P
prodromos
Guest
You keep stating this without supporting evidence, yet you have provided a source which is contrary to your claim.
- Status
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Time for a history lesson. The bishops who signed at Ephesus claimed that they had been coerced by Dioscoros (the story of the papal legate barely escaping after uttering “contradictur” seems to corroborate their claim). The relative paucity of bishops at this council (less than 200 compared to the 370 in attendance at Chalcedon) also shoots a hole through your claim that Second Ephesus was representative of the East. There was definitely a lot more than just Rome which prevented the council from being accepted. The change in regime definitely was a factor (had Marcian not taken power, there would have been no emperor to convene Chalcedon). Another factor was widespread dissatisfaction with Second Ephesus, because the council excommunicated many very well-liked and influential bishops whose orthodoxy had formerly never been in question. Another was the question of whether the council had violated the Formula of Union of 433, which solved the disastrous problems caused by the Council of Ephesus.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Since the Fathers who were present at the Council obviously voted in support of the documents produced by the council, who rejected it?You keep stating this without supporting evidence, yet you have provided a source which is contrary to your claim.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I’m eager to hear.
Ephesus I - 200-250 (estimates vary)
Ephesus II - 198 (estimates vary)
Is there such a big difference in numbers between those two as to make one acceptable and one unacceptable?
And should the paucity of Bishops in attendance at Ephesus I (relative to Chalcedon) cast doubts upon that Council? That seems to shoot a hole in your claim that Ephesus II suffered from a “numbers” problem.
The day after the Second Council of Ephesus ended, was there any doubt as to the fact that the Council had supported the Monophysite heresy in direct contradiction to the First Council of Ephesus?
And if Ephesus II was not valid immediately after its proceedings were ended, then why not? What more was needed to make it valid?
Thanks.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Randy even after countless corrections on this very thread you still are approaching it with an incorrect premise. So I’ll rephrase and repeat. No council is de jure infallible. It doesn’t matter what the makeup of the council is. It doesn’t matter who attends, where it occurs or how many bishops are there. What matters is does the Church accept the council as a true council. As Fr Bulgakov says, it’s the Church that pronounces its yes or no.I’m eager to hear.
Ephesus I - 200-250 (estimates vary)
Ephesus II - 198 (estimates vary)
Is there such a big difference in numbers between those two as to make one acceptable and one unacceptable?
And should the paucity of Bishops in attendance at Ephesus I (relative to Chalcedon) cast doubts upon that Council? That seems to shoot a hole in your claim that Ephesus II suffered from a “numbers” problem.
The day after the Second Council of Ephesus ended, was there any doubt as to the fact that the Council had supported the Monophysite heresy in direct contradiction to the First Council of Ephesus?
And if Ephesus II was not valid immediately after its proceedings were ended, then why not? What more was needed to make it valid?
Thanks.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Time for another history lesson, I guess. My answer would be no, that there is not such a large difference. In fact, the First Council of Ephesus itself caused problems, precisely because St. Cyril used some less than savory tactics like beginning the council early by tricking the Emperor’s representative into reading the Imperial Sacra (the reading of which technically began an ecumenical council) before John of Antioch and his party of bishops had arrived. Indeed, there was, just as with the Second Council of Ephesus, widespread dissatisfaction with Ephesus which culminated with the Formula of Reunion of 433 where St. Cyril was forced to concede the orthodoxy of Antiochene Christology, in exchange for the Antiochenes accepting the deposition of Nestorius alone (the First Council of Ephesus had deposed other bishops, but these depositions never went into effect under the Formula of Reunion). Thus, we see that the decisions of First Ephesus were accepted only with certain qualifications by the greater Church. St. Cyril’s twelve doctrinal anathemas were to be understood through the lens of the Formula of a Reunion, and only the deposition of Nestorius would take effect.
Not at all, as the relative paucity and partisan nature of the bishops present at Ephesus I also lead to an ecclesiastical crisis and cast doubts upon the proceedings of the council, something which was only solved by the qualified acceptance of the Council’s decisions under the Formula of Reunion.And should the paucity of Bishops in attendance at Ephesus I (relative to Chalcedon) cast doubts upon that Council? That seems to shoot a hole in your claim that Ephesus II suffered from a “numbers” problem.
That would be a rather naive understanding of the time period. The Monophysites themselves appealed to the Council of Ephesus. What makes the difference between their understanding of Ephesus and ours is the Formula of Reunion. There is no direct contradiction between Second and First Ephesus, only between Second Ephesus and the Formula of Reunion.
The widespread dissatisfaction with the settlement made at Ephesus II already cast some doubts on its validity. But irregularities in its proceedings (these are discussed in the acts of Chalcedon) were really what caused people to doubt its validity. Likely, because of the stories of coercion and other irregularities in its proceedings, nothing short of a full retrial which affirmed the decisions of Ephesus II could have rendered its findings valid.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
I’m sorry, I’m not expressing myself so well perhaps. I guess I want to clarify. Given your recent post:
(Emphasis mine)
1.) Can you define what you mean when you say “the Church” (in that sentence for example)? What criteria are you using for identifying “the Church” (as you just used that term)?
2.) I brought up the Council of Florence because we disagree on the status of that as a legitimate Ecumenical Council. I guess, going back to Randy’s bringing up the Council of Chalcedon, if I were an Alexandrian layman in the 5th century, how would I know after the Council of Chalcedon whether or not I was to accept that Council in your view?
I hope this helps clarify… I’ll have to take another look when I get home. I guess I am just trying to get you to define terms because then it is easier to engage in dialogue.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
If you were an Alexandrian layman you would have just stayed where you were. I think we approach these things from a very modern mindset and a place of great privilege. It’s only been a few decades that the vast majority of people had any kind of access to the patristic and conciliar writings we have today. We sit here and google patristic references for anything we are looking for. We study and study trying to find “arguments” to convince us of one position or the other. The reality is for the overwhelming majority of Christians through history that was not their reality. They simply continued practicing the faith they received from their parents through the life of the Church, the liturgy, prayers and sacraments. A Christian in Alexandria who was under a bishop who rejected Chalcedon wouldn’t have noticed one whit of difference the day after that rejection.
You ask how do I know where the Church is. Randy wants to know why I accept or reject what a hundred some odd people decided over 1,500 years ago. I am under a bishop who is in communion with all of the other Orthodox bishops based on their shared faith. That’s where the Church is. I accept that the Church is the true Church and I strive to accept all that the Church would have me believe. It’s really just that simple. On the most basic level I accept that because of the continuity. I don’t see any break in what the Church has taught from the 1st century to today. In the non-Orthodox churches I see a clear break in teachings. That’s why I accept the Orthodox Church as true and not the others.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
So, from all of this, for which I thank you, we can conclude that the number of attendees at these two councils alone ultimately did not provide a basis for accepting or rejecting either of them.
One question: Did Rome share these “reservations” or was Ephesus I endorsed wholeheartedly by the West?
If you say so. Just to make sure that I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying that there was no doctrinal difference between the First and Second Councils of Ephesus. Is that right?
I see. And when would this doubt have been cleared up, and by what mechanism would Ephesus I or II have been accepted or rejected once and for all?
IOW, according to your history lessons, both Ephesus I and II suffered from some “irregularities” or “political machinations” that cast doubt upon the events which took place and the integrity of the votes cast.
Yet, despite these shortcomings, one council is accepted (you say with reservations) and one is not. Why?
+++
**Oh, and when you have a moment, the EO who posted the questions concerning how he might know how a council is valid or not (post #96) was not engaged in “sophistry” when he posted them on two separate Orthodox forums.
I think it would be a great lesson for us all, Catholics and Orthodox alike, if you would answer his questions**.
Thanks, Cav!
P
prodromos
Guest
Sounds a lot like the Council of Florence, doesn’t it.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Okay. Please define clearly what you and Fr. Bugakov mean by that phrase, “the Church”.
Thanks.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
You mean fruitful dialogue like we have been having on “Church”?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Are these bishops individually or collectively infallible? Scratch that. It’s been pointed out to me that “no man is infallible”, so you then have no way of knowing with certainty that your bishops did not err previously when they elected to accept or reject certain councils.
Only Orthodox Bishops? Ah, I see. So, by virtue of the fact that Catholic Bishops are not in communion with the fallible bishops of the Orthodox Church, Catholic Bishops are not part of the true Church.
Well, I agree, but to be clear, what YOU mean by that statement is “the Orthodox Church is the true Church.”
And what I am endeavoring to break down, post by post, is that misplaced confidence.
I could have written that exact paragraph substituting “Catholic” where you wrote “Orthodox”. The problem that I have with your version is that I don’t think you fully appreciate the fact that what you call a “clear break”, I would call “development”. And as has been shown elsewhere, development occurred prior to 1054 and continues after that time, as well, just as it should.
Further, once you strip away the propaganda of the most virulent anti-Catholic Orthodox writers, it starts to become more clear that Catholicism has a very, very strong case.
- Peter is the rock.
- Peter is the strengthener of his brothers.
- Peter is the Keeper of the Keys (and Royal Steward).
- Peter is the Chief Shepherd of the one Flock of Christ.
- Peter and his successors do have universal jurisdiction.
- Mary died before being assumed into heaven. (It was asserted we deny this.)
- The ‘Filioque’ is not a Western heresy.
That’s the Catholic Church your Eastern forefathers knew.
End the schism. One man at a time. Come home. :clapping:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaens, AD 107. Love that!
S
Seraphim73
Guest
If your goal is to break down my confidence then we have a serious issue. I’m afraid I can’t continue discussions under this premise.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
One other question or two, if I may: When would the Formula of Reunion have been accepted by “the Church”? And would “the Church” have depended upon some other gathering or document to determine that the Formula of Reunion was itself valid?
Would “the Church” still be pondering even today, the confirmation of the acceptance of the reformation of the Synod regarding the Council that met concerning…well, you get the idea.
Thanks. I’m enjoying your expositions on these things very much.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
In all seriousness, I do so only so that it may be placed upon solid rock and not shifting sand, Joey.
P
prodromos
Guest
I was thinking more along the lines of coercion, like the Orthodox bishops being held in something akin to house arrest until they capitulated to the Latin demands.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
BTW, in response to multiple attempts at answering his questions, the original author of post #96, followed up later with this:
The closest to a definitive answer was given by another forum member:
The Oriental Orthodox, numbering in the tens of millions, to this day do not accept Chalcedon as an ecumenical council. Why do they not count as part of the “whole Church?”
The Roman Catholics, which outnumber the Orthodox on the order of perhaps four or five to one, do not accept the Photian or Palamite councils as ecumenical, and the Orthodox do not accept Florence, Vatican I-II, et al., as being ecumenical. Who here counts as the “whole Church,” and why?
The timing is also utterly arbitrary. What if, a thousand years from now, 99% of those who purport to be Orthodox deny the existence of the Holy Spirit? Is this a doctrine “accepted by the whole Church” over “hundreds of years,” or a dangerous capitulation to heresy that must be fought to the death by every true Christian?
And this:
And another member said:
My difficulty is that I don’t even see that Orthodoxy has a remotely internally consistent criterion for ecumenicity. For example, Rome can simply point to the Pope and say “whatever he’s agreed with historically is okay, whatever he hasn’t is not.” Obviously, there are legitimate issues to raise with this approach, but it is definite, it is settled, and it is at least a prima facie acceptable epistemological basis. On the other side, not only is there no apparent agreement within Orthodoxy as to what the standard should be; none of the proposed standards work.
More food for thought.
The closest to a definitive answer was given by another forum member:
The problem is that this is a totally subjective and relativistic view that ignores history and forces a very pat and skewed definition of “whole Church.”
The Oriental Orthodox, numbering in the tens of millions, to this day do not accept Chalcedon as an ecumenical council. Why do they not count as part of the “whole Church?”
The Roman Catholics, which outnumber the Orthodox on the order of perhaps four or five to one, do not accept the Photian or Palamite councils as ecumenical, and the Orthodox do not accept Florence, Vatican I-II, et al., as being ecumenical. Who here counts as the “whole Church,” and why?
The timing is also utterly arbitrary. What if, a thousand years from now, 99% of those who purport to be Orthodox deny the existence of the Holy Spirit? Is this a doctrine “accepted by the whole Church” over “hundreds of years,” or a dangerous capitulation to heresy that must be fought to the death by every true Christian?
And this:
And another member said:
Obviously. But it doesn’t strike at the heart of the issue. What makes Rome’s “ecumenicity” less or more preferable than Constantinople’s, or Egypt’s? Is a sensible, thoughtful, reasonable man just going to have to hold his nose and pick one, subsequently living in a perpetual state of total uncertainty that he has settled at the point of the Truth?
My difficulty is that I don’t even see that Orthodoxy has a remotely internally consistent criterion for ecumenicity. For example, Rome can simply point to the Pope and say “whatever he’s agreed with historically is okay, whatever he hasn’t is not.” Obviously, there are legitimate issues to raise with this approach, but it is definite, it is settled, and it is at least a prima facie acceptable epistemological basis. On the other side, not only is there no apparent agreement within Orthodoxy as to what the standard should be; none of the proposed standards work.
More food for thought.
- Status