Who ever denied that Catholic bishops attended First Council of Constantinople attended? I continue to reject Bonocore’s assertion. Those bishops, in my opinion, saw themselves as in communion with Rome, as they saw themselves as being in communion with each other. I do not believe that they saw themselves a somehow agents of Rome, or subservient to Rome.
So, it would only be a “Roman” presence if they attended the council at the direction of Rome. Otherwise, it was just a bunch of local bishops getting together to discuss a local matter. Like the US Bishops addressing a US problem.
Participation by the bishop of Rome during the first seven ecumenical councils (none of which was attended by the bishop of Rome) happened when he was represented by papal legates (there were none at Constantinople in AD 381). They became ecumenical by virtue of their eventual acceptance by the universal Church, which included the acceptance of and ratification by the Pope. Prior to such acceptance and ratification, there were neither heretical, nor illicit. However, prior to such acceptance and ratification, they would not have been seen as universally binding.
Well, I see your point. It would be interesting to know how Mr. Bonocore would respond.
No, because the truth of a teaching is not dependent upon the names appended to it. The Fifth Ecumenical Council furthermore makes it rather clear that it views itself as authoritative in its eighth session, despite the fact that Pope Vigilius taught otherwise on the condemnation of the Three Chapters, and refused to participate in the council. In fact,
The Councils derive their authority from the Holy Spirit, which is why the Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem spoke, “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…,” and why it was commonplace to say of the Nicene Council that its Fathers had been inspired of the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit only graces those with such a charism who are right and unimpeachable in their faith. Without confessing the saving faith as spoken by St. Peter in Matthew 16:16, as professed by the God-inspired 318 Fathers of Nicaea and 150 Fathers of Constantinople in the Divine and Saving Symbol of Faith, and in the further definitions of councils which instruct as to the right interpretation of the Symbol of Faith, one can have no authority.
Documents need not be approved by anybody to be God-inspired or true. Indeed, many of the Holy Fathers themselves wrote with the assistance of the grace of the Holy Spirit true doctrine, without ever having received the approval of the people or of others. The Councils, when the promulgated the canons of certain holy fathers, or approved of their writings, these councils did not presume that they were making something true or in someway adding to the truth of those documents, but rather that they were only making manifest the truth of such things.
A Non-sequitur, for the acceptance of the people has little to do with the the truth of something. It is because you think of authority only in terms of hierarchical authority that you cannot understand the role the people play. Charismatic authority runs through all who live holy lives and confess the true faith, so that even among the people, there may be found great confessors of Orthodoxy against falsehood when some of those who occupy the episcopacy have lost their own authority by falling into teaching falsehoods over truth. The laity never stands in opposition to legitimate episcopal authority, but only to those who have lost their authority. This principle in fact is enshrined in canons which were promulgated in Constantinople in the mid 9th Century (likely in response to Theodore the Studite and the Moechian Controversy), which make it illegal to cease commemoration of one’s bishop, metropolitan, or patriarch on any grounds, except that he preaches heresy, in which case to break communion with him is not only pardonable but commendable.
Wow. Thanks for all that, Cavaradossi. There is a lot that comes to mind as I read your post, but candidly, I’ve already been online here for about six hours today, so I’m feeling a little fried at the moment.
The belief that Rome never fell into heresy is a uniquely Catholic belief, which the Orthodox do not accept. If they did, they would be in communion with Rome.
It is a uniquely modern one as well. Traditionally, Latin canonists, following Gratian, believed that Popes could be removed from office in the event of heresy. Later as a consequence of the growing belief that the papacy was absolutely above human judgment it was proposed that the Popes were in fact removed from office by God himself, and that the Council merely made known the fact that God had removed the Pope from office for heresy. And of course now, there seems to be the common belief that Popes absolutely cannot fall into heresy and have been prevented from falling into heresy by the Holy Spirit, a trend which not surprisingly has seen Roman Catholic apologists embrace all sorts of arguments to exonerate Pope Honorius of heresy.
You can’t have a fact about what would have happened, I think.
I would put it the other way round: does the Holy Spirit work through the bishop of Rome to ensure that he only approves of orthodox councils?
Do we want to get into the whole Honorius business?
Rome certainly never proclaimed heresy as formal doctrine. Honorius suggested early on a formula that was eventually condemned as heretical, and he did not take decisive action against the heresy, but he didn’t teach heresy formally. I think it’s fair to say that many Eastern patriarchs did teach heresy formally. (Not that this poses a problem for the Orthodox.)I think it does. But I’m not sure that this is convincing in the absence of other reasons. After all, everyone is orthodox until they aren’t, and the Orthodox will just say “eventually Rome did fall into heresy–that’s why we aren’t in communion with Rome today.”
Not meaning to be a “back-seat poster”, but is this ^^ really what you meant to post??
True. And, I’d like to add, not all Catholics accept it either.
Indeed. The people and Eastern Bishops had apparently ALREADY accepted it.
Why, yes. That’s what infallibility is all about.
There’s probably no need. It seems to me that you have quashed the Honorius nonsense adequately.
Well said.
See Mark Bonocore’s argument that I posted earlier.
I don’t think I understand 100%, but I’ll take that as a yes, and probably a sign that trying to dissuade you would be a hopeless battle. :sigh:
Well, I’m sure that I’m *taking *it as a Yes. I can’t be sure that it *is *a Yes.
Okay, why don’t you stop saying “what do you have in mind”.
Okay, but you asked, “is this ^^ really what you meant to post??”Well, I’m sure that I’m *taking *it as a Yes. I can’t be sure that it *is *a Yes.
Okay, why don’t you stop saying “what do you have in mind”.
These discussions never make any sense. Why does it matter if the Orthodox haven’t held an ecumenical council? The faith should be the same today as it was 1000 years ago, so what is he problem? They hold to the same faith they always have, and they are obviously doing alright considering that they have a few hundred million members.