M
Mystophilus
Guest
So when were they so described, and by whom?
- Status
R
Rohzek
Guest
The popes were actually not as ignorant of Greek during this period as you might think. Furthermore, there was a large Greek community in the city of Rome, particularly during the Iconoclasm period. It’s difficult to imagine that any representative from Rome during this period would have been entirely ignorant of Greek.
II Nicaea was not presided over by a papal legate, but Patriarch Tarasius and Empress Irene. It’s abundantly clear in the acta. The council is opened with a speech by Tarasius. See page 1 of the translated acta here: books.google.com/books?id=5sCqMrxtjBAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22seventh+general+council,+the+second+of+Nicaea,+held+A.D.+787%22&lr=&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
Furthermore, the final session was directly presided over by Empress Irene. The Franks knew this too, and attacked the council precisely because of such (pardon my rusty Latin):
“We ask therefore the Apostle! The preeminant preacher says, the vessel of the chosen says, does he permit women to teach or to rule over men? He says, in fact, to Timothy: ‘Women shall learn in silence with all submissiveness. However, I do not permit women to teach, nor to rule over men, but to be in silence (1 Tim. 2:11).’”
“Interrogemus ergo Apostolum! Dicat egregius praedicator, dicat vas electionis, uturm feminas docere permittat an in viros dominari? Ait enim at Timotheum: Mulier in silentio discat cum omni subiectione. Docere autem mulieri non permitto, neque dominari in viram sed esse in silentio.” Theodulf of Orleans, Opus Caroli Regis contra synodum, MGH Concilia II Supplementum, I pg. 387-388.
Again, the Franks questioned the authority of the council precisely because a women presided over it. Papal representatives attended and played a crucial part, but they did not preside over the council.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think subscribing to Catholic papal primacy claims necessarily requires that a papal representative preside over a council. It only requires that a papal representative attend and approve.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
The book you link presents those criteria as being necessary but gives no hint to their sufficiency.
E
Estevao
Guest
They don’t have an answer that wouldn’t allow for the acceptance of the robber council of Ephesus and the monophysite heresy.
W
Wandile
Guest
It’s a fact that the east and the west barely spoke each others languages. That’s why even at the councils when the legates fo speak, 99% they speak in Latin. A language which 99% of the eastern fathers did not understand. This is historical fact.
W
Wandile
Guest
No its a fact. Plain and simple and no historical revisionism is going to change this.
R
Rohzek
Guest
How often are you going to ignore the plain clear evidence that I present before you that the Second Council of Nicaea was presided over by Empress Irene and Patriarch Tarasius, not the papal legates?
No historian would say otherwise. Thomas F. X. Noble says the following: “Chapter thirteen [of the Opus Caroli] returns to Empress Irene for the first time since the beginning of the Opus. Theodulf expostulates on the report that the Greeks have permitted a woman to teach in their midst. He must have deduced from the imperial sacra because there is no evidence that he would have known that Irene presided at the final session of the council in the Magnaura Palace.” Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians pg. 197
Irene had Tarasius and her representative Petronas (for most sessions) preside over the council. Most of the heavy work was done by Tarasius.
W
Wandile
Guest
The two legates were from Italy and travelled to Nicaea. Peter of the Greek Monastery could possibly have spoken Greek but even that is debatable considering Greek was only known by a few individuals in the west at the time. Most of the time papal legates never spoke Greek. The Popes themselves never spoke Greek either for the most part but had scribes who could.
Every source I have consulted on this issue says Nicaea II was presided over by the papal legates. However like I said it really was nothing more than a presidency in name as the eastern patriarch and the empress were the real presidents of the council. This was not foreign for emperors to do this and the eastern patriarch was a Greek who naturally lead the Greek clergy in Greek. Its only logical that they rule the council. Nobody would understand the legates
The papal legates presided over the council and were the first to sign the acts; but in reality it was Patriarch Tarasius who presided, and it was he, at the command of the council, who informed Pope Hadrian I about it: “the occasion when the letters of your fraternal holiness were read out and all acclaimed them”.
You are actually correct. This is just more about a historical piece of information but all that is necessary is for them to be there
R
Rohzek
Guest
Maybe you can say that when you apply it to the whole Latin West. But there were a significant number people in Rome who knew Greek pretty well. There was a large Greek community there.
What sources are you consulting? The papal legates failed to have all the papal primacy claims translated properly in Hadrian’s letters. So the council never acknowledged them. And so it remained a rankling issue for quite some time. If the council really was presided over by Hadrian in any representative capacity, this never would have been an issue. These facts don’t add up. If you have sources to explain this, then please list them. If they simply make the claims of papal presidency, then please list them as well. I’m interested in figuring out on what grounds they make these claims.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Patrick-
You may have missed some discussions that took place over the past few months, here is a link to an Orthodox website article that will give you some background.
orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
P
prodromos
Guest
Its pretty obvious that your ‘facts’ are themselves the result of historical revision.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Doesn’t it follow, then, that at least the second Council of Constantinople (553), the third Council of Constantinople (680-681), and the second Council of Nicaea (787) weren’t ecumenical? Since when did the Oriental Orthodox churches move from the world? Why didn’t the Oriental schism make ecumenical counsils impossible?
The problem is that there haven’t been a single council which included every bishop, and no council have ever been received in every part of Christendom.
The oriental orthodox were part of the Church before the Council of Chalcedon, but they refused to acknowledge it. Why was that council then ecumenical, since the definition offered says that a council is ecumenical if it is received by ‘the whole Church’ or ‘the bishops of the whole Church’?
A council is neither made ecumenical through reception. It wasn’t true for Nicea I, which wasn’t received by the Arians. It wasn’t true for Constantinople I, which wasn’t received by the Pneumatomachi. It wasn’t true for Ephesus, which wasn’t received by many of the Syriac churches. It wasn’t true for Chalcedon, which wasn’t received by many of the Coptic churches. And so on. And so on. And so on.
K
KjetilK
Guest
But why, then, is Chalcedon ecumenical? What gives the Eastern (Greek and Russian) Orthodox laity and clergy an authority that was not granted the laity and clergy of the Oriental Orthodox churches?
K
KjetilK
Guest
What an absurdly naive statement.
P
Peter_J
Guest
At the risk of “looking a gift horse in the mouth” this seems to me like a case of getting carried away by ecumenism. It amounts of saying that Orthodoxy is not the one-true-church.
- Status