The Orthodox-33 A.D or 1054 A.D?

[Cavaradossi]

That’s getting in to semantics - the name needed to be changed because of the schism, and is the very definition of “denomination” (Latin for being given a new name, or taking a new name): the Greek part of the Catholic Church which became the Orthodox Catholic Church took a new name, and by that definition is a denomination.

Not that I’d typically use such a semantic argument, but - fight semantics with semantics. Unlike several posters in this thread, I believe both have apostolic foundation and apostolic faith, and full theologic, if not ecclesiastic, orthodoxy (i.e. first seven councils), if not the fullness of the faith (all twenty-one).

Riddle me this: the Orthodox Church, if I recall correctly, subscribes to Conciliar Church Government based on the Pentarchy. But, there is no way that any of the Four Patriarchates (nor Moscow) could ever call an Ecumenical Council, thus, leaving the Orthodox with an orthodox faith, but no valid method nor form of Church Government (and thus, in a sense, leading to the raskolniy and similar), being paralyzed in ancient tradition (not the case, as Orthodoxy has changed greatly since Barlaam of Calabria and Palamas duelled) or having no authority in order to enact even disciplinary changes with full canonical standing and force.

But this itself is a semantic game. The ecumenical councils were connected with the oikoumene, a term which narrowed from meaning the known world to a term which was restricted to the empire. We know that the first seven ecumenical councils (and in fact even both of the “Eighth Councils”) were convened by emperors. This is also why it was a common custom until the last century or so for the Greeks to refer to the Council of Constantinople of 879-880 and the Hesychast Councils as the Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils. I feel that some people put too much stock, to the point of giving it magical connotations, in whether a council is called ecumenical.

 

[marlo]

it means that the Eastern Orthodox can not simply confirm that they preserved the Orthodox faith as this type of Eastern Orthodox argument to the Catholics is just the same as the Oriental Orthodox argument to the Eastern Orthodox.

and Regarding the forgery you are referring to: During the Council of Florence since the Orthodox is not familiar with the Western Fathers, the Catholics used the Greek documents to prove the Filioque, they were shock because the documents with the text presented by the Catholics actually came from the Greeks, and even the old books in the Greek Monastery had the text in it. So whether it was a forgery or not, it was the Greeks to made the forgery. I suggest that you should be familiar with the Latin Fathers and trust the holy spirit who guided them.

And so?
By the way, your quote about the Filioque:
is simply a forgery, see here:
persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_2000_num_58_1_1989 The Greek Patristic Testimonia Presented at the Council of Florence (1439) in Support of the Filioque Reconsidered, page 156

 

[Cavaradossi]

it means that the Eastern Orthodox can not simply confirm that they preserved the Orthodox faith as this type of Eastern Orthodox argument to the Catholics is just the same as the Oriental Orthodox argument to the Eastern Orthodox.

and Regarding the forgery you are referring to: During the Council of Florence since the Orthodox is not familiar with the Western Fathers, the Catholics used the Greek documents to prove the Filioque, they were shock because the documents with the text presented by the Catholics actually came from the Greeks, and even the old books in the Greek Monastery had the text in it. So whether it was a forgery or not, it was the Greeks to made the forgery. I suggest that you should be familiar with the Latin Fathers and trust the holy spirit who guided them.

Your claim simply doesn’t pan out with the scholarship done on the matter of the interpolated passage in book III of Against Eunomius. Andrew Radde-Gallwitz, for example, in his translation of Against Eunomius points out that the interpolation is certainly not authentic to Basil.

 

[anthony022071]

That’s getting in to semantics - the name needed to be changed because of the schism, and is the very definition of “denomination” (Latin for being given a new name, or taking a new name): the Greek part of the Catholic Church which became the Orthodox Catholic Church took a new name, and by that definition is a denomination.

It isn’t semantics,it is about identity.

St. Cyprian:
”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem:
"[T]he Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,’ on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly… for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;’ that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350).

St. Augustine:
“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard.” Augustine, The True Religion, 7:12 (A.D. 390).

“Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in the Holy Church, [intending thereby] assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same.” Augustine, On Faith and Creed, 10:21 (A.D. 393).

 

[Cavaradossi]

It isn’t semantics,it is about identity.

St. Cyprian:
”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem:
"[T]he Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,’ on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly… for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;’ that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350).

St. Augustine:
“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard.” Augustine, The True Religion, 7:12 (A.D. 390).

“Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in the Holy Church, [intending thereby] assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same.” Augustine, On Faith and Creed, 10:21 (A.D. 393).

We identify as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. This is nothing more than semantics.

 

[steve_b]

But this itself is a semantic game. The ecumenical councils were connected with the oikoumene, a term which narrowed from meaning the known world to a term which was restricted to the empire. We know that the first seven ecumenical councils (and in fact even both of the “Eighth Councils”) were convened by emperors. This is also why it was a common custom until the last century or so for the Greeks to refer to the Council of Constantinople of 879-880 and the Hesychast Councils as the Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils. I feel that some people put too much stock, to the point of giving it magical connotations, in whether a council is called ecumenical.

It’s always been that until the pope approves a council as ecumenical, a council is considered not binding on the whole Church. There are 21 E Councils newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

 

[Cavaradossi]

It’s always been that until the pope approves a council as ecumenical, a council is considered not binding on the whole Church. There are 21 E Councils newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

That is not so clear. It was not until maybe the seventeenth century when canonists began including the Lateran councils, first and second Lyons and other western councils in their lists of ecumenical councils. For example, when the sixteenth century Greek bishop Bartholomew Abraham of Crete (one in union with Rome), was asked by the bishop of Ravenna to translate the acts of the Council of Florence from Greek into Latin, as the Latin acts had been lost. In his translation, bishop Bartholomew called Florence “the eighth ecumenical council”, and did so with the foreknowledge and approval of Pope Clement VII. Later theologians of that century, influenced by this translation, but also aware that the council of Constantinople of 869-870 was also called the eighth tended then to refer to Florence as the ninth.

How could these men, well educated as they were, have been unaware of the existence of eight or nine other ecumenical councils between the time of Second Nicaea and Florence? It is easy after the fact, to look back and say, “councils become authoritative once they obtain papal approval,” but this seems to me to be a form of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. I’m not too convinced that the question of how a council becomes recognized as universally authoritative was always understood in that fashion.

 

[Dollinger]

So whether it was a forgery or not, it was the Greeks to made the forgery. I suggest that you should be familiar with the Latin Fathers and trust the holy spirit who guided them.

You simply beg the issue. The problem is not about who made the original forgery, but if the passage you are using as proof for the filioque is authentic or not. If it is a forgery, made by greeks, latins or japanese, it can not be used as a proof. That is all i pointed out.

 

[steve_b]

That is not so clear. It was not until maybe the seventeenth century when canonists began including the Lateran councils, first and second Lyons and other western councils in their lists of ecumenical councils. For example, when the sixteenth century Greek bishop Bartholomew Abraham of Crete (one in union with Rome), was asked by the bishop of Ravenna to translate the acts of the Council of Florence from Greek into Latin, as the Latin acts had been lost. In his translation, bishop Bartholomew called Florence “the eighth ecumenical council”, and did so with the foreknowledge and approval of Pope Clement VII. Later theologians of that century, influenced by this translation, but also aware that the council of Constantinople of 869-870 was also called the eighth tended then to refer to Florence as the ninth.

How could these men, well educated as they were, have been unaware of the existence of eight or nine other ecumenical councils between the time of Second Nicaea and Florence? It is easy after the fact, to look back and say, “councils become authoritative once they obtain papal approval,” but this seems to me to be a form of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. I’m not too convinced that the question of how a council becomes recognized as universally authoritative was always understood in that fashion.

To answer your question, let’s consider the 1st 7 councils. They weren’t all approved as ecumenical immediately. One in particular took almost 3 centuries to approve as ecumenical

example

The Synod Of Constantinople (381) was originally only an Eastern general synod . It ranks as Ecumenical because its decrees were ultimately received in the West ~ 6th century. It’s also interesting, the Greeks didn’t immediately think that council was ecumenical either. To your question then, one could ask in that same spirit, what happened in the ~3 centuries between the end of that council in 381 and the approval of said council as ecumenical? St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604) approved it.

When a pope approves a council as ecumenical, the numbering of councils will obviously change. That’s why I said “until the pope approves a council as ecumenical, a council is considered not binding on the whole Church”

 

[Matthewmatt]

Ok I’m starting to understand better now. Is there a good book from the Catholic prspective that I could read about the Early Church and the different emperors and the development of the Church and what led to the later schisms?

 

[Cavaradossi]

To answer your question, let’s consider the 1st 7 councils. They weren’t all approved as ecumenical immediately. One in particular took almost 3 centuries to approve as ecumenical

example

The Synod Of Constantinople (381) was originally only an Eastern general synod . It ranks as Ecumenical because its decrees were ultimately received in the West ~ 6th century. It’s also interesting, the Greeks didn’t immediately think that council was ecumenical either. To your question then, one could ask in that same spirit, what happened in the ~3 centuries between the end of that council in 381 and the approval of said council as ecumenical? St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604) approved it.

When a pope approves a council as ecumenical, the numbering of councils will obviously change. That’s why I said “until the pope approves a council as ecumenical, a council is considered not binding on the whole Church”

Except that your comparison seems to run into trouble at a certain point, because unlike the earlier ecumenical councils, the first, second, third and fourth Lateran Councils, the two Councils of Lyons, and the Council of Vienne, were all convoked by and presided over by a pope. Given that these theologians should have known that a council approved by a pope becomes of ecumenical authority, it is incredible to think that they would have managed to overlook nine ecumenical councils, which took place within the span of just six hundred years.

 

[steve_b]

Except that your comparison seems to run into trouble at a certain point, because unlike the earlier ecumenical councils, the first, second, third and fourth Lateran Councils, the two Councils of Lyons, and the Council of Vienne, were all convoked by and presided over by a pope. Given that these theologians should have known that a council approved by a pope becomes of ecumenical authority, it is incredible to think that they would have managed to overlook nine ecumenical councils, which took place within the span of just six hundred years.

When the pope approves a council as ecumenical it is then ecumenical.

as a suggestion

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Councils Check ***section VI ***in particular, then anything else in general that might help

 

[Cavaradossi]

When the pope approves a council as ecumenical it is then ecumenical.

as a suggestion

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Councils Check ***section VI ***in particular, then anything else in general that might help

From the article, section VI (c):Councils over which the pope presides in person require no further formal confirmation on his part, for their decisions formally include his own as the body includes the soul. The Vatican Council of 1869-70 offers an example in point. The First, Second, Third, and Fourth Lateran Councils, First and Second Councils of Lyons, and Council of Vienne, being presided over by a pope, needed no extra approval to become ecumenical.

 

[steve_b]

From the article, section VI (c):
Councils over which the pope presides in person require no further formal confirmation on his part, for their decisions formally include his own as the body includes the soul. The Vatican Council of 1869-70 offers an example in point.
The First, Second, Third, and Fourth Lateran Councils, First and Second Councils of Lyons, and Council of Vienne, being presided over by a pope, needed no extra approval to become ecumenical.

newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm I’ve been saying all along, the pope is the one who makes a council ecumenical. And yes, no other approval is necessary.