Orthodoxy: Ecumenicity, Receptionism and the Councils

[Seraphim73]

I have, but I’ll take that as a “no”.

Then you need to look again. It’s just like I’ve heard it said to Protestants. Take your Bible and read the parts you haven’t underlined. I suggest you take a look at history, the parts not singled out by Catholic apologists.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Then you need to look again. It’s just like I’ve heard it said to Protestants. Take your Bible and read the parts you haven’t underlined. I suggest you take a look at history, the parts not singled out by Catholic apologists.

Oh, believe me…I am looking at history and reading more and more every day. My posts in multiple threads contrain quotes from the material I’m going through.

Now, back to the OP:

How exactly does a member of one of the many Eastern Orthodox churches know with certainty whether a decree or doctrine is from a valid council or not?

As Orthodox Bishop Timothy “Kallistos” Ware, has said:

“All Orthodox know which are the seven councils that their Church accepts as ecumenical, but precisely what it is that makes a council ecumenical is not so clear.”

 

[Seraphim73]

Oh, believe me…I am looking at history and reading more and more every day. My posts in multiple threads contrain quotes from the material I’m going through.

Now, back to the OP:

How exactly does a member of one of the many Eastern Orthodox churches know with certainty whether a decree or doctrine is from a valid council or not?

As Orthodox Bishop Timothy “Kallistos” Ware, has said:

“All Orthodox know which are the seven councils that their Church accepts as ecumenical, but precisely what it is that makes a council ecumenical is not so clear.”

Because the Church declares that it is so, or more specifically recognizes that the council has proclaimed what the Church already believes. And that is not the proper way to reference a bishop. You wouldn’t reference the Pope as Pope Jorge “Francis” Bergoglio. I would appreciate it if you would correct that going forward.

 

[Seraphim73]

I would also add, since you continue to use this quote out of context, that you don’t understand at all what the bishop is saying. All he is saying is that what criteria are necessary for a council to receive the title “ecumenical” is not all that clear. But it’s really a mostly irrelevant question. I know that for Catholics ecumenical council = infallible/irreformable and non-ecumenical council = not infallible/reformable. But that is simply not the Orthodox teaching. You can’t use Catholic premises to assess what the Orthodox Church teaches. The title in front of the council has no bearing on its truth. The seven ecumenical councils have the title and they do hold a special place. But councils such as, for example, Constantinople 4 and 5 are absolutely, universally accepted as true councils, just as true and accurate as the seven that carry the title ecumenical. So if you want to understand you’re going to have to drop your preconceived notions and approach what the Orthodox Church says on its own terms.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Because the Church declares that it is so, or more specifically recognizes that the council has proclaimed what the Church already believes. And that is not the proper way to reference a bishop. You wouldn’t reference the Pope as Pope Jorge “Francis” Bergoglio. I would appreciate it if you would correct that going forward.

I would also add, since you continue to use this quote out of context, that you don’t understand at all what the bishop is saying. All he is saying is that what criteria are necessary for a council to receive the title “ecumenical” is not all that clear. But it’s really a mostly irrelevant question. I know that for Catholics ecumenical council = infallible/irreformable and non-ecumenical council = not infallible/reformable. But that is simply not the Orthodox teaching. You can’t use Catholic premises to assess what the Orthodox Church teaches. The title in front of the council has no bearing on its truth. The seven ecumenical councils have the title and they do hold a special place. But councils such as, for example, Constantinople 4 and 5 are absolutely, universally accepted as true councils, just as true and accurate as the seven that carry the title ecumenical. So if you want to understand you’re going to have to drop your preconceived notions and approach what the Orthodox Church says on its own terms.

Why do you not accept the Second Council of Ephesus? Your Bishops attended and voted in support of all of its resolutions.

 

[Seraphim73]

Why do you not accept the Second Council of Ephesus? Your Bishops attended and voted in support of all of its resolutions.

Because the Church rejected it. The Church is not the episcopacy alone.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

“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,

The sources the wikipedia article referenced are mostly Catholic and go no farther back in the past than Vatican I it appears. Wikipedia is also not an appropriate academic source.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Because the Church rejected it. The Church is not the episcopacy alone.

Of course. Just not the Eastern Church which held and advanced the doctrines rejected in Rome.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The sources

Thanks i agree, the point is though.

According to my reading and understanding of the Primacy thread is it has “always existed” its abundantly clear on that thread,

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?

 

[Seraphim73]

Of course. Just not the Eastern Church which held and advanced the doctrines rejected in Rome.

No, Chalcedon clearly defined the Christology in question.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, Chalcedon clearly defined the Christology in question.

And yet, if Rome had not rejected Ephesus II, the Eastern Church would have accepted it as a valid council. After all, YOUR bishops attended and voted in favor of the heresy that Council promoted.

 

[Seraphim73]

And yet, if Rome had not rejected Ephesus II, the Eastern Church would have accepted it as a valid council. After all, YOUR bishops attended and voted in favor of the heresy that Council promoted.

No…again, it was rejected at Chalcedon. And I would point out there were not my bishops, they were our bishops.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No…again, it was rejected at Chalcedon. And I would point out there were not my bishops, they were our bishops.

Indeed it was. But this was after it had been rejected by the papal legate and by the Pope, as well.

“When reports of the actions of the Dioscurus led council and the violent actions of his partisans reached Pope Leo he condemned the council and called it the Latrocinium, a Robber Council and refused to recognize Anatolius as the lawful Bishop of Constantinople until he satisfactorily explained his belief. Theodosius, however, ignored the position of Leo. On July 28, 450, the situation changed radically as Theodosius was killed in a horse accident and his sister Pulcheria returned to imperial power and married the general Marcian, who became the new emperor. The empress and new emperor both opposed the teachings of Dioscurus and Eutyches. With the change in imperial leadership Anatolius and many other bishops now also condemned the teachings of Dioscurus and Eutyches. As a step to clarify the disputes Marician now called for a new council which was held in 451 in Chalcedon.”

orthodoxwiki.org/Robber_Council_of_Ephesus

Chalcedon came AFTER the condemnation of Ephesus II by Pope Leo.

And since they are all “our” bishops, then can you explain your rejection of Lyons, Florence, Vatican I, Vatican II, etc.?

Our bishops consider them valid, Ecumenical Councils, but you don’t. Why?

Thanks.

 

[Seraphim73]

Indeed it was. But this was after it had been rejected by the papal legate and by the Pope, as well.

“When reports of the actions of the Dioscurus led council and the violent actions of his partisans reached Pope Leo he condemned the council and called it the Latrocinium, a Robber Council and refused to recognize Anatolius as the lawful Bishop of Constantinople until he satisfactorily explained his belief. Theodosius, however, ignored the position of Leo. On July 28, 450, the situation changed radically as Theodosius was killed in a horse accident and his sister Pulcheria returned to imperial power and married the general Marcian, who became the new emperor. The empress and new emperor both opposed the teachings of Dioscurus and Eutyches. With the change in imperial leadership Anatolius and many other bishops now also condemned the teachings of Dioscurus and Eutyches. As a step to clarify the disputes Marician now called for a new council which was held in 451 in Chalcedon.”

Chalcedon came AFTER the condemnation of Ephesus II by Pope Leo.
​

Yes Chalcedon did come after the pope’s condemnation. As has been pointed out that is very telling. I would also say there is nothing at all unusual about papal legates participating in a council. They were just as much a part of it as anyone else.

And since they are all “our” bishops, then can you explain your rejection of Lyons, Florence, Vatican I, Vatican II, etc.?

Our bishops consider them valid, Ecumenical Councils, but you don’t. Why?

Thanks.

Lyons and Florence are false councils, just like the robber council of Ephesus. Vatican I and II are councils from a Church we are not in communion with. There is nothing for us to accept or reject.​

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes Chalcedon did come after the pope’s condemnation. As has been pointed out that is very telling. I would also say there is nothing at all unusual about papal legates participating in a council. They were just as much a part of it as anyone else.

As was pointed out, the new co-emperors called another council to try to undo the damage being done by persistent heretics in Constantinople, so I wouldn’t be crowing too loudly about that.

Lyons and Florence are false councils, just like the robber council of Ephesus.

By whose authority are they considered false? Do you remember watching the Road Runner cartoons when you were a kid? And Wile E. Coyote would run off of a cliff with his legs still pumping for a few moments before he realized that there was not solid ground beneath his feet? Don’t look now, Joey…

http://cdn.thefiscaltimes.com/cdn/f...es/articles/10152012_WileECoyote1_article.jpg

Beep, beep!

Vatican I and II are councils from a Church we are not in communion with. There is nothing for us to accept or reject.

Well, if we apply your understanding of receptionism to the situation, by a vote of 1.2 billion to 300 million, these councils are accepted by the “whole” Church.

Final thought for today: Did you catch the fact that Cavaradossi did not actually attempt to defend or disprove the material I presented from OrthodoxWiki in the OP? Instead, in posts #3 & #38, he chose to deflect with tu quoque arguments which I, of course, ignored.

Why do you suppose that Cav has NOT attempted to defend receptionism which you have bought into hook, line and sinker? What does he (along with the Orthodox scholars and bishops I quoted in the OP) understand about receptionism that you don’t?

 

[Seraphim73]

As was pointed out, the new co-emperors called another council to try to undo the damage being done by persistent heretics in Constantinople, so I wouldn’t be crowing too loudly about that.

I’ll proclaim the orthodoxy of Chalcedon till the day, as loudly as I can.

By whose authority are they considered false?

By the authority of the Church.

Well, if we apply your understanding of receptionism to the situation, by a vote of 1.2 billion to 300 million, these councils are accepted by the “whole” Church.

But again that’s not the teaching.

Final thought for today: Did you catch the fact that Cavaradossi did not actually attempt to defend or disprove the material I presented from OrthodoxWiki in the OP? Instead, in posts #3 & #38, he chose to deflect with tu quoque arguments which I, of course, ignored.

Why do you suppose that Cav has NOT attempted to defend receptionism which you have bought into hook, line and sinker? What does he (along with the Orthodox scholars and bishops I quoted in the OP) understand about receptionism that you don’t?

Randy your patronizing attitude is starting to get a little old. If you won’t speak to me like an adult we can just end this conversation now.

 

[jimmy]

Catholics need to realize that forms aren’t necessary according to the Orthodox. The council and its reception don’t need to occur under any particular external form for it to be accepted, and that was one of the major points made by the bulgakov quote in cavaradosi’s post. The essence of the Church is the Holy Spirit acting through men, and that doesn’t necessarily occur under specific forms. Specific words or actions don’t need to be said or performed. The truth will be recognized by the Church in time.

 

[jimmy]

As was pointed out, the new co-emperors called another council to try to undo the damage being done by persistent heretics in Constantinople, so I wouldn’t be crowing too loudly about that.

By whose authority are they considered false? Do you remember watching the Road Runner cartoons when you were a kid? And Wile E. Coyote would run off of a cliff with his legs still pumping for a few moments before he realized that there was not solid ground beneath his feet? Don’t look now, Joey…

http://cdn.thefiscaltimes.com/cdn/f...es/articles/10152012_WileECoyote1_article.jpg

Beep, beep!

Well, if we apply your understanding of receptionism to the situation, by a vote of 1.2 billion to 300 million, these councils are accepted by the “whole” Church.

Final thought for today: Did you catch the fact that Cavaradossi did not actually attempt to defend or disprove the material I presented from OrthodoxWiki in the OP? Instead, in posts #3 & #38, he chose to deflect with tu quoque arguments which I, of course, ignored.

Why do you suppose that Cav has NOT attempted to defend receptionism which you have bought into hook, line and sinker? What does he (along with the Orthodox scholars and bishops I quoted in the OP) understand about receptionism that you don’t?

Maybe you shouldn’t have ignored Cav’s post because you might have learned something about the subject of ecclesiology.

Florence is a false council based on the authority of the Holy Spirit, which is certainly a better claim to authority than any claim of infallibility. The problem with infallibility is that if I need an infallible leader to tell me the truth, then I also need to be infallible so that I can infallibly understand his infallible teaching. If it isn’t enough that the Church has the Spirit guiding it into all truth, then it isn’t enough if we have the Spirit acting through the pope and bishops to guide us into all truth. As long as the individual Christian isnt infallible, you have created a division of knowledge by imposing your concept of infallibility on the Church. In effect, you have created a certain solipsism. It is impossible to know the truth because you have made a division between the Church and the Spirit in such a way that only the bishops and pope can know the truth with certainty.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ll proclaim the orthodoxy of Chalcedon till the day, as loudly as I can.

And on whose authority do you accept the orthodoxy of Chalcedon?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Catholics need to realize that forms aren’t necessary according to the Orthodox. The council and its reception don’t need to occur under any particular external form for it to be accepted, and that was one of the major points made by the bulgakov quote in cavaradosi’s post. The essence of the Church is the Holy Spirit acting through men, and that doesn’t necessarily occur under specific forms. Specific words or actions don’t need to be said or performed. The truth will be recognized by the Church in time.

Ah…in time. How long might that be?

A few years? A decade? A century? How will anyone know with certainty when the Orthodox have finally decided to accept or reject what their bishops advocated at a council?