S
Seraphim73
Guest
You are welcome. You could, staying with the topic of this thread, just read his teachings on ecclesiology. It is perfectly Orthodox. It’s probably the best explanation of the hierarchy I’ve ever read.
- Status
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Well we have lots more than seven councils that’s for sure. And any faith requires circularity, otherwise it wouldn’t be faith.
I was doing some reading about the Robber Council when I saw an argument concerning the Second Council of Ephesus (which I will be discussing in this thread. :yupThat article linked to the OrthodoxWiki article quoted in my OP wherein I immediately heard the echoes of Seraphim73’s explanations.
Seraphim73 is espousing receptionism plain and simple, and he doesn’t see (or can’t admit) the circularity of it.
This is a really big deal, because just as Protestants have Sixty-Six Books in their Bible, but can’t explain why those Sixty-Six and no others, the Orthodox have Seven Councils, but can’t explain why those Seven and no others.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Why *those *seven councils, Joey?Well we have lots more than seven councils that’s for sure. And any faith requires circularity, otherwise it wouldn’t be faith.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
But none of this is the criteria by which councils are judged. And as it is said, you are welcome to your own opinion but not your own set of facts. After the robber council of Ephesus and after Leo’s condemnation the emperor, against the wishes of Pope Leo, convened Chalcedon which then went on to condemn the robber council. So I’ll ask you. Why did the emperor convene the council to deal with a question the pope already made a ruling on? How was the emperor able to convene a council against the will of the pope? Why did the council make a ruling on something the pope had already ruled on? I’m sorry, but there is no way to spin this to make it come out favorable to your position.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Because they have been declared as true councils. It’s really not as complicated or mysterious as you seem to think.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
No worries.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Sorry, yes I had read it. It seemed to me to be nothing more than throwing a lot of dust into the air to confuse the issue. I’m not sure we would disagree that a council is not an external organ that rues the Church. Other than that, he seems to be making an attempt to say that we need no real measure of whether or not a council is ecumenical. The Church (however that is defined) just knows. Not real impressed, to be honest. The last line of the quote betrays his obvious bias against the Chair of Peter, or “supreme hierarch”. In his view, those that would look to this supreme hierarch suffer from “fetishism” which is a “terrible symptom of half-faith”.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Notice he also says ecclesial assemblies. The point, if I may, is that there is no such thing formulaic infallibility. Catholic teaching is if A + B happens then it is automatically infallible. A conciliar decision + papal approval = infallible. Or, papal statement + ex cathedra = infallible. Fr Bulgakov states, quite correctly, that no individual is infallible. And if no one person is infallible then no group of people is infallible.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Sure there is…you just don’t know what it is.
Now, why did the emperor call another council? Well, first we have to understand which emperor, but a council was ultimately called because, as was often the case, heresy was spinning out of control in in the East.
These events have been documented by others, so I’ll just rely on their words:
In the 440s, a respected monk from Constantinople, Eutyches, denied that Jesus was truly human. He taught that Jesus did not exist in two natures because his human nature was absorbed or swallowed up by his divine nature. Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, convened a synod in 448, condemning Eutyches’ position, but Eutyches appealed the decision. The fight took a nasty turn when Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, became determined to reinstate Eutyches and his views. Eastern emperor Theodosius II, also favoring Eutyches’ position, called another church-wide council to meet at Ephesus in August 449. He appointed Dioscorus to chair the proceedings and to silence any dissent.
Leo I, bishop of Rome, sent delegates to the synod with his Tome, an exposition of how the two natures, divine and human, are joined in Christ. Dioscorus prevented the reading of Leo’s letter and rejected his position. Eutyches’ teaching was declared orthodox. Bishops who refused to accept the council’s decision were deposed.
Council of Chalcedon
An unexpected event dramatically changed the situation. On July 28, 450, while out riding, Theodosius’ horse bolted. The emperor fell, broke his neck and died. His sister Pulcheria became empress with her husband, Marcian, as co-emperor. They were opposed to Eutyches’ teaching and eager to redress the wrongs perpetrated by Dioscorus.
Emperor Marcian called for a church council to meet at Chalcedon, on the outskirts of Constantinople. More than 500 bishops attended — the largest church council gathering to that time. All delegates were from the Eastern Church, except the few papal representatives from Rome and two from Africa. Deliberations lasted from October 8 to November 1, 451.
Leo again sent representatives with his Tome, which was read and approved by the council. Chalcedon reversed the “Robbers’ Council” decision and condemned Eutyches’ teaching. It anathematized those who taught that Christ had only a single, divine nature and those “who imagine a mixture or confusion between the two natures of Christ.”
+++
So, why was a council called to settle a matter previously addressed by the pope? Well, the pope certainly *had *rejected Ephesus II, as did Chalcedon, but Chalcedon went further by condemning the new heresy of Eutyches as well as anathematizing those who held heretical views of the two natures of Christ.
Isn’t Google amazing!
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Why not just publish the Tome, send copies to all of the patriarchs and be done with it? Haven’t we covered this several times already?Sure there is…you just don’t know what it is.
Now, why did the emperor call another council? Well, first we have to understand which emperor, but a council was ultimately called because, as was often the case, heresy was spinning out of control in in the East.
These events have been documented by others, so I’ll just rely on their words:
In the 440s, a respected monk from Constantinople, Eutyches, denied that Jesus was truly human. He taught that Jesus did not exist in two natures because his human nature was absorbed or swallowed up by his divine nature. Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, convened a synod in 448, condemning Eutyches’ position, but Eutyches appealed the decision. The fight took a nasty turn when Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, became determined to reinstate Eutyches and his views. Eastern emperor Theodosius II, also favoring Eutyches’ position, called another church-wide council to meet at Ephesus in August 449. He appointed Dioscorus to chair the proceedings and to silence any dissent.
Leo I, bishop of Rome, sent delegates to the synod with his Tome, an exposition of how the two natures, divine and human, are joined in Christ. Dioscorus prevented the reading of Leo’s letter and rejected his position. Eutyches’ teaching was declared orthodox. Bishops who refused to accept the council’s decision were deposed.
Council of Chalcedon
An unexpected event dramatically changed the situation. On July 28, 450, while out riding, Theodosius’ horse bolted. The emperor fell, broke his neck and died. His sister Pulcheria became empress with her husband, Marcian, as co-emperor. They were opposed to Eutyches’ teaching and eager to redress the wrongs perpetrated by Dioscorus.
Emperor Marcian called for a church council to meet at Chalcedon, on the outskirts of Constantinople. More than 500 bishops attended — the largest church council gathering to that time. All delegates were from the Eastern Church, except the few papal representatives from Rome and two from Africa. Deliberations lasted from October 8 to November 1, 451.
Leo again sent representatives with his Tome, which was read and approved by the council. Chalcedon reversed the “Robbers’ Council” decision and condemned Eutyches’ teaching. It anathematized those who taught that Christ had only a single, divine nature and those “who imagine a mixture or confusion between the two natures of Christ.”
So, why was a council called to settle a matter previously addressed by the pope? Well, the pope had rejected Ephesus II, as did Chalcedon, but Chalcedon went further by condemning Eutyches, as well.
Isn’t Google amazing!
T
tdgesq
Guest
I actually thought the article was very good. One of the better ones I’ve seen explaining the role of historical acceptance by the Church. My one criticism would be the reference to the Council of Jerusalem. Can we really justify a “wait and see” approach (for lack of a better phrase) in that particular instance? I don’t know we have any historical context to judge that particular council in that way.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Off topic, but do you have anything more than mere assertion?
I have a boatload of scriptures and an ecumencial council or two that say otherwise.
T
tdgesq
Guest
Alas, this. Because that obviously isn’t how the Roman Pontiff normally discovers truth, even outside of the conciliar model.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Just look at history my friend.Off topic, but do you have anything more than mere assertion?
I have a boatload of scriptures and an ecumencial council or two that say otherwise.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
That’s not exactly what he is saying. Sometimes you wait and see. Sometimes not. The point is there is no formulaic way to determine.
P
prodromos
Guest
Gotta love mystery
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I have, but I’ll take that as a “no”.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Randy, how do you know with certainty which teachings of the Roman church are irreformable?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I ask.
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.
You, on the other hand, claim to be certain about which Councils are valid, Ecumenical Councils, and, like me, you accept them on the authority of the Catholic Church which made that determination based upon the judgement of the Bishop of Rome.
This is good, but it does not go far enough because your unsolvable problem is the rejection of valid Ecumenical Councils due to your denial of the very authority of Rome which validated them.
Therefore, I solve my problem by appealing to Rome while you create your problem by refusing to do so.
Now, thanks for the diversion, but the real question on the table, Cav, is how do the EO know with certainty which Councils are valid Ecumenical Councils and which are not?
So far, the answers do not look promising…
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
“The doctrine of the infallibility of ecumenical councils states that solemn definitions of ecumenical councils, approved by the pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere are infallible. Such decrees are often labeled as ‘Canons’ and they often have an attached anathema, a penalty of excommunication, against those who refuse to believe the teaching. The doctrine does not claim that every aspect of every ecumenical council is infallible.”
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FInfallibility_of_the_Church&ei=zehxVNDrFMGkgwSDmIHoCg&usg=AFQjCNEo6Rfm4KzaqQ04I0BCeAnN_LzXKw
According to my reading and understanding of the Primacy thread its “always existed” its abundantly clear on that thread,
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FInfallibility_of_the_Church&ei=zehxVNDrFMGkgwSDmIHoCg&usg=AFQjCNEo6Rfm4KzaqQ04I0BCeAnN_LzXKw
According to my reading and understanding of the Primacy thread its “always existed” its abundantly clear on that thread,
- Status