Peter's "confession"

[Gofer]

I’m just going by this: newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

"The 21 Ecumenical Councils

I. FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA…"

Though it’s wrong to expect New Testament procedures to exactly conform to later ways, clearly Jerusalem was a model for later councils.

 

[JRKH]

Interesting opinion. I thought the Roman Catholic Church taught that Acts 15 was the first Church Council. Am I wrong?

Mikey - See this Link

 

[Jason_W]

No. The great saint is saying that the Holy Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

Individuals will unite themselves to Holy Orthodoxy.

Interesting , thats what the Roman Catholic Church states.( that it is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostilic) I also asked before, by what authority did he make this claim?

 

[Mickey]

Interesting , thats what the Roman Catholic Church states.

I know.

 

[Jason_W]

hey Mickey, this elder you speak of , was he born in 1853?

 

[Mickey]

I also asked before, by what authority did he make this claim?

I do not know what you mean. Are you asking if this Orthodox saint is supreme and infallible? We do not know of such terms.

 

[Mickey]

hey Mickey, this elder you speak of , was he born in 1853?

stherman.com/catalog/chapter_six/nektary_book.htm

 

[Jason_W]

I do not know what you mean. Are you asking if this Orthodox saint is supreme and infallible? We do not know of such terms.

you do not know of such terms as authority?

how does the Orthodox Church settle matters which they do not agree on?

 

[Mickey]

how does the Orthodox Church settle matters which they do not agree on?

Such as?

 

[Jason_W]

Such as?

**It is quite true that the synod (except by such small ways as the canonization of saints) does not touch dogma; to do so would be to provoke a schism with the patriarchs and the other Orthodox Churches. **

wasnt it true that the patriarch of moscow was the head of the Orthodox russian Church, and that Peter the Great imposed his holy synod, which is now controlled by the state?

**The jurisdiction of the Holy Synod extends over every kind of ecclesiastical question and over some that are partly secular. All bishops, priests, clerks, monks, and nuns have to obey the synod absolutely under pain of deposition, suspension, excommunication, or maybe even imprisonment. **

**All processes for heresy, blasphemy, superstition, adultery, divorce, and all matrimonial causes are brought to the synod. Questions of testaments, inheritance, and education are settled by the synod in agreement with the Senate and are controlled further by the tsar’s consent. **

Is the tsar the supreme authority of the russian Orthodox church?

newadvent.org/cathen/07428a.htm

 

[Mickey]

newadvent.org/cathen/07428a.htm

I am sorry, but I have seen so many errors on Newadvent that it makes me chuckle. It is in terrible need of an update, yet it is used so often as an RC source.

Synods happen twice a year (I think). Many issues are discussed.

So, what is it that the Orthodox disagree on that would require an Ecumenical Council?

 

[Mickey]

Is the tsar the supreme authority of the russian Orthodox church?

Now you are way off topic. If you would like to start a thread about tsars and emporers and caesaro-papism, I will try to find the time to contribute.

 

[bnapgh]

the Elder…replied, 'No! only an Ecumenical Council could do that, but there will be no more councils. There have already been seven councils, like the seven sacraments and the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. For our age, the number of fullness is the number seven. Eight is the number of the future age. Only separate people will be united to our Church."

(Source: Elder Nektary of Optina By I.M. Kontzevitch Pages 181 and 182)

I don’t know anything about Elder and I mean no disrespect, but I find it hard to believe that any truly holy Christian would base such pessimism on numerology.

Did Christ ever cite numerology as the reason for anything?

In your opinion is that the only reason the Orthodox church remains seperate? I am incredulous.

On the topic of infallibility, if the Pope defined it not in terms of being accurate or “being right” but in terms of it being safe or secure or unrisky for the faithful to rely on, would you find it more acceptable?

 

[Mickey]

I don’t know anything about Elder and I mean no disrespect, but I find it hard to believe that any truly holy Christian would base such pessimism on numerology.

I am no fan of new age numerology–although I have seen many Roman Catholic nuns teach such things at retreat centers.

Forty is an important Biblical number–fasting–intervals before and after Pascha. Twelve is often cited–Apostles. Does your Church have seven sacraments? Are you familiar with Genesis? Numbers have a place in Holy Scripture, but there should never be a superstitious attribute attached to them.

The saint is not being pessimistic. He knows that the Orthodox will not compromise. He knows that the Orthodox Church already holds the fulness of truth. He knows where the Church is.

I am incredulous.

Yes. I suppose you are.

On the topic of infallibility, if the Pope defined it not in terms of being accurate or “being right” but in terms of it being safe or secure or unrisky for the faithful to rely on, would you find it more acceptable?

I am unsure as to what you mean here.

 

[Jason_W]

I am sorry, but I have seen so many errors on Newadvent that it makes me chuckle. It is in terrible need of an update, yet it is used so often as an RC source.

exactly what errors have you seen that make you chuckle?

 

[bnapgh]

Numbers have a place in Holy Scripture, but there should never be a superstitious attribute attached to them.

My sentiments exactly. They might provide a kind of artistic symmetry to some, but I do not recall numbers being cited as reasons or causes, per se.

But your Elder citation presents it that way, as if ‘‘seven’’ were some sort of perfect number.

The saint is not being pessimistic. He knows that the Orthodox will not compromise.

Catholics understand confidence in their positions as well as anyone, but I do not recall the Church simply saying: ‘‘Just because I said so!’’ I have been able to find extensive discussion and explanation of every point I research.

I expect that if I knew Elder better, I would respect him more, but I am ignorant.

Could you please explain your position’s logic and reasoning — beyond the numerology — for me?

Now saying that there will never be another council evidences either (1) disdain for rapprochement or (2) pessimism about finding some middle ground through dialogue, or conferring, if you will. Which is it?

Earlier you wrote:

And that is my main problem with the post schism papacy. Theoretically, today’s Pope can declare doctrine apart from an Ecumenical council by the authority of his supremacy and ex-cathedra charism of infallibility. That would have been an impossibility in the undivided Church.

I first wanted to explore your objection to infallibility. I asked whether you would be less opposed to ‘‘infallibility’’ if one were to define it a little differently than most interpret it. If ‘‘infallible’’ were to be interpreted to mean a morally riskless choice for the flock, would that change your opposition?

Now, while the Pope certainly has that authority on Faith and Morals, I am not aware of any Pope overriding the opinion of a standing Council, are you?

How do you know what would or would not ‘‘have been an impossibility in the undivided Church’’?

 

[Mickey]

but I do not recall the Church simply saying: ‘‘Just because I said so!’’

LOL! Viva voce!

I expect that if I knew Elder better, I would respect him more, but I am ignorant.

Perhaps.

Which is it?

I cannot say if there will ever be another council–I am not clairvoyant.

I do not believe East and West will reunite unless West becomes Orthodox–because I believe that the Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

If ‘‘infallible’’ were to be interpreted to mean a morally riskless choice for the flock, would that change your opposition?

I am ignorant. I do not understand the term “morally riskless”.

I am not aware of any Pope overriding the opinion of a standing Council, are you?

Could he do it today if he wanted to? Many say that Pius IX forced the strange ultramontane innovation of infallibility down the throats of the council in 1870.

How do you know what would or would not ‘‘have been an impossibility in the undivided Church’’?

History and Tradition.

 

[Mickey]

My sentiments exactly. They might provide a kind of artistic symmetry to some, but I do not recall numbers being cited as reasons or causes, per se.

More like “symbolism”. And your Church agrees!

No attentive reader of the Old Testament can fail to notice that a certain sacredness seems to attach to particular numbers, for example, seven, forty, twelve, etc. It is not merely the frequent recurrence of these numbers, but their ritual or ceremonial use which is so significant.
newadvent.org/cathen/11151a.htm

 

[JRKH]

More like “symbolism”. And your Church agrees!

No attentive reader of the Old Testament can fail to notice that a certain sacredness seems to attach to particular numbers, for example, seven, forty, twelve, etc. It is not merely the frequent recurrence of these numbers, but their ritual or ceremonial use which is so significant.
newadvent.org/cathen/11151a.htm

Just as a note on the “numbers” thing - a while back I posted a question about how long Jesus was in the tomb, because we are always told - three days, but if one looks at the hours, - mid afternoon Friday to Wee hours Sunday - It looks like less than two days.
I was told by many people that numbers and time were often used symbolically in those days.

So really, based on this idea of symbolism etc, I can’t put a lot of stock in the only “seven councils” idea. This is just my Opinion of course.

Peace
James

 

[Jason_W]

001E6943B820 Many say that Pius IX forced the strange ultramontane innovation of infallibility down the throats of the council in 1870.
History and Tradition.

How many say that Jesus forced the strange ultramontane innovation of infallibility down the throats of the Apostles?

Matt:16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, * and on this rock * I will build my church, and the powers of death * shall not prevail against it."

this is the foundation of infallibility.The fact that it is guided by the Spirit of Truth. the Church has the authoriy to bind whatsoever and loose whatsoever, because it is guided by the Holy Spirit. Now the Catholic Church believes in infallibility, but you speak as if you dont think it is possible. so i ask , do you believe the Orthodox church is infallible? if you say yes then how can it be some strange ultramontane innovation? however if you say no, then how can you be sure it is Holy , Catholic, and Apostilic.