Orthodoxy: Ecumenicity, Receptionism and the Councils

[twf]

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?

I know I’m late to the fray here, but this isn’t the issue for Catholics that you seem to think it is. It is more complicated than that. The Pope ordinarily, by tradition and convention, is to work WITH the bishops, not apart from them. Why did St John XXIII convene the Second Vatican Council? Why did Pope Francis recently preside over a Synod in Rome where it appears, from some accounts, that many of the Synod Fathers rose up In protest against the way the Pope’s chosen advisors were running the synod? Perhaps the Catholic Church’s self understanding of papal primacy and infallibility is more nuanced than outsiders assume.

 

[Seraphim73]

I know I’m late to the fray here, but this isn’t the issue for Catholics that you seem to think it is. It is more complicated than that. The Pope ordinarily, by tradition and convention, is to work WITH the bishops, not apart from them. Why did St John XXIII convene the Second Vatican Council? Why did Pope Francis recently preside over a Synod in Rome where it appears, from some accounts, that many of the Synod Fathers rose up In protest against the way the Pope’s chosen advisors were running the synod? Perhaps the Catholic Church’s self understanding of papal primacy and infallibility is more nuanced than outsiders assume.

I’m glad you are taking the time to comment. I know the understanding is nuanced, but it seems to me the letter is very firm and unequivocal.

 

[Cavaradossi]

While I appreciate the reasons why you want to deflect this discussion

It is not a deflection. You cannot hold one to a standard which you yourself cannot uphold. If you cannot offer any systematic manner by which you can determine what teachings are irreformable, then you cannot claim that having such a system is part of the deposit of faith, lest you undercut your own church’s claim to truth. It is a logical contradiction on your part, more than anything, because while the theory of Magisterium in the Latin Church is still a hotly debated item, you yet demand that we have one unified theory of Magisterium as if it presented some problem for Orthodoxy that we do not. It presents no more problem for us than it does for you.

(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)

Or perhaps they simply do not see your sophistry for what it is. I, however, do, and refuse to play along with it. Your criticism is flawed by a fundamental inconsistency, which is that if it is true that possessing such a system were part of the deposit of faith, then all varieties of Christian faith have apostatized for not having possessed such a system for the past two millennia.

I can offer you some guidance here.

That article doesn’t seem to answer certain historical difficulties. But then perhaps you have gained something from reading the article which I have not. So then why was the Synod of the Lateran of 649 was not ecumenical? Also, can you tell me exactly which papal teachings were pronounced ex-cathedra and exactly why they are considered to be ex-cathedra statements? Please do explain, Randy, as I have long wondered how one can determine if a statement made by a pope was pronounced ex-cathedra or not.

 

[prodromos]

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.

There were still many other orthodox bishops who had not accepted Ephesus II. The Gates of Hades would not have prevailed.

I’m still waiting for that historical evidence demonstrating the link between Pope Leo’s rejection of Ephesus II and the subsequent rejection by Chalcedon.

 

[twf]

I’m glad you are taking the time to comment. I know the understanding is nuanced, but it seems to me the letter is very firm and unequivocal.

I don’t know of any case in the history of the Catholic Church where the Pope of Rome has decided a major doctrinal dispute on his own without the consent or (name removed by moderator)ut of his brother bishops. Even the very rare examples of “ex cathedra” statements were not in a vacuum. If I remember correctly, the promulgation of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary into heaven was defined as a dogma only after bishops all around the world petitioned the Holy Father to do so…so even when a formal synodal mechanism hasn’t been used, the bishops as a body were involved.
Our Lord entrusted St. Peter with primacy, but He also instituted a college of apostles…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right difficultly always.

So St Peter has a gift of a primacy of Apostles and in communion as one Church which through this the Keys and power to bind and loose are a physical and spiritual reality. So this is “within” this community called “Church” of which all commune? How does one have this same gift when not in communion together?

This question seems to never be answered. Its proposed there is “another” theory which in fact is how the Church functioned. Still the possibly more accepted theory is Peter is first among equals from the east, does first among equals require communion with all equals? If not what does this indicate in regards to the above point?

Or finally we could assume there is no Church built in Romes understanding as proposed by the Matthew verse. That be the case we have no consistent continuity of history in this belief. What we have is inconsistent theory which it is then proposed it makes sense. That said I have never seen this defended in success or make sense. This conversation is always contingent of denial of what Rome claims. Not what is factually proven to stand on its own.

We know what Rome states, we could ask Rome in this regard and receive the facts from the horses mouth in regard to any questions. It would be helpful to understand whats being stated without interpreting Rome for Rome. Perhaps this idea in discourse never goes anywhere because it does not make sense. In which case denial of the primacy does not make sense.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Of course you can, Joey. That is NOT the point of this particular thread, and it does absolutely nothing to actually answer the questions posed in the OP. To say that my house needs painting is not the same as painting your own.

Now, I’m going to take a different approach.

Would you please read and respond to the questions asked by an Eastern Orthodox in post #96 for the benefit of all those EO who are observing this thread?

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There were still many other orthodox bishops who had not accepted Ephesus II. The Gates of Hades would not have prevailed.

I’m still waiting for that historical evidence demonstrating the link between Pope Leo’s rejection of Ephesus II and the subsequent rejection by Chalcedon.

And, FWIW, I’m still waiting for some explanation as to why Chalcedon itself was accepted when the whole church did not accept it?

Kind of a double-standard, isn’t it?

If you have a few moments, perhaps you might spend some time helping out a fellow EO who asked some important questions in post #96. I’m sure others observing this thread would be greatly relieved to get some answers.

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It is not a deflection. You cannot hold one to a standard which you yourself cannot uphold.

You’re right as usual, Cav.

Tell you what…for my enlightenment as well as for the benefit of all those EO participating in and observing this thread, would you mind taking a few moments to answer the questions posed by an Eastern Orthodox Christian which may found in post #96?

I think you can settle this for us once and for all.

Thanks.

 

[Seraphim73]

And, FWIW, I’m still waiting for some explanation as to why Chalcedon itself was accepted when the whole church did not accept it?

Kind of a double-standard, isn’t it?

If you have a few moments, perhaps you might spend some time helping out a fellow EO who asked some important questions in post #96. I’m sure others observing this thread would be greatly relieved to get some answers.

Thanks.

But the whole Church did accept it. And if you want to ask a question ask it. I’m not going to play the game of answering third party questions.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well some of the Church universally speaking.

Nonetheless, in the oldest Latin version and the Greek manuscript tradition of the Acts of Chalcedon the twenty-seven canons are inserted as ‘the seventh act’, as if they formed part of the agreed record of the council. The debate over Canon 28, which is numbered to follow on from the other 27, forms the seventeenth session in the Greek acts and the sixteenth in the Latin. The canons became part of the ecclesiastical law of the Church and are cited in sixth-century lists.

universitypublishingonline.org/liverpool/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9781846314513&cid=CBO9781846314513A011

The council also issued 27 disciplinary canons (it is unclear at which session).

What is usually called canon 28 (on the honour to be accorded the see of Constantinople) is in fact a resolution passed by the council at the 16th session. It was rejected by the Roman legates.

In the ancient Greek collections, canons 29 and 30 are also attributed to the council:

—canon 29 is an extract from the minutes of the 19th session; and

—canon 30 is an extract from the minutes of the 4th session.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ewtn.com%2Flibrary%2Fcouncils%2Fchalcedo.htm&ei=BixzVI-hJtWsyASTyYCIBQ&usg=AFQjCNHHc89WZ-e-lIWmHAwXPvX3r7nKtg

Why Did the Syrians reject the Council of Chalcedon? pp. 107-116

For even though the controversy over the Trisagion was really a misunderstanding between a Trinitarian understanding of the hymn, found in Constantinople, in which the theopaschite addition implied the passibility of the divine nature, rejected on all sides, and a Christological understanding of the hymn, which affirmed that Christ suffered on the Cross, for the Syrians the theopaschite version of the Trisagion underlined what they believed to be the defect of Chalcedon, namely its failure to affirm with uncompromising clarity that through the Incarnation, God himself, the second person of the Trinity, assumed human nature and human experience, and in particular the human experience of death, in order to redeem humanity from the curse of death unleashed by the Fall of Adam.

“The all-important twenty-eighth canon, with its bold assertion of
Constantinopolitan authority and consequent challenge to Rome, gained
additional emphasis by its placement at the conclusion of the council rather
than among the other twenty-seven canons”

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fixoyc.net%2Fdata%2Ffathers%2F624.pdf&ei=uDlzVJyvNdeBygS-1YCAAQ&usg=AFQjCNG6fGBttBDkJ1kgvZnJmmvZ09i-dA

 

[GaryTaylor]

VII. Conclusion
This validity — indeed, legality-of Canon 28 is therefore troubling to say the least. The fact that it was excised from the official drafts of the Council of Chalcedon should tell us something. It was conceived during a time of great turmoil in the West, and its unsettling nature was apparent to many in its own day and context. It was never accepted by Rome and only surreptitiously in the East. Thus it is impossible to take it seriously given its origins; one can only do so by means of tortuous logic (as was demonstrated by the language used by Phanar’s own apologist — see section 5 above).

Likewise, the evolution of the Archbishop of Constantinople to patriarch, and then to ecumenical patriarch, was done in fits and starts and only when popes or emperors were unable to contain the ambitions of these bishops. This should tell us something about its provenance and those who stake ecclesiastic claims on it would do well to reconsider their position. If this title had little legitimacy when it was first proposed, then it strains logic to believe the passage of time has made it more so.

In the final analysis, such posturing stands in stark contrast to the Gospel. The legitimacy of any bishop is his fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus and not to grandiose titles that were arrogated during a time that no longer exists and by legalisms that are only tenuously related to the spirit of the Gospel. As Pope Gregory the Great said in reaction to John IV, the only title he wanted for himself was servus servorum Dei (“servant of the servants of God.”)

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.monomakhos.com%2Fessay-bin%2Fcanon-28-and-eastern-papalism-cause-or-effect%2F&ei=k0RzVNSVKYWmyQTOioLACg&usg=AFQjCNFLT-sybuGgvUgyAX_v3X28KVOezQ

The crux of the problem today however, is that claims of primacy that are virtually indistinguishable from supremacy; hence the very real fear of papalism. Clearly, the archbishops of Constantinople had always had a rather exalted view of their archdiocese that was perfectly understandable given the glory of that city in late antiquity. Beginning with Anatolius, the patriarchal claim was first promoted and in the following century, the unfortunate adjective “universal” was appended to it. On the other hand, it was just as clear that neither of these claims were wholeheartedly accepted. Even after the Schism of 1054, it was only the slow decline of the office of emperor that made the title “ecumenical patriarch” normative in the Orthodox East. And even then, the exact meaning of the term “ecumenical” was very much open to debate, as even the Byzantines themselves admitted in their hasty explanations to Gregory I.

To its credit, the website of the Ecumenical Patriarchate begins an exposition of the role of bishop in a non-controversial fashion, rightly stating that bishops are supreme within their dioceses.

 

[LionHeart777]

But the whole Church did accept it. And if you want to ask a question ask it. I’m not going to play the game of answering third party questions.

It might help by clarifying for Randy (or for others following the thread like myself) what you mean by “the whole Church” ?

 

[LionHeart777]

Randy,

In the back of the Likoudis book you are reading is a document from the Bishop of Mainz (who participated in Vatican I) explaining what was proclaimed regarding Papal Infallibility (and maybe more) at Vatican I. In explaining the teaching he has a section on collegiality and the Primacy if memory serves that might help clear up some misconceptions people may have. I’ll have to take a look at it later myself.

 

[Seraphim73]

It might help by clarifying for Randy (or for others following the thread like myself) what you mean by “the whole Church” ?

Randy in the one who brought that phrase up. I simply mean the Church.

 

[LionHeart777]

Randy in the one who brought that phrase up. I simply mean the Church.

Ok, thanks for answering. But look at the Council of Florence for example. What makes you as an Orthodox Christian say that “the Church” rejected that? I guess I’m asking, what criteria are you using to identify “the Church”?

 

[Seraphim73]

Ok, thanks for answering. But look at the Council of Florence for example. What makes you as an Orthodox Christian say that “the Church” rejected that? I guess I’m asking, what criteria are you using to identify “the Church”?

Well the council of Florence is easy. 30 bishops signed it’s decrees under immense pressure from the emperor. When those bishops returned home the local synods rejected the council. It’s kind of a long thread so I can’t remember if I’ve commented on this yet but reverse the roles and I think you’ll understand. If the pope sent 30 bishops to a council and then rejected their findings when they returned no Catholic would blink an eye. Same thing except the local synods are the highest authority not a single hierarch. So Florence was rejected by the highest ecclesiastical authorities of the Orthodox Churches.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well the council of Florence is easy. 30 bishops signed it’s decrees under immense pressure from the emperor. When those bishops returned home the local synods rejected the council. It’s kind of a long thread so I can’t remember if I’ve commented on this yet but reverse the roles and I think you’ll understand. If the pope sent 30 bishops to a council and then rejected their findings when they returned no Catholic would blink an eye. Same thing except the local synods are the highest authority not a single hierarch. So Florence was rejected by the highest ecclesiastical authorities of the Orthodox Churches.

How many Eastern bishops were under immense pressure at Ephesus II when they all voted in favor of heresy?

Zero.

And how many Eastern bishops were under immense pressure at Chalcedon when the Emperor had made it clear that he wanted Ephesus II overturned?

All of them.

So, when left to their own devices, Eastern Bishops formally taught error at Ephesus II. Apparently, they only corrected themselves under pressure from the emperor at Chalcedon.

This is not really the kind of thing I would be broadcasting if I were Orthodox. :nope:

Just sayin’.

 

[jimmy]

How many Eastern bishops were under immense pressure at Ephesus II when they all voted in favor of heresy?

Zero.

And how many Eastern bishops were under immense pressure at Chalcedon when the Emperor had made it clear that he wanted Ephesus II overturned?

All of them.

So, when left to their own devices, Eastern Bishops formally taught error at Ephesus II. Apparently, they only corrected themselves under pressure from the emperor at Chalcedon.

This is not really the kind of thing I would be broadcasting if I were Orthodox. :nope:

Just sayin’.

That is actually a complete lie. Unless you are to assume that only those bishops who were present at the council count as bishops. You also must exclude Flavian and several other bishops who were present at the council. There were only 114 votes at Ephesus II. Unless you assume that is all the east had, which is tough considering that 180 some were present at the council.

I could just as easily say ‘how many infallible popes were heretics when honorius wrote his letters? All of them.’

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is actually a complete lie. Unless you are to assume that only those bishops who were present at the council count as bishops. You also must exclude Flavian and several other bishops who were present at the council. There were only 114 votes at Ephesus II. Unless you assume that is all the east had, which is tough considering that 180 some were present at the council.

I could just as easily say ‘how many infallible popes were heretics when honorius wrote his letters? All of them.’

Did you mean that this is a “complete error”? Because calling me a liar is frowned upon in these forums. I may be an idiot. I may be ignorant. But I am not a liar. Care to re-phrase your statement?

+++

Numerous websites place the attendance figure at Ephesus II at 130, not 180.

Either way, the teaching of heresy was supported by the majority of those in attendance.

Only Rome prevented the Council from being accepted.