Vicar of Christ and Ecumenical Councils

[ConstantineTG]

It must be something final, else the very term orthodoxy is a lie. If there is no established, firm teaching then there is no right belief. Furthermore, finalization by a subsequent Council can’t be the defining criteria because then no teaching would ever be established as each council must be affirmed by another onward to infinity. By that reasoning we don’t have confirmation yet that iconoclasm is wrong, and since we don’t know if the Seventh Council is valid, it can’t have yet affirmed the Sixth, which hasn’t confirmed the Fifth, ect.

No, there must be an objective criteria. If not then we should strip our Liturgy of the Creed and all other dogmatic affirmations.

Peace and God bless!

An Ecumenical Council need not be affirmed by another Ecumenical Council. In fact, the next Council isn’t guaranteed to be Ecumenical. Remember that Councils become Ecumenical, nobody just calls for an Ecumenical Council. I think we need to step back from our current understanding of “infallability” and realize how things really worked in the First Millennium. Nobody comes up and says, “well, I’m the Pope” or “I’m the EP” or whoever and says the council is ecumenical, everything defined is infallible, thank you very much and have a nice day. Nobody just stands up in the middle of the council and screams, “I am filled with the Holy Spirit! This is what we should do!” And then that is done.

The Church has a huge human element in it because we are humans. We shouldn’t pretend there is something magical here. The Holy Spirit will inspire our bishops and point them to the right direction. But we shouldn’t be surprised if the process looks so ordinary.

 

[Ghosty]

The human element was the sword of the Emperor; it certainly wasn’t a slow concensus building. If it had been then there is no way Chalcedon would ever have been accepted.

The reality is that the first millenium is a horrible model to look to for ecclesiology. It produced more heresy and schism than we even think about today. It was a model of coercion and brutality. Without an objective measure of ecumenicity we are left only with schism and violence.

Peace and God bless!

 

[malphono]

The human element was the sword of the Emperor; it certainly wasn’t a slow concensus building. If it had been then there is no way Chalcedon would ever have been accepted.

The reality is that the first millenium is a horrible model to look to for ecclesiology. It produced more heresy and schism than we even think about today. It was a model of coercion and brutality. Without an objective measure of ecumenicity we are left only with schism and violence.

I’m not so sure that the 1st millennium is such a horrible model. Indeed the emperor’s sword was an issue, but that wasn’t truly a part of ecclesiology. Yes, it affected the Church, but it wasn’t **of **the Church. Sure there were heresies aplenty in the 1st millennium, but so too have there been since. And, without even considering the pseudo-Christian aberrations, the ones since have been far more destructive. Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, etc, got away doing with what they did because they could. The emperor’s sword got rusty.

Anyway, as an ecclesiological model, I will always put my dime on the 1st Millennium. What has transpired since, particularly in Rome, is something that, while I have no choice but to live with, I’d rather not think about.

Sorry for the comment, but I though I’d toss in my (less than) :twocents:

 

[mardukm]

An Ecumenical Council need not be affirmed by another Ecumenical Council. In fact, the next Council isn’t guaranteed to be Ecumenical. Remember that Councils become Ecumenical, nobody just calls for an Ecumenical Council. I think we need to step back from our current understanding of “infallability” and realize how things really worked in the First Millennium. Nobody comes up and says, “well, I’m the Pope” or “I’m the EP” or whoever and says the council is ecumenical, everything defined is infallible, thank you very much and have a nice day. Nobody just stands up in the middle of the council and screams, “I am filled with the Holy Spirit! This is what we should do!” And then that is done.

The problem with your solution is that it is in fact contrary to “how things really worked in the First Millenium.” The Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils DID claim their gathering to be Ecumenical. The Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils DID claim “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” The Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils DID proclaim “This is what we should do!”

What distinguishes the Orthodox conception (well, at least the most popular conception) from the Catholic conception is that Orthodox believe the approval of the laity is required for a Council to be infallible, while Catholics believe that (at least) the moral unanimity of bishops with their head (the bishop of Rome) is sufficient for the same result. I believe the Catholic position can concede that the laity has a role in granting historical certainty for the infallibility (and hence historical authority - though immediate and objective authority due to its objective infallibility is another matter) of an Ecumenical Council. However, because the charism of infallibility is only attached to the Magisterium of the Church (i.e., the teaching office) which belongs only to bishops, not to laity, then the Catholic position can never admit that the approval of the laity in any way actually grants infallibility to an Ecumenical Council.

What do you say, brother CTG? Do you think that the laity in general have the teaching office of the Church, or do you believe that it belongs only to bishops? (NOTE: I think that the Catholic position grants that professional lay theologians can have a delegated share in this teaching office).

The Church has a huge human element in it because we are humans. We shouldn’t pretend there is something magical here. The Holy Spirit will inspire our bishops and point them to the right direction. But we shouldn’t be surprised if the process looks so ordinary.

I actually agree with that.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Well the only way the Orthodox will accept reunion is if Rome becomes Orthodox. The Pope needs to ask himself one question, is he willing to flush Pastor Aeternus down the proverbial toilet? If “no”, then forget reunion and do something to keep your own flock happy, which includes the Eastern Catholic Churches. No sense in trying to keep the Orthodox happy when you are not willing to do what they demand for a reunion.

Your obviously Absolutist Petrine understanding of Pastor Aeternus needs to be rejected, to be sure. But I believe the actual High Petrine intent of its contents would be acceptable to both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. Of course, there should also be a better reflection of that High Petrine doctrinal ideal in its praxis (i.e., walk the walk, not just talk the talk - I’m not admitting the same level of Absolutist Petrine praxis that some EC’s and OC’s propose exists, but I do believe there is room for improvement).

So I definitely disagree with you that Pastor Aeternus itself needs to be thrown out for reunion to occur. What we need, rather, is an official clarification, and perhaps even an official condemnation of the Absolutist Petrine exaggerations of Pastor Aeternus.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

Your obviously Absolutist Petrine understanding of Pastor Aeternus needs to be rejected, to be sure. But I believe the actual High Petrine intent of its contents would be acceptable to both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. Of course, there should also be a better reflection of that High Petrine doctrinal ideal in its praxis (i.e., walk the walk, not just talk the talk - I’m not admitting the same level of Absolutist Petrine praxis that some EC’s and OC’s propose exists, but I do believe there is room for improvement).

So I definitely disagree with you that Pastor Aeternus itself needs to be thrown out for reunion to occur. What we need, rather, is an official clarification, and perhaps even an official condemnation of the Absolutist Petrine exaggerations of Pastor Aeternus.

Blessings,
Marduk

Pastor Aeternus is a loaded gun. No matter how you personally interpret it, obviously it can be interpreted in so many ways. If it was a non-issue then they Orthodox wouldn’t be bringing this up. Despite your denials, Pastor Aeternus is absolutist. There is no way the Orthodox bishops would accept universal ordinary jurisdiction by the Pope, no matter how you interpret “universal ordinary jurisdiction”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The human element was the sword of the Emperor; it certainly wasn’t a slow concensus building. If it had been then there is no way Chalcedon would ever have been accepted.

The reality is that the first millenium is a horrible model to look to for ecclesiology. It produced more heresy and schism than we even think about today. It was a model of coercion and brutality. Without an objective measure of ecumenicity we are left only with schism and violence.

Peace and God bless!

Many Emperors were actually on the side of the heretical view. But that didn’t stop the bishops from defining what is orthodox. Constantine for one has always been accused as an Arian throughout his life.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The problem with your solution is that it is in fact contrary to “how things really worked in the First Millenium.” The Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils DID claim their gathering to be Ecumenical. The Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils DID claim “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” The Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils DID proclaim “This is what we should do!”

What distinguishes the Orthodox conception (well, at least the most popular conception) from the Catholic conception is that Orthodox believe the approval of the laity is required for a Council to be infallible, while Catholics believe that (at least) the moral unanimity of bishops with their head (the bishop of Rome) is sufficient for the same result. I believe the Catholic position can concede that the laity has a role in granting historical certainty for the infallibility (and hence historical authority - though immediate and objective authority due to its objective infallibility is another matter) of an Ecumenical Council. However, because the charism of infallibility is only attached to the Magisterium of the Church (i.e., the teaching office) which belongs only to bishops, not to laity, then the Catholic position can never admit that the approval of the laity in any way actually grants infallibility to an Ecumenical Council.

What do you say, brother CTG? Do you think that the laity in general have the teaching office of the Church, or do you believe that it belongs only to bishops? (NOTE: I think that the Catholic position grants that professional lay theologians can have a delegated share in this teaching office).

I actually agree with that.

Blessings,
Marduk

When I said the council needs to be accepted by all, I am talking about the Bishops, not the laity. Although the laity did have a part in the rejection of Florence, but also at least one Bishop we know also never accepted Florence. That is St. Mark of Ephesus.

 

[Cavaradossi]

When I said the council needs to be accepted by all, I am talking about the Bishops, not the laity.

That (the idea of reception amongst the laity) is, unfortunately, a favorite strawman of several on this forum, even though it is only a controversial opinion of some Russian theologians. I could find similarly unflattering opinions from Roman Catholic theologians (like the many Roman Catholic theologians who taught that Mary was incapable of sinning, due to the immaculate conception), but since we all acknowledge that there is a difference between the opinions of theologians and what is held dogmatically, I think it would be nice if people would cease to make arguments like that. I suspect, however, that this rather lamentably will not happen.

 

[ConstantineTG]

And for those who claim that issues were settled and done by the end of the council, just look at the Sevent Ecumenical Council. It wasn’t settled, in the sense that iconoclasm didn’t stop right there and then. The Sunday of Orthodoxy was established over 5 decades later after a council (not ecumenical) affirmed the Seventh and returned the icons to the Churches (specifically Hagia Sophia, but this also symbolizes the return of icons to all Churches). They didn’t bring the icons back right after the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Also, the Emperor back then was in favor of iconoclasm. So before people start saying that the Emperor always supported the decision of a council or influenced the decision of a council, think again.

 

[Ghosty]

When I said the council needs to be accepted by all, I am talking about the Bishops, not the laity. Although the laity did have a part in the rejection of Florence, but also at least one Bishop we know also never accepted Florence. That is St. Mark of Ephesus.

Show us a Council in the First Millenium that was accepted by all Bishops. You are talking about something that has never existed.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

And for those who claim that issues were settled and done by the end of the council, just look at the Sevent Ecumenical Council. It wasn’t settled, in the sense that iconoclasm didn’t stop right there and then. The Sunday of Orthodoxy was established over 5 decades later after a council (not ecumenical) affirmed the Seventh and returned the icons to the Churches (specifically Hagia Sophia, but this also symbolizes the return of icons to all Churches). They didn’t bring the icons back right after the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Also, the Emperor back then was in favor of iconoclasm. So before people start saying that the Emperor always supported the decision of a council or influenced the decision of a council, think again.

No one is claiming that everything was settled and done after Councils, and in fact I’m claiming just the opposite. I’m also not saying the Emperor supported every Council; I was simply pointing out that the “human element” of the acceptance of Councils was legal authority, and even that didn’t always work (see Chalcedon).

Peace and God bless!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Show us a Council in the First Millenium that was accepted by all Bishops. You are talking about something that has never existed.

Peace and God bless!

All the Seven Ecumenical Councils were. Of course there is much more to the story than that. If we assume that all bishops just accepted everything defined at the council at the end of all the sessions and that was that and it was declared Ecumenical right there and then, that is a wrong assumption of the events. Like I said, the councils weren’t defined as Ecumenical until later on and only after much more debate and a lot of events (bishops being deposed, etc.). Sometimes some of those who opposed just died and the successor was the one who accepted.

 

[Ghosty]

I’m not so sure that the 1st millennium is such a horrible model. Indeed the emperor’s sword was an issue, but that wasn’t truly a part of ecclesiology. Yes, it affected the Church, but it wasn’t **of **the Church. Sure there were heresies aplenty in the 1st millennium, but so too have there been since. And, without even considering the pseudo-Christian aberrations, the ones since have been far more destructive. Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, etc, got away doing with what they did because they could. The emperor’s sword got rusty.

Anyway, as an ecclesiological model, I will always put my dime on the 1st Millennium. What has transpired since, particularly in Rome, is something that, while I have no choice but to live with, I’d rather not think about.

Sorry for the comment, but I though I’d toss in my (less than) :twocents:

My point about the Emperor was precisely that it wasn’t of the Church. The law of the secular power was the “human element” in the acceptance of Councils.

As for returning to the first millenium, that would mean your people and mine hiding in the mountains from fellow Christians for our Bishops’ refusal to accept certain Councils. I’m not fully satisfied with the ecclesiology of the Second millenium, but you and I likely wouldn’t even have survived the first.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Pastor Aeternus is a loaded gun. No matter how you personally interpret it, obviously it can be interpreted in so many ways. If it was a non-issue then they Orthodox wouldn’t be bringing this up. Despite your denials, Pastor Aeternus is absolutist. There is no way the Orthodox bishops would accept universal ordinary jurisdiction by the Pope, no matter how you interpret “universal ordinary jurisdiction”.

The present and past Pope has asserted that “jurisdiction” should be interpreted as the power to serve, not to control. I’ve read Orthodox sources complain that the Pope does not act like the Servant of the Servants of God that he claims to be. Why would you think Orthodox would not accept “jurisdiction” in the sense of service?

Many Orthodox are willing to admit the appellate authority of Rome for ALL Churches. That certainly denotes universality. And does not appealing to Rome admit an existing authority of the one being appealed to that can be used to help them (i.e., “ordinary”)? Do you recall our discussion on the difference between the canonical terms “ORDINARY” and “PROPER” from the Apologetics Forum? Can you explain how they would be averse to that understanding?

The only real differences I see are (1) the idea of the divine institution of Primacy, (2) how the universal jurisdiction can be realized practically and canonically. I think (1) is harder than (2), but it is not insurmountable. I think there is a boogeyman that admitting “divine institution” will lead to the slippery slope of admitting that anything the Pope says is from God. I think even you have that misunderstanding. But that’s not what it means. All the Churches of the Syriac Traditions believe in the divine institution of Primacy, but it certainly has not resulted in that aberration in their Churches. I don’t see why such an admission necessarily leads to a concept of dictatorial authority.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

And for those who claim that issues were settled and done by the end of the council, just look at the Sevent Ecumenical Council. It wasn’t settled, in the sense that iconoclasm didn’t stop right there and then. The Sunday of Orthodoxy was established over 5 decades later after a council (not ecumenical) affirmed the Seventh and returned the icons to the Churches (specifically Hagia Sophia, but this also symbolizes the return of icons to all Churches). They didn’t bring the icons back right after the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

I’m not sure of your point here. An Ecumenical Council establishes a dogmatic reference point, but they do not retard the development of doctrine if it is necessary. Given the deep belief in the development of doctrine among Catholics, I can’t even imagine what Catholic would argue what you just suggested. Are you arguing against something you heard from Orthodox apologists (for it certainly could not come from Catholic apologists)?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

All the Seven Ecumenical Councils were. Of course there is much more to the story than that. If we assume that all bishops just accepted everything defined at the council at the end of all the sessions and that was that and it was declared Ecumenical right there and then, that is a wrong assumption of the events. Like I said, the councils weren’t defined as Ecumenical until later on and only after much more debate and a lot of events (bishops being deposed, etc.). Sometimes some of those who opposed just died and the successor was the one who accepted.

Bishops were deposed based on Ecumenical authority being vested in the Canons of the Councils you claim weren’t yet Ecumenical. Furthermore, the last five Ecumenical Councils remain rejected by some even to this day. Your argument is baseless and circular.

If the Councils weren’t let Ecumenical, their anathemas not settled, on what grounds were Patriarchs deposed, excommunicated, and replaced. The non-Chalcedonian Bishops were deposed for not accepting Chalcedon, this was done before another Council was held, yet you claim it was their place to accept or reject it. The same holds for Ephesus and Constantinople III. Your argument misses the facts of history.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:

I am disappointed in the continuous circumvention of the forum’s debate guidelines. Finding a post which complies with them is becoming more difficult than finding one that doesn’t. I will be issuing immediate suspensions for any who violate the debate guidelines in the foreseeable future. Let’s show some respect and glorify God in our words.

Please review the Important Forum Information thread before continued posting.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Ghosty

No, they weren’t accepted by all bishops. Again here, I think you’re trying to find a mechanical process for determining whether a council is ecumenical or not; but it just doesn’t work that way.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, they weren’t accepted by all bishops. Again here, I think you’re trying to find a mechanical process for determining whether a council is ecumenical or not; but it just doesn’t work that way.

Of course they were accepted by all bishops, eventually. If you look around today, no one within the Church (Catholic or Orthodox) teaches anything opposed to what those councils taught.