Unity of God

[Isa_Almisry]

Originally Posted by Isa Almisry
Rome did not take part in Constantinople (actually NO ONE from the West did). On an erstwhile forum the claim was repeated over and over that Rome did not accept it until Chalcedon. Mute point, it was already an Ecumenical Council.

That doesn’t make sense. If no one from the West was in attendance,then obviously it was not ecumenical,but regional. It was not an ecumenical council until Rome accepted it’s creed and doctrines as having universal application. Councils didn’t get to decide for themselves if they were ecumenical,and neither did the secular powers that sponsored them. If that were the case,then any of those large heretical councils in the East could have been considered ecumenical. The deciding factor was the approval of the pope.

The Nicene Creed as redacted by Constantinople was already circulating. No one waited on the Pope of Rome.

You’re going to have trouble with your theory explaining the many councils Rome accepted and then rejected (Constantinople V, whichever one you accept, Siena, etc.).

Yes, the heretical councils of the East. As if the West didn’t have them. I’m afraid that many like to play this leit motif (Fr. Ryland comes to mind) of the East mired in heresies, in desparate need of Rome to bail them out. It would be soooo much easier to explain the papacy if that were the case. Pelaginism comes to mind: Pelagius came from the West, and he was explicitly sent back to the West by the Patriarch of Jerusalem so the Westerners could get their house in order. And the West had to force Pope Zosimos to condemn Pelagius.

Pope Vigilius had to be literally dragged from the altar and brought East for the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and although in town for the occasion, he refused to have anything to do with it. But the Church went on, and did not wait for him. Eventually, he got on board with the Church’s fait accompoli.

Another problem with your characterization: the Sixth Council. It was called as a local council, but declared itself Ecumenical in its first session, and was immediately accepted as such (except by the Maronites), including its anathematizing of Pope Honorius of Rome.

The Cappadocian Fathers of the Second Council expounded on the Essence/Energies of God. In this they relied on St. Clement, etc. going back to the Apostles. St. Maximus stated the same, as did St. Gregory.

They did not expound anything on the essence and energies that would have precluded the hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Son. They did not deal with that matter at the Council.

I was referring to their other writing, of which the Creed is the distinllation.

Not deal with it? Yes, they did:

τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον Who proceeds from the Father.
Canon I
The profession of faith of the holy fathers who gathered in Nicaea in Bithynia is not to be abrogated, but it is to remain in force. Every heresy is to be anathematised and in particular that of the Eunomians or Anomoeans, that of the Arians or Eudoxians, that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, that of the Sabellians that of the Marcellians, that of the Photinians and that of the Apollinarians.

So Rome accepted Constantinople I and not Constantinople V (the series of Pan-Orthodox Councils that stated St. Gregory’s views)? Rome’s problem.

It isn’t Rome’s problem because his views were not accepted.

And that is her problem.

But then, we are told, Rome has approved him on the calendar, and of him as a saint. So I guess it’s your problem.

He is a saint primarily out of respect for the Greek Catholics.

Are you going to kiss the Quran out of respect for the muslims?

Your last quote is exactly why I’m answering here. It seems your “Greek Catholics” are tolerated at best.

 

[anthony022071]

The Nicene Creed as redacted by Constantinople was already circulating. No one waited on the Pope of Rome.

aomin.org/bjoprem.html

< Pope Silvester was represented by two Roman priests, Victor and Vincent, and also by the Bishop of Cordova, Hosius. Both St. Athanasius and Theodoret confirm that Hosius was the president of the Council. In a list drawn in order of rank, the historian Socrates lists Hosius first of all bishops, before more eminent bishops. In fact, Hosius and the two priests signed the decrees first. After their signatures comes that of St. Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria. By right, no priest should have signed before any bishop. Neither did the bishop of Cordova, Spain have the right to sign before a Patriarch. The other Spanish bishops signed further down on the list, where Hosius would have, had he merely been representing himself, and not Pope Sylvester.

The synod was convened, according to the Sixth Ecumenical Council - Constantinople III - by Constantine and Pope Sylvester: “Arius arose as an adversary to the doctrine of the Trinity, Constantine and Silvester immediately assembled the great Synod at Nic�a.”

According to Socrates, Pope Julius asserted that, “Ecclesiastical discipline prohibits that a decree be received by the Churches unless sanctioned by the Roman Church.” Pope Julius ruled the Church 11 years after the Council and was the Pope who affirmed Athanasius’ orthodoxy. Athanasius himself quotes this same pontiff rebuking the Eusebians for bypassing his authority (which he “received from the blessed Apostle Peter”) in condemning the church of the Alexandrians.

In Dionysius’ collection of the Acts of Nic�a, he affirms that the Pope approved the Council: “And it pleased the council that all these things be sent to the Bishop of Rome, Silvester.” >

 

[anthony022071]

The Nicene Creed as redacted by Constantinople was already circulating. No one waited on the Pope of Rome.

It was circulating in the East at the same time as a few other orthodox creeds,but it was not circulating in the West;so it was not ecumenical,and neither was the council.

Pope Vigilius had to be literally dragged from the altar and brought East for the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and although in town for the occasion, he refused to have anything to do with it. But the Church went on, and did not wait for him. Eventually, he got on board with the Church’s fait accompoli.

You’re missing the larger fact which is that the council and the Emporer needed the pope’s approval for the council’s decisions.
Why did the Emporer bother to call the politically weak Vigilus to the East in the first place? Why was he held there for eight years?
Why did the council not condemn and disregard the pope for his wavering? Why did the council need the decretal letter from a wavering pope? Obviously the council had a very different ideas of tradition and protocol than the Orthodox do. It was a Catholic council.

I was referring to their other writing, of which the Creed is the distinllation.

Not deal with it? Yes, they did:

τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον Who proceeds from the Father.

That says nothing about whether or not the Spirit proceeds (as in proienai) from the Son. The procession of person is not limited to the single cause. The only theologian before Photios that would have advocated that view was Theodoret of Cyrrus.

 

[anthony022071]

Again the distinction preserves the otherness of God, while allowing Him immanence.

As Losky says, the Orthodox acknowledge that the nature of God’s essense is that He cannot be contained, even by His essence. Hence His Energies.

You’ll have to explain those ideas.

Yes, God in His essense is very mysterious indeed, and cannot be known.

Then what was the Incarnation of the Logos (Reason) for? to confirm us in our ignorance of God?

No, it’s not trying to classify the mystery, just explain how God is unknowable, yet He reveals Himself to us (it was this very point that led me from Protestantism to Orthodoxy).

He reveals his essence through his activities. God’s essence is love and Christ revealed it to us through his saving work.

As the Orthodox Fathers tell us, a God who is knowable cannot be God.

That’s an idea that shows the influence of the God of the Greek philosophers upon the Greek church fathers – a God who does not interfere in history,or communicate with men,or answer prayers.

Man’s finite mind cannot contain the infinite God.

Of course not,but we are capable of knowing enough about God and his essence to be saved by that knowledge.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Nicene Creed as redacted by Constantinople was already circulating. No one waited on the Pope of Rome.

It was circulating in the East at the same time as a few other orthodox creeds,but it was not circulating in the West;so it was not ecumenical,and neither was the council.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Again the distinction preserves the otherness of God, while allowing Him immanence.

As Losky says, the Orthodox acknowledge that the nature of God’s essense is that He cannot be contained, even by His essence. Hence His Energies.

You’ll have to explain those ideas.

 

[anthony022071]

So you guys were late again. What else is new?

The Western Church was also slow to take up the decisions of the Eastern councils which advocated Arianism and Monophysitism. The See of Rome had the final word on what was acceptable and what wasn’t.

Pope Vigilius had to be literally dragged from the altar and brought East for the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and although in town for the occasion, he refused to have anything to do with it. But the Church went on, and did not wait for him. Eventually, he got on board with the Church’s fait accompoli.

Pope Vigilus was arrested and brought to Constantinople after having told the Empress:

“Far be this from me, Lady Augusta; formerly I spoke wrongly and foolishly, but now I assuredly refuse to restore a man who is a heretic and under anathema [the deposed Mono physite Patriarch of Constantinople, Anthimius]. Though unworthy, I am vicar of Blessed Peter the Apostle, as were my predecessors, the most holy Agapitus and Silverius, who condemned him.”

Why did they call, hold and conclude the council although the Pope refuse his blessing?

It was Justinian who called the council.

Why did the Fathers issue their definition in spite of the Pope?

That’s how it works – they issue their decisions independently of the pope,and the pope either gives his approval,making those decisions valid,or he rejects them,making them invalid.

The Pope was desired, but he was NOT NEEDED.

If he was not needed,he would not have been called to the East to settle an Eastern controversy and detained for eight years until he gave his approval. He would not have been asked to give to the Eastern bishops a suitable form of the orthodox faith.

< But we, bishops, answered him: “If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the most holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four Councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate.” >

You’re right, it doesn’t speak of proienai.

It speaks of ekporeusis, the hypostatic procession, which, according to the Lord’s Own words (ahd He ought to know), is from the Father.

To translate the filioque into Greek (something your church forbids now) renders a theology that your church even rejects.

More specifically,it would be wrong to translate procedit as ekporeusis. It would not be wrong to translate procedit as proienai,because the two words express the same kind of procession.

 

[marlo]

isa and anthony

please continue this debate, and to others, kindly not interfere, its good to just keep this one on one.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So you guys were late again. What else is new?

The Western Church was also slow to take up the decisions of the Eastern councils which advocated Arianism and Monophysitism. The See of Rome had the final word on what was acceptable and what wasn’t.

After what was acceptable and what wasn’t was already decided, Rome had a post final word. Sort of like Missippii ratifying the 13th Ammendment to the US Constitution in 1995, 130 years after it was the law of the land.

Pope Vigilius had to be literally dragged from the altar and brought East for the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and although in town for the occasion, he refused to have anything to do with it. But the Church went on, and did not wait for him. Eventually, he got on board with the Church’s fait accompoli.

Pope Vigilus was arrested and brought to Constantinople after having told the Empress:

“Far be this from me, Lady Augusta; formerly I spoke wrongly and foolishly, but now I assuredly refuse to restore a man who is a heretic and under anathema [the deposed Mono physite Patriarch of Constantinople, Anthimius]. Though unworthy, I am vicar of Blessed Peter the Apostle, as were my predecessors, the most holy Agapitus and Silverius, who condemned him.”

Your point?

He was arrested over the issue of the Three Chapters, which the emperor had already condemned by edict, and the Eastern bishops (EO and OO) had already signed off on.

Why did they call, hold and conclude the council although the Pope refuse his blessing?

It was Justinian who called the council.

and this was different from any Ecumenical council how?

Eutychius conducted the council.

Why did the Fathers issue their definition in spite of the Pope?

That’s how it works – they issue their decisions independently of the pope,and the pope either gives his approval,making those decisions valid,or he rejects them,making them invalid.

Like Honorius did?

The Pope was desired, but he was NOT NEEDED.

If he was not needed,he would not have been called to the East to settle an Eastern controversy and detained for eight years until he gave his approval. He would not have been asked to give to the Eastern bishops a suitable form of the orthodox faith.

< But we, bishops, answered him: “If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the most holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four Councils have done, [THEN] we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate.” >

Emphasis mine.

It’s not Catholic because the Pope of Rome says so, the Pope of Rome is Catholic when he confesses the Catholic Faith.

You’re right, it doesn’t speak of proienai.

It speaks of ekporeusis, the hypostatic procession, which, according to the Lord’s Own words (ahd He ought to know), is from the Father.

To translate the filioque into Greek (something your church forbids now) renders a theology that your church even rejects.

More specifically,it would be wrong to translate procedit as ekporeusis. It would not be wrong to translate procedit as proienai,because the two words express the same kind of procession.

And if procedit/proienai was the original wording, you might have a point.

Get better translators.

 

[anthony022071]

After what was acceptable and what wasn’t was already decided, Rome had a post final word. Sort of like Missippii ratifying the 13th Ammendment to the US Constitution in 1995, 130 years after it was the law of the land.

No-one ever accused Mississippi of being the primate of America.
But the Church fathers did recognize that the See of Rome had ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the whole Church.

Your point?

The point is that Virgilus was arrested by the Emporer unjustly,after Vigilus had rejected the Monophysite heresy upon ascending the apostolic throne.

He was arrested over the issue of the Three Chapters, which the emperor had already condemned by edict, and the Eastern bishops (EO and OO) had already signed off on.

They were not called Orthodox. There was no such entity as the Orthodox Church prior to the schism. There was only the Catholic Church. The bishops needed a condemnation of the Three Chapters from the pope,which is why he was not set free until he wrote his decretal letter. The council did not condemn the persons of Theodoret and Ibas,which action the pope had argued against.

and this was different from any Ecumenical council how?

I didn’t say it was any different. You had said that “they” had called the council.

Why did the Fathers issue their definition in spite of the Pope?

As I said,councils could make their definitions independently of the pope,but the pope had to give his approval for those definitions to become valid for the whole Church.

Like Honorius did?

Honorius never had to deal with the decisions of a council,and he never taught heresy.

mwt.net/~lnpalm/honrius1.htm

Emphasis mine.

What would the bishops have done if the pope refused their requst? excommunicate him? If they did,they would have excommunicated themselves from the Church.

“Cyprian to Antonianus his brother, greeting. I received your first letters, dearest brother, firmly maintaining the concord of the priestly college, and adhering to the Catholic Church, in which you intimated that you did not hold communion with Novatian, but followed my advice, and held one common agreement with Cornelius our co-bishop. You wrote, moreover, for me to transmit a copy of those same letters to Cornelius our colleague, so that he might lay aside all anxiety, and know at once that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church.”
Epistle LI-1, to Antonianus

It’s not Catholic because the Pope of Rome says so, the Pope of Rome is Catholic when he confesses the Catholic Faith.

Theological definitions are orthodox when the pope says so. They are Catholic because they are embraced by those who are in communion with the pope.

And if procedit/proienai was the original wording, you might have a point.

Since the See of Rome had authority over the decisions of Constntinople 1,it also had authority to adapt the creed.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

After what was acceptable and what wasn’t was already decided, Rome had a post final word. Sort of like Missippii ratifying the 13th Ammendment to the US Constitution in 1995, 130 years after it was the law of the land.

No-one ever accused Mississippi of being the primate of America.
But the Church fathers did recognize that the See of Rome had ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the whole Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

[/What would the bishops have done if the pope refused their requst? excommunicate him? If they did,they would have excommunicated themselves from the Church.

“Cyprian to Antonianus his brother, greeting. I received your first letters, dearest brother, firmly maintaining the concord of the priestly college, and adhering to the Catholic Church, in which you intimated that you did not hold communion with Novatian, but followed my advice, and held one common agreement with Cornelius our co-bishop. You wrote, moreover, for me to transmit a copy of those same letters to Cornelius our colleague, so that he might lay aside all anxiety, and know at once that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church.”
Epistle LI-1, to Antonianus

, and apparently very literal, as it abounds in Græcisms (Ep. lxxv among St. Cyprian’s letters). St. Cpyrian’s arguments against St. Stephen are reiterated and reinforced, and the treatise on Unity is laid under contribution. It is particularly interesting to note that the famous fourth chapter of that treatise must have been before the writer of the letter in its original form, and not in the alternative “Roman” form (c. xvi). It is the literal truth when Firmilian says: “We have received your writings as our own, and have committed them to memory by repeated reading” (c. iv) … It is important that Firmilian enables us to gather much of the drift of St. Stephen’s letter… He had appealed to tradition from St. Peter and St. Paul: this is an insult to the Apostles, cries Firmilian, for they execrated heretics. Besides (this is from Cyprian, Ep. lxxiv, 2), “no one could be so silly as to believe this”, for the heretics are all later than the Apostles! And Rome has not preserved the Apostolic traditions unchanged, for it differs from Jerusalem as to the observances at Easter and as to other mysteries. “I am justly indignant with Stephen’s obvious and manifest silliness, that he so boasts of his position, and claims that he is the successor of St. Peter on whom were laid the foundations of the Church; yet he brings in many other rocks, and erects new buildings of many Churches when he defends with his authority the baptism conferred by heretics; for those who are baptized are without doubt numbered in the Church, and he who approves their baptism affirms that there is among them a Church of the baptized.… Stephen, who declares that he has the Chair of Peter by succession, is excited by no zeal against heretics” (c. xvii). “You have cut yourself off–do not mistake–since he is the true schismatic who makes himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For in thinking that all can be excommunicated by you, you have cut off yourself alone from the communion of all” (c. xxiv).

newadvent.org/cathen/06080b.htm

I’ve have to continue later, I have to get to school, and do to grading coming up, and an upcoming court date in the never ending divorce, I’ll be posting less.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Isa_Almisry]

It’s not Catholic because the Pope of Rome says so, the Pope of Rome is Catholic when he confesses the Catholic Faith.

Theological definitions are orthodox when the pope says so. They are Catholic because they are embraced by those who are in communion with the pope.

I’ll post later on this.

And if procedit/proienai was the original wording, you might have a point.

Since the See of Rome had authority over the decisions of Constntinople 1,it also had authority to adapt the creed.

Since the Council was opened by St. Meletius of Antioch, who at the time was condemned and unrecognized by Rome (Rome was backing the party of the former patriarch Eustathius, deposed supposedly for adultery and their candidate Paulinus, who I think ordained Jerome), I would say since Rome didn’t control the Council who wrote the Creed, but bowed to its decree, so too Rome lacks authority to change the Creed.

Btw, the line of Rome’s candidate for Antioch died out, and St. Meletius’ lives on in Patriarch Ignatius IV, but ALL claimants, OO an uniate too (all 3/4 of them) claim St. Meletius in their line.

Back to the OP, since the pope of Rome has put St. Gregory Palamas on the calendar (and I’m told canonizations are infallible, but, as with all these “infallible” pronouncements, the posts are contradictory on this), and the pope has cited the Essence/Energy distinction, I would think that this is settled in your mind.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

It’s not Catholic because the Pope of Rome says so, the Pope of Rome is Catholic when he confesses the Catholic Faith.

Theological definitions are orthodox when the pope says so. They are Catholic because they are embraced by those who are in communion with the pope.

1. But, finally, his Holiness says (p. ix. l.12) that the fourth Ecumenical Council (which by mistake he quite transfers from Chalcedon to Carthage), when it read the epistle of Pope Leo I, cried out, “Peter has thus spoken by Leo.” It was so indeed. But his Holiness ought not to overlook how, and after what examination, our fathers cried out, as they did, in praise of Leo. Since however his Holiness, consulting brevity, appears to have omitted this most necessary point, and the manifest proof that an Ecumenical Council is not only above the Pope but above any Council of his, we will explain to the public the matter as it really happened. Of more than six hundred fathers assembled in the Counci1 of Chalcedon, about two hundred of the wisest were appointed by the Council to examine both as to language and sense the said epistle of Leo; nor only so, but to give in writing and with their signatures their own judgment upon it, whether it were orthodox or not. These, about two hundred judgments and resolution on the epistle, as chiefly found in the Fourth Session of the said holy Council in such terms as the following:—“Maximus of Antioch in Syria said: 'The epistle of the holy Leo, Archbishop of Imperial Rome, agrees with the decisions of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers at Nice, and the hundred and fifty at Constantinople, which is new Rome, and with the faith expounded at Ephesus by the most holy Bishop Cyril: and I have subscribed it.”

And again:

“Theodoret,the most religious Bishop of Cyrus: 'The epistle of the most holy Archbishop, the lord Leo, agrees with the faith established at Nice by the holy and blessed fathers, and with the symbol of faith expounded at Constantinople by the hundred and fifty, and with the epistles of the blessed Cyril. And accepting it, I have subscribed the said epistle.”’

And thus all in succession: “The epistle corresponds,” "the epistle is consonant,“the epistle agrees in sense,” and the like. After such great and very severe scrutiny in comparing it with former holy Councils, and a full conviction of the correctness of the meaning, and not merely because it was the epistle of the Pope, they cried aloud, ungrudgingly, the exclamation on which his Holiness now vaunts himself: But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers. Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that if, even now, he will write us such things as two hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find consonant and agreeing with the said former Councils, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, “Peter has so spoken,” or anything of like honor, but this also, “Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped away the tears of the Catholic Church.”

1. And surely we have a right to expect from the prudent forethought of his Holiness, a work so worthy the true successor of St. Peter, of Leo I, and also of Leo III, who for security of the orthodox faith engraved the divine Creed unaltered upon imperishable plates—a work which will unite the churches of the West to the holy Catholic Church, in which the canonical chief seat of his Holiness, and the seats of all the Bishops of the West remain empty and ready to be occupied. For the Catholic Church, awaiting the conversion of the shepherds who have fallen off from her with their flocks, does not separate in name only, those who have been privily introduced to the rulership by the action of others, thus making little of the Priesthood. But we are expecting the “word of consolation,” and hope that he, as wrote St. Basil to St.Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (Epis. b6), will “tread again the ancient footprints of the fathers.” Not without great astonishment have we read the said Encyclical letter to the Easterns, in which we see with deep grief of soul his Holiness, famed for prudence, speaking like his predecessors in schism, words that urge upon us the adulteration of our pure holy Creed, on which the Ecumenical Councils have set their seal
   orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

 

[anthony022071]

A God who was all essence would be unknowable, unapproachable, etc. The God of the philosophers you mention below.