Not the summoning of the council per-se, but the disposition of the summoner himself. Let’s face it: he was an ultramontanist to the core. As to the agenda items, yes, I know the infallibility issue was added a bit late, but again we revert to the summoner. That item would never have been included at all had he not agreed to it.
I know of the political winds that were ablowing at the time, but I still fail to see the necessity of (a) having that item included in the conciliar agenda or, more importantly, (b) of the definition itself. The alleged “power of deposition” was waning in and of itself, what with the decline in absolute monarchies and the rise of more democratic forms of government.Well done brother! You ALMOST hit the nail on the head (i.e., you hit the nail on the head, but probably not in the way you think). The question of the infallibility was added to the agenda (late as it was) because by then, there was a lot of speculation and rumor from outside sources that the infallibility would be used to buttress the deposing power of the Pope. Representatives form governments all over the world were expressing their fears in formal communiques to the Vatican, some even insinuating that the Vatican should invaded.
Here I have to disagree. The thought that the infallibility issue was supposed to be a theological question may seem correct, but what was the need for it? There was none. It’s more likely that the whole thing came up to buttress the “Gift of Pepin” and we all know how that turned out. and on top of it all, what’s worse is that the declaration was made in “dogmatic” terms.
True, but that didn’t happen, and I would venture to say that was by design. Which, of course, leaves us with the mess we have.
No doubt about that, but there certainly was a very strong ultramontanist element at Vatican I, and throughout the subsequent century. And let’s not forget the Bishop(s) Rome who also held that de facto position.
What’s next in the tour of “things I have no business having an opinion on”, astrophysics?
Oh, boy…what have I unwittingly started! Now we’re going to discuss canons. Great. Just great, Jeremy.
Well, I don’t know which side to come down on, really. … Oh, wouldn’t it be easier to have infallible Pope to tell us what’s what!
Hey, wait a minute…
Source?
I meant the tendency to try to oppose some Fathers to others, or to try to interpret the Fathers apart from present authorities.
Actually, can you please give the post# to this portion of the discussion? I don’t think I ever read it. Sorry.
Here’s where we differ. I sincerely believe that the teaching office of bishops is divinely established (even when I was in the COC - infallibility is not the issue here, so don’t bring that up), and there will never be a time when the fate of the Faith will depend on the laity by itself or even primarily. A SYNODAL decision by our bishops means something a lot more to me than to you, perhaps because I grew up Coptic Orthodox.
). It is the Traditional position of the Coptic Orthodox Church. I know full well there’s a novel movement in the past few decades within the COC seeking to give the laity a stronger voice in Church polity. Not saying that’s wrong, especially in non-doctrinal areas, but I think that attitude has filtered even into doctrinal matters, and your comments are reflective of this. Individual bishops making an error - even theologically - yeah I can see that, and I think there’s a lot to be said for laity making their concerns known in such instances (though the judgment belongs to other bishops or the Synod, never the laity). But to question the decisions of a Synod which comprises all our bishops, our God-given teachers?No that wasn’t me who googled it. Does it really matter if I invented some terminologies to get some ideas across? It seems from our discussion that you are obsessed with terminologies rather then the meaning behind them, so no skin off my nose.
Sorry if I was unclear. I wasn’t talking about “how to receive EO converts,” and neither was the Synod. The specific context of that acceptance (of EO baptisms) was the Christological Agreements signed. The rationale used by the Coptic Synod was “one faith, one baptism,” hence they accepted the baptisms of EO during that same Synodal meeting wherein the Christological Agreement was approved. Also, I wanted to clarify that the Coptic Synod specified that it will only accept the Baptisms of those particular EOC’s that would also accept the Coptic Baptism (certainly not all EOC’s have accepted the Christological Agreement either).
Or you wrote something as an overreaction and thought better about it.
Whatever the case, your “clarification” (from the little I read) sounds good.Yes, we do not have the same Christology as the Chalcedonians, but we do have the same Christological Faith (i.e., the same Christological beliefs, but different theological language to express that same belief). The Tome of Pope St. Leo falls under the “specific theological terminology” of the Chalcedonians. OO are not required to accept it as part of their Christology, but should not to give it the heterodox (mis)understanding it previously had among OO. Of course, there do exist EO anti-ecumenicists who insist that OO must accept it as part of their Christology, as well as OO anti-ecumenicists who insist on (mis)interpreting its contents.
So I assume you think the EO have some kind of ulterior motive for their Agreements as well? Please answer that. I guarantee you there is no difference between what the Copts signed with the CC and what the Copts signed with the EO (except, as I noted in the other thread, the Agreement with the EO contained an additional agreed statement on the dogmas of the 5th Ecum Council).
I noticed in one of your previous posts that you accused me of claiming that OO and Catholics have the same Faith - period, without qualification. Are you still laboring under that (mistaken) impression? I don’t know where you get that impression. All I’ve said was that we have the same Faith about Christ, a shared Faith about Christ that heretofore neither of our Churches could formally admit. I have met your arguments many times before, from the anti-ecumenical types who equally reprove the Christological Agreements with the EO. And I’ve also met anti-Ecumenical Chalcedonians. These types have one thing in common - they always focus on the theological terminologies (e.g., two natures/one nature) saying they mean something other than what the other party actually believes, and can never specify what it is they pretend separates us in Christology other than their willful misinterpretations of the other party’s theological terminologies. I asked you in the other thread for such specifics as what you think still separates Chalcedonians from OO on the matter of Christology other than the theological terminologies, to justify your insistence that Chalcedonians don’t share the same Christological FAITH with us. I have not read your response completely, but I hope you have provided an answer (I’ll get back to that thread soon).
In my defense I did say another thread.Oh, boy…what have I unwittingly started! Now we’re going to discuss canons. Great. Just great, Jeremy.
Well, I don’t know which side to come down on, really. I suppose it is safest to side with my bishop and our priests (and so I’ll do that, officially), but to the extent that other interpretations are possible, and there are some among us who do not see what the big deal is (I’m afraid I’m too dumb and new to even properly evaluate that; as I wrote, I’m still working through the arguments provided…perhaps in hopes that the whole thing will be settled before I’m dragged into an argument at church), there is fertile ground for discussion here. Oh, wouldn’t it be easier to have infallible Pope to tell us what’s what!
Hey, wait a minute…
I don’t see any mention of Petrine views, or Peter himself.
Hey! I get to say that.:tsktsk:
Oh, you two.Hey! I get to say that.
I don’t think invented terminology is a problem in-and-of-itself. (I myself have been pushing a few unconventional terms, e.g. “Orthodization”.) But neither does it get you out of providing a source for your claim that “The Oriental Orthodox paradigm is High Petrine”.
Hey! I get to say that!Oh, you two.
And then there’s the fact that we are reading translations from ancient languages and subtle variations and connotations get lost.
Which is not what is going on. I do not assume that the Orthodox representatives in the dialogues are interpreting apart from the Fathers. Not at all. What we are apparently in disagreement about is what to make of those agreements, right? This is separate from whether or not either side bases their understanding on the Fathers.
Please show me where I said or even implied that “the fate of the faith will depend on the laity by itself or even primarily”. I did not write that anywhere, as I suspect you already know. As far as synodal decisions of our bishops are concerned, I hold them in the same esteem as any Orthodox person would. I just don’t interpret them within this frame of “ULTIMATE AUTHORITY” that is somehow separate from the responsibility to preserve the faith (as though we are Latins with infallible bishops who cannot be wrong). Why else do you think I brought up canon 15? As per Malphono’s good post, two synods seem to have dealt with this question in the past, and yet my bishop and all of our priests in this diocese are sending a summary of their understanding of the matter, and their signatures on a document (linked in post 330) confirming their stance regarding this issue, to the holy synod so that they may know that we - bishop and priests of the Southern U.S. Diocese, speaking as shepherds of the laity - understand the matter thusly as pertains to the maintenance of the apostolic faith. Similar statements have come out of the Diocese of Los Angeles, the British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, and elsewhere within the Coptic world. So what’s all this about me touting the laity as being above their teachers, the priests and the bishops? I’m sorry if that’s what you got out of what I posted, but my point was really just “we don’t have infallible bishops or Patriarchs; they can be wrong”, NOT “we, the laity, know better than the synod”. Parish the thought!
I agree with every single word of this, and have not sought to contradict it in the slightest in presenting the reality of the Orthodox Church as I am living in it and being taught by it. Every single word.
All I have ever said in this thread is that our leaders can be wrong; that they are not infallible. Does this contradict anything that HH wrote above? I don’t think so. And I’m not in favor of giving the laity any novel role in deciding or ruling on the teaching of the Church, and I don’t believe that our priests or bishops are, either. I mean…I link to the statement of our clerical assembly, including my very own priests, meeting to discuss the matter and come to an agreement together with our bishop, HG Bishop Youssef, and somehow this shows that I am trying to give the laity some sort of novel power?This is the ecclesiastical paradigm I grew up with in the COC, and reflected in my Catechesis. This is the way it was during the pontificate of HH Pope Shenoute (of thrice-blessed memory), as well as his predecessor Pope Kyrillos (that’s as far back as my reading memory goes
Are our bishops not free to write to the synod (composed as it is of bishops…), to be sure that they may take the understandings of our bishops in the diaspora into account in deciding how to apply the canons? I don’t know why you are taking this as some sort of blanket statement that the Synod is wrong or we don’t have to listen to the Synod or whatever. Perish the thought! But also perish the thought that we may, by appeal to the unquestionable authority of our representatives in the ecumenical dialogues, come to accept things that are against the faith (I am not suggesting that this has happened, only that this is what we guard against). But then I do not even know why we are still arguing about this. I’ve stated several times that I do not read the agreed statements as you do, meaning that we do not even have the same understanding of their place in the dialogue, so I do not believe that there is anything questionable going on in our bishops’ decision to sign on to them. I am merely telling the truth as I know it: There are no infallible bishops in the Orthodox Church; our bishops may address the synod (as is already happening) without being seen as disobedient; and we are not bound by your interpretations of agreed documents which, after all, we had a hand in drafting, too. From what little support I’ve seen for the Orthodox viewpoint from other posters in this thread, it seems like the difference in understanding breaks down more along Orthodox (for the sake of convenience, I’m saying here EO and OO) vs. Catholic lines than neophyte (me) vs. ex-Orthodox (you) lines. That should tell you something.
I think it does if you try to apply it to churches that would find it foreign.
I see. I’m sorry for having misunderstood your reasoning from bringing up EO baptisms.
Oh, that’s right…you know me even better than I know myself!Or you wrote something as an overreaction and thought better about it.
Why do I even bother to post here anymore, when you could just be doing it for me.Why? Because you took “I don’t know why the RCC does this” to mean “I believe that the RCC has ulterior motives for these agreements”? I don’t get it…aren’t I supposed to be embittered ex-Catholic, seeing conspiracies in every overture from Rome, not you?
I never said there was…?
Judging from the above extremely bizarre questioning, I’m tempted to say that I am not the anti-ecumenist among us!
Ugh…I know…it’s almost like what we affirm about Christ and how we formulate those affirmations matters…gross.
Oh, was that in the other thread? I’m sorry, I probably just didn’t see it. I’ve been running errands off and on all day, but am in for the night now that it’s raining. I’ll get over there and see what you want after I have dinner. Chances are I won’t have much to add to what I’ve already written, though. You’ve noticed by now, I hope, that I have been very guarded in my posts there, stating at least once that it is no longer common understanding among OO to believe that Chalcedonians are somehow crypto-Nestorian. But this does not mean, of course, that we do not still have problems with the Council of Chalcedon, including the foundational document of its accepted Christology, the Tome of Leo. In fact, my priest explained it to me as being “full of heresies”, and this was not in AD 550…this was in August of 2011!
What you said was
But, yes, tomorrow is certainly soon enough for you to provide a source for that claim.