Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[tdgesq]

None of the Ecumenical Councils declared themselves to be Ecumenical,

Really? I know for a fact that Chalcedon and Constantinople III declared themselves to be a “holy and universal synod.”

If what you mean is that subsequent councils confirmed the acts of previous councils, then that is certainly true. But to say that councils did not declare their own proceedings to be enacted by a “universal” synod is - well - wrong. Maybe you mean something else by the term “ecumenical.”

t was only subsequent councils which declared them as such.

How could a subsequent council that is not ecumenical make a previous council ecumenical? In any case, this doesn’t take into account your requirement that the laity also agrees, which doesn’t happen simply because a later council confirms a previous one.

 

[Peter_J]

In any case, this doesn’t take into account your requirement that the laity also agrees, which doesn’t happen simply because a later council confirms a previous one.

Well again, what he said was that “the council must be accepted by the CHURCH to be valid”, and that the Church includes the laity. He didn’t single out the laity by saying “the council must be accepted by the laity to be valid”. (To go back to my example, the Bishop of Worcester, MA, is part of the Church, but I wouldn’t single him out by saying “a council must be accepted by the Bishop of Worcester to be valid”.)

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

How could a subsequent council that is not ecumenical make a previous council ecumenical?

Thats the problem. Good point.

 

[Ignatios]

An Ecumenical Synod may be defined as a synod the decrees of which have found acceptance by the Church in the whole world.

It is not necessary to make a council ecumenical that the number of bishops present should be large, there were but 325 at Nice, and 150 at I. Constantinople; it is not necessary that it should be assembled with the intention of its being ecumenical, such was not the case with I. Constantinople; it is not necessary that all parts of the world should have been represented or even that the bishops of such parts should have been invited( this include the Bishop of Rome) The first E.C. did not invite nor notified the bishop of Rome and the second E.C. was held without any bishop or legates from the west including the bishop of Rome, yet still recognized as Ecumenical . All that is necessary is that its decrees find ecumenical acceptance afterwards, and its ecumenical character be universally recognized and NOT only by the bishop of Rome.

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.

In the whole history of the Church there is no council 'which bristles

with such astonishing facts as the First Council of Constantinople. It

is one of the “undisputed General Councils,” one of the four which St. Gregory said he revered as he did the four holy Gospels, and he would be rash indeed who denied its right to the position it has so long occupied; and yet

1. It was not intended to be an Ecumenical Synod at all.
2. It was a local gathering of only one hundred and fifty bishops.
3. It was not summoned by the Pope, nor was he invited to it.
4. No diocese of the West was present either by representation or in the person of its bishop; neither the see of Rome, nor any other see.
5. It was a council of Saints, Cardinal Orsi, the Roman Historian, says:

“Besides St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Peter of Sebaste, there were also at Constantinople on account of the Synod many other Bishops, remarkable either for the holiness of their life, or for their zeal for the faith,… others whose names appear with honour in history. So that perhaps there has not been a council, in which has been found a greater number of Confessors and of Saints.”(1)

6.** It was presided over at first by St. Meletius, the bishop of Antioch who was bishop not in communion with Rome**,(2) who died during its session and was styled a Saint in the panegyric delivered over him and who has since been canonized as a Saint of the Roman Church by the Pope.

1. Its second president was St. Gregory Nazianzen, who was at that time liable to censure for a breach of the canons which forbade his translation to Constantinople.
2. Its action in continuing the Meletian Schism was condemned at Rome, and its Canons rejected for a thousand years.
3. Its canons were not placed in their natural position after those of Nice in the codex which was used at the Council of Chalcedon, although this was an Eastern codex.
4. Its Creed was not read nor mentioned, so far as the acts record, at the Council of Ephesus, fifty years afterwards.
5. Its title to being (as it undoubtedly is) the Second of the
   Ecumenical Synods rests upon** its Creed having found a reception in the whole world**. And now–mirabile dictu–an English scholar comes forward, ready to defend the proposition that the First Council of Constantinople never set forth any creed at all!(3)…
   fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const1.txt

 

[tdgesq]

Well again, what he said was that “the council must be accepted by the CHURCH to be valid”, and that the Church includes the laity. He didn’t single out the laity by saying “the council must be accepted by the laity to be valid”.

So what? The laity is a condition precedent to the acceptance of teaching authority. Laity must accept. Otherwise it’s not ecumenical. Admit that this is what the poster is saying, or be silent.

(To go back to my example, the Bishop of Worcester, MA, is part of the Church, but I wouldn’t single him out by saying “a council must be accepted by the Bishop of Worcester to be valid”.)

What a train wreck. All I can say is this: the example fails.

 

[prodromos]

So what? The laity is a condition precedent to the acceptance of teaching authority. Laity must accept. Otherwise it’s not ecumenical. Admit that this is what the poster is saying, or be silent.

I stated plainly that the CHURCH must accept. Now you be silent

 

[anthony022071]

He makes a distinction where there is none.

John

I didn’t make a distinction. You made the distinction between acceptance by the laity and acceptance by the Church.

The laity are part of the Church,but they are not ordained teachers of doctrine,and they do not have the charism of infallibility,as do the councils which were ratified by the popes.
So the laity had no God-given authority to reject the doctrines of the councils that the pope approved of.
Doctrine flows downward in the Church,not upward.

What distinguished the seven councils as ecumenically binding and infallible was that they were ratified by the popes,not that they were accepted by the Eastern and Western laity.
The Council of Constantinople 1 was not originally an ecumenical council,but a regional council. It only became regarded as ecumenical after Chalcedon,which in turn was ratified by Pope Leo.

 

[anthony022071]

[Peter J]

The different is that to say that “a council must be accepted by the laity to be valid” would imply that the laity have a veto power.

The Greek laity did have veto power with the councils of Lyon 2 and Ferrara-Florence,as far as the Eastern Church was concerned. The Greek bishops caved in under pressure from the laity.

(Similarly, if I said “a council must be accepted by the Bishop of Worcester, MA, to be valid” that would imply that the Bishop of Worcester has a veto power.)

No-one ever claimed that the bishops of Antioch or Alexandria or Constantinople had authority over the whole Church,but there are plenty of examples from the writings of clergymen,popes and historians which show that the bishop of Rome had authority over the whole Church. So the bishop of Rome did have the authority to veto a council.

St. Maximos:
“How much more in the case of the clergy and church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her Pontificate …even as all these things all are equally subject to her (the church of Rome) according to sacerdotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the Popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic church of Rome.” (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

St. Nicephorus:
“Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of Headship among the Apostles.” (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826), writing to Pope Leo III:
“Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred.” (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

St. Theodore:
“Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.” (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

 

[Peter_J]

No, the council must be accepted by the CHURCH to be valid. This includes the Bishops who were not present at the council, the Priests, Deacons, Monastics and yes, the Laity. This can take many years, even decades, to come to a close.

John

So what? The laity is a condition precedent to the acceptance of teaching authority. Laity must accept. Otherwise it’s not ecumenical. Admit that this is what the poster is saying, or be silent.

Well, I can’t admit something that isn’t true. Therefore, I choose the second option, silence.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Here is a thought for you:
If Archbishop Fred Nerk rejects a council teaching of authority, then he can be cast out as anathema.
If however, 100%, or close thereon, of the laity rejects the same teaching, then rejecting the whole of the laity as anathema is an utter nonsense.
In this very real sense, the laity does have a de-facto veto.
It matters not how much authority the commanders have, if the troops do not follow, the authority is an emptiness.

 

[prodromos]

The Greek laity did have veto power with the councils of Lyon 2 and Ferrara-Florence,as far as the Eastern Church was concerned. The Greek bishops caved in under pressure from the laity.

Again, the bishops who had attended Florence later accepted the ruling of the CHURCH. You continue to use this false distinction and conveniently ignore the many other Deacons, Priests and Bishops who rejected the false councils. You are using a classic strawman attack and your continued refusal to back down from it makes you look very poor indeed.

John

 

[tdgesq]

I stated plainly that the CHURCH must accept. Now you be silent

Right. The Church consisting of the laity and clergy other than the episcopate. That’s what you said:

No, the council must be accepted by the CHURCH to be valid. This includes the Bishops who were not present at the council, the Priests, Deacons, Monastics and yes, the Laity. This can take many years, even decades, to come to a close.

The council must be accepted by the Church, which includes the clergy other than bishops and the laity. According to you, the approval of the laity and the clergy at large are a condition precedent to a valid council. If the laity and clergy don’t accept it, then it isn’t a valid council. I don’t know how to read it any other way.

To those that suggest the decrees of a council are meaningless if the laity (whatever the number might be) don’t agree with it: Eternal truths don’t cease being that because we as human beings refuse to follow. We are all sinners. I daresay that in action, if not in actual thought, we have all knowingly rejected a teaching of the Church. The bishops together with the Pope who are the apostolic successors of Christ exercise valid teaching authority whether some unspecified number of laity agree with it or not. To say otherwise eviscerates the institutional authority of the Church - what is supposed to be Christ’s teaching authority on Earth to lead the flock.

One final note. I totally agree with Anthony’s assessment. The “laity” and “other clergy” requirements are an innovation of the Orthodox who need an excuse to reject Florence after their Patriarchs agreed with it. The filioque and purgatory, and even the authority of the Bishop of Rome to a large extent, would not be issues, save for the “laity” and “other clergy” requirement. Those who want to make these requirements into an eastern tradition do harm to the communion of the Church. I have yet to see any historical basis for it, other than it being offered as a newfound prerogative of some of the legates at Florence.

 

[anthony022071]

Again, the bishops who had attended Florence later accepted the ruling of the CHURCH. You continue to use this false distinction and conveniently ignore the many other Deacons, Priests and Bishops who rejected the false councils. You are using a classic strawman attack and your continued refusal to back down from it makes you look very poor indeed.

John

You are making a false distinction between the Eastern bishops who attended the councils and the Church.

The Eastern bishops who attended the councils were there to represent the Eastern Church. So what higher authority did the clergymen who rejected the councils have that the bishops who attended the councils should defer to them? Was it not just peer pressure and majority rule?

 

[tdgesq]

Well, I can’t admit something that isn’t true. Therefore, I choose the second option, silence.

That an Eastern Catholic on the apologetics forum can encourage the “laity” and “other clergy” theory of the Orthodox as if it is good eastern theology is an abomination. You should be embarrassed. If not, I am embarrassed for you.

Show me PeterJ in the first seven ecumenical councils where the teaching authority of the Church ever required the approval of the laity or the clergy at large. I will take any historical account you can give. It doesn’t need to be from a document of a council. Any history you can give at all from that period will be welcome.

You shame the memory and courage of the Chaldeans and the Maronites at Florence by giving credence to an ahistorical theory of our separated Orthodox brethren. You aren’t encouraging unity. You are encouraging schism.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi tdgesq,

I take it I don’t need to be silent anymore?

You claimed that prodromos said that a council must be accepted by the laity to be valid. He never said that.

Now apparently you’re trying to change the subject, make it sound like I said a lot of things that I never said, and then use those as the basis for ridiculous ad hominems against me.

I’m done responding to you. Bye.

 

[Ignatios]

anthony:

St. Maximos:
"How much more in the case of the clergy and church of the Romans, (1)which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as **from councils **and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her Pontificate …even as all these things all are equally subject to her (the church of Rome) according to sacerdotal law…

anthony, I Chanllenge you and any RC to proove that this document of Saint Maximos is true by showing us that the claims of saint Maximos, and what he had listed in the enlarged Text ( thats assuming that this is genuine text,and not one of the tampered and/or forged documents that it was circulating around in the RCC at that time) that it does exsist, In the CANON LAW AND THE COUNCILS AND THE APOSTLES AND ALSO THAT " she is subject to no writtings or issues in synodical documents"

saint Maxioms MUST have been shown one of the RCC flawed documents, that was circulating around at those centuries. We have never found anything in the “law” Canon of he Councils that would match Saint Maximos’s claim. therefore, there would be two explanation either this whole document( about what saint Maximos said) has been tampered with ( keeping in mind that those documents are fragmanted and not one whole letter in another words bits and peices AND in Latin ) or that Saint Maximos was given a flawed documents to read in which had made him say what he had said, Many Romans were very famous with forging documents at that time.

If you are able to show me this, then you earned my respond to your second quoting. because It doesnt seems like we were able to find them ( something that is not unusual ).

waiting for your respond, Untill then, Happy Hunting.

 

[Ignatios]

Peter J:

Hi tdgesq,

I take it I don’t need to be silent anymore?

Peter, If the goverment put taxes on the lack of comprehension, people like this would have gone Bankrupt long ago. and they themselves would have been silenced.

Peter I think you got both RCs and Orthodox approval on this one.

 

[tdgesq]

Hi tdgesq,

I take it I don’t need to be silent anymore?

What gave you that idea? I asked you to stop trying to justify prodromos’ preposterous statement that a council must be accepted by the laity to be valid. Let’s see if you complied.

You claimed that prodromos said that a council must be accepted by the laity to be valid. He never said that.

What a surprise. You didn’t. Let me show everybody once again what prodromos actually said, for the third time now:

No, the council must be accepted by the CHURCH to be valid. This includes the Bishops who were not present at the council, the Priests, Deacons, Monastics and yes, the Laity. This can take many years, even decades, to come to a close.

The laity’s acceptance is a necessary condition for a council to be valid according to your Orthodox buddy. That is not true. The laity’s approval of a council is not necessary for it to be valid. Neither is the approval of “other clergy.” Period. We can read what he said Peter. It’s quite plain. Please stop trying to help us all “understand” what he really meant.

Now apparently you’re trying to change the subject, make it sound like I said a lot of things that I never said, and then use those as the basis for ridiculous ad hominems against me.

I’m not trying to change the subject. It is well known by all the rest of us Catholics posting here the false ahistorical claim of the EO that really we can’t know a council was ecumenical without the approval of the laity and “other clergy.” This isn’t a matter of the rest of us not “understanding” what your buddy said. We understand it quite well, because we’ve seen it dozens of times before. We don’t need your help trying to explain this great eastern tradition of the Orthodox.

And what ad hominems would those be? That you shame the memory of Eastern Catholics who had the courage to abide by the decrees of Florence? That you promote division rather than unity by trying to legitimize the theory of your Orthodox buddy? You do; on both counts. We understand exactly what prodromos said.

I’m done responding to you. Bye.

That’s fine, but I’m not done responding to you. Please don’t ever come onto the apologetics board again and tell the rest of us Catholics that we just don’t get what the Orthodox posters are telling us. You don’t have any special reading skills that the rest of us don’t have. We are quite familiar with the “laity” and “other clergy” requirements spewed forth by the likes of Fr. Dragas and T.R. Valentine. We understand just fine. It is apparently you who doesn’t understand. Perhaps not responding is the best course for you at this point.

 

[prodromos]

What gave you that idea? I asked you to stop trying to justify prodromos’ preposterous statement that a council must be accepted by the laity to be valid. Let’s see if you complied.

Still knocking down strawmen I see.

Let me show everybody once again what prodromos actually said, for the third time now:

No, the council must be accepted by the CHURCH to be valid. This includes the Bishops who were not present at the council, the Priests, Deacons, Monastics and yes, the Laity. This can take many years, even decades, to come to a close.

The laity’s acceptance is a necessary condition for a council to be valid according to your Orthodox buddy.

The Laity are necessarily part of the Church and are called on to hold fast to the faith once handed down by the Apostles as much as any Priest or Bishop. In the Orthodox Church a Bishop or Priest cannot celebrate Divine Liturgy on their own, there MUST be Laity present as well.

That is not true. The laity’s approval of a council is not necessary for it to be valid. Neither is the approval of “other clergy.” Period. We can read what he said Peter. It’s quite plain. Please stop trying to help us all “understand” what he really meant.

Peter understands what I really meant. It is you who appears to be having difficulty understanding.

I’m not trying to change the subject. It is well known by all the rest of us Catholics posting here the false ahistorical claim of the EO that really we can’t know a council was ecumenical without the approval of the laity and “other clergy.” This isn’t a matter of the rest of us not “understanding” what your buddy said. We understand it quite well, because we’ve seen it dozens of times before. We don’t need your help trying to explain this great eastern tradition of the Orthodox.

Still tilting at that strawman I see. Haven’t you knocked the stuffing out of it yet?

And what ad hominems would those be? That you shame the memory of Eastern Catholics who had the courage to abide by the decrees of Florence? That you promote division rather than unity by trying to legitimize the theory of your Orthodox buddy? You do; on both counts. We understand exactly what prodromos said.

Plainly you don’t.

That’s fine, but I’m not done responding to you. Please don’t ever come onto the apologetics board again and tell the rest of us Catholics that we just don’t get what the Orthodox posters are telling us. You don’t have any special reading skills that the rest of us don’t have. We are quite familiar with the “laity” and “other clergy” requirements spewed forth by the likes of Fr. Dragas and T.R. Valentine. We understand just fine. It is apparently you who doesn’t understand. Perhaps not responding is the best course for you at this point.

Ad Hominems seem to be your forte.

John

 

[mardukm]

Permit me to offer this option:

IF our EO brethren are defining “Ecumenical” as MERELY “universal,” I would accept their definition that priests and other clergy as well as the laity are NECESSARY for the ecumenicity of a Council.

HOWEVER, and I do not say this lightly, IF our EO brethren mean to include in the term “Ecumenical” the definition of “authoritative,” there simply cannot be a meeting of the minds.

Our BISHOPS are the teachers, and they have been granted this SPECIAL and UNIQUE charism from the Apostles, which is part of the prerogative of the Apostolic Succession of bishops. Priests, other clerics, and laymen DO NOT HAVE THIS CHARISM NOR INHERENT AUTHORITY. Priests may have it, but only by delegation from their bishops. In the sense that “Ecumenical” means “authoritative,” an Ecumenical Council ABSOLUTELY does NOT need the acceptance of the lower clergy and the laity for it to be regarded an Ecumenical Council.

That would be tantamount to saying, “Yes, you are our teachers, but you need to wait for our approval before we accept your teaching.” That’s just hogwash. Really think about it. Does anyone here seriously think that during the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, the Fathers of that Council thought to themselves, “Since you also have the Holy Spirit, we will await your acceptance to ensure that our decrees to you will be authoritative.”

Just look at the language of the Councils themselves. They spoke with authority. When the Councils proclaim, “It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us,” who here seriously expects us to believe that they were NOT speaking with an authority that was intended to be obeyed?

Well, that’s my two cents.

Blessings,
Marduk