Orthodoxy: Ecumenicity, Receptionism and the Councils

[prodromos]

But there is a problem…you WOULD have accepted the Second Council of Ephesus if it were not for the rejection of that council by the Pope.

So far your sources have demonstrated otherwise. Where is the statement where the council of Chalcedon recognises Pope Leo’s rejection of Ephesus II as the reason for the Church rejecting the same?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Your source doesn’t suggest the 2nd council of Ephesus was rejected because Pope Leo opposed it, but rather because Emperor Marcian and Empress Pulcheria opposed it.

Yes, I have been reading a tad about caesaropapism in the Orthodox Church.

However, it is a fact of history that Ephesus II was rejected by Pope Leo before Chalcedon, and even today the EO refer to it by the very nickname given to it by the pope - “the Robber Council”.

That’s not a coincidence.

 

[Seraphim73]

Yes, I have been reading a tad about caesaropapism in the Orthodox Church.

However, it is a fact of history that Ephesus II was rejected by Pope Leo before Chalcedon, and even today the EO refer to it by the very nickname given to it by the pope - “the Robber Council”.

That’s not a coincidence.

Is is a coincidence that we call Lyons, Florence and 869 Constantinople, which were eventually accepted by the pope, robber councils?

 

[prodromos]

Yes, I have been reading a tad about caesaropapism in the Orthodox Church.

As mentioned in the other thread, the Holy Spirit will even speak through lay people

How ever, it is a fact of history that Ephesus II was rejected by Pope Leo before Chalcedon, and even today the EO refer to it by the very nickname given to it by the pope - “the Robber Council”.

That’s not a coincidence.

Randy hasn’t produced the smoking gun yet

 

[Randy_Carson]

Who says any of those particular churches are part of the Church? No one says there aren’t divisions. Even Rome recognizes that the the Copts aren’t part of the Church.

No one claims that every church and every bishop at the time of the council must accept it for it to be true. That has never been claimed.

Go back and read this thread from the beginning and see if “no one” has made that claim.

But more to the point, the logic of Orthodoxy, as skewered in the OP by an Orthodox website sourcing Orthodox theologians, is that receptionism, that is, the requirement for a council to be accepted by the (whole) church, has just been demonstrated to be arbitrary if not completely false.

You are like cafeteria Christians picking and choosing which councils you will and won’t accept.

And you have no real basis for determining which councils to accept and which to reject…just as Protestants have no real basis for explaining why they accept some books as inspired but not others.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t but your theological perspective implies that I must. Your argument is false because I confirmed my own argument, not yours. I confirmed that infallibility is a foolish concept.

No, Jimmy. You said that someone must BE infallible to understand an infallible teaching.

This is false.

Peter and Paul were individually infallible when they taught in the first century. You can read their writings in the New Testament. Can you understand them? Reasonably well, I presume.

Infallible means that the teaching is protected from error by God. I don’t have to be protected from error God in order to understanding a teaching that is given correctly.

You blundered here, but we can move on. There are more important issues before us.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So far your sources have demonstrated otherwise. Where is the statement where the council of Chalcedon recognises Pope Leo’s rejection of Ephesus II as the reason for the Church rejecting the same?

Chalcedon rejected Ephesus II for the same reason that the Pope Leo did - it taught false doctrines.

What would have happened if Pope Leo had accepted Ephesus II?

Then Catholic Church (all of us at that time) would have been in the position of teaching error…something that cannot happen according to the promises of the Builder of the Church…even if only for a very short time before the convening of Chalcedon.

Trust me, prodromos, if this had EVER happened, the Protestants would not let us forget it. :nope:

But this is NOT an argument that anti-papists make, because they concede that Ephesus II was rejected by Leo.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is is a coincidence that we call Lyons, Florence and 869 Constantinople, which were eventually accepted by the pope, robber councils?

In using that phrase (even inappropriately), you strengthen my case in that you acknowledge Leo’s rejection of Ephesus II.

Thank you. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

As mentioned in the other thread, the Holy Spirit will even speak through lay people

That’s my hope every time I post here. :yup:

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Thanks i agree, the point is though.

I see no reason not to believe that, nor do I believe sufficient defense had been provided why one shouldn’t believe it. And we should admit disbelieve in the Catholic Church has always existed, because it has always existed in regards to man and the Lord. Disobedience in other words shouldn’t be misunderstood as evidence.

However, what are your thoughts on the Church and primacy?

My instinct is to favor a strong view of Primacy that makes the Pope the Pontifex Maximus. Unfortunately, however, I have yet to see a strong argument made from the patristic body of thought to support this. I have a book I bought from a Catholic bookstore entitled “The Faith of the Early Fathers” by American Catholic Historian William A. Jurgens. The book offers excerpts from the Fathers on key doctrine. I only have volume two that covers the post-Nicene era through St. Jerome.

Here are the following quote by various saints:

St. Optatus of Milevis: “You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head–that is why is he is also called Cephas–of all the Apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do other Apostles proceed individually on their own; and anyone who set up another chair in opposition to that singly chair would, by that very fact
be a schismatic and a sinner”. This is part of a letter written to a certain Donatist named Parmenian

Also, here is a quote by St. Ambrose: “It is to Peter himself that He says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.’ Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal”

Here is an excerpt by St. Jerome written in response against a renegade monk of Rome. “If [Jovinian] should obstinately contend that John was not a virgin, while we have maintained that his virginity was the reason for the special love [which our savior had from him], let him explain, if John was not a virgin, just what was the reason he was loved more than the other Apostles. ‘But’, you will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’/ Well, in another place the same is accorded to all the Apostles, and all receive the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, the strength of the Church depends equally upon all of them; but one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division…”

 

[Cavaradossi]

But here’s the thing, and there’s no getting around it: if I am uncertain as to whether a particular teaching is irreformable, that may be a problem, but it is solvable. I would ultimately appeal to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church for guidance.

How would you know that such a judgment would be itself true and irreformable? How would you know that they were not mistaken as Pope St. Martin and St. Maximus were was about the ecumenical status of the Lateran synod of 649 or as the medieval canonists were about the first three Lateran Councils which they mistakenly did not recognize as being ecumenical?

You haven’t demonstrated that the Latins even have a sound theory on how councils become ecumenical (indeed, I don’t believe that they have one, because the only thing the Latin theory asserts is the necessity but not sufficiency of papal ratification), much less why the Orthodox should have some theory on this, especially when the Latins don’t have one themselves.

Frankly, you seem to be blundering unwittingly into an incredibly difficult epistemological question concerning how one is justified in claiming to know something, but your ideological blinders at the same time seem to keep you from seeing the fact that you cannot offer the very epistemological certitude and exactitude which you demand from your opponents.

 

[Randy_Carson]

How would you know that such a judgment would be itself true and irreformable? How would you know that they were not mistaken as Pope St. Martin and St. Maximus were was about the ecumenical status of the Lateran synod of 649 or as the medieval canonists were about the first three Lateran Councils which they mistakenly did not recognize as being ecumenical?

You haven’t demonstrated that the Latins even have a sound theory on how councils become ecumenical (indeed, I don’t believe that they have one, because the only thing the Latin theory asserts is the necessity but not sufficiency of papal ratification), much less why the Orthodox should have some theory on this, especially when the Latins don’t have one themselves.

Frankly, you seem to be blundering unwittingly into an incredibly difficult epistemological question concerning how one is justified in claiming to know something, but your ideological blinders at the same time seem to keep you from seeing the fact that you cannot offer the very epistemological certitude and exactitude which you demand from your opponents.

You really AREN’T going to address the self-assessment of the Orthodox predicament, are you? I understand completely. Sometimes its best to pass over something in silence. Still, I would have thought you would bring something more to the table than, “And you also.” Given our shared experiences, your silence suggestions that the OP was dead on the money.

Now about me (again as Peter_J would point out):

If I blunder unwittingly, it wouldn’t be the first time, would it? But I learn from that, and my apologetics skill grows stronger.

Thank you for all you have done to help me in this regard.

 

[Seraphim73]

In using that phrase (even inappropriately), you strengthen my case in that you acknowledge Leo’s rejection of Ephesus II.

Thank you. :tiphat:

That’s a strange thing to say. Of course I accept Leo’s rejection of Ephesus.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s a strange thing to say. Of course I accept Leo’s rejection of Ephesus.

Joey-

If I have confused you with someone else, please accept my apologies.

My point was that somewhere in the past 12 hours or so that I have been in and out of this discussion, someone asserted that the reason Ephesus II is rejected is NOT because Leo failed to ratify it but because Chalcedon rejected it.

I personally believe this is backwards since it would have put the Church into the awkward position of teaching contradictory doctrine in Ephesus I & II. So, my position is that Ephesus II was never a valid council due to the Pope’s rejection of it. Chalcedon simply reiterated that fact.

If you reject Ephesus II on the basis of Leo’s assessment, then we are in agreement. And that sounds like a great place to call it a day.

More tomorrow, I presume?

 

[Seraphim73]

Joey-

If I have confused you with someone else, please accept my apologies.

My point was that somewhere in the past 12 hours or so that I have been in and out of this discussion, someone asserted that the reason Ephesus II is rejected is NOT because Leo failed to ratify it but because Chalcedon rejected it.

I personally believe this is backwards since it would have put the Church into the awkward position of teaching contradictory doctrine in Ephesus I & II. So, my position is that Ephesus II was never a valid council due to the Pope’s rejection of it. Chalcedon simply reiterated that fact.

If you reject Ephesus II on the basis of Leo’s assessment, then we are in agreement. And that sounds like a great place to call it a day.

More tomorrow, I presume?

Well Ephesus is rejected because the Church rejected it. Chalcedon and Leo reflect that rejection. So insofar as Leo is orthodox, and as a result rejects the robber council, all Orthodox agree with him. I think sometimes people forget how many Popes of Rome we venerate as saints. As a matter of fact we have one coming up Tuesday with Pope Clement.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Just an FYI, the following was posted on not one but TWO Orthodox forums back in 2008. I think you will see why Seraphim, the poster, was so eager to find a solution to this vexing problem:

In recent debates with those of other faiths, I’ve come across a very interesting question to which I confess I have no distinct and authoritative answer:

By what criteria do we Orthodox authoritatively, objectively, and externally judge whether a given council was ecumenical or not?

If you sit down and think hard about it, it’s a much more difficult question than it appears at first blush. We can dismiss standards such as “convocation by the Emperor” or “lots of bishops” as immediately ludicrous on their face. Even the more reasonable alternatives, however, have severe problems:

1. Suppose we say, “ratification by a subsequent council.” This raises issues:

-I’m fairly sure there have been heretical councils subsequently ratified by other heretical councils. yet we don’t count those as ecumenical.
-Is this a question of “oomph,” or can any piddly local council basically create ecumenical councils by fiat? If it’s “oomph” that counts, how do we determine whether it’s sufficient, without running into the infinite causes dilemma?

1. Suppose we say, “participation by the Pentarchy.” This raises issues:

-Does this mean that, since the Great Schism, Orthodoxy has lost its ability to hold new Ecumenical Councils? This would have serious implications as to Orthodoxy’s catholicity.
-What of the First Ecumenical Council? Constantinople wasn’t even a big-name see at the time.
-What of the Second Ecumenical Council? The Bishop of Rome was not present.
-What of the Ignatian council of 869? What of the Council of Florence? Both had at least ostensible participation by all the Patriarchates.

1. Suppose we say, “ratification by the Pentarchy.” This raises issues:

-Again, does this mean Orthodoxy is stripped of the ability to hold new Ecumenical Councils?
-Again, what of the Ignatian council, and Florence, where the Pentarchy apparently ratified 'em, but we Orthodox reject them?
-More importantly, what of Chalcedon and the other councils we do accept that weren’t ratified by the whole Pentarchy?
-Especially, what of Chalceon canon 28, which was rejected by Pope St. Leo the Great, a move apparently accepted as legitimate by St. Anatolius?

1. Suppose we say, “ratification by the laity.” This raises issues:

-How many need to ratify a given council? 51%? 66%? 75%? 90%? How can we know what proportion is right? How can we measure whether this consensus exists? Within what length of time should it come to a proper degree of laity acceptance?
-What of all the times when heresy plagued the Church to such extent that probably a majority of the laity were in heresy? (I’m thinking specifically of Maximus the Confessor, and “Athanasius against the world.”)
-What makes an ecumenical council necessary at all, under this scheme? If majority rules, and Truth always wins out over the centuries, then why not just leave it to the body of the faithful?

1. Suppose we say, “ratification by the bishop of Rome.” This raises issues:

-Why are we still Orthodox, then?
-What of the Photian council of 879, which was apparently ratified by Rome and then deratified? Does this mean the foundations of the Faith are subject to repeal on the whim of one man?
-If true, why was the papacy’s vote so frequently ignored (Chalcedon canon 28) or outright opposed (St. Cyprian)?
-Again, it seems this would obviate the need for an ecumenical council except for informational and diplomatic purposes, if the papacy were able to decree authoritatively what was and wasn’t true doctrine.
-On the face, it does seem, however, that this rule is the easiest to fit into the majority of historical circumstances.

(My gut inclines me to say that it’s a combination of 2, 3, and 4, on something of a sliding scale, but while this answer seems to me the most logically tenable, it is by no means particularly satisfying.)

Finally, I would be extremely interested to see any authoritative documentation–that is, in the canons or Church Fathers–as to what constitutes a valid ecumenical council. It seems to me that 20/20 hindsight and subjective private judgment is not a wise or solid foundation for something so incredibly vital to Orthodox ecclesiology.

(In particular, Orthodox blogger Perry Robinson wrote: With 2nd nicea, the documents in question actually LIST the conditions for a legitimate council and it seems quite strange that they do not list papal ratification and even stranger that NO ONE IS MENTIONING THEM AT ALL, even though it is the one place in an ecumenical council recognised by ALL that discusses and lays down the criteria in question. After a fairly thorough reading of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, I am unable to determine where he gets this. But this’d be just what I’m looking for. Any thoughts?)

Christ is in our midst!

Pax,

–Seraphim

As my OP and this post suggest, Orthodox minds want to know!

 

[Cavaradossi]

You really AREN’T going to address the self-assessment of the Orthodox predicament, are you?

There is no predicament except for the one of your own making in this case. Given that no Christian body (not even your own) has a definite and systematic way of determining with complete certitude whether a council was ecumenical, I can only conclude that knowledge of such a thing (if such a thing can be known) cannot actually be part of the deposit of faith, as this would imply precisely that all forms of Christianity are deficient.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is no predicament except for the one of your own making in this case. Given that no Christian body (not even your own) has a definite and systematic way of determining with complete certitude whether a council was ecumenical, I can only conclude that knowledge of such a thing (if such a thing can be known) cannot actually be part of the deposit of faith, as this would imply precisely that all forms of Christianity are deficient.

Read post #1 taken from an Orthodox website. Consider the comments of the Orthodox quoted therein.

Read post #96 just presented. Consider the anguish of the Orthodox asking the questions. (His second proposal is especially interesting, I think.)

And this is a predicament I am making? :nope:

+++

While I appreciate the reasons why you want to deflect this discussion (and note carefully that others have not recognized the predicament you seek to avoid - they seem to think that they can actually answer the questions), I can offer you some guidance here.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Seraphim73]

Just an FYI, the following was posted on not one but TWO Orthodox forums back in 2008. I think you will see why Seraphim, the poster, was so eager to find a solution to this vexing problem:

I can track down posts on various Catholic forums with Roman Catholics questioning lots of things. I’m not sure your point in bringing up anonymous posts from other discussion forums.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Hmmm, sounds like we have to rework our epistemology before we can even talk about how to decide if a council is ecumenical or not. Epistemological foundationalism is clearly not the answer here and so no easy deductive logical steps can get us from point A to point B. Meaning we can’t proceed from indubitable truths to other truths such as those concerning what conditions must be met for a council to be considered ecumenical.