch of Constantinople equal authority to the Bishop of Rome. Pope Vigilius was already in Constantinople when the 5th Ecumenical Council met. However, he refused to attend, although the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Jerusalem were present. After a group of Bishops visited the Pope to try to persuade him to accept the decisions of the council, he refused. As a result, Emperor Justinian called upon the council to strike his name from the Diptychs. The council agreed thereby removing him from the papacy. However, Pope Vigilius relented and accepted the council. After he died on his journey back to Rome, his successor Pope Pelagius I accepted the II Council of Constantinople as an Ecumenical Council. As everyone knows the next Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III in 680 condemned Pope Honorus I for embracing the heresy of Monothelitism. Thus, it is clear that the Ecumenical Councils considered the Pope under their authority.
CONTINUED

 

[frjohnmorris]

CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE

On the papacy in general, let me quote the work of two well known Catholic historians, Karl Bihlmeyer and Hermann Tuchle. In the first volume of their Church History, which has the required Nihil obstat and Imprimatur recognizing it as expressing positions considered doctrinally sound by the Catholic Church, they wrote:
The position of authority occupied by the Roman Church and her Bishops was thus a firmly established fact in the first centuries. From the third century a precise doctrine of primacy began to be enunciated. However, the Roman primacy was then far from the development it attained in the Middle Ages and the popes of this period were known by the same title as other bishops. Its function at this time consisted chiefly in preserving ecclesiastical unity. So long as faith or morals were not involved, the individual churches and provinces enjoyed full liberty in the management of their own affairs. Vol. 1. p. 116
Writing about the opinion of St. Cyprian on the authority of Rome this same source states:
For he stresses the equality of the other Apostles with Peter ; insists that they partook of the same honor and were endowed with the same power of orders and that bishops re responsible to God alone for the administration of their dioceses. And although personally he places the greatest importance on constant and close union with Rome and for all practical purposes acknowledges the primacy of the pope, he nowhere recognizes the right of the Roman bishops to govern the whole Church or to issue binding decrees. vol. I, p. 116
Therefor from the information above, it is evident that the papacy as it exists today did not exist during the time of the ancient undivided Church. Instead, the modern papacy is the product of centuries of development which only reached its climax at the 1st Vatican Council in 1870. If this development had been the work of God one would expect that the other 4 ancient Patriarchates would have accepted the new papal claims as they developed. However they did not. Instead, they continued to hold the view of the papacy that was held during the time of the ancient Church. If the Eastern understanding of the role or Rome was not heretical then, why would it be now? If a Ecumenical Council had authority over the ancient Popes, why should the Pope be above the authority of an Ecumenical Council today. If the ancient Patriarchates managed their on affairs then, why is it wrong for them to manage them today without papal interference? Finally if the Pope was not considered infallible and lacked the authority to unilaterally make decisions on the doctrine of the Church during the first 1,000 years of Church history, what changed that makes them infallible today or gives him the authority to make doctrinal declarations “ex cathedra” today?
I have spent a great deal of time studying the history of Christianity and firmly believe that there is no historical basis for the modern papal claims. Indeed, we all know that many of the papal claims come from the forged Donation of Constantine. Therefore, the solution to the division between Eastern Orthodoxy is a return to the papacy as it existed during the first 1,000 years of Church history.

Fr. John

 

[Aramis]

Eastern Orthodox also believe that Our Lady gave birth to Christ without pain. However, we do teach that she actually died. According to Orthodox teaching ancestral sin is the inheritance of the consequences of the sin of Adam, not the guilt. That consequence is mortality and the corruption that comes with it. Because we are all born mortal, we sin and thereby become guilty not of the sin of Adam, but of our own sins. Mary was born in ancestral sin and died a natural death. However, as the liturgical texts of the Byzantine Rite make clear, three days after her death, the Apostles opened her tomb and found it empty. They then had a vision of her ascending body and soul into Heaven. However, we also believe that through the grace of God Mary did not actually sin and was prepared to bear Christ. Thus our belief is not that far form the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
It is an important theological point that Mary was born in ancestral sin. St. Gregory the Theologian wrote, “That which is not assumed is not healed.” By assuming ancestral sin from the human nature that His human nature inherited from Mary, Christ healed those who are united to Him through the Sacramental Life of the Church from the curse of death, the result of ancestral sin. There is a line from a prayer to the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary in the service of Compline that beautifully expresses this concept. “O Lady, Bride of God, spotless, blameless, pure and immaculate Virgin, thou without corruption, by thy glorious birth-giving hast untied God the Word to man and joined the fallen nature of our race to heavenly things…”

Fr. John

The Dogma is merely that she was taken Body and Soul into heaven, and is the first to experience the perfection of the mortal body.

Within this, both the Byzantine 3 days separate and the Roman “never separated” fall.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Eastern Orthodox also believe that Our Lady gave birth to Christ without pain. However, we do teach that she actually died. According to Orthodox teaching ancestral sin is the inheritance of the consequences of the sin of Adam, not the guilt. That consequence is mortality and the corruption that comes with it. Because we are all born mortal, we sin and thereby become guilty not of the sin of Adam, but of our own sins. Mary was born in ancestral sin and died a natural death. However, as the liturgical texts of the Byzantine Rite make clear, three days after her death, the Apostles opened her tomb and found it empty. They then had a vision of her ascending body and soul into Heaven. However, we also believe that through the grace of God Mary did not actually sin and was prepared to bear Christ. Thus our belief is not that far form the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
It is an important theological point that Mary was born in ancestral sin. St. Gregory the Theologian wrote, “That which is not assumed is not healed.” By assuming ancestral sin from the human nature that His human nature inherited from Mary, Christ healed those who are united to Him through the Sacramental Life of the Church from the curse of death, the result of ancestral sin. There is a line from a prayer to the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary in the service of Compline that beautifully expresses this concept. “O Lady, Bride of God, spotless, blameless, pure and immaculate Virgin, thou without corruption, by thy glorious birth-giving hast untied God the Word to man and joined the fallen nature of our race to heavenly things…”

Fr. John

I follow you, when you say John the Theologian, am I right with this link as to who you refer?

pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/texts/dormitionG2/dormitionG2.htm

I would only remind you of St Marks take on visionaries at Florence.

Also when we say , spotless, blameless, pure and immaculate Virgin, thou without corruption. This is the repetitive language which comes at us and from very early on, St Athanasius again for example.

When one is an immaculate virgin, then this is self descriptive as to Her state as a virgin. What does spotless, blameless and non-corrupt say in relation?

Also when we say we agree St Mary had no birth pains, then we have to conclude there was indeed a single act of Grace here? How do we know that didn’t include the preservation of no “spot” or “stain” of sin?

 

[frjohnmorris]

I follow you, when you say John the Theologian, am I right with this link as to who you refer?

pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/texts/dormitionG2/dormitionG2.htm

I would only remind you of St Marks take on visionaries at Florence.

Also when we say , spotless, blameless, pure and immaculate Virgin, thou without corruption. This is the repetitive language which comes at us and from very early on, St Athanasius again for example.

When one is an immaculate virgin, then this is self descriptive as to Her state as a virgin. What does spotless, blameless and non-corrupt say in relation?

Also when we say we agree St Mary had no birth pains, then we have to conclude there was indeed a single act of Grace here? How do we know that didn’t include the preservation of no “spot” or “stain” of sin?

I quoted St. Gregory the Theologian not St. John the Theologian. I am referring to the liturgical texts for the Feast of the Falling Asleep of the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary.
I have already stated that Our Lady was prepared by God’s grace to become the Theotokos and the second Eve. However, she did die. That is expressed clearly in the liturgical texts for the Feast of the Assumption. Ancestral sin is the inheritance of the consequences of the sin of Adam which is death. Because Our Lady died, she was born in ancestral sin. Our Lord took upon Himself ancestral sin when He died to save us from sin and death on the Cross. II Cor. 5:21 “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

I follow you, when you say John the Theologian, am I right with this link as to who you refer?

pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/texts/dormitionG2/dormitionG2.htm

I would only remind you of St Marks take on visionaries at Florence.

Also when we say , spotless, blameless, pure and immaculate Virgin, thou without corruption. This is the repetitive language which comes at us and from very early on, St Athanasius again for example.

When one is an immaculate virgin, then this is self descriptive as to Her state as a virgin. What does spotless, blameless and non-corrupt say in relation?

Also when we say we agree St Mary had no birth pains, then we have to conclude there was indeed a single act of Grace here? How do we know that didn’t include the preservation of no “spot” or “stain” of sin?

I looked at the site that you listed. Part of what it says is agrees with the Byzantine liturgical texts used by Easter Orthodox and Melkites. However there are also important differences. According to the Byzantine liturgical texts, all the Apostles but St. Thomas were miraculously brought to Jerusalem to be present when Our Lady died. When St. Thomas arrived three days later, he asked to see her one last time. The Apostles opened the tomb and found it empty. They the had a vision of her ascending body and soul into Heaven. As she ascended, she dropped her belt, which is the only relic of Our Lady that we have. Normally, it is kept in a monastery on Mt. Athos, but has recently been take to Russia for veneration in Moscow and St. Petersburg and perhaps a few other places before it is taken back to Mt. Athos.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

I need to go for a few days, but I just wanted to leave a final comment on this portion of my previous post.

I’ve met Absolutist Petrine advocates interpret the ex cathedra decrees of Popes St. Leo and St. Agatho as the other bishops submitting to the decrees of the Popes. This would be an incorrect assessment of the case because the bishops who agreed with the Popes already shared the same Faith with the Popes on the matter. So they were not submitting, but were rather expressing their agreement - hence consensus.

Blessings,
Marduk

Only after the 4th and 6th Ecumenical Councils accepted the Tome of Leo and the statement of Pope St. Agtho did their statements become the official doctrine of the Church. Thus they did not proclaim the correct doctrine on Monophysitism and Monothelitism unilaterally by speaking “ex cathedra.” Thus these two examples only prove my argument that an Ecumenical Council is the highest authority in the Church, not the Pope.

Fr. John

 

[ronyodish]

Thus these two examples only prove my argument that an Ecumenical Council is the highest authority in the Church, not the Pope.

Fr. Morris,

An Ecumenical Council is not a headless body of bishops. The Council is, and always will be, a body of bishops in full communion with the head bishop. The Pope, as head bishop, is integral and intrinsic to the body of bishops, otherwise, you have a decapitated corpse.

The highest authority in the Church is both the Pope as head bishop and the body of bishops in full communion with each other.

God bless,

Rony

 

[Cavaradossi]

An Ecumenical Council is not a headless body of bishops. The Council is, and always will be, a body of bishops in full communion with the head bishop. The Pope, as head bishop, is integral and intrinsic to the body of bishops, otherwise, you have a decapitated corpse.

The highest authority in the Church is both the Pope as head bishop and the body of bishops in full communion with each other.

God bless,

Rony

By that logic, it should be impossible for a local synod to remove its own metropolitan.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Gary Taylor wrote, “In fact early Church there is no mention of Original or Ancestral Sin till Augustine came along.”

The phrase “original sin” may not have been used until Augustine, the concept of ancestral sin is found in Romans 5:12 “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.”
It is also found in the writings of the Fathers long before Augustine.
St. Irenaeus wrote. “Indeed through the first Adam, we offended God by not observing his command. Through the second Adam, however we are reconciled, and are all made obedient even unto death. For we are all debtors except unto Him, whose commandants we transgressed at the beginning.”
St. Cyprian wrote:
Epistle LVIII. To Fidus, on the Baptism of Infants
But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted—and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace—how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins—that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.
Referring to Adam, Tertullian wrote, “On account of his transgression man was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected by his seed, was made the transmitter of condemnation.

Fr. John

 

[ronyodish]

By that logic, it should be impossible for a local synod to remove its own metropolitan.

Cavaradossi,

If the local synod deems it necessary to remove its own metropolitan, for whatever reason, and they do proceed to remove him, the metropolitan can then appeal to the highest authority, that is, the pope as head bishop and the body of bishops in full communion. They, will then, make the final decision on his appeal.

God bless,

Rony

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. Morris,

An Ecumenical Council is not a headless body of bishops. The Council is, and always will be, a body of bishops in full communion with the head bishop. The Pope, as head bishop, is integral and intrinsic to the body of bishops, otherwise, you have a decapitated corpse.

The highest authority in the Church is both the Pope as head bishop and the body of bishops in full communion with each other.

God bless,

Rony

That is not exactly true. The only Ecumenical Council presided over by the papal representatives was the 4th Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon in 451.
St. Alexander the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria presides over the 1st Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325.
Saint Meletius the Patriarch of Antioch presided over the 2nd Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I in 81.
St. Cyril of Alexandria presided over the 3rd Ecumenical Council, Ephesus 431.
Bishop Paschasinus of Lilybaeum, the legate of Pope St. Leo I presided over the 4th Ecumenical, Chalcedon 451. The council appointed a committee headed by Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople to examine and determine the orthodoxy of Leo’s Tome. Only after the committee found it to be in conformity with St. Cyril’s 12 Anathemas against Nestorius did the committee recommend its approval.This incident alone shows that the Popes were subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council.
The 5th Ecumenical Council,Constantinople II, 553, met despite Pope Vigilius’ command that they not meet. Eutyches, the Patriarch of Constantinople presided over the council. Only after the council excommunicated him, did Pope Vigilius change his mind and accept the condemnation of the Three Chapters.
Emperor Constantine IV presided over the first sessions of the 6th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III in 680.
Tarasios, the Patriarch of Constantinople presided over the 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicaea II, 787.

Thus the practice of the Ecumenical Councils shows that like every other Bishop, the Bishop of Rome was subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council. When Pope St. Leo I objected to the Council of Ephesus of 449, which claimed to be an Ecumenical Council, he lacked the authority to personally overrule the council, but appealed to the Emperor and the other Patriarchs to hold another council. This was the Council of Chalcedon, which overruled the Robber Council of Ephesus of 449 and was recognized as an authentic Ecumenical Council. This is the only Ecumenical Council presided over by a papal legate.

Fr. John

 

[ronyodish]

That is not exactly true. The only Ecumenical Council presided over by the papal representatives was the 4th Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon in 451.
St. Alexander the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria presides over the 1st Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325.
Saint Meletius the Patriarch of Antioch presided over the 2nd Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I in 81.
St. Cyril of Alexandria presided over the 3rd Ecumenical Council, Ephesus 431.
Bishop Paschasinus of Lilybaeum, the legate of Pope St. Leo I presided over the 4th Ecumenical, Chalcedon 451. The council appointed a committee headed by Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople to examine and determine the orthodoxy of Leo’s Tome. Only after the committee found it to be in conformity with St. Cyril’s 12 Anathemas against Nestorius did the committee recommend its approval.This incident alone shows that the Popes were subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council.
The 5th Ecumenical Council,Constantinople II, 553, met despite Pope Vigilius’ command that they not meet. Eutyches, the Patriarch of Constantinople presided over the council. Only after the council excommunicated him, did Pope Vigilius change his mind and accept the condemnation of the Three Chapters.
Emperor Constantine IV presided over the first sessions of the 6th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III in 680.
Tarasios, the Patriarch of Constantinople presided over the 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicaea II, 787.

Thus the practice of the Ecumenical Councils shows that like every other Bishop, the Bishop of Rome was subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council. When Pope St. Leo I objected to the Council of Ephesus of 449, which claimed to be an Ecumenical Council, he lacked the authority to personally overrule the council, but appealed to the Emperor and the other Patriarchs to hold another council. This was the Council of Chalcedon, which overruled the Robber Council of Ephesus of 449 and was recognized as an authentic Ecumenical Council. This is the only Ecumenical Council presided over by a papal legate.

Fr. Morris,

The Pope does not have to preside or send legates to a council. The Pope is head bishop of the universal body of bishops irregardless of whether he personally presides, or sends legates, to any one council, whether deemed ecumenical or not. All he needs to do as head bishop is to determine, along with his body of bishops in a collegial fashion, that the council is orthodox in her teachings. That determination can be made during the council, or after the council.

God bless,

Rony

 

[GaryTaylor]

I looked at the site that you listed. Part of what it says is agrees with the Byzantine liturgical texts used by Easter Orthodox and Melkites. However there are also important differences. According to the Byzantine liturgical texts, all the Apostles but St. Thomas were miraculously brought to Jerusalem to be present when Our Lady died. When St. Thomas arrived three days later, he asked to see her one last time. The Apostles opened the tomb and found it empty. They the had a vision of her ascending body and soul into Heaven. As she ascended, she dropped her belt, which is the only relic of Our Lady that we have. Normally, it is kept in a monastery on Mt. Athos, but has recently been take to Russia for veneration in Moscow and St. Petersburg and perhaps a few other places before it is taken back to Mt. Athos.

Fr. John

Right, I remember reading similar. may well be from one of the members here on this sight. we aren’t far apart here at all. The history is very similar here East West up till, well IC/Assumption.

When I was saying singular act of grace, till the IC we all were on the same page. This would be affirmative had She been preserved at the Assumption/Incarnation, sometime prior, or at the moment of conception.

My point here of course is at some point, through Grace, St Mary was indeed sinless thus the Incarnation of the Word of God.

Also yields back to the documented writing of the majority of the Early Church Father’s in consistency I as was saying above. As the debate raged in the Catholic Universities the thinking of the Dominicans lost favor to the Friars thus Duns Scotus and the IC with most fitting. The Catholic Church specifically states its “most fitting” St Mary was conceived without the stain of sin. Further sanctification is indicative of the painless birth, then or course Her journey in Christ’s ministry on earth to the Cross and at the foot of the Cross is well documented.

Another point here following our conversation is the objection I posted which one can often find on Eastern polemical sights, is through our conversation now a moot point? And the same question you must answer yourself?

As to Ancestral/Original the documentation cited above would have been what all the early church fathers used in relation to scripture. It was consistently referenced then along with the early church father’s as time proceeded. My point which still stands is the like thinking is void of the specific word Ancestral or Original. In fact I can’t even see the first time the phrase Ancestral is quoted. The fall of man and sin in general as your saying is addressed very early on by various individuals.

Point being what then is the doctrine of Ancestral sin, the term itself suggests a thinking different than Original sin, but there is no difference. When you say the term Original may not have been used, I say neither was used until Augustine. When you quote above their is no variance east or west. with the early church fathers. Here…“The phrase “original sin” may not have been used until Augustine, the concept of ancestral sin is found in Romans 5:12” This is a two way street. And I’ve yet to see this conceptual difference placed under critically analysis. I would have to conclude this suggested difference holds no water to this point. That is unless one clings to the failing argument of guilt, suffice to say the CCC alone clarifies this.

As to the IC the IC was upheld in Russia till the 17th century and in Greece till the 15th, England till the 12th. Fact is the IC was upheld elsewhere before it was upheld by Rome.

The Assumption leaves only a clause which leaves the faithful to believe either St Mary was resurrected alive or not. What must be believed is what we all already believe, She was assumed body and soul.

Where did Elijah disappear to in the Chariot of Fire?

As to the idea anyone was present to witness St Marys death, this is not documented by any witness which can be verified. That does not exist to date. Are you saying factual written verified documentation of a witness exists?

When we say “All have sinned”. Did All sin? I don’t think so. How about Jesus Christ and John the Baptist? By my understanding the East claims John the Baptist was preserved when. this placed then his preservation before the Mother of the Lord? We should discuss this I see confusion here.

 

[GaryTaylor]

This point… the rejection of our Lord from Genesis would not be universal if the condition of sin isn’t a common factor with all human beings.

It would also not be Universal if one soul was preserved at any point thus at the Incarnation, prior, or at the moment of conception. St Mary still becomes an exception to the stated thinking. More important the following dilemma proposed then exists for all, not just the West but both East and West. Follow my thinking?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Cavaradossi,

If the local synod deems it necessary to remove its own metropolitan, for whatever reason, and they do proceed to remove him, the metropolitan can then appeal to the highest authority, that is, the pope as head bishop and the body of bishops in full communion. They, will then, make the final decision on his appeal.

God bless,

Rony

But the praxis of the Early Church did not seem to follow this organizational concept. Numerous times, bishops sent appeals to foreign sees, such as Rome, and the local synod told Rome to mind its own business. This was the case for example, with the synod of North African bishops in Carthage which passed canons forbidding appeals across the sea (meaning appeals to Rome) in reaction to the Pope attempting to reinstate a bishop which the synod had deposed. The Pope’s sole claim to have the authority to do so (at that time) were the Sardican Canons, which the Carthaginians believed to be spurious, for they themselves never had received or heard of such a collection of canons. And even granting the concession that the Sardican Canons were in fact authentic, the Pope in that case still would have overstepped his canonical prerogatives, because the Sardican canons only gave the pope the authority to demand a retrial in a neighboring province, not to annul the acts of the synod entirely.

The question then still remains: If the body cannot depose the head bishop, what are we to make of the numerous times when popes were deposed for moral failings in the first and even early second millennium? If the Church, after all should have invalidly deposed a Pope (because such a power does not belong to the body of the episcopacy, according to the theory in question), then the election of a new one would automatically have been invalid by virtue of there already being a living Pope, and it should stand to reason also that the body of bishops which united themselves to this new and invalid anti-pope would never be able to elect a new pope after the death of the old pope, by virtue of the fact that the body would be “lifeless” in its schism from the true and unacknowledged head according to the ideas laid out in post #359.

In fact, one must wonder what exactly happens during the interregnum. How does a lifeless and headless body elect a new head, if the power of the head does not reside also in its fullness in the body (though latently)?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Mary is already fully graced (“Kecharitomone”) prior to saying, “Let it be done to me…”.

The sanctifying Grace according to my understating with John the Baptist occurs at the Visitation when Elisabeth is already blessed with St John and he jumps in the womb. I may be understanding wrong from a Eastern perspective but its my understanding he was conceived without the spot or stain of the consequence of the fall thus sin?

My confusion resides above. See the difference in the order of Grace?