J
jimmy
Guest
The Holy Spirit. What other authority do you need? On the authority of Marcian, emperor of Rome?
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I ignored it for the sake of discussion which is about the challenges faced by Orthodoxy with regard to determining the validity of a council. If Cav wants to start his own thread on Cathlolicism’s challenges, he may do so.
How did the Holy Spirit express His will regarding the Council of Florence?
J
jimmy
Guest
Why does it matter how long? The fact is that it is recognized. That is what matters. You think that things must occur in a logical order, and that they must happen in the same way every time, and someone (the pope) must be in absolute control.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
How did the Holy Spirit make His will known regarding the Council of Chalcedon?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Recognized by whom?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
No. You only need to accept the teaching of the infallible authority in faith. You do not need to be infallible yourself in order to do so.
J
jimmy
Guest
You obviously didn’t want to discuss the subject of the thread with Cavaradosi because that was the subject of his posts. The Bulgakov quote explains the questions of this thread if you want to learn the Orthodox view. Maybe you should go back and read his posts in full.
It’s pretty clear that the Orthodox Church rejected the council of Florence, the specific process is irrelevant. Read Cav’s posts and you might understand.
J
jimmy
Guest
What is the point of infallibility if no one is capable of understanding the infallible proclamations except those who proclaim them?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And as Gary Taylor pointed out, Lossky identified numerous problems with Bulgakov’s theology. So, why would I want to WASTE my time reading the flawed thinking of an Orthodox theologian who has been called on the carpet by other Orthodox theologians?
Really?
So, the Orthodox Church rejected the council of Florence, and because the “whole church” did not accept Florence, it is a false council. Is that correct?
J
jimmy
Guest
Who do you think? The U.S. senate? Do I have to put every proper noun in when I write a paragraph? isn’t it enough to know that we are talking about the Orthodox Church and its ecclesiology? By the Church. That is as clear as it gets, and it is essentially the same response a Catholic would give if presented with the same question.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You can read and understand Munificentissimus Deus for yourself. I think you’ll understand it just fine. Give it a try.
You can read the documents of Vatican II, if you like. It’s available in plain English.
J
jimmy
Guest
Every theologian has had many flaws to their thinking and theology so why waste your time reading theology? The fact is that the paragraph represtns Orthodox ecclesiology. We could poke holes in any saints theology if we really want to. Aquinas had some real duzies that we could point out. But that doesn’t prevent Catholics from referring to him.
J
jimmy
Guest
I’ve read them, and I don’t doubt that I understand them. I also don’t accept the division you have imposed upon the Church.You can read and understand Munificentissimus Deus for yourself. I think you’ll understand it just fine. Give it a try.
You can read the documents of Vatican II, if you like. It’s available in plain English.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
On the authority of the Church that I accept as the one Church founded by Christ. The same authority I presume you place your trust in.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
No, you don’t, but I wanted you to commit to a position.
You accept Chalcedon because it was accepted “by the Church” or, as Seraphim73 is fond of saying, the “whole church”.
Well, gentlemen, Chalcedon was NOT accepted by the whole Church…that Council is not accepted by several of the ancient Eastern Churches, including the Oriental Orthodox of Egypt, Syria, Armenia, Eritrea, Ethiopia.
So, by YOUR criteria, Chalcedon is a false council because a few folks rejected it. Similarly, Lyons and Florence are false councils because a few folks rejected them.
The difference is that you are not in the rejecting group regarding Chalcedon but you are in the rejecting group regarding Lyons and Florence. So, your acceptance of a Council is pretty selective. You accept them when it suits your fancy or your theology or your political needs.
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.
What we see from all of this is that when the pope rejected a council, you also reject it. But when a pope accepts a council you may or may not accept that council based upon Orthodox theology. In a way, that’s logical and reasonable.
What blows the whole thing up, though is the BASIS for your acceptance or rejection; namely, the acceptance “by the Church”. And on that basis, you should reject Chalcedon in deference to your Oriental Orthodox brothers.
But you don’t, and that is the double-standard that results from receptionism.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Oh.
So you don’t need to **be **infallible to understand an infallible teaching, after all.
That was easy. :dancing:
P
prodromos
Guest
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.
J
jimmy
Guest
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. It hasn’t even been claimed that a majority have to accept it as true. The problem is that you still want to apply a specific mechanism to how things are accepted. The fact is that the history of Christianity isn’t so simple. Some councils were accepted through force, some were smooth. Some may have been rejected by a large proportion of the bishops, only to be accepted later. The one thing that remains constant is the Church’s union in the Spirit which guarantees that the Church will remain true.
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. It hasn’t even been claimed that a majority have to accept it as true. The problem is that you still want to apply a specific mechanism to how things are accepted. The fact is that the history of Christianity isn’t so simple. Some councils were accepted through force, some were smooth. Some may have been rejected by a large proportion of the bishops, only to be accepted later. The one thing that remains constant is the Church’s union in the Spirit which guarantees that the Church will remain true.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Well in the case of Florence at least it’s extremely easy to figure out what happened. The local synods rejected the union. Now if the roles were revered, if the pope had sent a small number of bishops to a council, and upon their return decided to reject what those bishops had signed, no Catholic would even begin to question it. I’m mean this whole concept isn’t nearly as difficult and mysterious as some are making it out to be. Every ecumenical council was formally received as such by a subsequent council. That reception simply formally recognized that the Church had already received the council as a true council. In the case of the robber councils of Ephesus, Lyons and Florence they were rejected by the Church. In the case of Ephesus that rejection was formally expressed at Chalcedon. In the case of Lyons and Florence the rejection was voiced by the local synods.
What Fr Bulgakov is pointing out is that there can be no formulaic entity, no external organ to speak infallibly in the name of the Church. History has shown that. There have been heretical bishops, popes, patriarchs and councils. That is simply a fact of history. So any bishop or assembly of bishops is only infallible insofar as they express the mind of the Church. And only the Church itself can make that determination.
J
jimmy
Guest
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.
- Status