Question:Why be Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox?

[gurneyhalleck1]

Gabriel, whether he was anathemized while living or dead, the point is he was anathemized by a council consisting of East and West. And the Western Catholic Church and popes upheld the condemnation whole-heartedly.

I believe you are the one being deceptive here about Pope Honorius;

 

[patricius79]

Moreover, just because some Catholics recite the filioque while others don’t does not mean we are practicing two different faiths. The filioque does not contradict what was/is said in the original creed. They are in fact complimentary because it delineates different aspects of the Trinity, that is, one focuses on the same essence/substance shared by the Father and the Son (the filioque), and the other on the order of procession, i.e., the Father is the first cause (which the filioque does not reject).

Correct. If you read the quotation from Gregory of Nyssa in the Joint Statement, it is clearly the same faith as those that hold the Filioque.

 

[Contarini]

Ok, Edwin, which Church father apart from Photius believed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone?

Well, by the common consent of Catholic ecumenists, the Greek Fathers generally taught this, if by “procession” we mean “ekporeusis.” See this helpful article. Of course, the evidence is negative, since the issue was not yet controversial. Bear in mind that the pre-Nicene theologians often expressed themselves in ways that gave aid and comfort to Arianism. You can often find orthodox theologians saying things that are “proto-heretical,” and far more often you can find them being silent on what their later counterparts would affirm dogmatically.

But they did teach that the Father was the arche of the Godhead. The problem with the Filioque is that it takes away the remaining elements of the ancient Logos theology which is the mainstream, traditional Christian approach. Logos theology had to be severely modified because of the way the Arians twisted it. But the “Eastern” approach keeps the basic structure, in agreement with the Church’s earliest Tradition. The “Western” approach goes for a kind of logical symmetry in order to maintain the full equality of the three Persons, and thus distorts the Tradition.

So at least it seems to me. I recognize that your Communion has made valiant efforts to formulate the Filioque in ways that don’t do this (the article to which I linked is a good example), and I’m not going to say that these efforts have not been successful. But given how the Filioque was added, and how divisive it has been, the starting point for a serious consideration of this issue needs to be a return to the 381 version of the Creed by *all *Western Christians.

NO, IT IS AN EXCUSE TO REMAIN DIVIDED, because you see Edwin, the Orthodox would have to admit that the filioque was not wrong as they initially thought.

Have to by what standard? I don’t see where you and other Catholic posters get your confidence from. Because some Catholic ecumenists put themselves through theological gymnastics to justify the Filioque, you think that the Orthodox have to admit that they were wrong?

Josie, I used to find the arguments for the Filioque compelling, on the ground that the Orthodox view was “subordinationist.” As long as Westerners say this, they are maintaining an unorthodox view of the Trinity.

This is very similar to the Anglican-Catholic situation. We messed with the Tradition, and later our Anglo-Catholic theologians jumped through all kinds of theological hoops to try to prove that we really hadn’t. We need to be humble and admit our errors. But perhaps you do too.

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

Correct. If you read the quotation from Gregory of Nyssa in the Joint Statement, it is clearly the same faith as those that hold the Filioque.

There are other Eastern fathers who taught the filioque as well.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel, whether he was anathemized while living or dead, the point is he was anathemized by a council consisting of East and West. And the Western Catholic Church and popes upheld the condemnation whole-heartedly.

As do I, so long as it kept the other Eastern heretical Bishops from adhereing to a dead Popes Letters as support for their heretical views after 40 years later. Honorius did not quench this heresy as did the Popes before him and after him, for which the dead pope was condemned for not acting as Pope, appears 40 years later that he allowed the heresy to practice in his tenure

In any case this dead pope condemnation after 40 years was used to solve another heretical error from the east, not to prove this dead pope a practicing heretic which was never proven the case while he lived…
Gabriel of 12;6984242:

 

[josephdaniel29]

I believe you are the one being deceptive here about Pope Honorius;

 

[Contarini]

No, it has not Contarini, He was not condemned as a Monothelite, i.e., they could not know for sure what he meant in his letter to Sergius because Sergius had misled him.

Josie, that’s nothing but spin. The CE reaches that conclusion, admittedly, but only after admirably presenting all the facts that contradict it! Honorius explicitly affirmed the expression “one will” and was condemned for doing so–for “following Sergius in his wicked opinions.” I can’t see by what stretch of the imagination we can say that this isn’t condemning him as a Monothelite.

What we do know however is that he allowed Monothelitism to continue in the East not by intention but by fact when he agreed with Sergius to silence both the opponents of one operation and/or two operations. He failed in his duty to teach authoritatively as befitting his role as head of the Church. This is why he was condemned by Pope St. Leo III who ratified the sixth council.

He didn’t just “fail to teach.” He taught–and he taught the wrong thing. You are confusing the issue of monergism and monothelitism. You’re right that he didn’t explicitly teach monergism, but he did explicitly teach monothelitism. I agree that he was a material rather than a formal heretic–clearly his intentions were good. I have no desire to condemn poor old Honorius–may he rest in peace! The significance of this whole affair is that it demonstrates conclusively that the Church of that era did not simply follow whatever the Pope taught, or assume that the way to solve a theological controversy was to make sure you sided with the See of Rome. Yes, as you have shown several times, people used that kind of language when the Pope was on the right side. But when, as here, the Pope goofed, no one thought they had to “submit will and intellect” to a non-infallible but still official pronouncement.

Note: Moreover, Honorius did not speak ex-cathedra because he issued no authoritative statement/teaching.

The ex cathedra issue is a straw man. Of course he didn’t teach ex cathedra. But as the CE admits, he was speaking in an official capacity, in response to a query by the Patriarch of Constantinople. In other words, according to the modern RC teaching regarding levels of papal authority, the faithful ought to have submitted their intellect and will. Fortunately, some of them didn’t.

Edwin

 

[Silyosha]

For me, the Catholic/Orthodox difference, and the reason why I am Catholic and not Orthodox, is clear: The OC split away from the RC. I know there are countless debates on how true this is, but I just can’t see it any other way. Rome was where the authority was/is at the time of the schism; where the Pope was and still is. The RC had the authority. You can’t be the source from which others split if you don’t have the authority and center of the Church.

 

[josie_L]

But they did teach that the Father was the arche of the Godhead. The problem with the Filioque is that it takes away the remaining elements of the ancient Logos theology which is the mainstream, traditional Christian approach. Logos theology had to be severely modified because of the way the Arians twisted it. But the “Eastern” approach keeps the basic structure, in agreement with the Church’s earliest Tradition. The “Western” approach goes for a kind of logical symmetry in order to maintain the full equality of the three Persons, and thus distorts the Tradition.

You didn’t answer my question directly Edwin, i.e., which Church father apart from Photius professed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the father alone? Moreover. the filioque was necessary in the West because of arianism, but more to the point the filioque did not contradict Tradition, in fact, many Church fathers professed the filioque in their theology.

The Western Fathers and three of the Greeks taught the Filioque; the whole Latin patristic tradition does, starting with Tertullian (in his Catholic period), down to Isidore of Seville, the last Father in the West, and three Eastern Fathers: Cyril of Alexandria, Didymus of Alexandria, and Epiphanius). The Greek Fathers taught “from the Father,” and many of them “through the Son”; none of the Greeks taught “from the Father alone” which was the invention (and distortion) of Photius, Saint that he became not withstanding. Maximus the Confessor defended Pope Martin and the Latins from the charge of teaching that there were two causes of the Holy Spirit.

All these assertions, which are true historically, are made in response to the false generalization made by many Orthodox that only Augustine and none of the other Fathers taught the Filioque. There was no consensus of the Greek Fathers against the Filioque.

Tertullian (who gives the West its terminology), Ambrose, who knew Greek and the Cappadocians, and Hilary, the Western Athanasius, all preceded Augustine, and of the ones who followed, such names as Leo the Great, Jerome, and Gregory the Great, taught the doctrine. Moreover, Maximus the Confessor defends Pope Martin’s teaching on the Filioque and answers the very objections of the Greeks, objections which the Orthodox still hold on to. Maximus’s response:

"Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodic letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and, according to them, says: ‘The Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis (ekporeuesthai) from the Son’. The other deals with the divine incarnation. "With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis (procession) - but that they have manifested the procession through him (to dia autou proienai) and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence… "They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things of which it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism). They have up till now produced no defence, although they have not yet rejected the things that they have themselves so wrongly introduced. “In accordance with your request, I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them [the ‘also from the son’] in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending [the synodic letter] has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to do this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot. In any case, having been accused, they will certainly take some care about this.”

bringyou.to/apologetics/a52.htm

Have to by what standard? I don’t see where you and other Catholic posters get your confidence from. Because some Catholic ecumenists put themselves through theological gymnastics to justify the Filioque, you think that the Orthodox have to admit that they were wrong?

If as you say Catholic ecumenists have to go through through theological gymastics rolleyes, it’s because the people in question do not know Tradition well enough.

Josie, I used to find the arguments for the Filioque compelling, on the ground that the Orthodox view was “subordinationist.” As long as Westerners say this, they are maintaining an unorthodox view of the Trinity.

What does this have to do with the Catholic Church that has both versions of the Creed recited by her members?

This is very similar to the Anglican-Catholic situation. We messed with the Tradition, and later our Anglo-Catholic theologians jumped through all kinds of theological hoops to try to prove that we really hadn’t. We need to be humble and admit our errors. But perhaps you do too.

We committed no errors with respect to the filioque, Edwin, and I refuse to be told that something which has been made dogma by the Church is an error.

p.s. I am not a Western Christian, I am a Catholic.

 

[Contarini]

You didn’t answer my question directly Edwin, i.e., which Church father apart from Photius professed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the father alone?

Which orthodox Father before Athanasius taught the homoousios?

Orthodox teaching is not clearly expressed before it is challenged. That’s a basic Catholic principle–you should know it.

Once the controversy arises, we have to discern which side is more in keeping with the basic principles of the earlier Tradition. We can’t go hunting for exact verbal correspondences, because we won’t find them. That’s true in any major doctrinal controversy, including this one.

If as you say Catholic ecumenists have to go through through theological gymastics rolleyes, it’s because the people in question do not know Tradition well enough.

Well, you went through the same gymnastics above. . . .

What does this have to do with the Catholic Church that has both versions of the Creed recited by her members?

Maybe nothing

We committed no errors with respect to the filioque, Edwin, and I refuse to be told that something which has been made dogma by the Church is an error.

And there you have it. You “refuse to be told.” Well, that makes a serious dialogue on the subject difficult, doesn’t it?

I don’t blame you–it is right and proper for you to accept the teaching of your Church. I only question the Western view on this because I know that my own tradition has erred. The question is: did we (speaking generally of Western Christians who separated from Rome in the sixteenth century) err "on our own,’ as it were, or did we err because the Western Church had already erred, and we were reacting to error without the proper basis for making an orthodox response to it?

p.s. I am not a Western Christian, I am a Catholic.

Are you an Eastern Catholic? If not, you are a Western Christian.

Edwin

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=josephdaniel29;6984323]
Alright big guy I’m gonna need you to settle down a little bit. My entire post consisted of nothing but sourced quotes from Catholic documents including a universally accepted Ecumenical Council. How is that “deceptive”?

Forgive me josephdaniel for finding your quote in the negative after reading other Orthodox posters who neglected to mention that Honorius was condemned 40 years later after his death. Don’t you think?, this is a very important detail to the facts here when being displayed. This was were I drew my conclusion of deception, your post gave me the impression that the Church condemned Honorius while alive, by not revealing this action took place 40 years after his death. The whole truth is better than the partial truth wouldnt’ you agreee? I have admired your postings, keep up the good work.

Peace be with you

 

[josephdaniel29]

Forgive me josephdaniel for finding your quote in the negative after reading other Orthodox posters who neglected to mention that Honorius was condemned 40 years later after his death. Don’t you think?, this is a very important detail to the facts here when being displayed. This was were I drew my conclusion of deception, your post gave me the impression that the Church condemned Honorius while alive, by not revealing this action took place 40 years after his death. The whole truth is better than the partial truth wouldnt’ you agreee? I have admired your postings, keep up the good work.

Peace be with you

No offense taken.

In Christ
Joe

 

[josie_L]

Josie, that’s nothing but spin. The CE reaches that conclusion, admittedly, but only after admirably presenting all the facts that contradict it! Honorius explicitly affirmed the expression “one will” and was condemned for doing so–for “following Sergius in his wicked opinions.” I can’t see by what stretch of the imagination we can say that this isn’t condemning him as a Monothelite.

It is not spin Edwin, Sergius did mislead Honorius so we can’t know for sure if by “one will” he meant to deny Jesus’s human will or that he was simply saying that both wills were in accord with each other, i.e., “one will.” Now, it is possible that Honorius may have been a private heretic, but the point I’m debating is that there was not enough information to formally condemn him as a Monothelite. This is why Pope St. Leo III qualified his statements concerning Honorius, and as for “following Sergius in his wicked opinions”, this is in reference to his agreeing with Sergius about silencing the opponents of one operation and/or two operations. He should never have listened to Sergius because it was his duty to teach authoritatively as head of the Church, he failed in this regard (probably because he did not want another schism).

He didn’t just “fail to teach.” He taught–and he taught the wrong thing. You are confusing the issue of monergism and monothelitism. You’re right that he didn’t explicitly teach monergism, but he did explicitly teach monothelitism. I agree that he was a material rather than a formal heretic–clearly his intentions were good. I have no desire to condemn poor old Honorius–may he rest in peace! The significance of this whole affair is that it demonstrates conclusively that the Church of that era did not simply follow whatever the Pope taught, or assume that the way to solve a theological controversy was to make sure you sided with the See of Rome. Yes, as you have shown several times, people used that kind of language when the Pope was on the right side. But when, as here, the Pope goofed, no one thought they had to “submit will and intellect” to a non-infallible but still official pronouncement.

Yes, they did follow him in that they upheld the ban on any debates concerning one operation and/or two operations (the Emperor went even so far as to torture his opponents), but keep in mind this was a problem that afflicted the East not the West (so the ban may have been imposed only in the East). No, they did not follow him in his teaching because he did not teach, i.e., there was nothing resolved concerning Monothelitism in the letter with the exception of putting a ban on both opponents. So Honorius neither promoted Monothelitism nor denouced it.

The ex cathedra issue is a straw man. Of course he didn’t teach ex cathedra. But as the CE admits, he was speaking in an official capacity, in response to a query by the Patriarch of Constantinople. In other words, according to the modern RC teaching regarding levels of papal authority, the faithful ought to have submitted their intellect and will. Fortunately, some of them didn’t.

Again, Honorius did not teach anything, i.e., the only thing that he managed to say concretely was in agreeing to uphold the ban suggested by Sergius.

p.s. Why would Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople need confirmation from Pope Honorius for what he wished to do?

 

[Contarini]

Forgive me josephdaniel for finding your quote in the negative after reading other Orthodox posters who neglected to mention that Honorius was condemned 40 years later after his death. Don’t you think?, this is a very important detail to the facts here when being displayed.

It’s of some importance–it doesn’t really affect the basic issue being argued here. But obviously if Honorius had been excommunicated and deposed, that would raise one set of issues; if he’d been condemned and backed down from his position, that would raise another set; as it stands, of course, he went to his grave thinking that his position was orthodox. Any of these cause huge problems for the Catholic concept of the Papacy (not for papal infallibility per se, but for the more general idea that orthodoxy can be discerned by looking at the position taken by the Pope).

Look at it this way: Honorius erred, and his successors corrected the error. That shows the Papacy working as it should.

But *if *one Pope can go to his grave in error, is there any reason to think that two, or ten, or twenty, or a hundred couldn’t? In other words, maybe the Popes for the past millennium have been in error, and the Pope who is to correct the error has not yet arisen (Ratzinger showed some hopeful signs, and I suppose it’s just barely possible he still might, but at this point the weight of tradition is very strong).

I know that your Communion teaches that Popes can’t err when teaching ex cathedra, and of course some of the points at issue have been confirmed by ex cathedra teaching or by a council approved by the Pope. But suppose they hadn’t? Suppose we just had a thousand years of Popes doing what Honorius did? What would be the proper response? Just hang tight and wait for the Pope who would correct the error?

Personally, I think it might be possible to work out reunion without Rome admitting that any of its ex cathedra or conciliar teachings were wrong. Vatican I is a huge problem, particularly the whole “immediate, ordinary” business (more so than infallibility per se, in my opinion). But for me the even bigger problem is the non-infallible, 'ordinary magisterium" kind of error–teaching that may not be contrary to the truth but is certainly inadequate and distorting, along with failure to condemn real errors. In short, exactly the kind of error ascribed to Honorius!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

we can’t know for sure if by “one will” he meant to deny Jesus’s human will or that he was simply saying that both wills were in accord with each other, i.e., “one will.”

Josie,

We don’t know that *any *of the Monothelites meant to deny Jesus’ human will. Many of the great heretics may have had good intentions. (The Catholic Encyclopedia disagrees with your claim that Sergius deliberately misled Honorius.) What is condemned is language, not intention. The “one will” language is not compatible with the affirmation of Jesus’ full humanity. Honorius used that language. Therefore he was a Monothelite. The case is open and shut, and the only reason you’re disputing it is that Honorius happened to be the bishop of Rome! If he’d been the Patriarch of Constantinople, Catholic apologists would be citing this as one more example of how prone to error that particular See was!

There’s no evidence that Sergius meant to deny Jesus’ human will either, but I don’t hear you defending him

Now, it is possible that Honorius may have been a private heretic, but the point I’m debating is that there was not enough information to formally condemn him as a Monothelite

Sure there is. A Monothelite is someone who says Jesus had only one will.

This is why Pope St. Leo III qualified his statements concerning Honorius, and as for “following Sergius in his wicked opinions”, this is in reference to his agreeing with Sergius about silencing the opponents of one operation and/or two operations.

Perhaps–on the other hand, the more precise phrase (the sloppiness was mine) is that Honorius followed Sergius’s view and confirmed his wicked opinions. Since Honorius seems to have suggested the phrase “one will” to Sergius, that surely counts as confirming his wicked opinions. . . he actually gave him the language!

I am willing to be shown wrong, but I think that “one will” was always a compromise to avoid pushing either “one energy” or “two energies.” In other words, as I said earlier, you and other Catholics are deliberately confusing monergism and monothelitism in order to avoid having to say that Honorius was a monothelite. If we distinguish these two things, then so far from not being one, he seems to have been the original monothelite, suggesting this language to Sergius as a way of avoiding the controversy that surrounded “energeia.”

I’m not disputing the fact that Honorius meant well and was just trying to find language that would satisfy both sides. But that’s exactly what the Monothelite controversy was about. The point is that we have a Pope introducing a heretical formula, albeit with the best of intentions, and Sophronius and Maximus were the ones who upheld orthodoxy.

By the way, I know that Maximus is the origin of the claim that Honorius only denied “conflicting” wills in Jesus. However, Maximus got this at third hand–he got it from Anastatius, who got it from John Symponus, who allegedly drafted the letter. I don’t think this is very strong evidence. It seems far more likely to me that Honorius hadn’t thought of Maximus’s distinction between “natural” and “gnomic” will, and so assumed (as the Monothelites generally did) that two wills meant two opposing wills. Again, I am not accusing Honorius of formal heresy. (This is where Gabriel’s point about Honorius being condemned long after his death is relevant–the same is true of Origen.) In a way we aren’t too far apart–I agree that Honorius’s “failure” was really a negative one (he was not the person who came up with what turned out to be the right answer to a difficult question). But for a consideration of Rome’s role in preserving orthodoxy, that isn’t really relevant. And as a matter of fact, Honorius did originate the heretical formula!

Yes, they did follow him in that they upheld the ban on any debates concerning one operation and/or two operations

Maximus didn’t.

No, they did not follow him in his teaching because he did not teach, i.e., there was nothing resolved concerning Monothelitism in the letter with the exception of putting a ban on both opponents. So Honorius neither promoted Monothelitism nor denouced it.

Josie, how many times do I have to say it: he invented Monothelitism! He was the one who suggested the “one will” formula to Sergius as a way of resolving the controversy over “monergism.”

Again, Honorius did not teach anything, i.e., the only thing that he managed to say concretely was in agreeing to uphold the ban suggested by Sergius.

He said: “Wherefore we acknowledge one will of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” By any normal definition of the word, this is a teaching. He’s asked for an opinion by a fellow bishop; he uses the official “we”; and he proposes an answer to an important doctrinal controversy. How is this not teaching?

Yet again, we see that many Catholic apologists use the word “teach” arbitrarily. Since you say that the Pope can’t teach error, you simply refuse to use the word “teach” about any erroneous statement the Pope makes. Are you suggesting that the Pope doesn’t teach if he doesn’t begin the statement by saying “I teach that”?

p.s. Why would Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople need confirmation from Pope Honorius for what he wished to do?

Because the Pope occupied the See of Peter and his opinions were extremely important?

I suppose you will express surprise and delight all over again that I actually believe in papal primacy:shrug:

But the shoe is on the other foot as well. After Honorius’s death, legates were sent to Constantinople to seek the Emperor’s consent for the election of his successor. Now why would they do that?

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

Wesley is very well informed.

What he is asking for is your personal testimony.

Make the case, in your words. Show your reasons and the assumptions you hold behind them. That is the essence of an apology.

Thanks for the clarification. What Wesley actually wrote was:

Originally Posted by Wesley7 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Why be Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox? *

*Can experienced Catholics give some ideas and (name removed by moderator)uts ? *

The articles I provided give evidence that experienced Catholics can and have given some ideas and (name removed by moderator)uts as to why they became Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Yet again, we see that many Catholic apologists use the word “teach” arbitrarily. Since you say that the Pope can’t teach error, you simply refuse to use the word “teach” about any erroneous statement the Pope makes. Are you suggesting that the Pope doesn’t teach if he doesn’t begin the statement by saying “I teach that”?

That is the beauty and for us the most maddening aspect of the dogma of Papal Infallibility. The definition is so vague that, depending on the circumstances almost any papal statement can be made to fit or not fit the definition. That is attested to by the fact that Catholics themselves don’t have a clue how many infallible pronouncements have been made.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Vico]

…That is attested to by the fact that Catholics themselves don’t have a clue how many infallible pronouncements have been made. …

There are 251 at my last count.

 

[josephdaniel29]

There are 251 at my last count.

With the exception of Vico.

 

[jlhargus]

I believe that Orthodoxy and Catholicism take much different angles on this. For example, in Orthodoxy (and perhaps in Eastern Catholicism), St. Constantine, who called the 1st Ecumenical Council, is acclaimed as “Equal to the Apostles”. By God’s grace, he was entrusted with the calling of the First Ecumenical Council to squash the Arian heresy.

JL: I thought Constantine was baptized on his death bed as and by an Arian bishop. Two of his sons who suceeded him tried to impose Arianism on the whole Church. Not a very good example to follow, how could he be called a saint if he did not hold the faith of the Church?

The situation definitely is irregular and unfortunate. As Oliver Clement notes in his book, due to the schism, the West has lost some of its Pauline charism, while the East has lost some of its Petrine charism.

It might be said that the Orthodox are “unable” to call an Ecumenical Council without the Pope. Conversely, it can be said that, without Paul and the other Apostles, the councils the Pope calls Ecumenical are not fully Ecumenical.

I do, however, believe that God, as in the Incarnation, can supply a solution to a problem thought by man impossible to reconcile. History has shown that both sides have called councils to deal with heresy and matters of church discipline.

JL: Councils called by the pope are completly Ecumenical as the Church is always ONE, only those councils IN UNION with Peter can be Ecumenical and define without error. Those not in union with Peter may meet but their decisions are NOT guaranteed to be without error. Their decisions can be without error, yet they are not binding on those who wish to reject them.